art and a non stalin like

Stalin fetish?

Stalin would have probably murdered many people for their behaviour and statements in regards to him.
As the article Here points, the recent stalin oriented revival, comes Despite all these 60 years of negative press. Stalin, a guy who was fairly obsessed about ensuring people will not say things he’d disapprove of. is back despite all the years of stuff written “against” him. Stalin, a guy that was obsessed with appearing clean and open and peaceful – despite the violence and brutality that everyone knew characterised his rule – is back even though the truth of blood, death and misery, of lies and indifference is out and in the open like the belly of a dead and mutilated dear.
The body of the nude emperor, Stalin is both dead and nude – yet his zombified being is being fetishised?

Perhaps the urge to fetish is hard to resist?
Perhaps indeed the Fetishisation is in itself a zombie making process? The object needs not be alive, indeed come to think of it the objects of fetish tend to reproduce only via being fetishised. The fetishised shoe, or balloon, or car, or god or indeed stalin – by becoming more than what their emergent properties are, by becoming hyper emergent they are a bit like the cartoon character that could fall any moment had they noticed running in the air. Hence the fetish ignores its own non sustainability. The fetish requires its bearer to believe rather than enquire from outside the fetish’s own sphere.

In that sense, the fetish can seem artistic and have the allure of being a “Dys” – a dysfunctional – entity. However, unlike how art might be, I think fetish dysfunctional ability is either limited and/or folds at the very attempt to question the dysfunctionality. It requires imagining a pretence rather than an ability to imagine the very imagination.

Like a person who might go:
I know stalin was a big time murderer – one of the worst humanity has ever endured – however he is a symbol of times I wish will come back!
That is an plausible, I think, example of a probable “benign” contemporary stalinism. It seem to fold in its own argument, that the nostalgia, the yearning for a dysfunctional memory of certain times Is the focus, not stalin. Hence the stalin fetish is not just a fetish of times that were not, but a symbol that requires fetishisation in order to be linked with these non times. In that sense the fetish is a non symbol of a non entity that is there only because it seems to function rather than Being indeed dysfunctional.
This in ability to Be openly dysfunctional is the interval that transmits corrupted perception between the fetish and the being of possibly art?