One mans freedom is another man's tyranny
I no more subscribe to your view on the world to that of the BNP. Both end up in totalitarianism and rule of the biggest fist. For entirely different reasons, to be fair. Your views are entirely wholesome and I would never say anything different.
In a purely ideological world I fully accept your views are great in the main but we'd all probably be ploughing fields with Oxen unless its the Star Trek form of socialism you believe in!! Yes Star Trek is a socialistic utopia.
Democracy (as in social democracy) is the least worst form of government there is. I am still to be convinced otherwise. Its far from perfect and slow to react but at least it does.
As to your initial point I agree let them be there but ignore them. Best way to deal with them. Like the MAGA idiots they eventually work out their views are no the mainstream.
I'm assuming you're talking to me.
But if you think my politics are totalitarian you clearly don't understand anarchism.
You talk as if I am a socialist or communist. But I'm not! I agree with you that both the extreme left and the extreme right are forms of totalitarianism.
Your opinion is that social democracy is the least worst form of government (I'd probably agree with that actually) but I am opposed to all forms of government. Forget the least worst form of government, we can do better than that; NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL. That'd be best!
I believe that true freedom for all can only be achieved by removing the state and all other forms of hierarchy and control. Only when society is organised along horizontal lines rather than hierarchical ones, and built upon mutual aid and co-operation (rather than competition and exploitation), will there be real freedom and equality for all.
Call me a dreamer or a utopian or tell me that humanity is too flawed for it to ever work. But don't call me a totalitarian. That's not true or fair.
You probably have many criticisms of socialism/communism that I'd agree with.
'58 said above that without Left policies the freedom is meaningless because although all have the freedom to dine at the Ritz, only a few can afford that freedom. This is exactly what Bakunin was referring to when he said that, "freedom without socialism leads to privilege and injustice".
But communism and socialism are all about the power of the state. For full socialism/communism the state must have total control and personal freedoms are severely restricted or simply removed. And this is what Bakunin meant in the second part of the quote. "Socialism without freedom leads to brutality and slavery". I'm sure we can all think of communist states past and present that have proved that to be correct.
Incidentally, during the period of social revolution in Barcelona - when there was no government, no money and things were organised according to anarchist principles, the Ritz was turned into a public canteen where everybody could eat and drink for free.
