Research Into Totalitarian Governments

[Michael Colton]

I can't but strongly disagree. Stalin was only a master of under-the-carpet political dogfighting. He followed the principle "divide and rule" and used it to raise to the peak of his power while exterminating groups of his comrades with support from other comrades. In the end, there was no one who could oppose him. In other areas he was anything but "skillful and intelligent". In fact, his intellect was below average, and he easily bought every kind of pseudo-science nonsense offered to him by any charlatan who managed to have his ear. Even without it, it's enough to say that he allowed Hitler to attack the USSR out of the blue although he had multiple warnings from many independent sources.

There are different types of intelligence. Everything you mention supports my description of him as a gifted political operator, which is what I said directly after skilled and intelligent. Meaning, this was the manner in which he was skilled and intelligent. And it suited him very well. His political machinations and propaganda machine were brilliant (the propaganda machine is still having its effect today).

 

[Wanderlog]

Everything you mention supports my description of him as a gifted political operator

Politics, just by definition, is the activities associated with governing big groups of people. Stalin didn't do it. The USSR at that time was governed by a small group of people named "The Central Committee [of All-Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik)]". Initially its leader was Lenin. After Lenin's death a struggle for power began inside this group. Stalin manipulated his comrades in such a way that some of them destroyed other, and he remained on the winning side. He was cunning, yes. Extremely cunning, can't deny it. But he wasn't intelligent, no.

And it suited him very well.

Him personally? Yes. Any street gang leader enjoys his power in the same way...until someone stronger takes his place. However, it has nothing to do with politics and intelligence.

His political machinations and propaganda machine were brilliant

No, they weren't.

First, about 85% of then USSR population were peasants. Not free farmers like in Europe and the USSR, but former slaves who were freed in 1860s. In spite of the devastating Civil War in 1918-1923 they mostly preserved their old ways of life. They were uneducated and often illiterate, and they were used to believe in everything authorities told them. In general, propaganda in the USSR in 1920-1953 was based on two main principles: the absence of alternate sources of information and total terror. Those who didn't believe what they were told (or at least didn't feign they believed it) were arrested, tortured, sent to labor camps or simply shot. This is just bullying people into obedience, not modern propaganda that must compete with independent sources of (presumably truthful) information in countries where freedom of speech and conscience is declared at least formally

Secondly, even that propaganda machine was built long before Stalin came to power. He simply used it to its advantage.

 

[Hex]

Yet Germany was a very advanced country, socially and politically, when Hitler came to power, and his propaganda worked pretty well.

I don't think just because people had been serfs 60 years before (they were freed in 1861, Stalin came to power in the early 1920s -- let's say 1924 after Lenin died) they had no way of resisting the propaganda of the state. It's not the case that people who have been denied formal education are necessarily gullible or stupid, or that they believe everything the authorities tell them. They might have been smart enough to pretend they did, given the alternative.

I guess the point is that Stalin was a successful dictator and whether he succeeded because of low cunning or because of political genius, the outcome was the same.

The propaganda machine doesn't need to do very much and I don't think that's what keeps Stalin's memory important to people. He murdered a lot of people, but he was rarely seen to be personally responsible, but he provided stability and security for a large group who benefited from his rule. He won the war against the Nazis, and he made Russia a proud and strong nation. Compare that with the state she was in in the 1990s -- flooded with foreign investors who wanted to tear her industries to pieces and sell them off, full of hugely expensive consumer goods that 90% of the population couldn't even think of affording (university teachers -- and probably others -- weren't paid their salaries for months on end and needed to survive on what they could grow and on charity from other people) and everyone being told to be ashamed of everything that had happened since 1917 because now the Americans had won.

You can see why people might have resisted the new truth and stuck with what had been important to them for so long. There were many good things about Stalinism -- there had to be, to let the regime survive.

 

[Wanderlog]

Yet Germany was a very advanced country, socially and politically, when Hitler came to power, and his propaganda worked pretty well.

This is true. However, this is a completely another story. Hitler worked his way up in a relatively free country, so he had to invent complicated ways for his propaganda to work.

It's not the case that people who have been denied formal education are necessarily gullible or stupid

Of course, it's not. However, such people are always easily manipulated. They simply can't cross-check what they are told - especially after they blindly obeyed the will of their owners for centuries.

I guess the point is that Stalin was a successful dictator and whether he succeeded because of low cunning or because of political genius, the outcome was the same.

