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 Togliatti
exists for which the pact was the consequence of the
aggression against
We can continue remembering the history of Mr. Pietro Leoni that it returned in
But there is a historical document that is
worth more than thousand other told histories, that
definitely nails Palmiro Togliatti
to his/her responsibilities. They are departed 50 years of debates, reflections
and clashes among the historians in to establish if
In a document dated
But do the communists exist in still
Well him, the communists still exist and they
still condition the search of the historical truth if it is true that among the
advisors of the parliamentary Committee on the dossier Mitrokhin
there is also Giulietto Chiesa,
correspondent of the unity from the 80 to the 88 that you/he/she was not paid
by his/her newspaper, but from the Committee of the crescent and Soviet red
cross. Paid in substance by Breznev.
Well, Church that three times were paid more than the manager of the Pravda,
with house, automobile, spent for the trips, guaranteed vacations, all to load
of the brave one been Soviet, were the Italian journalist that had to inform
about the Soviet things.
Ahead in a so
illuminating scenery, we hold to be able to close observing the message that
Giancarlo Lehner has launched: the serious job of the
historian is not that to use adjectives or invectives, but to look for data,
documents and facts. This is the principle to follow for the one who wants to
make justice to the truth and the history of our country and that 60 years of
republican history have not been enough to guarantee.
Francesco ROSSIGNOLI
The history of the communist idea in the '900:
the interpretation of F. Furet
drawn by Line Time, March 1998, p. 69s., 107s.
1. introduction
It is very discussed, in consequence of the
change of the programs of history, on the teaching of the history of the XX
century. They have been shown the difficulties that derive from the fact that
those people who have to teach her/it them same they belong, even if still for
few, to this century; they would not be therefore able, or they would be him/it
with a lot of work and notable risks, to complete those syntheses essential,
done of hierarchies and of choices, in which big part of their job of teachers
of history consists in non university circle, there where the manual remains
always also necessary tool if he/she is wanted to give an idea of the whole the
to become historical. The proximity of the time of the facts of which to speak
would make not only such difficult synthesis, but also - according to some,
above all - arbitrary, easily conditioned by options type ideological and
political, such however to have to depend in excessive measure on a soggettivismo that it would not help certain the formation
of the peculiar attitude of the historian, that is that of the search of the
objectivity.
On the subject the debate has been ample and it
is away from the possession reached definitive conclusions. Me however I intend
to show another aspect of difficulty, and that is that
the Nine hundred are not easy to also be taught in our schools for motives for
different character from those chronological and methodological. The Nine
hundred are not easy to be taught because the facts and the ideas that belong
him reveal a historical oneness and an enormousness on
the plan of the consequences (of all the types) that they make him/it to the
unintelligible fund in lack of a suitable interpretative key. We go to talk to
our students of one century that the wars have seen more devastantis,
the most oppressive regimes, the most aberrant ideas of the whole history, and,
let's tell at the same time them of an epoch of unexpected developments, of new
people that become protagonists, of amazing discoveries, of finished
globalization. What to give to everything this sense? And' possible to retrieve
a sense or does it owe us to be satisfied with to examine separate matters
according to an analytical approach that the part exalts but it makes to lose
sight the everything? Is there, in other words, a horizon critically founded in
which to put the different objects that we go to treat?
I believe that a negative answer would condemn
us to a situation of empasse that would not delay to
make to feel its effects on the plan of the didactics. And' also clear, however,
that a positive answer cannot be neither hasty neither approximate. It would
not be able, for example, simply to confine himself/herself/themselves to
recycle criterions of reading employed for other historical moments, even if
readapted. Hobsbawn begins his/her brief Century in
very explicit way: "Nobody can write the history of the XX century equally
in which would write the history of any other epoch". He first of all
attributes this difference to the fact that his/her life with the period in matter.
But its observation is also valid from another point of view: that of 900 is
peculiar history because in it they become protagonists new strengths, that
sink certain their roots in the preceding ages, but that they show their alone
face in this period. Which are these strengths? Because and
as they manifest him? I believe that the teaching of the history in the
last year of the secondary school is not able whether to build him around these
questions, not to give default answers or ultimative,
but not to abdicate the assignment to make object of understanding and
reflection historical once.
The history of the communist idea, served as
François Furet of it The past of an illusion [PdU], that is theme of this relationship, it is - to my
notice - of great interest first of all because it exactly goes to the
direction of a general look to one of the Nine hundred history fundamental
elements, what she is "life" of the communist idea. And' well to
specify that when I say of great interest, I intend to primarily put me on the
plan of the contributions that such work can offer to my job of teacher of High
school, and not to formulate and to develop on it a specific critical judgment
and deepened, that would require very more than I intend me to do. I hold, in other
words, that Furet offers concepts and interpretations
that, naturally they are able, and you/they must be criticize and discussed,
but from which cannot be put aside in the moment in which we want to talk of
history of this century to our students. It is not only the guarantee of
absolute quality of the historical job of Furet to
found this affirmation. And' also the courage that he has had in to write a
great work of synthesis; and a work of synthesis on such a crucial matter as
"burning", still object of political passions and load of lived
personal of many. He/she annotated Renzo de Felice a few times after the publication de The past of an illusion: "For many verses, [the volume
of Furet] the more remarkable and more meaningful
historical work of the last decade can be considered and surely one of the
fundamental works of this century... You Italian historical culture has not
accustomed for the time of Cross anymore and above all of Fox to works of great
breath. The fragmentation of the to know historical and of the search in thin
segments more and more determined by the degeneration of the historiography of
the Annaleses that a lot of diffusion has had in
Italy, you/he/she has substantially prevented that the historians were devoted
to general works of long period. Instead Furet has
given back to us the taste of a great fresco, of a serious and documented
investigation that he/she embraces the last two centuries always fortified by a
clear interpretative element and "Cartesian", that constitutes a strength
budget of the history and the illusions from the French Revolution all fallen
of the wall in Berlin. Also this aspect, only apparently structural, but in
such reality to be invested fundamental aspects, he/she explains the suspicious
attitude of a lot of Italian criticism towards the volume of Furet that, objectively you/he/she has not had the
comparison that deserved, neither near the great public neither, so much less,
in the environment of the employees."
This relative silence fallen on the work of Furet is a further reason to propose her/it. The
"courage" of F. concerns then both the methodological approach and
that contenutistico. Such methodological approach is
- we have seen - irrinunciabile proper to the level
of middle teaching, always that I/you/he/she am wanted
to go out of the preponderance of the particular analysis e/o of the hasty
chronicle of journalistic cut. It needs, in a certain sense, to have the same
courage.
And from the point of view of the
content? I have
said before the touched matter is burning. Easily, when you/he/she has put to
theme, object of serene and objective treatment is not made and they has the
tendency to prevail the slogans, the invectives, the done sentences, the
rhetoric. Just this test that on it you/he/she has been you (and perhaps in
some case there is still) a - use expressions of F. - psychological investment
of enormous course. But it needs that the past footsteps. And' by now essential
that the historical matters are made object of historical discourses, and not
political and so much less judicial. If it is not possible to face in this way
all the stories of our century (also those tied up to the communist idea and
the fascisms), it simply is not possible to do of it and to teach its history.
We now have somehow to realize to the students,
from the historical-philosophical point of view, of the motives that are at the
base of a fact of absolute importance: the fact that this century has seen the
affirmation of ideologies - fascism and communism - that you/they have created
systems able to practice an oppressive power on a boundless number of men, a
power that doesn't have precedents. In effects they are
comparable, if nothing else (but we will see that there is some other), the
tragic consequences that two ideologies have involved on million of people.
