Noam Chomsky

[Peace on Earth]

I've been reading more and more regarding criticisms of Noam Chomsky, from some as minute as small differences in political theory to the more radical theories that he is a pawn of the CIA and the global elite. Is Noam Chomsky a "gatekeeper for the left, using the technique of limited hangout to deflect criticism to easy targets (corporations, imperialism) but failing to acknowledge the true workings being the mechanisms?"

I've been turned off because most of the criticisms if NWO stuff which I'm not into. Although I do disagree with Chomsky on conspiracy theories.

Here is the Wikipedia page for criticisms of Chomsky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky#Accusations_of_hypocrisy _concerning_wealth

[ContrarianLemming]

i think most criticism of him is off base as he'd say, way beside the point, he has done far more for anarchism then anyone on this board and I am personally an anarchist because of him.

[Peace on Earth]

What do you say to the anarchist criticisms of Chomsky, as stated here in the Wiki article?



Chomsky wrote a highly influential article on anarchism in the early 1970s and AK Press (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/AK_Press) has produced a collection of his work on the subject.[59] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-58) Individualist anarchist (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Individualist_anarchist) Fred Woodworth (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Fred_Woodworth) and the anarcho-primitivist (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism) John Zerzan (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/John_Zerzan) have criticized Chomsky. Zerzan has occasionally characterized Chomsky as being too reformist and failing to articulate a fully anarchist (in Zerzan's case this specifically means anti-civilization) critique of society. He states that "[t]he real answer, painfully obvious, is that he is not an anarchist at all." According to his Zerzan, "When asked point-blank, 'Are governments inherently bad?' his reply (28 January 1988) is no. He is critical of government policies, not government itself, motivated by his 'duty as a citizen.'"[60] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-59)
However, when Evan Solomon (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Evan_Solomon) asked Chomsky "What state does function according to what you call the minimal levels of honesty. Is there a state?" Chomsky answered:

None. States are power centers. The only thing that imposes constraints on them is either outside force or their own populations. That's exactly why the intellectuals who we're talking about are so adamant at preventing people in the United States and Britain from learning the most elementary facts about themselves. . . . At the end, I think states ought to dissolve because I think they're illegitimate structures, but that's a long time. [3] (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020416.htm)
Zerzan also states that Chomsky's "focus, almost exclusively, has been on U.S. foreign policy, a narrowness that would exert a conservative influence even for a radical thinker."
In the same interview with Evan Solomon, Chomsky explained his focus.

A hypocrite is a person who focuses on the other fellow's crimes and refuses to look at his own. That's the definition of hypocrite by George Bush's favorite philosopher. When I repeat that I'm not taking a radical position. I'm taking a position that is just elementary morality. . . . What honest people are saying seems to be incomprehensible: that we should keep to the elementary moral level of the gospels. We should pay attention to our own crimes and stop committing them. [4] (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020416.htm)
Also, Chomsky believes that US global hegemony is threatening human survival; hence, the need to draw attention to US policy. He points out that "the United States is still unique in military force. Nobody comes close; we are the military power." [5] (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19900907.htm) In his 2003 book Hegemony or Survival, he argues that "The choice between hegemony and survival has rarely, if ever, been so starkly posed." [6] (http://januarymagazine.com/features/hegemonyorexc.html) Quoting historian Arthur Schlesinger (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Arthur_Schlesinger), Chomsky cites examples like the Cuban Missile Crisis (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis) in 'October 1962 [when] the world was "one word away" from nuclear war.' In the same book, Chomsky continued.

Immediately after this startling discovery, the Bush administration blocked UN efforts to ban the militarization of space, a serious threat to survival. The administration also terminated international negotiations to prevent biological warfare and moved to ensure the inevitability of an attack on Iraq, despite popular opposition that was without historical precedent. [7] (http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/books.php/2006/09/23/p11005)
Zerzan also claims that Chomsky is "completely ignoring key areas (such as nature and women, to mention only two)".[61] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-60) However, Chomsky has repeatedly mentioned these areas in interviews. Alongside preventing nuclear conflict, he said that protecting the environment is one of, "the most awesome problems of human history,"[62] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-61) and he has said that of all recent movements, "the one that’s had the most profound influence and impact is probably the feminist movement, and I think it’s very important."[63] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-62)
Chomsky's "reluctant endorsement" (The Guardian) for John Kerry (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/John_Kerry) as president in 2004 was controversial amongst some anarchists[citation needed (http://www.revleft.com/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."[64] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-63) However, he later responded to this, saying that personally he would vote for Ralph Nader (http://www.revleft.com/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."[65] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-64)

[ContrarianLemming]

Almost all of that criticism comes from an anarcho-primitivst, so...yeah

:rolleyes:

[Broletariat]

Almost all of that criticism comes from an anarcho-primitivst, so...yeah

:rolleyes:

Isn't that ad hominem?

[Zanthorus]

He advocated voting for John Kerry. That, really, is all you need to know. Chomsky has no hard and clear conception of class politics.

[ContrarianLemming]

He advocated voting for John Kerry. That, really, is all you need to know. Chomsky has no hard and clear conception of class politics.

except he wrote a book on it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Chomsky is a beast of massive proportions. I love the guy and consider him apart of the American Left Trinity; Zinn, Chomsky, Parenti.

On Marxism, Lenin, and the Bolshevik Revolution, in fact anything to do with the USSR, he is pretty terrible on though. Parenti sets him straight.

Most of the time he is going on a lot of opinion.

He can be really idealist and sound like a total liberal sometimes but I really think he just tones the rhetoric down for a general audience. This could also be due because he thinks of himself as being in a long like of enlightenment classical liberal thought, which I find absurd if he doesn't adhere to capitalism. I wouldn't consider his line of thinking to that of the classical liberals, but more along the lines of Proudhon and other French Libertarians. Also, Luxembourg-ish socialism.

Chomsky was a really good political writer, slashing liberal Cold War arguments with his books New Mandarins, Third World Fascism, On Liberal Scholarship, etc. He even supported the Viet Cong.

[NGNM85]

Isn't that ad hominem?

Technically, yes. However, when the source is someone as completely batshit crazy as John Zerzan, some healthy skepticism is perfectly understandable. Not to mention, the criticisms are for the most part very easily dismissed as false, which even the piece in question points out.

[NGNM85]

He advocated voting for John Kerry. That, really, is all you need to know. Chomsky has no hard and clear conception of class politics.

That's, at best, a gross oversimplification of what he said. Here’s what he actually says;

“There are differences. They have different constituencies. There are different groups of people around them. On international affairs I wouldn’t expect any major policy changes. It would probably be more like back to the Clinton years, when you have sort of the same policies, but more modulated, not so brazen and aggressive, less violent. And I would expect a kind of return to that.

