“A crude form of communism often arises naturally in tribal context, and can be seen in many native cultures around the world, with a sharing of resources, and a concern for each other, even the weakest. These societies are not built around trade, even if it is part of it, and often lives in chime with nature. A strong sense of honour and decency often permeats such small societies, but there is also a strict perception of what is allowed behaviour, as change can equal threat, meaning a certain conservatism is seen as vital. However, adapting such communism to large scale societies is problematic, as the scale of things do not fit, at the same time as it gives enough room for exploitation, from above or below.
Neither does it work well with free enterprise and business, and will certainly be fought against by the same established controlling forces, thus requiring violent revolution to be implemented, and a new, strict authoritarian government in order to be maintained. So, the knight finally turns into a dragon.

Contrarily, the often perceived as polar opposite of fascism, fits quite well with commerce, as it commonly does not affect it in any negative way. Quite the opposite, it gives it more free reigns to handle its resources, i.e. people and nature. At the same time, it too also inevitably evolves into an authoritarian society that does not care for its weak, stripping away rights and benefits from minorities and the lower stratas of society. Here too, honour and decency is regarded as important, but seemingly more commonly used to judge others by, especially those perceived as below oneself.

“While there are people who exaggerate the number of fascists and racists and who see them where there aren’t any, the number of those people is also greatly exaggerated, and used to claim that the odd example is significant for the majority.

This also doesn’t mean there aren’t quite a few people with fascist and racist views who aren’t fully avowed and self-identified fascists. They don’t need to be though, for the buiilding of a fascist society. They just need to be compliant, while others build it.”

“When someone uses ‘good taste’ as a class mark of their own superiority, then it is instantly stripped of both values, no longer being actual taste, nor a marker of ‘class’, outside of real or desired social class, that is, and just becomes an extension of politics and ego. The popular perception of ‘good taste’ is very easy to fulfill. It is just a question of money and willingness to conform. And, as it is predefined by others, it lacks soul and is nothing but a mark of submission. Truly good taste is individual, independent, unique and has little concern for the opinions of others, and through this becomes rich in soul and value. And it takes conscious effort, as it can’t develop without commitment and emotion. This is true for art, music, literature, movies, fashion and all such forms of culture. And it has has made our culture rich, spurring its growth. Still, the requirement for, and association with wealth commonly causes a confusion of ‘good taste’ with wealth itself, thus also consolidating the politics and ego too. Or to put it all more simply: Good taste can only come from inside, built brick by brick, not bought whole from someone else.

This, however, does not mean to suggest that appreciating classical culture in whatever form is a sign of lacking taste, commitment or emotion, quite the contrary. But neither does it separate it from appreciation of any other form of culture.”

“Differences of national character and patriotic sentiment were not the most fundamental distinctions between men at this time. Although in each nation a common tradition or cultural environment imposed a certain uniformity on all its members, yet in each nation every mental type of character was present, though in different proportions. The most significant of all cultural differences between men, namely, the difference between the tribalists and the cosmopolitans, traversed the national boundaries. For throughout the world something like a new, cosmopolitan ‘nation’ with a new all-embracing patriotism was beginning to appear. In every land there was by now a salting of awakened minds who, whatever their temperament and politics of formal faith, were at one in respect of their allegiance to the humanity as a race or as an adventuring spirit.

Unfortunately this new loyalty was still entangled with old prejudices. In some minds the defence of the human spirit was sincerely identified with the defence of a particular nation, conceived as the home of all enlightenment. In others, social injustice kindled a militant proletarian loyalty, which though at heart cosmopolitan, infected alike its champions and its enemies with sectarian passions.”

– Olaf Stapledon, Last and First Men, 1930