How come the Japanese and Hirohito always get a pass in these discussions? A conservative estimate is that Japan's Asia- Pacific War resulted in 25 million dead.
@@themaximusprime7029 According to the imperial constitution at that time, adopted under Emperor Meiji, gave full power to the Emperor. Article 4 prescribed that, "The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself the rights of sovereignty, and exercises them, according to the provisions of the present Constitution," while according to article 6, "The Emperor gives sanction to laws and orders them to be promulgated and executed," and article 11, "The Emperor has the supreme command of the Army and the Navy." The Emperor was thus the leader of the Imperial General Headquarters.
@@sciencefliestothemoon2305 Yeah. That's why I said potential. I was trying to highlight exactly what you said, that absolute power and corruption are not mutually exclusive like the title may suggest.
Curious how close to direct violence a proclaimed psycho has to be in order to be classified as a deadly dictator. Someone mentioned motive in response to leaders ideological obsession turned insane. But If the ancient Papacy directed or inspired but never personally killed anyone is that the same person, or do all true dictators have personal blood on there hamds. Does that change any assumptions here?
The vacuum from dismantling power structures is fertile ground for the cruellest individuals. This is the miracle of the United States, that Washington and others grasping at the newly cast chalice of power were humbled and wary of temptation, devoting their efforts to parry it.
@@mrgyani Washington and his cohorts understood the power of the offices they were establishing and in their awe saw fit to dissolve it among the three branches of government. He could have been king.
As far as Stalin's 'belief' in communism, all you have to do is study the policies he favored and implemented during his reign. There's no communist thread of thinking you can find, it is just PRAGMATISM, from one extreme policy to the next, from supporting capitalists to disowning social democrats. Pragmatism was serving his and his fellow bureaucrats' privileges and interests.
Stalin was pragmatic because communism is a nonsense ideology. To achieve socialism requires strong massive state power and socialism should not be a transition stage it should be permanent.
An idea can't be psychopathic. A person can be. The person appropriates the idea to propel the behavior. See the research of Michael Gazzaniga on cognitive dissonance.
Your causation is backwards, the idea often appropriates the person in psychopathy. If a psychopathic idea can overtake a persons ability for logical or emotional control, empathy, problem solving, or concerns for consequences etc... then the idea has dominated and won, not the person.
It’s very very different. Especially if you are speaking in terms of psychological ailments it’s extremely important. Stalin and Hitler grew up in modern comfort without witnessing any killing in a society where most people were peaceful. Khan grew up in 1200 where even as a kid he saw war and killings. His everyday life was more brutal and involved more killing like hunting. Now if your mom and everyone in your family tell you stealing an apple everyday is okay. You grew up and steal an apple. We can understand it’s your environment and different times different moral. Now if you grew up in a household and everyone around you told you stealing an apple is bad and no one stole an apple everyday. However you grew up to steal an apple. We can assume it’s a YOU problem.
We are all sinners. With power our sins get scaled up. Few achieve power and so we judge them when some of us would have done worse with that power and some could have brought world peace. Judgement is only reserved for God. We sin when we judge like both of these humans did.
Not too comfortable separating socialists Hitler and Stalin except to say one was a NATIONAL socialist, the other an INTERNATIONAL one. It's a distinction without any other meaningful difference judged in terms of final body count, which is all that matters here. At least, more than any OTHER difference one could point to. One of them often wore yellow socks, from what I understand.
Lex is dismissing the whole psychological warfare in the Soviet Union and just blaming everything on Communism. 👎Nice pushback by the guest. It is seriously relevant today as well.
Thank-you prof for the pushback against Lex - on the absurd claim that it was about communism and not power. If he killed rivals who could have been better than him, he certainly wasn't thinking about communism, nor could he have thought that 'he' was the best one to take the idea fwd. Thank you also for the example of the Ukranian mass starvation. I have been horrified by similar comments from him about Putin. (check out his clip with Joe Rogan on Putin).
There is the alternative explanation that these tyrants rose to power in an environment that favored psychopathic behavior in ascending the hierarchy. They then had the proclivity from the beginning, and they were the best at adapting to their environment. There are such individuals in all societies and all cultures, but they do not climb to the top of a power structure by default.
If you view the life as a game where the rules (ie: ideologies(whether they be religious or political or a combination)) are created and enforced by those in power (ie: the winners or top tier players), if you are in a world/game filled with true believers (people who follow the rules and think the rules they follow are the best/fairest rules) the best strategy to become a winner/top tier is to pretend to be a true believer but cheat/secretly be a cheater and help the true believers remove other rivals/cheats. Until of course you have consolidate enough power to be able to cheat while forcing everyone else to play by the rules. Happens in left wing jurisdictions, right wing jurisdictions, capitalist, communist or theocratic.
