Posted on 09/02/2008 10:22:27 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Stalin's mass murders were 'entirely rational' says new Russian textbook praising tyrant
By Will Stewart
Last updated at 1:10 AM on 03rd September 2008
Comments (0) Add to My Stories
Ruthless: 20 million died as a result of Stalin's actions
Stalin acted ‘entirely rationally’ in executing and imprisoning millions of people in the Gulags, a controversial new Russian teaching manual claims.
Fifty-five years after the Soviet dictator died, the latest guide for teachers to promote patriotism among the Russian young said he did what he did to ensure the country’s modernisation.
The manual, titled A History of Russia, 1900-1945, will form the basis of a new state-approved text book for use in schools next year.
It seems to follow an attempt backed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to re-evaluate Stalin’s record in a more positive light.
Critics have taken exception, however, to numerous excerpts, which they say are essentially attempts to whitewash Stalin’s crimes.
In the West, it has been widely accepted that in the 1920s millions were shot, exiled to Siberia, or died of starvation after their land, homes and meagre possessions, were taken to fulfil Stalin’s vision of massive ‘factory farms.’
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Stalin was a Russian wannabe. He russified his surname from Djugashvili to Stalin.
His given name is the Russian, not Georgian, form of Joseph.
Stalin saw himself as omnipotent “vozhd”, the most powerful of all Russians.
The same applies to many of today's liberals. They don't view their policies as failures, because the policies in fact achieve the real objectives. The only "failure" indicated by the policies' not meeting the claimed objectives was the failure of judgment of those who believed they would, or were even intended to.
“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”
The same person also said: Russia’s agreement is not worth the paper it is written on...:)
And Hitler was an Austrian who wanted to be the most powerful of all Germans.
That was his goal, but his followers, the ones that made his goal possible, believed that communism would create a Utopian society. They believed that the ends justified the means and still today millions of socialists continue to believe that the ends justify the means. Are they rational in believing that? Did communism and mass murder create a Utopian society? Will it ever?
For Stalin mass murder in his quest for power was logical, however his goals would have never been reached if his followers had also been logical. They didn't carry out Stalin's murderous orders in order to give him power. They believed that mass murder would create a Utopian society. Of course it didn't, as any logical person could have told them, but to this day millions of socialist morons believe that mass murder could pave the way towards Utopia. Are they logical? As I said before, God has nothing to do with their irrationality. They are just stupid.
“For Stalin mass murder in his quest for power was logical, however his goals would have never been reached if his followers had also been logical. They didn’t carry out Stalin’s murderous orders in order to give him power. They believed that mass murder would create a Utopian society”
I believe it is a mistake to believe that Stalin’s followers were ideologues. The people who had minds to go along with their guns, like Trotsky, weren’t the fountainheads of Stalinistic violence. Stalin relied on thugs, who fed the conveyor belt on a quota basis, in the interest of their little, tiny bit of priveledge.
As to this notion that Stalin’s Russia was a faile Utopia, I think “The Black Book of Communism” put it aptly when they described his regime as a criminal conspiracy. There are no doctrinaire Marxists in practice, but Stalin was not even an undoctrinaire Marxist. He was a Stalinist.
The reason his purges were “rational” (even though Stalin was a dangerous paranoiac) is that they were based on the age-old divide-and-conquer tactic. So long as anyone who could possibly oppose Stalin was in prison, Stalin was safe. And since Stalin’s goal was to aggrandize Stalin, he was completely successful.
Obviously, Stalin operated within the conventions of socialism (just as I operate within the conventions of democracy, without believing in it as anything more than a means to good government, not an end in itself). Let us assume, for a second, that he really, really believed in what he preached. His attempt to modernize Russia was not irrational. It was unfounded, given the laws of economic science, but not irrational.
For the cummunist millenium to arrive, according to doctrine, bad things must happen to some people. The proletariat must overcome the exploiters. That meant Lenin and Stalin had to destroy the kulaks, the clergy, the nobility, the industrial bosses, the bankers, and the small business owners as a class (even though they were more in competition with eachother than the peasants or the workers, but that sort of distinction never bothered a true Marxist). So, in theory at least, for there to be a Utopia, evil means MUST be used.
There is nothing irrational about that. Here in the good, old U.S., we have milder forms of the ends/means calculation. 600,000 men had to die for the slaves to be free. 50 million people had to die for Hitler to be stopped. Every culture in the history of the earth has known that often we have to use evil to bring about good.
This is true. And both Stalin and Hitler succeeded in that regard.
Only..... it’s really not that big a leap from Austrian to German, nationally and linguistically. Same language, etc.
But, just how did the transcaucasian I. V. Djugashvili succeed so murderously? His Georgian-accented Russian was said to be thicker than Boris Badenov’s cartoon-Russian English.
Still a mystery.
Putin’s Chekist Russia is the Stalinist EVIL EMPIRE reborn!
Attempting to modernize Russia was not irrational. Where we disagree was in his methods. You think, apparently, that killing millions of people in an attempt to modernize society is rational, although “unfounded”. Whatever that means. I think that was irrational and that society would have modernized more quickly and been stronger if given basic economic freedoms and a fair court system. I think his mass murders weakened a Russia that was in the process of modernizing anyway.
BTW I have read the Black Book of Communism. I am fully aware of the differences between the reality of Socialist rule and the theory. Since no Socialist ever argues that they want to rule the world for their own self aggrandizement however, it does little good to argue against Socialism based on the reality.
I was simply pointing out once again the irrationality of Socialist ideology when numerous posters like you came along wanting to prove Socialism is indeed logical. Needless to say I am very disappointed that so many of you exist on a website like FR.
