Chomsky meets with Chavez

[Communist]

Noam Chomsky Meets with Chavez in Venezuela

By Venezuelanalysis.com - Friday, 04 September 2009

<http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/noam_chomsky_meets_with_chavez_in_venezuela.htm>

Merida, August 27th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) -- U.S.
author, dissident intellectual, and Professor of
Linguistics at the Massachussetts Institute of
Technology Noam Chomsky met for the first time with
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Caracas and
analyzed hemispheric politics during a nationally
televised forum on Monday.

Chomsky is well known in Venezuela for his critiques of
U.S. imperialism and support for the progressive
political changes underway in Venezuela and other Latin
American countries in recent years. President Chavez
regularly references Chomsky in speeches and makes
widely publicized recommendations of Chomsky's 2003
book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global
Dominance.

"Hegemony or survival; we opt for survival," said
Chavez in a press conference to welcome Chomsky. He
compared Chomsky's thesis to that of German socialist
Rosa Luxemburg in the early 1900s, "Socialism or
Barbarism," and referred to Chomsky as "one of the
greatest defenders of peace, one of the greatest
pioneers of a better world."

Through an interpreter, Chomsky responded, "I write
about peace and criticize the barriers to peace; that's
easy. What's harder is to create a better world... and
what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is
that I can see how a better world is being created."

During Monday's forum, which was broadcast on the state
television station VTV, Chomsky pointed out that the
ongoing coup in Honduras, which began on June 28th, is
the third coup the United States has supported in Latin
America so far this century, following the coup against
Chavez in 2002 and Haitian President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide in 2004.

The nearly finalized deal to allow the U.S. to increase
its military presence on Colombian bases "is only part
of a much broader effort to restore Washington's
capacity for intervention," said Chomsky.

According to Chomsky, the region has the capacity to
unite and form a "peace zone" in which foreign
militaries are forbidden to operate. "Venezuela can
help to advance this proposal, but it cannot do it
alone," he said.

"The transformations that Venezuela is making toward
the creation of another socio-economic model could have
a global impact if these projects are successfully
carried out," said the renowned author.

Aporrea.org, a popular Venezuelan news and
pro-revolution analysis website, described Chomsky as
oriented toward "libertarian socialism" and "vehemently
anti-Stalinist" in an introduction to a recent
interview in which Chomsky said U.S. President Barack
Obama's foreign policy will be similar to that of the
second administration of former U.S. President George
W. Bush.

Chomsky addressed this issue during Monday's conference
as well, commenting that Obama "could have much to
offer Latin America if he wanted to, but hasn't given
any signals that he does." He cited the U.S.'s
indecisive posture toward the coup in Honduras as
evidence.

Chomsky also addressed the media and freedom of
expression in the U.S. "In the United States the
socio-economic system is designed so that the control
over the media is in the hands of a minority who own
large corporations... and the result is that the
financial interests of those groups are always behind
the so-called freedom of expression," he said.

Chomsky said the growing disappointment with the Obama
administration in the U.S. was predictable because the
corporate media marketed Obama's presidential candidacy
on the slogan of "Change We Can Believe In" but omitted
concrete proposals for effective changes, and the Obama
administration has since shown an incapacity to
institute such changes.

Chomsky was accompanied in Caracas by the co-founder of
South End Press and ZMagazine and system operator of
ZCom, Michael Albert, and the co-founder and editor of
Venezuelanalysis.com, sociologist Gregory Wilpert.

FOR VIDEO FOOTAGE CHECK;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPVfRdLez4I

_____________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.

[Communist]

>>"Hegemony or survival; we opt for survival," said
Chavez in a press conference to welcome Chomsky. He
compared Chomsky's thesis to that of German socialist
Rosa Luxemburg in the early 1900s, "Socialism or
Barbarism," and referred to Chomsky as "one of the
greatest defenders of peace, one of the greatest
pioneers of a better world."<<

Oh brother. :glare:
Why is it everytime Chavez opens his mouth something embarrassing comes out?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Oh brother. :glare:
Why is it everytime Chavez opens his mouth something embarrassing comes out?

You're having a laugh. Why is it Chomsky associates himself with this authoritarian, wholly capitalist figure, who's only happy when shaking hands with anti-left tyrants.

