On 2001-12-15 07:47, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2001-12-14 23:50, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Virgil, did you ever suspect that you were Azerbaijani?

It would be just another part of the 'hood. My Finnish roots are beyond the Urals, my Roma ones come from India, my Magyar roots are from the steppes so it would not surprise me if my Skane-Danish fathers came from Azerbaijan. I am an Eurasian mutt. HTH

It's interesting that in a one-on-one fight, a mutt tends to kill a purebred. Just food for thought! :smile:

On 2002-02-21 14:17, JayN wrote:
The US and Europe are drifting further apart than ever.
http://argument.independent.co.uk/co...p?story=138967

Excellent article.

Individually, as I have recently commmented on other threads, no European nation is even close to a match for the United States of America. If, however, they found the will to transform the European Union into a functional continental government, they do possess the necessary resources of men, materiel, technology and money to match us as a group.

Right now, with Europe riven by internal strains and its resources soaked up by the massive social programs, such a development appears radically unlikely, but 4T has a way of changing things in a hurry.

By comparison, in 1770, it looked unlikely that a group of squabling and ill-developed colonies could successfully secede from the British Empire, put aside their differences, unify under a functional central government, and begin a westward expansion. But they did it.

S&H have pointed out that the finish of a 4T doesn't necessarily have much to do with its start. For ex, compare the world in 1929, at which point the last 4T opened with the great stock crash, to the culmination in '43-45, with the D-Day invasion, the first use of nuclear bombs, and the beginnings of the Cold War, only 15-17 years later!

Would it not be ironic if the upcoming 4T saw America unify and avoid internal conflict, only to end entangled in a full-scale war between the U.S. and E.U.?

On 2002-02-21 14:17, JayN wrote:
The US and Europe are drifting further apart than ever.
http://argument.independent.co.uk/co...p?story=138967

For the record Australia seems to be as pro-USA as the USA :smile:. Only a minority (30% of less or the public) have criticised Bush's speech and foregin policy goals.

With most of the world being in Crisis mode-if it somehow survives-I expect political realignments and/or other changes. But if the last 4T is a good example, they may be hard to predict.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-02-22 23:52 ]</font>

On 2002-02-22 23:09, Tim Walker wrote:
With most of the world being in Crisis mode-if it somehow survives-I expect political realignments and/or other changes. But if the last 4T is a good example, they may be hard to predict.

I think the last 4T is a poor example for this. WWII ended up resolving all the unanswered questions left behind by WWI--Would Germany, the British Empire, or the USA be the hegemon? What roles would the Soviet Union and Japan play? Would colonial empires survive? Would there be a global governing organization? These are actually not the usual questions answered by 4Ts. Those questions tend to be about how nations see themselves, not how they relate to other nations.

The 4T of the late 1850s to early 1870s dealt with how the USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Japan (and to a lesser extent, France, England, Russia, and China) should become modern centralized industrial nation-states instead of pre-modern decentralized agrarian ones (or a collection of principalities). International questions waited decades afterwards.

The 4T of the 1770s and 1780 was about reaping the fruits of the Enlightenment in America and France (and possibly elsewhere in Europe--ask DMMcG and Mike Alexander for details). International questions waited for Napoleon, in the 1800s, well after the 4T.

Mike Alexander has a lot written about this very question in his upcoming book, which I've seen in draft form. Check it out.

On 2002-02-21 14:17, JayN wrote:
The US and Europe are drifting further apart than ever.
http://argument.independent.co.uk/co...p?story=138967

In the USA Today for March 5, 2002, Pat Buchanan wrote an admittedly alarmist (as usual!) editorial, the gist of which is that Europe is a slowly dying society, and that the best thing the United States can do is to cut bait on the alliance, and go it alone. The implications if he is right about that I shall address elsewhere, as a thread about Europe would not be the right place to say anything else I'd have to say on the subject.

Why are continental Europeans so critical of their English speaking cousins? Interesting article in the Feb. 25 '02 issue of the National Review-"Old World Charms And Alarms" by John O'Sullivan. To summarize the article:

The history of continental Europe is rule from the top down, rather from the grass roots up. The continental tradition is rule by elites.

These elites prefer that politics be a private game out of sight of the general public. These elites dislike open political conflict-the politics of clashing values-and its ritual in legislatures because they fear that it will lead to chaos and disorder. They like proportional representation and coalitions because they ensure that governments will be chosen by the politicians after the election rather than by voters on election day. Elites like party lists because they give the party leadership the choice of candidates; they dislike U.S. style primaries, which vest that choice in the voters. Elites dislike nations and national sovereignty because they vest political decisions in institutions the people know, observe, and can ultimately control; they like international bodies and the multiplication of overlapping institutions because these make it hard for the voters to keep track of who decided what when.

It you think like these elites, you will see the U.S.A. as crass, vulgar, and materialistic. You will deplore its cultural pollution because it reflects the tastes of the great unwashed rather than that of the cultivated. Its economic policies will be that of provincial and corporate self-interest, rather than the impartial wisdom of the grandes ecoles. Its foreign policy will be based on jingoism, super-patriotism, and cowboy assertiveness.

In the view of the French in particular, we are their cousins "the barbarians."


(In politics there is a catch-these top-down states may appear strong but they are brittle. The American contitution dates from 1788, the French from 1958. The flexibility of their institutions have given the English speaking countries more stability than the continental European ones).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-03-06 12:53 ]</font>

To be fair to the Europeans, remember that their grandparents and great-grandparents trashed the continent twice in the 20th century. One understands their pacifism better with that memory orbiting everything politcal.

I can verify from personal experience: Nationalism/patriotism in Germany, for example, and in several other countries in Europe, is practically non-existent, (despite the pictures of rightists and neo-Nazis demonstrating now and then.) There is no pledge of allegiance in German schools, no flags, (people rarely fly a German flag for any reason.) The Germans in fact in my experience want to be known as Europeans first.

Agreed, that the Europeans can be much more class-conscious than the Americans, because of past class-structures from the Middle Ages. And yet seemingly contradictorily, there is a virulent strain of egalitarianism there, coming out of the French Revolution and the development of socialism. This egalitarianism is easily seen in their taxation practices, which have a "how dare you try to get rich" attitude.

In international relations then I think you will find a division between the "average European" and the "elites" mentioned above, who often wring their hands at the thought of threatening warfare, who want to discuss everything a la Metternich's Congress System, but who really do not or cannot take much real action precisely because of the coalition nature of their governments. As a result the American government looks much more rash and the "cowboy image" is often used to describe American actions world-wide.

The average European, I think, does not necessarily support any of this most of the time: there is a great dislike of the European parliament from Copenhagen to Athens, a body controlled by the "elites" mentioned above. The article in National Review would seem to be correct on that basis.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SJ on 2002-03-06 13:15 ]</font>

Privately,
Some Europeans are applauding the Americans taking out the Taliban. They think the Americans show more guts then their own leaders. On the other hand you can't just say the leadership is pacifist. So is much of the electorate. Two Big Wars did screw Europe. Another reason for European opposition to US policies is that America forced the Western powers to decolonise (which was an eventuality anyway) and they won't let us forget it.

On 2002-03-07 23:59, JayN wrote:
Privately,
Some Europeans are applauding the Americans taking out the Taliban. They think the Americans show more guts then their own leaders. On the other hand you can't just say the leadership is pacifist. So is much of the electorate. Two Big Wars did screw Europe. Another reason for European opposition to US policies is that America forced the Western powers to decolonise (which was an eventuality anyway) and they won't let us forget it.

S&H have speculated, too, that Europe is a few years behind us on the Generational Cycle, since their last 4T ended (if this is true) with the end of the reconstruction period, which America was able to skip.

If so, then the European Boomers are not quite as advanced in the career ladder as they probably are in America, and their version of the Silent generation would probably be that much more inclined toward compromise and quiet deal making (which would in go a long way toward explaining the European Union, which is, to my eye, a very 'Adaptive' type of organization (though not necessarily very adaptive)).

I would tend to agree that the EU is a very Adaptive kind of institution. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea in principle.

