But I think S was a pretty canny sort, and Chris is right to suggest tahta nyone who can claw his way to to the top in a dangerous political system (as opposed to merely inheriting the position) is probably pretty smart and sane enough to know which way is up. But insofaras one is interested ina ssigning individual blame, that makes him more rather than less culpable.
Btw, as to Chris' notion that we cannot be objective about Stalin, that is quite right, but that's not an objection. He's not objective about Stalin either. he's a sort of defender because he is a fan of the fSU that Stalin, as much as anyone created. I'm not so much, which is why I am an anti-Stalinist.
Maybe in 2000 years we will be able to regard him the way we do Nero (Chris's comparison), although Nero seems to have been genuinely nuts, Caligula too; btw there is some revisionist history on Caligula that indicates that was a capable imperial administrator, or anyway that the empire was competentlt administered as long as it wasn't something that attracted the empreror's personal sexual interest. Stalin is probably a lot more like Tiberius, smart, cruel, largely able, paranoid and vicious, the creator of a system the purpose of which was partly to perpetuate a
revolution created by others (Augustus Caesar in T's case), and to maintain his own power come what may. Be that as it may But no one except scholars really cares about Rome anymore. People still care about the fSU,a nd will for some time to come.
jks
--- Brian Siano <siano at mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> Chris Doss wrote:
>
> >
> > Look, being unable to deal with reality is
> practically the definition
> > of insanity. This is why psychiatrists distinguish
> between insanity
> > and mere pathology. You cannot run a gigantic
> country if you are
> > insane. In fact, you usually have problems
> dressing yourself.
>
> Once again, you're arguing that if one is Head of
> State, one cannot be
> insane. I'll thank you for acknowledging that my
> analysis was correct.
>
> But frankly, this is probably one of the most
> extreme defenses for state
> power that I've ever read. By the logic you've
> presented, individuals
> who have achieved a degree of power high enough are
> not subject to the
> same judgement as others. If a dictator consigns
> whole tribes to mass
> graves because he doesn't like the shapes of their
> noses, or believes
> that they're conspiring with the Elves against his
> regime, he _cannot_
> be called insane merely because he's the Head of
> State. By the same
> logic, George Bush's decisions as President are
> perfectly rational,
> because he has demonstrated enough skill,
> intelligence, and savvy to
> gain the Presidency in the first place.
>
> As I said, there are few apologetics for power that
> are more extreme
> than this.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com