Chomsky on state capitalism

[Mälli]

What is Noam Chomksys stand on state capitalism and anarco capitalism? Links?

[ComradeMan]

http://www.chomsky.info/

Why don't you email him? Noam Chomsky is not averse to responding to sincere emails on such matters, or even universal grammar!:D

[Pawn Power]

He is an anarchist and is against the state in all forms-- including state capitalism. He believes, like most anarchists, that all authority must justify itself and if it can't (and it usually can't) it should be dismantled.

He think that wage slavery (which would exist under so called anarcho capitalsim) is not much better than slavery itself. However, I don't think he thinks that anarcho capitalism could even be manifested.

[Искра]

He's not an anarchist, please don't offend my ideology.
He's liberal who sympathize anarchism.

[Pawn Power]

He's not an anarchist, please don't offend my ideology.
He's liberal who sympathize anarchism.

Your ideology. :lol:

Yes, you define what anarchism is. :rolleyes:

Chomsky is an anarchist, obviously.

[Искра]

Well my ideology is what I accept.. isn't it?
He's not anarchist, he's liberal. He never claimed that he's an anarchist, quite opposite he said in interview "I'm not an anarchist". Also, he's or was member of some marginal party in USA.
Even J. Zerzan wrote article "Chomsky's not an anarchist" (or something like that). I'm not saying that he's important :D because Zerzan is an idiot, but you know I just said as an information :D

[Drace]

According to wikipedia


Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_dissident), an anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist),[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#cite_note-8) and a libertarian socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) intellectual.

It also has a huge anarchist sign on his page.

He has a book called "Chomsky on Anarchism"

[Pawn Power]

Well my ideology is what I accept.. isn't it?
He's not anarchist, he's liberal. He never claimed that he's an anarchist, quite opposite he said in interview "I'm not an anarchist". Also, he's or was member of some marginal party in USA.
Even J. Zerzan wrote article "Chomsky's not an anarchist" (or something like that). I'm not saying that he's important :D because Zerzan is an idiot, but you know I just said as an information :D

You clearly no nothing about the person being discussed.

Chomsky has repeatably called himself an anarchistic and libertarian socialist.

[9]

Seems kind of contradictory for an anarchist to be a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a social democratic party that works within the Democrats, no?

[Pawn Power]

I really shouldn't have to provide evidence since it is so well know and since he has stated his position countless times.

But here he is, accepting the label "libertarian anarchist" and goes into some detail on the position of the term in history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzANq3B01fo&NR=1

[Pawn Power]

Seems kind of contradictory for an anarchist to be a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a social democratic party that works within the Democrats, no?

Because he may get the DSA news letter in the mail once year does not indicate corroboration with the second arm of the "corporatist party" as he calls it. :lol:

[9]

^If that was in response to me, I did not mean to dispute that he calls himself an anarchist. But then, the CPUSA calls itself "communist", and yet, that doesn't make it true. I just have a hard time reconciling how an anarchist could hold membership in a bourgeois political party that openly proclaims its strategy as 'moving the Democratic Party to the left".

[Pawn Power]

^If that was in response to me, I did not mean to dispute that he calls himself an anarchist. But then, the CPUSA calls itself "communist", and yet, that doesn't make it true. I just have a hard time reconciling how an anarchist could hold membership in a bourgeois political party that openly proclaims its strategy as 'moving the Democratic Party to the left".

But his actions and writings over the last half century show clearly where he stands, not membership in a minor political party, in which he holds dozens of memberships.

[9]

^I guess. And he's done good work, I don't mean to discount that; reading some of his work was very instructive to me when I was first getting into radical politics, and I may not have at all (or at least, not until many years later) had I not taken an interest in him when I was in high school. Having said that, I do think he treads closer to left liberalism than anarchism. He, for instance, urged voters in swing states to support Barack Obama in the presidential elections. To me, that is completely antithetical to anarchism, which holds that voting in bourgeois elections legitimizes the bourgeois state.

[Pawn Power]

^I guess. And he's done good work, I don't mean to discount that; reading some of his work was very instructive to me when I was first getting into radical politics, and I may not have at all (or at least, not until many years later) had I not taken an interest in him when I was in high school. Having said that, I do think he treads closer to left liberalism than anarchism. He, for instance, urged voters in swing states to support Barack Obama in the presidential elections. To me, that is completely antithetical to anarchism, which holds that voting in bourgeois elections legitimizes the bourgeois state.

Anarchism doesn't hold clear positions on voting. It holds that all authority and hierarchy is illegitimate unless proven otherwise.

And he hardly campaigned for obama. Yes, he thought that the least worse option people could do in swing states is vote against mccain but without illusions. I think the "without illusions" piece is key because what it means is that bourgeois elections are not democratic and are not legitimate. I personaly think that people have a difficult time voting while maintaining that critisism, though I am more cynical them chosmky.

Eitherway, anarhcism isn't based on strategy but on a belief in free and non-heirartical society.

[Devrim]

There was a discussion about Chomsky being a liberal on Libcom recently. Most people seemed to think that he was:
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/whats-wrong-chomsky-13112009
Devrim

[Mälli]

He's not an anarchist, please don't offend my ideology.
He's liberal who sympathize anarchism.

Well, if it is so, how is that? He is a libertarian socialist who symphatises anarchism. Whats wrong with that?

[9]

^What's wrong is that he supports bourgeois political parties and he has little to no conception of class. He dismisses Marxism outright while admitting he knows virtually nothing about it. To me, this calls into question his politics and is far more indicative of left liberalism than anarchism. I think his work is interesting and can be a useful tool to get people more interested in more radical politics, but it's hard to really call him an anarchist.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

he has little to no conception of class

Now I don't think that is true. I have a book of his called The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many which is almost explicitly about class.

[Devrim]

Anarchism doesn't hold clear positions on voting. It holds that all authority and hierarchy is illegitimate unless proven otherwise.
...
Eitherway, anarhcism isn't based on strategy but on a belief in free and non-heirartical society.

It depends what you think anarchism is. Is it an abstract ahistorical philosophical current, or is it a real tradition within the workers movement? If you choose the latter, then yes, anarchism is abstentionist.


And he hardly campaigned for obama. Yes, he thought that the least worse option people could do in swing states is vote against mccain but without illusions.

Which funnily enough, is exactly the same phrase that used to be used by the SWP(UK).


But here he is, accepting the label "libertarian anarchist" and goes into some detail on the position of the term in history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzANq3B01fo&NR=1

Ken Lvingstone, the ex-mayor of London once refeered to himself as an anarcho-syndicalist. So what?

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

Back to topic, I don't know what Chomsky position on State capitalism is. Nor do I think it is important at all; Chomsky is not noted as a theorist on the subject of the economics or politics of capitalism.

Luís Henrique

[ComradeMan]

Zerzan's point of view.
"Noam Chomsky is probably the most well-known American anarchist, somewhat curious given the fact that he is a liberal-leftist politically, and downright reactionary in his academic specialty, linguistic theory. Chomsky is also, by all accounts, a generous, sincere, tireless activist -- which does not, unfortunately, ensure his thinking has liberatory value. "
http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/whochoms.htm

From an interview with Chomsky

"What should guide us along the way are a general set of principles which will underly whatever specific forms our future society will take. For Chomsky, those principles arise from the historical trend of thought and action known as anarchism. "
Tom Lane, Chomsky interview 1996.
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm

An article "Chomsky's Weakness"
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/aug98/chomsky.html

For a rather negative view on Chomsky...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/713936/posts

[ls]

Pawn Power, I don't know why you are still responding when a libcom debate (libcom standing for libertarian communist - libcom being a major resource for anarchist material on the internet) holds a consensus that most people think he's nothing more than a liberal hack.