I think there are plenty examples of people inheriting power, becoming very corrupt. Your point makes sense for people achieving power in your lifetime, but lots of examples of people inheriting power becoming pretty psychopathic as they age.
He is wrong about Stalin having himself convinced he was doing good. When his wife died he literally said: "She died and with her died my last warm feelings for humanity".
@My names Jeff apparently Stalin was very upset at his wife for mentioning/reporting on the widespread starvation in Ukraine prior to her death in 1932.
Come on now . He also had a lot of mistresses before , after and while he was married . He might have said that but even he himself must have known that it was bullshit. 🙄🙄🙄
@@flowjee you are correct, sir/madam... While growing up in Georgia, He'd been a thug/bully since grade school, often beating other kids up for favors or perks... But if there are still doubts about his love for acquiring power through violence before meeting Lenin and pledging himself to communism, remember "Stalin" isn't his given name-- Stalin is his chosen AKA... It means "steel" in Russian and its a name he'd given himself as an ode to his unrelenting resolve --- Moreover, what is there to discuss here anyways? The Communist manifesto clearly states as a foundational principle the right to use copious amounts of violence as a necessary means to any end; so both both violent human (Stalin) and violent ethos (communism) fit together like a glove fits a hand...
I think breaking bad has some very good insights into these kinds of questions, cause what usually happens when people attain vast amounts of power is their ego tends to over inflate. And what happens when a person views themselves and their interests as superior to everybody around them? Is they become less empathetic. So the more overinflated a person's ego becomes the empathy they have.
The man, on this one lex is being pretty dense. This guy is very clearly trying to say that it was about the power and not about the belief in communism. Lex is super committed to a preconceived notion about communism being the root cause of evil here. This interview suffered from his political agenda big time
I've got lots of respect for you guys. I've enjoyed listening to some fantastic conversations on this show....but I think you guys have let yourself down with your assumptions about sociopathy/psychopathy. You obviously don't understand it and to think an idea can be psychopathic but not the person enforcing that idea on others is crazy in itself!!!
You are so right... I had the same thought. but I if you listen carefully the Professor is emphasing many times that, it's about person and the hunger of power of the individual. But Lex is the one who don't want to understand this point. It seems to me, that the idea that this dictators have been psychopaths would destroy his mystification he built up arround Hitler, Stalin & Co "Great man are always bad man" It seems to me that he doesn't want to hear/ believe this!!!
@@s.sammer8486 It is the same viewpoint, that you cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs. For Stalin, power was the vision, communism was his vehicle, let's face it, he was a portly sort, he did not go without. Some say that Churchill was a bad man, I do think it's a spectrum, it is not black and white.
@@noeticjustice1535 Yes, I am aware. He is wrong though. A better biography of Stalin is by Trotsky, it has more consistent accounting of the facts in Stalin's life and surroundings. For example Kotkin is unable to explain Stalin's purges of 1937-38, he is dumbfounded. But with Trotsky's explanation it is coherent and understandable.
Ghandi? he was great and powerful. I think what separated him was his powerful idea of non-violence. That was his mantra and it made him a powerful man but also empathetic.
Genghis Khan was a conqueror from a bygone era, like Alexander, or Atilla, or Charlemagne. They all killed a lot of people, but all were great men- "heroes". Khan doesn't deserve to be compared to Hitler and Stalin.
@@PricelukedIt’s very very different. Especially if you are speaking in terms of psychological ailments it’s extremely important. Stalin and Hitler grew up in modern comfort without witnessing any killing in a society where most people were peaceful. Khan grew up in 1200 where even as a kid he saw war and killings. His everyday life was more brutal and involved more killing like hunting. Now if your mom and everyone in your family tell you stealing an apple everyday is okay. You grew up and steal an apple. We can understand it’s your environment and different times different moral. Now if you grew up in a household and everyone around you told you stealing an apple is bad and no one stole an apple everyday. However you grew up to steal an apple. We can assume it’s a YOU problem.
The guest wouldn’t let Lex get away with using such a banal “The notion of communism is evil” explanation. Clearly Stalin was a power hungry dictator with severe paranoia and sociopathy. Don’t indict Marxism or communism for his perverse, authoritarian ruthlessness
How come the Japanese and Hirohito always get a pass in these discussions? A conservative estimate is that Japan's Asia- Pacific War resulted in 25 million dead.
