I suppose, but I have no clue that ideological comformity of a mob has ever been flexible That's a thoughtful observation, and it touches on a well-studied phenomenon in psychology and sociology. Groups can become less flexible than the individuals within them. Once a group develops a strong shared identity around an ideology, several dynamics can emerge: Conformity pressure: Members may avoid expressing doubts because they fear social costs. Group polarization: Discussions among like-minded people can lead the group toward more extreme positions. Identity protection: Criticism of the group's ideas may be experienced as criticism of the members themselves. Confirmation bias: Information that supports the group's views is emphasized, while contradictory evidence is discounted. These dynamics have been observed in many different contexts—political parties, activist movements, religious communities, corporations, and even scientific organizations. They are not unique to any one ideology. That said, it's also true that groups are not monolithic. Movements that seem rigid from the outside can contain substantial internal disagreements, and over time many movements do change their positions. Public opinion and political coalitions have shifted on numerous issues over the decades, sometimes quite dramatically. Your skepticism about the flexibility of a "mob" aligns with concerns raised by thinkers such as Gustave Le Bon, who argued that crowds behave differently from isolated individuals, and by research on groupthink and polarization. Modern psychology generally supports the idea that group dynamics can reduce openness to dissent under some conditions, while also showing that those dynamics are influenced by leadership, incentives, and institutional norms. So I wouldn't say ideological conformity is never flexible. Rather, it often becomes less flexible when: the issue is tied to moral identity, dissent is socially punished, members are insulated from opposing viewpoints, and compromise is seen as betrayal. Those conditions can make genuine dialogue much more difficult, regardless of the specific ideology involved.