The Alleged Troubles With Atheism

[Augustus]

Yes. People influence other people. Ideology is just a description of what those who influence others want from those they influence.

Yes, well done. That is what I've been saying from the start.

Ideology is just a descriptions of a person's beliefs, ideals, morals, political and economic preferences, etc.

So, for example, Nazis wanted to influence others to see Jews as genetically inferior, traitorous, etc. and support their murder or removal from German society to prevent 'pollution' of German blood and corruption of society.

Doing this is persuading them to adopt (part of) their ideology.

Marx's ideology caused people to murder...
to...
Words can be used to persuade people to change their thoughts and actions.

I've seen people moving the goalposts, but you appear to be raising the goalposts. If I kick a field goal through the old goalposts, then just raise the goalposts hoping I can't kick the ball that high!

Jesus wept

My argument was that people can use words to persuade others to adopt certain ideological beliefs. By persuading them of the truth/validity of a violent ideology, you persuade them that violence is justified to help create your desired future state.

That is persuading them to change their thoughts and actions. You can persuade people to become more ruthless in thought and more violent in their actions.

Unless you disagree with the above, you agree with me.

You are just confusing yourself with your own strawmen that I somehow have been arguing that ideology exists independently of human thought, actions, language and communication.

Oh sure, you can tell kids what your ideas are, but as most parents know, they may not adopt those ideas. If I go by my own experiences as a child, I tended to rebel against my religious indoctrination. So it seems to me that indoctrinating kids with ideology only works if they are prone to act in accord with that ideology before they ever hear it.

You were also exposed to alternative ideological positions via other sources. You adopted ideas from your environment. This is what I said people do.

Obviously it's not 100%, but the number one factor that influences people's religious or ideological beliefs is that of their family and childhood socialisation.

If I espoused your position on ideology, then I would also avoid like the plague the issue of banning ideology. Most nations today realize that ideology does little harm and that it is people we need to watch out for. That's why, at least here in America, you can find copies of The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf in any public library. The violent Bolsheviks and the Nazis aren't around to cause trouble so we need not worry about their ideology.

My position? You keep strawmanning the **** out of my position on ideology then claiming that me correcting you on this is "moving the goalposts"

Anyway Mein kampf was banned in several European countries till recently. Holocaust denial is also illegal in several.

Books have been burned in many places.
Blasphemy laws exist in many countries. Lese majeste laws, sedition laws that criminalise ideologically problematic speech, etc.

Countries certainly understand the power of ideas, hence most countries outside the West don't really have free speech.

If you were more familiar with the rest of the world and not stuck in an America centric thought bubble you might understand this.

I personally don't agree with banning texts as it doesn't work, and people should understand about the past.

I do agree that people should be prosecuted for promoting violent ideologies in a manner that threatens other people.

I've no idea why you think that somehow goes against anything I've said in this thread.

This sentence is incomplete. Please post complete sentences.

It was when read in context of the quoted text

Another word for you to learn:

ellipsis | ɪˈlɪpsɪs | noun (plural ellipses | ɪˈlɪpsiːz | ) the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues

 

[Jagella]

Yes, well done. That is what I've been saying from the start.

Ideology is just a descriptions of a person's beliefs, ideals, morals, political and economic preferences, etc.

Actually, from the start you've argued that ideology, Marxist ideology in particular, if "violent" is dangerous. It is that claim of yours that I dispute. If now you wish to concede that ideology is merely a description of what people want other people to do and/or think, then I will accept your concession.

So, for example, Nazis wanted to influence others to see Jews as genetically inferior, traitorous, etc. and support their murder or removal from German society to prevent 'pollution' of German blood and corruption of society.

Doing this is persuading them to adopt (part of) their ideology.

Now wait--how is that just a description of what the Nazis wanted to do? Describing what you want people to think or do is not the same as an attempt to persuade them to do what you want them to do. There's a world of difference between Hitler's unpublished Mein Kampf which can be seen as a description of what he wanted people to do and his Nazi followers actively recruiting SS men.

So we have here a good example of the reason I might be confused. You started out arguing that ideology is just a description and then jumped to ideology as an influence. It's equivocation to swap different words in and out of your arguments that way replacing one with another without explanation whenever you think it might have more rhetorical power. It goes like this:

You say that A isn't dangerous, but B has been proved to be dangerous!

My argument was that people can use words to persuade others to adopt certain ideological beliefs. By persuading them of the truth/validity of a violent ideology, you persuade them that violence is justified to help create your desired future state.

That might be what you're saying now, but you first challenged me with your contention that Marx's ideology is dangerous. Have you changed your mind on that issue? Besides, I have already rebutted your claim that simple persuasion can make contented, peace-loving people violent.

You are just confusing yourself with your own strawmen that I somehow have been arguing that ideology exists independently of human thought, actions, language and communication.

Could it be that you are confusing me by repeatedly dancing around issues that if you had honestly and fully addressed the first time I asked you about them, then there would be a lot less supposed confusion on my part?

You were also exposed to alternative ideological positions via other sources. You adopted ideas from your environment. This is what I said people do.

Actually, I came up with my own ideas using reason and evidence that I realized later other people share. I never acted on any idea just because I heard about it. For example, I happen to be heterosexual. Do you think I'm going to turn gay if I hear some homosexual lauding the joys of gay sex? It just doesn't work that way.

My position? You keep strawmanning the **** out of my position on ideology then claiming that me correcting you on this is "moving the goalposts"

If it's not your position that ideology can be dangerous, then I have no argument with you there, and any disputation on my part has resulted from your not making that position clear.

Anyway Mein kampf was banned in several European countries till recently. Holocaust denial is also illegal in several.

Books have been burned in many places.
Blasphemy laws exist in many countries. Lese majeste laws, sedition laws that criminalise ideologically problematic speech, etc.

Countries certainly understand the power of ideas, hence most countries outside the West don't really have free speech.

Yes, and I've often wondered why they would ban Mein Kampf and other books when they know or should know that we Americans don't ban them, yet no Nazis are gassing Jews here. It might be that those banning books outside the USA are making the same mistake you do.

