Psychos do not ‘upgrade’ the country from peasants to one of the top country of the world in 20 years through the most terrible worldwar, where basically the whole developed/western world was against it. So that after 70+ years the whole anglosax and even our capitalist governments are still afraid of the dead man.
I’m not sure that Stalin’s years would be considered an “upgrade”. Did some advancements happen? Yes, but there was a horrible dark side to him that was brutal. So brutal that it’s hard to estimate the death toll. Gulags and bread lines aren’t exactly a walk in the park. He was tremendously paranoid and if he wasn’t a full on psychopath, he was certainly very mentally sick.
Why not? If it's for their own benefit.
I think you need to read Political Ponerology. Stalin was a demented, character-disturbed narcissist with pedophiliac tendencies. Russia survived not because of Stalin, but despite him.
Yes. Good time for a reminder that Political Ponerology was written with the Soviet Union as its exemplar of pathocracy.
It's also true.
There are plenty. You can go the revisionist approach and either ignore or rationalize all the evil, or you can look at both and see that Stalin's era (following on Lenin) was one of Russia's darkest. So dark that many would prefer to pretend it couldn't have been that bad. I don't mean to invoke Godwin's law here, but this is exactly what revisionists of a certain other 20th-century pathocracy tend to do: focus on all the great things that guy did for his country, and paint over all the evil as either non-existent, necessary, or not really his fault. There comes a time when you just have to call a spade a spade. Stalin may not have been the worst guy ever, but he was pretty darn bad.
I've heard that kind of sentiment a lot in defense of Stalin: he may have been a hard man, but he's what Russia needed to 'advance'. In any other context, a person of Stalin's character would be called: a tyrant of a boss, a slave-driving, abusive father, or a ruthless capitalist (if he used the same tactics in a corporate environment). To think that Russians couldn't advance without a leader like Stalin is to think fairly poorly of Russians, IMO. One could say, better to be ruled by a ruthless characteropath than a weakling. Maybe. Doesn't change the fact that the person in question is a ruthless characteropath.
Have you considered that the USSR was perhaps just as much of a trial run? They were far more successful in implementing a long-lasting pathocracy based on an anti-human ideology.
Yep. As an example of the mental gymnastics some defenders of Stalin go through, see this:
www.sott.net
I'd just add that I don't think Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao were psychopaths, technically. Lobaczewski would say "frontal characteropathy", which nowadays would be referred to as right-prefrontal dysfunction, a borderline personality feature. Barb Oakley has a good term for it: borderpathy.
The one advantage he has was that he probably wasn't a total psychopath. But tell that to a child of a borderline parent - it's small comfort.
journals.openedition.org
gordonhahn.com
I have long had this thought, but it is incorrect to generalize about the whole Soviet period. Yes certainly the USSR was not an enemy of the USA and only played this role, but it began only with the murder of Stalin by British secret services, confirmed by Cs, Khrushchev Brezhnev and others (thanks to their sabotage management any libertarian can now pompously say that the planned economy does not work in the USSR, although modern transnational corporations are essentially the same, and the USSR is a state-corporation). Stalin may be an unempathic charateropath, but he is a sovereign charateropath smart and powerful enough not to submit to the PTB otherwise all the western bankers would not have had to nurture the Nazi project in Germany to overthrow their allegedly own Soviet project.
www.sott.net
Are you speaking from 2005?
Please don't fight here. We can exchange arguments but don't be passive-agressive.
You seem to be reacting emotionally to my statements. I was not referring to one historical moment, such as the fall of Berlin. Stalin's pathological behaviour both preceded and continued well past the neutralisation of Nazi Germany. I also did not say Stalin was a pedophile; I said he had pedophiliac tendencies. How else would you explain the desire of a 37-year-old man to seduce a 14-year-old girl? A man who acts upon such desires is not a man; he is rather an animal, given to the basest of urges. Surely you are aware of the matter of which I speak, yes?
I am not going to quarrel with anyone, I do not need it and I will not waste my time on quarrels.
I also did not mean to offend you personally or that you would think that I am criticizing you.
Yes. Good time for a reminder that Political Ponerology was written with the Soviet Union as its exemplar of pathocracy.Yes. Good time for a reminder that Political Ponerology was written with the Soviet Union as its exemplar of pathocracy.
It's also true.
There are plenty. You can go the revisionist approach and either ignore or rationalize all the evil, or you can look at both and see that Stalin's era (following on Lenin) was one of Russia's darkest. So dark that many would prefer to pretend it couldn't have been that bad. I don't mean to invoke Godwin's law here, but this is exactly what revisionists of a certain other 20th-century pathocracy tend to do: focus on all the great things that guy did for his country, and paint over all the evil as either non-existent, necessary, or not really his fault. There comes a time when you just have to call a spade a spade. Stalin may not have been the worst guy ever, but he was pretty darn bad.
