I think this oversimplifies the situation and introduces ambiguity. Let's make some domain distinctions between:
- a policy -- (a physical, tangible) course of action, i.e. a { turni zukte }
and
- Politics -- (a theoretical ) school of thought regarding power and human society, i.e. a { turni saske }
and
- Political party -- (a specific, particular) community that participates in government in some way, i.e. a { turni bende }
So, I would describe "communism," meaning Marxist/Leninist thought as a kind of { turni saske }, and the "communist party of China" as a { turni bende } and the "cummunist Down to the countryside movement in China" as a { turni zukte }. I see no contradictions here requiring "interpreting history." In this case:�
China's { turni bende }, who call themselves communist (insert cmevla for "communist party" here), adopted a { turni zukti } purported as communist (insert cmevla for "Down to the countryside movement" here), and justified it as aligning with { turni saske }�communistic political theory (insert cmevla for "Marxism/Leninism" here).
There, look! No historical interpretation necessary!
.i ta'o
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 09:17, A. PIEKARSKI�
<totus@rogers.com>�wrote:
For example, the most often-used lujvo�for communism has been {guntrusi'o} based on the idea (vaguely) of having�communes ruled by workers (and peasants).
As a side note, I don't think Communism was ever defined as communes ruled by workers/peasants. I think it's defined as a classless society where workers control the means of production.