1)
Richard Pipes
demolishes the communism
2)
the failure of
the communism
4)
Why does the
moral duty of the anticommunism exist?
5)
The denied
history: the silence in Italy on the communist crimes
6)
The history of the
communist idea in the '900: the interpretation of F. Furet
7)
Left heroes
Max Bruschi
Richard Pipes demolishes the communism
drawn by The Newspaper March 10 th
2003.
The idea of the possible constitution of a
perfect society accompanies the western political thought since its formation.
From her "Republic" of Plato, passing through some heresies medioevali, the "Utopia" of Thomas More and the
elaborations of the enlightenment eighteenth-century, astute right-hand arrives
in the hands of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Where
it assumes, on the wake of the idealism hegeliano
sprinkled of darwinism, even
the scientific crisma of the inevitability. Staying, cammin doing, substantially unchanged in two essential
lines. The first one, the abolition of the private ownership
and the community property. The second, the installation of a
totalitarian regime, appointed to the most narrow
social control, price held acceptable for the construction of a new humanity.
In thing the practical application of the two principles is translated, it is
what it notices.
Nevertheless, the ideal maintains today still
its charm. The same resounding collapse of the regimes of over "iron
curtain" you/he/she has not dragged completely with itself the communist
theory that was the base of it. For the irreducible ones, the indisputable ones
"human errors" I am note solo such, and don't invalidate the goodness
of the principles. In front of such pretension, there is not list of crimes and
corpses that holds.
Richard Pipes, American historian specialized
in Countries of the east, a "palmarès"
enviable to the service of the American administration (from senior George Bush
to Ronald Reagan), he/she takes paper, pen and calamaio
and it shows that so it is not, that the actions of the men were somehow
by-return to the principles. To do him/it, squaderna
the word "communism" in his/her three aspects: an ideal, a program
and a regime established for turning the ideal into reality. The all, in two
hundred pages of bright prose that stings straight to
the firm ground. "Communism. A history"
(Rizzoli, pagg. 236, European 16) part note from the
criticism to the ideal. If Karl Marx had employed 1400 pages of arduous
technical prose to explain, in the "Capital", his/her theory, Pipes
employs an about thirty of it to demolish her/it.
First of all, the mythical age of the gold
which good part of the utopians recalls him (beginning from Esiodo,
chorister of an ancient society in which any man had moved "from the
ashamed desire of profit"), you/he/she is neither more neither less that a
legend, as you/he/she confirms the archaeology. You bubbola
that the communism is a secular version and adjourned of the Christianity
you/he/she is liquidated resorting to the Gospel (Jesus has never insisted on
the poverty; it has him only recommended as mean to facilitate the street of
the salvation) and to the fathers of the Church, unanimously pragmatici in to consider the ownership "moral if used
with wisdom and for thin benevolent."
As for the prophecy marxiana
on the inevitable collapse of the capitalism, is to stretch well you above a
veil. Not only: the communism, admitted and not granted that is a practicable
street, it is by itself inhuman. Because the men, like or
less, they naturally desire to possess. And because the installation of
a communist society, foreseeing the dominion of the community on the single
one, it cancels the inalienable natural rights of it, first among all that of
the liberty of thought, of word, of action. As for the program and to his/her realization, in front of Pipes rubbles are introduced only.
Devastated economies, proliferation of a privileged nomenclature (to the face
of the equality), negation of the human rights.
The attention of the professorial one in Harvard
is not sharpened, however, exclusively on Josip
Stalin. But it points out, for instance, the role of Lenin in the installation
of the Soviet terror and the unconditional approval of Lev Trockij.
The follies of Mao Tse-tung.
The bath of Cambodian blood (as the holocaust was expression of the
quintessence of the nazionalsocialismo, so the
government of the red khmers
represents the purest incarnation of the communism). The sottosviluppo of the third world. Even the Chilean
democratic street to the communism of El Salvador Allende
goes out from there with the broken bones (inflation to the 300 percent, halved
food production...) and the cause of the following installation of the
dictatorship becomes. When then the regime, as in
LOSURDO: I am Domenico
Losurdo and I teach History of the philosophy to the
The historical English Eric J. Hobsbawm attributes a paradoxical confirmation of the
theses of Karl Marx to the exhaustion of the experience of the Soviet
communism. "The productive forms - it said in fact Marx - they are turned
into chains of the same production". Secondo
this theory, when a productive system grows old, it traps the economy and it
determines so the crisis of the social world, that was expression of that
economic model. The crisis of the Soviet economy has produced the end of the
communist world. "The communist attempt produced - he/she writes Hobsbawm - resulted notable, but to elevated and intolerable
human costs and the price to build what at the end an economy is revealed
without results and a political system on which some positive judgment cannot
be expressed. The tragedy of the Revolution of October is in the fact that it
could produce only that type of socialism: merciless, brutal, authoritarian.
