I actually find this talking point so braindead that, to this day, I still have a hard time believing that people genuinely believe it.
iTs In ThE nAmE.
Yeah, that's literally their whole reasoning. I've had to deal with a number of those all the way back in 2014, "national sOcIaLiSm"
Of course, whenever I pointed to The Guardian's interview with Hitler in 1923 (and republished in 1932), where he energetically complains about marxists (marxians, as he calls them) "stealing" the socialist term from "real germans" and actively calls for the end of bolshevism, I was completely ignored.
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
Most Americans have no idea what socialism is. You’re not supposed to think about it here. They just hear that socialism is bad and it’s in the name of the nazi party which is also bad, so that tracks.
Most Americans don't know what capitalism is either. We've been so brainwashed into believing capitalism and simple commerce are the same thing that people think any system that isn't capitalism is some authoritarian hellscape where the government forces you at gunpoint to share your toothbrush with everyone else in the neighborhood because personal property will be outlawed somehow.
Most Americans think that "liberal" is someone on the left, while most European nations (as well as what little political theory I had) place them somewhere in the center, usually fiscally progressive but socially conservative.
Strawman aside, anyone who thinks national socialism has anything to do with socialism needs to seriously educate themselves on Nazi ideology. Socialism to Hitler was nothing more than a buzzword he used to boost approval rates and votes quickly
As soon as they came into power, the Nazis did a complete 180° and swept every single promise they had made under the rug, kicking out or straight up murdering anyone, even in their own party (e.g. Sturmabteilung), who may have genuinely believed the party's socialist façade.
Their socialist agenda was not the only falsehood the Nazis pushed though (surprising, I know!). The only three things the Nazis actually believed in were:
Unfortunately in the west we are heavily indoctrinated against socialism. Or even knowing what socialism is. While at the same time heavily apologist to groups and parties closely aligned to the Nazis and the fascists. A large group of Republican legislators and their wealthy friends wanted a fascist overthrow around the same time Hitler attempted his first coup. They were never punished nor was the party ever admonished or reformed. To this day the descendants of people likely involved are still in power.
Socialism is when Democrats do things. Especially when they give things to people who aren't me. Doubly especially if they aren't white.
That's socialism. And Naziism.
(/s since Poe struck other people here already)
In the west means America? Bc I know for a fact that me, and many of my European brothers and sisters, are well aware of the tenets of socialism, and that our various socdem governments are little more than capitalists in sheep's clothing. Also, fascism is not treated kindly here. Though tbf, also not harshly enough.
I think it was more that in the early days of the Nazi party they did accept socialists. It was more of a big tent party because they needed to attract members. Hitler was never a fan of socialism and as he gained power he purged the socialists from the party.
This isn't true. They didn't immediatly do a 180, instead they slowly escalated. They got in power in 1933 and the holocaust started in 1941, 8 years later.
Interestingly enough that is an American thing I believe. In Germany no one thinks the Nazis were socialists.
Oh boy, we have met different people
Just ask them how come you can find plenty of swastikas at Trump rallies, plenty of merchants selling them too, but none of either at Democratic rallies?
Are the communists supporting the Republicans?
Are the Republicans communists?
Finally why is the person you're talking to aligning themselves with communist sympathisers?
Are you talking about Germans or Americans with your comment?
I have heard that the right wing party of my country are actually communists and the "left wing" party are actually conservatives so. Not just an American thing.
Think! They all believed in an unison solution. Like Covid. Baaah.
This is the real issue with troll communities (and subreddits). The_Donald started out as a troll community, and it was effectively overrun with nutjobs.
Yes, satirizing these people is hilarious, but they're often too stupid to differentiate between ironic support and endorsement and actual agreement. These are the same people who routinely fall for The Onion articles.
Don't be surprised at the level of stupidity people are willing to duck under to confirm their own beliefs. Lol
A wise man once said "Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company."
Makes me think of the "fake it 'til you make it" saying. Guess the "pretending to be an idiot" folk end up becoming idiots from all the faking they did.
LoveForLandchads is getting there
It's an argument made in bad faith and/or ignorance caused by same.
You jest, but there are a lot code people who would like to see the US become a monarchy.
Aee those people are emergency fertalizer for the joshua trees.
