All the hating on Chomsky...

[Dogs On Acid]

Because he doesn't dig Authoritarianism.

He has some really interesting articles and I love him to bits.

Haters gonna hate.

[Ostrinski]

Not for not digging authoritarianism, but his reasons for not digging authoritarianism.

[Renegade Saint]

His shilling for Democrats turns me off a lot more than his aversion to "authoritarianism".

[Caj]

He's written some good stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a moralistic liberal.

[~Spectre]

His shilling for Democrats turns me off a lot more than his aversion to "authoritarianism".

Except he doesn't do that.

[Grenzer]

As others have said, there are legitimate reasons to dislike Noam Chomsky. It's true that some take that hate to a bit excessive level though.

Not all of his work is terrible. I didn't think Manufacturing Consent was that awful, but most of his other stuff I'm not a fan of.

[Dogs On Acid]

Such as...

[Dr Doom]

typical liberal. no class analysis. supports chavez and called on people to vote for obama but anarchists let it slide cus hes their celebrity poster boy. and hes really really boring to listen to.

[Dogs On Acid]

typical liberal. no class analysis. supports chavez and called on people to vote for obama but anarchists let it slide cus hes their celebrity poster boy. and hes really really boring to listen to.

He's not a typical liberal, I'm sorry but that's BS.

He's just a softie democratic socialist.

[~Spectre]

Not for not digging authoritarianism, but his reasons for not digging authoritarianism.

He's hated for two reasons on these boards:

1) He's anti-authoritarian, in a board composed of majority authoritarians.

or

2) Jealousy. He doesn't say "proletariat" enough, thus "that teh libruul can't be as smart as me!!11!1"

When you consider how many right wing hacks and mediocres spent their time echoing around the same weaksauce "criticisms" of Chomsky, it makes one not even want to engage in legitimate criticism in of his positions.

Respect your elders bros.

[~Spectre]

typical liberal. no class analysis.

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499


Read a fucking book.

[Drosophila]

He encourages people to go out and vote in elections for Democrats. He just doesn't strike me as someone who really has an interest in class struggle.

[Dogs On Acid]

He encourages people to go out and vote in elections for Democrats. He just doesn't strike me as someone who really has an interest in class struggle.

He claims to vote Socialist. When has he actually been doing this?

[~Spectre]

He encourages people to go out and vote in elections for Democrats.

He doesn't do that either. The closest he comes to this is when he said

"Vote against Bush in swing states, with no illusions". He likewise said the same about McCain and Obama.


Unless you're some kind of reactionary liberal, those words aren't an encouragement to vote for democrats. They're a recognition that the few people that might listen to him, could theoretically keep George W. Bush out of office.

[NewLeft]

I ♥ Chomsky, but let's be honest here. He does encourage people in "swing states" to vote for Obama as a better of two evils. He didn't do this back in the day, but I guess he aged..

Can't wait for Rafiq.

[~Spectre]

Also, strawmanning him with one questionable position he's taken is really fucking stupid. He's never done anything as "liberal" as back imperialist wars, something that Karl Marx himself did.

Is Karl Marx a dumb liberal because of his one questionable position that he once held? Of course not. Perspective yo'

[Dogs On Acid]

Also, strawmanning him with one questionable position he's taken is really fucking stupid. He's never done anything as "liberal" as back imperialist wars, something that Karl Marx himself did.

Is Karl Marx a dumb liberal because of his one questionable position that he once held? Of course not. Perspective yo'

http://www.janitorbros.com/Bro_Fist.gif

[Renegade Saint]

Also, strawmanning him with one questionable position he's taken is really fucking stupid.
I can't take someone seriously if they're still on the lesser evil bandwagon in 2012. It's not "one questionable position"; it's a serious of obviously terrible positions going back decades.

I actually like Chomsky well enough. I'm just no chomskyite.

BTW, when I read Manufacturing Consent the words "class analysis" didn't come to mind.

[~Spectre]

http://www.janitorbros.com/Bro_Fist.gif

I actually did this.:eek:

[Dogs On Acid]

BTW, when I read Manufacturing Consent the words "class analysis" didn't come to mind.

