Thoughts on Michael Parenti

[Woodsman]

I am wondering what are some of the opinions on Michael Parenti since I do not see much mention of him.

[Prometeo liberado]

Is he gonna shave or let it grow? Fence rider.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

This is my favorite work by him. It is on the God of ignorant neo-liberalism, Vaclav Havel:


Must We Adore Vaclav Havel? by Michael Parenti
No figure among the capitalist restorationists in the East has won more adulation from U.S. officials, media pundits, and academics than Vaclav Havel, a playwright who became the first president of post-communist Czechoslovakia and later president of the Czech Republic. The many left-leaning people who also admire Havel seem to have overlooked some things about him: his reactionary religious obscurantism, his undemocratic suppression of leftist opponents, and his profound dedication to economic inequality and unrestrained free-market capitalism.
Raised by governesses and chauffeurs in a wealthy and fervently anticommunist family, Havel denounced democracy's "cult of objectivity and statistical average" and the idea that rational, collective social efforts should be applied to solving the environmental crisis. He called for a new breed of political leader who would rely less on "rational, cognitive thinking," show "humility in the face of the mysterious order of the Being," and "trust in his own subjectivity as his principal link with the subjectivity of the world." Apparently, this new breed of leader would be a superior elitist cogitator, not unlike Plato's philosopher, endowed with a "sense of transcendental responsibility" and "archetypal wisdom." Havel never explained how this transcendent archetypal wisdom would translate into actual policy decisions, and for whose benefit at whose expense.
Havel called for efforts to preserve the Christian family in the Christian nation. Presenting himself as a man of peace and stating that he would never sell arms to oppressive regimes, he sold weapons to the Philippines and the fascist regime in Thailand. In June 1994, General Pinochet, the man who butchered Chilean democracy, was reported to be arms shopping in Czechoslovakia - with no audible objections from Havel.
Havel joined wholeheartedly in George Bush's Gulf War, an enterprise that killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. In 1991, along with other [e]astern European pro-capitalist leaders, Havel voted with the United States to condemn human rights violations in Cuba. But he has never uttered a word of condemnation of rights violations in El Salvador, Columbia, Indonesia, or any other U.S. client state.
In 1992, while president of Czechoslovakia, Havel, the great democrat, demanded that parliament be suspended and he be allowed to rule by edict, the better to ram through free-market "reforms." That same year, he signed a law that made the advocacy of communism a felony with a penalty of up to eight years imprisonment. He claimed the Czech constitution required him to sign it. In fact, as he knew, the law violated the Charter of Human Rights which is incorporated into the Czech constitution. In any case, it did not require his signature to become law. in 1995, he supported and signed another undemocratic law barring communists and former communists from employment in public agencies.
The propagation of anticommunism has remained a top priority for Havel. He led "a frantic international campaign" to keep in operation two U.S.-financed, cold war radio stations, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, so they could continue saturating Eastern Europe with their anticommunist propaganda.
Under Havel's government, a law was passed making it a crime to propagate national, religious, and CLASS hatred. In effect, criticisms of big moneyed interests were now illegal, being unjustifiably lumped with ethnic and religious bigotry. Havel's government warned labor unions not to involve themselves in politics. Some militant unions had their property taken from them and handed over to compliant company unions.
In 1995, Havel announced that the 'revolution' against communism would not be complete until everything was privatized. Havel's government liquidated the properties of the Socialist Union of Youth - which included camp sites, recreation halls, and cultural and scientific facilities for children - putting the properties under the management of five joint stock companies, at the expense of the youth who were left to roam the streets.
Under Czech privatization and "restitution" programs, factories, shops, estates, homes, and much of the public land was sold at bargain prices to foreign and domestic capitalists. In the Czech and Slovak republics, former aristocrats or their heirs were being given back all lands their families had held before 1918 under the Austro-Hungarian empire, dispossessing the previous occupants and sending many of them into destitution. Havel himself took personal ownership of public properties that had belonged to his family forty years before.
While presenting himself as a man dedicated to doing good for others, he did well for himself. For all these reasons some of us do not have warm fuzzy feelings toward Vaclav Havel.
-- Michael Parenti


Sorry there is no link; I got it from another comrade on this website. It is good, though. I really do not know much about Michael Parenti other than the fact that he is a pretty good alternative to more reactionary and mainstream historians.

[Ostrinski]

I imagine the Marxist-Leninists like him. He is an esteemed historian and ML.

[Grenzer]

I imagine the Marxist-Leninists like him. He is an esteemed historian and ML.

So he's basically the Niall Ferguson of Stalinism? Gross.

[Ostrinski]

Haha idk. I never read anything by him.

[NewLeft]

I haven't read much from him either, however this is well written:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/michael-parenti-left-t134833/index.html

I read his Dirty Truths book a while back, it is a good starter book. It debunks myths like the "liberal media"..etc.

What I like about him: He doesn't always write for a left audience or obscure everything under Marxism.

[Agathor]

I've read a few of his articles, but not enough to form an intelligent position on him and his work. My unintelligent position is that he should be used sceptically. Some of his stuff is interesting, but when he writes about something that I know a little bit about, I find errors and oversights.

[KurtFF8]

The selection above about Vaclav Havel is from Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. It's a pretty good book in terms of combating some anti-Communist arguments by the Left.

I actually just appealed to the book yesterday in an argument over at PoFo about the nature of the "failure" of East German industry.

Also, the band Choking Victim used excerpts from speeches of his throughout their album so you would think Marxism-Leninism would be more popular amongst punks at this point ;)

[WanderingCactus]

He's a bit of a doofus.

(I've only read his book on Caesar, but it was presented in a really stupid moralizing way, so...)

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I imagine the Marxist-Leninists like him. He is an esteemed historian and ML.

Actually, this is a common misunderstanding. Parenti is a socialist, but really has never gone into detail after that. He likes Lenin, but doesn't like Stalin and doesn't care for Trotsky either.

I like Parenti, in fact I got one of his articles in my sig. and a quote from his book Blackshirts and Reds. I would reccomend that book to people as well. I don't agree with everything in it, but it is an engaging and thought provoking book.

[x359594]

Parenti is a progressive socialist academic with a long history of advocating for working people and students. He paid his dues with tenure denial and a beating by the cops when he was at the University of Illinois in the early 1970s.

His textbook Democracy for the Few is very useful and I hope it's widely read in colleges across the US. Parenti writes clearly and presents his ideas forcefully. He isn't saying anything new to the revolutionary left though, but his books provide good talking points when arguing with liberals.

[ed miliband]

Actually, this is a common misunderstanding. Parenti is a socialist, but really has never gone into detail after that. He likes Lenin, but doesn't like Stalin and doesn't care for Trotsky either.

I like Parenti, in fact I got one of his articles in my sig. and a quote from his book Blackshirts and Reds. I would reccomend that book to people as well. I don't agree with everything in it, but it is an engaging and thought provoking book.

doesn't he really like milosevic as well?

[Per Levy]

Actually, this is a common misunderstanding. Parenti is a socialist, but really has never gone into detail after that. He likes Lenin, but doesn't like Stalin and doesn't care for Trotsky either.

on "contrary notions" on page 190 in the article "left, right and extreme moderats" he says that trots, anarchists, anarcho-syndicates, libertarian socialists are anti-communists because they fight "stalinists". not to mention that on the same page he pretty much says that social-dems, progessives and "issue-oriented marxists" are the good ones who want to implement a social democratic goverment that would spend less on war and more on stuff the people need.

he is good writer but i find him quite naive.

[x359594]

doesn't he really like milosevic as well?

I don't know if he really likes Milosevic but he has expressed the opinion that Milosevic is a scapegoat and didn't deserve to be put on trial in the Hague.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

on "contrary notions" on page 190 in the article "left, right and extreme moderats" he says that trots, anarchists, anarcho-syndicates, libertarian socialists are anti-communists because they fight "stalinists".