I pledge allegiance to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
It was totally leftist...which is why small business owners backed them and other conservative parties formed government with them.
People these days really are sheltered if they can't detect sarcasm without it being specifically called out...
Also, they called themselves National Socialists. After all, would a government ever lie?
It was rightwing and fascist.... How do you come to the conclusion it had something to do with communism?
Read the first part of my comment and then read after the ellipsis. It was sarcasm. 🙂
Clearly a left wing party is not going to be supported by business owners and conservative parties.
The argument can at the very best be very loosely made about the early NAZI party before the Night of the Long Knives. There were some incredibly loose planks in the platform up to that point that could be described as progressive/socialist. Not that any of the leaders with the possible exception of Röhm actually believed it. It was just a tactic of throwing out anything that would garner support to the movement. In this case to bolster interest among poor workers that would have been more inclined to side with the parties on the left.
This. And of course one way to interpret “socialist” is the same way many fascist parties use “people’s” in their name now == “populist”
Some socialism can be populism, fascism can wrap itself in populism at the beginning, but there is no relationship between populism and socialism. Not unless you believe government, like corporations, should only serve wealthy shareholders and nothing that serves the people is both populist and socialist.
Case in point - look at the modern day US fascism distracting the plebes with juicy culture war while stealing from their plates and banks and dismantling the government.
Oh, simple counterpoint to anyone making that claim: is Democratic People's Republic of Korea democratic?
The GDR (German Democratic Republic) wasn't democratic as well. Namen sind Schall und Rauch.
"No problem, I'll just misinterpret Godwin's Law." - the same brain dead people
Fascism is not a political ideology, it is a system of oppression to the dry, where a person or a chosen elite dictates the rules for the rest of the population, eliminating personal rights and discrepancies, this is what is defined as dictatorship. It is irrelevant which political label is put on. Communism under these conditions is not communism, nor would a real democracy be, in both, by definition sovereignty resides in the population and never in a small elite or a single person. In the western world we have the illusion of living in a democracy, but this is an illusion, since it is not the people who dictate the rules, but the interests of capital for the benefit of a few. This is why a capitalist system always promotes fascism and fights and maligns communism, democracy and human rights..
How would a true democracy differ from the one we're living in now? What is a country like Norway or Germany then if not a democracy?
Depends who you ask. If you ask a Marxist, they'll tell you that in an electoral system where elections are largely determined by who has the most money in order to reach the most ears, is not really a democracy.
A democracy would be a system that gives you the right to actually and directly influence specific policy through voting (e.g. through referrenda), and direct control over representatives (e.g. ability to recall them if they are not doing their jobs).
In Norway and Germany (to use your examples) people might enjoy a lot of personal freedoms and a high standard of living, but both domestic and foreign policy is still functionally determined by corporations and the rich elite.
The economic system of capitalism makes it so governments realistically care more about the interests of business, rather than the interests of the citizens. And that's an oligarchy. It's just that some countries are better able to pacify their populace because they happen to have the resources to do so. But we still see that in Norway and Germany (and any other traditionally-regarded "good democracy") the social welfare systems, that make them such appealing examples, are systematically diminished and destroyed. I do not think it's the citizens who demand that.
All this, without getting into the fact that we spend 1/3 of our lives in a feudal-like or dictatorial system we call "job", where we hardly have the power to influence how it operates.
This is why I try to use authoritarian -ism when I'm not being lazy. The reality is it's nothing to do with left or right, it's about control.
Yes while they can be definitively left or right. It is not ultimately important to them which they are. As you said it's all about maintaining control and power. And if they believe it would be better for them to maintain control and power. They would happily switch from capitalist to communist or vice versa. So I guess at least on an economic standpoint. Is probably most accurate to say that authoritarians are centrist. But boy won't that piss off all the people who believe they're centrists. It's just that on social axis authoritarians are extreme.
The Political Compass shows that authoritarianism is on a completely different axis than the economic policy spectrum. You're correct. I'm not sure of any true, long-lasting authoritarian left systems though, since they seem to quickly transition to cronyism oligarchies, enriching the people in power. Maybe the oligarchs don't directly own the means of production, but using their seat of power to skim money off of the fruits of the productivity is just unfettered capitalism with extra steps.