Of course, you can just register/login to libcom and tell them what anarchism is all you want, you will find there are a lot of users on there who like doing that. ;) Anyone else who wants to have a real debate about what anarchism actually is can do that too, it seems that a lot of non-anarchists seem to think they can decide what anarchism means on here, it's pretty funny to watch.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Ken Lvingstone, the ex-mayor of London once refeered to himself as an anarcho-syndicalist. So what?

Devrim

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Do you have a link to that, that is hilarious.

[x359594]

Seems kind of contradictory for an anarchist to be a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a social democratic party that works within the Democrats, no?

No one has produced evidence of his membership in DSA; further he denies being a member. No matter what DSA claims (and they have suggested that many well-known leftists are affiliated with them) there is no material evidence that Chomsky is a member of DSA. He was, however, a member of the IWW, IU 620. He let his membership lapse on retirement from teaching. He spoke at the New York City GMB's monthly forum a couple of times in the 1970s (I was there; I spoke to him at the GMB's headquarters at 119 E. 10th Street about the 1976 US presidential elections, for which he held nothing but scorn.)

Whether or not Chomsky is an anarchist is something of a moot point, it seems to me, since he has written for a variety of anarchist publications and been published by anarchist presses;his views on a variety of issues can be fairly called anarchist, on other issues socialist and still others liberal.

In my view, Chomsky has made important contributions to understanding how US foriegn policy works and how the corporate media functions as a tool of the capitalist state; his analysis of Middle Eastern politics is peerless. Chomsky comes from a humane anti-capitalist, anti-statist position.

[ls]

Chomsky comes from a humane anti-capitalist, anti-statist position.

He has praised Turkey and Venezuela, so respectively your points are wrong, you can find articles on hurriyet and venezuelanalysis about his visits and ideas so go ahead, then come back and tell me he is both of those things.

Btw the UN is "humane" so don't come out with such moralistic garbage.

Oh and on the DSA thing just put into google: "YDS (Young Democratic Socialists) conference in NYC Feb.16-18, 2007. Justice Beyond Borders: Democracy and Socialism in the 21st Century. Participants include Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Gayatri Spivak, Liza Featherstone, and Christian Parenti."

This also says he is a member: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6428

[ComradeMan]

My understanding of it is that Chomsky has never said "I am an anarchist" but has based most of his views and theories, of which he is very non-committal at times, on Marxist and Anarchist points of view- an eclectic mix. His general views tend to lean towards anarchist thinking but whether he considers himself an anarchist or not is up to him, his own words suggest that he doesn't. Or perhaps Chomsky is such an anarchist that he does not wish to label himself with any defining term.:D

[Искра]

I think that I put him in the "right place": he's an liberal language theoretician and academic which likes anarchist ideas and writes about them. I don't have nothing against him, I like his work on USA's foreign politics, but he's not an anarchist. Is this bad? No.

[Pawn Power]

Back to topic, I don't know what Chomsky position on State capitalism is. Nor do I think it is important at all; Chomsky is not noted as a theorist on the subject of the economics or politics of capitalism.

Luís Henrique

Yes, only experts of economics or the politics of capitalism have impotant things to say about state capitalism.

[Pawn Power]

My understanding of it is that Chomsky has never said "I am an anarchist" but has based most of his views and theories, of which he is very non-committal at times, on Marxist and Anarchist points of view- an eclectic mix. His general views tend to lean towards anarchist thinking but whether he considers himself an anarchist or not is up to him, his own words suggest that he doesn't. Or perhaps Chomsky is such an anarchist that he does not wish to label himself with any defining term.:D

This really isn't a question of understanding but of fact. Chomsky has stated numerous times in writing and in interviews that he considers himself an anarchist.

Here is a great piece just recorded last month where Chomsky states he is an anarchist and talks in fair detail about his political philosophy. He clearly thinks about these things a lot and has a deep understanding of anarchism.
The Political Philosophy of Noam Chomsky (http://www.zcommunications.org/zaudio/3307)

[Pawn Power]

Pawn Power, I don't know why you are still responding when a libcom debate (libcom standing for libertarian communist - libcom being a major resource for anarchist material on the internet) holds a consensus that most people think he's nothing more than a liberal hack.

Of course, you can just register/login to libcom and tell them what anarchism is all you want, you will find there are a lot of users on there who like doing that. ;) Anyone else who wants to have a real debate about what anarchism actually is can do that too, it seems that a lot of non-anarchists seem to think they can decide what anarchism means on here, it's pretty funny to watch.

Um, become libcom isn't representative of anarchism. It is only slightly representative of anarchist who have access to internet and frequent message boards.

This just in: there is life outside the internet!

[Durruti's Ghost]

My understanding of it is that Chomsky has never said "I am an anarchist"

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html


I was attracted to anarchism (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/index.html) as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since.


people are often surprised when I speak positively of anarchism and identify myself with leading traditions within it.

Maybe he doesn't say "I am an anarchist" verbatim, but I'd wonder what meaning these two quotes could possibly have if he did not actually consider himself to be an anarchist.

[ComradeMan]

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html





Maybe he doesn't say "I am an anarchist" verbatim, but I'd wonder what meaning these two quotes could possibly have if he did not actually consider himself to be an anarchist.

I would personally consider Chomsky as more anarchist than anything else but he is also very cautious about not giving specific terms to concepts or narrow views/labels- as he stated more or less on a recent British TV interview that has been posted here. I get the impression he tends to view anarchism in very broad terms although he admits certain principles. A bit like universal grammar too... the LAD follows certain principles even though we do not really know what it is....:)

[ls]

Um, become libcom isn't representative of anarchism. It is only slightly representative of anarchist who have access to internet and frequent message boards.

This just in: there is life outside the internet!

This is equivalent to not believing that something on marxists.org was an actual document published by the author; 20% possibility, 80% probability. So you know, get lost.

[Pawn Power]

I don't want to become some sort of idealist chomsky defender, but I think his position has been widely misunderstood despite the fact that he is pretty clear and consistent in it. This is probably do more to assumptions of his ideas from not actually reading/listening to them than actual misunderstanding of those ideas.

But I will respond to a few more things...


It depends what you think anarchism is. Is it an abstract ahistorical philosophical current, or is it a real tradition within the workers movement? If you choose the latter, then yes, anarchism is abstractionist.I don't understand what you are trying to say.


Which funnily enough, is exactly the same phrase that used to be used by the SWP(UK).Okay guilt by association. I happen to agree with certain points on environmental preservation and related governmental policy to a few traditional conservatives, that doesn't mean I share there entire ideology.


Ken Lvingstone, the ex-mayor of London once refeered to himself as an anarcho-syndicalist. So what?Good for him. He doesn't a life of related activist dedicated to it.


I would personally consider Chomsky as more anarchist than anything else but he is also very cautious about not giving specific terms to concepts or narrow views/labels- as he stated more or less on a recent British TV interview that has been posted here. I get the impression he tends to view anarchism in very broad terms although he admits certain principles. A bit like universal grammar too... the LAD follows certain principles even though we do not really know what it is....:)Most of this is generally true. I don't see a point in continuing a discussion on whether chosmky views himself as an anarchist. He clearly does and there is more documentation of it then is necessary to substaintiate the point. The reason he appears to be sometimes caustious of to use personal labels," I think, is only because anarchism itself a very broad ideaology, so he tends to more attach himself to priniciples on anarchism, etc. rather than the label of an anarchist.

But this discussion is pretty much done and isn't too interesting to begin with.


