Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: Liberisti e Stalinisti

Reposto parte di un'articolo (originariamente postato
su alt.fan.noam-chomsky) troppo bello per non essere visto
da soc.culture.italian:
----------------------------------------------------------
        Despite obvious superficial differences,
there are many points of uncanny resemblance between
Stalinists (and probably Leninists in general) with
Neoliberals. Here are a few:
        (1) The idea that there is a positive
science (in one case, Marxist historical analysis,
in the other, Neoclassical economics) which
demostrates that there is only one possible
path forward to human happiness and prosperity
        (2) the idea that existing societies
must be massively transformed - undergo
revolutionary structural changes - in order
to conform with the dictates of said science
        (3) the fact that such changes create
massive destruction, cultural and social
disruption, starvation and death, but 
(3a) the agents of said destruction are able to deny
responsibility by telling themselves it was
an historical inevitability
        (4) telling the victims that all
this will lead to great happiness and
prosperity at some unspecified future time
        (5) the facade of democracy:
Stalinist regimes called themselves "democratic"
and had bogus parlaiments and votes; Neoliberals
allow real elections so long as all parties
understand they will have to pursue the exact
same policies
        (6) the fetishization of economic
growth rates as the only measure of national
success, with little or no consideration
of the actual quality of ordinary people's
lives
        (7) the intentional infliction of
hunger on large populations
        (8) most importantly: denial of any
notion that ordinary people could engage
in collective, political action that would
influence the overall shape of society, but
rather, belief that this should be left
to an elite of "scientifically"-trained
experts.
        Hardly surprising them that so many
ex-Stalinists have been able to convert
overnight to Neoliberalism (as they have
throughout the former Communist world); it
doesn't involve that great a change in basic
philosophy.
---------------------------------------------
Di mio aggiungo pure che, mentre non ho visto
nessun poster "comunista" difendere quello che
ha fatto Stalin, difese di gente come Pinochet 
su questi newsgroups non e mancata.
-- 
To reply by email remove "xxxx" from the start of my email address
---------------------------------------------------------
G. Torrieri, Particle physics group, Univ. of Birmingham
Work: 0121-414-46-30   Home:0121-455-04-06
Homepage:   
http://www.ep.ph.bham.ac.uk/user/torrieri
---------------------------------------------------------
"There are no magic answers, no miraculous methods to 
overcome the problems we face, just the familiar ones: 
honest search for understanding, education, organization, 
action that raises the cost of state violence
for its perpetrators or that lays the basis for 
institutional change -
and the kind of commitment that will persist despite 
the temptations of disillusionment, despite 
many failures and only limited successes, inspired 
by the hope of a brighter future."
Noam Chomsky

reconoces tu?
I sure find defects in the so called "Communism", but I also distiguish
Communism and Marxism, and I also consider the ambient where they have
been tested.
What I think about USSR is that it was far away from Communism, it was a
~fascist form of government with socialist economy. Now, this is much
distant
from the so called in Italy "Comunismo dal volto umano" (Humanist
Communism),
and as example I can tell you that the Italian Communist Party wanted (years
ago) to join NATO and also to comdamn totally the USSR tanks in Prague.
This has nothing to do with men like Che Guevara; you've to distiguish the
October Revolution in Russia with the ideals expressed by Che Guevara or by
Karl Marx.
In Russia the Czar was exploiting people so much that they just took over
the
government, and they were 100% right in my opinion. Every "shit" that you've
seen in the USSR is the consequence of the situation that the people lived
before.
Now, if Stalin had to cancel a lot of oppositors, I (that never
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"esteemed" Stalin in my life) have anyway to realize that he was just
defending
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the Revolution (conserving it if you prefer) from its oppositors, that were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
mostly the same men that exploited people in the past or that now are the
huge mafia and other criminal organizations of Russia. I honestly see
nothing
bad in giving back to anyone what this person really deserves: if you want
to
do bad to someone, you deserve bad back, if you want to do good, you deserve
good.
 I understand what Stalin had to do, wheter they're nice things or not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Remember also that Stalin brought USSR from a poor country into a world
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
power, and this shows how much he served his country and how good has been
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^
his work. Again, a more idealist man like Lenin did "refuse" Stalin in his
^^^^^^^^^
last days of life, but he got the power anyway.
Stalin had to do what he has been forced to do from the circumstances, this
is much different from the shits
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that many nations made and seeked to make with shitty intentions (like
taking
black men from Africa to make them work as slaves for the white americans).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insomma, Bizzetti non lo stimava molto ne' gli ha fatto gli auguri di
compleanno (anche perche' era gia' morto) ma si capisce che in fondo
qualcuno, "per la causa" certe cose doveva pur farle. Stalin ha fatto il suo
dovere.
Francesco

pi— scrupoli nel colpire il nemico.
Io a Pizzi lo farei governare da Stalin.. e non che lo consideri un vero
comunista, affatto. Ma Pizzi merita uno Stalin incazzato, tutto per se..
[...]
Io ho solo quelle di Bizzetti, ma di gente che ha osannato Stalin negli
ultimi periodi su SCI ce ne e' stata parecchia.
Rick

ha fatto Stalin,
perche' e' passato troppo tempo tra la morte di baffone e l'avvento
della rete:-) ..
luigi

 Francesco


 cilena e andata contro i diritti di proprieta.
Non mi risulta che il colpo di stato di Pinochet sia stato organizzato
da Friedman o che questo fosse all'epoca il capo della CIA
-- 
Ciao Franco (Lussemburgo)

> Francesco
Mhmmm......pero' molti esponenti della sinistra non sembrano molto propensi
a riservare un trattamento negativo a Fidel Castro. Sbaglio o anche lui ha
violato molti diritti umani? Sbaglio o anche lui ha preso il potere con la
violenza?
Direi che non ci siano dubbi su come Pinochet sia molto piu' simile a Fidel
Castro di Stalin. Eppure, con poche eccezioni (Zironi), io non ho visto
molte apologie della sua politica. Viceversa, le apologie di Fidel cisono
sia nella vita politica italiana, sia su SCI e non solo ad opera di pazzi
furiosi come Bizzetti.
L'articolo di Newsweek (che non ho letto) avra' fatto notare come l'
economia cilena sia quella piu' in salute dell' intero Sud America: tra i
tantissimi demeriti criminali di Pinochet c'e' il solo merito di non avere
sfasciato del tutto l'economia del suo paese. Non credo tu sia in grado di
riportarmi un solo spezzone di articolo dove le sua violazioni delle piu'
elementari regole del vivere civile siano condonate o, peggio, apprezzate.
Lo stesso non credo si possa dire di Fidel: Cuba e' un paese poverissimo.
Francesco

abbiano favorito il passaggio del Cile dalla dittatura alla democrazia. 
in Chile e' tornata una parvenza di democrazia perche' gli Usa hanno
pensionato il generale dopo che questi aveva ultimato con successo il
suo lercio "lavoro" e loro raggiunti i propri obbiettivi.
luigi

 Ciao Franco (Lussemburgo)


 appoggiati dalla maggioranza della popolazione.
Infatti io ho detto che il liberismo puo' favorire, in una situazione di
sottosviluppo, un processo di democratizzazione del regime, non che il
liberismo, in un paese sottosviluppato, si affermi 'necessariamente' con
la democrazia.
 
-- 
Ciao Franco (Lussemburgo)