June 26, 2025 • 53 mins
In the The King Is Dead, Now What? we're exploring the history of the left / right political spectrum and the 250 year struggle for democracy.
In Part 1 we started telling the story that began with the French Revolution of 1789, when those in favor of monarchy sat on the right wing of the national assembly room and those in favor of revolution sat on the left wing.
In the wake of the 1848 revolutions, the struggle between left and right gave rise to three major political ideologies—conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism—each offering a distinct vision for society. These competing forces would ignite a global struggle for power.
In this episode, we trace the ongoing clash between these ideologies, imagining them as bickering gods, each vying for control of the human realm. From the Russian Revolution and the collapse of monarchies after World War I to the rise of fascism, the global conflict of World War II, the Cold War standoff between the U.S. and Soviet Union, and the global youth protests of 1968, we explore how these powerful ideas collided, evolved, and continue to shape the struggle for power, equality, and freedom.
If you’d like to support Human Nature Odyssey, please subscribe wherever you enjoy your podcasts, leave us a review, and visit humannatureodyssey.com.
Join us on Patreon and get exclusive access to audio extras, writings, and notes.
Articles
Narewska, Elli. “Tsar Nicholas II Abdicates.” The Guardian, March 3, 2017.
Hoffmann, David L. "The October Revolution in Russia" Ohio State University Origins, 2017
“The Paris Riots of 1968, Part 1.” CBC Radio, April 24, 2018.
Keats, Jonathon. “Design of Dissent.” Forbes, October 28, 2019.
Baker, Peter. “CIA Helped Arrest Mandela.” Time, February 2023.
Statista. 2022. “Second World War: Share of Total Population Loss.”
BBC Bitesize. “The Vietnam War: Casualty Statistics.”
U.S. National Archives. “Vietnam War Casualty Statistics.”
ECPAT International. “How Many Vietnamese Died in the Vietnam War.”
Horner, Sam. “The Birth of the Soviet Union and the Death of the Russian Revolution.” JSTOR Daily, 2021.
YouTube
“Days That Shook The World: Russia's Two Revolutions of 1917” Epic History. Mar 8, 2022
Films
Jojo Rabbit. 2019. Directed by Taika Waititi.
Music: Celestial Soda Pop
By: Ray Lynch
From the album: Deep Breakfast
Courtesy Ray Lynch Productions © Ⓟ 1984/BMI
All rights reserved.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Previously on Human Nature Odyssey.
Since the fall of the Roman Empire,
most of Europe had been a land of kings.
But in July of 1789, a mob stormedthe Bastille.
Peasantsburned their official feudal contracts,
and thousands of Parisian womenarmed themselves with muskets
and pitchforksand marched on the Palace of Versailles.
(00:23):
France was now in the throesof a full on revolution.
When the revolution was firstbreaking out.
A national assembly was assembled.
Those for the revolution found themselvessitting on the left wing of the room.
And those for monarchysettled down on the right.
And that is where we get the termsleft wing and right wing.
(00:47):
The 1820s became the 1830s.
The 1830s became the 1840s.
You know, decades to the 1840s in Europestarted to be called the Hungry 40s.
Widespread famine was followedby a continent wide recession.
In 1848,Alexis de Tocqueville spoke before
his colleagues of the legislatureand issued a grave warning.
(01:09):
This,gentlemen, is my profound conviction.
I believe that we are at thismoment sleeping on a volcano.
Revolts broke out in Hungary.
There was a revolution in Prague,then Romania.
My heart was beating so hard.
I thought it was going to blow a holein my chest.
(01:31):
There were more revolts in Denmarkthan Poland.
By the end of the spring 1848,
most of Europe had erupted in revolution.
But when all was said and done,almost none of the attempts
to establish democratic republicswithstood the counter revolutions.
What began as a conversation in France'sNational Assembly
(01:53):
between a liberal leftand right wing, now raged across Europe.
And before long, the rest of the world,
as kings were the throne and Europe'sformer colonies gained independence.
People around the worldfaced the question.
The king is dead.
Now what?
(02:22):
Welcome to human nature, Odyssey.
In this three part series, we'reexploring the history of the left right
political spectrumand the 250 year struggle for democracy.
This is part two. I'm Alex Smith.
(02:51):
History is a relay race.
The past handsthe baton down to the next generation.
That's us.
We receive this batonwithout always knowing.
Or the previous hands it passed through.
But now it's up to us to run the race.
We may veer off into territoryour predecessors couldn't have predicted
(03:14):
nor intended.
We may even forgetwhy the race began in the first place.
What are we running from?
Where are we running to?
In the last episode, the king is dead.
Now what? Part one.
We started telling the storyof a historical relay race
that beganwith the French Revolution of 1789,
(03:35):
when those in favor of monarchysat on the physical right
wing of the National Assembly room,
and those in favor of revolutionsat on the left wing,
and the French
Revolution cut all of Europe's attention.
Some were shocked, some appalled,and some inspired
sociologist Emmanuel Wallerstein,whose ideas we've been riffing off of
(03:59):
for the last coupleepisodes, tells us that in response
to the French Revolution,three major political ideologies emerged.
Conservatism, liberalism and radicalism.
Conservatism,rooted in traditional values,
social hierarchy, and strong authority,agreed
(04:21):
with those who sat on the rightwing of the French National Assembly room.
The king should be in charge,and that stability
and order was better than sudden change.
Historically,this is known as right wing conservatism.
Then there's radicalism.
The ideology most alignedwith those who sat on the left wing,
(04:42):
who wanted direct democracy and socialand economic equality,
even if it meant completelyrestructuring society.
And as we mentioned in the last episode,
the word radicalismcan be a little confusing.
These days, it's oftenused to mean extremism.
But in this historical context,radicalism does not mean extremism.
(05:03):
I mean, every ideologyhas got its moderate and extreme versions.
The word radical comesfrom Latin radicals, which means root,
because these original radicalswanted root level changes.
So we can think of radicalismas its own ideology, and we'll use
the word radicalism to representwhat became known as the left wing.
(05:27):
So there's right wing conservatismand left wing radicalism.
And then there's liberalism.
Liberalismpreferred representative government
or at least constitutional limitson the monarchy.
And from Europe.
These three ideologieswould spread across the entire world,
evolving as the baton was passed downto the next generation of runners.
(05:51):
This is a relay race.
We're still running today.
Even if we don't know its full history.
And sociologist Immanuel Wallersteinthought that we could better
navigate our present momentby understanding this history.
So, inspiredby some of Emmanuel Stein's ideas
and a lot of my own research,commentary and analysis,
(06:12):
today we are going to tell parttwo of this three part story.
So let's put on ourrunning shoes and we're off.
(06:33):
After Europe's
1848 revolutions, rightwing conservatives were relieved
that most of the continent'smonarchies had once again regained power.
Liberalism tried its best to workwithin the monarchies,
pushing for constitutional limitsand individual freedoms.
But left wing radicalismhad been absolutely
(06:55):
crushedas the revolutions were suppressed.
Many who survived the executionsof their peers went underground
or fled into exile,where they continued to organize.
Karl Marx's CommunistManifesto became more and more popular,
but the real focus of our storyis not going to be on individual people,
(07:17):
but the three ideologies as a whole.
Maybe a helpful way to understandthese ideologies
is to think of them as sort of like Greekgods.
These larger than lifeforces that come down to earth
to help or harmus, sometimes a little of both.
(07:37):
We can
imagine the conversationthese gods might have had looking down
on us,as the events of the world of humans
played out.
What do you know?
The revolutions ended in total disasteryet again.
(07:59):
Clearly, the masses can't be trustedto make wise decisions.
This was conservatismas argument in the mid 1850s.
The ideology that emerged from the FrenchNational Assembly's right wing,
the right wing was right.
Monarchy is the ideal form of government.
The king should be the one to rule.
(08:19):
A clear, just and moralhierarchy gets things done the right way.
Voting all this nonsensejust slows things down.
All this chaos is dangerous.
We need someone at the topwho will take care of everything.
That's how we've always done.
There's a reason why traditions have beenthe way they've been.
(08:42):
It's best not to change.
We need law and order.
Then the God of liberalism button.
Okay, I hear that.
But if the king gets to makewhatever decrees they want and doesn't
even have to follow them himself,that's not law and order.
That's tyranny.
That's why I believewe need a constitution, a set of laws
(09:05):
that we all follow.
We'll make it very clearthis is what's allowed.
This is what's not.
And these rules willapply to everyone equally.
Excuse me.
Yes. I'd like to knowwho will be writing these laws.
That's the God of radicalismasking that question.
Here's the liberalism's answer.
What? Landowning white men, of course.
(09:26):
Oh, landowning white men.
I see. Well, yes.
If you're not independently wealthy,your vote could be corrupted.
Then conservatism cuts in and triesto restore over the order.
Okay, okay.
Thank youboth for your unsolicited feedback,
but I'm pretty sureI've got everything under control.
Thank you very much.
(09:47):
Look, conservatism.
I want order, too.
But you've got to admit,there are some problems with the system.
That's why there's so much unrest.
Listen, I agree the revolutionsgot completely out of hand.
But don't you thinkthe best way to avoid revolution
is reforming some of the obvious issues?
I hate to say it, but the king isn'talways the most moral and just.
(10:11):
The King needs a constitutionwith checks and balances.
Maybe the people in charge shouldn't be determined by bloodlines,
but by skill and merit.
I really think we can build a systemthat allows
for gradual, positive change over time.
Whoa whoa whoa.
Gradual change.
(10:32):
This is radicalism talking again.
You think those despots are goingto give up that easily?
After all the bloodthey've shed for power.
These kings are monstrous.
They don't care about the people. Sure.
Once in a million, you'll get a king.
Who cares?
But that's not what usually happens.
We need to figure out a totally new wayto structure society.
(10:53):
Because this is not working.
Look at the centuries of povertyand oppression.
You're reforms and gradual changewon't be enough.
You can't work within a systemthat's broken.
We need a societal overhaul.
Just like those people sitting on the leftwing of the National Assembly room, said
the only way forward is revolution.
(11:15):
Classic radicalism.
But let's hereradicalism out for a second.
The goal of radical revolutionisn't chaos.