I haven't read contrary notions but I know from other writings I have read of his he thinks that they are wrong for considering Stalinists more of a threat than capitalism. Some might be offended by that position, but I am not (and I am a left-communist).

[ed miliband]

I haven't read contrary notions but I know from other writings I have read of his he thinks that they are wrong for considering Stalinists more of a threat than capitalism. Some might be offended by that position, but I am not (and I am a left-communist).

left communist? wouldn't you then see stalinists as the left wing of capital

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Here is a quote from Blackshirts and Reds.

"Those of us who refused to join in the Soviet bashing were branded by left anticommunists as "Soviet apologists" and "Stalinists," even if we disliked Stalin and his autocratic system of rule and believed there were things seriously wrong with existing Soviet society."

Page 45, last paragraph.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Parenti pointed something very interesting out: while ultra-leftists, particularly in the 20th century, checked under their beds every night for Stalin and basically every other socialist leader, capitalism was beginning to become less of a pressing issue. "Stalinism" was the new enemy and capitalism was starting to be ignored. This was, and still is, wrong on many levels.

[ed miliband]

Here is a quote from Blackshirts and Reds.

"Those of us who refused to join in the Soviet bashing were branded by left anticommunists as "Soviet apologists" and "Stalinists," even if we disliked Stalin and his autocratic system of rule and believed there were things seriously wrong with existing Soviet society."

Page 45, last paragraph.

that doesn't address what i say

you say you are a left communist but defend parenti's defence of stalinism by saying:


he thinks that they are wrong for considering Stalinists more of a threat than capitalism

if you are a left communist wouldn't you see stalinism as a form of capitalism? so this stalinist/capitalist dichotomy you make makes very little sense from the tradition you claim to be part of

[the last donut of the night]

tbh haven't read any of his stuff; i know he's an ML and pretty big stalinist. other than that, it seems that his work on caesar and shit was a bit flawed, but i'm not sure. just seems like a dork though impo

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

tbh haven't read any of his stuff; i know he's an ML and pretty big stalinist.

Then you have obviously never read any of his works. He is not a "Stalinist" (Marxist-Leninist), not even a small one. Just because he doesn't start crying whenever Stalin and Marxism-Leninism are addressed, that does not make him a Marxist-Leninist. I always thought he was just an authoritarian social democrat. But his politics is not really what I am worried about. All I know is that he is a pretty good alternative historian.

[ed miliband]

an "authoritarian social democrat"? so a stalinist basically

[x359594]

When talking about a writer who addresses politics, history or economics it seems to me that we should address ourselves to principles rather than persons.

In Parenti's case, what particular text is written from a Stalinist view? Or a specifically Marxist-Leninist view?

I've read several of his books and all I can see is that he writes from an anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist position. When he gets around to offering alternatives or solutions they sound vaguely social democratic to me.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

an "authoritarian social democrat"? so a stalinist basically

This is what happened to me:

1. I wrote the post.

2. I looked it over.

3. I saw that phrase.

4. "Oh shit!"

5. "Fuck it. I'll leave it like that and see who will be the first one to point it out."

6. I come back to this thread.

7. I see your post.

8. "SHIT!"

[Book O'Dead]

I am wondering what are some of the opinions on Michael Parenti since I do not see much mention of him.

Somewhere I heard or read him described as an unrepentant Stalinist. I can't remember where and I don't know if that is an accurate assessment of his politics.

[Ostrinski]

Actually, this is a common misunderstanding. Parenti is a socialist, but really has never gone into detail after that. He likes Lenin, but doesn't like Stalin and doesn't care for Trotsky either.

I like Parenti, in fact I got one of his articles in my sig. and a quote from his book Blackshirts and Reds. I would reccomend that book to people as well. I don't agree with everything in it, but it is an engaging and thought provoking book.He defends the Soviet Union.

[Book O'Dead]

He defends the Soviet Union.

During its existence, almost everyone on the left at some time or another defended the USSR.

That cannot possibly be a valid cause for indicting anyone.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

that doesn't address what i say

you say you are a left communist but defend parenti's defence of stalinism by saying:



if you are a left communist wouldn't you see stalinism as a form of capitalism? so this stalinist/capitalist dichotomy you make makes very little sense from the tradition you claim to be part of

Yes, I see Stalin's tradition in Russia and the social institutions he sought over as completely and utterly anti-socialist and detrimental to socialist ends. That being said, many Stalinists now, whether you want to admit it or not, agree with instituting worker democracy, worker control, etc. I do not agree with their defense of that butcher Stalin, but that is their problem, not mine. I have a co-worker who is Stalinist and after much discussion I realized, whether he agrees with "Socialism in One Country", defends the Moscow show trials, etc. he still supports workers control, community control, abolition of private property, etc. I will debate Stalinists (M-L, whatever) to the end over "Socialism in One Country", the use of the vanguard party structure, etc. etc. but overall my enemy is capitalism and Stalinist states, not Stalinist activists, leftists, etc.

Maybe I just like to look past sectarian divides sometimes.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

BTW that quote wasn't a response to you, it was to show Parenti is not a Stalinist

[Sir Comradical]

From Michael Parenti's 'Left-Anticommunism':

"All this is not to say that everything Stalin did was of historical necessity. The exigencies of revolutionary survival did not “make inevitable” the heartless execution of hundreds of Old Bolshevik leaders, the personality cult of a supreme leader who claimed every revolutionary gain as his own achievement, the suppression of party political life through terror, the eventual silencing of debate regarding the pace of industrialization and collectivization, the ideological regulation of all intellectual and cultural life, and the mass deportations of “suspect” nationalities."

Ohh yeah, what a baby-eating Stalinist...

[Brosa Luxemburg]

From Michael Parenti's 'Left-Anticommunism':

"All this is not to say that everything Stalin did was of historical necessity. The exigencies of revolutionary survival did not “make inevitable” the heartless execution of hundreds of Old Bolshevik leaders, the personality cult of a supreme leader who claimed every revolutionary gain as his own achievement, the suppression of party political life through terror, the eventual silencing of debate regarding the pace of industrialization and collectivization, the ideological regulation of all intellectual and cultural life, and the mass deportations of “suspect” nationalities."

Ohh yeah, what a baby-eating Stalinist...

Thank you, and this is also from his book Blackshirts and Reds (if you can't tell, I am a fan of the book :D).

[Bolshevik_Guerilla_1917]

I love Michael Parenti, he always has his facts straight and always has shit to back them up, he makes alot of sense and really inspires me in ways

[Die Neue Zeit]

So he's basically the Niall Ferguson of Stalinism? Gross.

Huh? His work on Julius Caesar is so underrated.

[Bolshevik_Guerilla_1917]

The selection above about Vaclav Havel is from Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. It's a pretty good book in terms of combating some anti-Communist arguments by the Left.

I actually just appealed to the book yesterday in an argument over at PoFo about the nature of the "failure" of East German industry.

Also, the band Choking Victim used excerpts from speeches of his throughout their album so you would think Marxism-Leninism would be more popular amongst punks at this point ;) Choking Victim is the shit

[KurtFF8]

Choking Victim is the shit

Correct

[~Spectre]

From Michael Parenti's 'Left-Anticommunism':

"All this is not to say that everything Stalin did was of historical necessity. The exigencies of revolutionary survival did not “make inevitable” the heartless execution of hundreds of Old Bolshevik leaders, the personality cult of a supreme leader who claimed every revolutionary gain as his own achievement, the suppression of party political life through terror, the eventual silencing of debate regarding the pace of industrialization and collectivization, the ideological regulation of all intellectual and cultural life, and the mass deportations of “suspect” nationalities."

Ohh yeah, what a baby-eating Stalinist...

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

[La Comédie Noire]

I like Parenti except for when he talks about the assassination of JFK.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Huh? His work on Julius Caesar is so underrated.

Agreed, I think it is very interesting.

[ed miliband]

From Michael Parenti's 'Left-Anticommunism':

"All this is not to say that everything Stalin did was of historical necessity. The exigencies of revolutionary survival did not “make inevitable” the heartless execution of hundreds of Old Bolshevik leaders, the personality cult of a supreme leader who claimed every revolutionary gain as his own achievement, the suppression of party political life through terror, the eventual silencing of debate regarding the pace of industrialization and collectivization, the ideological regulation of all intellectual and cultural life, and the mass deportations of “suspect” nationalities."

Ohh yeah, what a baby-eating Stalinist...

brah, calling someone a 'stalinist' has nothing to do with 'baby-eating' stereotypes or whatever. you can be anti-stalin and a stalinist. parenti is an authoritarian social democrat with a hard-on for 'strong men' making history; don't matter if he's willing to criticise stalin or not: he's a stalinist.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

brah, calling someone a 'stalinist' has nothing to do with 'baby-eating' stereotypes or whatever. you can be anti-stalin and a stalinist. parenti is an authoritarian social democrat with a hard-on for 'strong men' making history; don't matter if he's willing to criticise stalin or not: he's a stalinist.

I disagree with a lot here, but I do have to agree that he does subscribe to the "strong man" theory. I find that annoying about him.

[ed miliband]

Yes, I see Stalin's tradition in Russia and the social institutions he sought over as completely and utterly anti-socialist and detrimental to socialist ends. That being said, many Stalinists now, whether you want to admit it or not, agree with instituting worker democracy, worker control, etc. I do not agree with their defense of that butcher Stalin, but that is their problem, not mine. I have a co-worker who is Stalinist and after much discussion I realized, whether he agrees with "Socialism in One Country", defends the Moscow show trials, etc. he still supports workers control, community control, abolition of private property, etc. I will debate Stalinists (M-L, whatever) to the end over "Socialism in One Country", the use of the vanguard party structure, etc. etc. but overall my enemy is capitalism and Stalinist states, not Stalinist activists, leftists, etc.

Maybe I just like to look past sectarian divides sometimes.

didn't respond to this at the time.

this is exactly what makes the slogan "workers control of production" so useless - since the late '60s/early 70s everyone has called for it in some form or another. the british labour party, the fabian society, ken coates and his 'institute for workers control' - it isn't a revolutionary concept, and one that can very easily be recuperated into capital and turned into a form of 'self-managed capitalism'. hell, even the conservatives defend elements of austerity by saying restructuring will give more power to people who work in certain industries/sectors ('big society', with it's own bank, is like a weird derivative of mutualism).

stalinists might want to change certain working practices, and property relations - do they want to fundamentally change the relations of production? that's the most important question.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

stalinists might want to change certain working practices, and property relations - do they want to fundamentally change the relations of production? that's the most important question.

The ones I know want to.

Again, this doesn't speak of all Stalinists and ESPECIALLY doesn't speak of leaders of Stalinist states.

[Book O'Dead]

didn't respond to this at the time.

this is exactly what makes the slogan "workers control of production" so useless - since the late '60s/early 70s everyone has called for it in some form or another. the british labour party, the fabian society, ken coates and his 'institute for workers control' - it isn't a revolutionary concept, and one that can very easily be recuperated into capital and turned into a form of 'self-managed capitalism'. hell, even the conservatives defend elements of austerity by saying restructuring will give more power to people who work in certain industries/sectors ('big society', with it's own bank, is like a weird derivative of mutualism).

stalinists might want to change certain working practices, and property relations - do they want to fundamentally change the relations of production? that's the most important question.

The confusing ambiguity or equivocation between social ownership and democratic control by the workers and state ownership and worker control can be traced back not to Stalin--however guilty he and his minions may have been in perpetuating it--but to Lenin in 'State and Revolution'.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

brah, calling someone a 'stalinist' has nothing to do with 'baby-eating' stereotypes or whatever. you can be anti-stalin and a stalinist. parenti is an authoritarian social democrat with a hard-on for 'strong men' making history; don't matter if he's willing to criticise stalin or not: he's a stalinist.

What is this piece of shit that my eyes look upon now? Where in the world did you get the idea that "Stalinism" (real Marxism-Leninism) is definied as authoritarian social democracy and an inclination to view history through the "great man" worldview. You simply cannot call everything you dislike "Stalinist." Anyways, Marxism-Leninism is a distinct ideology that includes none of these beliefs. You might view past attempts at Marxism-Leninism as "authoritarian social democracy," but that does not mean the ideology itself is social democratic. You are very mistaken. Stop pulling things out of your ass.

[ed miliband]

What is this piece of shit that my eyes look upon now? Where in the world did you get the idea that "Stalinism" (real Marxism-Leninism) is definied as authoritarian social democracy and an inclination to view history through the "great man" worldview. You simply cannot call everything you dislike "Stalinist." Anyways, Marxism-Leninism is a distinct ideology that includes none of these beliefs. You might view past attempts at Marxism-Leninism as "authoritarian social democracy," but that does not mean the ideology itself is social democratic. You are very mistaken. Stop pulling things out of your ass.

my definition of stalinism is very consistent kiddo and has nothing to do with what i dislike or like

stalinism for me - and i doubt i'm alone on this - refers to the politics of organisations like the communist party of britain:

http://communist-party.org.uk/

reformist, authoritarian and essentially social-democratic; mildly nationalistic and sympathetic/supportive of "anti-imperialist" states

"stalinism" has no concrete definition and even some who uphold stalin reject the term as essentially meaningless

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

reformist, authoritarian and essentially social-democratic; mildly nationalistic and sympathetic/supportive of "anti-imperialist" states

Reformist, like when Marxist-Leninists led most of the post-1917 revolutions and national liberation struggles.

Authoritarian, like when Stalin increased the power of the Soviets and made it easier for peasants to vote.

Social democratic, like when Comrade Enver Hoxha wrote "Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm).

Mild nationalistic (aka: anti-imperialistic).

"Sympathetic/supportive of "anti-imperialist" states." Yeah, we are, because we know that imperialism is what strengthens capitalism and makes proletariat revolution harder to bring about. Imperialism is not only the highest form of capitalism, but also the fuel of captialism. Anyways, we do not like anti-imperialist leaders for what they stand for besides anti-imperialism, we only like their struggles against the expansion of more powerful captialist powers, which also further spreads the tentacles of global capital. It is also necessary to remember that imperialism destroys lives and annihilates entire populaces. Do you want innocent people to die and the power of capitalist superpowers to be spread? All the opponents of anti-imperialism are either terribly idealistic (i.e. talking about how absolute proletarian revolution, hopefully worldwide, is always the solution to imperialist oppression) or they unconsciously support imperialism. Most of you ultra-leftists on RevLeft fall into the former category.

There are only a few Marxist-Leninist groups who actually worship anti-imperialist leaders like fellow socialists, but they are not representative of the whole Marxist-Leninist community, particularly not of the anti-revisionist community.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

BUMP. Read the truth. ^^^

[Ismail]

Michael Parenti was fond of the Soviet Union back when it still existed. In the 80's he adopted a pro-Gorbachev stance and claimed that Gorby was correcting all the "aberrations" left over from the Stalin period, etc.

Then the USSR collapsed.

Today he's a "radical" social-democrat. He makes nice points at times, but he's not a Marxist. He also took a very lame pro-Milošević stand (acting as if he was somehow left-wing) which basically apologized for Serbian massacres against Kosovar Albanians.

For what it's worth I think in the 60's and 70's he was inclined towards Maoist China, but in the late 70's a lot of the academic Maoists swerved towards a "we were wrong about the USSR all along" view (like Al Szymanski) and felt that the USSR was gloriously marching along for decades to come as an essentially socialist economy.