&gt;<i>You&#x27;re not contradicting anything I said, I wouldn&#x27;t claim utopias are the only reason for people to become violent.</i><p>Well, why single them out then if both sides can be dangerous?<p>If you think they are the &quot;more dangerous&quot;, then I think the previous 2 milenia of bloodshed for pragmatic land&#x2F;power grabbing, including WW I, refute that.<p>Besides, even so-called utopians are quite pragmatic in their actions. When Mao executed tons of people, it wasn&#x27;t some &quot;utopianism&quot; guiding him, but a very pragmatic power grab to stay in power and get rid of possible contenders.<p>(You might say that this was only possible because his subordinates were deluded by some utopian zeal. But lots of other cases, from the Belgian colonies and Pinochet to Indonesian &quot;death squads&quot;, prove that you don&#x27;t need that to have mass killings, just unquestioned power and the upper hand).<p>&gt;<i>Did you reply this way because you approve of communism?</i><p>No, I replied this way because I approve of utopias. The US was one too at some point -- for persecuted from Europe religious nuts.<p>Also because I like being objective, which needs taking all sides into account. Of any binary (utopia&#x2F;pragmatism e.g.) I&#x27;d never say &quot;the first is dangerous&quot; if the second has been historically proved just as dangerous.