Os camisas negras e a esquerda radical: fascismo racional e a derrubada do comunismo

by Michael Parenti, Jones Manoel (Prefácio)

Os camisas negras e a esquerda radical explora algumas das grandes questões da nossa época: fascismo, capitalismo, comunismo, revolução, democracia e ecologia – termos frequentemente mencionados, mas raramente explorados da maneira original e envolvente que se tornou a marca registrada de Michael Parenti.

Parenti mostra como o “fascismo racional” presta serviço ao capitalismo, como o poder empresarial solapa a democracia e como as revoluções representam um empoderamento das massas contra as forças privilegiadas e exploradoras. Ele também mapeia as forças externas e internas que destruíram algumas experiências do socialismo real e o impacto desastroso da vitória do “livre-mercado” na Europa Oriental e na antiga União Soviética. Além disso, Parenti defende a relevância de ideologias proscritas, como o marxismo, demonstrando a importância da análise de classe no entendimento de realidades políticas e no tratamento do choque permanente entre o meio ambiente e os interesses de conglomerados empresariais globais.

Escrito em um estilo lúcido e eloquente, este livro vai além dos raciocínios truncados, convidando-nos a ligar pontos de vista iconoclastas e a nos perguntar por que as coisas são do jeito que são. Trata-se de uma análise ousada e cativante das épicas lutas do passado e do presente.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Theory, Philosophy, Economics, Sociology

224 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1997

About the author

Michael John Parenti, Ph.D. (Yale University) is an American political scientist, academic historian and cultural critic who writes on scholarly and popular subjects. He has taught at universities as well as run for political office. Parenti is well known for his Marxist writings and lectures. He is a notable intellectual of the American Left and he is most known for his criticism of capitalism and American foreign policy.

Reviews

[Sunny Lu · Rating 5 out of 5]

like actually fucking fire, just bar after bar after bar, debunked nearly every anti communist myth in simple, plain language. needs to be required reading for everyone tbh

[The Conspiracy is Capitalism · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Red Scare” 101…

Preamble:
--Like many learning Leftism in North America, I was introduced to critiques of capitalism/imperialism by Noam Chomsky (in my case: Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance).
…As someone who was finishing elementary school when the “War on Terror” started and finishing secondary school when the 2008 Financial Crisis occurred, Chomsky provided global context (historical/political/philosophical) underlying these otherwise-shocking events which were obscured by my Western-bubble Canadian liberal education (“liberal” = cosmopolitan capitalism).
--By the time I was introduced to Parenti, I was already concerned with the Western/Global North bias of my readings; even the critiques relied on similar Western references. So, I skipped Parenti to focus on Vijay Prashad, who tries to combat his quip (that the “globalization” of ideas is actually one-way, where theory comes from the Global North while the Global South is only expected to produce guerilla manuals) by popularizing Global South theory.
-The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World:
a) reframing the Global North’s “Cold War” binary (Western “democracy” cosmopolitan capitalism vs. Soviet communism)
b) and instead focusing on Global North imperialism vs. Global South decolonization.
--I also wanted to get a deeper grasp of (geo)political economy, something Chomsky/Parenti/Prashad only reference. I took the most convoluted path imaginable:
i) starting with free market fundamentalists: Hayek/Mises, thanks to the anti-intervention rhetoric of US Republican Ron Paul
ii) step-by-step through liberal reformism: Ha-Joon Chang, Amartya Sen, Krugman, Stiglitz, etc.
iii) eventually into critical geopolitical economy: Varoufakis, Utsa and Prabhat Patnaik, Michael Hudson, etc.
…Now, I am returning to Parenti to review how I would have fared had I started with his lens, and also as an intro to the case study of the USSR.

Highlights:

