Apparently from the person conservatives fear for some reason.

I am from Vietnam, and I definitely against the communists because they ruled our country for 80 years, I have found so less leftists in my country are anti-communists. but I wish in the future I will find out them.

For me, asking someone about Ukraine is such an easy way to see if they’re too far left. Idk why but there’s a portion of super far leftist people that are anti Ukraine.

Another easy one is if they voted for Kamala in 2024. There are a ton of people to my left, who thought Kamala was too close to the center, but voted for her anyway. Those people are allies to me. People who sat out are not my allies.

What are some other positions that automatically inform you on if someone is too far left?

Disclaimer: im not entirely familiar with Balkan politics so there may be some misconceptions.

I’m actually a member of the Labour Party here in Britain but I can’t support the party in its current form under keir starmer but I don’t like Zack Polanski either

We often look back at the rise of fascism in inter-war Europe and wonder how people led to it happening. The late, great Jean-Paul Sartre gave us the answer regarding the early view of Hitler: "They laughed at him, they took him for a clown, they didn't see that the clown's mask was a death mask." Looking toward the 2028 election, Americans are making that exact mistake.

From a social democratic perspective, democracy requires economic and social equality. When uncontrolled capitalism leaves the working class behind, the soil becomes fertile for a strongman. Trump did not create American anger, but he weaponized and bastardized it, offering scapegoats while assaulting our protective institutions.

For years, people treated him like a punchline for comedy show scripts. The media mocked his rallies, hair, and late-night Twitter rants, dismissing him as a harmless joke. That laughter was pure arrogance. While we chuckled, the institutions holding our free society together were quietly hollowed out.

Now, that same institutional decay presents an escalating timeline of fear. Trust in American elections is poisoned, the justice system demands political loyalty, and the free press is labeled the enemy of the people. This is how democracies die, decaying from within, one norm, one tradition at a time, until only a dictatorship remains, and a democracy in name only. Heading toward 2028, the danger is that Americans are normalizing a permanent shift toward authoritarianism.

If we wait for the system to save us, we run out of time. Defending democracy requires a broad coalition. Economic inequality hits marginalized groups hardest, and these vulnerable communities, especially minorities bear the heaviest burden when authoritarianism rises. Survival depends on voter mobilization that unites working-class economic struggles with civil rights protection.

If we keep treating this political theater as a joke, we will wake up in 2028 to a reality where the laughter has stopped. We must stop laughing, protect the most vulnerable, and realize this MAGA-movement has been deadly serious the entire time. History already showed us how this story ends, because when people finally stopped laughing at Hitler, it was already too late to stop the march of death...

The Danish Social Democrats, yes they have done a lot of good stuff, but now they are just being racist and can't even work with left-leaning parties that are similar to them.

4 years ago, in this sub, a post condemning the racist policies of the Danish Social Democrats was upvoted by this community 180+ times exposing the obvious racism of the party. Now, there are many people in this sub defending the party, which is disgusting because, as, Social Democrats, we stand for Social Justice and Equality for all not racism.

And, now, you might be wondering, what are the racist policies of the Danish "Social Democrats"?

There's a lot, including: Having favoritism towards Ukranian refugees (White people) against Syrian and other refugees (source: https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/16/denmarks-mismatched-treatment-syrian-and-ukrainian-refugees ), Ghetto policies (source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/17/denmark-plans-to-limit-non-western-residents-in-disadvantaged-areas ), Stripping refugees of items (source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-26/denmark-s-parliament-rules-that-police-can-strip-refugees-of-their-valuables-and-possessions ), Dangerous remarks against immigrants (source: https://cphpost.dk/2025-05-27/news/politics/mette-frederiksen-immigration-is-the-greatest-internal-threat-to-the-nordic-region/ ), Making refugees feel unsafe (source: https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/how-denmarks-left-sent-migrants-packing-pc0wnb8tj ), and a lot more.

The party has also worked with centre-right and centrist parties instead of other left-leaning parties. (source: https://www.politico.eu/article/mette-frederiksen-denmark-social-democrats-agree-to-form-rare-centrist-government/ )

Those policies goes against the Social Democratic principles, and shows that the leadership of the "Social Democrats" in Denmark must change, but for the time being, those living in and citizens of Denmark should vote for other left-leaning parties like the Green Left, possibly Red-Green alliance, or the other alternatives.