On domestic issues there could be a fairly significant difference–it’s not huge–but different in its outcomes. The group around Bush are real fanatics. They’re quite open. They’re not hiding it; you can’t accuse them of that. They want to destroy the whole array of progressive achievements of the past century. They’ve already more or less gotten rid of progressive income tax. They’re trying to destroy the limited medical care system. The new pharmaceutical bill is a step towards that. They’re going after Social Security. They probably will go after schools. They do not want a small government, any more than Reagan did. They want a huge government, and massively intrusive. They hate free markets. But they want it to work for the rich. The Kerry people will do something not fantastically different, but less so. They have a different constituency to appeal to, and they are much more likely to protect some limited form of benefits for the general population.

There are other differences. The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is huge. There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they’re shafting them in their economic and social policies, you’ve got to make them think you’re doing something for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don’t have that constituency. They would like to have it, but they’re never going to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference.

These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says "I don’t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don’t care if your lives are destroyed. I don’t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don’t care, because from my elevated point of view I don’t see much difference between them." That’s a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don’t care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it’s a recipe for disaster if you’re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative.”

So, that’s what he actually said, which shouldn’t be surprising, it’s common sense. If you really care about the working class, there’s no other way to see it.

[Zanthorus]

except he wrote a book on it.

Ludwig Von Mises wrote plenty of books on economics. That doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.


So, that’s what he actually said, which shouldn’t be surprising, it’s common sense.

It shouldn't be common sense for 'Communists' much less 'anarchists'. Chomsky is essentially saying that the working-class should rely on the state to defend it's interests rather than organising as a class-for-itself. His politics seem to be based more on some kind of vague sympathy for the 'poor', which you could find in your average wet-behind-the-ears liberal guardianista, than class politics.

[Widerstand]

Chomsky is essentially saying that the working-class should rely on the state to defend it's interests rather than organising as a class-for-itself.

Strawman. Nowhere in the given excerpt does he say anything like that. In fact I'd be interested in you providing a Chomsky quotation even suggesting that the working class should not organize along classlines.

Just to clarify: That one political party has policies which harm the people more than another party's is common sense. By pointing that out he's just stating the obvious. Now, I personally disagree with the excerpts last paragraphs aggressive and provocative wording, but he's essentially right.



His politics seem to be based more on some kind of vague sympathy for the 'poor', which you could find in your average wet-behind-the-ears liberal guardianista, than class politics.

No. His politics may include that aspect, but to say they are based on it is bullshit.

[Zanthorus]

Strawman. Nowhere in the given excerpt does he say anything like that.

Yes he does, the whole point of the last paragraph is that if we don't care wether or not Bush or Kerry gets elected, we don't care about the working-class. This ignores the fact that the working-class can struggle in it's own interests indepnedently of the capital-state apparatus.


In fact I'd be interested in you providing a Chomsky quotation even suggesting that the working class should not organize along classlines.

I didn't say that Chomsky never suggested that the working-class chould not organise along class lines, I'm saying that in this particular instance he simply ignores the possibility and substitutes class politics for a vague 'caring about poor people' outlook.

[Red Commissar]

I'd rather have people reading Noam Chomsky than Ann Coulter. He may not be all the way on our end, but considering the political climate in the United States he's one of the better ones, particularly to show the true nature of the government's foreign policy.

[Rainsborough]

I just find this incredible, a few years ago Chomsky seemed unable to do wrong, now....:confused:

[RadioRaheem84]

As I kept going deeper and deeper into Marxist, Socialist thought the less Chomsky I read.

Reading back on Chomsky, I can see how wrong he is on several issues and that he borders on being a mere progressive sometimes. Sometimes I think he just throws in a bone or two for the socialists and anarchists in some of his interviews but for the most part sticks to the progressive line. I do not mind if his intention is to rally a popular audience.


So, that’s what he actually said, which shouldn’t be surprising, it’s common sense. If you really care about the working class, there’s no other way to see it.So what if that is what he said, NGN. That wasn't the point! It's a ridiculous argument and just because Chomsky said it doesn't mean it's right.

The way he described what the Kerry administration would look like made me want to vote for him less, not more just because he was the lesser of two evils. It made me want to vote third party, get out there and mobilize to change this shitty two party State.

It made not want to lay back and say that there is no hope for the working class except to vote for a shitty lesser of two evils.

It also downplays the significant impact the economy has on policies. Chomsky doesn't even entertain the notion that most policies are based on the economic situation of the day in his ridiculous suggestion to vote Dem. Clinton had a progressive agenda that would've changed the landscape of the American working class but was shot down by Robert Rubin and Larry Summers and he continued to have one of the most radical neo-liberal agendas ever assembled! Across the world there was the Asian Flu Crisis, the Mexican Peso Crisis, Long Term Capital Management Crisis, Dot.Com burst and now this crap we're in, due to the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

So Chomsky's analysis is bullshit and the type of junk I think that downplays his other serious analysis. It makes him look like an uninformed typical progressive liberal political junky who has succumbed to the baseless work of the political establishment here in the States.

Damn, there is nothing leftist about advocating for the Dems.

That stupid Brookings Institute Report you (and Chomsky) keep citing tells me nothing in light of the economic realities I have read in several LEFTIST sources that counter the argument that somehow Dems are better than Repubs shit.

Get over this argument, because there is none!

[Orange Juche]

I've seen him, with my own eyes, advocating voting for John Kerry. He lost all credibility to me at that instant.

[graymouser]

Chomsky tries to project an anti-imperialist politics and gets decent bookstore shelf space - that's a positive service, and we should appreciate it. We should be hard on him, despite this, because a lot of people learning what it means to be on the left are probably familiar with his work and the truth is it's a mixed bag. His appealing for Kerry, his terrible ignorance on some issues, and his poor formulations can lead people the wrong way. That's how some figures are. The world is complicated.

[∞]

Ah, nothing beats 13 year old kids criticizing a man whos been studying political theory for 72 years. Yes Zanthrous, you're the respected academic and Noam Chomsky is completely irrelevant.:rolleyes:

[∞]

Yes he does, the whole point of the last paragraph is that if we don't care wether or not Bush or Kerry gets elected, we don't care about the working-class. This ignores the fact that the working-class can struggle in it's own interests indepnedently of the capital-state apparatus.]

Oh mah gawd. So instead of his ideology he puts the interest of the working class? What an idiot. Yeah, lets feed the working class magic energy so they can get from butt-fuck nowhere to a Marxist revolution, or whatever.



