Hats off to the elite, they got us good.

You answered your own question. BUT...

If you want to compare communism, fascism, and capitalism, you should do it in the same time-frame. Soviet communism failed and fell in 1991. Fascism failed and fell in 1945. Capitalism (which is part of the hybrid mix) is still going strong, as far as I can tell. In the period 1930 to 1940, capitalism was in the middle of a severe depression. Fascism was robust, and popular (more or less). The still new communism (just 13 years old in 1930) was functioning reasonably well. It is a bit difficult to tell how well the US economy would have recovered without WWII.

Al three ruling systems employed plenty of brutality and deception to keep their populations under control and maintain the flow of wealth into the ruling classes. The consumer culture (more limited than today) was still relatively new in the 1920s and 1930s. "cheap and tasty fast food, 150 TV channels with movies on demand, shopping, shopping, shopping for the ladies, and (mostly) free sports and internet porn for the gentlemen" hadn't happened yet. No television yet, just radio--and that was AM, not FM. Home appliances were expensive and only slowly making their way into the working class (which is most of the population). Phonographs were still 78 rpm. Pornography was flatly illegal and difficult to obtain. Alcohol was still illegal up to 1933. The first feature movie with sound appeared in 1927.

WWII was a watershed. The British Empire, and Britain as a major power, came to an end. France, Germany, Italy, and Japan were were shadows of their former selves after WWII. Fascism had been defeated at great cost, especially to the Axis and Axis-occupied nations. The US came out of the war as the top dog, economically and militarily. We ran the world for decades, which is one of the reasons for the hot consumer culture. Domestic consumption was, and is, a growing portion of GDP.

So, what might the lessons of the 20th century be?

Communism and Fascism employed authoritarian models of control and attempted to force their populations to adapt particular behaviors. Although initially successful, the medium to long term prospects for creating such a totalitarian superstructure were poor and each failed (or is failing). — synthesis

You're radically underestimating the historical contingency involved here.

(1) We could have lost world war II, in which case the whole planet would be overtly fascist
(2) Stalin could have not rose to power in Russia, or Russia could have gone through a transition to a system more similar to modern China.

There's also a naive reading of history involved here because these early examples or early efforts of these ideologies do not definitively prove that the ideology itself will not work. Just as medicine has improved over the centuries, Communism and Fascism will also improve. A future Fascist state might easily out-compete us and destroy us.

Another questionable assumption is that Fascism (or totalitarianism / oligarchy) and capitalism are mutually exclusive. In some respects, its a more ideal government for capitalism than Democracy is. There are many examples throughout history of capitalist totalitarianism.

You also ignore the socialist / regulatory aspects of modern Democratic states. They are not pure capitalism. Every modern state has large social programs; these are the hallmark of being modern. Professional militaries are just one such public good provided through socialism.

My vote for greatest lesson of the 20th century is that the concentration of wealth alone will lead to the destruction of civilization on a global scale. Thomas Piketty's research on this topic largely confirms Marx's thesis in this regard, even if Marx's actual formulas are imperfect.

There are two great lessons of the 20th century, and we didn't learn either. The first is that Communism doesn't work. The collapse of Communism in Russia and China, should have put an end to this flawed form of political economy. And yet, for want of any better ideas, it continues - likes some ghost at the feast - to inform the positions of one half of Western democracies.

The second lesson we didn't learn is that science works. From 1900 to 2000, scientific and technological progress was extraordinary; a truly world changing century all thanks to science, and yet science remains, without recognition as a valid understanding of reality - used as a tool, but ignored as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.

I don't know how one would go about creating a political spectrum that ranges from ideological traditionalist to scientific rationalist, but this would have been the natural consequence of learning from the century gone by; laying Communism to rest, and seating science at the table in its place.

Instead, we have a bunch of idiot kids, misled by wicked old men - trying to undermine the only system of political economy that works, to resurrect Communism's ghost - as if that were the answer to a sustainable future. As a consequence, there's a chance there won't be anyone left alive to look back on this century and ask what we learned from it. But "nothing" is the answer. We haven't learnt anything since we didn't learn from Galileo in the 17th century.