Stooopid Chomsky :/

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[RedSonRising]

I'd say there is more to Chavez than meets the eye, which could imply hidden tendencies on either side of revolutionary progress, but I would say that Chomsky's approval is a positive indicator of socialist success. He is quite critical of self-proclaimed socialist authoritarian States, so his positive outlook on the institutional reforms in Venezuela- which have obviously fallen short of any sort of abrupt seizure of the means of production- show promise of authentic socialism eventually prevailing in Venezuela and Latin America in general. His political affiliations with authoritarian leaders aren't something I look at as particularly necessary, clever, or constructive, but they do serve a purpose in his mind, and the internal development and reconstruction of the Venezuelan economy should be our main focus.

[Dimentio]

Chàvez should probably attempt to not play as an intellectual. It does not suit his image. But its a bit cute when he attempts to.

He should be an anti-intellectualist strongman. Thats where he holds his image.

Correa probably would fit in better in an intellectualist approach.

[Radical]

Criticize everything with no analysis! I like your style.

He's an anarchist. What do you expect?

[Madvillainy]

He's an anarchist. What do you expect?

Jesus christ, you're a tool.

[ls]

He's an anarchist. What do you expect?

Didn't you write this song? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YLEg-MAaqk

[Revy]

Chomsky urged people to vote for Kerry and Obama. He might have said that he thought that only for swing states and Republican states, but he was still telling those people to vote for Kerry and Obama.

I talked with him through email about that (in 2007, prior to his endorsement of Obama), asked him if he regretted his support for Kerry, and he flatly said his position on that decision had not changed. He told he actually voted for a socialist ticket (but didn't name which), but that doesn't change the fact he thought that I, as a Floridian socialist, should vote for Democrat Presidential candidates instead of voting for socialism.

So...the question is...will he repeat his blunder in 2012, telling the people they should vote for Obama's re-election?

[amandevsingh]

Didn't you write this song? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YLEg-MAaqk

"over a period of 4 hours." - from the video description. I mean not to be offensive, but isn't it kind of a short time to write a song? :huh:

[ls]

"over a period of 4 hours." - from the video description. I mean not to be offensive, but isn't it kind of a short time to write a song? :huh:

Well I think the sample is from an immortal technique song. :cool:

[nuisance]

He's an anarchist. What do you expect?

Coming from a member of a revolutionary party who had to ask whether people felt it legitimate to overthrow a 'democratically elected' government. Of course there's nothing wrong with such a question, but then you have the cheek to attempt to slam anarchist analysis? I hope you feel embarassed.


Anyways, yeah, Chomsky, despite making decent theortical contributions, doesn't really adhere to revolutionary anarchism. But we knew this already.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Chomsky urged people to vote for Kerry and Obama. He might have said that he thought that only for swing states and Republican states, but he was still telling those people to vote for Kerry and Obama.

I talked with him through email about that (in 2007, prior to his endorsement of Obama), asked him if he regretted his support for Kerry, and he flatly said his position on that decision had not changed. He told he actually voted for a socialist ticket (but didn't name which), but that doesn't change the fact he thought that I, as a Floridian socialist, should vote for Democrat Presidential candidates instead of voting for socialism.

So...the question is...will he repeat his blunder in 2012, telling the people they should vote for Obama's re-election?

To be fair, if you're going to vote in pointless elections, you might as well vote for someone who has a chance. Although elections are pretty silly either way. Especially American ones.

[Revy]

To be fair, if you're going to vote in pointless elections, you might as well vote for someone who has a chance. Although elections are pretty silly either way. Especially American ones.

I expected this excuse.

I don't think Chomsky wants people to vote Democrat because of some cynical approach to the elections system. In fact, it's paradoxical to suggest so. If he really thought expressing one's radical viewpoint with a vote was pointless, he should have advocated abstention.

He believes that votes are "strategic" so we should guarantee a Democrat victory because it is the lesser of two evils.

It is not any better from Chomsky than it is from the CPUSA.

[Communist]

It is not any better from Chomsky than it is from the CPUSA.

It's worse, actually. I believe the CPUSA will vote Democrat every time.
But for Chomsky to ask the unwashed masses to vote one way while he votes another, if that's the case, is sheer liberal elitism.

