What type of political radicalism is most harmful

[autisticdragonkin]

At the instruction of @Vitriol in this post https://kiwifarms.net/threads/march-21st-jihad-attack-on-brussels.18626/page-11#post-1343748 I started a thread on what type of radical politics is the most oppressive.

I think that from most to least harmful it would be
Social Justice/Trotskyism/Maoism
Radical Islam/Stalinism
Ethnic Ultranationalism

I think that Social Justice is essentially Maoism in a new label which itself was in spirit a continuation of Trotskyism and Leninism. What is shared between all of them is a rejection of fundamental aspects of human society and a desire for quick rapid change. The best examples of such policies were Mao's several revolutions the most famous one being the cultural revolution in which after he was removed from power by the government he created since he was constantly restructuring it he got several university and high school students to organize into Red Guards in order to help him retake power. The Red guards were the SJWs of that time. Social Justice has become even more radical in many ways completely wanting to reject basic aspects human biology such as gender, dominance, and valuing health power and fertility. Mao killed 45 million people under these policies. I would say though that this ideology is more harmful to its adherents than to outsiders

Radical Islam and Stalinism are less dangerous because although they are universalistic they are universalistic with conservative traits and coming from a central hub in which the ideology is closer to ethnic nationalism. In the case of Radical Islam Saudi Arabia uses it to exert imperialistic influence over other countries but in Saudi Arabia it is more of an ethnic identity rather than an ideology. Likewise the same is the case with Stalinism. Because of this imperialistic trait it is never as malignant as Social Justice/Maoism because it still has a fair basis in human biology but it isn't as pure as ethnic nationalism so it does have some radical features in domestic policy such as women not being able to drive. This ideology is most harmful to those outside the imperialistic nation regardless of adherence to the ideology. Stalin killed about 35 million people under these policies

I think that Ethnic Nationalism is the least dangerous form of radicalism because it is fundamentally based around what is healthy for a nation to do rather than around verbally encoded ideas like the other forms of radicalism. Under ethnic nationalism the only thing that matters is what affects the nation. This means that although foreign policy will be blatantly imperialistic it will not strike at locations just because they are not following the ideology because the ideology is only to be followed by members of the nation to begin with. I think that the lack of universalism means that Ethnic nationalism is always self limiting and thus will become benign at some point on its own. It does lead to some problems such as imposing tariffs which can be quite costly to the nation though. Additionally because it is particularistic it has no problem in harming those not included in it and as a result it is most harmful to non adherents. Hitler killed 20 million people through these policies.

@The Knife's Husbando please explain why you believe it to be the opposite

Spoiler: tagging people related to this discussion

@Rin @AN/ALR-56 @Internet War Criminal @Sanic @raymond @Marvin @Male Idiot @AnOminous @Ass Manager 3000 @Gym Leader Elesa

 

[sassyma seed]

I agree with social justice being harmful, but really more the ideas as opposed to the actions. Most of the more radical stuff isn't really something that would be possible.

Kind of like when you see a post talking about how the world would be a better place if men were eradicated from Earth, or their population was severely reduced and controlled. That's a pretty horrifying idea, that some of these people want to kill half the population of the world, but basically impossible.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I agree with social justice being harmful, but really more the ideas as opposed to the actions. Most of the more radical stuff isn't really something that would be possible.

Kind of like when you see a post talking about how the world would be a better place if men were eradicated from Earth, or their population was severely reduced and controlled. That's a pretty horrifying idea, that some of these people want to kill half the population of the world, but basically impossible.

I completely agree with this. The radical stuff wouldn't be possible which is why throughout history there have only been a few cases of the former (khmer rouge, Mao, Zhang Xianzhong). By contrast imperialistic ideology is by far the most common one and likely the one that has had the largest death toll. Nonetheless if there were a civil war between SJWs, Wahabists, and Nationalists I would choose the side of the Nationalists as it is the side least likely to harm its supporters and to a lesser extent others if it is successful (this is a very theoretical thread)

 

[AnOminous]

The kind that is caused by extreme autism and having more philosophy than brains.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

The kind that is caused by extreme autism and having more philosophy than brains.

