187
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
187 points (99.0% liked)
Slop.
778 readers
556 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Where I saw the criticism or where he cites vibes? The answer for the first one is basically every time he gets mentioned, including here. The answer for the second one is "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Ancient Rome" That's the one I remember the most criticism for.
The premise of historians not liking assassination of Julius Caesar is that Parenti spends most of it debunking the traditional claims of Caesar being assassinated for being a tyrant and instead shows he was assassinated for doing populist reforms that pissed off the landlords and ruling class (I think mainly for societal stability not because he was pro worker or anything)
The traditional historical view is almost entirely informed by the landlords and ruling class pov, and since the historians are drenched in liberalism they never really went out of their way to question the ruling class.
It's been a while ( years) since I went over it though so this might be off a bit
Bourgeois historians criticize the book that proven them to be either at the level of 1st year student or actively engaging in obfuscating history for the benefit of ruling class? No wai!
As I said ive seen the criticism levied here before too. I doubt most of the people criticising him for citing newspaper articles or his dreams or whatever the complaint is are doing so to undermine the left.
It's just that the main points of that book were never even about Caesar or Rome, those were just illustration to:
The latter, and thanks. I suppose I'm glad that it seems to be mainly the Caesar book and not his writings on more recent history.