It's equality.
For too long, society has been stratifiedby the very rich and the very poor.
The haves and the have nots.
While the king lives in his fancy palace.
(11:36):
Peasants are born and die in the street.
It's the inequality that's the problem.
No! You moron!
Inequality is not a bug. It's a feature.
Back to the God of conservatism.
Does the king of more than the peasants?
Yes, because he has a bigger job.
The king is running the entire country.
(11:57):
What's a peasant runningsome small plot of land?
The king will make sure that everyone haswhat they need
relative to their position in society.
Inequality helps maintain the hierarchy
that helps society run smoothly
again.
That was the conservative argumentback in the day.
Liberalism. How about you?
(12:17):
What do you land on this whole equalityversus inequality debate?
Well, I guess I'm
not inherently opposed to inequalityper se.
I mean, some peopleare going to have more than others.
That makes sense.
But everyone should at leasthave the possibility to get rich.
You know,a healthy dose of class mobility.
(12:40):
If people work hard, master a skill,
and become an expert in their field,they should be rewarded right?
If someone's born a peasantbut has talent and ambition,
they should at least have a chance to worktheir way up.
Think about it this way.
If we want society to be run bythe most skilled people,
we've got to make sure there'san incentive for their ambition.
(13:04):
Isn't that a better system?
That's the kind of equality I believe in.
Equality of opportunity.
Okay, great.
And, how are you going to achieve that?
Easy. Capitalism.
Capitalism.
This is radicalism again.
Look, I'm pretty dang skeptical of thiswhole equality of opportunity thing.
(13:26):
And I'm very, very,very skeptical of capitalism.
It's not just the kingwho keeps people stuck in poverty.
It's the class structure itself.
As long as class exists,the rich will always have an unfair
advantage and keep bending the rulesso they stay rich and the poor stay poor.
That's what Marx and Engels meantwhen in the oh, here we go
(13:47):
in the Communist Manifesto,when they talked about the bourgeoisie
controlling the means of production.
Is it really equality of opportunityif business owners own the land,
the factory, the tools,and all the worker has is their labor?
Shouldn't it be the workerswho own the means of production?
Hey, those business owners are creatingjobs.
Business owners should be grateful.
(14:08):
They can even watchthem have their business.
And while the
gods bickered away down on Earth,
the relay race continuedas people struggle
to help their preferred ideologytake hold.
By the late 1800s in Europe,
right wing conservative monarchiesdominated the Austro-Hungarian Empire,
(14:29):
the Russian Empire,and the newly unified German Empire.
In other countries like England andthe also newly unified Kingdom of Italy,
liberalism helped shape the newly reformedconstitutional monarchies,
where kings shared powerwith elected parliaments.
Liberalism also found a home
(14:49):
in the few democratic republics out there,
like France and Switzerland.
And oh yeah, that up and coming country
on the other side of the oceancalled the United States,
where the American dream promisedthe liberal ideal of class mobility.
In fact, for much of American history,since their Civil War, both parties,
(15:11):
Democrats and Republicans, have operatedunder the umbrella of liberalism.
Both Democratsand Republicans were generally in favor
of market capitalism,constitutional government, and individual
freedoms,at least for certain demographics.
In the United States,what we call liberals and conservatives,
(15:32):
the left and the right has reallyjust been different shades of liberalism.
This is key.
Remember this what we call liberalsand conservatives in the United States,
the left and the right has reallyjust been different shades of liberalism.
Actual right wing conservatismand the left wing
radicalismonly occasionally hold political sway.
(15:55):
And when they do very marginallyuntil recently, that's changing now.
But we'll get to that in part three.
Right now, we're still in the late 1800s.
So how about left wing radicalism?
Was it having any luck?
Well, some reform movements,like progressivism in the United States
and social democracy in Europe,fell somewhere in between.
(16:18):
Radicalism and liberalism.
They advocated for regulations and reforms
like child labor laws and an eight hourworkday.
Liberal governmentsfiercely resisted these changes.
When we compromising here and there,after decades of radical organizing,
but other forms of radicalism like
communism, socialism and anarchism,which all wanted equality but disagreed
(16:42):
how to get it, at least agreedthat those a limited reform movements
weren't enough.
Radicalism needed its own government.
But what was the best strategy to get one?
Edward Bernstein was born
in 1850, Berlin,to a lower middle class Jewish family,
and became a prominent member of the leftwing social democratic Party of Germany,
(17:06):
which sought equality through elections.
Bernstein, in additionto being among the earlier radicals
who supported decriminalizing homosexual,he believed the best way
for radicals to gainpower was through universal
male suffrage,not just the ones who owned land.
It would be one man, onevote, Bernstein would say.
(17:28):
Think about it.
The overwhelmingmajority of people in 1850s Germany
are workers and tenant farmers.
You know, the proletariat.
If all men had the right to vote,
they'd of coursevote for their own best interest.
I mean, who would frickin voteagainst their own best interest?
And of course, their own best interest?
Bernstein would confidently explain,is the left wing Social Democratic Party.
(17:52):
And once the left wing is in power,Germany will become an ideal society.
We won't even need a revolution.
But then there was Klara's Atkinand Rosa Luxemburg,
two left wing radical German women.
They started as members of BernsteinSocial Democratic Party,
but ended up splitting off and co-founding
(18:13):
the Communist Party of Germany,still a left wing radical party.
But it saw equalitythrough more revolutionary means.
Clara Zadkine and Rosa Luxemburgcame to disagree with Bernstein.
First of all, you'retalking about letting all men vote.
But should it?
Real universal suffrage include women?
(18:34):
Second of all, electionsare only going to get us so far.
Are we really sure that most peoplewill vote in their best interest?
Given the amount of brainwashing,misinformation, and the lack of education
there is out there?
ZDF and Luxemburg
believed mass strikesand uprising would be necessary.
Their argument was as long as capitalismkeeps the rich in power,
(18:58):
then power can't be won through electionsalone.
They argued that revolutionwould be an inevitable step
for the workers to gain power.
But revolutions are easier said than done.
In the late 1800s, left wingradicalism was certainly trying,
but it failed to inspirea real revolution.
(19:20):
There was a smattering of socialiststrikes in Italy
and a dash of anarchist rebellionsin Spain.
In the United States, eightradicals were charged with throwing a bomb
at police at a rally in HaymarketSquare in Chicago.
But none of this led to a full outrevolution.
Maybe the closest leftwing radicalsever got to holding power in
the 1800s was the Paris Commune.
(19:42):
You ever heard of the Paris Commune?
Oh, man. Okay.
1871 200,000 French workers and soldiersdefecting from the military
built barricades around Parisand declared it a new communist state.
They even brought backthe French revolutionary calendar
from the last episode.
You remember donkey Day?
Oh, man, I miss Donkey Day.
(20:02):
But unfortunately for the Paris Commune.
And for more fun calendars, afterjust two months, the right wing French
military overwhelmed the revolutionaryforces and regained control of the city.
The Paris Commune
was over just after it began.
Will you tell your supportersto give it a rest?
Radicalism. They're just causing chaos.
(20:24):
These attempts at revolutionsaren't leading to the change you want.
Only violence and death.
Yeah, because you keep violentlysuppressing them.
Because you keep getting in the way.
We need order and stability.
Can't you just let conservatismdo its thing?
Or liberalism?
Listen, revolutions are hard to pull off.
Even Marxnever said it was going to be easy.
(20:44):
But Marx did say that if any country
has even remotely a shotat achieving a radical revolution,
it's going to be one ofthe industrial countries in Western Europe
where the workers are the most organized.
Definitely not one of the moreagrarian countries like Russia.
I mean, come on.
If a communist revolutionis ever going to happen, the last place
(21:05):
it's going to be is Russia.
Well, in the early 1900s, the conservative
Russian Empire was controlled by CzarNicholas the Second.
And unlike those liberalconstitutional monarchies
that limited the king'spower, Czar Nicholas declared.
Give up my absolute power.
You must be absolutely joking.
(21:27):
As the czar himself actually said, quote,
I shall never agree to a representativeform of government, because I consider it
harmful to the peoplewhom God has entrusted to my care.
Oh, thanks, Nick.
That's so considerate of you.
Think about the people like that.
But then in 1914, World War one broke out.
(21:52):
Well,
obviously it wasn't called WorldWar One at the time.
It was just called the Great War.
But I got to say,I don't think it was that great.
I mean, the first widespreaduse of machine guns, tanks,
trench warfareand poison gas was so horrific
that many thought warsurely couldn't get any worse than this.
(22:14):
Some even startedcalling it the war to end all wars.
Whatever you want to call it.
The war was a disaster for all sides.
But for his global as this conflict was,
Russia was having a particularly bad time.
Around 2million Russians had died in battle,
and the fighting led to massive foodshortages.
(22:36):
The people back home were starving.
And for what?
Why are we fighting the Germans?
What do we care about them?
We're hungry.
It was a freezing cold dayin Russia, 1917,
and the capital city of Petrogradwas covered in a heavy snow.
A frigid wind blew through the streetsas thousands of women waited in endlessly
(22:58):
long lines to receive enough breadjust to feed their families.
Most of the men were offfighting on the front.
As the world war raged on.
But today was International Women's Day,
the new global holiday establishedjust a few years before.
Created by one of the German radicalswe mentioned earlier, Clara,
(23:21):
during the first few international women'sdays.
Women across Europe
marched for the right to voteand for better working conditions.
But this International Women's Dayin Russia
went a little further.
Women in Petrograd textile factories
went on strikeand streamed out into the streets.
(23:42):
Others left the bread lines to join them.
They began by protestingworking conditions and the lack of bread.
But as more joined them,they started to demand an end to the war,
and as even more womentook to the streets,
they started to demand an endto Czar Nicholas himself.
The men, who hadn't yet been sent to thetrenches joined the women in the streets.
(24:05):
Some soldiers tried to stop them,but the masses were two men.
The chairman of the imperial
legislators sent the czaran urgent telegram, quote.
The position is serious.
Anarchy prevails in the capital.
The government is paralyzed.
There's disorderly firing in the streets.
So Czar Nicholas
(24:25):
the Second did what any benevolentemperor would do.