When I read my cooking book, class analysis doesn't come to my mind. I still like it though.

[~Spectre]

I can't take someone seriously if they're still on the lesser evil bandwagon in 2012. It's not "one questionable position"; it's a serious of obviously terrible positions going back decades.

I actually like Chomsky well enough. I'm just no chomskyite.

BTW, when I read Manufacturing Consent the words "class analysis" didn't come to mind.


Weasel words. And, his media analysis is a much more thorough version of the Marxist take on it, usually summed up by Marx's quote:


The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.

If Marx were around, he would have had a blurb on the book jacket, recommending all broletarians read it.

[Homo Songun]

http://stowell.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/working_class_cookery_book_red.jpg?w=792&h=1024

[Dr Doom]

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499


Read a fucking book.

chomsky fanboys are the WORST. seriously.

[Renegade Saint]

When I read my cooking book, class analysis doesn't come to my mind. I still like it though.
Except that the OP used Manufacturing Consent as an example of Chomsky's class analysis.

[#FF0000]

He's hated for two reasons on these boards:

1) He's anti-authoritarian, in a board composed of majority authoritarians.

Nah it's a board composed mostly of soft-headed dipshits with a persecution complex who think that every other sect runs the board.

I don't know if you noticed dogg but this is literally a forum full of anarchists that are only barely half a hair of the resident stalin-kiddy pack who serve as little more than a punching bag because they are just so dumb.


Respect your elders bros.

Chomsky says good things. He also votes Democrat. I take issue with that.

[~Spectre]

He also votes Democrat. I take issue with that.

He doesn't vote democrat. He lives in a blue state, and normally votes Green or Socialist.

[Dogs On Acid]

http://stowell.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/working_class_cookery_book_red.jpg?w=792&h=1024

Don't judge a book by it's cover...

[Renegade Saint]

He doesn't vote democrat. He lives in a blue state, and normally votes Green or Socialist.
So he'll vote third party as long as there's no danger of it actually mattering. How courageous.

[NewLeft]

He doesn't vote democrat. He lives in a blue state, and normally votes Green or Socialist.
You see, that's the problem. The idea that we can vote in socialism..

He votes Socialist/Green and he knows they can't win.

[#FF0000]

He doesn't vote democrat. He lives in a blue state, and normally votes Green or Socialist.

Ah yes but if one were to live in a swing state, vote Obama but do so 'without illusions'. A pretty shitty position to take.

Like I said, he says some good things, some bad things. What I mostly take issue with the profoundly stupid idea that people don't dig chomsky because of his 'anti-authoritarianism', which is dumb on the first hand because you're just cramming words in a lot of people's mouths and double-dumb because this is a forum loaded with anarchists and token others and you have to be a big dumb baby to complain about authoritarians here.

EDIT: and I think you're a dullard because you got super mad over a thing that was basically made up i.e. the authoritarian thing.

[~Spectre]

So he'll vote third party as long as there's no danger of it actually mattering. How courageous.

Voting doesn't change much. Voting green in North Eastern States, does ensure that they can keep getting access to certain platforms if they meet a minimum number of votes, thus helping them do progressive activism, at no real cost to anyone.

[~Spectre]

You see, that's the problem. The idea that we can vote in socialism..

He votes Socialist/Green and he knows they can't win.


He's very explicit that he doesn't think voting is a significant action. He calls it one of the most insignificant parts of any "electoral cycle".

[Ostrinski]

Indeed. There are many anarchists on here who disdain Chomsky.

[Renegade Saint]

Voting doesn't change much.
I agree, so why does Chomsky exhort us to vote for the second most enthusiastic capitalist party in history every 2/4 years (assuming you live in a 'swing state')?

[Revolution starts with U]

@renegade
Because Gore wouldn't lower taxes on the rich or some naive dumb shit. Btw I love Chomsky and consider him a major influence.

[~Spectre]

Ah yes but if one were to live in a swing state, vote Obama but do so 'without illusions'. A pretty shitty position to take.

