Noam Chomsky and his views

[crazy comie]

what political theaory does he belive in

[Blackberry]

Anarchism.

[SonofRage]

Anarchism as in Libertarian Socialism

[commie kg]

crazy comie, shoot him an email.

[email protected]

[driver]

I thoroughly enjoy his ideas and views. I am quite a fan of the mans work. I have just finished one his older books, Manufacturing Consent as well as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Contradictions of US Policy (<-- great read, its a pamphlet)

END&#33;

[flayer2]

yeah, that sounds about right. Leftist libertarian pacifist. Anti imperialism is the driving force behind Noam chomsky so he should be popular with commies. He did jump on the anti Fidel bandwagon after those excecutions. That was cos of his pacifism.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 06:58 PM
yeah, that sounds about right. Leftist libertarian pacifist. Anti imperialism is the driving force behind Noam chomsky so he should be popular with commies. He did jump on the anti Fidel bandwagon after those excecutions. That was cos of his pacifism.
No, he dos not describe himself as a libertarian socialist. I&#39;ll even quote him from Power and Prospects.

"My personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. Before proceeding, I have to clarify what I mean by that. I do not mean the version of classical liberialism that has bee reconstructed for ideological purposes, but the original, before it was broken on the rocks of rising capitalism, as Rudolf Rocker put it in his work on anarchosyndicalism 60 years ago -- rather accurately, I think."

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 02:04 AM

No, he dos not describe himself as a libertarian socialist.
You are mistaken. Here is a Chomsky quote from an intereview he gave to a publication called "PeaceWorks"

PeaceWORKS: Dr. Chomsky, why do you call yourself a "libertarian anarchist" rather than a plain "anarchist"?

Noam Chomsky: The term I usually use is "libertarian socialist," which is fairly standard usage in the anarchist tradition. Anarchism covers a pretty broad range. One major sector in Europe regarded itself as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement. Unfortunately, the term "libertarian" has a different usage in the United States, which departs from the tradition. Here the term "libertarian" means anarcho- capitalist.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Oct 31 2003, 07:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SonofRage @ Oct 31 2003, 07:38 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 02:04 AM

No, he dos not describe himself as a libertarian socialist.
You are mistaken. Here is a Chomsky quote from an intereview he gave to a publication called "PeaceWorks"

PeaceWORKS: Dr. Chomsky, why do you call yourself a "libertarian anarchist" rather than a plain "anarchist"?

Noam Chomsky: The term I usually use is "libertarian socialist," which is fairly standard usage in the anarchist tradition. Anarchism covers a pretty broad range. One major sector in Europe regarded itself as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement. Unfortunately, the term "libertarian" has a different usage in the United States, which departs from the tradition. Here the term "libertarian" means anarcho- capitalist. [/b]
How can I be mistaken if I quoted Noam Chomsky?

Anyhow, I believe the date of that interview is May 9, 1994. The statement I quote was in 1996 -- more up to date with his current views.

[crazy comie]

thanks evry one

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 04:17 AM

How can I be mistaken if I quoted Noam Chomsky?

Anyhow, I believe the date of that interview is May 9, 1994. The statement I quote was in 1996 -- more up to date with his current views.
Your quote just has him using another term, it doesn&#39;t have him saying "I am not a libertarian socialist."

How can it be more up to date with his current views if the term "Libertarian Socialist" is synonymous with Anarchist? The reason that term is used it to distinguis it from the "dictionary definition" of anarchist which is not an accurate representation of Anarchy as a political philosophy.

In an interview from 1996 for "Red & Black Revolution" Chomsky again spoke of libertarian socialism:

"RBR: A number of people have noted that you use the term &#39;libertarian socialist&#39; in the same context as you use the word &#39;anarchism&#39;. Do you see these terms as essentially similar? Is anarchism a type of socialism to you? The description has been used before that anarchism is equivalent to socialism with freedom. Would you agree with this basic equation?

CHOMSKY: The introduction to Guerin&#39;s book that you mentioned opens with a quote from an anarchist sympathiser a century ago, who says that anarchism has a broad back, and endures anything. One major element has been what has traditionally been called &#39;libertarian socialism&#39;. I&#39;ve tried to explain there and elsewhere what I mean by that, stressing that it&#39;s hardly original; I&#39;m taking the ideas from leading figures in the anarchist movement whom I quote, and who rather consistently describe themselves as socialists, while harshly condemning the &#39;new class&#39; of radical intellectuals who seek to attain state power in the course of popular struggle and to become the vicious Red bureaucracy of which Bakunin warned; what&#39;s often called &#39;socialism&#39;. I rather agree with Rudolf Rocker&#39;s perception that these (quite central) tendencies in anarchism draw from the best of Enlightenment and classical liberal thought, well beyond what he described. In fact, as I&#39;ve tried to show they contrast sharply with Marxist-Leninist doctrine and practice, the &#39;libertarian&#39; doctrines that are fashionable in the US and UK particularly, and other contemporary ideologies, all of which seem to me to reduce to advocacy of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny. "

In another 1996 interview with Tom Lane:

" Tom: Anarchism is sometimes called libertarian socialism -- How does it differ from other ideologies that are often associated with socialism, such as Leninism?

Chomsky: Leninist doctrine holds that a vanguard Party should assume state power and drive the population to economic development, and, by some miracle that is unexplained, to freedom and justice. It is an ideology that naturally appeals greatly to the radical intelligentsia, to whom it affords a justification for their role as state managers. I can&#39;t see any reason -- either in logic or history -- to take it seriously. Libertarian socialism (including a substantial mainstream of Marxism) dismissed all of this with contempt, quite rightly. "

[Blackberry]

Your quote just has him using another term, it doesn&#39;t have him saying "I am not a libertarian socialist."