"In the failure of the communism you/he/she cannot be forgotten however -
it still says Hobsbawm - that
the Revolution of October produced the most formidable revolutionary movement
organized of the modern history". You his/her world expansion doesn't have
comparisons and, to find in the past a similar element, needs to go up again to
the conquests realized by the Islam in the first century of its history. Hardly
thirty or forty years after the arrival of Lenin to the station Finland of Pietrogrado, a bystander of the humanity was found to
directly live under regimes parties from the ten days that upset the world.
What has you/he/she been the communism for the Nine hundred then? Can the
inheritance of a movement that has involved million of people to every latitude of the planet consist in the past of an
illusion only?
STUDENT:
How symbol of the transmission we have chosen the scythe and the hammer
because mostly they represent and they describe what it was his/her ideal of a
society without classes, without private ownership, in the hands of the
proletariat. These are all theoretical principles because when the communism
has taken the power you/he/she has known tools as the dictatorship, the weapons,
the slaughter. According to You,
is not you/he/she contradicted in the time? Or has not you/he/she been really
this form of degeneration to bring its fall?
LOSURDO: I believe that the communism has
reached the power in Russia without choosing the conditions in which it was
found to live, that is in reality the dictatorship there was already, there was
a military dictatorship, there was the slaughter the slaughter of the First
World war. And the communism has reached the power, in reality, during the
struggle against this slaughter. Naturally it is clear then that the situation
has been characterized by a state of permanent exception, and therefore I have
to say - then the debate we can deepen him/it -, that a vision would be wrong manichea, for which there would be the communism from a
side, synonymous of slaughter and, on the other side, a synonymous liberalism
of liberty. The First World war, with the slaughters
and the totalitarian system that it behaves, you/he/she was produced for the
note by the liberal capitalistic system.
STUDENT: In the
LOSURDO: I fundamentally arrange with what says
you, however meanwhile I have to say that I dissent from the formulation that
we have seen to the beginnings of the great historian English. I don't believe
that the economy has been the conclusive motive for the collapse of the
STUDENT: Up to that point the aspects of the
Soviet economy - and do I report me to the negative consequences that it
brought the communism of war and the same NEP particularly (economic political
New, sees note), that brought to a certain social differentiation, provoking
the to resurface of the class of the richest farmers and the class of
traffickers whose wealth opposed with the way of big part of the urban
population - you/they have been able to contribute to the process of crumbling
of the same Soviet communism?
LOSURDO: I believe that the NEP has been
instead a very positive element. And, to understand this positive element, we
owe present tener that initially the revolution
arouses always excessive enthusiasms. This is not worth only for the Revolution
of October. From this point of view you/he/she could be said that every
revolution, the French Revolution is thought to, curtains to present
himself/herself/themselves as the end of the history as the end of all the
contradictions. And so, initially has happened for the
STUDENT: Also recalling myself one book of Yours, you have set the communism as the end of the racial,
ethnic and social revolts. Do you believe that - using a paradox - is really
because in a certain sense the communism is mostly the democratic expression
that as political experience is had, till now that has caused its end, that is
its too democracy?
LOSURDO: I would say, always contrasting me to
the great historian English, that is wrong to speak of
failure of the communism. The category of the failure, according to me, it is
always a misleading category, not only for the Revolution of October, but for
all the revolutions. Because certainly, for instance, the Giacobinis
in France wanted reintrodurre a sort of ancient
polis, but you/they have produced something of radically different. Or we take
the American Revolution. If we read Jefferson, one of the great protagonists of
this Revolution, see that he/she thinks to a society without polarization of
wealth and poverty, constituted by small agricultural producers, without permanent
army, without strong central power. Today everything I am the
STUDENT: Teacher, can that thing that is dead
communism be defined?
