[logicprog]

The only way you can get away with this equivocation is by using vague phrases like "willing to use violence to suppress the opinions of people they dislike" to hide the differences, and assuming that all uses of violence are morally equivalent. Back here in reality, the crucial difference between fascists and anti-fascists is that fascists seek to suppress the rights (not just speech) of races they consider inferior and people they consider degenerate and a drag on society who have done nothing wrong and not instigated anything, through violence, whereas anti-fascists retaliate against people who explicitly hold bigoted views because of the beliefs espoused by them. Possibly using violence in retaliation to those who hold a deeply dangerous and bigoted ideology is very different then holding a deeply dangerous and bigoted ideology and targeting people just based on that bigotry.

[graemep]

Fascists also used violence to suppress what they considered to be dangerous ideology.

[logicprog]

Again, you're taking refuge in vagueness to erase meaningful difference. What did they consider dangerous ideology, and what do anti fascists? Furthermore, that was far from the only thing they did or believed. The fascists considered different people just existing and being themselves and taking part in society and doing art "dangerous ideology." Anti fascists target an actual group of ideologies that's been proven to do harm.