Because people who can't make their own discussions need an authority to follow. In the US, they turn to fox news, AM radio, or manosphere podcasts. Most of them have serious daddy issues.
What do you really want to say? You're trying very hard to say both sides are wrong without being labeled as a centrist.
"Toxic left wing" pundits haven't gotten their followers to storm the capital building or fly a plane into an irs biulding. If you're really mad someone has opinions on video games, install a 3rd party channel blocker for firefox. The things the toxic femists/pick-me types are up to pale in comparison to the manosphere are up to.
Authoritarians and fascists often lie about what they are to make themselves more attractive to morons. The Nazis had nothing to do with "socialism."
For example, North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." It's not Democratic. It's not "the people's." And it's definitely not a Republic.
Chinese communist party? China has one of the largest wealth disparities of any country. They spew pollution out of newly built coal plants because they care about money above all else. They're capitalists for fuck sake!
When a small but dedicated group of vocal people started unironically and emphatically believing the planet was a pancake, I lost a significant portion of my lingering reserves of hope for the future of mankind.
Extremist politics and all the associated mindsets have long since jumped a row of sharks in my mind by comparison.
From my limited understanding, it mostly seems like misattribution of all the very obvious chaos and uncertainty about "grand" events like climate change, economical strife, etc.
It's less that someone holds pancake planet as their sole belief but more a web of interconnected beliefs that would explain the true cause of these nebulous events if they were true.
Not that it makes the outcome any better that people choose a more palatable ideological narrative over reality but there is a part of me that recognizes ignorance would be more blissful.
Im baffled by the americans that want to live under a monarchy, they see themselves as peasants i guess
There are authoritarians in every country. I don't get the appeal - you have to think less I guess? less responsibility? - but lots of people seem eager to give up their voice if they think the person getting the power will use it against the people they don't like.
The key is to get them to realize that eventually someone who doesn't like them is going to get the power - maybe? But I think I've also heard that some of these preferences are down to physical brain structure that determines sensitivity to fear and empathy
Good point but id back it up a bit and ask first if they are prepared to change their mind, no point "debating" someone if they are narrow minded and adamant they know their shit. Kinda why i stopped doin the whole religious debate debacle, im not gonna change their mind.
I saw a video from Ronnie-boy who equated Fascism with the left because Fascism is government control and the left wants government control. I’ve found with the most far right, any “-ism” is a leftist idea, except for conservatism. That one’s all about freedom.
First they came for the Communists ....
It's like the tankies who say Stalin was a fascist and not a Marxist, they're, like you said, brain dead
could you remind me which part of Marxism exactly it was Stalin was implementing, other than claiming to be in line with Marxism? a dictatorship of the proletariat perhaps?
Participating in a violent overthrow of capitalism? ✅
Establishing an authoritarian socialist dictatorship that rules with an iron fist? ✅
Seizing land and property by force? ✅
Purging anybody and everybody that didn't fall in line under the guise of being "anti-revolutionary"? ✅
Destroying the environment, cities, culture, and people to bring about the social climate necessary to bring about communism™? ✅
Committing genocides to get rid of "anti-revolutionary" groups? ✅
Pumping propaganda about Marxism? ✅
Ruling as the dictator of the the communist party that supposed to rule on the "behalf" of workers? ✅
He's a Marxist and there's literally nothing you could say to change that.
Many Marxists are damaged enough to actually believe that Marxism isn't authoritarian when it inherently is. Authoritarianism ≠ fascism. Fascism is just one of many ideologies that are authoritarian, Marxism is among these ideologies.
1984, just change the definition
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
I think they mostly believe the way that some people on the left treat black people is worse than dislike from typical racists. They call it the bigotry of low expectations. Actually acting as if black people are lesser and unable to do the things white people are expected to do. It's true there are people like that but it's prevalence is questionable.
For clarification it's because they don't believe in the fact that systematic rasicim exsits or anything like that so in their world black people all end up in the worst places to live due to choice and ignorance rather being a byproduct of a system ment to bring any person of color down
I think they might be talking about stuff like “it’s wrong to expect black people to be on time for meetings” which was a quote I heard from someone who I believe meant well. There is a reasonable argument on both sides of that probably, but it left a bad taste in my mouth
I think he means more the way some white knights will belittle minorities in the process of trying to defend them. Using arguments about them being oppressed because of basic societal expectations that the particular white knight assumes they're not capable of.
