Criticism of Chomsky?

[Susurrus]

People seem to dislike him for things he's said, calling him everything from "Liberal" to "racist," but what exactly has he said(I want an exact source) that merits such condemnation(and I don't mean from an authoritarian perspective, o M-Ls).

[Broletariat]

He calls for voting for the Democrats basically all the time, he's a liberal in the truest sense of the word, freedom of speech for everyone (obviously not a class based perspective.) etc.

Those two things are so obvious as to not need sourcing.

[Susurrus]

He calls for voting for the Democrats basically all the time, he's a liberal in the truest sense of the word, freedom of speech for everyone (obviously not a class based perspective.) etc.

Those two things are so obvious as to not need sourcing.


I voted green. If I had been in a swing state – this [Massachusetts] is a fixed state – if I had been in a swing state I probably would have held my nose and voted for Obama. Just to keep out the alternative, which is worse. I had no expectations about him and I’m not in the least disillusioned. In fact I wrote about him before the primaries. I thought he was awful.

He doesn't think that it's going to accomplish anything but keeping a worse guy out. How is that liberal?

[Broletariat]

He doesn't think that it's going to accomplish anything but keeping a worse guy out. How is that liberal?

I wouldn't say it's liberal, just stupid. The average american knows that voting is worthless, which is why voter turn-out is so low. The fact that chomsky thinks one is worse than the other shows the fact that he's totally falling for the good-cop bad-cop game.

His liberalness is with his freedom of speech for everyone type crap.

[Susurrus]

I wouldn't say it's liberal, just stupid. The average american knows that voting is worthless, which is why voter turn-out is so low. The fact that chomsky thinks one is worse than the other shows the fact that he's totally falling for the good-cop bad-cop game.

His liberalness is with his freedom of speech for everyone type crap.

Well, his argument for it makes good points:


One can, of course, take the position that we don't care about the problems people face today, and want to think about a possible tomorrow. OK, but then don't pretend to have any interest in human beings and their fate, and stay in the seminar room and intellectual coffee house with other privileged people. Or one can take a much more humane position: I want to work, today, to build a better society for tomorrow -- the classical anarchist position, quite different from the slogans in the question. That's exactly right, and it leads directly to support for the people facing problems today: for enforcement of health and safety regulation, provision of national health insurance, support systems for people who need them, etc. That is not a sufficient condition for organizing for a different and better future, but it is a necessary condition. Anything else will receive the well-merited contempt of people who do not have the luxury to disregard the circumstances in which they live, and try to survive.

Of course, its the same sort of position the socialists took when electing Wilson; that although he would probably bring war, he would have to at least keep his campaign promises for a while before breaking them.

As for the free speech thing, IDK. Maybe.

[Искра]

I don't care much of Chomsky. Politicaly he's irrelevant. Academicaly we wrote good stuff and helped to populize anti-Leninist political tendencies from anarchism to council communism, which is good.

[Broletariat]

Again, Chomsky is just drinking the kool-aid and actually thinks that there's some sort of difference between the politicians. Capital will put into power who it wants to, the fact that he puts so much effort into legitamising the voting booth is quite telling. You can't outvote a multi-million dollar campaign.

The free speech issue is just indicative of his lack of class-analysis and therefor lack of any real revolutionary content.

[Susurrus]

Again, Chomsky is just drinking the kool-aid and actually thinks that there's some sort of difference between the politicians. Capital will put into power who it wants to, the fact that he puts so much effort into legitamising the voting booth is quite telling. You can't outvote a multi-million dollar campaign.

The free speech issue is just indicative of his lack of class-analysis and therefor lack of any real revolutionary content.

He really doesn't think that much of voting, he expects politicians to be politicians(if you look at his interview by RT on OWS he states quite explicitly that the voting process is all about money), but even the Caesars must occasionally give feasts to the masses.

I haven't read enough of him on free speech to really know how to criticize/support it, so I shall lay dormant on that for now.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Again, Chomsky is just drinking the kool-aid and actually thinks that there's some sort of difference between the politicians.



On the eve of the year 2000 presidential elections, a large majority of the population dismissed it as unrelated to their interests and concerns, regarding it as a game played by wealthy contributors and the Public Relations industry, which trains candidates to focus on "values" and "personal qualities," and to keep away from issues. There are good reasons for that. On many important issues, there is a considerable gap between an elite consensus and popular opinion, as polls reveal.


The free speech issue is just indicative of his lack of class-analysis and therefor lack of any real revolutionary content.

Proof?

[∞]

Theres nothing wrong with free-speech.

[∞]

Chomsky also made clear how he views the election in the context of other efforts for change: "Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion — which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist."

You guys are acting like he was waving the liberal flag.

[Kadir Ateş]

Chomsky is a true Liberal in the 18th century sense of the word, and therefore doesn't have a Marxian understanding of Value, which is an important--if not the most important-aspect of capitalist society. He therefore comes off as a Proudhonist (at best) and a radical Liberal (at worst).

[∞]

Scumbag Revleft:

Calls Chomsky a liberal.

Praises Obama-supporters like Zizek.

[Broletariat]

He really doesn't think that much of voting, he expects politicians to be politicians(if you look at his interview by RT on OWS he states quite explicitly that the voting process is all about money), but even the Caesars must occasionally give feasts to the masses.


Sure, but the thing is, all the members of the ruling class are the same, like I said. Capital will put into power who rules best for Capital.


I haven't read enough of him on free speech to really know how to criticize/support it, so I shall lay dormant on that for now.

All you really need to know is that he unambiguously supports free-speech with no class analysis to it.

[Broletariat]

Proof?

1. I don't see how that quote shows that Chomsky recognises no difference between the candidates, and even if it did, his practice is different from his theory.


Proof for what specifically? That he advocates for free speech should go without saying. The fact that he lacks any real class analysis is purported by his unambiguous support of free speech without analysing how obvious it is that freedom of speech is for those with control of the media etc. so it's really a fairly worthless term.

[Broletariat]

Theres nothing wrong with free-speech.

Certainly, so long as it goes with some critical analysis, but from what I understand, Chomsky does not do so.

[Broletariat]

Scumbag Revleft:

Calls Chomsky a liberal.

Praises Obama-supporters like Zizek.

I seem to be the only one here really dogging Chomsky, so I definitely wouldn't say I support Zizek, especially if one of my basis of criticism of Chomsky is that he advocates voting for the Democrats.

[Iron Felix]

The position of the Socialists is exactly that, broseph, freedom of speech for everyone. It's a classical Socialist position. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, universal suffrage, these are all originally Socialist positions that were included in liberal dogma only recently.

And guess what, voting for democrats is better than voting for republicans. Would you rather the people get raped by 10,000 dicks or only 1000, if there is no chance of them not being raped at all?