He sent the military to violently crushthe protesters.
Well over a thousand people were killed.
Many of the soldiersactually joined the protest,
which at this point wasn't just a protest.
It was a revolution.
Czar Nicholas finally got the hint.
(24:46):
But he wasn'tjust going to abandon his subjects.
He tried to maintain the throne
by nominating his younger brotherto be the next czar.
But his younger brother was much betterat reading the room.
Drop the offer like a hot potatoand essentially said, no thank you.
I don't think the people want a czar.
Left wing radicalism
(25:06):
have been trying and failingto foment a revolution for decades.
But just like that, the imperial dynastythat ruled Russia
for hundreds of yearscame to a very sudden end.
I guess like life revolutionsor what happen when you're busy
making other plants.
There now was a power vacuum in Russia.
(25:28):
Liberalism,with its belief in gradual reform
within existing institutions,swooped in to fill the gap.
Liberals formed a provisional government,but it wasn't very popular.
For starters,the new government kept Russia
in the warwhen so many people wanted it to end.
But at least now people could voteand make their voices heard.
(25:50):
In fact, we'll have our first electionlater in November this year.
Just hang tight a little longer.
But Vladimir Lenin,
a radical revolutionary,was not known for hanging tight.
He was the leader of the leftwing Bolshevik Party,
which wanted to create a communist society
where class was a thing of the pastand everyone was equal.
(26:13):
The Bolsheviks demanded an end to the war.
Now a redistribution of wealthand to feed the starving millions.
Their slogan was peace, land and bread,
peace, land, bread.
I can't tell. Is that a catchy slogan?
Maybe in Russian it rhymes or something.
Anyway, the Bolsheviks were youngmen and women workers,
(26:36):
peasants, intellectuals and soldierswho defected.
But the Bolshevik Partywas still a minority of the population.
It wasn't even the largest factionamong the left wing radicals.
But this didn't deter Vladimir Lenin.
After all, if your house is burning down,
you can't wait for people to vote onwhether or not to put out the fire.
(26:57):
You just got to start passing our buckets.
Therefore,when an argued power can't be elected,
it has to be seized right now.
Once the workers have powerand make society a utopia, Lenin
believed,then the people will get on board.
The Bolsheviks seized railway stations,telegraph offices and government
(27:19):
buildings.
They stormed the palacewith a liberal government operating.
Conservative monarchistsand moderate socialists resisted.
Russia descended into civil war,but finally,
after four years of bloodshed,the Bolsheviks defeated the conservatives,
the liberals and rival radicals and now
(27:39):
had full control of Russia.
Oh my God, I can't believe it!
The Bolsheviks did what no other radicalshave been able to do.
They now have their own country.
You see that radicalism?
You're not just an abstract idea.
You. You can finally become a reality.
(28:03):
I know I'm just
a I'm so proud. Well.
Good luck.
I think you'll need it.
Look, I don't need your luck.
Why don't you guys just step asideand watch how it's done?
The Bolsheviks
set out to implement the communist utopia.
They pulled Russia out of the World War.
(28:25):
They took land from the landownersand gave it to the peasants.
They granted workerspartial oversight of the factories.
They abolished all class titlesand privileges
and granted women the right to ownproperty, participate in government.
But come on.
Radicalism.
Aren't you a little disturbed
by how brutalthe Bolsheviks rise to power was?
(28:48):
And how many people were killed?
Well, hey, it was a revolution, for God'ssakes.
Things are going to get a little messy.
It's not like the violence inherentin seizing power
will undercut the radical principlesthe Bolsheviks will now try and institute.
Right.
Meanwhile, nearby regions like Ukraine,
(29:10):
Belarus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijanall formerly part of the Russian Empire,
watched the Russian Revolutionvery closely.
Some local communiststhought it was great.
They want it in.
But the liberals and conservativesof those neighboring countries,
even plenty of radicals,did not share this enthusiasm.
(29:32):
But the new communist Russiathought uniting with their neighbors
was an awesome idea, even if it requireda little, shall we say, persuasion.
So in 1922, Russia,
persuasively, using violent force,
(29:53):
joined with its neighborsto create a new mega country.
Over the next 20 years,a bunch of others were added in as well,
like Kazakhstan,Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia.
It seemed like all of Eastern Europeand Central Asia was joining the party,
the Communist Party,whether they wanted to or not.
(30:14):
This new mega country needed a name.
During the revolution, elected workerscouncils ran local governments.
The Russian word for council. Soviet.
So Vladimir Lenin named this new country
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The USSR or the Soviet Union, for sure.
(30:42):
The First World War had come to an end.
The Allied powers, led by France, Britain
and the United States, allwhere liberalism had firmly taken hold.
Emerged victorious.
It was a serious blowfor conservative monarchies.
The 500 yearold Ottoman Empire was dissolved.
(31:04):
The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed.
And Kaiser Wilhelm, leader of Germany,abdicated.
Ending the short lived German Empire.
Even though
monarchist Italyhad been on the winning side of the war.
Their monarchy was increasingly unpopular.
And socialistrevolution seemed quite possible.
(31:24):
Spain, which had been neutral,would soon descend into civil war
with the various ideologiesat each other's throats.
The questiononce would these unstable countries
be hotbedsfor the next communist revolution?
Or would they adopt a liberal government?
But actually, there was another option.
(31:47):
Even though Germany, Spainand Italy's kings
were forced to abdicateor their power was greatly reduced.
Right wing conservativestill agreed hierarchy and absolute power
was necessary to keep society on track.
Plus, in 1929, the stock market crashed
(32:08):
and the global economy spiraledinto a Great Depression.
And this is a really bad depression.
The stocks stayed in their pajamasand didn't get out of bed for months.
Too badthe Kings weren't as powerful as before.
Dictators with easy answers oftenbecome popular when people are desperate.
But the engine of
monarchy was dead or dying.
(32:30):
Luckily, rightwing conservatism found some jumper cables
and called this newly charged formfascism.
Right wing conservatism
is about maintaining a clear hierarchy,
so perfect fascism
will give us the hierarchy society needs.
(32:51):
But without a king.
What will fascism baseits hierarchy on supremacy?
Oh, yeah. That's good.
The superior group of peoplewill rule over the inferior group.
Okay. Hierarchy check.
But right wing conservatismalso requires absolute power.
A powerful strongman to lead the way.
(33:12):
Without the king, who's going to.
Oh, great.
Okay.
BenitoMussolini will take control of Italy.
FranciscoFranco will be the dictator in Spain.
And this failed art student, Adolf Hitler,
is going to turn Germanyinto a right wing regime.
What's he calling it,
The Nazi party.
Nazi was the German nicknamefor National Socialist,
(33:35):
which was short for the National SocialistGerman Workers Party.
But don't get it twisted.
Nazis were not socialists.
They weren't trying to abolish classor private property or anything like that.
They used the term socialist in their nameto attract working class support.
But their policies were a mixof authoritarianism
and capitalism.
(33:58):
Now, the word fascism
generally has gotten a pretty bad rap.
Definitely more so than monarchy.
But I think of fascismas kind of like first gen monarchy.
It's the same dictatorial power, justwithout the long lineage to back it up.
You got to remember that Hitlercalled Nazi Germany the 1000 year Reich.
(34:20):
That was his point.
Sure, it's new now, but wait, 1000 yearsfrom now, when there's Adolf the 16th,
then the difference between monarchyand fascism won't seem so significant.
Both give right wing conservatismthe social hierarchy
and top down authority. It's looking.
(34:43):
Conservatism.
You call this a king of Europe?
What's the difference?
The humans can quarrel amongst themselves.
How to get the job doneat the end of the day.
As long as someone's in charge. I'm happy.
Right wing politics is open minded.
Besides, it was you guys who didn't likethe nepotism winning this thing.
So fascism. Get rid of it.
(35:04):
All right.
This is reform.
A leader who's the best man for the job.
How's that for a liberal reform?
Meanwhile,
the most powerful liberal governmentsFrance, the UK and the US.
Which, by the way,the US will be making a name for itself.
(35:25):
We're not fansof the radical Soviet Union,
but they also weren'tfans of the fascist countries
either.
But when Nazi Germany invaded
Poland in 1939, fascismseemed to be the more immediate threat.
Well,
I guess we'll have to startcalling the war to end all wars.
(35:47):
World War One,an even more horrific sequel has begun.
Well,the day the Liberal government stopped.
We really don't like the Soviet Union.
But if they're down to fight the fascists,then I guess we can work together.
At least for now.
(36:07):
World War
Two was in part,a war between the ideologies.
Liberal governmentseventually joined with the Soviet Union
to form the Allied Powers against axis
powers of Germany, Italy and Japan.
Japan still had its emperor,so it was kind of a mix
of masochism, fascism and nationalism.
(36:28):
For many people, the war testedwhat was more important to them
national loyalty or ideological loyalty.
If you found yourselfliving under a government
with a very different ideologythan your own,
do you still fight for your countryor do you join the other side?
For example, there were German radicals
(36:49):
who formed an internal resistanceto Hitler or defected to the Soviet Union.
Likewise,when the Nazis invaded France, Hitler
didn't need to put Germans in charge.
There were enough right wingFrench supporters willing to collaborate
and run their own pro-Nazi government.
And in the United States,a small segment of the population
(37:11):
like the right wing German American Bund,thought the U.S.
shouldn't be fighting Hitler.
But joining in.
After six yearsof the most devastating war
in human history,where 70 to 80 million people were killed,
3% of the entire world'spopulation at the time,
(37:34):
the axis powers were defeated.
And right wing conservatism was sidelinedas a global power in its wake.
Remain two major superpowers
the Soviet Union and the United States.
The Soviet
Union claimed to be the home base of leftwing radicalism, and the United States
(37:56):
proudly declared to stand for liberalismand its economic power.
Capitalism.
The Soviet Union was fanaticalfor communism, but the US was
just as fanatical for capitalismand capitalism and communism.
Let's just say they're not exactly peanutbutter and jelly.
More like mayonnaise and jelly
(38:18):
or peanut butter and horseradish.
Well, anyway, liberalism and radicalism.
We're about to have a showdown.
