On Jul 14, 11:12=A0am, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <jussi.jalo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel
messaggionews:10acf913-f527-4f5=
d-b44d-de3799b6da8b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 11 hein=E4, 17:24, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> - By way of further comparison, note how a political philosophy,
Communis=
m,
> was already existing and robust both in theory and practical
applications
> before Stalin came to power.
Some considerations with which you may or may not agree:
1. What exactly 'came tro power' stands for? Stalin was in the top
echelon of power by the time of October Revolution (aka, time when
'practical application' amounted to zero). During the CW he was
powerful enough politically to contradict (quite often successfully)
to Lenin and Trotsky. Hitler's raise to power was faster in the terms
of time but Stalin was not just rank and file either.
2. 'Communism' as a theory created by Marx had nothing to do with the
Bolshevik Revolution and actually was in a serious contradiction with
the realities of this event. Lenin's 'theoretical' writings would not
amount for any solid theory because they were mostly reaction on a
dynamically changing political realities. In other words, there was no
'robust' theory of the communist movement. I'm not sure that any of
the communist movements had any serious theory at any point of time.
4. 'Communist' part appeared in the party name only in 1925, when
Stalin was one of its leaders and the final name had been adopted only
in 1952 so 'Communism', as far as party's name is involved, is pretty
much inseparable from Stalin. The same goes for the member****p: it
became a really mass organization only under Stalin's rule (had
200,000 members in 1918).
> Stalin was not another Party apparatchik, and
> the end result is that many historians prefer to coin and use a
name-base=
d
> trademark, Stalinism, not to be mixed up with Communism.
Taking into an account that nobody can tell for sure what 'Communism'
is suppossed to stay for, this statement may or may not be true,
depending on person's opinion.
> So if you insist, I can even go to the length of saying that OK,
"Nazism"
> might exist without Hitler; all I have to do is to say that on the
contra=
ry
> "Hitlerism" wouldn't, and to apply my stated claims to the latter. With
t=
he
> proviso that, as mentioned, Communism had a life of its own before
Stalin
> and after him.
I'm not sure that 'communism' ever had life of its own as something
existing. The last thing the communist leaders wanted to buld was/is a
'communist society' (not to mention that nobody, including Marx
himself, had any clear idea what it means in practical terms). At some
point, Khruschev made promise to built 'communism' for (then) current
generation. By this time he already had a well-established reputation
of a deranged idiot so this statement simply triggered numerous
political jokes. As soon as it was possible, the whole idea was
quietly killed by the Party leaders. The most daring statement was
'advanced socialism'.
BTW, according to Bazhanov (Secretary of the Politburo), word
"marxist" was used by the members of Politburo as a synonym of an
idiot.
>Nazism, much less, before and after Hitler.
This can be explained by the fact that Nazism was thoroughly defeated
with its active followers being chaced down and taken care of.
However, there _are_ neo-Nazies even now.
|
