Stalinism versus Hitlerism: the basic intentions and results

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the soundness of equating Stalinism and Nazism (Hitlerism), expressed in a resolution adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on July 1, 2009. Design/methodology/approach – The paper compares the two movements from three different angles: first, in their basic intentions; second, in their basic accomplishments; third, in the correlation between their basic intentions and their basic results. Findings – The paper finds that: in their proclaimed short- and long-term goals, Stalinism and Hitlerism have nothing in common; in their actual short-term (there was no long-term) results, they were similar in content but different in form; it was their very nature that doomed their efforts to translate their basic intentions into basic results. Originality/value – The paper shows that a similarity or dissimilarity of the two movements can be ascertained not in their total but in their parts such as, for instance, the goals they achieved and the methods they employed.Capitalist systems, Germany, Russia, Socialism, Strategic objectives

On the Meaning of the PRC’s Development Since 1949

The purpose of this article is to search for answers to the following four questions: First, what is the social meaning of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) development prior to 1978? Second, how to interpret the Chinese social drive since 1978? Third, what is the balance sheet of the PRC’s development since 1949? Finally, on the basis of the exploration of China’s growth during the two periods, is it possible to extrapolate into a social structure of the country in the foreseeable future? In pursuing its objectives, the article does not judge China’s road as it should be from a theoretical point of view but simply examines it as it is or might be in practice. China’s development from 1949 to present has taken several socioeconomic forms: 1949-1958, from a prevalent nonstate feudalism to a dominant state feudalism; 1960-1966, elements of mixed capitalism within state feudalism; 1966-1976, the split within the state capitalist and feudal bureaucracies; since 1978, authoritarian state capitalism. Thus, the Chinese road turned out to be not that of “socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics” but of state capitalist market economy with, of course, Chinese characteristics. It is argued that remarkable economic achievements of the PRC have not been due to “socialism” but due to various forms of capitalism and feudalism, which the circumstances have forced upon the country’s development