Joseph Stalin and Yahweh

[Black_Rose]

Edit: forgot to say that my use of the term Yahweh is supposed to emphasize the Old Testament portrayal of the Judeo-Christian God, not necessarily the Trinitarian God of the New Testament.

I haven't given this much thought, so feel free to lambaste this as a daft comparison (which it probably is anyway).

Essentially, I found some parallels among these two people:

For instance, some people regard them to be rather repugnant characters, given that both of them committed heinous actions, namely mass murder.

Edit: I just recollected that the Levites became the Priest class after they participated in the slaughter of the idolators. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2032:25-32:29&version=DRA)Kinda like the Purges, eh?

Also, they have done some good. For example, Yahweh led the Israelites into Palestine and conquered the indigenous tribes.
--

I thought this might be a useful, quick retort, not necessarily a forceful counterapologetic argument, since many conservative Christians tend to use Stalin as an example of communism's allegedly brutal nature. Essentially, it is a fatuous tu quoque for some Marxist-Leninists to use against anti-communist conservative Christians, since it is intended to point out how Yahweh's methods are similar to that of Joseph Stalin.


As for myself, I'd garnered some respect for the accomplishments of Joseph Stalin (such as rapid industrialization, repelling the Nazi invasion, and developing the USSR into a nuclear superpower), although I do not enough about the specific circumstances the USSR faced to be an apologist for the methods he employed.

Note: there are plenty of other threads to discuss the merits of Joseph Stalin's policies and to flame him and his supporters. Don't do it here; attack the comparison of Stalin and Yahweh that I thought of on a caprice.

[Astarte]

I haven't given this much thought, so feel free to lambaste this as a daft comparison (which it probably is anyway).

Essentially, I found some parallels among these two people:

For instance, some people regard them to be rather repugnant characters, given that both of them committed heinous actions, namely mass murder.

Also, they have done some good. For example, Yahweh led the Israelites into Palestine and conquered the indigenous tribes.
--

I thought this might be a useful, quick retort, not necessarily a forceful counterapologetic argument, since many conservative Christians tend to use Stalin as an example of communism's allegedly brutal nature. Essentially, it is a fatuous tu quoque for some Marxist-Leninists to use against anti-communist conservative Christians, since it is intended to point out how Yahweh's methods are similar to that of Joseph Stalin.


As for myself, I'd garnered some respect for the accomplishments of Joseph Stalin (such as rapid industrialization, repelling the Nazi invasion, and developing the USSR into a superpower), although I do not enough about the specific circumstances the USSR faced to be an apologist for the methods he employed.

Note: there are plenty of other threads to discuss the merits of Joseph Stalin's policies and to flame him and his supporters. Don't do it here; attack the comparison of Stalin and Yahweh that I thought of on a caprice.

Well, without a doubt Stalin's cult of personality resulted in, more or less, the apotheosis of Stalin.

I read once that Kalinin was also interested in Godbuilding, thus, I suspect that much of Bogdanov, Lunacharsky and other "God-builders'" ideas went through Stalinization, and application to Stalin via Kalinin.

[Omsk]

It is interesting to note that Stalin never adored his own cult of character,and was largely a person not interested in self-promotion.