If you were more familiar with the rest of the world and not stuck in an America centric thought bubble you might understand this.

I'm well aware that other societies censor even more than we Americans do. Some of them also punish women for seeking education. I don't think that either practice is a good example to follow.

I personally don't agree with banning texts as it doesn't work, and people should understand about the past.

But what of all that allegedly dangerous ideology in many of those books? Have you changed your mind?

I do agree that people should be prosecuted for promoting violent ideologies in a manner that threatens other people.

Who will judge what ideologies threaten people? You?

I've no idea why you think that somehow goes against anything I've said in this thread.

It doesn't go against what you've preached all along. You wish to deem some ideologies as dangerous and want to see those who express those ideologies prosecuted for avowing those ideologies.

Now that's dangerous! Getting back to the Nazis, they prosecuted people for avowing any ideology, Bolshevism in particular, that they saw as dangerous. Without their acts, both ideologies could have existed side-by-side with no trouble at all.

 

[Augustus]

Actually, from the start you've argued that ideology, Marxist ideology in particular, if "violent" is dangerous. It is that claim of yours that I dispute. If now you wish to concede that ideology is merely a description of what people want other people to do and/or think, then I will accept your concession.

You seem to have an inability to connect ideas together, understand context or fill in elementary assumptions that are not literally and explicitly stated.

I'm not sure if this is consequence or a cause of you excessively breaking up posts in your replies then largely treating them as if they didn't form part of a lager conversation

The problem is that this requires me to simplify and explicitly explain the context and obvious assumptions, which then results in you seeing this as "moving the goalposts" because you forget/don't understand the context and new elementary assumptions that are not literally and explicitly stated. Also you find it difficult to make the connection between ideology and things like ethics, culture, etc. and that people who hold certain ideological beliefs may indeed act on them. Because of this you keep on making the mistake that it is "equivocation" to discuss related concept in a connected manner because you don't understand context and atomise ideas.

An example of this would be your argument that ideology doesn't impact people, it is the words of people that impacts people (i.e. the expression of their ideology that impacts people).

This couldn't be more obvious to anyone with a rudimentary idea of what ideology is, and most people would feel patronised if you actually went out of the way to explain it to them that ideology wasn't some wonderful pre-existing concept that appears from nowhere and magically appears inside people's minds and controls them like an automaton. In fact, ideology is the expression of a cohesive framework individual's views that they use to interpret the world and the way it should be, and that they may try to persuade others to adopt and that, depending on these views, may increase the likelihood of an individual engaging in pro-social or anti-social behaviours

I have tried to correct you on these, but each correction confuses you further because you atomise it further and forget even more of the context.

That might be what you're saying now, but you first challenged me with your contention that Marx's ideology is dangerous. Have you changed your mind on that issue? Besides, I have already rebutted your claim that simple persuasion can make contented, peace-loving people violent.

What I said was Marxism-Leninism was an explicitly violent, millenarian ideology which caused harm wherever it was adopted in significant numbers.

The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the fundamental question of the modern working-class movement in all capitalist countries without exception... Whoever has failed to understand that dictatorship is essential to the victory of any revolutionary class has no understanding of the history of revolutions, or else does not want to know anything in this field... The scientific term ‘dictatorship’ means nothing more nor less than authority untrammeled by any laws, absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever, and based directly on force.

Lenin

Many people were attracted to this ideology by its promise of creating a utopian society of universal justice, including many highly empathetic, educated, middle and upper class intellectuals who went to the most prestigious universities. They were not traumatised, oppressed thugs and gangsters who would have been violent mass murderers regardless.

Leninism posited a belief in humankind’s effective perfectibility through development of a new type of person, capable of living under communism. Belief in the attainability of an aesthetically pure, harmonious, and unitary future society required the removal of imperfections and the active sculpting of society by the state... [thus it required] “a radically new type of violence, truly decisive and self-contained, a form of violence that will put an end once and for all to violence itself.”93 This dialectical notion of violence to end violence is of cardinal importance for understanding how violence in the service of the revolution was not simply justified but sacralized in Bolshevik thought...the Soviet concept of “active humanism”—the necessity of taking (violent) action to eradicate the sources of human suffering—was quite central to the representation of violence as morally good...

The Sacralization of Violence: Bolshevik Justifications for Violence and Terror during the Civil War - Jame Ryan


My argument was that persuading people that violence should be used to strive towards an impossible goal is a bad idea, especially when this is backed by the resources of the state. Evidence has shown that this is true beyond any doubt (For further examples of religious and secular millenarianism see N Cohn - The pursuit of the millennium, Or W Pfaff - The bullets song)

So I'll leave you with this again:

a) Are humans perfectible? (no)
b) Can an ideology that requires humans to be perfectible succeed? (no)
c) If an ideology explicitly condones extreme violence in order to help progress society towards utopia, is this violence likely to be effective in this goal? (no)
d) Is an explicitly violent ideology in pursuit of an impossible goal that inspires great devotion on behalf of it adherents who believe they are a noble elite creating an earthly paradise likely to make its adherents more violent than followers of many other ideologies? (yes, of course)
e) Should we therefore prefer many of these other ideologies with more rational and limited aims that take into account human limitations and don't mandate extreme violence in pursuit of impossible fantasies? (yes, within reason)


Unless you can make a decent attempt of showing you understand my arguments in context, there probably isn't much point in continuing this discussion. Thanks for the discussion anyway

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You seem to have an inability to connect ideas together, understand context or fill in elementary assumptions that are not literally and explicitly stated.

...

As in effect not a teacher, but being around teachers and their methods since being a child. My parents and extended family were teachers and in part working as a teachers aide, you have hit a difference in learning styles and cognition.
Sometimes when learning something new, you have to learn to learn differently. Not all people can that to the same degree.

 

[Jagella]

What I said was Marxism-Leninism was an explicitly violent, millenarian ideology which caused harm wherever it was adopted in significant numbers.