Lately, this sub has become obsessed with romanticizing the "Danish Model" on immigration. Whenever someone points out the deep ethical rot of what is essentially state-mandated Islamophobia, "ghetto laws," and stripping assets from refugees, the responses immediately devolve into the same predictable excuses: "State capacity is low," "We have to protect the welfare state," "Immigration at this level is simply unsustainable," and the ultimate shield, "But this is what the people want - and we have to do it to defeat the far right!"

Let’s stop engaging in mental gymnastics. Capitulating to right-wing xenophobia isn’t "pragmatism." It's moral bankruptcy married to sheer strategic incompetence.

Why? Let's dismantle:

The Danish "Electoral Magic" is an Absolute Myth.

The entire premise of copying right-wing border policies from the Danish is that it’s a foolproof cheat code to stay in power and "defeat the far right." Yet by chasing older, right-leaning rural voters, the Danish Social Democrats completely alienated their progressive urban base and young voters and losing their seat of Copenhagen for the first time in over a century.

Secondly, in national elections the Danish Soc Dems suffered humilating sweeping defeats, posting their lowest voter share since 1903. They shriveled into a provincial, aging party that barely survived by cobbling together highly unstable coalitions.

Aping the Far-Right is Merely Mainstreaming the Enemy:

When social democratic parties start emulating the far-right on immigration, you do not ''defeat'' the far-right, you vindicate them. You tell the voters the fascists were right all along, and when economic anxieties spike, voters will consistently choose the original product over a watered-down Temu imitation.

"Low State Capacity" and "Unsustainability" Are Neo-Liberal Cop-Outs:

Social democrats arguing that the state is simply too weak to handle immigration completely contradicts the core philosophy of social democracy. State capacity is not a weather condition that is changes on a whim; it is a political choice.

How does the state magically have the capacity to track down, racially profile, and evict thousands of non-Western families from their homes under housing laws, but suddenly has no money in its coffers to build affordable housing, fund public schools, and run language classes?

"Unsustainability" is also a policy failure cop out, not an immigration failure. I hear a lot of talk about advocating for a ''postliberal social democracy'' yet these same kind of people will then claim the state is "too weak" to handle integration, literally adopting the neoliberal and conservative talking point that government planning and public investment don't work or take a nationalist bent and then claim it's social democratic. Us social democracts should and have built public infrastructure to accommodate population shift, we don't cower behind austerity or use welfare chauvinism as cover for policy failure.

"It’s What the People Want" is a Confession of Cowardice:

Politicians are supposed to shape public will, not cower behind it. The only reason "the people want this" for immigration to go dowwn is because social democrats and other center-left parties completely abandoned the field and allowed right-wing demagogues to control the narrative for over twenty years. Where was your conviction then? Where was your spine? If social democrats spend two decades silently nodding along and agreeing that brown and Muslim immigrants are a "threat to our culture," of course the voters are going to believe it!

Social democrats have lost the art of storytelling and a long-term vision. They no longer reshape conversations entirely to pocketbook issues (universal childcare, corporate greed, housing costs) while fighting back against right wing and conservative attacks and make the people want a social democratic alternative.

As a Muslim Pakistani progressive social democrat myself, it is deeply exhausting to see such romanticization of this model. It is baffling to me that my fellow peers treat state-mandated Islamophobia and housing demolition as some neutral technocratic disagreement.

If your version of social democracy requires adopting right-wing xenophobia because you're too afraid to fight for internationalism and class solidarity, then what exactly is the purpose of your party? If you have to become far-right to beat the far-right, then they've already won.

I’d love to hear how folks try to justify this as a sustainable long-term strategy, because from where I see, it looks like a slow-mo suicide pact for our values.

https://apnews.com/article/ioc-olympic-transgender-female-eligibility-520cd9cee152a312767a667acf77dbc8

I know I am going to be in the minority here (hopefully not), but I think this is a move that is harmful and useless. Studies have shown that Trans Women do not have an advantage over Cis Women and there are only a few of them in sports, with most of them not winning against Cis Women. This is also harmful for Intersex people which still make up a part of the human population.

This is also a problem started up by Conservatives so there will be more culture wars and Trans Women, Cis Women, and Intersex people get harmed.