Stalin really was a successful dictator, I don't argue that. I'm simply objecting against calling him "smart and intelligent".

but he provided stability and security for a large group who benefited from his rule. He won the war against the Nazis, and he made Russia a proud and strong nation.

There were ABSOLUTELY NO stability and security for ANYONE under his rule. He could kill and send to prison anyone including the most top-ranking officials. Their relatives and members of their families were arrested, shot and imprisoned on routine basis. The system he built was fully demolished in less than a year after his death (starting with shooting his chief of the state security ministry).

And no, he didn't make Russia "a proud and strong nation". His only purpose was global domination, and to reach it, he sent millions of people to their death. He simply didn't care a button about nations and countries, they were only tools for him. For example, people outside of Russia usually have even no slightest idea about the methods Russian generals used to achieve victory. Frontal assaults of heavily fortified positions with blocking squads placed behind the attacking units was a typical one. Do you know what such a blocking squad would do in case the army started retreating? They opened machinegun fire on their comrades. Those who survived the retreat were arrested and sent to so-called "penalty squads" or shot in front of others. It was done on the personal order of Stalin (Order 227 "No stepping back"). In general, Russian fatal casualties were ten times higher than German ones, and EVERY captured soldier was declared a betrayer, even if he was captured unconscious.

Tens of millions of innocent people were sent to labor camps. Millions were shot and died in camps. Millions were killed and tens of millions were wounded and crippled in senseless attacks ordered by incompetent generals. All others lived in permanent fear. Is this your idea of "a strong and proud nation"? I somehow doubt it.

Compare that with the state she was in in the 1990s -- flooded with foreign investors who wanted to tear her industries to pieces and sell them off

You don't need to tell me stories about Russia. I live there. In 1991, I was seventeen, and I remember everything by myself. Just FYI: at that time there were no industries in Russia anymore. There was no economy. Even money were almost useless. Five years before that, store shelves became almost empty. The USSR had crashed in 1991, but was just the end of long agony. And it was a direct consequence of Stalin's methods of building a "powerful state".

Just a single fact: 80% of Russian industry by that time produced industry and war machinery ("Group A" in the Soviet classification). Consumer goods ("Group B") were produced by 20% of the industry by plants and factories of twofold purposes (they would be switched to producing military equipment in case of war). After the USSR crashed such "industry" was simply not needed by anyone.

There were many good things about Stalinism -- there had to be, to let the regime survive.

There were none good things about it at all. Stalinism is still alive because declaring Stalin a great achiever was the state policy of the USSR after Khruschev was removed. And yes, there is another motive as well: "But in return, everyone around the world feared and respected us!" An inferiority complex so common for citizens of former empires...

 

[Ray McCarthy]

However, such people are always easily manipulated.

I don't think so. In many cultures the government struggles to convince them of true things, that would help the people. Education by rote can make people easier to manipulate.

 

[Wanderlog]

In many cultures the government struggles to convince them of true things, that would help the people.

Yes, of course. But you're talking about specific intentions, and I'm talking about general principles.

Education by rote can make people easier to manipulate.

It's true as well. But it's not related to my statement.

 

[Hex]

There were ABSOLUTELY NO stability and security for ANYONE under his rule. He could kill and send to prison anyone including the most top-ranking officials. Their relatives and members of their families were arrested, shot and imprisoned on routine basis. The system he built was fully demolished in less than a year after his death (starting with shooting his chief of the state security ministry).

And no, he didn't make Russia "a proud and strong nation". His only purpose was global domination, and to reach it, he sent millions of people to their death. He simply didn't care a button about nations and countries, they were only tools for him. For example, people outside of Russia usually have even no slightest idea about the methods Russian generals used to achieve victory. Frontal assaults of heavily fortified positions with blocking squads placed behind the attacking units was a typical one. Do you know what such a blocking squad would do in case the army started retreating? They opened machinegun fire on their comrades. Those who survived the retreat were arrested and sent to so-called "penalty squads" or shot in front of others. It was done on the personal order of Stalin (Order 227 "No stepping back"). In general, Russian fatal casualties were ten times higher than German ones, and EVERY captured soldier was declared a betrayer, even if he was captured unconscious.