Rather than argue about who knows more or understands more or who committed what dirty deed, I suggest we get back to discussing and critiquing this idea you've posted above. I am remiss in not placing more emphasis on terminology. So to make sure that I'm understanding your position, I need to know what you mean by Marxism-Leninism. Please briefly explain in your own words rather than quoting somebody. By "ideology" do you mean a set of ideas that Marx and Lenin came up with regarding the optimization of economics, government, and law enforcement? In what way was that ideology violent, and was that violence unjustified? Did Marx or Lenin intend their ideas to be harmful? If not, then what went wrong? What do you mean by "millenarian"? What do you mean by "adopted in significant numbers"?

 

[Jagella]

As in effect not a teacher, but being around teachers and their methods since being a child. My parents and extended family were teachers and in part working as a teachers aide, you have hit a difference in learning styles and cognition.
Sometimes when learning something new, you have to learn to learn differently. Not all people can that to the same degree.

I used to be a tutor, and I've noticed that which should be obvious: In order for a student to learn, she or he must be willing to learn. Some of my students just didn't like the course material or didn't see any value in it. Such students were unlikely to succeed. When I'm online, I likewise often encounter people who just don't like what I'm saying, and no matter how hard I try to explain the reasoning and evidence supporting it, they won't accept it. Heck, I've been censored often enough for simply communicating some basic facts. It's a quirk of human nature to reject some truths that seem alien to us, and I've often wondered how knowledge can advance when so many reject it for no good reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I used to be a tutor, and I've noticed that which should be obvious: In order for a student to learn, she or he must be willing to learn. Some of my students just didn't like the course material or didn't see any value in it. Such students were unlikely to succeed. When I'm online, I likewise often encounter people who just don't like what I'm saying, and no matter how hard I try to explain the reasoning and evidence supporting it, they won't accept it. Heck, I've been censored often enough for simply communicating some basic facts. It's a quirk of human nature to reject some truths that seem alien to us, and I've often wondered how knowledge can advance when so many reject it for no good reason.

Yeah, but this is not basic facts. It is several factors and not basic.

 

[Augustus]

Rather than argue about who knows more or understands more or who committed what dirty deed, I suggest we get back to discussing and critiquing this idea you've posted above. I am remiss in not placing more emphasis on terminology. So to make sure that I'm understanding your position, I need to know what you mean by Marxism-Leninism. Please briefly explain in your own words rather than quoting somebody. By "ideology" do you mean a set of ideas that Marx and Lenin came up with regarding the optimization of economics, government, and law enforcement? In what way was that ideology violent, and was that violence unjustified? Did Marx or Lenin intend their ideas to be harmful? If not, then what went wrong? What do you mean by "millenarian"? What do you mean by "adopted in significant numbers"?

Ideology, in this sense, relates to the totality of ideas regarding morals, politics, economics, social relations, etc., how society should be structured in order to realise these and what actions should be encouraged in pursuit of these.

Marxism was supposed to develop in advanced industrial economies like Germany of Britain, not pre-industrial peasant societies like Russia.

Leninism sought to redress this problem via a revolutionary vanguard who would enforce a dictatorship of the proletariat until the society was sufficiently advanced for the government to melt away and a true communist society to emerge.

It was violent in that it explicitly said you needed to be ruthlessly violent in order to crush any alternative worldview or political structure as these would prevent mankind reaching this utopian stage. Basically, human life has no intrinsic value so it doesn't really matter how many people die if it is good for the Party/vanguard (and thus humanity as a whole).

As quoted, Lenin was explicit in his support for violence, and that such violence was inherently moral.

Millenarian basically means utopian, an ideology that promises a total revolution of life on earth and the emergence of a perfect society free of suffering.

What went wrong is that a total revolution of life on earth and the emergence of a perfect society free of suffering is impossible and thus any movement that advocates violence in pursuit of total power in order realise this goal will be tyrannical.

 

[Jagella]

Thank you very much for this reply!

Ideology, in this sense, relates to the totality of ideas regarding morals, politics, economics, social relations, etc., how society should be structured in order to realise these and what actions should be encouraged in pursuit of these.

I see some need to clarify what I highlighted in bold. What do you mean by "in this sense," "relates to" and "the totality of ideas"? I tend to prefer rigorous definitions to avoid misunderstandings. It's best not to assume too much regarding what your reader has in common with you. Anyway, my best guess is that you're defining ideology as a listing and description of ideas in a set used by some person or persons that makes up their philosophy and what they want people to think and do.

Marxism was supposed to develop in advanced industrial economies like Germany of Britain, not pre-industrial peasant societies like Russia.

Thanks for the history lesson, but this statement doesn't tell me much about what you mean by "Marxism." You'll need to clarify your take on Marxism.

Leninism sought to redress this problem via a revolutionary vanguard who would enforce a dictatorship of the proletariat until the society was sufficiently advanced for the government to melt away and a true communist society to emerge.

By "problem" I assume you mean the lack of support for Communism in some advanced countries. I also assume that you see Lenin's revolutionary fervor as dangerous. People exposed to his ideas might hurt innocent people as a result.

It was violent in that it explicitly said you needed to be ruthlessly violent in order to crush any alternative worldview or political structure as these would prevent mankind reaching this utopian stage. Basically, human life has no intrinsic value so it doesn't really matter how many people die if it is good for the Party/vanguard (and thus humanity as a whole).

So is it wrong if violence against presumed evildoers is encouraged?

As quoted, Lenin was explicit in his support for violence, and that such violence was inherently moral.

I assume you disagree and think that his violence was immoral. Is that correct?

Millenarian basically means utopian, an ideology that promises a total revolution of life on earth and the emergence of a perfect society free of suffering.

Is millenarianism then bad from a moral standpoint?

What went wrong is that a total revolution of life on earth and the emergence of a perfect society free of suffering is impossible and thus any movement that advocates violence in pursuit of total power in order realise this goal will be tyrannical.

Is advocating violence in pursuit of a presumably worthy goal necessarily a bad thing?

I'd also like to know what you mean by ideology being "adopted in significant numbers."