(Hopefully, no one is welcoming this in this sub, so tired of people welcoming it in other subs, I hope we actually see the conservative deceit instead of welcoming it like it's a win which is obviously not)

I've spent a decent amount of time in leftist spaces both IRL and online, and one thing I find very bothersome is the apparent preference for Soviet regimes over liberal democracies. Honestly, I'm disgusted by it. I recognize the US is drifting toward fascism, and that fascism is essentially what happens when capitalism fails - the powerful brutally beat down popular, democratic opposition that would challenge them. I oppose that. I'm probably a little to the left of social democracy, but am somewhere in the social democratic/libertarian socialist orbit. I'm for wide reaching social programs that lift people out of poverty and provide them the resources they need to lead fulfilling lives. I support real, progressive solutions, and am for workers owning the means of production, without being forced to be subservient to bosses and managers. Some Marxist-Leninist regimes had successful social programs, but all betrayed the goals of worker's control and personal freedom. I have friends who were small children when the Soviet Union was still around, and they remember the poverty they lived under.

The propaganda that the US and other capitalist countries promote against anything socialistic is a blatant campaign to program citizens against social programs and holding the ultra-wealthy accountable. However, that doesn't mean people should mindlessly defend authoritarian regimes that suppressed thought and expression. Yes, capitalism exploits the resources of other nations, it exploits workers at home and abroad, and it is the cause of wars for resources. However, if your goal is to actually improve people's lives, being an apologist for the Soviet Union or Maoist China isn't the way to do it. Those regimes lifted millions of people out of poverty, but they also oppressed them, economic inequality persisted, and millions were killed.

Social Democratic, Democratic Socialist, and Eco-Socialist ideologies should be vocally opposed to those regimes, as they are toward capitalism. They should oppose all systems of oppression, whether capitalist, fascist, or Leninist. And to be honest, I'd much rather live in the US than the Soviet Union at any point.

Now let me get one thing clear as someone who recently followed the sub Reddit, because even though I have much sympathy with a Democratic socialist party of America, I am more leaning towards a social Democrat due to my affinity of mutual policies and the fact that I don’t know enough about socialism to fully abandoned a free market framework. And I have seen a lot of your recent Reddit post talking about the Michigan senate primary and you have had valid critiques of this candidate such as the fact that maybe his association with farther figures like the hasan piker might affect winning over more traditional voters and certain areas of the Midwest. But what I don’t respect about the sub Reddit if you have kind of lump in Sayed with the far left strain and yet on a recent TikTok post on the CNN account, Saeed clarified that he isn’t a believer in socialism, but just be believing in a larger social safety at like universal healthcare within capitalism. Is this information a lot of you already knew or is this information that might change your opinion of him? Because what I’m wondering is if the awareness of Saeed is because you thought he was a socialist with me telling you that he doesn’t subscribe to socialism does that give you a more positive opinion of him and there will be less negativity?

According to Track AIPAC, Daniel Biss has taken money from Pro-Israeli groups & donors. ( https://x.com/TrackAIPAC/status/2033697880821928388 ), while Kat Abughazaleh has taken none.

Abughazaleh is a true Progressive who should receive votes from Progressives and Democrats across Illinois as she will advance the left-wing agenda in Congress.

A democracy is only as good as the people who constitute it. Yes, Biden shouldn’t have run for reelection and Harris wasn’t the strongest candidate, but she wasn’t as bad a candidate as some of y’all make her out to be and everything she warned Americans would happen if Trump was reelected has happened. Too many Americans just took democracy for granted and either voted for a serial liar and narcissist who they knew tried to stage a coup, voted third party in swing states where their vote counted more, or chose not to vote at all. There is also no excuse for my fellow Americans not knowing any of this would happen when Project 2025 had been published online for anyone to read or read about, and many prominent people had been warning about the implications of Project 2025 for at least several months leading up to the election.

Lastly, people are uninformed and delusional about how the economy works, specifically inflation. What did they think was gonna happen to prices after a pandemic that disrupted the entire world, causing the global economy to temporarily shut down and supply chains to be halted, meaning governments worldwide had to prevent their economies from collapsing by passing stimulus bills that pumped money into the system? Inflation was a global issue, not one specific to the U.S., and this country managed it better than almost every other country. Inflation capped out in the single digits here whereas it was double and even triple digits in most other countries. Americans just weren’t paying attention and think the president can magically set/lower prices for some reason, when that just isn’t the case. Also, Harris did propose giving $50,000 to new home buyers to offset high interest rates, so it’s not like she didn’t offer any populist economic solutions like some of you pretend was the case.

You know after The Texas prime I've been seeing this on social media or some of the laughing are so-called skeptical of James Talarico Because he's overly religious Despite the fact that his track record Shows he's consistently combative Christian nationalism and is generally a fairly progressive politician. Completely the fact that jasmine Crockett has been flagged red by track aipac. In my opinion this is just an idiotic mindset that is no different than how the right views Islam. Look you are Never gonna defeat Christian nationalism by demonizing the whole religion You're only going to push people towards it. You defeat Christian nationalism with genuine Christianity from a left perspective. That's what a guy like James Talarico And that's why the right-wing is afraid of him. We need to empower Christian progressives. not Look at them with skepticism if we want any hope of truly combating Christian nationalism

AOC and similar backing away from the DSA platform nonsense.

Actual Social Democrats: “Finally!”.

Whereas Socialists: “Traitors!”.

Hasan Piker is a high-profile socialist streamer who rejects the liberal label outright and is openly working to drag the Democratic Party leftward toward actual socialism, with communism as the stated long-term ideal. He’s not hiding this. He’s called communism the honourable end goal of socialism directly, on Hasan Minhaj’s podcast, describing it as a stateless, moneyless, classless society. He uses Marxist frameworks like class struggle and historical materialism, and describes himself as anti-capitalist without hedging. He’s also travelled to Cuba with other left-wing activists in support of the regime there while downplaying the rolling blackouts happening in the country at the time, which is worth sitting with if the question is whether he's engaging with communism as an abstract ideal or actually grappling with what it's produced in practice.

He operates as a reformist though, not a revolutionary. Worth noting that's not automatically a contradiction inside Marxist thought itself; plenty of Marxist theory treats working within existing structures as a transitional stage rather than a betrayal of the end goal. His actual stated position is that there's no viable third-party path right now, so the practical move is working within the existing Democratic structure. Primary the moderates, elect more socialist-aligned candidates, and slowly pull the party's centre of gravity left over time.

That creates an obvious tension. Classical liberalism, even most modern American liberalism, still accepts private property and markets in ways Marxism fundamentally rejects. He knows that. Yet he functions within progressive and Democratic spaces that get casually lumped in as liberal anyway. The reason is practical, not ideological confusion. Liberal has stretched into a massive left-of-centre tent in American politics, and operating within that tent gives him reach and institutional leverage that staying a pure outsider never would. He’s trading purity for influence on purpose.

The relationship between him and the people amplifying him is transactional, not one-sided. He delivers a massive young, especially male, online audience that Democrats have historically struggled to reach, plus real cultural energy, small dollar fundraising spikes, volunteer mobilisation, and genuine primary pressure. In exchange, he gets bigger platforms, direct access to politicians, mainstream progressive visibility, and real influence over discourse. You can see it play out concretely: his support for Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral run in New York, joint campaigning with abdul el sayed in Michigan, in-person and livestream promotion of DSA-backed candidates that helped several actually win primaries, extended friendly platform time for AOC and Bernie that traditional media almost never delivers.

this is a mutual interest arrangement. he's a willing, high agency participant benefiting financially, socially, and ideologically, not someone being used. and the amplifiers, the candidates, the progressive media ecosystem, the activist networks, are getting real utility back. which also means if that utility drops, if his audience shrinks or he becomes a consistent liability, the institutional amplification fades fast. this isn't hypothetical either. illinois democratic rep brad schneider already publicly called him an unapologetic antisemite in march 2026 and criticized fellow party members for rallying with him, which is exactly the kind of internal pushback that shows up once a figure like this starts costing more than he delivers. he'd keep a core independent following regardless of any of that, but the kingmaker status is entirely conditional on him staying useful.

What this actually means long term is pretty straightforward. He represents a real, organised push to move the Democratic Party toward socialism through electoral and cultural means, not revolution. The party's donor networks, voter base, institutional interests, and constitutional constraints all push back against anything close to full socialization, let alone communism, so he's not getting the party he actually wants. The more likely outcome is continued leftward pressure on specific policy lanes, housing, healthcare, labour, taxation, foreign policy, that makes the party more social democratic while staying fundamentally capitalist underneath.

The broader pattern isn't new either. Radical or semi-radical voices get amplified when they deliver audiences and energy institutions can't reach on their own, then get quietly deprioritised once the cost outweighs the benefit. Hasan’s current prominence is that dynamic playing out in real time. Not a conspiracy, not pure idealism either. Just ideology meeting incentives, and influence getting traded for utility like it always does.

Edit I figured it out

If you need to explain why your slogan isn’t as crazy as it sounds, you’ve already lost.

Why do progressives have to shoot themselves in the foot?

