Hmm, Jordan Peterson sees the privileging of group identity over the individual as a left-wing thing. I see it as essentially being a fascist thing, and that the whole left/right business is little more than a figleaf over that.
interesting. that's a new definition but it seems to fit the current moment. past definitions of fascism emphasized different details though. maybe a different label would have less historical baggage?
-
-
Well, it's not new for me! And it's the only one I've seen that's coherent. Most of the others fall down because some clearly fascist group isn't covered by them, even though they do the same things.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In defining this I go back to the Roman fasces, (which I can't spell). The core idea is that the group united into a warlike state is strong. This of course requries an enemy. Without an enemy 'strong' has little meaning.
-
my favorite definition of Fascism is from Ortega, and he also extends it to "syndicalism" (meaning communists and other communitarian leftists), so this is pretty consistent with your usage.pic.twitter.com/NoBNkGbVXY
-
absolutely so. Though I can imagine variants of communitarianism that wouldn't be fascist, but someone like Stalin, for instance, or Lenin, clearly was.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
what you described is basically authoritarian tribalism. all past fascisms have been authoritarian tribalisms of one kind or another, sometimes very explicitly (Nazism) and sometimes less clearly so (Maoism).
-
I would personally find authoritarian tribalism (controlled via appeal to unity against an enemy/threat) to be the very definition of fascism. Maoism was a good point in case, because Maoism frequently created internal and external threats to be struggled against.
-
yeah that's what I mean. all fascisms are authoritarian tribalisms. there are perhaps some authoritarian tribalisms that aren't fascisms? I can imagine an authoritarian tribalist system that isn't strictly about rule by force and domination of the outgroup.
-
hmm... would that be a real tribalism though? Isn't a tribe (politically speaking) an ingroup and thus requires an outgroup? In the end one can argue that it's tribalisms all the way down, it's just that global humanism includes everyone in the tribe...
-
traditional tribal societies can absolutely be authoritarian (rule by a chief who's authority is unquestionable) but are not necessarily fascist (institutions and traditions in place to resolve conflicts without resort to violence/force)
-
hmm, I suspect the resort to force is always in the background. If there's no clearly defined internal or external enemy though, then I'd agree that's not fascism. Fascism for me, is the control of a populace via the selection/invention of a threat or enemy.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.