Państwo sowieckie w apogeum stalinizmu było w pełni rozwiniętym państwem totalitarnym. Marzenie o nowym człowieku, stanowiące istotę reżimu totalitarnego, zmieniło się w koszmar. Ten, kto znajdował się w orbicie Józefa Stalina, nie miał wyjścia: stawał się albo ofiarą, albo sprawcą. Jego władza absolutna wyrosła z bezgranicznych rozmiarów terroru. Przemoc stalinowska była możliwa tylko dlatego, że Stalin i jego otoczenie traktowali ją jako oczywiste narzędzie służące umocnieniu władzy i przekonanie to pochodziło nie z tekstów europejskiego marksizmu, ale z doświadczenia i mentalnego ukształtowania sprawców. Stalin używał przemocy, kalkulując na zimno swoje posunięcia, gdyż grę ze śmiercią uważał za element mechanizmu władzy. Jednocześnie Stalin był mordercą, któremu zabijanie i zadawanie bólu sprawiało radość i który wykorzystywał argumenty ideologiczne, zapisane w kanonicznych tekstach teoretyków marksizmu, do tego, by móc na zewnątrz uzasadnić swoje przestępcze decyzje.

Chechens in Kazakhstan after the deportation of Stalin in the years 1944-1957

This topic is a representation of the most important aspects of life on the deportation of Chechens in Kazakhstan in the period from 1944 to 1957. The author also discusses the number of deported Chechens to Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries.

Characteristics of an authoritarian unit (Erich Fromm), with authoritarian personality (Theodor Adorno), with hard personality (Hans Eysenck) and dogmatic (Milton Romeach) and common features for these theoretical constructs

This article addresses the subject of Erich Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Hans Eysenck and Milton Rokeache theory characterizing personality particularly susceptible to the influence of authoritarianism, personality that combat democracy. In its first part there is the characteristics of these personalities, specifically authoritarian units (Erich Fromm), with authoritarian personality, hard personality (Hans Eysenck) and dogmatic (Milton Rozeach). The second part of this article is trying to find common features for these theoretical constructs. Mostly, however, it is a criticism of erroneous (in my opinion) thinking when creating these theories. I noticed that the creators of the majority of them not only describe personality types particularly susceptible to the influence of authoritarianism, but above all they condemn them. In practice, this comes down to attacking the extreme right. However, attention should be paid to several important issues that negate this attitude. With authoritarianism, only the right can be identified. The division of the right/left is not very sharp. In turn, authoritarianism does not always mean a lack of humanitarianism, intolerance, and persecution. Most of the above theoretical constructs indicate, in my opinion, it is wrong that the political features of a person acquire under the influence of the environment, the environment. However, they are not somehow inherited, genetically conditioned. In addition, I think that only a certain, smaller part of society has specific political views. And only among them there is a group of people with authoritarian tendencies. This part of a society that has unspecified political views can be a business – related political option, even authoritarian, if this option provides its benefits. The assumption that the political actions of society result from the internal features of individuals is another point with which it is difficult to (me) agree. In fact, the effectiveness of the ruling team decides.