I didn't say that Chomsky never suggested that the working-class chould not organise along class lines, I'm saying that in this particular instance he simply ignores the possibility and substitutes class politics for a vague 'caring about poor people' outlook.

Yes because 19th century philosophy is all the rage with the working class nowadays. Even though I hate them at least the democrats can push taxes on the rich, not the poor. Don't forget economic stimulus, which can actually redistribute wealth to the working class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTtPYM8RSDE&feature=related

TAX CUTS FOR RICH PEOPLE, IS OK CUZ WE GOT REVOLUTION!

[Zanthorus]

Ah, nothing beats 13 year old kids criticizing a man whos been studying political theory for 72 years. Yes Zanthrous, you're the respected academic and Noam Chomsky is completely irrelevant.:rolleyes:

To begin with, I don't think being an academic necessarily makes your opinions more valid. Certainly most academic economists spout nothing besides nonsense. But that aside, Chomsky is a professor of linguistics, not political science, so even if being an academic did make someone's argument more valid, this would be a bit like saying that someone else's arguments from a neo-conservative political perspective were valid simply because the person making those arguments was a well respected geologist.

Now maybe you could actually defend Chomsky's positions instead of trying to take cover behind inane comments like this.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ah, nothing beats 13 year old kids criticizing a man whos been studying political theory for 72 years. Yes Zanthrous, you're the respected academic and Noam Chomsky is completely irrelevant.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


Shut the fuck up with your condescending nonsense. The critique against elements of Chomsky's political stances are sound. He
ignores conflicting data from other leftists like the ZMag crowd that show that there is nothing special about a Democratic regime. Chomsky was politically posturing and making it seem like Kerry was a glimmer of hope in a two party state. This is BS. I love reading Chomsky but some of his stuff is rather idealist wishful thinking.

So Parenti is a thirteen year old Kid who went up against Chomsky's analysis on several issues in the past, including his distorted view of Lenin among other things?

Stop acting like everything the man says is sound.

[∞]

To begin with, I don't think being an academic necessarily makes your opinions more valid. Certainly most academic economists spout nothing besides nonsense. But that aside, Chomsky is a professor of linguistics, not political science, so even if being an academic did make someone's argument more valid, this would be a bit like saying that someone else's arguments from a neo-conservative political perspective were valid simply because the person making those arguments was a well respected geologist.

Now maybe you could actually defend Chomsky's positions instead of trying to take cover behind inane comments like this.

I did.

[RadioRaheem84]

Even though I hate them at least the democrats can push taxes on the rich, not the poor. Don't forget economic stimulus, which can actually redistribute wealth to the working class.

:laugh:

[Zanthorus]

It seems while I was typing my previous post, you actually posted something with content:


Oh mah gawd. So instead of his ideology he puts the interest of the working class?

No, he uses his ideology to defend appealing to the state for reforms by presenting a false dichotomy between the latter and simply leaving workers out to hang. This ideology is fundamentally at odds with anarchism, which has historically seen the capitalist nation-state as an institution solely for the defence of the ruling-class, a position which Chomsky himself occasionally plays lipservice to.


What an idiot. Yeah, lets feed the working class magic energy so they can get from butt-fuck nowhere to a Marxist revolution, or whatever.

I would like to know where I suggested anything of the sort.


Yes because 19th century philosophy is all the rage with the working class nowadays.

I wasn't aware that you needed to be schooled in 19th century philosophy to organise and defend your own interests as a class.


Even though I hate them at least the democrats can push taxes on the rich, not the poor.

So 'can' the republicans. Any party 'can' attempt to do anything they like, that doesn't mean they actually will.


Don't forget economic stimulus, which can actually redistribute wealth to the working class.

Or alternatively, it can simply turn the crises of overproduction into fiscal crises of the state.

[∞]

Shut the fuck up with your condescending nonsense. The critique against elements of Chomsky's political stances are sound. He
ignores conflicting data from other leftists like the ZMag crowd that show that there is nothing special about a Democratic regime. Chomsky was politically posturing and making it seem like Kerry was a glimmer of hope in a two party state. This is BS. I love reading Chomsky but some of his stuff is rather idealist wishful thinking.

So Parenti is a thirteen year old Kid who went up against Chomsky's analysis on several issues in the past, including his distorted view of Lenin among other things?

Stop acting like everything the man says is sound.

Here we go again. Rosa Luxemburg had criticized bureaucratic and and authoritarian measures of the October Revolution. Though she had some support of it, her central idea and thesis was contrary to Lenin's authoritarianism. She was a critic, just a friendly one. http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch06.htm

[RadioRaheem84]

So...are you trying to say that Chomsky is a friendly critic of Lenin? Last I read, Chomsky was not a friend of Lenin.

[RadioRaheem84]

Or alternatively, it can simply turn the crises of overproduction into fiscal crises of the state:thumbup1:

[Zanthorus]

Rosa Luxemburg had criticized bureaucratic and and authoritarian measures of the October Revolution.

Have you even read The Russian Revolution? Her critiques of the Bolsheviks in that book were tactical disputes, which had nothing to do with Lenin's supposed 'authoritarianism', or Luxemburg's supposed 'libertarianism'. In fact on almost all points she was more 'authoritarian' than Lenin. She criticised the Bolshevik policy of organising land grabs for the peasantry, saying that the Bolsheviks should've nationalised the land. She criticised the formula of 'the right of nations to self-determination' as confusionism which was at odds with Lenin's otherwise consistent centralism, a point on which she was actually closer to Stalin (Who in 1922 proposed that all the individual SR's be dissolved into a single RSFSR) than Lenin (Who opposed Stalin's 'Great Russian Chauvinism' on this same point). She even criticised the Bolsheviks for dissolving a bourgeois parliament and for their 'All Power to the Soviets' line!


Though she had some support of it, her central idea and thesis was contrary to Lenin's authoritarianism.

Her 'central idea and thesis' was that the Russian revolution marked the first step towards international revolution, and was a breath of fresh air compared to the opportunism and vaccilation of the German socialist movement.

[∞]

No, he uses his ideology to defend appealing to the state for reforms by presenting a false dichotomy between the latter and simply leaving workers out to hang. This ideology is fundamentally at odds with anarchism, which has historically seen the capitalist nation-state as an institution solely for the defence of the ruling-class, a position which Chomsky himself occasionally plays lipservice to.

The fact the workers would be "left out to hang" depends on the politician.
Chomsky refers to himself as "a traveler of different ideas." He considers himself a Libertarian Socialist above all.



I would like to know where I suggested anything of the sort.



