A pattern I've seen in countries dealing with terrorism is that they try and kill or arrest all members of a terrorist organization. I'm trying to find an example where terrorist cells were destroyed by military force and I can't find any- it seems the most successful endings are through diplomacy and humanitarian relief to the communities that are vulnerable to radicalization.

Chicago US, Nov 02 2023

Both fascism and communism were responses to globalization: to the real and perceived inequalities it created, and the apparent helplessness of the democracies in addressing them. Fascists rejected reason in the name of will, denying objective truth in favor of a glorious myth articulated by leaders who claimed to give voice to the people. They put a face on globalization, arguing that its complex challenges were the result of a conspiracy against the nation. Fascists ruled for a decade or two, leaving behind an intact intellectual legacy that grows more relevant by the day. Communists ruled for longer, for nearly seven decades in the Soviet Union, and more than four decades in much of eastern Europe. They proposed rule by a disciplined party elite with a monopoly on reason that would guide society toward a certain future according to supposedly fixed laws of history.

We might be tempted to think that our democratic heritage automatically protects us from such threats. This is a misguided reflex. In fact, the precedent set by the Founders demands that we examine history to understand the deep sources of tyranny, and to consider the proper responses to it. Americans today are no wiser than the Europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism, Nazism, or communism in the twentieth century. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience. Now is a good time to do so.

This book presents twenty lessons from the twentieth century, adapted to the circumstances of today.

In social science, Value is simply what individuals or societies consider "good". There's an entire field of philosophy studying values, called Axiology. Why study values? Because they affect our behavior.

In the picture above, you can see the results of the latest World Values Survey, which is conducted every 5 years by an international organization founded by Ronald Inglehart back in 1981. Each country on this map is a point in a two-dimensional space, where the vertical axis represents traditional vs secular values, and the horizontal axis represents survival vs self-expression, sometimes referred to as safety vs freedom.

Here's an explanation of these terms from the original website:

> Traditional values emphasize the importance of religion, parent-child ties, deference to authority, and traditional family values. People who embrace these values also reject divorce, abortion, euthanasia, and suicide. These societies have high levels of national pride and a nationalistic outlook. > > Secular-rational values have the opposite preferences to the traditional values. These societies place less emphasis on religion, traditional family values, and authority. Divorce, abortion, euthanasia, and suicide are seen as relatively acceptable. (Suicide is not necessarily more common.) > > Survival values place emphasis on economic and physical security. It is linked with a relatively ethnocentric outlook and low levels of trust and tolerance. > > Self-expression values give high priority to environmental protection, growing tolerance of foreigners, gays and lesbians, gender equality, and rising demands for participation in decision-making in economic and political life.

NB: If, after reading these explanations, you conclude that traditional is bad and secular is good, this is only because your personal values appear to be at the secular end. In reality, this is way more complicated.

In traditional societies, people recognize themselves as a part of the community more than as individuals. As a result, they trust each other and don't trust institutions. For example, if you need to borrow some amount of money, it would be easier to ask your friends and relatives than to go to a bank for a loan.

In secular societies, it's the other way around. People feel more competitive and trust each other less. Community support there is replaced by institutions.

The understanding of Socialism varies so widely among different people, that I genuinely struggled with this post. There are numerous political and economic theories, philosophies, and movements that encompass this term. Here are just a few examples

• Religious socialism
• Authoritarian socialism
• Democratic socialism
• Liberal socialism
• Libertarian socialism

The only common element across all these systems is the idea of social ownership of the means of production. Some of the theories reject private property entirely, while others support a mixed economy.

The differences between types of socialism can be illustrated with modern-day Venezuela and Norway. Both countries are quite socialist, characterized by high taxes, free healthcare, and abundant oil resources. However, life in these countries is very different.

Today, nearly every European country has a socialist party in parliament. Most of them represent social democracy ideology.

This book describes six years of observations on a colony of chimpanzees living in an outdoor enclosure at the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands, conducted by Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal and his graduate students. The story of an aging patriarch and younger pretenders undermining his power. Violence and peace, sex and status, like the early seasons of "Game of Thrones", but documentary.

For all politicians this book is a "must-read".

Book: Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes by Frans de Waal

The Legal Equality is the idea that all people shall be equal before the law.

Most of the countries, though, implemented this idea in a Rule of Law form, which states that all citizens, or members of society, should have equal rights. So technically it allows some individuals to be excluded from the definition of "members of society," leading to the deprivation of their basic human rights.

This loophole has been widely exploited by various governments to enact oppressive laws targeting specific groups of people. Perhaps the most notorious example is Nazi Germany and its anti-Jewish legislation.