 

[Augustus]

I see some need to clarify what I highlighted in bold. What do you mean by "in this sense," "relates to" and "the totality of ideas"? I tend to prefer rigorous definitions to avoid misunderstandings. It's best not to assume too much regarding what your reader has in common with you. Anyway, my best guess is that you're defining ideology as a listing and description of ideas in a set used by some person or persons that makes up their philosophy and what they want people to think and do.

There is no uniform definition of ideology, but pretty much what you say: a cohesive set of ideas that encompasses a person's moral, political, economic and aesthetic philosophies and may be descriptive of the way the world is and prescriptive of the way it should be and acts as a framework for interpreting ideas and events.

Thanks for the history lesson, but this statement doesn't tell me much about what you mean by "Marxism." You'll need to clarify your take on Marxism.

A philosophy that aims to create a utopian global communism

By "problem" I assume you mean the lack of support for Communism in some advanced countries. I also assume that you see Lenin's revolutionary fervor as dangerous. People exposed to his ideas might hurt innocent people as a result.

No, I mean that the revolution happened in the 'wrong' country per classical Marxist theory hence they had to revise it.

So is it wrong if violence against presumed evildoers is encouraged?

Doesn't matter if they are evildoers of innocent, the only calculation is what's good for the state.

Even if we disregard this and only focus on 'evildoers', you'll have to define what kind of evildoer you think deserves to be killed and see if that matches the reality of 20th C Communist societies.

Do you think a slightly more successful peasant who can afford to hire a few workers deserves to be killed? A loyal Party member who advocates a policy contrary to the leadership?

I assume you disagree and think that his violence was immoral. Is that correct?

Yes, I believe killing millions of kulkas, peaceful dissenters, and other innocents is wrong.

Agree?

Is millenarianism then bad from a moral standpoint?

It's impossible to achieve, so if the pursuit of it is harmful, then yes.

What do you think?

Is advocating violence in pursuit of a presumably worthy goal necessarily a bad thing?

Violence in pursuit of a delusional goal is always a bad thing.

Do you agree?

Is advocating violence in pursuit of a presumably worthy goal necessarily a bad thing?

Not per se, but it depends on the level of violence, it's purpose and the degree to which the goal is achievable.

I'd also like to know what you mean by ideology being "adopted in significant numbers."

Let's simplify and say when it takes control of a nation or region.

 

[Jagella]

There is no uniform definition of ideology, but pretty much what you say: a cohesive set of ideas that encompasses a person's moral, political, economic and aesthetic philosophies and may be descriptive of the way the world is and prescriptive of the way it should be and acts as a framework for interpreting ideas and events.

Yes, there is no universally accepted definition of ideology or any word for that matter, but it's best to post your own definition, clarify it to your readers, and then stick with that definition. If the definition is changed without explanation, then your readers may be unsure of what you mean by ideology.

A philosophy that aims to create a utopian global communism

I just checked Wikipedia's article Marxism, and it uses the phrase "a dialectical perspective to view social transformation" to describe Marxism. It appears from that article that Marxism is more a school of thought than it is a revolutionary effort.

But I'll go with your definition of Marxism.

Doesn't matter if they are evildoers of innocent, the only calculation is what's good for the state.

Is that a typical Marxist's disregard for human life?

Even if we disregard this and only focus on 'evildoers', you'll have to define what kind of evildoer you think deserves to be killed and see if that matches the reality of 20th C Communist societies.

By "evildoer" I'm referring to any person whose goal is to harm the citizens of a particular nation. Was violence on the part of Communists against such evildoers an idea that caught on with people and led to violent acts on their part? As I see it, there are some instances in which killing a person who threatens the citizens of a state is justified.

Do you think a slightly more successful peasant who can afford to hire a few workers deserves to be killed?

No, of course not.

A loyal Party member who advocates a policy contrary to the leadership?

If you're asking me if that "loyal party member" should be killed, then no, of course not.

Yes, I believe killing millions of kulkas, peaceful dissenters, and other innocents is wrong.

Agree?

Yes, of course.

It's impossible to achieve, so if the pursuit of it is harmful, then yes.

What do you think?

I see many people who pursue millenarianism who do little or no harm at least in the sense of committing acts of violence. Christians, for example, are generally peaceful, so although their beliefs glorify the violent effort to achieve heaven, for practical and moral reasons they don't turn to violence.

Violence in pursuit of a delusional goal is always a bad thing.

Do you agree?

I would need to say no. Having "delusional goals" can be beneficial because although the goal may be unachievable, the person(s) pursuing that goal may achieve other worthwhile goals along the way.

Let's simplify and say when it takes control of a nation or region.

Is it safe to assume that there are large numbers of naysayers in that nation, and even those who act according to the ideology may misunderstand the ideology?

I should clarify that my position isn't really that Marxism's moral tenets (if any) are good or bad; it is that I see little reason to believe that any deadly violence on the part of those influenced by Marx's philosophy can sensibly and justifiably be blamed on Marx's ideas. I ask you to demonstrate that Marxist philosophy alone caused the many killings in Communist countries.

 

[Augustus]

I just checked Wikipedia's article Marxism, and it uses the phrase "a dialectical perspective to view social transformation" to describe Marxism. It appears from that article that Marxism is more a school of thought than it is a revolutionary effort.

But I'll go with your definition of Marxism.

Start here: Classical Marxism - Wikipedia

Marxism means all kinds of things, but in context of this discussion it relates to the ideology that underpinned the 20th C communist regimes, rather than, for example, a form of literary criticism practised in university English departments.

Hence I keep using Marxism-Leninism (and its offshoots) to be more precise. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc are largely tactical variations on how to achieve the broad goals of Marxism and how to adapt to new situations and social realities.

It's largely unimportant though as the point relates to the 20th C attempts to build societies on these principles.

Is that a typical Marxist's disregard for human life?

I have provided both primary and secondary scholarly sources that this was the view that underpinned Marxism-Leninism and its offshoots.

It may not apply to "Marxists" in university English departments, but that was not the topic of discussion.