I wasn't aware that you needed to be schooled in 19th century philosophy to organise and defend your own interests as a class.
As much as I'd like to see that, the ideological state in the US makes it a rather slow and difficult task.




So 'can' the republicans. Any party 'can' attempt to do anything they like, that doesn't mean they actually will.
As long as there is a chance the democrats can push social reform, I'll have critical support for some of them. We all know that change doesn't come from the system, but there is such thing as slight betterment.

[RadioRaheem84]

As long as there is a chance the democrats can push social reform, I'll have critical support for some of them. We all know that change doesn't come from the system, but there is such thing as slight betterment.

Countless leftists have proved that this is not the case. Although, you do have Chomsky citing the Brookings Institute. :laugh:

[∞]

Public control is indispensably necessary. Otherwise the exchange of experiences remains only with the closed circle of the officials of the new regime. Corruption becomes inevitable. (Lenin’s words, Bulletin No.29) Socialism in life demands a complete spiritual transformation in the masses degraded by centuries of bourgeois rule. Social instincts in place of egotistical ones, mass initiative in place of inertia, idealism which conquers all suffering, etc., etc. No one knows this better, describes it more penetratingly; repeats it more stubbornly than Lenin. But he is completely mistaken in the means he employs. Decree, dictatorial force of the factory overseer, draconian penalties, rule by terror – all these things are but palliatives. The only way to a rebirth is the school of public life itself, the most unlimited, the broadest democracy and public opinion. It is rule by terror which demoralizes. ehemm... Bringing up like 3 miniscule agreements puts no emphasis on the criticism not condemnation of the Russian Revolution.

[Zanthorus]

ehemm... Bringing up like 3 miniscule agreements puts no emphasis on the criticism not condemnation of the Russian Revolution.

I didn't bring up 3 'miniscule' agreements, I brought up 3 points which were central to Luxemburg's argument (Which you'd know if you were paying attention while reading that book), and on which she had a stance that could easily be construed as more 'authoritarian' than that of Lenin.

Now as for the passage you quote, it comes from a part of the book in which Luxemburg is criticising Lenin and Trotsky for replacing the bourgeois form of representative government and it's so-called 'freedoms' with rule by the Soviets. She is supporting the democracy of the 'masses' against the revolutionary proletarian democracy of the Russian working-class.

[∞]

I didn't bring up 3 'miniscule' agreements, I brought up 3 points which were central to Luxemburg's argument (Which you'd know if you were paying attention while reading that book), and on which she had a stance that could easily be construed as more 'authoritarian' than that of Lenin.

Now as for the passage you quote, it comes from a part of the book in which Luxemburg is criticising Lenin and Trotsky for replacing the bourgeois form of representative government and it's so-called 'freedoms' with rule by the Soviets. She is supporting the democracy of the 'masses' against the revolutionary proletarian democracy of the Russian working-class.

So she criticized the soviet republic, in favor representation? Throwing social democrats and anarchists in Jail is democracy? A secret police is a democracy? Killing Ukrainian peasant revolutionaries is a part of this "democracy"? Instead of a direct democracy that would have to adhere to the working class, soviets are represented by representatives of the Bolshevik Party? Yeah she must've been wrong that doesn't didn't help initiate bureaucracy...oh wait

[Kotze]

Chomsky promoting to vote (D) instead of (R) is problematic, since even though he often adds qualifiers about how similar they are and how it's much more important that you yourself are active locally, the advice can have the effect of legitimatising the 2-party-system. I agree that Chomsky has often an idealistic vibe to him, he is no Parenti.
Or alternatively, it [stimulus] can simply turn the crises of overproduction into fiscal crises of the state.What a government can do in times of mass unemployment is very different for countries that don't issue their own currency, like Greece, and countries that do. A nation that issues its own currency doesn't run out of it.

[Zanthorus]

So she criticized the soviet republic, in favor representation?

Essentially, yes. Although it should be noted that The Russian Revolution was not actually compiled by Luxemburg herself, it was a compilation of her writings made by one of her followers, Paul Levi. One of the essays in their was actually written while she was in Jail, and I believe she later repudiated it because her only sources while writing it were bourgeois sources.

Also, it would appear that Luxemburg herself in practice held a similar line to Lenin during the German revolution:


Now we are in the middle of the revolution and the National Assembly is a counter-revolutionary stronghold erected against the revolutionary proletariat. The time has come, then, to assault and demolish this stronghold.

I think this amounts to at least something of a turnaround.

The rest of your points are about the Russian revolution itself, not Luxemburg's position on it. You brought up the latter, not the former. The latter is only really relevant because it is used as a device by Chomsky to excuse his own anti-Bolshevism (i.e I can't be bothered to go through this crap again).

[∞]

Essentially, yes. Although it should be noted that The Russian Revolution was not actually compiled by Luxemburg herself, it was a compilation of her writings made by one of her followers, Paul Levi. One of the essays in their was actually written while she was in Jail, and I believe she later repudiated it because her only sources while writing it were bourgeois sources.

Also, it would appear that Luxemburg herself in practice held a similar line to Lenin during the German revolution:
What? I believe she had some agreements and some disagreements with him.

[Zanthorus]

What? I believe she had some agreements and some disagreements with him.

With Lenin? Again, I have never denied this. What I deny is your counterposition of Lenin's supposed 'authoritarianism' and by implication Luxemburg's supposed 'libertarianism'. Rosa Luxemburg was a revolutionary Marxist.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ah, nothing beats 13 year old kids criticizing a man whos been studying political theory for 72 years. Yes Zanthrous, you're the respected academic and Noam Chomsky is completely irrelevant.:rolleyes:I love how being a 'reputed academic' now puts your work on a pedestal. The history of reputed leftist academics would make one more inclined towards throwing it in a ditch, although such would ultimately be unfair as well.


Ah, nothing beats 13 year old kids criticizing a man whos been studying political theory for 72 years. Yes Zanthrous, you're the respected academic and Noam Chomsky is completely irrelevant.:rolleyes:I love how being a 'reputed academic' now puts your work on a pedestal. The history of reputed leftist academics would make one more inclined towards throwing it in a ditch, although such would ultimately be unfair as well.


Oh mah gawd. So instead of his ideology he puts the interest of the working class? What an idiot. Yeah, lets feed the working class magic energy so they can get from butt-fuck nowhere to a Marxist revolution, or whatever.Indeed, we should rather not only be apathetic towards the independence of the working class, but actively encourage its undermining. There are difficult obstacles to overcome, such as a working class "which by education, tradition, habit, looks upon the conditions of [the capitalist] mode of production as self-evident laws of Nature," and the attaining of the constitution of the working class as an independent class on the economic and political fields, but the actual solution to all of these is to make these obstacles so large that they burst like a balloon; they are like balloons, of course, because both balloons and proletarians contain air. As Karl Marx once said, "Here, where the worker is regulated bureaucratically from childhood onwards, where he believes in authority, in those set over him," the main thing is to perpetuate this.

