[ViktorRay]

I liked this part of the article at the end:

“ The defence of Stalinism consists often in proclaiming that the ugly misdeeds and crimes of Stalinism are the fault of Stalin, Beriya, Mekhlis, Kolman, and the hord of their minor clones and replicas, while in fact Stalinism was created by millions. Stalinism in science was mainly raised by scientists themselves. It is indecent to pretend that Luzin's students safeguarded their teacher and science from Stalinism. Luzin was a victim of social ostracism and lived with the brand and stigma of an adversary with a Soviet mask during fourteen years up to his death. He became an exemplary outcast for Stalinism—an adversary at large. Luzin's colleagues and students lowered and neglected him, which culminated in slapping in his face and spitting on his tomb. Luzin has passed away but the false accusations in sabotage and obsequiousness are still effective.”

Very well said. People put the blame of Stalinism on Stalin and some other powerful figures. But it takes millions to create such movements

[jojobas]

"We're endlessly cursing comrade Stalin, of course, for a good reason. And still I'd like to ask - who wrote the four million delations?"

S. Dovlatov

Still, it's Stalin&Co's "achievement" that people were en masse corrupted to the state where they'd frame their neighbours and family to gain their sorry possessions or stave off their own persecution.

The closer you were to the Leviathan, the more at risk you were too, the most executed occupation being NKVD officer.

[galaxyLogic]

That is how Devil, mafia-bosses and authoritarians work in general:

They get people to do some dirty deed on their behalf. Kill somebody for instance. Once you do that you cannot rat on the boss any more because you too have by now engaged in crime. So now you are under the thumb of the mob-boss, you cannot go back to normal decent life any more.

Consider Trump and Republican Party. Very few there dare to be critical of Trump any more even when he says publicly he will be dictator on day 1 if he wins the next election.

If you give the Devil a finger he will take your hand, and soon everything.

But that old saying also tells us the choice is yours to make. If you don't give Devil anything he can't take anything from you.

But once you let yourself to be corrupted a little, he can take more from you because if he then sinks you will sink too. He can then order you to do more evil deeds and then use the fact that you did them to make you do more.

[jojobas]

House and Senate Republicans are motivated by their own goals and gains, not fear of Trump's vengeance.

To even compare Trump with Stalin is idiotic.

Also, Devil doesn't exist.

[galaxyLogic]

You can compare anything to anything to see how they differ and not.

Stalin obviously wanted to be a dictator before he became one. Trump has said he wants to be dictator on Day 1, and today his lawyers have lost a case in court where they argued that Trump should be immune from being prosecuted for anything he did while in the office. Luckily for us they lost the case. But appeals are surely coming.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68026175

Trump is arguing nobody could charge him with anything, if he cancelled elections and even murdered his opponents, like Putin seems to be doing. And we know he likes and admires Putin.

Stalin was a dictator but not always. There was a time when he merely wanted to be a dictator. Trump is not a dictator at the moment, but clearly he would like to become one. He has instructed his lawyers to argue in court he should be given the power to be above the law, to be immune from any prosecution.

[jojobas]

You sure can compare anything, but in this case the very fact of comparison highlights that you're either delusional or trolling.

Stalin was not always a dictator, but he was always a ruthless murderer, his revolutionary career started with extreme violence and went on for 40 years. Stalin was never elected other than by a murderous clique (whom he then had murdered) and ruled by corruption and murder ever since.

I hate to defend Trump but he's totally harmless in comparison. There's just no scope for anything resembling the personal fear-loyalty dynamics of 1920s-1940s ruling circle USSR in the US. Trump can't order anyone killed, he can't even order anyone imprisoned.

[gottorf]

> But it takes millions to create such movements

Such movements are harder to take root in cultures that empower the individual and limit the authority of those in power to direct the lives of millions.

[Lysodium]

In the United States we still had McCarthyism and that led to a lot of accusations within the scientific community too. It’s always a fair warning.