Yet - and arrival to the point using me a quotation from a letter of the same
F. to Ernst Nolte of December 1996 - "the fascism and the communism don't
suffer from a comparable disrepute". And' here clear that the word
disrepute must be intended as point of arrival of a historical judgment that,
as such, it doesn't derive from different presuppositions from the analysis of
the nature of the two phenomenons in matters. How
come this objective difference of treatment there is? What origin does it have?
Does it depend on what? If the "disrepute" you/he/she is justly
strengthened for the fascisms, does it owe or no to also understand the
communism? There is in short need of historical analysis of the communist
experience historical analysis that has actually been to these last years carente for various motives.
The same Furet, in
that letter, it gives a trace of answer affirming that the explanation must
first of all be found in the different characters of the two types of ideology.
And' therefore never evident the necessity of a history of the ideologies in
900 and particularly of the communist ideology that is that that has lasted for
a longer time and that you/he/she has involved an enormous number of people on
the whole planet, over whether to have constituted the base of the power in
numerous states.
900 is the century of the ideologies; it is
more precisely the century when ideologies are made history and they make the
history, and in this sense they interest the historian. And' true that is not
only the century of the ideologies. And nevertheless the ideological dimension
is preponderant until over the ¾s of it because it is what it moves the
politics and the masses. And' therefore justified the affirmation of August of
the Walnut-tree according to which "the radically new character of the
contemporary history is to be philosophical history". The philosophical
elaboration of the preceding century, or the
elaboration of the philosophy of the routine finds better, in 900 the men and
the circumstances to become incarnate himself/herself/themselves some
history.
And' for this reason that a book on the history
of the communist idea it is not a book on the theoretical Marxism and his/her
inside differentiations, and not even a history of States communist. And' a
book on a system of thought, but it is more correct to say a faith, that has
made some history his/her term last of action and of verification and that in
the history you/he/she has put his/her an end and you/he/she has found his/her
end.
2. the entry of the
illusion in the history
The communist idea, that had in the history
his/her only beta bench, an illusion is revealed. The sentence doesn't grant
appeals, because it is the same imputed not to recognize a further appeal. It
is not had however to conceive a similar affirmation as the end of a discourse;
it would be superficial and unfair. It is owed her rather to conceive as the
beginning of a reflection on the ability of attraction of an ideology that,
besides involving and to mobilize, masses and personality, are shown more
resistant to the denials that since the beginning the same history has not
missed to pronounce, than the simple word "illusion" you normally
allow to imagine. It would come to say that, among the illusions, it was that
that less he allowed to insert in the category, or also that it was that
illusion that seemed to have the best chances not to be such. But when
you/he/she has come at the end of his/her parable, you/he/she is seen that its
strength was exactly the strength of the illusion. Osserva
Furet that "the illusion doesn't accompany the
communist history: it is constitutive of it" [PdU,
p. 6]. The why some strength of attraction of this illusion
is the true theme of the work and also its originality. It immediately
needs to say, however, that the illusion is not an exclusive of the communism.
It is a dimension inside which also stirs the 900 other great ideology the
fascism. He/she writes Furet that "the fascism,
before venir by his/her own crimes, you/he/she has
been a hope. You/he/she has not only seduced million of men, but also many
intellectuals" [PdU, p. 9]. The
illusion in the XX century ago his/her entry in the history and him ago from
absolute protagonist and not from comprimario.
The political sphere is almost in full occupied by the strength of political
mythologies, becoming so totalizzante. It doesn't
recognize social and individual circle that escapes his/her taking and
therefore it inserts the methods that you/he/she has matured in the modern age,
and that Machiavelli has magistrally enucleated, in a
new context that strengthens them and it transfigures them. Political activity
becomes that is routine soteriologica. Seem me - I
observe of escaped - that this Machiavellism brought
to the extreme flows in the negation of the lesson of the Florentine secretary:
the releasing of the politics from the ethic, that arouses perplexity and
reserves to reason, is able also in positive as unavailability to be translated
to the absorption of the ethic from the politics, in as for this it belongs the
theme of the power not that of the salvation. What it is really what doesn't
happen in the totalitarian systems, power and salvation or rather State and
realization of the human one, are where in inextricable symbiosis.
Colons emerge then key: to) qual
is the historical trial - philosophical that brings the ideologies and
therefore the illusions to the rank of protagonists of the XX century?; b) because communist idea has had a charm and a credit
superior and lasting?
The answer to the first question is retrieved
by Furet in the relationship among French Revolution
and that that he defines "900 revolutionary passion".
answers per second her question it develops him around
a category of primary importance, that I intend to exploit as I spin conductor
to synthetically take back the discourse of Furet: it
is the category of the universal one.
3. The revolution: the man's invention from
himself
The origin of the conceptual universe in which
it stirs the Nine hundred history, over that that of
the eight hundred, is the French Revolution. The communism doesn't make
exception; contrarily it draws from it the legitimation
to I handed as guide of the history. Does Furet speak
of an imaginary devoluzione for which
And' it notices the importance of the studies
and the interpretations of Furet on the French
revolution (cfr. Criticism of the
French Revolution, Laterza, 2 ^ and. 1989). on one side he takes back the analysis of Tocqueville, that
he/she reads the Revolution in continuity with the past being after all the
conclusion of it,: its result is the consolidation and the conclusion of the
process of concentration of the power undertaken by the monarchy according to
the models of the absolutism. You revolution is not a sudden breakup, because it doesn't do what the predominance of the
administrative power to make even more strong on the civil society. It if it
resolves him with the absorption of the society in the state: it is the
tradition absolutist that revives to another level in the moment in which it
comes, in the intentions of the actors of the revolutionary event, denied. On
the other side Furet it doesn't intend at all to deny
the value of historical cesura of the revolution;
rather it intends to determine him/it in all of his/her ampleness. Only that it
must be retrieved on the plan of the routine and the historical conscience.
That is he wonders: because the process of continuity among the Ancien regime and the new one - shown, note, from
Tocqueville - you/he/she has taken the road of the revolution? Because in the
void of power, in which road is made new strengths, it surfaces the true
element of novelty: the ideology or rather a conceptual system and valoriale that it imagines a radically new socialità and that it moves the action of the historical
subjects in sight of his/her realization. Ideology sinks its roots in a
political reality that you/he/she has been seeing for the times of Luigi XIV
interrupted the traditional channels of communication between society and state
and that therefore you/he/she has found in the intellectual dimension the space
of the liberty. And' however - and you/he/she cannot be otherwise - an abstract
liberty: he/she lives in a world founded upon the opinion. The Enlightenment
ones produce opinion not action. But the circumstances that prepare and they
conduct to the 89, particularly the struggles for the election of the deputies
to States General, they settle action opinion,
producing the revolutionary ideology. The term ideology comes therefore to
point out a deep novelty in the self-awareness of the historical subjects; it
in fact it comes to mean that "all the individual problems and all the
moral or intellectual matters are become politics and that there is no human
bad luck that cannot have a political solution"; and that "the action
is everything one with the doctrine and the ethic" [ibidem,
p. 32]. You politics becomes the sphere of the truth
and the forgery of the good and of the evil. The illusion of the politics is
born. The opinion becomes power and becomes him/it in how much united is to the
people, it represents him/it or it is the appeal of it, the voice (to second
that prevails the representative model or the model of
direct democracy). In fact, the central idea of this opinion translated in
action is the equality, which well soon national idea is accompanied. With the
illusion of the politics, it is us in a radically new historical universe. The
politics assumes a dimension totalizzante and
therefore it asks for the whole disposition energies; physics give to the
intellectuals and the spiritual ones. It becomes laicized religious circle and
as such it intends to rewrite ex novo the social contract and to create a new
man. The French revolution has invented a Messianic conception of the politics.
This way Furet explains the essential character of
every revolution and, at the same time, the motive for which the French
revolution is paradigm of every revolution.
