Genuinely dont have anything to say. Not that I agree or disagree but I just wanna see everyone else's opinions first
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
72 points (98.6% liked)
GenZedong
5120 readers
103 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm skeptical about the alleged Mao line. Would like to know what quote they're thinking of because from what I've read of Mao, the likelihood would be that if he's talking about racism in the US at all, it'd be about the dialectical aspect of it, which is not the same as excusing people of any responsibility (which would be a mechanical materialist view).
Mao was a scientist in his own way, as is the practice of ML more generally, and it's important people not confuse a scientific socialist analysis with a priest absolving people of sin.
I'm also not sure I understand the criticism included of Parenti. He was not perfect in his takes, but what is "Chomsky" about pointing out that the US empire sends its own people to die in foreign wars? This is part of its dynamic. Parenti also had things to say on how the "third world" is "not underdeveloped but overexploited". He was clear on the damage being done there, as far as I'm aware.
Prysner I have nothing to say about in the specifics. I know little about him and if he's a veteran of the US military, it's definitely possible he has some baggage and biases that steer some of his takes in a sus direction. But it could also be he is being misrepresented, considering how odd of a portrayal of Mao and Parenti the take seems to be.
I'm also just like "???" about any take with an argument that is "read too many books." People need to read more, if anything, not less! So many "hot takes" on the internet would be so much sharper if they had strong study and comprehension of that study behind them.
I have the red book on hand so i was able to check it. I think they're referring to this one
"Among the whites in the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling circles that oppress the black people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people."
Hmm okay, thanks. I would say the important part there is... what did he mean by "oppress"? In the institutional meaning of it, he would not be wrong. Systemic racism comes from the top down, not from individual people choosing to be racist just cause they feel like it. However, I can see how some could take it as meaning "the lower classes aren't racist at all and never do racist stuff" which obviously isn't true today and I'm sure wasn't true when he wrote it either.
Mao also didn't build a revolution in the US and could have underestimated how embedded the racism was due to slavery and the shitty reconstruction era direction in post-civil-war.
So I would say this kind of thing is not a problem of reading itself (as the person in your screenshot argues), but of one of the very things Mao criticized: "book worship." For example, it could be I am being too generous and Mao was plain wrong here. That's okay. He was doing observation, analysis, and practice (and the practice part would have been weak with regards to the US, compared to his deep understanding of China); he wasn't drawing knowledge from a deity.
I would venture to say, in fact, that the line of thought that person is going down is yet another example of ultra-like thinking. "Look at how even these figures who people value had questionable takes. Guess you should read less and blame them for how you think." The bourgeoisie institutions are the main source of the bullshit. One of their plays is to seize on figures people like and distort their messaging or put more of a spotlight on their rarer bad takes. Like how MLK, after being assassinated, got gradually whitewashed as this exemplary "nonviolent protester".