By "evildoer" I'm referring to any person whose goal is to harm the citizens of a particular nation. Was violence on the part of Communists against such evildoers an idea that caught on with people and led to violent acts on their part? As I see it, there are some instances in which killing a person who threatens the citizens of a state is justified.

Yes, but it is absolutely clear that most of the people killed by Communists only "threatened" the state in the loosest, most ideological sense. Not because they were actual evildoers.

No, of course not.

Would you therefore say that a popular ideology that advocated killing such people as a moral duty and provided clear justification as to why doing so benefitted humanity may be considered to have increased violence?

If you're asking me if that "loyal party member" should be killed, then no, of course not.

Would you therefore say that a popular ideology that advocated killing such people as a moral duty and provided clear justification as to why doing so benefitted humanity may be considered to have increased violence?

Yes, of course.

Would you therefore say that a popular ideology that advocated killing such people as a moral duty and provided clear justification as to why doing so benefitted humanity may be considered to have increased violence?

I see many people who pursue millenarianism who do little or no harm at least in the sense of committing acts of violence. Christians, for example, are generally peaceful, so although their beliefs glorify the violent effort to achieve heaven, for practical and moral reasons they don't turn to violence.

Very few Christians actually pursue millenarianism.

They may passively believe in the 2nd coming, but they don't believe they need to create a perfect society on earth in order to precipitate the eschaton.

In most forms of Christianity, the idea humans can create a perfect society is explicitly ruled out. It can only be done through Divine intervention which will happen on god's timescale.

Notable exceptions apply of course (for example: Münster rebellion - Wikipedia)

There is a big difference between people who believe in the creation of an earthly utopia through human actions, as opposed to a supernatural utopia that will be created after the eschaton.

I would need to say no. Having "delusional goals" can be beneficial because although the goal may be unachievable, the person(s) pursuing that goal may achieve other worthwhile goals along the way.

What examples can you think of where extreme violence in pursuit of delusional goals turned out to be a good thing?

Is it safe to assume that there are large numbers of naysayers in that nation, and even those who act according to the ideology may misunderstand the ideology?

Do you think Lenin misunderstood Leninism and Mao misunderstood Maoism?

I should clarify that my position isn't really that Marxism's moral tenets (if any) are good or bad; it is that I see little reason to believe that any deadly violence on the part of those influenced by Marx's philosophy can sensibly and justifiably be blamed on Marx's ideas. I ask you to demonstrate that Marxist philosophy alone caused the many killings in Communist countries.

No one has made the argument that "Marxism alone" caused the many killings, the argument was that Marxism-Leninism and its offshoots increased societal violence.

If you disagree, what would be your argument that the Cultural Revolution was not driven by an offshoot of Marxist-Leninist ideology (or was not excessively violent)?

 

[Jagella]

Marxism means all kinds of things, but in context of this discussion it relates to the ideology that underpinned the 20th C communist regimes, rather than, for example, a form of literary criticism practised in university English departments.

Hence I keep using Marxism-Leninism (and its offshoots) to be more precise. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc are largely tactical variations on how to achieve the broad goals of Marxism and how to adapt to new situations and social realities.

That's rather vague, but I'll go with it. Was the ideology of the different Communist regimes the same?

It may not apply to "Marxists" in university English departments, but that was not the topic of discussion.

So there are different kinds of Marxists many of whom are college English professors.

...it is absolutely clear that most of the people killed by Communists only "threatened" the state in the loosest, most ideological sense. Not because they were actual evildoers.

In that case Communist leaders were exhibiting paranoia in that they feared those whom were not actual threats to them. Would you say that Marx's philosophy induced that paranoia?

Would you therefore say that a popular ideology that advocated killing such people as a moral duty and provided clear justification as to why doing so benefitted humanity may be considered to have increased violence?

Not really. As I have explained many people know well such ideologies but never turn violent. You almost seem to personify ideology here claiming that that ideology "advocated" killing when the reality is that some people presumably advocated violence. I think it's an important distinction because we should blame whom is actually to blame rather than blame some ideas they espoused. Otherwise anybody who entertains Marxist ideas can be labeled as threats while they are nothing of the kind.

Very few Christians actually pursue millenarianism.

They pursue a utopia which generally doesn't induce violence in them.

What examples can you think of where extreme violence in pursuit of delusional goals turned out to be a good thing?

I'd say that the American Revolution turned out in some ways to be a good thing. Other examples might include the slave rebellions that occurred in the American South.

Do you think Lenin misunderstood Leninism and Mao misunderstood Maoism?

They may have misunderstood their own ideas. The acts of Communist leaders surely don't seem to be in keeping with the Communist ideal.

No one has made the argument that "Marxism alone" caused the many killings, the argument was that Marxism-Leninism and its offshoots increased societal violence.

How exactly can an ideology cause something to happen? Again, it is people who may cause trouble, and history demonstrates that such troublemakers can espouse many different and even antithetical ideologies or no ideologies at all.

If you disagree, what would be your argument that the Cultural Revolution was not driven by an offshoot of Marxist-Leninist ideology (or was not excessively violent)?

The Cultural Revolution was driven by Mao.

 

[Augustus]

Was the ideology of the different Communist regimes the same?

Yes and no.

So there are different kinds of Marxists many of whom are college English professors.

Marxist literary criticism - Wikipedia

In that case Communist leaders were exhibiting paranoia in that they feared those whom were not actual threats to them. Would you say that Marx's philosophy induced that paranoia?

The ideology was very explicitly violent and authoritarian. Such systems tend to produce leaders who feat for their safety,

Not really. As I have explained many people know well such ideologies but never turn violent. You almost seem to personify ideology here claiming that that ideology "advocated" killing when the reality is that some people presumably advocated violence. I think it's an important distinction because we should blame whom is actually to blame rather than blame some ideas they espoused. Otherwise anybody who entertains Marxist ideas can be labeled as threats while they are nothing of the kind.

Can you explain why someone who chooses to follow a violent ideology would not engage in or passively support the violence advocated by the ideology they personally chose to adopt?