It's absolutely moronic to make a big deal about it. Chomsky has a relatively small influence on anything. He won't influence the voting habits of radicals. He won't influence any "moderate". He certainly won't influence any right winger. What he might influence is a tiny amount of greens/progressives/naderites, that have decided the election, as they did in 2000 by their voting in Florida. It's not unreasonable to believe that if they had voted for "the lesser evil" in 2000, that several hundred thousand people could've avoided a horrible and painful murder at the hands of the United States. That's not an endorsement of anything, it's simply a recognition that capitalist X can be a tad worse than capitalist Y.



Like I said, he says some good things, some bad things. What I mostly take issue with the profoundly stupid idea that people don't dig chomsky because of his 'anti-authoritarianism', which is dumb on the first hand because you're just cramming words in a lot of people's mouths and double-dumb because this is a forum loaded with anarchists and token others and you have to be a big dumb baby to complain about authoritarians here.

EDIT: and I think you're a dullard because you got super mad over a thing that was basically made up i.e. the authoritarian thing.

I ain't mad. You're just projecting with the "defensiveness" thing, and just ironic when calling others dullards. Any use of the "search" feature (have you heard of it?) reveals several threads where people frequently hate on him because of how he slammed the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union. That's just a fact.


Though I do think you're mindset is revealing here. You "think" I'm a dullard because of a disagreement on this. You take issue with Chomsky over one thing, etc. It's just your proverbial ID talking. There's no real substance behind any of what you say, just "anger" that what you "feel" is wrong, is disputed.

To be fair, upon reading your last post I also took to instantly considering you dumb, but that was only to save time. I recommend the practice.

[~Spectre]

EDIT: and I think you're a dullard because you got super mad over a thing that was basically made up i.e. the authoritarian thing.

What's especially ironic is that I never advanced this as the sole, or all encompassing reason why people dislike Chomsky. I posed it as an "or" in my post. Talk about being a dullard. :lol: :rolleyes:

It's a clear formula. Motivation X or Y + "Chomsky votes democrat!!11" = thinly veiled intellectual cover for someone to feel good about themselves tackling Chomsky.

[Ostrinski]

That's not an endorsement of anything, it's simply a recognition that capitalist X can be a tad worse than capitalist Y.Quite a shitty position indeed.

[RedZezz]

He's just a softie democratic socialist.

That is where the hating is coming from.

He has some good things to say about US foreign policy, but as others have said his position ultimatly boils down for reformism.

[NewLeft]

It's absolutely moronic to make a big deal about it. Chomsky has a relatively small influence on anything. He won't influence the voting habits of radicals. He won't influence any "moderate". He certainly won't influence any right winger. What he might influence is a tiny amount of greens/progressives/naderites, that have decided the election, as they did in 2000 by their voting in Florida. It's no unreasonable to believe that if they had voted for "the lesser evil" in 2000, that several hundred thousand people could've avoided a horrible and painful murder at the hands of the United States. That's not an endorsement of anything, it's simply a recognition that capitalist X can be a tad worse than capitalist Y.
The election were 'stolen' though.. It was the democratic party that withdrew.

What makes you think that the war would have been avoided?

[~Spectre]

@renegade
Because Gore wouldn't lower taxes on the rich or some naive dumb shit. Btw I love Chomsky and consider him a major influence.

Actually, the argument usually goes that Gore, and the traditional foreign policy imperialist, tend to disdain massive ground invasions like Iraq (the deadliest variety) and tend to favor smaller actions and coups. It's brutal all around, but there is such a thing as a lesser scale of brutality.

The Bush administration was radical, even by imperialist capitalist standards. Likewise, Jimmy Carter, is slightly less bad than Ronald Reagan. To act as if there is no difference at all is just dishonest.

That's not a reason to endorse the system, which he doesn't do.It is, however, true.

[~Spectre]

Quite a shitty position indeed.

There's no difference whatsoever between them? That's your position? Really?

[~Spectre]

The election were 'stolen' though.. It was the democratic party that withdrew.

I'm not saying it would've made it a difference. I'm not even saying he's right. I'm just saying that his position isn't mindless or unreasonable. There's certainly a very defensible logic to it. Certainly it's not as dumb as Marx endorsing imperialist wars, yet we rightfully don't crucify him for that.

[Ostrinski]

There's no difference whatsoever between them? That's your position? Really?Yes.