LOSURDO: Meanwhile I am not sure entirely that
I/you/he/she am dead. It is a datum of fact what we
have a country as China; whatever is the judgment that we want to formulate on
this country, it represents a fifth of the humanity and you/he/she is directed
by a party that still continuous to consider him communist. It certainly says
to want to occur again himself/herself/themselves deeply. Here of this datum of
done we owe tener account. As it regards the other
aspect of Your question: what the political-social regime that is developed
beginning from the Revolution of October was, we owe tener
it foresees the indication of Marx, that the men make not the history in
circumstances from them choices, but in circumstances that are objectively
dates. And then, according to me, of an attempt is treated to build a
post-capitalistic society. This attempt has happened in tragic circumstances,
among errors and horrors, however we owe present tener
that, in reality, every process of construction of a new society is also
characterized by the phase of the learning. Perhaps, to this point, to clarify
better this problem, can see a tape that can give us
an idea of the problems that we are facing.
"If I look behind the fifties - with the
time and with the age the things are seen with greater clarity, I have to say
that there was then a great enthusiasm. Young people that built roads in
inaccessible places, intellectual that wanted to create things ever existed
before. A new society, a new man. The building of the
socialism meant the to come true some eternity dream of the humanity, that of
Christ, of Spartaco, de You
French Commune. And that enthusiasm, believes me, it was sincere."
LOSURDO: You see therefore that the usual
representations, according to which the communism would have been synonymous of
oppression, of dictatorship and enough, they are simply ideological representations, they don't correspond to the reality. From
this testimony we see a sincere enthusiasm, a choral enthusiasm in to produce a
new society; certainly this enthusiasm was also born from the horror that the
First World war had produced - the fascism, the Nazism
and the Second World war -, then this enthusiasm has certainly gone as
declining, up to disappear entirely. Why? Partly for the fact that in every
revolution, as to say, to the poetic moment the prosaic phase happens, then in
which needs to face concrete problems, profits to the daily life, partly
because - we don't forget him/it - there has been a terrible cold war, that has
done yes that the difficulties of that countries are increased - not simply for
an inside dynamics, but also for a dynamics day-pupil. It is clear that the
cold war also aimed to make more and more difficult, even impossible, the
attempt of construction of a new society.
STUDENT: the Revolution of October had brought
to a preceding stadium to the dictatorship of the proletariat in how much
anchor there was, in the government car of the
LOSURDO: Today he sustains that, since in Marx
there is the teorizzazione of a transitory phase of
dictatorship of the proletariat, the collapse of the
STUDENT: Well, to the light than he/she affirms
Engels, that that is many movements and political
heads have had in the history a well different objective function from that
that I/you/they are prefigured to subjective level, then how much I weigh
you/he/she could have had the fact that the bolscevichis
have not been aware of the real nature of their real role, in the sense that
while you/they have been trying to create a society of equal, in motion toward
the self-government, they have instead then created a State, a society of
strongly hierarchized, authoritarian and however
centralized.
LOSURDO: As I said before: we always owe tener it foresees the objective conditions. If we consider
the historical period that has gone since 1917 - year of the Revolution of
October - to 1953 - year of the death of Stalin -, we see that the life of the
U.R.S.S. you/he/she is characterized by a state of permanent exception. There
are four, five wars - if we consider together well her all -,
two revolutions there are that of October and then the forced collectivization
of the agriculture. These revolutions are followed then by civil wars. It is
clear that there is a state of permanent exception. The question we can
re-phrase her/it in this other way now: because, after 1953 or in the seventies
the
STUDENT: We said that there is always
difference between the projects of a revolution and that that then he succeeds
to effect. I believe - and this I think that don't concern only the communism,
but you concern all the types of revolutions, above all all
the political parties and the political ideologies - there is always a clean
difference, not among what you/they then succeed in effecting, but among to
think about a common society as the case of the communism, and then to have the
power. That is in the sense that power wears out the minds. This is well-known.
Doesn't he/she think that I/you/he/she am really this
the point, that is that it is difficult, not to effect a communist society, but
is it difficult to govern a communist society?
LOSURDO: You do well to lift the matter of the
power. Power contaminates and, from this point of view, the theory sprung by
Marx for which there would have been the extinction of the State with the end
of the capitalism, has played an ill-omened role, because if the State is
destined to extinguish him there is not the worry to build a democratic State
anymore, there is not the worry to produce a limitation of the power anymore.
