Why hasn't Michael Parenti really been given his due?

[RadioRaheem84]

I mean he is a champ in the progressive scene and is considered part of the lefty trinity (Chomsky, Zinn, Parenti) but he isn't really recognized elsewhere besides that scene while Chomsky and Zinn are.

Michael Parenti is probably the best political philosopher and historian on the left. It's my opinion, but I think that his stuff is incredibly detailed and razor sharp, more so than Chomsky's books.

His lectures can be considered simple and the best for a general introduction into political philosophy but his books are incredible. Land of Idols is one of the best books out there. Sword and the Dollar is a great book on imperialism and his books on the media go far beyond anything touched in Manufacturing Consent.

Blackshirts and Reds puts so much of history into context that it dispels a lot of the anti-communist rhetoric out there with precision knife.

If you want a book that attacks the whole Nazism is socialism myth that is spread today, that is the book to pick up.

I invite anyone who has heard his lectures to read his books. His lectures and speeches are very broad and seem generalized to fit a popular audience. They're informative but really nothing more than what could be gathered from listening to Chomsky or Zinn.

But his books are another thing entirely. I had thought that his books were going to be like his lectures but I was wrong. Democracy for the Few was an extensive read and a total denunciation of contemporary american society.

[GPDP]

Because he's too materialist for the idealist liberal crowd.

As for within actual leftists... well, we like our Marx and Lenin too much to look at something contemporary, I suppose.

[Chimurenga.]

I completely agree. The man's work should be in every library everywhere. He definitely doesn't get his due.

Also, I found this the other day randomly, his book Against Empire is up online for free read and/or download.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16447645/Parenti-Michael-Against-Empire-1995

[GPDP]

Oh hey, turns out I actually have two of his books, courtesy of my old Marxist professor: Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media, and Power and the Powerless.

Both are kinda old (the media one's cover isn't even attached. Any way to fix that?), but I've been on a reading mood lately, so I might pick them up from among the many gems my professor generously gave away to me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have an interest in his book on Julius Caesar.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think more people are familiar with his fiery lectures than his books. His lectures, while radical are very generalized.

His books though are astounding. I recommend them all.

[Sosa]

I'll be honest, I haven't really heard of him. But thanks to you I'm going to pick up one of his books. Which do you recommend for a starter? I have read Chomsky and Zinn, and I am mostly influenced by Chomsky's political philosophies.

[Weezer]

I'm reading the Anti-Communist Impulse. I fucking love Parenti. :blushing:

[Nolan]

It's one of those great mysteries. Parenti is far better than the other two.

[Sosa]

What books by Parenti do you recommend? I'm familiar with Chomsky and love his books.

[Nolan]

Some great examples have already been mentioned. I'll warn you though, Parenti is what you would probably call a "stalinist."

To add to what GPDP said, the mainstream liberals are also not sympathetic at all toward viewpoints that show the USSR and other so called socialist countries in a positive light. The only soft spots are with Trotsky and Che, as romantic figures of rebellion. Not communist revolutionaries.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

. . . but [Parenti] isn't really recognized elsewhere besides that scene while Chomsky and Zinn are.

Not true! Every kid that loves that Choking Victim album is totally into Parenti!

[Honggweilo]

I mean he is a champ in the progressive scene and is considered part of the lefty trinity (Chomsky, Zinn, Parenti) but he isn't really recognized elsewhere besides that scene while Chomsky and Zinn are.

Michael Parenti is probably the best political philosopher and historian on the left. It's my opinion, but I think that his stuff is incredibly detailed and razor sharp, more so than Chomsky's books.

His lectures can be considered simple and the best for a general introduction into political philosophy but his books are incredible. Land of Idols is one of the best books out there. Sword and the Dollar is a great book on imperialism and his books on the media go far beyond anything touched in Manufacturing Consent.

Blackshirts and Reds puts so much of history into context that it dispels a lot of the anti-communist rhetoric out there with precision knife.

If you want a book that attacks the whole Nazism is socialism myth that is spread today, that is the book to pick up.

I invite anyone who has heard his lectures to read his books. His lectures and speeches are very broad and seem generalized to fit a popular audience. They're informative but really nothing more than what could be gathered from listening to Chomsky or Zinn.

But his books are another thing entirely. I had thought that his books were going to be like his lectures but I was wrong. Democracy for the Few was an extensive read and a total denunciation of contemporary american society.

