U.S.A. "is very similar to late Weimar Germany," warns Chomsky

[Rakhmetov]

Liberals are fops and courtiers to the corporate state.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/noam_chomsky_has_never_seen_anything_like_this_201 00419/

[GPDP]

Much of the article is about Chomsky's work and influence, not about the current U.S. situation. It's a good article nevertheless, but I think it would be useful to highlight the relevant portions:


“It is very similar to late Weimar Germany,” Chomsky told me when I called him at his office in Cambridge, Mass. “The parallels are striking. There was also tremendous disillusionment with the parliamentary system. The most striking fact about Weimar was not that the Nazis managed to destroy the Social Democrats and the Communists but that the traditional parties, the Conservative and Liberal parties, were hated and disappeared. It left a vacuum which the Nazis very cleverly and intelligently managed to take over.”

“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen,” Chomsky went on. “Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists. I don’t think all this is very far away. If the polls are accurate it is not the Republicans but the right-wing Republicans, the crazed Republicans, who will sweep the next election.”

“I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime,” Chomsky added. “I am old enough to remember the 1930s. My whole family was unemployed. There were far more desperate conditions than today. But it was hopeful. People had hope. The CIO was organizing. No one wants to say it anymore but the Communist Party was the spearhead for labor and civil rights organizing. Even things like giving my unemployed seamstress aunt a week in the country. It was a life. There is nothing like that now. The mood of the country is frightening. The level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions is not organized in a constructive way. It is going off into self-destructive fantasies.”

“I listen to talk radio,” Chomsky said. “I don’t want to hear Rush Limbaugh. I want to hear the people calling in. They are like [suicide pilot] Joe Stack (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/18/joe-stack-statement-alleg_n_467539.html). What is happening to me? I have done all the right things. I am a God-fearing Christian. I work hard for my family. I have a gun. I believe in the values of the country and my life is collapsing.”


The bolded is perhaps the scariest part. What he says is absolutely true. At least during the Great Depression, there was a strong labor movement that fought for progressive goals, and were it not for FDR's efforts, the anger could've easily resulted in a revolution.

We have little to none of that today. The situation may not be quite as bad economically, but the anger and the frustration is there, and there's no worthwhile place to channel it, leaving the likes of the proto-fascist Tea Baggers to soak it up.

These are dangerous times we live in, to be sure.

[Agnapostate]

First-world countries are not and will not be ripe for violent overthrow of the government, rightist efforts included, and the reason is simple: A very firmly established command hierarchy has consolidated weapons of mass destruction that the petty arms of civilians and even the fixed-wing aircraft of mercenary armies mean nothing to. A right-populist insurrection might conceivably cause damage, especially because of political tendencies within the military that might cause personnel to participate. It will never remove the administration in power, which would only be validated by the rest of the public uniting behind them. I also don't believe there's sufficient organization for that to ever happen; right-populist resentment isn't enough.

I disagree with Chomsky's other statements about the Tea Party movement and the role that leftists can have in mobilizing activism based on "straight economic populist issues." The answer comes from George Lakoff. I know nothing about their conflicts about generative grammar, but Lakoff realizes that people generally rely on intuitions based on cognitive modeling of political issues expressed through family metaphors, and that there's a fundamental conflict between the economic interests of rightists and leftists, even if there are superficial similarities.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The bolded is perhaps the scariest part. What he says is absolutely true. At least during the Great Depression, there was a strong labor movement that fought for progressive goals, and were it not for FDR's efforts, the anger could've easily resulted in a revolution.

We have little to none of that today. The situation may not be quite as bad economically, but the anger and the frustration is there, and there's no worthwhile place to channel it, leaving the likes of the proto-fascist Tea Baggers to soak it up.

These are dangerous times we live in, to be sure.Very true. But I wonder what the historical parallels are like when the contemporary situation is compared to the early years of the depression? There were some movements definitely, like the bonus army and tenets movements against evictions, but also just a lot of desperation. There was also a lot of scapegoating, organized thugs breaking strikes, radio hate-mongers blaming jews for the economic problems and so on. Chomsky is talking about the late 30s when the CIO was organizing which would have also been after major general strikes and during a successful strike wave including sit-down strikes.

This is not to say that because there was ostracism and hopelessness resulting both from the depression as well as the ongoing economic crisis today that this bust will have similar results (as much as we hope it does - and exceeds the 30s).

[GPDP]

First-world countries are not and will not be ripe for violent overthrow of the government, rightist efforts included, and the reason is simple: A very firmly established command hierarchy has consolidated weapons of mass destruction that the petty arms of civilians and even the fixed-wing aircraft of mercenary armies mean nothing to. A right-populist insurrection might conceivably cause damage, especially because of political tendencies within the military that might cause personnel to participate. It will never remove the administration in power, which would only be validated by the rest of the public uniting behind them. I also don't believe there's sufficient organization for that to ever happen; right-populist resentment isn't enough.

I'm pretty sure he's not saying there's going to be a violent right-wing uprising, or even if there was, that's how they would come to power. Notice how he says the polls indicate the ones who will sweep in November won't be just the Republicans, but rather the far-right Republicans.

Remember, the Nazis were elected into government, and Hitler was appointed chancellor. That's the parallel Chomsky is trying to outline. The real anti-immigrant and anti-worker violence he warns is on the horizon will be a result of Tea Bagger-approved Republicans in power.

[Proletarian Ultra]

First-world countries are not and will not be ripe for violent overthrow of the government, rightist efforts included, and the reason is simple: A very firmly established command hierarchy has consolidated weapons of mass destruction that the petty arms of civilians and even the fixed-wing aircraft of mercenary armies mean nothing to.

I shudder to think what conditions would be necessary for successful revolution in America.


A right-populist insurrection might conceivably cause damage, especially because of political tendencies within the military that might cause personnel to participate. It will never remove the administration in power,

Why would they bother? The radical right already controls most state governments, the judiciary, the media (both directly and through liberal apologists), the security apparatus, much of the civil service, the key departments at all major universities (directly in economics, indirectly through military-industrial funding in the sciences), they have a permanent veto on all federal legislation through the Senate...

Why would they bother with an insurrection? The Tea Party goons are just to intimidate the punters.

[Antifa94]

that's a bunch of shit. It is nothing like the late Weimar Republic. No right wing militia is potent yet( the minutemen are nowhere near as powerful as the SA or Freikorps were), there is no sizable left wing opposition, there aren't massive strikes, little political violence in the streets, only slight domestic terrorism, the economy is improving, minute inflation,etc. There is, however, a lot of neo-conservatism. This, combined with a probable resurgent leftist movement, and the return of American soldiers may indeed create a Weimar environment. The Political influence of the veterans and on the issue of the veterans will be immense.

