(Edit. To clarify, I actually liked the article for the most part. I just found some problems with his philosophy lower in the article.)
Okay, the guy goes pretty much full revisionist by the end of that article, but I think most of what he said is sound in terms of facts. His philosophy and political ideology is not exactly correct, though.
He tries to compare communism to fascism and says that communism failed because it ignored merchants. It all sounds like someone who read a couple of paragraphs of a description of what communism was by a western source, but never looked into it further (He has actually read a little more than that. He at least mentions Deng and quotes him as well. His arguments just smell revisionist.). I bet this person just believes that communism is authoritarian but without CEOs.
(Edit. To clarify, I actually liked the article for the most part. I just found some problems with his philosophy lower in the article.)
Okay, the guy goes pretty much full revisionist by the end of that article, but I think most of what he said is sound in terms of facts. His philosophy and political ideology is not exactly correct, though.
He tries to compare communism to fascism and says that communism failed because it ignored merchants. It all sounds like someone who read a couple of paragraphs of a description of what communism was by a western source, but never looked into it further (He has actually read a little more than that. He at least mentions Deng and quotes him as well. His arguments just smell revisionist.). I bet this person just believes that communism is authoritarian but without CEOs.
you can really tell this was written by a lib :)