The collapse of the USSR was a small victory for socialism

[RGacky3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ&feature=related

The USSR was not genuine socialism, it was used to justify the state, and used by the US to defame the concept of all socialism.

Classical Socialism has nothing to do with the USSR. Socialism was always about people being control of their own lives, communities and workplaces. Propeganda (From the US or the USSR) does'nt change the definition.

[Invariance]

If this was a victory for socialism, then to hell with socialism.

[Dr Mindbender]

and he's right, thanks for posting this.

[RGacky3]

If this was a victory for socialism, then to hell with socialism.

Watch the video.

[Invariance]

I can't. I am responding to your thread title.

The USA and other bourgeoisie states will condemn, distort and lie about socialism regardless of how the system actually operates. This wasn't just applicable to the USSR, it was applicable to the anarchists in Spain, who were depicted as wild godless murderers who burned down churches. The overthrow of the USSR was by no means a victory in any respect for socialism. I would rather have a 'tarnished' name of socialism rather than the mess which followed - even if that mess is no longer given the name socialism. Anything else is disgustingly opportunistic - thinking that the overthrow of a system which led to greater impoverishment is in some manner a 'victory' because it means the USSR will no longer be associated with socialism.

[RGacky3]

I can't. I am responding to your thread title. The overthrow of the USSR was by no means a victory in any respect for socialism. I would rather have a 'tarnished' name of socialism rather than the mess which followed - even if that mess is no longer given the name socialism. Anything else is disgustingly opportunistic - thinking that the overthrow of a system which led to greater impoverishment is in some manner a 'victory' because it means the USSR will no longer be associated with socialism.

The USA and other bourgeoisie states will condemn, distort and lie about socialism regardless of how the system actually operates. This wasn't just applicable to the USSR, it was applicable to the anarchists in Spain, who were depicted as wild godless murderers who burned down churches.

Thats not why I said that, the statement was kind of toungue in cheek, to get Cappitalists who keep bringing up the USSR to pay attention, watch the video when you can, the point was, was the nature of the USSR.

[Richard Nixon]

So your point? All the communist states weren't really communist. If that's true perhaps a true communist state is impossible to exist. Have you ever thought about that? Also if all those communist states weren't really communist why do you defend them?

[RGacky3]

I don't defend them, most people here don't defend them.

And watch the video before you respond, please.

[New Tet]

If this was a victory for socialism, then to hell with socialism.

That's a really inappropriate response!

Whether or not the collapse of the USSR was a boon or a bust for genuine socialism is as relevant in my mind as the more fundamental question that Lenin himself would have posed: Was the collapse of the USSR a benefit or a disadvantage to capitalist imperialism?

In my opinion, it was both. In different proportions. Imagine what the world would look like now if there had not been a USSR to contain U.S. Imperialism in SE Asia! Not to minimize the genius and courage of the Vietnamese people here but, do you really think Vietnam would have lasted as long as it did all the way to a victory against the American behemoth had it not been for the material aid provided by the USSR and the PRC?

In 'For Matters of State' Chomsky himself says as much!

On the other hand, consider this: Capitalist imperialism unconstrained leads in two possible directions, one sustainable, the other one not: Socialism or Fascism.

Capitalism, unconstrained by ideologically-shaped national frontiers accelerates towards its own dissolution. In other words, capitalism without any borders limiting its global hegemony advances ever more rapidly towards its own collapse and destruction.

What socialists do, indeed, what the working class does before, during and after that collapse and destruction is of critical importance to the outcome of the question; After capitalism, who [rules]?

[robbo203]

So your point? All the communist states weren't really communist. If that's true perhaps a true communist state is impossible to exist. Have you ever thought about that? Also if all those communist states weren't really communist why do you defend them?


Thats right - a true communist state is impossible to exist since communism is by definition a stateless society. In case it has escaped your notice genuine communists have been at the forefront in attacking, from the start, those brutal state capitalist regimes like the Soviet Union , the PRC et al that have paraded themselves as "communist" regimes and have done so much to bring communism into disrepute

[khad]

I can't. I am responding to your thread title.

The USA and other bourgeoisie states will condemn, distort and lie about socialism regardless of how the system actually operates. This wasn't just applicable to the USSR, it was applicable to the anarchists in Spain, who were depicted as wild godless murderers who burned down churches. The overthrow of the USSR was by no means a victory in any respect for socialism. I would rather have a 'tarnished' name of socialism rather than the mess which followed - even if that mess is no longer given the name socialism. Anything else is disgustingly opportunistic - thinking that the overthrow of a system which led to greater impoverishment is in some manner a 'victory' because it means the USSR will no longer be associated with socialism.
Some leftists need to get over their damn mental hangup where they practically shit their pants whenever someone mentions Stalin or Mao. Reminds me of some idiot "Marxists" at Louis Proyect's site who were defending that Tsarist Slavic chauvinist film director Sergei Balabanov on the grounds that his films reveal the social degeneracy and hypocrisy of the "Stalinist" USSR.

However degenerate the USSR was near the end, it was nothing compared to the pandemonium that followed. It is so fucking easy to cheap shot socialism.

[Misanthrope]

If this was a victory for socialism, then to hell with socialism.

An authoritarian capitalist state falling is a victory for socialism, they weren't implementing socialism, Lenin himself advocated one man workplace management. Just because they said they were communists and were run by the communist party doesn't mean it was a socialist or communist society.

[RGacky3]

Some leftists need to get over their damn mental hangup where they practically shit their pants whenever someone mentions Stalin or Mao. Reminds me of some idiot "Marxists" at Louis Proyect's site who were defending that Tsarist Slavic chauvinist film director Sergei Balabanov on the grounds that his films reveal the social degeneracy and hypocrisy of the "Stalinist" USSR.

However degenerate the USSR was near the end, it was nothing compared to the pandemonium that followed. It is so fucking easy to cheap shot socialism.

They shit their pands because the USSR called them self socialist (for the same reason the US calls them self a beacon of freedom), while Stalin and Mao betrayed socialism and ruled over authoritarian (not socialist) states.


Chomsky is here just expressing his American "patriotism" in praising the fall of an enemy state to the US ruling class.

Really? You believe that dumbshit? So I suppose praising the fall of hitler is also patriotism.


In reality, the USSR had nothing to do with socialism ever since Stalin took over. Chomsky probably has FDR/"socialist" Sweden in mind when he talks about socialism. He's not even a proper anarchist because of his support of certain factions of the US ruling class, like Nader and Obama, who promise a restrained capitalism. In short, Chomsky is more suited for left-liberal democrats than communists.

No he did'nt, listen to what he says, hes talking about workers controling the means of production and having control over their own lives. You clearly have no idea about his ideals.

Yes he does vote sometimes (rarely in his words), sometimes democrat, sometimes republican, simply because sometimes, in a swing state or something, one would make a slight difference.

He is an anarchist, and also, probably one of the smartest political comentator of our time.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The USA and other bourgeoisie states will condemn, distort and lie about socialism regardless of how the system actually operates. This wasn't just applicable to the USSR, it was applicable to the anarchists in Spain, who were depicted as wild godless murderers who burned down churches. The overthrow of the USSR was by no means a victory in any respect for socialism. I would rather have a 'tarnished' name of socialism rather than the mess which followed - even if that mess is no longer given the name socialism. Anything else is disgustingly opportunistic - thinking that the overthrow of a system which led to greater impoverishment is in some manner a 'victory' because it means the USSR will no longer be associated with socialism.

I would take it from your post that you would oppose the overthrow of the American government, or Australian or whatever, if it meant that living conditions would be decreased by such a revolution. After all, if it meant years of fighting, which would surely cause greater impoverishment, then it wouldn't be any revolutionary victory at all, according to your ideals presented here if I am not mistaken.

The Civil War in Spain led to greater impoverishment than the years of fascism did. Was fascism an improvement?

And watch the video. While he does talk about how the USSR distorted the word socialism, he also explains why its fall a (very) small victory of socialist ideals even in Russia.

[StalinFanboy]

So your point? All the communist states weren't really communist. If that's true perhaps a true communist state is impossible to exist. Have you ever thought about that? Also if all those communist states weren't really communist why do you defend them?
Your logic is astonishing! If communism hasn't existed, than it is impossible. Are you stupid?

[Richard Nixon]

It was not a victory for socialism. Bourgeois states rising or falling due to global effects of capitalism has nothing to do with socialism.

Chomsky is here just expressing his American "patriotism" in praising the fall of an enemy state to the US ruling class.

In reality, the USSR had nothing to do with socialism ever since Stalin took over. Chomsky probably has FDR/"socialist" Sweden in mind when he talks about socialism. He's not even a proper anarchist because of his support of certain factions of the US ruling class, like Nader and Obama, who promise a restrained capitalism. In short, Chomsky is more suited for left-liberal democrats than communists.

I've seen it all now: people criticizing Noam Chomsky for not being "leftist" enough.

[IcarusAngel]

Chomsky is very far left. He just isn't a Marxist. When he recommends liberal capitalism over fascist capitalism like Reaganism and American Libertarianism, he realizes that there is far more freedom in the former rather than the latter. He knows that capitalism takes a lot of government to actually manage effectively, and that is his true criticism of capitalism.

What kind of an idiotic system puts a few hundred people and corporations in charge, whose only interest is profit? What idiot would expect this system to work? Only someone on the right.

The USSR was run like one corporation. One in which power goes from the top down to many managers. That is why it was a failure. Chomsky also knows it's harder to transistion to real socialism from such a system, and he was right. Of course, the USSR was less free than social democracies.

[IcarusAngel]

I've seen it all now: people criticizing Noam Chomsky for not being "leftist" enough.


And have you even read Chomsky in the first place. How do you know if he's supposed to be a leftist, if you haven't studied the material to determine whether it is left or right.

[Richard Nixon]

And have you even read Chomsky in the first place. How do you know if he's supposed to be a leftist, if you haven't studied the material to determine whether it is left or right.

Even if you just read the Wikipedia article on him it's pretty obvious what his politics are.

[IcarusAngel]

It says he's:
Anti-Globalization (could be left or right)
Anti-war (could be left or right, like "anti-war" libertarians0
Anti-capitalist (generally this is indeed leftist)

However, Chomsky is a COMPLEX political author. His ideas take more than two sentences to express, as anyone who's ever attended one of his lectures can attest to. It requires careful reading of his work, with note taking and analyzation. Why he believes the things he does is often hard to get to the bottom of. For example, he's very anti-war, because he believes the US of power always requires justification, which he finds weak in the US.

His continued assault on the US, as opposed to other countries, is because the US can be "changed" to some degree, unlike in totalitarian countries where citizens are arrested for speaking out.

He is in another whole league than modern conservative and Libertarian writers like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and other simple-minded idiots.

[ls]

I really have no idea how the degeneracy of any state is a victory in any way for socialism.

This is pretty pathetic.

[Invariance]

An authoritarian capitalist state falling is a victory for socialismThanks for reminding me why anarchism is an utterly useless system of analysis.

An authoritarian state capitalist system was overthrown... to be replaced by another authoritarian capitalist state.

State assets were sold cheaply to foreigners and locals by the IMF and World Bank, creating billionaires out of them. Financial speculation led to a rise in the poverty level from around 2 million to 60 million. By 1998 real wages had declined by half, unemployment had reached 13% by 1996 (22% amongst young people).

The economic and social affects of the overthrow were comparable to the Great Depression (the USSR lost GDP of around 33%...in the Great Depression the US lost a GDP of around 27%).

That's not to mention other social problems; a rise in crime which accompanies such poor economic conditions, a rise in nationalism and nationalistic groups.

So fuck you for thinking this was anything positive, least of all a victory in the name of socialism, you hack.


they weren't implementing socialismAnd they were after?


Lenin himself advocated one man workplace managementLenin had died ~67 years earlier. Why you're bringing up Lenin, I don't know (probably for a lack of argument).


Just because they said they were communists and were run by the communist party doesn't mean it was a socialist or communist society.No shit. But just because they used the name communism contrary to your liking doesn't mean that their overthrow is anything positive or welcome. It was an economic disaster. Personally, I am more concerned about the well-being of hundreds of millions of people versus the oh-so-horrible improper use of the word 'communism.'


I would take it from your post that you would oppose the overthrow of the American government, or Australian or whatever, if it meant that living conditions would be decreased by such a revolution.See, as a communist, unlike you, I have such a thing called 'class analysis.'

I'll support a revolution when it is beneficial for the working class, when it is lead by the working class and aims to establish socialism.

The overthrow of the USSR fulfilled none of those criteria; nor were any of the so-called 'color revolutions.'


After all, if it meant years of fighting, which would surely cause greater impoverishment, then it wouldn't be any revolutionary victory at all, according to your ideals presented here if I am not mistaken..You are mistaken, and purposely trying to distort to justify your liberalism.

I would support the Bolsheviks and their fight in the Civil War, even though that would bring about a fall in living standards (as all wars do).


The Civil War in Spain led to greater impoverishment than the years of fascism did. Was fascism an improvement?The absolute idiocy of this question begs belief. Seriously, you can invent strawmen all day, but I won't bother to respond to them.


And watch the video. While he does talk about how the USSR distorted the word socialism, he also explains why its fall a (very) small victory of socialist ideals even in Russia.If we are to say that the overthrow was a victory for socialism we would say it in one sense: the capitalist crises, the mass poverty which followed gave more credibility to Stalin and Lenin than the 'communists' could have done so themselves.

I am sure much to the horror of Chomsky.

[FreeFocus]

While I have my strong criticisms of the USSR (it was a state, after all), one can only feel pain when thinking about the suffering of millions as their living standards plummeted and their country was taken over by oligarchs and their resources raped by capitalists. Moreover, I don't see how this is even an ideological victory for socialism: most people will always associate the USSR with socialism, even if they acknowledge that it didn't implement socialism.

[New Tet]

Even if you just read the Wikipedia article on him it's pretty obvious what his politics are.

True enough. In my opinion, Chomsky is one of the most radical educators in academia today and hopefully for a long time to come!

Studying one of his books is almost a college education in itself. Unfortunately, he offers little in the way of practical solutions to the problems he so eloquently catalogs, describes and analyzes. For a study of solutions I turn to Daniel De Leon.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I would support the Bolsheviks and their fight in the Civil War, even though that would bring about a fall in living standards (as all wars do).

I suppose what I said could be applied to the fighting in Russia, but what I was getting at was more to do with the here and now. Obviously the means we have to kill each other off have greatly improved to the point in which mass extinction is only a button away.

Revolution is really just a romantic turn-off after a while.


The absolute idiocy of this question begs belief. Seriously, you can invent strawmen all day, but I won't bother to respond to them.

So the conditions of Russia today, or 10 years from now, won't matter to you? Never mind the fact that they've appeared to have blown quite a bit of oil money recently.

The Soviet Union will always be better because Russia had hard times when it fell, is that correct?


If we are to say that the overthrow was a victory for socialism we would say it in one sense: the capitalist crises, the mass poverty which followed gave more credibility to Stalin and Lenin than the 'communists' could have done so themselves.

Because Russia had hard times and poverty/war consumed millions, it will always be true that the revolution of either 1917 or 1990 will always have been the wrong move for Russia?

Or is it that in the 1920s, when millions of people were starving, that it was for socialism, and therefore that hunger had to be endured for a better outcome?

Obviously I'm not comparing the Czar to the Soviet Union, but you get my point. If, hypothetically, living conditions for the average person in Russia are better in 10 years than they were compared to the relative standard of living in the USSR at the time of its fall (never mind political freedoms for a moment, as those hardly seemed to have mattered anyway), then the pain and hunger endured in the revolution which overthrew the USSR would have been 'worth it' just as the revolution in 1917 and civil war later would have been 'worth it' in order to bring about the glorious USSR.

You seem to have a double standard. Civil wars and executions and starvation are just a necessary evil when the leader is wearing red, but when another despot is overthrown the hard times become a means to justify the oppression which caused the overthrow in the first place. And don't give me any 'class analysis' BS, if the USSR wasn't a class system, then by class analysis the conditions for revolution wouldn't have existed when the USSR fell. After all, if one is to measure history through the class prism, then it had to have been class conflict which led to the only internal demise of a modern industrialized superpower, would it not?

What, in your opinion, did cause the fall of the USSR? Meddling into Afghanistan combined with a desire for Coca-Cola?

[New Tet]

Chomsky is very far left. He just isn't a Marxist.

That's just plain wrong. Throughout everything I've read by him he has substantially paraphrased Marx and Engels in questions of economics and imperialism.

Just because Chomsky is an avowed anti-Leninist is no reason to say he is not a Marxist!



When he recommends liberal capitalism over fascist capitalism like Reaganism and American Libertarianism, he realizes that there is far more freedom in the former rather than the latter. He knows that capitalism takes a lot of government to actually manage effectively, and that is his true criticism of capitalism.

Again, wrong, sir. There is a substantial body of literature by Chomsky in which he attacks capitalism for all the same reasons Marx did. You sound as if you had never read anything by him!


What kind of an idiotic system puts a few hundred people and corporations in charge, whose only interest is profit? What idiot would expect this system to work? Only someone on the right.

I hate to have to pick on you here, but you miss an important distinction that makes your premise unsustainable.

Capitalism indeed does work. It works for the capitalist; that's why he wants to keep it going.


The USSR was run like one corporation. One in which power goes from the top down to many managers. That is why it was a failure. Chomsky also knows it's harder to transistion to real socialism from such a system, and he was right. Of course, the USSR was less free than social democracies.

Of course. It was less free by far than capitalism, as any sensible person will admit.

[IcarusAngel]

I've read many of his interviews from Zmag, The Chomsky Reader (which contains several of his most famous essays like The Responsibility of Intellectuals and Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship), Hegeomony or Survival, and Failed States.

Chomsky is anti-Marxist. He dismisses Marxism outright (government in the future), he claims that Leninism, Stalinism, and Trotskyism are all the same thing (Chomsky Reader), and he makes his anti-Marxist positions in regards to things like international relations and so on well known. He considers Marxism useless, and he says it's "akin to a religion" and belongs to the history of organized religion.

He also says Marx himself was about the level of "jouranlist." (Noam Chomsky: Anarchy in the USA.")

In fact, a simple google search turns up many discussions of Chomsky's anti-Marxism.

Chomsky's also greatly admired Russell, who was also somewhat anti-Marxist and did not advocate Marxist solutions.

You either are reading a different Chomsky, or do not understand what you are reading.

[IcarusAngel]

Again, wrong, sir. There is a substantial body of literature by Chomsky in which he attacks capitalism for all the same reasons Marx did. You sound as if you had never read anything by him!


And this is just asinine. Chomsky makes his sources well known: They include Russell, political scientists and some economists (such as Edward Herman), and Anarchists like Bakunin, who said this on communism:
"I am not a communist, because communism concentrates and swallows up in itself for the benefit of the State all the forces of society. I want the abolition of the State...I want to see collective or social property organised from below upwards, not from above downwards, by means of any kind of authority whatever..." -- Michael Bakunin

Proudhon, and especially Rocker as well.

The anarchist criticisms of capitalism were opposed to the 'profit motive,' to making capital off of someone else's labor, to mass consolidation of resources by private hands ("capitalists"), and to any authority. That is where Chomsky gets his influence, and he makes this well known (Chomsky Reader, interview).

Show me ONE example of where Chomsky has ever said he's a Marxist, or even where he's used an "analysis" that is "Marxist."

[Misanthrope]

Thanks for reminding me why anarchism is an utterly useless system of analysis.

An authoritarian state capitalist system was overthrown... to be replaced by another authoritarian capitalist state.


So fuck you for thinking this was anything positive, least of all a victory in the name of socialism, you hack.

And they were after?




You're completely missing the point, what Chomsky was saying was that it was a victory for socialism in the sense that the USSR cannot be made out to be a hell hole and socialism is to blame for that.


