• Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    1 day ago

    Spoken like a true lib who shares 99% of their perception of communist states with the CIA.

    “Murica bad but also commie countries bad” is western capitalist propaganda to drive progressive people into apathy and inaction.

    To quote Michael Parenti:

    So, you compare a country from what it came from, with all its imperfections. And to those who demand instant perfection the day after the revolution, they go up and say: “Are there civil liberties for the fascists? Are they gonna be allowed their newspapers and their radio programs, are they gonna be able to keep all their farms?”

    The passion that some of our liberals feel, the day after the revolution, the passion and concern that they feel for the fascists, the civil rights and the civil liberties of those fascists who were dumping and destroying and murdering people before. Now the revolution has got to be perfect, it has got to be flawless.

    Well, that is not my criteria, my criteria is what happens to those who couldn’t read? What happens to those babies who couldn’t eat, who died of hunger? And that’s why I support revolution. The revolution that feeds the children gets my support.

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I love Micheal Parenti but that quote doesn’t address the criticism. Parenti talks of revolution, OP talks of a government preserving the status quote.

      • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Of course it addresses the criticism. The USSR securing a revolutionary sphere of influence against the USA is obviously about the “looking for perfection after the revolution”.

            • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              17 hours ago

              I am referring to the Maoist concept of social imperialism of the USSR, which I tend to agree with.

              I am not talking about capitalist financial imperialism, this allegation being well refuted by Castro:

              How could the Soviet Union be classified as imperialist? Where are its monopolist enterprises? What is its participation in multinational companies? What industries, what mines, what petroleum deposits does it own in the underdeveloped world? What worker is exploited in any country of Asia, Africa or Latin America by Soviet capital? The economic cooperation which the Soviet Union is offering Cuba and many other countries did not come from the sweat and the sacrifice of exploited workers of other peoples, but from the sweat and effort of Soviet workers

              Edit: Castro’s refutation is also a great explanation, of why I would classify today’s PRC as regularly imperialist, even if not to the degree of the USA/EU etc.

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Establishing a hegemon can only be done after the revolution. Once you eat that pill there’s no perfection afterwards without some self-destruction.

          • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Again, I’m not the one looking for perfection. I’m the one supporting “the revolution that feeds the children”. That was the Bolshevik revolution, so I support it.