:up:

I like and support your answers very much!
I would add, our brains are always the same, our instincts, human condition and passions (underestimated by communism, overestimated by fascism) are the same but we have changed our relationship with our environment thanks to technological advances and education of large part of the population, we have made progress! what is not for granted.
Muy lesson learnt is, as Madalorian would say :-) : This is the way!

"The Big Lie" works (re: mass hysterias, ethno-nationalism, conspiracy cults, advertising-driven mass consumerism, etc).

That the manufacture of consent is capable of great refinements no one, I think, denies. The process by which public opinions arise is certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages, and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are plain enough. . . . [a]s a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner. A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power.... Under the impact of propaganda, not necessarily in the sinister meaning of the word alone, the old constants of our thinking have become variables. It is no longer possible, for example, to believe in the original dogma of democracy; that the knowledge needed for the management of human affairs comes up spontaneously from the human heart. Where we act on that theory we expose ourselves to self-deception, and to forms of persuasion that we cannot verify. It has been demonstrated that we cannot rely upon intuition, conscience, or the accidents of casual opinion if we are to deal with the world beyond our reach. — Public Opinion, Chapter XV (1922)

(emphasis is mine)

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. — Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X (1925)

(emphasis is mine)

We will stop the steal! — DJT, since December 2020

I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. He has the absolute right to do it.

We won it by a landslide. This was no close election.

They rigged an election. They rigged it like never before. — DJT, January 6, 2021

edit:

"Is it Great Again yet? Is it?!" :rofl: (So true ...)

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
— Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X (1925)
(emphasis is mine) — 180 Proof

So...

So, what might the lessons of the 20th century be? — Bitter Crank

An empty set.

History or centuries don't teach lessons.
People choose to take from them whatever lesson they want or consider relevant.

Thanks Raul, that's good of you to say so. You may be interested to read my plans for how to secure a prosperous and sustainable future, elsewhere on this site. Thanks again, and please feel free to share.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/489834

Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope. — Freewheelin' Franklin

The lesson (came to fruition in the early 21st century) is that the balance inherent in democracy, that is that the top of the pyramid has fewer votes than the bottom, can be gotten around since the rabble can be fooled into voting against their own best economic interest.

I am sure the events of the 20th century will be debated for centuries to come, but I put this out there to draw a parallel to present day events and the resurfacing of extremism (this time from the left).

Western democracies seem to work best when there's a proper balance of progressive (liberal) voices speaking out for change in concert with conservative ones making the case that what institutions still work efficiently(and in the interests of the vast majority) should not be replaced for the sake of change alone.

When ideas become particularly extreme (despite the fact that change is essential), this is when civility breaks down and violence rears its ugly head.

Who knows what's going to happen tomorrow or over the next weeks, months, or years, but I thought it would make for a good discussion to look at what's taking place now in light of the extreme-ism (right and left) that defined a large part of the 20th century.

I am sure the events of the 20th century will be debated for centuries to come, but I put this out there to draw a parallel to present day events and the resurfacing of extremism (this time from the left). — synthesis

Are you living in a parallel reality? Can you give me a list of all states taken over in the 21st century by right-wing and left-wing extremists respectively? Because all the examples I can think of are right-wing takeovers: Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Egypt (after the revolution, and now again after the coup). And all the really endangered democracies are endangered from the right as well: the US, Brasil, Poland.

Are you living in a parallel reality? — Echarmion

Of course I am (and so is everybody else), but that's a discussion for another day.... :)

Can you give me a list of all states taken over in the 21st century by right-wing and left-wing extremists respectively? Because all the examples I can think of are right-wing takeovers: Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Egypt (after the revolution, and now again after the coup). And all the really endangered democracies are endangered from the right as well: the US, Brasil, Poland. — Echarmion

I really didn't intend to make this a right-left thing (as that has been beaten to death over the past months), it's just a matter of extreme political behavior/policy.

I know that many people have an incredible hatred for Trump and have seen him as the second coming of Adolph Hitler, but I just wanted to stick with what's going on policy-wise within the government, and particularly with the progressive coalition that formed between business and government, so on and so forth.