1) Marxism 101:
--Labels are the ultimate short-cut which we must move past to get anywhere, and I would prefer a label not named after an individual.
--We should also distinguish:
a) Conclusions: many people seem to engage with politics by starting with their answers (“agree”/“disagree” conclusions), and then seek to confirm their answers. And I do not mean starting from principles (ex. recognizing the contradictory potentials of humans, thus aiming to support social structures which bring out the better in us), but rather starting with crude conclusions on messy historical processes (ex. support/condemn USSR) and not spending enough time raising questions.
b) Methodologies/processes: reading to collect a bunch of conclusions seems misguided, as our political priority should not be to answer Yes/No to a history test. Our political priority should be to acquire the tools we need to build a better today/future. This requires learning how to think, rather than what to think.
--What are the key methodologies behind “Marxism”?
i) Historical materialism:
--This lens analyzes history/social change by starting with the material conditions, esp. the production of human/social needs, and the social relations involved.
--Given the creation of surplus amidst scarcity, particular attention is paid on classes of hierarchical political power (i.e. control of decision-making) and the resulting class conflict (i.e. use/disuse of bargaining power).
--Going back to my focus on methodologies rather than conclusions, we can compare Parenti’s book vs. “What is Politics?”, which also uses the historical materialism lens (the linked video series is foundational) but ends with contrasting conclusions:
-11 - Why Every Communist Country is a One-Party Dictatorship
-11.1 Why the Russian Revolution Failed: When Rich Kids do all the Socialism
…if we only focused on the contrasting conclusions, we overlook how Parenti and “What is Politics?” are responding to differing contexts (Parenti responding directly to “Red Scare”, “What is Politics?” to apolitical illiteracy).
ii) Marxist political economy:
--Marx really wanted to dissect the historical materialism of “capitalism”, thus all his labour put into his unfinished Capital project (Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1) starting with commodities/value system, capital circuit, business cycles, the growth/socialization of the proletariat (working class), systemic crisis and revolution.
--Since the Capital project never got around to volumes on the state/trade/geopolitics, we need further synthesis to build geopolitical economy (Parenti stresses imperialism and counter-revolution).

2) Fascism 101:
--Let’s apply historical materialism/political economy to “fascism”:
i) Rational Fascism: capitalism’s logic:
--Fascism appeared in Europe when global capitalism went through the Second Industrial Revolution (1870-1914), with every expanding boom/bust business cycle culminating in the 1930’s Great Depression and its expansionary imperialist rivalries culminating in 1914 WWI and 1939 WWII.
…Fascism was capitalism’s rational response to systemic crisis, being the first to recover from the Great Depression by reviving industrial profits through state investment in the war market.
--“Plutocrats Choose Autocrats”: Parenti focuses on the capitalist backing of fascism: big industrialists, finance, big agriculture, top military/police, media, and all the times Social Democrat liberals (“democracy” by rhetoric but actually cosmopolitan capitalism) refused a popular front with leftists (esp. communists) to confront fascism (hoping to fan fascism to the East to destroy USSR) and reviving fascism after WWII to target USSR/Global South decolonization.
-Fascism
-The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism
-The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World
-Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II

[US] Corporations like DuPont, Ford, General Motors, and ITT owned factories in enemy countries that produced fuel, tanks, and planes that wreaked havoc on Allied forces. After the war, instead of being prosecuted for treason, ITT collected $27 million from the U.S. government for war damages inflicted on its German plants by Allied bombings. General Motors collected over $33 million.

--We can add that fascism is such a natural tool for capitalism because fascist techniques have long been perfected in capitalism’s colonies:
-Discourse on Colonialism
-Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World
ii) Irrational Fascism: parody of socialism’s logic:
--Fascism’s war market revival could only be sold to the public by pairing it with the irrational mass appeal of mythical origins (racial supremacy), scapegoating villains and the “cruel struggle” of conquest to counter modern decadence.
…All the while, fascism brutally wiped out leftist anti-capitalist alternatives while parodying leftists rhetoric (Nazi = “National Socialist German Workers' Party”). For more on reactionism parodying leftist populism, see:
-The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump
-Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World

…See the comments below for the rest of the review:
“3) Communism 101”

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

While people run to buy Orwell's 1984 in the wake of the re-emergence of hard right or fascist power around the world, they would be better served to read Parenti instead. This book is essential and since its warnings and prescriptions have gone unheeded for 20 years, it is even more urgently essential today than it was when published.

[tara bomp · Rating 3 out of 5]

Best chapters: 6, 7, 8, 9. 6 and 7 show really well just how disastrous the end of socialism was and 8 and 9 are a pretty good introduction to/defence of Marxism as a way of understanding the world (although from a certain perspective that's very Parenti - kind of reductive, proto-99% stuff, although I don't mean that in a bad way). 1 and 2 are also pretty decent, 1 goes into how fascists were actually supported by capitalists for entirely rational class based reasons, 2 talks about how revolutions are good and "violent revolution" is forced by the ruling class. The big problem with these 2 is their lack of detail on some stuff. 3 is a bit eh, about left anticommunism - like I agree with a decent amount of it but sometimes it feels a little unfair but mostly cause it starts talking about the Soviet Union and it's like... hmm. Chapter 4 and 5 are pretty bad (although I appreciate pointing out how exaggerated the "totalitarian" claim is, even if it's only vaguely pointed out). Bizarrely, chapter 4 almost descends into *right* anti-communism. The rest of this review will probably sound weird

