|
Stalin
Oct 18, 2010 5:30:27 GMT -5
Post by ahliang on Oct 18, 2010 5:30:27 GMT -5
so i was reading "Master of the House: Stalin and His Inner Circle" by Oleg V. Khlevniuk and it s been puzzling me: why and how did Stalin stay in power? why has there been no other dictator to gather as much power as he did? it s fascinating...really...i didn t sleep at all and have been trying to come up with answers to that but i just can t come up with anything consistent... it can t solely be that people feared him because we could argue that Beria got killed for that very reason: he was eliminated for the same reason they should have eliminated Stalin... was it that he divided and "conquered" the politburo? but then everybody hated him! why did no one poison the guy? did his circle really need to meet a revolutionary threshold to rise up against the guy? because they certainly all hated him...fear and preference falsification can t be it either... i feel the book relies a lot on sheer luck and a combination of variables making his rise almost inexplicable but i hate how people will conclude that because there are too many variables and determinants to consider we can t reach a definitive conclusion on a certain matter... i m thinking it might have been the context: the cold war...the outside threat making the inside threat bearable compared to the potential danger? i suppose we can look at hitler and say the same...then again stalin lost a lot of power during WW2 (by that i mean personal power as he delegated a lot) so how did he get it back? i know he attacked each of his followers/politburo member but if you re to look at a playground, regaining power after losing it (say here in the context of a playground, regaining popularity) is a lot harder than subjugating your followers once again and putting them on trial. (i suppose in the more extreme example we could look at dadis camara with his show/live "trial"...ending up getting shot...)... when i speak of the inner circle i largely speak of mikoyan/beria/molotov/malenkov but it s far from exclusive and if you feel another pawn must be added in the equation be my guest. i m genuinely running out of ideas and at the moment, after having extensively discussed it (along with one of stalin s biographer), i feel like no explanation meets my expectations...right now i m leaning more towards context playing a role in him maintaining his power... ? edit: is it me or did this post sound uber pompous? i m not sure what makes it sound as such but it wasn t intentional and any input is welcome
|
|
|
Stalin
Oct 18, 2010 23:17:21 GMT -5
Post by betahat on Oct 18, 2010 23:17:21 GMT -5
^why has there been no other dictator to gather as much power as he did?
I'm no expert on Stalin, but I think that claim is a bit of a stretch. Certainly he was a dictator of a powerful country, so in absolute terms, yes (though one can make arguments for Hitler, or maybe other historical figures), but in relative terms, there are other dictators that lasted longer and arguably had less opposition and more total control of their nations.
Part of the "total" control you're thinking about IS a product of historical context - while there were very powerful dictators before Stalin, only in modern times has the technology of control and communication and monitoring allowed such "totalitarian" impulses to be realized. Genghis Khan, Roman Emperors, and others always had to delegate and trust others because it took so long just to communicate with people at the front lines, and the apparatus of state control had not been refined by both technology and the evolution of modern nation states. Perhaps Stalin was especially adept at this aspect of it - using secret police to monitor others and using modern communication to maintain close contact with subordinates?
I'm sure personal charisma played some role in it, especially when basking in the glow of post-war victory. He had a cool name - Stalin - in a country that, for a long time, liked its strongmen dictators (and some would say still does), and the country may have rallied around him more than usual thanks to the war. But like I said, I'm no Stalin expert, and I doubt I could shed more light than one of Stalin's biographers.
|
|
ChineseGhost
Junior Member
French Fried Frog Legs & Chopsticks
Posts: 195
|
Stalin
Oct 21, 2010 10:37:51 GMT -5
Post by ChineseGhost on Oct 21, 2010 10:37:51 GMT -5
I'm sure personal charisma played some role in it Completely plays a role in it. (Hitler's speaches swayed the masses then) Look at politics in general. Even in a company's Management, it's important.
|
|
|
Stalin
Oct 22, 2010 14:42:42 GMT -5
Post by ahliang on Oct 22, 2010 14:42:42 GMT -5
mmmh...interesting...i agree with charisma but only to some extent...what is charisma really? Hitler? he was distinguishable in a crowd because of his moustache but did he have some sort of aura that really made him stand out as charisma implies? if you look at hitler s speeches it s the crescendo technique that swayed the masses and the way he delivered them. you start soft, you finish strong...that both were good orators certainly but no one ever saw Stalin in person, in fact he hired a double and he was very self conscious about his double chin. charisma certainly isn t what keeps a dictator in power although it certainly plays a role...one just needs to look at kim il sung, son, and grandson...not sure how kim jong eun will fare but his father certainly maintained power and i doubt his charisma helped any in his maintaining it.