During the Nuremberg trials the defendants argued that they didn't commit any crimes, because they followed the German law at the time. To oppose that argument, the court used Radbruch formula, created by German law professor Gustav Radbruch. According to this formula, if a law "deliberately disregards" human equality before the law, it must not be followed.

Today, the Radbruch formula is embedded into most civil law systems worldwide, making it illegal to dehumanize people and evade accountability. It's worth noting that the legal systems of the USA and Canada operate differently, and I couldn't find any mentions of the formula in those jurisdictions.

Communism is known as another totalitarian ideology, but its roots lie in early Christianity with their idea of the second coming and establishing the eternal Kingdom of God.

After the discovery of the New World, the idea got a new life in the form of an imaginary island called Utopia with no private property, no locks on houses, identical clothing, and everyone having two slaves.

With the Industrial Revolution, communism appeared as a reaction to the visible inequality between workers and business owners. This inequality had existed for centuries, but before urbanization, it was not visible to the peasants.

As you can see, the famous ten points of marxism along with abolition of private property strongly suggest the centralization of power, which might contradict with some other communist concepts, such as disappearance of the State >1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. >1. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. >1. Abolition of all right of inheritance. >1. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. >1. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. >1. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. >1. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. >1. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. >1. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. >1. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Another common feature of Communism and Utopia is opposition to urbanism. According to these ideas, people should not live in cities but in small agricultural communities, basically suburbs.

People tend to use this word as a synonym to "everything bad", but it's not its actual meaning. Fascism is a one of totalitarian ideologies, that has racism in its core. We'll have a separate post for racism, but its idea revolves around the natural superiority of one race over all "others," leading to the belief that all "others" should either be eliminated or enslaved.

Natural superiority means it comes from nature, so once being born you can do abolutely nothing to change it.

Paradoxically, fascism did not originate from uneducated savages, but rather from respectable and intelligent professors.

Robert Sapolsky has spent decades researching primate brains, and in this book, he explains in detail how electric signals in different parts of the brain accumulate into emotions, cognition, and automaticity.

If you want to understand how people do, say, and feel various things, this book will certainly help.

Read the sample on Amazon (click the picture of the book)

Book: Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky

Totalitarianism is a form of authoritarianism that indoctrinates the population with a specific ideology and pursues a long-term vision for the transformation of the entire society.

Initially, the term was derogatory, but, just like with suffragette or impressionism, it was reappropriated. Benito Mussolini proudly called his regime the “Totalitarian State,” and after some historical events had occurred, it became derogatory again.

Unlike traditional dictatorships, totalitarianism appears in industrial societies, with urban populations and developed mass media. Full control of media and educational institutes is required to enforce the ideology onto the people.

Another interesting feature of totalitarian regimes is closed borders. People who are considered by the State to be a valuable resource tend to avoid having the ideology enforced upon them and may try to flee the country.

Right now there's an incentive to juuust hit a majority in order to maximize a party's own appointments, so political systems with high fragmentation have government stability problems. Would there be a way to work around this? Could a parliament maybe do some of the work of a government directly, for example?

Historically, democracy was rarely favored by philosophers: Aristotle classified democracy as a deviant constitution because it gives advantage to the rich populists. Plato claimed that democracy is dangerous due to its excessive freedom. Churchill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms." Some people are scared by the idea of the mob taking power with unpredictable consequences (this is called demophobia or ochlophobia).

So, why is democracy taking over the world? Even autocratic states are now claiming to be democracies and attempting to mimic its institutions. The key lies in the dispersal of power, or the diversification of power.

Democracy, unlike all other forms of government, provides a mechanism for spreading power, which makes it "fault-tolerant." Similar to how genetic diversity in biology allows species to tolerate environmental changes, power diversity makes democracies resilient to stresses such as coup attempts or pandemic outbreaks.

This is why democracy has so many forms and variations, and why it tends to remain in place once established (with rare exceptions, such as the Roman or Galactic Empires).

This is the only PolSci community I'm aware of, but it's named after one work that not everybody might agree with.

The core idea behind these two forms of government is the concentration of power. In Autocracies, power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, while in Authoritarianism, it resides with a small group known as elites.

Power concentration occurs even in democratic and socialist organizations, a concept known as the Iron Law of Oligarchy. This appears to be a natural force in human societies, similar to gravity.

So, why do we even have democracies? How do they come into existence? I will try to answer that in tomorrow's post.

Using a range of sociological data collected by official and independent polling agencies as well as circumstantial evidence and indirect markers of behavioral changes, including demographic data and crime statistics, Ekaterina Schulmann attempts to trace an evolution of public opinion in Russia from the final erosion of the Crimean consensus in 2018 until into the full-scale war in 2023.

This book from 1651 became one of the most influential works in political philosophy. Its insights and ideas have led to countless references and allusions in a wide range of following works.