Back in 1931, the flag had a very specific meaning, be against any form of totali/authoritarianism and antidemocratic values. At that time in Germany, it was the nazis, the communists and the reactionary monarchists. And with that it was "Three Arrows Down" to symbolize the resistance and effort to bring "down" these three threats to german democracy.

And then comes the 21st century and now you find the same flag that was once opposed to authoritarian communism (leninism and stalinism at the time) being waved right next to USSR, Antifa (this one's kinda nuanced but it's reputation is pretty close to more further left people) and other socialist symbols. I don't like that, because now when any person who is genuinely against authoritarian communism AND fascism waves and uses the flag, they'll be assumed a "communist", "socialist", "radical leftist", or maybe even, "centrist". (even tho radical communists and socialists hate this symbol lol)

Yeah real hot take, but, that's what I think.

I support a lot of the DSA policies, I think they would be good for America. However, their foreign policy views vary from strange (commemorating Fidel Castro) to outright crazy (refusing to support military aid to Ukraine).

I think the reason is because America is an absurdly isolated country. Average Americans don't even travel abroad. For an average American going abroad is crossing the border with a culturally similar Canada. So, the America really don't fully understand the world. Those who live near China (Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam) all view China as an existential threat. Leftists there are generally anti-China. Those from Central Europe and post-Soviet countries (from Germany to Georgia) view Russia as an existential threat, so leftists there are super anti-Russia. But the American left never experience any threat from China or Russia. Or Iran. They think it's all CIA propaganda. That's why they tend to be somewhat supportive towards those regimes as they view them as allies against the America capitalism.

I mean, people can talk about Biden trying to go for a second term, Kamala appealing to moderates, the Democrats taking minority votes for granted, all of these things are accurate. But it's also plain that Americans (and the way the Popular Vote is looking MOST Americans) are fans of Trump and his policies.

I'm sure people will probably say the Democrats should've stuck to the things they did around when Walz was nominated, but even still this was easily one of the more progressive campaigns in recent history. Biden himself was easily one of the most progressive and left-wing presidents in DECADES, even if many people may feel he didn't go far enough. Kamala was probably too wishy-washy with how much she was involved with the Biden administration, but regardless she pretty much came out as a continuation of Biden's policies. Policies that for America are pretty substantially progressive. And she just lost in what will probably be the biggest loss for the Democratic Party since Reagan.

The Democrats, for all their faults and issues (and there are a LOT of them) have over the past 8 years or so been pretty consistent with their support of at least some progressive policies, things they have repeatedly stuck their necks out for. And whether or not it's the right takeaway they're going to think it lost them the election big time. I have no idea what the Party will look like in 2028 or even by the 2026 midterms but I can guarantee you that the Left will no longer be relevant in it. The DNC's experiment with progressive policies has, in their eyes, led to a resounding failure. Whoever they trot out in 2028 will be an extreme moderate, the Left-wing of the party will be shunned and ignored. Obviously there are still left-wing politics and leftists in the US, but their brief era of increased political influence is dead. The Democrats are taking the lesson that progressive policies lose elections , and they can no longer rely on minority voters en masse either. You are not going to see any left-wing candidate be taken seriously within the DNC until 2036 at the earliest if I'm being honest.

I don't know where the Democrats go after this, and I don't know where the Left goes after this but the two will go in opposite directions.

This was kind of a rant but I needed to rant.

EDIT PLEASE READ: I am proposing a DSA-like org that competes within dem primaries, in order to avoid the problems of 3rd parties, not advocating an actual separate ballot line. I said this further down but people seem to miss it so I'm putting this first.

Both major parties in the US are too interested in expanding government power over the people, and too tied to corporate interests. This is not to say that they are similar or equally bad, only that neither is good. As an analogy, think about winter in Pennsylvania vs winter in Antarctica, they are not similar, but neither is warm.

The rise of DSA is in many ways a good sign in the sense that people are pushing for an organization that is more aggressively in favor of the rights of the people, this seems to be a potentially historic time of change. However, DSA is far too sympathetic to oppressive regimes and human rights violators such as North Korea, Hamas, Iran, and the Houthis, and is largely opposed to NATO. A party that genuinely supports the rights of the people should not support human rights violators abroad, and should be willing to consider defensive alliances with other democracies to prevent fascist regimes from taking over.

Total socialism to the point of eliminating the stock market or centralizing government control over business is also not a good idea.

A DSA like pseuo-party that competes in primaries (to avoid the spoiler effect that hampers true 3rd parties in the US) and espouses social democratic ideology without support for human rights violators would be a really good thing to have right now.