Then, from this point of view, the weakness of the theory of
Marx have certainly played a negative role in the historical story. However not assolutizzerei this element.
I said that we cannot understand the contemporary democracy without the
contribution sprung by the Revolution of October. you
Think qual'era the situation about the eve of the
Revolution of October: we had the planet simply dominated by a fist of great
powers, that, within the colonies, they didn't realize certain democracy,
imposed rather native local forms of job to the population compulsory, servile
or semiservili. And the story of the decolonization
is initiated in 1917. The story of the end of the racism is initiated in 1917,
because he/she anchors at that time, racism had even sometimes a positive
connotation, that is the term "racism" you/he/she was used even with
a positive connotation. We can ask even there if the democracy, as you/he/she
is realized in the Nine hundred, can withstand the venir
less than the challenge constituted by the Revolution of October and by the
countries that they recalled him to the Revolution of October. That is I
believe that it is assisted indeed to a sort of ricolonizzazione
of the
STUDENT: If the communism is what you say, as
we can explain therefore the Stalinism and the fact that on the plan of the
foreign politics Russia continued a politics type imperialist however, do we
say as that some czarist period, with the invasion of
near territories?
LOSURDO: Meanwhile we owe present tener that the communists have gone to the power in a
country note as
STUDENT: The communism has been considered from
many one ideal. And as such you/he/she has been brought ahead by many young
people. According to You how come there is not anymore
today this appointment and this passion?
LOSURDO: For the fact that those people who are
opposed to the communism, have achieved a strategic victory. There is no doubt, you/they have achieved a strategic victory. However we owe us us to question if
indeed this strategic victory has a meaning positive univocamente,
if it doesn't also have instead a negative meaning. We assist to the
attempts of dismantlement of the social state. An author as Friedrich August
von Hayek, Nobel Prize of the economy, has been also the economic expert of the
American President Regan, it expressly declares that the economic and social
rights enacted by the O.N.U. I am the result of the ruinous existence - so it
considers her/it - of the Russian Marxist Revolution. And therefore, from this
point of view, we find us in a radically new situation. We have to attend the
developments of the history and not to consider the history already ended.
STUDENT: The relationship between Marx and the
revolution owes to be taken with the dropper however, in how much Marx from
his/her song didn't admit that way of doing revolution, as note has happened in
Russia, considering that a democrat-liberal phase and a development of the
capitalism in Russia there had not been thin after all. In fact the society
Russian Marx if as Asian society considered her/it not a capitalistic society.
For Marx the same revolution owed note to unwind himself/herself/themselves in
operation of a mass in crisis of the capitalistic system. Then for many aspects
Marx and the revolution are not very compatible among them; I think that it
needs to see up to that point this relationship can coexist.
LOSURDO: There is no doubt that Marx has not
thought to a revolution as that that is developed in Russia, because he
thought, in particular way, to the advanced capitalistic countries and he
didn't even think to a revolution that would be developed during a total war,
of a terrible war, of a slaughter, as you/he/she has been the First World war. However I would also be careful to not assolutizzare
this aspect. In reality in Marx they are also there oscillations. We
could say that there are two theories of the revolution Marx. One is that
delivered of it The capital, where it says that all of
a sudden in the advanced capitalistic countries, with the process of
capitalistic concentration, everything assembles him in the hands of few great
monopolists and "it plays - so it is expressed - the time of the
expropriation of the espropriatoris". Here,
therefore, from this point of view, the revolution is as a mechanical trial,
that mechanically comes down from the same process of monopolistic,
capitalistic and monopolistic concentration. However, if You
have it foresees The manifesto of the Communist Party, there Marx develops a
different theory of the revolution. Just at the end de The
manifesto Marx says: "The communists assemble their look especially in
STUDENT: Up to that point thinks that the
principles on which the First Russian Constitution founded him, were principles
that belonged to the communist ideology, correct, and up to that point and
because these principles have not been realized then, true tant'è
that the same constitution was modified?
