Welcome to Human Nature Odyssey. In this 3 part series we’re exploring the history of the left / right political spectrum and the 250 year struggle for democracy. This is Part 2.
I’m Alex Leff.
History is a relay race. The past hands the baton down to the next generation. That’s us. We receive this baton without always knowing all the previous hands it passed through. But it’s up to us to run the race. We may veer off into territory our predecessors couldn’t have predicted nor intended. We may even forget why the race began in the first place. What were we running from? Where were we running to? 
In the last episode, The King Is Dead, Now What? Part 1 we started telling the story of a historical relay race 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. 
The French Revolution caught Europe’s attention. Some were shocked, some appalled, and some inspired. 
Sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein–whose ideas we’ve been riffing off of for the last couple episodes– 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 with those who sat on the right wing of the 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 aligned with those who had sat on the left wing, who wanted direct democracy and social and economic equality, even if it meant completely restructuring society. 
And as we mentioned in the last episode, the word radicalism can be a little confusing. These days, it’s often used to mean extremism. But in this historical context, radicalism does not mean extremism. Every ideology’s got its moderate and extreme versions. The word “radical” comes from Latin radix, which means “root” because these original radicals wanted root-level changes. So we can think of Radicalism as its own ideology, and we’ll use it to represent what became known as the left-wing. 
So there’s right-wing conservatism and left-wing radicalism. And then there’s liberalism.
Liberalism preferred representative government, or at least constitutional limits on the monarchy, which I guess puts it somewhere in the middle of these wings - is middle wing a thing? 
From Europe, these three ideologies would spread across the entire world, evolving as the baton was passed down to the next generation of runners.
This is a relay race we’re still running today, even if we don’t know its full history. And sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, thought that we could better navigate our present moment by understanding this history.
So, inspired by some of Immanuel Wallerstein’s ideas, and a lot of my own research, commentary, and analysis, today we are going to tell part two of this three part story. So let’s put our running shoes on… and, we’re off!
After Europe’s 1848 revolutions, right-wing conservatives were relieved that most of the continent’s monarchies had once again regained power. 
Liberalism tried its best to work within the monarchies, pushing for constitutional limits and individual freedoms.
But left-wing radicalism had been absolutely crushed. As the revolutions were suppressed, many who survived the executions of their peers went underground or fled into exile where they continued to organize. Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto became more and more popular. 
But the real focus of our story is not going to be on individual people - but the three ideologies as a whole. 
Maybe a helpful way to understand these ideologies is to think of them as sort of like Greek Gods – these larger than life forces that come down to earth to help or harm us. Sometimes a little of both. 
We can imagine the conversation these gods might have had looking down on us as the events of the world of humans played out. 
CONSERVATISM: Hah! What do you know? The Revolutions ended in total disaster - yet again. Clearly the masses can’t be trusted to make wise decisions.
This was conservatism’s argument in the mid 1850s, the ideology that had emerged from the French National Assembly’s right wing. 
CONSERVATISM: The right-wing was right: monarchy is the ideal form of government. The king should be the one to rule. A clear, just, and moral hierarchy gets things done the right way! Voting and all this nonsense just slows things down. All this chaos is dangerous. We need someone at the top who will take care of everything. That’s how we’ve always done it. There’s a reason why traditions have been the way they’ve been. It’s best not to change them. We need… law and order.
Then the god of liberalism butts in…
LIBERALISM: Okay, I hear that… but if the king gets to make whatever 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 believe, we need a constitution, a set of laws that we all follow. We’ll make it very clear, this is what’s allowed, this is what’s not, and these rules will apply to everyone equally.
RADICALISM: Um, excuse me, yes I’d like to know who will be writing these laws? 
That’s the god of radicalism asking the question. Here’s liberalism’s answer.
LIBERALISM: Well land-owning white men of course – 
RADICALISM: Oh land-owning white men! I see…
LIBERALISM: Well yes if you’re not independently wealthy your vote could be corrupted. 
