Isn’t that a great philosophy? Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. We have to see where the anti-Americans are coming from and why. Let us look first at the Soviet and Nazi cases. Later on we will deal with other types of anti-Americanism.
In the 20th Century, some anti-Americanism was coming from Nazi Germany. I think we can dispense with this critique.
Another line came from the USSR. However, this line was exaggerated in many ways. For instance, it played up US racism, which was good. In fact, it was Soviet anti-Americanism that prompted the Civil Rights struggle. The Soviet attack on freedom of the press was interesting. The opposition press in the US is legal, although Americans hate the opposition media. All US major media is controlled as part of the corporate-rich dictatorship with neoliberal corporate capitalism at home and imperialism abroad as its dual agenda.
On those two issues, the entire US media is in agreement. Only some are further to the right than others. There is no aspect of the US mass media that opposes the corporate-rich neoliberal project at home and the rightwing imperialist and neoliberal project abroad. However, in the USSR, if you published an opposition press, you went to prison. Here in the US, it’s legal, but no one can read you, see you on TV or hear you on the radio. You’re legal but invisible.
You can form any poliitcal party you want in the US. On the dual party of the corporate-rich dictatorship stands a chance, but you won’t go to prison for forming a party. You generally won’t go to prison for your beliefs, although the rightwing Republican regimes will often try to dig up dirt on you to destroy you (see the Juan Cole case). In recent years, domestic dissidents have been banned from flying on US jets as part of an insane no-fly list.
People on the list include famous singers and university professors. According to the fascist US rulers, the 2 million Americans on the no-fly list, including Cat Stevens and various college lecturers, are in danger of perpetrating an attack on a jetliner so they must be banned from flying. It is apparent that we no longer have freedom of thought in America. The no-fly list is a fascist project.
We do have freedom of assembly in the US, but the corporate-rich dictatorship simply ignores rallies, even of millions of people. The world saw the largest rallies in its history in the run-up to the Nazi-like War on the Iraqi People. The imperialists and their lackeys simply blew off the rallies and went ahead with the war.
It’s probable that no rallies of any size in the US will affect the US rich-corporate dictatorship in any way. Further, the media always lies about rallies, downplaying rallies against the elites, underreporting their crowds and or just refusing to report on them altogether.
In the USSR, opposition rallies and parties were banned, and freedom of thought if exercized, could put you in prison. In the US, we have those freedoms, but they are pretty worthless, since there is a 2-party dictatorship in power, most popular rallies are ignored by the feudal elite and freedom of thought is an interesting experiment with no consequences on the body politic.
One thing I will agree is that the US mass media is absolutely as controlled and dishonest as Pravda was under the USSR. It’s a propaganda system and the whole media sings the same basic song. The media is about as honest as Pravda was. The difference is that US morons actually believe the rightwing media of their feudal masters, whereas Soviets usually laughed at Soviet media as a pack of lies. Arguably, the US propaganda model is much more effective.
In summary, most of the Soviet critique of the US domestic policy rested on thin grounds. On the other hand, US freedoms are much exaggerated. True, these freedoms were outlawed in the USSR and an attempt to utilize them could put you in prison. Prison is no fun. On the other hand, a good argument can be made that US freedoms, while they indeed exist, are nearly worthless in terms of changing the rigged system which is nearly a rich-corporate dictatorship de facto if not de jure.