[Pawn Power]

How much more a blunder is it for one to play the less or two evils than to try to change things through elections by voting for socialists?


Chomsky urged people to vote for Kerry and Obama. He might have said that he thought that only for swing states and Republican states, but he was still telling those people to vote for Kerry and Obama.

I talked with him through email about that (in 2007, prior to his endorsement of Obama), asked him if he regretted his support for Kerry, and he flatly said his position on that decision had not changed. He told he actually voted for a socialist ticket (but didn't name which), but that doesn't change the fact he thought that I, as a Floridian socialist, should vote for Democrat Presidential candidates instead of voting for socialism.

So...the question is...will he repeat his blunder in 2012, telling the people they should vote for Obama's re-election?

[Revy]

How much more a blunder is it for one to play the less or two evils than to try to change things through elections by voting for socialists?

You're clearly trying to infer from my statement something that was not intended.

Where did I say that I wanted to "change things through elections" by voting Socialist? I said that I would use my vote as an endorsement of socialism.

[Patchd]

Forget it, sorry just saw your post above :blushing:

[KurtFF8]

You're having a laugh. Why is it Chomsky associates himself with this authoritarian, wholly capitalist figure, who's only happy when shaking hands with anti-left tyrants.

Stooopid Chomsky :/

Chomsky clearly can no longer be a Libertarian Socialist since he has now met Chavez on a single occasion.

Thankfully the rest of us keep high standards for the political people we meet and interact with and make sure they fully agree with us first.

[Kukulofori]

hey guys

you know what this board needs

ANOTHER topic about voting for democrats.

[Communist]

>> you know what this board needs ANOTHER topic about voting for democrats<<

Whenever Chomsky is brought up, his support (or whatever you might call it, it depends on who you're talking to) for Democrats is seemingly always mentioned. It's pretty old, but this was the first time I recall hearing he voted another ticket himself. It's convoluted; it does appear as if Chomsky has said different things...

[Pogue]

I think Chomsky is annoyingly inconsistent. He makes alot of really good contributions and is intelligent but he claims to be a libertarian socialist with anarcho-syndicalist influences for christs sake, he rights the forewords for left communist writings, and then he says this sor tof stuff about Chavez, he's too intelligent to make stupid mistakes.

[Orange Juche]

Did the U.S. send him over as a secret agent to put Chavez to sleep with his amazing charisma?

[Pogue]

Did the U.S. send him over as a secret agent to put Chavez to sleep with his amazing charisma?

He's said himself he likes having a boring voice as its the content he values.

[New Tet]

Maybe Chavez invited him over to give him a personal invitation to visit with Fidel before he croaks. I can just picture it: Fidel, Garcia Marquez and Chomsky, sitting there, chatting over a cup of 'cafe con leche'. Decaf, of course.

[New Tet]

Did the U.S. send him over as a secret agent to put Chavez to sleep with his amazing charisma?

In the YouTube reportage I thought I detected [some discomfort in] Chomsky during Chavez' long-winded introduction.

[chegitz guevara]

He's said himself he likes having a boring voice as its the content he values.

If you can't extract the content (cuz you've fallen alseep) it doesn't matter how much content you have.

[willdw79]

I'd say there is more to Chavez than meets the eye, which could imply hidden tendencies on either side of revolutionary progress, but I would say that Chomsky's approval is a positive indicator of socialist success. He is quite critical of self-proclaimed socialist authoritarian States, so his positive outlook on the institutional reforms in Venezuela- which have obviously fallen short of any sort of abrupt seizure of the means of production- show promise of authentic socialism eventually prevailing in Venezuela and Latin America in general. His political affiliations with authoritarian leaders aren't something I look at as particularly necessary, clever, or constructive, but they do serve a purpose in his mind, and the internal development and reconstruction of the Venezuelan economy should be our main focus.
I agree with your analysis of Chavez. He has not played all of his cards yet. I wonder if he is a revolutionary or a con-man. I tend to think he is a revolutionary of the most careful variety. But my thing is whatever works in securing power to the working class is fine with me.

My best case scenario for Chavez is if he makes the conditions right for a proletarian revolution and then steps aside and lets it happen... that would be the best. But it seems like his regime is organizing and waiting for the masses to increase their revolutionary spirit, or at least that is my hope.