[Antifa94]

Apologies, the Weimar environment began a month ago with the passing of the bill in Arizona and subsequent protests. Chomsky, though, has made statements like this months ago, when nothing resembled it.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think that the parallells are striking in the political sense, not in the sense that the situation today is outright carnage. People are severly disillusioned with the political process and the left has given no hope to the working class. People are turning to extreme right wing conspiracies that have cleverly filled the void the left has well...left behind. Chomsky is pointing out that the situation is ripe for a charasmatic movement or leader to step in and take the growing discontent into direct action and it could be violent. Lately, we have been lucky that most of the right wing schleps out there have been utter phonies. But what if we get a serious Glenn Beck? Sure the US State is strong enough to gut any right wing extremist movement that dares lift it's fist but at the same time the State could see it as a mechanism to foment the outright subjigation of leftist viewpoints.


Why would they bother with an insurrection? The Tea Party goons are just to intimidate the punters.

I think the point is that like how the labor movement in the thirties led to significant gains and to reform, a right wing violent movement could lead the State to be openly regressive and repressive against leftists and people not in line with the status quo. The people in power are probably hoping for a movement that is reactionary but can be contained or co-opted to instill reactionary laws in their favor.

[which doctor]

Chomsky's an idiot. Contemporary America is nothing like late Weimar Germany. Nor are we about to build death camps to kill the blacks or immigrants. Nor is the Tea Party going to become the next Nazi Party. What's frightening is how many people believe the things this guy says.

[RadioRaheem84]

Chomsky's an idiot. Contemporary America is nothing like late Weimar Germany. Nor are we about to build death camps to kill the blacks or immigrants. Nor is the Tea Party going to become the next Nazi Party. What's frightening is how many people believe the things this guy says.


I don't think he is saying that. I think he is just seeing the parallels between the political disillusionment in both countries, leaving a vaccum for anyone to fill.

Why so harsh toward Chomsky?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Chomsky's an idiot. Contemporary America is nothing like late Weimar Germany. Nor are we about to build death camps to kill the blacks or immigrants. Nor is the Tea Party going to become the next Nazi Party. What's frightening is how many people believe the things this guy says.

Well, we did have secret camps for illegal immigrants. The tea-party movement are calling for the death of "progressives". Not to mention that one video showing a tea-bagger screaming "The only good commie is a dead commie!", & then starts screaming at the camera man, demanding an answer if he's a commie or not. So it may not be EXACTLY like it, but it's pretty fucking close. Don't be so closed minded about this, despite whatever personal grudge you may have against Chomsky.

[Devrim]

Chomsky's an idiot. Contemporary America is nothing like late Weimar Germany. Nor are we about to build death camps to kill the blacks or immigrants. Nor is the Tea Party going to become the next Nazi Party. What's frightening is how many people believe the things this guy says.

I wouldn't say idiot, though I would agree with the other sentiments. The man is a liberal, who refers to himself as an anarchist. The comments here are very typical of petit-bourgeoisie radicalism.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Not to mention that one video showing a tea-bagger screaming "The only good commie is a dead commie!", & then starts screaming at the camera man, demanding an answer if he's a commie or not. So it may not be EXACTLY like it, but it's pretty fucking close.

I think the whole point about the rise of the Nazis in German is that it was about a little bit more than one man shouting at a camera.

Devrim

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think the whole point about the rise of the Nazis in German is that it was about a little bit more than one man shouting at a camera.

Devrim

What the guy was shouting was what mattered & nice dodging the rest that I said. But either way, I agree we're not like Nazi Germany, but we're closer than one may think.

[RadioRaheem84]

The man is a liberal, who refers to himself as an anarchist. The comments here are very typical of petit-bourgeoisie radicalism.

A liberal? When in fact he saves his hardest scorn for the liberal establishment. He practically called Arther Schlesinger, the Goebbels of Camelot.

[Robespierre2.0]

There are similarities (stab-in-the-back legend, anyone?), but it ain't Weimar Germany.
The Tea Party sure is scary, but I have a hunch that their popular support is being vastly exaggerated by the media. If the ideological right is doing so well, why do they seem so desperate? Why the hell does conservative rap exist, other than as a ham-fisted attempt to sell a dying ideology as 'hip' to an increasingly alienated younger generation?
Perhaps the right may successfully win the next election. If they did, would they even have the political clout to get anything done? Disillusionment with the U.S. government is already at a high- we haven't had a so-called 'just war' since the 40s. If tea party conservatives are elected, they are almost certainly going to be calling for a 'more vigorous national defense' - i.e. escalating the war on terror. The U.S. is already war-weary, and I don't see how they could rally everyone around the flag unless they resorted to outright state terrorism against dissenters.

[~Spectre]

The man is a liberal, who refers to himself as an anarchist.


How on earth is he a liberal?

[~Spectre]

Apologies, the Weimar environment began a month ago with the passing of the bill in Arizona and subsequent protests. Chomsky, though, has made statements like this months ago, when nothing resembled it.

So a few months ago he was saying the environment was growing more reactionary and that immigrants would be targeted, but "it's a bunch of shit" because he didn't wait for the Arizona law to be passed? Uh-huh.

[GPDP]

How on earth is he a liberal?

Why, it's quite simple. He doesn't adhere to the sectarian platform of his organization, so he's a liberal.

That's not to say Chomsky doesn't hold some positions or say things I myself find liberal or moralistic, but to look at those things against the rest of Chomsky, and say "clearly the man's a liberal" is absurd, and frankly quite symptomatic of the kind of useless sectarianism that comes out of what passes for the left today.

I thought it was only the Leninists who liberally throw the l-word around. Guess I was wrong. In the world of left-wing sectarian mud-slinging, everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The class struggle in the 30s didn't get really heated up until a few years into the great depression. There is a serious opportunity to build a mass party of the working class but only if people get active and start spreading class consciousness. Read books. Talk to workers. That said, I think even if the hardline conservatives do come to power, they are only going to throw us into economic crisis mode faster. The tea party is weak and consists mostly of petit-bourgeois white people; if their reactionary discourse becomes establishment dogma, I can't see people not getting radicalized. People are seeing the failure of Obama to deliver any of his promises. The necessity of a break with the capitalist parties will become apparent in public consciousness, but real change will only happen if we propagate our bolshevik thought.

[Devrim]

How on earth is he a liberal?


A liberal? When in fact he saves his hardest scorn for the liberal establishment. He practically called Arther Schlesinger, the Goebbels of Camelot.


Why, it's quite simple. He doesn't adhere to the sectarian platform of his organization, so he's a liberal.