Then conservatism cuts in and tries to restore a little order…
CONSERVATISM: Okay, okay, thank you both for your unsolicited feedback but I’m pretty sure I’ve got everything under control. Thank you very much.
LIBERALISM: 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 revolutions got completely out of hand but don’t you think the best way to avoid revolution is reforming some of the obvious issues? I hate to say it but the king isn’t always the most moral and just. The king needs a constitution with 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 system that allows for gradual, positive change over time.
RADICALISM: ‘Woah, woah, woah, gradual change?’ 
This is radicalism talking again.
RADICALISM: You think those despots are going to give up that easily, after all the blood they’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 way to structure society because this is not working. Look at the centuries of poverty and oppression. Your reforms and gradual change won’t be enough. You can’t work within a system that is broken. We need a societal overhaul. Just like those people sitting on the left-wing of the National Assembly room said, the only way forward… is revolution.
Classic radicalism. But let’s hear radicalism out for a second. 
RADICALISM: The goal of radical revolution isn’t chaos – it’s equality. For too long society has been stratified by the very rich and the very poor, the haves and the have nots. While the king lives in his fancy palace, peasants are born and die in the street. It’s the inequality that’s the problem!
CONSERVATISM: No, you moron. Inequality’s not a bug. It’s a feature!
Back to the god of conservatism. 
CONSERVATISM: Does the king have more than the peasants? Yes, because he has a bigger job! The king’s running the entire country. What’s a peasant running? Some small plot of land? The king will make sure that everyone has what they need to have, relative to their position in society. Inequality helps maintain the hierarchy that keeps society running smoothly.
Again, that was the conservative argument back in the day.
Liberalism, how bout you? Where do you land on this whole equality vs inequality debate? 
LIBERALISM: Hmmm,  well I guess I’m not inherently opposed to inequality per se. I mean, some people are gonna have more than others – that makes sense. But everyone should at least have the possibility to get rich. You know, a healthy dose of class mobility. If people work hard, master a skill, and become an expert in their field, they should be rewarded. Right? If someone’s born a peasant but has talent and ambition, they should at least have a chance to work their way up.
LIBERALISM: Think about it this way. If we want society to be run by the most skilled people, we’ve got to make sure there’s an incentive for their ambition. Isn’t that a better system? That’s the kind of equality I believe in - equality of opportunity. 
CONSERVATISM: Okay great, and uh, how are you gonna achieve that?
LIBERALISM: Easy: capitalism. 
RADICALISM: Capitalism? 
This is radicalism again..
RADICALISM: Look, I’m pretty dang skeptical of this whole ‘equality of opportunity’ thing. And I’m very very very skeptical of capitalism. It’s not just the king who 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 rules so they stay rich and the poor stay poor. That’s what Marx and Engels meant when –
CONSERVATISM AND LIBERALISM: Oh, here we go-
RADICALISM: -in The Communist Manifesto when they talked about the bourgeoisie controlling the means of production! Is it really ‘equality of opportunity’ if business owners own the land, the factory, the tools, and all the worker has is their labor? Shouldn’t it be the workers who own the means of production? 
LIBERALISM: [voice fading] Hey, those business owners are creating jobs!
CONSERVATISM: [voice fading] The business owners should be grateful the king even lets them have their businesses!
And while the gods bickered away, down on earth, the relay race continued as people struggled to help their preferred ideology take hold.
By the late 1800s in Europe, right-wing conservative monarchies dominated the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, and the newly unified German Empire.
In other countries, like England and the also newly unified Kingdom of Italy, liberalism helped shape the newly reformed constitutional monarchies, where kings shared power with elected parliaments. Liberalism also found a home 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 ocean called the United States, where the American Dream promised the liberal ideal of class mobility. In fact, for much of American history since the Civil War, both parties–Democrats and Republicans–have operated under the umbrella of ideological liberalism - both Democrats and 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, the left and the right, has really just been different shades of liberalism. This is key. Remember this. What we call liberals and conservatives in the United States, the left and the right, has really just been different shades of liberalism. Actual right-wing conservatism and left-wing radicalism only occasionally hold political sway. Until very recently - that’s changing now. But we’ll get to that in Part 3. 