You'll know it when you see it, it's really strange to hear.
They decided that the financial success of a certain group of people can be fully attributed to these people exploiting the rest of the populace, and therefore the world will only benefit if they get rid of these people.
Yup. Doesn't sound like anything modern day leftists and socialists would say.
I've only ever heard people on the left calling right wingers nazis, never the other way around
So the thing about calling right wingers nazis, is right wingers who seemingly have no qualms about people with actual nazi paraphernalia supporting the same causes and going to the same marches, but the second this is pointed out their retort is "what! we're not nazis! the nazis were the national socialist workers party! it says socialist right in the name! Ergo the socialists are nazis!
You live in a better world than I. I have colleagues who have made this claim…
that's rather surprising. Maybe it's just dependant on location, but here, everybody calls lefties commies and right wingers nazis. That is, if they are being disagreeable to whichever side they are talking about. Most of the time they don't just label everyone with a different opinion than them as extremists
I think confusion comes in to play because at some point, socialism turns into authoritarianism, which isn't far off from both totalitarianism and fascism. None of that is good.
Socialism is not inherently authoritarian.
I didn't say that. Just that socialism, when taken to an extreme, is. Technically no form if government is inherently the evil three, but they can all become one of them.
Nazis, Fascists and Socialists fall under Totalitarianism. They are all shitty.
Socialism is not inherently authoritarian. Yes, 20th century socialism following Lenin's example was. But it's not inherent.
Socialism is about workers controlling economic production - at it's core. That's a democratic, anti-authoritarian idea.
Libertarian socialist like me are extremely salty at the leninists and others like them for giving the rest of us a bad name.
Honestly, I think fascism can manifest from both leftist and right wing points of view. Like a lot of fascists organizations started as workers organizations who gathered together for better working conditions, compensation, and security, and down the line were convinced that racial minorities, jews, and immigrants were the cause of their problems.
A lot of the formally left wing people turned fascist I've known started from the point of view of capitalism, globalization, and wealth inequality being the causes of their problems, and overtime were convinced that this meant immigrants, erasure of their culture (white/American/Christian) and evil cabals of jews/queer people/atheists/satanists/etc.
Basically if you rally behind strongmen, aim for religious/cultural/racial dominion, and aim for the elimination of a certain group of people as a means of achieving your goals, you might be a fascists, and the path towards that can start from anywhere.
edit: yeah, I think going to delete this post soon. Many people seem to have taken this post as an opportunity to point the finger and rip at each other, as well as construe any negative action as "fascism" when the whole point of my post was to be introspective. Seems like a lot of people simply read the first sentence and decided to go to town instead.
Fascism absolutely is both left and right. Fascism is defined as "extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behaviour".
Let's have a look at the current "left". Pro-censorship of any and all opinions that they don't agree with. Trying to make laws that outlaw things they disagree with. Encouraging riots and harassment and violence against people they disagree with. Blame white people for all the problems in the world.
Thats......fascism.
And once again we come around to the fact, that the basic understanding of nazis has been dumbed-down, to basically "bad".
Fascism as defined by Merriam-Webster says
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
The emphasis on race and economic / social regimentation are the major break from the left.
Fascism is a lot more intricate than that. There are tenets within fascist ideology that are entirely incompatible with leftism.
Totalitarianism and fascism are not the same thing.
Also, none of the things you mentioned were explicitly leftist even. Hell, not really even implicitly leftist.
@Whirlybird @Roundcat, Fascism is not a political system, but a system of oppression, in which a minority or a single person decides the rules for the rest, it doesn't matter if it is called dictatorship, democracy or communism, which in these circumstances is always a mere label. In real communism and real democracy, it is always the vast majority that dictates the rules, not the other way around. This is why capitalism always favors fascism, it is money that dictates the rules, not people.
(We're all gonna get super downvoted anyway)
I'm not sure where you got your definition of fascism, but I think the more formal definitions of it would say otherwise. But! Your definition, I think, is more in-line with how we use that word in the modern times. So, I'll stick with it.
I think the left side fascism is lot harder to spot whereas the right side fascism is very obvious.
The extreme rights literally go around waving the nazi flag. They're obvious fascists.
