[Rockingham]

I have had an active interest in politics for decades. I now think of classifications of political ideology, policy, and actions as distinct and changeable in that they are not always logically consistent or the same from every perspective.

Moreover, these relationships can be usefully thought of as multidimensional and multifactored even though we can only process and understand them in two or three dimensions at a time.

For example, consider how the Left divides the world. Under traditional Marxism, the categories were based on economics. Modern Marxism applies the broader and more flexible categories of oppressed and oppressor.

Yet Marxism in all forms always has a keen sense of whom its political enemies are. That can change in an instant though depending on tactical and strategic considerations.

Thus Marxists and Nazis in Europe began as bitter adversaries because they were competing variants of socialism. Both allied though to bring down the Weimar Republic, after which their mutual enmity played out between Hitler and Stalin in existential terms.

Nevertheless, when circumstances warranted, Hitler and Stalin allied to invade and divide Poland, with the USSR providing natural resources and war materiel to Hitler for use against Britain and France. Eventually, Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded the USSR in June of 1941.

Remarkably, dedicated communists around the world found ways to rationalize these developments in supposed ideological terms. I suggest that the better approach is to recognize that political movements also view circumstances as a matter of how to seize and retain power. This can scramble seemingly neat and settled ideological relationships.

[rlmorel]

"...I now think of classifications of political ideology, policy, and actions as distinct and changeable in that they are not always logically consistent or the same from every perspective..."

LOL, I had to laugh at that line...I have been thinking of this for years (even decades) now, trying to show the relationships.

And what I concluded (that you already seemed to understand) is that things shift and change so much that a political spectrum drawn up a short time ago may be good only for explaining what the spectrum appeared to be at a given point in time.

Further, it may only be good for the perspective of a specific person or group to describe a situation as it is at that time, for THEIR own purposes..

You said: "... Eventually, Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded the USSR in June of 1941. Remarkably, dedicated communists around the world found ways to rationalize these developments in supposed ideological terms..."

In one of the most influential political books (for many of us besides me) I have ever read is Whittaker Chambers's Witness. You can see how this event completely crushed him as a Communist, and contributed to his decision to flee the Communist Party.

But it clearly highlights the danger to all men: The simple fact that if we believe something hard enough are not open to introspection, new information, or simply changing our minds, then the one power that humans possess that seems to be second to none can kick in and lay waste to our intellect: the power of Rationalization. We can make nearly anything fit what we want it to fit. I am guilty of it and have to guard against it, and even still, I fall prey to it.

Unfortunately, many people don't even see that they must be on guard against inappropriate rationalization.

Because as humans, we are damned good at it.