My email from Chomsky

[The Feral Underclass]

I was asked by Noam Chomsky not to quote him. I have therefore deleted the message that was sent to me.

Of course there are many arguments that could be had about this but at the end of the day it is his choice and I must respect it. :ph34r:

[SonofRage]

pretty cool

[FistFullOfSteel]

nice


whats his email?

[SonofRage]

[email protected]

[Bianconero]

I enjoy reading Chomsky on United States foreign politics etc. But I realize, too, that his ideology is a parasite of Marxism-Leninism. Every word that is true in his writings is a result of Marx' and Lenin's extensive work, the rest is a mixture of anarchist idealism and bourgeois lying.

I never knew, by the way, that you can communicate with rather 'famous' people like him via e-mail. After all, good ol' Noam is becoming something of a Yankee-political popstar. The big companies' personal teddy-bear, who shouts at them, but isn't taken seriously. You know that old saying? Dogs that bark don't bite.

Can you hear the capital chanting his name, knowing that his utopianism is no real treat?

[The Feral Underclass]

But I realize, too, that his ideology is a parasite of Marxism-Leninism.

What kind of lunatic uses language like this.

[Bianconero]

I'm sorry, did that offend you? I wonder why you criticize my language. After all, what I wrote is my oppinion, and I found the expression 'parasite of Marxism-Leninism' incredibly fitting. But hey, you can maybe come over here, where I live, and try to implement true anarchist class-consciousness on my rotten Marxist-Leninist mind. Then, we'll set up a great movement, 'holding forums', 'talking' to workers, 'fighting with them, not for them' and leading them to direct paradise, Anarchism and Love. What do you say, tough-guy, we'll eventually lead a life like Robin Hood.

I don't know why you came up with your Chomsky e-mail in the first place, let alone why you opened a new thread for it. Chomsky is a bourgeois theorist, what did you expect? Praise for Marxism-Leninism? After all, good old redstar2000 could have articulated exactly the same thing.

[Pete]

Chomsky is good about replying to emails, but they are often short and too the point, which is great.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 09:30 AM
I enjoy reading Chomsky on United States foreign politics etc. But I realize, too, that his ideology is a parasite of Marxism-Leninism. Every word that is true in his writings is a result of Marx' and Lenin's extensive work, the rest is a mixture of anarchist idealism and bourgeois lying.

Mikhail Bakunin was a contemporary of Karl Marx. Would you care to back up this statement with specifics?



I never knew, by the way, that you can communicate with rather 'famous' people like him via e-mail. After all, good ol' Noam is becoming something of a Yankee-political popstar. The big companies' personal teddy-bear, who shouts at them, but isn't taken seriously. You know that old saying? Dogs that bark don't bite.

Can you hear the capital chanting his name, knowing that his utopianism is no real treat?


and we all know that the Marxist-Leninist in the US have have such a huge bite :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

You do not offend me Bianconero it just seems very strange using such phrazes. People like George Bush and Hitler use the words parasite. In hindisight i suppose your right it is a parasite on marxism-leninism. Which I guess is a good thing.


I don't know why you came up with your Chomsky e-mail in the first place, let alone why you opened a new thread for it.

I thought people would be interested to read it. Nothing more. People who might be interested to read it may not have seen it in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat thread.

Unfortunatly it has no conspiracry type reasoning behind it.

[Bolshevika]

I enjoy Chomsky's work, but I really overestimated his knowlege of Marxism and Communist history. "Vicious dictatorship"? Come on, that is Anarchist rhetoric.

Although it is very cool of him that he emailed you back.

[Pete]

Then, we'll set up a great movement, 'holding forums', 'talking' to workers, 'fighting with them, not for them' and leading them to direct paradise, Anarchism and Love

What is bourgeois or Leninist about that? As we can see in Mexico, this works. The Zapitistas more or less are the product of a group of educated Mexicans talking to the indigenious people, enlightening them on their situation, and how it should be. Through education and fighting with them they are establishing something and making changes. On the other hand, we all know that Leninism has had little lasting effect on the pratical ideology other than being used as an example of what not to do, although, like all great theories, it has its gems which can be gleaned.

It is hardly practicle to think that one can reach a communist society without first attainin gthe proper level of peoples' (not workers, I see that as exclusive) consiousness, and without fighting with the people, instead of on their behalf.

Sure you can pull quotes out of your ass and from Lenin and Marx, but what does that prove but a form of dogmatism inherent in Leninism? Terms like "revisionists" just prove their inflexibility more and more. To make change you must be able to change your self, and to make peoples' change you must be part of the people, not the guiding hand but one of many leaves on the tree.


Chomsky is a bourgeois theorist

And Lenin was a noble, which is, in my opinion, much worse than bourgeois.

[Bolshevika]

And Lenin was a noble, which is, in my opinion, much worse than bourgeois.

!?!!? Explain yourself!

[Pete]

Lenin was a minor noble. It is a historical fact. I'm sure you know what a noble is. Lenin was angered by the Tsar when his brother was killed for treason. That is why he was exiled, tried to get revenge.

Nobles were, to be colliqual about it, bastards wherever they existed. In Russia they where worse, since all peasants where little more than serfs.

Edit: corrected a bit of bad grammar (I used "where" instead of "were" in the second paragraph)

[SonofRage]

Hmm, I never heard of him being a noble. I know he was the son of a civil service official. His brother was hanged for plotting to kill the Tsar.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 06:10 PM
It is hardly practicle to think that one can reach a communist society without first attainin gthe proper level of peoples' (not workers, I see that as exclusive) consiousness, and without fighting with the people, instead of on their behalf.

Sure you can pull quotes out of your ass and from Lenin and Marx, but what does that prove but a form of dogmatism inherent in Leninism? Terms like "revisionists" just prove their inflexibility more and more. To make change you must be able to change your self, and to make peoples' change you must be part of the people, not the guiding hand but one of many leaves on the tree.

And Lenin was a noble, which is, in my opinion, much worse than bourgeois.
The aim of Leninists is to affect the consciousness of people, to raise a revolutionary consciousness. Leninists see that it will not happen spontaneously.

revisionists" just prove their inflexibility

Terms such as revisionist are relevant, I could revise anyone's ideology to the point where they disassociated me from their ideology. I can be done to whatever ideology you have Crazy Pete. Revisionism and dogmatism are not absolute terms where you choose one side of the other.

And Lenin was a noble, which is, in my opinion, much worse than bourgeois.

Did Lenin act like a noble? Is Chomsky's theory bourgeois in nature? These are the questions, not what class these two individuals belong to. There was not a large middle class in 19th Century Russia and as an individual from a wealthy family Lenin had access to a good education. Chomsky on the other hand has spent too long listening to the reactionary lies in AmeriKKKa.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 23 2003, 01:53 PM
Did Lenin act like a noble? Is Chomsky's theory bourgeois in nature? These are the questions, not what class these two individuals belong to.
I have to agree with CM on this one...

One's background is less important than his (it works here, as we're talking about Lenin and Chomsky) attitude, his theory, and his practice/example.

The bigger question is whether Lenin or Chomsky has a better idea of what needs to be done. What did Lenin say or do that we can learn from, adopt into our revolutionary program? What has Chomsky said or done that we should add?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 06:08 PM
I enjoy Chomsky's work, but I really overestimated his knowlege of Marxism and Communist history.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand you.

More from Chomsky on this subject:
Leninism and State Capitalism (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/intellectuals-state.html)
Q&A on Anarchism (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html)
Anarchism, Marxism & Hope for the Future (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9505-anarchism.html)
Notes on Anarchism (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/notes-on-anarchism.html)

[Bolshevika]

Noam emailed me back as well :


It's hard to talk about a "Marxist revolution." Marx was a theorist of
capitalism. He had little to say about a post-capitalist world, or how
to
get there. We know what a Leninist revolution would be, because we
have an
example. Won't try to explain in a letter, but the Leninist
revolution, in
my opinion, was basically a coup, in which Lenin and Trotsky exploited
popular struggles to take state power, and proceeded very quickly to
destroy every socialist, popular, democrat element in the pre-coup
period,
and did so in principle: as doctrinaire Marxists, they anticipated a
revolution in Germany, and when that was smashed, turned to the task of
driving a very poor mostly peasant society towards industrialization,
with
violence when necessary. Stalin turned it into an utter monstrosity,
as
did Mao, in his own way.

Noam

[redstar2000]

Chomsky is a bourgeois theorist, what did you expect? Praise for Marxism-Leninism? After all, good old redstar2000 could have articulated exactly the same thing.

The implication is that if Chomsky is a "bourgeois theorist" then I must be one "too" since I also am disinclined to praise "Marxism"-Leninism.

This kind of response is not really political discussion at all; it's theological.

Who are the "heretics"?

Anyone who doesn't worship the proper "gods" in the proper way, of course.

Actually, Professor Chomsky and I would probably disagree about many things...and agree about many other things.

For that matter, you and I actually agree about many things.

It is notable among Leninists, however, that should one disagree with them about something...the effort is often made to "link" them with some other person who also disagrees...and who has the most odious reputation possible.

Stalin carried this further than anyone else: Trotsky opposes me...so does Hitler. "Therefore" Trotsky = Hitler.

I could do the same thing, of course. Bush is critical of Cuba...so is Chomsky. "Therefore", Bush = Chomsky.

As it happens, I do think of Chomsky as a "left bourgeois" critic of capitalism...one of several such. Ralph Nader comes to mind, for example. That doesn't invalidate their criticisms...it usually just means that their criticisms tend to be incomplete and fail to get to the systematic roots of capitalism and imperialism.

For all those that do criticize capitalism as a system and wish to overthrow it, different criteria apply. How should it be done? By whom? Under what circumstances?

The views of "left bourgeois" critics are usually not very relevant here...it's not going to happen by electing Ralph Nader to the presidency, even if he makes Noam Chomsky his Secretary of State.

It's very far from "exactly the same thing".

:redstar2000:

PS: Just to stir the pot a bit, Bakunin was also a noble and of a considerably higher status than Lenin's father. I believe his old estate is currently a museum in Russia now.

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

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

[Pete]

I brought that up because of the claim that Chomsky is a bourgeois theorist seemed to stem from the fact that Chomsky is a bourgeois.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I have to agree with rs2k here that the dogma and sectarianism in this thread are crossing over from politics into theology...

hey redstar,

Would you care to elaborate why you believe Chomsky's "criticisms tend to be incomplete and fail to get to the systematic roots of capitalism and imperialism"?

[Bianconero]

Mikhail Bakunin was a contemporary of Karl Marx. Would you care to back up this statement with specifics?

Karl Marx analysed society on an intellectual and inspirational basis that was not only revolutionary, but that also was never reached before and that probably will never be reached again.


People like George Bush and Hitler use the words parasite.

And? I know it's rather radical langage, but so what? I'm sure Hitler used the saying 'fighting with the people, not for them' too. Do you want me to assume now that Anarchism is Hitlerism?


The implication is that if Chomsky is a "bourgeois theorist" then I must be one "too" since I also am disinclined to praise "Marxism"-Leninism.

This kind of response is not really political discussion at all; it's theological.

Personally, I don't worship your ideology as proletarian. That would be too much praise for someone who is not only refusing to accept the truth behind Lenin's writings (Do you actually reject his analysis of Imperialism, too? Just being curious.) but is also willing to simply sit back and 'wait for things to happen.'


It is notable among Leninists, however, that should one disagree with them about something...the effort is often made to "link" them with some other person who also disagrees...and who has the most odious reputation possible.

Stalin carried this further than anyone else: Trotsky opposes me...so does Hitler. "Therefore" Trotsky = Hitler.

I could do the same thing, of course. Bush is critical of Cuba...so is Chomsky. "Therefore", Bush = Chomsky.

I can assure you that I completely reject your pathetic bourgeois humour. Assuming that all Leninists are the same is something I have no tolerance for. I understand that the above wasn't meant as a joke. If it was, I am sorry.

Furthermore, Bush is not 'critical' of Cuba. He is a representative of the fat, chauvinist, racist and greedy Yankee-Satan imperialists. Therefore, his class-nature implies that he wants to destroy Cuban freedom.

Chomsky, on the other hand, is a whining liberal-leftist-anarchist utopian. He is a representative of the 'want to be a good guy' bourgeois, who is always the first to criticize, but would never consider to actually do something.

'Therefore', they are both pitiful, but not the same.

[redstar2000]

hey redstar,

Would you care to elaborate why you believe Chomsky's "criticisms tend to be incomplete and fail to get to the systematic roots of capitalism and imperialism"?

It's my understanding that class struggle is conspicuous by its absence from Chomsky's works.

Thus, his criticisms of imperialism rest on the "facts" that 1. it's "inhumane; and 2. it's "irrational" for the bourgeoisie to treat people inhumanely.

This is what any "enlightened" and "intelligent" bourgeois would say to his class.

I think that Professor Chomsky is a "moral" man...he sees the existence of "evil" and does what he can to oppose it.

But "morality" alone doesn't work very well...hardly at all. There were hordes of moral reformists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries...but it was not until serious class struggle erupted that the "great reforms" of the social democratic period (1919-1939) were actually enacted.

Likewise, anti-imperialism in the advanced capitalist countries will remain marginalized until ways are found to link those struggles with class struggle.

There have been some interesting "straws in the wind" lately: dockworkers in Oakland (California), steelworkers in Miami, etc. These highly-paid workers--always assumed to be "conservative"--are beginning to recognize the price of imperialism/globalization.

The next decade or two should be interesting.


Karl Marx analysed society on an intellectual and inspirational basis that was not only revolutionary, but that also was never reached before and that probably will never be reached again.

Perhaps I misread the "tone" of this statement, but it sounds like more theology.

What Marx actually attempted to do was make a scientific examination of how societies change. People differ on how successful that attempt was...but that's what he was trying to do.

To suggest that "it will never be reached again" is entirely contrary to his whole attitude. There have been an absolutely enormous number of works written to expand Marx's initial hypotheses...some very good and some not so good.

But to suggest no further progress is even possible--is that what you mean?--is unscientific and therefore uncalled for.


Personally, I don't worship your ideology as proletarian. That would be too much praise for someone who is not only refusing to accept the truth behind Lenin's writings (Do you actually reject his analysis of Imperialism, too? Just being curious.) but is also willing to simply sit back and 'wait for things to happen.'

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think Lenin's Imperialism goes too far in suggesting that "a higher stage" of capitalism has been reached. Capitalism and imperialism were linked from the very beginning.

Would it make sense to you if you encountered a book called Globalization...the Really Highest Stage of Capitalism?

It's probably not very useful to speak of "stages" of capitalism at all...except historically. We don't know yet what the "highest stage" of capitalism is...and we won't know until capitalism is behind us and we can look back and see.

I've never told you or anyone to "sit back and wait for things to happen"--why do you folks always repeat that accusation?

What I've said to you is that whatever conscious revolutionaries actually do is small beans compared to the working class as a whole and the historical development of its consciousness...which proceeds from technological and economic factors over which you (nor anyone else, not even the capitalists) have no control.

Is that a "disillusioning" message? Do you think that because you can't "make history" on a grand scale, that "therefore" you should do "nothing"?

That's not my view. I think real communism would be a good thing...therefore I advocate it and do whatever I can to advance it.

I'm just not under the Leninist delusion that a small elite of "especially enlightened people" can overcome or even have a measurable effect on what is going to happen anyway.

You may, if you are unusually fortunate, be able to impose something that you call "socialism" on a given country at gunpoint...but material reality prevails. An undeveloped economy with a weak colonialized bourgeoisie and semi-feudal relations in the countryside will, regardless of the red flags, etc., become in the natural course of events, a modern bourgeois economy with a modern ruling class.

That is the way human societies develop in the present era...no act of will can change that, though it can certainly impose detours.


I can assure you that I completely reject your pathetic bourgeois humour. Assuming that all Leninists are the same is something I have no tolerance for. I understand that the above wasn't meant as a joke. If it was, I am sorry.

No, I wasn't joking at all...the "linking" of people with different views is really quite common in the literature of Leninism. Believe me or not as you wish.


Chomsky, on the other hand, is a whining liberal-leftist-anarchist utopian.

Oh, come now. As Comrade James pointed out quite some time ago, if Chomsky supported candidates in bourgeois elections, that clearly places him outside of the mainstream of anarchist practice.

He may be sympathetic to anarchism; that doesn't mean he is one. He probably does have a mixture of bourgeois liberal and utopian communist ideas...it's not uncommon to find that in elite universities.

But whining?

Why could I not say the same of you?

There's actually been quite a lot of Leninist "whining" on this board over the last couple of weeks...big deal!

It comes with the territory.

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

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

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 01:53 PM

Mikhail Bakunin was a contemporary of Karl Marx. Would you care to back up this statement with specifics?

Karl Marx analysed society on an intellectual and inspirational basis that was not only revolutionary, but that also was never reached before and that probably will never be reached again.

umm....ok....I don't know what that has to do with what I said. Go back and look at the context of what I was asking. You said "...his ideology is a parasite of Marxism-Leninism. Every word that is true in his writings is a result of Marx' and Lenin's extensive work..." That is what I asked you back up with specific examples. Instead you gave a response that sounds more like the kind of response I'd get from a Bible-thumper if I ask a question about Jeebus.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 11:19 AM
It's my understanding that class struggle is conspicuous by its absence from Chomsky's works.

What about Noam Chomsky - Class War: The Attack on Working People (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm)?

[redstar2000]

SoR, there's no text at that site to consult. :o

So I have to guess: my guess is that his book concentrates on class war from the standpoint of the ruling class. I've seen a number of books that do that...pointing out how the capitalist class wages class war against the working class but soft-pedaling or even dismissing working class rebellion as "futile" or "utopian".

But I could be wrong about that. If you have a hard copy of the work, perhaps you can pull up some relevant extracts with regard to the working class and proletarian revolution.

I would be surprised...but I'd be glad to be proven wrong in this instance.

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

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

[SonofRage]

My apologies, I gave the wrong link. Here is what I meant to give:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/cw/index.cfm

It's an hour his him speaking, it's audio you can listen to for free online.

[redstar2000]

I apologize, SoR, for my ancient computer. I just don't have the time to fight RealPlayer (I've tried before...installing and uninstalling three times).

But look at the descriptions of each section...don't they give the impression of someone looking down and saying, in effect, "yes, capitalism is winning on every front". It is about class struggle, but seen from the ruling class side of the barricades.

That doesn't mean he sympathizes with the ruling class...obviously his sympathies are with the working class. It's just where he's standing to look.

He doesn't seem to see any real possibility of working class resistance.

I know, that's a lot to conclude from some very slender evidence. Note that his section "what is to be done" at 0:53 is far and away the shortest of the sections. Evidently, not much.

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

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

[S.B.]

Comrades


I personally have no regard for those who use socialist theories and political analysis as a means to sell books and lecture for capital gains.

Whenever you witness Chomsky sharing his thoughts for the sake of the people rather than for the bourgeois pursuit of wealth,when he comes into confrontation with the government for stirring revolt and handing out arms ... then I will consider him worthy of notice.


K.S.B.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 09:09 PM
Comrades


I personally have no regard for those who use socialist theories and political analysis as a means to sell books and lecture for capital gains.

Whenever you witness Chomsky sharing his thoughts for the sake of the people rather than for the bourgeois pursuit of wealth,when he comes into confrontation with the government for stirring revolt and handing out arms ... then I will consider him worthy of notice.


K.S.B.

oh god get off your high horse. I'm sure you're planning on working for free your whole life. :rolleyes: It's not like he's amasing huge fame and fortune off his books and speaking. Most people don't know who the hell he is.

You should note that his spoken lecture CDs are available online to listen to for free and if you look at the prices of his books, you can get them very cheaply.

redstar, if real player if giving you problems, you could download Media Player Classic (http://www.divx-digest.com/software/media_player_classic.html) (it's a short download) and install the Real Alternative (http://www.k-litecodecpack.com/) codecs and this will allow you to play the files.

I think Chomsky sees his role as mostly creating awareness and just educating people.