But he doesn&#39;t say he is, does he?

But do you see my problem? The term "libertarian socialism" isn&#39;t a term used by anarchists -- just intellectuals like himself, and he rarely uses it now.

As your latest quotation proves, he doesn&#39;t like using the term "Liberatiarian Socialism" anymore. He seems to have had a rather hard time explaining it in various interviews&#33; Thus it is more accurate to describe his ideology as Anarchism, for he has taken his ideas from anarchists and different tendencies of Anarchism.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2003, 01:08 PM
Your quote just has him using another term, it doesn&#39;t have him saying "I am not a libertarian socialist."

But he doesn&#39;t say he is, does he?

But do you see my problem? The term "libertarian socialism" isn&#39;t a term used by anarchists -- just intellectuals like himself, and he rarely uses it now.

As your latest quotation proves, he doesn&#39;t like using the term "Liberatiarian Socialism" anymore. He seems to have had a rather hard time explaining it in various interviews&#33; Thus it is more accurate to describe his ideology as Anarchism, for he has taken his ideas from anarchists and different tendencies of Anarchism.
And besides, it was you who first deputed my claim that Chomsky was anarchist. Wouldn&#39;t it have been better not to dispute it, if it is the "same thing"?

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 08:09 PM
[QUOTE=Comrade James,Nov 1 2003, 01:08 PM]
And besides, it was you who first deputed my claim that Chomsky was anarchist. Wouldn&#39;t it have been better not to dispute it, if it is the "same thing"?
Oh I wasn&#39;t disputing your claim, I was just clarifying it. When some people hear the term "Anarchists" some will think of either the dictionary definition or they will think of an Anarcho-Capitalist. My point in using the term "Libertarian Socialism" was to make it clear that this is a left-wing ideology and not the Ayn Rand US-style Libertarian Anarchist.

I&#39;ve actually heard Chomsky describe himself as a Libertarian Socialist. I&#39;ve heard the words come from his own lips. If you look him up in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky) it even says that he uses this description.

It&#39;s kind of a silly argument though since they are synonymous terms :D . It&#39;s like arguing if something is white or bone-colored. However, Chomsky could easily be described as an Anarcho-Syndicalist if you listen to him describe his ideas.

[Blackberry]

I will now say that Chomsky is not an anarchist. I have found out more about him, and I can tell you, he is not an anarchist. Instead of giving me flimsy evidence which I can easily refute, and then you can refute, etc. etc. with one of his own quotes, you could have told me that he has supported candidates in bourgeois elections.

D&#39;oh&#33;

[Bolshevika]

Chomsky is semi-progressive and is a syndacalist. Although I disagree with practically all his ideas, he does provide good information on things like the Palestine/Israel situation.

[blackemma]

Chomsky is a progressive, a realist, and a pacifist. In Understand Power he made a defense of the welfare state and why pro-democracy parties like the Green Party ought to be supported. When will people realize that another Leninist revolution is not going to happen in advanced capitalist societies? Change will come from below and it will likely be reformist at the beginning. Only when all forms of struggle, including democratic ones, have been exhausted, would a revolution happen and I don&#39;t think those options have been exhausted just yet and neither does Chomsky.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2003, 02:08 AM
The term "libertarian socialism" isn&#39;t a term used by anarchists

Yes it is. See http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html and http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI1.html

Chomsky identifies as a libertarian socialist / anarchist (the two are the same). He&#39;s not a very militant or consistent anarchist, though. He basically doesn&#39;t think the revolution is going to happen in our lifetime and thinks the welfare state is the best we can do. Which is wrong because the welfare state is a way of warding off revolution, a reaction against revolutionary movements. If a welfare state is possible then so is revolution. And Chomsky isn&#39;t a pacifist, he has defended the use of force in certain circumstances.

[redstar2000]

Only when all forms of struggle, including democratic ones, have been exhausted, would a revolution happen and I don&#39;t think those options have been exhausted just yet and neither does Chomsky.

The "theory" behind this is seldom stated openly, but it goes something like this...

1. Workers are not very bright.

2. They can only learn one "lesson of history" at a time...they progress by "stages".

3. Right now they are "in the stage" where they still believe that bourgeois democracy is legitimate and it is really "possible" to "win reforms" by electing "progressive candidates".

4. Therefore, those who want revolution must first be vigorous reformists, running and electing "progressive" candidates and "using" bourgeois elections "for all they are worth".

5. This means, of course, winning those who have "dropped out" of bourgeois electoral politics (50% of the electorate...mostly workers) to return to the "struggle". It means at least implying strongly if not actually saying that reforms can be won in bourgeois electoral politics.

6. At some indefinite point in the future, workers will "realize" that this is not possible and will then be open to the revolutionary alternative.

7. And because we have been such "good reformists", the workers will now listen to "us" when we speak of the need for revolution.

This has been, roughly speaking, the Leninist "strategy" in the advanced capitalist countries for three-quarters of a century.

Since it meshes rather neatly with the "left" reformism of the capitalist class (except for that revolution stuff...which is soft-pedaled anyway), such a strategy has occasionally achieved "mass" appeal--the winning of a lot of votes, the election of a lot of "progressives", and a large membership in the Leninist party. The Communist Parties of France and Italy did quite well in this regard.

Trotskyists also like this strategy, even though they&#39;ve never had as much success with it as Stalinists.

The consequence is, as you might expect, that the Leninist "revolutionaries" in the advanced capitalist countries are now almost entirely reformist in their practice.

And the fallacy is, of course, in the first two points above, both of which are unsupported by real evidence. They were always assumptions...and someone even more cynical than me might go so far as to say that they were and are very convenient assumptions.

If you have a career in electoral politics in mind.

Chomsky for Congress?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas