Comments by "No Fate But What We Make" (@SonoftheAllfather) on "All Authoritarian Systems are Inherently Leftist" video.

heath mcdonald You're entitled to your preference, but that doesn't mean these ideologies can both be considered leftist. In some very significant and fundamental ways, fascism is the opposite of communism, at least in theory.
4
In most ways, fascism is the exact opposite of Marxist state socialism.
3
https://youtu.be/cAZ_rW1GvOE
3
@CynicalBastard I think you're both making dishonest conflations for political expediency. I noticed your British/Commonwealth spelling, which is funny, because I've noticed that in comparison to Americans, British people are usually less likely to conflate liberalism and leftism. I also noticed that you (perhaps deliberately) omitted Marxist state socialism when you listed ideologies that result in authoritarianism and starkly-defined hierarchical structures. You say "any actual leftism is anti-authoritarian," so according to your argument, Marxist state socialism is not "actual leftism," and is actually "right-wing" because it has always resulted in authoritarianism and hierarchy when put into practice. This is not a commonly-held belief in the vast majority of political groups. Your argument is essentially the same argument that people like Styx make, yours is just the inverse. So, I think your argument (and his) is a cop out at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Unfortunately, it is an argument routinely used by people of all political inclinations in a transparent and dishonorable attempt to exonerate themselves (and their ideology) from the immoral deeds of leaders and nations who have taken their ideology to an extreme. The fact is that hierarchies eventually form under any system, and once in place, those that constitute the hierarchy can employ authoritarian methods to ensure adherence to their preferred ideology. Therefore, any ideology can become oppressive and hierarchical, even if its supposed/theoretical intention is to "liberate" people, bust down hierarchies, create more equality, etc. People on the "Right" almost universally accept that hierarchies are inevitable, but they don't always accept their moral authority. Right libertarians like Styx argue that in a free system, hierarchies form in a largely organic fashion and therefore possess more moral authority, even if those who constitute the hierarchy mostly use their power to serve their own interests instead of the interests of the nation. Right authoritarians argue that hierarchies will still form naturally in a controlled system (might is right), and that hierarchy will be more likely to use its power to serve the interests of the nation as a whole. So pick your poison. Hierarchies will exist either way, it just depends on whether you think the power that hierarchy wields has moral authority. Leftists use authoritarian methodology because their idea of "liberation" is equity, which does not naturally form in human societies without the use of extreme social engineering and statism. The moral question with leftism has always been "do the ends justify the means?" i.e. is it morally just to use authoritarianism to achieve the Left's vision of utopia and "liberation?" Moreover, is left-wing "liberation" actually freedom or just another form of slavery? To anyone who isn't an authoritarian leftist, the answer is a resounding no. I don't think anyone can honestly say that today's Left actually supports liberty and self-management. Today's Left is extremely illiberal. Your argument is basically “the Left isn’t the Left.” I think that argument is meritless.
3
idon'tevenknowanymore Don't try to convince these people. They are obsessed with trying to project back at leftards constantly calling them fascists. What they don't understand is how pathetic and weak it makes them look. Pretty much the only thing similar between fascism and Marxist state socialism is the statism.
3
heath mcdonald Fascism is a nationalistic ideology which promotes hierarchy, essentialism, and ethno-separatism. Fascism seeks to preserve and emphasize class, culture, religion, tradition, as well as ethnic and racial identity. In contrast, Marxist state socialism is a globalist ideology that promotes egalitarianism, non-essentialism, and ethno-integration. It seeks to destroy and devalue class, culture, religion, tradition, as well as ethnic and racial identity. So it many fundamental ways, they are the exact opposite. Civglob normies are always trying to trivialize those differences so they can call commies "the real Nazis" (REEE), but it's just cowardly projection from the Left's constant conflation of anything right-wing to fascism. It's no different from people on the Right calling the Dems "the real racists." So while they are both authoritarian and collectivist ideologies, but that's about where the similarities end. The socialism of Hitler and Mussolini had many economic differences to Marxist state socialism as well. "Mo gubment= left-wing" is the most unsophisticated way of possibly looking at it, and is usually done so deliberately and dishonestly for political expediency.
1
@SeruraRenge11 Ethnocentrism and in-group preference are natural inclinations. I don't see those things as equating to hatred or revulsion with others as much as love for my own. I often use the metaphor that I love my own family and prefer to live among them more than others families. But that doesn't mean I hate or am revolted by other families. In fact, I have love for some other families and have no problem with them, so long as they do not burden or try to harm my own.
1
@SeruraRenge11 In multicultural/multiethnic nations, yes, it does inevitably lead to competition and ethnic strife. But if groups are allowed to prioritize their own, they will naturally form homogeneous nations, wherein that competition will not exist. There is a reason nation-state is synonymous with homeland; the purpose of the nation to a kindred group is equal to the purpose of a home to a family. The nation-state exists to delineate the group's land, insulate the group from harm, and ensure the continued protection and prosperity of future generations. A kindred group should look at groups who invade their nation no differently than a family would look at those who invade their home. The people who don't see things this way are usually selfish, myopic individualists who conveniently view society in the civic/liberal sense: just a conglomeration of the individuals within it. They don't see their homeland as being an extension of their home, nor do they see their people as an extension of their family.
1
@CynicalBastard Your comment is thought-provoking at first glance, but really it's just the opposite of the argument Styx is making; all you're doing is trying to exonerate leftism by conflating leftism with liberalism and rightism with illiberalism. Styx is doing the opposite. You are both wrong and dishonest, if you ask me.
1
@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 You think national socialism does not promote natural hierarchies? Have you ever even read anything written by Adolph Hitler?
1
@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 "The ]evvish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet."
1
Capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin... The same $hekel, that is.
1