Written by The Acheron In Motion
Michael Parenti offers an “interesting” description and evaluation of “Left Anticommunists” and “pure socialists” in his magnum opus. Unfortunately for him, a “pure socialist” has arrived to expose his theoretical confusion.
Introduction
The Communist writer Michael Parenti is widely known and read in Marxist circles. This article — with its limited scope and goal — will subject an extract from his magnum opus, “Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism” (the link contains the full chapter and the option to download the entire book for free as a .pdf) to measured criticism, fixing the historically inaccurate narrative that appears in chapter 3, very curiously titled “Left Anticommunism.” The simple reason for this undertaking is that Parenti virtually strawmans an arguably existing current in the Marxist tradition and misrepresents their views so crudely, that he is successfully able to show them as deceitful, shallow and utopian. This is not to be a defence of the said tendency, but a “settling of accounts”: presenting erroneous views and attributing them to a group, given its dishonest nature, logically produces a likewise dishonest analysis. Hence the main objective at hand is to “correct” Parenti’s doubtful introduction of “Real Socialists.”
“Critical Support”
We certainly cannot fault Parenti for being a mindless apologist, or an irredeemable ideologue. He has showcased his critical attitudes towards the Soviet Union and the “Socialist Bloc” many times, most notably in his 1986 book, “Inventing Reality,” where he stated the following:
“The U.S. media’s encompassing negativity in regard to the Soviet Union might induce some of us to react with an unqualifiedly glowing view of that society. The truth is, in the USSR there exist serious problems of labor productivity, industrialization, urbanization, bureaucracy, corruption, and alcoholism. There are production and distribution bottlenecks, plan failures, consumer scarcities, criminal abuses of power, suppression of dissidents, and expressions of alienation among some persons in the population.”
Thus, we cannot argue that Michael Parenti as a “scholar” (for what that is worth) is a consistently bad-faith actor. He seems to be aware of the many ills that riddled the USSR and scatters them across his works. What slowly becomes clear is that Parenti is a classic example of “critical support” (a term we most notoriously see being abused in circles that coincidentally just happen to like Parenti): even though he sees the problems with the nation, he still chooses to display the Soviet Union in a generally favourable light, apparently to counterpose the insurmountable, ongoing propaganda that has been concocting ridiculous claims against it for the last century.
This is not unheard of, nor is it a heinous crime, but the problem is as follows: when the propaganda aimed at the Soviet Union contains some legitimate concerns (as Parenti himself points out for example, “The truth is, in the USSR there exist[s] […] criminal abuses of power,” which has also been a major point included in anticommunist propaganda), in the vein of said critical support, they tend to be completely or majorly overlooked. Therefore, we get two alternative, directly conflicting but similarly false narratives — one of fanatical opposition that manufactures overblown, distorted and sometimes outright false information to mentally arm its citizens against a certain regime and ideology, and the other of a corresponding fanaticism (but in support), smug competitiveness (you see, my country had a GDP growth of 12%, yours had 10% — all of this altogether ironic for any communist) and willingness to overlook serious deficiencies of their favourable system.
Hence, we are confronted with the impotence of “critical support,” which lends all of its “critical” to blind zealotry and leaves us with just “support.” The dangers of this recent-but-not-so-recent political weapon (if we can call it such) warrants an article of its own, so as to not get too sidetracked, we shall conclude this section by affirming, that critical support loses all its moderation and effectiveness when employed scholastically, on a mass scale. It eventually turns from good faith evaluation into cursory and perfunctory support.
“Left Anticommunism”
We arrive at the crux of the matter — “Left Anticommunism.” To begin our critique, we must understand what Parenti means by this term. In the preface to Blackshirts and Reds, he writes:
“This book invites those immersed in the prevailing orthodoxy of ‘democratic capitalism’ to entertain iconoclastic views, to question the shibboleths of free-market mythology and the persistence of both right and left anticommunism, and to consider anew, with a receptive but not uncritical mind, the historic efforts of the much maligned Reds and other revolutionaries.”
It seems like, ironically enough, that who Parenti calls “Left Anticommunists” are in essence the same as who the Left Communist Amadeo Bordiga called “Falsifiers” in “The Historical ‘Invariance’ Of Marxism” — Communists who are Communists only in the name, pay lip service to Marxism and are actually the enemies of the historically inevitable pealing of Socialist bells.
But it is apparent, that Parenti is trying to allude to Left Communism as a current, implicitly calling it anticommunist. Here, we will discuss some of the things Parenti faults the aforementioned tendency for, and why he is mistaken. Parenti argues:
“But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions.” (every extract cited here and below come from the third chapter of Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds)
The first point of order is noticing the tone: “it is argued.” By whom? Who put forth ted such theses? Or is Parenti merely inventing a target himself and demolishing it, while ascribing such conclusions to the Communist Left? From the presentation alone, that seems to be the case. But Parenti seems to remember mentioning at least one such “Left Anticommunist” against whom he so bravely fights. On page 45, he decides that one such figure is Murray Bookchin (the author calls him an “anticommunist anarchist”), who in 1971 made harsh comments about Parenti’s concerns. But Bookchin is nowhere on the Left Communist spectrum, nor does he fit the generally given description by Parenti comfortably — Bookchin claimed Stalinism, Marxism, Anarchism, etc., at different stages in his life and was extremely unstable politically, jumping from one boat to another frequently. Parenti chose this interesting and hard-to-pinpoint person as an example of “left anticommunism.”
Therefore, the result is a chimeran term, which describes such a vast number of people from different camps, that virtually everyone on the planet can be deemed one if tried hard enough. To borrow Nikolai Bukharin’s expression, “simple as this theory may be, it is absolutely untrue […] because it ‘explains’ everything, i.e., it explains absolutely nothing.” The term “Left Anticommunist” is rendered useless through its overfluidity — if both Bookchin and Bordiga can somehow be unified in one category, that category must be quite metaphysical and abstract, and only a result of extensive and wishful mental gymnastics.
Parenti proceeds to coin terms such as “left McCarthyism” which is very cleverly employed, but it only contributes to the confused analysis of the book. He starts off by describing real issues, such as blind and uninformed anticommunism, only to turn this into a positive remark about the Soviet Union (the ultimate consequence of the doctrinarian critical support). This is in essence the core weakness of Parenti’s methodology.
The author continues on:
“Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.”
Parenti introduces the formula of “pure socialism,” which is supposed to represent the utopian, idealistic viewpoint of the people, who want everything perfected to an acme. Unfortunately for Parenti, the aim of this characterization misses the mark for the most part — the main group who are presented as pure socialists, and of course I mean Left Communists (and here we would specify, that we are generally speaking of the Italian Left), would reject this “trait” ascribed to them with enough historical proof and theoretical detail. We shall demonstrate this by a quote from Amadeo Bordiga:
“If Stalin […] had spoken of a system of commodity production after the conquest of power by the proletariat, this would not have been a monstrosity.”
Bordiga assets that like Lenin, all Communists find it perfectly acceptable to include commodity production in the era of Proletarian Dictatorship and had Stalin written so, it wouldn’t have been a falsification, unlike the claims made in “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.” We chose this quote, because it emphasizes the chasm between Left Communists and the likes of Parenti: what one deems socialism, is a part of the dictatorship of the proletariat for the other. Thus, the defects, abuses and issues that are natural to a tumultuous period of political and social battles are introduced into a mode of production, that is meant to be free from all such ills.
For Left Communists, nothing has to be perfect, and something going wrong is not condemnable, but what is condemnable is theoretical dishonesty. If one is transparent on these issues and takes responsibility where it’s due, while explaining clearly the character of the status quo, they needn’t be worried about being labeled “falsifiers.” This is precisely the issue with “it imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.” This is all meant to happen in the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat. How do the workers produce value in a society, which Engels explicitly characterized as having no concept value? It seems like Parenti describes typical activities undertaken in the said phase, introduces them into socialism (due to the fact that he has to be consistent in calling the “socialist bloc” actually Socialist) and terms anyone who notices this dishonesty “Left Anticommunists” while lumping them into a group with actual anticommunists.
Parenti claims:
“They [the pure socialists] do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle.”