[GPDP]

This is a terrible, terrible thread.

I see now what people mean when they moan about the level of intelligent discussion in this site.

Hey, let's dig up Chomsky's inadequacies and Chavez's reformism/authoritarianism, and throw sectarian insults at each other all the while, instead of actually discussing the topic at hand!

Well, a few have thankfully been doing that last part, at least.

I think it's an interesting event. I don't recall Chomsky ever meeting with a head of state like this. I'm not a Chavez supporter, but it's still kinda neat, I suppose.

[FreeFocus]

Chomsky said,


I write about peace and criticize the barriers to peace; that's easy. What's harder is to create a better world... and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created.

You can think what you want about the Venezuelan state, but what we've seen the past decade is the grassroots in Venezuela strengthen itself and reject imperialism and neoliberalism/capitalism. Truth is, Venezuela is one of the more legitimately democratic countries in the Western Hemisphere. Yeah, Chavez is a bit contradictory sometimes, threatening some workers but then talking about arming workers and forming worker's councils. He's flawed, but there's been very progressive stuff going on in Venezuela that, yes, shows a better world being created. And Chavez surely isn't responsible for it all.

That's what Chomsky meant. And frankly I agree with him. I'd love to visit Venezuela and check out their neighborhood councils and grassroots initiatives.

[New Tet]

Chomsky said,



You can think what you want about the Venezuelan state, but what we've seen the past decade is the grassroots in Venezuela strengthen itself and reject imperialism and neoliberalism/capitalism. Truth is, Venezuela is one of the more legitimately democratic countries in the Western Hemisphere. Yeah, Chavez is a bit contradictory sometimes, threatening some workers but then talking about arming workers and forming worker's councils. He's flawed, but there's been very progressive stuff going on in Venezuela that, yes, shows a better world being created. And Chavez surely isn't responsible for it all.

That's what Chomsky meant. And frankly I agree with him. I'd love to visit Venezuela and check out their neighborhood councils and grassroots initiatives.

Here's a picture of one such neighborhood council:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMTYIqj8CM0&feature=related

[Pawn Power]

You're clearly trying to infer from my statement something that was not intended.

Where did I say that I wanted to "change things through elections" by voting Socialist? I said that I would use my vote as an endorsement of socialism.

Well if it is not to any end than it is basically meaningless and not worth discussion. But if you think that it contributes in someway to progress than it is just a tactical difference between that position and Chomsky's, which is up for debate on which one it better.

[FreeFocus]

Here's a picture of one such neighborhood council:
xMTYIqj8CM0

Nice trolling. Nonetheless, yeah, kidnapping is a major problem in Latin America.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think it's ridiculous how Chomsky supports/defends Chavez but refused to support/defend the USSR, while the latter was undeniably more "socialist" than the former is today.

Then again, asking for consistency from petty-bourgeois intellectuals is like asking for humility from Dick Cheney; not gonna happen.

[Pawn Power]

I think it's ridiculous how Chomsky supports/defends Chavez but refused to support/defend the USSR, while the latter was undeniably more "socialist" than the former is today.

Then again, asking for consistency from petty-bourgeois intellectuals is like asking for humility from Dick Cheney; not gonna happen.

I think the largest difference is that Venezuela isn't a major imperialist power. That is, they don't engage in much aggression.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think the largest difference is that Venezuela isn't a major imperialist power. That is, they don't engage in much aggression.

But Chomsky opposed the USSR from its very inception, that is, ever since the Bolsheviks took power.

His argument for that was that the Bolsheviks "destroyed democracy". Now, his definition of what democracy is is probably still upheld in Venezuela, or he wouldn't have supported/defended Chavez. But that definition of "democracy" is a bourgeois one, not proletarian, since it refers to bourgeois democracy.

However, I think that the most important thing is that economically he supports a state that is less "socialistic" than another was, for spurious political reasons.

[BakuninFan]

This is a stupid thread. I am an avowed anarcho-syndicalist and would consider myself a Chomsky supporter. I have actually emailed Chomsky at MIT about Chavez and personally told me his stances on him.

