Friday, September 25, 2015
Defining political configurations as collectivism versus individualism rather than right and left
Libertarianism would this way be defined as radical but not militant international individualism, and fascism would be militant but mainly national collectivism. Communism would be mainly a militant international collectivism. With its “cooperative individualism” (Clinton Rossiter term) and its group morality, conservatism would be in the middle between collectivism and individualism but leaning toward individualism.
According to sociobiological studies, group-selection is the main unit of selection, and I therefore think we can combine ethnopluralism, or ethnic collectivism, with American conservatism, given that the separation of powers and states in the U. S. Constitution could accommodate regional ethnic states, protected by federalism.
Ethnopluralism calls for a sociobiologically affirmed conservatism, where group-selection is understood as the main unit of selection, taking into account cooperative individualism within the states, and a cooperative ethnopluralism protected by federalism within larger territories. We could then better avoid civil disruption within states and nations from competing ethnic cultures, which is virtually inevitable given that human nature remains group-selecting and even xenophobic. With ethnopluralism we could also better avoid selfish individualism and militant forms of collectivism.
It would probably only confuse things if we turned things around and defined collectivism as on the right, including both fascism and communism, and individualism on the left, including libertarianism, and a middle left-leaning conservatism. Ethnopluralism would be seen as between right collectivism and left individualism, with individualism understood as secondary to group-selection within natural ethnic states. But it's probably easier just to define political configurations as ranging between collectivism and individualism rather than right versus left.