The temporary alliancebetween the United States
and the Soviet Uniondid not last very long.
My grandpa was in the US Navyduring World War two.
(38:39):
He was 23 aboard the USS Maryland,in the middle of the Pacific Ocean,
when he learned of the USbombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
and that the war was finally over.
My grandpa told us how some of the otherofficers on the ships reaction was a riot.
Now, on the Moscow, they wanted to goto war with the Soviet Union right away.
(39:00):
Grandpa said that's when he knewit was time to get out of the Navy.
He had enough of war for now.
But those officers on his shipweren't alone.
The Liberal governments agreed.
The Soviet Unionwas not their ally anymore.
And thanks to the United States,liberalism
now had nuclear weapons on its side.
Good luck trying to stop us now, Soviet.
(39:21):
Oh, crap. Wait.
Now, now, they've.
They've got nuclear weapons now, too.
So the rivalry turnedinto a bit of a stalemate
that came to be known as the cold War.
Both the United States and Soviet
Union were convincedthat they were the good guys.
After all, they were both born out of arevolution against a tyrannical dictator.
(39:42):
Whether the British kingor the Russians are, and the U.S.
and USSR just teamed up to wipe the floorwith fascist despots.
But for as much as the Americansand Soviets hated each other,
at least they agreed.
Tyranny and dictatorships were wrong,
at least in theory.
Well, governments say,and what governments do
(40:04):
can be two very different things.
Remember that Vladimir Lenin guy
a few decades back, Lenin ledthe Bolsheviks and took control of Russia.
But it's one thing to take control.
It's another to hold onto it.
That's why Lenin declared Russiaa one party communist state,
and all other opposition,even from other radicals, was banned.
(40:29):
Newspapers that oppose the Communist
Party were shut downwhen it created a secret police.
And you know,I got to say, a secret police.
I mean, that's never really good.
Then Lenin died.
And this other guy
named Joseph Stalin maneuvered his waythrough the Communist Party leadership
(40:51):
and became Russia's new leaderas a good communist.
Stalin believed that government shouldn'tbe run by wealthy elites concerned
with only their personal interests,but run collectively for the good of all.
But the Soviet Union was a societyof hundreds
of millions of peoplewith complex needs and issues.
(41:12):
Do you know how hard it isto make collective decisions
for the good of all, when everybody'sgot different ideas of what is good?
And despite
all the censorship and secret police,there were still plenty
of Russians who tried to speak outagainst Stalin's government.
I mean, you can't everyonejust shut up and trust that Joseph
(41:33):
Stalin knows what's best for you.
Don't worry.
Joe had a very simple solution.
He'd only surround himselfwith those who were loyal to him
and give them special privilegesto assure their loyalty.
And what about if you disagree with JoeStone?
Well, hope you like toiling awayin a maximum security prison.
And now Salvador. Sorry.
(41:53):
I mean, a prison camp in Siberia.
Despite claiming
to be a bastion of left wing radicalismcommitted to economic and social equality,
the Soviet Union was a far cryfrom that ideal.
The political elite lived in luxurywhile the masses struggled to get by.
(42:15):
Stalin criminalized homosexuality
and forced widespreaddeportations of ethnic minorities.
Abortion was banned and women were largelyexcluded from positions of power.
Before long, the SovietUnion looked an awful lot like the old
fashioned conservative dictatorshipthat its revolution had tried to escape.
(42:36):
Funny how a society of peasants and czars
ultimately createsanother version of peasants and czars.
Every teenagerthinks they're going to reinvent the world
until they become just like their parents.
In contrast,
the United Statesand its allies like to think of themselves
as a beacon of liberty and democracy.
(42:58):
The Soviet Union was authoritarian,not us.
We've got to stop those commentsand their tyranny.
But hold on a second.
Was it really the authoritarian partthat upset the US so much,
or was itthe anti-capitalist, left wing radicalism?
For example, in America, manywho advocated for economic
(43:18):
or social equality like workersrights, labor unions or racial justice,
were often labeled communists and traitorsto the United States.
This began what was eventually called
the Red scare, and it came in two ways.
In the first Red scare,
immigrants who expressedcommunist sympathies were deported.
(43:40):
Socialistpoliticians were barred from office.
In some states, it became illegalto fly the red flag of communism.
In the second Red scare,
the House un-American Activities Committeeblacklisted the left wing politicians,
organizers, and celebrities,ruining reputations and careers.
(44:00):
Government employees were requiredto pledge royalty oaths.
The FBI spied on left wing activistsand infiltrated their organizations,
even targeting nonviolent civilrights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr.
Threateningto blackmail him with public disgrace
unless he committed suicide.
(44:21):
Does this all sound
very democratic and freedom loving to you?
Seems to me like the United States was farmore concerned with fighting radicalism,
whether actual communismor even just progressivism,
then upholding its democratic ideals.
In the aftermath of WorldWar II, to colonize countries
around the world from Africa,Asia and Latin America
(44:44):
declared independencefrom the European rulers.
The timing was not coincidental.
After all, the Westhad just fought fiercely
to defeat fascist dictatorshipsand right wing authoritarianism.
Independence movements essentially went,
oh, so you guys think authoritarianismis wrong?
Okay, well,then stop colonizing our country.
(45:06):
European colonization
had been carried out by both conservative
monarchies and liberal governments alike,
but by the mid 20th century, independencemovements were picking up momentum.
Liberalism, conservatism and radicalism
provided independence movementswith three different roadmaps
(45:27):
in their struggleto end European imperialism.
Communism was all about redistributingwealth and power,
so that had a particular appealto many independence
movements from Mao Zedong and China.
Fidel Castro and Cuba.
Tito and Yugoslavia.
Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana.
They all adopted communist ideas
(45:48):
and put their own spin on itto suit the needs of their country.
Plus, it didn't hurt that the Soviet Union
was often willing to supplyeconomic aid and weapons.
Nothing makes an ideologymore appealing than money
and weapons.
In Vietnam.
Revolutionary.
Ho Chi Minh also thoughtcommunism was his country's best bet
(46:11):
for liberating Vietnamfrom French occupation.
And many farmers and villagersfrom Vietnamese small towns agreed.
But not all Vietnamesepeople saw communism quite as appealing,
especially in the growingsouthern city of Saigon.
For starters, the Soviet Unionrestricted religion in Russia.
(46:33):
If Ho Chi Minh communistsplanned to persecute religion
in a very Buddhist and Catholic country,the masses were never going to accept it.
Plus, Vietnam was so economically
behind the Western world,the only way for them to catch up.
The people of Saigon argued,was to embrace capitalism.
So Vietnam,
(46:54):
like China, Korea,Cambodia, Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Angola, Afghanistan and many others,became a battleground for the Cold War.
Radicalsagainst liberals against conservatives.
If the United States and SovietUnion couldn't fight each other directly
because of the whole nuclear weaponsthing,
(47:15):
at least they could fight by proxyto win these civil wars
or sponsor their favorite runners
in the ideological relay race.
Both the U.S.
and Soviet Union
like to think that they were on the sideof liberation from oppression.
They just happenedto have completely opposing ideas
(47:35):
of which side was the liberatorand which was the oppressor.
But it was hard to take the Soviet Union'sclaims of supporting liberation
seriously when their allies,like the Soviet backed Derg
regime in Ethiopia, committedmass killings of their people.
And as for the United States,it had this really bad habit of helping
(47:57):
orchestrate military coups to violentlyoverthrow democratically elected leaders.
The US government disagreed with,like when the US supported right
wing regimes from Augusto Pinochetin Chile, Suharto
in Indonesia, and the apartheidgovernment in South Africa.
Did you know
(48:17):
it was the CIA that helped captureand imprison Nelson Mandela?
Yeah.
And in Vietnam, to fight the communists,
the US backed South Vietnam'sauthoritarian regime.
The US didn't seem to mind.
Authorities ism as long as it opposedcommunism, though it seems like spreading
(48:40):
capitalism was the bigger priorityin spreading democracy.
So while rightwing conservatism championed
authoritarianismas the most effective form of government,
and liberalism and radicalismclaimed to resist it, all three ideologies
seemed to find their own ways of slipping
into authoritarianism.
(49:03):
A child growing up during the Cold War
was raised in a world of contradictions.
Liberal democraciessaid they stood for freedom.
Communist countriessaid they stood for equality.
But if there's one thingyoung people are particularly good at,
it's calling oldergenerations out on their bullshit.
(49:27):
In the 1960s,
youth protests grew steadilyacross liberal countries,
from the civil rights movementto the anti-war movement,
women's liberation,and a youth counterculture
that demanded their governmentslive up to their liberal
ideals.
(49:47):
Youth
protestseven spread to some communist countries.
Students in CommunistPoland and Czechoslovakia protested
censorship and repression.
Not as a rejection of communism'sradical values,
but pushing for its promises.
But in the Soviet Union itself,there wasn't much protest
(50:07):
compared to the liberal democraciesand even other communist countries.
The Soviet Union truly mastered
the art of political repression
for most left wing radicalsliving outside of the Soviet Union.
In the 60s,it became clear that the Soviet Union
had fallenfar short of its radical values.
(50:30):
Maybe power inevitably trumps
so in liberal
democracies, many on the left wing,though they perhaps liked the idea
of revolution, seemto have lost the taste for it.
A young French activistsaid of 1968, quote,
I did not know where we were going,but I knew it was not a revolution.
(50:54):
Seizing power by force
became somethingfewer people were willing to support.
If radicalism wanted to change things,it would have to find another way
to pass down the batonto the next generation.
You better back down radicalism.
The US has got its fingeron that big red nuclear button,
(51:14):
and they're not afraid to press it.
Oh, yeah?
Well,the Soviet Union's got its own red button
right here,and it's way bigger than yours.
Don't think I won't.
I'll do anything to defend the free world.
Oh, right. The free world.
We all know how free and democraticyou are.
Hey, would you two give it a rest?
Sheesh. I always argue conservatism.
(51:35):
You're just butthurt because we wipethe floor with you back in World War two?
Yeah. Oh, I'll be back.
I'll always be back.
Thanks for listening.
This was part two of a three part series.
In the final episode,we'll follow this historical
(51:57):
relay race right to the present moment.