Right now we’re still in the late 1800s. How ‘bout 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 Radicalism and Liberalism. They advocated for regulations and reforms - like child labor laws and an eight-hour work day. Liberal governments fiercely resisted these changes, only compromising here and there after decades of organizing. 
But other forms of radicalism, like communism, socialism, and anarchism - which all wanted equality but disagreed how to get it, at least agreed those limited reform movements weren’t enough. Radicalism needed its own government  - but what was the best strategy to get one?. 
Eduard Bernstein was born in 1850 Berlin to a lower-middle class Jewish family and became a prominent member of the left-wing Social Democratic Party of Germany - which sought equality through elections. Bernstein, in addition to being among the earlier radicals who supported decriminalizing homosexuality, believed the best way for radicals to gain power was through universal male suffrage: not just the ones who owned land. It would be: one man, one vote. Bernstein would say: think about it: the overwhelming majority 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 course vote for their own best interest – I mean, who would freaking vote against their own best interest? And of course their own best interest, Bernstein would confidently explain, is the left-wing Social Democratic Party party. 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 Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg, two left-wing radical German women. They started as members of Bernstein’s Social Democratic Party but ended up splitting off and co-founding the Communist Party of Germany - still a left-wing radical party - but it sought equality through more revolutionary means. 
Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg came to disagree with Bernstein. First of all, you’re talking about letting all men vote, but shouldn't real universal suffrage include women? Second of all, elections will only get us so far. Are we really sure that most people will vote in their best interest, given the amount of brainwashing, misinformation, and lack of education there is out there? 
Zetkin and Luxemburg believed mass strikes and uprising would be necessary. Their argument was, as long as capitalism keeps the rich in power, then power can’t be won through elections alone. They argued that revolution would be an inevitable step for the workers to gain power. 
But revolutions are easier said than done. In the late 1800s left-wing radicalism was certainly trying, but it failed to inspire a real revolution. There were a smattering of socialist strikes in Italy and a dash of anarchist rebellions in Spain. In the United States, eight radicals were charged with throwing a bomb at police at a rally in Haymarket Square in Chicago. But none of this led to a full out revolution. 
Maybe the closest left-wing radicals ever got to holding power in the 1800s was the Paris Commune. You ever heard of the Paris Commune? Oh man, okay, 1871, two hundred thousand French workers and soldiers defecting from the military built barricades around Paris and declared it a new communist state. They even brought back the French Revolutionary calendar from the last episode. Remember donkey day? Man, I miss donkey day…
But unfortunately for the Paris Commune and for more fun calendars, after just two months, the right-wing French military overwhelmed the revolutionary forces and regained control of the city.
CONSERVATISM: Won’t you tell your supporters to give it a rest, radicalism? They’re just causing chaos! These attempts at revolution aren’t leading to the change you want, only violence and death. 
RADICALISM: Yeah ‘cause you keep violently suppressing them!
CONSERVATISM: [groan] Because you’re getting in the way! We need order and stability. Can’t you just let conservatism do its thing?
LIBERALISM: Or liberalism!
RADICALISM: Hey, listen, revolutions are hard to pull off. Even Marx never said it wasn’t going to be easy. But Marx did say that if any country has even remotely a shot at achieving a radical revolution, it’s gonna be one of the industrial countries in western Europe, where the workers are the most organized. Definitely not one of the more agrarian countries like Russia. I mean, come on, if a communist revolution is ever going to happen, the last place it’s gonna be is Russia. 
Well in the early 1900s, the conservative Russian empire was controlled by tsar Nicholas the 2nd. And unlike those liberal constitutional monarchies that limited the king’s power, tsar Nicholas declared: ‘Give up my absolute power? You must be absolutely joking!’
As the tsar himself actually said, “I shall never agree to a representative form of government, because I consider it harmful to the people whom God has entrusted to my care.” Aw, thanks Nick, that’s so considerate of you, thinking of the people like that.