That is why I favor ethnic nationalism because unlike Communism it is driven by the heart not the brain as I explained with Communism being a manifestation of symbolic culture and Nationalism a rejection thereof

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Shall we just go by body count on which political radicalism is most harmful?

Social Justice Warriors (seperate from social justice proper this is the onling contingent) - Low figures, maybe a handful of suicides that we don't know much of. This is because as ideologies go, it's slacktivism at its very best. They all wind up screaming at each other in their own echo chamber.

Radical Islam - Probably pushing about 1-2.5 million deaths as a direct result of radical Islam, however many other factors come into play due to Western intervention, when we go purely by civillian deaths in the Western world, we're under 5,000 dead as a direct result of Radical Islam.

Troskyism - Largely attached to Lennin and their role with the Red Terror, estimates vary but top out at 1.5 million, Trotsky was featured prominently in anti-Red Terror propaganda at the time and was closely aligned with Lenin until Stalin rose up.

Moaism - The Great Leap Forward (itself watered down Stalinism) killed about 45 million people through ideological purges, poor economic management and other incompetencies.

Stalinism - Excluding wartime dead Stalinism is believed to have claimed anything up to 50 million souls through ideological purges, poor economic management and other incompetencies.

Nationalism - When we hurl all the ultra-nationalist powers under one bus here (Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Japan under the Toseiha movement) lost about 10 million as a direct result of war. When we start factoring in everybody else who was drawn into the conflict and all the horrors it entailed through disease, famine etc it comes out at a staggering 80 million, or 3% of the world's population at the time.

Even if we go with your "isolated" version of nationalism, Saddam Hussein's Iraq killed anything up to half a million people, or about 2.5% of the population of just Iraq.

There's a reason a lot of the Liberal West goes about moralizing against these people, they have a tendancy of a nasty streak underneath that slaughters people without so much of a second's thought.

 

[JU 199]

Communist Russia was a brutal place to live in.

 

[Derbydollar]

The kind that relieves people from the option of doing a different kind of good than it's own.
That would pretty much be all radicals though, I suppose...

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

 

[The 25th Cyberman]

All of them.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

All of them.

Are you saying that all types are equally harmful or just saying all types are harmful. Nobody is disputing that all types are harmful

 

[The 25th Cyberman]

Are you saying that all types are equally harmful or just saying all types are harmful. Nobody is disputing that all types are harmful

The former.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

The former.

Does this mean that there is no difference at all between different forms of political radicalism or just that they are all very similar

 

[The 25th Cyberman]

Does this mean that there is no difference at all between different forms of political radicalism or just that they are all very similar

Neither of those things. I am saying that given the opportunity, all radical politics would lead to horrible outcomes, regardless of their similarities to one another (or not).

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Neither of those things. I am saying that given the opportunity, all radical politics would lead to horrible outcomes, regardless of their similarities to one another (or not).

That is not the purpose of this thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the differences of the outcomes rather than that the outcomes are bad (read the OP)

 

[Feline Darkmage]

The differences in the outcomes would WHO gets the brunt of the radicalists terrorism. The body counts for Fascism/Nazism (linking these together because of their alliance, though there are noticeable differences), The Various forms of Communism, and Radical Islam by this point are all in the millions.

Your analysis on SJWism being Maoism reminded me of something interesting I found on one of my favorite lolcows youtube channels

So on that tangent I'd like to ask, if the Maoist is against the Social Justice Warrior, why is this so? Has Unruhe made a misunderstanding? (Honestly he probably has, because he's a potato moron, but that is to be talked about elsewhere) What do you think?

The SJWs don't have much of a body count at all in their name. The closest I can think of would be incidents like Vade's ex-boyfriends suicide. Contrast that with Ethnic Ultranationalists like Dylan Roof and The Sikh Temple Shooter, the Jewish Center Shooting in Kansas and the modern 'Nazi' movement as it would be has a few dozen murders chalked up to it.

