Mind reader that I am, I'm thinking that right wingers..

I'm posting this in hopes of getting feedback from sharper minds than my own.
(Warning: excessive use of quotation marks and parentheses and possible abuse of the Oxford comma)

I'm thinking that right wingers wrongly conflate authoritarianism with communism. In my admittedly limited understanding, communism is government controlling the economy, socialism is the workers controlling the economy, and capitalism is "owners" controlling the economy. (I don't know how to label worker owned/run companies like the Mondragon Corporation.)

I don't think right wingers understand those definitions/differences. I posit that when they complain about 'communism' they are not talking about the economy at all. What they're complaining about is people telling them what to do. In other words, having to obey laws and, especially, regulations. You can't regulate gun ownership! You can't tell me how to build my house! You can't tax me, ie., steal my money! You can't tell me I can't graze my cattle on public land! Of course it's obvious to us that they are hypocrites, happy to dictate what others can and can't do.

Let's talk about being made to do something. Seems like two ways that happens, by force or by consent. Consent in this context being people in a society agreeing for their own mutual benefit, to contribute resources for needed common services, and to abide by regulations crafted to keep everyone safe (you could say "promote the general welfare&quot . I would add cheating and propaganda to my definition of "force", since it is a way to make people do things non-consensually.

I posit that right wingers don't consent to a social contract. Not only do they not accept consent, they do believe in and use force, ie., violence, to impose their wills on others. I would even speculate that many of them believe that violence is the only way to get people to do things. Looking at our country's history, the settlers genocided the occupants they encountered, to steal land. The stole and enslaved people, with mind-bendingly sadistic cruelty, to be the construction 'workers' to build their homes, businesses and government buildings, to do all the work to create/maintain a cash crop economy (tobacco, indigo, cotton, sugar) and exploited immigrants, using force and law, to build railroads and other infrastructure.

When the abolition of slavery in Britain threatened the entire farming, shipping and banking economy that the colonists depended on, they used violence to preserve slavery, by creating the United States. When again the abolition of slavery was looming, the used violence/force and started the Civil War.

When the veterans who served in WWI camped out in DC demanding the pay they'd been promised, they were gunned down. When laborers whispered the word "union" they were gunned down. Jim Crow was enforced by lynching and legal enforced servitude. When school integration was attempted the response, from the Deep South to Boston, was violence.

Most people would agree that violence is morally acceptable in self defense. And that self defense includes defending one's family. And home. And farm? And business? And pickup truck? But those aren't questions I care to spend time on now. I want to focus on the the question to what extent is it ok to "self-defend" one's "lifestyle" or "culture" or "heritage" or, to cut to the chase, one's self-identity as a superior "white" person ("white" being only a social construct). My inclination would be towards as narrow as possible as to what can be morally considered ok using violence to defend.

My point is right wingers don't believe in democracy: it's their way or violence. If a person doesn't agree with them they don't get a voice.

OK, I'm ready to be enlightened. Thanks in advance.