State assets were sold cheaply to foreigners and locals by the IMF and World Bank, creating billionaires out of them. Financial speculation led to a rise in the poverty level from around 2 million to 60 million. By 1998 real wages had declined by half, unemployment had reached 13% by 1996 (22% amongst young people).

The economic and social affects of the overthrow were comparable to the Great Depression (the USSR lost GDP of around 33%...in the Great Depression the US lost a GDP of around 27%).

That's not to mention other social problems; a rise in crime which accompanies such poor economic conditions, a rise in nationalism and nationalistic groups.



Yeah, capitalism creates poverty, crime and a big gap between social classes, what did you expect? How is this any different from the normal periodic recessions global capitalism experiences?



Lenin had died ~67 years earlier. Why you're bringing up Lenin, I don't know (probably for a lack of argument).

No shit. But just because they used the name communism contrary to your liking doesn't mean that their overthrow is anything positive or welcome. It was an economic disaster. Personally, I am more concerned about the well-being of hundreds of millions of people versus the oh-so-horrible improper use of the word 'communism.'


I'm bringing him up because it shows that the USSR's ideological father advocated capitalist ideas. Us socialists usually look down on capitalist ideas.

My liking? What leftist associates communism with state capitalism? The USSR was a failure, The Bolsheviks tried to implement communism in a peasant society, not practical. The USSR era was bound to come to a close and there are benefits from it, like, the socialist movement's image improving. All I am saying is that any defeat and any crisis capitalism experiences benefits socialism. The RF presently is a perfect system for communism to rise from, The USSR was not going to experience a communist revolution.

If you are more concerned about hundreds of millions of people presently rather than the long term goal of achieving communism, you are a reformist.

[New Tet]

I've read many of his interviews from Zmag, The Chomsky Reader (which contains several of his most famous essays like The Responsibility of Intellectuals and Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship), Hegeomony or Survival, and Failed States.

Chomsky is anti-Marxist. He dismisses Marxism outright (government in the future), he claims that Leninism, Stalinism, and Trotskyism are all the same thing (Chomsky Reader), and he makes his anti-Marxist positions in regards to things like international relations and so on well known. He considers Marxism useless, and he says it's "akin to a religion" and belongs to the history of organized religion.

He also says Marx himself was about the level of "jouranlist." (Noam Chomsky: Anarchy in the USA.")

In fact, a simple google search turns up many discussions of Chomsky's anti-Marxism.

Chomsky's also greatly admired Russell, who was also somewhat anti-Marxist and did not advocate Marxist solutions.

You either are reading a different Chomsky, or do not understand what you are reading.

Chomsky states the obvious when he lumps Leninism, Stalinism and Trotskysm in the same authoritarian heap. He must have read the same histories I did from E.H. Carr to Fromm and Deutscher, just for starters.

To say that Marx never rose professionally from the level of journalist is no slander. After all, some of the greatest minds in politics, sociology and economics never exercised the profession they trained for. Except for a very brief period in his career, Daniel De Leon himself did nothing else professionally but work as a journalist.

I would be glad to read some of the 'anti-Marxist' statements Chomsky is supposed to have made (aside from the anti-Leninist ones which don't count). Can you post any?

[IcarusAngel]

Well, is clear at this point which one of us has never read Chomsky. Again, I already cited Chomsky's sources. That you don't even know who Chomsky prefers in academia speaks volumes.

This "he must have read X" is a lot of nonsense. I told you, his anti-Marxism is from his Anarchism.

The sources have already been provided.

And just where do you think I got the quote in my signature from?


Be sure you know what you're talking about when you try and "call out" other members of the forum.

[New Tet]

[...]

Show me ONE example of where Chomsky has ever said he's a Marxist, or even where he's used an "analysis" that is "Marxist."

From Notes on Anarchism (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1970----.htm):


Humboldt's vision of a society in which social fetters are replaced by social bonds and labor is freely undertaken suggests the early Marx., with his discussion of the "alienation of labor when work is external to the worker...not part of his nature...[so that] he does not fulfill himself in his work but denies himself...[and is] physically exhausted and mentally debased," alienated labor that "casts some of the workers back into a barbarous kind of work and turns others into machines," thus depriving man of his "species character" of "free conscious activity" and "productive life." Similarly, Marx conceives of "a new type of human being who needs his fellow men....[The workers' association becomes] the real constructive effort to create the social texture of future human relations."13 (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1970----.htm#FN13) It is true that classical libertarian thought is opposed to state intervention in social life, as a consequence of deeper assumptions about the human need for liberty, diversity, and free association. On the same assumptions, capitalist relations of production, wage labor, competitiveness, the ideology of "possessive individualism" -- all must be regarded as fundamentally antihuman. Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes, what he is saying there is that von Humboldt's description of labor as being "free" only when it comes out of your own interests and not the interests of the voluptuous master is similar to something that Marx had said. Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville also pointed out that the division of labor ends up making the laborer a slave who ends up the most monotonous of tasks.

He is pointing out that capitalism is antihuman, and notes a comparison to some things Marx said. Chomsky admired some of the "Libertarian-Marxists" like Pannekoek, as they were similar to the ideals of Libertarian-Socialism.

Also, the point of the paragraph is that "libertarian socialism" is the true decendant of classical-liberalism, something that most Marxists disagree with, as they don't like classical liberalism.

However, that is NOT evidence that Chomsky is a Marxist.

Millions of people make comparisions to Marx. By your "logic," everybody is a Marxist.

[Manifesto]

It also lets people say Communism is dead.

[New Tet]

Yes, what he is saying there is that von Humboldt's description of labor as being "free" only when it comes out of your own interests and not the interests of the voluptuous master is similar to something that Marx had said. Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville also pointed out that the division of labor ends up making the laborer a slave who ends up the most monotonous of tasks.

He is pointing out that capitalism is antihuman, and notes a comparison to some things Marx said. Chomsky admired some of the "Libertarian-Marxists" like Pannekoek, as they were similar to the ideals of Libertarian-Socialism.

Also, the point of the paragraph is that "libertarian socialism" is the true decendant of classical-liberalism, something that most Marxists disagree with, as they don't like classical liberalism.

However, that is NOT evidence that Chomsky is a Marxist.

Millions of people make comparisions to Marx. By your "logic," everybody is a Marxist.

Actually, it's evidence that he is not an anti-Marxist.

[IcarusAngel]

I think this article hints at Chomsky's anti-Marxism:

http://www.marxist.com/noam-chomsky-marxism-authoritarianism1151004.htm

"
Chomsky argues that, “We are in a period of corporatization of power, consolidation of power, centralization. That’s supposed to be good if you’re a progressive, like a Marxist-Leninist. Out of the same background came three major things, fascism, Bolshevism, and corporate tyranny. They all grew out of the same more or less Hegelian roots. (Chomsky, Class Warfare p.23)
"
He is anti-Marxism. Not specificially anti-Marx. Although, he [chomsky] says that Marx didn't really write much about what a future society would look like.

The article provides sources; and also notes what I mentioned above, his sources are people like Bakunin and the anarchists in general. A typical "Marxist" is a scholar who upholds Marx's criticisms of capitalism even into the modern day, whereas Chomsky thinks Marx was criticizing "an abstract version of 19th century capitalism."

He also said some of the criticisms of WWII were from a Marxist perspective, although he "didn't agree with much of it."

[IcarusAngel]

Actually, it's evidence that he is not an anti-Marxist.

"I should add that I have never considered myself a "Marxist," and in fact regard such notions as "Marxist" (or "Freudian," etc.) as belonging more to the domain of organized religion than of rational analysis." --Noam Chomsky

I said he wasn't a Marxist. You said this was "nonsense."
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19800203.htm
Apparently, you know more about Chomsky than he himself does.

He (A) does not consider himself a Marxist, (B) admits he is not a "Marxist scholar," (C) comes from an entirely different background of most Marxists, and (D) thinks "Marxism" itself is a religion.

Why don't you email him and ask him if he's a Marxist, and post it here, unedited.

[RGacky3]

However, in most other places he clearly believes that a restrained form of capitalism is preferable to so-called market fundamentalist capitalism.http://www.revleft.com/vb/collapse-ussr-small-t114526/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif He's part of the American liberal culture that deifies FDR and considers Sweden as socialist.


Where did he write that?


Thereby validating bourgeois elections.

umm, not really.


If you have read Chomsky, you'd realize he is a bit of an American chauvinist.

Of coarse its good to be an American, the same way it was good to be a Roman Citizen during the Roman empire, whats chauvinist about that? Read the entire interview he's accusing the United States of being involved in international terrorism.

Your standards for 'real anarchist' are rediculous, pretty much your standard is, ANTI AMERICA IN EVERYTHING, pro everything anti america, no matter how irrational.

I doubt you could find a place where he advocates restrained capitalism, your just saying he's part of that 'culture' whatever the hell that culture is.

[Arlekino]

We lived better in USSR we had strong communities and value of people, well now I see more and more people are homeless, drunk because of upsetting of capitalism but still brainwashed because of strong propaganda from media. So long life to come back Soviets.

[Richard Nixon]

we lived better in ussr we had strong communities and value of people, well now i see more and more people are homeless, drunk because of upsetting of capitalism but still brainwashed because of strong propaganda from media. So long life to come back soviets.

bullshit!!!!!!!!!

[New Tet]

We lived better in USSR we had strong communities and value of people, well now I see more and more people are homeless, drunk because of upsetting of capitalism but still brainwashed because of strong propaganda from media. So long life to come back Soviets.

Whereas I agree that life was substantially better for most people of the USSR under soviet rule than it is now, I think that the way forward is not to restore that system but to overthrow the one they have now and build real socialism.

[Forward Union]

Fuck me, the correct opinion has never been so boring.

[Forward Union]

kNpNzDoH1II

I don't see him advocating restrained capitalism.

I see hi commenting on the difference between restrained Capitalism and neo-liberalism...

[Bud Struggle]

Fuck me, the correct opinion has never been so boring.

"Boring" is the greatest criticism of Communism...ever.

[RGacky3]

+</SPAN> YouTube Video (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNpNzDoH1II) ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/) is down or you don't have Flash installed.

Where there does he advocate restrained Capitalism? He's explaining american 'democracy.'

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

RGacky3, if you dont mind me asking, why are you restricted?

[Kassad]

Seeing that the collapse of the Soviet Union completely opened up the Middle East to the United States' colonialist goals, I'd say you're full of shit. The mere existence of the Soviet Union kept the United States' imperialist aims in check. The Soviet Union opposed, for whatever reason you believe, the American aims in Afghanistan by combating the imperialist-funded forces. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, how long did it take the United States to launch comprehensive invasions and economic expansions on nations that were formerly unattainable due to the existence of the Soviet Union?

So whether you view it as indirectly or directly due to a socialist mindset, the Soviet Union was an anti-imperialist force, in that it opposed the colonial expansion of the United States. The collapse of this force has meant horrible turns for the worse for Russian workers and the occupation and destruction of multiple Middle Eastern states with more likely to come. Therefore, the fact that many would be the lapdogs of capitalists and cheerlead the destruction of the Soviet Union is very disappointing.

[Richard Nixon]

RGacky3, if you dont mind me asking, why are you restricted?

Because he's pro-life.

[RGacky3]

Seeing that the collapse of the Soviet Union completely opened up the Middle East to the United States' colonialist goals, I'd say you're full of shit. The mere existence of the Soviet Union kept the United States' imperialist aims in check. The Soviet Union opposed, for whatever reason you believe, the American aims in Afghanistan by combating the imperialist-funded forces. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, how long did it take the United States to launch comprehensive invasions and economic expansions on nations that were formerly unattainable due to the existence of the Soviet Union?

I agree with you.


So whether you view it as indirectly or directly due to a socialist mindset, the Soviet Union was an anti-imperialist force, in that it opposed the colonial expansion of the United States. The collapse of this force has meant horrible turns for the worse for Russian workers and the occupation and destruction of multiple Middle Eastern states with more likely to come. Therefore, the fact that many would be the lapdogs of capitalists and cheerlead the destruction of the Soviet Union is very disappointing.

I agree about the USSR being somewhat positive that it kept the US power in check. However, my point was, was that the USSR was not socialistic at all.