But back to who would be 'purged' as undesirable by the radicals if they gained any power.
SJWs: Straights people, Cis People, White People, "the Privileged"
Trotskyists: Political Dissidents, the upper classes
Maoists: Dissidents (ex the Chinese Nationalists now exiled to Taiwan)
Stalinists: See above
Fascism: Communists, Socialists, Liberals (ie Dissidents)
Nazism: Jews, LGBT people, and in modern times Muslims and Sikhs (who get mistaken as Muslims)
Radical Islam: Jews, "Crusaders", LGBT people, women, and with Daesh they also target Yazidis and any cultural landmark considered "Un-Islamic"

I could see SJWs mutating into something dangerous if they keep going on the route they seem to be on, but as of right now they are just people to laugh at and mock. Communism has no traction in anywhere but Cuba and North Korea anymore, and even then NK is more akin to Ethnic Nationalism at this point, so the Commies aren't a problem currently.

That leaves the Ultranationalists and the Islamists, who I'd say are more threatening than the other groups due to their uptick in their assaults and murders. But by the current numbers Islamists top Ultranationalists as the most harmful in casualties and destruction.

Edit to Add my ranks, most to least
Islamists --> Ethnic UltraNationalists --> SJWs (increasing in power) --> Any flavor of Commie (waning in power)

 

[DirkBloodStormKing]

The differences in the outcomes would WHO gets the brunt of the radicalists terrorism. The body counts for Fascism/Nazism (linking these together because of their alliance, though there are noticeable differences), The Various forms of Communism, and Radical Islam by this point are all in the millions.

Your analysis on SJWism being Maoism reminded me of something interesting I found on one of my favorite lolcows youtube channels

So on that tangent I'd like to ask, if the Maoist is against the Social Justice Warrior, why is this so? Has Unruhe made a misunderstanding? (Honestly he probably has, because he's a potato moron, but that is to be talked about elsewhere) What do you think?

The SJWs don't have much of a body count at all in their name. The closest I can think of would be incidents like Vade's ex-boyfriends suicide. Contrast that with Ethnic Ultranationalists like Dylan Roof and The Sikh Temple Shooter, the Jewish Center Shooting in Kansas and the modern 'Nazi' movement as it would be has a few dozen murders chalked up to it.

But back to who would be 'purged' as undesirable by the radicals if they gained any power.
SJWs: Straights people, Cis People, White People, "the Privileged"
Trotskyists: Political Dissidents, the upper classes
Maoists: Dissidents (ex the Chinese Nationalists now exiled to Taiwan)
Stalinists: See above
Fascism: Communists, Socialists, Liberals (ie Dissidents)
Nazism: Jews, LGBT people, and in modern times Muslims and Sikhs (who get mistaken as Muslims)
Radical Islam: Jews, "Crusaders", LGBT people, women, and with Daesh they also target Yazidis and any cultural landmark considered "Un-Islamic"

I could see SJWs mutating into something dangerous if they keep going on the route they seem to be on, but as of right now they are just people to laugh at and mock. Communism has no traction in anywhere but Cuba and North Korea anymore, and even then NK is more akin to Ethnic Nationalism at this point, so the Commies aren't a problem currently.

That leaves the Ultranationalists and the Islamists, who I'd say are more threatening than the other groups due to their uptick in their assaults and murders. But by the current numbers Islamists top Ultranationalists as the most harmful in casualties and destruction.

Edit to Add my ranks, most to least
Islamists --> Ethnic UltraNationalists --> SJWs (increasing in power) --> Any flavor of Commie (waning in power)

SJWs I would also add in that they are pretty anti-Semitic for the most part as well, especially since they are stauchly pro-Palestine and hate Israel, call Jews "priviledged", and are highly apologetic towards radical Islam. SJWs also tend to despise Conservatives/Republicans, men, and libertarians too in my experience.

