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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-02 06:22 pm (UTC)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.