That's not to say Chomsky doesn't hold some positions or say things I myself find liberal or moralistic, but to look at those things against the rest of Chomsky, and say "clearly the man's a liberal" is absurd, and frankly quite symptomatic of the kind of useless sectarianism that comes out of what passes for the left today.

I thought it was only the Leninists who liberally throw the l-word around. Guess I was wrong. In the world of left-wing sectarian mud-slinging, everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal.

I have said often enough on here that I believe that one of the things that defines a communist is militant political involvement. I don't think that Chomsky is a liberal because he is not a member of a anarchist organisation, and I certainly don't go round calling everybody a liberal. In fact I think that Chomsky may well be the only person I have ever used in about.

I think he is a liberal because of his politics.

We could talk about many things that define his politics as liberal; His electoral support for Obama, his support for so-called 'socialism' in Venezuela, his support for the Turkish state, his position on the Middle East question, which despite being very astute on US imperialism ends up calling for the enforcement of international law, his statement that the US is the greatest country in the world,...but I'd rather let him speak for himself:



But the point is, for classical liberals in the eighteenth century, there was a certain conception of what human beings are like—namely, that what kind of creatures they are depends on the kind of work they do, and the kind of control they have over it, and their ability to act creatively and according to their own decisions and choices. And there was in fact a lot of very insightful comment about this at the time. So for example, one of the founders of classical liberalism, Wilhelm von Humboldt (who incidentally is very admired by so-called “conservatives’ today, because they don’t read him), pointed out that if a worker produces a beautiful object on command, you may “admire what the worker does, but you will despise what he is”—because that’s not really behaving like a human being, it’s just behaving like a machine. And that conception runs right through classical liberalism. In act, even half a century later, Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out that you can have systems in which “the art advances and the artisan recedes,” but that’s inhuman—because what you’re really interested in is the artisan, you’re interested in people, and for people to have the opportunity to live full and rewarding lives they have to be in control of what they do, even if that happens to be economically less efficient.
Well, okay—obviously there’s just been a dramatic change in intellectual and cultural attitudes over the past couple centuries. But I think those classical liberal conceptions now have to be recovered, and the ideas at the heart of them should take root on a mass scale.


Devrim

[~Spectre]

I have said often enough on here that I believe that one of the things that defines a communist is militant political involvement.

I realize the enormous weight that you having said something "often enough on here" carries, but again we must ask- What are you talking about here?

If we take militant in a loose sense, Chomsky participated in, and helped organize tax evasion protests and was set to be jailed during the Vietnam war due to his activism.

If we take militant in stricter sense, then the premise that communist would be defined by this militancy is simply absurd on its face and without basis, regardless of how often you may have said it on here.





We could talk about many things that define his politics as liberal; His electoral support for Obama,

He didn't support Obama. In fact he was one of the first to point out that Obama would barely deviate from the previous four years of Bush.

His personal vote didn't go to Obama. What he did do was say that if you are in a battleground state vote Obama to keep out McCain-Palin "with no illusions". That isn't supporting Obama, that's simply acknowledging that the world might be a slightly shittier place to live had the republican ticket won -something I doubt you will dispute.



his support for so-called 'socialism' in Venezuela

This is petty sectarianism. The point doesn't need engaging, but let's do it anyway:

As someone on here found out through correspondence with Chomsky, he bases this on things such as the CEPR report produce by Weisbrot, etc. It's a sort of model that works for providing higher standards of living and fending off U.S. imperialism. Which was also part of his support. He was advocating the expulsion of the U.S. military from South America and the development of alternative socio-economic models.



his support for the Turkish state

I'm unfamiliar with this, would you care to expound on it? I'm under the impression it's no fuller than any of your previous points.




his position on the Middle East question, which despite being very astute on US imperialism ends up calling for the enforcement of international law

He's been quite clear on the overthrow of capitalism. What you are referencing are his arguments that the U.S. not blow sh*t up in the Middle East. He argues that this is wrong, deceitful and hypocritical among other things, and also throws in that it is in violation of international law. He's been on record saying he doesn't think international law is flawless, but we can all agree that it would be a good thing if the U.S. or Israel adhered to it no?



his statement that the US is the greatest country in the world

You are referencing his quick exchange with Bill Bennett on CNN? Where Bennett tried to spin the conversation away from the U.S. crimes into (paraphrasing) "You're an America hater!" "Do you think this is an evil country!!?" "do you deny that that this is the greatest country in the world?", to which Chomsky replies "It's the greatest country in the world that is committing terrorist attacks and should stop immediately."

The 2nd half of his quote here is rather important, is the context of when he said it. Post 9/11 trying to convince the American people (he was on a mainstream channel iirc) not to support U.S. lunacy in the middle east.

To have engaged in Bennetts non-sequitor/strawman/ad hominem, would've been asinine as it was beside the more important point, and he didn't have the time to do it.






,...but I'd rather let him speak for himself:


He's pointing out how it was once mainstream to believe that workers are dehumanized and exploited by capitalism. Saying that these ideas need to be recovered, and that they were once held by classical liberals, isn't an endorsement of liberalism.

Just like Karl Marx once quoting that Shakespeare had correctly analyzed the character of money, isn't Karl Marx endorsing the systematic orthodoxy of Elizabethan literature.


Anyway regarding Chomsky, I'd rather let him speak for himself:



Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy.





Devrim

~Spectre

[eyedrop]

His personal vote didn't go to Obama. What he did do was say that if you are in a battleground state vote Obama to keep out McCain-Palin "with no illusions". That isn't supporting Obama, that's simply acknowledging that the world might be a slightly shittier place to live had the republican ticket won -something I doubt you will dispute.


So just support the Democrats where it counts, feel free to do whatever you want where it doesn't. How isn't that supporting the Democrats?

[Devrim]

I realize the enormous weight that you having said something "often enough on here" carries, but again we must ask- What are you talking about here?

Actually I didn't at all mean it like that. I was referring to the dig that implied that I thought somebody must be a liberal because they weren't part of a political organisation, which I had never said, and was just pointing out what I actually had said. By often enough I meant often enough for people to pick up on it and criticise, which the previous poster had.


If we take militant in a loose sense, Chomsky participated in, and helped organize tax evasion protests and was set to be jailed during the Vietnam war due to his activism.

That would be a very loose sense indeed. Liberals also protest, and sometimes get sent to prison (in this country they also occasionally get executed). As you point out though Chomsky actually didn't.

If we take militant in stricter sense, then the premise that communist would be defined by this militancy is simply absurd on its face and without basis, regardless of how often you may have said it on here.


He didn't support Obama. In fact he was one of the first to point out that Obama would barely deviate from the previous four years of Bush.

