I don't think I'm approaching this from an ethical perspective at all. To be honest, think the question of what is "worse" isn't a very productive line of reasoning. But the question isn't "which long-dead historical figure is the worst", it's how we should politically respond to the ideological climate of the present.Dreiko said:You're approaching this from an ethical perspective. You're saying "this ideology prescribes the elimination of people, so it's by default worse".
If anything, attempting to shift it to a question of "who is worse" or "who historically killed the greatest number of people by any means" is intentional derailment from the serious question of what it is reasonable to tolerate..
..and I think this is a good example, and also a misunderstanding of the basic concept of ideology.Dreiko said:If anything, having deathcounts that rival the nazis without TRYING to kill people is actually an order of magnitude worse for the ideology.
If we assume that any society which operates under the vague umbrella of liberal capitalism is "ideologically" liberal and capitalist, and that any deaths caused by the political, economic or justice system within that society can be attributed seamlessly to the governing "ideology", then liberal capitalism as an ideology does not just rival the Nazis, it overwhelmingly exceeds it in every possible metric of human evil. It is the greatest atrocity ever inflicted upon this planet. This is, of course, also leaving aside the very real real environmental disaster we are currently facing, which is itself primarily the result of action by liberal capitalist societies, and which may permanently destroy this Earth as we know it.
If we followed this way of thinking, then we would be forced to conclude that the very idea of freedom, including such rights as free speech, were in and of themselves responsible for impossible numbers of human deaths and an incredible quantity of suffering, thus, that they were fundamentally evil and should be held as equal to demands for intentional genocide. But if we were to look at this on the level of political response, you can presumably see how foolish it would be to respond as if calls for free speech were an ideological threat to human life. The idea of freedom is not the problem, the idea of freedom is not what kills people, the political and economic realities of a society organised around the principles of freedom can be incredibly destructive, but that's not a function of "ideology".
You know, in historical terms, radical islamist states (or pseudo-states) haven't actually killed many people. Certainly far, far fewer people than liberalism or capitalism. Maybe it's time to hear IS out. It seems like we have a lot to learn from them about how to be a peaceful and non-authoritarian society.