He has praised Turkey and Venezuela, so respectively your points are wrong, you can find articles on hurriyet and venezuelanalysis about his visits and ideas so go ahead, then come back and tell me he is both of those things.

Btw the UN is "humane" so don't come out with such moralistic garbage.

Oh and on the DSA thing just put into google: "YDS (Young Democratic Socialists) conference in NYC Feb.16-18, 2007. Justice Beyond Borders: Democracy and Socialism in the 21st Century. Participants include Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Gayatri Spivak, Liza Featherstone, and Christian Parenti."

This also says he is a member: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6428 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6428)What a weird whitch hunt you are on. :blink:


This is equivalent to not believing that something on marxists.org was an actual document published by the author; 20% possibility, 80% probability. So you know, get lost.I don't understand what you are trying to say here but it doesn't appear to address my point. The point being, a few scores of anarchist online do not hold a party line on what anarchism is or who is an anarchsit. This should be clear enough.

[Devrim]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Sorry, automatic spell check. It should have read:

It depends what you think anarchism is. Is it an abstract ahistorical philosophical current, or is it a real tradition within the workers movement? If you choose the latter, then yes, anarchism is abstentionist.

Devrim

[ls]

Pawn Power, I don't - and I'm sure others don't really give a damn whether you and maybe three others consider him an anarchist. A vast amount of evidence has been presented to the contrary, all of which is simply fact and you have either said "I don't understand" or come up with some kind of ridiculous strawman.

The fact of the matter is that Noam Chomsky is not an anarchist. He holds pro-statist positions, praises an utterly reactionary (even by Marxist-Leninist standards) state (Turkey) and he is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

By those standards, he is not any kind of principled socialist at all, in fact he should be considered a liberal by any socialist's definition! That doesn't somehow null all of his work, but it must be taken into consideration when you evaluate what he publishes and when you consider what views he holds.

[ComradeMan]

Pawn Power, I don't - and I'm sure others don't really give a damn whether you and maybe three others consider him an anarchist. A vast amount of evidence has been presented to the contrary, all of which is simply fact and you have either said "I don't understand" or come up with some kind of ridiculous strawman.

The fact of the matter is that Noam Chomsky is not an anarchist. He holds pro-statist positions, praises an utterly reactionary (even by Marxist-Leninist standards) state (Turkey) and he is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

By those standards, he is not any kind of principled socialist at all, in fact he should be considered a liberal by any socialist's definition! That doesn't somehow null all of his work, but it must be taken into consideration when you evaluate what he publishes and when you consider what views he holds.


A vast amount of evidence? Where?

Chomsky has been largely criticised by Zerzan and Woolworth. Chomsky may not be the perfect anarchist, but then Proudhon was a sexist and anti-Semite and Bakunin has been accused of being a racist whereas Kropotkin supported the allies in the First World War thus alienating himself from Malatesta- does that nullify their anarchist credentials entirely?

The fact that most of the world consider Chomsky to be an anarchist and Chomsky certainly eschews anarchist principles would lend weight to the argument that he is at least in part anarchist....

[Durruti's Ghost]

The fact of the matter is that Noam Chomsky is not an anarchist. He holds pro-statist positions,

Specifically?


praises an utterly reactionary (even by Marxist-Leninist standards) state (Turkey)

1) Source?
2) I have praised certain achievements of the USSR and Cuba. Does this imply uncritical support for their regimes?
and
3) Kropotkin was pro-war in WWI. Was he therefore not an anarchist?


and he is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Is he? How do you respond to this:


No one has produced evidence of his membership in DSA; further he denies being a member. No matter what DSA claims (and they have suggested that many well-known leftists are affiliated with them) there is no material evidence that Chomsky is a member of DSA. He was, however, a member of the IWW, IU 620. He let his membership lapse on retirement from teaching. He spoke at the New York City GMB's monthly forum a couple of times in the 1970s (I was there; I spoke to him at the GMB's headquarters at 119 E. 10th Street about the 1976 US presidential elections, for which he held nothing but scorn.)

Furthermore, I am (probably) still technically a member of a certain church in my hometown. I no longer attend, and have renounced all religious principles; however, I've never considered it worth the trouble to go to that church and try to get them to cancel my membership. Am I therefore not an atheist?

[ls]

Protip Durruti's Ghost: read the thread. :rolleyes:

Apart from that
2) I have praised certain achievements of the USSR and Cuba. Does this imply uncritical support for their regimes?

Well, you are a bit platformist so a dodgy case.


and
3) Kropotkin was pro-war in WWI. Was he therefore not an anarchist?

Kropotkin was kicked the hell out of Freedom press for supporting a shitty imperialist war and good too, he betrayed his principles.

[bleh]

Pawn Power, I don't know why you are still responding when a libcom debate (libcom standing for libertarian communist - libcom being a major resource for anarchist material on the internet) holds a consensus that most people think he's nothing more than a liberal hack.

Who cares what libcom (as if its a formal organization) has to say about anything? What are they- the high elders of anarchism who decide the correct dogma on issues? How many people even regularly post on that site? ten? twelve? I could just as easily in the same vein link to a half dozen other anarchist forums to claim some definitive position.

Furthermore you are completely incorrect. There is no consensus there. One the first page of the thread there are several people defending his position as an anarchist and on the last page, by the time most posters have moved on, the people posting are claiming that he holds pro-Castro positions, which, of course, most left liberals (in the sense that youre using the term) would vehemently disagree with.

[bleh]

^I guess. And he's done good work, I don't mean to discount that; reading some of his work was very instructive to me when I was first getting into radical politics, and I may not have at all (or at least, not until many years later) had I not taken an interest in him when I was in high school. Having said that, I do think he treads closer to left liberalism than anarchism. He, for instance, urged voters in swing states to support Barack Obama in the presidential elections. To me, that is completely antithetical to anarchism, which holds that voting in bourgeois elections legitimizes the bourgeois state.

Chomsky's position is that the u.s. is an illiberal one party state, within which there are two competing factions. He thinks that sometimes one is better then the other, in terms of the extent of their assault on the working class. This is a questionable position, but its a long shot from him praising the democrats as some sort of incubator for socialism, as a lot of people who bring this up seem to imply.

Also anarchist individuals and organizations have a long history of taking sides or voting in bourgeois elections. If taking this incorrect position makes one not an anarchist then a good chunk of the historical movement was not anarchist.

[bleh]

This also says he is a member: http: DOT discoverthenetworks ORG /groupProfile.asp?grpid=6428

Discover the Network is part of a series of fronts for an ex-Stalinist David Horowitz, who reinvented himself as a 'red hunter' (and more resently a defender against islam) Republican in the 1980's. Only a few years ago that site had film critic Roger Ebert linked with Al-Qaeda.





Kropotkin was kicked the hell out of Freedom press for supporting a shitty imperialist war and good too, he betrayed his principles.

But nobody is claiming that Kropotkin was a liberal.

[bricolage]

Kropotkin was kicked the hell out of Freedom press for supporting a shitty imperialist war and good too, he betrayed his principles.

They still sell his books, well at least online (I haven't actually been to Freedom for a while and I've never gone there looking for Kropotkin!) just with a 'disclaimer'.

http://www.freedompress.org.uk/public/author.oml%3FpersonId=29.html

[Durruti's Ghost]

Protip Durruti's Ghost: read the thread. :rolleyes:

Perhaps I should be more specific as to why I asked for elaboration on your part.

On the Turkey thing: You're the one who is making the argument that Chomsky is not an anarchist. It is not on me, or any of the others who oppose your position, to go looking through websites to find evidence to support your position.

On the YDS thing: Does the fact that you give a talk on a platform provided by a certain organization imply that you endorse the positions of that organization? If I were to be interviewed by CNN, for example, would that imply an endorsement of CNN? And, once more:


Furthermore, I am (probably) still technically a member of a certain church in my hometown. I no longer attend, and have renounced all religious principles; however, I've never considered it worth the trouble to go to that church and try to get them to cancel my membership. Am I therefore not an atheist?

If you think this argument is irrelevant, why do you think so?

And:


Well, you are a bit platformist so a dodgy case.

What have I ever said to indicate that I am a platformist? :confused:

[bleh]

I would personally consider Chomsky as more anarchist than anything else but he is also very cautious about not giving specific terms to concepts or narrow views/labels- as he stated more or less on a recent British TV interview that has been posted here. I get the impression he tends to view anarchism in very broad terms although he admits certain principles. A bit like universal grammar too... the LAD follows certain principles even though we do not really know what it is....:)

He certainly doesn't wear his anarchist identity on his sleeves, but if by the british tv interview you're referring to the hardtalk interview, I think that had more to do with the short- two second answer- duration of the interview. Chomsky gives tons of interviews so he tends to repeat himself a lot. In this longer interview on youtube called Conversations with history:noam chomsky (starting at 12:36 - till 15 and onward) he gives the same answer but more thoroughly: youtube watch?v=8ghoXQxdk6s

[Kassad]

Whenever I listen to Chomsky's lectures, it just sounds like the teacher from the Charlie Brown movies that's all muffled and shit because they don't care what they have to say. Chomsky, as much as he is spot-on when it comes to American imperialism and hegemonic domination of other countries, completely ignores the impact of imperialism on socialist countries like Cuba, the Soviet Union and China. He completely blames bureaucracy, authoritarianism and a bunch of other filler words for the failure of socialist development, yet doesn't acknowledge imperialism's role at all. The same can be said when reading any of his works on socialist states. It's reprehensible.

[ls]

To all above posters: okay believe what you want, I don't really care. I've indicated to more than enough evidence and you can email Chomsky yourself as someone has generously pointed out, you can ask him why he thought praising the Turkish state was a good idea or why he chose to met Chavez if he is indeed an anti-statist.


They still sell his books, well at least online (I haven't actually been to Freedom for a while and I've never gone there looking for Kropotkin!) just with a 'disclaimer'.

http://www.freedompress.org.uk/public/author.oml%3FpersonId=29.html

Haha, yeah boring old fart with a beard (the link doesn't load) but I've seen it before. He has a lot of good work Kropotkin but he did betray his principles, so it was only right that they kicked him out. Once again, I am not saying it makes his work on mutual aid any less important for anarchists.

[BlackCapital]

Anarchism covers a broad range of ideological positions and theories as Chomsky habitually asserts, and anarchism is clearly his tendency. Anyone who has read/listened a decent amount of his work would know this, unless they have an extremely dogmatic and ridiculous view of what anarchism, or leftism in general is about. His ideology is largely based on basic moral principles.

I personally find it extremely refreshing to hear him give a relevant and precise criticism of world politics, as opposed to spitting out leftist rhetoric with little value.

[BlackCapital]

Whenever I listen to Chomsky's lectures, it just sounds like the teacher from the Charlie Brown movies that's all muffled and shit because they don't care what they have to say. Chomsky, as much as he is spot-on when it comes to American imperialism and hegemonic domination of other countries, completely ignores the impact of imperialism on socialist countries like Cuba, the Soviet Union and China. He completely blames bureaucracy, authoritarianism and a bunch of other filler words for the failure of socialist development, yet doesn't acknowledge imperialism's role at all. The same can be said when reading any of his works on socialist states. It's reprehensible.

Although I can't recall a lecture or article were he specifically attributes failures of socialist movements to imperialism, he CERTAINLY goes into great detail in many cases in his books, specifically Hegemony or Survival and Failed States. He covers at least eight countries which experienced severe NATO/US backed state repression and CIA harassment during socialist movements. In the case of the Soviet Union and China however he certainly does blame bureaucracy and authoritarianism given their history and his ideological position and would argue they themselves were/have been imperialist for the vast majority of their existence.

[Drace]

http://www.chomsky.info/

Why don't you email him? Noam Chomsky is not averse to responding to sincere emails on such matters, or even universal grammar!:D

Because he gets hundreds of emails a day...

[Devrim]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Do you have a link to that, that is hilarious.

I can't find one, sorry. I remember him saying it. It was back in the 80s. Interestingly enough Ken was born nearly next door to where I live when I was in London. On Sunnyhill Road in Streatham above the Tory Part office.

Devrim

[Devrim]

He has praised Turkey...

The quote praising Turkey is here:


American intellectual Noam Chomsky praised Turkey’s progress toward becoming a “significant independent actor” and urged the country to make crucial decisions that will direct the course of its diplomacy, The Palestinian Chronicle reported Tuesday.
During two lectures organized by the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, he also blamed Israel for the conflict that erupted in the Gaza Strip earlier this year, accusing the Israelis of resorting to military force before “exhausting peaceful means.”
Chomsky said that Turkey could become a "significant independent actor,” if it chooses to.
"Turkey has to make some internal decisions: Is it going to face West and try to get accepted by the European Union, or is it going to face reality and recognize that Europeans are so racist that they are never going to allow it in?" Chomsky said.
The Europeans "keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the EU," he explained.
But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003 when it followed its public opinion and did not take part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its population, which opposed the invasion.


Previously, he had been critical of Turkey:


the Kurds have been miserably oppressed throughout the whole history of the modern Turkish state ... In 1984, the Turkish government launched a major war in the south-east against the Kurdish population ... The end result was pretty awesome: tens of thousands of people killed, two to three million refugees, massive ethnic cleansing with some 3,500 villages destroyed.

His publisher was prosecuted over his book. Though the case was eventually dropped. Chomsky travelled to Turkey to support the publisher, and was present in the court room.:


In November, the European Union praised Turkey for introducing laws that will protect the right to freedom of expression, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the EU does not mention Turkey's use of anti-terror laws, which directly contravenes the convention and undermines those newly passed laws enshrining freedom of speech. Citing Article 8 of the anti-terror laws - outlawing "propaganda against the indivisible unity of the State of the Turkish Republic with its territory and nation" - Bekir Aldemir, the state prosecuting attorney, has just charged Fatih Tas, the owner of Aram Publishing in Turkey, at the Istanbul State Security Court for having the audacity to publish American Interventionism, a collection of writings by Noam Chomsky. Fatih faces a year in prison if found guilty.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Um, become libcom isn't representative of anarchism. It is only slightly representative of anarchist who have access to internet and frequent message boards.

This just in: there is life outside the internet!


Who cares what libcom (as if its a formal organization) has to say about anything? What are they- the high elders of anarchism who decide the correct dogma on issues? How many people even regularly post on that site? ten? twelve? I could just as easily in the same vein link to a half dozen other anarchist forums to claim some definitive position.

I count 18 people on the front page of that thread. The point isn't though how many people post there. It is about what sort of people post there. Many of them are active members of anarchist organisations. Surely real anarchist, i.e. militants who are members of political organisations should be the people who define what anarchism is, and unless I have missed anybody the only person that this applies to on this thread is Jurko, and his point of view is very clear:


He's not an anarchist, please don't offend my ideology.
He's liberal who sympathize anarchism.

Devrim

[Devrim]

On the Turkey thing: You're the one who is making the argument that Chomsky is not an anarchist. It is not on me, or any of the others who oppose your position, to go looking through websites to find evidence to support your position.