In chapter 4, Parenti describes problems of the USSR economy post-WW2 and it sounds like an ultra leftist's dream society

"Not surprisingly, work discipline left much to be desired. There was the clerk who chatted endlessly with a friend on the telephone while a long line of people waited resentfully for service, the two workers who took three days to paint a hotel wall that should have taken a few hours, the many who would walk off their jobs to go shopping."

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.

Maybe Parenti is a bit of a Bukharinite. In chapter 3, while endorsing the more "autocratic" economic direction that the USSR actually took in order to build up an industrial base, he sees and endorses a second path: "moving in a liberalized direction, allowing more polit­ical diversity, more autonomy for labor unions and other organiza­tions, more open debate and criticism, greater autonomy among the various Soviet republics, a sector of privately owned small busi­nesses, independent agricultural development by the peasantry, greater emphasis on consumer goods, and less effort given to the kind of capital accumulation needed to build a strong military­ industrial base. The latter course, I believe, would have produced a more com­fortable, more humane and serviceable society. Siege socialism would have given way to worker-consumer socialism". It's hard to disagree with the idea of more union autonomy etc exactly but stuff like "privately owned small businesses"? Certainly an unusual take on communism, kind of Yugoslavite.

" The decision by Soviet leaders to achieve military parity with the United States-while working from a much smaller industrial base-placed a serious strain on the entire Soviet economy." while at the same time recognising that the USSR was still in a state of siege even then - it wasn't so much a decision as a reaction to the circumstances forced upon them, something he accepts while taking about pre WW2 USSR. This isn't to say that the military spending was right and proper or anything but it wasn't some strange bolt from the blue, the thing about the "siege socialism" he describes is that it was never *able* to end because socialism was always under siege.

He's great at writing against the USA and against anti-communism but he's much worse at mounting an effective defence of socialist countries. He devotes a couple pages maybe to pointing out things that are genuinely worth shouting about - far higher life expectancies, universal literacy, healthcare, access to culture, much reduced homelessness and unemployment, etc - but that's about it. Yes, it's clear from what he says about the collapse of socialism that it was an absolute disaster (chapters 6 and 7 are blistering polemic, really great writing) but that doesn't really convince the uninitiated that communist ideologies are good. Instead he mounts an attack on the incredibly inflated death count attributed to the USSR and Stalin specifically but it's not particularly inspiring to read "oh well only 2 million people were in the gulags" or something, especially when it's tied with portrayal of Stalin as purely some weird power hungry dictator - there's no wider class or historical explanation of what happened, past the talk of a siege. For most genuinely curious people, the question is less "well how many people did Stalin kill" and more "if a significant number of people died or were killed, how can we stop this happening again if I support communism". I just feel it's not very convincing from that perspective and it's almost just missing the point. Even if the death counts are massively inflated, those deaths are still horrifying. Parenti completely acknowledges this and attacks Stalin but because he can't provide any explanations or give any alternatives it's not a promising or convincing defence. Maybe I'm harping on about this a bit much but it's a confusing and very limited defence of the USSR - to a large extent it's only defended because it was better than what followed/the USA, even though in reality there was a lot more to it. I dunno I'm not much of an expert on the USSR myself.

The chapters I said at the start are good but not good enough to overcome my hesitation about the chapters I didn't like. But I do really appreciate how easy to read his writing style is.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great offering by Parenti. Written with argumentative clarity and devoid of theoretical jargon, this book responds to both the anti-communist left and right. I recommend this book as a great foundation for anybody interested in the debate regarding communism's historical merits in opposition to capitalism or anarchism. Light reading which packs a punch.

[L · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must read for anyone with a political interest.

[T · Rating 3 out of 5]

Surprisingly disappointing, and I say this as someone who agrees with virtually everything Parenti says in this book. The most frustrating aspect of his writing is how infrequently he uses citations. He makes a number of great points about both Communism and Capitalism (though the latter are mostly truisms any Marxist knows), but he rarely gives one access to further reading. A good polemic, but a bit outdated and definitely too schematic. I would recommend individual chapters (his early ones on the fall of Communism are the best), but not the book as a whole. Maybe though my critique has to do with the fact that much of what he states is obvious to me, so maybe that's my problem, but his writing definitely suffers from a number of oversimplifications which would make it easy for any Liberal to dismiss his arguments in a second.

