Capitalism and Toleration
Toleration as a political norm is demonstrably invalid because it is obviously self-defeating: must we tolerate the intolerant who attack peaceful dissenters? if muslims threaten and kill those who dare criticize their religion, and some people say won't tolerate it, are you to tolerate the former or the latter? Effectively, you cannot tolerate the deeds of one party without approving intolerance towards the other party.
That said, there is indeed a political system that promotes toleration as a general phenomenon, and this system is Capitalism, not Socialism. And obviously so, because Capitalism is a system where everyone can create a domain where he can live according to his ideas unimpeded by others, namely his property, whereas Socialism (and after it the lesser forms of Statism) assumes communal domains where everyone is the victim of whoever manages to temporarily or permanently seize political power.
Under Capitalism, you may not have much to prosper on, but you may grow it as you work, and thereupon, it is yours to manage without to have to heed what other people think. It doesn't matter that you should be in the minority, you will decide how things will go for you (and everyone is in the minority on every narrow topic that is of special interest to him, and in the majority of the uneducated with vulgar preferences on all other matters). Conversely, you have no incentive to try to rule how others live, because they will live on their private domains, and should you invade any of them, you will be recognized as an aggressor and promptly rebuked.
Under Socialism, and under lesser forms of Statism, no one is safe at any moment on any socialized topic. There is no place to retreat to. Moreover, people are effectively encouraged to constantly try to impose their views upon others, because if you don't participate in the fight for power, you will only be oppressed, and whereas if you do, you will only a chance to reduce the oppression towards you, although in the end it is really the chance between being oppressed or oppressor. The political majority will rule, and the tastes of the strong, will be imposed upon the weak by public force, be them those of the vulgar or of the bully, depending on how democratic the government is.
As a typical mirror comparison, in a capitalist society, individuals are free to associate with each other under socialist schemes such as phalanstères, cooperatives or kibbutzim, as long as they do it on a voluntary basis, including the respect of the property of third parties -- i.e. they may not seize an existing farm or factory and socialize it. In a statist or socialist society, by contrast, people are not free to associate with each other in capitalistic ways, under penalty of confiscation, imprisonment, death to resistors, for the alleged crimes of black market, smuggling, tax evasion, violation of trade regulations, misappropriation of communal property, etc. Indeed, in a fully Socialist society, everything is communal property, and there are no resources left for individuals to manage, either alone or in organized ways -- individuals are just the property of the collective, to do as the collective says through the mouth of the socialists. In a mixed economy society, under a State that doesn't enforce complete Socialism, some domains are fully nationalized and most domains that involve interpersonal cooperation are heavily taxed and regulated; commercial relations between consenting adults are repressed rather than tolerated, but there is some partial freedom left for individuals to associate.
I previously argued that in a Capitalist society, political activists promoting Socialism (and more generally Statism) should be repressed censored, imprisoned and killed as required. I am specifically targeting only people who actively seek to implement elections, coups, revolutions, strikes, confiscations, collectivizations, murders, bombings, terror or any attempt to the life and property of other individuals in the name of whatever Collective. I do not mean to repress people peacefully spreading the lies of Socialism anymore than I mean to repress any other religion; all religions will be equally welcome as long as they are peaceful, and any beginning of aggressive behaviour will be mercilessly repressed whatever religion is used to justify it. I care what citizens do. I have no good reason to give a rat's ass what they think. Socialism, just like Islam, is only special in that calls to violent conquest of non-believers is an essential part of its political project (though the word Socialism itself could possibly evolve to stop referring to this essence, and so could currently socialist parties and traditions).
This Capitalist repression of Statism is in no way more violent than what States do to those who actively promote and organize towards the establishment of the Capitalist norm of not paying taxes, dodging the draft, denying authority to bureaucrats and politicians, and ultimately abolishing the State. In both cases, those who plot to actively subvert the established order are properly treated by the established order as its enemies. Indeed, those orders that fail to defend themselves get subverted, and those plotters who are not stopped promptly become the order themselves. You know which order you're under by seeing which groups are maintained by force (e.g. through tax money and institutionalization), and which groups are driven away by force (e.g. through taxes and regulation). The only question is which order is best to establish.
Statists call us Enemies of the State. We say that the State is the Enemy of all honest people. Statists accuse us of high treason. We cannot betray a Collective that has no legitimacy and to which we never adhered to begin with. They say we are breaking peace and disturbing law and order. We return them the compliment. In no way are we more cruel against them than they are against us. We do not reproach them this reciprocal enmity, and we laugh at those naive enough to reproach us to be as radically opposed to them as they are opposed to us.
What we reproach them is their being oppressors of the innocent, destroyers of the honest producer, deniers of the rights of man, corrupters of all things moral. This is a cosmic moral fight indeed. And theirs is the side of evil.