Failed Isms

Theories or ideas that have led to less than ideal empirical results in the laboratory of human nature:

Fascism

Communism

Monotheism

Polytheism

Fundamentalism

Imperialism

Nationalism

Patriotism

Elitism

Racism

Criticism

Collectivism

Totalitarianism

Colonialism

Americanism

Europeanism

Statism

(italicized entries seemingly offered as contrarian counter-examples, ignore them to get at the original meaning of the page)

Discussion:

How has the acceptance of more than one deity led to widespread human suffering? It might have failed in competition with Monotheism, but did it hurt anyone in the process?

Heck yes. Polytheists are as prone to religious war as anyone. And historically they've been very strong on human sacrifice too.

Honestly, religious wars were fairly rare compared to later monotheisms. Oh yeah -- prove it... I think that human nature is the same regardless of religious affiliation and that the proclivity to war is orthogonal to the number of deities you worship. If you're going to make a statment like this provide us with backup... I didn't say they didn't fight wars, I said they didn't fight religious wars.

And as for human sacrifice, some cultures practiced it, while other cultures found it utterly abhorrent. I think you are failing to distinguish between civilized and uncivilized polytheists, and so making an assessment that has little to do with the practicality of polytheism itself.

And just what is a civilized and uncivilized polytheist? So, were Romans civilized? Well, explain that to the Carthaginians (also polytheists). Are Hindus civilized? Explain that to their muslim neighbors in India and Pakistan (and vice-versa -- the monotheists aren't acting as purely ethical beings either in this case)... As I stated before the number of deities you believe in usually (if not always) has NO bearing on overall human nature...

The Romans were more civilized than the Carthaginians, who practiced human sacrifice, but not so civilized that they didn't practice widespread infanticide, gladiatorial combat, or wars. The last, incidentally, is a practice we have still failed to overcome. And as for your point, that's what I was myself saying, so...good.

Deprived of an enemy, Communism decays over time. Deprived of a market, Capitalism concocts an enemy.

--PhlIp

Um, not so fast. What we've seen decay is socialism. Communism ... well, that never got going in the first place. Likewise capitalism has little to do with modern market mechanisms, which are mostly HypnoCrat?ic. Capitalism had a lot more to do with, say, the GreatDepression. Oh dear, I seem to have proved your point.

Only once you prove that capitalism caused the Depression rather than, say, Federal Reserve monetary policy at the time.

Is Atheism worthy to be on your list? (Especially with "Uncle" Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao as worthy historical examples.) Another question I have is, what is the opposite of "Fundamentalism"? (Inquiring minds want to know. :) - BillZimmerly

"Secular Humanism" is a concocted enemy. The enemy of the Fundamentalists is apparently humans who are pro-human and pro-diversity. But remember that the exact middle of "fundamentalists" is "mental". --PhlIp

Besides which, Stalin and Mao were not primarily motivated by atheism, and their actions are not necessarily "representative" of atheism. Napoleon was a Christian - does that mean his actions were representative of Christianity?

I wrote "opposite", not "enemy" ... I think you were seeing something that wasn't there. :) I repeat, what is the opposite of "Fundamentalism"? - BillZimmerly

I would be more interested in a page dedicated to successes than of failures, let us forget the things that don't work and concentrate on the things that do.

Deprived of something to hate, something good will sprout in its place. Deprived of negative thoughts, the search for the positive can begin.

Some one has said, "A man can become a prisoner of his thoughts"

We be engineers. We examine failure critically. But "criticalism" may also be doomed. ;-) --PhlIp

In fact, I can't think of a single `ism` that is an unqualified success....

Nothing in the we/they realm ever seems to be so, but in the I/thou realm even engineers can experience success.

I'm a Hindu and hence polytheistic. I do not see that it has failed. It has been thriving for around 5000 years and still going strong (in India). And human sacrifices are not there in Hinduism. -- VhIndukumar

I think that polytheism was added as a counterpoint to monotheism. Both of which cannot be simply dismissed as failures, neither of which has been completely successful in any useful metric. I don't see how this page will go anywhere interesting.

I think you're right, so I italicized the entries that were added that do not seem to match the criteria of less than ideal empirical results in the laboratory of human nature. An unstated part of this criteria is the idea should sound really good (to some people) if considered independent of human nature.

How is it then that monotheism is out but polytheism is in? And could you demonstrate a single `ism' that has *not* have less than ideal empirical results in the laboratory of human nature? I can't, off the top of my head.

In that sense, most of the 'ism's have failed. Those 'ism's were meant to target a narrow problem. Those 'ism's are not meant to be taken as a solution to all problems (contrary to the beliefs of followers). I can not find an 'ism' that have suceeded also. All of them have failed in some sense or other. -- VhIndukumar

I find this phrase "less than ideal empirical results in the laboratory of human nature" sort of amusing, myself. How do you get empirical results in such a laboratory? What would your control be? -- francis

Perhaps a criterion for a failed ism would be it leads to a surprisingly opposite result from theoretical expectations. Communism led to inequality, not equality. Monotheism led to dividing people, not uniting them.

The point I was trying to make is that claims to finding objective truth in the "laboratory of human nature" only take you so far. Past a certain point it's all subjectivity and faith, and in some ways there's nothing wrong with that. -- francis

Umm, Communism at the theoretical level leads to inequality. Unless, of course, you throw out logic when analyzing it theoretically (which most Communist apologists do). I'm curious too for an explanation as to how Monotheism divides people...

Because when you believe there is only one god, you believe only your god is the right god, and you tend to go around bashing those who have a slightly different take on their one god. Even if you share the same founding father of your faith. Tune into http://www.cnn.com or equivalent for details. Speak for yourself. Most of the problems shown on CNN are the result of Colonialism, not Monotheism.

Good point. But what about the underlying ideology that helped the colonizers to disrespect the native people they came in contact with? Was it only about economic gain? Wasn't there usually an advance team of true believers in their partisan mono-god?

And yet some monotheists are pretty nice, uniting people. Just ask my father, who just converted to Catholicism after 30-plus years of atheism. I'm an atheist myself, but I'm pretty happy for him. -- francis

It is not clear to me that the selection of "isms" at the start of this page represents anything other than a heterogeneous collection of ideas the page's author happens to disagree with. I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be, other than advertising his or her disagreement with those ideas. (There certainly doesn't seem to be a whole lot of support offered for the claim that they've "failed".) -- GarethMcCaughan