His personal vote didn't go to Obama. What he did do was say that if you are in a battleground state vote Obama to keep out McCain-Palin "with no illusions". That isn't supporting Obama, that's simply acknowledging that the world might be a slightly shittier place to live had the republican ticket won -something I doubt you will dispute.

It is supporting Obama. All the talk of no illusions doesn't change that.

People can make up their own minds:












In an interview with The Real News Network (http://therealnews.com/) Noam Chomsky says that people should vote against McCain and for Obama - but without illusions.

The question posed by ABC's George Stefanopolous "is not whether elites should rule, but which elite should rule?" It's a candid question that reflects the disillusioned reality of the looming American election. In an interview with The Real News, the renowned professor urges the voters in swing states to vote against McCain, therefore for Obama, while maintaining realistic expectations about the Democratic candidate.
Critics of American political options argue that the two prevailing parties are two halves of the same whole. Chomsky explains that there lies some merit in this belief, as the Democrats and Republicans formulate the "larger business party". This reality is highlighted as both parties hold to-the-right stances of public opinion on a host of issues, such as healthcare. For said reasons, it is imperative that the voting public sets attainable expectations for an Obama administration, while recognizing that the elevated 'change' rhetoric will dissolve into standard Democratic policy.
Americans are concerned about healthcare. In recent polls 95% of voters demonstrated an interest in the issue. Interestingly enough, the healthcare issue only surfaced in the public political agenda in 2004. In 2008, we witnessed both Democratic candidates approach the issue. Chomsky illustrates that this shift in focus is not a result of changing Democratic ideals, but a response to the emphasis of healthcare concerns from economic heavy hitters, such as the manufacturing industry.
Chomsky states that there is no shame in voting for the lesser of two evils, if one feel that the issues are reduced to this. The responsibility lies on the shoulders of the swing state voters to ask themselves, if the change they want to see will be achieved through voting for Obama or alternative political parties in order to strengthen their future political presence. At the end of the day, he reminds voters to keep illusions in check as they head off to the polls in November.


Voting with illusions or not is not an anarchist position.


His personal vote didn't go to Obama.

No it went to Nader. Voting for Nader is not an anarchist position either.


Chomsky's "reluctant endorsement" (The Guardian) for John Kerry (http://www.anonym.to/?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)



This is petty sectarianism. The point doesn't need engaging, but let's do it anyway:

As someone on here found out through correspondence with Chomsky, he bases this on things such as the CEPR report produce by Weisbrot, etc. It's a sort of model that works for providing higher standards of living and fending off U.S. imperialism. Which was also part of his support. He was advocating the expulsion of the U.S. military from South America and the development of alternative socio-economic models.

Except that the model in Venezuela is not providing higher living standards for the working class. The state is still capitalist, and Chomsky supports it.

This too is not an anarchist position.


I'm unfamiliar with this, would you care to expound on it? I'm under the impression it's no fuller than any of your previous points.


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.

'Praising' state like Turkey because they take an anti-US position, once again is not anarchist politics.


He's been quite clear on the overthrow of capitalism. What you are referencing are his arguments that the U.S. not blow sh*t up in the Middle East. He argues that this is wrong, deceitful and hypocritical among other things, and also throws in that it is in violation of international law. He's been on record saying he doesn't think international law is flawless, but we can all agree that it would be a good thing if the U.S. or Israel adhered to it no?

No, he sees the solution to the situation in Palestine as being something that can be solved by international law, which as we all know is a tool of imperialism. He doesn't see it in any way as being related to class struggle. Calling for an adherence to international law is the response of a liberal. This is the same international law which approved the 'blowing to shit of Iraq in the first Gulf War.


You are referencing his quick exchange with Bill Bennett on CNN? Where Bennett tried to spin the conversation away from the U.S. crimes into (paraphrasing) "You're an America hater!" "Do you think this is an evil country!!?" "do you deny that that this is the greatest country in the world?", to which Chomsky replies "It's the greatest country in the world that is committing terrorist attacks and should stop immediately."

That is not exactly what was said:


BENNETT: I didn't interrupt you -- that we were continuing the Nazi effort against Russia. Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument, and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country. Of course, there is a mixed record in this country, why do you choose to live in this terrorist nation, Mr. Chomsky?

CHOMSKY: I don't. I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop.

BENNETT: I think you should say greatest -- I think you should say greatest a little more often.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/30/ltm.01.html


The 2nd half of his quote here is rather important, is the context of when he said it. Post 9/11 trying to convince the American people (he was on a mainstream channel iirc) not to support U.S. lunacy in the middle east.

To have engaged in Bennetts non-sequitor/strawman/ad hominem, would've been asinine as it was beside the more important point, and he didn't have the time to do it.

Calling your own state the greatest country in the world is not anarchist politics.


Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy.

All the talk of popular control is pretty liberal too. It isn't anarchist politics.

People of course will make up their own minds based on the evidence.

I think it is pretty clear he is a liberal, not an anarchist, and every anarchist I have ever spoken to about him thinks the same.

Devrim

[~Spectre]

So just support the Democrats where it counts, feel free to do whatever you want where it doesn't. How isn't that supporting the Democrats?

Chomsky on parties:


In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices.

He never tells anyone to support the democrats. He tells them to vote against the George W. Bush and John McCains, which while resulting in a defacto vote for the Democrats in these swing states, isn't the same as supporting them. As discussed earlier, often he will save his harshest criticism for these democrats and liberals.

Parse over all the semantics you want, the idea that a George Bush the 2nd should be able to win a term because of trivial ideological issues is simply unacceptable, and one that I've yet to see an adequate defense for.

[~Spectre]

It is supporting Obama. All the talk of no illusions doesn't change that...Voting with illusions or not is not an anarchist position.

See above.





No it went to Nader. Voting for Nader is not an anarchist position either.

It carries significance only if you apply an invented meaning to the act. Chomsky holds nothing back in criticizing both the political and economic system of the United States, including voting, political parties, etc.

His take on how to make a strategic use of vote is completely separate from renouncing or mitigating anarchism, radical politics etc.

He doesn't believe voting will produce radical change. He's actually stated that positive changes come in spite of the state, not because of it. His completely consistent position is that we might as well keep the worst people out in the meanwhile.


At this point in the discussion, it's worth noting that you're position has shifted. "he's a liberal" has become "that's not an anarchist position".




Except that the model in Venezuela is not providing higher living standards for the working class. The state is still capitalist, and Chomsky supports it.

It is providing higher standards of living for the working class compared to what it previously was. In order for socialism to take root, it's not a stretch to say that the U.S. needs to be expelled from South America, and that people need to be shown than what the U.S. excepts can be superior. Both of these are what he was advocating.

Even if your position is that Venezuela doesn't deserve our support, you still haven't come close to proving that support for Venezuela ="liberal".