4. from the revolution to the revolution
As in the religious attitude there is a
constant awareness of the enemy, that is the evil, that finds in Satan his/her
precise origin and contemporarily mysterious, so it is fundamental for the new
imaginary political the figure of the enemy, of the traitor, of the agent of
the controrivoluzione. For the French revolutionary
ideology it is the aristocratic plot. The figure of the enemy produces the
revolutionary energy, and it is so necessary that is not able not to be us.
Also, the religious attitude, for definition, it asks for a God. Now, treating
himself/herself/itself of a laicized religion and therefore in clean opposition
to the Christianity (the French revolution, in his/her various phases, does it
try to eliminate or to subdue the Church, quantomeno
in the measure in which this was not assimilable to
the revolutionary ideal), that God will give? Which will this secular God be?
The cult of the supreme corporate body is not certain a lasting answer: it is
not after all consistent with the premises, are a
juxtaposition, a heritage of the enlightenment deism more than integral
part of the ideology.
And' the XIX century to give form and figure to
the God of the revolution and his/her enemy. Furet
speaks very more of the according to whether of the first one, because
you/he/she is felt as more concrete; nevertheless we are able to reason to
believe that the first one has, on the philosophical plan, the most greater
importance. God is the history, the enemy is the bourgeois. Furet
doesn't detain him on the way according to which the history takes the place of
God. You treats however, evidently, of the process of immanentizzazione operated by the idealism which is added,
hand by hand that the century advances, God's death. To this point, wanting to
avoid the nihilistic results prophesied by Nietzsche (and what the following
century will show instead inevitable), the history has to also call to harvest
the other sphere in which human activity seems to disclose him to the routine trasformatrice and to the omnipotence of the humanity: the
science. And' exactly the operation that Marxism puts still the announcement nietzschiano into effect: to innervate the contained
Messianic promises in the revolutionary ideology of the certainty and the
objectivity brought in dowry by the science. The history is the only space in
which the destiny of the man plays him. In it the man is able with his/her will
and his to act to escape to the past, and together, it is not the kingdom of
the accidental one, but you/he/she follows a law that has strength of scientificità. In this difficulty match between wish and
science Marxism finds its enormous ability of charm and, to once, its aching
point, origin of its inside heresies. He is not able however to deny that,
cleared away the field by the Christianity, any stronger ideal impetus it was
to disposition.
The XIX century - it was said - it also gives
full life to the enemy of which the revolution, every revolution, has need. The
enemy of an universal event has to be an universal
enemy. Dialectically it always has to accompany the revolution having
antithetical characteristics, just as the evil it opposes him to the good,
allowing him nevertheless to triumph. A great too assignment
for the aristocracy. An enemy of this kind can spring only from an event
of absolute historical course. The event epocale of
the industrial revolution has in itself the historical subject that can dress
again that role. And' the transformation most radical and universal of the
history and it is therefore clear that the social class that is protagonist of
it, the middle class, it is the only one in degree to create a world "to
his/her image and similarity". And him ago through the exploitation of the
proletariat, that is of the only other universal historical subject been born
by the capitalistic economy. And' therefore once more the Marxism to give
development to the idea of revolution, individualizing with clearness the
enemy. But - according to Furet - that the true enemy
pits the bourgeois had already been somehow preoperating
- extreme paradox - from the revolution "bourgeois". He writes:
"The 1793 French giacobinis, held the initiators
of the kingdom of the middle class, they offer the first thick example of bourgeoises that you/they detest the bourgeoises
in name of bourgeois principles" [PdU, p.25]. it shows up her some bourgeois it suffers in fact of a form
of schizophrenia: from a side, curtains to the equality, from the other one
you/he/she is determined by the individualism. it
fights her against the middle class it is always born inside the middle class
and he/she doesn't remain prerogative of the Marxism. Totally every attempt of
construction of a new socialità won't be able not to
see in the bourgeois egoism the fundamental obstacle to that a sum of
individuals becomes body organism. In this they don't differ
fascism and communism.
But in the 800 it misses the historical
circumstance that can give outlet to this revolutionary passion. Contrarily,
the disappointing results of the nineteenth-century revolutions and, for
converges, the progress that the bourgeois systems, also among innumerable
contradictions, they realize and that they start with work to have some
positive rebound on the inferior classes, they cool the revolutionary impetus
and they open the road to hypothesis gradualiste and riformiste. The revolution is always to the agenda; yet it
appears more distant from the reality. The real history seems to recover
himself/herself/themselves a sort of revenge on the form revolutionary mentis,
which is more active than never, but curtains to resemble to the dog that more
he/she barks less he/she succeeds in. Of the two great ideal consecrated by the
French revolution, the equality and the nation, often in dialectics among them,
800 States they do really the second, but not according to the revolutionary
formalities, on the contrary using him/it in sense controrivoluzionario.
It becomes nationalism, that is negation of the
universal one in name of the particular one: nation and revolution separate
him. But same States they don't understand that, really through the
nationalism, the universal one and therefore the revolution they are destined
to take him the revenge. The nationalism, in fact, contributes in essential
way, to determine that event the Great war, that
brings on the scene of the history the revolution.
You understands then
because, also for Furet, that doesn't also affirm
expressly it, the Nine hundred - at least in a certain sense - it starts with
the First world war. And' a war fought in name of the particularism
but it concerns and it involves everybody. He speaks as of it of the
"first democratic war of the history", in how much it strikes the
universality of the citizens. It is continuous: "Enlisting under his/her
flags all the valid men, demanding from the whole supreme sacrifice, the 1914
war has made each of this men, also the humblest,
judge of the social contract" [PdU, p72]. You
war produces to his/her way a democratic conscience, a sense of equality, of
affiliation to a commune destiny. You/he/she has annulled the differences,
you/he/she has torn all from their identity and you/he/she has thrown them in
the great mechanism of the State, which to give the life. Who returns home it
won't be able and he/she won't want to return back anymore; he/she will want to
keep on feeling himself/herself/themselves part and whole collective
protagonist. Its place is the mass. What the Revolution of October bursts
thanks to this war and in this context, ago yes that the idea of revolution
bossily returns to the footlight: the October assumes the inheritance of the
French Revolution and adding to it new lines badges that nientemenos
will make her/it that "mythological moment for excellence of the
history."
5. the myth of
October
And' only the revolution of October that puts
an end to the French revolution. Already in the first part of the Criticism of
the French revolution, meaningfully entitled "You French revolution is
ended", Furet annotated that for the Marxist
historiography it is only the Bolshevism to have full dignity of heir and not
the Third republic. In the second part it observed then that 1917 definitely
consecrates the French revolution as mother of a real event liberator. These
reflections are developed and deepen The past of an
illusion of it. it seems Me that the thread conductor
that connects her is - as above I said - the category of the universal one,
that in fact you/he/she contains the whole ideal baggage that the revolution
French delivery in
We can start then to synthesize how much it
tells Furet the purpose to individualize per second
an answer set question. The charm of the victorious Bolshevism is alive and
powerful from immediately not so much for a real knowledge of what it is, on
the contrary for the fact that it, in the imaginary one of the intellectuals
and of the masses of left, it completes the promise of universal regeneration
of the contained humanity in the event revolution from 1789 in then.
But it doesn't limit him to this. Its
universality is - for so to say - increased and course to a superior level from
its revolt against the war, besides from his to present
himself/herself/themselves greasy of all the crismis
of the scientificità. Science and
peace damage to October the lighthouse promotion and hope of the human kind.