The thing about praising Turkey, and I assume that it happened after the incident at Davos, is that it is not an anarchist position. Basically, Chomsky criticises US imperialism, and his documentation of this is impressive. His political response to it though is about supporting states opposed to the US, and calling for the enforcement of international law. This is not an anarchist position.


There is no consensus there. One the first page of the thread there are several people defending his position as an anarchist and on the last page, by the time most posters have moved on, the people posting are claiming that he holds pro-Castro positions, which, of course, most left liberals (in the sense that youre using the term) would vehemently disagree with.

If you know the Libcom posters, I think you would see that the majority of people who post there regulary do say he is a liberal. Also I would associate defending Castro with classic left liberal positions. I suppose that depends on where you live, and what you mean by 'left liberal'.


Also anarchist individuals and organizations have a long history of taking sides or voting in bourgeois elections. If taking this incorrect position makes one not an anarchist then a good chunk of the historical movement was not anarchist.

And have generally been condemned by most anarchists for doing so.




Kropotkin was pro-war in WWI. Was he therefore not an anarchist? Kropotkin was kicked the hell out of Freedom press for supporting a shitty imperialist war and good too, he betrayed his principles.But nobody is claiming that Kropotkin was a liberal.

No, he became a chauvanist just as Kautsky did.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Which funnily enough, is exactly the same phrase that used to be used by the SWP(UK).

Okay guilt by association. I happen to agree with certain points on environmental preservation and related governmental policy to a few traditional conservatives, that doesn't mean I share there entire ideology.

It is not guilt by association. It is not an anarchist position though. Please, name one anarchist organisation that supports it.

Devrim

[Durruti's Ghost]

The thing about praising Turkey, and I assume that it happened after the incident at Davos, is that it is not an anarchist position. Basically, Chomsky criticises US imperialism, and his documentation of this is impressive. His political response to it though is about supporting states opposed to the US, and calling for the enforcement of international law. This is not an anarchist position.Having read the actual quote, I'm inclined to agree that his support of Turkey--and anti-US states generally--is in conflict with anarchist principles, as was his recommendation for people in swing states to participate the bourgeois electoral system. What I am uncomfortable with is the notion that anyone who ever compromises on their anarchist principles should be stripped of their anarchist credentials. If they reject a fundamental principle of anarchism, obviously, they can't be called anarchist; however, if some of their actions are inconsistent with these principles, it seems to me that they are only guilty of failing to consistently apply their principles, not failing to hold them--otherwise, we'd have to conclude that virtually none of the people that have ever called themselves "anarchists" were actually anarchists. I don't think that his qualified advocacy of voting, for example, represents a fundamental rejection of the principle of opposition to the bourgeois state; it represents a tactical miscalculation that has been made numerous times in the history of the movement, to the justified condemnation of the majority of the movement. The Turkey statement, on the other hand, might. I'd have to know more about the context of the statements, the qualifications he added to them, and his rationale for them.

Actions inconsistent with anarchist principles deserve condemnation. However, why does this condemnation have to go so far as to declare that the person in question is not an anarchist? Were the anarchists who collaborated with the Republican government during the Spanish Civil War pseudo-anarchists, or merely misguided anarchists?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Whenever I listen to Chomsky's lectures, it just sounds like the teacher from the Charlie Brown movies that's all muffled and shit because they don't care what they have to say. Chomsky, as much as he is spot-on when it comes to American imperialism and hegemonic domination of other countries, completely ignores the impact of imperialism on socialist countries like Cuba, the Soviet Union and China. He completely blames bureaucracy, authoritarianism and a bunch of other filler words for the failure of socialist development, yet doesn't acknowledge imperialism's role at all. The same can be said when reading any of his works on socialist states. It's reprehensible.
Socialist countries...? HA! Your problem there is with Anarchism not with Chomsky.

Yes he does sound like a Charlie Brown character. I don't think it shows his enthusiasm I think that he just has a very monotone speaking style.

I really don't know what this hoopla is about. First of all non-anarchists should have no place in this discussion. Secondly, I don't care what most of those "anarchists" who disagree with him think anyways. He has done more for anarchism than many of them.

What do you guys mean that he is part of the DSA? Like that is what he is registered with? Because I am a member of the NRA and Republican party. Does that inherently stop me from being an anarchist.

[ComradeMan]

Protip Durruti's Ghost: read the thread. :rolleyes:

Apart from that

Well, you are a bit platformist so a dodgy case.



Kropotkin was kicked the hell out of Freedom press for supporting a shitty imperialist war and good too, he betrayed his principles.

They still sell his books... ha...ha! :)

You still haven't commented on Proudhon or Bakunin.

Come on- there isn't probably one of us or a man or woman alive who has not at some time or other made a mistake.

PS When was a full on war not a shitty imperialist venture?

[Kassad]

Socialist countries...? HA! Your problem there is with Anarchism not with Chomsky.

Good argument. I'm convinced.

[ls]

The Turkey statement, on the other hand, might. I'd have to know more about the context of the statements, the qualifications he added to them, and his rationale for them.

It is really very obvious to anyone, he's saying the thought of Turkey as a brutal oppressor is expunged because of American imperialism. He is apologising for the oppression of Kurds and the actions of the Turkish bourgeois.


Actions inconsistent with anarchist principles deserve condemnation. However, why does this condemnation have to go so far as to declare that the person in question is not an anarchist? Were the anarchists who collaborated with the Republican government during the Spanish Civil War pseudo-anarchists, or merely misguided anarchists?

They ceased to be anarchists, some of them saw sense afterwards and somewhat redeemed themselves, but yes those who fully betrayed the movement were not anarchists (Santillan and his vile intellectual hack friends who always were a threat anyway). Kropotkin was not an anarchist and was a liberal once he betrayed his principles by supporting WWI.

[ComradeMan]

It is really very obvious to anyone, he's saying the thought of Turkey as a brutal oppressor is expunged because of American imperialism. He is apologising for the oppression of Kurds and the actions of the Turkish bourgeois.



They ceased to be anarchists, some of them saw sense afterwards and somewhat redeemed themselves, but yes those who fully betrayed the movement were not anarchists (Santillan and his vile intellectual hack friends who always were a threat anyway). Kropotkin was not an anarchist and was a liberal once he betrayed his principles by supporting WWI.


Who is to say exactly who is and who isn't an anarchist? Anarchism covers a panoply of views and ideals with some main common principles and various movements and trends that have not always seen eye to eye. I think you may be being over zealously dogmatic in your view of anarchism which is not very anarchistic really. If anarchist groups are going to form and then start denouncing people and groups then they could be challenged on the same basis that all other "parties" are challenged- playing Devil's advocate that is.

Taking up Kropotkin's position we have to look at the Manifesto of the Sixteen.

The basic premise was that the Allies would overthrow a powerful German state and leave the ground fertile for an anarchist revolution.

He was perhaps guilty of the old trap of my enemy's enemy is my friend as well as playing up anti-German feeling, especially in France.

He was not alone and was supported by other anarchists at the time-

Christian Cornelissen, Henri Fuss, Jean Grave, Jacques Guérin, Peter Kropotkin, A. Laisant. François Le Lève, Charles Malato, Jules Moineau, A. Orfila, Hussein Dey, Marc Pierrot, Paul Reclus, Richard, Tchikawa, Warlaam [Varlan] Tcherkesoff.



The Manifesto split the anarchist movement down the middle and dealt a blow to the Russian movement.



Although Kropotkin made a bad move he was not alone from within the movement and not without some support. Nor does this later failing undermine his valued pre-war work either.

http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/manifesto16.htm

[blake 3:17]

Having said that, I do think he treads closer to left liberalism than anarchism. He, for instance, urged voters in swing states to support Barack Obama in the presidential elections.

