I can't find any Pernti thread in the catalog

You are retarded, i'm an ancom and although I don't agree with Parenti in lots of things, he is definetly not a tankie.
And probably one of the most underrated historian/intelectuals for his 'dangerous' views.

Yes, totally worth it, is probably his best non-history related works, it will appeal to any leftist.

Parenti's "Lies, War, and Empire"
youtu.be/Rt_iAXYBUSk

wtf I didn't know that Bernie and Parenti were friends. What was going on in Vermont? Even the fat faggot Bookchin lived there.

This has always been my favourite of his youtu.be/BYVes44hcJg?t=1341

Yeah pretty much

Animatio Parenti about Cuba before and after

youtube.com/watch?v=YIqm075vC1A&t=1s

Does anyone now if the youtuber that posted this video comes to Holla Forums?? I don't think I've seem him in the leftist youtuber lists.

Holy shit, Michael has some nice bantz.

Conspiracies and class interests:

youtube.com/watch?v=XCfGTWQiIJQ

The USSR was socialist, by Parenti.

kek

Thats no what he is saying mate

better?

Does anyone have a PDF of Inventing Reality?

Sure, kid.

Ok still he is not saying this things but:

Well, Marx argued since the start, that is not possible for the worker to recieve the hole labour of his work, at least in the lower phase of communism.
The ‘surplus product’, is that portion of social output
used to maintain the non-producing members of society (ranging from the idle rich, to politicians, to the armed forces, to retired working
people), plus that portion devoted to net expansion of the stock of means of
production, in capitalism.

Soviet socialism, particularly following the introduction of the first five-year
plan under Stalin in the late 1920s, introduced a new and non-capitalist mode of
extraction of a surplus
Under Soviet planning, the division between the necessary and
surplus portions of the social product was the result of political decisions such as Marx stated (Only Marx had imagined this
‘social decision’ as being radically democratic, so that the production of the
surplus would have an intrinsic legitimacy but, for reasons
both external and internal, Soviet society at the time of the introduction of
economic planning was far from democratic)

Here is a good video on how could it be democratized:
youtube.com/watch?v=gLQajWTwxt8&t=227s

Again Parenti is not saying that but in the Soviet Union, money and wages were introduced as a necesity at the moment but still,possession of
money as such was no guarantee of being able to get hold of real goods. By
the same token, the resources going into production of consumer goods were
centrally allocated. Suppose the workers won higher ruble wages: by itself this
would achieve nothing, since the flow of production of consumer goods was not
responsive to the monetary amount of consumer spending. Higher wages would
simply mean higher prices or shortages in the shops. The rate of production
of a surplus was fixed when the planners allocated resources to investment in
heavy industry and to the production of consumer goods respectively

Continuation of
as all does not fit in a body.

Parenti for the third time does not say this, but as is a common argument I will adress it (and probably the most valid one, I still have my doubts about this one) here is the reason for mantainig it (if you are troughfully interested I suggest you read, "Economic Problems of the USSR" by Stalin, or the second topic of "Towards a new socialism",although Cockshott mantains my doubts)
All products of labour made for exchange are called commodities. Lenin said: “A commodity is, in the first place, a thing that satisfies a human want; in the second place, it is a thing that can be exchanged for another thing.” A commodity has two properties: use-value and value. To become a commodity, a thing should first of all possess use-value. For instance, clothes are used for warmth and a machine tool is used in production. The fact that two different commodities can be exchanged is because there is something in common between them. Every commodity item is created by human labour and is the crystallization of human labour without any distinction. The magnitude of the value in a commodity is determined by the amount of labour-time socially necessary for producing it. In exchanging commodities according to value, people actually exchange their own labour. This is why Marx stressed that a commodity is not just a material thing, but a definite social relation between people concealed beneath a material wrapping.
Production for exchange in the market is commodity production.
Commodity production exists within a certain historical span. It is bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production. There was no commodity production in the initial stage of primitive society. In the wake of the development of social productive forces, there emerged social division of labour and conditions for commodity exchange; only then did private ownership and commodity production make their appearance. In the future communist society, the commodity system will perish. Historically, there are three forms of commodity production: simple commodity production, the capitalist mode of commodity production and the socialist type of commodity production.
I will not explain the first one but:
The capitalist mode of commodity production is based on the capitalists possessing the means of production and exploiting wage labour to get surplus-value.
Commodity production and commodity exchange still exist in socialist society, and a commodity system is still practised. This is mainly because two kinds of socialist ownership, namely, ownership by the whole people and collective ownership, exist side by side. No unpaid allocation of products between different ownerships of the public economy can be practised. Their economic relations can only be commodity exchange, and hence commodity production. State distribution of consumer goods among workers and staff also utilizes the form of commodity exchange through money. However, the socialist type of commodity production differs from the capitalist type. This is manifested chiefly by the fact that there no longer is the economic relation of exploitation of workers by the capitalists, anarchism in production has been eliminated and the scope of commodity exchange has been reduced. Yet it must be noted that bourgeois right unavoidably exists in distribution and exchange in socialist society. The principle of exchange of equal values is still carried out in commodity exchange. If bourgeois right in distribution and exchange is developed and extended at will, capitalist ideas of amassing fortunes and craving for profits will spread unchecked; such phenomena as turning public property into private property, graft and corruption, theft and bribery, and speculation will arise, and there will be a change in the nature of the system of ownership in certain departments and units which follow the revisionist line. The inevitable result will be polarization, i.e., a small number of people will acquire an increasing quantity of commodities and money and convert them into capital. These people will turn out to be new bourgeois elements. The labouring people, on the other hand, once again will become oppressed and exploited wage-slaves. Therefore, bourgeois right as regards distribution and exchange has to be restricted under the dictatorship of the proletariat and conditions for finally eliminating the commodity system must gradually be created.

I don't really undertand what do you mean by this, in a socialist economy trade is still needed as countries/regions can not mantain themselves, withouth trade with other ones.
Can you explain it better??

...

I dont have i, but here is a lecture talking about it.
youtube.com/watch?v=9-SK8bUsshQ

Don't know what stage of the campaign this was, but Bernie did eventually make a great defense of Cuba and a criticism of us regime change policy, bringing up allende and the Shah in iran.

Pretty disingenuous to assert that this extraction was not grossly mismanaged or being managed in a way that would actually ever bring about actual socialism. From simple luxuries enjoyed by the party elite, to a nuclear and arms stockpile that was much larger then it had any right to be, the bureaucrats of the soviet union continually mismanaged resources and didn't at all focus there efforts towards full automation and the abolishment of their own muh privilege. Wages and wage labor is indicative of the existence of a commodity form, and there is no such thing as "socialist commodity production". This is purely revisionism on Stalin's part.

This follows on the premise of their existing "socialist commodity production" which doesn't actually exist and is purely Stalin's revisionism. Commodity exchange between countries is not socialsim

Of course ir was mismanaged, and the lack of democratization in the asignment of such surplus, ceratainely was the main reason for the downfall of the union.
About such muh privileges (they were certainely lesser compared to western ruling politicians although this became worse and worse) well this was a problem derived for the extreme burocratization, the sate apparatus working undemocratically mean, that this problem could only become worse (and it was confirmed by Krushev getting into power, and itroducing pro-capitalist reforms)
About the "nukes", I agree with you, But you can't ceitique Stalins era militarization ,as this was the only thing that saved the USSr against the nazis and a hundred million lives.
Again I suggest you watch that video that basically explaines the problems of undemocratic control, and how to overcome them.
Still this does not mean the USSR was capitalist, it just mean that it was not democratic, I suggest you read, the introduction of "Towards a New Socialism" as Cockshott clearly presents this is a much better way than I.

Also, can you explain what is wrong about what I said about commoditty production? (that is no close to anything Stalin says)
I mean, saying that is just plain revisionism and such does not make me understand it better.

It's because it was undemocratic that it was not socialist, though.
Because of the bureaucratic and undemocratic nature of the soviet union, labor could never have really been rewarded in the amount contributed.

Parenti is a tankie. I wont lie, some of his stuff is good, but come on, be honest.