LOSURDO: As I mentioned before, I don't like
the category of failure of the revolution, and not only for the Revolution of
October. Another category that I don't like is the category of betrayal. While,
according to me, to understand the great revolutions, all of us owe tener it foresees a different category,
that is that of the learning. That is for a verse he/she is known what
he/she is wanted to demolish; he/she is wanted to demolish the ancient regime,
an arrangement that is considered intolerable. For another verse he proceeds
gropingly, in the attempt to build a new society. And then, from this point of
view, there is no doubt that the first constitutional texts of Soviet Russia
are permeated by a whole series of illusions. There is this Messianic vision of
the revolution, which I have made reference, that up to the end the
STUDENT: We am here for asking us how come the
communism is bankrupt, an ideology that has tried to transform the economy, the
ancient czarist formulation, perhaps asking to the
people for something that goes against the same nature of the man. Perhaps it
is unthinkable to think that of the farmers, of the workers, can work for other
people's good, drawing few of it, without not even being able to have the
aspiration, a tomorrow, to be able to manage a proper firm to grow. I for
example know, that the farmers had a piece of ground
of earth on which you/they worked for the country for the Russian people and
another piece of ground on which you/they worked for them. What happened? What
to the farmer it was worthwhile to work on the really small piece of ground
where it drew the nourishment, more than to work and to get tired
himself/herself/themselves on the great piece of ground destined to the public,
from which would have been able then to draw little of it. I become me account
that a new method was looked for, but it perhaps went against the same human
nature, that is some selfish of the type,: "Now
first I eat me and then I make to eat the others". I Think that also for
this is fallen the communism.
LOSURDO: On this I arrange with you. I said
that indeed initially the revolutionary trial - in this case the communist
revolutionary trial - introduces him as a Messianic position. And the Messianic position qual'è?
we Make to disappear every form of private ownership,
so much more than had the regime founded upon the private ownership produced
the horror of the First World war. There is no doubt,
the capitalism had developed a decisive role in the scatenamento
of the war. And here, in this tragic situation, that indeed the same theses of
Marx are subsequently radicalized. It has to disappear the private ownership
every form of private ownership. The thesis of Marx of the extinction of the
State is radicalized also. Because? The First World war
had shown in concrete way that the State worked as a moloch,
he/she forced million and million of citizens to die and to kill. Here then
that, indeed, the Messianic position is subsequently strengthened, end also of
the State. Naturally this whole Messianic position, if initially you/he/she has
also produced the enthusiasm, you/he/she has worked then as a drug. Ended the
effect of this drug, in reality there is a sort of relaxation a sort of
weariness. This has happened. From this point of view I arrange with you. He
certainly treated in reality to combine different forms of ownership. As I said
it is an attempt, that has been brought ahead then with the NEP the combination
of different forms of ownership. Today countries that it sticks recall him to
the socialism - I made the example of
STUDENT: His/her fathers' project founders it
was what you/he/she is ended with the collapse of the
LOSURDO: "Fathers founders" it is an
expression that you/they use above all the Americans to speak, note, of the
protagonists of their revolution. Here, as I said before, among his/her/their
fathers founders of the American Revolution there is
STUDENT: On Internet we have found a site on
Marx, really to recall us his/her work, The capital, in which the author didn't
delineate the new face of the society, however you/he/she pointed out some
ideas you/he/she drives that however they understood the abolition of the
private ownership, the abolition of the division of the society in classes.
Only that the centralizing totalitarian State, that had to represent a phase of
passage, became the last goal of the revolution. There was not anymore then
accordingly the abolition of the State, that Marx prefigured in his/her
work.
LOSURDO: Of the illusion of the extinction of
the State of
Pierluigi Battista
Memory against utopia (You end of the
innocence. Utopia, totalitarianism and communism; interview of Pine cone Baglioni)
drawn by Traces, year XXVII, May 2000
A book that incessantly sets, in
almost obsessive way, questions. Pierluigi Battista
has written him, editorialista de You
Press and author of many wise man. What they try to splinter some
"dogmas" granite of the cultural mentality of our Country. A loyal use of the reason.
In this last book, You
end of the innocence. Utopia, totalitarianism and communism (Marsilio, p. 154, L. 22.000) Baptist ripercorre
the theoretical bases of the conception utopian and perfettistiche
of the XX century, dissezionando above all You city
of the sun of Thomas Campanella. Paradigm,
according to the author, of all that totalitarian regimes that have pretended
to build the heaven in earth, spying, massacring whoever tried to oppose
himself/herself/themselves to that project purificazionista.
What it doesn't foresee, they would say the Christians, sinned original.