He supported John Kerry!

I just tried reading his book on education, and it was duller than dirt. Dreary rationalism, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Edited to add:
Kropotkin was not an anarchist and was a liberal once he betrayed his principles by supporting WWI. Really? I never knew that. Wow. Insane in the membrane.

[x359594]

He supported John Kerry!...

If you're referring to Kerry's presidential campaign, sorry comrade, you're wrong about that. There is no evidence that Chomsky materially supported Kerry, such as photographs of Chomsky with Kerry or Chomsky at Kerry campaign rallies or cancelled checks of donations to the Kerry campaign.

On the other hand, Chomsky has supported the IWW through his membership over many years until his retirement from teaching, he's contributed with monetary donations to the Canadian anarchist magazine Our Generation and to The Anarcho-Syndicalist Review and wrote an introduction for Sam Dolgoff's collection Bakunin on Anarchy, ditto for the Pluto Press edition of Anarchism and Anarchosyndicalism by Rudolf Rocker.

Although the topic is "Chomsky on State Capitalism" the discussion has devolved to "Is Noam Chomsky an anarchist?", something that's of vital interest only to those who are communicants of the High Church of Anarchism. And like many religious believers some people here have resorted to half-truths and repeated fabrications about Chomsky the person without examining his work. For example, what is liberal about his book The New Military Humanism? In the context of its publication, when liberals the world over supported the military attack on the FRY, Chomsky was among those on the left who opposed intervention and called it out for what it really was. And how about The Fateful Triangle? This book is devastating analysis of Israel's regional ambitions and the US role in abetting them. Then there are his deconstructions of neo-liberal policies in such books as Profit Over People, his examination of how the capitalist controlled media works in Manufacuturing Consent (with Edward Herman) and Media Control. Here, in his books, is where Chomsky should be judged, not from de-contextualized off hand remarks or occasional speeches.

[Devrim]

They ceased to be anarchists, some of them saw sense afterwards and somewhat redeemed themselves, but yes those who fully betrayed the movement were not anarchists (Santillan and his vile intellectual hack friends who always were a threat anyway). Kropotkin was not an anarchist and was a liberal once he betrayed his principles by supporting WWI.

I agree completely with this. Like Kautsky, these people betrayed.


Although Kropotkin made a bad move he was not alone from within the movement and not without some support. Nor does this later failing undermine his valued pre-war work either.

No, he wasn't alone. Anarchists as well as Marxists betrayed.


In the context of its publication, when liberals the world over supported the military attack on the FRY, Chomsky was among those on the left who opposed intervention and called it out for what it really was. And how about The Fateful Triangle? This book is devastating analysis of Israel's regional ambitions and the US role in abetting them. Then there are his deconstructions of neo-liberal policies in such books as Profit Over People, his examination of how the capitalist controlled media works in Manufacuturing Consent (with Edward Herman) and Media Control. Here, in his books, is where Chomsky should be judged, not from de-contextualized off hand remarks or occasional speeches.

The point is that his opposition to 'neo-liberal policies', and 'Israel's regional ambitions and the US role in abetting them' involves support for states opposed to these things.


If you're referring to Kerry's presidential campaign, sorry comrade, you're wrong about that. There is no evidence that Chomsky materially supported Kerry, such as photographs of Chomsky with Kerry or Chomsky at Kerry campaign rallies or cancelled checks of donations to the Kerry campaign.


Chomsky's "reluctant endorsement" (The Guardian) for John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry) as president in 2004 was controversial amongst some anarchists[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] who tend to be critical of many political parties and electoral politics in general. Chomsky said "Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky#cite_note-59) However, he later responded to this, saying that personally he would vote for Ralph Nader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader). "Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush."[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky#cite_note-60)

He clearly supports electoral politics.

Devrim

[x359594]

...The point is that his opposition to 'neo-liberal policies', and 'Israel's regional ambitions and the US role in abetting them' involves support for states opposed to these things...

Where exactly does Chomsky voice support for the governments of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq in The Fateful Triangle?

To the extent that one can construe Chomsky as a supporter of states, it seems to me that he's doing so in the manner of the Continental Op using one powerful force to check another powerful in Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest, using one state to check another state. I suppose you could describe this as bad strategy, but it doesn't seem to me to constitute advocacy for the continued existence of states.


...He clearly supports electoral politics.

Not quite the same thing as supporting John Kerry for president.

It seems to me that there's a difference between advocating (or supporting if you will) electoral politics as a matter of principle and voting for or against particular candidates or ballot measures as a matter of expediency. Sometimes the latter is a matter of survival, or if not survival then of having the freedom to act, organize, publish, petition, etc. that might otherwise be abolished, restricted or curtailed by a given candidate for office or measure become law (as in the recent passage of Proposition 8 in California.)

[Devrim]

Where exactly does Chomsky voice support for the governments of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq in The Fateful Triangle?


I don't know. I haven't read it. I have read some of his work, but not that. He sees the solutions to these questions as being about international law, which is a statist solution, not at all in terms of the working class.


It seems to me that there's a difference between advocating (or supporting if you will) electoral politics as a matter of principle and voting for or against particular candidates or ballot measures as a matter of expediency.

You are right. Those who vote on principle at least have some principles. Those who claim to be anarchists and then support candidates in US Presidential elections obviously don't.


Sometimes the latter is a matter of survival, or if not survival then of having the freedom to act, organize, publish, petition, etc. that might otherwise be abolished, restricted or curtailed by a given candidate for office or measure become law (as in the recent passage of Proposition 8 in California.)

So are you saying that anarchists should be against bourgeois democracy except when they want to take sides?

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

I would recommend his damning indictment of US foreign policy in "What Uncle Sam Really Wants"- that book shocked me with things I had NEVER been taught in school, especially about South America....

Listen, I don't know about this voting business. None of us probably lives in a state where there is no form of electoral process and or voting. What are we supposed to do? Not vote- that just makes matters worse. In some nations it is illegal not to vote, I believe Australia is one, not sure about the US.

As for the point about being a compromised anarchist. The harsh reality is that every one of us here is in some way or other probably a compromised anarchist in that we all live in states where there is no anarchist system. In that way we are obliged by sheer circumstance and survival instinct to collude with the system. We have to buy food, clothes, petrol... if you think about it- if we all went on strike, stocked up on essentials and stayed home for a fortnight- every last person, the system would collapse on its feet- but is that likely to happen?

I could also denounce anarchist bookshops that sell books? Why can't I barter a book with them? Have they sold out to capitalism?

I think we have to temper purist ideology with circumstances and acknowledge that we all have our human limits and defects too, we ought not to be so doctrinaire ourselves lest we also be judged along sone purist lines.

As for Kropotkin, it is widely admitted in anarchist circles that he made a big mistake, yet his intentions and motives that in turn led him to make this mistake were in the name of what he perceived to be the creation of an anarchist revolution in Germany. A kind of anarcho-machiavellianism if you like! Nevertheless, to invalidate entirely Kropotkin's role in the anarchist movement is absurd.

Back to state-capitalism. I don't think anyone would argue that Chomsky does not attack state-capitalism and if you bother to read his many books and pamphlets you will see that shining off the pages before you.

[x359594]

...So are you saying that anarchists should be against bourgeois democracy except when they want to take sides?

Comrade, it's not a question of taking sides. If we want to to publish our propaganda, organize our work places, marry the partner of our choice, hold our meetings without fear of arrest, keep our children safe from toxic dumps next to the schoolyard and have affordable public transportation, we have to use the instruments of bourgeois democracy in combination with direct action to preserve our lives and our freedoms. These are issues I've faced in my lifetime, and lacking anarchist numbers I see no other strategy that produces results.