[roenxi]

Glad that era is over and that these days academics is held up as a bastion of political neutrality and free speech!

Realistically the struggle between liberal ideals and more instinctual authoritarian leanings is an ongoing process that turns up in every country. The issue is that Russia looks like what happens when the authoritarians just get too much power. The thing that is baffling is that despite the effectively inevitable outcome that more liberalism leads to better outcome there is no talking people down from taking authoritarian stances on nearly every policy area.

[shrubble]

Two differences were, no one was killed without a fair trial (the Rosenbergs of that time were definitely guilty and they went through a normal court system) , and, the Venona decrypts showed that there were a lot of spies just as McCarthy said.

[LAC-Tech]

Which of these were egregious in your opinion?

Just through a random wikipedia list, I found Oppenheimer (if not an outright member of the communist party, very closely aligned) and Needham (who had agreed to be an Inspector in North Korea).

[neonsunset]

Except McCarthy was absolutely right and continues to be vilified to this day.

(I find it funny this is one of the two posts from this account, 50 rubles is 50 rubles I suppose?)

[coldtea]

>Such movements are harder to take root in cultures that empower the individual and limit the authority of those in power to direct the lives of millions.

Those cultures have even less resistance for when a totalitarian power center emerges, as society is already broken down into people separated from each other, and unable to see eye to eye. Such a people is the easiest to break down.

And even without a central totalitarian figurehead, people without wider social binds to aid them and work together, are powerless individuals, and as such are bowing down every day to whatever bigger power they meet: to politicians, to corporate power, to billionaire moguls who set the terms and own their media, to a byzantine legal system, and of course to their bosses.

[ViktorRay]

My point was that those millions acted in their own volition. Ordinary people turning against each other and promulgating horrors

[praptak]

Hearing a political joke and not informing authorities was enough to get sent to a labor camp. Same goes for lagging behind in public condemnation of "enemies of the people" (your neighbors and coworkers).

The moral choices came with a very high personal cost.

[myth_drannon]

Nazism took hold in Germany despite its culture more individualistic and free. Russia was and is a lost cause with its legacy of Mongol subjugation and centuries of despots. Looking around the world right now it feels like maniacs are running the world and its the normal state of humanity.

[crotchfire]

German culture is not individualistic in the sense being discussed here.

A lot of reports and surveys about "level of individualism in country XYZ" use "individualistic" to mean the opposite of "driven by extended family relationships". This is a very misleading way of using the term "individualism". A more accurate term would be "anti-nepotistic". German culture is certainly less nepotistic than the average for the world or even for Western Europe -- but to describe this as individualism is extremely inaccurate.

[readthenotes1]

Germany more individualistic?

There is a quote from the book _three men on a bummel_ written in 1900 wherein one of the characters states that he could take over Germany simply by putting up the correct signage as Germans followed all the rules; even their dogs would not walk on the grass signed "do not walk".

[Log_out_]

Nazism is a combination of many things. Obviously it's a regression to tribalism, but it's also purity neuroticism, such as still found in the esoteric movement and natural food movement. Finally, and today little understood it's the upstart underdogs hyper imperialism, a attempt to out monster the monsters already prowling the lands, deactivating empathy systematically by constant reminding of past victim hood and the atrocities of the "larger fishes". Add to that a war traumatized nation and you get the perfect storm.

Germany when ww1 came around was not old, it was a small militaristic kingdom glueing together half diggested bits of in between empire countries, wedged between eternal giants of France, Britain, Russia, Austria Hungary. To life in in between country is to know what the great game is all about, it's about painting on a map, so that the real, the capital city people can have a nice life, while in between country folks serves as disposables for taxing, torturing and throwing out of cellar windows. evil is gestated and caricature like evil is gestated in caricature like circumstances. The modern left is unable to perform this kind of analysis any more, but the nazis were a afterbirth of imperialism and nobody can prevent this from returning without understanding of the conditions that gave birth to this.