They pursue a utopia which generally doesn't induce violence in them.

They don't take responsibility for creating the utopia on earth so they are not millenarian in that sense.

I'd say that the American Revolution turned out in some ways to be a good thing. Other examples might include the slave rebellions that occurred in the American South.

It was a pragmatic war with very limited and achievable aims. Slave revolts were also rational, not delusional.

They may have misunderstood their own ideas. The acts of Communist leaders surely don't seem to be in keeping with the Communist ideal.

Maybe you misunderstand their ideals. You do keep rejecting both primary and secondary sources that explain them

How exactly can an ideology cause something to happen? Again, it is people who may cause trouble, and history demonstrates that such troublemakers can espouse many different and even antithetical ideologies or no ideologies at all.

How can someone's values, beliefs, ideas, ideals and prejudices guide their actions?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

The Cultural Revolution was driven by Mao.

It relied on hundreds of thousands of Red Guards who believed in Mao's ideology and used it to guide their actions.

That is the point, your values, beliefs, ideas, ideals and prejudices (i.e. your ideology) guide your actions. Even you have acknowledged this to be true before you revert to your extreme form of literalism that ignores the entire context of the discussion regarding how ideology is influential because it guides human behaviour.

 

[Jagella]

Yes and no.

The Communism in different nations varies markedly and is affected by many factors not the least of which are poverty and working conditions. Relatively prosperous nations with stable social conditions seem to show little interest in Communism.

The ideology was very explicitly violent and authoritarian. Such systems tend to produce leaders who feat for their safety,

I think there's much more to rulers becoming fearful and feeling unsafe than their becoming familiar with violent and authoritarian ideology. My guess is that if a ruler has absolute power, then he's likely to fear those who will do him violence to wrest that power away from him. That's no doubt why dictators are so often ruthless with anybody who may be a threat to them. Ideology can be handy in such situations as a way of letting the people know why the dictator's violence is justified.

Can you explain why someone who chooses to follow a violent ideology would not engage in or passively support the violence advocated by the ideology they personally chose to adopt?

I'm not a psychologist, but obviously to "follow a violent ideology" is to do violence, a tautology. I think you are asking why people who like a violent ideology don't turn violent. Perhaps they never feel threatened, or they may fear reprisals if they turn violent. It's not hard to come up with reasons why knowledge of violent ideology doesn't result in violence.

It was a pragmatic war with very limited and achievable aims. Slave revolts were also rational, not delusional.

Are you serious? The American Revolution had "very limited and achievable aims"? And slave revolts were rational and not delusional?

Anyway, those are two very good examples of violent uprisings that had arguably good results. If you wish to impugn Marxism, then you'll need to come up with more than pointing out that it presumably led to violence.

How can someone's values, beliefs, ideas, ideals and prejudices guide their actions?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

It's never good form to reply to a question by asking questions. Anyway, I think you are oversimplifying some rather complex psychological and social issues. What's obvious to you can easily be wrong. People tend to adopt values and ideas that suit their needs and desires. Again, I think that ideology is an effect of these needs and desires rather than a cause.

It relied on hundreds of thousands of Red Guards who believed in Mao's ideology and used it to guide their actions.

I think it's more correct to say that Mao guided their actions.

That is the point, your values, beliefs, ideas, ideals and prejudices (i.e. your ideology) guide your actions. Even you have acknowledged this to be true before you revert to your extreme form of literalism that ignores the entire context of the discussion regarding how ideology is influential because it guides human behaviour.

Finally, I think it's best to see what scientists like anthropologists and sociologists have to say about this issue. Do you know of any such science aside from the scientific evidence I posted regarding mental illness causing Communist dictators to act violently?

 

[Augustus]

Are you serious? The American Revolution had "very limited and achievable aims"? And slave revolts were rational and not delusional?

America got exactly what they wanted from the revolution: independence. A limited and achievable aim.

The Haitian Slave revolt was successful. They stopped being slaves. A limited and achievable aim.

How were they delusional?

I think it's more correct to say that Mao guided their actions.

How do you think Mao guided their actions? He wasn't directly controlling their actions using electronics or magical abilities. He wasn't physically present and showing them what to do?

If you think Mao guided their actions you implicitly accept that ideology influences people's behaviour, you just don't realise it as your focus is on extreme atomistic literalism, not making connections.

Mao told people what he wanted to achieve, why this was important and how they could help him achieve it. This is ideology.

Mao's ideology influenced the thoughts and actions of his followers.

Finally, I think it's best to see what scientists like anthropologists and sociologists have to say about this issue. Do you know of any such science aside from the scientific evidence I posted regarding mental illness causing Communist dictators to act violently?

You posted journalistic speculation about dead people by those who had never met them based on nth hand information. This is not science as there is no way to demonstrate it is true or false. Diagnosing people you have never met or interacted with based on what other people say is not accepted medical practice.

There is all kinds of science that supports what I've been saying, but I guess it would largely be a waste of time posting it as you tend to revet to extreme, out of context literalism and would dismiss it out of hand. What kind of study do you actually want?

The easiest thing is to state which of the following do you think is not generally accepted as scientifically accurate as the topic is too big otherwise:

1. People's actions are influenced by their beliefs and values
2. Humans can influence other humans to change their beliefs and values
3. Communication via mass media can influence the beliefs and values of large numbers of humans
4. By the use of language, we can make people believe things that are not objectively true (even things that may be objectively false).
5. If we accept subjective truths/half truths/untruths as being true, this may influence our thoughts and actions
6. Human did not evolve to be neutral and objective arbiters of truth, our thoughts are significantly impacted by our pre-existing beliefs, biases, prejudices, etc.
7. Humans display a strong tendency towards in-group/out-group distinction and are biased towards in group members and prejudiced against the out group.
8. Humans often feel violence is justified when they perceive threat from this out group
9. Perceived threat may not equate to real threat, and can be entirely fictitious
10. In group/out group distinctions can both be created via communication and language (for example Republican v Democrat) as well as direct personal relations (i.e. family)
11. Humans make moral distinctions between justified and unjustified violence


Unless you specifically disagree with any of these, you have all the evidence you need, you just need to make the connections (see the Mao example above).

