The problem here is that individualism isn’t an urban thing, but an aspect of the petite bourgeoisie, think small business owners. Urban areas generally are more pro-social than “fuck you, I got mine,” because production in cities is more socialized. When you are describing “collectivism,” you’re describing not collectivism but instead the communitarian aspects of traditional family units, which also change according to the mode of production.
To go back and re-explain individualism, communalism, and collectivism, think of it in terms of whose interests are primary. Individualists value themselves, communalists value their immediate communities, and collectivists value the entirety of society. This is of course an oversimplification as everything I’ve been explaining thus far has been.
Regarding fascism, I am referring to the historic phenomenon of fascism. Fascism evolved from liberalism, and rose in countries that were faced with the potential for working class organization internally, and a capitalist class in need of new colonies. This is true of Italy and Germany, and the US Empire in its settler-colonial heritage through today. It sounds like you are trying to redefine fascism from an observed phenomenon itself, to instead a way of categorizing systems, which is weaker in that it erases how to stop fascism entirely and how to predict where it rises.
As for Russia, annexing Crimea and the Donbass regions isn’t imperialism, Russia isn’t colonizing them. Both voted to join the Russian Federation. Russia is not a global monopolist power, it’s a nationalist country encircled by imperialists, hence why the war was sparked in the first place. NATO and the west is at fault for installing a Banderite regime in 2014, and violating the Minsk Agreements that were meant to avoid this conflict and resolve the Ukrainian Civil War between the Donbass and Kiev.
As for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both have very different political climates, stages in social progress, and levels of development. You’re reading too much into religion as a sole determinent.
As for how to view social progress, progress happens over time through struggle. Countries do not decide to be conservative, they have different stages in the development of the social struggle, how far it has gone.
As for individual traits being randomly distributed, again, it sounds like you’re arguing that different cultures are different at a genetic level, similar to how colonizers said those in Madagascar were naturally more submissive and wanted to be dominated by Europeans. I am not saying you are saying that, but it sounds like your argument can go in that direction, which is why you need to rethink it.
I’m not sure what other term (besides fascism) I would use to describe what I did. Liberalism espouses a value for democracy, so at first glance it seems strange that would lead to fascism, although liberal democracies have been decried as a sham. How do you define fascism?
But you’re preventing a line of reasoning from being discussed not because of evidence/reasoning, but because of the way it has gone in a certain direction in the past. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me; if there isn’t evidence that the distribution of innate traits is even or randomly distributed it’s not a justified belief. I think this is a case of a slippery slope fallacy.
Simply because there are no superior or inferior races does not mean racial differences don’t exist.
Liberalism is largely justification for capitalism, and has been used to justify colonialism. There’s a difference between the whitewashed idea of liberalism, and what it has been used to justify. Fascism is when a bourgeois state faces crisis, and therefore needs to violently assert itself. It’s the logic of colonialism, but domestic and not international.
As for preventing a line of reasoning, I don’t believe I am, but you are now teetering into race theory. Trying to justify different cultures on genetic differences between people is back to that liberal justification to colonialism.
Liberalism was created to advance bourgeois interests in overthrowing feudalism, and justifying the new capitalist order. It’s tied directly to colonialism.
As for race science, it’s bogus and not a real thing.
The problem here is that individualism isn’t an urban thing, but an aspect of the petite bourgeoisie, think small business owners. Urban areas generally are more pro-social than “fuck you, I got mine,” because production in cities is more socialized. When you are describing “collectivism,” you’re describing not collectivism but instead the communitarian aspects of traditional family units, which also change according to the mode of production.
To go back and re-explain individualism, communalism, and collectivism, think of it in terms of whose interests are primary. Individualists value themselves, communalists value their immediate communities, and collectivists value the entirety of society. This is of course an oversimplification as everything I’ve been explaining thus far has been.
Regarding fascism, I am referring to the historic phenomenon of fascism. Fascism evolved from liberalism, and rose in countries that were faced with the potential for working class organization internally, and a capitalist class in need of new colonies. This is true of Italy and Germany, and the US Empire in its settler-colonial heritage through today. It sounds like you are trying to redefine fascism from an observed phenomenon itself, to instead a way of categorizing systems, which is weaker in that it erases how to stop fascism entirely and how to predict where it rises.
As for Russia, annexing Crimea and the Donbass regions isn’t imperialism, Russia isn’t colonizing them. Both voted to join the Russian Federation. Russia is not a global monopolist power, it’s a nationalist country encircled by imperialists, hence why the war was sparked in the first place. NATO and the west is at fault for installing a Banderite regime in 2014, and violating the Minsk Agreements that were meant to avoid this conflict and resolve the Ukrainian Civil War between the Donbass and Kiev.
As for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both have very different political climates, stages in social progress, and levels of development. You’re reading too much into religion as a sole determinent.
As for how to view social progress, progress happens over time through struggle. Countries do not decide to be conservative, they have different stages in the development of the social struggle, how far it has gone.
As for individual traits being randomly distributed, again, it sounds like you’re arguing that different cultures are different at a genetic level, similar to how colonizers said those in Madagascar were naturally more submissive and wanted to be dominated by Europeans. I am not saying you are saying that, but it sounds like your argument can go in that direction, which is why you need to rethink it.
I’m not sure what other term (besides fascism) I would use to describe what I did. Liberalism espouses a value for democracy, so at first glance it seems strange that would lead to fascism, although liberal democracies have been decried as a sham. How do you define fascism?
But you’re preventing a line of reasoning from being discussed not because of evidence/reasoning, but because of the way it has gone in a certain direction in the past. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me; if there isn’t evidence that the distribution of innate traits is even or randomly distributed it’s not a justified belief. I think this is a case of a slippery slope fallacy.
Simply because there are no superior or inferior races does not mean racial differences don’t exist.
Liberalism is largely justification for capitalism, and has been used to justify colonialism. There’s a difference between the whitewashed idea of liberalism, and what it has been used to justify. Fascism is when a bourgeois state faces crisis, and therefore needs to violently assert itself. It’s the logic of colonialism, but domestic and not international.
As for preventing a line of reasoning, I don’t believe I am, but you are now teetering into race theory. Trying to justify different cultures on genetic differences between people is back to that liberal justification to colonialism.
But you can find examples of any ideology being used to justify atrocities?
Either there is evidence for random or even distribution, or there is not.
Liberalism was created to advance bourgeois interests in overthrowing feudalism, and justifying the new capitalist order. It’s tied directly to colonialism.
As for race science, it’s bogus and not a real thing.
🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈
max_thread_depth_ reachedSo there is a bottom.
I’ve done that a few times before, haha.
okay
that’s not what I said, but we’re probably not going to be making progress there.
It’s basically where you’re leading it down, though, trying to place cultural differences on genetics.