Reading Blackshirts & Reds and am at about 40% through the book. The amount of critique he is giving to how poorly the economic situation in the USSR was, how Stalin’s way of running things and how people were negligible about their jobs because there was no reason to be competitive or to do a good job is honestly a bit stark. Is this anti-communism or is this just good faith criticism?

  • Sickos [they/them, it/its]@hexbear.netEnglish
    29·
    2 months ago

    I felt a different vibe from his criticisms; it felt more like a way to engage the intended audience. Even now, in the year of our beanis twenty twenty six, when the failings of capitalism are laid bare and fascist brownshirts are executing folks in the street, libs still use “But Stalin Bad!” as a thought-terminating cliché. If the work did not lead in with criticism of AES, it would be dismissed outright as propaganda.

    I feel he has a very good grasp of how to meet an audience where they are, and guide them to where they should be.

    • znsh ☭ @lemmygrad.mlOPEnglish
      9·
      2 months ago

      This is the part I don’t understand, to me this seems very anti-communist or I’m not educated enough yet:

      By the late 1920s, the Soviets faced the choice of (a) moving in a still more centralized direction with a command economy and forced agrarian collectivization and full-speed industrialization under a commandist, autocratic party leadership, the road taken by Stalin, or (b) 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 militaryindustrial 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. The only problem is that the country would have risked being incapable of withstanding the Nazi onslaught. Instead, the Soviet Union embarked upon a rigorous, forced industrialization. This policy has often been mentioned as one of the wrongs perpetrated by Stalin upon his people.10 It consisted mostly of building, within a decade, an entirely new, huge industrial base east of the Urals in the middle of the barren steppes, the biggest steel complex in Europe, in anticipation of an invasion from the West. "Money was spent like water, men froze, hungered and suffered but the construction went on with a disregard for individuals and a mass heroism seldom paralleled in history."11

      • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        23·
        2 months ago

        And what was the outcome of this “mass heroism seldom paralleled in history”?

        Parenti tells you in the previous paragraphs:

        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. The only problem is that the country would have risked being incapable of withstanding the Nazi onslaught.

        So yes, the Soviets had two roads in front of them. Yes, one of them might have “produced a more comfortable, more humane and serviceable society.” And yes, that would have been a better choice. Yet, history shows us what happens next. How long would that comfortable existence last against the Nazi blitzkrieg?

        That is the point Parenti is making here. Often Stalin is criticized for the USSRs industrialization policy with out ever considering the consequences of taking the other path. We cannot relitigate history, we can only learn from it.

        It’s part of his greater point about siege socialism. That socialism under siege warps it’s priorities in defense of the revolution. The people during Stalin’s time sacrificed much in defense of the revolution. We can not simply judge socialism based on the form it takes while under siege.

      • Are_Euclidding_Me [e/em/eir]@hexbear.netEnglish
        22·
        2 months ago

        This sentence is key:

        The only problem is that the country would have risked being incapable of withstanding the Nazi onslaught.

        Parenti isn’t at all saying that the USSR did the wrong thing. He’s simply saying that in a world without Nazis, the USSR would have had the opportunity to be a better society than they were.

      • Sickos [they/them, it/its]@hexbear.netEnglish
        19·
        2 months ago

        The quoted statement at the end is an explicit endorsement of the Soviet Union’s actions. Examine the rhetorical framing, stripped bare.

        Paragraph 1:

        They could:

        1. Stalinize (grr bad spooky)
        2. Liberalize (yay happy society)

        Again, assuming the reader is of liberal bent, they are coming into the work with the assumed question “why was Stalin so evil/why are those communists so authoritarian?” This paragraph exposes that question, and phrases it clearly and semi-quantifiably, laying out two possible paths of societal development.

        Paragraph 2:

        I agree with you, reader, liberal society is fun and carefree, and could have been a cool future for the Soviet Union. Unfortunately Nazis exist and were looking for weakness. The soviets chose to structure their entire society to counter the rising Nazi menace, at great individual cost. This was not evil, it was heroic.

        He’s trying to open the reader’s mind to a grander scale of thinking. One where the society matters more than the individual. One where an entire society is the hero, and citizens understood the need to sacrifice individual comfort for the benefit of the whole.