1) A psychological condition in which delusional fantasies of wealth ,power, or omnipotence predominate 2. an obsession with grandiose or extravagant acts.
I bet Barkley overstates when he says Kim Il Sung claims to be a universal savior ( that's why he snuk in "virtual"). It is more likely that Kim claims to be a saviour of North Korea from imperialism , or something like that. And that is not such a delusional fantasy.
Also, Kim probably didn't have DELUSIONS about having power. He had it in fact. So, that part of the defintion is inapt.
But even further, isn't it better to have some leader who has delusions wealth, power and omnipotence rather than leaders ,as in the U.S., who actually DO have wealth, power, and a lot of potency if not omnipotency. Omnipotency in world politics.
So, we have all this talk about a megalomanical dictator, as if it is worse than the true and actual dictators, not delusionary, that the U.S. dictators are.
U.S. dictators are much worse than megalomanical. They are mega-actual.
CB
P.S. Barkley , on my visit to Moscow , there were many N. Korean comrades in the same hotel, and I saw their Kim Il Sung pins.
>>> Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> 06/01/00 04:50PM >>>
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
>
> I would also suggest to anybody who does not like hearing
> Kim Il Sung labeled as "megalomaniac," to go look at one of
> his official biographies. The guy is virtually a universal savior,
> according to these, certainly great enough to have a whole
> philosophy named for himself, "Kimilsungism," not to mention
> having most people in his country wearing pins with his picture
> on them and having a humongous statue of himself built. If this
> is not megalomania, then it does not exist. But, then, perhaps
> some on this list believe that he deserved such praise.....
Could it be a calculated campaign to maintain political loyalty? There would be real objections to that also -- but at least it's an argument that avoids mindreading. "Mindreading" is my label for any ascription of explanatory power to Providence -- uh, I mean to psychology. In other words, I might agree or disagree with descriptions of the practices of the NK state as wrong, stupid, authoritarian, etc. but I would not dislike hearing them. I dislike hearing moralistic or psychological labels applied to anyone, marxist or non-marxist. I regard all such explanations as unprincipled. The only explanation of intentions (as opposed to practices or actions) that I accept as principled is the explanation given by the agent him/herself. So you can say that Kim's *practices* were totally incapable of achieving his intentions, but "megalomaniac" is pure superstition, no matter who it is applied to.
Carrol