Thats because Parenti doenst allow himself to make tactical liberal retreats on heated topics, like chomsky does alot. I also think that Parenti is much more of a political agitator then a intellectual cynic (which he critizes the academic circles for alot). The more of a threat you are, and the less people you make uncomfortable, the less attention you get.

[VNHCM]

Michael Parenti is most under-appreciated political scientist and historian I've known. His analysis is highly incisive, so penetrating and comprehensible. I prefer him over Zinn or even Chomsky. Perhaps he haven't been given his due cause he haven't got any unctuous title such "professor" or haven't taught at elite university like Chomsky. Or his uncompromising defense some positive aspects of "actual existing socialist" states.

[Manic Impressive]

Some great examples have already been mentioned. I'll warn you though, Parenti is what you would probably call a "stalinist."

A "Stalinist" :confused: I don't think Parenti would appreciate being called that and I don't think you should presume to tell others what they would label him as either. He takes an unbiased view of the soviet union and is not drawn into using right wing propaganda as the basis of his analysis. This does not make him a Stalinist.

[penguinfoot]

A "Stalinist" :confused: I don't think Parenti would appreciate being called that and I don't think you should presume to tell others what they would label him as either. He takes an unbiased view of the soviet union and is not drawn into using right wing propaganda as the basis of his analysis. This does not make him a Stalinist.

No, what makes him a Stalinist is that he views the former states of the Eastern bloc as "socialist" and argues that the imperfections of these societies were not the result of them actually being capitalist states in which the working class was subject to exploitation at the hands of a ruling bureaucracy but the fact that they were surrounded by hostile capitalist powers and were therefore forced to adopt what he terms "siege socialism", with the people who refuse to accept this kind of apologism being rejected as proponents of "left wing anti-communism". This is a classical Stalinist argument, it consists of arguing simultaneously that many of the problems attributed to state-capitalist regimes are downright lies and that those problems which did exist in these societies were simply deviations from an otherwise healthy social and political structure and that they do/did not detract from the allegedly socialist character of the societies in which they are or were present. Anyway, the most obvious reason that he is less well-known that Chomsky and Zinn is that both of them are scholars who have made contributions that are accessible to people who are outside of the revolutionary left, with Chomsky this is true of his work in linguistics and with Zinn this is true of his work as a political theorist in the area of civil disobedience.

[Nolan]

A "Stalinist" :confused: I don't think Parenti would appreciate being called that and I don't think you should presume to tell others what they would label him as either. He takes an unbiased view of the soviet union and is not drawn into using right wing propaganda as the basis of his analysis. This does not make him a Stalinist.

His views may be unbiased, but they sure are "stalinist" to most people.

Parenti is not a Marxist-Leninist, that should be made clear. He doesn't align himself with anything, but he's not one of those "antiauthoritarian" leftists.

[Nolan]

Anyway, the most obvious reason that he is less well-known that Chomsky and Zinn is that both of them are scholars who have made contributions that are accessible to people who are outside of the revolutionary left, with Chomsky this is true of his work in linguistics and with Zinn this is true of his work as a political theorist in the area of civil disobedience.

This combined with more liberal-friendly politics = more attention.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, what makes him a Stalinist is that he views the former states of the Eastern bloc as "socialist" and argues that the imperfections of these societies were not the result of them actually being capitalist states in which the working class was subject to exploitation at the hands of a ruling bureaucracy but the fact that they were surrounded by hostile capitalist powers and were therefore forced to adopt what he terms "siege socialism", with the people who refuse to accept this kind of apologism being rejected as proponents of "left wing anti-communism". This is a classical Stalinist argument, it consists of arguing simultaneously that many of the problems attributed to state-capitalist regimes are downright lies and that those problems which did exist in these societies were simply deviations from an otherwise healthy social and political structure and that they do/did not detract from the allegedly socialist character of the societies in which they are or were present. Anyway, the most obvious reason that he is less well-known that Chomsky and Zinn is that both of them are scholars who have made contributions that are accessible to people who are outside of the revolutionary left, with Chomsky this is true of his work in linguistics and with Zinn this is true of his work as a political theorist in the area of civil disobedience.


Wrong. Damn, you are so wrong.