Which ones do yo disagree with?

 

[Jagella]

America got exactly what they wanted from the revolution: independence. A limited and achievable aim.

I should have asked you earlier what you meant by "very limited and achievable aims." But what The Founders said they aimed for was quite delusional. It is delusional to claim all men are created equal when you hold some men as slaves.

The Haitian Slave revolt was successful. They stopped being slaves. A limited and achievable aim.

How were they delusional?

Slave revolts generally result in dead slaves. Since such revolts rarely succeed, it is delusional to wage such revolts. So in both examples, we have delusion-based revolts that had outcomes that did some good. Delusion, then, need not be necessarily harmful in any act of revolution.

How do you think Mao guided their actions? He wasn't directly controlling their actions using electronics or magical abilities. He wasn't physically present and showing them what to do?

Mao no doubt had leadership abilities and could convince many people to do his bidding. He effectively communicated what he wanted people to do. His followers cooperated because they wanted what he offered them.

If you think Mao guided their actions you implicitly accept that ideology influences people's behaviour, you just don't realise it as your focus is on extreme atomistic literalism, not making connections.

What is "extreme atomistic literalism"?

Anyway, I don't see how it follows that if I say Mao influenced people to commit violent acts, then I accept that ideology influences people. You appear to be equating Mao with ideology.

Mao told people what he wanted to achieve, why this was important and how they could help him achieve it. This is ideology.

LOL--Yes, that was Mao doing the talking. Without Mao, that ideology would have gone nowhere. Do you think Mao's ideology would have caused all that trouble without Mao?

You posted journalistic speculation about dead people by those who had never met them based on nth hand information. This is not science as there is no way to demonstrate it is true or false. Diagnosing people you have never met or interacted with based on what other people say is not accepted medical practice.

That's not correct. Scientists take what evidence is available to them and come up with what they hope is the most likely conclusion. It's not unscientific at all to diagnose mental illness in people without actually meeting those people or interacting with them.

There is all kinds of science that supports what I've been saying...What kind of study do you actually want?

I was wondering just recently if there are any scientific studies done by reputable researchers that provide evidence that exposure to ideas can cause people to become violent. Is there any evidence that demonstrates that people will change their behavior to the point of violence because they hear of some idea?

I should emphasize that yes, people often do act in accord with their ideologies, of course. I don't disagree with that. What I do doubt is that ideology causes people to act in certain ways. "Correlation is not causation." So if you cite studies to support your hypothesis, make sure that they don't merely offer evidence that people act out ideologies but that the ideologies cause them to act in ways they would not act otherwise. The studies should also rule out other factors that can affect behavior like stress, drugs and alcohol, and mental illness.

...but I guess it would largely be a waste of time posting it as you tend to revet to extreme, out of context literalism and would dismiss it out of hand.

You're the party making the claim. You then have the burden of proof. If you can't convince me that ideology causes violence, then that's not my problem. I freely admit that I have a bias, and that bias needs to be overcome with robust evidence that supports your position. If you can't do it, then complaining about me is not likely to help your case.

The easiest thing is to state which of the following do you think is not generally accepted as scientifically accurate as the topic is too big otherwise:

1. People's actions are influenced by their beliefs and values
2. Humans can influence other humans to change their beliefs and values
3. Communication via mass media can influence the beliefs and values of large numbers of humans
4. By the use of language, we can make people believe things that are not objectively true (even things that may be objectively false).
5. If we accept subjective truths/half truths/untruths as being true, this may influence our thoughts and actions
6. Human did not evolve to be neutral and objective arbiters of truth, our thoughts are significantly impacted by our pre-existing beliefs, biases, prejudices, etc.
7. Humans display a strong tendency towards in-group/out-group distinction and are biased towards in group members and prejudiced against the out group.
8. Humans often feel violence is justified when they perceive threat from this out group
9. Perceived threat may not equate to real threat, and can be entirely fictitious
10. In group/out group distinctions can both be created via communication and language (for example Republican v Democrat) as well as direct personal relations (i.e. family)
11. Humans make moral distinctions between justified and unjustified violence

Unless you specifically disagree with any of these, you have all the evidence you need, you just need to make the connections (see the Mao example above).

Which ones do yo disagree with?

As you should know I see no obvious influence of beliefs and values on behavior for the simple reason that other factors can influence behavior. So I disagree with 1. As for 2-11, you seem to be listing facts that support what I just said about 1!

Thank you very much.

So please look out for those violent ideologies. If what you say is true, then they might make a killer out of you.

 

[Augustus]

Slave revolts generally result in dead slaves. Since such revolts rarely succeed, it is delusional to wage such revolts. So in both examples, we have delusion-based revolts that had outcomes that did some good. Delusion, then, need not be necessarily harmful in any act of revolution.

No, you are confusing yourself between risky and impossible.

Slavery generally resulted in dead slaves too. They had nothing much to lose and everything to gain. Even if the odds are <5% it still makes sense and is still achievable by 1 in 20.

Hence, many thousands of slaves did successfully escape and go on to live in freedom, and all slaves knew this to be true. Hence they were not delusional to think they too could achieve what thousands of others had achieved before them

On the other hand, the possibility of creating a perfect global utopia which ends human suffering is zero. If you create a system that mandates tyranny until you reach this goal, you just create perpetual tyranny until the goal is abandoned or the regime collapses.

Mao no doubt had leadership abilities and could convince many people to do his bidding. He effectively communicated what he wanted people to do. His followers cooperated because they wanted what he offered them.

Congratulations you have just described ideology. Using communication to persuade others to think and act in the way you want because you have persuaded them to share your vision

What is "extreme atomistic literalism"?

Anyway, I don't see how it follows that if I say Mao influenced people to commit violent acts, then I accept that ideology influences people. You appear to be equating Mao with ideology.

No, I am equating Mao's ideology with ideology.