I do know about the techniques used during the war, even though I am not Russian. My point is not that they were right, but that something that had given tremendous pride to lots of people was difficult to abandon afterwards. Stalin made stupid mistakes (refusing to believe that Hitler would attack, and then running away when he did were huge among them) but the fact remains that people took pride in having defeated the Nazis -- and much of the horror and the suffering was brought by the invasion as well as created by Stalin. He did awful things, but ultimately, he triumphed.

Tens of millions of innocent people were sent to labor camps. Millions were shot and died in camps. Millions were killed and tens of millions were wounded and crippled in senseless attacks ordered by incompetent generals. All others lived in permanent fear. Is this your idea of "a strong and proud nation"? I somehow doubt it.

It's not my idea. It's the way it was described by a lot of people even after the end of the Communist system. People either argued that Communism had been a total catastrophe, with everyone crushed beneath the will of the evil Stalin, or a better system than was offered afterwards. The fact is that Stalin didn't rule alone -- lots of people helped him either directly by supporting him and being, for example, responsible for sending people to the Gulag or for shooting them -- or through administering the systems he put in place. It was not one evil person and the cowards who surrounded him -- it was a huge country being run by a large group of people. Many many others did nothing to resist him. And that -- in case this comes over as judgmental -- is exactly what I would have done in the circumstances.

Yes, now we can list all the ways that Stalinism was awful and evil, but that doesn't explain where it came from and why it lasted so long.

You don't need to tell me stories about Russia. I live there. In 1991, I was seventeen, and I remember everything by myself. Just FYI: at that time there were no industries in Russia anymore. There was no economy. Even money were almost useless. Five years before that, store shelves became almost empty. The USSR had crashed in 1991, but was just the end of long agony. And it was a direct consequence of Stalin's methods of building a "powerful state".

Just a single fact: 80% of Russian industry by that time produced industry and war machinery ("Group A" in the Soviet classification). Consumer goods ("Group B") were produced by 20% of the industry by plants and factories of twofold purposes (they would be switched to producing military equipment in case of war). After the USSR crashed such "industry" was simply not needed by anyone.

It was completely grim. I lived there too. And I spent a lot of time interviewing people and working in the archives. I'm not Russian, but I'm not making this up either.

There were none good things about it at all. Stalinism is still alive because declaring Stalin a great achiever was the state policy of the USSR after Khruschev was removed. And yes, there is another motive as well: "But in return, everyone around the world feared and respected us!" An inferiority complex so common for citizens of former empires...

Stalinism is still alive because it was a way of life and it is difficult for people to run their backs on the way they have lived for so long. Also, because the alternatives were kind of crappy. You don't need to persuade me of the madness that comes with being a former powerful state -- I live in the UK, where we are still labouring under the illusion that we matter in the world.

(I'm going away today -- I won't be back on the Chrons until August, so if it looks like I've abandoned this discussion, I haven't!)

 

[Toby Frost]

Robert Harris tells a story about Stalin in his novel Archangel (which may or may not be true). Stalin and his ministers are having dinner, and Stalin suggests putting some records on and having a dance. “Great idea!” the ministers say quickly. So they all have a little dance, and Stalin sits down. The ministers stop dancing, and Stalin laughs. “Nobody said you could stop,” he says. So the ministers dance on and on, exhausted but too frightened to stop, while Stalin stands there, howling with laughter and revelling in humiliating them. Imagine doing that to an entire nation, and it’s firing squads and torture chambers instead of dancing, and you have a pretty good idea of how dictators think.

Anyhow, my understanding is that Stalin was deluded and totally paranoid, to the point of having his own doctors sent to the Gulag when he became ill. Hitler was a ranting lunatic, but it seems that his subordinates could actually deal with him without being murdered at random. His outlook was just as crazy, if not more so, but he seems to have been able to operate slightly better on a day-to-day basis, at least to begin with. Not a high hurdle to cross, admittedly.

A further point. It suits dictators to spread the idea of their own people being especially tough, strong and hardy. For one thing, it might make them fiercer in battle. More importantly, if you tell them that, say, running water is soft and decadent, they won’t want it and you can steal all the water for yourself (“But do not get addicted to water…”, as Immortan Joe would say, whilst growing his own Green Place). This is probably why the enemies of the state (Trotsky in the USSR, the Jews in Nazi Germany and gays in modern Russia) are depicted as weaklings and corruptors of national will. By wanting luxuries like functional toilets, they sap national morale and turn honest workers into decadent city types, etc, and ruin our glorious future (which will never come, needless to say). Meanwhile, we will live in glorious squalor, because we are noble and strong. Except for our leaders, who know what's best.