The first one is his/her nineteenth-century root, the
second is its fruit novecentesco. Science and peace
are what the French revolution it didn't possess. You understands
then the strange paradox for which
It has beginning in this way that strange
dualism, that will last, few or so much, actually at the end of the parable of
States communist, for which to speak of Soviet Russia was not after all never
to speak of men and real facts, but always of what that men said of itself or
of what the ideology it allowed to say of that facts. And' perhaps the most greater worth of the work of Furet
the given possession a global explanation and founded of this enormous distance
among real sovietismo and imaginary sovietismo that you/he/she has characterized the historical
culture to western politics. Russia of Lenin is from immediately a symbol,
which more it appears as event of real and historical liberation, more it
results untouchable from the reality and from the history. It enjoys of a sort
of historical impunity: there is and there will be always a justification to
his/her actions, also to the more inconfessabilis.
The halo of universalismo that surrounds her/it is a
pre-emptive guarantee on the goodness of its future history, a so strong
guarantee to make her/it worthy of a boundless credit. For this Furet you/he/she can write that the Russian revolution is
less universal, but more universalizzabiles of the
French revolution; and what to be communist by now doesn't mean so much Marxist
being, whether to believe in the Marxism represented from
6. the new
relationship of the communist idea with the universal one: Stalin
The incontestable test of this intoccabilità of the idea communist become history is what
you/he/she has been Stalin in the mind of the admirers of
The role of guide in the process of liberation
of the humanity, delivered not to the Bolshevism from the real history but from
the history that you/he/she is made God in the world of the ideology, universal
role for excellence, doesn't come less when Stalin proclaims the
"socialism in an only country". Rather, from such program the universalismo is subsequently increased. And' enough to contrive
the opportune hypotheses to hoc, that is not born however from the anything,
but you/they can be formulated drawing to the boundless conceptual universe of
the French revolution. Enough - it observes Furet -
to return to the mental scheme giacobino of the
country elected by the history, bridegroom secular
To universalismo made
of peace and science, Stalin adds the idea of chosen nation completing a
logical-historical miracle,: to strengthen of fact the
particular one to ideologically strengthen the universal one. The party is by
now an atheistic theocracy and the parties in West I am alone its longa manus. But it doesn't limit him to this. From the
repertoire giacobino also emerges the cult of the
almighty wish, able to transform the man and the world. In this the
collectivization of the countries and the quinquennial
plans find their ideal base, that makes them
operations worthy of respectful admiration. Certainly - it will feel him often
say then - they have their human costs, but which great renewing work of the
human wish doesn't it have them? Rather, such costs reenter
in the rationality of the court of the history, because the history is not able
that to make plaza cleaning up of whom opposes to its
conquests. And the enemy of the history - figure, as we know, essential for the
ideology - it is there, well identifiable: Trotzsky
before, the kulakis then; or better, the trotskysmo and the allied kulakis
in an only conspiracy in attended that Hitler becomes part of the company, that
naturally has a collective name: capitalism.
A mixture springs of it made of peace, science,
nation, wish and hate of the enemy. An intoxicating mixture, made still
stronger from the due depression to the big crash of Wall street.
A formidable cocktail, that makes to lose lucidity to
the brains, that he/she anesthetizes them making them incapable of
judgment.
The terrible years thirty, the years of the
Terror stalinianos, are prepared to become formidable
years for the communist idea.
7. the last
ingredient: the antifascismo
If the attraction of the communism is obviously
motto and invincible for the activist, and if its ingredients also make hit on
the intellectuals that cultivate one some form of socialism humanist, it is not
however he/she anchors able to get one flood of his "bourgeois
credibility". Not that - we know him/it - is totally of it deprived
(you/he/she has not perhaps been delivered her by the culture of it damages the
witness of the French revolution?), but does it still miss a grip in the
concreteness of the history that constitutes incontestable test. It owes
another ideological miracle to happen that allows the enemy juror of the
capitalism and that superstructure of the capitalism that is the democracy
(bourgeois, beninteso), to be recognized as allied
and even defender of the capitalism and the democracy. And' a great too miracle
and out of the course of any ideological stunt; to realize need of the history
is had, that true, and of the two maximum terrestrial divinities of the
history: Stalin and Hitler. In other words, the communism receives from the
fascism (and it is clear that for the time being it doesn't distinguish him
between fascism and Nazism) a new cultural dimension and politics, that it
definitely consecrates the universality of it. Among the many crimes of the
fascism - it suggests us Furet - there is also that
to have given the licence of defender of the liberty to a regime that nothing
had to envy him in terms of illibertà.
And' to this point of the analysis that Furet is inserted in that fundamental seam storiografico that could be defined "comparativista", in how much it intends to read in
parallel the ideological aspects and the historical developments of the great
illiberal systems of the first halves the Nine hundred. And' an approach that
has a history of decades in the non Italian culture, but that from us it
substantially appears new and fundamentally unknown. A recent article of the Corriere della Sera remembered
the delay in the translation or even her not publication of some fundamental
works of this seam, besides the hostility with which you/they were welcomed.
The censorship of the key concept of totalitarianism or his/her manipulation
(everything more al could be spoken to the postwar
period, after the non communist antifascismo had been
largely marginalized, of fascist totalitarianism and Christian Democratic
totalitarianism) it is eloquent sign of the cultural distorsion
that is to the origin of many historical studies and also of many manuals, and
from which are not immune yet. The same article commented with an affirmation
that would be obvious even if it didn't reassume what has been a real scandal
for the clergymen of the ideology for many years: "The comparative study
of the totalitarian regimes - and of their apparatuses of terror - it is
essential to the 900 understanding."
And' this one key point also in didactic terms
and it is therefore another element that the volume of Furet
makes for the teacher of history extremely interesting.
Also Furet considers irrinunciabile the concept of totalitarianism and shows
that it among the two wars is employed already for pointing out a type of
regime ever seen before, even if it doesn't have the precision that will give
her the Arendt and the others on his/her wake. It is
in short already you the perception that is seen there something with fascism
and communism of radically new, inexplicable with the traditional categories storiografiche. The power of a despot but the power of a
State it is not alone that checks every aspect of the individual and in
partnership life. But is qual the method to follow
for effecting this comparative analysis and therefore to determine with
precision this novelty that unites the two contrasted systems? Furet believes that "the genealogical approach is more
interesting than the structural comparison", because he/she remains more
tied to the circumstances in which the regimes in matter are developed, allowing
so to show the relationship between their nature and such circumstances. It
sets therefore a lot of attention to the chronological datum, without however
that it turns him into causal datum. This is what it differentiates in rather
clean way the comparativismo of Furet
from that of Nolte.
Consequently to such formulation, Furet individualizes an origin, a mother of these brothers
or stepbrothers that are the totalitarianisms. And' the Great war: "Bolshevism and fascism are born from the same
ground the war. They move to the politics the teaching had in trench: the habit
to the violence, the simplicity of the deep passions, the individual's
subjugation to the collective, finally the bitterness of the useless sacrifices
and betrayed" [PdU, p. 192]. From here it is
possible to continue in the comparison taking in examination two couples: Lenin
and Mussolini before, Stalin and Hitler then.