[Azraella]

It's hit or miss with Chomsky. I don't really like his more liberal attitudes and I think he fails class analysis in many spots, but he has written some pretty decent stuff.

[Franz Fanonipants]

he's an anarchist and thus incapable of using mat'l analysis

[o well this is ok I guess]

Scumbag Revleft:

Calls Chomsky a liberal.

Praises Obama-supporters like Zizek. >implying anyone on revleft likes Zizek

I'm pretty sure even that guy who calls himself a zizekist doesn't like zizek.

[Broletariat]

The position of the Socialists is exactly that, broseph, freedom of speech for everyone. It's a classical Socialist position. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, universal suffrage, these are all originally Socialist positions that were included in liberal dogma only recently.

You should probably study your history, and note that we already have freedom of speech, for those who own the media. You're completely uncritical in your analysis


And guess what, voting for democrats is better than voting for republicans. Would you rather the people get raped by 10,000 dicks or only 1000, if there is no chance of them not being raped at all?

You too drink the ruling-class kool-aid and think there's actually a difference. Good job falling for the same good-cop bad-cop game they've played for at least a century now.

[∞]

You should probably study your history, and note that we already have freedom of speech, for those who own the media. You're completely uncritical in your analysis

Stop using the word analysis like it means something.

I think everyone here is supporting freedom of speech in a socialist society established by the proletarian. And as far as the media goes, shutting down corporate propaganda institutions encourages free-speech, because these institutions hinder it.

[28350]

he worked for the military industrial complex

[Iron Felix]

You should probably study your history, and note that we already have freedom of speech, for those who own the media. You're completely uncritical in your analysis



You too drink the ruling-class kool-aid and think there's actually a difference. Good job falling for the same good-cop bad-cop game they've played for at least a century now.
We don't have freedom of speech, precisely because the media is owned by the elites. Maybe Chomsky is actually against corporate ownership of the media?

There is actually a difference. The Democrats are exactly what Chomsky says they are, lesser of the two evils. You're portraying Chomsky as some kind of crusader of the Democratic Party. No, he isn't pro-Democrat, he's kind of fiercily critical of the Democratic party, broseph.


he worked for the military industrial complex
I was under the assumption that he's a linguistics proffessor in MIT. A very distinguished one at that.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Theres nothing wrong with free-speech.

But there is something wrong with Hate Speech and as far as I know Chomsky doesn't differentiate between the two.

[Kenco Smooth]

I was under the assumption that he's a linguistics proffessor in MIT. A very distinguished one at that.

A great deal of military money goes into university research in areas that may be of use such as linguistics. I'd be surprised if someone of Chomsky's status didn't have links to military money (if only through research funding).

[∞]

But there is something wrong with Hate Speech and as far as I know Chomsky doesn't differentiate between the two.

People who do hate speechb have the freedom to do so. But we have the right to kick their ass.

[Broletariat]

Stop using the word analysis like it means something.

I think everyone here is supporting freedom of speech in a socialist society established by the proletarian. And as far as the media goes, shutting down corporate propaganda institutions encourages free-speech, because these institutions hinder it.

How should I know, they do not say so.

Arguing that shutting down corporate instutitions encourages free-speech becomes a morality/rights argument that just leads to a bunch of bullshit, we should instead be pushing a class based line and not something abstract like "freedom of speech."

[Broletariat]

We don't have freedom of speech, precisely because the media is owned by the elites. Maybe Chomsky is actually against corporate ownership of the media?

This, like I say above, will simply lead to a rights/moralistic argument instead of bringing awareness to a class based position.


There is actually a difference. The Democrats are exactly what Chomsky says they are, lesser of the two evils. You're portraying Chomsky as some kind of crusader of the Democratic Party. No, he isn't pro-Democrat, he's kind of fiercily critical of the Democratic party, broseph.

There's not actually a difference tbh, and if there is Capital is just going to elect who it wants. You can't outvote a multi-million dollar campaign.

[Broletariat]

People who do hate speechb have the freedom to do so. But we have the right to kick their ass.

This is why I hate words like "freedom" and "right" used in this context. It's simply a mechanism for saying "ability."

[W1N5T0N]

chomsky just doesnt see the whole class thing so tightly.
:laugh:

[Ocean Seal]

The position of the Socialists is exactly that, broseph, freedom of speech for everyone. It's a classical Socialist position. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, universal suffrage, these are all originally Socialist positions that were included in liberal dogma only recently.

Yes, back when capitalism was revolutionary.



And guess what, voting for democrats is better than voting for republicans. Would you rather the people get raped by 10,000 dicks or only 1000, if there is no chance of them not being raped at all?
Shitty joke, and there isn't even a marginal difference between the two. They are both supported by capital, and will act in the interests of capital when their time comes. Rhetoric is just rhetoric, you have to analyze class forces, and those class forces aren't different for both sides. Can you tell me something that Obama/Clinton did that a Republican wouldn't have?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

People who do hate speechb have the freedom to do so. But we have the right to kick their ass.

So you would prefer violence to censorship?

[∞]

Yes.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yes.

Why?

[The Idler]

Because some people on revleft want to censor others by force and arrest newspaper editors and claim it as a victory for the class. The working-class aren't stupid and don't need hate speech censoring. If its okay for wannabe censors, its okay for the class.

[Per Levy]

And guess what, voting for democrats is better than voting for republicans. Would you rather the people get raped by 10,000 dicks or only 1000, if there is no chance of them not being raped at all?

so we all should go voting then and vote for the "lesser evil"? in the usa the democrats demonstrated just how much "lesser" their evil is. or lets go to germany for a second, in 1998 the "lesser evil" was voting for the spd(social democratic party) or greens, it turned out that they were in fact the "bigger evil" cutting more welfare programs then their conservative counterparts could hope to do + they particapated in 2 wars, wich was unheard of before in germany.

[Allende]

Definitely vote for the lesser evil every time. You arnt committing treason to the cause or to your own beliefs if you do that. If, to the best of tour judgement you vote for the lesser evil and they turn out to be worse than the other evil then you can't help that! What more could you expect from capitalist parties anyway.

As Chomsky says himself he is no fan of the democrats in America. He criticises Clinton and Obama just as he criticises Ragan the Bush dynasty. He views the whole system as corrupt but does believes that one party is better than the other.

He does not point to a alternative granted, or speak of revolutionary alternatives but does speak highly of Evo Morales, Chaves, Ortega etc, which points to something.

He gets his boldly critical views of the current western systems of supposed 'Democracy' to the masses, which is definitely a good and noble thing, regardless of whose kool-ade he drinks!!


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.483940,-3.197007

[Broletariat]

He views the whole system as corrupt but does believes that one party is better than the other.

And here lies the problem, all factions of the bourgeois are equally reactionary.