But then in 1914, World War I broke out - well obviously it wasn’t called World War I at the time. It was just called… the Great War. But I gotta say, I don’t think it was that great. I mean the first widespread use of machine guns, tanks, trench warfare, and poison gas was so horrific that many thought that surely war couldn’t get any worse than this. Some even started calling it The War To End All Wars. 
Whatever you want to call it, the war was a disaster for all sides. But for as global as this conflict was, Russia was having a particularly bad time. 
Around two million Russian died in battle, and the fighting led to massive food shortages. 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 day in Russia 1917, and the capital city of Petrograd was covered in a heavy snow. A frigid wind blew through the streets as thousands of women waited in endlessly long lines to receive enough bread just to feed their families. Most of the men were off fighting on the front as the world war raged on. But today was International Women’s Day, the new global holiday established just a few years before, created by one of the German radicals we mentioned earlier, Clara Zetkin. During the first few International Women’s Days, women across Europe marched for the right to vote and for better working conditions. But this International Women’s Day in Russia went a little farther. 
Women in Petrogad’s textile factories went on strike and streamed out into the streets. Others left the breadlines to join them. They began by protesting working conditions and the lack of bread, but as more joined them they started to demand an end to the war, and as even more women took to the streets they started to demand an end to tsar Nicholas himself. The men who hadn’t yet been sent to the trenches joined the women in the streets. Some soldiers tried to stop them. But the masses were too many. 
The chairman of the Imperial Legislature sent the Tsar an urgent telegram, “The position is serious. Anarchy prevails in the capital. The Government is paralysed. There is disorderly firing in the streets.”
So tsar Nicholas the 2nd did what any benevolent emperor would do: he sent the military to violently crush the protesters. While over a thousand people were killed, many of the soldiers actually joined the protest, which at this point wasn’t just a protest – it was a revolution. 
Tsar Nicholas finally got the hint. But he wasn’t just going to abandon his subjects. He tried to maintain the throne by nominating his younger brother to be the next tsar. But his younger brother was much better at reading the room, dropped the offer like a hot potato, and essentially said ‘uhhhh no thank you. I don’t think the people want a tsar.’
Left-wing radicalism had been trying and failing to foment a revolution for decades. But just like that, the imperial dynasty that ruled Russia for hundreds of years came to a very sudden end.
I guess like life, revolutions are what happen when you’re busy making other plans. 
There now was a power vacuum in Russia.
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 war, when so many people wanted it to end. But at least now people could vote and make their voices heard. In fact we’ll have our first election later in November of this year. Just hang tight a little longer! 
But Vladmir Lenin, a radical revolutionary, was not known for hanging tight. He was a leader of the left-wing Bolshevik party, which wanted to create a communist society, where class was a thing of the past and everyone was equal. The Bolsheviks demanded an end to the war now, a redistribution of wealth, and 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 young men and women, workers, peasants, intellectuals, and soldiers who had defected. But the Bolshevik party was still a minority of the population. It wasn’t even the largest faction among the left-wing radicals. 
But this didn’t deter Lenin. After all, if your house is burning down, you can’t wait for people to vote on whether or not to put out the fire–you just gotta start passing buckets. Therefore, Lenin argued, power can’t be elected, it has to be seized. Right. Now. Once the workers have power and make society a utopia, Lenin believed, then the people will get on board.
The Bolsheviks seized railway stations, telegraph offices, and government buildings. They stormed the palace where the liberal government operated. Conservative monarchists and moderate socialists resisted. Russia descended into civil war. But finally, after four years of bloodshed, the Bolsheviks defeated the conservatives, liberals, and rival radicals and now… had full control of Russia.
CONSERVATISM: Oh my god… I can’t believe it. The Bolsheviks did what no other radicals have been able to. They now have their own country. You see that Radicalism? You’re not just an abstract ideal anymore. You… you can finally become a reality. 
RADICALISM: I know, I’m just… [holding back tears] I’m so proud. 
