> Stalin was highly rational. A lunatic does not work his way up from low-
> life gangster to head of the Bolshevik Party. A lunatic does not outfox
> all of the Old Bolsheviks. That requires long-term planning, self-control
> and discipline.
So you're basically saying that, if someone becomes the supreme head of state, they are _ipso facto_ not a lunatic. Rather, they are highly rational, disciplined long-term planners-- just the qualities one would want in a leader.
>> I'll leave the clinical diagnosis to someone trained w/ a DSM handy. How
>> about evil on a par w/ AH? Someone who could sign off on imprisoning the
>> ten yr. old son of Kamenev, 4 yrs. after his Dad was assasinated. Who
>> killed more leaders of the German and Polish Communist Party than AH?
>
> Evil is a metaphysical and theological category. It does not belong in
> historical analysis.
Why not? Evil's a very useful term. Can't really make moral distinctions without some notion of evil.
> For a dictator to wipe out his enemies and those connected with them is
> supremely rational.
Okay, now they are highly rational, disciplined long-term planners who don't scruple at mass murder. Gotcha.