 

[Splendid]

@Ponderous Pillock you genuninely think that fascists killed more people than communists in the 20th century. How cute.
Ignoring the fact that communist regimes always, always deteriorate into fascist ones, you include the deaths caused by WWII in your death count for the fascists, but not the communists.

Look up the molotov-ribbentrop pact. Essentially, both the Nazis and the Soviets planned to invade each other. It was only a question of when and who moved first. The USSR is hardly blameless in WWII, they didn't want peace at all.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

@Ponderous Pillock you genuninely think that fascists killed more people than communists in the 20th century. How cute.
Ignoring the fact that communist regimes always, always deteriorate into fascist ones, you include the deaths caused by WWII in your death count for the fascists, but not the communists.

Look up the molotov-ribbentrop pact. Essentially, both the Nazis and the Soviets planned to invade each other. It was only a question of when and who moved first. The USSR is hardly blameless in WWII, they didn't want peace at all.

Alright. I'll bite:

Japanese: 10 million civilian deaths (Across all of South East Asia)
Germans: 16 million civillian deaths (Holocaust and mass murder)
Italy: 803,200 (Conquest of Ethiopia and other deaths attributable to the Italians)

GRAND TOTAL: 26,803,200

That being said. The Communists in China and the Soviet Union did not start the second world war.

This was done by the German invasion of Poland, The USSR benefited from this arrangement (albeit very temporarily before going on to lose 24-26 million as a direct result of the war). These states above were also the only states to enact overtly brutal ethic cleansing policies and mechanized death camps. There was a level of planning to it that is frankly terrifying, unlike the other regimes (which were invaded by one power or another)

These assholes got the war dead thrown in due to the enormous disruption they brought to the entire planet as opposed to the commies, who spent most of their time stabbing themselves in the gut over and over and wondered why they were bleeding so much.

 

[Splendid]

But the Soviet Union planned to start the second world war, Germany just beat them to it. Given that knowledge, it seems rather arbitrary that Germany gets their war casualties thrown in and the USSR doesn't.

 

[norrington]

It's any ideology that creates a dichotomous "us vs. them" camp of thinking. I don't think you can equate Social Justice to Maoism because there's no economic philosophy behind it (unless you're getting into the whole notion that people deserve welfare, which is more straight up socialist ideology than being anything to do with Social Justice). But maybe I'm not getting what you mean by Social Justice. I assume you're referring to the type embodied by SJWs, but I don't see them as that harmful or prone to dangerous, violent radicalism.

As far as which radical ideologies have the greatest potential for sweeping up large numbers of average people and making a massive movement and creating global-scale problems, a la Nazism, it has to do with a system that aligns popular conceptions of morality along the lines of obedience and disobedience. If you create a society that thinks of obedience as a moral obligation, extremist politics are bound to be the most popular brand name out there during times of perceived trouble.

But the Soviet Union planned to start the second world war, Germany just beat them to it. Given that knowledge, it seems rather arbitrary that Germany gets their war casualties thrown in and the USSR doesn't.

USSR was a strange hybrid of survivalist-imperialist, same as Putin is today. Their rhetoric about inciting the global revolution and all that was mostly rhetoric. You can say that they planned to start a world war in that sense, given their actions in Spain and other potential communist uprising areas, but the idea behind it isn't much different from the US's intent to spread democracy wherever possible today. That said, Stalin was a totalitarian dickface and 100% absolutely wanted as much power as possible, but he wasn't stupid enough to think the USSR could handle actual imperial conquest of Europe (beyond Russia's usual targets, i.e. Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic and Black Sea coasts, etc). Hitler wanted all out Napoleonic/Alexander the Great-esque Imperial conquest. Russia was never going to be as much of a threat as Germany (at least pre-nuclear era). They had too many concerns on the interior to worry about taking over France and Italy and Germany and Britain and the US and whoever the fuck else.

TL;DR - you're not wrong, necessarily, but that doesn't mean that if somehow Germany hadn't kicked off WWII, the Russians would have done it soon enough.