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?
What I’m grappling with the most is trying to defend the USSR when “Stalin Bad” comes up. I can’t really defend my point of supporting USSR when there are such glaring issues that can be used against it by even people such as Parentti. Or I just can’t defend the proper points idk
Are_Euclidding_Me hit the nail on the head, many of the critiques of the harshness and centralized control fail to appreciate the siege that the USSR was under. Had they had the luxury of being able to pursue a gentler, more liberal path, there is every reason to believe they would have. That was not their circumstance however, and they correctly deduced that rapid industrialization and upheaval of life was going to be necessary to fight for their survival.
On top of that though, there are unforced errors as well in Soviet society, some of which are cultural holdovers from a conservative populace and leaders, and some of which are mistakes of their very own. Parenti isn’t a hagiographer, he discusses very real problems so that they can be considered and avoided by future generations. “Stalin Bad” is a manta for liberals, “how did Stalin err and why, and how might we learn from it” is the question for comrades. Correctly filing historical figures under the “good” or “bad” heading is not a useful pursuit