"there are other dictators that lasted longer and arguably had less opposition and more total control of their nations."
what opposition did stalin have amongst his people? he certainly did but those who did falsified their preferences, especially his inner circle...in fact this goes to show how much more powerful he was than any dictator. as for technology...sure it played a role but Stalin only used letters before WWII to communicate with his subordinates (and that s when he had the most power). There were phone lines, but he used letters with his subordinates...so i doubt it was him "using modern communication to maintain close contact with subordinates".
in fact looking at politics in general, i d say that charisma plays a bigger role in democracies than in dictatorships...because those who get to judge whether or not that person has charisma are the people voting. since they didn t for Stalin...not so sure about it...
|
|
ChineseGhost
Junior Member
French Fried Frog Legs & Chopsticks
Posts: 195
|
Stalin
Oct 26, 2010 9:56:22 GMT -5
Post by ChineseGhost on Oct 26, 2010 9:56:22 GMT -5
in fact looking at politics in general, i d say that charisma plays a bigger role in democracies than in dictatorships...because those who get to judge whether or not that person has charisma are the people voting. since they didn t for Stalin...not so sure about it... Your right, indeed I got it wrong. ie the Korean Kims..... A hamster's chubby cheeks got motre charisma than theirs.... ;D Tho Stalin had a double in his place as he was a paranoid S.O.B....
|
|
|
Stalin
Oct 28, 2010 2:20:58 GMT -5
Post by betahat on Oct 28, 2010 2:20:58 GMT -5
There is a distinction between dictators that assume power over an external government (e.g. Lenin or Castro or Hitler) and those that achieve power through an internal coup like Stalin (or inheritance like the Kims). Also the cult of personality around any dictator is largely produced and a function of propaganda - I think with Stalin it reached some new crazy levels though maybe the Kims are pretty close - although some countries seem to be more susceptible to strong-men types.
Perhaps Stalin was more of the quiet manipulator but he certainly must have been a very persuasive person to play Lenin and then isolate Trotsky within the Politburo - maybe it has to be more than just ruthlesness as he used a lot of people as stepping stones to achieve absolute power.
But I'll stick to my guns on my claims that (a)Stalin is not unique among dictators, there are others who ruled for longer and with as much control, sometimes through personal charisma (I'm thinking Fidel) - in fact, if you believe that Stalin was assassinated by Beria his control was a lot less than many other dictators who died of natural causes, and (b)that level of state control over a population is only possible in modern times. So what if he only personally communicated by letters? His subordinates could use telephones, radio to spread propaganda, and without motorized transport and railroads it would be impossible to maintain such tight control over such a large area. There's just no way a Khan or a Roman Emperor could maintain such tight control - they needed to delegate a lot more power and couldn't stop their subordinates from occasionally acting independently or against orders. There's a reason the concept of totalitarianism wasn't invented until the 20th century and why technology features so heavily in Orwell's 1984.
|
|
|
Stalin
Nov 6, 2010 8:06:26 GMT -5
Post by ahliang on Nov 6, 2010 8:06:26 GMT -5
Stalin is not unique among dictators, there are others who ruled for longer and with as much control, sometimes through personal charisma (I'm thinking Fidel) - in fact, if you believe that Stalin was assassinated by Beria his control was a lot less than many other dictators who died of natural causes
^ i never claimed stalin ruled the longest and had more 'control' than any dictator but in modern times he certainly had more power than any. if you re going to claim this i d like you to provide evidence of modern times dictators who managed to gather as much power as Stalin did. and i don t quite know why you keep bringing up Khan and Roman Emperors because i m referring to modern times....so obviously technology isn t the only variable explaining a dictator s power because contemporary dictators have more technology than Stalin did and as far as i know, none has been as powerful as he has. if Rifat had the military, why did his brother win then? the guy had a heart attack, barely communicated with anyone and his brother who had the technology and the leader on the verge of death in his bed didn t win? it s obviously not about technology alone. if you think Fidel stayed in power because of charisma i don t even know where to start to bring that argument apart....in poli sci charisma isn t even mentioned in the texts. in fact most studies prove that people don t even buy into the propaganda of personality cults. just as is it well know that rifat is more charismatic than hafez. it s self evident if you re going to compare a roman emperor and a modern dictator to say that technology helped the modern dictator. just as you would just as easily argue that technology helped improve the medical field... also...when did i ever claim Stalin was assasinated by Beria??? if it s a speculation it s never been proven. all i claimed was that Beria was eliminated for the same reason Stalin should have been eliminated--ie: but was not...
|
|
|
Stalin
Nov 7, 2010 18:32:01 GMT -5
Post by betahat on Nov 7, 2010 18:32:01 GMT -5
^why has there been no other dictator to gather as much power as he did?