'Praising' state like Turkey because they take an anti-US position, once again is not anarchist politics.

You're pulling a Horowitz. He didn't praise Turkey. He praised actions in the context of George Bush the 2nd doing his best effort at the world domination thing.

Chomsky's criticisms of Turkey almost got a severe sentence dropped on a publisher who tried to print them.

Clearly Turkey and you have vastly different positions on what Chomsky thinks of Turkey.



No, he sees the solution to the situation in Palestine as being something that can be solved by international law, which as we all know is a tool of imperialism. He doesn't see it in any way as being related to class struggle. Calling for an adherence to international law is the response of a liberal. This is the same international law which approved the 'blowing to shit of Iraq in the first Gulf War.

He doesn't see it as being related to class struggle? He's one of the most cited authors in the history of ever when it comes to explaining the class based nature of imperialism and as a consequence international relations.

Revleft as a whole can be said to support the Palestinian struggle for statehood. Guess what? That state will almost certainly be a capitalist state, just as the occupied territories operate under capitalism. Your logic applied consistently would leave no liberals.

His arguments against Israeli colonialism are numerous, that he points out that the states should the very least honor their own laws is not undermining his status.

The international law he refers to calls for Israel to withdraw and to stop colonizing.

There is no way for you to spin out of that.






Calling your own state the greatest country in the world is not anarchist politics.

Even if you strip what he said of all context, there are ways to engage this point directly too, but let's ignore that since afterall...in a way that's always been Chomsky's weakness. He is notorious for how soft he is on the United States.:)



All the talk of popular control is pretty liberal too. It isn't anarchist politics.

His talk about capitalism needing to be replaced with participant and popular control is liberal? Unreal.


People of course will make up their own minds based on the evidence.

Agreed.


every anarchist I have ever spoken to about him thinks the same.


An anecdotal appeal to popularity argument is always a good place to wrap it up.

[RadioRaheem84]

Dev, you're case against Chomsky is severely weak. You can say that he is an unorthodox anarchist or that he deviates from the anarchist position, but to call him a liberal is another thing entirely. You obviously have not read any of his works on the liberal establishment or his views on liberalism in general.

Spectre is right, you read like David Horowitz when he tries to denounce a scholar by presuming the person should hold to a dogmatic set of beliefs.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Anyone who calls Chomsky a liberal is an anarchist...Go figure :rolleyes:

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY7YlvObNko

[chegitz guevara]

Chomsky's analyses are rather simplistic. It's kinda like reading Socialist Worker. Racism is bad. Capitalism is bad. Corporations are greedy. It's good stuff for the uninitiated, but for the rest of us, I graduated from kintercommunism 2 decades ago.

Furthermore, after reading his books, which consistenly demonstrate how the US undermines democracy abroad, violates its own laws, etc., his prescription for what ails the United States is ... elect the right people? :mellow: That's why he's a liberal.

That said, Chomsky has value, as more than just an introduction to radical politics. His books are generally stuffed to the rafters with facts and sources. For anyone doing research, Chomsky is a gold mine.

[GPDP]

Furthermore, after reading his books, which consistenly demonstrate how the US undermines democracy abroad, violates its own laws, etc., his prescription for what ails the United States is ... elect the right people? :mellow: That's why he's a liberal.

That's not true and you know it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Furthermore, after reading his books, which consistenly demonstrate how the US undermines democracy abroad, violates its own laws, etc., his prescription for what ails the United States is ... elect the right people? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/mellow.gif That's why he's a liberal.

Elect the right people? Have you ever read his book On Anarchism?

I agree that his analysis is pretty simple sometimes and reading his books a second time over is like going taking an intro course all over again, but sometimes it's fascinating to read what he catches that most miss.

[Devrim]

At this point in the discussion, it's worth noting that you're position has shifted. "he's a liberal" has become "that's not an anarchist position".

I don't think it is a shift at all. I think Chomsky is a liberal. He claims though to be n anarcho-syndicalist although he is not a member of an anarcho-syndicalist organisation. If he is not an anarchist, we then have to consider what he is.



every anarchist I have ever spoken to about him thinks the same.An anecdotal appeal to popularity argument is always a good place to wrap it up.

I wouldn't say just anecdotal. Check out this thread on Libcom, a place unlike here where most of the posters who call themselves anarchists are actually members of anarchist organisations:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/whats-wrong-chomsky-13112009

Most of the posters there who are members of anarcho-syndicalist organisations, i.e. the current Chomsky claims to belong to, think he is a liberal.

I think that Chomsky is actually a member of the IWW, probably against there own rules though as I am pretty sure that 'an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology' has the power to higher and fire, and if not in that job then certainly with his chauffeur


He never tells anyone to support the democrats. He tells them to vote against the George W. Bush and John McCains, which while resulting in a defacto vote for the Democrats in these swing states, isn't the same as supporting them. As discussed earlier, often he will save his harshest criticism for these democrats and liberals.

Parse over all the semantics you want, the idea that a George Bush the 2nd should be able to win a term because of trivial ideological issues is simply unacceptable, and one that I've yet to see an adequate defense for.

I would say that this is a classic left liberal position. It sees that there is a 'good' capitalism and a 'bad' one. In reality of course politicians of all parties are forced to manage the crisis, and attack the working class.

You write that:


That isn't supporting Obama, that's simply acknowledging that the world might be a slightly shittier place to live had the republican ticket won -something I doubt you will dispute.

Yes, I would dispute it. Do you think that workers in America who have lost their jobs due to cuts since Obama came to power feel any less unemployed, or that those murder by imperialist troops in Afghanisatan and Iraq since Obama's inauguration feel any less dead.


It is providing higher standards of living for the working class compared to what it previously was.

I'd dispute this too. I have never seen any statistics that say that the living conditions of the working class in Venezuela have improved under Chavez. In fact all the ones that I have seen suggest that they are worse. There have been a rise in the living standards of the urban and rural poor, not the working class, but even these groups have received a lower proportion of the national wealth. The richest 20% of society's has , however, increased throughout Chavez's period in office.


Even if your position is that Venezuela doesn't deserve our support, you still haven't come close to proving that support for Venezuela ="liberal".

I think that there are lots of liberals that support states such as Cuba, and Venezuela. Of course their supporters aren't exclusively liberals. The Stalinists who used to run these sort of campaigns were very clear about the need to attract the support of well meaning liberals. I am not suggestting that Chomsky was a Stalinist although he has been pretty clear in his support of Stalinist regimes, such as North Vietnam:


Chomsky was also impressed with socialism as practiced in Vietnam. In a speech given in Hanoi on April 13, 1970, and broadcast by Radio Hanoi the next day, Chomsky spoke of his "admiration for the people of Vietnam who have been able to defend themselves against the ferocious attack, and at the same time take great strides forward toward the socialist society." Chomsky praised the North Vietnamese for their efforts in building material prosperity, social justice, and cultural progress.


You're pulling a Horowitz. He didn't praise Turkey. He praised actions in the context of George Bush the 2nd doing his best effort at the world domination thing.

Chomsky's criticisms of Turkey almost got a severe sentence dropped on a publisher who tried to print them.

Clearly Turkey and you have vastly different positions on what Chomsky thinks of Turkey.

I think I have a very good idea about what Turkey thinks about this. Perhaps you would like to go back and check the source I used. It is a well known pro-government nationalist Turkish newspaper. I think that the quote is also very indicative of Chomsky's politics, which are driven by an opposition to US imperialism. He suddenly starts to praise the policy of what he knows is a viciously nationalistic regime because they took a position opposed to the US.

Of course there is no conception in any of this of independent working class politics. What are in fact conflicts between the local imperialist powers and the major imperialist power today, America become something progressive.


He doesn't see it as being related to class struggle? He's one of the most cited authors in the history of ever when it comes to explaining the class based nature of imperialism and as a consequence international relations.

Chomsky writes very well about the nature of US policy. I have read a lot of his work on it. Never once have I seen a suggestion that the solution to the problems lies in the struggle of the working class. Instead the solutions that he calls for are all things to be resolved within the imperialist system. I would say the idea that there can be a 'democratic just imperialism' is typical of liberalism.


Revleft as a whole can be said to support the Palestinian struggle for statehood.

I don't think that it can. I think that you will find that a significant minority of the posters here are opposed to national liberation struggles and wouldn't support the 'Palestinian struggle for statehood'.


Guess what? That state will almost certainly be a capitalist state, just as the occupied territories operate under capitalism.

Without a significant change in the international balance of power, any Palestinian state established will be little more than a 'bantustan', and very little difference from what there is now.


His arguments against Israeli colonialism are numerous, that he points out that the states should the very least honor their own laws is not undermining his status.

The international law he refers to calls for Israel to withdraw and to stop colonizing.

Yes, they are numerous. Calling for states to honour their own laws again though is classic liberalism. It is an idea that sees a solution within a more 'just' imperialism, not within the working class.


Even if you strip what he said of all context, there are ways to engage this point directly too, but let's ignore that since afterall...in a way that's always been Chomsky's weakness. He is notorious for how soft he is on the United States.:)

Again though his arguments usually run of the liberal idea that the US' actions are illegal and against international law.


His talk about capitalism needing to be replaced with participant and popular control is liberal? Unreal.

Yes there are a few references to capitalism thrown in, but yes calls for popular control are liberalism.


Dev, you're case against Chomsky is severely weak. You can say that he is an unorthodox anarchist or that he deviates from the anarchist position, but to call him a liberal is another thing entirely.

Do you really think that calling for people to participate in elections is 'unorthodox anarchism'. I would say it is exactly the opposite of what anarchism stands for, not 'unorthodox', not a 'deviation', but diametrically supposed.

AS you can see from the link to Libcom above, plenty of real anarcho-syndicalists, i.e. members of anarcho-syndicalist organisations, do call him a liberal.


Spectre is right, you read like David Horowitz when he tries to denounce a scholar by presuming the person should hold to a dogmatic set of beliefs.

I have no idea at all whom the person you are comparing me to is. I don't think that people should hold to dogmatic beliefs. I believe that people who call themselves anarchist or communists should hold to anarchist or communist principles.

I think that I have established that Chomsky isn't an anarchist as he claims to be. I think that even without his support for Stalinist states, his tendency towards calling for statist solutions, his advocacy of electorialism alone would put him outside of anarchism.

As I have pointed out I like many anarcho-syndicalists, consider him to be a liberal.

For those who reject this label, if you don't think that he is an anarchist, and I think I have shown that he isn't, how would you characterise him?

Devrim

[~Spectre]

his prescription for what ails the United States is ... elect the right people? :mellow: That's why he's a liberal.



Except it's not.

[~Spectre]

I don't think it is a shift at all. I think Chomsky is a liberal. He claims though to be n anarcho-syndicalist although he is not a member of an anarcho-syndicalist organisation. If he is not an anarchist, we then have to consider what he is.

None of your previous arguments came close to fitting him in with liberalism, particularly the bits where you brush aside his call for the overthrow of capitalism and call it liberal because he used the phrase "participant and popular control".




I wouldn't say just anecdotal. Check out this thread on Libcom


That's still an anecdote, and it's still an appeal to popularity fallacy.






I would say that this is a classic left liberal position. It sees that there is a 'good' capitalism and a 'bad' one.

How?

I just gave you a quote where right in one's face Chomsky says that democracy is impossible with Capitalism. He literally says capitalism is structurally irreparable.

With all due respect comrade, I'm having a hard time believing that you're being serious at this point.



Yes, I would dispute it. Do you think that workers in America who have lost their jobs due to cuts since Obama came to power feel any less unemployed, or that those murder by imperialist troops in Afghanisatan and Iraq since Obama's inauguration feel any less dead.

This is a non-sequitor. The point is that under a Bush administration, or a McCain administration, the probability of people dying increases. No one has ever claimed that Obama wouldn't do either of what you've outlined, or that it would be better for the cut workers or dead people were it done by Obama or Kerry - the point is that all evidence indicates that there will be at least a wee bit less murder under Obama and Kerry than there would be under Bush and McCain(Palin). That's not disputable, which is why you chose to argue this invented point.




I'd dispute this too. I have never seen any statistics that say that the living conditions of the working class in Venezuela have improved under Chavez.



http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf



I think that there are lots of liberals that support states such as Cuba, and Venezuela. Of course their supporters aren't exclusively liberals.


OK. If you can admit that supporting Venezuela=/= liberal. Then we can all agree it was a pointless thing to bring up.



The Stalinists who used to run these sort of campaigns were very clear about the need to attract the support of well meaning liberals. I am not suggestting that Chomsky was a Stalinist although he has been pretty clear in his support of Stalinist regimes, such as North Vietnam:


That's not support for a Stalinist regime Mr. Horowitz despite however much context you want to strip it off.

