zlacker

It seems like an observation to me. Let’s take the Marxist utopian ideology. It led to 40 - 60 million dead in the Soviet Union (Gulag Archipelago is an eye opening read). And 40 - 80 million dead in Mao Zedong’s China. It’s hard to even wrap my mind around that amount of people dead.

Then a smaller example in Matthia’s cult in the “Kingdom Of Matthias” book. Started around the same time as Mormonism. Which led to a murder. Or the Peoples Temple cult with 909 dead in mass suicide. The communal aspects of these give away their “utopian ideology”

I’d like to hear where you’re coming from. I have a Christian worldview, so when I look at these movements it seems they have an obvious presupposition on human nature (that with the right systems in place people will act perfectly — so it is the systems that are flawed not the people themselves). Utopia is inherently religious, and I’d say it is the human desire to have heaven on earth — but gone about in the wrong ways. Because humans are flawed, no economic system or communal living in itself can bring about the utopian ideal.

>>ddj231+(OP)
Kibbutz?

>>ddj231+(OP)
You could also credit Marxism for workers rights.

Having utopian ideologies NEVER doing good in the world would require some very careful boundary drawing.

>>ddj231+(OP)
Huh, I've read Marx and I dont see the utopianism you're referencing.

What I do see is "classism is the biggest humanitarian crisis of our age," and "solving the class problem will improve people's lives," but no where do I see that non-class problem will cease to exist. People will still fight, get upset, struggle, just not on class terms.

Maybe you read a different set of Marx's writing. Share your reading list if possible.

>>kelsey+De
This article gives a clear view on Marx’s vs. Engel’s view of Utopianism vs. other utopian socialists [1]. That Marx was not opposed to utopianism per se, but rather when the ideas of the utopia did not come from the proletariat. Yet you’re right in that he was opposed to the view of the other utopian socialist, and there is tension in the views of the different socialist thinkers in that time. (I do disagree on the idea that refusing to propose an ideal negates one from in practice having a utopic vision)

That said my comment was looking mainly at the result of Marxist ideology in practice. In practice millions of lives were lost in an attempt to create an idealized world. Here is a good paper on Stalin’s utopian ideal [2].

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/chro17958.7?searchText=...

[2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3143688?seq=1

>>ddj231+2z
That makes sense. It would be like being able to attribute deaths due to christianity on the bible because there is a geneology of ideas?

>>ddj231+(OP)
"I have a Christian worldview"

We are quite OT here, but I would say christianity in general is a utopian ideology as well. All humans could be living in peace and harmony, if they would just believe in Jesus Christ. (I know there are differences, but this is the essence of what I was taught)

And well, how many were killed in the name of the Lord? Quite a lot I think. Now you can argue, those were not really christians. Maybe. But Marxists argue the same of the people responsible for the gulags. (I am not a marxist btw)

"Because humans are flawed, no economic system or communal living in itself can bring about the utopian ideal."

And it simply depends on the specific Utopian ideal. Because a good utopian concept/dream takes humans as they are - and still find ways to improve living conditions for everyone. Not every Utopia claims to be a eternal heaven for everyone, there are more realistic concepts out there.

>>kelsey+iC
I know we are a bit off topic. It seems it would be more like if several prominent followers of Jesus committed mass genocide in their respective countries within a century of his teachings. Stalin is considered Marxist-Leninist.

>>ddj231+ox4
Oh ok. That makes sense. That's because if someone has an idea that causes a lot of immediate harm then the idea is wrong, but if there is a gap then it is not?