CONSERVATISM: Well good luck… I think you’ll need it…
RADICALISM: Luck? I don’t need your luck. Why don’t you guys just step aside and watch how it’s done? 
The Bolsheviks set out to implement their communist utopia. They pulled Russia out of the world war. They took land from the landowners and gave it to the peasants. They granted workers partial oversight of the factories, they abolished all class titles and privileges, and granted women the right to own property and participate in government.
LIBERALISM: But come on Radicalism- 
RADICALISM: Hmm?
LIBERALISM: Aren’t you a little disturbed by how brutal the Bolsheviks’ rise to power was and how many people were killed?
RADICALISM: Well hey, it was a revolution for god sakes. Things are gonna get a little messy. It’s not like the violence inherent in seizing power will undercut the radical principles the Bolsheviks will now try and institute, right?
Meanwhile, nearby regions like Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan–all  formerly part of the Russian Empire, watched the Russian Revolution very closely. Some local communists thought it was great. They wanted in! 
But the liberals and conservatives of those neighboring countries, even plenty of radicals, did not share this enthusiasm. But the new Communist Russia thought uniting with their neighbors was a great idea, even if it required a little… shall we say… persuasion? 
So in 1922, Russia persuasively [muttering quickly] - using violent force - [clear throat] joined with its neighbors to create a new mega country. Over the next twenty years a bunch of others were added in as well, like Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. It seemed like all of eastern Europe and central Asia was joining the party – the Communist Party – whether they wanted to or not. 
This new mega country needed a name. During the revolution, elected workers councils ran local governments. The Russian word for council is soviet. So Vladimir Lenin named this new country: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – the USSR – or the Soviet Union for short.
The First World War had come to an end. The Allied Powers–led by France, Britain, and the United States, all where liberalism had firmly taken hold–emerged victorious. It was a serious blow for conservative monarchies. The 500 year old Ottoman Empire was dissolved. The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed. And Kaiser Wilhem, leader of Germany, abdicated, ending the short lived German Empire.
Even though monarchist Italy had been on the winning side of the war, their monarchy was increasingly unpopular and socialist revolution seemed quite possible. Spain, which had been neutral, would soon descend into civil war, with the various ideologies at each other’s throats. 
The question was: would these unstable countries be hotbeds for the next communist revolution or would they adopt a liberal government? 
And actually, there was another option. Even though Germany, Spain, and Italy’s kings were forced to abdicate or their power was greatly reduced, right-wing conservatives still agreed hierarchy and absolute power was necessary to keep society on track. 
Plus, in 1929 the stock market crashed and the global economy spiraled into a Great Depression. This was a really bad depression. The stocks stayed in their pajamas and didn’t get out of bed for months. Too bad the kings weren’t as powerful anymore. Dictators with easy answers often become popular when people are desperate.
But The engine of monarchy was dead or dying. Luckily  right-wing conservatism found some jumper cables and called this newly charged form: fascism. 
Right-wing conservatism is about maintaining a clear hierarchy. Perfect. Facism will give us the hierarchy society needs. But without a king, what will fascism base its hierarchy on? Supremacy! Ooh, yeah, that’s good. The superior group of people will rule over the inferior group. Ok: hierarchy – check. But right-wing conservatism also requires absolute power - a powerful strongman to lead the way. Without the king whose gonna…? Ah, great, Benito Mussolini will take control of Italy, Franscisco Franco will be the dictator of Spain, and this failed art student Adolf Hitler is gonna turn Germany into a right-wing regime… What's he calling it? Ah, the Nazi Party. 
Nazi was the German nickname for National Socialist, which was short for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. But don’t get it twisted–Nazis were not socialists. They weren’t trying to abolish class or private property or anything like that. They used “socialist” in their name to attract working-class support but their policies were a mix of authoritarian and capitalist. 
Now, the word Fascism generally has gotten a pretty bad rap. Definitely more so than monarchy. But I think of fascism as kind of like… first gen monarchy. It’s the same dictatorial power just without the long lineage to back it up. You gotta remember that Hitler called Nazi Germany the ‘1000 year Reich.’ That was his plan. Sure, it’s new now but wait 1000 years when there’s Adolf the 16th, then the difference between monarchy and fascism won’t seem so significant. Both give right-wing conservatism the social hierarchy and top-down authority it’s looking for.
RADICALISM: Conservatism, you cool with this?
CONSERVATISM: A king, a führer, what’s the difference? The humans can quarrel amongst themselves how to get the job done. At the end of the day, as long as someone’s in charge, I’m happy. Right-wing politics are open minded. Besides, it was you guys who didn’t like the nepotism lineage thing. So fascism got rid of it. Hey, this is reform! A leader who’s the best man for the job - how’s that for liberal reform? 
Meanwhile, the most powerful liberal governments, France, the UK, and the US - which, by the way, was really making a name for itself - were not fans of the radical Soviet Union, but they also weren’t fans of the fascist countries either. 
But when Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939 fascism seemed to be the more immediate threat. Welp, I guess we’ll have to start calling the War To End All Wars ‘World War I’. An even more horrific sequel has begun. 
Well dang, the liberal governments thought, 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… 
World War II was, in part, a war between the ideologies. Liberal governments eventually 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 monarchism, fascism, and nationalism.
For many people, the war tested what was more important to them: national loyalty or ideological loyalty. If you found yourself living under a government with a very different ideology than your own, do you still fight for your country? Or do you join the other side? 
For example, there were German radicals who formed an internal resistance to 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-wing French supporters willing to collaborate and run their own pro-Nazi government. And in the United States, a small segment of the population, like the right-wing German American Bund thought the US shouldn’t be fighting Hitler, but joining him. 
After six years of the most devastating war in human history, where 70 to 80 million people were killed – 3% of the entire world’s population at the time – the Axis Powers were defeated and right-wing conservatism was sidelined as a global power. In its wake remained two major superpowers: the Soviet Union and the United States. The Soviet Union claimed to be the home base of left-wing radicalism. And the United States proudly said to stand for liberalism and its economic pal capitalism. The Soviet Union was fanatical for communism. But the US was just as fanatical for capitalism. And capitalism and communism uh… let’s just say, they’re not exactly peanut butter and jelly. Maybe more like mayonnaise and jelly. Or peanut butter and horseradish. Uhh… Well anyway, liberalism and radicalism were about to have a showdown.
The temporary alliance between the United States and Soviet Union did not last very long. My grandfather was in the US Navy during World War II. He was 23, aboard the USS Maryland in the middle of the Pacific Ocean when he learned of the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that the war was finally over. My grandpa told us how some of the other officers on his ship’s reaction was, ‘alright, now onto Moscow!’ They wanted to go to war with the Soviet Union right away. Grandpa said that’s when he knew it was time to get out of the navy, he had enough of war for now.
But those officers weren’t alone. The liberal governments agreed: the Soviet Union was not their ally any more. And thanks to the United States, liberalism now had nuclear weapons on its side. Good luck trying to stop us now, Soviet Un– oh crap, wait, naw, now they’ve got nuclear weapons too. So the rivalry turned into a bit of a stalemate that came to be known as the Cold War.
Both the United States and Soviet Union were convinced that they were the good guys. After all, they were both born out of a revolution against a tyrannical dictator, whether the British King or the Russian tsar. And the US and USSR just teamed up to wipe the floor with fascist despots. For as much as the Americans and Soviets hated each other, at least they agreed tyranny and dictatorships were wrong. 
At least in theory. What governments say and what governments do can be two very different things. 
Remember that Vladimir Lenin guy? A few decades back, Lenin led the 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 Russia a one party communist state and all other opposition, even from other radicals, was banned. Newspapers that opposed the communist party were shut down. Lenin created a secret police. And you know I gotta say, a secret police? I mean that’s not really ever a good thing.
Then Lenin died and this guy named Joseph Stalin maneuvered his way through the Communist Party leadership and became Russia’s new leader. As a good communist, Stalin believed that government shouldn’t be run by wealthy elites concerned with only their personal interests, but run collectively for the good of all. 
But the Soviet Union was a society of hundreds of millions of people with complex needs and issues. Do you know how hard it is to make collective decisions for the good of all when everybody’s got different ideas of what is good? 
And despite all the censorship and secret police, there were still plenty of Russians who tried to speak out against Stalin’s government. I mean, can’t everybody just shut up and trust that Joseph Stalin knows what’s best for you? Don’t worry, Joe had a very simple solution: he’d only surround himself with those who were loyal to him, and give them special privileges to assure their loyalty. And what about if you disagreed with Joey Stalin? Well, hope you like toiling away in a prison camp in Siberia. 
Well, hope you like toiling away in a maximum security prison in El Salvador - sorry, I mean a prison camp in Siberia. 
Despite claiming to be a bastion of left-wing radicalism committed to economic and social equality, the Soviet Union was a far cry from that ideal. The political elite lived in luxury while the masses struggled to get by. Stalin criminalized homosexuality, enforced widespread deportations of ethnic minorities, and promoted traditional gender roles. Abortion was banned, and women were largely excluded from positions of power.
Before long, the Soviet Union looked an awful lot like the old fashion conservative dictatorship that its revolution had tried to escape.
Funny how a society of peasants and tsars ultimately creates another version of peasants and tsars. Every teenager thinks they’re gonna reinvent the world until they become just like their parents. 
In contrast, the United States and its liberal allies liked to think of themselves as a beacon of liberty and democracy. The Soviet Union was authoritarian, not us. We’ve got to stop those commies and their tyranny. But hold on one sec - was it really the authoritarian part that upset the US so much? Or was it the anti-capitalism left-wing radicalism part? 
For example, in America, many who advocated for economic or social equality, like workers rights, labor unions, or racial justice, were often labeled communists and traitors to the United States. 
This began what was eventually called the Red Scare and it came in two waves. In the first Red Scare, immigrants who expressed communist sympathies were deported. Socialist politicians were barred from office. In some states, it became illegal to fly the red flag of communism.
In the second Red Scare, the House Un-American Activities Committee blacklisted left-wing politicians, organizers, and celebrities, ruining reputations and careers. Government employees were required to pledge loyalty oaths. The FBI spied on left-wing activists and infiltrated their organizations, even targeting nonviolent civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr, threatening to blackmail him with public disgrace unless he committed suicide. I mean, does this all sound very democratic and freedom loving to you? 
Seems to me like the United States was far more concerned with fighting radicalism (whether actual communism or even just progressivism) than upholding its democratic ideals. 
In the aftermath of World War II, colonized countries around the world, from Africa, Asia, and Latin America declared independence from their European rulers. The timing was not coincidental. After all, the West had just fought fiercely to defeat fascist dictatorships and right-wing authoritarianism. Independence movements essentially went: ‘oh, so you guys think authoritarianism is wrong? Ok, well then [hands cupping mouth] stop colonizing our country!’ 
European colonization had been carried out by both conservative monarchies and liberal governments alike. But by the mid 20th century, independence movements were picking up momentum. Liberalism, conservatism, and radicalism–provided independence movements with three different road maps in their struggle to end European imperialism. 
Communism was all about redistributing wealth and power, so that had a particular appeal to many independence leaders from Mao ZeDong in China, Fidel Castro in Cuba, Tito in Yugoslavia, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, who all adopted communist ideas and put their own spin on it to suit the needs of their country. Plus, it didn’t hurt that the Soviet Union was often willing to supply economic aid and weapons. Nothing makes an ideology more appealing than money and weapons.
Vietnamese revolutionary Ho Chi Minh also thought communism was his country’s best bet for liberating itself from French occupation, and many farmers and villagers from small towns agreed. 
Buuuut, not all Vietnamese people saw communism quite as appealing, especially in the growing southern city of Saigon. For starters, the Soviet Union restricted religion in Russia. If Ho Chi Minh’s communists planned to persecute religion in a very Buddhist and Catholic country, the masses were never going to accept that. 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, like China, Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Angola, Afghanistan and many others, became a battleground for the Cold War – radicals against liberals against conservatives. If the United States and Soviet Union couldn’t fight each other directly, at least they could fight by proxy to win these civil wars. Or sponsor their favorite runners in the ideological relay race. 