Extreme atomistic literalism is when you are consistently unable to understand this.

LOL--Yes, that was Mao doing the talking. Without Mao, that ideology would have gone nowhere. Do you think Mao's ideology would have caused all that trouble without Mao?

It's getting ridiculous now

Of course ideologies spread via people, that is what I've said all along. It would be insane to think otherwise.

Mao also didn't influence all these people directly, many were influenced 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. hand as his ideology spread.

And Mao's ideas were really just a spin on Marxism-Leninism, so Mao's ideology was influenced by the ideologies of many other people.

Anyway, you have already agreed that ideologies can influence people, you just don't understand that you do as you can't connect the dots. But, if you haven't grasped that by now, I doubt repeating the same things again will have any impact.

As you should know I see no obvious influence of beliefs and values on behavior for the simple reason that other factors can influence behavior.

Many things can influence behaviour, but if you don't think people's beliefs and values have any influence on their behaviour, I'm not sure what world you live in.

If you are right, a Secular Humanist, a Muslim and a devout Christian would all be equally likely to go to Church on any given Sunday or fast during Ramadan. Yet, by knowing their beliefs and values (ideology), we can make useful predictions about their behaviours.

 

[Jagella]

No, you are confusing yourself between risky and impossible.

Slavery generally resulted in dead slaves too. They had nothing much to lose and everything to gain. Even if the odds are <5% it still makes sense and is still achievable by 1 in 20.

Hence, many thousands of slaves did successfully escape and go on to live in freedom, and all slaves knew this to be true. Hence they were not delusional to think they too could achieve what thousands of others had achieved before them

I'll just need to disagree with you on this issue. It seems very delusional to me to expect to win a fight with anybody who's likely to kick your bee-hind. That's just common sense. However, upsets in conflicts do happen occasionally, and those upsets can do some good.

On the other hand, the possibility of creating a perfect global utopia which ends human suffering is zero. If you create a system that mandates tyranny until you reach this goal, you just create perpetual tyranny until the goal is abandoned or the regime collapses.

I'd agree with you depending on what you mean by "tyranny." Most people might understand tyranny as cruel and oppressive rule over innocent people which is clearly immoral. However, if cruel or oppressive rule is imposed on dangerous enemies in order to subdue them, then tyranny isn't so clearly immoral. If Marx advocated tyranny over a society's enemies who posed a clear threat to that society, than such a tyranny is perhaps justified.

Congratulations you have just described ideology. Using communication to persuade others to think and act in the way you want because you have persuaded them to share your vision

That doesn't look like the definitions you previously posted for ideology. I thought that ideology is a set of listed ideas for desired human behavior along with descriptions of those ideas. The communication of a message is not the message. Also, one doesn't need leadership abilities to have an ideology.

No, I am equating Mao's ideology with ideology.

I'd recommend you not make statements like "ideology influenced" when Mao influenced. You'll confuse your readers that way.

Extreme atomistic literalism is when you are consistently unable to understand this.

Don't understand what?

Of course ideologies spread via people, that is what I've said all along. It would be insane to think otherwise.

But people create ideologies too. And when they do, those ideologies have no effect on people.

Mao also didn't influence all these people directly, many were influenced 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. hand as his ideology spread.

And Mao's ideas were really just a spin on Marxism-Leninism, so Mao's ideology was influenced by the ideologies of many other people.

Can you describe what exactly happened here? How did Mao come up with his ideology? Did he read some of Marx's works? It would also help if you can isolate Mao's ideology as a causal factor in his "Cultural Revolution." How did his ideology cause anything that had no other possible cause? More than anything else, how could his ideology, a set of ideas, have causal power?

Anyway, you have already agreed that ideologies can influence people, you just don't understand that you do as you can't connect the dots. But, if you haven't grasped that by now, I doubt repeating the same things again will have any impact.

Either that or you're doing a poor job of explaining your position swapping different definitions in an out without explanation which is sloppy scholarship that would confuse anybody.

Many things can influence behaviour...

That's right, and since behavior can have many causes, you need to rule those causes out if you want to make the case that ideology apparently causes behavior in some situation. Otherwise, we simply don't know what caused human behavior in a given situation. For example, since we now know that Mao was mentally ill, then you need to rule out his mental illness as a cause for his violence.

...but if you don't think people's beliefs and values have any influence on their behaviour, I'm not sure what world you live in.

That's a fallacious argument from incredulity not to mention an ad hominem.

If you are right, a Secular Humanist, a Muslim and a devout Christian would all be equally likely to go to Church on any given Sunday or fast during Ramadan. Yet, by knowing their beliefs and values (ideology), we can make useful predictions about their behaviours.

Actually, there are many factors that can affect a person's choice as to where they worship if they worship at all. Personally, I've worshipped at both Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches but now don't worship anywhere. I never did so because I heard of these groups doctrines. I did so as a result of social pressure, a feeling of guilt, and critical thinking respectively.

Can you describe a person, real or hypothetical, who acts violently and that the violent behavior was proved to be caused by ideology alone?

 

[Augustus]

Don't understand what?

I'd recommend you not make statements like "ideology influenced" when Mao influenced. You'll confuse your readers that way.

It only confuses you, no one else.

People who interpret language normally and not with an extreme literalism that completely ignores context and linguistic convention understand that saying "[Mao's] ideology influenced..." or "Maoism influenced..." also implies "Mao influenced...".

It is actually more accurate, because Mao was not directly influencing these people, it was his ideology being spread by the media and other people that was influencing people.

Actually, there are many factors that can affect a person's choice as to where they worship if they worship at all. Personally, I've worshipped at both Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches but now don't worship anywhere. I never did so because I heard of these groups doctrines. I did so as a result of social pressure, a feeling of guilt, and critical thinking respectively.

You have just described yourself as being influenced by beliefs and values. Why did you feel guilty? What did you think critically about?

That multiple actors may influence people doesn't negate the fact that beliefs and values are among these factors.

Thanks for the discussion, but we'll never get anywhere as you keep reverting to the same errors I've pointed out a dozen times or more.