I found this argument interesting, but it’s also pretty difficult to disprove. The “well, they had to do it that way because of the historical conditions” defense can be used to justify pretty much any shitty thing that a government (communist or otherwise) might do. In my opinion, Parenti spent too much time trying to rehabilitate the USSR, rather than just admitting they did a lot of crappy stuff. Admittedly, I know very little about Soviet history, so perhaps Parenti is right about everything, but he doesn’t cite sources for many of his claims, so I’m a bit skeptical. Is fascism merely a dictatorial force in the service of capitalism? That may not be all it is, but that certainly is an important part of fascism’s raison d’être, the function Hitler himself kept referring to when he talked about saving the industrialists and bankers from Bolshevism.” No system in history has been more relentless [than capitalism] in battering down ancient and fragile cultures, pulverizing centuries-old practices in a matter of years, devouring the resources of whole regions, and standardizing the varieties of human experience.”

To be sure, a few crumbs were thrown to the populace. There were free concerts and sporting events, some meager social programs, a dole for the unemployed financed mostly by contributions from working people, and showy public works projects designed to evoke civic pride. Parenti also dedicates a large section of this book to criticizing and dismissing "left" anti-communists; reactionary anarchists like Noam Chomsky, and leftist intellectuals. How many of their "theories" and analyses are really just anti-Marxist, anti-class jargon dressed up as intellectualism [see: post-modernism, post-Marxism], and that their dedication to ahistorical representation of Marxist leaders [Gramsci, for example], allows for the ruling class to continue downplaying the role of the ruling class in oppressing the working class while acting as if Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. Neuware - Parenti explores the big issues of our time -- fascism, capitalism, communism, revolution, democracy, and ecology.I'd recommend this book to all people who consider themselves to be leftists; especially to those Fukuyamaist social democrats, who think that capitalism is here to stay and it's the best we've got and we should just fight for social reforms rather than an entire system change, even though the welfare capitalism has systematically been disintegrated everywhere in the West since the overthrow of socialist countries and even though the economic exploitation of the so called Third World is greater than ever (the few rich Western countries extract over 3 trillion dollars a year from the poor countries in the world impoverishing them further and further; that's why over 4,5 billion people live in chronic poverty and it's a growing number of people) and social democracy can do nothing about that, because it's still the profit driven capitalist system that needs to expand and grow infinitely at the same time absolutely destroying the environment. Parenti then describes the failures of communist Russia and he does so with transparency. He describes the bureaucratic corruption, food shortages and ruthless one party rule along with the impracticality of a centrally planned economy. At the same time he emphasizes the successes of not only communist Russia but Cuba and Vietnam. He re-frames the failures of communism by asserting that communism for these countries was actually an enormous improvement from their previous social arrangement of feudal states and czarist hegemony. He also argues that the terrors of the Gulag camp are overstated by western propaganda that most people there were actually criminals and not enemies of the state. I think the point he tries to make is the terror of the Reds is exaggerated and used as US state propaganda as a vehicle for global meddling. I don't necessarily agree with this as the accounts of Gulag war crimes is pretty undeniable at this point so I think he over reached here. I'd recommend this book to all people who consider themselves to be leftists; especially to those Fukuyamaist social democrats, who think that capitalism is here to stay and it's the best we've got and we should just fight for social reforms rather than an entire system change, even though the welfare capitalism has systematically been disintegrated everywhere in the Wes His mentions of China as "communist only in name" were also proven outstandingly wrong by the years but i can understand why he'd say what he said in 1997 when China, with the reforms of Jiang Zemin, seemed to be taking the road that other socialist countries were taking into their downfall.

Over a century ago, in his great work Les Misérables Victor Hugo asked, Will the future arrive? He was thinking of a future of social justice, free from the terrible shadows of oppression imposed by the few upon the great mass of humankind. Of late, some scribes have announced the end of history. With the overthrow of communism, the monumental struggle between alternative systems has ended, they say. Capitalism’s victory is total. No great transformations are in the offing. The global free market is here to stay. What you see is what you are going to get, now and always. This time the class struggle is definitely over. So Hugo’s question is answered: the future has indeed arrived, though not the one he had hoped for. Basically I want to know if anything in the book is true. I guess I am a product of the capitalist, anti-communist brainwashing the author talks about, because there are a LOT of things where I just go "that doesn't seem right..."The first chapter, on rational fascism, is great and opens the book with some nice fire. This chapter does a great job explaining how fascism is closely linked with capitalism, not socialism (as is sometimes claimed). Fascism is a great tool for capitalists who need to keep people in line. Written with lucid and compelling style, this book goes beyond truncated modes of thought, inviting us to entertain iconoclastic views, and to ask why things are as they are. Despite this record, most writers have ignored fascism’s close collaboration with big business. Some even argue that business was not a beneficiary but a victim of fascism. Angelo Codevilla, a Hoover Institute conservative scribe, blithely announced: If fascism means anything, it means government ownership and control of business ( Commentary, 8/94). Thus fascism is misrepresented as a mutant form of socialism. In fact, if fascism means anything, it means all-out government support for business and severe repression of antibusiness, prolabor forces. ⁶ The autonomists would be proud. I feel he really sells the system short here, repeating the old claim that central planning was "too inefficient" - if so, what is the advantage of socialism at all? Outside of the idea of "totalitarianism", it feels like he endorses near every Western view about the "inefficiencies" of the socialist system. Yet it's clear from what he says elsewhere that even with these inefficiencies, the USSR was able to deliver a decent standard of living for everyone. To have a whole chapter (chapter 4) which is a weird bashing of the socialist states and featuring many claims about "disincentives to work" and even "human nature" is kind of frustrating cause it feels so out of place. Here another big problem of his style of writing shines through - his reluctance to actually cite anything. Big claims don't get cited even when they're controversial. For me it's most noticeable here because so much is basically anecdotal evidence treated as wider fact but it re-occurs throughout the book and weakens his persuasiveness - if you disagree with the left in general you're just going to be asking for more evidence regularly and in this chapter you're going to be asking for more evidence if you're a communist.