Both the US and Soviet Union liked to think they were on the side of liberation from oppression. They just happened to have opposing ideas of which side was the liberator and which was the oppressor.
But it was hard to take the Soviet Union’s claims of supporting liberation seriously when their allies, like the Soviet-backed Derg Regime in Ethiopia, committed mass killings of their people. 
As for the United States, it had this really bad habit of helping orchestrate military coups to violently overthrow democratically elected leaders the US government disagreed with. This kinda happened a lot. Like when the US supported right-wing regimes like Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, and the apartheid government in South Africa. Did you know it was the CIA that helped capture and imprison Nelson Mandela? Yeah… 
And in Vietnam, the US backed South Vietnam’s authoritarian regime. The US didn’t seem to mind authoritarianism as long as it opposed communism. Really seems like spreading capitalism was the bigger priority than spreading democracy. 
So while right-wing conservatism championed authoritarianism as the most effective form of government, and liberalism and radicalism claimed to resist it, all three seemed to find their own ways of slipping into it.
A child growing up during the Cold War was raised in a world of contradictions. Liberal democracies said they stood for freedom. Communist countries said they stood for equality. But if there’s one thing young people are particularly good at, it’s calling older generations out on their bullshit. 
In the 1960s, youth protests grew steadily across liberal countries, from the civil rights movement, to the anti-war movement, women’s liberation, and  a youth counterculture that demanded their governments live up to their liberal ideals. 
Youth protests even spread to some communist countries. Students in communist Poland and Czechoslovakia protested censorship and repression, not as a rejection of communism’s radical values, but pushing for its promises. 
But in the Soviet Union itself, there wasn’t much protest. Compared to the liberal democracies and even other communist countries, the Soviet Union truly mastered the art of political repression.
For most left-wing radicals living outside of the Soviet Union, it was clear the Soviet Union had fallen far short of its radical values. Maybe power inevitably corrupts. So in liberal democracies, many on the left-wing, though they perhaps liked the idea of revolution, seemed to have lost the taste for it. 
A young French activist said of 1968, "I did not know where we were going, but I knew it was not a revolution.”
Seizing power by force became something fewer people were willing to support. If radicalism wanted to change things, it would have to find another way to pass down the baton to the next generation.
LIBERALISM: You better back down, Radicalism! The US has got its finger on that big red nuclear button and they’re not afraid to press it.
RADICALISM: Oh yeah?! Well the Soviet Union’s got its one red button right here, and it’s way bigger than yours!
LIBERALISM: Don’t think I won’t! I’ll do anything to defend the free world.
RADICALISM: Oh, right… the ‘free’ world. [intense sarcasm] We all know how free and democratic you are.
CONSERVATISM: Hey, would you two give it a rest! Sheesh. Always arguing.
LIBERALISM: Conservatism, your just butt hurt cuz we wiped the floor with you back in World War II.
RADICALISM: Yeah!
CONSERVATISM: 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 relay race right to the present day, as right-wing conservatism is making a major resurgence, the liberal world order is struggling to hang on, and left-wing radicalism recollects itself in a post communist world striving to create a post-capitalist one. 
Until next time, I hope you’ll continue to consider the questions we posed last time: how are these historic struggles playing 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. 
While the ideological gods continue their squabbling, and history continues to unfold, the Human Nature Odyssey Patreon is a gathering point to sort it all out together. There you’ll have access to bonus episodes, additional thoughts and writings, and audiobook readings. Your support makes this podcast possible. 
Thank you to Brian, Nare, Mark, Honan, Maggie, Nina, Joe, Jessie, Steven, Sheer, Michael, and Nic, for your input and feedback on this episode. 
And as always, our theme music is Celestial Soda Pop by Ray Lynch. You can find a link in our show notes.
Talk with you soon.