Parenti doesn't argue that the former blocs were examples of flawed socialism just because they were sieged by capitalist nations, he also argues that from that siege came revision and bureaucratic control. Read Blackshirts and Reds or at least listen to his lecture titled Reflections on Communism. He drills into the former socialist states on their inability to maintain even siege socialism due to many factors even within their control.

He argues about the corruption of politicians and bureaucrats and how their revisionism led to an awful society but nonetheless still afforded the people a modicum of decent living standards.
Even Chomsky argues as much as he said that Guatemalan peasant would've thought he went to heaven if he had woken up in the USSR.

Parenti offers a style of criticism unheard of by many academics.

Chomsky and Zinn are brilliant, I love their work, but Parenti is miles ahead of them when it comes to true critical perspectives on contemporary capitalist societies. Chomsky is almost afraid to mention that he is a socialist or that capitalism is bad in front of mainstream cameras. He'll say as much in a room full of progressives at a Methodist Church but when interviewed by a journalist or at the Harvard Kennedy School, he will waffle back and forth and sound almost liberal. Heck, most progressive people think he is just a liberal (or as Bill Maher called him a "real" liberal).

With Parenti, there is no middle ground. You get an anti-capitalist critical perspective (although lately he has been praising social democracy).

[Dimentio]

I mean he is a champ in the progressive scene and is considered part of the lefty trinity (Chomsky, Zinn, Parenti) but he isn't really recognized elsewhere besides that scene while Chomsky and Zinn are.

Michael Parenti is probably the best political philosopher and historian on the left. It's my opinion, but I think that his stuff is incredibly detailed and razor sharp, more so than Chomsky's books.

His lectures can be considered simple and the best for a general introduction into political philosophy but his books are incredible. Land of Idols is one of the best books out there. Sword and the Dollar is a great book on imperialism and his books on the media go far beyond anything touched in Manufacturing Consent.

Blackshirts and Reds puts so much of history into context that it dispels a lot of the anti-communist rhetoric out there with precision knife.

If you want a book that attacks the whole Nazism is socialism myth that is spread today, that is the book to pick up.

I invite anyone who has heard his lectures to read his books. His lectures and speeches are very broad and seem generalized to fit a popular audience. They're informative but really nothing more than what could be gathered from listening to Chomsky or Zinn.

But his books are another thing entirely. I had thought that his books were going to be like his lectures but I was wrong. Democracy for the Few was an extensive read and a total denunciation of contemporary american society.

http://www.milkintheclock.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/milosevic.jpg

This is why. He came off as a Milosêvic supporter in the 90's, when most progressives either cheered for NATO or were silent.

[RadioRaheem84]

Chomsky and Parenti had similar views on the Balkan wars. Why wasn't he castigated? Chomsky wasn't a supporter of Milosevic but was damn critical of Clinton, the intervention and NATO.

[Dimentio]

Because Parenti is (or is perceived as) more authoritarian in general. Chomsky is a vaguely libertarian-something socialist. Zinn's somewhere in between.

[Rakhmetov]

Books I love by Parenti

Blackshirts & Reds

Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment

Democracy For The Few

Dirty Truths

History as Mystery

Anti-Communist Impulse

Sword & the Dollar

[RadioRaheem84]

Land of Idols. One of the best books ever written.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I've come to appreciate his newest book, "God and his Demons". He really strikes it hard on those who uphold "christian values" in comparison to Socialism.

[JanModaal]

As a newbie to this I must say I've read relatively few books on socialism and the like, but I've moved in this direction because of Micheal Parenti.

Before I heard of his analysis I was a liberal (Capitalism sucks, but at least it's better than Communism!).

First I saw him speak on youtube and later I got some of his books yet I've never read a book by either Chomsky or Zinn, but having seen them all speak and having read articles by all of them, I'm pretty sure I prefer Parenti.

From all thinkers I've heard about who talk about how the world works politically and economically, Parenti, for me, seems to be the one who truly hits the nail on the head with his analysis.

Blackshirts and Reds is my favourite book of his so far.

[Wanted Man]

Some great examples have already been mentioned. I'll warn you though, Parenti is what you would probably call a "stalinist."

To add to what GPDP said, the mainstream liberals are also not sympathetic at all toward viewpoints that show the USSR and other so called socialist countries in a positive light. The only soft spots are with Trotsky and Che, as romantic figures of rebellion. Not communist revolutionaries.

Are Hoxhaists more sympathetic to Parenti, then? I would find that rather surprising.