As right wingconservatism is making a major comeback.
The liberal world orderis struggling to hang on,
and the left wing radicalismrecollects itself
in a post-communist world,striving to create
a post-capitalist one.
Until next time, I hope you'll continue
(52:19):
to consider the questionswe posed in the last episode.
How are these historic strugglesplaying out in current events?
What echoes of the past do you hear today?
What can be learned from what came before?
How might the future be different?
If you enjoy human nature Odyssey.
Please share it with a friend.
(52:41):
While the ideological godscontinue their squabbling
and history continuesto unfold, the human Nature Odyssey
Patreon is a gathering point to sort itall out together.
There you'll have access to bonusepisodes,
additional thoughtsand writings, and audiobook readings.
Your support makes this podcast possible.
(53:03):
Thank you to Brian, Nori, Mark, Hanan,
Maggie, Nina, Joe, Jesse, Stephen, Scheer,
Michael, and Nick for your inputand feedback on this episode.
This series is made in associationwith the Post Carbon Institute.
You can learn more@resilience.org.
And as always, our theme music isCelestial Soda Pop by Ray Lynch.
(53:27):
You can find the link in our show notes.
Talk with you soon.
Previously on Human Nature Odyssey.
Since the fall of the Roman Empire,
most of Europe had been a land of kings.
But in July of 1789, a mob stormedthe Bastille.
Peasantsburned their official feudal contracts,
and thousands of Parisian womenarmed themselves with muskets
and pitchforksand marched on the Palace of Versailles.
(00:23):
France was now in the throesof a full on revolution.
When the revolution was firstbreaking out.
A national assembly was assembled.
Those for the revolution found themselvessitting on the left wing of the room.
And those for monarchysettled down on the right.
And that is where we get the termsleft wing and right wing.
(00:47):
The 1820s became the 1830s.
The 1830s became the 1840s.
You know, decades to the 1840s in Europestarted to be called the Hungry 40s.
Widespread famine was followedby a continent wide recession.
In 1848,Alexis de Tocqueville spoke before
his colleagues of the legislatureand issued a grave warning.
(01:09):
This,gentlemen, is my profound conviction.
I believe that we are at thismoment sleeping on a volcano.
Revolts broke out in Hungary.
There was a revolution in Prague,then Romania.
My heart was beating so hard.
I thought it was going to blow a holein my chest.
(01:31):
There were more revolts in Denmarkthan Poland.
By the end of the spring 1848,
most of Europe had erupted in revolution.
But when all was said and done,almost none of the attempts
to establish democratic republicswithstood the counter revolutions.
What began as a conversation in France'sNational Assembly
(01:53):
between a liberal leftand right wing, now raged across Europe.
And before long, the rest of the world,
as kings were the throne and Europe'sformer colonies gained independence.
People around the worldfaced the question.
The king is dead.
Now what?
(02:22):
Welcome to human nature, Odyssey.
In this three part series, we'reexploring the history of the left right
political spectrumand the 250 year struggle for democracy.
This is part two. I'm Alex Smith.
(02:51):
History is a relay race.
The past handsthe baton down to the next generation.
That's us.
We receive this batonwithout always knowing.
Or the previous hands it passed through.
But now it's up to us to run the race.
We may veer off into territoryour predecessors couldn't have predicted
(03:14):
nor intended.
We may even forgetwhy the race began in the first place.
What are we running from?
Where are we running to?
In the last episode, the king is dead.
Now what? Part one.
We started telling the storyof a historical relay race
that beganwith the French Revolution of 1789,
(03:35):
when those in favor of monarchysat on the physical right
wing of the National Assembly room,
and those in favor of revolutionsat on the left wing,
and the French
Revolution cut all of Europe's attention.
Some were shocked, some appalled,and some inspired
sociologist Emmanuel Wallerstein,whose ideas we've been riffing off of
(03:59):
for the last coupleepisodes, tells us that in response
to the French Revolution,three major political ideologies emerged.
Conservatism, liberalism and radicalism.
Conservatism,rooted in traditional values,
social hierarchy, and strong authority,agreed
(04:21):
with those who sat on the rightwing of the French National Assembly room.
The king should be in charge,and that stability
and order was better than sudden change.
Historically,this is known as right wing conservatism.
Then there's radicalism.
The ideology most alignedwith those who sat on the left wing,
(04:42):
who wanted direct democracy and socialand economic equality,
even if it meant completelyrestructuring society.
And as we mentioned in the last episode,
the word radicalismcan be a little confusing.
These days, it's oftenused to mean extremism.
But in this historical context,radicalism does not mean extremism.
(05:03):
I mean, every ideologyhas got its moderate and extreme versions.
The word radical comesfrom Latin radicals, which means root,
because these original radicalswanted root level changes.
So we can think of radicalismas its own ideology, and we'll use
the word radicalism to representwhat became known as the left wing.
(05:27):
So there's right wing conservatismand left wing radicalism.
And then there's liberalism.
Liberalismpreferred representative government
or at least constitutional limitson the monarchy.
And from Europe.
These three ideologieswould spread across the entire world,
evolving as the baton was passed downto the next generation of runners.
(05:51):
This is a relay race.
We're still running today.
Even if we don't know its full history.
And sociologist Immanuel Wallersteinthought that we could better
navigate our present momentby understanding this history.
So, inspiredby some of Emmanuel Stein's ideas
and a lot of my own research,commentary and analysis,
(06:12):
today we are going to tell parttwo of this three part story.
So let's put on ourrunning shoes and we're off.
(06:33):
After Europe's
1848 revolutions, rightwing conservatives were relieved
that most of the continent'smonarchies had once again regained power.
Liberalism tried its best to workwithin the monarchies,
pushing for constitutional limitsand individual freedoms.
But left wing radicalismhad been absolutely
(06:55):
crushedas the revolutions were suppressed.
Many who survived the executionsof their peers went underground
or fled into exile,where they continued to organize.
Karl Marx's CommunistManifesto became more and more popular,
but the real focus of our storyis not going to be on individual people,
(07:17):
but the three ideologies as a whole.
Maybe a helpful way to understandthese ideologies
is to think of them as sort of like Greekgods.
These larger than lifeforces that come down to earth
to help or harmus, sometimes a little of both.
(07:37):
We can
imagine the conversationthese gods might have had looking down
on us,as the events of the world of humans
played out.
What do you know?
The revolutions ended in total disasteryet again.
(07:59):
Clearly, the masses can't be trustedto make wise decisions.
This was conservatismas argument in the mid 1850s.
The ideology that emerged from the FrenchNational Assembly's right wing,
the right wing was right.
Monarchy is the ideal form of government.
The king should be the one to rule.
(08:19):
A clear, just and moralhierarchy gets things done the right way.
Voting all this nonsensejust slows things down.
All this chaos is dangerous.
We need someone at the topwho will take care of everything.
That's how we've always done.
There's a reason why traditions have beenthe way they've been.
(08:42):
It's best not to change.
We need law and order.
Then the God of liberalism button.
Okay, I hear that.
But if the king gets to makewhatever decrees they want and doesn't
even have to follow them himself,that's not law and order.
That's tyranny.
That's why I believewe need a constitution, a set of laws
(09:05):
that we all follow.
We'll make it very clearthis is what's allowed.
This is what's not.
And these rules willapply to everyone equally.
Excuse me.
Yes. I'd like to knowwho will be writing these laws.
That's the God of radicalismasking that question.
Here's the liberalism's answer.
What? Landowning white men, of course.
(09:26):
Oh, landowning white men.
I see. Well, yes.
If you're not independently wealthy,your vote could be corrupted.
Then conservatism cuts in and triesto restore over the order.
Okay, okay.
Thank youboth for your unsolicited feedback,
but I'm pretty sureI've got everything under control.
Thank you very much.
(09:47):
Look, conservatism.
I want order, too.
But you've got to admit,there are some problems with the system.
That's why there's so much unrest.
Listen, I agree the revolutionsgot completely out of hand.
But don't you thinkthe best way to avoid revolution
is reforming some of the obvious issues?
I hate to say it, but the king isn'talways the most moral and just.
(10:11):
The King needs a constitutionwith checks and balances.
Maybe the people in charge shouldn't be determined by bloodlines,
but by skill and merit.
I really think we can build a systemthat allows
for gradual, positive change over time.
Whoa whoa whoa.
Gradual change.
(10:32):
This is radicalism talking again.
You think those despots are goingto give up that easily?
After all the bloodthey've shed for power.
These kings are monstrous.
They don't care about the people. Sure.
Once in a million, you'll get a king.
Who cares?
But that's not what usually happens.
We need to figure out a totally new wayto structure society.
(10:53):
Because this is not working.
Look at the centuries of povertyand oppression.
You're reforms and gradual changewon't be enough.
You can't work within a systemthat's broken.
We need a societal overhaul.
Just like those people sitting on the leftwing of the National Assembly room, said
the only way forward is revolution.
(11:15):
Classic radicalism.
But let's hereradicalism out for a second.
The goal of radical revolutionisn't chaos.
It's equality.
For too long, society has been stratifiedby the very rich and the very poor.
The haves and the have nots.
While the king lives in his fancy palace.
(11:36):
Peasants are born and die in the street.
It's the inequality that's the problem.
No! You moron!
Inequality is not a bug. It's a feature.
Back to the God of conservatism.
Does the king of more than the peasants?
Yes, because he has a bigger job.
The king is running the entire country.
(11:57):
What's a peasant runningsome small plot of land?
The king will make sure that everyone haswhat they need
relative to their position in society.
Inequality helps maintain the hierarchy
that helps society run smoothly
again.
That was the conservative argumentback in the day.
Liberalism. How about you?
(12:17):
What do you land on this whole equalityversus inequality debate?
Well, I guess I'm
not inherently opposed to inequalityper se.
I mean, some peopleare going to have more than others.
That makes sense.
But everyone should at leasthave the possibility to get rich.
You know,a healthy dose of class mobility.
(12:40):
If people work hard, master a skill,
and become an expert in their field,they should be rewarded right?
If someone's born a peasantbut has talent and ambition,
they should at least have a chance to worktheir way up.
Think about it this way.
