NeilBrü

Yes, I don’t consider the CCP to be “left wing”. Where in my original post did I say “US good”? I don’t think you read what I wrote.

If we’re talking about economic systems or political parties, socialism can indeed be one “answer to authoritarianism”. It can also be authoritarian, even more than what its members seek to replace.

those are opposites.

Not exclusively.

Yes, he was. I would refine the description as a democratic socialist.

One can be a “socialist” and still be anti-authoritarian.

A common person in the contemporary era is assailed by many threats to their autonomy: the religious, the nihilists, the corporatists, the fascists, and the alleged “collectivists”, who we’ll discuss here.

Extreme authoritarian “leftists”, A.K.A. “tankies” (i.e., apologists for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the CCP, the DPRK, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Xi Jingping, etc.), are also threats to a free, egalitarian, and open society, are just as violent as their authoritarian competitors, and should be treated with the contempt, distrust, and ridicule they deserve.

Why?

They claim to speak and fight for the proletariat, promising a new utopia, never before seen, once their revolution executes the last “class-traitor”. In practice, once they’re finished with “seizing the means of production”, they’ll never relinquish control and become the new ruling class.

They’ll assume the mantle of an “enlightened elite post-revolutionary administration” to guide the proletariat to their promised utopia of “each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. In practice, "the party leadership needs the most, because they’re obviously the most able” in reorganizing the economic and political structure of society. The utopia of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will never exist, only the dictatorship of the “revolutionary party” will, and repression and execution await those who question their claims and decisions.

These supposed champions of labor are really harbingers of death of the mind, body, and community. They claim to be the true authoritative “voice of the people”. Understand what they really are; power over everything and everyone, forever, is what they seek. They want you either as a true believer (a willing pawn) or dead, just like all of the other supposedly benevolent dictators who promised utopias throughout history.

They’re akin to the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the loudest voices in the revolution, usurpers of a righteous cause, but a bit “more equal” than everyone else after the farmer is done away with. Fortunately, the pigs, like the farmer, got their comeuppance in the end of the story. And like all pigs, they will squeal when things don’t go their way.

Never ever trust anyone or any group that says “I am/we’re in charge, fovever”.

Short answer: no. But one should define terms, especially with legal implications.

“Hate Speech” always sounded a bit Orwellian to me. Just like “Homeland Security”.

In general, I believe the jurisprudence of free speech in our country (USA) essentially says beyond, libel, slander, inciting violence, or sedition, the government can’t imprison you for expression or forcibly silence you in a public forum.

Private organizations and companies can regulate speech within their domains and property to the extent that they don’t violate other laws or rights of other parties within and without their said domains and property.

I think that’s pretty fair.