Bloodless Coup

Baltar,
I saw the compilator of these judges' opinions on one of the C-Spans this morning. I certainly don't think he knew exactly what he was talking about in terms of the deeper philosophical issues, but to his credit he did suggest that people read these books and decide for themselves rather than suggest banning any of these. This strikes me as just more junk food political commentating that can be organized into a neat list. I do agree that these books seem to have been evaluated in terms of the purposes for which they were used more than for their content, but I would have to disagree if you're trying to make the point that a document supporting a political system can be evaluated in terms of how many lives are lost protecting that political system without regard for the values embraced by the political system itself. I think you're just saying that's what this critique itself is suggesting, and I'm not entirely sure that's the case. I find it more likely that this critique criticizes books without a moral-religious framework, whether they be advocating collectivism (a la Marx) or individualism (a la Friedan and Nietzsche). Maybe I'm being too cynical and it simply criticizes books that have been used to justify the extremes of ideology (as Darwin and Nietzsche were used to justify extermination of those viewed as unfit or weak and Marx was used to justify extermination of those believed in personal freedom and expression). If this is the case, where's the good old Christian Bible and the Koran? And how in the world does The Authoritarian Personality fit into this scheme, at all?

Morris,

I think we are in substantial agreement here. I wasn't really criticizing the list for finding books by body count, just using that standard as a way of critizing the list for failing to make clear what standards were used to make the list. In other words, I have no idea how they put the thing together, and bodies was an obvious way (especially given the first three) of finding a unifying criteria. By the way, can you explain what you mean by this sentence:

I find it more likely that this critique criticizes books without a moral-religious framework, whether they be advocating collectivism (a la Marx) or individualism (a la Friedan and Nietzsche).

Do you mean that the list critizises books that lack a moral-religious framework, or that the list itself lacks a moral-religious framework for it's criticism? I'm not complaining, just asking for clarification.

You are entirely correct to note that both the Bible and the Koran have been used to justify more violence and death than any literary work I'm otherwise aware of. My defense is to note that the title of the list refered only to books of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Good points.

Baltar,
My bad, you're right about it being the last two centuries, I wasn't thinking.
Regarding the clarification, it seems most of the books on the list either blast religion itself (whether by the political systems founded on their ideas viewing religion as the opiate of the masses, by viewing Judaism as essentially a source of evil, or by suggesting God is dead) or blast moral values that came through religion like patriarchy, teaching character, and that people should be fruitful and multiply. What do you think?

Morris,

The list clearly focuses on books that promote morals and values; the list believes that the morals and values represented by the authors are fundamentally harmful to humanity, and the world would have been better off (I'm projecting here, but it seems obvious) if these books had never been around. I was making the case that the first three books are an easy one (based just on body counts), but that the rest of the list really wasn't harmful in the same way (body counts), and instead just represents a list of morals/values that the people who put the list together disagree with. Attaching Stalin, Mao and Hitler to Keynes, Carson and Kinsey is just insane. There really is no comparison. This is just more insane right-wing ideology.

For an even more negative view, see Ruthless on this subject.

That piece on this at Ruthless is superb.