[Sir Comradical]

His books are so readable, accessible and the clarity of the message is just amazing. I got through 'To Kill a Nation' in 2 or 3 days.

[Sir Comradical]

http://www.milkintheclock.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/milosevic.jpg

This is why. He came off as a Milosêvic supporter in the 90's, when most progressives either cheered for NATO or were silent.

Sometimes the only way to subvert the dominant pardigm in an environment of hostile media manipulation is to offer counter-propaganda. That is to say "well, if you think Milosevic is bad, what about this guy Tudjman?". I read his book on Yugoslavia, he is somewhat soft on Milosevic but that's understandable given the point he's trying to get across.

[DaringMehring]

Parenti is a good thinker, and a guy who is intellectually honest. He's engaging and persuasive.

He is definitely a Stalinoid (not quite a Stalinist but within that orbit). He was a member of the CPUSA forever, but dropped some years ago with whatever the latest revisionist turn they were pulling at that point. He still shows up at their events from time to time. He's one of the better types of Stalinoids though -- not too favorable to JV Stalin, nor too favorable to mindless defense of long-degenerated socialist regimes (though still too far in those directions both for my like).

[Nolan]

Are Hoxhaists more sympathetic to Parenti, then? I would find that rather surprising.

Why?

[Wanted Man]

Why?

His views on the Soviet Union, China, and Yugoslavia, obviously.

[gorillafuck]

Sometimes the only way to subvert the dominant pardigm in an environment of hostile media manipulation is to offer counter-propaganda. That is to say "well, if you think Milosevic is bad, what about this guy Tudjman?". I read his book on Yugoslavia, he is somewhat soft on Milosevic but that's understandable given the point he's trying to get across.
He denies the genocide that occurred, at least in the speech he gave on it.

He has written some good things but not everything he says or writes is good (some is absolute garbage, tbh).

[Sir Comradical]

He denies the genocide that occurred, at least in the speech he gave on it.

He has written some good things but not everything he says or writes is good (some is absolute garbage, tbh).

Srebrenica right? Yeah I suppose you're right.

[Nolan]

His views on the Soviet Union, China, and Yugoslavia, obviously.

I don't see why you'd think anti-revisionists like Chomsky or Zinn better.

[Honggweilo]

He also has a facebook, in which he respondes daily to people. And he's in his 70's :cool:

[Honggweilo]

I don't see why you'd think anti-revisionists like Chomsky or Zinn better.

Because some hoxhaists rage more against "tankies" to set themselves apart

[Amphictyonis]

I have an interest in his book on Julius Caesar.

I'm not sure if Caesar was as pro "working class" (or average peoples) as Parrenti paints him out to be. Although before Parrenti's book I had no idea he was killed because of his refusal to only represent the ruling class interests. Caesar did give concessions to the average people, as far as the imperialist Roman system goes he wasn't that bad at all (comparatively speaking). A good read non the less, I'm just not convinced he was "the peoples" man in Rome.

[RadioRaheem84]

He never made that argument. That wasn't the point of the book. It was meant to be about how any leader attempts to go against ruling class interests will be killed. It also goes into how modern scholars appreciate the people that killed Caesar and compares their attitudes to today's ruling class.

[Amphictyonis]

He never made that argument. That wasn't the point of the book. It was meant to be about how any leader attempts to go against ruling class interests will be killed. It also goes into how modern scholars appreciate the people that killed Caesar and compares their attitudes to today's ruling class.

Na, he was trying to soften Caesars bad reputation. The parts where he somewhat excused him for taking total power, the equality part where Rome gave everyone equal citizenship (i suspect it was to keep the empire together) etc. I didn't mean to say Parenti was trying to frame Caesar as a socialist....I think he succeeded in changing my view of the man, I simply question Caesars motivations. I also agree with everything you said :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

One of my articles here deals with the Julius Caesar of people's history and its relevance for Third World politics today:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/people-s-histories-t142330/index.html?t=142330

[gorillafuck]

To add to what GPDP said, the mainstream liberals are also not sympathetic at all toward viewpoints that show the USSR and other so called socialist countries in a positive light. The only soft spots are with Trotsky and Che, as romantic figures of rebellion. Not communist revolutionaries.
Che Guevara yeah, but I've never met or heard of a mainstream liberal who was sympathetic at all to Trotsky.

