What went wrong with communism?

[Ecurb]

True, but I would parse "extreme" and "mainstream". History is littered with societies that embraced extremism en masse.

In today's political landscape, the situation is as I described above.

Of course. That's why I wanted to get a definition of "extremism". Naturally, if we think any ideology that excuses or embraces atrocities is "extremist", then it is true, but trivial and redundant, that atrocities are excused by extreme ideologies.

[Sy Borg]

True, but I would parse "extreme" and "mainstream". History is littered with societies that embraced extremism en masse.

In today's political landscape, the situation is as I described above.

Of course. That's why I wanted to get a definition of "extremism". Naturally, if we think any ideology that excuses or embraces atrocities is "extremist", then it is true, but trivial and redundant, that atrocities are excused by extreme ideologies.

Atrocities are also accepted in extreme circumstances. It's the overreaction, the need for a clean sweep, not because things aren't working, but they don't like it.

Consider complaints about the "liberal world order". The last five decades have perhaps been the best in history. Certainly better than the first half of the 20th century, and the 19th century was awful, especially the first half and before, before the advent of general anaesthetic for surgery.

Stagnation has clearly worked its way into the political and economic systems, but the desire to completely dismantle these systems with violence (and no cogent plan) is an extreme response. The issue is ultimately that communism, being an extreme ideology, creates extreme inequality, with little regards for the quasi-utilitarian outcomes that the west, well, quasi values.

[Pattern-chaser]

Since Communism, Catholicism and Islam are (or have been) mainstream ideologies, they are (or were) not "extreme". Yet they have been used to justify atrocities. Hmmmm. Either you are using "extreme ideology" in a non-standard manner, or you are incorrect about what ideologies justify atrocities.

Perhaps my answer is in the part of my post that you didn't quote:

In practice, in the real world, extremists often follow an extreme interpretation of an ideology that is not usually as extreme as their version of it.

The problem, as ever in these matters, is the humans. It almost doesn't matter what their chosen ideologies teach, as they come up with interpretations that suit their extreme aspirations. It's hard to place the blame anywhere else when there are humans involved.

[Pattern-chaser]

Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Their equivalents are the fundamentalist political wings of Catholicism and Islam.

The Inquisition and Witch Trials were sanctioned by the mainstream Churches (Witch Trials by both Catholics and Protestants) -- not some fundamentalist wing of it. They were standard practice.

The Catholics and Protestants were, in effect, at war with one another, and seeking for reasons to harm one another. Being humans, they had no difficulties with this, and were really quite successful. The humans wanted war, so their spiritual counsellors/clerics found 'justification' for their extreme intentions. At that time, these ideologies were led, by their human leaders, into a more extreme outlook.

Humans don't need to be tempted into extreme behaviour. Dogs bark; cats meow; humans maim, torture and kill, and love doing it.

[Gregory A]

By the way, my claim in the discussion -- that atrocities are often justified by utopian philosophies -- may be right, or it may be wrong. But at least it is intelligible. Utopian ideologies (unlike "extreme ideologies") are a subset of ideologies. Someone could point out atrocities justified by non-utopian ideologies (examples doubtless abound), or ask me to point to those justified by utopian ideals (which anyone conversant with second-grade history could identify). Would it be possible to falsify a claim that atrocities are justified with "extreme ideologies"? Gee, one might think, any ideology that justifies an atrocity qualifies as "extreme"! But where does the sentience get us?

Since you ask (OK, since I asked): "Absolutely nowhere."

Recognising extremism is critical to a society hoping to avoid it. Case in point: the US. The right has become extreme. Consider, what party or group is further to the right of the political spectrum than the Republican Party in 2022? Can you think of any, aside from the man with the toothbrush moustache?

Extremism as a term perhaps not more clear than "tallness", but that lack of clarity does not mean tallness does not exist.

Clearly utopian ideals and atrocities are related. However, the issue is extremism, not the ideals; enthusiasm for committing atrocities to achieve those ideals. The problem with communism and fascism comes under the heading of Voltaire's, "The best is the enemy of the good". In refusing to tolerate the inevitable flaws of their preferred system they refuse to tolerate reality.

For a time they can enforce their own reality, as Putin has enforced in Russia with extreme censorship and daily propaganda, but their edifices, like those their "enemies", break down like every other system.

The USA has always been polarised by extremes. The Right there only stands out more now due to society's shift to the Left worldwide. This effect like the recession of the shoreline before a tsunami exposes the Right more than its actual representation suggests. Conservatism is in its death-throes, the Left set to be an all-conquering monster. Communism itself has never really existed at least in any sustainable way due to its inherently flawed constitution.