Mussolini and Lenin are both rooted ones in the
revolutionary socialism; the revolution is theirs I believe and it is him/it in
its form more radical, to the point to be been able to not at all speak of neoblanquismo of the first Mussolini away from the
Bolshevism. Furet doesn't read then the sudden
passage of the same Mussolini from the pacifism to the interventismo
as a denial of the revolutionary idea; contrarily he/she sees him/it, how the
attempt of the future leader to introduce him in the furrow of the
revolutionary tide of the Risorgimento, wanting so to conjugate revolution and
national idea. This match, lowered in the war and from it forged it produces
the fascism. And' therefore clear that Furet places
to full title in that position storiografica, whose
principal exponent is Renzo De Felice,
that the fascism considers not as a reactionary, on the contrary revolutionary
phenomenon. Also the enemy of the fascism I am the parliamentarism,
the plutocratic democracies, the middle class; also for the fascism the history
is made of conflicts, from strength's relationships between collective subjects
and the state by law it is a coverage of the power. The war has taught to the
fascism to interpret the politics as it fights without boundaries against the
enemy and to cultivate the cult of the violence. What it wants to realize it is
not at all a some return to the past, but - as the
Bolshevism - the new man: it is everything projected to the future. He/she
writes Furet: "The passions aroused by the
fascist activist are not the same that it invokes the Bolshevism, but they are
of the same nature. To the place of the social equality there is the country reinventata as a community utopia... As for the means, the
recommended ones or used by the fascist movement they are already present in
the Bolshevik arsenal: if they serve to the cause, they are all good ones"
[PdU, p. 203]. The fascism, in other words, he/she
wants to put not the revolution to the service of the universal one, but of the
particular one, the nation; hands in gift to the right the revolution. This
creation of a revolutionary right is what he/she explains the oneness of the
fascism and whole what it connects him/it to the Leninism: their common faith
is through the transformation of the world the action. more:
the fascism, at least in the reading gentiliana, is
set as a further revolution to that Marxist; more complete revolution, in how
much more in degree to realize the coincidence between theory and routine,
thought and action. What then the regime is imposed thanks to the parties
"bourgeois" and has not succeeded in effecting a finished totalitarianism,
seeking alliances and compromises, this is explainable with the specificity of
the Italian situation. For what it concerns our discourse he/she remains that
faith in the effectiveness "redeeming" of the revolution.
But what Lenin and Mussolini preannounce is
suited to conclusion by Stalin and by Hitler. A certain antifascismo
doesn't know how to explain because these two men, and these two men, have
created only such a repressive system to be caused the death of million of
people. Not that the fact is fully explainable; he/she remains always also a
puzzling demonstration of the mystery of the evil. He/she knows only how to
stop himself/herself/themselves on how much it concerns Hitler remaining more
clearly in embarrassment in front of Stalin. Yet the first one given by this
point of view, and that is the homicide of mass, is given common, as they is in
good part common the means with which you/he/she has been perpetrated. The 1984
of Orwell is reality many decades before.
Both ideologies promise the salvation in the
history. Hitler is - in the vision of Furet -
"pure ideologist": it says and he/she writes from immediately what
will do. The fact is that million of people give him their consent, because
he/she knows them to represent in their fears and in their need to have an
enemy. Also him as Mussolini, exalt the particular one; but its nationalism has
something in more, the race, that becomes the latch to make the universal
detail. The destruction of the omnipresent Jewish conspiracy and the predominance
on the inferior races found, in the perspective nazionalsocialista,
the universal role of the Aryan man. The racist universalismo
ripercorre the schemes of the Bolshevik universalismo of class (stamping him as Jewish creation, as
much as the western capitalism) and more it is
contrasted to it, more it resembles him. They have a same enemy: the western
democracies and their purposes last is determined by
the ideology. You notion that more it opposes him to the
universal one, the race, it becomes away toward an aberrant universal.
This way Nazism and Bolshevism are trained to practice that attraction that
only the universal one gives. In to contrast him, they feed him. But to go out
victorious will be the communist idea of it.
You now deals with
understanding as. The crisis of the capitalism determined by the collapse of
Wall contemporary street to the forced
industrialization of the quinquennial plans of
Stalin, had given already a certain advantage to the communist system. And'
perhaps this the only moment in which he believes indeed that the collectivism
is tightly also superior to the economy of market on the economic plan. But the
latch that opens the doors to Stalin in the democratic world is the antifascismo. You opposition with Hitler is played in fact
from him, tool the Comintern,
cleverly combining two different interpretations of the Nazism and the fascism.
The first one is that - we say - orthodox, that sees that is the fascism as a
superstructure of the middle class, the actual form of the dominion of the
middle class in some European countries; the second, less orthodox but a great
deal more profit, is that that has the tendency to distinguish, in the non
communist universe, diversified political subjectivity; in other words to
otherwise judge the states capitalistic democrats and the fascist capitalistic
states. And' clear that this last set problems of theoretical order all
anything else other than negligible. But, being more correspondent
to the reality, was lent better to the Realpolitik.
And' therefore the passage to this from that to constitute a decisive
historical turn. And' a passage determined by the international demands of
Only the racism hitleriano
could add something, for contrast, to the pretension of democratic universalismo of the communist idea. You/he/she has opened
the road that conducts to believe synonymous antifascismo
and democracy. He/she writes Furet: "Thanks to
the antifascismo the communists have purchased merit
democratic without after all nothing to abandon of their convictions... You
Russian revolution, thanks to the Nazism, you/he/she has found again the way to
enrich his/her own universality really when it is more Asian that never" [PdU, pp. 258-259]. two pigeons with a fava:
the acquisition of a democratic credibility ("demonizzando
the communism and designating him/it as the enemy for excellence, Hitler it
signals him/it to the friendship of the democrats; Hitler pushes USSR in the
field of the liberties: it is a revolutionary democracy" [PdU, p. 272]) and a sort of coverage for his/her crimes: is
not the struggle justified against perhaps the enemies of the revolution,
against the hitlero-trotzskismo? you/he/she
has not consecrated once and for all perhaps her Robespierre? The war of
I want to again underline the ability of Furet to know how to explain, in way I believe unpublished
or however with a rare esaustività, if not only, this
extraordinary dowry of the communism to know how to present not
himself/herself/themselves for what is, on the contrary for what says to be,
and the anchor most unbelievable ability to make himself/herself/themselves
believe from million of people. He/she succeeds in this eccentric coincidentia oppositorum because
alive in two dimensions: over that in the real world, alive in the world of the
ideas. And' real, but he/she wants to stay an utopia.
It has then to hide his/her reality. The game succeeds in the best some ways,
also helped to combine him some historical events. The ideological nature of
the contemporary history is more evident than never. The society that derives
from the philosophy of the routine is that that has more need of every other of
the separation between theory and practice. Foreground exponents of the culture
of French left have the opportunity, invited, to complete trips to the
Of all the ingredients of the Bolshevik universalismo the antifascismo is
that preponderant now. It allows to maintain and to strengthen the communist
identity and, at the same time, to furnish her/it of a democratic substance.
This makes the measure than it has been put in danger by the accord Molotov-Ribbentrop of the '39. In an only time they risk to
disappear two of his/her essential elements above listed, the peace and the
same flag of the antifascismo. Not that the risk is
not calculated and it doesn't even deal with an absolute novelty. The struggle
against Europe of Versailles was 1933 anterior Stalinist repertoire part and
Now two great totalitarianisms are also
symmetrical in the time and in the space. He/she knows something
What, after all, reality is stronger than the
ideology, you/he/she is shown by the fact that the ideological virginity,
repurchased really thanks to that lover that had so brutally made her lose,
show not to have way out if not contaminating himself/herself/itself with a
feeling that can twist her/it because part of the old repertoire prerivoluzionario: the nationalism. The particular one, in
the famous appeal to the country of Stalin of July 3, it goes to help of the
universal one. Only the depth Russian patriotism can give the energies to save
the country; and ideology is safe only if the country saves him. The
"double channel" on which stirs the communist idea you/he/she is
restored and the contrary ones can keep on subsisting without succumbs what has
existence solo theoretical; rather, the ideological channel decants in itself
what is able from the channel of the historical reality; and what is not able
does him/it disappear. The fact is that it is able very more this time risucchiare than you/he/she could not do before. The
sacrifice is enormous, Stalingrado is event of
decisive importance for the fates of the war, the
contribution to the defeat of the Nazism it is fundamental.