Socialism works completely against human nature, it can only be imposed through fear and terror.
Perhaps my understanding of the term “rational” is too heavily influenced by books like Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,” and Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France” (or 19th century romanticism in general). A string of reason does not have to be true to be rational; one can reach a stringently logical conclusion from false premises.
One way to explain myself, I suppose, would be to regurgitate the theoretical dispute between two fountainheads of the Austrian School of economics: Mises and Hayek. Mises thought economics (or praxeaology, in his terms) was a priori true, or on the demonstrable side of Hume’s fork. Unaided reason can tell us that the Soviet regime was doomed to failure, and any reference to actual historical events to prove our expectations right is superfluous. In other words, economic theory is correct whether or not it can be corroborated by experience, which is convenient, since scientific experimentation is impossible in the field of economics. But that is probably why Mises formulated his philosophy in such a way in the first place.
Hayek (and I agree) took offense at Mises’ philosophy, tending to believe that experience is essential to understanding human interaction. Like Hume and Kant looking back on Descartes before them, Mises’ rationalism amuses Hayek. Where does it come from, this idea that reason alone can sovle all mysteries. In his wonderful “Fatal Conceit,” Hayek identifies the champions of rationalism to be overwhelmingly socialists; it was Comte and Marx (and their many disciples) who thought they were true scientists. Their “conceit” was to believe that society is the product of reason. They are animists, who see purpose everywhere. And, like literary deconstructionists, they are fine with letting their own interpretations stand without much wondering if society has its own story.
It is not that Hayek’s empiricism was more accurate than Mises’ rationalism. It certainly was more complicated, and I think probably therefore closer to the truth of human experience. The point is, simply, “rational” is not synonymous with true. Mises was monumentally insightful, but imagine for moment that he had begun as a foundation for his system cooperative action instead of individual freedom. Could he not, then, have proceeded to prove that the state must be all-powerful? I say, if we grant Marxists their basic premises (that material conditions determine social relationships, and that history has a teleology), their conclusions don’t seem so crazy. What prevents us from jumping on board is our experience to the contrary.
“I say, if we grant Marxists their basic premises (that material conditions determine social relationships, and that history has a teleology), their conclusions don’t seem so crazy. What prevents us from jumping on board is our experience to the contrary.”
I say it's irrational to grant Marxists their basic premises since they lack a fundamental understanding of basic human nature, and therefore all their theories must inevitably result in failure, both theoretically and experientially. It amuses me that some cannot predict the inevitable failure of socialist theory by logical means alone.
Locke and Mises had it right and could have saved millions of lives and unmeasurable suffering if they had been believed before socialists launched their horrible experiment on the world.
What do you call people who still believe socialism can work after it has been proved a failure every time it has been tried? Are they still being rational?
I’m not a logician, but I believe that it is possible to start from a false premise and reach a false conclusion, and still follow all the rules. I refer you back to Hume’s fork: on one side lie logic truths, on the other side lie empirical truths. The former are deomnstrable, and the latter are not.
“I say it’s irrational to grant Marxists their basic premises”
Rationality does not depend on experience (except insofar as our rationality derives from our brains, which evolved over time, but that’s another argument). 2+2=4 with or without reference to life outside mathematics.
“What do you call people who still believe socialism can work after it has been proved a failure every time it has been tried?”
Mises maintained, time and again, that his economics was true whether or not it could be demonstrated by history. He wanted his theories to be a priori ture, or not ture at all.
Besides, any Marxist worth his salt will tell you that the reason the Soviet Union failed was because Russia had not reached the critical point of industrial development. And when you ask him why there have not been socialist revolutions in England and the U.S., for instance, he’ll tel you, “Just wait.”
It is not possible to argue with such a person; not because they are irrational, but because their rationality is locked in a closed system.
“He wanted his theories to be a priori ture, or not ture at all.”
Okay, that sounds insane. It should be: “He wanted his theories to be a priori true, or not true at all.”
sheesh, you don't think that's irrational? You are way over thinking this. The simple fact is, if your premises are flawed, then no matter how logical your cause and effect thought processes are, your conclusions cannot help but be irrational. As they say in computer programing, junk in, junk out.
“if your premises are flawed, then no matter how logical your cause and effect thought processes are, your conclusions cannot help but be irrational. As they say in computer programing, junk in, junk out”
I think you’re confusing “irrational” with “wrong.” Rationality is all about following rules. Rationality is form, not content. Plug
“I think you’re confusing “irrational” with “wrong.” Rationality is all about following rules. Rationality is form, not content. Plug”
Yes, but assuming “wrong” premises isn’t following the rules and so is therefore irrational.
(Sorry, I accidentally posted too early)
...Plug in any information, and our faculties can interpret them on their own merits, without reference to any further information.
I realize that rationality is a much bigger word than I have thus far implied. If it meant the same thing as “logical,” then one or the other word wouldn’t need to exist. When dealing with economics or sociology, the truth or falsehood of a statement depends upon subjectivity, which complicates matters. The historian or the economist, in developing theories, must take into account historical evidence, personal experience, and probability. If I were to write a book in which I calimed George Washington joined the revolution because aliens told him too, critics would be right to call me irrational, because there is no evidence of such a thing being possible. In that sense, rationality is not the same to an economist as it is a logician.
Still, I have a difficult time asserting that all the thousands of otherwise intelligent people who have accepted socialism can all be, in partly or wholly, irrational. I cannot believe that any more than I can believe everyone who has ever believed in God was irrational.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.