I've heard that kind of sentiment a lot in defense of Stalin: he may have been a hard man, but he's what Russia needed to 'advance'. In any other context, a person of Stalin's character would be called: a tyrant of a boss, a slave-driving, abusive father, or a ruthless capitalist (if he used the same tactics in a corporate environment). To think that Russians couldn't advance without a leader like Stalin is to think fairly poorly of Russians, IMO. One could say, better to be ruled by a ruthless characteropath than a weakling. Maybe. Doesn't change the fact that the person in question is a ruthless characteropath.
Have you considered that the USSR was perhaps just as much of a trial run? They were far more successful in implementing a long-lasting pathocracy based on an anti-human ideology.
Yep. As an example of the mental gymnastics some defenders of Stalin go through, see this:
The Gulag In Numbers: Was Stalinism Really That Bad?
I'm currently reading a new book by Russian-American military expert Andrei Martyanov, Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning. It's a great book. The writing is clunky at times and could have used an editor to smooth...
I'd just add that I don't think Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao were psychopaths, technically. Lobaczewski would say "frontal characteropathy", which nowadays would be referred to as right-prefrontal dysfunction, a borderline personality feature. Barb Oakley has a good term for it: borderpathy.
The one advantage he has was that he probably wasn't a total psychopath. But tell that to a child of a borderline parent - it's small comfort.
Some further reading:
'Top Down vs. Bottom-up: Regarding the Potential of Contemporary “Revisionism”'
Top Down vs. Bottom-up: Regarding the Potential of Contemporary “Re...
In 2013, Oxford University Press published a collection of articles about Stalinist repression, edited by James Harris, and based on a conference at Leeds University in 2010. This new collection of...
"Once More About ‘Putin’s Rehabilitation of Stalin'"
Once More About ‘Putin’s Rehabilitation of Stalin’: UPDATE2 – THE ZHUKOV DRAFT REPORT AND MORE
by Gordon M. Hahn UPDATE 2: Here is another update on the myth promoted in the West and Russian liberal circles that the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin is actively rehabilitating the im…
It's also true.
There are plenty. You can go the revisionist approach and either ignore or rationalize all the evil, or you can look at both and see that Stalin's era (following on Lenin) was one of Russia's darkest. So dark that many would prefer to pretend it couldn't have been that bad. I don't mean to invoke Godwin's law here, but this is exactly what revisionists of a certain other 20th-century pathocracy tend to do: focus on all the great things that guy did for his country, and paint over all the evil as either non-existent, necessary, or not really his fault. There comes a time when you just have to call a spade a spade. Stalin may not have been the worst guy ever, but he was pretty darn bad.
I've heard that kind of sentiment a lot in defense of Stalin: he may have been a hard man, but he's what Russia needed to 'advance'. In any other context, a person of Stalin's character would be called: a tyrant of a boss, a slave-driving, abusive father, or a ruthless capitalist (if he used the same tactics in a corporate environment). To think that Russians couldn't advance without a leader like Stalin is to think fairly poorly of Russians, IMO. One could say, better to be ruled by a ruthless characteropath than a weakling. Maybe. Doesn't change the fact that the person in question is a ruthless characteropath.
Have you considered that the USSR was perhaps just as much of a trial run? They were far more successful in implementing a long-lasting pathocracy based on an anti-human ideology.
Yep. As an example of the mental gymnastics some defenders of Stalin go through, see this:
The Gulag In Numbers: Was Stalinism Really That Bad?
I'm currently reading a new book by Russian-American military expert Andrei Martyanov, Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning. It's a great book. The writing is clunky at times and could have used an editor to smooth...
I'd just add that I don't think Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao were psychopaths, technically. Lobaczewski would say "frontal characteropathy", which nowadays would be referred to as right-prefrontal dysfunction, a borderline personality feature. Barb Oakley has a good term for it: borderpathy.
The one advantage he has was that he probably wasn't a total psychopath. But tell that to a child of a borderline parent - it's small comfort.
Some further reading:
'Top Down vs. Bottom-up: Regarding the Potential of Contemporary “Revisionism”'
Top Down vs. Bottom-up: Regarding the Potential of Contemporary “Re...
In 2013, Oxford University Press published a collection of articles about Stalinist repression, edited by James Harris, and based on a conference at Leeds University in 2010. This new collection of...
"Once More About ‘Putin’s Rehabilitation of Stalin'"
Once More About ‘Putin’s Rehabilitation of Stalin’: UPDATE2 – THE ZHUKOV DRAFT REPORT AND MORE
by Gordon M. Hahn UPDATE 2: Here is another update on the myth promoted in the West and Russian liberal circles that the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin is actively rehabilitating the im…