[The Idler]

How should I know, they do not say so.

Arguing that shutting down corporate instutitions encourages free-speech becomes a morality/rights argument that just leads to a bunch of bullshit, we should instead be pushing a class based line and not something abstract like "freedom of speech."
Also Manufacturing Consent book and film by Chomsky is a pretty damning class based indictment of the media control.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Can you tell me something that Obama/Clinton did that a Republican wouldn't have?

Repealing don't ask don't tell, the latest healthcare bill, removing restrictions on embryonic cell research...

[ZeroNowhere]

Eh, Chomsky's a utopian at best, so I think that if you're going to blame him it should be for that rather than for his lack of concern for working class autonomy, which isn't really that problematic from his point of view.

[Susurrus]

Eh, Chomsky's a utopian at best, so I think that if you're going to blame him it should be for that rather than for his lack of concern for working class autonomy, which isn't really that problematic from his point of view.

Elaborate please.


and PEOPLE!!! POST SOURCES!!!!!!!!!

[∞]

Why?

Because violence against the racists is justifiable. Censorship of any kind is contrary to a socialist society that promotes liberty and the emancipation of the proletariat.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Because violence against the racists is justifiable. Censorship of any kind is contrary to a socialist society that promotes liberty and the emancipation of the proletariat.

I assume you would also take the stand that violence against homophobes,transphobes,islamophobes,sinophobes,and chauvinists is also justified?

Beating the crap out of your ideological adversaries is beneficiary to the emancipation of the proletariat?

[Misanthrope]

He calls for voting for the Democrats basically all the time, he's a liberal in the truest sense of the word, freedom of speech for everyone (obviously not a class based perspective.) etc.

Those two things are so obvious as to not need sourcing.

Yeah he's anti-capitalist and a liberal...

what?

[∞]

I assume you would also take the stand that violence against homophobes,transphobes,islamophobes,sinophobes,and chauvinists is also justified

Nothing wrong with kicking their arse.


Beating the crap out of your ideological adversaries is beneficiary to the emancipation of the proletariat?

Ideological adversaries can say what they want. If they say something xenophobic and in any way promote xenophobia I don't see a problem if they get their ass kicked for it.

[Belleraphone]

Chomsky is a true Liberal in the 18th century sense of the word.

Haha. Yeah, nah, try again. He's called himself a libertarian socialist and thinks anarcho-syndicalism is the most reasonable way of human organization. He has criticized the right wing libertarian Ron Paul camp. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

As for the voting for the Democratic candidates, that makes sense. He wants to minimize the damage as much as possible. McCain probably wouldn't have repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell and would've almost certainly gone to war with Iran by now (although this administration might be doing that soon, so the point is moot.) Even so, most of the GOP candidates want to mess with Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid whereas most Dems won't touch those programs with a 10 foot stick.


Nothing wrong with kicking their arse.

Yes there is.

[Sam Varriano]

Nothing wrong with kicking their arse.



Ideological adversaries can say what they want. If they say something xenophobic and in any way promote xenophobia I don't see a problem if they get their ass kicked for it.


But they wouldn't be racist in the first place if it wasn't for capitalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Chomsky shares a class analysis of society with us, so that is a good thing. He is vital to the class struggle out there, and even he thinks that if you do not have a radical class analysis of society, then you're not a leftist. I agree.

By radical, I mean against the status quo and think the status quo is barbaric and needs to be transcended. This much Chomsky is a valuable ally.

Where I depart with Chomsky is his insistence on some classical liberal assumptions which lead me to believe that he is less of a materialist and more of an idealist.

When he speaks of freedom of speech, I tend to agree but he couches his terms in liberal jargon that betrays his class analysis.

This nation is so drowned in the propaganda he rails against because of the liberal interpretation of free speech that he supports, emphatically I may add to add to his anti-totalitarian street cred.

Second, his use of the term totalitarianism, red flag there (no pun intended).

His description of the economy as "corporate mercantilism" and not capitalist, leads me to think that he believes or is using the ideal definition of capitalism as a system of free and voluntary exchange touted by right-libertarians.

His almost intellectually dishonest anti-Leninism.

So he is an 18th, early 19th century style classical liberal/Libertarian

[Azraella]

Chomsky is a true Liberal in the 18th century sense of the word, and therefore doesn't have a Marxian understanding of Value, which is an important--if not the most important-aspect of capitalist society. He therefore comes off as a Proudhonist (at best) and a radical Liberal (at worst).

He's specifically an anarcho-syndicalist. (I can't believe I missed this)


he's an anarchist and thus incapable of using mat'l analysis

There are plenty of Marxist inspired anarchists -- I'm one of them. We simply see all forms of hierarchy bad and while class is the most vulgar form of it, racism, sexism, and so forth just generates more hierarchy. In fact, I think that's why Marxist feminism came about was because feminist theory at it's conception was devoid of class analysis. (I argue that Marxism doesn't go far enough)


But there is something wrong with Hate Speech and as far as I know Chomsky doesn't differentiate between the two.
He does.


See, there are conflicting rights. Rights aren't an axiom system [i.e. where there are no contradictions], and if you look closely at them, they often conflict — so you just have to make judgments between them in those cases. And like freedom of speech, another right that people have is to work without getting harassed. So I think laws against sexual harassment in the workplace are perfectly reasonable, because they follow from a reasonable principle — namely, you should be able to work without harassment, period. Sexual or any other kind. On the other hand, sexual harassment in the streets is another story, and I think it has to be treated differently.
>
> Look, in the real free speech discussions, there is nobody who's an absolutist on free speech. People may pretend to be, but they're not. Like, I've never heard of anybody who says that you have a right to come into my house and put up a Nazi poster on the wall. Well, ok, blocking you from doing that is an infringement on your freedom of speech, but it's also a protection of my right to privacy. And those rights sometimes conflict, because rights do conflict, so therefore we just have to make judgments between them — and those judgments are often not easy to make. But I think we should be extremely wary of placing the power to make those determinations in the hands of authorities, who are going to respond to the distribution of power in the society as they carry them out.
>
> — Chomsky, _Understanding Power_, ch. 8




A great deal of military money goes into university research in areas that may be of use such as linguistics. I'd be surprised if someone of Chomsky's status didn't have links to military money (if only through research funding).

Probably not intentionally.

[RadioRaheem84]

A great deal of military money goes into university research in areas that may be of use such as linguistics. I'd be surprised if someone of Chomsky's status didn't have links to military money (if only through research funding).

He does and it was pointed out, but it's largely irrelevant. What is he supposed to do, live in a cave?

His work gets sent to the Pentagon, because the Pentagon funds MIT and MIT pays his salary to do research.

[Jose Gracchus]

He calls for voting for the Democrats basically all the time, he's a liberal in the truest sense of the word, freedom of speech for everyone (obviously not a class based perspective.) etc.

Those two things are so obvious as to not need sourcing.

His active support for 'lesser than evil' pro-Democrat votes, and yarns about FDR and 'mobilization' and political scientists saying people do marginally better under Democrats (how you could really 'prove' which vote was more 'responsible' for this-or-that socioeconomic condition, I have no idea -- we are talking about bourgeois political science) is unconscionable. Especially combined with his flabbyness on actual class struggles and revolutionary politics, the end result can only be a recuperation of Democratic reformism and class-collaborationism.

[Belleraphone]

Where I depart with Chomsky is his insistence on some classical liberal assumptions which lead me to believe that he is less of a materialist and more of an idealist.
Like?



When he speaks of freedom of speech, I tend to agree but he couches his terms in liberal jargon that betrays his class analysis.
What liberal jargon? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, we don't need a Marxist justification as to why freedom of speech is needed, it's an inherent right.



This nation is so drowned in the propaganda he rails against because of the liberal interpretation of free speech that he supports, emphatically I may add to add to his anti-totalitarian street cred.
Once again, I don't see how you can interpret freedom of speech in different ways. The marxist interpretation and the liberal interpretation of freedom of speech are the same - the freedom to say what you want.


Second, his use of the term totalitarianism, red flag there (no pun intended).
Give examples.



His description of the economy as "corporate mercantilism" and not capitalist, leads me to think that he believes or is using the ideal definition of capitalism as a system of free and voluntary exchange touted by right-libertarians.
That accuratley describes our economy, companies outsource many workers and products into the third world and set up sweatshops.



His almost intellectually dishonest anti-Leninism.
I'd say his speech on Lenin was pretty honest.



So he is an 18th, early 19th century style classical liberal/Libertarian

Translation: I don't know Chomsky's views, so I'm going to make stuff up!

[RedGrunt]

I'm not that very knowledgeable regarding Chomsky but I did just come across this work: http://communistvoice.org/25cChomsky.html

I should note it is rather anti-anarchist but focuses this context on Chomsky's, supposed, idealization of small-business/capitalism(no state) > corporate(state sponsored) capitalism and Adam Smith.

[RadioRaheem84]

Like?


What liberal jargon? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, we don't need a Marxist justification as to why freedom of speech is needed, it's an inherent right.


Once again, I don't see how you can interpret freedom of speech in different ways. The marxist interpretation and the liberal interpretation of freedom of speech are the same - the freedom to say what you want.


Give examples.


That accuratley describes our economy, companies outsource many workers and products into the third world and set up sweatshops.


I'd say his speech on Lenin was pretty honest.


Translation: I don't know Chomsky's views, so I'm going to make stuff up!

Yes, liberal jargon. Freedom of speech from the bourgeois stand point lets neo-Nazis have the same amount of free speech as Marxists. It literally gives anyone who can find a platform (usually through funded sources) a big megaphone. Which is why we have creationists and religious fundamentalists with more freedom of speech than scientists. Corporations purchase unlimited free speech and douse the airwaves with propaganda.

Thanks to this liberal interpretation we are backtracking immensely as a society, not progressing.

Lenin, whom I suspect you hate, explains freedom of speech from the liberal standpoint very well.

As Marxists, we experience the wall liberal freedom of speech puts up against us very much.

Totalitarianism is a loaded word that can be stretched to even include liberal democracies, especially the United States. It was an invention by a reactionary political scientist who tried to link communism to fascism.

And last, our current economic system is capitalist, not some idealist form of it to where it deviated from some original concept that was good.

Clearly, you don't have a materialist perspective and are just a Chomsky fan boy.

[Belleraphone]

Yes, liberal jargon. Freedom of speech from the bourgeois stand point lets neo-Nazis have the same amount of free speech as Marxists. It literally gives anyone who can find a platform (usually through funded sources) a big megaphone. Which is why we have creationists and religious fundamentalists with more freedom of speech than scientists. Corporations purchase unlimited free speech and douse the airwaves with propaganda.

If you are confident in your ideology, you should have no problem with neo-nazis getting the same free speech as you do, because if both sides get to make their case, then the marxist will obviously win. Obviously you are right about the corporate speech, but Chomsky has written extensively on this in Manufacturing Consent and how they limit serious discussion. I don't see how his interpretation of free speech limits free speech, it just sounds like you don't know your Chomsky.



Thanks to this liberal interpretation we are backtracking immensely as a society, not progressing.

We are back tracking because we live in a society with free speech and the bourgeois have the money to fund their propaganda. Clearly free speech is the problem, not the funding. :rolleyes:



Lenin, whom I suspect you hate, explains freedom of speech from the liberal standpoint very well.
I don't hate Lenin, but free speech is free speech. I think the Marxist ideology makes the strongest case, and I think everyone should have the right to free speech.



As Marxists, we experience the wall liberal freedom of speech puts up against us very much.
No, we have free speech. It's just that those with too radical of an opinion are ignored by the media and quickly scooted off the stage, but there is nothing wrong with free speech.



Totalitarianism is a loaded word that can be stretched to even include liberal democracies, especially the United States. It was an invention by a reactionary political scientist who tried to link communism to fascism.
What? Wasn't the word totalitarianism invented by Amendola, who wrote against Mussolini? His son was a communist.




And last, our current economic system is capitalist, not some idealist form of it to where it deviated from some original concept that was good.
If I thought any form of capitalism was good, I wouldn't be in the learning section. If you can't see the difference between corporate mercantilism and pure capitalism, that's nobodies fault but your own.



Clearly, you don't have a materialist perspective and are just a Chomsky fan boy.
I CANT THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY SO I'M JUST GOING TO PERSONALLY ATTACK HIM

[NewSocialist]

all the chomsky haters in this thread remind me of the annoying twit ''spartacist'' in this video ZKIu-JjfIXE

[Jose Gracchus]

Do you think spending an iota of political energy toward Kerry's electoral campaign had any outlook worthwhile for the U.S. working-class in 2004?

[Zanthorus]

Zanthorus' 1st law of Revleft: As the number of posts on a Revleft thread about Chomsky increases, the probability of the Chomskyans accusing their opponents of being mudslinging ideological purists detached from reality, and inversely of the anti-Chomskyans accusing their opponents of being liberal idealists, approaches one.

Zanthorus' 2nd law of Revleft: When such a situation occurs, the only remedy is to keep bashing the Chomskyans until they give up or submit.


And guess what, voting for democrats is better than voting for republicans. Would you rather the people get raped by 10,000 dicks or only 1000, if there is no chance of them not being raped at all?

I'm amazed no-one seems to have noticed the fact that this post compares voting for political parties to rape of all things. Usualy you can rely on Revleft to be fairly hawkish when it comes to these kind of comparisons.


Elaborate please.

Well, it should be fairly clear that a core component of Marxism is the belief that the working-class constitutes the modern agent of revolutionary change. Marx asserts the uniqueness of his and Engels' brand of socialism in contrast to previous 'utopian' forms of socialism. These socialists were not blind to the plight of the working-class per se, however they take up a kind of engineer's view of social science, in which it's job is something like identifying problems in society and subsequently aiding in envisioning an ideally designed society in which such problems would cease to exist, and consequently they see the proletarian condition as a kind of issue on the same level as the myriad of other issues that mainstream political commentator's like to chat endlessly about, something to be solved through the intervention of the enlightened political and intellectual classes, re-engineering society in the 'correct' way.

By contrast, Marx attempted to view society in it's organic development, identifying the tendencies already immanent within existing society that would lead to it's own collapse. Rather than seeing the proletarian condition as a problem to be solved by intellectual intervention, he notes that this very condition forces those subjected to it to overcome it by developing various forms of solidarity against the onslaught of capital. It thus appears that the working-class movement in itself, rather than activist circles and propaganda societies, is the key to social change, one which is constantly produced by the internal logic of capitalist society.

I think Zero's point is that most of Chomsky's reasoning for voting for the Democrats seems to revert back to the kind of reasoning utilised by pre-Marxian socialists. The argument seems to be that the 'progressive' candidates are better on certain 'issues' than other candidates, but this kind of thinking about politics should be completely alien to the communist perspective. If we think that the positions of bourgeois candidates on certain issues is at all relevant to the cause, we seem to be going back to the engineer's view of social sciences, where society is like a kind of machine, the components of which we can change wilfully to make things marginally better or worse, or perhaps eventually to remake the nature of the machine entirely. Either way, we would seem to be implicitly denying the Marxian idea that only the working class provides the requisite agency for enforcing social change, and back to the idea that if we enlightened politico's opt for something, that something will occur (And by extension, if us enlightened politico's fail to go for something, we will somehow be morally responsible if the so-called worse evil succeeds).

[RadioRaheem84]

But Zanthorus, judging from Bellaphone's posts and reminding everyone here of a certain NGNM85, taking Chomsky to his logical extent would make one a pretty damn liberal idealist.

What it materialist about calling our economic society today "corporate mercantilism" and not capitalism?

What is materialist about believing that the liberal bourgoise conception of free speech is the same as a Marxist one?

What is materialist in believing in the loaded term "totalitarianism", the term coined by reactionary political scientists to describe both communism and fascism. Yes, as it was pointed out earlier that a noted anti-fascist first used the term (total wiki researching on bella's part I may add), but the term as it is used today is taken from the expanded version of Hannah Arendt's book on the subject. Regardless of who coined it first, the term has so many holes, it's ridiculous and anti-Marxist.

What is so misleading about saying Chomsky is liberal-ish (not liberal)? He himself says he is in the same school as the classical liberals of the 18th and 19th century, following the same logic.

This isn't hating on Chomsky. It's seeing where his analysis falls short and where it's strong.

Why do the Chomsky fans get so damn adament about defending him?

[Zanthorus]

I think you may have missed the point that I'm as critical of Chomsky as anyone here. I just thought it was funny how easy it is to predict the content of these kind of threads. I thought adding the part about the only solution being to make the Chomskyans shut up made it clear that I don't have any issues with Chomsky bashing.

[KurtFF8]

I haven't had time to go through most of the thread but here is a criticism that Slajov Zizek wrote of Chomsky that may be helpful for this thread from Revolution at the Gates Zizek on Lenin The 1917 Writings page 4:


It is crucial to emphasize this relevant of "high theory" for the most concrete political struggle today, when even such an engaged intellectual as Noam Chomsky likes to underscore how unimportant theoretical knowledge is for progressive political struggle : of what help is studying great philosophical and social-theoretical texts in today's struggle against the neoliberal model of globalization? Is it not that we are dealing either with obvious facts (which simply have to be made public, as Chomsky is doing in his numerous political texts), or with such an incomprehensible complexity that we cannot understand anything? If we wish to argue against this anti-theoretical temptation, it is not enough to draw attention to numerous theoretical presuppositions about freedom, power and society, which also abound in Chomsky's political texts: what is arguably more important is how, today, perhaps for the first time in the history of humankind, our daily experience (of biogenetics, ecology, cyberspace and Virtual Reality) compels all of us to confront basic philosophical issues of the nature of freedom and human identity, and so on.

[∞]

Except Zizek is completely irrelevant.

[ZeroNowhere]

Which doesn't discount their specific criticism of Chomsky.

[Susurrus]

@ Zanthorus/Zeronowhere: Well, that argument assumes that Chomsky thinks that the election system will work to create a solution, or that government can work to create a solution. Which he has made clear he doesn't.

@Kurt: So Zizek is saying that Chomsky is using too abstract terms in his arguments, and is criticizing him for saying that theoretical work is not worth much?

[RadioRaheem84]

What is it that most of us in here are missing about Chomsky's work? His supporters are so adament that we're misconstruing what he is saying but at the same time the guy himself is all over the map, he can come off as radical in some areas and then liberal-ish in others.

I've seen no one in here more defended to the very last word than Chomsky when it comes to political theory.

[Susurrus]

What is it that most of us in here are missing about Chomsky's work? His supporters are so adament that we're misconstruing what he is saying but at the same time the guy himself is all over the map, he can come off as radical in some areas and then liberal-ish in others.

I've seen no one in here more defended to the very last word than Chomsky when it comes to political theory.

Well, I have seen him say that he thinks that the political system is a sham and that it isn't the government that must be fixed, it's society. I have not seen him say that we can vote for revolution. Hence, why I asked everyone to post their sources so I can see where the critics are getting their views.

TLDR; I've posted my quotes, now you post yours.

[Belleraphone]

What it materialist about calling our economic society today "corporate mercantilism" and not capitalism?

Materialism is grounded in reality, and Chomsky's description of the American economic system is accurate. If you can't differentiate between the different forms of oppression and class warfare, then that's your own fault.



What is materialist about believing that the liberal bourgoise conception of free speech is the same as a Marxist one?
We've already gone over this.


What is materialist in believing in the loaded term "totalitarianism", the term coined by reactionary political scientists to describe both communism and fascism.
The coiner of it was not reactionary.


Yes, as it was pointed out earlier that a noted anti-fascist first used the term
But you said reactionaries coined it.


(total wiki researching on bella's part I may add),
Actually, I already know about him, I just double checked to make sure he didn't derail communism in his spare time. I think your lack of political and social understanding stems from the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.


but the term as it is used today is taken from the expanded version of Hannah Arendt's book on the subject.
And socialism as it is used today in American politics is also used to describe a terrible society controlled by a big government. Clearly socialism must be reactionary because of how the bourgeois use the word.


Regardless of who coined it first, the term has so many holes, it's ridiculous and anti-Marxist.
The term totalitarianism is anti-Marxist, or totalitarianism is anti-Marxist?



What is so misleading about saying Chomsky is liberal-ish (not liberal)? He himself says he is in the same school as the classical liberals of the 18th and 19th century, following the same logic.

Chomsky says he agrees with Adam Smith that free markets would be good only under conditions of "perfect liberty." And even then it is unlikely to work. He's openly advocated anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism.

[ZeroNowhere]

@ Zanthorus/Zeronowhere: Well, that argument assumes that Chomsky thinks that the election system will work to create a solution, or that government can work to create a solution. Which he has made clear he doesn't.

@Kurt: So Zizek is saying that Chomsky is using too abstract terms in his arguments, and is criticizing him for saying that theoretical work is not worth much?
I think you've misread both critiques.

[Susurrus]

I think you've misread both critiques.

Please correct me. What did I get wrong?

[RadioRaheem84]

Materialism is grounded in reality, and Chomsky's description of the American economic system is accurate. If you can't differentiate between the different forms of oppression and class warfare, then that's your own fault.



"Corporate mercantalism" is not the reality, capitalism is.



We've already gone over this



And you've demonstrated how wrong you are, yes, thank you. No mention of class power in your defense of liberal freedom of speech.

From the APL:

The ideology of the bourgeoisie necessitates that its followers ignore material reality in their evaluation of the “freedoms” and “liberties” their system provides. In theory, having “freedom of speech” and an electoral process constitute a “democracy.” Yet in reality, it isn’t so simple.
The bourgeois analysis ignores the power dynamic, ignores that a small minority has more access to the resources, the legal rights, the prevailing dialogue on current issues, and that those not privileged enough to come from that group will typically not be able to have their voices heard in any significant sense. In class society, “free speech” is augmented to serve the ruling class above all others. Thus, this “freedom” is yet another illusion in the service of power. The only hope for the free expression of working people is in a society wherein they dominate.



Actually, I already know about him, I just double checked to make sure he didn't derail communism in his spare time. I think your lack of political and social understanding stems from the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.



Sure, you "double checked". Who cares?




But you said reactionaries coined it.


Does it really matter who coined it, it's a terrible theory. And yes, Aredent was a liberal social theorist whose work is reactionary trash.



By the APL:

In Arendt’s hands, the major differences between the USSR and Nazi Germany disappeared. Her theory suggested that two completely different political and social ideologies can be considered fundamentally the same when compared with the author’s own—in this case, liberal capitalism, which is the only ideology put forward as not “totalitarian.” Since then, media puppets, right-wing intellectuals and the ruling class in general have made great play with the word “totalitarianism,” a word that one hears blaring from every television.

In fact, Arendt’s theory of “totalitarianism” has never measured up in the real world. There has never been a so-called “totalitarian” society, not even under the fascist dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini, nor could one ever realistically exist.
http://theredphoenixapl.org/2009/09/10/the-myth-of-totalitarianism/




And socialism as it is used today in American politics is also used to describe a terrible society controlled by a big government. Clearly socialism must be reactionary because of how the bourgeois use the word.



No one is missusing totalitarianism though. Hannah Arendt is using the term to describe and compare Nazism to Communism.



The term totalitarianism is anti-Marxist, or totalitarianism is anti-Marxist?



It's no term for a Marxist to assert. Happy?


Chomsky says he agrees with Adam Smith that free markets would be good only under conditions of "perfect liberty." And even then it is unlikely to work. He's openly advocated anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism.

He said he is of the classical liberal tradition and is following their logic to it's fullest extent.

[∞]

Whatever his political views are, he is foremost a linguist. A brilliant one at that.

[RadioRaheem84]

Chomsky is a great asset for the left to have, no question. His work is brilliant but as one dives deeper into social and political theory, especially Marxism he begins to fall short. Still, nothing wrong with Chomsky in my opinion, a great leftist.

[KurtFF8]

Except Zizek is completely irrelevant.

As opposed to... Chomsky? Really?


@Kurt: So Zizek is saying that Chomsky is using too abstract terms in his arguments, and is criticizing him for saying that theoretical work is not worth much?

No, I think Zizek is trying to say that Chomsky claims that the "facts just speak for themselves" and that Chomsky discounts the need for a theoretical understanding of how to analyze those facts.

[∞]

No, I think Zizek is trying to say that Chomsky claims that the "facts just speak for themselves" and that Chomsky discounts the need for a theoretical understanding of how to analyze those facts.

Thats why hes irrelevant.

The facts are much more important than theoretical gibberish that Zizek commonly associates himself with. Hes really a maniac if hes trying to get Chomsky to act more like him. How many people cite Zizek to make arguments against imperialism?

[Tim Finnegan]

Thats why hes irrelevant.

The facts are much more important than theoretical gibberish that Zizek commonly associates himself with. Hes really a maniac if hes trying to get Chomsky to act more like him.
Did he suggest anything of this kind? His criticism, as I understood it, is that Chomsky's rejection of theory is ultimately superficial, because his "obvious facts" are built upon a host of theoretical assumptions that are no less theoretical for being more popularly held. What he wants is for Chomsky to acknowledge this, not to start talking in the language of Lacanian psychoanalysis, or what have you,


How many people cite Zizek to make arguments against imperialism?
How many people would cite Chomsky to make arguments about the correct manufacture of suspension bridges? The fact that somebody has not written in a particular, arbitrarily selected field hardly constitutes reasonable grounds for proclaiming their irrelevance.

(And, to make it clear, I'm not particularly for or against either Chomsky or Zizek. Both have interesting things to say, both can occasionally talk complete codswallop. I take them as they come. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif)

[Belleraphone]

"Corporate mercantalism" is not the reality, capitalism is.

If you don't recognize how corporations have changed how capitalism is operated, you have your head in the sand.



And you've demonstrated how wrong you are, yes, thank you. No mention of class power in your defense of liberal freedom of speech.
Holy shit, he thinks everyone should have free speech when he was asked about it, he was not asked what role the bourgeois plays in limiting speech, he just said everyone should have free speech. Not everything needs an allusion to class warfare. Anyway, if you knew anything about Chomsky, he writes extensively about the bourgeois controlling the media in Manufacturing Consent. But you don't seem to know much of anything.



Sure, you "double checked". Who cares?

Well, you accused me of not knowing anything about totalitarianism, I knew the founder of that theory because I wrote a paper on him. But it's evident to me that someone that did a 5 second google search knows more about it than you.



Does it really matter who coined it, it's a terrible theory. And yes, Aredent was a liberal social theorist whose work is reactionary trash.
Why is it a terrible theory? Are you saying totalitarianism does not exist or never existed?



No one is missusing totalitarianism though. Hannah Arendt is using the term to describe and compare Nazism to Communism.
Then wouldn't Hannah be misusing totalitarianism if he's linking it to communism?



It's no term for a Marxist to assert. Happy?

Why not?



He said he is of the classical liberal tradition and is following their logic to it's fullest extent.

Source?

[RadioRaheem84]

If you don't recognize how corporations have changed how capitalism is operated, you have your head in the sand.You're describing capitalism in it's ideal form propagated by classical liberals, liberals, conservatives and libertarians.

You're not describing it in the way Marx did which was a systemic analysis of it's mode of production. That has remained and will always remain until the system is transcended.

The creation of corporations did nothing to fundamentally change the initial structure of capitalism.

I thought you were already schooled about this in the theory forum?


Holy shit, he thinks everyone should have free speech when he was asked about it, he was not asked what role the bourgeois plays in limiting speech, he just said everyone should have free speech. Not everything needs an allusion to class warfare. Anyway, if you knew anything about Chomsky, he writes extensively about the bourgeois controlling the media in Manufacturing Consent. But you don't seem to know much of anything. You and I both know that he goes much deeper than that when asked about freedom of speech.

Manufacturing Consent is a brilliant expose of the US propaganda system but lacks a real social theory behind it. Again, something that he has a habit of discounting.


Well, you accused me of not knowing anything about totalitarianism, I knew the founder of that theory because I wrote a paper on him. But it's evident to me that someone that did a 5 second google search knows more about it than you.It doesn't matter if you wrote a book about it. The term is loaded and the theory is full of holes.


Why is it a terrible theory? Read the article I posted.


Are you saying totalitarianism does not exist or never existed? Yes.


Then wouldn't Hannah be misusing totalitarianism if he's linking it to communism?No and she was mostly using it toward 'Stalinism'.


Why not? Because it presupposes liberal jargon. Notice that it excludes liberal democracies.


Source? http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm


1. What are the intellectual roots of anarchist thought, and what movements have developed and animated it throughout history?
and his response:
Chomsky: The currents of anarchist thought that interest me (there are many) have their roots, I think, in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and even trace back in interesting ways to the scientific revolution of the 17th century, including aspects that are often considered reactionary, like Cartesian rationalism.
There is plenty more too.

Look, you keep your brazen attitude to yourself and actually debate. Clearly, you're so confident in Chomsky being infallible that you feel the need to be brazen in every response.

NGNM85 Jr. over here. :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

Did he suggest anything of this kind? His criticism, as I understood it, is that Chomsky's rejection of theory is ultimately superficial, because his "obvious facts" are built upon a host of theoretical assumptions that are no less theoretical for being more popularly held. What he wants is for Chomsky to acknowledge this, not to start talking in the language of Lacanian psychoanalysis, or what have you,

Damn, this is probably the best post yet. Good job.

But this makes me think of Chomsky as being more liberal-ish if he think the facts are so "self evident". Am I wrong?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Chomsky is an academic, it's not suprising that he has a hard-on for free speech. Honestly the freedom of speech controversy is boring as hell...the wanna-be censors who would end up banning everything from Beethoven to Scrooge McDuck a la Cultural Revolution can go straight to non-existent hell, as are the people who cling to some bizarre notion of "freedom of speech" that's totally divorced from any context. You go to hell, you go to hell and you die.

My criticism of Chomsky:

1) his view of anarchism is that liberalism and socialism had sex, and then they had a beautiful lil' baby that they named anarchism. This bastard child of liberalism and socialism would be best represented by people like Rudolf Rocker, and would see it's ultimate vision of society best represented in Spain, from about 1936-1938.

I don't agree with that vision of anarchism at all, although Chomsky is not the only person to argue for it.

2) some of his lazy half-assed attempts to lump anarchism, left communism and "Luxemburgism" into one camp.

[black magick hustla]

i dont think he is totally bad but he is more like a boring writer to me. he is one of those oldskool "liberal" anarchists. like ES said, rudolf rocker types. the discussion he had with foucault was very revealing, to say the least. chomsky believes in human rights and justice and all that liberal bullshit. he is an old man that hasn't gotten the memo about the death of god and the posmodern reconfiguration of capital.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

what exactly has he said(I want an exact source) that merits such condemnation(and I don't mean from an authoritarian perspective, o M-Ls).

"The United States is the greatest country in the world."

"In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations. The United States comes closer to classlessness in terms of interpersonal relations than virtually any society."

"Vote for John Kerry."

"Vote for Barrack Obama."

[KurtFF8]

Thats why hes irrelevant.

The facts are much more important than theoretical gibberish that Zizek commonly associates himself with. Hes really a maniac if hes trying to get Chomsky to act more like him. How many people cite Zizek to make arguments against imperialism?

How is Zizek "irrelevant"? He's probably one of the most famous living Marxist theorists right now and within the academic world he's still quite relevant. He draws huge crowds when he speaks at either a conference or Occupy Wall St, so I wouldn't really call him "irrelevant" because that's just not accurate. I think a lot of this has to come from a strange Left-wing anti-intellectualism. A lot of the "oh his blah blah theory stuff" type criticism could be applied to most important Marxist thinkers as well.

And the idea that the "facts just speak for themselves" is actually a pretty weak position. People like Marx, Lenin, Luxembourg, etc. knew that we need theory to interpret those facts. Especially in terms of planning a way forward. The latter part here (planning a way forward) is where Chomsky doesn't have much to contribute.


Damn, this is probably the best post yet. Good job.

But this makes me think of Chomsky as being more liberal-ish if he think the facts are so "self evident". Am I wrong?

I would say that Chomsky does say quite a few things that are very liberal (from what I understand he is even a DSA member or at least speaks at their conferences). But he claims he is an anti-capitalist, and some of what he says does help the arguments of other anti-capitalists.

[RadioRaheem84]

I would say that Chomsky does say quite a few things that are very liberal (from what I understand he is even a DSA member or at least speaks at their conferences). But he claims he is an anti-capitalist, and some of what he says does help the arguments of other anti-capitalists.


What ever happened to the DSA? When did it become so liberal?

I remember first checking them out about six years ago and they had a pic of Karl Marx on their website and spoke of Marxism. That's all gone now.

[Lucretia]

Repealing don't ask don't tell, the latest healthcare bill, removing restrictions on embryonic cell research...

The health insurance reform bill was a recycled version of what the Republicans proposed in the early 1990s. You're actually proving the point you're trying to argue against.

And, yes, Obama wants to strengthen the imperial military by letting more people serve in it. How progressive. This is like saying Hitler was acting progressive if he let gypsies join the SS.

[RadioRaheem84]

The health insurance reform bill was a recycled version of the Republican from the early 1990s. You're actually proving the point you're trying to argue against.

And, yes, Obama wants to strengthen the imperial military by letting more people serve in it. How progressive.


People compared Obama's bill to Romney's State health care bill, and universal healthcare was off the table from the very start. There was nothing to support and plenty to oppose. It was a bill that would've made healthcare worse than it is now.

Secondly, Obama's approach to war is to engage in all of these mini-covert wars and build alliances with the governments (usually dsspotic) in order to weed out Islamist elements there.

So the difference between Bush and Obama was never about the rationale for war, but a question of tactic/method.

[KurtFF8]

What ever happened to the DSA? When did it become so liberal?

I remember first checking them out about six years ago and they had a pic of Karl Marx on their website and spoke of Marxism. That's all gone now.

I don't know too much, but they are involved in quite a few thing still though. (e.g. Occupy Wall St)

[Belleraphone]

You're describing capitalism in it's ideal form propagated by classical liberals, liberals, conservatives and libertarians.

You're not describing it in the way Marx did which was a systemic analysis of it's mode of production. That has remained and will always remain until the system is transcended.

The creation of corporations did nothing to fundamentally change the initial structure of capitalism.
I thought you were already schooled about this in the theory forum? I was schooled because I misinterpreted what Marx meant by "bourgeois." Most people on that thread iirc agreed that corporations are dominant though.


You and I both know that he goes much deeper than that when asked about freedom of speech.

Manufacturing Consent is a brilliant expose of the US propaganda system but lacks a real social theory behind it. Again, something that he has a habit of discounting. The book was mostly foriegn policy, but his introduction has an example of how the media completely undermined the interests of working people by supporting NAFTA. One book, Chomsky on Anarchism, talks about social classes and such. I do agree with you that he does not talk about the class system enough, but he does certainly hold those beliefs. Politically, he is mostly known for US foriegn policy. (Except maybe MC.) I do think he needs to talk about the classes more, but I suspect he does not want to be marginalized more than he already is.




It doesn't matter if you wrote a book about it. The term is loaded and the theory is full of holes. I know that, I'm just saying you accused me of doing a quick wiki search to disprove what you said. I was just saying that I actually knew about the person who coined the term and he wasn't reactionary, but you had no idea who/what you were talking about.


Yes.
Lol. You don't think Nazi Germany was totalitarian?



Because it presupposes liberal jargon. Notice that it excludes liberal democracies. Totalitarianism is a single party system.


http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm
There is plenty more too.
You do realize he's not talking about every Enlightenment thinker right? Rousseau agreed that inequality was because of property, that's just one example.


Look, you keep your brazen attitude to yourself and actually debate.Don't personally attack me, then.



Clearly, you're so confident in Chomsky being infallible that you feel the need to be brazen in every response. I know that Chomsky isn't infallible. I've disagreed with him before, like encouraging Ralph Nader not to run in 2004 because it helps Bush get elected.

[Tim Finnegan]

Totalitarianism is a single party system.
Please stop trying. http://forum.blu-ray.com/images/smilies/imported/unimpressed.gif

[Belleraphone]

Please stop trying. http://forum.blu-ray.com/images/smilies/imported/unimpressed.gif
I realize that most parties represent bourgeois interests (and that totalitarianism is more than just by a single party system), but totalitarianism is a single party system and some parties are more reactionary than others, giving the working man even less of a choice in capitalist representative democracies.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I realize that most parties represent bourgeois interests (and that totalitarianism is more than just by a single party system), but totalitarianism is a single party system and some parties are more reactionary than others, giving the working man even less of a choice in capitalist representative democracies.

Totalitarianism isn't a single party system. It's a system where there is a complete absense of plurality. Capitalist democracies are preferable to totalitarian states because they allow for the independent organization of labor and other interest groups.

[Belleraphone]

Totalitarianism isn't a single party system. It's a system where there is a complete absense of plurality. Capitalist democracies are preferable to totalitarian states because they allow for the independent organization of labor and other interest groups.
I realize that. I just meant that single parties are characteristic of totalitarian states, I did not say that was the only characteristic.

[Tim Finnegan]

Can we please stop talking about things which don't and can't exist?

[Renegade Saint]

What ever happened to the DSA? When did it become so liberal?

I remember first checking them out about six years ago and they had a pic of Karl Marx on their website and spoke of Marxism. That's all gone now.
The one's I've argued with on facebook are mostly anti-Marx, or at least anything that could be called actually Marxist. There's a fairly sharp divide between the Marxists in the group and the out and out social democrats. It makes for fun arguments about things like the abolition of private property and the Libya war and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

(I didn't intend this to be my first post, but I got a notification that zero-posters are being deleted.

[Susurrus]

Adjective
totalitarian (comparative more totalitarian, superlative most totalitarian)
A system of government where the people have virtually no authority and the state wields absolute control of every aspect of the country, socially, financially and politically. For example a dictatorship such as the Nazi regime.

Now can we PLEASE move on?

[RadioRaheem84]

Now can we PLEASE move on?

Doesn't exist.

[Zanthorus]

Now can we PLEASE move on?

If the argument about the existence of 'totalitarianism' was merely an argument about whether or not the word was in the dictionary, then perhaps. But the term totalitarianism gained currency in academic discourse during the cold war as a way of lumping together western democracies on one side and the so-called 'totalitarian' societies on the other, with Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany being considered exemplars of the latter type. When discussing the issue in the past it's generally been noted that the theory obscures the recognition of structural differences in the way in which Russian and German societies operated at the time, as well as being innacurate in that the state in those societies did not in fact wield absolute control but had to engage in the business of balancing competing factional interests in order to maintain itself (And anyway the idea that the state could hold absolute power over society implies that it could raise itself completely above any kind of class interest, which would mean Marxism would need a fundamental rethink).

Previous threads where the issue has been discussed for reference:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-support-t105472/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/totalitarianism-t115932/index.html?t=115932&highlight=Totalitarianism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/discarding-totalitarianism-relevance-t140232/index.html?t=140232&highlight=Totalitarianism

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I think that Chomsky has an amazing analysis of foreign policy and the way the media works that is extremely valuable and filled with knowledge.

As far as his political analysis goes, well... :D

[x359594]

I think that Chomsky has an amazing analysis of foreign policy and the way the media works that is extremely valuable and filled with knowledge...

With Chomsky it's necessary to separate the wheat from the chafe, and I think you've identified his strong points.

He's particularly insightful when it comes to specific cases of US military intervention, and he usually starts by deconstructing the corporate media's spin on the latest act of aggression and then exposing the underlying motives for it.