>From: Brian Siano <siano at mail.med.upenn.edu>
>
>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.
Caligula was certainly a nutcase. Hitler had psychological problems to say the least. But neither of them either had to or managed to work their way past some of the most politically savvy minds in Russia at the time.
Stalin was probably a sadist with tendencies toward paranoia that were increased by people around him who reenforced his belief system. He was not a "lunatic." A "lunatic" is someone frothing at the mouth in a padded cell.
>
>Why not? Evil's a very useful term. Can't really make moral distinctions
>without some notion of evil.
What is the point in having a "who was more evil than who?" contest? Stalin? Hitler? Mao? Why not Nero? Demonizing specific figures has the effect of cutting off analysis. "The Purges happened just because Stalin was an evil man, and evil people do things like that!" Case closed.
>>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.
What is the contradiction between being highly rational and willing to kill people?
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail