Parenti largely avoids engaging with the question of how "socialist" the USSR was in a substantive way. He skips description of what the USSR "was" for excuses about "why"
probably composed as an invective but neatly summarizes Parenti's approach. because the book isn't about establishing 'socialist credentials' of the USSR through research, it's about how propaganda and western narratives were full of shit. that's where he lives, in media criticism, and it's really the askers making the mistake of having historians try to read it as historical research.
but there is a lesson here, not everything in Blackshirts and Reds is totally up to date, and you should bring more robust literature if you're ever getting deeper in the reeds than popular media narratives
the top comment which links a prior comment has no sources, cant really look into their claims...
the next comment does have sources, and to be frank they seem like they were dropped in? i sorta did the same during high school (though not undergrad) to pad my writing. no comment on the content, i have not followed up with the sources... can any others with more knowledge comment?
I don't really understand why people say Blackshirts and Reds is poorly sourced; the book contains plenty of sources?
Reddit links were detected in your post. Here are links to the same locations on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
Link 1:
Link 2:
