dwindling7373

Am I wrong to assume trying to blend in is a worse and contradictory strategy than trying to actively protect yourself from tracking?

If you want to not be unique, use default setting chrome without adblock. Your browser will look just like anybody else's, but they will literally know who you are.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, you lock everything down and spike as a very special browser and... that's all they know.

Fuck if I know, but it looks a lot like the Temple of Portunus...

Capitel and colums are in greek style, maybe the stairs give it away?

At the end of the day of course the solution to forming the most accurate opinion of Stalin is to study Stalin.

I'll point though that apparently my stance has some merit since Stalin himself with his "What was I to do?" is at the very least considering his situation as problematic.

As a last contribution to the discussion, which I've been glad to take part of and that I'm grateful you invested time and effort in, even in recent time we have instances of head of states that ultimately grow exhausted with their role and honestly desire to step down. That's not always possible, especially when so much of the state is directly tied to their person (kings, for example), and does not prove they previously chased, and/or held, that position with selfless disposition.

Thanks again for the thoughtful and well sourced contribution.

That's only fair.

I already mentioned that trying to resign and being met with unanimous rejection doesn't say much, other than possibly the obvious fact that he was in fact a human and not a robot.

To reform the system he could have rejected the idea of a single head of state in favor of a shared position, he could have set up the lenght of time by which a person can be head of state...

The possibilities are endless and history has made this kind of necessities abundandly clear to guarantee decision makers hold their position selflessly.

But he never stepped down or reformed the system to account for these issues. Hence my opinion of him.

I didn't see your edit: I guess my point is Stalin did not act under socialism, or surely not in an environment where corruption, if not coming from necessity, would hinder or be neutral to one growth within society.

I used propaganda as an easy, inaccurate answer to your request for a potential scenario.

Of couse the obvious limits of propaganta (primarily, being lies) is not what I was focusing on.

If we agree Stalin could have sexually assaulted someone and get away with it, we cycle back to the messianic property of Stalin to be better than most other people in a similar position through history. Or to not be affected by dementia, to not grow complacent, to not hold grudges, to be permanently unbiased and pure.

I'm not using speculation reaching for impossible scenarios.

I'm questioning the degree of freedom that anybody could have taken advantage of if they wanted to. The fact that this happened or not is irrelevant.

Given that, I also make another separate point about how greed can have many faces, even outside Capitalism.

Combining those two I question the amount of self reflection Stalin subjected himself and his role to through his life.

You are surely well aware of the nefarious propaganda the west did against Stalin.

Imagine it was true and you have the perfect depiction on how such corruption would potentially look like.

Another simple example? Stalin could have promised an administraive role to a person in exchange for sexual favors.

I'm not saying he did, but, under Communism, or rather under the trasition toward communism, that would have been a possible abuse of [not power].

This is all irrelevant to my point, at the same time it kinda makes my point about the limit of your positions so...

My job here is done.

Have a day!

The concept of hierarchy itself within democratic institutions does not justify a corrupting pursuit of power.

Of couse it doesn't "justify" it. It sure builds a nice playground for whomever loves doing it though.

That's why every democracy has an attempt to prevent exploitation, such as a limit to the terms of their leaders, popular referendum, separation of powers...

But of course you know that. It seems you are convinced that, by virtue of messiatic powers, somehow the Communist (transitional) apparatus was immune to that corruption.

I quite specifically mentioned that Capitalism itself selects for those in power within it by selecting the most ruthless and willing to do whatever it takes to accumulate the most, because the system requires it. Socialism does not, ergo you need to justify a “pursuit of power.”

Luckily for us, we do live under capitalism, so there's no need to speculate there. As i'm sure you have plenty of chances to verify daily, it's not as efficient as you make it sounds. It tends to embolden those that are narrowly focused on the accumulation of capital, but even in doing that, it's an inefficient and rather messy machination.

In a similar way it could be said of power under socialism. It's possible despite its "best" effort that capitalist adiacent pulsions survived the new structure of... guidance? action? decisiont making? coordination? (it's still power)

Another point of touch can be personal greed. Capitalism leaves it unchecked by design, but it has always accompanied scarcity. It's hunger, if you will, and if you could argue such pulsion have been imposed onto the natural man, of conquered by ascetism, none of those equate the background of a pre-1917 Russia.

Some of those people, no matter the books they read, could potentially still thirst and hunger for "more".

I once again ask you if the simple asimmetry between giving orders and taking orders does not justify, theoretically, a selfish "pursuit of power".