If we want society to be run bythe most skilled people,
we've got to make sure there'san incentive for their ambition.
(13:04):
Isn't that a better system?
That's the kind of equality I believe in.
Equality of opportunity.
Okay, great.
And, how are you going to achieve that?
Easy. Capitalism.
Capitalism.
This is radicalism again.
Look, I'm pretty dang skeptical of thiswhole equality of opportunity thing.
(13:26):
And I'm very, very,very skeptical of capitalism.
It's not just the kingwho keeps people stuck in poverty.
It's the class structure itself.
As long as class exists,the rich will always have an unfair
advantage and keep bending the rulesso they stay rich and the poor stay poor.
That's what Marx and Engels meantwhen in the oh, here we go
(13:47):
in the Communist Manifesto,when they talked about the bourgeoisie
controlling the means of production.
Is it really equality of opportunityif business owners own the land,
the factory, the tools,and all the worker has is their labor?
Shouldn't it be the workerswho own the means of production?
Hey, those business owners are creatingjobs.
Business owners should be grateful.
(14:08):
They can even watchthem have their business.
And while the
gods bickered away down on Earth,
the relay race continuedas people struggle
to help their preferred ideologytake hold.
By the late 1800s in Europe,
right wing conservative monarchiesdominated the Austro-Hungarian Empire,
(14:29):
the Russian Empire,and the newly unified German Empire.
In other countries like England andthe also newly unified Kingdom of Italy,
liberalism helped shape the newly reformedconstitutional monarchies,
where kings shared powerwith elected parliaments.
Liberalism also found a home
(14:49):
in the few democratic republics out there,
like France and Switzerland.
And oh yeah, that up and coming country
on the other side of the oceancalled the United States,
where the American dream promisedthe liberal ideal of class mobility.
In fact, for much of American history,since their Civil War, both parties,
(15:11):
Democrats and Republicans, have operatedunder the umbrella of liberalism.
Both Democratsand Republicans were generally in favor
of market capitalism,constitutional government, and individual
freedoms,at least for certain demographics.
In the United States,what we call liberals and conservatives,
(15:32):
the left and the right has reallyjust been different shades of liberalism.
This is key.
Remember this what we call liberalsand conservatives in the United States,
the left and the right has reallyjust been different shades of liberalism.
Actual right wing conservatismand the left wing
radicalismonly occasionally hold political sway.
(15:55):
And when they do very marginallyuntil recently, that's changing now.
But we'll get to that in part three.
Right now, we're still in the late 1800s.
So how about left wing radicalism?
Was it having any luck?
Well, some reform movements,like progressivism in the United States
and social democracy in Europe,fell somewhere in between.
(16:18):
Radicalism and liberalism.
They advocated for regulations and reforms
like child labor laws and an eight hourworkday.
Liberal governmentsfiercely resisted these changes.
When we compromising here and there,after decades of radical organizing,
but other forms of radicalism like
communism, socialism and anarchism,which all wanted equality but disagreed
(16:42):
how to get it, at least agreedthat those a limited reform movements
weren't enough.
Radicalism needed its own government.
But what was the best strategy to get one?
Edward Bernstein was born
in 1850, Berlin,to a lower middle class Jewish family,
and became a prominent member of the leftwing social democratic Party of Germany,
(17:06):
which sought equality through elections.
Bernstein, in additionto being among the earlier radicals
who supported decriminalizing homosexual,he believed the best way
for radicals to gainpower was through universal
male suffrage,not just the ones who owned land.
It would be one man, onevote, Bernstein would say.
(17:28):
Think about it.
The overwhelmingmajority of people in 1850s Germany
are workers and tenant farmers.
You know, the proletariat.
If all men had the right to vote,
they'd of coursevote for their own best interest.
I mean, who would frickin voteagainst their own best interest?
And of course, their own best interest?
Bernstein would confidently explain,is the left wing Social Democratic Party.
(17:52):
And once the left wing is in power,Germany will become an ideal society.
We won't even need a revolution.
But then there was Klara's Atkinand Rosa Luxemburg,
two left wing radical German women.
They started as members of BernsteinSocial Democratic Party,
but ended up splitting off and co-founding
(18:13):
the Communist Party of Germany,still a left wing radical party.
But it saw equalitythrough more revolutionary means.
Clara Zadkine and Rosa Luxemburgcame to disagree with Bernstein.
First of all, you'retalking about letting all men vote.
But should it?
Real universal suffrage include women?
(18:34):
Second of all, electionsare only going to get us so far.
Are we really sure that most peoplewill vote in their best interest?
Given the amount of brainwashing,misinformation, and the lack of education
there is out there?
ZDF and Luxemburg
believed mass strikesand uprising would be necessary.
Their argument was as long as capitalismkeeps the rich in power,
(18:58):
then power can't be won through electionsalone.
They argued that revolutionwould be an inevitable step
for the workers to gain power.
But revolutions are easier said than done.
In the late 1800s, left wingradicalism was certainly trying,
but it failed to inspirea real revolution.
(19:20):
There was a smattering of socialiststrikes in Italy
and a dash of anarchist rebellionsin Spain.
In the United States, eightradicals were charged with throwing a bomb
at police at a rally in HaymarketSquare in Chicago.
But none of this led to a full outrevolution.
Maybe the closest leftwing radicalsever got to holding power in
the 1800s was the Paris Commune.
(19:42):
You ever heard of the Paris Commune?
Oh, man. Okay.
1871 200,000 French workers and soldiersdefecting from the military
built barricades around Parisand declared it a new communist state.
They even brought backthe French revolutionary calendar
from the last episode.
You remember donkey Day?
Oh, man, I miss Donkey Day.
(20:02):
But unfortunately for the Paris Commune.
And for more fun calendars, afterjust two months, the right wing French
military overwhelmed the revolutionaryforces and regained control of the city.
The Paris Commune
was over just after it began.
Will you tell your supportersto give it a rest?
Radicalism. They're just causing chaos.
(20:24):
These attempts at revolutionsaren't leading to the change you want.
Only violence and death.
Yeah, because you keep violentlysuppressing them.
Because you keep getting in the way.
We need order and stability.
Can't you just let conservatismdo its thing?
Or liberalism?
Listen, revolutions are hard to pull off.
Even Marxnever said it was going to be easy.
(20:44):
But Marx did say that if any country
has even remotely a shotat achieving a radical revolution,
it's going to be one ofthe industrial countries in Western Europe
where the workers are the most organized.
Definitely not one of the moreagrarian countries like Russia.
I mean, come on.
If a communist revolutionis ever going to happen, the last place
(21:05):
it's going to be is Russia.
Well, in the early 1900s, the conservative
Russian Empire was controlled by CzarNicholas the Second.
And unlike those liberalconstitutional monarchies
that limited the king'spower, Czar Nicholas declared.
Give up my absolute power.
You must be absolutely joking.
(21:27):
As the czar himself actually said, quote,
I shall never agree to a representativeform of government, because I consider it
harmful to the peoplewhom God has entrusted to my care.
Oh, thanks, Nick.
That's so considerate of you.
Think about the people like that.
But then in 1914, World War one broke out.
(21:52):
Well,
obviously it wasn't called WorldWar One at the time.
It was just called the Great War.
But I got to say,I don't think it was that great.
I mean, the first widespreaduse of machine guns, tanks,
trench warfareand poison gas was so horrific
that many thought warsurely couldn't get any worse than this.
(22:14):
Some even startedcalling it the war to end all wars.
Whatever you want to call it.
The war was a disaster for all sides.
But for his global as this conflict was,
Russia was having a particularly bad time.
Around 2million Russians had died in battle,
and the fighting led to massive foodshortages.
(22:36):
The people back home were starving.
And for what?
Why are we fighting the Germans?
What do we care about them?
We're hungry.
It was a freezing cold dayin Russia, 1917,
and the capital city of Petrogradwas covered in a heavy snow.
A frigid wind blew through the streetsas thousands of women waited in endlessly
(22:58):
long lines to receive enough breadjust to feed their families.
Most of the men were offfighting on the front.
As the world war raged on.
But today was International Women's Day,
the new global holiday establishedjust a few years before.
Created by one of the German radicalswe mentioned earlier, Clara,
(23:21):
during the first few international women'sdays.
Women across Europe
marched for the right to voteand for better working conditions.
But this International Women's Dayin Russia
went a little further.
Women in Petrograd textile factories
went on strikeand streamed out into the streets.
(23:42):
Others left the bread lines to join them.
They began by protestingworking conditions and the lack of bread.
But as more joined them,they started to demand an end to the war,
and as even more womentook to the streets,
they started to demand an endto Czar Nicholas himself.
The men, who hadn't yet been sent to thetrenches joined the women in the streets.
(24:05):
Some soldiers tried to stop them,but the masses were two men.
The chairman of the imperial
legislators sent the czaran urgent telegram, quote.
The position is serious.
Anarchy prevails in the capital.
The government is paralyzed.
There's disorderly firing in the streets.
So Czar Nicholas
(24:25):
the Second did what any benevolentemperor would do.
He sent the military to violently crushthe protesters.
Well over a thousand people were killed.
Many of the soldiersactually joined the protest,
which at this point wasn't just a protest.
It was a revolution.
Czar Nicholas finally got the hint.
(24:46):
But he wasn'tjust going to abandon his subjects.
He tried to maintain the throne
by nominating his younger brotherto be the next czar.
But his younger brother was much betterat reading the room.
Drop the offer like a hot potatoand essentially said, no thank you.
I don't think the people want a czar.
Left wing radicalism
(25:06):
have been trying and failingto foment a revolution for decades.
But just like that, the imperial dynastythat ruled Russia
for hundreds of yearscame to a very sudden end.
I guess like life revolutionsor what happen when you're busy
making other plants.
There now was a power vacuum in Russia.
(25:28):
Liberalism,with its belief in gradual reform
within existing institutions,swooped in to fill the gap.
Liberals formed a provisional government,but it wasn't very popular.
For starters,the new government kept Russia
in the warwhen so many people wanted it to end.
But at least now people could voteand make their voices heard.
(25:50):
In fact, we'll have our first electionlater in November this year.
Just hang tight a little longer.