Conservatism is being partially killed by the right. Many call themselves conservatives but they have no interest in conserving anything, including the natural environment, just radical change in almost all areas.

It is also being killed by the inevitable decay of fiat currency. Fiat currency is great for fast development but history shows that it always breaks down. As the financial system erodes, ordinary people struggle. Once people feel they have nothing to lose, they become radicalised, primed for revolution.

The irony is that revolution nowadays almost always ends up with ever more harsh controls. It's hard to think of a revolution in the last hundred years that resulted in more freedom for anyone.

Conservatism comes about by the transfer of values from one generation to the next, religion as an example thousands of years old. But as we are all born naked, symbolic of our primeval nature, the present absence of those carry-over values then leaves primitives, subject to a primal, emotional nature. This combined with soft lifestyles leading to further rejection of the harshness existing conservative values represent. Add to that the natural attrition of an older wiser generation conservative by default mostly. Leaves us descending into an age of emotionally with its naive simplistic responses. For example women and children dying in Ukraine makes Putin a bad guy in most people's eyes. The reality is that in every war there are innocent victims. We're letting emotion decide politics and its a big mistake. If Putin is defeated, an inevitability in time, then the world loses more ground to the Left.

Conservationists although well-meaning in their concerns for the environment still use it to further their leftist goals, abortion, the destruction of life ironically one of these.

Money could be better stabilized. It might be that the governments could own a percentage of products, produce and commodities, allowing better stability of currencies. It could be used as a price control thing as well to keep the lid on inflation maybe. But that would be rejected as being a little bit too much like socialism for many.

Lenin didn't have it easy bringing about revolution as you are aware he was not even in Russia and had given up on the idea of it happening in his lifetime that's when suddenly it just happened. Nothing goes to plan maybe because restructuring, which is what he was doing, like construction, needs to be difficult as a rule.

[Pattern-chaser]

If Putin is defeated, an inevitability in time, then the world loses more ground to the Left.

Well, at least you aren't trying to characterise Putin as 'left-wing'. Thank the Gods for small mercies!

[Gregory A]

If Putin is defeated, an inevitability in time, then the world loses more ground to the Left.

Well, at least you aren't trying to characterise Putin as 'left-wing'. Thank the Gods for small mercies!

Russia has never had a left-wing government. The Czar would have been more to the left than Lenin. Communism started out with left-wing ideals but abandoned them pretty quickly out of necessity. Trying to culture a soft outlook in such a hard world would be very difficult anyhow. The Mensheviks were the soft guys, the same role occupied by intellectuals then as today. People who don't have a chance up against an enduring harsh reality still.

You really underestimate my understandings. I trace the concept of Left and Right back to our chromosomes, the 'X' and the 'Y". The matriarchal Left vs the Patriarchal 'Y'. It's why I believe feminism will win, comparisons between it and communism obvious. The Stalin of the future someone yet unknown, herself unknowing of her future. Determinism in action deciding that future.

[Ecurb]

Humans don't need to be tempted into extreme behaviour. Dogs bark; cats meow; humans maim, torture and kill, and love doing it.

In that case, barking is not "extreme", meowing is not "extreme" and maiming, killing and torturing are not "extreme" -- using the standard meaining of the word. Why you can't understand this is "extremely" odd.

[Sy Borg]

Gregory, you can't have it both ways. Either Russia is a communist state that represents what you believe to be the takeover of the world by feminine forces of the left, or Russia is a communist state whose authoritarianism and reactionary approach perfectly illustrates how the extreme left and the extreme right are basically the same authoritarians with superficially different reasoning. It also suggests that Communism is no longer left-wing as per American definitions, being socially controlling rather than liberal, and having strong capitalist elements that are opposite to Marx's ideas.

Note that there are no philosophical manifestos advocating the creation of oligarchic capitalist states that echo the arrangements of royalty and feudal lords. The reason? Because it happens naturally, if left unchecked by neglectful governments. That tendency for all societies to develop strict class differences between haves and have-nots with very little middle class is the entire reason for political philosophy - to find ways of avoiding oligarchic authoritarianism. Now it seems 70 million Americans want that very nightmare for themselves, although they won't realise that authoritarianism is a nightmare until it's too late. All they will find is that the middle class will diminish even faster than it is.

[Gregory A]

Gregory, you can't have it both ways. Either Russia is a communist state that represents what you believe to be the takeover of the world by feminine forces of the left, or Russia is a communist state whose authoritarianism and reactionary approach perfectly illustrates how the extreme left and the extreme right are basically the same authoritarians with superficially different reasoning. It also suggests that Communism is no longer left-wing as per American definitions, being socially controlling rather than liberal, and having strong capitalist elements that are opposite to Marx's ideas.