A world war had created the conditions for the
victory of the Bolshevism; another world war brings him/it to the footlight of
the history. And' now stronger than never, ideologically and politically. And'
strong and the luxury allows him to represent the liberty, just now that the
power of Stalin is still more absolute. Russian people has
saved himself and
What has of good person, and is not the antifascismo, represented that is already to the pure state
by the communist idea? He/she returns with a strength
of persuasion enormously the identification, that doesn't have historical
comparison in the war stories increased, true antifascismo=comunismo, and that is the approach true
democracy-communism. If for well twice in the turn of about ten years one of
the most repressive systems ever existed the licence of democrat or quantomeno are earned of I don't cross to the democracy,
and if this has happened thanks to the opposition to a system with which shared
as after all he/she was thought, it needs that, for the communist idea, the
fascism continues in one some way to exist for being able to live of it of
income. It needs to do a permanent danger of it, a constant enemy, almost a
wicked metaphysical essence, the quintessence of the evil of the history, which
after all to also attribute his/her own crimes, as if
his were not enough. That that had been a secular
faith for many, in way entirely analogous to the faith in the communism,
becomes also taboo for the historical treatment: there is not more nothing to
be said of different from the official historiography, if he/she is not wanted
to be stamped of criptofascismo. The history is
already writing.
But the fact is that the end of the fascism is
not (unfortunately) the end of the secular faiths. One have
remained of it, only triumphant. The history, perhaps for the first time, it
seems to confirm the ideology that already from one century it knew the meaning
and the direction of it. Thin to you/he/she had now persisted (the history) not
to obey to his/her laws. Now it finally appears convinced. You delay better
that never. The charm of the idea, that is a pendulum that oscillates between
the affirmation of the wish and the necessity of the science, turns toward the
necessity.
8. the decline
The avenue of the sunset starts before the
expectation for the triumphant idea. You/he/she has known how to unite, winning
the Nazism, nation and revolution, particular and universal, that is - it
confirms Furet - the two great political passions of
the democracy of the XX century. But really victory brings with itself the
germs of a new and sharp contrast between idea and reality. Simplifying,
you/he/she can be said that the idea, more and more universal and attractive,
it establishes him in western Europe, while reality
shows its hard face in oriental
The west begins to recover
himself/herself/themselves and is prepared to flourish with the money and the
American protection; yet a wide slice of the intellectual world doesn't marry
the American dream, that also has one ability of his
of attraction and one universalismo of his. It is not
alone - as him it is few above noticed - for the refusal of the capitalism. Furet adds another reason that the punishment is worth to
underline, and that is the fact that American idealism is, despite everything,
too soaked with Christianity to be approved from the children of a revolution,
what that French is, that wants to replace the Christian faith with the faith
"democratic". You American democracy has a different genetic code,
certain not radically different, but enough not to arouse the same enthusiasms
"religious" that it arouses the politics instead as you/he/she is
thought and lived beginning from the French revolution. The politics, in the
horizon mental and psychological
The problem is that its universality is
concretized in the creation of an empire. For which motive it is a problem?
Because in an universal and national empire they are not more compatible; or I
am better it for the one who he/she doesn't live in the empire and you/he/she
can keep then on flying in the sky of the idea,; they are not able however to
be him/it for the one whom is yes communist, but in the empire us alive. The
universality gotten with the weapons doesn't fit with the universality of the
idea. In this sense - according to Furet - the tear
of Tito, strong of the results gotten on the ground against the Nazism, it has
a great symbolic value: idea doesn't have an only country anymore. And' a
capital event, because it marks the beginning of the pressure of the reality on
the idea. it doesn't need nevertheless to forget that
the clash happens in name of the idea: "The discourse antisovietico
in Soviet language will constitute after Tito a real kind in the repertoire of
the revolutionary passion" [PdU, p. 456].
If in the empire idea starts to go against
herself and is difficult to reconcile the incompatible one more and more, out
of the empire it, really because you/he/she is not applied, alive years of
shine, confirming that the best of itself gives how much more it is distant
from its realization. In
But it is the secret relationship of Kruscev that upsets the status of the idea. And' together
however the extreme attempt to save her/it. It upsets her, because the report
originates from the heart of the communist world and not from him
"imperialists"; it saves her/it (or it tries to do him/it) because,
acting in contropiede, it makes still the more
universal idea in how much the critical monopoly attributes even her: the
criticism of the idea can be only self-criticism. Stalin, with the "cult
of the personality", you/he/she has betrayed Lenin; wish has suffocated
the science. The return to Lenin, maintaining the structures of the regime staliniano, a stunt it appears destined to be successful.
The serious fact, however, is that the ingredients of the idea, until now
miraculously integrated, they begin to appear incompatible. He/she writes Furet: "Stalin has been too much to the center of the communist movement because is simply possible
to clear him of it... his/her heirs, companions or you give birth unfaithful,
you/they cannot kill him/it without making himself/herself/themselves some
evil" [PdU, p. 506]. to
Strike the man without striking the idea is lately an impossible operation. The
distance among idea and reality, that it is the key of the success of the
communism, is annulled in the report of Stalin; the category of the "cult
of the personality", over how fragile, it is incapable to welcome everything
the negative for which has been coined. Is it perhaps able the people leader of
the History to fall victim of an any tyrant?
Idea starts to slowly melt
himself/herself/themselves: he/she doesn't succeed in holding him distant from
the reality anymore. It tries to recycle him with a new ingredient, the destalinizzazione, but it gets the opposite effect: from
the outskirts of the empire the rebellions and the insurrections start. Its
universality progressively comes less:
The relationship Kruscev
doesn't upset the system but the idea; to maintain a Stalinist system goes
against the Stalinism. There are not therefore deep breakups
in the Soviet politics. Some opposition but the solo fact is not born to put an
end to the terror of mass it arouses the sense that a new season he is opening.
Furet pushes him to say that Soviet power is less
totalitarian, because the destalinizzazione needs a
small opening of liberty for the intelligentsia. it
doesn't mean certain that there am freedom of speech - it testifies him/it to
it "scandal Pasternak" -, but, if nothing else, Pasternak is still
alive, and it is not a meaningless progress. It begins the movement - all
anything else other than unitary and compact - of the dissidents. The same word
tells him/it: those people who have different ideas. Just what idea cannot bear. This way, not having the right anymore to the
pre-emptive justification of all of this that is taken place in his/her name,
the ideology it becomes the coverage to the power of a caste (the apparatus);
and more it strengthens him/it, less it is able of to be still convincing. We
are to the age of Breznev. It concludes Furet: "It begins in West the funeral of the communist
idea, that will last thirty years. Sarà followed by an
immense crowd in tears. To the procession they will participate even the young
generations, looking for here and there of to make to appear him/it as a
rebirth" [PdU, p. 542].
Communist idea would need new air, to release
himself/herself/themselves from the Russian territory, his/her fortune, but now
his/her cemetery. It tries to recycle him as it conceives universal through the
process of decolonization, but in so distant and complex situations it waters
his/her identity; it seems to rejuvenate with Mao, but the Maoism succeeds to
the more to seduce only clasped student circles (it is a "I tread antisovietico of the sovietismo",
a' "illusion on the illusion" [PdU, p.
545]); a Latin face is given with Castro and the "That", but it loses
in purity and austerity to offer utopias pauperistiche
to the children of the rich westerners. Nothing of this will succeed to resuscitarla. The student confrontation contains all these
versions of the idea, but "the imagination to the power" tool of
report of the way of bourgeois life makes only her; you/he/she cannot be
positive model anymore.