But Vladimir Lenin,
a radical revolutionary,was not known for hanging tight.
He was the leader of the leftwing Bolshevik Party,
which wanted to create a communist society
where class was a thing of the pastand everyone was equal.
(26:13):
The Bolsheviks demanded an end to the war.
Now a redistribution of wealthand to feed the starving millions.
Their slogan was peace, land and bread,
peace, land, bread.
I can't tell. Is that a catchy slogan?
Maybe in Russian it rhymes or something.
Anyway, the Bolsheviks were youngmen and women workers,
(26:36):
peasants, intellectuals and soldierswho defected.
But the Bolshevik Partywas still a minority of the population.
It wasn't even the largest factionamong the left wing radicals.
But this didn't deter Vladimir Lenin.
After all, if your house is burning down,
you can't wait for people to vote onwhether or not to put out the fire.
(26:57):
You just got to start passing our buckets.
Therefore,when an argued power can't be elected,
it has to be seized right now.
Once the workers have powerand make society a utopia, Lenin
believed,then the people will get on board.
The Bolsheviks seized railway stations,telegraph offices and government
(27:19):
buildings.
They stormed the palacewith a liberal government operating.
Conservative monarchistsand moderate socialists resisted.
Russia descended into civil war,but finally,
after four years of bloodshed,the Bolsheviks defeated the conservatives,
the liberals and rival radicals and now
(27:39):
had full control of Russia.
Oh my God, I can't believe it!
The Bolsheviks did what no other radicalshave been able to do.
They now have their own country.
You see that radicalism?
You're not just an abstract idea.
You. You can finally become a reality.
(28:03):
I know I'm just
a I'm so proud. Well.
Good luck.
I think you'll need it.
Look, I don't need your luck.
Why don't you guys just step asideand watch how it's done?
The Bolsheviks
set out to implement the communist utopia.
They pulled Russia out of the World War.
(28:25):
They took land from the landownersand gave it to the peasants.
They granted workerspartial oversight of the factories.
They abolished all class titlesand privileges
and granted women the right to ownproperty, participate in government.
But come on.
Radicalism.
Aren't you a little disturbed
by how brutalthe Bolsheviks rise to power was?
(28:48):
And how many people were killed?
Well, hey, it was a revolution, for God'ssakes.
Things are going to get a little messy.
It's not like the violence inherentin seizing power
will undercut the radical principlesthe Bolsheviks will now try and institute.
Right.
Meanwhile, nearby regions like Ukraine,
(29:10):
Belarus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijanall formerly part of the Russian Empire,
watched the Russian Revolutionvery closely.
Some local communiststhought it was great.
They want it in.
But the liberals and conservativesof those neighboring countries,
even plenty of radicals,did not share this enthusiasm.
(29:32):
But the new communist Russiathought uniting with their neighbors
was an awesome idea, even if it requireda little, shall we say, persuasion.
So in 1922, Russia,
persuasively, using violent force,
(29:53):
joined with its neighborsto create a new mega country.
Over the next 20 years,a bunch of others were added in as well,
like Kazakhstan,Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia.
It seemed like all of Eastern Europeand Central Asia was joining the party,
the Communist Party,whether they wanted to or not.
(30:14):
This new mega country needed a name.
During the revolution, elected workerscouncils ran local governments.
The Russian word for council. Soviet.
So Vladimir Lenin named this new country
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The USSR or the Soviet Union, for sure.
(30:42):
The First World War had come to an end.
The Allied powers, led by France, Britain
and the United States, allwhere liberalism had firmly taken hold.
Emerged victorious.
It was a serious blowfor conservative monarchies.
The 500 yearold Ottoman Empire was dissolved.
(31:04):
The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed.
And Kaiser Wilhelm, leader of Germany,abdicated.
Ending the short lived German Empire.
Even though
monarchist Italyhad been on the winning side of the war.
Their monarchy was increasingly unpopular.
And socialistrevolution seemed quite possible.
(31:24):
Spain, which had been neutral,would soon descend into civil war
with the various ideologiesat each other's throats.
The questiononce would these unstable countries
be hotbedsfor the next communist revolution?
Or would they adopt a liberal government?
But actually, there was another option.
(31:47):
Even though Germany, Spainand Italy's kings
were forced to abdicateor their power was greatly reduced.
Right wing conservativestill agreed hierarchy and absolute power
was necessary to keep society on track.
Plus, in 1929, the stock market crashed
(32:08):
and the global economy spiraledinto a Great Depression.
And this is a really bad depression.
The stocks stayed in their pajamasand didn't get out of bed for months.
Too badthe Kings weren't as powerful as before.
Dictators with easy answers oftenbecome popular when people are desperate.
But the engine of
monarchy was dead or dying.
(32:30):
Luckily, rightwing conservatism found some jumper cables
and called this newly charged formfascism.
Right wing conservatism
is about maintaining a clear hierarchy,
so perfect fascism
will give us the hierarchy society needs.
(32:51):
But without a king.
What will fascism baseits hierarchy on supremacy?
Oh, yeah. That's good.
The superior group of peoplewill rule over the inferior group.
Okay. Hierarchy check.
But right wing conservatismalso requires absolute power.
A powerful strongman to lead the way.
(33:12):
Without the king, who's going to.
Oh, great.
Okay.
BenitoMussolini will take control of Italy.
FranciscoFranco will be the dictator in Spain.
And this failed art student, Adolf Hitler,
is going to turn Germanyinto a right wing regime.
What's he calling it,
The Nazi party.
Nazi was the German nicknamefor National Socialist,
(33:35):
which was short for the National SocialistGerman Workers Party.
But don't get it twisted.
Nazis were not socialists.
They weren't trying to abolish classor private property or anything like that.
They used the term socialist in their nameto attract working class support.
But their policies were a mixof authoritarianism
and capitalism.
(33:58):
Now, the word fascism
generally has gotten a pretty bad rap.
Definitely more so than monarchy.
But I think of fascismas kind of like first gen monarchy.
It's the same dictatorial power, justwithout the long lineage to back it up.
You got to remember that Hitlercalled Nazi Germany the 1000 year Reich.
(34:20):
That was his point.
Sure, it's new now, but wait, 1000 yearsfrom now, when there's Adolf the 16th,
then the difference between monarchyand fascism won't seem so significant.
Both give right wing conservatismthe social hierarchy
and top down authority. It's looking.
(34:43):
Conservatism.
You call this a king of Europe?
What's the difference?
The humans can quarrel amongst themselves.
How to get the job doneat the end of the day.
As long as someone's in charge. I'm happy.
Right wing politics is open minded.
Besides, it was you guys who didn't likethe nepotism winning this thing.
So fascism. Get rid of it.
(35:04):
All right.
This is reform.
A leader who's the best man for the job.
How's that for a liberal reform?
Meanwhile,
the most powerful liberal governmentsFrance, the UK and the US.
Which, by the way,the US will be making a name for itself.
(35:25):
We're not fansof the radical Soviet Union,
but they also weren'tfans of the fascist countries
either.
But when Nazi Germany invaded
Poland in 1939, fascismseemed to be the more immediate threat.
Well,
I guess we'll have to startcalling the war to end all wars.
(35:47):
World War One,an even more horrific sequel has begun.
Well,the day the Liberal government stopped.
We really don't like the Soviet Union.
But if they're down to fight the fascists,then I guess we can work together.
At least for now.
(36:07):
World War
Two was in part,a war between the ideologies.
Liberal governmentseventually joined with the Soviet Union
to form the Allied Powers against axis
powers of Germany, Italy and Japan.
Japan still had its emperor,so it was kind of a mix
of masochism, fascism and nationalism.
(36:28):
For many people, the war testedwhat was more important to them
national loyalty or ideological loyalty.
If you found yourselfliving under a government
with a very different ideologythan your own,
do you still fight for your countryor do you join the other side?
For example, there were German radicals
(36:49):
who formed an internal resistanceto Hitler or defected to the Soviet Union.
Likewise,when the Nazis invaded France, Hitler
didn't need to put Germans in charge.
There were enough right wingFrench supporters willing to collaborate
and run their own pro-Nazi government.
And in the United States,a small segment of the population
(37:11):
like the right wing German American Bund,thought the U.S.
shouldn't be fighting Hitler.
But joining in.
After six yearsof the most devastating war
in human history,where 70 to 80 million people were killed,
3% of the entire world'spopulation at the time,
(37:34):
the axis powers were defeated.
And right wing conservatism was sidelinedas a global power in its wake.
Remain two major superpowers
the Soviet Union and the United States.
The Soviet
Union claimed to be the home base of leftwing radicalism, and the United States
(37:56):
proudly declared to stand for liberalismand its economic power.
Capitalism.
The Soviet Union was fanaticalfor communism, but the US was
just as fanatical for capitalismand capitalism and communism.
Let's just say they're not exactly peanutbutter and jelly.
More like mayonnaise and jelly
(38:18):
or peanut butter and horseradish.
Well, anyway, liberalism and radicalism.
We're about to have a showdown.
The temporary alliancebetween the United States
and the Soviet Uniondid not last very long.
My grandpa was in the US Navyduring World War two.
(38:39):
He was 23 aboard the USS Maryland,in the middle of the Pacific Ocean,
when he learned of the USbombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
and that the war was finally over.
My grandpa told us how some of the otherofficers on the ships reaction was a riot.
Now, on the Moscow, they wanted to goto war with the Soviet Union right away.
(39:00):
Grandpa said that's when he knewit was time to get out of the Navy.
He had enough of war for now.
But those officers on his shipweren't alone.
The Liberal governments agreed.
The Soviet Unionwas not their ally anymore.
And thanks to the United States,liberalism
now had nuclear weapons on its side.
Good luck trying to stop us now, Soviet.
(39:21):
Oh, crap. Wait.
Now, now, they've.
They've got nuclear weapons now, too.
So the rivalry turnedinto a bit of a stalemate
that came to be known as the cold War.
Both the United States and Soviet
Union were convincedthat they were the good guys.
After all, they were both born out of arevolution against a tyrannical dictator.
(39:42):
Whether the British kingor the Russians are, and the U.S.
and USSR just teamed up to wipe the floorwith fascist despots.