The extreme left has a different approach to fascism. They're like, "Oh what you say is offensive, and it's not nice. You need to be nicer and say these things. You're hurting people's feelings." But by doing that, they're effectively taking away speech and enforcing their world views on others. They're just as intolerant of opposing views and will happily snuff them out. The cancel culture that has become the main weapon of the extreme left is most certainly fascism.
I also don't believe extreme left are for being actually nice, they only want to push their specific agendas in a fascistic manner since they happily ignore other marginalized population and will even make fun of them. They are not nice people. For example a straight white man (which I am not) could be struggling to live for any reason. Could be illness, could be abused, anything really. But just because he is in the category of the straight white man, they'll just insult him and how he deserves what happened to him, all the while ignoring everything else about him. He isn't the oppressor, he isn't the one who did wrong. Does it matter? No. That's prejudice. And no one will defend those people, because if you do, you're also not a nice person and must be cancelled. Guess which group does defend them? The extreme right. I wonder which side he'll pick then.
Edit: Grammar
Can anyone explain how fascism as defined above could apply to the right extreme? Apart from the Nazis? Its really descriptive of the far left. Although oppressing non-cis/het relations is stereotypically right
EDIT: kind of important, fascism was auto-corrected to racism, corrected now
As someone who is fairly into ideologies I can tell you, that national-socialism or nazism, which is a sub-ideology of fascism isn't called that for no reason. If you look at it closely it does take a lot home from nationalism, but socialisim as well. These are right-wing (with some exceptions) and left-wing ideologies respectively and both can take extremes. This is why a lot of people in the sphere call the fusion of these two the "Third Way", meaning it's between the extreme left and extreme right and opposite to Centrism, which is between the calmer ends of the two sides. This means that nazis are neither right nor left-wing, at least as seen in european politics, in the exteremely polarized american political climate they (or at least their grossly dumbed-down interpretation) could be considered extremly right wing, but I think american politics are stupid anyway. And now to answer the question (pretending I didn't just saw a question where there wasn't any) anyone who calls nazis leftists just has a politcal bias against them and tries to make them appear even worse by blending them with those goddamn liberals. Okay but seriously, people really shouldn't dumb down "old enemies" because that just means that they didn't learn anything.
You're "fairly into ideologies", but you're not well versed on political literacy. It seems like you got your idea of where Nazism sits on the political spectrum from the PoliticalCompassMemes subreddit (where "nAzIS ARe aUtHCENter" is the most commonly promoted talking point).
First and foremost, "third way" isn't even the correct term to use here. You're most likely referring to the term "third position", which is an honest mistake in terminology, but that term refers to a different thing than third way entirely.
"Third way" refers to the more social liberal side of centrism. "Third position" is in reference to fascist tendencies to reject the binary notion of either standard socialist economics and/or laissez-faire free market capitalist economics. This comes with an important caveat: rejection of "typical socialism" and "typical capitalism" doesn't mean you're neither left-wing or right-wing, as we don't really, in terminology, use your stance on socialism and capitalism as an inherent way of noting whether you're left-wing or right-wing.
Some people might hear this reference to Nazism and assume this means it' neither left-wing or right-wing, but this is a misinterpretation of definitions. Nazis most certainly were not free market capitalists, but they weren't socialists either. However, the methods in which you run your economy are not necessarily the prime dictator of being left-wing and/or right-wing, like I said.
Nazis have historically been, and to this day still are, placed on the far-right end of the political spectrum due to upholding hierarchical doctrines within society because left and right are not "socialism vs. capitalism" as much as they are "egalitarianism vs hierarchy". Nazis didn't take hugely consistent economic positions, but they still were extremely hierarchical, and that serves as the basis of considering their ideology far-right.
Unless you want to argue that Nazis are not fans of rigid hierarchies (which would be foolish to do so), then you should, in some capacity, be able to acknowledge them sitting on the far-right end of the polspec.
Also, one more thing to mention. Leftists tend to be socialists because it's an egalitarian mode of production. However, you can still support a less regulative corporatist economy like Nazis did while not being any degree of egalitarianism. Just stating this so people don't misinterpret me as saying that "leftists aren't inherently socialists".