 

[JoanDrake]

You need to return to that Chinese Emperor, Qin, as he actually founded Chinese totalitarianism (and China itself). Historians call his system Legalism, and it's central tenet was that "whatever is not permitted is forbidden". This actually gets into Taoism since the central result of a Legalistic government was that the ruler should "do nothing" (Taoism's wu wei), since, if the system was set up right, "all the Emperor must do is let his robes fall into place and the state will be well-governed."

At least that was the theory, and it was very influential throughout Chinese History, though Confucianism softened it somewhat, as did the system of State Examinations, which, as has been mentioned, gave a path for even a peasant to begin a rise to high position.

One present government which many say is a benevolent totalitarianism is Singapore, though many saying that are Singporeans, which seems contradictory.

Oh, and the movie Hero, starring Jet Li, is the story of an attempt to assassinate the Qin Emperor. It shows how many can come to view even a totalitarian leader as an admirable person if he accomplishes noteworthy goals

 

[Toby Frost]

That's interesting - Christopher Hitchens described North Korea as "Whatever is not obligatory is forbidden". It must be a reference.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Just on Hero: worth noting that after trying to smash China's immense cultural heritage in earlier decades, the Communists are now trying to reclaim it (understandably, China has a fantastic history). Hero's a film I like very much, but there's also an air of propaganda about the man who is seen by many to have effectively founded China.

Singapore's a good example, from history Hiero of Syracuse might also be considered a benevolent dictator (likewise the better Roman emperors).

 

[JoanDrake]

Aaaghh. It WAS "obligatory", whatever is not permitted IS forbidden, isn't it?

 

[Wanderlog]

but the fact remains that people took pride in having defeated the Nazis -- and much of the horror and the suffering was brought by the invasion as well as created by Stalin. He did awful things, but ultimately, he triumphed.

You see, the very idea of greatness of Russian victory wasn't invented by Stalin. Actually, May 9th became a state holiday only in 1960s. Till then, no one celebrated it. People who actually fought in the war hated the very memory of it, as it was extremely ugly. So the triumph of Soviet people and all that stuff were simply invented by later propaganda.

Of course, there is no quick and easy answer to the question what and how Russians felt about that victory. There are different people and different interpretations, and all I want to say is, Stalin we know today was mostly a figure made up by propagandists after his death.

The fact is that Stalin didn't rule alone -- lots of people helped him

True again. It was a huge System incorporating tens of thousands of people. However, this system wasn't invented by Stalin and even by Bolsheviks. In fact, they rebuild the imperial system that existed before WWI. They simply renamed it and made it much more cruel than it was before. Revolting slaves can't invent anything new, it was proven long ago (by slave rebellions in ancient Egypt, for example). However, the new Russian system gladly devoured those who was its part, and it's was unique in that respect.

Yes, now we can list all the ways that Stalinism was awful and evil, but that doesn't explain where it came from and why it lasted so long.

Its basis is the Russian tradition of obeying the absolute ruler. That tradition, I hoped till recently, was broken at last.

I won't be back on the Chrons until August, so if it looks like I've abandoned this discussion, I haven't!

No problem. It doesn't look like this subject is going to become irrelevant any time soon.

So they all have a little dance, and Stalin sits down. The ministers stop dancing, and Stalin laughs. “Nobody said you could stop,” he says.

It's unrealistic. Stalin loved torturing people mentally, but this looks not like him. I can give another - real - example. At Communist Party's congresses all people started applauding when Stalin appeared on the panel. And no one dared to stop applauding first because he could be accused of treachery and other unpleasant things. Storm of applause went on and on, and people secretly glanced at each other waiting for someone to stop first until eventually someone really stopped. Then the storm ended in a moment. This is described in many memoirs.

It suits dictators to spread the idea of their own people being especially tough, strong and hardy.

A good point.

Oh, and the movie Hero, starring Jet Li, is the story of an attempt to assassinate the Qin Emperor.

A fine movie but too fanciful to depict the real truth.

However, we need to remember that what we call "a dictator" or "totalitarianism" were usual things in the past. People had no idea that they could live in another way. So Stalin, Hitler, modern North Korean dictators and so on would be ordinary rulers of the past.

Christopher Hitchens described North Korea as "Whatever is not obligatory is forbidden". It must be a reference.