[La Comédie Noire]

Chomsky is a good introduction to leftist politics along with Zinn and Parenti. If I want to introduce somebody to leftism I reach for one of them.

Although I think the United States left would be in much better shape if it weren't so polite.

[RadioRaheem84]

Parenti is not polite.

[∞]

With Lenin? Again, I have never denied this. What I deny is your counterposition of Lenin's supposed 'authoritarianism' and by implication Luxemburg's supposed 'libertarianism'. Rosa Luxemburg was a revolutionary Marxist.

Yes but a overall critique of the Bolshevist methods of suppression, and her critique of Democratic Centralism makes her more libertarian. The exact differences are those of which are subjective in between ideologies.

[∞]

:thumbup1:

Do you even know what that means?

[Zanthorus]

Yes but a overall critique of the Bolshevist methods of suppression, and her critique of Democratic Centralism makes her more libertarian.

Rosa Luxemburg never made a critique of 'Democratic Centralism'.

[∞]

Rosa Luxemburg never made a critique of 'Democratic Centralism'.

She never used the term (http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization/DemocraticCentralism.htm)

Though everyone has wikiphobia this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxemburgism) is pretty good

[Zanthorus]

There is no such thing as 'Luxemburgism'. I have done a brief copy paste job showing how the politics of so-called 'Luxemburgist' organisations differs from Luxemburg herself here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1875105&postcount=25). Another good source to look at would be 'Behind Luxemburg's Anti-Lenin Polemic' from 'Lenin and the Vanguard Party' by the International Bolshevik Tendency which can be found here (http://www.bolshevik.org/Pamphlets/LeninVanguard/LVP%202.htm).

[∞]

There is no such thing as 'Luxemburgism'. I have done a brief copy paste job showing how the politics of so-called 'Luxemburgist' organisations differs from Luxemburg herself here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1875105&postcount=25). Another good source to look at would be 'Behind Luxemburg's Anti-Lenin Polemic' from 'Lenin and the Vanguard Party' by the International Bolshevik Tendency which can be found here (http://www.bolshevik.org/Pamphlets/LeninVanguard/LVP%202.htm).

Probably because of the future application of such tendencies that Luxemburgism could be applied in a contemporary manner. Overall I believe Luxemburg agreed with the revolution 70%. (rough estimate)

[Ocean Seal]

I disagree, Chomsky has some of the soundest theories on the left and he shouldn't be overlooked. He might not be perfect, but he certainly looks at things from a different angle. The best thing to do is to think about what he says and understand that you won't agree with him all the time, but that he does say some pretty worthwhile things, and is a very analytic person.

[∞]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTo7GkQ6iTs&feature=related

Like I said, critical support.

[NGNM85]

It shouldn't be common sense for 'Communists' much less 'anarchists'

What Communists should or should not do I won’t bother contesting. As for Anarchists, I would say it depends. If you have a simplistic and one-dimensional interpretation of Anarchism, then, that is correct.


Chomsky is essentially saying that the working-class should rely on the state to defend it's interests rather than organising as a class-for-itself.

Except that isn’t what he said. He’s completely in favor of working class organizing. However, you have to be able to offer a viable alternative. First of all, you’re ethically obligated. Second, it’s the only way you’ll get any lasting support. At this moment, there are no viable alternatives, which is not suggesting one shouldn’t try to build them, it’s just a statement of empirical fact. Given that we exist in this moment, not in some hypothetical future, we have to work with the circumstances as they exist, not as we would hope them to be. You also seem to be operating under the common misconception that there is something wrong or defeatist in choosing the lesser evil at the moment, making the best of bad choices. This is complete nonsense. If you care, you don’t drop out and declare the whole thing a wash. Dropping out accomplishes absolutely nothing, and it’s doubly pointless because by not acting you are still influencing the outcome.


His politics seem to be based more on some kind of vague sympathy for the 'poor', which you could find in your average wet-behind-the-ears liberal guardianista, than class politics.


…I'm saying that in this particular instance he simply ignores the possibility and substitutes class politics for a vague 'caring about poor people' outlook.

Statements like this speak volumes. Specifically, it clarifies your attitude towards the working class; being somewhere between indifference and contempt. Note; you didn’t contest the fact that the political parties represent different elite constituencies, which is reflected in their policies, specifically, domestic policy. This is perfectly sensible, because it’s obviously true. You’re argument is that isn’t important. What you’re saying is you don’t care if poor families lose their homes, if their children don’t have access to medical care, that is just totally beneath you. These ‘vague’ (It should be anything but.) humanistic concerns are irrelevant in the face of your grand project, which is more important than poor people’s suffering. I have absolutely no interest in psychoanalyzing you, but it begs the question, if you are so indifferent to the suffering of working class people, than what is it that attracts you to radical politics, at all? The whole point, the fundamental basis for objecting to the state, or to exploitive economic institutions, or the war, etc., is a profound moral outrage. It is the deeply held belief that people must not be treated this way, that is an affront to human rights and human dignity, that people deserve something better than this. As far as I’m concerned, any revolution that does not follow from this basic starting point is not worth having.

[NGNM85]

Reading back on Chomsky, I can see how wrong he is on several issues and that he borders on being a mere progressive sometimes. Sometimes I think he just throws in a bone or two for the socialists and anarchists in some of his interviews but for the most part sticks to the progressive line. I do not mind if his intention is to rally a popular audience.

He’s an Anarchist, he now says he’s a ‘fellow traveler’, but there’s no substantial ideological divide. In addition to being the most prominent living Anarchist, today, he has done more to advance the philosophy of Anarchism than anyone else. He applies classical Anarchist principles to the modern world.


So what if that is what he said, NGN. That wasn't the point! It's a ridiculous argument and just because Chomsky said it doesn't mean it's right.

Most certainly not. What makes it right is that it is true. It comes down to the facts, ‘stubborn things’ that they are.


The way he described what the Kerry administration would look like made me want to vote for him less, not more just because he was the lesser of two evils.

Again, there’s this bogus misconception that choosing the lesser evil is somehow wrong. You need to understand this is completely wrong. Take, for example, a firefighter in a burning building, or a triage situation, you can’t seriously argue that it’s better to let everybody die, then to save the few you can. This is just totally false.


It made me want to vote third party, get out there and mobilize to change this shitty two party State.


