Blackshirts & Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

Rating:
Summary: True Colors
Review: An accessible critical analysis of the reactionary historical role of fascism by one of the most advanced and consistent scholars today.

One wishes, though, that Parenti would have given more details on the early, corporatist designs of fascism -- designs which appear disturbingly similar to what institutional far-right planners and politicians in the U.S. are attempting to implement in the present context by whatever pretext they can to impose their more deceitful and technologically distracting but no less oppressive agenda on the entire world.

Nevertheless, Blackshirts and Reds is an excellent overall criticism of fascism because it serves at least as importantly as a principled and unapologetic primer on the continuing practical relevance of Marxism to social change, the author making concisely clear why the honest study of Communist theory and practice -- undistorted by its dedicated enemies -- is no idle exercise in nostalgia, but a necessary prerequisite to really understand and transform present-day society.

Parenti also includes, here and there, a welcome critique of Noam Chomsky, whose political shortcomings and acknowledged ignorance of and indifference to fundamental Marxism and its actual development may not be readily apparent to the casual observer unfamiliar with his particular anarchistic anticommunist bias, notwithstanding his progressive stand on certain issues whatever his way of reasoning.

Rating:
Summary: Vital facts & arguments, although somewhat disappointing
Review: If nothing else, Parenti's book provokes a number of interesting and important questions. Parenti is an uncompromising Marxist, and he adeptly shows the freshness, validity and relevance of Marxist analysis when studying contemporary events. However, this book suffers from a lack of focus. First he goes into an interesting historical overview of fascism in Europe, and notes how integrally tied such movements were to the traditional conservative right (something all too often glossed over in many subsequent histories of fascism's heyday). He then looks at communist systems and refutes many of the misconceptions which were widely held about them in the West - even though this includes some unnecessary and rather disturbing apologies for the brutality of Stalinism. He provides his own unsparing critique of the former communist systems of Eastern Europe and the reasons for their fall. He also tells why the world should not generally rejoice at the complete predominance of global capitalism and non-accountable organizations like the WTO, which herald more exploitation of Third World workers (and not just them) and, perhaps more importantly, the devastating ramifications for the environment. Unfortunately, Parenti does not really give any ideas on how a revolutionary, worker-based, socially just system can survive in the modern world of rising global capitalism. In a text that begs for some sort of proposals for future solutions and alternatives to untrammeled capitalism, his conclusions are rather vague and unsatisfying. Perhaps this is not necessarily the author's fault, as it's just a reflection of the fact that no real alternatives seem feasible, at least not from the strict Marxist/communist point of view.

Rating:
Summary: Pro-Marxism. Blacks and whites.
Review: Marxism is a good tool for social analysis, but it is anything but science. To put one basic point on the block: the Hegelian dialectic concept 'thesis/antithesis/synthesis' is a scam (thousands of pages have been written on the negation of the negation). What really happens is social and political struggles or 'action / reaction'.
The Marxist solution to circumvent the capitalist economic cycles - plan economy - is leaving the economic power in the hands of the bureaucrats and is the 'Road to Serfdom' (Hayek).

Besides, Marxism doesn't say anything on three essential factors in the evolution of mankind: on the macroside 'demography and nationalism', and on the microside 'the nature of the individual / the genes'. Or, as L. Betzig says: 'how things really are'.
Into the bargain, it gives a black/white picture of mankind: the good prolets and the bad capitalists. Marxist observers are sometimes amazed about what happens when after a revolution the proletarians take over power in a country: the same 'slaughter and suffering' (G. Williams); first, the capitalists, then the fellow travelers and ultimately the fellows. The examples of proletarians, who became almighty, are countless. Justinian - the son of a shepherd - and his wive Theodora - a 'life' actress - (Procopius), Mrs. Mao (R. Witke), to name a few scandalous rulers. But the diehards will pretend that this kind of prolets corrupted the system and became the 'gravediggers of the revolution'.
How was it possible that the German Democratic Republic created a system where everybody spied on everybody, although - or because - only a fraction of a fraction of one percent of the population held the power strings in hand? Where the leaders too stupid? As Bert Brecht said: 'if the people don't want their leaders, why don't the leaders choose another people?' A disastrous missed opportunity (H. Mayer).

Gransci said it in other terms. He asked for an 'uomo novo'. Without genes?
Solidarity is not a basic human instinct. People will only show solidarity if there is a plus for them personally.

Michael Parenti attacks Orwell, but in his masterful 'Homage to Catalonia' he saw luminously what really happened behind the scenes. The Moscow communists were already liquidating the other leftists (A. Nin), even before the battle was ended with a catastrophic result for the left.

Why did the old USSR stop to communicate health statistics to the WHO in the nineteen seventies? When I last was in Moscow, a friend told me that in every Russian village there was a statue of Lenin, whom's arm showed the direction of history for the proletariat: a Vodka shop.

His defence of Lenin is also very controversial. Lenin was a pure antidemocrat. He considered that the members of the working class didn't comprehend the real aim of the CP in the world, and that their opinions should be discarded. The Bolshevik Party got only 18% of the votes in 1917. When they were again harshly beaten in the elections a few years later, Lenin didn't take the results into account. He created a one party state with a Politburo of 15 (fifteen) people. At the end there was only one who held all the power in his hands (see the formidable memoirs of D. Shostakovich). Chomsky is dead right: the top of the CP in the USSR wanted only power, not for the people, but for themselves. They considered that only they knew, could preach and implement the Gospel. With deadly consequences for all but one.

Michael Parenti's analysis of the situation in the US is right: democracy for the few (no proportional representation, a political duopoly controlled by the powerful), too many oligopolies (media, energy).
But for me the solution is not Marxist, but the other way round (A. Sen): more and better democracy, more free market, less oligopolies, free and more diversified media.

I felt that this book was too dogmatic. But we still need Parenti's voice.

Rating:
Summary: Obvious truths often unsaid
Review: Michael Parenti is the best writer in the world covering international affairs, for that matter domestic American issues as well. In "Blackshirts and Reds" he again demonstrates his willingness to go against the orthodoxy of both the right, center and unfortunately left, by revealing facts and truths the powers that be just don't want to be bothered with; and many honorable leftists are afraid to utter for the fear of being branded as Stalinist sympathizers.
His description of the CURRENT social and economic conditions for the average Eastern European and citizens of the former USSR is worth the price of the book alone. The obvious conclusion is that they'd be much better off under the old egalitarian system than their current lives of penury under the new capitalist system that Yeltsin, the nomenclatura and the United States were and are so eager to throw upon them.
... Propping up brutal undemocratic regimes (Chile, El Salvador, Indonesia, Guatamala, etc.) that are conducive to capitalist penetration and exploitation while obliterating democratically elected governments (Nicaragua, The Congo, Allende's Chile, Spain, Vietnam, East Timor, etc.) that want to follow a more egalitarian non-capitalist path are some of the things the capitalist powers have done during the last millenia. Of course they couch their criminal conduct (often carried out by the CIA, U.S. State Department and segments of the U.S. military often times using proxies) in euphemisms such as "free markets" and "free elections."
Parenti eloquently describes how and why the former USSR collapsed and he doesn't feel the need to constantly make casual asides about how evil Stalin supposedly was. He mentions how the Soviet Union's collapse had a lot more to do with the constant capitalist propaganda and glittery materialistic imagery of the West than with the failure of Communism itself. Today, the average Russian citizen would be much better off economically and socially (they wouldn't have to fend for their livelihoods against organized mafiosi or suffer through exploitative jobs or prostitute themselves) if they were still in a Socialist state rather than living in the current capitalist nightmare that was rammed down their throats in a shock treatment manner. Parenti touches on all of this. He also delivers an array of facts and figures which demonstrate that the Gulag and Stalin were no where near the hellishness that they're often labeled as being by pro-West capitalist sympathizers. Lastly, his analysis of the manner in which the East Germans dealt with former sadistic Nazi criminals and fascist sociopaths (imprisoning them and holding them accountable for their execrable and hateful actions) as opposed to the coddling West Germany bestowed on them is some of the most fascinating and intellectually enlightening passages I've read in years.
I can not recommend this book enough and I eagerly anticipate the intellectual joys his next book will bring.

Rating:
Summary: strong heterodox analysis of 20th century ideologies
Review: Parenti does it again! In this book he traces brilliantly the appeal and development of the fascist movement, explaining how fascist leaders use irrational symbols to manipulate people who have very rational concerns about their diminished living standards. Parenti is one of the very few analysts who actually assesses the real economic impact of fascist governance; he proves that fascism lead to ever-greater brutalization of the workers, and a gross redistribution of wealth upward to the system's corporate benefactors. Parenti explores closely the actual record of Communist leadership; he provides a nuanced analysis that both praises the Communists for their achievements in the matter of social equity , and criticizes these states for their oppression of their people. Nonetheless, Parenti proves that even tyrants like Stalin were not quite as bad as their fascist counterparts, for every Communist leader had to constantly resist the imperialist pressures of the capitalist west. Parenti also brilliantly derides those so-called liberals who ignore the issue of class today. He points out that true progressives should be more concerned with the living conditions of working people than with some sterile, lofty, and ulimately meaningless debate over cultural issues. All in all, a very solid book; I didn't agree with everything in it, but I did agree with most of it. Parenti writes well, persuasively, and coherently. His writing comes as a much needed rejoinder to the rightist and centrist blather which currently dominates TV punditry, newspaper editorials, the mainstream news magazines, et al.

Rating:
Summary: Uncompromising Radicalism
Review: Parenti shares his most current thoughts on fascism, socialism, communism and capitalism in an unique and personal ways, without apologies. Although it's true that the book rehases running dispute between leninism and anarchism, it does carry a sense of intellectual honesty in defending and explaning his political convictions -- especially when most leftists find it now more opportune to be seen as a liberal socialist, even if their personal histories don't confirm such wish.

Parenti has always been out there defending revolutions and revolutionaries, although one can question his personal emphasis on the russian revolution and east european countries over other third world liberations. At the same time, he is quick to point out genunine concerns with the bureaucratic natures of soviet states and their ineffieciencies. Although this is similar to other liberal socialists, he distingishes himself from the pack by showing a truer appreciation and understanding to the difficulties of revolutions within the international domination of us imperialism as best exemplified by the sandanista revolution. The book devotes a whole chapter on "communist wonderland" on this subject. After reading this chapter one cannot honestly call him a communist apologist.

Ironically when the current political tide encourages more leftist intellectuals to be more critical of communist revolutions, Parenti refuses the opportunity to step in with the pack. There is a sense of sincerity in his uncompromising stance as one of the last remaining soldiers down in the tranches of fighting capitalism and imperialism.

Rating:
Summary: false vision
Review: Parenti's books general are very little objective according historical facts.They are subjective impressions of author about
current situation on the background of historical events .
Author glorifies Lenini's communism..even communist concentration camps comparing them.....whith American's camp detentions for Japans during the II World War.This is stupidity of a leftist propagandist completely blind on real goals these camps, and conditions in which people could live there.
Gulags had been morderous concentration camps where all population of discriminated people by communist regime had been in total way liqiudated .They became a fashion for future Hitler's camps for political prisoner.Gulags had been the tool of political solution in a form of holocaust .
Detention camps had been temporary settlements , and no one intended to kill any imprisoned people there.
Government of USA didn't keep there compulsory slavery labor..
didn't keep there prisoners with intentional starvation to death...or tortures in stile of Czk;that's CARDINAL difference between them .
It would be much better for socialist wonderful ideas reprezented by Parenti,if he would be more objective abou historical truths.

Lenin intentionaly discriminated more part of Russian society and sentenced it to death as.."kulaks"..as "petty burgeois"..
as "contrevolutioners"....or "SR" ..or..Anarchists (left and right )..."Whites"..or.."stupid farmers"...and so on..and so on.
In effect above 20 milion people just Lenin killed in Czk..in concentration cumps ..by shooting squadrons..by politics of starvation created INTENTIONALLY by his regime,under the pretext of "domestic war ".Parenti should be very happy,that he didn't live under Lenin's regime..he couldn't be so "independent" lecturer as he is now ...with own opinions...unless he would be "good" Lenin's propagandist...but he would later be killed by Stalin's regime,which didn't want to save anyone from "old revolutioners" and killed them all in exact way.

Why Parenti didn't mention even one word bloody supression of Kronstadt Uprising..just against Lenin's Party and red biurocracy ( new form of red bourgeoisie under Lenin's regime );
why Parenti didn't mension in his book even one word,communist Pol-Pot and his crimes against humanity...but he is pouring crocodile tiers upon...American's detention camps (!)This kind of "history" is called in another word PROPAGANDA someone who is very limited in his opinions .

Parenti's books are good as a kind of provocation for discuss but not as a source of historical objective facts .They are the kind of propaganda of author's opinions.

Rating:
Summary: Pathetic Historical Revisionism
Review: This book is a pathetic example of a bona fide Socialist as he rewrites history and political thought before you very eyes. There are numerous errors throughout the book but probably the most egregious is the authors link of Fascism to the right wing. While this may be the political fantasy of any and all true socialists it is far from the truth. But lets get into the debate immediately and see if we can bring some Fact to this work of fiction.

First of all the author incorrectly calls the German Nazi's a fascist party. This is so absurd that it is easily rebuffed here, but first let me give a little history. The term NAZI was a nickname given to the members of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Socialist is the operative word here.) This is of course Hitler's outfit, which formed the core of the Third Reich. National Socialists are just another variation on the theme of Socialism and they acquired their nickname though a cartoon character, "Ignaz", nicknamed "Nazi" who was the stereotypical Jew. Before the horror of the reality set in, it seemed a good joke on the posturing, parading, clearly anti-Semitic national socialists to share a nickname with a Jewish cartoon character. Later, Stalin thought up the switch of the applying the Italian "fascist" designation to German national socialist in order to erase from memory that the Nazis were, in fact, socialist.

Fascist just for you information, refers to members of an Italian political party, founded and led by Benito Mussolini, who was expelled from the Socialist Party of Italy and went on to start his own. The structure was a copy, the concept a variant of other socialist parties. "Fasces," a bundle of twigs with an ax, were carried before consuls of ancient Rome. Mussolini adopted the symbol, hence the name "fascist."

Other popular names of Socialist parties are Bolshevik's and Communists. It is interesting to note that in Hungary alone, the communist party went through four complete name changes during its tenure. It is an integral part of socialist operational methodology to make an instant switch once a label has been tainted with "mistakes" (such as too many atrocities), or when a new compendium of deceptions is about to be announced.

Regardless of the name that a socialist party chooses they all have the same elements in common. They are as follows:
1. Restriction of Individual Freedom
2. A strong central authority
3. The usurpation of legislative and judicial prerogative by the executive branch of the government
4. Some suspension of property rights.

Since Hitler's party and the Mussolini's party both urged the people to go along with all four of the above premises, both the fascist and the Nazi's (National Socialist German Workers Party) was in reality a Socialistic endeavor. To label it conservative is arrantly illogical deduction.

Since the author's main conclusion are drawn from such falsehoods the whole book is suspect and can be passed by and nothing but a propaganda front for the new-socialist.

Rating:
Summary: a good primer
Review: this book makes points that are easily understood yet quite deep in their meaning. i believe it's a good book for anyone that is not quite keen on what's really going on with rampant capitalism or what really happened when the soviet union ditched communism. i haven't highlighted a book this much since i was in school. amazing!

Rating:
Summary: My First Parenti Book
Review: This is an unsparing, uncompromising defense of Marxism-Leninism from a respected scholar of political science. No politically engaged person should fail to read Parenti's book. It will be outrageous to some, inspirational to others, but thought provoking to all. The author takes on critics from the right and the left in a highly accessible writing style. His ideas are presented clearly and forcefully, without technical or theoretical jargon.

Among his politically-charged topics: communism and fascism, revolution, delusions within the left, the collapse of the soviet bloc, and perhaps most important, the ongoing necessity of class analysis in a postmodern world. Parenti's book serves as a clear statement and reassessment of where Marxism-Leninism stands in a world that has seemingly rejected those ideas but whose triumphal market economies move increasingly in a Marxian direction. "Blackshirts and Reds" fills a huge gap for the general reader and is not to be missed.