Hell, if some capitalists are better than others, then we might as well all just become MLs and support their capitalist states.

[~Spectre]

Yes.

You're an idiot. Congrats.

[Renegade Saint]

That is where the hating is coming from.

He has some good things to say about US foreign policy, but as others have said his position ultimatly boils down for reformism.
Is there even such a thing a reformist anarchism? Chomsky is many things, but a revolutionary in word or in deed is not one of them. Some obviously a forum of revolutionary leftists is going to be somewhat cooler to Chomsky (whose 'brilliant insights' are usually blindingly obvious to us) than a forum for liberals. If you want to masturbate over Chomsky articles there's always http://www.democraticunderground.com/

Spectre, are you related to Chomsky or something?

[Ostrinski]

You're an idiot. Congrats.Better to be an idiot that doesn't support parliamentarianism than one that does.

[~Spectre]

Even if one holds the position (incorrectly) that all the policy positions would've been the exact same, certainly the methods, such as the appeal to homophobia that Bush engaged in, or the choice of Supreme Court judges (Bush appointees likely to eventually overturn a woman's right to choose) - these things wouldn't be the same.

You can argue that that's not a good enough reason to take Chomsky's position, and you may be right- but it's disingenuous to act like he's being stupid by considering the weighing of these things.

[~Spectre]

Better to be an idiot that doesn't support parliamentarianism than one that does.

It's perfectly fine to oppose voting. It simply beggars belief however, to claim that every candidate would enact the exact same policies. Even the capitalists don't believe this, or they'd spend a lot less money influencing policy outcomes of rival factions.

[marl]

Everyone has taken dumb posistions on things. Best not to get butthurt about it.

[NewLeft]

Brospierre is actually right, the two capitalist parties do represent different sections of the bourgeois, but what makes one better? The fact that they support labour? It's an illusion. For those capitalists, labour is not their primary concern. You just need to follow the money and you'll figure out who will win an election, it's practically predetermined.

[~Spectre]

Is there even such a thing a reformist anarchism? Chomsky is many things, but a revolutionary in word or in deed is not one of them. Some obviously a forum of revolutionary leftists is going to be somewhat cooler to Chomsky (whose 'brilliant insights' are usually blindingly obvious to us) than a forum for liberals. If you want to masturbate over Chomsky articles there's always http://www.democraticunderground.com/

Spectre, are you related to Chomsky or something?


Chomsky doesn't claim to have brilliant insights on politics. He admits that most of what he says is obvious. The fact that it's obvious to you however, is only a valid complaint if he was talking to you. He's not. He speaks to lay audiences, and that's a net good in the long run.

And no. What an inane question to ask me. Did Chomsky give you a poor grade in his linguistics class or something? Is this the game we're now playing?

[Renegade Saint]

It's perfectly fine to oppose voting. It simply beggars belief however, to claim that every candidate would enact the exact same policies. Even the capitalists don't believe this, or they'd spend a lot less money influencing policy outcomes of rival factions.
You're the type of leftist that if the candidates for president were Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney you'd still insist that we still vote for the "lesser evil".

[RedHal]

Chomsky endorses Jill Stein of the Green Party :laugh:

http://www.jillstein.org/chomsky

and don't forget Chomsky thinks the USA is the closest we've come to a socialist country in human history.

the man's gotta sell them books to his big liberal fanbase

[~Spectre]

Yes.

Hell, if some capitalists are better than others, then we might as well all just become MLs and support their capitalist states.

You're being illogical. You're presenting what's called a false choice. You can work to overthrow them all, while at the same time trying to prevent the craziest ones from killing millions of people.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

[~Spectre]

You're the type of leftist that if the candidates for president were Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney you'd still insist that we still vote for the "lesser evil".

Where have I suggested that I'd do that? Where have I suggested that Chomsky is definitively right on any of this?

[NewLeft]

Chomsky endorses Jill Stein of the Green Party :laugh:

http://www.jillstein.org/chomsky

and don't forget Chomsky thinks the USA is the closest we've come to a socialist country in human history.

the man's gotta sell them books to his big liberal fanbase
The whole thing about America being the closest we've come to a socialist.. It comes from his review of 19th century anarchism in America.