What distinguished Stalin...was the way he came before the public. It would be difficult or impossible to find in any speech of Stalin's the little word 'I'. When he spoke, he did so always in the name of the party, in the name of the Soviet Union, or, in recent years, as Prime Minister, in the name of the Soviet Government. His appearances in public were as modest as his clothing. He had long been the foremost man in the great realm, but when in the past, for instance, he attended a meeting of the Central Executive Committee, of whose Presidium he was a member, he invariably appeared when the meeting had already begun, and sat down modestly in one of the back rows. He would be seen for all that. There would be long ovations. When the applause was dying away, some woman would jump up and shout in a shrill, hysterical voice: 'long live the great Stalin!' And there would be a "further storm of applause. Stalin would sit there as if it all had nothing to do with him. Later on it would often be necessary for him to sit in the front row of the Presidium; but he never appeared alone, but always among some dozens of other people, just as he never takes the salute alone at a military parade and at the parades in the Red Square he always stands in the midst of some dozens of other people. When he appears in the Supreme Council or at a festivity on the stage of the Great Theater in Moscow, and the audience starts wild acclamations in the Russian fashion, Stalin remains seated. He behaves as if the ovation was not for him, and he also joins in the applause. That has been interpreted as applauding himself, but it is not that; it is the attitude he has adopted in order to ignore the ovation. He neither stands up nor bows as he sits; he simply joins in the applause as if the ovation were for somebody else. In this way he becomes indistinguishable from the rest of the people present. He tries to become one of a collectivity.
This was also the style of his speeches. The party had long been described in official language as the party of Lenin and Stalin, as if Lenin and Stalin had founded it and had been its sole organizers. On one occasion at a meeting of the Central Executive Committee Stalin was speaking and had to read letters from young Communists. In one of the letters he came to a mention of the party of Lenin and Stalin. After those words he put down the letter for a moment, turned to his hearers, and added: 'As people put it!' indicating disagreement with the phrase.
From time to time Stalin repeats that he does not approve the wild propaganda in his personal favor....
He certainly warns the party and the Government, indeed the whole country, continually against extravagance of outlook, against being led by successes into a loss of the sense of proportion. One gets the impression that Stalin is warning himself against presumption. It may be that this is one of the secrets of his success; this may be the moral he has drawn from observation of his opponents. For they have all had too good an opinion of themselves, and Stalin has no intention of making that mistake.

Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 237

The entire "godlike" image was not accepted by Stalin himself.

Paradoxically enough, in view of his very real modesty and unassuming nature, Stalin permits his statue and his picture to be plastered from one end of the country to the other. He has said the reason he does not object to pictures, memorials in his honor and the like, is because the people are merely using him as a symbol of the Soviet state. There are indications, however, that he finds the fulsome tributes to him, which are regulation oratorical flourishes in Russia, somewhat distasteful. In a speech to the workers of Tiflis he alluded to this in a half-mocking way:
"I must, in all conscience, tell you, that I have not deserved half the praise that has been given me. It appears that I am one of the heroes, the director of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union... a peerless knight and all sorts of other things. This is mere fantasy, and a perfectly useless exaggeration. This is the way one speaks at the funeral of a revolutionary. But I'm not preparing to die...."
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 12

Another example,Yezhov wanted to rename Moscow to Stalinodar.Stalin refused and insisted that Moscow remains Moscow.

-For instance:

“And what is Stalin? Stalin is only a minor figure.
Stalin, Joseph. Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1952, Vol. 10, p. 176

“Your congratulations and greetings I place to the credit of the great Party of the working class which bore me and raised me in its own image and likeness.”
Stalin, Joseph. Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1952, Vol. 12, p. 146

[Black_Rose]

Omsk,

Thank you for your contribution and I appreciate the evidence you provided that Stalin was not a self-aggrandizing, vain megalomaniac. In contrast, it is well-known the Yahweh is a jealous God.

However, I am mainly interested in developing the comparison of Yahweh and Stalin to use against conservative Christians, even if it does rely on a manufactured, misconceived caricature of Stalin. Also, it is doubtful that conservative Christians would be interested in reading that entry about Stalin's personality.

For the purposes of the comparison, Stalin should be portrayed as a megalomaniac, but feel free to post more information about Stalin that the readers would find interesting, even if it is not directly related to my initial intention of the thread - to compare Stalin and Yahweh.

[Prometeo liberado]

Omsk,

Thank you for your contribution and I appreciate the evidence you provided that Stalin was not a self-aggrandizing, vain megalomaniac. In contrast, it is well-known the Yahweh is a jealous God.

However, I am mainly interested in developing the comparison of Yahweh and Stalin to use against conservative Christians, even if it does rely on a manufactured, misconceived caricature of Stalin. Also, it is doubtful that conservative Christians would be interested in reading that entry about Stalin's personality.

For the purposes of the comparison, Stalin should be portrayed as a megalomaniac, but feel free to post more information about Stalin that the readers would find interesting, even if it is not directly related to my initial intention of the thread - to compare Stalin and Yahweh.

