Communism is a big one, but pretty much anything left-wing.…

Communism is a great idea for how to deal with the members of your family or small tribe that is trying to survive. It is great because it works. But the attempt to apply it to bigger social structures seems to create major problems. One way of looking at it is that collectivism is the correct feminine approach to the family that goes horribly wrong when women (in the late stages of civilization) encounter no or little push back to their attempt of applying inner-family politics to the outer world, convinced that it will fix everything. I think it's largely a scaling issue. As a species we seem to have trouble understanding that good ideas don't necessarily scale.

I tend to agree with that CosmosStag , which is why I tend to separate people into authoritarians and non-authoritarians (or anti-authoritarians) instead or right or left wing, Communist or Fascist. Both extremes are expressions of authoritarianism and both have a ruling elite, but Communists pretend they don't. A quote from my favourite thinker on this subject:
Altemeyer found that people who scored high on his scale of authoritarianism tended to have faulty reasoning, with compartmentalized thinking, making it possible to hold contradictory beliefs, and to be dogmatic, hypocritical, and hostile. Since he is looking at a spectrum, focusing on differences, I think he is likely to have underestimated the degree to which these traits exist in the mainstream, and in groups such as scientists, that have a professional commitment to clear reasoning and objectivity. With careful training, and in a culture that doesn’t value creative metaphorical thinking, authoritarianism might be a preferred trait. —Ray Peat

Another, very interesting quote from Ray Peat on the subject of Authoritarianism and negation:
Our surrounding context of language and culture is constantly distorting and misinterpreting anything which persists in moving toward a more expansive life. Knowledge, a physiological thing, is expansion, and as such is always clearing away errors; when people identify with error, they see knowledge as the deadly enemy, that must be destroyed.

Blake’s idea of the “intellectual fountain” was very different from the attitude of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (where “Will” or assertion was the fundamental reality). Blake saw it as always flowing into new territory, discovering new things, enlivening the world that’s being discovered-created. When the organism is traumatized, it hardens, and stops developing, and wants to impose its moral hardness everywhere; assertiveness is the antithesis of perceptive life, and devises ways to negate it.

In an authoritarian culture, people want you to forget who you are, so they can implant themselves without resistance. Just recognizing your own presence, to attend to them fully, is something they don’t expect; it isn’t quite like Carl Rogers’ therapeutic presence, because it’s conditional–your conscious presence is the condition. Being present and able to listen (and question and understand)* is receptive and productive, and it can even be disruptive, but it’s very different from being assertive, because it’s always hoping to open up new possibilities, rather than imposing something carried along from the past. A priest is being assertive when he says you have to take it on faith, a physics professor is being assertive when he won’t justify his assumptions–where would physics be if your assumptions had to be plausible beyond a particular culture of physics? Much of their potential imagination has been invested in thinking of ways to keep you from questioning.

Physics, in the 20th century, has taken on the Nietzchean subjectivism, claimin…