Chomsky is in relative coordination with Venezuala because it is an area which remarkably was able to escape US imperialism; such an achievement is terrific. Chavez may be authoritarian now, but his use of grassroots democracy and councils is also something to be agnoledged. I am no Chavez fan, I merely see where Chomsky is coming from.

[Orange Juche]

He's said himself he likes having a boring voice as its the content he values.

Content means nothing if it can't be extracted.

I like a good number of things Chomsky has said, don't get me wrong (though his support of John Kerry made me far more than uneasy). But I think it would be more fruitful in captivating a new audience if there was a bit of charisma.

[n0thing]

I just sent Chomsky an email about this. I hear he answers all of them, so a reply tomorrow maybe.

[RedHal]

I think it's ridiculous how Chomsky supports/defends Chavez but refused to support/defend the USSR, while the latter was undeniably more "socialist" than the former is today.

Then again, asking for consistency from petty-bourgeois intellectuals is like asking for humility from Dick Cheney; not gonna happen.

lol Chomsky absolutely hates the USSR. In this recent Radio interview, while discussing the recent US poll in which socialism had a surprisingly high result, Chomsky actually said the USA was closer to his version of socialism then the USSR ever was!:laugh:

start listening around 28mins if you don;t want to listen to the whole interveiw.
http://will.illinois.edu/mediamatters/show/may-31-2009/

[AntifaAustralia]

I think Chomsky is a genuine socialist, he's getting older and his views might be changing now that death is near and communism distant!,

chomsky slipped up, he was too side tracked by how great Chavez was! He has been hiding his communist side, purely because of america's hysteria about the soviet union, and anti-authoritarianism, so called undemocratic, yeah right!

I cannot believe how many anti-chavez people there are here, jezuz!
i'd rather have a chavez than a bush or an obama!

[n0thing]

Hooray, Chomsky replied.

me to [email protected]
05:32


There's a lot of talk about the meeting you held with Hugo Chavez a week or two ago in Caracas, aired on one of the few remaining television stations in Venezuela. Putting aside what seems to be a large amount of personal ideological inconsistency, do you really think it's correct that Chavez is helping to create a better world through his administration, or were you just trying to be polite?
Thanks

Noam Chomsky <[email protected]> to me

07:32


I don't know what talk you are referring to, but I think the two or three sentences I said about Chavez were accurate. It's a complicated picture, but the economic and social progress described by serious analysts, like Weisbrot and Sandoval, seems to be quite impressive, particularly in the light of the military coup, capital strike, substantial continuing US efforts to undermine the regime, and obstructionism of the near-fanatic opposition. Same with efforts to establish self-governing communities, missions, some worker-managed factories, Operation Miracle, and much else. I don't know of much else like it.

[RedSonRising]

Hooray, Chomsky replied.

me to [email protected]
05:32


There's a lot of talk about the meeting you held with Hugo Chavez a week or two ago in Caracas, aired on one of the few remaining television stations in Venezuela. Putting aside what seems to be a large amount of personal ideological inconsistency, do you really think it's correct that Chavez is helping to create a better world through his administration, or were you just trying to be polite?
Thanks

Noam Chomsky <[email protected]> to me

07:32


I don't know what talk you are referring to, but I think the two or three sentences I said about Chavez were accurate. It's a complicated picture, but the economic and social progress described by serious analysts, like Weisbrot and Sandoval, seems to be quite impressive, particularly in the light of the military coup, capital strike, substantial continuing US efforts to undermine the regime, and obstructionism of the near-fanatic opposition. Same with efforts to establish self-governing communities, missions, some worker-managed factories, Operation Miracle, and much else. I don't know of much else like it.

As I thought, a "complicated picture" as he said, with many promising reforms underway. We'll have to wait a bit more and see. For all of Chomsky's criticized inconsistencies, I trust his judgment and I think he knows a good workerist economic modeling process when he sees it.

Thanks for taking the time to write and post the email btw.

[Yehuda Stern]

This is wonderful! The workers' state in Russia was a terrible Bolshevik dictatorship, but Chavez's regime, which presides over a capitalist economy, doesn't dare threaten the power of the bourgeoisie or punish the coup-plotters, and which suppresses workers demanding nationalization of their factory - that's "quite impressive!"

Here's another proof for you of the anti-working class outlook of these Democratic Party radicals.