I also would tend to agree that Europe is a couple (but not very many) years behind the United States on the saeculum. I would speculate maybe 2-5 years behind the US. For instance, the Great Depression really didn't hit too severly in Britain until 1933. The British economy didn't begin its recovery from the Depression until 1935 or 1936. Ours began in 1933-34. So their regenerecy came a bit later than America's and so did the rest of Europe on the continent. The major exceptions were the fascist states and USSR which experienced their regenerecies earlier and faster than even the US. Of course, Hitler and Mussolini were total dictators and they could exert influence over the direction of their countries faster. These nations were fully mobilized economically and militarily for war by 1938/39. Britain and France were more slowly mobilized. Once the democracies mobilized fully, though, around 1940 you could start to see them more forcefully confront Hitler. The USSR had mobilzed fully by 1940 but was hoping to avoid war for at least a few years with Hitler. The German armed forces predicted, correctly, that the Allied strength would outweigh Germany's by 1943. This was because the Allies were led by Prophets whereas the Axis was led by demagogic Nomads who had less reservations about war than democratically elected Prophets. Even Joseph Stalin, who was as much a dictator as Hitler, was a Prophet who was determined to avoid was with the Reich at all costs and only started to build up the German military in 1936 when he could see the emerging threat of Hitler. So Prophets go slower than Nomads on mobilizing thier societies. And the entire saeculum of Europe was behind America's since America entered its regenerecy before most of Europe except for, possibly, Germany.

I've been looking for a title for midlife Nomad leaders who take over Crisis societies instead of Prophets. I thought of the term Lord Nomads since Nomads tend to govern Crisis societies in a very mobilized pattern like Noblemen and Lords. Every individual is a cog. Whereas Gray Champion Prophets govern Crisis-era societies in a manner that resembles a king-priest more than anything else. The Gray Champion is essentially more like the Pope who played politics in Medieval Europe. What do you think of Lord Nomads?

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063351

This is an article about
9/11 Busts European Left
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063351


Apparently the more liberal parties in Europe are being discredited because of economic stagnation and unlimited immigration of the last decade. They also see the US moving at a rapid pace since 911 and are afraid the US may get way ahead of Europe. The war in Afghanistan is forcing European voters to evaluate old certainties. Europeans voters are turning in more right leaning political parties and tossing out the old leftist parties.

This is not to say Europeans are embracing American-style capitalism. But Europeans are looking for and demanding solutions that involve cutting taxes and deregulating their welfare states. But European conservatism is different than its American version. Europeans are turning out Socialist parties in favor of Social Democrats who embrace more centrist policies. The major exception to this trend is Tony Blair and even he has embraced Thatcherite-style fiscal restraint to remain in power. The British Labor party more strongly resembles the Tory party than in the past.

To put a generational spin on this, the Europeans are where the US probably was around 1994-1996 . They are tossing out Silent and are putting in Boomers who demand solution and are willing to forsake sacred cows to do so. Probably in about 2 to 5
years Europe will experience its version of 911 and will be propelled into the 4T.

My speculation is that the one part of the world in sync or slightly ahead of the US on the saeculum may be the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the continued sanctions on Iraq, combined with the shockwaves coming from the US war that followed 911, ,may cause a tremendous uprising with the Moslem world very soon.

Some basic principles that I have enunciated about Prophets and Nomads in leadership in a Fourth Turning from the post I just put above.

Lord Nomads who come into power in a Fourth Turning do so earlier than Gray Champions do.

Lord Nomads mobilize the societies they preside over even faster and more rigidly than do Gray Champions.

Lord Nomads are more likely to favor an early or mid Fourth Turning war.
They mobilize on the inevitable assumption of war. Prophet leaders do not automatically assume war as do Lord Nomads.

Grey Champions assert authority for civilian purposes such as building schools, highways, and grand constructions. Nomads are more likely to assert authority for building tanks, planes, and naval ships.

Lord Nomads are likely to mistake the Prophet led civilian, slower mobilization for weakness. This tempts them to start wars. Facing the onset of threats, Gray Champions authorize military mobilizations relatively late but they are actually more successful in war than Nomad led societies once they are fully mobilized.

I wrote "Even Joseph Stalin, who was as much a dictator as Hitler, was a Prophet who was determined to avoid was with the Reich at all costs and only started to build up the German military in 1936 when he could see the emerging threat of Hitler."

I really meant to say that Joseph Stalin stood as the one Great Dictator of the last cycle who was a Gray Champion and even he was reluctant to build up his military until 1936 to confront Hitler. He was determined to avoid war with the Reich at all costs. Hitler, as a Lord Nomad, wanted to confront the Bolshevik Gray Champion Stalin. Stalin, incidentally, exiled Trotsky (Lost) who had wanted to be Lord Nomad over the USSR. If Trotsky had gotten into power there would have been no German-USSR Pact and there probably would have been a war before 1941.

To clarify my posts a little more the Western prophet led democracies mobilized later than the Nomad led fascist states.