You are probably right about the third way/position thing, it's just that I haven't informed from english-speaking sources, so I've never been really sure of the correct translation. This might just have completly screwed up the meaning of my comment. As for the rest I don't oppose the idea that nazis are more right than left, I just say they incorporate enough ideas of the left-wing, both cultural and economic to be called a blend of the two sides.
Nazis are right wing in a European political context, that is not really a discussion in academia. This has nothing to do with current American politics, this is established history.
The only people claiming that they are left wing are right wing fascists who tries to distance themselves from the term (while doing everything in their power to emulate them), and that is done by both European and American fascists.
Fascists, socialists are the same coin. The Nazi regime just had longer reaching effects. Tyranny still going strong too...
If you want a science fiction example, Cyberpunk - Star Wars.
Wanting equality in the workplace alongside worker-owned production and supporting a hierarchical ultranationalistic society with totalitarian rule are the same coin?
To be fair they gave fictional examples to back the claim up so it seems pretty solid.
They're not the same. They're not "the same coin". Not even close. They're not even each others opposites, they can't be since they're very different things.
I had typed a lengthy response but in the end I just advise you to read up before you use these words.
After doing that, you should also look at the Scandinavian states and decide for yourself if those are socialists, capitalist or something in between. And if you come to the conclusion that they're leaning more to socialism(guided market) then anything else then look for signs of fascism in their government since you state "they're the same coin" then there must be something.
Now look for those same signs in the recent history of the US. You should at least find: a wall, "America first" and a storming of the symbol of government and embodiment of democracy. Now look for signs of socialism in the US society.
You're close, but socialism is like mid-left, and leads to many benefits. That's the sweet spot. Go too far and you get fascism again under the guise of equality. Everyone is equal when everyone is dying of starvation and gulags.
Modern-day fascists are desperate to distance themselves from the nazis, despite the fact that the nazis are literally their idols.
Wait, do people really care if Nazis were left or right-wing?
Their leader was a racist mass murderer with superiority complex, who cares about his political views?
Let's say they were left-wing... Does that make the left wing Nazis? Mmm no. If a dictator is right-wing, does that make the right-wing dictators? No.
Do people understand these are two unrelated things? Imagine seeing a dog owner cheating on his wife and assuming all dog owners are cheaters.
The caveat is that being a "racist mass murderer with a superiority complex" is a very right-wing thing. It wouldn't be possible to fit that mold and be leftist because it's entirely incompatible with leftist ideology.
Thats not the point, youre twisting the order. Every nazi is right-wing, by definition. Not every right-winger is a nazi and thats not what people are saying. A big part of nazi ideology is overlapping with general right-wing ideologies, they are separate but not unrelated at all.
People who know that his political views included "we should use the state to enforce racism" and "mass murder is ok."
Let me clarify. To be crystal clear, we're talking about "left" and right on the political compass. It's not a perfect system, but it's the most well known one. Overall, "left" and "right" are bizarre terminologies with aqueous meanings deeply embedded in history.
You are technically correct if you are talking about the political compass. we call "authoritarian left" "Stalinism" and we call "libertarian right" "anarcho-capitalism" or just "libertarianism" in the US.
The problem is that all philosophy founding "leftist ideology" has consistently been "libertarian left", focusing on collapsing hierarchies, dividing power into many hands, and dismantling power structures (such as currency). Anarchism is basically the prime example.
With Marx's communism, his end game is a system without any government, where people simply exchange services and collaborate to create only what they want or need (not to endlessly proliferate waste for profit). Even his "dictatorship of the proletariat", one of the stepping stones to communism, is a democratic system. It is called a "dictatorship" because it revokes the voting rights of the rich.
To boot, the ideologies which exist in the "authoritarian left" and "libertarian right" are full of contradictions and mental gymnastics. They all swear they're communist but make no attempts to actually disseminate power, or gear towards a more democratic system, directly going against Marx's ideals.
Because of this, pretty much every leftist agrees that the "authoritarian left" are not leftist, because they directly betray the philosophy which founds leftist beliefs.
SO to conclude, there is literally no world where someone can genuinely believe the various philosophies within leftism while at the same time starting a campaign alienating minorities, appealing to the general population with populism and returning the state to a former glory, and embarking on a Nazi take-over. This is why Nazism and leftism are completely incompatible, and why literally no Authoritarian can be considered a leftist.