Yes, seems it's another common feature of totalitarian regimes.

 

[Piousflea84]

However, we need to remember that what we call "a dictator" or "totalitarianism" were usual things in the past. People had no idea that they could live in another way. So Stalin, Hitler, modern North Korean dictators and so on would be ordinary rulers of the past.

Completely untrue. There are many good reasons why totalitarianism is considered a 20th century phenomenon. Feudalism completely lacked the concept of a centrally planned economy, as well as the internal policing and purging of a totalitarian state. No matter how crazy a Richard III or Henry VIII might be, their kingdoms weren't organized enough to perpetrate atrocities like the Nazis or Soviets.

Ultimately, modern state control comes down to a matter of economic control. This did not exist in pre-modern times. If you were a peasant living in medieval England, you worked the fields first to feed yourself and second to pay the lord (Baron, Earl, Duke) who owns the land you live on. The King had no organized bureaucracy, he had no way to keep track of how many peasants were working for each lord or what they were doing. The individual lord (not the King) was responsible for supervising his own domain. Furthermore, the craftsman's guilds were almost completely independent from government. The noble classes would degrade themselves if they were seen micromanaging the affairs of carpenters and masons. Even if the King could dream of something like a "five-year plan", he would neither have the authority nor the capability to carry it out. In an era prior to telegraphs and railroads, there simply wasn't enough communication between the central government and the means of production for anything resembling a command economy.

When it comes to internal policing, the King relied on individual spymasters to root out traitors in a very personal case-by-case manner. ("My mother has counseled mercy, but mercy is for women. Off with his head!") This entirely depended on the spymaster being both competent and loyal, something that was frequently untrue. Nobles near the capital city would live in fear of arbitrary and cruel punishments from the King, but the majority of commoners lived out of earshot of any nobility or crown-loyalists. They could say "F--k the King" at an inn with relatively little fear of torture or death (so long as they weren't about to start a fight over chickens).

Nobles far away from the capital city could plot and scheme against the King all the time. Even if the King realized they were a traitor and called for their arrest, a powerful lord could easily defy the King and start an intra-kingdom war. In a feudal system the King doesn't control the whole military; the men under his direct command are greatly outnumbered by men under the banners of Lords great and petty. Each of these bannermen are free to choose sides in a civil war, the King has nowhere near the power of a totalitarian leader. In theory the Roman Dictators, Chinese/Japanese Emperors and Arab Caliphs wielded absolute state power, but history shows that they were rebelled against as much as anyone else.

The idea of a "Reign of Terror", where every citizen great and small had to loudly proclaim their devotion to the national cause or die screaming, was only invented by the French Revolution (and perfected by Stalin). Prior to this, inquisitions and executions never racked up that much of a body count. Even in the guillotine era, mass executions were a very public and bloody affair, quickly turning public opinion against the regime. Robespierre and the original Reign of Terror didn't even make it a year before they themselves were executed for their excesses.

Stalin invented the concept of "disappearances", in which large numbers of people were killed without any public knowledge. Hitler took the concept even further, the "Final Solution" was largely hidden from the public so that the majority of ordinary Germans believed that the concentration camps were labor camps and not death camps. None of this stuff could have happened in the premodern era, it's all a 20th-century invention.

 

[Wanderlog]

There are many good reasons why totalitarianism is considered a 20th century phenomenon.

You use the most correct world - a phenomenon. It's something outstanding and unusual. However, what is unusual and disgusting today, was typical in the past.

Everything you've written above about the structure of medieval society is absolutely correct. Yes, "a vassal of my vassal is not my vassal", craftsman guilds and so on - everything was exactly like that. However, you pay too much attention to titles and too little to the essence of the matter. How do peasants controlled by barons and their soldiers differ from prisoners in labor camps controlled by the camp's administration? How exterminating rebelled peasants differs from mass-murdering people in death camps? Mercenary armies traveling across the land devastated everything in their path including peaceful settlements not participating in rebellions - how it differs from preventative arrests and executions in modern totalitarian states...? In general, totalitarianism is a system where life and death of majority of the population is controlled by a single man (or a small group of men), and it precisely describes a typical medieval state where 95% of the population (or even more) were peasants (slaves, serfs, and so on).

Besides, there were different types of monarchy. There were feudal monarchies where the aristocracy was mostly independent (and you keep them in mind) and absolute monarchies where "state is me" was the credo of the ruler (that's what I mean). The former one just shifts the description of totalitarianism down to the feudal lords' level.