The communist parties try to save the savable one: it opens the phase of the I
distinguish, of the "it is true, but", of the "however
You/he/she can be said that to this point it
knows a new possibility of universality, embodied by many heirs of the '68;
that constituted by the prohibition to be anticommunist, as the communism - by
now anything means - it points out the direction of the progress. This
condition allows - last (perhaps) "miracle" ideological-historical -
to be from the part of the revolution and at the same time perfectly integrated
in the system. He/she writes Furet: "The most consistent
inheritance of the facts happened to the Sorbona, to
the free university in
It concludes Furet:
"And' as him same to ever close him the greatest open road in fact of
social happiness to the imagination of the modern man" [PdU, p. 559]. But it adds, immediately later, that this
failure doesn't concern only the believers or the sympathizers of the idea. it Concerns somehow everybody because it sets in discussion
the existence of an immanent sense of the history. Someone comes even to speak
of end of the history. The fact is that - as above noticed - in the XIX century
the history had taken the place of God. Done die with the ideologies this idol,
what does he/she remain? Furet
doesn't believe that can be borne for a long time this situation. It belongs to
the democracy the demand of a different society. Communist idea could also
return in different forms. The fact remains that in this epoch ideological post
only dominant ideology is the nihilism.
UNDERLINES FOR THE DIDACTICS IT IS THE
PLANNING
" If "nobody can write the history
of the XX century equally in which would write the history of any other
epoch", then nobody can teach the history of the XX century equally in
which would teach the history of any other epoch. For two motives: 1) the
chronological proximity personally involves: this, that
can be a danger (of ideological distorsion),
you/he/she can become a resource. You can profitably make lever, to arouse
interest or to introduce a matter, on the memory (of the elderly ones, of whom
has had the opportunity of living in first person done recent, etc.), valorizing in such way the dimension of the testimony;
documentary material of different nature can be employed (the daily paper, the
magazines, the photos, the tapes...); 2) the history of our century has one
oneness of his: it is not legible if not through a new and deep ermeneutica.
" The necessary job of analysis doesn't
have to exhaust the teaching; it is as many necessary the synthesis. The
student has to be able to understand what the carrying lines of the history of
the XX are century and its connections with the preceding centuries.
" "The radically new character of the
contemporary history is to be philosophical history". In to teach the Nine
hundred history it is essential the reference to the philosophy. From Hegel in
before the history it is more than the history: it is the to
make himself/herself/themselves of the absolute one. Her totalitarian
ideologies are somehow debtors of the hegelismo. What
is unique in the history of the XX century it is not the need of salvation of
the man but the based routine on the idea that the answer to it is the history;
particularly, the subject prince of the history: the State.
" The comparative approach to the two (or
three) great totalitarian systems you/he/she is historically founded and more
exhaustive than other approaches. The category of totalitarianism is by now irrinunciabile. The comparison can be type genetic
structural e/o. This approach has the advantage both of the analysis and of the
synthesis.
The dialectics between totalitarianism and
democracy must " also be focused, to avoid both the indifferentismo
(the two doesn't have in fact the same nature) both it "schematismo astorico" (also
in the democratic system you/they can be present the germs of the
totalitarianism, even in unpublished forms;
possible perci - the history shows him/it -
the passage from the democracy to the totalitarianism). In this way the student
becomes aware of the value and of the risks of the democracy.
" The treatment and the understanding of
the history of the idea and the communist regimes it is late objectively.
Without filling him/it the Nine hundred teaching it is monco
and deformed. Communist idea has also conditioned in depth our national culture
and our historical self-awareness.
LEFT HEROES
dollied of comunist
characters more known object of
unjustified cult
ERNESTO "CHE" GUEVARA
Ernesto Guevara is said the "CHE",
for his habit to pronounce this brief word in mean to every discourse of his, a
kind of that is.
Should The history be
objective you don't believe? In reality some aspects of the contemporary
History come for a long time distorted and suited for the ideological
convictions of whom treats them. In a country as ours
that is defined Antifascist (but not evidently Anticommunist...) certain
aspects "uncomfortable" of the Communism they are ignored for a long
time. The History is full of it: the massacres of the Foibes,
the massacres of the 20.000 Italian soldiers in the Gulags Sovietici
on order of Togliatti etc.
I want to begin the treatment of these events
from what is me more darling: the myth of the
"CHE". You history of Ernesto Guevara perhaps represents the greatest
historical forgery ever verified him. All know the history "official"
of Guevara. Who has felt never to speak of the "revolutionary poet? " Of the "physician
idealist"? But who of you it knows the real deeds of this
"hero?"
In the 1956 Guevara it knows Castro in
Once upset the government of Batiste, which
would like to impose from immediately a communist revolution, but it ends with
to authentically encounter himself/herself/themselves with some companions of
his of weapons democrats. Theater submitted him the I entrust of attorney in the jail of the Cabana and it
is him to decide the questions of grace. Under his/her control that jail became
theater of numerous executions, ex-companions of
weapons democrats.
Not everybody knows that the "field of
job" of Guahana (during the second
world war they had other names...) you/he/she was founded on express
train desire that That. Doesn't it seem
you to see in Ernesto CHE Guevara the same hate that there was in characters as
Himmler?
To make
to understand you what "good" feelings animated this symbol with
which to decorate the shirts and flags quotes its will in which he praises
" l 'hate that the man makes an effectiveness, violent, selective and cold
car to kill."
Are they these the words of an idealist? Of a friend of the people? If him, which people? Only who
was of accord with him?
Whether not to remember that one of the friends
and students of which has been Dèsirè Kabila, actual dictator of Congo, more times accused for
the massacre of Civilians! Don't speak of the hypocrisy proper of Guevara (as
after all of many others as him...). While the mouth of beautiful words was filled on as him broke up the money, lived in a
district residential de you
I now ask you: how does it do him to take as
example a person this way? Possible that there are thousand of person (probably
unaware of the truth) that they show off shirts with his face???? In those
flags and shirts there is an only corrected thing: the color.
Red as the blood that has been shed for his/her guilt. All these facts are drawn
by the "black Book of the communism."
LENIN NIKOLAY
GUILTY OF GENOCIDE.
Idol, one of the fathers of the
communism, still today osannato from the red. ASSASSIN!
Since 1920 his "decosacchizzazione"
it broadly corresponds to the definition of genocide: a whole population to
strong territorial base, the cosacchis, were
exterminated in how much such, the men were shot, the women, the old ones and
the deported children, the countries shaved to the ground or delivered not cosacchi to new occupants.
August 10 th
1918. Telegram of Lenin to the executive Committee of the
Soviet of Penza.
"Companions! The insurrection of the kulaks in
your districts has to be smothered without pity. The affairs of the whole
revolution demand him/it, because by now the final battle starts against
everywhere the kulaks. It needs to give an example. 1) to hang (and I say to
hang so that all sees) not less than 1000 kulak, ricconi,
known succhiasague 2) to Publish its names 3) to
Appropriate some wheat. You do so so that all sees
him/it and trembles and thinks: these kill and they will continue to kill the
kulaks. You telegraph that you have received and performed these instructions. Your Lenin.
STALIN
JOSIF
GUILTY OF GENOCIDE
The example to be followed for years, then slowly disowned but from some anchor loved.
ASSASSIN!!
The creator of the greatest concentration camps
of every time, the GULAGs, greater brothers of the
lagers. Provisional budget and surely too limited of the various aspects of the
repressive activity of this tyrant:
" 6 million corpses following the 32-33
famine, an imputable catastrophe to the politics of forced collettivazione
and robbery of the picked colcosianis from the
State
" 720.000 executions, of which over 680.000
only in the years 37-38, definite at the end of a parody of trial from a
special juridical organism of the GPU-NKVD
" 300.000 deaths attested in the fields
among the '34 and the '40, without counting the period '30 - '33 and the number
of how much they died among the moment of the I arrest and that of the
registration in the fields
" around 600.000 deaths attested among
deported, "dispersed" and special farmers
" around 2.200.000 displaced persons and
evacuees
" among the '34 and the '41 a total
provisional of entries in the gulags of 7 million people
they " miss data around the repressions on
German soldiers, Italians and Polish
Stalin, signature personally the
list of the thousand of people to be shot. Under the great Terror in 14 months 1.800.000
people are arrested and 690.000 murder.
