system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
When is an ideology responsible for the actions of those who claim to follow it?

I'm inclined to think that only the acts that are in accordance with an ideology can be attributed to it, but that feels like a slippery slope to No True Scotsman. A few examples to show what I mean.

*Attributing Nazism to Nietzsche.*

I'm sure you are all fairly familiar with this one. Anyone who has looked in to Nietzsche knows that he abhorred nationalism and antisemitism (and would therefore hate everything the Nazi party stood for). His sister was the one that courted the favour of the Nazis.

Most people would have no trouble saying that Nietzsche and his philosophy is not responsible for Nazism.

*Attributing the regimes of the USSR, China, North Korea, and others to communism*

This one is far more divisive. I would personally argue that since the co-founder of communism advocated a "class-less and state-less society", that one can hardly call the despotic and totalitarian countries mentioned "communist", or even that their leaders could be considered communists, in the same way Hitler couldn't be called a socialist.

The counter-argument though is that it was attempts at communism that put those people in power at the first place, and therefore it should be considered responsible for the atrocities committed in it's name.

*Attributing religious wars to religion*

As with communism, many source texts and founders of religions are in favour of peace and fellowship, which would give credit to the argument that religious wars cannot be attributed to the religion. 

To use Catholicism as a counterexample though, the pope has, over the course of history, changed and decided what Catholicism is. He doesn't follow the religion, he defines it. If this is the case, is Catholicism responsible for all the acts of the previous popes, as they are in the unique position of being infallible with respect to church doctrine?

To sum up, if a particular ideology has a specific person that defines it (in these cases Nietzsche, Marx, and the pope), are actions performed in the name of that ideology only attributed to it if they align with that person? Do source texts override the authority of those individuals? If Marx later in life decided that the bourgeoisie were great, would he cease to be considered the basis for what communism is, and instead only the Manifesto would apply?

When is an idealogy responsible for the acts of those who claim to act in it's name?
gpt
I don't think it makes sense to attribute responsibility to an ideology. Those are just ideas, they can't be held accountable, can't 'decide'. People are responsible. Those people you mention are responsible for spreading certain ideas, but they're also responsible for concrete acts that made their ideas tangible. So you can see how countries claiming to be communist for example end up with something drastically at odds with the ideology of the same name. Ideas have no agency, but the people who act on them do, and they can hide behind an author or an "ism" but they're acting, not their ideas. Nazis are responsible for the holocaust. Nazism is the ideology they espoused, but it didn't kill anyone without a whole lot of people rounding up victims and putting them to death.

TL;DR: Never. People have agency so they can be held responsible. Ideas don't, and anyone can act however they want while claiming to follow an ideology.