I think in general the description of left and right is still useful in terms of support or opposition for the sources of traditional authority - e.g. a moderate or conservative person will be respectful towards existing authorities, symbols and realities of power, and precedent; while a person who is qualified as a left-winger will show a desire to alter or replace them. In fact, I argued elsewhere that in the USA the defintions are in some ways becoming more rather than less relevant, because of the formation of a definite class of hereditary aristocrats.
Fascism is to some extent something that belongs to a particular period in history. Never again shall we, in the west (places such as India, China or Russia may be another matter) see a combination of extreme nationalist and illiberal attitudes take, thanks to the collapse of more moderate right-wing forces, the dimension of a mass movement worthy of government. On the other hand, these elements - ultra-nationalism; traditionalism; militarism; irrationalism; violence as cleansing, wholesome, purifying; intolerance of debate or opposition - are not completely eliminable from the body politic, and even in a healthy democracy a certain percentage of the electorate - from five to ten per cent - will tend toward them.
Assume arguendo that the U.S. is developing a class of hereditary aristocrats. Are the people fighting this development in the name of popular sovereignty and equality 1) left-wing, because they're fighting against aristocracy, or 2) right-wing, because they are attempting to preserve existing authorities and symbols against those who would alter or replace them?
More generally, "traditional authority" is rarely one-sided. This is especially true in the modern era when recent concoctions set up against what used to be traditional have been around long enough to have some historical standing of their own. But it's also true in the past, e.g. the element of government by law and collective consent in medieval Europe which dwelt uneasily with the element of hereditary aristocracy.
Concerning fascism, I'd given up on it as a tool of analysis long ago, but you almost persuade me that it's a useful category.
Fascism is to some extent something that belongs to a particular period in history. Never again shall we, in the west (places such as India, China or Russia may be another matter) see a combination of extreme nationalist and illiberal attitudes take, thanks to the collapse of more moderate right-wing forces, the dimension of a mass movement worthy of government. On the other hand, these elements - ultra-nationalism; traditionalism; militarism; irrationalism; violence as cleansing, wholesome, purifying; intolerance of debate or opposition - are not completely eliminable from the body politic, and even in a healthy democracy a certain percentage of the electorate - from five to ten per cent - will tend toward them.
Reply
1) left-wing, because they're fighting against aristocracy, or
2) right-wing, because they are attempting to preserve existing authorities and symbols against those who would alter or replace them?
More generally, "traditional authority" is rarely one-sided. This is especially true in the modern era when recent concoctions set up against what used to be traditional have been around long enough to have some historical standing of their own. But it's also true in the past, e.g. the element of government by law and collective consent in medieval Europe which dwelt uneasily with the element of hereditary aristocracy.
Concerning fascism, I'd given up on it as a tool of analysis long ago, but you almost persuade me that it's a useful category.
Reply
http://fpb.livejournal.com/217554.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/217701.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/219614.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/219784.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/223187.html
http://fpb.livejournal.com/228779.html
Most of these also feature long and interesting comments sections.
Reply
Leave a comment