As to principles, they are merely guides and servants of humanity, humanity is not at the service of principles. Those who are willing to commit revolutionary suicide have the luxury of absolutism and can be true to their principles to the death. But for the rest of who want to spend another day above ground, and who want a better world for our children, sometimes we must act from expediency and abandon principle. That's the brute reality of life for some of us.

All of us who are committed to revolution and live within a capitalist state are inevitably caught in contradictions; we are forced to make use of the state and its institutions and some point or other. For example, I use public transportation to go to work, the public library, the park swimming pool, and I'd call the fire department if I had to. Not to mention the vast web of state policies that implicates us all (from turning on the water tap to turning on a gas stove.)

That said, I have the greatest respect for those heroes and heroines who fast to the death or otherwise sacrifice their lives for the good of us all, but in all honesty I can't count myself among them, I have too many attchments to this life.

Returning to Chomsky for a moment, he always ends his formal talks and speeches with a call to organize, and as a rank and file activist he has a long history of direct action.

[Devrim]

X, I think your post attempts to patronise me by suggesting that I don't live in the real world and that what I put forward is just abstract idealism:


All of us who are committed to revolution and live within a capitalist state are inevitably caught in contradictions; we are forced to make use of the state and its institutions and some point or other. For example, I use public transportation to go to work, the public library, the park swimming pool, and I'd call the fire department if I had to. Not to mention the vast web of state policies that implicates us all (from turning on the water tap to turning on a gas stove.)

I don't find any of these things contradictory. I don't have any 'moral problem' at all with using any of these things, and have even called the police after being burgled (for insurance purposes only. I don't have any illusions that they will do anything).

More importantly, I don't think that revolutionary politics is about 'opting out of the system'.


Comrade, it's not a question of taking sides. If we want to to publish our propaganda, organize our work places, marry the partner of our choice, hold our meetings without fear of arrest, keep our children safe from toxic dumps next to the schoolyard and have affordable public transportation, we have to use the instruments of bourgeois democracy in combination with direct action to preserve our lives and our freedoms. These are issues I've faced in my lifetime, and lacking anarchist numbers I see no other strategy that produces results.

Again, I think that you try to imply that I have no grasp of these things. Actually, I am a member of a non-legal organisation, which publishes an illegal paper in a country that is far more repressive than the US. The question is really about how the working class can defend its living standards. Now either you believe that this can only be done by the self activity of workers themselves, or that it can be done by a mixture of this and 'using the instruments of bourgeois democracy'. I don't believe it can be, and I believe that bourgeois politics only acts as a mystification. All sides are forced to attack workers living standards and as the crisis continues to deepen, the attacks will become more severe. Those who try to ally the working class with one faction in support of one particular issue in doing so decrease the working class' capacity to become a class for itself.

Also I don't believe that it is down to their being a lack of numbers of revolutionaries, but down to the strength within the class.


As to principles, they are merely guides and servants of humanity, humanity is not at the service of principles. Those who are willing to commit revolutionary suicide have the luxury of absolutism and can be true to their principles to the death. But for the rest of who want to spend another day above ground, and who want a better world for our children, sometimes we must act from expediency and abandon principle. That's the brute reality of life for some of us.

Again another thing about living in the real world. It is not a question of having individual principles though. It is a question of revolutionary organisations having revolutionary politics. I don't criticises individuals for choosing to their military service rather than spending years in prison. That doesn't mean that a communist organisation in this country should not criticise the state's brutal war in Kurdistan.

Sometimes people are forced to personally do things, which they find personally unpleasant. In this country, for example, it is illegal not to vote. I don't criticise people who go and vote because they don't want to be finned. What I would criticise people for would be advocating a vote for one side or the other cliaming that it could make improvements whilst at the same time claiming to be anarchists. Individuals that do this are not, however they may describe themselves, revolutionaries, and organisations that do it are as much a part of the charade of democracy as the major parties.


That said, I have the greatest respect for those heroes and heroines who fast to the death or otherwise sacrifice their lives for the good of us all, but in all honesty I can't count myself among them, I have too many attchments to this life.

You make a huge jump here. I don't see why advocating a principled revolutionary stance in an election in the US is in anyway similar to facing death, or sacrificing your life.


Returning to Chomsky for a moment, he always ends his formal talks and speeches with a call to organize, and as a rank and file activist he has a long history of direct action.

I think that there is an important point here. I have never seen him speak, but what do you mean by 'a call to organise' and him having a 'long history of direct action'.

I am not even sure that a call for this or that is the correct thing. If we take the example of Israel and the Middle East I think that much of the activism is impotent and tied in with nationalism.

The point about the wars in the Middle east, and the increasing spiral of ethnic/religious/national hatred that workers are being dragged into, is that it is not the problem of the policy of one country, or even some countries. It is a result of the increasingly bankrupt system that we live in where as crazy as it may seem in abstract war is a 'rational' policy.

I believe that appeals to international law or support for Tayip after Davos, have nothing to offer as a way out of the cycle, and the only hope that we have of an exit, is in workers uniting in their class interests across the region (and of course the world). The urgent discussion then becomes 'how can workers struggle against war' and not a call for activism.

Devrim

[x359594]

Comrade Devrim, I apologize for the patronizing tone of my post, and thank you for clarifying the conversation. The truth is, you've got me thinking through my own position in this capitalist trap. For the record, I find voting on the national level entirely useless and counterproductive, but for local issues close to home I'll go to the polls. For example, it seems to me to be in the interest of the working class to vote down a measure to raise bus fares. But when Chomsky counsels people to vote in a national election it's apparently because he thinks it will make a difference, not in terms of making an improvement but that he seems to think it will check the downward spiral. I don't agree.

I've heard Chomsky speak during the late 60s through the mid-90s, and the issues he was addressing then were the Vietnam War, the invasion of East Timor, the Central American wars, NAFTA, MIA, the Infatada. Some of these talks were just to counter the propaganda in the corporate media, others were calls to action as in the case of Central America where he advocated tax resistance and troop embarkation blockades which he then proceeded to do himself. That's about all I have to say about Chomsky, except to add (returning to the topic starter) that his occasional remarks about state capitalism are not particularly original and evidently derive from Rudolf Rocker's book Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism.

[Devrim]

Comrade Devrim, I apologize for the patronizing tone of my post,

No, problem. It can happen sometimes.


For example, it seems to me to be in the interest of the working class to vote down a measure to raise bus fares.

I am not sure about the workings of US local politics, but I presume there aren't ballots on whether or not to put up fare prices. What I will therefore presume you are talking about, and correct me if I am wrong, is the promises of various parties in the run up to local elections. Firstly, as we both know, political parties are more than a little prone to lying anyway, but secondly, and more importantly, the budget must be balanced by all parties, and generally an opposition to increasing fares will in practice mean cuts in school meals or some other sector.


others were calls to action as in the case of Central America where he advocated tax resistance and troop embarkation blockades which he then proceeded to do himself.

In general, and I know there can be exceptions like the UK Poll Tax, 'tax resistance is completely individualised, and not at all a class response. Neither are troop embarkation blockades a part of workers' struggle. I'd say these were prime examples of liberalism.

Devrim

[bleh]

Who cares what libcom (as if its a formal organization) has to say about anything? What are they- the high elders of anarchism who decide the correct dogma on issues? How many people even regularly post on that site? ten? twelve? I could just as easily in the same vein link to a half dozen other anarchist forums to claim some definitive position.


I count 18 people on the front page of that thread.