[~Spectre]

Brospierre is actually right, the two capitalist parties do represent different sections of the bourgeois, but what makes one better? The fact that they support labour? It's an illusion. For those capitalists, labour is not their primary concern. You just need to follow the money and you'll figure out who will win an election, it's practically predetermined.

They definitely all serve the same interests. There's only a slight difference in policy planners. Some neocons favored invading Iraq, Iran, AND Saudi Arabia, and annexing the oil lane into a big "Petrostan".

Most others don't support this. Even though the operative principles behind that policy are, at the end of the day, the same, the methods have steeper human costs, and as such, Chomsky isn't being that unreasonable in wanting to prevent that.

[~Spectre]

Also, my apologies to the people I've called names in this thread. I can see how I'm coming off as a tad belligerent. My bad guys.

[Ostrinski]

It's perfectly fine to oppose voting. It simply beggars belief however, to claim that every candidate would enact the exact same policies. Even the capitalists don't believe this, or they'd spend a lot less money influencing policy outcomes of rival factions.Whether or not any two given candidates would have the same policies is just speculation. It is also speculation that a candidate will have more progressive or working class friendly policies just because the campaign is pedaled in the cloak of progressive ideology where history has shown otherwise. To favor voting in a bourgeois election, the premise must be that ideology has some kind of function when it comes to policy making, when that isn't the case. It's not individual capitalists or bourgeois politicians that should be looked at, it's the state of the capitalist structure that is relevant when it comes to policy.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Quite a shitty position indeed.

And I agree! In Fact: I would want the biggest bourgeois pigs to run things while their employees watch them drink champagne. In My Opinion: as 36 Million humans die a year of starvation or the direct causes of undernourishment, having people that represent what this system actually is, would be a great revolutionary help. The Dialectics i guess...

[x359594]

He's very explicit that he doesn't think voting is a significant action. He calls it one of the most insignificant parts of any "electoral cycle".

How Chomsky votes or doesn't vote is irrelevant to his bona fides as a foreign policy analyst. He's been the object of Zionist wrath for decades (and the hating on him by leftists is tame by comparison,) so he must be doing something right.

Chomsky's deconstruction of the corporate media is also very good. I think the "Propaganda Model" he created with Edward Herman is a good tool; it's testable and proven itself to be reliable.

Starting with the Vietnam War his articles have always been useful in formulating counterarguments to US interventions.

No one is a god or prophet, not Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, etc. They all wrote inane and regressive things at one time or another. The point is to read them critically and make use of their insights and analysis.

[Ted Lawrence]

One thing that can be said about Chomsky is that he does speak to a lay audience. He is an introduction to the radical left for quite a few young people. It was that way for me, I would have never attempted a read of Capital if it wasn't for Chomsky. This, overall is a good thing.

[Ostrinski]

You're being illogical. You're presenting what's called a false choice. You can work to overthrow them all, while at the same time trying to prevent the craziest ones from killing millions of people.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive.I'm saying that if the dynamic of bad and worse capitalists exists, which I say it doesn't, then there's no reason not to support them over an alternative regime.

[Ele'ill]

he mumbles and his sweaters aren't as good as Derrick Jensen's

[~Spectre]

Whether or not any two given candidates would have the same policies is just speculation. It is also speculation that a candidate will have more progressive or working class friendly policies just because the campaign is pedaled in the cloak of progressive ideology where history has shown otherwise. To favor voting in a bourgeois election, the premise must be that ideology has some kind of function when it comes to policy making, when that isn't the case. It's not individual capitalists or bourgeois politicians that should be looked at, it's the state of the capitalist structure that is relevant when it comes to policy.

I agree with you. The goals are set by these conditions, and Chomsky has written as much. But policy goals are a different thing than policy methods. There are different planners, with different track records that back various candidates.

Likewise, candidates are in some sense politically bound by alleged ideology when it comes to Supreme court appointments. That's small in the long scheme of things, but a woman's right to medical privacy can have a major impact for millions of real humans.

I'm not saying that makes Chomsky correct - but again, it's not frivolous.