[Barry Lyndon]

Che Guevara yeah, but I've never met or heard of a mainstream liberal who was sympathetic at all to Trotsky.

Me neither. It must be something that exists in Red America's Stalinist fantasies.
It's pretty arrogant that he deems himself to have the right to determine that Che and Trotsky were not 'communist revolutionaries'.

[Nolan]

Che Guevara yeah, but I've never met or heard of a mainstream liberal who was sympathetic at all to Trotsky.

Here's just one recent example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trotsky

You'd never see a movie called "The Stalin." Trotsky does have a certain chic factor. Not nearly as much as Che obviously, but it's there.

It's also commonly taught in high school history that Stalin "betrayed" the Bolshevik revolution, so Trotsky sympathies reach deeper than you might think.

[Nolan]

Me neither. It must be something that exists in Red America's Stalinist fantasies.
It's pretty arrogant that he deems himself to have the right to determine that Che and Trotsky were not 'communist revolutionaries'.

That's not what I said at all.

[gorillafuck]

Here's just one recent example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trotsky

You'd never see a movie called "The Stalin." Trotsky does have a certain chic factor. Not nearly as much as Che obviously, but it's there.
That's one recent example, alright. An independent comedy film.

If that's "just one recent example", give some more. I'm curious.


It's also commonly taught in high school history that Stalin "betrayed" the Bolshevik revolution, so Trotsky sympathies reach deeper than you might think.No, that's definitely not "commonly taught".

In my school, Trotsky was only mentioned as having been the military leader of the Red Army (who were used to kill anyone who opposed them under Trotskys leadership), and having been Stalins rival who was killed in Mexico. Nothing good was said about him.

If you think it's commonly taught that Stalin "betrayed" the revolution, then you think that it's commonly taught that the Russian Revolution was a good thing that shouldn't have been betrayed. And the Russian revolution certainly isn't portrayed in a good light.

[DaringMehring]

It is kind of funny --- the way some people go running to "counter-revolutionary" Trotsky as an out in defending the degenerate Soviet state (see the rather sad development of this thread), is similar to the way some people go running to the USA to defend dictatorial North Korea, is similar to the way Parenti goes running to a state of "siege" to defend bogus state socialism, is similar to the way some people go running to Deng to defend the bloc of classes, is similar to the way people go running to Stalin to defend capitalism.

Enough of the pathetic evasions. Its important to analyze things as they are - socialist or not socialist, bourgeois or worker, good or bad.

[Barry Lyndon]

Here's just one recent example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trotsky

You'd never see a movie called "The Stalin." Trotsky does have a certain chic factor. Not nearly as much as Che obviously, but it's there.

It's also commonly taught in high school history that Stalin "betrayed" the Bolshevik revolution, so Trotsky sympathies reach deeper than you might think.

No, actually not at all. When I was first taught about the Russian Revolution I don't recall Trotsky even being mentioned.

Anyway, 'The Trotsky', like many of these bourgeois films, treats the desire for revolution like some juvenile distraction, and doesn't deal with the actual Trotsky with any substance at all.

I know your bending over backwards to make it seem like Trotsky is some sort of favorite of the bourgeoisie but it really isn't working.

[Nolan]

That's one recent example, alright. An independent comedy film.

If that's "just one recent example", give some more. I'm curious.

It shows the general attitude towards Trotsky, if not necessarily the Bolshevik revolution as a whole. Another example I knew about beforehand would be the album Permanent Revolution by Catch 22. There are a few examples listed there on wikipedia, find others for yourself. The point is Trotsky does not have as much a stigmatized name among a lot of liberals and is seen as "good communism."


No, that's definitely not "commonly taught". Commonly taught and commonly believed outside of the left.


In my school, Trotsky was only mentioned as having been the military leader of the Red Army (who were used to kill anyone who opposed them under Trotskys leadership), and having been Stalins rival who was killed in Mexico. Nothing good was said about him.Every textbook I've ever seen has Trotsky in a fairly good light or portrays him as an innocent idealist struggling against big bad Stalin. Textbooks written from a rightist or centrist viewpoint on the bourgeois political spectrum definitely hate them all equally. I'm not saying this is the rule among liberals, but this view is common.


