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.
Free press doesn’t refer to the business model for the press organizations.
Free press means that press organizations are not prevented from reporting topics, like the government.
Yes, there are plenty of garbage oligarchic press organizations in countries like the US, England, Europe etc, but they have also many truely useful organizations such as community press, school press (university) and expert groups (like scientific organizations)
State press in authoritarian countries function the same as capitalist press in capitalist countries, because the capitalists control the state in the capitalist parts of the world.
What is important is that censorship from the state/money doesn’t limit the press from informing the population - because transparency is how you fight corruption and incompetence, regardless of the nature of the state.
According to the Government statistics, there were no killings by police in China yet in 2025… Totally believable.
Oh, you have evidence that shows otherwise? China has plenty of social media and Internet access, so a post showing it? Or a credible reporter? If you believe otherwise, you must have a good, evidence-based reason to do so.
I doubt that the actual state stats for police crime in all of China is 0. I was trying to suggest that I don’t trust any state known for extreme control of information to properly report such a state.
Oh, care to explain? How many police killings are there in China every year?
According to the Government statistics, there were no killings by police in China yet in 2025… Totally believable.
My friend, there are both corrupt and bad police everywhere, and it is worse where there is no free press because they can get away with it more.
Someone get the Parenti quote.
The quote
– 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.
Free press as in free for capitalists to write their lies in? No thanks. State press only pls.
Free press doesn’t refer to the business model for the press organizations. Free press means that press organizations are not prevented from reporting topics, like the government. Yes, there are plenty of garbage oligarchic press organizations in countries like the US, England, Europe etc, but they have also many truely useful organizations such as community press, school press (university) and expert groups (like scientific organizations)
State press in authoritarian countries function the same as capitalist press in capitalist countries, because the capitalists control the state in the capitalist parts of the world.
What is important is that censorship from the state/money doesn’t limit the press from informing the population - because transparency is how you fight corruption and incompetence, regardless of the nature of the state.
Oh, you have evidence that shows otherwise? China has plenty of social media and Internet access, so a post showing it? Or a credible reporter? If you believe otherwise, you must have a good, evidence-based reason to do so.
Sorry, I thought my sarcasm was clear.
I doubt that the actual state stats for police crime in all of China is 0. I was trying to suggest that I don’t trust any state known for extreme control of information to properly report such a state.
Oh, what’s the evidentiary basis for that?