Japan western ally
@@rowland5951 and Germany isn't? Lmao.
Hirohito should not get a pass on this, nor should the new up and comer Xi Jinping.
Cause Hirohito did not have much of a say. Tojo is the man who gets a pass. He’s the one who cause millions of death.
@@themaximusprime7029 According to the imperial constitution at that time, adopted under Emperor Meiji, gave full power to the Emperor. Article 4 prescribed that, "The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself the rights of sovereignty, and exercises them, according to the provisions of the present Constitution," while according to article 6, "The Emperor gives sanction to laws and orders them to be promulgated and executed," and article 11, "The Emperor has the supreme command of the Army and the Navy." The Emperor was thus the leader of the Imperial General Headquarters.
Right. Unit 731 should've been enough.
This guest gave rise to the best conversation ever. Really!
@Melvin Deeply Hitler would've probably killed more than Stalin if he was in power as long as him wouldn't he?
Lenin apparently said: "Get on the right end of a gun & stay there."
That's why 2a
@@WhiteCheddar. Lenin and Marx would agree with you, very pro-gun people. Everyone should be able to defend against tyranny
@@jsahkljdhkashvbosild absolutely. God made man, sam colt made all men equal
@@jsahkljdhkashvbosildbut Marxism is tyranny
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can convince you to commit atrocities."
Casual Lex gem #19:
“You construct the worldview in which the violence is justified.”
Absolute power can have the potential to corrupt absolutely
True, but I think power just reveals the true character.
@@sciencefliestothemoon2305 Yeah. That's why I said potential. I was trying to highlight exactly what you said, that absolute power and corruption are not mutually exclusive like the title may suggest.
Lex needs to watch the history bro on Stalin
Thanks for the tip, just looked it up going to watch now
Curious how close to direct violence a proclaimed psycho has to be in order to be classified as a deadly dictator. Someone mentioned motive in response to leaders ideological obsession turned insane. But If the ancient Papacy directed or inspired but never personally killed anyone is that the same person, or do all true dictators have personal blood on there hamds. Does that change any assumptions here?
The vacuum from dismantling power structures is fertile ground for the cruellest individuals. This is the miracle of the United States, that Washington and others grasping at the newly cast chalice of power were humbled and wary of temptation, devoting their efforts to parry it.
I didn't get the last part of your comment, can you explain it?
@@mrgyani Washington and his cohorts understood the power of the offices they were establishing and in their awe saw fit to dissolve it among the three branches of government. He could have been king.
Lex this talk with Richard is my favorite. Thank you
As far as Stalin's 'belief' in communism, all you have to do is study the policies he favored and implemented during his reign. There's no communist thread of thinking you can find, it is just PRAGMATISM, from one extreme policy to the next, from supporting capitalists to disowning social democrats. Pragmatism was serving his and his fellow bureaucrats' privileges and interests.
Stalin was pragmatic because communism is a nonsense ideology. To achieve socialism requires strong massive state power and socialism should not be a transition stage it should be permanent.
I can't agree on Lex's opinion of Stalin. Stalin was brutal and ruthless in his pursuit of power as well.
Stanford Prison Experiment was a pointer.
How is Hitler and Stalin not on the same level at minimum? I'm perplexed there lex apologies.
@@gc1200 this is factually incorrect
@@gc1200 lmao try again.
You need to do an episode on this.
An idea can't be psychopathic. A person can be. The person appropriates the idea to propel the behavior. See the research of Michael Gazzaniga on cognitive dissonance.
Your causation is backwards, the idea often appropriates the person in psychopathy. If a psychopathic idea can overtake a persons ability for logical or emotional control, empathy, problem solving, or concerns for consequences etc... then the idea has dominated and won, not the person.
It’s very very different. Especially if you are speaking in terms of psychological ailments it’s extremely important. Stalin and Hitler grew up in modern comfort without witnessing any killing in a society where most people were peaceful. Khan grew up in 1200 where even as a kid he saw war and killings. His everyday life was more brutal and involved more killing like hunting. Now if your mom and everyone in your family tell you stealing an apple everyday is okay. You grew up and steal an apple. We can understand it’s your environment and different times different moral. Now if you grew up in a household and everyone around you told you stealing an apple is bad and no one stole an apple everyday. However you grew up to steal an apple. We can assume it’s a YOU problem.
We are all sinners. With power our sins get scaled up. Few achieve power and so we judge them when some of us would have done worse with that power and some could have brought world peace. Judgement is only reserved for God. We sin when we judge like both of these humans did.