Here's a famous essay by Chomsky that should outline pretty clearly what he thinks about Stalinism:



The Soviet Union Versus Socialism

When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction. It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.
As for the world's second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the 'socialist' dungeon.
The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.
One may take note of another device used effectively by State capitalist ideologists in their service to existing power and privilege. The ritual denunciation of the so-called 'socialist' States is replete with distortions and often outright lies. Nothing is easier than to denounce the official enemy and to attribute to it any crime: there is no need to be burdened by the demands of evidence or logic as one marches in the parade. Critics of Western violence and atrocities often try to set the record straight, recognizing the criminal atrocities and repression that exist while exposing the tales that are concocted in the service of Western violence. With predictable regularity, these steps are at once interpreted as apologetics for the empire of evil and its minions. Thus the crucial Right to Lie in the Service of the State is preserved, and the critique of State violence and atrocities is undermined.
It is also worth noting the great appeal of Leninist doctrine to the modern intelligentsia in periods of conflict and upheaval. This doctrine affords the 'radical intellectuals' the right to hold State power and to impose the harsh rule of the 'Red Bureaucracy,' the 'new class,' in the terms of Bakunin's prescient analysis a century ago. As in the Bonapartist State denounced by Marx, they become the 'State priests,' and "parasitical excrescence upon civil society" that rules it with an iron hand.
In periods when there is little challenge to State capitalist institutions, the same fundamental commitments lead the 'new class' to serve as State managers and ideologists, "beating the people with the people's stick," in Bakunin's words. It is small wonder that intellectuals find the transition from 'revolutionary Communism' to 'celebration of the West' such an easy one, replaying a script that has evolved from tragedy to farce over the past half century. In essence, all that has changed is the assessment of where power lies. Lenin¹s dictum that "socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people," who must of course trust the benevolence of their leaders, expresses the perversion of 'socialism' to the needs of the State priests, and allows us to comprehend the rapid transition between positions that superficially seem diametric opposites, but in fact are quite close.
The terminology of political and social discourse is vague and imprecise, and constantly debased by the contributions of ideologists of one or another stripe. Still, these terms have at least some residue of meaning. Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation. As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, "this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie," but can only be "realized by the workers themselves being master over production." Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances. But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.
The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda. They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who "pre-empt the developing revolutionary process" and distort it to their ends of domination; "Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests," which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life. For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline "will become superfluous" as the freely associated producers "work for their own accord" (Marx). Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.
The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917.
A historian sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, E.H. Carr, writes that "the spontaneous inclination of the workers to organize factory committees and to intervene in the management of the factories was inevitably encourage by a revolution with led the workers to believe that the productive machinery of the country belonged to them and could be operated by them at their own discretion and to their own advantage" (my emphasis). For the workers, as one anarchist delegate said, "The Factory committees were cells of the future... They, not the State, should now administer."
But the State priests knew better, and moved at once to destroy the factory committees and to reduce the Soviets to organs of their rule. On November 3, Lenin announced in a "Draft Decree on Workers' Control" that delegates elected to exercise such control were to be "answerable to the State for the maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of property." As the year ended, Lenin noted that "we passed from workers' control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy," which was to "replace, absorb and supersede the machinery of workers' control" (Carr). "The very idea of socialism is embodied in the concept of workers' control," one Menshevik trade unionist lamented; the Bolshevik leadership expressed the same lament in action, by demolishing the very idea of socialism.
Soon Lenin was to decree that the leadership must assume "dictatorial powers" over the workers, who must accept "unquestioning submission to a single will" and "in the interests of socialism," must "unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process." As Lenin and Trotsky proceeded with the militarization of labour, the transformation of the society into a labour army submitted to their single will, Lenin explained that subordination of the worker to "individual authority" is "the system which more than any other assures the best utilization of human resources" -- or as Robert McNamara expressed the same idea, "vital decision-making...must remain at the top...the real threat to democracy comes not from overmanagement, but from undermanagement"; "if it is not reason that rules man, then man falls short of his potential," and management is nothing other than the rule of reason, which keeps us free. At the same time, 'factionalism' -- i.e., any modicum of free expression and organization -- was destroyed "in the interests of socialism," as the term was redefined for their purposes by Lenin and Trotsky, who proceeded to create the basic proto-fascist structures converted by Stalin into one of the horrors of the modern age.1
Failure to understand the intense hostility to socialism on the part of the Leninist intelligentsia (with roots in Marx, no doubt), and corresponding misunderstanding of the Leninist model, has had a devastating impact on the struggle for a more decent society and a livable world in the West, and not only there. It is necessary to find a way to save the socialist ideal from its enemies in both of the world's major centres of power, from those who will always seek to be the State priests and social managers, destroying freedom in the name of liberation.







I think I have a very good idea about what Turkey thinks about this.

If Chomsky supports the Turkish state, why did the Turkish state try to jail a publisher for printing Chomsky's work on Turkey?

Presumably, not because he "praises the Turkish state".








Chomsky writes very well about the nature of US policy. I have read a lot of his work on it. Never once have I seen a suggestion that the solution to the problems lies in the struggle of the working class. Instead the solutions that he calls for are all things to be resolved within the imperialist system. I would say the idea that there can be a 'democratic just imperialism' is typical of liberalism.


When has Chomsky ever said "democratic just imperialism" ?

He has stated stated that U.S. policy is classed based and that the only way to get a democracy (and thus avoid these anti-democratic imperial wars) is to overthrow capitalism. Again, a quote which is staring you in the face a few posts up.










Yes, they are numerous. Calling for states to honour their own laws again though is classic liberalism. It is an idea that sees a solution within a more 'just' imperialism, not within the working class.


No it's not. No one can deny that Israel withdrawing and no longer colonizing Palestine is a good thing. Calling for states to follow what they do isn't exclusive to liberalism. I call on the United States to honor it's own laws about not killing socialists for instance, but that's neither an endorsement of liberalism or an endorsement of the United States.

To make the jump from telling Israel to withdraw from Palestine citing, among many things, international law, = somehow being a liberal, is nonsensical.



Again though his arguments usually run of the liberal idea that the US' actions are illegal and against international law.


He points out U.S. hypocrisy. The U.S. has tried to justify imperial wars by saying "X country broke Y international law" (let's call this country Iraq). Chomsky rightly points out that this can't be the case because the U.S. breaks international laws too. It's really not all that hard to follow, and it's not the crux of his arguments.



Yes there are a few references to capitalism thrown in, but yes calls for popular control are liberalism.

"Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy. "

People can decide for themselves. Never mind that whole book he wrote where he says anarchists should be socialists, etc.

Though I'm sure you know plenty of liberals that call for the overthrow of capitalism so that the "major insitutions of society" are controlled by "participants and communities".

Again comrade, you can't possibly be serious here.

[RadioRaheem84]

I have never in my life heard Chomsky say that capitalism can be reformed and worked for the better. So, how can he be labeled a liberal? All of his writings explicitly state or at least infer that capitalism is inherently unstable and beyond reform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM

^ When asked if capitalism has actually made life better, he retorted that it would be terrible for anyone to think that.

[GPDP]

After the exchange between Devrim and Spectre, I think my point here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1741640&postcount=20) stands.

