During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
– Mr. Parenti
watch this, comrade
parenti quote
Great stuff!The quote
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.
We need to be 2023 parentis
Sure is a good thing we don’t have propaganda here in the west
Amerika is more egalitarian, of course. Neither most men nor women will ever be able to afford to purchase their own homes, let alone single folk.
God forbid that a woman not need to wholly rely on a man for income. /s
If a woman wants to live a nice life with the skills that she has it is not a problem.
I don’t understand why the same people that complain about “gold diggers” also support the precarity that creates that kind of behavior.
or as a Chinese saying puts it: “A married daughter is like water splashed away.”
Oh, thanks NYT, that translation really clarifies a lot. \s
A recent survey by China Youth Daily, a state-run newspaper, found that nearly 94 percent of respondents approved of single women buying property, with two-thirds saying it signaled a desire for gender equality.
They’re defying gender norms by doing things which are overwhelmingly supported by the vast majority of the population. They aren’t even trying on this one, probably because the author doesn’t own a home.
In their minds, 94% of people must be rebelling against the ebil ccp or something
years ago on an obscure history forum, on page 69 of furious debate about women warriors in the past, this one dude shared a personal anecdote about living in China as a foreigner and how much literally stronger he thought they were compared to westerners, how they had more independence and dignity and it corresponded to actual physical strength. i think about that a lot, and i think it also should be said about Soviet women (remember the cold-war stereotype of husky muscular soviet women?)
NYT just claimed a woman living by herself contradicts chinese societal norms when there still are western “leftists” who think gender equality is when women aren’t allowed to cook for their husbands.
Also, westerners have no leg to stand on to criticise whatever goings-on of any other housing market, when theirs is locked in a shit cycle of interest going down - prices going up - interest going up - prices going down but not to the same level. And that’s only when there isn’t an outright bubble caused by banks being predatory removed.
“China’s curing cancer faster and cheaper than anywhere else. But some worry they may be going too fast.” - Bloomberg
NYT might as well have put out “Unlike the civilised world, dystopian China’s women aren’t selling their bodies as commodities just to survive, and are forced into positions where they can earn a decent living and even own a house”
Women having better sex under communism? It’s more likely than you think
I wonder at what point their narrative will shift to full fash, and start talking about how awful China is for giving people equal rights and opportunities?
A decade? Two?
I’d expect it within a half a decade tops given that US has openly stated ambitions to have a war with China.