[Abhilash · Rating 5 out of 5]

Michael Parenti is a voice of sanity in these dark times when there exists a not-too-small section of self-important, self-indulgent intellectuals who pretend to be on the Left and are too quick to be swayed by capitalist realism and unhelpful pessimism, downplaying the relevance of Marxism, going even so far as to fall in line with those trends of thought which equate communism with fascism. I can only give a statutory warning to those who fall in this category, advising them NOT to pick up this book because beware folks, your hands are about to get burned!

[Andrew]

I'd heard about Parenti as a principled anticapitalist for years, seen him referenced and quoted. It was finally time to try to read his work, and I was excited.

It's amazing how much one factual error in the first 10 pages of a nonfiction text can color your opinion. This was Parenti's claim that German communists had tried their best to ally with the social democrats against Hitler, a claim which is kind a true, but the reality is that when they did try, it was too little too late. Before then, Thalmann and his cohort had been more than happy to let the Nazis krump on the (admittedly feckless) Weimar socdems, and indeed encouraged it so as to heighten the contradictions of capital, a move that Trotsky was appalled by. This wasn't a good sign of intellectual honesty to come.

Throughout, Parenti seems to spend a disproportionate amount of energy shitting on leftists who don't stan the USSR – Chomsky, primarily – and intersperses this Twitter-level analysis with just enough correct observations about American imperialism or the horrors of shock therapy in Eastern Europe to establish his bona fides. The end result is that Parenti comes off as a 2020s Internet tankie avant la lettre. If you want to read about the viciousness and violence of capitalism, there are far better sources out there.

[abclaret · Rating 2 out of 5]

It as be said that the political right (and to some extent the centre) have it easy. They just have to maintain the power they get and prove to be capable rulers. For revolutionary-leftwing politics to work, you need essentially to cover two bases; 1) offer a valid critique of the existing political model and 2) find something viable to replace it.

While Parenti comes up with some sound reasons about how and why capitalism is and always as been rotten, its wars, bureaucracy, its unfair labour exchange system, etc., its the second part thats saddly weak. Towards this end he offers up his theory on 'Siege Socialism', as a counter pole to replace capitalism or offer a reason why existing socialist states should be defended as a gain for/by workers. 'Seige Socialism' is not an ideal, or a utopia but simply a reality of hostile states encircling a country which is trying to practice socialim, Parenti tells us. The beauty of this arguement is that every major crack in the system can be glossed over as a fault of the capitalist imperial powers. If only it was so simple....

Let it be said I have read many defences of the USSR, and Stalinism in general, but this is one of the worst defenses of an 'existing socialist' state Ive read for some time. How Parenti manages to go from logically asset stripping capitalism taking account of its errors to defending a society which was nothing more than an ill planned police state is startling.

Frankly Noam Chomsky might not always be as readable, but it as to be said he has way better politics.

[Kevin Carson · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an anarchist, I certainly have issues with Marxism-Leninism as an ideology. But it's worthwhile to read Parenti and consider his arguments. And to be frank, it's refreshing to engage with the thought of a grownup M-L like Parenti, Hobsbawm, etc., after constantly encountering the kind of Stalin-avi tank-kiddies on social media who say shit like "Stalin was the greatest genius in history," "Khrushchev was a revisionist," squalid authoritarian dictators are heroes of "anti-imperialism," and the like.
Parenti admits that "Siege Communism" was an actual thing, that the USSR developed gross authoritarian and bureaucratic distortions under Stalin, and that these distortions prevented the kinds of decentralist and horizontal changes that would have been necessary for the Soviet economy to integrate the achievements of the cybernetic revolution. And he recognizes that a lot of regimes the tank-kiddies call "socialist" these days are actually regimes of the national bourgeoisie. There was a time when I wouldn't have considered this a very high hurdle to clear; but I was younger and more optimistic then.

[K · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm sorry but I loved this. Just.. point after point after point was made. In such a clear way too. More people should read this, especially the people who get on my nerves.

