Splitting the people of the same origin is a risky political game and might start with describing them as good or bad. On an individual level splitting a team for one’s own gain is a sign of character vulnerability. On a societal level splitting an ethnic group to good and bad without giving all the same opportunity is a sign of political hypocrisy. In modern political games a group of people might be seen as moderate as long as they make the proper connections, even if they dream of war. As soon as the same people detect the discrimination policies of an establishment and become vocal they are called radical, even if they dream of peace.
One of the products of state discrimination around the world is radicalism. Extreme right and left radicals might even defend Chauvinism and Stalinism, worship the portraits of Hitler and Stalin, and carry the tattoos of these leaders respectively. For average citizens both radicals might look alike for their pressure on people. A major difference is that the chauvinists enjoy only the suffering of those who are different than them, while Stalinists enjoy the suffering of everyone equally. A close analogy might be comparing sadism with sadomasochism. Sadists or serial killers might enjoy hurting others without permission, while sadomasochists might enjoy hurting self and others who join them. None of those radical orientations have proved in action that they are interested in comfort and joy for everyone equally.
In undemocratic countries average citizens might have to make a choice between the two radicals. Some people might not know that cooperation with Stalin was needed to end European fascism, and subsequently Stalinism ended through dialogue and development. Even if some radicals had chosen Stalinism over chauvinism, their old views tend to become history once their people are treated as equal human beings. Comparatively an uninformed sadomasochist has a better chance to recover than a sadist serial killer.
In undemocratic or pseudodemocratic countires, chauvinists can not accept having powerless minorities as equal negotiating partners and they would rather prolong the existence of Stalinism to have a scapegoat. They would rather have every member of the hated minorities live in misery and become a struggling fighter, or fight its own kind as gladiators. If the minorities do not fall for manipulation to be used against each other, the chauvinists might take a more drastic measure by attacking them with full force.
In case of such an attack, the world might become confused where to stand. I would rather chose an option that supports cooperation with all including with the radical left in order to prevent giving the new waves of chauvinisms and fascism another chance. The free world rightfully united against them during the World War II. I hope dialogue and peace prevails. If another war becomes inevitable, I hope the same free world unites against any discriminatory regime that thinks minorities should be treated different than their own people, regardless if such regimes are fanatics, secular, or a NATO member.
If you enjoyed this essay, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to This I Believe, Inc.