Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

drb.ie

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#81

Post by hef19898 »

pasabagi wrote: post #76
hef19898 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have honestly no idea how Bismarck ended up with a sometimes that bad reputation. It was Bismarck's system Alliances that kept peace in Europe for a tremendously long time, it also prevented, through complex, overlapping defensive agreements between all major European powers a war like WW1. Under Bismarck's system, basically any party starting such a war would be isolated without allies. Wilhelm II changed that, fi…

I was really just making a comment about the disparity between Bismark and Hitler. Bismark was a giant, in every sense of the word, while Hitler was sort of average. > a true Prussian conservative That's the issue. Bismark wasn't a true conservative. Conservatives of his time and place were anti-nationalist. Bismark merged nationalism, authoritarianism, and cultural chauvinism to produce a kind of new form of conserv…

Well, he retired in 1890 and died in 1898. He did push for the formation of the German Reich, that's true. It was the first German nation state, one that was truly formed as more than a alliance of various fiefdoms and kingdoms after WW1 with the Weimar Republic. In a way, it turned to shit when Wilhelm II took over and pushed Bismarck out. And was less Bismarck that created the feeling of a German Nation, he more rode on a wave of nationalism. Nationalism, by the way, was pretty new back then. It was also way less negative then it modern nationalism is today.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#82

Post by _lnwk »

Amezarak wrote: post #78
recuter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is one of those frequently quoted, rarely read, often misunderstood - and this association is unfortunate, unfair, and not accidental.

Sometimes I find this very depressing. Nietzsche's the rare philosopher who wrote very clearly. He spent his life struggling to be absolutely clear and make himself understood. But the vast majority of secondary literature is just completely wrong, sometimes to the point of almost being libelous - I have Bertrand Russel's section on him in a History of Western Philosophy in mind as an example. The end result is that…

In Poland, there was a relatively famous historian of philosophy recommended to people interested in philosophy, Władysław Tatarkiewicz and his three tomes of Historia filozofii.

His chapter on Nietzsche was also just disastrous, while reading this, I had wondered whether he even knew who Nietzsche was.

So it's not just one time thing.

I remember reading that chapter - though I wish I had forgotten it. It made me look at Russell in a negative way.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#83

Post by Claude_Shannon »

faffernot wrote: post #15
recuter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is one of those frequently quoted, rarely read, often misunderstood - and this association is unfortunate, unfair, and not accidental.

He rails against Nihilism, but is the poster boy for being a nihilist. Ironic.

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1626069-4chan

I just can't help but share this meme from 4chan about Nietzche here.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#84

Post by [deleted] »

jsmith99 wrote: post #68

There is also a good review in the Financial Times which emphasises Stalin being well read. My favourite was 'On a book about the English Civil War, he made a mark comparing the Puritan chaplains of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army with the political commissars of the Soviet Red Army.' This is apparently a popular comparison and Putin is a Cromwell fan too. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/af83a4c8-966…

[deleted]

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#85

Post by beaconstudios »

pasabagi wrote: post #56
panick21_ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bismark is a far more reasoned and careful strategist with incredibly different goals compared to Hitler. He wanted short wars for limited strategic gains and Prussia to be dominate within the German Empire. That is totally different then believing in a global race war. Its not at all like Napoleon and Napoleon III. They hoped for the same thing, but were just differently capable. > did far more damage than Stalin ev…

> That is a delusional take on the Bolsheviks. I don't really want to argue in detail about the character of the Bolsheviks. I agree they were extremely ruthless, and that they created a lot of the norms and institutions that Stalin later used. Taking a bit of a step back, however, I think most of this stuff is pretty normal for the winning party in a civil war, especially a revolutionary party. It was an extremely c…

After the revolution was won, the bolsheviks shut down the constituent assembly after they lost the election, and disbanded the rival socialist parties. During the revolution, they killed anarchists, most notably in the Kronstadt rebellion. They also invaded the Ukrainian free territory, an anarchist stateless territory, to bring them under the Soviet heel. The bolsheviks were against any revolution that wasn't in their own totalitarian control. They were also actively anti-democratic, which flies in the face of core socialist principles.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#86

Post by narrator »

hutzlibu wrote: post #18
narrator wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often times there's a lot of controversy about if a leader is really in charge, or if they are merely a figurehead for some group of masterminds behind the scenes. The thing I like about studying Russia under Stalin is that Stalin was the one actually in charge. More than any other leader of the 19th or 20th century, he held the whole thing together almost singlehandedly. He had to because he got rid of people so reg…

"The other interesting thing about studying Stalin is that very few people liked him enough to hide his dirty laundry after he died." I think that comes naturally, if everyone important around him, had to fear for their life for years. One wrong look, or just one bad mood of the great leader - and someone gone again. They never knew what to expect, when being summoned, praise or prison - and that was intentional. Abs…

Mikoyan, the guy who started the aircraft design bureau, was the only one in Stalin's inner circle to stay there the whole time, not get executed and have a good career in the next administration after Stalin died. He was the ultimate political survivor.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#87

Post by potbelly83 »

jsmith99 wrote: post #68

There is also a good review in the Financial Times which emphasises Stalin being well read. My favourite was 'On a book about the English Civil War, he made a mark comparing the Puritan chaplains of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army with the political commissars of the Soviet Red Army.' This is apparently a popular comparison and Putin is a Cromwell fan too. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/af83a4c8-966…

Maybe they can also follow Cromwell into coming to the realization that in the end only God can rule over men.

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#89

Post by FredPret »

_lnwk wrote: post #82
Amezarak wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I find this very depressing. Nietzsche's the rare philosopher who wrote very clearly. He spent his life struggling to be absolutely clear and make himself understood. But the vast majority of secondary literature is just completely wrong, sometimes to the point of almost being libelous - I have Bertrand Russel's section on him in a History of Western Philosophy in mind as an example. The end result is that…

In Poland, there was a relatively famous historian of philosophy recommended to people interested in philosophy, Władysław Tatarkiewicz and his three tomes of Historia filozofii. His chapter on Nietzsche was also just disastrous, while reading this, I had wondered whether he even knew who Nietzsche was. So it's not just one time thing. I remember reading that chapter - though I wish I had forgotten it. It made me loo…

Funny because Nietzsche eventually worked himself into such a state of opposition to prevailing German thought that he claimed to be descended from Polish nobles

Re: A Voracious Reader: Stalin through his books

#90

Post by FredPret »

faffernot wrote: post #15
recuter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is one of those frequently quoted, rarely read, often misunderstood - and this association is unfortunate, unfair, and not accidental.

He rails against Nihilism, but is the poster boy for being a nihilist. Ironic.

If you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you
Post reply on HN