The dilemma that is put to me is the following: For the same name, should we judge the acts or judge the writings? Some will say that communism was mostly a butchery, they judge the acts of so-called "communist" regimes. Others will say that these regimes didnt apply this doctrine and therefore werent communist.
What is the most important? What was written or what was done? If the writing is unfairly disqualified, it will not be the first time it happens and it will not be that bad. On the other hand, if the acts are ignored, it is to take the risk to see them begin again.
If we accept the speech: "It was not communism", then we can justify everything and anything and systematically end the debate with that. Refusing to take into account the writings and seeing only facts, acts, simply avoids that. No matter how communism was thought and written, I only see the result.