It made not want to lay back and say that there is no hope for the working class except to vote for a shitty lesser of two evils.

That isn’t what he’s saying. He’s clearly saying we should change that, and we can, but that hasn’t been achieved yet, and reality is not multiple choice. (Unless you’re taking psychedelics.)

His position is also more nuanced than that, if you read other statements he’s written on the subject. Basically, you should vote tactically. I have voted for Democrats, Socialists, and Greens, at one time or another. You have to calculate a number of factors;

Is it a primary or not?

Is it a Presidential or Congressional election?

Do you live in a traditionally red or blue state? Let’s face it, we shouldn’t have been too surprised McCain won in Texas.

What are the pre-election polls showing? Who’s up and who’s down?

When you vote you should consider all of these factors. Depending on where you live the results can differ, substantially.


It also downplays the significant impact the economy has on policies. Chomsky doesn't even entertain the notion that most policies are based on the economic situation of the day in his ridiculous suggestion to vote Dem. Clinton had a progressive agenda that would've changed the landscape of the American working class but was shot down by Robert Rubin and Larry Summers and he continued to have one of the most radical neo-liberal agendas ever assembled! Across the world there was the Asian Flu Crisis, the Mexican Peso Crisis, Long Term Capital Management Crisis, Dot.Com burst

You can’t blame either party for the Dot-Com bubble. In this economic system with a stock market bubbles are going to happen. The growth of the internet and the inevitable flourishing of e-commerce predictably led to greater investment which created a feedback loop, and, like all bubbles, it burst.


and now this crap we're in, due to the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

It bears mentioning that the vote to repeal Glass-Steagall went, essentially, entirely along party lines, being supported by the Republicans who had a congressional majority.


So Chomsky's analysis is bullshit and the type of junk I think that downplays his other serious analysis. It makes him look like an uninformed typical progressive liberal political junky who has succumbed to the baseless work of the political establishment here in the States.

Again, he clearly specified that the two parties represent different elite constituencies.


Damn, there is nothing leftist about advocating for the Dems.

There’s certainly nothing Rightist about it. I’m also taking for granted that Leftists are motivated by a moral position; that they care about what happens to the working class. If that’s the case then, in certain circumstances, voting Democrat certainly is the correct course of action for a Leftist.


That stupid Brookings Institute Report you (and Chomsky) keep citing tells me nothing in light of the economic realities I have read in several LEFTIST sources that counter the argument that somehow Dems are better than Repubs shit.


Get over this argument, because there is none!

I, personally, cited the recent Princeton study, but there is plenty of data out there. If you have some methodological complaint to the way the studies were performed, by all means. However, you’ll inevitably find that they are correct. This isn’t ideological, it’s scientific fact, and that applies equally to Marxists, Fascists, and dentists.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is this revleft or the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground? Seriously I am at a loss for words. Insisting that liberal facts and data are unbias and therefore gospel truth doesn't negate anything I said.


Most certainly not. What makes it right is that it is true. It comes down to the facts, ‘stubborn things’ that they are.

:rolleyes:


You can’t blame either party for the Dot-Com bubble. In this economic system with a stock market bubbles are going to happen.


Regardless of the political party, policy will be heavily dictated by capital. That is the point and acting like either party is better than the other or that there is a lesser of two evils is ridiculous.

Are you trying to tell me that there is a major ideological difference between Larry Summers and the Robert Rubin clan and Hank Paulson and Timothy Geitner. I am sorry but I tend to believe the Secretary of the Treasury (and the Fed Reserve Chairman) as the most powerful men in official office. Sorry but I tend to see things clearly rather than from a blanket idealistic perspective such as yourself. Was there a big difference when Reagan decided to keep Paul Volcker from the Carter Administration to head the Fed after his famous Voclker Shock.

Seriously, you're a trip sometimes.



You mean to tell me that the success of the economic program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of fucking bond traders?"

- Bill Clinton, The Agenda by Bob Woodard



Now, that's poetry. And for a time, that moment when Clinton realized that the U.S. bond market had effective veto power over all of his economic plans took on the force of a primal scene. Bond traders, with Fed chair Alan Greenspan as their honorary leader, were understood as controlling the secret levers of the economy. If they didn't like what they saw in Washington, or in the housing market, they'd stamp on the brakes, sending interest rates soaring and mak-ing unemployment lines longer. Keeping the bond market happy was, it seemed, a president's first priority.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/columns/bottomline/199/


Here ya go, NGN. You love reading liberal tripe all the time.

[Black Sheep]

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

[Demogorgon]

The root of a lot of criticism here is that certain individuals instinctively dislike anyone who is not ultra-obscure and "lefter than thou".

Any criticism is inevitably an attempt to rationalise that position rather than anything honest. The criticism of him saying that Bush would be worse than Kerry is a case in point. To say there is no difference at all is just silly and is perilously close to the loons who actively hoped for Bush to be reelected because they honestly thought it would bring revolution. Bush had already gotten two wars to his name in 2004 and at that time there was every indication he would have started a third. Indeed if he hadn't lost Congress in 2006 he may well have done so. To claim that it is wrong to advocate tactical use of the ballot to stop that is to ignore real world implications.

[RadioRaheem84]

The root of a lot of criticism here is that certain individuals instinctively dislike anyone who is not ultra-obscure and "lefter than thou".

Any criticism is inevitably an attempt to rationalise that position rather than anything honest. The criticism of him saying that Bush would be worse than Kerry is a case in point. To say there is no difference at all is just silly and is perilously close to the loons who actively hoped for Bush to be reelected because they honestly thought it would bring revolution. Bush had already gotten two wars to his name in 2004 and at that time there was every indication he would have started a third. Indeed if he hadn't lost Congress in 2006 he may well have done so. To claim that it is wrong to advocate tactical use of the ballot to stop that is to ignore real world implications.

No, it's not. It's buying into the same scare tactics that Democrats use to win favor among the general population. Clinton bombed Iraq the most out of any President before Shock and Awe with his Operation Desert Fox, then there was the Balkan situation, the issue in Somalia, the bombing of the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant and not to mention the further implementation of the Iraqi Sanctions which Secretary of State Madeline Albright considered worth the loss of a half a million Iraqi Children.

It's not ignoring "real world implications". That is just bullshit and stuff that I would expect to read on Daily Kos or some other Democratic leaning liberal website.

Then there is the issue of reforming welfare, where Clinton not only gutted social programs but it made it harder for recipients to receive aid. At least the GOP left what ever programs they slashed in tact.

