Humans have survived on Earth for hundreds of thousands of years because we organized ourselves into groups, and this concept was evidently successful.

An individual needs the group; the group doesn’t necessarily need the individual.

Various considerations of the group.

Groups and Right-Wing Nationalist, Authoritarian Leadership/Fascism

How is it that a group, even the size of a nation, so easily succumbs to a right-wing nationalist program and follows its leaders? Why do simple and primitive solutions always prevail over much better but more complex ones in difficult times? Here, too, human group instincts play a crucial role. If a group feels safe and well cared for, its members relax. Those group instincts that are meant to hold the group together and protect it are rarely addressed, since this protection is not currently needed. Just as a full stomach lacks appetite or hunger.

However, as soon as real or perceived dangers appear to threaten the group, our primitive instincts awaken. The group closes down; we become suspicious and hostile toward outsiders, and lack empathy. Within our group, ranks must close; dissent is dangerous. Even the beliefs within our group become homogenized. We seek leaders who represent the lowest common denominator: This almost exclusively serves the primitive instincts within us, which are easily awakened; the greater the real or perceived threat, the more strongly these instincts are aroused. Individuals within the group who question cohesion and conformity are sanctioned, expelled, and punished; they are no longer part of the group and no longer experience empathy. Strangers and other groups become external enemies, inspire fear, and are fought against. Group leaders inevitably become increasingly powerful, the more threats exist; thus personally benefiting from them, and are tempted to maintain the threats in order to maintain or expand their power.

In comparison, concepts that address threats in a substantive and differentiated manner fare very poorly, because they inevitably lead to diversification within the group: the opposite of a close-knit and conformist group. To solve complex problems, all opinions must be heard, many approaches to solutions considered, and the interests of other groups and cooperation with them, taken into account. Instead of one leader, there would be several that divide the group.

Concepts of the “left” and intellectual, differentiated people/parties therefore directly contradict our group instincts and regularly fail in the face of emerging problems and threats.

Our group instincts stem from a time when fighting, aggression, and conformity were the best concepts for the group’s survival. These instincts are no longer helpful but extremely destructive and should be overridden by our intellect and good education.

To compare with our instinct of hunger/appetite: A group of people is very hungry. The right-wing nationalists/fascists offer steaming dumplings and pork knuckle, as well as cake and ice cream. On the other hand, the intellectuals discuss and recommend the virtues of raw vegetables, organic foodstuff, porridge, and soy. What will the hungry people pounce on? Will they choose what is healthy and sustainable?