The USSR was an interesting middle case. Like the totalitarian Nomad led societies, they had an early regenerecy. Like the Prophet led West they concentrated on building civilian industries and mobilized their military relatively late.

My explanation: the USSR was able to mobilize early as Germany did because it was a totalitarian state but it focused on forced conscription for civilian industrialization rather than conscription for military purposes like the Axis did.

The reason for that was their being led by Gray Champion Stalin instead of Lord Nomad Trotsky.

The Lord Nomad versus Gray Champion distinction is interesting. According to Barkun both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis were millenarian movements, as were the communists in China. A series of disasters discredits the existing civic order and values regime. Draconian change is called for. A millenarian movement creates simultaneously both a new values regime and a new civic order. But where in the cycle does this movement occur? Apparently in Russia it was launched by relatively young Prophets, essentially an Awakening movement that took over the country. Germany had a very harsh Unraveling followed by a combination Crisis/Millenarian turning. The timing was such in Germany that the Nazi Nomads ran the millenarian movement, while a civic-like Wermacht generation took on a Hero's foot soldier role. Germany was roughly in synch with the cycle in the English speaking countries. Russia, it seems, had been out of synch, being about a turning behind those other countries. According to BG 115, the Russian WWII generation had a hardscrabble childhood during the millenarian turning, then came of age just in time to be slaughtered like the Gilded. The more protected next juniors came of age after the war and had a more Progressive like life cycle.

Its hard to imagine an Adaptive/Artist generation launching a millenarian movement. Could a Hero generation?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-03-19 19:17 ]</font>

On 2002-03-19 17:23, JayN wrote:

I also would tend to agree that Europe is a couple (but not very many) years behind the United States on the saeculum. I would speculate maybe 2-5 years behind the US. For instance, the Great Depression really didn't hit too severly in Britain until 1933. The British economy didn't begin its recovery from the Depression until 1935 or 1936. Ours began in 1933-34. So their regenerecy came a bit later than America's and so did the rest of Europe on the continent. The major exceptions were the fascist states and USSR which experienced their regenerecies earlier and faster than even the US. Of course, Hitler and Mussolini were total dictators and they could exert influence over the direction of their countries faster. These nations were fully mobilized economically and militarily for war by 1938/39. Britain and France were more slowly mobilized. Once the democracies mobilized fully, though, around 1940 you could start to see them more forcefully confront Hitler. The USSR had mobilzed fully by 1940 but was hoping to avoid war for at least a few years with Hitler. The German armed forces predicted, correctly, that the Allied strength would outweigh Germany's by 1943. This was because the Allies were led by Prophets whereas the Axis was led by demagogic Nomads who had less reservations about war than democratically elected Prophets. Even Joseph Stalin, who was as much a dictator as Hitler, was a Prophet who was determined to avoid was with the Reich at all costs and only started to build up the German military in 1936 when he could see the emerging threat of Hitler. So Prophets go slower than Nomads on mobilizing thier societies. And the entire saeculum of Europe was behind America's since America entered its regenerecy before most of Europe except for, possibly, Germany.

I've been looking for a title for midlife Nomad leaders who take over Crisis societies instead of Prophets. I thought of the term Lord Nomads since Nomads tend to govern Crisis societies in a very mobilized pattern like Noblemen and Lords. Every individual is a cog. Whereas Gray Champion Prophets govern Crisis-era societies in a manner that resembles a king-priest more than anything else. The Gray Champion is essentially more like the Pope who played politics in Medieval Europe. What do you think of Lord Nomads?

I'm afraid I don't buy it. It's certainly true that both Communism and Nazism were pseudo-religious movements. But the reason Joe Stalin didn't mobilize his nation for war was very simple: he couldn't.

Stalin was paranoid, and that's putting it very mildly. One of the things that paranoia led him to do in the years before World War II was to executive a good percentage of his competent military officers, since that very competence, in his paranoid mind, made them a potential threat to his own status.

Furthermore, Russia started the race for world power from way, way, way behind, maybe literally centuries behind. The West was well advanced over Russia socially, technologically, and militarily in the thirties and forties, and Germany was quite definitely part of the West.

Long after the Western nation-states had industrialized and adopted relatively modern military technique, Russia remained a gigantic agrarian backwater. The industrialization plans of the Communists were in many ways an extension of the initiatives of Czar Peter the Great, and both were trying to 'leapfrog' a gap of at least a century in technology and technique.

Under the Communists, the Russians did manage to industrialize to a considerable extent, but it was always unbalanced and unstable, and half the time the carefully pre-planned projects went badly sour, when the central planners overlooked something simple but critical.

Furthermore, Russia had crippled herself with purges, collectivizations, and so forth, as various idealistic goals of the Communist pseudo-religion were applied in an attempt to make them reality.

Had World War II consisted of nothing but Germany vs. Russia, Germany would have won the struggle, hands down, Gray Champion or not. Frankly, I personally don't regard Stalin as a Gray Champion anyway. He was ultimately self-centered, more of a Nomad than most Nomads in a way.

On 2002-03-19 17:47, JayN wrote:
Some basic principles that I have enunciated about Prophets and Nomads in leadership in a Fourth Turning from the post I just put above.

Lord Nomads who come into power in a Fourth Turning do so earlier than Gray Champions do.

Lord Nomads mobilize the societies they preside over even faster and more rigidly than do Gray Champions.

Lord Nomads are more likely to favor an early or mid Fourth Turning war.
They mobilize on the inevitable assumption of war. Prophet leaders do not automatically assume war as do Lord Nomads.

I might agree with that, to a point. The events and nature of a 4T almost invariably lead to war, and Nomads might very well be more pragmatic about that.

Grey Champions assert authority for civilian purposes such as building schools, highways, and grand constructions. Nomads are more likely to assert authority for building tanks, planes, and naval ships.

I have to dispute you here. I think you're drawing too much on the last, rather peculiar, Cycle. I'm increasingly of the suspicion that the Civil War Cycle was not really as much on an anomaly as the Great Power Cycle.

True, FDR did all that, trying to restart a stalled economy and get the U.S. moving in a direction he thought necessary, but as soon as the Transcendentals came to power in the Cycle before, war broke out. There was no talk of roads or schools, it was 'settle the slavery question!'.

Before that, in the Revolutionary War Cycle, things escalated rather quickly. It wasn't 'let us build up our infrastructure in peace and wisdom'. It was 'give me liberty or give me death!"

Of course, Patrick Henry backtracked almost immediately, as his common sense caught up.

I don't think there's much support for your ' schools, highways, and grand constructions' theory of Prophet leadership. That's really the sort of thing you get from Nomad and (especially!) Civic leaders in the 1T and 2T.

FDR was a unique case in a unique situation.

Lord Nomads are likely to mistake the Prophet led civilian, slower mobilization for weakness. This tempts them to start wars. Facing the onset of threats, Gray Champions authorize military mobilizations relatively late but they are actually more successful in war than Nomad led societies once they are fully mobilized.

The success of America's rearmament against that of Germany had very little to do with the generational archetype of the president, and a whole lot to do with the fact that a huge industrial base had been constructed in the U.S. in the years since the Civil War.

America was many times larger than Germany in terms of industrial and financial base, natural resources, and locational security. With 3000 miles of ocean between America and Europe, striking against the American base of power was almost impossible for Germany, while at the same time England was pounding away at the German base.

America would thus have been able to surpass German armaments production no matter what Archetype the President might have been.

Reset the scene with a Germany equipped with the same starting resources as America, and remove England from the equation, and you can get likely results that appear distinctly unpleasant.

On 2002-03-19 17:54, JayN wrote:


I really meant to say that Joseph Stalin stood as the one Great Dictator of the last cycle who was a Gray Champion and even he was reluctant to build up his military until 1936 to confront Hitler. He was determined to avoid war with the Reich at all costs. Hitler, as a Lord Nomad, wanted to confront the Bolshevik Gray Champion Stalin. Stalin, incidentally, exiled Trotsky (Lost) who had wanted to be Lord Nomad over the USSR. If Trotsky had gotten into power there would have been no German-USSR Pact and there probably would have been a war before 1941.

Stalin didn't exactly exile Trotsky. It was more like a case of Trotsky running for his life. Recall that the Soviets kept after him until they got him, too.

I submit that a more probable interpretation is that Trotsky represented a potential rival for power, one with direct associations with the 1917 Revolution and the memory of Lenin. Stalin was not a man who liked rivals, or even potential rivals, or people who had been in the same room with potential rivals, or people who looked like they might be capable of being in the same room with potential rivals, for that matter.

I don't think Stalin looked far afield for threats, since he was afraid of his own shadow (and his actions as a result of that fear created the conditions to make the fear valid, as his paranoia fed on itself).

What if Nazi Germany has not invaded the U.S.S.R.? Would the U.S.S.R. have entered a Crisis constellation during the 1950s? With the might-have-been-WWII gen acting as pragmatic midlife managers and their civic-like juniors filling the Hero foot soldier role? And the Prophet generation-they, or some of them, had already established a new values regime and civic order. Could some previously frustrated faction see a chance to reverse history?

Hopeful Cynic.
I am very impressed with your knowledge about industrial power and their effect on military balances.

IY Opinion, If a city or two or three on the East Coast were wiped out by nuclear attack, would you say that our industrial capacity would still be intact enough to fight the likely Islamist threat and overcome it? Where would Russia and China come in here?
Would they side with us or would they side with the Islamist radicals to offset US superpower status? Do you think the unilateralist actions we are taking now will harm our prestige in the Crisis if we need the alliance of Russia and China against Islam?

On 2002-03-19 21:39, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

Stalin didn't exactly exile Trotsky. It was more like a case of Trotsky running for his life. Recall that the Soviets kept after him until they got him, too.

I submit that a more probable interpretation is that Trotsky represented a potential rival for power, one with direct associations with the 1917 Revolution and the memory of Lenin. Stalin was not a man who liked rivals, or even potential rivals, or people who had been in the same room with potential rivals, or people who looked like they might be capable of being in the same room with potential rivals, for that matter.

I don't think Stalin looked far afield for threats, since he was afraid of his own shadow (and his actions as a result of that fear created the conditions to make the fear valid, as his paranoia fed on itself).

True, according to the biographies of Stalin that I have read. Stalin's willingness to murder (not that Trotsky's hands were clean!)even other Bolsheviks to get his way is what allowed him to seize control of the country. Plus, I am not sure that Trotsky ever had the same sort of appeal to the party faithful that Stalin was able (seemingly) to convey. Did that come from a generational difference? Perhaps, but ultimately irrelevant. The result would have been the same: Stalin's ruthlessness wins.

But Stalin did in fact look far away to find his imagined enemies: skim through Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, and you will find all sorts of people who were executed and who were never near any position of power or even geographically near Stalin. Remember that in 1935 (!) he lowered the age at which a person could be executed for a crime to 12! The point was not to be logical about internal threats: the point was to terrorize everyone into obedience.

On 2002-03-20 10:50, SJ wrote:

On 2002-03-19 21:39, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

Stalin didn't exactly exile Trotsky. It was more like a case of Trotsky running for his life. Recall that the Soviets kept after him until they got him, too.

I submit that a more probable interpretation is that Trotsky represented a potential rival for power, one with direct associations with the 1917 Revolution and the memory of Lenin. Stalin was not a man who liked rivals, or even potential rivals, or people who had been in the same room with potential rivals, or people who looked like they might be capable of being in the same room with potential rivals, for that matter.

I don't think Stalin looked far afield for threats, since he was afraid of his own shadow (and his actions as a result of that fear created the conditions to make the fear valid, as his paranoia fed on itself).

True, according to the biographies of Stalin that I have read. Stalin's willingness to murder (not that Trotsky's hands were clean!)even other Bolsheviks to get his way is what allowed him to seize control of the country. Plus, I am not sure that Trotsky ever had the same sort of appeal to the party faithful that Stalin was able (seemingly) to convey. Did that come from a generational difference? Perhaps, but ultimately irrelevant. The result would have been the same: Stalin's ruthlessness wins.

But Stalin did in fact look far away to find his imagined enemies: skim through Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, and you will find all sorts of people who were executed and who were never near any position of power or even geographically near Stalin. Remember that in 1935 (!) he lowered the age at which a person could be executed for a crime to 12! The point was not to be logical about internal threats: the point was to terrorize everyone into obedience.

What I think:
Stalin was a totalitarian dictator.
But the capitalist dogs put Lenin in power in the first place to destroy Russia in World War I.
Russia became infected with revolution and was subsequently weakened.
Under Stalin Russia became stronger.
He killed too many people but he wasn't as evil as Hitler.
He opposed Nazi and fascist colonialism.
He also opposed American colonialism after World War II.

If Europe wants to save itself it needs real socialism and not socialized capitalism which is becoming less social and more capitalist. Until then, it has the worst of both systems and the advantages of neither.