think that is an absolutely absurd rule that can only stand to benefit the far-right.

Lol no you can still call fascists fascists. We are just asking you to use more accurate language.

When people say authoritarianism it is reliably synonymous with totalitarianism as defined by Hannah Arendt, which is basically horseshoe theory, where fascism and communism are equivalated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#Examples

There is no one consensus definition of authoritarianism, but several annual measurements are attempted, including Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World report. Some countries such as Venezuela, among others, that are currently or historically recognized as authoritarian did not become authoritarian upon taking power or fluctuated between an authoritarian, flawed democracy, and hybrid regime due to periods of democratic backsliding or democratization. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia are often regarded as the most infamous examples of "totalitarian" systems. Some countries such as China and various fascist regimes have also been characterized as totalitarian, with some periods being depicted as more authoritarian, or totalitarian, than others.

Hannah Arendt came from a wealthy family and was unsurprisingly anti-communist. Her work was financially supported and promoted by the CIA. The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited

U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the “Democratic Left” and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.

The authoritarian states are whichever states the Council on Foreign Relations deems authoritarian this month. It just means “governments that Global North capitalists want regime changed,” and that’s usually because the authoritarian government is blocking their access to neocolonial profit-making.

Hey, you don't have to agree, you just have to follow the rules of the community.

Every real county or "side" has good and bad qualities. But they can stand on different sides of historical development and trajectories due to their sociopolitical composition.

For example, every communist recognizes that the state is inherently oppressive. So why use it? They also know it is a necessary tool for the historical development against capitalism, against rule by the owner class. One should not come away with the idea that all states are always equally bad, or solely do bad things, just because we acknowledge they are inherently oppressive. A state that functions against rule by the owner class and can adopt coherent anti-imperial stances is much better than one that is premised on global domination and extraction for the owner class.

Re: this issue, consider just 2 points:

1. What has NATO actually materially engaged in? Escalations and aggressive bombing campaigns and expanding their scope to include militarizing the opposite end of the planet. The purpose of NATO is to maximally pressure its designated enemies, including nuclear powers. It's purpose is also to create the designation of enemy.

2. Compare India to China. India choseca milquetoast "socialist" but rapidly capitalist non-aligned path while China, for all its faults, continued a path where its central government retained power over the commanding heights if its economy, in directing production. India is languishing, with extreme poverty and a large (often self-hating) neofascist takeover. It cannot progress substantially because it is a lapdog for empire, it sells out its people for nothing. China, for all its faults, redirects its surpluses into things that build up its people and economy. The vast majority of every, "the world is getting better" statistic describing anything real - like poverty alleviation - is China itself. And the rest depended on Chins for development.

Two things can be bad without being bad in the same way or at the same scale.

The Imperial core—which claims to be the model for and bringer of freedom and democracy—is far worse by comparison. Its actions over generations belie its words: it doesn’t give a rat’s ass about anyone’s freedom. Those not its core values; those are its excuses, its rationalizations, its cover story for imperialism, for “full-spectrum dominance.” They’re a neocolonial re-branding of the old colonial “bringing Christianity/civilization to the savage races” rationalizations.

Just one small example. The National for Endowment for Democracy isn’t about promoting democracy. It’s a CIA cut-out for enacting regime changes. Take it from Allen Weinstein, cofounder of the NED, “Much of what we do today was done 25 years ago by the CIA.”

The blueprint of regime change operations

Our governments and corporate media don’t tell us about the plight of Iranian women because they give a shit about them, or because it’s exceptionally bad. They don’t care about Iranian women any more than the Palestinian women they’re aiding & abetting the genocide of. Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia are arguably even worse, but the media aren’t going to talk about their plight, because our governments consider Saudi Arabia aligned with their interests. “National interests” aren’t our interests: they’re the interests of the capitalist class. The enemies of my government, which has only ever represented the wealthy[1], are not necessarily my enemies.