[NewLeft]

He's concerned about his credibility.. I can't imagine him advocating revolution. Oh well, more proof that we shouldn't hold him up as some kind of icon.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

But that said, Chomsky is a complete Socialist Libertarian, original Anarchist thought. I appreciate Chomsky's "journalistic" qualities or academical honesty a lot. I don't agree with his vision, but he has very good knowledge and i believe a good non-dogmatic way of transmitting leftist ideas, which many communists/socialists sadly lack.

[~Spectre]

I'm saying that if the dynamic of bad and worse capitalists exists, which I say it doesn't, then there's no reason not to support them over an alternative regime.

I don't see how that logically follows. If choice A is better than Choice B, it doesn't stop you from trying to change the game and creating choice C.

[~Spectre]

he mumbles and his sweaters aren't as good as Derrick Jensen's

He's like the anti-Christopher Hitchens:

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/dontfuckwithhitchens.jpg

Good thing, IMO.

[~Spectre]

He's concerned about his credibility.. I can't imagine him advocating revolution. Oh well, more proof that we shouldn't hold him up as some kind of icon.

Chomsky: 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.

___

He's a useful guy, that writes a lot of useful books that are great research tools. It's perfectly reasonable to have disagreements with him (as one can disagree with Marx about the occasions where he backed imperialist wars), but that doesn't mean we should go hate crazy on him. Leave that to the imperialists.

[Sir Comradical]

Chomsky on the United States
"So, yes, the United States is a very free country, in fact it’s the freest country in the world. I don’t think freedom of speech, for example, is protected anywhere in the world as much as it is here."

Chomsky on the Soviet Union
"The Soviet Union was like a dungeon with social services."
"The collapse of the Soviet Union is a small victory for socialism."

Chomsky is a douche.

[NewLeft]

Chomsky on the United States
"So, yes, the United States is a very free country, in fact it’s the freest country in the world. I don’t think freedom of speech, for example, is protected anywhere in the world as much as it is here."

Chomsky on the Soviet Union
"The Soviet Union was like a dungeon with social services."
"The collapse of the Soviet Union is a small victory for socialism."

Chomsky is a douche.
He's a propagandist, he's trying to win over people. :sneaky:

[Sir Comradical]

More fuckwittery from Chomsky.

"It is also instructive to observe the framework in which the disaster of Communism is portrayed. That it was a monstrosity has never been in doubt, as was evident from the first moment to anarchists, people of independent mind like Russell and Dewey, and left Marxists - indeed predicted by many of them in advance. Nor could the collapse of the tyranny be anything but an occasion for rejoicing for anyone who values freedom and human dignity."

I could go on...

[~Spectre]

Chomsky on the United States
"So, yes, the United States is a very free country, in fact it’s the freest country in the world. I don’t think freedom of speech, for example, is protected anywhere in the world as much as it is here."

Chomsky on the Soviet Union
"The Soviet Union was like a dungeon with social services."
"The collapse of the Soviet Union is a small victory for socialism."

Chomsky is a douche.

He made the first statement as part of an argument that says that Americans should focus more on the crimes of their state, than they do on the crimes of others, since they face less formal political repression in opposing their state.

Similar to what Marx said:


Of all countries, England is the one where the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is most highly developed. The victory of the English proletarians over the English bourgeoisie is, therefore, decisive for the victory of all the oppressed over their oppressors. Hence Poland must be liberated not in Poland but in England. So you Chartists must not simply express pious wishes for the liberation of nations. Defeat your own internal enemies and you will then be able to pride yourselves on having defeated the entire old society.

[~Spectre]

"According to Noam Chomsky, communism "was a monstrosity", and "the collapse of tyranny" in Eastern Europe and Russia is "an occasion for rejoicing for anyone who values freedom and human dignity""
- Michael Parenti, Blackshirts & Reds.

Bullshit. His argument has always been that none of those systems were communist.

Chomsky:

When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.
It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.

As for the world's second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the 'socialist' dungeon.

The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.