If you think it's commonly taught that Stalin "betrayed" the revolution, then you think that it's commonly taught that the Russian Revolution was a good thing that shouldn't have been betrayed. And the Russian revolution certainly isn't portrayed in a good light.No, it doesn't imply that at all. It usually goes as follows:

Lenin is a misguided idealist who overthrew the tsar but killed millions of people (because communism doesn't work, you see.) Trotsky is his right hand man and heir to the revolution, as if this were even true and as if it were a monarchy. Stalin, on the other hand, is the monster who seizes all power for himself and ends any previous delusion of democracy in communism. He embarks on a quest to massacre innocent Ukrainians and poets who had a beautiful message to share with the world. Lenin led to Stalin (after all you can't spell communism without totalitarianism) but Trotsky tried to stop the logical result of communism.

Alternatively, Lenin is an evil butcher. But Stalin is worse. Trotsky is a misguided idealist who fails to see Lenin's savagery. In other words Trotsky is the Orwell who failed to see the light.

They both have in common: "thank Jesus for Trotsky. If it weren't for him we would never have known how truly evil Stalin was."

[Nolan]

No, actually not at all. When I was first taught about the Russian Revolution I don't recall Trotsky even being mentioned.

Anyway, 'The Trotsky', like many of these bourgeois films, treats the desire for revolution like some juvenile distraction, and doesn't deal with the actual Trotsky with any substance at all.

I know your bending over backwards to make it seem like Trotsky is some sort of favorite of the bourgeoisie but it really isn't working.

No, I'm saying Trotsky is seen as the guy who wasn't evil. He is a romantic figure that stood up against something. Che gets a similar treatment from many liberals. Is Che "a favorite of the bourgeoisie?"

[DaringMehring]

It shows the general attitude towards Trotsky, if not necessarily the Bolshevik revolution as a whole. Another example I knew about beforehand would be the album Permanent Revolution by Catch 22. There are a few examples listed there on wikipedia, find others for yourself. The point is Trotsky does not have as much a stigmatized name among a lot of liberals and is seen as "good communism."

Commonly taught and commonly believed outside of the left.

Every textbook I've ever seen has Trotsky in a fairly good light or portrays him as an innocent idealist struggling against big bad Stalin. Textbooks written from a rightist or centrist viewpoint on the bourgeois political spectrum definitely hate them all equally.

No, it doesn't imply that at all. It usually goes as follows:

Lenin is a misguided idealist who overthrew the tsar but killed millions of people (because communism doesn't work, you see.) Trotsky is his right hand man and heir to the revolution, as if this were even true and as if it were a monarchy. Stalin, on the other hand, is the monster who seizes all power for himself and ends any previous delusion of democracy in communism. He embarks on a quest to massacre innocent Ukrainians and poets who had a beautiful message to share with the world. Lenin led to Stalin (after all you can't spell communism without totalitarianism) but Trotsky tried to stop the logical result of communism.

Alternatively, Lenin is an evil butcher. But Stalin is worse. Trotsky is a misguided idealist who fails to see Lenin's savagery. In other words Trotsky is the Orwell who failed to see the light.

They both have in common: "thank Jesus for Trotsky. If it weren't for him we would never have known how truly evil Stalin was."

I see what you're saying, though I haven't heard it much myself (in all my life's experience people usually totally ignore communism, or reject it out of hand as "failed" etc.).

But what you don't substantiate is what is the truth. Eg, if Stalin was the commie-murdering gravedigger of the revolution, and Trotsky represented the classical Marxist tradition (I believe this), then who cares if some liberal obliquely approaches this truth, or even states it as truth. Truth is truth. It doesn't matter what some liberals think.

[Nolan]

I see what you're saying, though I haven't heard it much myself (in all my life's experience people usually totally ignore communism, or reject it out of hand as "failed" etc.).

Then again there are a lot of viewpoints that aren't raging ultra-right anti-communist ones. These are what I'm referring to. They always dismiss communism as a utopian dream at the end. It just takes liberals a little while longer to get to the point.

[gorillafuck]

They both have in common: "thank Jesus for Trotsky. If it weren't for him we would never have known how truly evil Stalin was."
Except you're just saying things which have a little bit of truth to them but you're completely exaggerating it all.

[Weezer]

I added Michael on facebook. :lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

Is he really on FB? :thumbup1:

[Sosa]

I added him as well. He does interact with people on facebook.

[RadioRaheem84]

Sweet! :)

[The Grey Blur]

yeah i added him too.