I don’t think liberalism “assumes” “self-actualization” but it’s a good point anyway. I think we do expect people to not be racist, sexist, and arrogantly stupid, but if that’s “self-actualization” then, yeah.
I know the hierarchy of needs, and the other words. I am having issues understanding the total enough to gauge its correctness.
It seems well intentioned, but wrong.
I’m not certain what the external OP meant by liberalism. If they meant leftism I think it might be accurate to say that:
Leftist movements promise everything in the hierarchy, but depend on working class solidarity which (I think) is a form of transcendence. Leftist movements blame societal safety and physiological shortcomings on amorphous policies and power structures.
Whereas: fascist movements promise esteem (through the glory of the state), belonging and love (through participation in the movement), and blame safety and physiological inadequacy on ‘outsiders’ and political opponents.
I’m having trouble articulating how promising esteem through the glory of the state isn’t a form of transcendence. I think it’s because it’s something that’s promised, ie “elect me and you can be a proud aryan again” is different from “elect me because you care about the working class”.
The former is “you get something for voting for me”. The latter is “if you’ve achieved transcendence you should support lifting others up”.
But this all based on my uninformed understanding of Maslow and political ideologies.
Fascism offers transcendence by heroic death on the field of battle.
It also tends to integrate itself into religion or co-opt it. There was an evening prayer to Hitler spoken by children during Nazi Germany after all.
It also has lots of romantic and mythical ideas like reverence of a mystical glorious past. Promises to bring back that supposedly great past is typical for fascism as well.
This is hilarious. , thanks.
Fascism also claims the bottom three aren’t met, by shaking you and going “immigrants wanna steal your penis!!!”