However, this is outright false. The Communist Left has extensive works on how a revolutionary society is to be organized (as far as this is possible, the classic danger of utopian blueprints ought to be kept in mind), or how sabotage should be handled. And ironically enough, these measures would frighten even the most ardent “Stalinist” due to their “totalitarian” (completely meaningless term, but communicates the generally perceived notion of extreme power and control) means, especially where the Left Communist Party-form is concerned.
Then comes the worst assertion Parenti has made in this regard by far:
“No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.”
Oh, how interesting it is of Parenti to accuse people often described as “ultra-Leninists” of being unsupportive of revolutions. We shall not let his comments on success pass either, as he offers no coherent clarification over what a successful revolution entails — nor can he, as this term is simply quixotic and the very same thing (ahistorical and nonfalsifiable) Parenti throws at “Left Anticommunists.” In any case, there are no more passionate supporters of the Russian Revolution, a revolution which Parenti certainly considers to have been successful, than the Left Communists, who have written pages upon pages, affirming its importance and validity. Hence, this “thesis” of Parenti seems to be shallow as well, because if the pure socialist doesn’t support successful revolutions, (e.g. the Russian one) but we see such “pure socialists” who do, the statement is rendered incorrect. Of course, Parenti could be taking aim at the Dutch-German tendency, but given how small and insignificant this tendency has become, of course with no offence to those who still uphold Pannekoek, it is doubtful he spends so much space in his book combatting them.
But one of the more hilarious parts of this section is undoubtedly the next one:
“The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundamentals as to leave little room for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions.”
Apparently, Parenti missed the whole point of a Communist society. Yes Dr., Socialism would indeed “leave little room for wrongful acts” or “abuses of state power.” (cannot abuse something that simply doesn’t exist!) All such societal failures will vanish with the material conditions that gave birth to them. This is not to say that there will be no problems, but the nature and scale of them would be much smaller and overall inconsequential.
He continues:
“The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism–not created from one’s imagination but developed through actual historical experience–could have taken hold and worked better. [….] Unfortunately, the critics seem unable to apply their own leadership genius to producing a successful revolutionary movement in their own country.”
Once again we shall repeat, that the said “Left Anticommunists,” especially the ones we mentioned above, have provided comprehensive criticism with suggestions of what could have been done better. Parenti simply speaks from ignorance and has not been acquainted with specific literature that has dealt with such questions. As for the “not created from one’s imagination” point, it is most certainly incoherent and projective. This “oh yeah, what have you done?” attitude serves as a justification for everything that may go wrong, because it deems every criticism coming from someone who has to yet realize their goals as being hypocritical, utopian, etc. Lending such a dangerous tool to deflect critique creates the same problem we get with “critical support” and ostracizes you from the intellectual arena. Can one not criticise something they have not taken part in? One needn’t be a Vanguard leader to produce commentary. This infantile approach makes the whole point moot. Marx is most definitely writhing in pain under Highgate, desperately grabbing onto his letter to Ruge, where he encouraged for the “ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.”
And Parenti goes on and on about how these pure socialists complain about everything while offering nothing. It gets so repetitive that he is forced to interject with newspaper extracts from different authors to avoid the mindless monotony. Us ourselves trying to avoid monotony, we shall conclude our case and summarize the article in a few points.
The Conclusion
Parenti possibly thinks he has produced a highly original complaint. But he simply reiterates the many hours Stalin has speechified during party congresses about “ultra-lefts” and their uselessness. What Parenti fails to understand is that giving support to a revolutionary movement is not dependent on their success, but their genuinity, which can be judged and evaluated, so they are neither “ahistorical” or “nonfalsifiable.” “Pure socialists” actively support the Chartists, the Paris Communards, the Russian Revolution, the Communist militants enlisted in the ranks of the Italian Communist Party to carry out an armed resistance, etc. All of these projects ultimately “failed” but the support is still given.
Therefore, Parenti incorrectly identifies the contention point of “Left Anticommunists” and “pure socialists,” concocts banal claims about them, then himself zealously shoots them down and exits the scene very proudly. And as shown above, his “analysis” in this regard is utterly miserable.