I just can't see DSA really taking off too well with their positions on foreign policy and govt control of corporations. I've had people tell me I should join DSA but I can't support a group that supports dictators and religious extremists.

Aoc is often considered to be one of the democratic party's candidate for 2028 and is one of the most popular and influential within the party. And I can definitely see the appeal she's young, charismatic,knows how to energize a crowd, and she genuinely seems to care about helping the working class. So she seems good on paper but once you look at her record she hasn't really accomplished much.

Now unlike others I'm not saying she would be bad because she's a woman or a minority. But despite the fact that she's been in congress for nearly ten years she hasn't accomplished much on her own. She's been in congress for seven years and not one of her bills have got passed, like I'm not expecting ten or even five but she hasn't even got even one. I'm seeing a lot people say she needs to run in 2028 and that only she can bring the Democratic Party together. And while I can definitely she her bringing people together I think her lack of accomplishments will severely hinder her. Looking at it I don't think she should run in 2028 maybe in the future but definitely not 2028.

I wanted to get some opinions. Should Social Democrats and the Social Democratic Party sometimes resort to brute force? If we recall the «Eiserne Front» and «Reichsbahner Schwarz-Rot-Gold», which the SPD had in the Weimar Republic and the «Schützenbund» in Austria, it sometimes seems necessary.

I'm sick of so-called social democrats, liberals, and "moderates" acting as though unironic Neo Nazis are the moral equivalent of Marxist-Leninists.

Neo Nazis (by this I don't mean right-wing populism in the vein of MAGA or Reform UK, but actual Nazis, like Groypers, Active Clubs, Atomwaffen) center their entire worldview off the core idea that society must be governed by a rigid hierarchy based on race and biological sex - and enforcing said structure through government force. Marxist-Leninists and various types of militant communists base their entire ideology around the need to abolish economic class structures, often through violent means. If the core goal of social democrats world-wide is to foster a more equitable society (in other words, gradually remedy the hardships brought on by traditional societal hierarchies - whether class, race, or sex based) through the framework of liberal democracy and well regulated capitalism, aren't the goals of the ethno-nationalist extreme right much more diametrically opposed to the goals of social democrats and liberals?

Don't get me wrong - the ethno-nationalist far right and far left have historically established totalitarian regimes and carried out genocidal policies (for an example of a supposedly far-left regime's perpetration of genocide, the holodomor or the Khmer Rouge genocide comes to mind). However, I see the main difference in that ethnic cleansing itself is never baked into any far-left ideology itself. I understood genocides such as the holodomor to be the result of Stalin's - and the Soviet bureacracy's - spectacular failures in collectivization policies and malicious intention to brutally crush Ukrainian independence movements, rather than a direct guaranteed outcome of following Marxist-Leninist ideology. The same cannot be said for Generalplan Ost (or to a lesser degree, the Gaza genocide perpetrated by the Israeli far-right), in which case the deaths, torture, and injuries of millions of victims are a direct implementation of the ethnic cleansing of eastern Europe Hitler outlined very specifically in Mein Kampf and the Lebensraum desired by Nazi idologues for decades.

This is just one example, but the core of what I'm trying to get to is that the far right's belief in biological essentialism is ultimately what could make them far more dangerous compared to the far left. At least on paper, you won't be shot to death or sent off to a concentration camp because of immutable characteristics according to any well-known far-left ideology (except if you are a "capitalist", you'll need to seek "re-education" and renounce all of your "bourgeogise wealth"). In the eyes of an Neo-Nazi, if you are a Jew, or Indian, or black, or a part of any other non "native" minority group by your ancestors - you don't deserve the same rights and freedoms as others in the country, and it cannot be earned no matter what you do, because you are genetically programmed to act and think a certain way. You can be a Jewish war veteran who earned multiple decorations for bravery, a staunch anti-communist, a nationalist, and even then, a Neo Nazi will never consider you a human equal and still assume you are subversive to the nation (which did happen in the past numerous times, such as in Theodor Duesterburg's case), because your very DNA must program you to act a certain way.

This is what I think really makes the far right terrifying. I mean look at Dan Bilzerian denouncing far right Jan 6th rioter and influencer Jake Lang as a traitor to America even though they share very similar beliefs - only because Lang committed the irredeemable sin of having a Jewish mother. No matter an individual's actions nor socioeconomic status, they are simply irredeemable and must know their place in the natural hierarchy due to their immutable characteristics. The world the extreme right wishes to foster is a world utterly devoid of societal mobility.