[Moe Ye · Rating 3 out of 5]

More like 2.5 stars. Most points he made like how western capitalist countries aid and abet fascism, deep-rooted anticommunism in the left to get acceptance, the ongoing relevance of marxism and class analysis are quite good. However, his defense of actually existing socialist countries and the subsequent attempt at not trying to appear uncritical of them are really weak.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whether you consider yourself a communist or not, you should read this book! The writing is concise and hard-hitting, it was very enjoyable and easy to read. I especially liked the first chapter about the undeniable link between fascism and capitalism. When the society you grow up in basically expects that you conflate fascism with communism, and see any communist society as a hellscape of repression, books like Parenti's are essential grounding. It is so important to think critically about history and politics. When the truth is inconvenient, it is easy to ignore. I also really agreed with Parenti's denunciation of anarcho-socialists or 'pure' socialists. The nature of capital and financial institution is to break through any cracks in a system that does not prioritise them, as shown time and time again. It is silly to ignore the need for a unified state in today's world.
There is also a brief, accessible introduction to Marxist thought toward the end of the book which would be helpful to anyone who hasn't read Marx and is interested in his ideas.

[ComradeAtlas · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought this book was going to go down as one of my favorites of all time. I had a feeling that this book was going to be so important to my political development that I blocked time off in the summer to read it. I assumed this book was going to be Parenti's Magnum Opus. I was so wrong and the only reason I gave is two stars was for it's potential.
Blackshirts and Reds goes out to answer some of the most important questions that plague leftist and western political discourse. It's goal was to outline the history of State Socialism, deconstruct the western propaganda surrounding it, talk about the success and failures of Marxist-Leninism from a honest and positive perspective, and show how the failures of societies like the USSR didn't fail because of Marxism but they failed because of reactionary forces and global capitalism. Wow, that sounded like a really interesting book and I can't wait to read it.
When I listed the subjects above what page count do you imagine would take to describe all those well. Most people I have done that test with say about 400. Well this book is 160 pages exactly. Who knew I could read about the whole entire history of State Socialism in a day which is exactly what I did. The page count of this book doesn't detract from the ideas the author is trying to saying slaughters them. The history and ideas that were attempted to be discussed in this book are to complex and ambitious for what it actually is and because of that it's poorly written and poorly cited/researched. You can honestly get the same amount of information from a Marxist-Leninist, with an anime profile picture, rant on twitter.
I'm amazed at the good reviews. Just because you politically agree with a book doesn't mean it's well written and researched.

[Vivek Singh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Parenti is an author who stays away from academic clusterfuck language and anyone can understand his points as it should be. This is a must read

[Severi Saaristo · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.
I would also really recommend this book to anarchist comrades, because denouncing Marxist-Leninists and socialism that actually existed as a "failure" or simply "totalitarian" is just plain false and shooting yourself in the foot as Parenti demonstrates in his book.
As Parenti himself writes: "To say that 'socialism doesn't work' is to overlook the fact that it did. In Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, and Cuba, revolutionary communism created a life for the mass of people that was far better than the wretched existence they had endured under feudal lords, military bosses, foreign colonizers, and Western capitalists. The end result was a dramatic improvement in living conditions for hundreds of millions of people on a scale never before or since witnessed in history.
State socialism transformed desperately poor countries into modernized societies in which everyone had enough food, clothing and shelter; where elderly people had secure pensions; and where all children (and many adults) went to school and no one was denied medical attention. Some of us from poor families who carry the hidden injuries of class are much impressed by these achievements and are unwilling to dismiss them as merely 'economistic'."
This book shows very well, backed up by evidence, that capitalism needs fascism to survive and it shows how bad people's lives were before state socialism and how horrible it became after state socialism was overthrown by reactionary and Western capitalist forces (surplus deaths estimated at 7,7 million in Russia alone due to the extreme free market reforms in the 1990's). It also offers the best critique on communism at least what I've read.
I don't consider myself a Marxist-Leninist, however to overlook the accomplishments of ML regimes all through-out the 20th century is like burying your head in the sand and ignoring history. We should learn about these countries, rather than say some weak-ass shit like "communism doesn't work". Because they who control the past control the future.
(I think that's Orwell, but we'll forgive him for his Red bashing).

[J · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is like diet-lite-marxism-for-beginners from ~24 years ago, so not only am I not the right audience, but this also feels dated as hell.

I found myself overwhelmingly agreeing with Parenti's various analyses about fascism, its interrelation with the capitalist ruling class, the horrors of post-soviet privatization, our societies unwillingness to think in class terms, the dangers of climate change, etc.

And yet it still sucked to read.

