personality cult

[ravengod]

communism would be perfect if leaders wouldn t think they re gods
their ego reaches unbelievable levels as they think the sacred mission of communism is entireely dependant of them
this is a big bullshit
i mean communism is the leadership of the people right?>
on the other hand the biggest commie failures were caused by such sick persons(stalin mao ceausescu kimirsen etc)

[redstar2000]

On the other hand, few people begin their political careers with the conviction that they are "gods".

It might be more useful to consider why we treat people as if they were "gods".

Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that most people (in most times and places) are raised from childhood with the belief in a god or in a bunch of gods in the first place?

If you start out believing that there are entities that tower above humanity, it is a fairly easy step towards believing that there are "exceptional" humans with "god-like" characteristics.

Although some of the more servile Nazis said explicitly that "Hitler was like God", Stalin and Mao (to name two) were public atheists who never claimed divine status...but were evidently not unwilling to be considered the "greatest" human beings of the 20th century.

It's hard to blame them. What do you do when people fawn on you constantly, flatter you outrageously, agree with every random brain-fart that comes out of your mouth? And, of course, always laugh at your jokes.

Perhaps if people who call themselves "communists" behaved more like communists and less like groupies, communist "leaders" would be allowed to be more modest.

Just a thought.

:cool:

[Saint-Just]

It is my opinion that Stalin and Mao were treated realistically. They both made many statements against 'personality cults' on leaders becoming arrogant and so forth. Realistically they were great and extremely capable inidividuals. They worked tirelessly their whole lives for the mass of people.

People praised them because they were leaders of the people. Their praise however was not given at the expense of others. The masses were praised as duly as these two leaders were in the USSR and the PRC.

This respect and will to carry out the wishes of these two leaders brought about unity, strength and discipline. In this it was highly positive.

[kingbee]

personally, i think a leader needs good leadership qualities (obvously). however,

-good leadership skills dont often come hand in hand with openess to other's ideas, and absolute power creates paranoia.
-i do also think that many slurs against stalin and mao were dramatacised- a lot is propoganda. i do think that both were bad (i do somewhat admire mao, probably my dads maoist teachings), but you never know what to believe, especially with western propoganda

[Silent Eye]

Hmm. The Personality cult is somewhat like religion. Since most of these socialist leaders did away with religion, the people needed something to believe in. They needed to believe in some guiding, supernatural force. The Personality cults are the replacement for religion. The Gods are replaced by leaders, who the populace deems infallible to give them a sense of hope.

[redstar2000]

A rather depressing scenario, Silent Eye.

That is, it appears to suggest that "most" or "nearly all" people "need" some sort of "god" to believe in and "give them hope"...and if they can't have one or more of their traditional deities at hand, they'll seize on the leaders of the revolution and elevate them to semi-divine status.

Fortunately, there's no evidence to actually support such a contention. But suppose it were true...would such a wretched species deserve anything but extinction?

Good grief!

:cool:

[Silent Eye]

Well, Redstar, the amount of atheists in the world as opposed to religious people is VERY small. Only a handful don't need to cling to some sort of spiritual or supernatural belief.

[Severian]

There's a material basis for personality cults, like most social phenomena. Anyone who attempts to be a Marxist should try to analyze that material basis.

[redstar2000]

Hmmm, quite so, Severian. ;)

The obvious "pick" would be oriental despotism.

Marx and Engels didn't spend a whole lot of time on this early form of class society, characterized by a tiny aristocracy at the top and a large mass of peasants or proto-serfs at the bottom.

The argument would be that Russia and China, as historically "late" versions of such societies, naturally developed a "late" form of emperor-worship.

In the old asiatic despotisms, the emperor was a "god"...in the late version, he was "god-like".

The conclusion of this argument would be that under the modern relations of production, no communist leader would aspire to or be accepted as "god-like"...it is a way of looking at things that can no longer find support in material reality.

:cool:

[Severian]

Seems to me that any form of class society can provide the material basis for personality cultism - to a greater or lesser degree. Besides the irrigation-heavy "Asiatic mode of production" with its divine emperors, we also have Caesars (also deified), Popes, Kings by grace of god, Fuehrers, messiahs, and Great Helmsmen. Representing the full range of class-divided societies so far.

