Establishing a modest nomenclature is good, especially when it is derived in a straightforward manner.
First a precision. What you call right wing in the sense of the French Revolution is currently designated as reactionary. Many reactionary ideas are also branded as fascistic because they were coopted by Mussolini and Hitler. For instance organising a pluralistic economy with separate realms for the commerce, competitive production (for consumer goods), socialised production (for the construction of houses), common goods, etc. In London and Paris, reactionary, fascistic sounding ideas are forbidden in polite society, even behind closed doors; from my experience.
Second a question. In the current state of affairs most of "grassroots" activism is falsely so. Many people have observed that the "caritative" or "philantropic" complex is in the hands of the same managerial class which selects people with ideas that are in line with their goals and the goals of the state : such people receive funds, visibility, and organisational help which draws other activists looking for change to these selected groups. I view such activist groups as part of the devitalised institutions of the mass society. Hence the question : is the current mass society a form of totalitarianism ?
Thank you Evolved Psyché
Establishing a modest nomenclature is good, especially when it is derived in a straightforward manner.
First a precision. What you call right wing in the sense of the French Revolution is currently designated as reactionary. Many reactionary ideas are also branded as fascistic because they were coopted by Mussolini and Hitler. For instance organising a pluralistic economy with separate realms for the commerce, competitive production (for consumer goods), socialised production (for the construction of houses), common goods, etc. In London and Paris, reactionary, fascistic sounding ideas are forbidden in polite society, even behind closed doors; from my experience.
Second a question. In the current state of affairs most of "grassroots" activism is falsely so. Many people have observed that the "caritative" or "philantropic" complex is in the hands of the same managerial class which selects people with ideas that are in line with their goals and the goals of the state : such people receive funds, visibility, and organisational help which draws other activists looking for change to these selected groups. I view such activist groups as part of the devitalised institutions of the mass society. Hence the question : is the current mass society a form of totalitarianism ?
Great choices innovating nomenclature.