Because then who is directly stained or indirectly of that crimes it is
considered still innocent? The history has condemned that regimes, but nobody
allows him to condemn the protagonists.
A practically lost cause in
departure, his.
How does it do him to totally eradicate from the heart of the men the nostalgia
of another? And' comprehensible, then, that look him to those people that directly
or indirectly they have been the protagonists of it, with attitude of respect
and not of sentence.
Yes, culturally mine is a lost cause. Perhaps the chronicle of a lost occasion. However I would
like to clarify that I totally am not immune to the charm of a world other. Esiodo, Humerus, Virgilio, Ovidio, Rabelais, Voltaire has magnificently dreamt and
described not so much one perfect world, how much a fantastically happy world.
What I find repugnant is a certain thought that has given birth to real states
of police, dominated by jails, concentration camps, exterminations of mass,
decimation of whole people and social groups. Society obsessed by the myth of
the cleaning up. It needs to separate the desire of a world other, that certain
it is not lost forever from the conceitedness to build the perfect
society.
Where is the problem? The Urss
is dead and Fidel Castro is not so much good.
The problem is represented by the fact that
what has gone lost forever it is a feeling of shame and reproach of whom, in
name of the Good, you/he/she has allowed that they
were finished incalculable iniquities. Rather, despite the historical criticism
has recorded the failure of the real socialism, the persons
responsible keep on declaring himself/herself/themselves innocent. Innocent
because the idea, the utopian thought they were good and correct. The great
mystification is to keep on dissociating the goodness of an idea from the
wickedness of a realization. To whom would come never
to mind to distinguish the ideal nazionalsocialista
from the real nazionalsocialismo? In this case there
is a total identification between native project and historical realization.
The Nazism is justly considered the historical inveramento
of an Evil Absolute present is in the theory that in the routine. The communism
no: how ironizza Alain De Benoist,
the communism is "a beautiful idea gone to badly". Here, to think
that today the matter is still resolved in this way, it makes indignant me
deeply.
Thanks to which done, which meetings, which
readings, also her one day is discovered not more "innocent" in
comparison to that utopian thought?
I have been a young boy of the '68. But there
has been a moment in which I have felt that the libertarian position was so
sharp, antiautoritaria, of revolt towards the
authority constituted that it animated me, young boy of the time, in comparison
to that ideology of reference, so mournful, mortuary, incarnate in dreadful
states of police, that denied whatever liberty not some liberties,: the liberty
to go out of their Countries, to say, to express him. In short I have warned
this awful contradiction. And year after year, you/he/she has been more and
more gradually clear me, the demand to abandon that parrocchietta
to put me for my account. I had consumed a very strong symbolic patricide
towards my father, a man expressly of right. I also have to say that later,
however, I have never spit, as you/he/she has happened to
many on the Sessantotto. I hold her one it covers
important: thanks to that extraordinary moment I have put in discussion a
series of values that then I have learned to reconsider. Together
with few friends. But what I intend to affirm is that I am not innocent
in comparison to that experience. Nobody is him/it.
Because it feels so strongly for
itself and for the others this demand to declare himself/herself/themselves
guilty towards a world that is liquefied?
Because it was enough little to
realize that he was consuming a tragedy unprecedented. And not to have done it is him/it
guilty. Some curiosity, to read some book. Because
paradoxically those that monopolists of the culture are held, that are held
still such, they are ignorant. Who has been communist after the Sessantotto it is ignorant, it doesn't have any curiosity,
it doesn't have any liking for descriptions that its prejudice doesn't confirm.
They read only what the cultural fashions impose. This people have not even
grazed Archipelago Gulag of Alexander Solzenicyn. Who
has not read this book you/he/she has not understood anything of the twentieth
century. From boy, all of a sudden I have thought,
that to make up for to the Soviet disasters the communism antiautoritario
of
Does this book of his, represent also therefore
an action of justice, an attempt not to make to forget that corpses, considered
dead of serious B in comparison to the victims of the Nazism?
This book tries to get off a conceitedness of
innocence. Is not there then any Spielberg that a Soviet Schindler does? Yet it
would be material of it of disposition. Have we ever asked there, are we ever
imagined as that eighty million of men there they are dead? With that revolvers
planted on the head that shoots, and does it shoot, and does it shoot? The gas
chamber of the Nazi, the crematory ovens give us the idea of the
to melt himself/herself/themselves of that bodies. But have we ever
asked as these others there they are dead? Because they must not be cry, done
remember, because for them there is not any day of the memory? Because who that
corpses you/he/she has provoked them or justified it doesn't make action of
repentance? All this also produces consequences of political nature,
today.
