Finally, I got Chomsky's opinion on Marx. [Archive]

Belleraphone

9th January 2012, 03:36

But he doesn't answer to the original question, which is why he doesn't talk about Marx. Is this accurate, though? I've never actually read anything by Chomsky, but I've seen him give talks about the Soviet Union as well as notable Marxists. But I think it's cool that you got a response from him.
Nah he always does this, I'll ask him a series of questions and he'll half-answer them (He spends a few hours a day answering emails.) A lot of people here thought that Chomsky hated Marx, so I wanted clarification. At least he answered the first one and partially the second one.

You can email him at [email protected], don't expect an in-depth answer though, he spends a LOT of time doing this.

Here are some others I asked him int he past

I will be applying to college soon and I was wondering if you could reference me to some good political science schools. Normally I would just google the best ones, but I'm afraid many of them are biased towards US policy in comparative government and international relations. Any personal recommendations or a list of decent programs? Response
https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
I really don’t know. The best approach I can think of is to find work that you like and check the programs in which the authors teach. No doubt bias is extreme almost everywhere, though there are scattered exceptions.

As you know many western media sources, especially in the US, are biased and are often funded by corporate dollars. On an international level, what are good news sources for each region? For example, in your opinion, what's the best news source on South America? The Middle East? Europe? The list goes on. Your reply would be very useful and would help me find the truth out much easier.https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
I don’t think the US is very different from elsewhere, frankly. If I was able to read only one newspaper, it would be the NY Times, despite the distortions and selectivity.

On South America, there’s a good Mexican newspaper, La Jornada, which is online (but Spanish). The Miami Herald sometimes carries more Latin American news than most. There is no really good daily. There are journals that provide a lot of good information: NACLA Report on the Americas, and others.

Middle East? The London Financial Times is often good. Again, there are very good journals, like MERIP reports.

Europe is also covered pretty well by the Financial Times, and of course national newspapers in Europe cover their own countries.

I’m afraid there is no simple answer to your queries, at least none that I know. Takes work.

NC

Ostrinski

9th January 2012, 03:56

Well I don't like his politics but at least he's a decent person.

Rafiq

9th January 2012, 14:55

Did he forget to mention how Marx rooted out the systematic contradictions within capitalism, provides the left with an amoral scientific non utopian understanding of capitalism and class, of human history? Or how marx carved the way for the destruction of bourgeois thought, which was a contributing basis for the illusionary veils of liberalism? I wouldn't waste time talking about Marx, Marxism, Anarchism or socialism with chomsky. He's a closet Liberal and a champion of bourgeois thought. His transition from revolutionary anarchism to Liberalism fooled many Left begginers into using him as a way to find middle ground with bourgeois intellectuals: "Yes, you are right about Stalin eating babies and the provisiomal govt being goood, Soviet Union was not REAL socialism, becuzz da workers didnt own da MEANS OF PEODUCTION!!!1111"

Revolutionair

9th January 2012, 15:08

the provisiomal govt being goood

Where did he say that?

Soviet Union was not REAL socialism, becuzz da workers didnt own da MEANS OF PEODUCTION!!!1111

Noam Chomsky is pro-worker. I consider him to be an anarchist and a communist (as in: wants a communist society). The Soviet Union was NOT a workers' state because it wasn't ruled by the workers, it was ruled by capitalists.

So simplified:
1. Chomsky is pro-worker.
2. USSR is anti-worker.
3. Chomsky is anti-USSR.

Rafiq, so far Chomsky has been far more successful in making the left more relevant in this world than your 'OMFG WE NEED MORE TERROR' bullshit.

Bronco

9th January 2012, 15:16

Soviet Union was not REAL socialism, becuzz da workers didnt own da MEANS OF PEODUCTION!!!1111"

I don't see why you're trying to make that sound like a ridiculous statement, it's entirely correct

Os Cangaceiros

9th January 2012, 15:23

Rafiq

9th January 2012, 16:17

I don't see why you're trying to make that sound like a ridiculous statement, it's entirely correct

Because saying socialism is workers owning the MEANS of production is basically sugurcoating radical change in favor of a new capitalist mode of production where workers cooperativly "own" the means of production yet contradictions like commodity production persisit.

Saying "socialism = workers owning MOP" is unscientific and useless. We don't oppose the USSR because it wasn't "socialist" (an Idea, a movement) we oppose it because it was not radical ENOUGH, i.e. It was a bourgeois state in which the capitalist mode of production persisted. The "means" of production is really just a part of a larger MODE of how things are produced.

It is a ridiculous statement, and it's a relic of old bourgeois-socialist thought. He's pro-worker (small businesses includes) but not in favor of proletarian domination ( which surpasses just being 'proworker'.

o well this is ok I guess

9th January 2012, 16:27

Revolutionair

9th January 2012, 17:35

Because saying socialism is workers owning the MEANS of production is basically sugurcoating radical change in favor of a new capitalist mode of production where workers cooperativly "own" the means of production yet contradictions like commodity production persisit.

Why should this be true? Don't you have faith in the workers? Why would we continue capitalism when we have all the power we need to immediately end its social reproduction?

You act like you are pro-worker, but in reality you don't trust the workers.

Ocean Seal

9th January 2012, 17:36

The Soviet Union was NOT a workers' state because it wasn't ruled by the workers,
Beyond a certain period of time, it certainly wasn't "ruled by the worker's" but that begets an important question: what is worker's rule?

it was ruled by capitalists.

This is false.

So simplified:
1. Chomsky is pro-worker.
2. USSR is anti-worker.
3. Chomsky is anti-USSR.

Perhaps too oversimplified.

Rafiq, so far Chomsky has been far more successful in making the left more relevant in this world than your 'OMFG WE NEED MORE TERROR' bullshit.
Has Chomsky really made us more relevant? Or has he created a confused "sect" of anarchists mixed in with liberals (in far greater numbers). Seriously, perhaps the man is a genuine anarchist but the people that he attracts aren't anarchists, they're liberals and often don't really accomplish much aside from making posts on HuffPo.

Revolutionair

9th January 2012, 17:50

Beyond a certain period of time, it certainly wasn't "ruled by the worker's" but that begets an important question: what is worker's rule?

I don't know what it will look like. But any system that emancipates the working class from being ruled over.

This is false.

If the definition of capitalist is someone who owns capital, and if the USSR had a proletariat class. Who owned the capital in the USSR? If you answer is the state:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine

Has Chomsky really made us more relevant? Or has he created a confused "sect" of anarchists mixed in with liberals (in far greater numbers). Seriously, perhaps the man is a genuine anarchist but the people that he attracts aren't anarchists, they're liberals and often don't really accomplish much aside from making posts on HuffPo.

He attracts a lot of people. Perhaps you've met some 'rotten apples'. Regardless, he also attracts many fence sitters towards the left.

Belleraphone

9th January 2012, 21:04

Why did you need to email him that question, he pretty much mentions in any of his writings in which he talks about the left & anarchism (ie his opinion of the "young Marx" as good, and "old, grumpy Marx" as not so good.
I've watched and read a lot of Chomsky, he's mentioned Marx before, never really gave an opinion as far as I saw, but that's just where I was reading.

Because saying socialism is workers owning the MEANS of production is basically sugurcoating radical change in favor of a new capitalist mode of production where workers cooperativly "own" the means of production yet contradictions like commodity production persisit.
But commodities existed in the USSR but the workers did not own MOP, everything was just taken by the state. How is USSR socialist?

Rafiq

9th January 2012, 21:06

The USSR wasn't "socialist" in the sense of a postcapitalist society. I said the USSR was not socialist, but it's not as if, if the workers owned the MEANS of production it would be socialist.

Os Cangaceiros

9th January 2012, 21:13

I've watched and read a lot of Chomsky, he's mentioned Marx before, never really gave an opinion as far as I saw, but that's just where I was reading.

In both "Chomsky on Anarchism" and "Government in the Future" he gives his position on Marx/Marxism. And if you read a little between the lines you get a picture of what he thought of Marx, too, such as his mention of (in I believe "Containing the Threat of Democracy") Bakunin's criticism of Marx, and how insightful it supposedly was that Bakunin could see how Marx's followers would translate his ideas into practice.

Really Chomsky's position on Marx isn't terribly different from probably most self-described libertarian communists or anarcho-syndicalists today...ie Marx was generally OK, but his ideas translated into action without any modification by libertarian currents will lead to an undesirable Leninist dictatorship.

Ocean Seal

9th January 2012, 21:18

If the definition of capitalist is someone who owns capital, and if the USSR had a proletariat class. Who owned the capital in the USSR? If you answer is the state:

Yes, and while it was a worker's state it doesn't matter that the "state" owned the capital. Furthermore, the state is not essentially capitalist. The state can be of many different modes of production. Recall that the original states were not capitalist rather subject to the ruling classes of slave society. The USSR for at least 3 years had the workers as the ruling class.

He attracts a lot of people. Perhaps you've met some 'rotten apples'. Regardless, he also attracts many fence sitters towards the left.
Yes, he attracts a lot of trendy liberals to his conferences. A lot of them like him. However, they are more than happy to read his articles, and do nothing or maybe vote for Obama or Ron Paul. Sometimes he does more harm than good in attracting many people. Like when he says "vote Kerry" . Had Kerry won, I doubt he would have pulled out of Iraq, and perhaps even expanded "out of necessity".

Rafiq

9th January 2012, 22:58

Why should this be true? Don't you have faith in the workers? Why would we continue capitalism when we have all the power we need to immediately end its social reproduction?

Because you don't know what capitalism is. It's completely Idealist to think individuals are just going to, based on their will, abolish the capitalist mode of production.

You act like you are pro-worker, but in reality you don't trust the workers.

I trust facts. Workers are still human beings.

Искра

9th January 2012, 23:01

That's not him actually answering on your questions but his assistant.

I've contacted him 2 years ago for interview... ;)

Revolutionair

10th January 2012, 01:59

Because you don't know what capitalism is. It's completely Idealist to think individuals are just going to, based on their will, abolish the capitalist mode of production.

Of course it is possible that if we had all the MoP, we would still reproduce the rule of capital out of ignorance.

But isn't the bold part what we are doing? Each of us makes the conscience decision that our wants (will) or what we envision differs from the reality produced by the economic laws of capital. We see the problems of today as internal to capitalist society, so we aim to change those laws. If we had more power (dictatorship of the proletariat), then we could actually change it. If power comes from owning the MoP, then surely we would be ABLE to end capitalism.

Rafiq

10th January 2012, 20:21

Of course it is possible that if we had all the MoP, we would still reproduce the rule of capital out of ignorance.

/facepalm.

This is why you like Chomsky. Because you have this conception that everything is a matter of human choice and will. Should they retain the capitalist mode of production it won't be because they're ignorant. the capitalist mode of production will be destroyed by the actions of the proletariat, however it's full destruction will not come about through human will, it will come about as the interests of the proletariat are completely opposed to capitalism. this is why the dictatorship of the proletariat is a necessity, for their interests are the only ones that can fully destroy the systematic contradictions within capitalism.

But isn't the bold part what we are doing? Each of us makes the conscience decision that our wants (will) or what we envision differs from the reality produced by the economic laws of capital.

The proletariat is the only class whose actual, concrete material interests are naturally opposed to the rule of capital. If there is not concrete organization, and understanding of economics (something a lot of anarchists like to dismiss) than we will end up right where we started from. Human will and decision is controlled by the material conditions, i.e. the manifestations from the decisions humans made unknowingly. Therefore human will, isolated in itself and uninfluenced by external forces (the impossible) does little to change anything, and has no power.

And then we can get into evolution, darwin, etc. but let's not.

We see the problems of today as internal to capitalist society, so we aim to change those laws. If we had more power (dictatorship of the proletariat), then we could actually change it. If power comes from owning the MoP, then surely we would be ABLE to end capitalism.

Again with the bullshit Idealism. The proletariat does not wish to end capitalism because they are natural economists. The first proletarian movement had no economic theoretical bases. The point is that their interests as a class, their needs (higher income, better working conditions, etc.) are completely incompatible with the existence of capitalism. The capitalist mode of production that Chomsky suggests, where workers merely own the means of production, is petite bourgeois, not proletarian, and unsurprisingly, it is a reflection of Chomsky's petite bourgeois academic background.

The politically immature leftist starts out as a radical liberal. He then procedes to like Chomsky and Howard Zinn, Micheal Moore, etc. And then he matures to more radical currents like Marxism and Revolutionary Anarchism, Insurrectionism, etc.

Franz Fanonipants

10th January 2012, 20:23

ahaha so basically you could have read marx and come away w/the same position that chomsky did.

Rafiq

10th January 2012, 20:25

ahaha so basically you could have read marx and come away w/the same position that chomsky did.

I didn't say Revolutionary anarchism is "after" marxism.

And Chomsky is not a revolutionary Anarchist, or an insurrectionist.

He's a reformist, Liberialist, moralist, Utopio-Libertarian scum bag.

Franz Fanonipants

10th January 2012, 20:26

I didn't say Revolutionary anarchism is "after" marxism.

And Chomsky is not a revolutionary Anarchist, or an insurrectionist.

He's a reformist, Liberialist, moralist, Utopio-Libertarian scum bag.

nono comrade not you, i'm talking to the op.

p.s. chomsky is terrible

Vladimir Innit Lenin

10th January 2012, 20:28

Soviet Union was not REAL socialism, becuzz da workers didnt own da MEANS OF PEODUCTION!!!1111"

You act as though this is not a legitimate, honest viewpoint.

NGNM85

10th January 2012, 20:48

And Chomsky is not a revolutionary Anarchist, or an insurrectionist.

He's a reformist, Liberialist, moralist, Utopio-Libertarian scum bag.

Hyperbole aside, that's just not true. Chomsky believes, quite rightly, that tactics are informed by circumstances. Therefore; he advocates violent revolution when it makes sense. Anyone who says otherwise is just a nihilist. Chomsky never denied the vital importance of protests, sit-ins, and all other forms of political action, (Actually, he's been a lifelong participant in, and proponant of, such actions.) merely that a consistent Socialist would also participate in the existing political process, which is not 'reformism.'

Franz Fanonipants

10th January 2012, 20:58

. Chomsky never denied the vital importance of protests, sit-ins, and all other forms of political action, (Actually, he's been a lifelong participant in, and proponant of, such actions.) merely that a consistent Socialist would also participate in the existing political process, which is not 'reformism.'

a consistent i.e. reformist socialist, yes

NGNM85

10th January 2012, 21:05

a consistent i.e. reformist socialist, yes

Incidentally; Marx advocated participating in the political process.

No, it's not literally reformist.

It's the only option if you actually give a shit about the working class. If you oppose, or refrain from supporting moderate improvements that will improve the lives of working class people simply because it doesn't advance your political agenda, you're saying their suffering is only meaningful to the extent is politically useful. That doesn't say; 'I care about the working class.' that says that you hate the working class.

Rafiq

10th January 2012, 22:24

You act as though this is not a legitimate, honest viewpoint.

Did you just make this post just to gain rep? See above.

mykittyhasaboner

11th January 2012, 00:19

https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif

Marx had a great deal of importance to say about social and political issues, and about the economy, considering mostly an abstract model of 19th century capitalism which still provides much useful insight. He didn’t actually have a “plan.” He said very little about the nature of a post-capitalist society other than how to obtain it.

This could be anybody's opinion on Marx.

Belleraphone

11th January 2012, 03:08

I don't think most people in this thread understand Chomsky's position.

Chomsky is an anarchist, a revolutionary anarchist, he's admired revolutionary Spain, praised Luxembourg and despises authoritarianism. Just because he isn't out in the streets destroying property does not mean he's revolutionary. In recent years, Chomsky has mainly focused on American foriegn policy and tries to change it within the system as much as possible, voting for the lesser of two evils, ect.

He's a reformist, Liberialist, moralist, Utopio-Libertarian scum bag.

I think you should actually try to read Chomsky before just throwing out personal insults, might add credibility to your argument.

Â¿Que?

11th January 2012, 22:03

Franz Fanonipants

11th January 2012, 23:39

plus demographically the tea party is 100% a bourgeois movement.

i used to joke that chomsky is a cia mole, instead now i just think the dude is kind of a hilarious political milquetoast.

Belleraphone

12th January 2012, 01:02

But what about that whole, "The Tea Party has real grievances" business. What grievances, that they got ripped off by bigger more powerful companies, and they ended up losing in the game of capitalism? That they obediently went to church, invested their savings, and basically did whatever right wing ideology dictated then ended up losing out? I'm sorry, I guess it's a matter of semantics, and like I've said, I'm not that well versed in Chomsky's written material, but to me, those are not real grievances, so much as the grievances of a reactionary class which then manifest themselves in reactionary politics, very dangerous politics to the proletariat I might add.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2zYaKXeyXE

Many Tea Partiers are actually not that rich, although it is mostly a white middle-class movement. But they do have some things to complain about like the bailouts and corporate government. He isn't saying we should follow their solutions, just that we should stop making fun of them and stop dismissing them and that the left should try to organize protests of their own like this and maybe try to get some of these people over to the left.

eyeheartlenin

12th January 2012, 02:44

I don't think most people in this thread understand Chomsky's position.

Chomsky is an anarchist, a revolutionary anarchist, he's admired revolutionary Spain, praised Luxembourg and despises authoritarianism. Just because he isn't out in the streets destroying property does not mean he's revolutionary. In recent years, Chomsky has mainly focused on American foriegn policy and tries to change it within the system as much as possible, voting for the lesser of two evils

Chomsky is such a "revolutionary anarchist" that every four years he publicly endorses whichever pro-war multi-millionaire the Democrats are running for President. Chomsky is an "anarchist" who votes, and that oxymoron makes Chomsky almost as much of a bullshit artist as, say, Chávez, 12 years in power, and guess what! Venezuela is still a bourgeois republic and still has a market economy.

Belleraphone

12th January 2012, 04:24

Chomsky is such a "revolutionary anarchist" that every four years he publicly endorses whichever pro-war multi-millionaire the Democrats are running for President. Chomsky is an "anarchist" who votes, and that oxymoron makes Chomsky almost as much of a bullshit artist as, say, Chávez, 12 years in power, and guess what! Venezuela is still a bourgeois republic and still has a market economy.
Chomsky does not endorse a candidate so much as that he encourages people to vote for the lesser of two evils without illusions. Every year the two parties become closer and closer but there are some issues like gay marriage and abortion that would likely come under fire with republican presidents, whereas democratic administrations would not. For example I don't think Don't ask don't tell being repealed would have happened under McCain, McCain would also probably take Federal Action against individual states that legalize gay marriage.

I don't really see the oxymoron in an anarchist voting if it's able to lead to small small differences.

Susurrus

12th January 2012, 06:07

Gonna stick a recommendation of Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution here, very appropriate for the subject.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm

Â¿Que?

12th January 2012, 07:33

Gonna stick a recommendation of Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution here, very appropriate for the subject.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm
Hey, a book I've actually read! Mmmm, lemonade :D

NGNM85

12th January 2012, 20:14

Chomsky is such a "revolutionary anarchist" that every four years he publicly endorses whichever pro-war multi-millionaire the Democrats are running for President. Chomsky is an "anarchist" who votes,..

That’s misleading, at best. Chomsky advocated voting for the Democratic candidate, for people who live in red states, as the lesser of two evils. One of the many things people like yourself can’t understand is that isn’t an endorsement. That should be the position of any consistent Anarchist, any consistent Socialist. Ignoring the political process changes absolutely nothing. Furthermore; if you decline to support measures that would improve conditions for the working class, or, at the very least, hurt the working class less, because it doesn’t serve your political agenda; then you hate the working class. Not only is it entirely consistent, in fact, it’s the only philosophically, and ethically consistent thing to do.

eyeheartlenin

12th January 2012, 20:41

Chomsky does not endorse a candidate so much as that he encourages people to vote for the lesser of two evils without illusions. Every year the two parties become closer and closer but there are some issues like gay marriage and abortion that would likely come under fire with republican presidents, whereas democratic administrations would not. For example I don't think Don't ask don't tell being repealed would have happened under McCain, McCain would also probably take Federal Action against individual states that legalize gay marriage.

I don't really see the oxymoron in an anarchist voting if it's able to lead to small small differences.

With all due respect, no one is entitled to her/his own facts. It is not true that Chomsky does not endorse candidates. He most certainly does endorse pro-war Democratic politicians, every four years.

In 2008, he endorsed Obama, who, as an Illinois State Senator, had publicly speculated about the desirability of bombing Iran.

In 2004, Chomsky endorsed pro-war John Kerry. That endorsement caused something of a scandal, since the Democrats were showing their true, pro-war face in that campaign, by claiming that Kerry would "win" the "war on terror." As observers noted at the time, Kerry ran against G.W. Bush from a position somewhere to the right of Bush. The 2004 Democratic convention was held in Boston. A prominent pacifist, Medea Benjamin (who is close to the ISO), got thrown out of the convention because she was wearing a sash that said, "Peace Democrat." IIRC, the Democrats' platform that year never even mentioned the word, "peace."

The logic of cde Belleraphone's position would lead one to conclude that the working class benefits with the Democrats in power, which is simply not true. The current Democratic administration will soon make a deal with the Republicans to raise the eligibility age for Medicare, thereby sticking it to vast numbers of retirees. That's not a benefit.

After three years of a Democratic administration, the number of people in the US now living under the poverty line is reportedly the highest in 18 years. Again, that's not a benefit.

In July 1945, it was a Democratic President, folksy Harry Truman from Missouri, who decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and, in May 1961, it was a Democratic President, cold warrior/plutocrat Kennedy, who first sent the US military (as "advisors") to Viet Nam. Then his Democratic successor Johnson escalated the war and ordered the bombing of Hanoi. The two big bourgeois parties are equally pro-war.

It should be added that anarchism means that one opposes government and rejects politics. So an anarchist who supports the Democrats (or the GOP) every election year, is really no anarchist at all.

Rafiq

12th January 2012, 20:54

Hyperbole aside, that's just not true. Chomsky believes, quite rightly, that tactics are informed by circumstances. Therefore; he advocates violent revolution when it makes sense. Anyone who says otherwise is just a nihilist. Chomsky never denied the vital importance of protests, sit-ins, and all other forms of political action, (Actually, he's been a lifelong participant in, and proponant of, such actions.) merely that a consistent Socialist would also participate in the existing political process, which is not 'reformism.'

There was something Chomsky said that I found quite disturbing.

When he was interviewed, the lady asked: "What should the next move be for us, in this economic situation"?

He then replied by saying "I think the first step is to bail out the banks. I mean, me being an Anarchist of course, I would say, there shouldn't be any banks at all (He said this quite fast, and chuckled), but if we are focusing on right now, the bailing out of the banks is necessary.

Okay, of course, my problem is not that he said it fast, or whatever dismissive assumption you have about the above. The point is, is that Chomsky sees Socialism as some kind of "side-thing", an unrealistic, Utopia that he agrees with morally, but doesn't really, deep down, take seriously. If Chomsky was a real revolutionary, and was asked the same question, he would have replyed by saying the crisis itself is unsolvable.

Rafiq

12th January 2012, 20:55

I think you should actually try to read Chomsky before just throwing out personal insults, might add credibility to your argument.

I have read Chomsky a lot. He's pathetic.

NGNM85

12th January 2012, 21:31

There was something Chomsky said that I found quite disturbing.

When he was interviewed, the lady asked: "What should the next move be for us, in this economic situation"?

He then replied by saying "I think the first step is to bail out the banks. I mean, me being an Anarchist of course, I would say, there shouldn't be any banks at all (He said this quite fast, and chuckled), but if we are focusing on right now, the bailing out of the banks is necessary.

Okay, of course, my problem is not that he said it fast, or whatever dismissive assumption you have about the above. The point is, is that Chomsky sees Socialism as some kind of "side-thing", an unrealistic, Utopia that he agrees with morally, but doesn't really, deep down, take seriously. If Chomsky was a real revolutionary, and was asked the same question, he would have replyed by saying the crisis itself is unsolvable.

This has virtually nothing to do with what I said, or the accuracy of your previous statements.

Where can I find this complete statement? I mean, I can guess, I could probably find it, myself, but you should have it on hand, if it’s the basis for your indictment.

Yes, he said that bailing the banks out was immediately necessary to prevent calamity, he also said that parts of the banks should be chopped off and be allowed to go bankrupt, he said a number of other things which you make no reference to.

This paraphrase in no way supports your accusation. Supposedly, Chomsky was asked, given the present circumstances, today, what would be the most sensible, and vital action concerning the financial meltdown. Given the circumstances, his answer was entirely correct. Furthermore; again, it, in no way, proves, or even suggests that he views socialism as a utopian fantasy. I think even a fairly casual perusal of his statements on the subject would reveal otherwise.

Belleraphone

12th January 2012, 21:33

With all due respect, no one is entitled to her/his own facts. It is not true that Chomsky does not endorse candidates. He most certainly does endorse pro-war Democratic politicians, every four years.
He does not endorse them in the sense of supporting them through and through including their administration and policies. He said to vote for Obama "without illusions", meaning voting for him but at the same time recognize that he is going to continue terrorist operations in the world.

In 2004, Chomsky endorsed pro-war John Kerry. That endorsement caused something of a scandal, since the Democrats were showing their true, pro-war face in that campaign, by claiming that Kerry would "win" the "war on terror." As observers noted at the time, Kerry ran against G.W. Bush from a position somewhere to the right of Bush. The 2004 Democratic convention was held in Boston. A prominent pacifist, Medea Benjamin (who is close to the ISO), got thrown out of the convention because she was wearing a sash that said, "Peace Democrat." IIRC, the Democrats' platform that year never even mentioned the word, "peace."
Chomsky never said that Kerry was anti-war or would end the war, but Republicans have been notorious for cutting social programs at a much faster and greater rate than Democrats. Compare Reagan to Clinton.

The logic of cde Belleraphone's position would lead one to conclude that the working class benefits with the Democrats in power, which is simply not true. The current Democratic administration will soon make a deal with the Republicans to raise the eligibility age for Medicare, thereby sticking it to vast numbers of retirees. That's not a benefit.

After three years of a Democratic administration, the number of people in the US now living under the poverty line is reportedly the highest in 18 years. Again, that's not a benefit.
You're assuming that the Republicans would not be just as bad/worse as the Democrats. If McCain had gotten elected, do you really think the poverty would have improved? I'm not saying Democrats have a positive effect on the country, but their negative effects are not as big as the republicans.

In July 1945, it was a Democratic President, folksy Harry Truman from Missouri, who decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and, in May 1961, it was a Democratic President, cold warrior/plutocrat Kennedy, who first sent the US military (as "advisors") to Viet Nam. Then his Democratic successor Johnson escalated the war and ordered the bombing of Hanoi. The two big bourgeois parties are equally pro-war.
Didn't Eisenhower also send men over and originally start shit in Vietnam? Also, just because these were democrats does not mean it wouldn't have happened under republican administrations. Yeah, they're pro-war, it's more about domestic policy. Democrats started Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (which you are now concerned is going to be cut.) Most democrats don't get in the way of gay legislation either. I realize both parties are bad, but saying they're exactly the same is ignorant. If you don't actually care about LGBT rights and not having what little social programs we have left being swept away, then your position is rational. But some of us do care and do try to change the system as much as we can from within the system until the revolution comes.

It should be added that anarchism means that one opposes government and rejects politics. So an anarchist who supports the Democrats (or the GOP) every election year, is really no anarchist at all.
Actually, anarchists oppose the state, not the idea of government itself. Anarchist Spain had government, but not a state. You have to learn the definitions of the words you're actually using.

There was something Chomsky said that I found quite disturbing.

When he was interviewed, the lady asked: "What should the next move be for us, in this economic situation"?

He then replied by saying "I think the first step is to bail out the banks. I mean, me being an Anarchist of course, I would say, there shouldn't be any banks at all (He said this quite fast, and chuckled), but if we are focusing on right now, the bailing out of the banks is necessary.

Can you link me to this interview?

I have read Chomsky a lot. He's pathetic.
Care to be specific or are you just launching vague general attacks?

NGNM85

12th January 2012, 21:42

With all due respect, no one is entitled to her/his own facts.

You need to take your own advice.

It is not true that Chomsky does not endorse candidates. He most certainly does endorse pro-war Democratic politicians, every four years.

No, he doesn’t endorse them. He’s never endorsed them. You don’t know what that means.

In 2008, he endorsed Obama, who, as an Illinois State Senator, had publicly speculated about the desirability of bombing Iran.

See above.

In 2004, Chomsky endorsed pro-war John Kerry. That endorsement caused something of a scandal, since the Democrats were showing their true, pro-war face in that campaign, by claiming that Kerry would "win" the "war on terror." As observers noted at the time, Kerry ran against G.W. Bush from a position somewhere to the right of Bush. The 2004 Democratic convention was held in Boston. A prominent pacifist, Medea Benjamin (who is close to the ISO), got thrown out of the convention because she was wearing a sash that said, "Peace Democrat." IIRC, the Democrats' platform that year never even mentioned the word, "peace."

See above.

The logic of cde Belleraphone's position would lead one to conclude that the working class benefits with the Democrats in power, which is simply not true.

Only if one ignores the evidence.

The current Democratic administration will soon make a deal with the Republicans to raise the eligibility age for Medicare, thereby sticking it to vast numbers of retirees. That's not a benefit.

After three years of a Democratic administration, the number of people in the US now living under the poverty line is reportedly the highest in 18 years. Again, that's not a benefit.

All else being equal; the working class fares better under Democratic administrations. You seem to think because you don’t like your choices, that you get to just throw up your hands and say; ‘Fuck it.’, and be morally superior. You don’t get to abdicate responsibility by not acting. You are equally responsible for what you don’t do. You seem to be more concerned with your street cred.

In July 1945, it was a Democratic President, folksy Harry Truman from Missouri, who decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and, in May 1961, it was a Democratic President, cold warrior/plutocrat Kennedy, who first sent the US military (as "advisors") to Viet Nam. Then his Democratic successor Johnson escalated the war and ordered the bombing of Hanoi. The two big bourgeois parties are equally pro-war.

Yes.

It should be added that anarchism means that one opposes government and rejects politics.

It absolutely isn’t. This is part of the problem, that you clearly don’t understand Anarchism, which is hardly surprising, considering the handle you’ve chosen. Government is vital, and inevitable. Anarchism is opposed to Nation-States, among other things. As I said before, which you completely ignored, it’s the only consistent thing to do if you care about the working class. If you don’t care about the working class, then you aren’t any kind of Socialist.

So an anarchist who supports the Democrats (or the GOP) every election year, is really no anarchist at all.

That’s the whole point. He doesn’t support the Democratic party. He opposes the Democratic Party. So do I. You just can’t comprehend that.

eyeheartlenin

12th January 2012, 22:50

In response to my criticism of Chomsky's telling people to vote for the Democrats, which most certainly is an "endorsement," Belleraphone wrote

If you don't actually care about LGBT rights and not having what little social programs we have left being swept away, then your position is rational. But some of us do care and do try to change the system as much as we can from within the system until the revolution comes

In other words, since I am not a Democrat like suburban millionaire Chomsky, I must be, at best, unconcerned about gay equality. What an absolute crock!

Dear Belleraphone, let me tell about your supposedly gay-friendly Democrats: I used to live in Massachusetts, where the Democrats are the majority party in the state legislature, the "General Court." When the "General Court" was voting on a bill to establish marriage equality in Massachusetts, I took time off from work, more than once, to demonstrate, alongside other supporters of gay equality, in front of the Massachusetts State House.

The Massachusetts Democratic legislators were precisely the politicians who voted down marriage equality, and the only reason Massachusetts now has marriage equality is that the state's highest court ruled that marriage equality be implemented.

In neighboring Rhode Island, Democratic politicians reportedly have an overwhelming majority in the state legislature, which means that they could pass marriage equality in a heartbeat, if they wanted to. But they don't want to.

The same kind of bigotry by your allegedly gay-friendly Democratic politicians is true at the national level, as well. Don't hold your breath until your beloved Democratic Party nominates a presidential candidate who is for marriage equality, because that's not gonna happen anytime soon. Bill Clinton was opposed to same sex marriage; in fact, Clinton was the Democrat who backed the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act, as well as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Obama is also on record as opposing marriage equality for gay people. So, your "anarchist" path of voting for the Democrats and hoping for the best is merely lesser-evil liberalism, in support of a party whose Presidential candidates have never backed marriage equality. Any revolutionary understands that the Democrats are a complete waste of time, and the existing system cannot be changed to benefit working people, because the heart of the system is precisely the exploitation of those who toil.

Rafiq

12th January 2012, 23:02

The reason I usually don't reply to NGM55 or whatever the fuck he calls himself is because he changes the font of his text, making it difficult to quote his horse shit accordingly. Until you edit that, cool story bro.

Lucretia

12th January 2012, 23:21

In response to my criticism of Chomsky's telling people to vote for the Democrats, which most certainly is an "endorsement," Belleraphone wrote

In other words, since I am not a Democrat like suburban millionaire Chomsky, I must be, at best, unconcerned about gay equality. What an absolute crock!

Dear Belleraphone, let me tell about your supposedly gay-friendly Democrats: I used to live in Massachusetts, where the Democrats are the majority party in the state legislature, the "General Court." When the "General Court" was voting on a bill to establish marriage equality in Massachusetts, I took time off from work, more than once, to demonstrate, alongside other supporters of gay equality, in front of the Massachusetts State House.

The Massachusetts Democratic legislators were precisely the politicians who voted down marriage equality, and the only reason Massachusetts now has marriage equality is that the state's highest court ruled that marriage equality be implemented.

In neighboring Rhode Island, Democratic politicians reportedly have an overwhelming majority in the state legislature, which means that they could pass marriage equality in a heartbeat, if they wanted to. But they don't want to.

The same kind of bigotry by your allegedly gay-friendly Democratic politicians is true at the national level, as well. Don't hold your breath until your beloved Democratic Party nominates a presidential candidate who is for marriage equality, because that's not gonna happen anytime soon. Bill Clinton was opposed to same sex marriage; in fact, Clinton was the Democrat who backed the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act, as well as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Obama is also on record as opposing marriage equality for gay people. So, your "anarchist" path of voting for the Democrats and hoping for the best is merely lesser-evil liberalism, in support of a party whose Presidential candidates have never backed marriage equality. Any revolutionary understands that the Democrats are a complete waste of time, and the existing system cannot be changed to benefit working people, because the heart of the system is precisely the exploitation of those who toil.

NGNM is notorious on this forum for preaching anarchism (at least in the subforums where he isn't currently restricted) and practicing liberalism. It is hardly surprising that he views Chomsky's recommendation that people vote for Kerry as something other than endorsement.

eyeheartlenin

12th January 2012, 23:33

Dear Lucretia: Thank you for that. I have decided there is no point in arguing further about whether an endorsement is a phreaking endorsement or not. You are right: we had exactly the same argument months ago. My last message was mainly motivated by my being steamed at the claim that I am unconcerned about gay equality, and the incredible notion that the road to equality runs through the totally bogus Democratic Party, that in much of New England has stood in the way of winning equality and other reforms. Infatuation with the Democrats (we could call it the "Chomsky disorder") has got to be the predominant error of our time in the US, and I just think it is worthwhile trying to correct it. But that probably becomes tedious for other people on the discussion board.

Lucretia

12th January 2012, 23:38

Dear Lucretia: Thank you for that. I have decided there is no point in arguing further about whether an endorsement is a phreaking endorsement or not. You are right: we had exactly the same argument months ago. My last message was mainly motivated by my being steamed at the claim that I am unconcerned about gay equality, and the incredible notion that the road to equality lies through the totally bogus Democratic Party, that in much of New England has stood in the way of winning equality and other reforms. Infatuation with the Democrats (we could call it the "Chomsky disorder") has got to be the predominant error of our time in the US, and I just think it is worthwhile trying to correct it. But that probably becomes tedious for other people on the discussion board.

It's the typical liberal line that if you don't vote for the democrats then you must not care about whatever "progressive" issue. That NGNM parrots this rhetoric shows where he stands politically, even if he is an anarchist in his own mind.

NGNM85

12th January 2012, 23:42

The reason I usually don't reply to NGM55 or whatever the fuck he calls himself

You don’t strike me as uniquely intelligent, but you certainly have the mental capacity to remember for letters and two numbers. Incidentally; it’s an initialism based on the classic Anarchist slogan; ‘No Gods, No Masters.’

or whatever the fuck he calls himself is because he changes the font of his text, making it difficult to quote his horse shit accordingly. Until you edit that, cool story bro.

It isn’t difficult at all.

I also don’t intentionally change it, it just happens because I type my posts in a word processor because I’ve had several bad experiences with the page reloading, and losing long posts. You don’t even need to quote me, this is just a copout, because you’re wrong.

NGNM85

12th January 2012, 23:59

NGNM is notorious on this forum for preaching anarchism (at least in the subforums where he isn't currently restricted) and practicing liberalism.

How do you know what I practice? Although, I thank for almost acknowledging that I am an entirely consistent Anarchist.

What the fuck difference does it make that I was Restricted? That had absolutely nothing to do with violating any tenet of Anarchism. (Or Marxism, as far as I know.) I’ve also created a special thread with an open invitation to any member who thinks they can resolve the logical paradoxes in said policy, which is both unsound, and unscientific. Please, I encourage you to display the courage of your convictions.

It is hardly surprising that he views Chomsky's recommendation that people vote for Kerry as something other than endorsement.

He didn’t do that, and it isn’t an endorsement, because you, apparently, don’t comprehend what an endorsement is. He’s extremely critical of the Democratic party, in fact, he’s opposed to the Democratic party, as am I. He merely said that anyone who cares about the working class (Which means all Socialists, by definition.) who live in contested districts, should vote for the Democrats, as the lesser of two evils, in addition to all other forms of political activities, and activism that they should be involved in. That is not, literally speaking, an endorsement, it’s a denunciation, it’s a repudiation.

It's the typical liberal line that if you don't vote for the democrats then you must not care about whatever "progressive" issue. That NGNM parrots this rhetoric shows where he stands politically, even if he is an anarchist in his own mind.

Show me where I am being inconsistent. If you read Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker, Bookchin, and Chomsky you will find precedence for virtually everything I’ve said. What’s hilarious is that I am so overwhelmingly orthodox (Again, for lack of a better term.) in my Anarchism.

Typical liberals don’t advocate public ownership of the means of production, or the dismantling of the Nation-State. Regardless, it doesn’t matter who says what, what matters is what’s true. The fact is that you can’t escape responsibility, nomatter how much you hate your choices. Also; if you refuse to take action that would reduce the suffering of the working class, or the option that would cause them to suffer least, simply because it doesn’t serve your political objectives then you basically hate the working class.

Rafiq

13th January 2012, 00:01

Everyone click the quote button on the NGNM85 post that I was talking about. See how many people are going to deal with that shit. :laugh:

A cop out?

Chomsky willingly supports the retaining of the capitalist system, if he wanted, given the circumstances, to temporarily keep it going. Our goal as communists is not to make the best capitalist system possible, or even to prefer it. Capitalism is the system in which the Bourgeoisie dominates and exert's it's control. To suggest ways to prolong the destruction of this system (As it's destruction is inevitable, scientifically.) is to prolong the destruction of Bourgeois rule. And this is prescisely what the liberal reformist Noam Chomsky does.

It stroke me as disturbing, because he mentioned Anarchism as if, to him, it was some kind of personal side-belief that should not interfere in the retaining of the bourgeois rule.

NGNM85

13th January 2012, 00:06

Thank you for that. I have decided there is no point in arguing further about whether an endorsement is a phreaking endorsement
or not.

This is just another copout.

It’s the hinge on which your entire argument rests. It also happens to be dead wrong. Consult a dictionary, then re-read his comments, until you comprehend it.

You are right: we had exactly the same argument months ago. My last message was mainly motivated by my being steamed at the claim that I am unconcerned about gay equality, and the incredible notion that the road to equality lies through the totally bogus Democratic Party, that in much of New England has stood in the way of winning equality and other reforms.

I never said that. Chomsky never said that. Although; I don’t see how getting a bunch of Republicans elected helps gay rights, considering one of the official platforms of their party is unwavering opposition to gay rights.

Infatuation with the Democrats (we could call it the "Chomsky disorder") has got to be the predominant error of our time in the US, and I just think it is worthwhile trying to correct it. But that probably becomes tedious for other people on the discussion board.

I’m not infatuated with the Democratic party. I hate the Democratic party.

Chomsky is not infatuated with the Democratic party. He hates the Democratic party.

NGNM85

13th January 2012, 00:17

Everyone click the quote button on the NGNM85 post that I was talking about. See how many people are going to deal with that shit.

A cop out?

Yes, a copout. You could change it, or you could just quote it without using the quote feature, or not quote it, directly, at all, this doesn’t seem to be a problem. As of yet, you haven’t sourced one of your Chomsky paraphrases.

Chomsky willingly supports the retaining of the capitalist system, if he wanted, given the circumstances, to temporarily keep it going.

No, he doesn’t. That isn’t a choice. We don’t, individually, have that choice. That is false. What you are advocating, besides being a total failure, would wreak incredible suffering on the working class.

Our goal as communists is not to make the best capitalist system possible, or even to prefer it

There is no ‘we.’ Thank Christ you don’t speak for all Socialists. If you did, I wouldn’t be one.

Capitalism is the system in which the Bourgeoisie dominates and exert's it's control.

Jargon aside, that’s mostly accurate.

To suggest ways to prolong the destruction of this system (As it's destruction is inevitable, scientifically.) is to prolong the destruction of Bourgeois rule. And this is prescisely what the liberal reformist Noam Chomsky does.

That isn’t science, that’s ideology. Don’t dare call it science. That’s absurd. It’s boilerplate Marxist rhetoric. Noam Chomsky did not have the choice to end ‘capitalism’, nor is there any reason to believe he would choose to do so, if he were to have that choice.

It stroke me as disturbing, because he mentioned Anarchism as if, to him, it was some kind of personal side-belief that should not interfere in the retaining of the bourgeois rule.

See above.

Lucretia

13th January 2012, 00:20

How do you know what I practice? Although, I thank for almost acknowledging that I am an entirely consistent Anarchist.

What the fuck difference does it make that I was Restricted? That had absolutely nothing to do with violating any tenet of Anarchism. (Or Marxism, as far as I know.) I’ve also created a special thread with an open invitation to any member who thinks they can resolve the logical paradoxes in said policy, which is both unsound, and unscientific. Please, I encourage you to display the courage of your convictions.

He didn’t do that, and it isn’t an endorsement, because you, apparently, don’t comprehend what an endorsement is. He’s extremely critical of the Democratic party, in fact, he’s opposed to the Democratic party, as am I. He merely said that anyone who cares about the working class (Which means all Socialists, by definition.) who live in contested districts, should vote for the Democrats, as the lesser of two evils, in addition to all other forms of political activities, and activism that they should be involved in. That is not, literally speaking, an endorsement, it’s a denunciation, it’s a repudiation.

Show me where I am being inconsistent. If you read Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker, Bookchin, and Chomsky you will find precedence for virtually everything I’ve said. What’s hilarious is that I am so overwhelmingly orthodox (Again, for lack of a better term.) in my Anarchism.

Typical liberals don’t advocate public ownership of the means of production, or the dismantling of the Nation-State. Regardless, it doesn’t matter who says what, what matters is what’s true. The fact is that you can’t escape responsibility, nomatter how much you hate your choices. Also; if you refuse to take action that would reduce the suffering of the working class, or the option that would cause them to suffer least, simply because it doesn’t serve your political objectives then you basically hate the working class.

This all amounts to how you're not really a Democratic because of the lovely set of anarchist ideals that are collecting cobwebs in your head. My argument is that your politics, not your ideals, are liberal. And in your case, as in Chomsky's, there's very much a contradiction between the two. I am not disputing that you have devised this pretty intellectual framework outlining the world you'd like to have ideally, and that you briefly reference before endorsing whatever liberal candidate happens to be on the ticket. But I'm not talking about that, I am talking about the decisions you take that actually affect power in the world around you. To whom do you "advocate public ownership of the means of production" (besides people on revleft, most of whom find you an entertaining nuisance, and virtually none of whom need convincing on this issue)? In other words, what political decisions and actions distinguish you from, say, an Obamabot who wants you to vote for the president because he's a brilliant champion for the American middle class? Please do not mention ideas, which are not political actions.

And please do not ever mention Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution as evidence that revolutionary Marxists accept your views on this issue. If you think the content of that pamphlet lines up with your views here, you haven't read it carefully enough. Rosa was very much a Leninist on the question of reform. So am I. You're not.

Rafiq

13th January 2012, 00:29

NGNM85 Marxism isn't an Ideology.

And Das Kapital, all three volumes, proved mathematically that the destruction of capitalism is inevitable. There is no ideology involved.

Rafiq

13th January 2012, 00:31

are you fucking kidding me, NGNM85 the bastard did the same thing again. Look, asshole, make your posts quotable. You can't say I am wrong and have nothing to say when you make it some kind of fucking chore to quote your posts. You're pathetic, in actuality, it's you who can't argue with me, otherwise you'd edit your posts and get rid of the fonts, but instead you intentionally keep them there so no one can quote you. You're pathetic.

Renegade Saint

13th January 2012, 00:43

This all amounts to how you're not really a Democratic because of the lovely set of anarchist ideals that are collecting cobwebs in your head. My argument is that your politics, not your ideals, are liberal....In other words, what political decisions and actions distinguish you from, say, an Obamabot who wants you to vote for the president because he's a brilliant champion for the American middle class? Please do not mention ideas, which are not political actions.

Nothing. Politicians (and the vote-counters) don't care whether you vote for them as the "lesser of two evils" or because you think they're the second coming of Christ (or Marx). Literally all that matters is that you check the box, pull the lever, press the botton or poke the hole that has their name next two it. A vote with enthusiasm and a vote with severe reservations count exactly the same in the end.

NGNM85

13th January 2012, 00:48

NGNM85

13th January 2012, 00:49

NGNM85 Marxism isn't an Ideology.

And Das Kapital, all three volumes, proved mathematically that the destruction of capitalism is inevitable. There is no ideology involved.

'Proved mathmatically'? Don't be ridiculous. I'd take you more seriously if you didn't make such absurd claims.

NGNM85

13th January 2012, 00:51

Nothing. Politicians (and the vote-counters) don't care whether you vote for them as the "lesser of two evils" or because you think they're the second coming of Christ (or Marx). Literally all that matters is that you check the box, pull the lever, press the botton or poke the hole that has their name next two it. A vote with enthusiasm and a vote with severe reservations count exactly the same in the end.

Nobody said otherwise.

Lucretia

13th January 2012, 00:53

Nobody said otherwise.

Which is precisely the point. When somebody follows Mr. Chomsky's political advice, supported by you, and pulls the lever for the Democrats, his political activity is indistinguishable from the political activity of the liberals who think the president is the second coming.

NGNM85

13th January 2012, 01:05

This all amounts to how you're not really a Democratic because of the lovely set of anarchist ideals that are collecting cobwebs in your head. My argument is that your politics, not your ideals, are liberal.

No, my politics are Anarchist. My ideals are Anarchist. Of course, you’re not speaking literally.

And in your case, as in Chomsky's, there's very much a contradiction between the two.

No, there isn’t. Not only is it entirely consistent, it’s the only consistent answer.

I am not disputing that you have devised this pretty intellectual framework outlining the world you'd like to have ideally, and that you briefly reference before endorsing whatever liberal candidate happens to be on the ticket.

I’ve never endorsed a Democratic candidate. Niether has Noam Chomsky, incidentally.

But I'm not talking about that, I am talking about the decisions you take that actually affect power in the world around you. To whom do you "advocate public ownership of the means of production" (besides people on revleft, most of whom find you an entertaining nuisance, and virtually none of whom need convincing on this issue)? In other words, what political decisions and actions distinguish you from, say, an Obamabot who wants you to vote for the president because he's a brilliant champion for the American middle class? Please do not mention ideas, which are not political actions.

I have no way of clearly gauging my impact on the world around me. I protest, I sit-in, I march, I write letters, I engage strangers and associates alike in political debate, and then some. Incidentally; I also vote, periodically, including voting for the decriminalization of cannabis, and if you think you’re going to make me regret it, you’ve got another thing coming. Actually I voted for it, twice, if you include the first time which was more of a census to judge public support The total effect that these actions have had over the years is impossible to say, with certainty. I am open to suggestions about anything else I could be doing. If it satisfies you, or not, I could care less.

And please do not ever mention Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution as evidence that revolutionary Marxists accept your views on this issue. If you think the content of that pamphlet lines up with your views here, you haven't read it carefully enough. Rosa was very much a Leninist on the question of reform. So am I. You're not.

Neither what I said, nor what Chomsky said, are, literally, Reformist.

Rafiq

13th January 2012, 02:12

'Proved mathmatically'? Don't be ridiculous. I'd take you more seriously if you didn't make such absurd claims.

Do you even know what Kapital is? Poor pathetic liberal

Ele'ill

13th January 2012, 02:24

Knock off the personal attacks.

Belleraphone

13th January 2012, 02:31

In other words, since I am not a Democrat like suburban millionaire Chomsky, I must be, at best, unconcerned about gay equality. What an absolute crock!
Chomsky is not a democrat, he makes it clear that democrats will continue the many foreign polices of George Bush and criticized Obama's policies the moment he took office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNpNzDoH1II

The Massachusetts Democratic legislators were precisely the politicians who voted down marriage equality, and the only reason Massachusetts now has marriage equality is that the state's highest court ruled that marriage equality be implemented.

In neighboring Rhode Island, Democratic politicians reportedly have an overwhelming majority in the state legislature, which means that they could pass marriage equality in a heartbeat, if they wanted to. But they don't want to.

The same kind of bigotry by your allegedly gay-friendly Democratic politicians is true at the national level, as well. Don't hold your breath until your beloved Democratic Party nominates a presidential candidate who is for marriage equality, because that's not gonna happen anytime soon. Bill Clinton was opposed to same sex marriage; in fact, Clinton was the Democrat who backed the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act, as well as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
I never said democrats would avowedly get behind gay marriage and legalize it everywhere, but DOMA was introduced by a conservative member of congress and was passed by the president. You're not comparing it to what would happen if the republican candidate, Papa Bush, would have won. I don't have to prove that democrats are pro-gay, all I have to do is show that democrats are less anti-gay than republicans. Go look at the states that have legalized gay marriage. New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, all of these are strong blue states. As for Don't ask Don't Tell, this was actually an improvement in the old military homosexual policy. It barrs openly gay homosexual members but allows closeted ones. Not a very pro-gay policy, better then before where you were screened for homosexual tendencies.

Chomsky willingly supports the retaining of the capitalist system, if he wanted, given the circumstances, to temporarily keep it going. Our goal as communists is not to make the best capitalist system possible, or even to prefer it. Capitalism is the system in which the Bourgeoisie dominates and exert's it's control. To suggest ways to prolong the destruction of this system (As it's destruction is inevitable, scientifically.) is to prolong the destruction of Bourgeois rule. And this is prescisely what the liberal reformist Noam Chomsky does.

It stroke me as disturbing, because he mentioned Anarchism as if, to him, it was some kind of personal side-belief that should not interfere in the retaining of the bourgeois rule.
If you don't care about what little social programs America has left, then I guess your position makes sense. But there are people, old people, who need social security. It's easy to throw your hands in the air and criticize anyone who tries to make life marginally better than the working class when you're not the one suffering.

eyeheartlenin

13th January 2012, 10:26

In response to a cogent criticism of Chomsky by Rafiq, Belleraphone wrote:
If you don't care about what little social programs America has left, then I guess your position makes sense. But there are people, old people, who need social security. It's easy to throw your hands in the air and criticize anyone who tries to make life marginally better than the working class when you're not the one suffering.

This is amazing! The notion of preserving Medicare and Social Security by backing the pro-war imperialist Democrats makes no sense because Democratic incumbent Obama is the one who will soon be raising the Medicare eligibility age. The Democrats intend to weaken both Medicare and Social Security, in the name of seeking consensus with their Republican colleagues in Congress. Just like the GOP, the Democrats aspire to balance the budget on the backs of workers, the elderly and the poor. Chomsky and his fellow Democrats, as well as the GOP, all serve the interests of the exploiting class.

RGacky3

13th January 2012, 10:37

NGNM85 Marxism isn't an Ideology.

And Das Kapital, all three volumes, proved mathematically that the destruction of capitalism is inevitable. There is no ideology involved.

There are tons of mathematical models in economics (its basically all economics is), and none of them "prove" anything, austrian economics is also full of mathematical proofs.

Its pointless to argue with the authoritarian sickle and hammer communists about Marx, it does'nt matter, their time is over, and it has been over, Bolshevism and its offshoots (trotskyism Marxism-Leninism, Maoism) basically any of the USSR spawned ideologies are dead. Chomsky is more relevant today than any Marxist-Leninst is. Marx is also more relevant today than any Marxist Leninist is.

Rafiq

13th January 2012, 11:59

Bellephone, do you actually think we are at a point where capitalism can sustain medicare and social secuirity now? We're watching the system rot into shit, and the democrats aren't going to be able to negate this reality. But it's expecred from chomsky, since he never had a scientific understanding of capitalism, anyway.

RGacky3

13th January 2012, 12:26

Bellephone, do you actually think we are at a point where capitalism can sustain medicare and social secuirity now?

It absolutely could, untill excess capacity takes over again and causes another crash, or until financialized bubbles start poping again.

Medicare and social security can definately be sustained easily.

But it's expecred from chomsky, since he never had a scientific understanding of capitalism, anyway.

Based on what? Chomsky is'nt an economist, his main thing is pointing out hypocracy, lies and double standards, but everytime I've read him write something on economics he's been pretty accurate.

NGNM85

13th January 2012, 18:46

Which is precisely the point. When somebody follows Mr. Chomsky's political advice, supported by you, and pulls the lever for the Democrats, his political activity is indistinguishable from the political activity of the liberals who think the president is the second coming.

No rational person should assume otherwise. There isn't anything particularly ideological about the way I brush my teeth, or how I play Halo. It sort of goes without saying. The point is that you can't evade responsibility. If you live in a contested district, you are ethically compelled to vote for the lesser evil, because that will result in the least harm to the working class. That's the responsible decision, the consistent decision. Despite your protestations to the contrary, this doesn't, in any way, replace, or undermine other forms of activism.

Renegade Saint

13th January 2012, 18:57

No rational person should assume otherwise. There isn't anything particularly ideological about the way I brush my teeth, or how I play Halo. It sort of goes without saying. The point is that you can't evade responsibility. If you live in a contested district, you are ethically compelled to vote for the lesser evil, because that will result in the least harm to the working class. That's the responsible decision, the consistent decision. Despite your protestations to the contrary, this doesn't, in any way, replace, or undermine other forms of activism.
Long term this strategy of voting for the lesser of two evils is responsible for the situation we find ourselves in now, where the Democrats have moved from being a party of the center-left to the center-right. And yet they're still the "lesser evil" (maybe) because the Republicans are far right. And it'll keep being this way for the foreseeable future. And that is why the working class has suffered so much over the last 35 years in the US-people just keep voting for the D's no matter how far to the right they move. People who follow your strategy are responsible for all the anti-working class policies (should I list some?) of the Democratic-Republican party. It's not actual leftists who are hurting the working class by not voting Democrat, it's you.

At what point would you break from the Democratic party? What would they have to do?

It's funny, the Green party is more radical in practice than this "anarchist".

Dave B

13th January 2012, 21:02

Chomsky criticises 20th century capitalism, without putting forward a clear idea of a post capitalist society, and in that sense has done the same as he claimed Karl in the 19th century did.

If he said that Karl used an ‘abstract’ model to describe 19th century capitalism well that is what scientists do and should do.

There is after all a certain amount of ‘abstraction’ in Noam’s own subject matter of linguistics.

Noam certainly does use the argument of the lesser of evils to justify his political positions, as does other strands of ‘revolutionary’ leftism, the British SWP has told us to vote for the labour party with no illusions as a lesser of evils.

Choosing lesser of evils and is a slippery slope to reformism and the formerly Marxist Bernstien position.

Noam has in the past and recently also endorsed with reservations the co-operative movements eg even Mondragon.

As did Karl in pretty much the same way;

Capital Vol. III Part V Division of Profit into Interest and Profit of Enterprise. Interest-Bearing Capital Chapter 27. The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production

The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour. They show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one, when the development of the material forces of production and of the corresponding forms of social production have reached a particular stage. Without the factory system arising out of the capitalist mode of production there could have been no co-operative factories.

Nor could these have developed without the credit system arising out of the same mode of production. The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist private enterprises into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale. The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in the other.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm

Early Karl and Fred, as well as even Lenin later, had a very clear concept of 'Kropotkinist' communism as a money-less gift economy, [Lenin, God bless him, explains it more simply himself- see below] eg

Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man's essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man's essential nature. 3) I would have been for you the mediator between you and the species, and therefore would become recognised and felt by you yourself as a completion of your own essential nature and as a necessary part of yourself, and consequently would know myself to be confirmed both in your thought and your love. 4) In the individual expression of my life I would have directly created your expression of your life, and therefore in my individual activity I would have directly confirmed and realised my true nature, my human nature, my communal nature.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/

or as Lenin. spit!, put it;

Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.

It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm

13th January 2012, 21:10

13th January 2012, 21:13

The USSR wasn't "socialist" in the sense of a postcapitalist society. I said the USSR was not socialist, but it's not as if, if the workers owned the MEANS of production it would be socialist.
It would, socialism is simply the workers having control of the means of production.

mykittyhasaboner

13th January 2012, 21:36

I don't think most people in this thread understand Chomsky's position.

i understood it perfectly. He thinks Marx was a good economist who focused on some "abstract" (this is bullshit on Chomsky's part) capitalist economy.

He goes on to say that Marx didn't exactly say how or when capitalism would be over thrown and replaced, he merely made suggestions.

The last part is true to a degree.

Chomsky is an anarchist, a revolutionary anarchist, he's admired revolutionary Spain, praised Luxembourg and despises authoritarianism.He may be an "anarchist" but that doesn't mean he has coherent revolutionary politics.

Just because he isn't out in the streets destroying property does not mean he's revolutionary.No shit. A couple statements calling for the overthrow of capitalism would do some good for his case, but judging on what i've read, Chomsky doesn't really state this explicity.

In recent years, Chomsky has mainly focused on American foriegn policy and tries to change it within the system as much as possible, voting for the lesser of two evils, ect. So in "recent years" hes been a liberal critic of US foreign policy and advocate of voting Democrat.

Shouldn't anarchists talk about overthrowing capitalism......instead of idealistically criticizing US imperialism and telling workers to vote for the capitalist class?

RGacky3

13th January 2012, 23:36

i understood it perfectly. He thinks Marx was a good economist who focused on some "abstract" (this is bullshit on Chomsky's part) capitalist economy.

Not really, Marx dealt in Models mostly, which is abstract.

So in "recent years" hes been a liberal critic of US foreign policy and advocate of voting Democrat.

Shouldn't anarchists talk about overthrowing capitalism......instead of idealistically criticizing US imperialism and telling workers to vote for the capitalist class?

He does'nt advocate voting at all, listen to his comments in context.

Also he has brought many many many many more people over to socialism than say ... Bob Avakian.

mykittyhasaboner

14th January 2012, 18:35

Not really, Marx dealt in Models mostly, which is abstract.

Marx made abstractions, as any theoretical work requires such a thing; but his work can't be reduced to a critique of some "abstract model of capitalism". This is where Chomsky's opinion of Marx becomes useless.

He does'nt advocate voting at all, listen to his comments in context.What comments exactly? In this video (http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20081021_noam_chomsky_theres_nothing_wrong_with_pi cking_the_lesser_of_two_e/) at about 4 minutes he advocates voting for Democrats "with no illuisions"...whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. He fits the definition of a spineless liberal with this "lesser of two evils" crap. No "anarchist" or socialist should be telling people to vote for capitalists. End of story.

Also he has brought many many many many more people over to socialismi honestly have not seen Chomsky call for the overthrow of capitalism.

than say ... Bob Avakian.Who?

Franz Fanonipants

14th January 2012, 19:52

Also he has brought many many many many more people over to socialism than say ... Bob Avakian.

yes it is true, i have also swam many many many many many more laps than say...steven hawking

e: i think you meant to say bullshit fluffy ronpaulism rather than socialism because basically chomsky's followers tend to be about as ideologically coherent as the avg. paul supporter

DinodudeEpic

15th January 2012, 04:37

If Anarchists actually run for president, we can vote for them.

But.......

RadioRaheem84

15th January 2012, 14:53

There are tons of mathematical models in economics (its basically all economics is), and none of them "prove" anything, austrian economics is also full of mathematical proofs.

Its pointless to argue with the authoritarian sickle and hammer communists about Marx, it does'nt matter, their time is over, and it has been over, Bolshevism and its offshoots (trotskyism Marxism-Leninism, Maoism) basically any of the USSR spawned ideologies are dead. Chomsky is more relevant today than any Marxist-Leninst is. Marx is also more relevant today than any Marxist Leninist is.

What does Das Kapital have to do with the USSR?

Marx is ten times more relevant today than trendy Chomsky.

Give me David Harvey any day and his coherent theories over Chomsky's rank idealism.

mykittyhasaboner

15th January 2012, 22:45

^^Nobody has made a convincing case that Chomsky isn't a liberal "anarchist" who supports voting for the Democrats. So Gacky has to fall back to a more elementary revleft style argument which involves denouncing "authoritarians". If it was the CPUSA supporting the Democrats (which they do) i doubt Gacky or Belleraphone would be so stubborn in their defense.

Comparing Kapital to Austrian economics; and calling Chomsky, a liberal intellectual, more relevant than say David Harvey or Fidel Castro seems quite ignorant imho.

RGacky3

16th January 2012, 08:22

Marx made abstractions, as any theoretical work requires such a thing; but his work can't be reduced to a critique of some "abstract model of capitalism". This is where Chomsky's opinion of Marx becomes useless.

No, but if you read most of Kapital, its mostly abstract models, which is actually extremely useful, infact you HAVE to do that to have a proper analysis of capitalism because you have to control for all the factors.

What comments exactly? In this video (http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20081021_noam_chomsky_theres_nothing_wrong_with_pi cking_the_lesser_of_two_e/) at about 4 minutes he advocates voting for Democrats "with no illuisions"...whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. He fits the definition of a spineless liberal with this "lesser of two evils" crap. No "anarchist" or socialist should be telling people to vote for capitalists. End of story.

What would you suggest if you were in a swing state

"I would suggest voting for Obama without illusions."

Its an extremely specific question with a specific answer, he's not advocating voting for democrats at all. "with no illusions" means if you do it you'll know that the democrats are not representing you, but you'll do it because their policies are more friendly to the working class.

Its pretty damn straight forward logic.

i honestly have not seen Chomsky call for the overthrow of capitalism.

Read some of his work, he does it all the time.

What does Das Kapital have to do with the USSR?

Nothing, hense the space in between the paragraphs.

Marx is ten times more relevant today than trendy Chomsky.

I don't dispute that, but I would guess he's more widely read.

Give me David Harvey any day and his coherent theories over Chomsky's rank idealism.

David Harvey and Noam Chomsky do different things, I doubt they would disagree over much.

^^Nobody has made a convincing case that Chomsky isn't a liberal "anarchist" who supports voting for the Democrats. So Gacky has to fall back to a more elementary revleft style argument which involves denouncing "authoritarians". If it was the CPUSA supporting the Democrats (which they do) i doubt Gacky or Belleraphone would be so stubborn in their defense.

All it takes to disprove the claims is to accurately quote chomsky.

Comparing Kapital to Austrian economics; and calling Chomsky, a liberal intellectual, more relevant than say David Harvey or Fidel Castro seems quite ignorant imho.

I did'nt compare Kapital to Austrian economics other than the fact that they both used mathematical models and that means that useing mathematical models BY ITSELF is meaningless.

Chomsky IS more relevant than both David Harvey and Fidel Castro in terms of readership, recognition, intellectual respect and so on.

BTW, I have tremendous respect for David Harvey, and I wish some of the Leninists here would actually listen to what he has to say, rather than just jump on the back of anyone that calls themself a Marxist and assume that he agrees with your own theories.

mykittyhasaboner

16th January 2012, 22:55

No, but if you read most of Kapital, its mostly abstract models, which is actually extremely useful, infact you HAVE to do that to have a proper analysis of capitalism because you have to control for all the factors.

You just reiterated what i said.

What would you suggest if you were in a swing state

"I would suggest voting for Obama without illusions."

Its an extremely specific question with a specific answer, he's not advocating voting for democrats at all. "with no illusions" means if you do it you'll know that the democrats are not representing you, but you'll do it because their policies are more friendly to the working class.Regardless of the context, he supports voting for the Democrats. The Democrats are not more "friendly" to the working class than any other bourgeois party.

Its pretty damn straight forward logic.For a liberal.

Read some of his work, he does it all the time.Provide some examples.

All it takes to disprove the claims is to accurately quote chomsky....where he says to vote for the Democrats "without illusions". Chomsky's political recommendations mimic the most ignorant liberal because in the end your just voting for the Democrats.

I did'nt compare Kapital to Austrian economics other than the fact that they both used mathematical models and that means that useing mathematical models BY ITSELF is meaningless.OK.

Chomsky IS more relevant than both David Harvey and Fidel Castro in terms of readership, recognition, intellectual respect and so on.:lol: Prove it.

BTW, I have tremendous respect for David Harvey, and I wish some of the Leninists here would actually listen to what he has to say, rather than just jump on the back of anyone that calls themself a Marxist and assume that he agrees with your own theories.Right.....

RGacky3

17th January 2012, 08:43

Regardless of the context, he supports voting for the Democrats. The Democrats are not more "friendly" to the working class than any other bourgeois party.

Your first statement says it all, you don't see context, you obviously just see black and white.

As to being more "friendly" the data say differently.

For a liberal.

Logic is logic, logic does'nt follow ideology.

Provide some examples.

This is just from the wikiquote page .... (read chomsky on anarchism for one, and the last chapters of most of his books).

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

That was the FIRST quote under capitalism

...where he says to vote for the Democrats "without illusions". Chomsky's political recommendations mimic the most ignorant liberal because in the end your just voting for the Democrats.

Do I need to re-quote dumbass?

"What would you suggest if you were in a swing state"

"I would suggest voting for Obama without illusions."

Because McCain was worse, again, you have a clear inability to understand Context.

For claiming to be materialists you guys are extremely dogmatic and idealist.

:lol: Prove it.

Citations, book sales, are you gonna try deny this?

RadioRaheem84

17th January 2012, 15:43

As to being more "friendly" the data say differently.

After President Carter, the idea that the Democrats are more "friendly" went out the window. The neo-liberal order that was established during his reign (yes, Carter not Reagan) began to roll back any worker gains of the previous administrations. Each subsequent President after Carter has managed to hurt the working class regardless of a D or an R next to their name.

Clinton, for instance, was far more neo-liberal than Bush I. He was just as hawkish and gutted regulatory agencies to get the sub prime mortgage market rolling.

The 90s were an unprecedented era for neo-liberal expansion,

Not only did he gut welfare, he reformed it in such a way as to make social assistance harder to get and made social services run on a more "efficient" market based level as to make them provide less help to people.

New Democrat = New Labour if that helps. Saying the Dems are better for workers is like saying Tony Blair is better than David Cameron. New Labour better than Tories.

What would you suggest if you were in a swing state"

"I would suggest voting for Obama without illusions."

Because McCain was worse, again, you have a clear inability to understand Context.

For claiming to be materialists you guys are extremely dogmatic and idealist.

He says vote for Democrats with no illusions but the illusion is still that workers somehow fare better under Democrats for whatever reason? Maybe some bias report (ones that NGN cites all the time;Brookings) about how Democrats are better for the economy (citing how economy = Fortune 500). But the narrative for these studies is flawed and only worthwhile if you're an investor of some sort. I've never seen a study that says that workers directly benefit from a Democratic administration. I've only seen ones that say under Democrats the economy performs better and by extension the goodies trickle down to workers.

Also as the nation descends deeper and deeper into neo-liberalism, a Democratic administration in the 90s doesn't look as bad as the Bush administration in 08. Then again both the former do not look as bad as a Democratic Obama administration now or if elected again, four years from now.

Stop buying into Democratic Party selling points. Chomsky does all the time, albeit "with no illusions".

Citations, book sales, are you gonna try deny this?

yes, he's trendy, we knew that.

RGacky3

17th January 2012, 16:48

After President Carter, the idea that the Democrats are more "friendly" went out the window. The neo-liberal order that was established during his reign (yes, Carter not Reagan) began to roll back any worker gains of the previous administrations. Each subsequent President after Carter has managed to hurt the working class regardless of a D or an R next to their name.

Clinton, for instance, was far more neo-liberal than Bush I. He was just as hawkish and gutted regulatory agencies to get the sub prime mortgage market rolling.

The 90s were an unprecedented era for neo-liberal expansion,

Not only did he gut welfare, he reformed it in such a way as to make social assistance harder to get and made social services run on a more "efficient" market based level as to make them provide less help to people.

New Democrat = New Labour if that helps. Saying the Dems are better for workers is like saying Tony Blair is better than David Cameron. New Labour better than Tories.

And as the mainstream democrats lost their progressive qualities, the republicans moved further to the right.

I've never seen a study that says that workers directly benefit from a Democratic administration. I've only seen ones that say under Democrats the economy performs better and by extension the goodies trickle down to workers.

Unemployment is generally better under democrats, as are other things.

Stop buying into Democratic Party selling points. Chomsky does all the time, albeit "with no illusions".

I'm not I actually disagree with voting democrat, I don't agree with Chomsky here, but thats a tactical one, and pointing to the idea that Chomsky is somehow not a radical because he has that viewpoint, which is a tactical one, is rediculous.

yes, he's trendy, we knew that.

Which is just a douchy way of saying he's influencial amung a large large number of people, btw he's been "trendy" for a long ass time and for many different groups.

RadioRaheem84

17th January 2012, 17:03

Which is just a douchy way of saying he's influencial amung a large large number of people, btw he's been "trendy" for a long ass time and for many different groups.He was less trendy when he was attacking liberals head on. Most people who casually read his work today think he is liberal.

Unemployment is generally better under democrats, as are other things.This administration has had the worst unemployment in decades. Employment was better under Bush. But all this is spurious when you actually analyze this systemically.

mykittyhasaboner

17th January 2012, 17:31

Your first statement says it all, you don't see context, you obviously just see black and white.

What ever you say pal. Do you want to throw in some more non-arguments? You just keep making this easier.

As to being more "friendly" the data say differently.Do you honestly think the Democrats in the White House lead to anything different for the working class? i don't care about "the data" because it doesn't cover what really matters.

Logic is logic, logic does'nt follow ideology.Chomsky's logic = vote for Democrats because they are lesser of two evils.

Anti-capitalist revolutionary's logic = don't vote for the capitalist class, for obvious reasons.

Do you see the difference?

That was the FIRST quote under capitalismIt was exactly the kind of thing Chomsky would say. He talks about some kind of popular control of central institutions, which is very vauge, but he does not explicitly state that captialism should be over thrown.

i wasn't asking for theoretical speculation, i was asking for a quote where Chomsky explicitly states he advocates the overthrow of capitalist society. Nothing more, nothing less. i have yet to see this.

Even if he does state this, to reiterate, his political reccomendations mimic the most ignorant liberal.

In the end, your voting for the Democrats.

Do I need to re-quote dumbass?Go fuck yourself.

"What would you suggest if you were in a swing state"

"I would suggest voting for Obama without illusions."

Because McCain was worse, again, you have a clear inability to understand Context.If you accept bourgeois politics at all, especially the "context" like swing states, then it fits that you would read Chomsky. A liberal in the actual sense of the word, a radical to the liberals of the US political context.

For claiming to be materialists you guys are extremely dogmatic and idealist.
i'm dogmatic and idealist because i don't support voting for the capitalist class under any context? :laugh:

You and Chomsky are pretty pathetic.

Citations, book sales, are you gonna try deny this?So millionaire author Chomsky is more recognized world wide than Fidel Castro, a figure who is renowned around the world for his leadership in the Cuban revolution, because he can sell more books? This debate is becoming a complete joke.

RGacky3

17th January 2012, 21:26

Do you honestly think the Democrats in the White House lead to anything different for the working class? i don't care about "the data" because it doesn't cover what really matters.

There we go, so your just being dogmatic, you don't care if it improves material conditions or not, nor do you care what the data say.

Do you honestly think the Democrats in the White House lead to anything different for the working class? i don't care about "the data" because it doesn't cover what really matters.

Depends on the democrat, but occasionally, less damage.

Chomsky's logic = vote for Democrats because they are lesser of two evils.

Anti-capitalist revolutionary's logic = don't vote for the capitalist class, for obvious reasons.

Do you see the difference?

No, re-read the quote, thats not what he said, he said .... IF YOU ARE IN A SWING STATE, HE would vote for Obama (not just democrats), because he thinks (at the time), that he was better than McCain .... Its very specific.

Most people are smart enough to get it.

tons of Chomsky's criticism is of the Democrats.

i wasn't asking for theoretical speculation, i was asking for a quote where Chomsky explicitly states he advocates the overthrow of capitalist society. Nothing more, nothing less. i have yet to see this.

Even if he does state this, to reiterate, his political reccomendations mimic the most ignorant liberal.

Says Mr. I dont' care about the data.

i'm dogmatic and idealist because i don't support voting for the capitalist class under any context? :laugh:

You and Chomsky are pretty pathetic.

Your dogmatic and idealist for holding to this IDEAL of never voting for a capitalist, because its wrong, dispite what the material outcomes would be.

And your dogmatic for throwing away chomsky, because of 1 or 2 missquoted quotes out of context.

So millionaire author Chomsky is more recognized world wide than Fidel Castro, a figure who is renowned around the world for his leadership in the Cuban revolution, because he can sell more books? This debate is becoming a complete joke.

And he's quoted more, and he's respected more, and his opinions are sought after more.

RGacky3

17th January 2012, 21:29

BTW, notice its not that Chomsky was wrong on anything, its that one of his recomendations, out of context, offends Leninists sensibilities on what the ideal revolutionary SHOULD be, dispite whether or not its the smart thing or not, its 100% idealism.

RadioRaheem84

18th January 2012, 00:02

What data, you ignorant annoying Chomskyite?

What data can tell us that Dems are better for the working class? All data I've seen shows that Dems are better for the economy, written from the liberal perspective, this means that Dems are good for capitalists which rain down the goodies to us,

Obama's administration has proven that Dems are just in line with the neo-liberal order as much as the GOP.

There is more evidence showing this lesser of two evils is just an illusion.

Robert Pollin's Contours of Descent is a good book you need to read. Likewise Counterpunch articles done by Alex Cockburn on the same subject.

So you go ahead and cite the liberal Brookings Institute, but I will stick with leftists who began their studies by trying to figure if the Dems were better than the GOP for the working class. The answer is that there is not a dimes worth of difference.

eyeheartlenin

18th January 2012, 02:05

I thought Contours of Descent was a great book, when I read it years ago. I remember Pollin writing that "working people vote Democratic and get Republican results," and I seem to remember Pollin writing that Robert Rubin, former Wall Street lawyer, had a defining effect on President-elect Clinton, who campaigned for office with the slogan, "People before profits," and then radically changed his tune, even before he was inaugurated, after spending time with Rubin. I wonder if Rubin ever talked to the current occupant of the Oval Office, or if the Prez just comes by neo-liberalism naturally.

RadioRaheem84

18th January 2012, 03:53

Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, two Clinton neo-liberal retreads, were economic advisers to Obama.

Obama's economic team take their orders from Clinton's old economic team.

Belleraphone

18th January 2012, 08:10

I asked him about his economic theory in particular and he said it was a good abstract model. I don't see why this is an insult since it's mostly theory, theory that has been proven time and again. I never said Chomsky was more important than Marx. Many of the social programs that are about to be cut by the democrats now were introduced by democrats in the first place. Nobody is saying they aren't bourgeois, but you have a choice between a mostly secular bourgeoise party that will cut SOME social programs and a fanatical religious that will cut ALL social programs. In foriegn policy and bailouts it's virtually indistinguishable, but the GOP stirs up hatred against muslims and gays way more than the democratic party does.

By the way, voting/not voting does not give or take away power from them. And eyeheartlenin, that quote you have in your signature by Chomsky is false, you have still yet to provide a source for it.

RGacky3

18th January 2012, 08:12

What data, you ignorant annoying Chomskyite?

What data can tell us that Dems are better for the working class? All data I've seen shows that Dems are better for the economy, written from the liberal perspective, this means that Dems are good for capitalists which rain down the goodies to us,

Poverty rates, unemployment, lower rung living standards, suicide rates, if you don't believe me I'll get you the numbers on the condition that I get an apology afterward.

Obama's administration has proven that Dems are just in line with the neo-liberal order as much as the GOP.

Yeah, in this case.

There is more evidence showing this lesser of two evils is just an illusion.

In many situations yes.

Revolution starts with U

19th January 2012, 09:05

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I don't believe you Gacky.

RGacky3

19th January 2012, 09:27

Suicide rates. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2817-rightwing-governments-increase-suicide-rates.html)
Poverty rates (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/24/poverty-labour-record-coalition-tackle)
Inequality (http://www.nextleft.org/2009/10/labours-record-on-poverty-and.html)

These are for the UK, but they are out there for the US as well.

I'm not looking up shit "for the sake of argument," if you actually don't believe that workers do somewhat better under more left leaning governments then make an arguement for it, and I'll respond.

But The point is, I am not saying "vote for democrats," neither is chomsky, but neither is he saying "never vote for democrats or republicans," it saems leninists can't seam to understand anything not black and white.

Revolution starts with U

19th January 2012, 11:51

RGacky3

19th January 2012, 11:58

The reason why is that it takes time to find it, and its pointless unless its necessary to establish.

Revolution starts with U

19th January 2012, 12:23

RGacky3

19th January 2012, 12:42

Let's just say it's necessary to establish http://www.revleft.com/vb/finally-got-chomskys-t166639/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif
If you can't back it up, don't bring it up!

its not necessary to establish facts that are already established, for example, if I'm making an argument about hitler I don't need to establish that he had a moustache independantly, if someone asks for proof, it should be because he does not believe that hitler having a moustache is true.

Suffice it to say, I was introduced to radical politics by Chomsky. I think he's a little less revolutionary than I would prefer him to be. But in no way would I call him a simple liberal. He's like a radical social-democrat.

It depends on the context ...

Revolution starts with U

19th January 2012, 12:45

Do you often find yourself facing people "arguing for the sake of arguing?" I would posit that is because you do things like say the "data proves x" and then waiting for them to tell you to provide the data.

Everybody does their own research in their own way. Why don't we just assume beforehand our "opponent" is not going to believe our fact-claims.

RGacky3

19th January 2012, 12:49

all right. But if someone debates with me, and tells me the data show that the USSR industrial production radically increased during stalin, I'm not gonna "argue for the sake of argument" that it did not, just so they can dig up the data and show me wrong what I already know is wrong (of coarse I know industrial production radically increased during stalin), because its stupid.

Revolution starts with U

19th January 2012, 12:51

stupid happens everyday. :lol:

eyeheartlenin

19th January 2012, 15:02

Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, two Clinton neo-liberal retreads, were economic advisers to Obama.

Obama's economic team take their orders from Clinton's old economic team.

Thank you for that information, Radio Raheem!

It suggests, I think, there really is an unelected "permanent government," that ensures continuity from one (neo-)liberal administration to the next. Just one more reason why "democracy" in the US is really a myth and why elections cannot bring change.

It appears that Summers was involved in the pre-history of the 2007 subprime mortgage lending crisis: In 1998, Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers testified that "sophisticated financial institutions" "appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies" and denied that there was any "need for additional regulation of the institutional OTC derivatives market." The following year, Treasury Secretary Summers endorsed the legislation that "lifted more than six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial banking, insurance, and investment services (by repealing key provisions in the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act)..." (Quotes in this paragraph from wikipedia.org)

mykittyhasaboner

19th January 2012, 18:51

There we go, so your just being dogmatic, you don't care if it improves material conditions or not, nor do you care what the data say.

Not voting for the capitalist class is a matter of principle. A principle every revolutionary should accept. You can say "dogmatic" all you want but it doesn't make it so.

Depends on the democrat, but occasionally, less damage.Does a Democratic White House alleiviate exploitation, alienation, poverty, or the otherwise general dispostion of the working class? No.

No, re-read the quote, thats not what he said, he said .... IF YOU ARE IN A SWING STATE, HE would vote for Obama (not just democrats), because he thinks (at the time), that he was better than McCain .... Its very specific.Do you think that because hes talking about "swing states" that it makes his position any different?

Most people are smart enough to get it.Most people who want revolution are smart enough to not give tacit support to this or that faction of the capitalist class. Chomsky isn't one of those people.

tons of Chomsky's criticism is of the Democrats.So then hes a hypocrite.

Says Mr. I dont' care about the data.
A statement advocating revolution against capital is not data.

Your dogmatic and idealist for holding to this IDEAL of never voting for a capitalist, because its wrong, dispite what the material outcomes would be.i don't support voting for the capitalist class because i desire an end to capitalism. Not its perpetuation.

But i guess anti-capitalism is just idealist.

And your dogmatic for throwing away chomsky, because of 1 or 2 missquoted quotes out of context.Chomsky supported voting for the Democrats before. He supported Kerry (http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20040320.htm).

You might want to read that article.

And he's quoted more, and he's respected more, and his opinions are sought after more.:lol: PROVE IT!

David Harvey teaches Kapital. That alone makes him way more relevant than Chomsky.

Azraella

19th January 2012, 19:13

Frankly, Chomsky's position on Marx is similar to my own.

That said, I like some of Chomsky's writing. I don't really agree with some of his stances.

Now can we talk about how universal grammar is bullshit?

RadioRaheem84

19th January 2012, 22:36

He's like a radical social-democrat. This is exactly how I view Chomsky, and probably how many people who casually read his political work, view him.

David Harvey teaches Kapital. That alone makes him way more relevant than Chomsky.

Harvey > Chomsky

Harvey has done more for leftists today than Chomsky ever could. Chomsky is best for intro material but what serious leftist continues reading his stuff beyond wanting to learn how hypocritical the US government is. Chomsky is not the best for theory at all.

NGNM85

20th January 2012, 00:07

What data, you ignorant annoying Chomskyite?

First of all; these kinds of comments contribute nothing to the discussion, and just make you look bad.

Second; you can’t simply call someone ignorant because you dislike what they are saying. For example; I despise Henry Kissinger, and believe he should be imprisoned, for the rest of his life, for innumerable crimes. However; I don’t get to call him ignorant, because he isn’t. He’s amoral, despicable, etc., etc., but he isn’t ignorant. Words have meanings, and they should be used with care.

Third; there really is no such thing, in the sense you are using it, as a ‘Chomskyan’, or a ‘Chomskyite’, or some such permuatation, thereof. There are Chomskyan Linguists, but they are Linguists, first, and Chomskyans, second. This is in part because of fundamental features of Anarchism. Anarchism does not claim to possess any special knowledge as to how the world works. It is merely a collection of philosophical, and ethical principles. That’s why anarchists don’t label themselves as ‘Bakuninist’, or ‘Kropotkinites’, etc. Furthermore; philosophically, at least, as far as Anarchism is concerned, Chomsky doesn’t represent any kind of significant departure from his predecessors, like Bakunin, or Rudolf Rocker.

What data can tell us that Dems are better for the working class? All data I've seen shows that Dems are better for the economy, written from the liberal perspective, this means that Dems are good for capitalists which rain down the goodies to us,

Obama's administration has proven that Dems are just in line with the neo-liberal order as much as the GOP.

There is more evidence showing this lesser of two evils is just an illusion.

Robert Pollin's Contours of Descent is a good book you need to read. Likewise Counterpunch articles done by Alex Cockburn on the same subject.

So you go ahead and cite the liberal Brookings Institute, but I will stick with leftists who began their studies by trying to figure if the Dems were better than the GOP for the working class. The answer is that there is not a dimes worth of difference.

Facts should trump ideology. We should not reject sources solely on the basis of the ideology of the authors, but on the basis of the merit of their claims. To paraphrase Trotsky; it doesn’t matter who said it, it matters that it’s true. Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer? I’ve given you at least two separate studies based on fifty years of hard, economic data. You even make a passing, albeit somewhat disingenuous, reference to it, at the end. As I said; the ideology of the authors is irrelevant. You have never offered any evidence that the studies are methodologically flawed, or that the data is incorrect. (Because it isn’t.)

NGNM85

20th January 2012, 00:22

Whoa Gacky. I'm not a, nor a fan of, Leninists, buddy :lol:
What I am trying to do is not see people say "I can show you the data." Why say it? Just show us the data ;)

EDIT; Perhaps I should have said "for the sake of GOOD argument"....

I agree, on both counts.

I know you were asking RGacky, but I took the liberty.
Here's two independent studies, going back roughly sixty years;

The first is from the Liscio Report;
http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html

The second is the Bartels study from Princeton;
http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696
(FYI; it's in PDF format.)

RadioRaheem84

20th January 2012, 02:21

Facts should trump ideology. We should not reject sources solely on the basis of the ideology of the authors, but on the basis of the merit of their claims. To paraphrase Trotsky; it doesn’t matter who said it, it matters that it’s true. Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer? I’ve given you at least two separate studies based on fifty years of hard, economic data. You even make a passing, albeit somewhat disingenuous, reference to it, at the end. As I said; the ideology of the authors is irrelevant. You have never offered any evidence that the studies are methodologically flawed, or that the data is incorrect. (Because it isn’t.) Are you daft? I didn't say I rejected the facts. I said that the study done by Brookings was spun in a way to make the Dems look good. The studies you cited last time said that the economy works better under Democratic administrations, that's all.
You would have to presume the liberal narrative that when the economy works well, it works well for workers. One of the studies I remember you citing was from an investor website.

The works I cited, great stuff by Robert Pollin and Aiex Cockburn start off trying to see if the Dems are better for the working class than the Dems; which they find out, they're not.

How do you just assume that the studies are free of ideology? It seems like you're give more legitimacy to bourgoise institutions than leftists doing good work and you get upset when we call you a raging liberal?

eyeheartlenin

20th January 2012, 03:22

.... And eyeheartlenin, that quote you have in your signature by Chomsky is false, you have still yet to provide a source for it.

Just so I understand what you are charging me with, are you saying I invented the Chomsky quote in my signature? If so, that is the third false statement about me that you have made in this discussion; first you wrote that I don't care about gay marriage equality, which is not true, and then you claimed that I don't care about preserving social programs in the US, which is also not true. Your willingness to insult someone you don't even know is astonishing!

FYI, the quote comes from Rafiq, in post #45, 12th January 2012, 15:54, in this discussion. You can read it for yourself there.

smk

20th January 2012, 04:15

David Harvey teaches Kapital. That alone makes him way more relevant than Chomsky.

wat.

don't know if u srs or not, but Kapital is a lot less relevant than nearly any of the finest works of social science produced by Chomsky.

Belleraphone

20th January 2012, 05:02

don't know if u srs or not, but Kapital is a lot less relevant than nearly any of the finest works of social science produced by Chomsky.

Oh come on, that's going too far. Chomsky is pretty much based in Marxist economics.

Just so I understand what you are charging me with, are you saying I invented the Chomsky quote in my signature? If so, that is the third false statement about me that you have made in this discussion; first you wrote that I don't care about gay marriage equality, which is not true, and then you claimed that I don't care about preserving social programs in the US, which is also not true. Your willingness to insult someone you don't even know is astonishing!

You obviously really don't care about these things if you're so indignant that you won't even vote for the party that is more likely to be friendlier towards homosexuals/not cut social programs. It's cool to get on the internet and bash people who vote democratic because they're slightly less evil, but these actually have real impact on peoples lives.

And Just because Radio Raheem said it does not mean it's true. You saw RR post it without ANY proof and you incorporate it into your signature. I think that really says a lot about what you're willing to believe, lol.

Revolutionair

20th January 2012, 05:10

Let's just say it's necessary to establish :rolleyes:
If you can't back it up, don't bring it up!

Suffice it to say, I was introduced to radical politics by Chomsky. I think he's a little less revolutionary than I would prefer him to be. But in no way would I call him a simple liberal. He's like a radical social-democrat.
Chomsky's ultimate goal is socialist anarchism. But he's going to advocate what is best for worker's right now before long term. To me, that is a flaw. But again, I'm not sure I would even have started calling myself a socialist without Chomsky.

The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.

Chomsky seems to be advocating the same as Marx?

RGacky3

20th January 2012, 10:51

Not voting for the capitalist class is a matter of principle. A principle every revolutionary should accept. You can say "dogmatic" all you want but it doesn't make it so.

Whether or not you vote obviously IS'NT a principle every revolutionary has, and its a fair debate.

Does a Democratic White House alleiviate exploitation, alienation, poverty, or the otherwise general dispostion of the working class? No.

Its not all or nothing for people in the real world.

Do you think that because hes talking about "swing states" that it makes his position any different?

yeah, because its 100% pragmatic.

Most people who want revolution are smart enough to not give tacit support to this or that faction of the capitalist class. Chomsky isn't one of those people.

How is it giving support? Other than in your mind.

So then hes a hypocrite.

Really? Your not getting this at all are you.

Voting for someone does'nt mean you agree with everything that person stands for, or even most of what he stands for.

A statement advocating revolution against capital is not data.

Its based on Data.

i don't support voting for the capitalist class because i desire an end to capitalism. Not its perpetuation.

But i guess anti-capitalism is just idealist.

How does voting lead to capitalisms perpetuation???

http://www.revleft.com/vb/finally-got-chomskys-t166639/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif PROVE IT!

David Harvey teaches Kapital. That alone makes him way more relevant than Chomsky.

You want me to find his book sales, his speach attendance????

Harvey has done more for leftists today than Chomsky ever could. Chomsky is best for intro material but what serious leftist continues reading his stuff beyond wanting to learn how hypocritical the US government is. Chomsky is not the best for theory at all.

He's not a theorist.

Anyway, you can have as much theory as you want, what chomsky does, agitate, does a lot more than theorizing.

RadioRaheem84

20th January 2012, 14:19

And Just because Radio Raheem said it does not mean it's true. You saw RR post it without ANY proof and you incorporate it into your signature. I think that really says a lot about what you're willing to believe, lol.Read his post again before you start accusing.

You want me to find his book sales, his speach attendance????What about his fucking book sales? He is good at telling us how hypocritical Western governments are and how the media loves to troll.

I really do not see how that even begins to trump David Harvey and his groundbreaking theoretical work on the economy which is spot on and some of the best continuation of Marx's theory of Capital.

And anyways, I began reading Chomsky freshman year of college, but I dumped his ass for a guy even ten times more relevant than him; Michael Parenti.

And what I, and probably others think of relevant, is substantially relevant, not trendy. Theory.

agitate,does a lot more than theorizing

Michael Parenti, is in the same category as Chomsky and he does both theorizing and agitating. He continues a lot of the work started by Gramsci. In my opinion, he should be selling out venues. He run laps around Chomsky, hands down. s

RGacky3

20th January 2012, 14:29

I really do not see how that even begins to trump David Harvey and his groundbreaking theoretical work on the economy which is spot on and some of the best continuation of Marx's theory of Capital.

Does'nt make it more influential. (Richard Wolffs work is better :))

And what I, and probably others think of relevant, is substantially relevant, not trendy. Theory.

Its subjective what is more relevant, and obviously more people consider Chomsky more relevant, unless you appealing to some trancendental "ideal" for which we can value somethings relevance

(you guys are really sounding like idealists here).

Michael Parenti, is in the same category as Chomsky and he does both theorizing and agitating. He continues a lot of the work started by Gramsci. In my opinion, he should be selling out venues. He run laps around Chomsky, hands down. s

He SHOULD Be, in your opinion, but he does'nt, but hey I'll check him out.

RadioRaheem84

20th January 2012, 14:56

You've read Chomsky but not Parenti? The Holy Trinity for left progressives in the States is;

Chomsky - Parenti - Zinn

Seriously though check him out.

RadioRaheem84

20th January 2012, 14:57

Does'nt make it more influential. (Richard Wolffs work is better http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif)

I almost choked on my sandwich when I read this.

I like Rick Wolff but he can sound a lot like a Market Socialist.

RGacky3

20th January 2012, 17:49

Well ... I don't think he's a market socialist in the traditional sense, although I think he does think that markets could exist in a socialist society, I doubt any socialist are pure anti-market.

What I like about Richard Wolff is his strick analytical process and economic understanding, I think Marxism is best in its economics, and Rick Wold applies it to Modern Economist clearly and well.

Harvey is good as well, but his economic understanding is limited, I'd put Rick Wolf up against any economist over Harvey.

Don't get me wrong though, Harvey explains Marxism extremely well and applies it as well.

You've read Chomsky but not Parenti? The Holy Trinity for left progressives in the States is;

Chomsky - Parenti - Zinn

Seriously though check him out.

Will do.

mykittyhasaboner

20th January 2012, 18:26

Whether or not you vote obviously IS'NT a principle every revolutionary has, and its a fair debate.

Voting for a capitalist party is not something an anti-capitalist revolutionary should do. It doesn't matter though, because Chomksy is not a revolutionary, but a radical liberal.

Its not all or nothing for people in the real world.Talk all you want about how the Democrats are "friendlier" to the working class, but this is not ture in any practical sense. The current US administration blatantly demonstrates this. As RadioRaheem noted earlier: since Carter, every president has attacked the working class regardless of their two-party affiliation.

yeah, because its 100% pragmatic.Its only pragmatic if you think a Democratic president would be any better for the working class. However, such a notion is incorrect.

How is it giving support? Other than in your mind.Um. By voting for the party you legitimize what said party does. Therefore you give support. Otherwise, why vote for them? Why attempt to get them elected?

Really? Your not getting this at all are you.

Voting for someone does'nt mean you agree with everything that person stands for, or even most of what he stands for.Then what the fuck does it mean?

Its based on Data.:rolleyes: i'll stop discussing whenever you want to. You don't seem to have any more arguments.

How does voting lead to capitalisms perpetuation???Directly, it does not. However by voting for one of the two capitalist parties you are supporting the capitalist state and political system as a whole.

You want me to find his book sales, his speach attendance????Go ahead. The Republicans and Democrats have huge speech attendance....does that make them revolutionaries or in any way relevant to the left? Any asshole can write books and sell them...

Book sales and speech attendance won't prove that Chomsky is more relevant or politically sound than Harvey or ("any Marxist-Leninist") such as Castro.

He's not a theorist.

Anyway, you can have as much theory as you want, what chomsky does, agitate, does a lot more than theorizing.Yeah, man millionaire author Chomsky is totally agitating in the streets. :lol:

What good does his agitation do when he tells people to vote for the Democrats?

RGacky3

20th January 2012, 19:11

Voting for a capitalist party is not something an anti-capitalist revolutionary should do. It doesn't matter though, because Chomksy is not a revolutionary, but a radical liberal.

According to you, its 100% tactical.

Talk all you want about how the Democrats are "friendlier" to the working class, but this is not ture in any practical sense. The current US administration blatantly demonstrates this. As RadioRaheem noted earlier: since Carter, every president has attacked the working class regardless of their two-party affiliation.

Not all of them, but some care, you can't say with a straight face that Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold are just as bad as John Boner or Neut Gingrich.

Its only pragmatic if you think a Democratic president would be any better for the working class. However, such a notion is incorrect.

Again, its not black and white.

Um. By voting for the party you legitimize what said party does. Therefore you give support. Otherwise, why vote for them? Why attempt to get them elected?

Legitimize to who? And by what standard? Bush won a victory on much less votes than Obama did, does'nt make his legimitacy any more or less.

Directly, it does not. However by voting for one of the two capitalist parties you are supporting the capitalist state and political system as a whole.

According to who? and by what standard?

Go ahead. The Republicans and Democrats have huge speech attendance....does that make them revolutionaries or in any way relevant to the left? Any asshole can write books and sell them...

Book sales and speech attendance won't prove that Chomsky is more relevant or politically sound than Harvey or ("any Marxist-Leninist") such as Castro.

The democrats and republicans ARE relivant, because they run the most powerful empire in the world.

Any asshole can write books and sell them? Ok then, do it.

It does'nt prove he is more politicall sound, but it does prove he's more relevant.

Yeah, man millionaire author Chomsky is totally agitating in the streets. :lol:

What good does his agitation do when he tells people to vote for the Democrats?

He'e spawned more anti-capitalits around the world than many many people.

ANd yeah, he went to prison a lot in the past, he's 80+ years old now.

NGNM85

20th January 2012, 19:56

Are you daft? I didn't say I rejected the facts. I said that the study done by Brookings was spun in a way to make the Dems look good. The studies you cited last time said that the economy works better under Democratic administrations, that's all.
You would have to presume the liberal narrative that when the economy works well, it works well for workers. One of the studies I remember you citing was from an investor website.

The works I cited, great stuff by Robert Pollin and Aiex Cockburn start off trying to see if the Dems are better for the working class than the Dems; which they find out, they're not.

How do you just assume that the studies are free of ideology? It seems like you're give more legitimacy to bourgoise institutions than leftists doing good work and you get upset when we call you a raging liberal?

I don't have the power to, unilaterally, legitimize any person, or organization. Everything you've posted so far, and I assume you're referring to the same pieces you posted last time, are virtually entirely opinion pieces, they made almost no citations, they did not perform any kind of comprehensive analysis. Conversely; what I posted were two, independent, comprehensive studies, based on hard economic data. Again; you have never offered any evidence that the methodology of these studies, or the data sets they are based on are incorrect. Again; what team anybody's playing for is, in this instance, irrelevent.

RadioRaheem84

20th January 2012, 20:37

I don't have the power to, unilaterally, legitimize any person, or organization. Everything you've posted so far, and I assume you're referring to the same pieces you posted last time, are virtually entirely opinion pieces, they made almost no citations, they did not perform any kind of comprehensive analysis. Conversely; what I posted were two, independent, comprehensive studies, based on hard economic data. Again; you have never offered any evidence that the methodology of these studies, or the data sets they are based on are incorrect. Again; what team anybody's playing for is, in this instance, irrelevent.

The only study I think has the least bit of relevance is the Bartel one. The other one is stating that that the Dems are good for the economy.

What part of that are you not getting? Something being "good for the economy" doesn't necessarily translate into being good for workers. Especially if that notion is coming from an investors website.

From the get go, most instances of organizations saying that the Dems are good for the average person have to do with studies about the Dems being better for the economy.

Contours of Descent by Robert Pollin is not an opinion piece. Alex Cockburn's book Dimes worth of Difference is also not just an opinion piece.

You're not being objective here by dismissing the latter of being too bias, and accepting the former as being straight fact. Just admit that you are a raging liberal who buys into the narrative sold about the Democrats, which itself is PR fluff.

For some reason you think it feels good accepting the framework behind all sorts of bourgoise institutions like the Economist, Freedom House (yes, everyone, he cites Freedom House), Brookings, Woodrow Wilson School, etc.

That's all you post and think it's more objective and better studied than anything produced by leftists. You hide behind their reputation which you think precedes any notion of ill repute we may think of it in here.

The brazen attitude you exhibit about your liberal links is what makes you a giant joke on this forum.

The fact that you kept insisting we were living under "corporate communism", Tony Blair and Hilary Clinton were of the left, and that Freedom House is an excellent source to cite on various nations when evaluating their freedom index, shows that you needed, badly, to be restricted. The fact that it ended up being because you made a comment about abortion doesn't surprise me but at the same time makes me question just how the mods let you slip by and repeat ad nauseum the same rhetoric in every debate.

It's as though we go in circles with your nonsense, arguing the same stuff.

mykittyhasaboner

21st January 2012, 00:06

Chomsky seems to be advocating the same as Marx?

No. Chomsky is telling people to vote for the Democrats because he thinks that it will lead to slightly better living conditions for the U.S. working class. In this respect, Chomsky is just a wishful thinking liberal.....rather than the clear headed political analyst you see in his actual writing.

Marx said that Communists should fight for the immediate interests of the working class. That is clearly not the same as Chomsky supporting the Democrats in elections, a bourgeois party, which has absolutely no interest in safeguarding the welfare of the workers.

wat.

don't know if u srs or not, but Kapital is a lot less relevant than nearly any of the finest works of social science produced by Chomsky.

Prove it.

Kapital is the most accurate and elaborate critique of capitalism ever attempted. Marx (and to a lesser degree, Engels) uncovered the laws of the capitalist economy.

Kapital is more important than anything Chomsky could ever write, as far as political economy goes.

eyeheartlenin

21st January 2012, 00:37

... You obviously really don't care about these things if you're so indignant that you won't even vote for the party that is more likely to be friendlier towards homosexuals/not cut social programs....

And Just because Radio Raheem said it does not mean it's true. You saw RR post it without ANY proof and you incorporate it into your signature. I think that really says a lot about what you're willing to believe, lol.

You really don't read other people's posts very carefully, do you?

What I wrote was,

FYI, the quote comes from Rafiq, in post #45, 12th January 2012, 15:54, in this discussion. You can read it for yourself there. That's Rafiq, not Raheem. And Rafiq provided a source.

And, as I already pointed out to you, factually Democratic state legislators were the ones who successfully opposed marriage equality in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. And the Democratic administration in Washington is undoubtedly going to cut social programs that millions of people in the US depend on.

These are not guesses or inventions; I follow US politics very closely, and the facts of US politics do not justify your claim that Democratic Party politicians are reliably in favor of marriage equality or maintaining social programs.

Belleraphone

21st January 2012, 03:59

That's Rafiq, not Raheem. And Rafiq provided a source.Whoops, heh. Got them confused. But anyway, Rafiq did not provide a source unless it was in another post that was not post 45. All he said was "I saw an interview...." There's no indication that he advocated bailing out the banks, I want a source.

And, as I already pointed out to you, factually Democratic state legislators were the ones who successfully opposed marriage equality in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. And the Democratic administration in Washington is undoubtedly going to cut social programs that millions of people in the US depend on. These incidents are only in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, gay marriage was legalized in New York and that has a mostly democratic state legislator, the same is true for all of the other states that legalized gay marriage. Also, don't forget that the republicans promise to cut the social programs even MORE than the democrats.

eyeheartlenin

21st January 2012, 04:55

Here is some current information about the allegedly progressive, labor-friendly Democrats. It appears, from the press release below, that the US Coast Guard is going to be used in an attempt at union-busting at the Port of Longview, in Washington State:

* * *

From: [email protected]
Reply-to: [email protected]

Wisconsin Labor Council Tells Obama to Order Coast Guard to "Stand Down"

January 19, 2012

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama:

With over 200 present at our monthly meeting on Monday, January 16, delegates to the South Central Federation of Labor heard a very disturbing report about the planned use of U.S. military to intervene on the side of management in a crucial labor dispute in Washington State, and voted unanimously to condemn such intervention.

The International Longshoremen Workers Union is engaged in a crucial struggle at the Port of Longview, Washington, where a multinational company, EGT, is attempting to operate as the West Coast's only non-ILWU facility, despite promising otherwise when it received millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to build its grain exporting terminal. Now, as the first ship makes its way to the port to fill up with grain bound for Asia, it is reported that Coast Guard ships and helicopters will be used to escort this ship. Use of our tax dollars and our military to assist such union busting is horrifying.

Mr. President, as Commander in Chief, we call upon you to order the Coast Guard to stand down, to not interfere on the side of management in this labor dispute.

Sincerely,

James A. Cavanaugh
President

c: Rich Trumka, Sen. Kohl, Sen. Johnson, Rep. Baldwin, ILWU

Jim Cavanaugh, President
South Central Federation of Labor
1602 S Park St #228
Madison WI 53715 * (608) 256-5111
http://www.SCFL.org

* * * * * * * * * *

http://www.facebook.com/pages/South-Central-Federation-of-Labor/335944538615

[]
TAKE ACTION to STOP Coast Guard union busting in Longview

PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE
Jan. 23 Demonstration Called to Defend Washington Dock Workers
Protest Use of U.S. Coast Guard for Union-Busting

PRESS CONFERENCE
WHEN: Monday, January 23, 2012 [1:30 p.m.]
WHERE: 1111 Broadway, Oakland, CA Homeland Security Office

PROTEST DEMONSTRATION AND MARCH
WHEN: Monday, January 23, 2012 [2:30 p.m.]
WHERE: Federal Building 1301 Clay St., Oakland, CA
For further information, contact: Jack Heyman 510-501-7080 or Michael Eisenscher 510-693-7314

On Monday, January 23, Occupy Oakland and labor organizations have called a demonstration to protest the use of armed Coast Guard cutters and helicopters to escort a ship into the port of Longview, Washington to load grain from a terminal. It is being picketed by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). EGT, a giant grain consortium which has built a new $200 million dollar terminal is violating the port's contract which provides for ILWU workers to perform waterfront labor.

In addition, with protests called by the Cowlitz County, Washington AFL-CIO, local and state police are expected to be out in force. There have been 220 arrests of union supporters in Longview and fines of over $300,000 for blocking trains and trespassing on EGT port property.

A Jan. 9 resolution by the San Francisco Labor Council condemned, "in the strongest terms," this "first known use of the US military to intervene in a labor dispute on the side of management in 40 years," since President Nixon called out the U.S. Army and National Guard in an attempt to break the 1971 postal strike. The Obama Administration's planned action is strongly reminiscent of Reagan's wholesale firing of PATCO workers, using 1248 military air traffic controllers to replace the union strikers.

The use of the military against longshore workers comes when the U.S. has chided governments around the world for unleashing the armed forces against their own citizens. In the SF Bay Area, ILWU Local 10, longshore union, and the SF Labor Council as well as Occupy Oakland are organizing a caravan to Longview to meet the ship upon arrival, possibly this month. Occupy movements in Portland and Seattle are also mobilizing supporters to go to Longview. The ILWU has a record of militant dock actions over contract issues and social protests including South African apartheid and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Anthony Leviege, a longshoreman and an organizer of the demonstration called the Longview union struggle "a watershed struggle for organized labor. No more PATCO's!".

Belleraphone

21st January 2012, 05:09

I don't have to prove that democrats are friendly to the working class, which they obviously aren't. All that I have to do is prove that they are better than the Republicans. You seem to forget that this would also happen under a republican president with anti-left rhetoric to go with it. Still didn't address my point about gay marriage, nor have you actually provided a source for your Chomsky quote.

Sir Comradical

21st January 2012, 06:13

Where did he say that?

Noam Chomsky is pro-worker. I consider him to be an anarchist and a communist (as in: wants a communist society). The Soviet Union was NOT a workers' state because it wasn't ruled by the workers, it was ruled by capitalists.

So simplified:
1. Chomsky is pro-worker.
2. USSR is anti-worker.
3. Chomsky is anti-USSR.

Rafiq, so far Chomsky has been far more successful in making the left more relevant in this world than your 'OMFG WE NEED MORE TERROR' bullshit.

Chomsky also said that the overthrow of the USSR was a "small victory for socialism". Wtf how? By plunging millions of workers into poverty? He gets extra points for comparing bolshevism to fascism.

mykittyhasaboner

21st January 2012, 20:57

Chomsky also said that the overthrow of the USSR was a "small victory for socialism". Wtf how? By plunging millions of workers into poverty? He gets extra points for comparing bolshevism to fascism.

What else could you expect? Many left intellectuals in the US like Chomsky and Zinn lauded the demise of the Soviet Union since they had distanced themselves from Soviet socialism for years. You would think that with hindsight, such early celebrations would seem unwarranted seeing as how the working people of the former Soviet Union and Eastern European states are in deep shit. Yet in 2003, Chomsky said that it was a "small victory for socialism".

As for comparing Bolshevism to fascist movements, i haven't seen Chomsky do this, but i wouldn't be surprised. Its not like it would be the first time hes advocated ass backwards politics. For example, he criticizes Obama as being worse than Bush and Blair, but he suggests voting for him in swing states.

The normally agreeable Chomsky is on occasion quite pathetic.

RGacky3

22nd January 2012, 14:19

He did'nt think the USSR was socialist in the least, at least its legal to join an independant union, that is the BASIS for any form of socialism, if workers cannot freely associate and organize, how could you possibally have any sort of socialism.

I don't agree it was a small victory for socialism, but it certainly was'nt a defete of socialism.

Sir Comradical

22nd January 2012, 23:39

What else could you expect? Many left intellectuals in the US like Chomsky and Zinn lauded the demise of the Soviet Union since they had distanced themselves from Soviet socialism for years. You would think that with hindsight, such early celebrations would seem unwarranted seeing as how the working people of the former Soviet Union and Eastern European states are in deep shit. Yet in 2003, Chomsky said that it was a "small victory for socialism".

As for comparing Bolshevism to fascist movements, i haven't seen Chomsky do this, but i wouldn't be surprised. Its not like it would be the first time hes advocated ass backwards politics. For example, he criticizes Obama as being worse than Bush and Blair, but he suggests voting for him in swing states.

The normally agreeable Chomsky is on occasion quite pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

mykittyhasaboner

23rd January 2012, 02:22

I don't agree it was a small victory for socialism, but it certainly was'nt a defete of socialism.

Whatever Gacky. The massive privatization, outright theft, poverty, health issues, unemployment and general social upheaval caused by the overthrow of socialist states means the workers are in a much worse position now than before. If the suppression of working class rights and gains isn't a defeat for socialism, or at least what could have been socialism, then i don't know what is.

The fact that Chomsky, argues that it was a victory for socialism, out of some political impulse reminiscent of western anti-communism, shows that his approach to the question is immediately flawed. He's viewing the former socialist states from an abstract standpoint; not from the basis of what the socialist movement accomplished in the 20th century.....even if he doesn't necessarily like "Leninism" or "Stalinism".

He tells people to vote for the Democrats as a result of some naive idea pertaining to the supposed beneficial economic conditions of the working class. Yet on the SU, he doesn't even mention the immense economic security and actual political involvement that was exercised by the citizens of the SU. His polemics against the SU are purley theoretical, as you can see in the video Sir Comradical posted. He can disagree all he wants with whatever definition of socialism. However that doesn't make him correct when he denounces the SU as "totalitarian" or a "right wing deviation" or "state-capitalist". Especially when he decries the Soviet state in comparison to the extremely fucked up situation we have now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

Oh man i hate this video, and basically everything he said which is very easily debatable, and most likely, demonstrably false. i watched it again to find where he compares Bolshevism to fascism.

He compared Bolshevism to "totalitarianism" (a meaningless term) in which i guess you could say includes fascist movements. Chomsky does a disservice to anybody trying to understand the Soviet Union's history and negative impacts because he, like he says, agrees with the mainstream media on polemics against the Soviet Union.

It strikes me as a very strange kind of position that Chomsky, who does a lot of criticism of mass media, uses the same words and political conclusions when it comes to discrediting the SU.

The woman who asks the question makes a point. He criticizes a lot about capitalism, the socialist movement, and whatever else. However, he doesn't have any productive politics regarding just how post-capitalist society can be created. Hes a critic without a real political alternative.

Rafiq

23rd January 2012, 02:25

Chomsky also said that the overthrow of the USSR was a "small victory for socialism". Wtf how? By plunging millions of workers into poverty? He gets extra points for comparing bolshevism to fascism.

This was especially disgusting. It was a victory for International Imperialism. I mean, I oppose the Soviet Union as a Bourgeois state, just as I oppose any Bourgeois state. But how absurd. Look at the outcome of the fall of the Soviet Union, how can you truly categorize this as some sort of victory for anything that has to do with the emancipation of the proletariat? Yup, Yeltsin was a true hero of the working class. Seriously, I won't weep the day that asshole Chomsky dies. He's a snobby (dismissive) prick personally and a piece of shit politically.

mykittyhasaboner

23rd January 2012, 02:29

This was especially disgusting. It was a victory for International Imperialism. I mean, I oppose the Soviet Union as a Bourgeois state, just as I oppose any Bourgeois state. But how absurd. Look at the outcome of the fall of the Soviet Union, how can you truly categorize this as some sort of victory for anything that has to do with the emancipation of the proletariat? Yup, Yeltsin was a true hero of the working class. Seriously, I won't weep the day that asshole Chomsky dies. He's a snobby (dismissive) prick personally and a piece of shit politically.

While i disagree with your personal assessment regarding the political economy of the SSSR, i generally agree.

The thing is, hes had time to witness from afar the outcome of the overthrow and he still, in 2003 and probably till today, will defend it as a "small victory". So much for Chomsky the radical political analyst. Its just plain hypocrisy.

RadioRaheem84

23rd January 2012, 02:38

After watching that video, I am in total shock and a bit disgusted by Chomsky. I really like his work but he was being outright intellectually dishonest.

RGacky3

23rd January 2012, 08:09

Whatever Gacky. The massive privatization, outright theft, poverty, health issues, unemployment and general social upheaval caused by the overthrow of socialist states means the workers are in a much worse position now than before. If the suppression of working class rights and gains isn't a defeat for socialism, or at least what could have been socialism, then i don't know what is.

The fact that Chomsky, argues that it was a victory for socialism, out of some political impulse reminiscent of western anti-communism, shows that his approach to the question is immediately flawed. He's viewing the former socialist states from an abstract standpoint; not from the basis of what the socialist movement accomplished in the 20th century.....even if he doesn't necessarily like "Leninism" or "Stalinism".

You could have said almost everything you said above about the fall of nazi germany.

Also suppression of workers rights? The Communist party was the best at that. It was'nt a socialist state, it was state capitalist.

He was'nt viewing them from an abstract standpoint, you viewed them based on what they actually did. We can talk about accomplishments of liberalism as well .... But its pointless.

NGNM85

24th January 2012, 20:37

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

That's a good one. I think I posted it, myself, some time ago.

daft punk

25th January 2012, 08:49

I never heard Chomsky's opinion on Marx, so I emailed him and found out.

His answer

https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
Marx had a great deal of importance to say about social and political issues, and about the economy, considering mostly an abstract model of 19th century capitalism which still provides much useful insight. He didn’t actually have a “plan.” He said very little about the nature of a post-capitalist society other than how to obtain it.
Chomsky is a chump. Pay no attention to him. I saw something he wrote on the USSR and it was appalling. He basically is lying, saying that Stalinism was a natural progression of Leninism.

Revolution starts with U

25th January 2012, 19:14

That's not a lie. I think they call that "logic."

daft punk

26th January 2012, 11:03

Lenin wanted decision making to be done at grass roots. He wanted the kulaks taxed. he said the revolution had to be international. He wanted Stalin removed from his position. He said Trotsky was the most capable leader.

Stalin consolidated one man rule. He allowed the kulaks to get rich until he realised they were becoming a threat to him. He kicked out the best socialists in 1928 and finished the rest off in 1935-8.

He carried out a bloody political counter-revolution.

Revolution starts with U

26th January 2012, 11:48

Ya, well... he should've thought out that "vanguard" idea a little better. :thumbup1:

daft punk

26th January 2012, 18:54

Well, there is a grain of truth to that, but you cant organise and defend a revolution without one. But in 1923 it should have been dismantled. Lenin never got the chance but he did warn about it in 1922.

"How could 4,700 responsible officials (and this is only according to the census) decide a matter like purchasing food abroad without the consent of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee? This would be something supernatural, of course."

speech to 1922 conference, by supernatural obviously he is being sarcastic.

Trotsky warned of the same thing.

Lenin warned of the bureaucracy taking over:

"If we take Moscow with its 4,700 Communists in responsible positions, and if we take that huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask: who is directing whom? I doubt very much whether it can truthfully be said that the Communists are directing that heap. To tell the truth they are not directing, they are being directed."

And so did Trotsky

Revolution starts with U

26th January 2012, 20:35

See that's the kind of information someone should have posted when I called Lenin a "tyrant more interested in protecting himself than genuine worker empowerment." Instead they just made ad hominems and insults, which they should have known would accomplish nothing.

I may be a little more lenient on him now :thumbup1:

Sir Comradical

30th January 2012, 02:54

He tells people to vote for the Democrats as a result of some naive idea pertaining to the supposed beneficial economic conditions of the working class. Yet on the SU, he doesn't even mention the immense economic security and actual political involvement that was exercised by the citizens of the SU. His polemics against the SU are purley theoretical, as you can see in the video Sir Comradical posted. He can disagree all he wants with whatever definition of socialism. However that doesn't make him correct when he denounces the SU as "totalitarian" or a "right wing deviation" or "state-capitalist". Especially when he decries the Soviet state in comparison to the extremely fucked up situation we have now.

What I've always said is this. If the Scandinavian social democracies were to undergo the kind of economic shock therapy suffered by the people of the Soviet Union, would Chomsky cheer that as a victory for socialism? No, he'd say it's a victory for capitalists. What's shocking about Chomsky is that I have read stuff where he mentions the decline in living standards experience by the people USSR and at the same time he cheers the overthrow of the USSR.

Oh man i hate this video, and basically everything he said which is very easily debatable, and most likely, demonstrably false. i watched it again to find where he compares Bolshevism to fascism.

He compared Bolshevism to "totalitarianism" (a meaningless term) in which i guess you could say includes fascist movements. Chomsky does a disservice to anybody trying to understand the Soviet Union's history and negative impacts because he, like he says, agrees with the mainstream media on polemics against the Soviet Union.

It strikes me as a very strange kind of position that Chomsky, who does a lot of criticism of mass media, uses the same words and political conclusions when it comes to discrediting the SU.

The woman who asks the question makes a point. He criticizes a lot about capitalism, the socialist movement, and whatever else. However, he doesn't have any productive politics regarding just how post-capitalist society can be created. Hes a critic without a real political alternative.

He clearly doesn't understand the difference between form and content. He reminds me of the naive leftists who say that the USSR and the fascist states were the same because there was a lot of goose-stepping in their military parades. He also appeals to the authority of those he himself elevates to the status of 'the mainstream marxists' - people who were influential but who actually didn't successfully pull off a revolution.

Revolutionair

30th January 2012, 11:17

What I've always said is this. If the Scandinavian social democracies were to undergo the kind of economic shock therapy suffered by the people of the Soviet Union, would Chomsky cheer that as a victory for socialism? No, he'd say it's a victory for capitalists.

Well that's speculation. But in a way I can see how the decline of working class power in Scandinavia is a victory for capitalists.

What's shocking about Chomsky is that I have read stuff where he mentions the decline in living standards experience by the people USSR and at the same time he cheers the overthrow of the USSR.

I think he said: the fall of the Soviet Union was a victory for socialism because it removed one of the ideological barriers against socialism. While the decline in working class prosperity that also resulted from the fall of the USSR, is a defeat for socialism.

I can agree with that.

He clearly doesn't understand the difference between form and content. He reminds me of the naive leftists so say that the USSR and the fascist states were the same because there was a lot of goose-stepping in their military parades.

It does prove that they were both quite militarist.

He also appeals to the authority of those he himself elevates to the status of 'the mainstream marxists' - people who were influential but who actually didn't successfully pull off a revolution.

Well you caught him making an appeal to authority, gj. As for the last part, he thinks the Commune of Paris and initital Russian revolution were good things.