Stalin liked kitty kats. And as we all know whenever someone masturbates Yahweh kills a Kitten. Please think of the Kittens.:crying:

[Per Levy]

It is interesting to note that Stalin never adored his own cult of character,and was largely a person not interested in self-promotion.

interesting since there are many of reports that state that stalin was very fond of the personality cult. movies were made in his honour that showd stalin as a god-like figure. these movies needed to aproved by someone and if stalin didnt wanted this he could have stopped it all, but he didnt wanted to i guess.


Another example,Yezhov wanted to rename Moscow to Stalinodar.Stalin refused and insisted that Moscow remains Moscow.

-For instance:

“And what is Stalin? Stalin is only a minor figure.
Stalin, Joseph. Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1952, Vol. 10, p. 176

so stalingrad, stalinabad, stalinogorsk and many others were ok for the "minor figure".

im sorry if i "trash" stalin, i know that is not the purpose of this thread, but i doubt the purpose of this thread was to glorrify stalin.

[Astarte]

In a way you can say that "Stalin" was a "jealous God" for the very reason that the CPSU (B)'s power as the sole representative of an alledged working dictatorship of the proletariat would have been/was ideologically undermined when alternative alleged dictatorships of the proletariat began to appear - as with what happened after the PRC/Soviet Split, and also in Yugoslavia and Albania.

In a way, I think the comparison of the Party itself to "God" or "the Church" might be a good parallel analogy.

[Black_Rose]

" im sorry if i "trash" stalin, i know that is not the purpose of this thread, but i doubt the purpose of this thread was to glorrify stalin."

Correct. I would accept some discussion as long as it is interesting and educational. And I was not offended by your anti-Stalinist post.

It is a way to respond to posts like these:


It was Stalin who was reported to have said, "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." That was likely a misattribution actually said by someone else. Still, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and a number of other 20th Century dictators took the saying to heart and put it into practice. Medieval tyrants were pikers by comparison. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=626868&page=2

It is that remark that inspired me to make the comparison.

What about Suharto, Jorge Rafael Videla, Syngman Rhee, Augusto Pinochet, and Ngo Dinh Diem?

I rather use a sardonic reference to Yahweh. It's nothing constructive, just for my own amusement to compare their God to a sadistic madman (from their perspective), which I hope that conservative anti-communist Christians would find unflattering.

[Omsk]

so stalingrad, stalinabad, stalinogorsk and many others were ok for the "minor figure".

Stalingrad [former Tzaritzyn] got its name-change because of Stalins role in the battle of Tzaritzyn.Nothing so shocking there,it was common in many countries.(Both West and East)

[hatzel]

I feel there's an issue here that has been overlooked.

If a self-declared socialist were to commit a certain violent deed, it may be lauded amongst the Left. If a self-declared Islamist were to commit the exact same deed, it would be roundly condemned. Murder, too, can be celebrated if the 'right' person kills the 'right' person. Though generally not otherwise. Actions are supported as long as they are undertaken in the name of 'the noble cause,' rather than being judged according to some absolutist morality.

There is no reason to believe these Christian fundamentalists are any different.

[Black_Rose]

I feel there's an issue here that has been overlooked.

If a self-declared socialist were to commit a certain violent deed, it may be lauded amongst the Left. If a self-declared Islamist were to commit the exact same deed, it would be roundly condemned. Murder, too, can be celebrated if the 'right' person kills the 'right' person. Though generally not otherwise. Actions are supported as long as they are undertaken in the name of 'the noble cause,' rather than being judged according to some absolutist morality.

There is no reason to believe these Christian fundamentalists are any different.

How many revolutionary leftists who dislike American imperialism condemn Al Qaeda for 9/11? Many revolutionary leftists sympathize with Al Qaeda (of course, this means they do not support their agenda of a global Caliphate)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Some thoughts, for what its worth.Both the Old Testament Yahweh and Stalin had a persona of advocating social justice-the books of Amos and Jeremiah in the Old Testament and of course the project of building socialism under Stalin.This was embedded in both cases with a nationalistic ethos-"socialism in one country" under Stalin, and ideas of universal morality such as the Ten Commandments from a god of one specific people, a "monotheistic somewhat universal god in one country".This might be the biggest parallel.

This may be reaching a bit but both Stalin and Yahweh were homophobic. Aspects of the personality cult of both Lenin and Stalin were taken from the Russian Orthodox Church-the mummification of saints especially.

