It’s something that’s struck me over and over as I’ve read through historical accounts of progressive movements, that despite their being ostensibly more collectivist compared to some conservative hyper-individualism…They struggle to hold together and coordinate to accomplish their goals. In some instances it’s interference or sabotage from outside, but as often it can be found from within as well.
What are some of the contributing factors here, and how might they be addressed to better accomplish progressive aims?
Conservatives aren’t actually hyper-individualists. That’s a wrong assumption. They’re individualists within confines. They have their set communities that are guided by an authority (church, for example) and they want everyone else to conform to their way of living.
Any conservative structure has an authoritarian leadership whose call to action will be heeded. The biggest disobedience you find will be people just not saying anything against it.
Unlike this, progressives deal with a lot of infighting because there’s a thousand ways to achieve things and any leadership is constantly scrutinized and criticised.
There’s an inherent speed and organisation advantage to single-point leadership (authoritarianism) Vs the more measured compromise system (democracy).
And then there’s the part where conservatives are the overwhelming majority of rich people, who can dump in the money to organise things. You have to be a garbage human to become filthy rich, and those garbage humans will of course happily work on campaigns to hold progressives back. Progress is the enemy of scum, the past is their friend.
I considered this, and was initially going to describe them more as leaning authoritarian as you (and others) have, but I didn’t think that fit well either. I tend to agree that conservatives are more inclined to authority and fall in line with it, but wouldn’t you say it’s also a wrong assumption that they want everyone else to conform to their way of living? The extremists among them, certainly, but that’s not what I was referring to.
Besides, there have been progressive/leftist movements that adopt a more authoritarian approach, but they’ve also tended to fall and/or get warped into something not really resembling leftist/progressive movements.
Leftist organizations with authoritarian approaches exist, but generally have a way lower impact on the life of the average progressive. They’re usually, with very few exceptions, smaller groupings.
With conservatives there’s always an in-group. other groups get judged by whether they follow the same life rules, even if they’re things the other group can’t change.
They “tolerate” other groups - as long as those other groups do not show up in their life. Begrudgingly a part of them has accepted more diversity, but they’d rather have diversity gone once the opportunity arises.
Any issue that might be big for them is a non-issue until it affects their group. So you better not change anything and do as they do, no matter how impossible it actually is in reality.
There’s no willingness for compromise and changing their ways. It’s their way out the highway unless you force them.
Conservatives always subscribe to a higher moral authority that they say is the way to be. Their individualism just comes down to “I can manage with the rules prescribed, so you have to be able to do the same. I don’t rely on others. You shouldn’t either.”
That’s not individualism. That’s just Stockholm syndrome. They’re clinging onto a weird ‘life sucks, live with it’ “rugged individualism”, which is literally just suffering through life. Because that’s all they’ve been taught, because they weren’t ever allowed to be the nail that sticks out. They had the hammer applied on them when they did and now they do the same to others.
Progressives celebrate sticking out, they want to allow everyone to be their true, authentic self. They get to do something conservatives weren’t allowed to. That makes them angry. And progressives want to change things in innumerable ways - the motivation for it doesn’t matter, can be all good, like preventing more climate catastrophes. each conservative group will have at least something a progressive group is “threatening” to change: trades learned, ownership structures, technology, etc. their spokespeople will rail against these for their various interests (bigotry, narcissism, profits …) And that unites them against the thousands of splinter groups all labelled progressives.