Has there ever been a GOOD radical ideology?

>>2875286
No.
Compromise is a part of human nature and radical ideologies rarely ever compromise with other mocements. As such they never compensate for what they lack that other ideologies could help provide insight for

Depends on the time period. At one point, Civil Rights were considered radical but today it would be considered good.

I'd argue that Theodore Roosevelt was a radical in his day, but the majority of his social & political reforms, along with general policy proposals, have been incorporated into our current society.

>>2875344
I guess the trouble with the recent resurfacing of communism and fascism isn't that they're radical. It's more that people are insisting on ideas that have already been tried and failed

>>2875286
No, operating in extremes will only ever lead to disaster. The insane, blood-thirsty, and jingoistic rhetoric that the fascists and communists pedaled was the motivation for the worst war in human history and numerous repressive governments that killed tons of people (respectively). A professor I had once said that veering too far to the left or right side of the road while you're driving will end with your car careening into a roadside ditch.

>>2875344
>Civil Rights
>ideology

Redditor understanding of history

>>2875286
I'd say radical as in "let's pass reform-minded legislation" is preferable to radical as in "we need to eradicate all of X group."

>>2875333
Truth + compromise = falsehood

>>2875397
Okay, I'll admit I got the definition wrong but without a doubt at one point in history supporting Civil Rights was considered radical.

I'd assume Civil Rights would fall under the umbrella of egalitarianism.

>>2875400
I'd say that an idea that is able to get implemented via legitimate means isn't that radical

REAL communism...... Too bad it hasn't been tried yet.....

>>2875384
I'll at least give communists a bit more of a pass than fascists. They do seem to be motivated by a (tremendously misguided) desire to help those less fortunate. Most fascists I've dealt with seem to have built their entire ideology around hating others.

Still, in practice they're both terrible systems so I can't say one is really any better than the other from a practical perspective.

>>2875410
>>2875410
>supporting Civil Rights was considered radical

Define "Civil Rights"

>Egalitarianism
>Ambiguous denotation of a wide range of reforms inclied to ensure equity in a society
>Ideology

Name me one (1) major party in history which described it's ideology as primarily "egalitarian", instead of parties who pursued egalitarian policy as a complement of their ideology

>>2875452
I think that's why personally find communism more dangerous than fascism. It is much easier for the common person to sympathize with communism than fascism. Especially since current pop culture has a leftist bias

Hussites were considered radical and they were pretty cool

>racial anything
humans should disregard race and focus on making money, fighting poverty and making more money from space

>ebul joos
>ebul nigs
>ebul whitey
none of it matters, we need to focus on technology and the economy not petty bullshit

>>2875286
The problem with marxism is a sort of Kantian inheritance in the shape of self negation by self-relativisation. Claiming that all (universally quantified in the writings of marx) ideologies are products of socio-economic relations, and that they are therefor only relatively true, that is strongly: true in a certain time frame, or weakly: appear as true to a certain culture at in a certain time span, reflects in on itself, as marxism is itself an ideology, and therefor has to be a product of socio-economic relations, and therefor not absolutely true about theories as such. Furthermore it cannot be perceived as a meta-theory proper, it was before Cantor, and the way Marx expresses it, (his example is darwin as a theory that approximates to the same meta-theoretical level as Marx himself), the socio-economic determination would reflect upwards into that dimension as well. Has there been a good radical ideology? What do you mean by good, and what do you mean by radical? What do you even mean by ideology? Are you referring only to political discourse? How much of a dickwitt monkey who likes big words and books he doesn't understand are you?

>>2875582
How much of a pedant autist are you that you can't trust your own intuition to understand what OP meant? Just because you call out some semantic error doesn't mean you're contributing anything to the discussion.

Liberalism was pretty radical back in the day. French Revolution etc

If an idea isn't good at its extreme, then it's not good at all.

So that basically leaves classical liberalism