MAO
GUILTY OF GENOCIDE
The founder of the communist
dictators in the East, great symbol of "good government" for the red
followers.
ASSASSIN!!
Testimony of a Chinese student around a
"Some classmates raced verse of us
howling: "And' begun the struggle! - I threw Me
next to the scholastic building, I saw some teachers, 40 or 50 in everything,
prepared in file, the head and the face sprinkled of black ink. I hung to the neck
they brought some poster with writings type - reactionary academic authority -,
- hostile of class -, - supporting of the capitalistic street -, - corrupt
ringleader -. Every poster was marked with a red cross, which it gave the air
of prisoners to the teachers death row inmates waiting
for the execution. they also Had them suspended around
the neck of the buckets filled with stones. They started begging Mao of
"to forgive their crimes". You scene left me
without breath and I felt me to turn pale. They followed barrel and
tortures. I had not seen before never similar tortures: they was
given by to eat bugs; electric shake were submitted to; he/she was forced them
to put on in knee on the broken glasses. The first ones to grab some batons and
to torture they were of the brutes of the school:
children of the pictures of the Party and officers of the army. Emboldened by
the provokers, the other students howled to them it turns: - Beat you them -.
And they jumped I set to the teachers leading fists and kicks. The hit + hard
for me it was teacher Chen Kuteh's murder, for which
I fed affection and respect. The teacher Chen, that had + of 60 years and it
suffered from hypertension, you/he/she was left for 3 hours under the sun in
summer and then dragged again to the close-up of a scholastic building and then
under and during the journey you/he/she was taken to fists and stricken with
the handle of a broom. They took some bamboo poles with which you/they kept on
striking him/it; the teacher fainted + turned but they made him gain back the
senses throwing him some frozen water in face. He/she didn't succeed in
stirring and he/she asked to be killed. They went on for 6 hours,
you/he/she was sodomized, tortured and crushed more times. Then it died. The
physician of the school came. It declared that it was dead following tortures.
After numerous tortures, warnings and beatings the doctor ended up writing on
the certificate of death that the death was due to a sudden attack of
hypertension caused by the big heat."
Testimony of a red Watch, then quattordicenne, around that period:
"We were young and fanatical. We believed
that the president Mao was great, that had the truth, that
pits the truth. I believed in what said Mao. And I believed that there were
some reasons in the cultural Revolution. We thought
about being of the renovators and that we would have been able to resolve
whatever problem all the problems of the society. We have mistaken all, we have killed, tortured and stolen for something
useless and empty. We have done something terrible.
I CASTRATE FIDEL
GUILTY OF FEROCIOUS IT IS SYSTEMATIC
ASSASSINS.
The hardness of the penitentiary regime of
Here is a story of a watch of the penitentiary
building of the Cabana.
"The violence of the penitentiary regime
struck both the political prisoners is those convicts for common crimes. You
began with the endless questionings conducted by the "Departemento
technical de investigaciones (DTI) ", the
sections entrusted of the investigations. The DTI resorted to the isolation and
exploited the phobias of the prisoners: a woman that was afraid of the bugs was
for example, confined in a cell infested of cockroaches. The DTI made violent
physical pressures: there were imprisoned forced to climb the staircases
putting on shoes ballasted of lead and, once in top, you/they were thrown again
down. To the physical torture that psychological was added, often follows also
from a medical point of view; to hold wake the prisoners us keepers used the pentothal and other drugs. In the
Since to
From 1959 to today over 100.000 Cubans you/they
have experimented the fields of job, the jails or the open fronts and you have
been been shot since 15.000 to the 17.000
people.
Castro, a tyrant that seems out of the time, in
front of the failures of his/her regime and to the difficulties that he/she
meets Cuba, still in 1994 it declared to prefer the death rather than to
abdicate the revolution. Which price will you/they still have to pay the Cubans
to satisfy his/her pride?
Tito
Josip Broz (Kumrovec, Croazia 1892 - Lubiana 1980) better known with the nickname of Marshal
Tito, is the principal person responsible of the genocide of million of people!
Yet, today you/he/she is remembered as a patriot as a person by to imitate. In
1980, to his/her funerals, besides the Italian authorities, there were the
tallest positions of the countries middle world. This man, after being him
stained of horrendous crimes, you/he/she has been
interred with all the possible honors spettanti to a head of State. Unfortunately you/he/she is
not remembered for what has been in reality: a criminal of war!
From May 3 rd 1945, for three days and three
nights, marshal Tito's troops, avid of blood, they
instigated him, with unheard of violence, against those people that, for a long
time you/they had shown feelings of italianità. To
Field of Mars, to Cosala, to Tersatto,
along the benches of the I bring, in Oberdan plaza,
in avenue Italy, the dead bodies were piled up and they didn't have burial. In
the jails towns and in the stanzonis of the old
Police headquarters, in the schools of Cambieri
plaza, hundreds of imprisoned they attended to know his/her own fate, without
some worried him about to cover it shouts her of the questioned in the offices
of Police, turned to rooms of torture. Other hundred men and women, of every
class and of every age, they simply faded away in the nothing. Forever. They were the "desaparecidos".
The adversaries immediately to be put to silence are individualized in the
autonomists, that is those people who dreamt a free State; to the furious
attacks of press conducted by her/it "Voice of the People" a hard
persecution was accompanied, that already in the night between 3 and on May 4
it brought the killing of Matteo Biasich
and Joseph Sincich, foreground characters of the old
movement zanelliano, already 1921 Constituent flood
members. Together with the autonomists, in the same days and then still in the
months that will come, they also found the death to River some exponents of the
CLN and other members of the Italian Resistance, among which the known
antifascist Angel Adam, mazziniano, legionary from
the confinement of Ventotene and from the Nazi lager
of Dachau according to a guideline that also finds
comparison to Trieste and Gorizia, where to venir aimed at by the Yugoslav political Police, they are
particularly the men of the Committee of national liberation. The choice
appears entirely consequent, from the moment that on the political plan the CLN
is directly a competitive organization in comparison to those official, of
which it is well able to contest the exclusive rappresentatività
of the Italian antifascists. Insofar, for the titinis,
it appears as the most dangerous adversary, both because potentially in degree
to become the point of reference of the population of Italian feelings, both as
the possible acceptance of his/her pretensions of recognition, what legitimate
expression of the Italian Resistance, would make to fall one of the principal
pillars on which the building of the popular powers holds up him. But the fury
instigated him with ferocity towards the exponents of the italianità
town. The two senators of River, Riccardo Gigante and Icilio Bacci and hundreds of men and women were killed,
immediately of every class and of every age, they simply died for the solo fact
to be Italian. Over five hundred fiumani you/they
were hung, shot, strangled, drowned. Others incarcerated. Of the displaced
persons he/she was not known anything. They immediately looked for the ex
legionaries dannunziani, the irredentists of the first world war, the cripples, the officers, the decorated
ones and the ex fighters. Adolfo Landriani was the
custodian of the
This is the will of a man, death row inmate
from the Slavic communists because was fierce to be Italian!
... Not to cry for me. I have not felt so strongly never as in this night of attended,
that is the last of my life. You know that I die for
To none of these heroes, simple and unknown,
The fifties to
While the students went down in plaza for
Italian Trieste to the beginning of the fifties, it gave the life for the
Country the last of the unredeemed fiumanis: Leonardo
Manzi.
Leonardo Manzi as
other young people as him, had had to abandon River. It died from fugitive to
SOURCES:
" Internet (* * *)
Black " book Of the Communism (* * * *
*)
" digilander.libero.it/zagorjr/orroricomunismo.htm (* * * *)
" Other sites internet