For example?
For example the Heider
case in
An innocence derived by an idea that he is not
able not to hold correct. That of the equality. it is Perhaps right Norberto Bobbio:
it damages equal equality, right liberty and cult of the wealth. She is not
worthier and respectable before?
No. I rebel me to this hierarchy of values.
That idea has given birth to death and it is fallen in the dishonor.
It is not fallen in the dishonor who or you/he/she
has materially completed certain crimes or you/he/she has ideologically
approved them because judged necessary to the construction of a perfect world.
And' what I call the utopian matter: in short I strive him/it of this book, it
is that to try to explain as it was all contained in the good intention the
criminal potentiality, that is historically occurred then in Soviet Union, to
Cuba, in Cambogia, in China. Everywhere,
in short. What makes fear it is the common line that finds again him
both in the Nazism and in the communism: the sterminazionismo
as ideology. And' the idea that on the base of a project of racial or social
purification whole groups had to be eliminated: type biological in a case, type
social in the other. And that this thing included the necessity to strike not
the single. Because there is no more individual guilt.
The guilt is that you are, that exist. And that you
must be eliminates for the solo fact to exist. You are a bourgeois, worths the death. You are a Hebrew, worths
the death. And they come you to look for anywhere, to
rouse. In this obsession of theirs of purification. As the exterminators go to look for the bugs. Well, when it comes me to say: don't forget. Very well: rather when it is
that he starts to remember? To remember all however.
To remember, for example, that the gulags in
Why does
the moral duty of the anticommunism exist?
of Gianni
Baget Bozzo - June 1 st 2000
Because the communism is not dead
with the end of the Soviet empire.
How totalitarian violence is ended in
The managing whole Ds come from the Pci. And they has never said: the Pci has been wrong, the anticommunist ones have always been
right. They say: the Pci has always been antisovietico. And everybody knows that this is not
true.
Yet as much it is the demoniac power of
seduction of the communism, that all believe in this evident lie. This is the
true diabolic ability of the communism: it makes to lie against the known
truth. Not by chance in the encyclical Dominum et Vificantem (1985), Giovanni Paolo according to you/he/she
has pointed out in the communism the sin against the Spirit Saint of which
Jesus has said "you/he/she won't be put again neither in this century
neither in the future."
Paul CAROTENUTO
The denied history: the silence in
drawn by Crooked Wood
The communists will exist until it won't be
made full light on their hidden crimes
You/he/she has received a great share of I
publish the conference that is held in
Two are the objectives pursued in this way. To
forget, to relegate "among parenthesis" experiences that even a
tomorrow you/they can allow to take back a discourse left dormant; to deny,
because in front of the negation of the crimes of the communism, it is simpler
to raise symbols and flags of Lenin or of What Guevara or symbols of death and
humiliation of the fundamental rights of the man and his/her dignity.
The communism has acted in very similar way in
all the Countries in which you/he/she has reached the power, from the Soviet
union to Yugoslavia, from the countries of Europe of the east in Albania, from
those of Soviet Asia to those of Latin America, and you/he/she has almost
always reproduced the same fools that within few years they have ended for hand
of the regimes nazionalsocialisti. But the difference
that has countersigned the communism from the nazionalsocialismo
is in the background lie of which the communism is painted, that also
maintaining its identical destructive strength, it disguised him from redeemer.
For this the communist genocides must have remembered and not
forgotten or hidden as you/he/she is done thin to today. To the dates of
January 27 and now of on February 10, that you/they leave often space to the
rhetoric that accompanies the memory, it is rightful to raise to the same rank
that of November 7, anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution and that you/he/she
has been proposed as Day of the memory of the communist victims (Reminder
Gulag) thanks to the stubborn appointment of the Committees for the Liberties (www.libertates.org),
of which the same Fertilio is president and
founder.
