On Jul 15, 3:46=A0am, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel
messaggionews:61f49976-4f18-48ab-b22f-5=
649252c36f1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jul 14, 11:12 am, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > <jussi.jalo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel
> >
messaggionews:10acf913-f527-4f5d-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,
You started with marking your comments with '-'. Now you dropped even
it so it becomes increasingly difficult to figure out what belongs to
whom. And, as far as I can see, similar thing happens to my postings
as well. I'm going to mark my new stuff with "A" and it will be nice
if you start doing similar thng.
Thanks
> > Communism,
> > was already existing and robust both in theory and practical
applicatio=
ns
> > before Stalin came to power.
> >Some considerations with which you may or may not agree:
> >1. What exactly 'came tro power' stands for?
>
> The time when he was in a comparable position to Hitler.
>
A: Soviet Union was not a direct analogy to Germany so things were not
exactly matching each other. Stalin was a politically powerful figure
as early as the RCW (powerful enough to conduct policy which was going
contrary to one of the Supreme Military Commander and get away with
it). In the early 20's he was one of the top figures in the Bolshevik
establishment even if he was not yet a dictator.
> >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.
>
> Of course. That's why I said that as _a political philosophy_ it already
> existed, _both in theory and in practical applications_. Evidently, if
th=
ey
> were all one and the same, I would not have made those distinctions.
>
A: I don't think that there was anything 'robust' or practical in the
existing philosophy (if Marx' writings could qualify as such) and, as
far as 'practical applications' had been involved, Stalin was one of
the people who shaped these 'applications'. But what is relevant is
that these 'applications' meant very little by the time Stalin was
concentrating power in his hands: Bolshevik leader****p was in a stage
of a social experimenting because existing 'applications' belonged to
a totally different period (civil war).
> > Stalin was not another Party apparatchik, and
> > the end result is that many historians prefer to coin and use a
name-ba=
sed
> > trademark, Stalinism, not to be mixed up with Communism.
A:
> 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.
>
> In fact, I did not espouse it myself. I only pointed out that many
> historians go for it.
>
A: Well, they can go for whatever they want but they, or anybody else,
should start with a definition of what 'communism' means. Unless I see
clear definition of both terms, I can't agree or disagree with the
statement.
> >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.
>
> Indeed, I did not state that Nazism disappeared with the end of Hitler.
I
> stated that after the end of Hitler it had much less life than Communism
> after the end of Stalin, and I stand by that statement.
A:
Nobody argues against that statement because it is obvious truth.
However, I don't see what this truth is suppossed to mean.
>The neo-Nazis are a
> few fringe lunatics, while neo-Communists are in power in several
countri=
es.
A:
Nazism was one of the flavors of fascism just as 'communism' Stalin/
Soviet style was only one of the flavors of <whatever>. The fact that
neo-Nazies and neo-Fascists became relatively rare birds, is to a
great degree thanks to the defeat of the fascist states in WWII and
the following suppression of the fascist movements. Some of these
movements have very little, ideologically, with Hitler.
|