So by power you mean he was dictator of a big country, as opposed to a small country? Since the Soviet Union had a more powerful military in the post-Stalin era you could argue that Stalin's successors had more power - they at least had more nukes to destroy the world. Maybe I'm a bit unclear on what you mean by power since you never defined it - I was thinking power within a country, as opposed to power to dominate the world.
Hence my reference to historic empires, that controlled comparable amounts of territory and were as globally dominant as the Soviet Empire. If you mean global power, these guys have to be in the conversation. If you mean power within a country, there are plenty of other candidates.
Where did I claim that you claimed that Stalin was assassinated by Beria? I just stated that if that did occur, as many have speculated, it would suggest he wasn't as all powerful as you claim.
If you've never been to Cuba or spoken with Cuban people I think it's easy to underestimate the role that Fidel's personal connection with the Cuban people has on his ability to maintain power all these years (and more importantly, for the ability of the whole communist apparatus to maintain power, even with his retirement). His rise and hold on power is obviously due to many factors, as is the case with any dictator, but no one who has ever met him, watched him speak, or spoken with a non-exile Cuban (even the ones who dislike communism) can deny that the guy has amazing charisma and leadership qualities, qualities that would have translated into greatness in many other contexts (maybe in America he would have been a CEO, who knows?).
It would be a shame to ignore the role of personality traits, including charisma, in the study of why particular people succeeded in rising to power where others failed. I certainly have sympathies for the view of history based on movements and larger forces that minimizes the role of the individual, but if you're trying to answer the question of "why person X and not all the other Ys" it seems obvious that you're going to have to point out some exceptional individual characteristics. There are a number of traits to consider that would all probably be ignored by political science, but then political science doesn't usually ask that question - the individual, the specific exception, is exactly what science leaves out since it is about generalization.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that was the question you were asking, no?
|
|
|
Stalin
Nov 17, 2010 4:13:41 GMT -5
Post by ahliang on Nov 17, 2010 4:13:41 GMT -5
we largely differ in our understanding of 'power'. i never claimed power was about the size of the country one governs...it s a combination of factors. you on the other hand seem to think of power as length of stay in office...or to quote you: dictators 'who ruled for longer' had more power than Stalin. going by this logic though Hafez would be as powerful as Stalin and more powerful than Hitler who only stayed in office for a mere 12 years...which in fact you have previously claimed saying 'other' dictators had more power than Stalin because they were in office longer and exerted as much control. to quote you:'there are others who ruled for longer and with as much control'. i m sure many people will disagree with this.
as for charisma, do give me examples of how it has helped maintain leaders in power. as i believe i mentioned above, it certainly isn t charisma that s maintaining the Kim legacy...personality cult? multiple studies have proven that most people don t buy it. one of the reasons why personality cult could exist would be to prevent the opposition from coordinating its moves. that as well as better supervise the population: if one doesn t have a portrait of the leader up, it s easier to tell they re not compliant. could it be about creating a culture and environment of compliance too? in any case, there are a number of theories out there attempting to understand the logic behind personality cult and more often than not it s not driven by charisma...like i mentioned, Stalin hired a double and his posing all grand and elevating his chin was so as to avoid having a double chin on pics more so than have this charismatic aura emanate from him.
if you're talking about 'maintaining power, even with his retirement'--as you said for Fidel; you could very well say the same about Lee Kwan Yew as a Minister Mentor. Does that make him more powerful than Fidel? After all, LKY 's been in power longer...than Stalin? given that he s been in office longer than both and maintained power even after retiring?... dubious...
as for your Cuban comment, 'If you've never been to Cuba or spoken with Cuban people I think it's easy to underestimate the role that Fidel's...' : sorry to disappoint but i have. also... i find it fairly 'low' for lack of a better word to dismiss one's claims based on personal experience with meeting 'Cuban people' or traveling to Cuba (not to mention assuming i never have...). Your interractions with Cubans certainly doesn't reflect the entire population of Cuba's feeling on their leader. you re most likely thinking of typing you never claimed i never interracted with Cubans or been to Cuba, but it was largely implied, so please let s not start to 'argue' on that...
i m genuinely wondering about your understanding of power though. on a related note, i m working on trying to find ways to quantify and measure power in authoritarian regimes; so i certainly don t have the answer myself...
|
|
|
Stalin
Apr 2, 2011 10:08:40 GMT -5
Post by helloagain on Apr 2, 2011 10:08:40 GMT -5
I think sometimes we underestimate the fear the common people have under totalitarian regimes. That level of control and terror will change a population.
|
|