Devrim
That is why I wrote 'regularly', just as you used the word here-


If you know the Libcom posters, I think you would see that the majority of people who post there regulary do say he is a liberal.
Devrim
-to dismiss all the libcom posters who didn't fit the libcom consensus.







Actions inconsistent with anarchist principles deserve condemnation. However, why does this condemnation have to go so far as to declare that the person in question is not an anarchist? Were the anarchists who collaborated with the Republican government during the Spanish Civil War pseudo-anarchists, or merely misguided anarchists?They ceased to be anarchists, some of them saw sense afterwards and somewhat redeemed themselves, but yes those who fully betrayed the movement were not anarchists.

Did not CNT subtly support the Popular Front in the 1936 elections? That would mean they were already not anarchist even before the revolution began.

Were Marx and Engels not communists? They clearly had some sketchy opinions.

Why is Chomsky being singled out? Because he, like all anarchists, holds some bullshit opinions, or is it because hes not a part of your little left-wing activist ghetto (as if there was much of anarchism in the u.s. until recently)?


. Kropotkin was not an anarchist and was a liberal once he betrayed his principles by supporting WWI.

At least you're consistent


Surely real anarchist, i.e. militants who are members of political organisations should be the people who define what anarchism is, and unless I have missed anybody the only person that this applies to on this thread is Jurko, and his point of view is very clear

Devrim

An anarchist is someone who is a proponent of anarchism (as opposed to something else), as Chomsky clearly is , for example, in the youtube video i linked to when responding to ComradeMan (Furthermore, if we were to use this standard, as said earlier anecdotal evidence or opinions expressed on forums are not scientific or representative, there would have to be internal polling.). Not to sound crass but militants from minuscule European organizations have to no authority to dictate who does and who doesn't belong to a historical tradition. Not when they appply different standards to different people.








But nobody is claiming that Kropotkin was a liberal.

No, he became a chauvanist just as Kautsky did.

Devrim
Chauvinism is not a political ideology. Certainly Kropotkin, like Kautsky, didnt decide to support the war out of the blue. This was a manifestation of lines of thinking that they held before. Yet Kropotkin is still considered a part of anarchism, just as Kautsky is considered a part of social-democracy.





Also anarchist individuals and organizations have a long history of taking sides or voting in bourgeois elections. If taking this incorrect position makes one not an anarchist then a good chunk of the historical movement was not anarchist.

And have generally been condemned by most anarchists for doing so.

Devrim

But they weren't dismissed outright as being not anarchists, just critiqued for thinking some modes or expressions of capitalist rule are better then others. At a time when the socialist movement is weak it is understandable that some people will place their hopes elsewhere.

[Hoggy_RS]

Still can't believe that Chomsky supports the Good Friday Agreement. A bizarre stance for any leftist.

[Delenda Carthago]

Pawn Power, I don't know why you are still responding when a libcom debate (libcom standing for libertarian communist - libcom being a major resource for anarchist material on the internet) holds a consensus that most people think he's nothing more than a liberal hack.

.

I piss libcom.So what "libcom being a major resource for anarchist material on the internet"?Do they have the copyrights or what?

[ls]

I piss libcom.So what "libcom being a major resource for anarchist material on the internet"?Do they have the copyrights or what?

Dunno what you're talking about really, do you think anarchists should seek to uphold copyright law and fight making information freely available? :rolleyes:

The forums have a lot of very active anarchists, that includes Greek anarchists among others from all countries, that is a fact, if you think that the collective opinion on there counts for absolutely nothing then that's up to you ain't it.


Did not CNT subtly support the Popular Front in the 1936 elections? That would mean they were already not anarchist even before the revolution began.

Sigh, so you think that those battling tendencies and factions within a movement - rather, any of them being to the right, automatically dooms an entire movement?


Were Marx and Engels not communists? They clearly had some sketchy opinions.

They are some of the key figures of communism and they, like the anarchists mentioned, may have had sketchy opinions - but there is clearly a difference between total betrayal of one's principles and confusion as to what you believe (ie sketchiness). Kropotkin clearly betrayed his own and indeed anarchist principles whereas in a way, Marx and Engels were inventing them throughout their lives and I don't think the two scenarios are at all compatible.


Why is Chomsky being singled out? Because he, like all anarchists, holds some bullshit opinions, or is it because hes not a part of your little left-wing activist ghetto (as if there was much of anarchism in the u.s. until recently)?

No, he's just a bourgeois scholar hack, not that there's anything wrong with being scholarly or intellectual, however I - and I think many others take particular dislike towards overly intellectualist hacks who pretend to represent anarchism yet have disgustingly bourgeois prejudices and opinions.

[Devrim]

Still can't believe that Chomsky supports the Good Friday Agreement. A bizarre stance for any leftist.

But one entirely fitting with Chomsky's other positions, support for the solutions of the imperialists. It would be interesting to see what his ideas on Oslo were at the time.


Did not CNT subtly support the Popular Front in the 1936 elections? That would mean they were already not anarchist even before the revolution began.

I think it was in an earlier election. I don't think there was anything revolutionary about the CNT in 1936 though.


Why is Chomsky being singled out? Because he, like all anarchists, holds some bullshit opinions, or is it because hes not a part of your little left-wing activist ghetto (as if there was much of anarchism in the u.s. until recently)?

Because it is a thread about him.

Which 'little left-wing activist ghetto' do you think I am a part of by the way?


An anarchist is someone who is a proponent of anarchism (as opposed to something else), as Chomsky clearly is , for example, in the youtube video i linked to when responding to ComradeMan (Furthermore, if we were to use this standard, as said earlier anecdotal evidence or opinions expressed on forums are not scientific or representative, there would have to be internal polling.). Not to sound crass but militants from minuscule European organizations have to no authority to dictate who does and who doesn't belong to a historical tradition. Not when they appply different standards to different people.

People define things differently. We have a definition which is helpful for us. We differentiate between what we consider to be anarchists and people who call themselves anarchists. We find it helps us. It means that our people who aren't so knowledgeable about anarchism don't annoy real anarchists by saying that anarchists are all 'drug taking hippies who live in squats and beg on the street with dogs with strings'. Personally, I find many anarchists get annoyed by the comparison.

I didn't watch your Youtube link as it is banned in this country.

Our organisation is minuscule, but is not European, but international.

I don't know who you think I am applying different standards too.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Also on this topic there is an article here on Chomsky's support for Chavez:

Chomsky as Chavez's Clown
Contrary to what many think, the ability to believe in fairy tales and to blindly accept a fiction, no matter how fantastic or grotesque, is not the sole attribute of the dumb and ignorant. The famous writer Noam Chomsky has just proved that intelligent and cultivated intellectuals are also capable of believing and adopting conduct and political action totally dogmatic, false and authoritarian. They believe so or at least pretend to.
...
http://libcom.org/library/chomsky-chavez-clown

Devrim

[h0m0revolutionary]

An anarchist is someone who is a proponent of anarchism (as opposed to something else), as Chomsky clearly is.

Perhaps in writing, Chomsky does seek a classless, stateless society and views anarchism as the way to get there. But his support for British Imperialism in Northern Ireland, as pointed out above, and his support for leftist-depots like Chavez (and of course his lack of criticism of dictators like Ahmadinejad) leave so little to be desired that's it's painfully clear his idea of how one gets to that classless and stateless society, more than leaving alot to be desired, are in the fullest sense, counter-revolutionary.

Genuine anarchists would do well to distance themselves from Chomsky.. fortunately most have.

[Pawn Power]

NOAM CHOMSKY: “The Unipolar Moment and the Culture of Imperialism” (http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2009/12/17/noam_chomsky_the_unipolar_moment_and_the_culture_o f_imperialism)