To who holds the anticommunism as a broken
disk, you/he/she has replied Armando De Simone, author with Vincent Nardiello of the appreciated volume of search Clipboard for
a black book of the Italian communism (and. Countercurrent),
that has remembered what the scandal is that you/he/she is perpetrated thin to
today. The true betrayal of the intellectuals is testified really from a
conference as that of
Thin to today some trial you/he/she has not
been finished to the Italian communist Party and this theme yet it is not set
today even it, one period in which rhetorically he does often call to the duty
of the memory. But to which memory he appeals and because this must be pilots,
circumscribed? For this we don't need liars professionals, but of true
communists, those as Massimo Di Alema
that in Soviet Union there has been 47 times; we have need of the Fassinos, that has been secretary of the greatest Italian
communist federation, that of Turin, and that today riformista
is simply defined because to the congress of the Ds you/he/she has remembered
the figure of Bettino Craxi as one of the greatest of
the European socialism. And we want to know where the contained plans of
insurrection are ended in 5 suitcases in green skin, whereas even Sweet
you/he/she has admitted that these plans were organized up to the end of the
years '80. we are talking of attacks to the
constitution, imprescriptible crimes, on which any
judge has wanted to investigate. As everything this you/he/she has been
possible?
This time it is Vincent Nardiello
that the enterprise tries to give an explanation, underlining as the history
has been put to service of a political project, considering that here it
doesn't speak of done interpreted badly, not known or correctly sets, but of
pages that was been expelled completely from the historical debate. Pages that
any historian is picked up he intrigues her/it to tell, as that that he saw Palmiro Togliatti invite to
welcome the titinis as liberators and to realize an
exchange between Gorizia and
Because all this? A first answer is rinvenibile in the fact that a part of the historians was
of fact executives or communist exponents. But alone these were not enough to
bring this impressive work to conclusion mistificatoria.
And here it comes us in help Ernesto Galli of the
Loggia that has recently admitted how much the historians and the moderate
intellectuals are folded up to the will of the communists that you/they didn't
ask him to be communist, but simply not to be anticommunist.
You imagine what you/he/she would be happened,
for instance, if an agent of the CIA had followed Aldo Moro, the secretary of
the biggest Italian party, up to the day before its sequestration. And'
happened, instead, that has been tagged after by an agent of the Kgb as they show the official
documents coming from the files of the
Do sense has reread the history in the attempt
to purify her/it from these unacceptable conditionings that have done therefore
today yes that some truths didn't come to the light? And do sense has declare he/she anchors him anticommunist, today that the
Wall in
Well yes, a similar behavior
is everything a duty, because, as he/she remembers us Giancarlo Lehner, author de You Tragedy of the Italian communists,
the victims of the Pci in Soviet Union (I edit for
the necklace the Wakes of the Mondadori), to be
against the communism is not a political contingency, but it is a principle and
a moral duty. And he/she also remembers that the communism is not fought him/it
with the howled anticommunism but simply telling the facts and seeking the
truth.
After all all it
takes is bringing some present sweet in the book of the journalist and
historian, manager de The Fair trial, to become himself/herself/themselves
account than the job of dissimulation has been enormous produced thin to today:
in a letter sent to his/her command signed by George Bocca,
to the epoch partisan activist, is possible to read his/her disconcertment for
some excesses of communist partisan as those of a commander partisan named
Fortress "specialized to personally kill the fascist prisoners quartering
them to hits of shovel". A Mouth astounded she asked him up to that point
was permissible to arrive. This brave partisan, has not obviously had some
problem for his/her actions, if not a gold medal.
But if once were paid for disinformare,
today teachers are signalled to the left for their embarrassing ignorance. And'
of few days ago an article published on the daily paper her Republic of Tabucchi, as author in fashion and pumped by the
intelligentsia of left, that quietly the luxury is taken to declare that Gramsci was dead in the jail.
And' evident that in front of similar mystifications he/she is also understood because is cleverly kept silent by these "professionals of the lie" the true essence of the pact Molotov-Ribbentrop that in 1939 you/he/she has enacted the birth of the nazi-communist axle and that it started Hitler for the elimination of the Hebrews. It was that breaker that Stalin, in sign of harmony, it allowed him to offer in "gift" to Hitler all the interned Hebrews in the gulags. This is a historical datum, tried, incontestable: the persecution of the Hebrews departed with the approval of Stalin some communists. Undeniable to the point that in the books of history there is no mention some. To the epoch, besides, Hitler didn't owe of certain to appear as a monster from the "red conformists", considering that an ashamed wise man of Palmiro