Obsession about the power we can see in this world from the biblical time of Neron or even before .
Marcus Aurelius?
Add Xi Jinping to the list!
While I think that Hitler sincerely believed in what he did, it seems to me that Stalin was an absolute cynic.
P.S.Totalitarian & Authoritarian are not the same thing.
This conversation makes me sad. You really seem to strive to explain away Stalin. Saying that hurts my soul.
What’s his beef with men though. His other shorts also have a lot of misandry.
that is so relevant now ... unbelievable
Yep March 20 2003
Most great men are not bad.
He immediately lost me at any man become Genghis Khan. Just no. It takes an exceptional man, not good but not average!
You need a mimetic theory scholar to understand violence ! Do it :)
Lex Fridman is a stalinist, he admit it :D
Laughs in George Washington
Not too comfortable separating socialists Hitler and Stalin except to say one was a NATIONAL socialist, the other an INTERNATIONAL one. It's a distinction without any other meaningful difference judged in terms of final body count, which is all that matters here. At least, more than any OTHER difference one could point to. One of them often wore yellow socks, from what I understand.
Sometimes Lex is just talking
Lex is dismissing the whole psychological warfare in the Soviet Union and just blaming everything on Communism. 👎Nice pushback by the guest. It is seriously relevant today as well.
Jesus is one
Mention the tyrants such as Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Obama Clinton Blair don't sweep their brutality under the carpet.
Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un
I’ve never heard you talk about the Atlantic slave trade.
Trump was on his way to this type of rule.
Trump wasnt smart enough.
@@ricomajestic Touche.
Thank-you prof for the pushback against Lex - on the absurd claim that it was about communism and not power.
If he killed rivals who could have been better than him, he certainly wasn't thinking about communism, nor could he have thought that 'he' was the best one to take the idea fwd. Thank you also for the example of the Ukranian mass starvation.
I have been horrified by similar comments from him about Putin. (check out his clip with Joe Rogan on Putin).
Lex seems to have a very bias opinion here.
What about an entire country becoming pathological...the United States addiction to oil has produced terrible violence.
Lex has a weird tendency to make Stalin less of a monster than he was.
There is the alternative explanation that these tyrants rose to power in an environment that favored psychopathic behavior in ascending the hierarchy. They then had the proclivity from the beginning, and they were the best at adapting to their environment. There are such individuals in all societies and all cultures, but they do not climb to the top of a power structure by default.
If you view the life as a game where the rules (ie: ideologies(whether they be religious or political or a combination)) are created and enforced by those in power (ie: the winners or top tier players), if you are in a world/game filled with true believers (people who follow the rules and think the rules they follow are the best/fairest rules) the best strategy to become a winner/top tier is to pretend to be a true believer but cheat/secretly be a cheater and help the true believers remove other rivals/cheats. Until of course you have consolidate enough power to be able to cheat while forcing everyone else to play by the rules. Happens in left wing jurisdictions, right wing jurisdictions, capitalist, communist or theocratic.
@Dan Clipca Genuinely curious, are you being sarcastic?
I think there are plenty examples of people inheriting power, becoming very corrupt. Your point makes sense for people achieving power in your lifetime, but lots of examples of people inheriting power becoming pretty psychopathic as they age.
You alternative is actually the Marxist approach. Trotsky wrote a biography of Stalin using this approach, he was killed before completing it.
The Kahn actually destroyed their monarchy system and put in a system of merit based social ascension.
He is wrong about Stalin having himself convinced he was doing good. When his wife died he literally said: "She died and with her died my last warm feelings for humanity".
@My names Jeff apparently Stalin was very upset at his wife for mentioning/reporting on the widespread starvation in Ukraine prior to her death in 1932.
Come on now . He also had a lot of mistresses before , after and while he was married . He might have said that but even he himself must have known that it was bullshit. 🙄🙄🙄
I also dont agree that he had good intentions but got carried away - he was a Thug and Criminal before he rose to power already...
@@flowjee you are correct, sir/madam...
While growing up in Georgia, He'd been a thug/bully since grade school, often beating other kids up for favors or perks... But if there are still doubts about his love for acquiring power through violence before meeting Lenin and pledging himself to communism, remember "Stalin" isn't his given name-- Stalin is his chosen AKA... It means "steel" in Russian and its a name he'd given himself as an ode to his unrelenting resolve ---
Moreover, what is there to discuss here anyways? The Communist manifesto clearly states as a foundational principle the right to use copious amounts of violence as a necessary means to any end; so both both violent human (Stalin) and violent ethos (communism) fit together like a glove fits a hand...
Nothing I ever learned about Stalin said to me that he believed in Communism, simply that he saw it as a good vehicle to gain power for himself.
Add Alexander to list of you add Changez khan both had same intention
I think breaking bad has some very good insights into these kinds of questions, cause what usually happens when people attain vast amounts of power is their ego tends to over inflate. And what happens when a person views themselves and their interests as superior to everybody around them? Is they become less empathetic. So the more overinflated a person's ego becomes the empathy they have.
Lex comes across like a teenage boy here…
The man, on this one lex is being pretty dense. This guy is very clearly trying to say that it was about the power and not about the belief in communism. Lex is super committed to a preconceived notion about communism being the root cause of evil here. This interview suffered from his political agenda big time
I've got lots of respect for you guys. I've enjoyed listening to some fantastic conversations on this show....but I think you guys have let yourself down with your assumptions about sociopathy/psychopathy. You obviously don't understand it and to think an idea can be psychopathic but not the person enforcing that idea on others is crazy in itself!!!
You are so right... I had the same thought. but I if you listen carefully the Professor is emphasing many times that, it's about person and the hunger of power of the individual. But Lex is the one who don't want to understand this point. It seems to me, that the idea that this dictators have been psychopaths would destroy his mystification he built up arround Hitler, Stalin & Co
"Great man are always bad man"
It seems to me that he doesn't want to hear/ believe this!!!
@@s.sammer8486 It is the same viewpoint, that you cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs.
For Stalin, power was the vision, communism was his vehicle, let's face it, he was a portly sort, he did not go without.
Some say that Churchill was a bad man, I do think it's a spectrum, it is not black and white.
Option A: Stalin was a true believer.
Option B: Stalin was power-hungry.
These are not mutually exclusive options.
He was a true believer in his career and legacy, not in communism.
@@Zayden. Stephen Kotkin disagrees.
@@noeticjustice1535 Yes, I am aware. He is wrong though. A better biography of Stalin is by Trotsky, it has more consistent accounting of the facts in Stalin's life and surroundings. For example Kotkin is unable to explain Stalin's purges of 1937-38, he is dumbfounded. But with Trotsky's explanation it is coherent and understandable.
@@Zayden. exactly, this kid doesn't know shit!
The link between Stalin and communism that you speak of, is a mirage.
Ghandi? he was great and powerful. I think what separated him was his powerful idea of non-violence. That was his mantra and it made him a powerful man but also empathetic.
Lex, Stalin was incredibly jealous of other communist heroes. It was for power individually. Hitler rarely killed other Nazis.
And Hitler died by suicide and stalin made russia a superpower. The outcome says more then the judgment.
Definitely jealous of Trotsky
Night of the long knives???
Hitler had a huge swath of the SA who were loyal Nazis killed.
Milgram Prison Experiment.
The people who have power are not gentle men stumble into the job of being a leader and then become as barking mad as Mao/Stalin.
hello
Genghis Khan was a conqueror from a bygone era, like Alexander, or Atilla, or Charlemagne. They all killed a lot of people, but all were great men- "heroes". Khan doesn't deserve to be compared to Hitler and Stalin.
Why not? The only difference is relative recency.
@@Priceluked different times different morals
@@PricelukedIt’s very very different. Especially if you are speaking in terms of psychological ailments it’s extremely important. Stalin and Hitler grew up in modern comfort without witnessing any killing in a society where most people were peaceful. Khan grew up in 1200 where even as a kid he saw war and killings. His everyday life was more brutal and involved more killing like hunting. Now if your mom and everyone in your family tell you stealing an apple everyday is okay. You grew up and steal an apple. We can understand it’s your environment and different times different moral. Now if you grew up in a household and everyone around you told you stealing an apple is bad and no one stole an apple everyday. However you grew up to steal an apple. We can assume it’s a YOU problem.
No one person should have that much power!
All through history there has been a man, or a group that does this. History is interesting, but who’s doing it now?
Add Mohammed to the Group...
eREH YAEEGAH
Or the Caribbean
How many hoops do you have to keep jumping through to apologize for a mass murderering psychopath?
That’s just not the point…
Past dictator’s spirit: Don’t judge me bro.
Lex is SO MUCH better than Rogen
The guest wouldn’t let Lex get away with using such a banal “The notion of communism is evil” explanation. Clearly Stalin was a power hungry dictator with severe paranoia and sociopathy. Don’t indict Marxism or communism for his perverse, authoritarian ruthlessness
You don’t even need stalin to indict those shit ideologies.