Any state needs a controlling system. In the Middle Ages, such systems were composed of the aristocracy and mercenaries. Nowadays, they are made of the bureaucracy and law-enforcing agencies. Those components exist regardless of the type of the state, and if you replace "aristocracy" with "bureaucracy", nothing would change in principle. The only difference between then and now is the new ways of control and exchanging information.

Five centuries ago only very few people were able to read and write (illiterate peasants had no opportunity to learn those skills, and the aristocracy simply despised it). Educated people were mostly with the church. In the beginning of 20th century those skills became common, and newspapers thrived. In addition, radio (and television a little later) was invented. To control and eliminate independent information sources, rulers of modern totalitarian states invented new methods that, in addition, allowed them to control the population better and prevent rebellions rather than suppress them. That's all the difference.

 

[Dave]

I agree, the difference between the past and the present is merely one of automation and technology. Concentration camps can execute people on an industrial scale. CCTV cameras can keep citizens in check wherever they are, without labour intensive house to house searches. Monitoring of chat rooms and blocking IP addresses does away with the need to close down printing presses or to wire tap telephones or to break up public meetings.

However, I'm not sure that one single person, in other words, The King, was ever as powerful as a modern dictator can now be. Since travel took much longer he could never control the whole of his Kingdom without the Barons to support him. More crucially, he relied on them to raise the taxes he needed to pay for the militia to enforce his rule and keep away foreign powers. Thus we got Magna Carta from the Barons. The biggest economic resource then was agricultural land, which was worthless without the peasant labourers to farm it. Now our dictators control gold and diamond mines, oil and gas fields; and the multinational corporations are not as picky as Barons were.

 

[Dan Jones]

I do hope @Vaz has got something useful out of this discussion.

 

[Wanderlog]

However, I'm not sure that one single person, in other words, The King, was ever as powerful as a modern dictator can now be.

Well, the real power of a modern dictator is often unknown to anyone including himself. Usually there are a lot of illusions and legends inspired by the ruler and his cronies. Countries in the past were sparsely populated comparing to those nowadays, and controlling them required few men. However, the more people live in a country the more administrators of any kind you need to control them. Those administrators inevitably form a social class that is able to pervert and sabotage any ruler's initiatives. This is the classic question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who would watch over watchers? One of the main reasons behind Stalin's mass repressions was his need to fully control the bureaucracy by scaring them into obedience. And even he failed to fully achieve that goal. So who is the real ruler of a totalitarian country? I bet my money on the bureaucracy, not the nominal dictator.

Besides, we need to clearly understand that totalitarian rulers even fifty years ago used different methods of control. They tried to control everything, and every dissident was supposed to be punished or even killed. Today's dictators don't need martyrs. They play another game (we can take modern Russia as a perfect example). Mass demonstrations and meetings? They organize even bigger demonstrations and meetings with the opposite demands. Someone tells unpleasant truth on the Internet? They hire hundreds and thousands trolls who flood the Net with a million of different versions of the same events, so that the truthful one is simply lost among them. In addition, state TV channels start demonstrating fake clips depicting "real events". The ruling party is unpopular and can't win the next elections? They create several new parties secretly controlled by the government who tell the voters what they want to hear, and then they count votes in such a manner that the real opposition is not represented in the parliament in the end. Smear campaigns against the opposition become usual, too. And so on.

This system works, but it generates so many false information that no one, including the authorities themselves, can't distinguish it from genuine one in the end. They say Goebbels sincerely believed in whatever lies he spread. Seems that Putin and his cronies start believing in their own lies in the same manner. In this situation we can't tell if they are really powerful or not. Any story proving their power might as well be another fake even if they themselves sincerely believe in it...

I do hope @Vaz has got something useful out of this discussion.

Me, too. A political SF writer needs to understand the game mechanics, or else he wouldn't be able to describe a fictional life-like society.

 

[Vaz]

I have acquired some great information and insight out of this discussion and would like to thank everyone for chipping in.
That said, the thread has wandered into a slight debate, which I hadn't hoped for. I was looking for research and historical advice, I'm not really interested in arguing the finer points of Stalin's intelligence.

But thanks anyway folks, you have been great as always

Vaz

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It's the internet, a bit of thread drift is part of the fun, and I think you got some decent advice too, so everyone should be happy?