He's trying to make a lot of big points all at once, often with little data to back any of it up beyond some shaky anecdotes from stories in the New York Times, CNN etc. (way to stick it to the corporate media, bud). This is poorly researched and sloppily written, often veering into rant territory. Which is a shame because when he does manage to pull things together he makes some very sharp, prescient observations.

In Parenti's defense: this came out in the mid 90s, when capitalism was still on a dick-stroking victory march following the collapse of the USSR. I'm sure it was a very challenging time for a Marxist scholar, and this feels less like an incisive analysis and more like a disillusioned outsider engaging in some much needed emotional / theoretical venting.

But there are better, more current, more insightful books that offer deeper investigations of what he's elaborating here.

[Wick Welker · Rating 4 out of 5]

An transparent repudiation and recontextualization.

When I was half way through this book I was a bit disgruntled and thought it was just a communist apologetic piece. After finishing it, I realize that this is not what this book is. I find Parenti to be honest of his critiques of both capitalism and communism and providing a thought provoking and clarifying lens about our current global system of power and how western societies have been indoctrinated into excusing the failures of capitalism while condemning those of communism without understanding the important interplay between the two. This book was written in 1997 but it is likely even more pertinent to today, 2022.

This book starts out with a convincing polemic against fascist corporatism. Parenti summarizes the fascist regimes of Nazism and Mussolini and mentions the complicity of the US in these regimes before WWII by way of American corporate investment. He pushes on the western mind’s cognitive dissonance that we both condemn fascism yet actively participate in a similar system today. Such neo-fascist corporatism include foreign mutli-national corporate control, subversion of foreign sovereign economic autonomy, relics of the Bretton Woods economic system, IMF subprime loans that prohibit nationalization and subsidies of infant industries and not to mention covert and overt destabilization of democratically elected governments under the guise of communism moral panic. The global US economic and military meddling in global affairs since at least WWII really cannot be overstated and the significance of its impact is impossible to measure.

The point Parenti makes is that modern Western culture embraces what can accurately be described as neo-fascist politics while condemning similar regimes of the past. A fog of willful amnesia has descended wherein the US can’t see its own atrocities abroad which are numerous and perhaps more so than any single party communist regimes.

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.

Ultimately this is kind of a book about Marxism and dialectics. Parenti finishes off with a discussion about the yin and yang of wealth and poverty and how they exist together. Poverty appears to be siloed off and relegated to individual choice but it is a direct consequence of opposing wealth concentration. Regressive taxation, labor exploitation, consumption, environmental destruction and recessive bubbles are features, not bugs, of the neoliberal global order. The smoke and mirrors of the corporate ruling class is that they don’t want us to know that everything comes down to class struggle. As fractured as society appears now, and when this book was written, the fracturing is likely a manufactured culture war that is extremely well funded and fanned by political interests. As long as everyone else doesn’t understand that there are only two classes, the labor class and the capital class, we will continue in a merry-go-round of vitriol, scapegoating, nativism, negative partisanship, demagoguery and fascism. The reality, according to Parenti, is that capital doesn’t create labor, labor creates capital. As long as the labor class refuses to recognize this in a unified way, capitalism will continue its inexorable and exhaustive ways.

[Σταμάτης Καρασαββίδης · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had this in my library standing for such a long time and i needed an easy and quick book to finish in a few days and i managed to read it in barely 3 days.

Overall I think this is the most popular work by Parenti and I'm glad it is. Not because it is such an
extraordinary and innovative work, pretty much the exact opposite, it is the exact opposite of innovative as a work. Nothing in it was something that I didn't already know and was very familiar with and Parenti focuses almost exclusively on Usamerican audience which is ofcourse not a bad thing necessarily.

The strong point of the work, and the fact that it is always suggested to non communists as a first read into socialist and marxist theory is that it manages to describe in a very easy to read way (in more of a speech-rant method of writing), all the externalities of capitalism. He doesn't necessarily analyse and explain the basic Marxist critique of capitalism and its inner machinations, he describes, analyses, and points out the external symptoms that come out of capitalism mainly ecological destruction, gender inequality, racism, sexism, imperialism, colonialism etc.
He also explains in the first chapter the very close connection that capitalism always had with fascism from its very beginning, he analyses the achievements of Socialist revolutions globally and the dire conditions that they achieved those despite imperialist warfare and siege conditions, he correctly and rightly so explains the horrific consequences of the dissolution of the USSR and socialism in eastern Europe and the genocide that it was for the people of Russia, the thousands of people and mainly children that died or were forced into total poverty, desperation, drugs, prostitution and trafficking, something that americans are not aware of thus it is very easy for them to call for "regime changes" and for "humane socialism" not being aware of what they will bring to the actual people living the consequences of imperialist intervention and the fall of socialism. Additionally, his criticism of utopian "left" and post modernism in his "anything but class" chapter are really refreshing to read.