As Adam Curtis, the documentary filmmaker noted in his doc The Trap; Clinton and Blair not only continued the economic policies of neo-liberalism but also made government worse by introducing New Democrat/New Labour policies of market "efficiency" and technocracy. So now we have a worse economy coupled with "reformed" and horrible public services.

Economist Robert Pollin writes in his book Contours of Descent that through the Clinton era, the corporate barganing power to cow workers into working harder for less money had increased. He actually says that workers worsened under Clinton.

Quote:


It was under Clinton that the distribution of wealth in the US became more skewed than it had at any time in the previous forty years. Inside the US under Clinton the ratio of wages for the average worker to the pay of the average CEO rose from 113 to 1 in 1991 to 449 to 1. Considering the difference between the richest and the poorest 10 percent of humanity, inequality grew by 19 percent; by 77 percent if you take the richest and poorest one percent.


Pollin goes on to describe the surplus myth and the other things associated with the Clinton smoke screen PR machine that tries to make Democrats seem better than the GOP. Ordinary folks paid the cost of that surplus with the gutting of public spending on things like teachers and environmental protection.


http://books.google.com/books?id=SDuX26cg5mwC&pg=PP7&lpg=PP7&dq=What+Happened+to+the+Economy+Under+Clinton%3F+a lexander+cockburn&source=bl&ots=D5FJJqyFH7&sig=3MJr_jEZwnJR89CDOzPVibNoQzE&hl=en&ei=kv2eTI-oFIL68Abg28iPDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=What%20Happened%20to%20the%20Economy%20Under%20C linton%3F%20alexander%20cockburn&f=false

For anyone else interested in the facts of the Democratic Dynasty, I suggest people start reading books by good leftists instead of liberal tripe that Chomsky cites and NGN posts on here.

There is no difference, at least one that is significant enough to merit the idea that the GOP is a bigger monster than the Dems.

Get over it. There is no argument to made here by the proponents of Chomsky's absurd proposal to vote Dem as a tactical measure. It's falling into the same PR campaign of the Democratic Spin Machine and the scare tactics of liberal writers.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ro8ebd53RX4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Contours+of+Descent:+US+Economic+Fractures+and+ the+Landscape+of+Global+Austerity&source=bl&ots=QAs6fRNfMF&sig=NuMPdzHPsL-FnNEi4a-mnvMnZQs&hl=en&ei=zmqfTNr4AYH58AbCtOinDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

^Robert Pollin, left wing Economist from U-Mass Amherst, smashes the myth of Clintonomics and the even bigger myth that workers fare better under Dems.

[ed miliband]

I don't think there is a single book out on AK Press without a Noam Chomsky introduction and I'm yet to read one that shows he has a clear grasp of anarchism (or, for that matter, Marxism).

[Demogorgon]

From all that you have not put forward a single indication that either Chomsky or myself have said anything good about the Democratic Party. It is simply a fact however that the Republican Party is generally more vicious than the Democratic one. Increases in the wealth gap generally slow under democratic Presidents, particularly when they have cooperative Congresses, and speed up under Republican ones. Unless you reckon a revolution is brewing within the next few years you have to look at the facts dispassionately and ask whether you really want the Republican party over the Democratic Party. Bother are right wing parties but the Democratic one less so. The fact that Chomsky was willing to acknowledge this and said that it might be necessary to vote for Kerry without supporting him is in his favour, not something to hold against him.

I have no interest if lefter than thou posturing. Were I American I would not as a rule vote for the Democratic party, just as I have never voted for the Labour Party here, but if I thought it were necessary to avoid a greater evil, then I would.

[RadioRaheem84]

From all that you have not put forward a single indication that either Chomsky or myself have said anything good about the Democratic Party. It is simply a fact however that the Republican Party is generally more vicious than the Democratic one. Increases in the wealth gap generally slow under democratic Presidents, particularly when they have cooperative Congresses, and speed up under Republican ones. Unless you reckon a revolution is brewing within the next few years you have to look at the facts dispassionately and ask whether you really want the Republican party over the Democratic Party. Bother are right wing parties but the Democratic one less so. The fact that Chomsky was willing to acknowledge this and said that it might be necessary to vote for Kerry without supporting him is in his favour, not something to hold against him.

I have no interest if lefter than thou posturing. Were I American I would not as a rule vote for the Democratic party, just as I have never voted for the Labour Party here, but if I thought it were necessary to avoid a greater evil, then I would.


I just showed how their social/political policies do not differ especially in the light of economic policy and the dictates of capitalism.
How is it simply a "fact" that the GOP is more aggressive than the Dems? The Democrats started Vietnam and perpetuated throughout it's entire existence. One of the most brutal campaigns against a population in the history of the twentieth century.

To say that the Democratic Party is "less" right wing is to believe in the Democratic Spin Machine and to deny the facts that many leftists have reported when examining the national economic policy of the last three decades.

Even with all the hoopla about stimulus packages, the situation keeps growing worse in the States under Obama and the man has brought back the Clintonian team that ran his economic policy. This is disastrous as the Clinton Administration's economic program was the most neo-liberal of any Presidency.

Just what are the facts and just how do these facts trump the scholarship of many leftists that say otherwise? They do not believe the liberal Democratic hype in the "lesser of two evils" crap.

[Demogorgon]

I just showed how their social/political policies do not differ especially in the light of economic policy and the dictates of capitalism.
How is it simply a "fact" that the GOP is more aggressive than the Dems? The Democrats started Vietnam and perpetuated throughout it's entire existence. One of the most brutal campaigns against a population in the history of the twentieth century.

To say that the Democratic Party is "less" right wing is to believe in the Democratic Spin Machine and to deny the facts that many leftists have reported when examining the national economic policy of the last three decades.

Even with all the hoopla about stimulus packages, the situation keeps growing worse in the States under Obama and the man has brought back the Clintonian team that ran his economic policy. This is disastrous as the Clinton Administration's economic program was the most neo-liberal of any Presidency.

Just what are the facts and just how do these facts trump the scholarship of many leftists that say otherwise? They do not believe the liberal Democratic hype in the "lesser of two evils" crap.
I think you have misunderstood these studies if you think they show no difference at all, rather they show that the difference is only small. The fact that there is minimal difference is one incidentally that Chomsky has referred to many times, but of course he has mainstream recognition so we have to interpret everything he says in the worst possible light. Anyway a minimal difference is still a difference and moreover when you have a Republican President from the more right wing end of the party it becomes clearly beneficial to get rid of him.