Both seem to have been mostly intolerant towards "heretics" within the tradition rather than outsiders. Stalin against Trotskyists and others and Moses constantly fulminated against backsliding into Canaanite paganism.Both had ideologically based regimes based on the veneration of texts and the correct interpretation of these texts. There is evidence the book of Exodus and other OT "books" werere written to become a Israelite salvation epics (Karen Armstrong talks about this a lot in "The History of God" and elsewhere.) Istvan Mezaros in "Beyond Capital" mentioned that parts of Marx's Capital was rewritten to conform to the realities of the Soviet economy.

This is more NT but both Stalin and Jesus liked to cultivate criminals. Jesus hung out with "publicans and sinners" and there is evidence that Stalin was more favorable to the criminal element over politicals in the gulag system.

[Zostrianos]

I think Totalitarianism is what we're looking at here. Theocracy (religious totalitarianism) was practiced in ancient Israel, and the laws of the Torah have all the hallmarks of extreme authoritarianism, as well as the numerous massacres and savagery that's described in the Bible (whether it be historically accurate or not). The Church, both Catholic and Protestant, later embraced many of these same theocratic principles, and eventually used them to crush other movements (Pagans, Jews, "heretics", and people too smart for their own good), forcibly convert entire populations, and kill countless people. The same thing with Islam from the beginning, and today in Saudi Arabia, Iran, as well as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Indonesia, with religious laws governing society, and extremely harsh penalties for those who transgress them.

If you compare the Old Testament (and later the Church from the age of Justinian up to the 18th century) to political totalitarianism (Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism), you'll see striking similarities. Totalitarianism typically exerts greater repressions on specific groups of people, and often blames them for societal evils. In the OT, this was directed at people who worshipped other Gods, who were to be eradicated from society: "If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock." (Deuteronomy 13). Later the Church used this against people who refused to convert, or who were considered heretics or infidels; a good example is the mass murder of the Cathars, as well as the later brutal wars between Catholics and Protestants, and the massacres of innocent Jews who were often blamed by Christians for every calamity under the sun.

If we look at political totalitarianism, we see the same thing (the Nazis against the Jews, Communists, political opponents, etc; Stalin against the Kulaks and supposed capitalist infiltrators....).

I found a very interesting parallel that I mentioned in another thread a while back, between the Maoist cultural revolution and the repression of non Christian religions in the late Roman empire. In late antiquity, after the rights of non Christians had been curtailed by the Church's takeover, the repression against Pagans and Jews was typically orchestrated by gangs of fanatical monks, who destroyed and burned down temples and synagogues, beat, assaulted, robbed, and sometimes killed non Christians and Heretics. They created a reign of terror in the eastern empire, to such a point that even the emperor Theodosius, who was responsible for repressing Paganism and making Christianity the state religion, admitted that "the monks commit many crimes". He realized the plague that had been set on society, and in 390 he enacted a law expelling monks from the cities into the desert, because they had made daily life intolerable for city dwellers, with their constant assaults and violence (not unlike modern street gangs in central America and south Africa) against anyone remotely suspected of pagan or heretical affiliation. They reportedly used the excuse of enforcing imperial laws as a license to rob, beat and assault anyone they wished. Sound familiar? Yes, over 1500 years later, in 1960's China, a similar plague was unleashed, this time Red Guards destroying the cultural treasures of pre Maoist China, violently assaulting anyone they suspected of being "bourgeois" or reactionary, and oftentimes killing innocent people, driven by a fanatical zeal not unlike that of the Orthodox monks centuries before. And like with Theodosius in the Roman empire, Mao Zedong in 1968 decided to kick the Red Guards out of the cities into the countryside, as they had made life impossible for the average citizen. History repeats itself indeed...

[Drosophila]

I think Totalitarianism is what we're looking at here.

What is "totalitarianism" exactly?

[Zostrianos]

What is "totalitarianism" exactly?

An authoritarian system of rule, where a political party, individual or ideology is made supreme or infallible imposed on a society and any deviation from it will lead to harsh punishment for the offenders. It's like a dictatorship, but harsher.
Wikipedia puts it best: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism)

a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[1] Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.

Nazism, Stalinism, theChurch (when it had political power), and modern Islamic states (Saudi Arabia, Iran) fall under this category.