7 minutes in, and I can already tell you that none of the people Griffin mentioned were communists, save for Marx. Communism is largely an ideology focused on the equal distribution of resources, while socialism is simply an umbrella term for systems advocating the public (or in some cases, state) ownership of the means of production. Fascism is ill-defined thanks to the mass differences in between the fascist socialists and fascist capitalists especially, but generally has come to mean near-total governance of aspects of society, but production is based upon cooperation between the state, the union, and the business- in other words, an authoritarian form of classical corporatism.
Communism is a form of socialism, and some versions of fascism may be a part of a more expansive definition of socialism. However, to denote all socialists as communists and fascists, or to even say that all socialists, communists, and fascists are the same would be dishonest. For example, Marx was a communist that was actually very opposed to the existence of the state, while Lenin was a state socialist (him being a communist is disputed) that thought the state must exist. Compare that to say Hitler, who still had private businesses operating (a few of which are major brands today). In the socialist camp, there was Stalin as an authoritarian socialist, with Trotsky being a state socialist advocating worldwide revolution instead of national revolution, being against such an extent of centralization of power. George Orwell and Bertrand Russel were democratic socialists, who were opposed to most state authority.
Going further, there were the the anarcho socialists, that are completely against the state, and are completely supporting of complete public ownership of basic (not necessarily personal) property. The collectivist label certainly applies to the state socialists and democratic socialists, but don't always apply to anarcho-socialists, depending on the system of social organization that they support. Indeed, some are flexible and fit the individualist and collectivist labels.
I'd further argue that rights are not natural, and are not engrained in everyone. Rather, rights are a form of restriction that protects some aspect of a person. As an example, it is often claimed that the individual has a right to life and so others do not have the right to kill them. However, who determines and enforces that? If there were three people on earth, what stops two of them from killing the other? When someone mentions a right being natural and that right is absolute, does it mean that the person who makes this statement is the moral authority over others? Rights come from an agreement of the collective, a type of contract between involved parties that may be informal or formal. Enforcement of that contract is generally left open, but in modern states, the expectation to enforce those rights falls to the government. Hence, "If the state can grant you your rights then they have every right to take them away". For this reason, I don't really think that the United States Constitution is really any different from the Soviet Constitution that Griffin mentioned.
Furthermore, the enforcer(s) of those rights must also hold some power over the individual. This either leaves enforcement up to those more powerful (in hierarchal society), or a collective of people working together for the interest of the group. Thus, the concept of natural rights isn't compatible with those that completely reject collectivism. Rather than claiming individuals have rights, it should be states that they have natural FREEDOM, which is to not have any restriction put on them. This isn't to attack the notion of rights, I'm just critical of how people think they are formed.