One such concept is Hobbesian trap, that describes a scenario in which two groups or nations, driven by the fear of an imminent attack from the other, become locked in a dangerous cycle of mutual distrust. This sense of insecurity can lead to an arms race and a predisposition towards preemptive strikes, escalating tensions and increasing the likelihood of conflict.

The solution to this trap is in the book title: one central authority, or Leviathan, that has monopoly on violence.

Book: Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, full text online

I haven't actually gotten my hands on a copy yet, but it's really looking like social media is not the direct cause of the rise of populism, so any alternative theory is of interest. I understand the basic idea is that political parties fall to radical entryists when they themselves grow weak.

Book: Responsible Parties: Saving Democracy from Itself by Francis Rosenbluth and Ian Shapiro.

Before the 17th century, the word "liberal" didn’t have political connotations. It was first used in the 14th century to describe the liberal arts -- the seven disciplines every free-born man should learn:

• Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric -- to be able to share their ideas in a competent, consistent, and convincing way.
• Geometry, Arithmetic, Music theory and Astronomy -- to let curious minds observe and perceive the world around.

In the Age of Enlightenment, the meaning of "liberal" slightly changed: it became less slavery-related and more about individual rights and freedom from the State.

Liberalism was born as a reaction against hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings, and traditional conservatism – all the things that were enforced onto people without their consent.

The core of liberalism is the idea of personal freedom; it places individuals above the State and considers the State to be merely a tool to serve individuals and, by extension, society.

Statism is a political and economic ideology that views the State as a pinnacle of human evolution. The idea is that a whole is more than just a sum of its parts, therefore State has more value than any individual personality whithin it.

This stands in contrast with liberalism, which places the highest value on the individual and their freedom.

Statism justifies itself with the assertion that, in a natural state, humans exist in a perpetual "war of every man against every man," and only the fear of inevitable punishment can restrain them.

According to this view, a strong state with centralized authority is necessary to maintain order and prevent chaos by enforcing laws and imposing penalties on those who deviate from societal norms. The state sometimes is compared to the overprotective nanny, leading to the popular term "Nanny State."

When you exercise the voice strategy by protesting against anything you dislike, you create challenges for the responsible party, whether it's the government, management, or any other authority.

Rather than confronting you directly, they might employ a more cunning approach: co-opting you, an outsider, into their inner circle and granting you a share of their power, or at the very least, creating an impression of it.

Another option is to take just your idea and recuperate it, twisting it in a way that makes it harmless for them.

Classic example of recuperation is "green cars".

I don't have any examples of cooptation right now. Will update the post as soon as something comes to my mind.

There's a well-known fight-flight-freeze physiological response to a stress.

In politics it transforms into exit, voice and loyalty.

The book is not just descriptive, but also analytical. So after reading it you can make a conscious choice when dealing with unpleasant organizations of any kind.

Book: "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States" by Albert O. Hirschman

Perhaps you have heard about the shocking experiments of Martin Seligman in 1967. Back then he electrocuted poor puppies, observed their reaction, and came out with the term in the title.

What you might not know is that 50 years later, he published a sequel, in which he redefined 'learned helplessness' based on findings from neuroscience. Turned out there is nothing learned about helplessness. On the contrary, you have to learn to stop being helpless.

Here's a quote: >In conclusion, the neural circuitry underlying the phenomenon of learned helplessness strongly suggests that helplessness was not learned in the original experiments. Rather passivity and heightened anxiety are the default mammalian reaction to prolonged bad events. What can be learned is cortical—that bad events will be controllable in the future.

So helplessness (or freeze) is the default behaviour in mammals. To trigger fight-or-flight response you have to learn.

In game theory, zero-sum game is a situation when advantage on one side means an equal loss on other side. Most of card and gambling games are build in this way.

Derived from games, the zero-sum thinking creates some misconceptions and cognitive biases about real life. Here are some examples:

• Lump of labour fallacy -- a belief that immigration increase unemployment
• Principle of limited good -- a theory held mostly in traditional societies, about how amount of every "good" in the world is constant
• Golden billion -- a conspiracy theory that a cabal of global elites are pulling strings to amass wealth for the world's richest billion people at the expense of the rest of humanity

In reality zero-sum is almost never the case. The wealth is created by people, and total amout of it depends on labor efficiency, which increases over time.

Strong belief in zero-sum can trigger competitive behavior in individuals, reducing the overall efficiency of the society, which ironically reduces the wealth growth. This is an example of self-fulfilling prophecy

Trying to change your parents' mind by sending them media with victims of wars, school shootings or police brutality? Well, this never worked before, and it's not going to work any time soon.

People in general just do not feel emphaty about someone they don't personally know, and this seems to be a normal psychological response.

Book: "Regarding the Pain of Others" by Susan Sontag