The trouble with isms like fascism, capitalism, communism as well as aristocracy, anarchy, democracy, etcetera, is they’re totally at odds with human nature. Since people rank themselves above their fellows and their fellows above others, whenever and wherever there’s a conflict of interest (it’s a question of when and where, not if), people who aren’t completely brainwashed and slavish (which is about 50 of the population by my estimates, irrespective of whatever nonsense they’re peddling) will consciously, happily, or perhaps subconsciously, unhappily sacrifice the interests of others for their fellows and the interests of their fellows for themselves. In their own way, these isms are all about sacrificing for the greater good, or at least playing fair and by the rules, but people rarely sacrifice themselves for the greater good, unless they’ve been sufficiently duped by religion or secular humanism, or terrified by the boys in blue, who have a lot less power than people realize. The clever people know this, and they take advantage of it. In fact, clever people in some cases invented and in either case utilized these isms, not because they’re selfless, but because they’re selfish, because they wanted an advantage. Society is a myth, human animals aren’t ants, bees, wasps or termites, which are only capable of consistent reciprocal and sacrificial altruism because they’re sisters. Can society exist if the majority of people are aware of their own egoism? Perhaps it could, but people would be more clannish, more bottom up. People would rely on themselves and people they knew they could trust more, and less on strangers, bureaucrats and businessman. Maybe we’d all be a lot better off if we broke the spell. My question to the reader is - how do religions and secular humanisms dupe man into believing it always pays to play by the rules, play fair, or even more absurd, that self-sacrifice is its own reward? What are the various methods they employ?
The problem with non-isms is that whenever somebody rises to prominence on a platform of condemning ideology and liberating people from tradition, they replace that ideology and tradition with their own personal whims, and you end up with a cult of personality every bit as slavish as the discarded ideology, usually moreso.
That’s fine with me, I’ll take either one, a long term absence of isms, except for perhaps egoism/tribalism, or a short term absence of isms, followed by a new ism and/or cult of personality, like a Napoleon, or a Mussolini.