Very interesting is his chapter "Communism in Wonderland" where he criticizes the central planning and bureaucracy of the USSR with many good and interesting critiques. Although he has a point, and he is largely right when he says that it is very difficult to 'centrally plan' consumer consumption and light industry, and a market is needed for that, something which many eastern european countries and China did in one way or another (eastern Europe unsuccessfully and China with great success by seriously and intensely studying the experiences of eastern europe and USSR and learning from them, Ronald Boer's paper on comparative analysis of market reforms on these two is a good read wrt this and i definitely recommend it), they eventually were not able to produce the effective quality and quantity of many consumer goods, giving a huge step of capitalism to be something that the people of the ussr could see that they lacked (when in China this never had to happen). His criticism of the lack of innovation is largely missing the point though as both USA and USSR were far ahead with innovations and even the prototype of the telephone, the parachute in its modern form, the artificial heart and many others were innovations of the USSR.

I didn't like his portrayal of Stalin as a supposed "autocrat" that "ruled over the people with an iron fist". This was largely ahistorical and it seems like Parenti really gave in and backed away to neoliberal propaganda alot.

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.

Other than that, it is honestly a quick, easy and good book to suggest to someone who's not a communist that will give that someone a more elaborate view on capitalism, socialism and the existing "critiques" of both socialism and capitalism.

4/5

[Erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m a huge fan of Michael Parenti’s famous “yellow tape” speech. I especially love to listen to it when cooking an elaborate meal in the kitchen, or when I want to bore any non-leftists to tears. Blackshirts & Reds is highly recommended in leftist corners of the internet, so I wanted to see if Parenti’s books were as good as his speeches.

Although I am a dirty communist who agrees with most of Parenti’s ideas, I found this book surprisingly slow to get through. This is especially noteworthy because the book is not even 200 pages.

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.

But I found the constant apologies for Soviet Russia pretty tiresome. Parenti attempts to answer a question I’ve often wondered about: why do all communist countries wind up with bureaucracy-clogged central planning and heavy-handed, authoritarian dictators? This is about as far from a Marxist dream as you can get.

Parenti argues that baby communist states are constantly under siege by capitalist military forces, so they have to spend precious resources improving their own military power and fending off capitalist attacks. This means less money for things like food, housing, medicine, and generally getting communism up and running—and more money just trying to keep the enemies from storming the gates. Because they are under perpetual siege, these countries default to strongman leaders (ex: Stalin, Castro) rather than being democratically run by the workers in a classless, moneyless society.

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.

That said, there is still a lot to like in this book, and Parenti writes with a clarity and wit that I quite enjoyed. I especially liked his description of Marxism as a “holistic science” that connects the dots between economics, politics, media, culture, entertainment, housing, religion, etc. In my own experience of becoming class conscious, once I realized how capitalism worked, I saw its influence everywhere. Capitalism is not just an economic system; it permeates every part of our world and our lives. And Marxism’s primary goal is to critique capitalism, not to design a communist utopia. As a capitalist critique, Parenti notes, the explanatory power of Marxism is huge—from mundane interactions at your job to the racism and sexism interwoven into large-scale systems of power. Once you know how to recognize the fingerprints of the ruling class, you discover they are all over everything.

[Joey Mopsink · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh my god dude shut up

Parenti has a tendency to just say things to which I’m like “yeah, makes sense” and do absolutely nothing to back up or illustrate his point. This work is not historically rigorous (much like the other books by him I’ve read) and is far too polemical to be intellectually compelling.

As much as it’s convenient to think so from a Marxist perspective, history is not a polemic.

[Doug · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hard to put down. Fascinating discussion of several Cold War angles on the overthrow of communism not to be touched elsewhere. Great, short, very readable intro on many points. Will be too taboo for some, but raises plenty of fascinating questions for further research.

[Julesreads · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great “fuck you book” (coined by a friend) to all the antimarxists out there. Great intro book for those who are ready to get a hammer-and-sickle tat and take the plunge into Marx’s bushy beard.