Some of the things they have in common:

1. Privilege and class conflict. The Great Leader stands above, arbitrates, and dictates solutions to all conflicts. He (more rarely she) is the summit of the privileged class/caste.

2. A hierarchy of lesser leaders, each supreme in his own domain as the Great Leader is supreme over all. Satraps, bishops, earls, gauleiters, oblast general secretaries.

3. Repression, the power to punish anyone who doesn't sing the praises of the Great Leader.

The last highlights the difference between a leader-cult and real leadership: earned, voluntary respect.

[redstar2000]

I think for any "oriental despotism" to "work", the great leader must appear to accomplish things that ordinary mortals can't do or even imagine doing...to establish his "god-like" credibility.

Irrigation works and storehouses of food to prevent famines surely seemed "god-like" to peasants of antiquity, whether in Sumer or Babylonia or even Rome. The same would be true of someone like Peter "the Great" of Russia.

The closer we approach modern times, the more difficult that is to do. The exploited class becomes more sophisticated, less willing to attribute "god-like" powers to the great leader.

Germany is a real anomaly, an advanced capitalist country where the capitalists themselves chose despotism as an alternative to communism and successfully imposed that choice.

Of course, there were material elements in German society that "helped"; the influence of the old East Prussian aristocracy, the wide-spread support of Hitler among protestant rural farmers, etc. And Hitler's early "bloodless" conquests certainly "looked" like the deeds of a semi-divine super-hero.

But I think that oriental despotism as a form of class society in which capitalists could hope to revive their prospects is no longer really workable. We simply don't believe in that sort of thing any more.

We could, by the way, postulate a kind of "capitalist despotism" in which faceless bureaucrats and executives decide everything among themselves, leaving the masses of ordinary people out of consideration.

But no one would "worship" those bastards.

:cool:

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote: from ravengod on 8:54 pm on April 18, 2003
communism would be perfect if leaders wouldn t think they re gods
their ego reaches unbelievable levels as they think the sacred mission of communism is entireely dependant of them
this is a big bullshit
i mean communism is the leadership of the people right?>
on the other hand the biggest commie failures were caused by such sick persons(stalin mao ceausescu kimirsen etc)


Heathen! He speaks against the chosen ones!

BUUURN HIM!!! WE MUST BUUUURN HIM ON THE STAAAKE!!

:biggrin:

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

OK, on a more serious note...

Yes it's pretty fucked up how most movements seem to turn into personality cults at some point, but I guess that is just human nature. Even in instances like Buddhism, where the leader himself actively discouraged people from looking at him as anything other than another follower, he still wound up having huge gold statues all over Asia.

I suppose the best one can do is remember in one's own heart that it is the cause that matters, and if you must use a personality to rally the people (which can be very useful for creating class consciousness) , try to stress what the person stands for and not just what he looks like on a poster.

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 1:44 am on April 24, 2003)

[Dan Majerle]

If you see footage of Castro attending school events, in many cases the children are crying and kissing his hand as if he is a bloody priest. I love Castro but seriously that is ridiculous, i mean treating man like some high being that is all englightened and stuff. Whose mere presence forces tears and admiration and reverance upon schoolchildren who still wet their beds! Though the guy doesn't have streets named after him and posters of himself and stuff, i think images like that are really going to far and i'm sure Che wouldn't appreciate things like that as that autograph incident attests.

[redstar2000]

I agree with you, Dan, I think it does go "way too far."

But Cuba was a semi-feudal country when Castro came to power; the legend of the "good lord and master", the "benevolent despot" still had enormous popular appeal.

The idea that children have enough to eat, have schools to go to, get first-world medical care if they need it...all this in a country that's probably, over-all, poorer than Costa Rica...is that not a kind of miracle? I can imagine a lot of Cubans, especially from a rural background, thinking something like "God sent us Fidel." And that's what they teach their kids.

It's a measure, if you want to be realistic about things, of how far we really have to go.

:cool:

[Dan Majerle]

Excellent point RedStar.