But for as much as the Americansand Soviets hated each other,
at least they agreed.
Tyranny and dictatorships were wrong,
at least in theory.
Well, governments say,and what governments do
(40:04):
can be two very different things.
Remember that Vladimir Lenin guy
a few decades back, Lenin ledthe Bolsheviks and took control of Russia.
But it's one thing to take control.
It's another to hold onto it.
That's why Lenin declared Russiaa one party communist state,
and all other opposition,even from other radicals, was banned.
(40:29):
Newspapers that oppose the Communist
Party were shut downwhen it created a secret police.
And you know,I got to say, a secret police.
I mean, that's never really good.
Then Lenin died.
And this other guy
named Joseph Stalin maneuvered his waythrough the Communist Party leadership
(40:51):
and became Russia's new leaderas a good communist.
Stalin believed that government shouldn'tbe run by wealthy elites concerned
with only their personal interests,but run collectively for the good of all.
But the Soviet Union was a societyof hundreds
of millions of peoplewith complex needs and issues.
(41:12):
Do you know how hard it isto make collective decisions
for the good of all, when everybody'sgot different ideas of what is good?
And despite
all the censorship and secret police,there were still plenty
of Russians who tried to speak outagainst Stalin's government.
I mean, you can't everyonejust shut up and trust that Joseph
(41:33):
Stalin knows what's best for you.
Don't worry.
Joe had a very simple solution.
He'd only surround himselfwith those who were loyal to him
and give them special privilegesto assure their loyalty.
And what about if you disagree with JoeStone?
Well, hope you like toiling awayin a maximum security prison.
And now Salvador. Sorry.
(41:53):
I mean, a prison camp in Siberia.
Despite claiming
to be a bastion of left wing radicalismcommitted to economic and social equality,
the Soviet Union was a far cryfrom that ideal.
The political elite lived in luxurywhile the masses struggled to get by.
(42:15):
Stalin criminalized homosexuality
and forced widespreaddeportations of ethnic minorities.
Abortion was banned and women were largelyexcluded from positions of power.
Before long, the SovietUnion looked an awful lot like the old
fashioned conservative dictatorshipthat its revolution had tried to escape.
(42:36):
Funny how a society of peasants and czars
ultimately createsanother version of peasants and czars.
Every teenagerthinks they're going to reinvent the world
until they become just like their parents.
In contrast,
the United Statesand its allies like to think of themselves
as a beacon of liberty and democracy.
(42:58):
The Soviet Union was authoritarian,not us.
We've got to stop those commentsand their tyranny.
But hold on a second.
Was it really the authoritarian partthat upset the US so much,
or was itthe anti-capitalist, left wing radicalism?
For example, in America, manywho advocated for economic
(43:18):
or social equality like workersrights, labor unions or racial justice,
were often labeled communists and traitorsto the United States.
This began what was eventually called
the Red scare, and it came in two ways.
In the first Red scare,
immigrants who expressedcommunist sympathies were deported.
(43:40):
Socialistpoliticians were barred from office.
In some states, it became illegalto fly the red flag of communism.
In the second Red scare,
the House un-American Activities Committeeblacklisted the left wing politicians,
organizers, and celebrities,ruining reputations and careers.
(44:00):
Government employees were requiredto pledge royalty oaths.
The FBI spied on left wing activistsand infiltrated their organizations,
even targeting nonviolent civilrights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr.
Threateningto blackmail him with public disgrace
unless he committed suicide.
(44:21):
Does this all sound
very democratic and freedom loving to you?
Seems to me like the United States was farmore concerned with fighting radicalism,
whether actual communismor even just progressivism,
then upholding its democratic ideals.
In the aftermath of WorldWar II, to colonize countries
around the world from Africa,Asia and Latin America
(44:44):
declared independencefrom the European rulers.
The timing was not coincidental.
After all, the Westhad just fought fiercely
to defeat fascist dictatorshipsand right wing authoritarianism.
Independence movements essentially went,
oh, so you guys think authoritarianismis wrong?
Okay, well,then stop colonizing our country.
(45:06):
European colonization
had been carried out by both conservative
monarchies and liberal governments alike,
but by the mid 20th century, independencemovements were picking up momentum.
Liberalism, conservatism and radicalism
provided independence movementswith three different roadmaps
(45:27):
in their struggleto end European imperialism.
Communism was all about redistributingwealth and power,
so that had a particular appealto many independence
movements from Mao Zedong and China.
Fidel Castro and Cuba.
Tito and Yugoslavia.
Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana.
They all adopted communist ideas
(45:48):
and put their own spin on itto suit the needs of their country.
Plus, it didn't hurt that the Soviet Union
was often willing to supplyeconomic aid and weapons.
Nothing makes an ideologymore appealing than money
and weapons.
In Vietnam.
Revolutionary.
Ho Chi Minh also thoughtcommunism was his country's best bet
(46:11):
for liberating Vietnamfrom French occupation.
And many farmers and villagersfrom Vietnamese small towns agreed.
But not all Vietnamesepeople saw communism quite as appealing,
especially in the growingsouthern city of Saigon.
For starters, the Soviet Unionrestricted religion in Russia.
(46:33):
If Ho Chi Minh communistsplanned to persecute religion
in a very Buddhist and Catholic country,the masses were never going to accept it.
Plus, Vietnam was so economically
behind the Western world,the only way for them to catch up.
The people of Saigon argued,was to embrace capitalism.
So Vietnam,
(46:54):
like China, Korea,Cambodia, Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Angola, Afghanistan and many others,became a battleground for the Cold War.
Radicalsagainst liberals against conservatives.
If the United States and SovietUnion couldn't fight each other directly
because of the whole nuclear weaponsthing,
(47:15):
at least they could fight by proxyto win these civil wars
or sponsor their favorite runners
in the ideological relay race.
Both the U.S.
and Soviet Union
like to think that they were on the sideof liberation from oppression.
They just happenedto have completely opposing ideas
(47:35):
of which side was the liberatorand which was the oppressor.
But it was hard to take the Soviet Union'sclaims of supporting liberation
seriously when their allies,like the Soviet backed Derg
regime in Ethiopia, committedmass killings of their people.
And as for the United States,it had this really bad habit of helping
(47:57):
orchestrate military coups to violentlyoverthrow democratically elected leaders.
The US government disagreed with,like when the US supported right
wing regimes from Augusto Pinochetin Chile, Suharto
in Indonesia, and the apartheidgovernment in South Africa.
Did you know
(48:17):
it was the CIA that helped captureand imprison Nelson Mandela?
Yeah.
And in Vietnam, to fight the communists,
the US backed South Vietnam'sauthoritarian regime.
The US didn't seem to mind.
Authorities ism as long as it opposedcommunism, though it seems like spreading
(48:40):
capitalism was the bigger priorityin spreading democracy.
So while rightwing conservatism championed
authoritarianismas the most effective form of government,
and liberalism and radicalismclaimed to resist it, all three ideologies
seemed to find their own ways of slipping
into authoritarianism.
(49:03):
A child growing up during the Cold War
was raised in a world of contradictions.
Liberal democraciessaid they stood for freedom.
Communist countriessaid they stood for equality.
But if there's one thingyoung people are particularly good at,
it's calling oldergenerations out on their bullshit.
(49:27):
In the 1960s,
youth protests grew steadilyacross liberal countries,
from the civil rights movementto the anti-war movement,
women's liberation,and a youth counterculture
that demanded their governmentslive up to their liberal
ideals.
(49:47):
Youth
protestseven spread to some communist countries.
Students in CommunistPoland and Czechoslovakia protested
censorship and repression.
Not as a rejection of communism'sradical values,
but pushing for its promises.
But in the Soviet Union itself,there wasn't much protest
(50:07):
compared to the liberal democraciesand even other communist countries.
The Soviet Union truly mastered
the art of political repression
for most left wing radicalsliving outside of the Soviet Union.
In the 60s,it became clear that the Soviet Union
had fallenfar short of its radical values.
(50:30):
Maybe power inevitably trumps
so in liberal
democracies, many on the left wing,though they perhaps liked the idea
of revolution, seemto have lost the taste for it.
A young French activistsaid of 1968, quote,
I did not know where we were going,but I knew it was not a revolution.
(50:54):
Seizing power by force
became somethingfewer people were willing to support.
If radicalism wanted to change things,it would have to find another way
to pass down the batonto the next generation.
You better back down radicalism.
The US has got its fingeron that big red nuclear button,
(51:14):
and they're not afraid to press it.
Oh, yeah?
Well,the Soviet Union's got its own red button
right here,and it's way bigger than yours.
Don't think I won't.
I'll do anything to defend the free world.
Oh, right. The free world.
We all know how free and democraticyou are.
Hey, would you two give it a rest?
Sheesh. I always argue conservatism.
(51:35):
You're just butthurt because we wipethe floor with you back in World War two?
Yeah. Oh, I'll be back.
I'll always be back.
Thanks for listening.
This was part two of a three part series.
In the final episode,we'll follow this historical
(51:57):
relay race right to the present moment.
As right wingconservatism is making a major comeback.
The liberal world orderis struggling to hang on,
and the left wing radicalismrecollects itself
in a post-communist world,striving to create
a post-capitalist one.
Until next time, I hope you'll continue
(52:19):
to consider the questionswe posed in the last episode.
How are these historic strugglesplaying out in current events?
What echoes of the past do you hear today?
What can be learned from what came before?
How might the future be different?
If you enjoy human nature Odyssey.
Please share it with a friend.
(52:41):
While the ideological godscontinue their squabbling
and history continuesto unfold, the human Nature Odyssey
Patreon is a gathering point to sort itall out together.
There you'll have access to bonusepisodes,
additional thoughtsand writings, and audiobook readings.
Your support makes this podcast possible.
(53:03):
Thank you to Brian, Nori, Mark, Hanan,
Maggie, Nina, Joe, Jesse, Stephen, Scheer,
Michael, and Nick for your inputand feedback on this episode.
This series is made in associationwith the Post Carbon Institute.
You can learn more@resilience.org.
And as always, our theme music isCelestial Soda Pop by Ray Lynch.
(53:27):
You can find the link in our show notes.
Talk with you soon.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com