To accuse me of buying into the spin machine of the Democratic Party is just absurd. I rather suspect I have a better understanding of both parties than you do, I think at any rate though it is you who are buying into cheap slogans when you believe there is no variation whatsoever between the two parties. If you stopped to look at the way economic policy has been developing over the last thirty years, you would see that there is a constant march in a right wing direction, however in the case of America it was clearly moving most quickly during Reagan's Presidency and to a slightly lesser degree under Bush's. In terms of foreign policy, as Chomsky notes, it has been constantly aggressive but at its most aggressive during Republican Presidencies and so forth.

Now I am under no illusion whatsoever that you will read this post of mine fairly. I know perfectly well you will misinterpret me and say I am defending the Democratic Party and that I advocate people voting for it. However for anyone else reading, I am pointing out that there is always variation even between two capitalist parties and at times when the differences become more pronounced, especially on separate issues it sometimes pays to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil. Chomsky has long been critical of American politics in general and he rarely misses a chance to attack the Democratic Party, but because he has mainstream recognition some people feel the need to presume everything he says has the worst possible meaning behind it. That however is frankly childish.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's not childish to disagree with Chomsky. You're the one unfairly characterizing the critique people have of his absurd notion that because there is a marginal difference (which I don't believe) that all of a sudden it would be preferable to have a Dem to a Republican.

I also highly, highly and I repeat highly doubt that you know more of the American political scene than I do as you have clearly bought into the notion that there is a difference between the two parties and that somehow the neo-liberal trend to the right suddenly halts in the American political scene vs the rest of the world, especially if there is a Dem in office. That is just absurd and against the facts. The historical record shows that in terms of foreign policy and domestic policy Dems are just as aggressive as their GOP counterparts, sometimes more so. I would characterize the Clinton Administration as the most aggressive before Bush II.

I have not misunderstood the studies, I just think that they're wrong and bias toward the Dems. I have given you sources that counter the notion that Dems are better, especially under the Clinton regime from credible leftist sources.

Chomsky himself cited Reagan as the most "protectionist" President in the last half of the 20th century and has characterized Clinton as the most neo-liberal President. So how is this a reflection of an eb and flow of economic policy? It's inconsistent. The issue has always been that since the late 70s, economic policy has shifted all policy foreign and domestic to the right and has made the difference between Dems and the GOP less noticeable. The lesser of two evils is no tactic a leftist should embark on.

[Wanted Man]

The many criticisms of Chomsky here are perfectly valid. Nevertheless, he's a solid anti-imperialist commentator and "fellow traveller", if you will. I don't see much of a point in spending a lot of effort and time hating on him. Is he a saint? Is he a perfect revolutionary? No. Is he a good ally? Hell yes.

[RadioRaheem84]

Absolutely, he is a great ally! One of the best

[Demogorgon]

It's not childish to disagree with Chomsky. You're the one unfairly characterizing the critique people have of his absurd notion that because there is a marginal difference (which I don't believe) that all of a sudden it would be preferable to have a Dem to a Republican.

I also highly, highly and I repeat highly doubt that you know more of the American political scene than I do as you have clearly bought into the notion that there is a difference between the two parties and that somehow the neo-liberal trend to the right suddenly halts in the American political scene vs the rest of the world, especially if there is a Dem in office. That is just absurd and against the facts. The historical record shows that in terms of foreign policy and domestic policy Dems are just as aggressive as their GOP counterparts, sometimes more so. I would characterize the Clinton Administration as the most aggressive before Bush II.

I have not misunderstood the studies, I just think that they're wrong and bias toward the Dems. I have given you sources that counter the notion that Dems are better, especially under the Clinton regime from credible leftist sources.

Chomsky himself cited Reagan as the most "protectionist" President in the last half of the 20th century and has characterized Clinton as the most neo-liberal President. So how is this a reflection of an eb and flow of economic policy? It's inconsistent. The issue has always been that since the late 70s, economic policy has shifted all policy foreign and domestic to the right and has made the difference between Dems and the GOP less noticeable. The lesser of two evils is no tactic a leftist should embark on.
Yes I said you would deliberately misinterpret me, and here you have in the most naked terms. How could my explicit statement that there has been a clear rightward trend across Government by both parties in the last thirty years possibly be twisted to me having said there wasn't? Tell me, can you read?

If you are simply going to invent things I have said that no sane person could possibly derive from my words, then there is little point in continuing, but I must warn you it does not make your argument stronger to do so, it just makes you look like you are grasping at straws.

[RadioRaheem84]

If you stopped to look at the way economic policy has been developing over the last thirty years, you would see that there is a constant march in a right wing direction, however in the case of America it was clearly moving most quickly during Reagan's Presidency and to a slightly lesser degree under Bush's.

I took this statement to mean that there was somehow a break in American economic policy taking a right ward shift for some brief moment to "moderate" itself vs. the rest of the world. I disagree.

I can read just fine. Can you make a coherent point, should be the question?

[Demogorgon]

I took this statement to mean that there was somehow a break in American economic policy taking a right ward shift for some brief moment to "moderate" itself vs. the rest of the world. I disagree.

I can read just fine. Can you make a coherent point, should be the question?
Again I fail to see how you could have reached that conclusion. I made a general point about the world then narrowed down to America. If I had been talking about Britain I would have said it was fastest under Thatcher. If New Zealand, I would have said it was fastest under David Lange (really Roger Douglas, but we are using heads of Government as shorthand here), you get where this is going? The point is that the trend speeds up and slows down.

Apart from New Zealand (and again the Clark Government restored the normal trend there), the move to the right is always there but speeds up and slows down depending on the government at the time. That is as true in America as elsewhere. That does not mean that the Democratic Party is somehow good because it does bad things more slowly, but it does mean that there is a difference, if minor.

[Amphictyonis]

I think, judging from the amount of Chomsky threads I've seen in two weeks, we should just make a Chomsky section. ;) LOL

[GPDP]

Chomsky is the reason I became an staunch socialist, and for that I am grateful. That said, he can be quite liberal at times, which is annoying, and at once it was because of him that I thought negatively of Marxism for a good while. As I've learned more, I've "graduated" from the Chomsky school of thought, so to speak, so I have no problem criticizing him anymore. I basically see him as a great introduction to leftist thought, but beyond that, I'd rather look to others for more sophisticated analysis.

[∞]

Chomsky is the reason I became an staunch socialist, and for that I am grateful. That said, he can be quite liberal at times, which is annoying, and at once it was because of him that I thought negatively of Marxism for a good while. As I've learned more, I've "graduated" from the Chomsky school of thought, so to speak, so I have no problem criticizing him anymore. I basically see him as a great introduction to leftist thought, but beyond that, I'd rather look to others for more sophisticated analysis.

Why would you feel that way? Chomsky cites Marx in 99.99% of his works.

[RadioRaheem84]

Come again? :confused: