Hi, long live the worker!

[Brosip Tito]

Hey all, nice to be here. Uh...I don't know what to say...

I like Slavoj Zizek, Lenin, and I've been interested in David Harvey as well. I'm new to Marxism, I used to be a Noam Chomsky type, but I started reading Marx and talking politics with my friend's father who's a die hard Maoist.

Well yeah. Hope to learn a lot here :).

[ColonelCossack]

Hello and welcome. I've seen the Zizek quote in your signature before...

[Rafiq]

good to see yet another leftist has moved beyond the political constraint that is Chomskyanism.

[NewLeft]

good to see yet another leftist has moved beyond the political constraint that is Chomskyanism.

Are you jealous of chomsky or something..

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Welcome! I'm a Zizek and Lacan fan, though I think they were/are only seeing part of the whole picture, one that's had more and more light shed on it since Saussure. Basically a satisfying understanding of false consciousness. Don't ask me about that later, I'm drunk off my ass, like I usually am right before posting flyers and running from... people. Viva el proletariado! Muerte a los bourgiousie!

Oh and beware of Mao and Chomsky, of course. Vaneigem is the way to go! Wikipedia is your friend when learning about the bazillion ideologies people still subscribe to. Learn all of them in half an hour, like a boss.

PM me if you ever need a thing, comrade! And don't be seduced by that sweet blind security like so many leftists are!

[Tim Cornelis]

good to see yet another leftist has moved beyond the political constraint that is Chomskyanism.

There is literally no one who is an adherent of Chomsky. Chomsky correctly asserts that he is not an anarchist philosopher, he is a philosopher who also is an anarchist.

Chomsky does not put forward any new perspective on anarchism, so you cannot logically be a Chomskyan.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Technically, there are adherents of Chomskyanism. There's no logical way to do it, but it won't keep people from trying. There's Robtran, for example. He used to have an encyclopedia dramatica article, but now it redirects to "trying too hard".

Also I think Rafiq meant the sillyness metonymized by Chomsky. Like thinking Chavez is likely to accomplish something. But I'm glad to see Chomsky getting some love, regardless. He did say this, after all:
yQsceZ9skQI

[Rafiq]

There is literally no one who is an adherent of Chomsky. Chomsky correctly asserts that he is not an anarchist philosopher, he is a philosopher who also is an anarchist.

Chomsky does not put forward any new perspective on anarchism, so you cannot logically be a Chomskyan.

But of course you can. Chomsky is not just a collection of political views. It is a style. A shit one at that.

[Rafiq]

Also I think Rafiq meant the sillyness metonymized by Chomsky. Like thinking Chavez is likely to accomplish something. But I'm glad to see Chomsky getting some love, regardless. He did say this, after all:
yQsceZ9skQI

This was one of the most ridiculous things he ever said. And to glorify the provisional government like that.... Spoken like a true Bourgeois Socialist.

[NewLeft]

This was one of the most ridiculous things he ever said. And to glorify the provisional government like that.... Spoken like a true Bourgeois Socialist.
Bourgeois is just a pejorative to you..

[o well this is ok I guess]

oh dear OP it looks like your thread is devolving into a Chomsky thread.
But anyways yeah sup bro cool to see you here.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

And to glorify the provisional government like that....Just the soviets, it sounded like to me. He even called the "organs of worker control" that is, the soviets and factory councils, defective.

[Rafiq]

Bourgeois is just a pejorative to you..

Can you explain this furtherly? Noam Chomsky is a Bourgeois socialist in the sense that he cannot comprehend, nor accept a full, radical, unrelenting destruction of the capitalist mode of production. He will sympathize with anything he deems "Socialist-like or More Democratic" (cooperatives, the provisional government, Thommy Jefferson, etc.).

A Bourgeois Socialist is a "Socialist" who is ideologically bound by the constraints of Liberalism and lacks a concrete scientific understanding of the material world. A Bourgeois socialist is motivated by feelings of romanticism, to them, socialism is merely a side-belief that doesn't infringe on their role as a champion of Bourgeois thought (Did you know that Chomsky's Linguistics work is 100% Bourgeois-Idealist? He contributed to Reactionary psychology in the United States).

[Rafiq]

Just the soviets, it sounded like to me. He even called the "organs of worker control" that is, the soviets and factory councils, defective.

He did, glorify the provisional government by calling it "an actual existing democracy" or something like that.

Chomsky is a fool. The provisional government was merely paving the way for someone like Kornilov, or, at best a war with germany. Do you think your precious soviets would even last a week, should war with germany start? Or a coup from Kornilov? The Bolsheviks, at the very least, gave the soviets power to manage their own workplaces, etc. The Bolsheviks, at least, were unquestionably progressive in regards to laws about Sex, Race, and Child labor laws.

Kerensky was a scumbag, a cooperator of counter revolutionaries. The provisional government had the stench of monarchists and capitalists.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

I don't have the historical erudition to argue what could have happened. But the token progressive aspects of the Bolsheviks were a drop of water in the ocean of blood that came of the bureaucracy they created. It has nothing to do with the fact that they destroyed an embryonic socialism, no matter how doomed it was, and ultimately accomplished nothing but perverting the word 'socialism'. There's no reason Lenin couldn't have created a stronger state that still largely consisted of the soviets. Even if they led themselves to certain death, that's their right.

No argument that Kerensky was a scumbag, etc.

[Caj]

(Did you know that Chomsky's Linguistics work is 100% Bourgeois-Idealist? He contributed to Reactionary psychology in the United States).

Lol! :rolleyes:

You talk about having a concrete, scientific understanding of the material world and then reject Chomsky's contributions to linguistics because they are "Bourgeois-Idealist" and "Reactionary".

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Yeah, his linguistics stuff helped a lot with developing programming languages. Idealist or not, it's perfectly useful.