From the cited source:
Stalin is an uncommon figure in modern economic history: a dictator with absolute power who also controlled one of the largest economies in the world. Since it is virtually impossible to separate Stalin’s wealth from the wealth of the Soviet Union, this combination has led multiple economists to nominate him as one of the richest people of all time.
…
While that money didn’t belong directly to Stalin, he had the ability to leverage blah blah blah peepee poopoo
Neolib ghouls are absolutely wild.
I can debunk those economists.
The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
“Stalin was dictator of an entire nation so all of its wealth was effectively his.”
The same person: “Most of Elon’s wealth is tied up in investments. He isn’t as wealthy as that number makes him sound.”
These are the same people who call Putin a trillionaire. From what I’ve read, Stalin lived a modest life, most of his possessions went to public property when he died.
Much better example, these people simply have no idea how political structures work within socialist countries which is why their critiques of them don’t matter. It would be like critiquing the US as if it’s a feudal country.
I know, i just thought that since in the mind of liberals Putin and Stalin fit in the Slavic despot who control literally everything (but they are also puny and weak). People in their imaginations think that there’s a continuation from tsarist Russia through the Soviet Union to Putin now so they keep coming up with theories on how Russians are predisposed to “authortarianism” because of geography or due to being the descendents of Mongolians or whatever.
I wasn’t expecting it to be good, but that article is dogshit.
Mongol Empire WEALTH: Lots of land, not much else
Contemporary sources describe Genghis Khan’s caravan as having hundreds of wagons of gold and silver spoils from his conquests following him around. What made him seem poor compared to other rulers was the fact that he never settled down and got super ostentatious with his wealth (though his heirs certainly did).
Uhh.
I mean I’m not much of a historian but Mansa Musa crashed the world’s gold economy from giving away too much gold when he went on Hajj and Ghengis Khan ruled over everything between the Chinese coast, Poland, and the Sahara. I think it’s going to be hard to beat either of them.
Mansa Musa crashed the world’s gold economy from giving away too much gold when he went on Hajj and
Spain pulled the same trick in the 1500s, after looting the combined wealth of Inca and Aztec empires. Then their navy promptly sank into the ocean when they picked a fight against the UK during hurricane season.
Ghengis Khan ruled over everything between the Chinese coast, Poland, and the Sahara.
Like Macedonia’s Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan didn’t so much rule these regions as do a Hell’s Angel’s style joy ride through their center and kill anyone who looked at his army crosswise. The “empire”, such that it was, never established a formal bureaucracy outside of the far eastern provinces and immediately collapsed into infighting on his death.
I’d call them some of history’s biggest moochers and looters. But I think you need to look more towards Augustus Caeser, the Eisenhower Administration, or the Tang Dynasty if you want to talk about a handful of individuals dictating the management of a plurality of global productive capital.
LMAO, this economist article source lists Julius Cesar as the second-richest person in history.
Christ, by this logic we should just make the Secretary of Defense the richest man in the United States - perhaps even the world.