[Tommy Fitzgerald · Rating 1 out of 5]

The only difference between this book and a twitter thread from a Stalinist Hasanabi fan is that the character limit makes it harder for them to yap as much as Parenti does here. Probably contains the worst attempt I’ve ever seen from an academic at using a more accessible writing style and at points feels like reading a slightly more professional version of a pseudointellectual Reddit comment. Most memorable arguments were “left-wing criticism of the USSR being capitalist is wrong because the USSR had a strong welfare state” and “the gulags were okay since they were only concentration camps instead of death camps”.

[Nick · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mixture of some very good, and some extremely poor, analysis. Don’t understand the hype about this for the most part. Particularly poor in analysis of Stalin and the PRC

[Hungry Rye · Rating 5 out of 5]

Third time reading this and it’s still as good as the first.

[A · Rating 5 out of 5]

Magnificent. This is something you can suggest to people who want to start reading leftist literature.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good introduction to Marxist-Leninism. About 1/3 of it contained arguments that were novel to me, and the rest was an accessible and compelling rehash of things I already knew. A glaring defect of the entire book is the virtual absence of citations for any of Parenti's factual claims. I'm not arguing that he made them up, but I also cannot with integrity repeat claims without knowing how an author came by them, so this was frustrating. I subtracted a star for this egregious flaw in what should have been a relatively straightforward academic work.

The book is called Blackshirts and Reds but he only deals with fascists in the first chapter - the rest is devoted purely to the Reds, so it's quite a misnomer. The first chapter was useful in distinguishing right from left totalitarianism, a distinction that moderates love to erase and whose erasure ultimately serves fascism. I had hoped he would devote more space to this conflation, partly expecting even a theoretical framework, but he really just wanted to describe the issue briefly and move on.

The rest of the book is devoted to explaining revolutions, state socialism, and pushing back on common misconceptions about both. Highlights were: how we think of insurgent movements as "violent" yet don't use the label for state or economic terror; showing the utopian nature of many anarchists' and anarcho-communists' critiques of state socialism; showing how anti-communists routinely ignore the military and economic pressures that socialist movements face after coming into power; the distinction of "pure socialism" v. "siege socialism" and how pure socialism would likely fail in the face of centralized military opposition; and the admission that state socialism has been quite defective, while its benefits have been significantly underestimated.

This was especially interesting to read after Murray Bookchin's Post-Scarcity Anarchism, an anarchist criticism of "centralized, hierarchical" Marxism that wielded many of the very criticisms that Parenti rebuts. I find Parenti's stance somewhat more compelling, especially his charge of utopianism: anarchists enjoy the convenience of not having to defend any real-world revolutions, because no attempt at anarchist revolution has ever succeeded.

Parenti does veer into soviet apologetics at several points, something I would have felt more comfortable with if he better sourced his claims. It's hard to separate biased justifications for Soviet transgressions from salient points about the social safety net they provided, or the dismay many Soviet citizens felt after the transition to capitalism. I mean these claims are interesting but without supporting evidence they should not form the foundation of any sort of serious defense of Soviet communism.

Overall I'm glad Parenti is out there. He's advocating an important position in an engaging and accessible way. I wish he was more serious about academic validity, but I still think he serves a valid purpose through introductory materials and lectures. I'd just urge people who are compelled by these arguments to perform further research before wholly adopting the claims as one's own.

Not Bad Reviews

@pointblaek

[Devin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely ome of the greatest books written on the disastrous consequences of the resurgence of monopoly capitalism in the post-fall of the USSR. Michael Parenti once again [it seems effortless though we know it isn't] lays out a vast, meticulous history of market reforms that dragged eastern Europe down following 1991, all the way up to 1997, and connects this with the rise of fascism in the early to mid 20th century.

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

A. There is no ruling class and
B. That the working class is individually responsible for their oppression.

The anti-communist left contributes to the continuous capitalism-imperialism around the globe when they write off socialist nations in the global south as "authoritarian" or as a "dictatorship". Anarchists, democratic socialists [an oxymoron], dismissing these nations based on their stubborn refusal to detach from western propaganda, ultimately perpetuates the continued attacks and plundering of these nations.

I feel like Parenti never dips more than a toe into any sort of discourse on Stalin, but here he surprisingly dedicates an entire section to Stalin and the myths of the USSR under Stalin. It was pleasant, though I still feel that Parenti is more lukewarm on Stalin than supportive.

Ultimately this is a phenomenonal book and I'd say a must-read on life in eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia after the fall of the Soviet Union.