No I can't have it both ways. So you are right with what you are saying. But, and it is that what I've said has been lost to my poor wordskills. So, to clarify: Marxism was soft and so, on the left. Lenin and his Bolsheviks on the other hand were hard, their silencing of the Mensheviks and getting rid of Kerensky's Provisional government evidence of that.

The comparison with feminism is that communism used the plight of the workers as a cause, and likewise feminists use the plight of women as a cause. Communists were academic types, rather than workers. Feminists are academic types, no disgruntled housewives among them.

Lenin had not as much as an inkling revolution was about to happen, when it did. Feminism too has not an inkling that within ten years it will be in control of most of the world. Unlike the Bolsheviks, prominent feminists are not anywhere close to power and never will be. There may be politically prominent women who are feminists, but not the other way round. No prominent feminists who are in politics.

Note that there are no philosophical manifestos advocating the creation of oligarchic capitalist states that echo the arrangements of royalty and feudal lords. The reason? Because it happens naturally, if left unchecked by neglectful governments. That tendency for all societies to develop strict class differences between haves and have-nots with very little middle class is the entire reason for political philosophy - to find ways of avoiding oligarchic authoritarianism. Now it seems 70 million Americans want that very nightmare for themselves, although they won't realise that authoritarianism is a nightmare until it's too late. All they will find is that the middle class will diminish even faster than it is.

It is human nature to want a figurehead a king or a queen to look up to. Politicians can't fill this role as they need to be inherently dishonest to get into and then remain in government. The tendency for society to stratify into three different social layers is a natural outcome of there being a working class, a middle class and a Business Class. Workers and business classes subject to the survival of the fittest mechanism are more conservative. The British Labour party was once more conservative in its outlook for example (the along came Harold 'Bloody' Wilson). That's right, Alf Garnett, you will remember was a conservative.

[Sy Borg]

Ultimately, the notions of left/right, conservative/progressive, moderate/radical have been blended.

With the rise of Russia and China, and the US's likely fate as a far right authoritarian single party state, a democracy in name only, I fail to see what you are worried about. If I held your views I'd have the bubbly on hand. Your preferred world is coming to pass. Women and queer people seem destined to lose most of their gains in the last century - a century of unprecedented prosperity up until the Iraq invasion.

[Pattern-chaser]

Humans don't need to be tempted into extreme behaviour. Dogs bark; cats meow; humans maim, torture and kill, and love doing it.

In that case, barking is not "extreme", meowing is not "extreme" and maiming, killing and torturing are not "extreme" -- using the standard meaining of the word. Why you can't understand this is "extremely" odd.

That's the point: dog and cat behaviour is not "extreme", while humans do behave (as described above) in a manner that many people would consider extreme.

[Good_Egg]

Most of us manage to get through the day without maiming, torturing, or killing anyone. Despite all temptation.

And I suspect that a majority of those who do, somehow do it by accident. Lack of attention while driving, not realising that the gun was loaded, etc.

Do you consider that those who do deliberately maim, torture or kill are somehow abnormal people ?

Or are they just ordinarily-weak people in the grip of an ends-justify-means ideology ?

[Pattern-chaser]

You're taking an individual perspective, but I think perhaps a crowd-mentality approach will reap better rewards? It's not quite that simple, of course, but to a first approximation, I think it works.

Also, I think it's "ordinarily-weak people in the grip of an ends-justify-means ideology", acting as part of a crowd. And here I mean "crowd" in a general sense, that could include an army, and other varieties of crowds too. Also, the situation - the context in which the crowd acts - is a very strong influence, pushing toward extreme behaviour. Armies are often inflamed with passion, nationalistic or otherwise, before their basically-decent members are willing, en masse, to behave 'extremely'.

[Gregory A]

Ultimately, the notions of left/right, conservative/progressive, moderate/radical have been blended.

XX X vs Y is the situation and the only actual operators

With the rise of Russia and China, and the US's likely fate as a far right authoritarian single party state, a democracy in name only, I fail to see what you are worried about. If I held your views I'd have the bubbly on hand. Your preferred world is coming to pass. Women and queer people seem destined to lose most of their gains in the last century - a century of unprecedented prosperity up until the Iraq invasion.

Russia and China are both in decline politically. And the US's fate is to probably never have a conservative leader ever again. Feminism has at least a 50/50 chance of directly leading the USA in the next ten years, Kamala Harris set to take over if Biden can't go on for what ever reason. Communism is effectively dead.