[Devrim]

I would say that this is a classic left liberal position. It sees that there is a 'good' capitalism and a 'bad' one. How?

I just gave you a quote where right in one's face Chomsky says that democracy is impossible with Capitalism. He literally says capitalism is structurally irreparable.

With all due respect comrade, I'm having a hard time believing that you're being serious at this point.

I can understand while you are having a hard time 'believing that I am serious'. Basically it is because it is the same position that you hold yourself.

While you may not label it 'good verses bad' capitalism this is intrinsically the position you hold. We call call it 'bad verses slightly less bad' if it makes you feel more comfortable.

You express it here:


the point is that all evidence indicates that there will be at least a wee bit less murder under Obama and Kerry than there would be under Bush and McCain(Palin). That's not disputable, which is why you chose to argue this invented point.OK. If you can admit that supporting Venezuela=/= liberal. Then we can all agree it was a pointless thing to bring up.

I think that this is disputable. I don't think that Bush invaded Iraq because he is a 'bad man', and I don't think that a Bush administration would have resulted in 'more murder'. It is interesting to note that one of the US's major allies was the Labour governed UK, and also incidentally that the austerity measure in Greece today are being implemented by a 'socialist government'.

I think this idea is not only 'indisputable' but is completely false. I don't think there is any evidence to illustrate it what so ever, and that all the evidence actually points in the opposite direction.


OK. If you can admit that supporting Venezuela=/= liberal. Then we can all agree it was a pointless thing to bring up.

No, it doesn't mean that somebody is a liberal. I think it would be pretty difficult to find one isolated political position that did. Support for Venezuela is, however, a common liberal position.

Also the statistics you linked to about Venezuela said nothing at all about workers wage levels.


That's not support for a Stalinist regime Mr. Horowitz despite however much context you want to strip it off.


admiration for the people of Vietnam who have been able to defend themselves against the ferocious attack, and at the same time take great strides forward toward the socialist society.

He says that North Vietnam was "tak[ing] great strides forward toward the socialist society".

Yes, I would call that support for a Stalinist regime.


If Chomsky supports the Turkish state, why did the Turkish state try to jail a publisher for printing Chomsky's work on Turkey?

Presumably, not because he "praises the Turkish state".

First Chomsky's support for Turkey came later, but secondly you are factually wrong. The Turkish state was acutely embarrassed by the whole affair. It didn't 'try to jail a publisher for printing Chomsky's work'. The Turkish state actually dropped the case as it has done in most of these case. Nor did the state initiate the case. The İstanbul public prosecutors office prepared the case as they were obliged to do after receiving a complaint from Kemal Kerinçsiz, a private citizen.

Kerinçşiz is a right wing lawyer and head of the Büyük Hukukçular Birliği ( a nationalist lawyers association, who are behind virtually all of the 301 prosecutions.


When has Chomsky ever said "democratic just imperialism" ?

AS far as I know he never has, but then I didn't put the term in quotation marks as you did. I put it in inverted commas, which does not imply that he said it. Chomsky does believe though that there can be a 'less bad' imperialism, i.e. one not run by Bush.

On the topic of the comments from anarchists you write:


That's still an anecdote, and it's still an appeal to popularity fallacy.

No, it is not anecdotal. It includes public statements of militants of anarcho-syndicalist organisations, saying that they think he is a liberal. Don't you think that actual real anarcho-syndicalists should be able to define there own current, and what belongs to it.

It seems fairly obvious that Chomsky is in no way an anarchist, in which case the question arises of what he actually is. I think that he is a liberal. You have yet to comment on what he is despite being asked to.

So I ask again:


For those who reject this label, if you don't think that he is an anarchist, and I think I have shown that he isn't, how would you characterise him?

[GPDP]

For those who reject this label, if you don't think that he is an anarchist, and I think I have shown that he isn't, how would you characterise him?

An anti-Leninist socialist with sympathies toward anarchism, who just happens to hold some positions, sentiments, and rhetoric typical of liberals. In other words, a somewhat liberalistic socialist. But definitely not a full-blown liberal.

There comes a point where no matter how much you disagree with someone on their politics or their rhetoric, it make no categorical sense to label them a liberal (even if the anarchist label doesn't fit either), especially if they come out and say they are against capitalism and for some kind of socialism. The moment you denounce capitalism, from the perspective of political economy, you cease to be a liberal.

It's this propensity toward dogmatism and toward the dismissal of those who do not adhere to it as liberals that irks me about much of the left. And like I said, I only thought this to be limited to the Leninists, but apparently Left-communists do it as well, which is interesting considering their dismissal by the Leninists as liberals and "ultra-lefts." I thought you'd be better than that.

[Devrim]

It's this propensity toward dogmatism and toward the dismissal of those who do not adhere to it as liberals that irks me about much of the left. And like I said, I only thought this to be limited to the Leninists, but apparently Left-communists do it as well, which is interesting considering their dismissal by the Leninists as liberals and "ultra-lefts." I thought you'd be better than that.

I don't think that we generally go around calling people 'liberals'. I can't think of anybody else we have characterised that way. I just think that Chomsky is.

Even though you disagree, you can see where I am coming from:


An anti-Leninist socialist with sympathies toward anarchism, who just happens to hold some positions, sentiments, and rhetoric typical of liberals. In other words, a somewhat liberalistic socialist. But definitely not a full-blown liberal.

Perhaps the perception of what a liberal is is different in the US and in Europe.

Devrim

[NecroCommie]

The west in general seems to be having a flashback of 30's. Even in europe recession hits hard at the working class, the rich get richer, and sometimes even extreme political polarization is a reality. People who are politically in the middle become apathetic and are scared shitless. Economy is going berserk and progressive movements are splintered, ineffective or/and small.

Whether right- or left-wing, revolutions are bound to occur if real change is not to come.

[which doctor]

I don't think he is saying that. I think he is just seeing the parallels between the political disillusionment in both countries, leaving a vaccum for anyone to fill.

Why so harsh toward Chomsky?
By the way, Chomsky did explicitly say that the blacks or immigrants will become the next Jews, suggesting a complete lack of historical understanding on his part. To be constantly warning against the fascism that you always believe is lurking just around the corner, is to completely misunderstand what fascism means.

There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation.

The problem with Chomsky isn't that he's a liberal, but that he's an idiot, although his idiocy is somewhat understandable. For a person like Chomsky, capitalism is no longer really capitalism, but a bunch of gangs, cartels, multinationals, conspiracies, power elites, etc. Chomsky isn't interested in anti-capitalism, but in creating a counter hegemony to the Washington consensus, which means he fails to really understand what capital is all about, and instead identifies it with the false facade it presents itself in.