One may take note of another device used effectively by State capitalist ideologists in their service to existing power and privilege. The ritual denunciation of the so-called 'socialist' States is replete with distortions and often outright lies. Nothing is easier than to denounce the official enemy and to attribute to it any crime: there is no need to be burdened by the demands of evidence or logic as one marches in the parade. Critics of Western violence and atrocities often try to set the record straight, recognizing the criminal atrocities and repression that exist while exposing the tales that are concocted in the service of Western violence. With predictable regularity, these steps are at once interpreted as apologetics for the empire of evil and its minions. Thus the crucial Right to Lie in the Service of the State is preserved, and the critique of State violence and atrocities is undermined.

It is also worth noting the great appeal of Leninist doctrine to the modern intelligentsia in periods of conflict and upheaval. This doctrine affords the 'radical intellectuals' the right to hold State power and to impose the harsh rule of the 'Red Bureaucracy,' the 'new class,' in the terms of Bakunin's prescient analysis a century ago. As in the Bonapartist State denounced by Marx, they become the 'State priests,' and "parasitical excrescence upon civil society" that rules it with an iron hand.

In periods when there is little challenge to State capitalist institutions, the same fundamental commitments lead the 'new class' to serve as State managers and ideologists, "beating the people with the people's stick," in Bakunin's words. It is small wonder that intellectuals find the transition from 'revolutionary Communism' to 'celebration of the West' such an easy one, replaying a script that has evolved from tragedy to farce over the past half century. In essence, all that has changed is the assessment of where power lies. Lenin¹s dictum that "socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people," who must of course trust the benevolence of their leaders, expresses the perversion of 'socialism' to the needs of the State priests, and allows us to comprehend the rapid transition between positions that superficially seem diametric opposites, but in fact are quite close.

The terminology of political and social discourse is vague and imprecise, and constantly debased by the contributions of ideologists of one or another stripe. Still, these terms have at least some residue of meaning. Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation. As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, "this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie," but can only be "realized by the workers themselves being master over production." Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances. But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.

The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda. They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who "pre-empt the developing revolutionary process" and distort it to their ends of domination; "Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests," which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life. For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline "will become superfluous" as the freely associated producers "work for their own accord" (Marx). Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.

The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917.

A historian sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, E.H. Carr, writes that "the spontaneous inclination of the workers to organize factory committees and to intervene in the management of the factories was inevitably encourage by a revolution with led the workers to believe that the productive machinery of the country belonged to them and could be operated by them at their own discretion and to their own advantage" (my emphasis). For the workers, as one anarchist delegate said, "The Factory committees were cells of the future... They, not the State, should now administer."

But the State priests knew better, and moved at once to destroy the factory committees and to reduce the Soviets to organs of their rule. On November 3, Lenin announced in a "Draft Decree on Workers' Control" that delegates elected to exercise such control were to be "answerable to the State for the maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of property." As the year ended, Lenin noted that "we passed from workers' control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy," which was to "replace, absorb and supersede the machinery of workers' control" (Carr). "The very idea of socialism is embodied in the concept of workers' control," one Menshevik trade unionist lamented; the Bolshevik leadership expressed the same lament in action, by demolishing the very idea of socialism.

Soon Lenin was to decree that the leadership must assume "dictatorial powers" over the workers, who must accept "unquestioning submission to a single will" and "in the interests of socialism," must "unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process." As Lenin and Trotsky proceeded with the militarization of labour, the transformation of the society into a labour army submitted to their single will, Lenin explained that subordination of the worker to "individual authority" is "the system which more than any other assures the best utilization of human resources" -- or as Robert McNamara expressed the same idea, "vital decision-making...must remain at the top...the real threat to democracy comes not from overmanagement, but from undermanagement"; "if it is not reason that rules man, then man falls short of his potential," and management is nothing other than the rule of reason, which keeps us free. At the same time, 'factionalism' -- i.e., any modicum of free expression and organization -- was destroyed "in the interests of socialism," as the term was redefined for their purposes by Lenin and Trotsky, who proceeded to create the basic proto-fascist structures converted by Stalin into one of the horrors of the modern age.1

Failure to understand the intense hostility to socialism on the part of the Leninist intelligentsia (with roots in Marx, no doubt), and corresponding misunderstanding of the Leninist model, has had a devastating impact on the struggle for a more decent society and a livable world in the West, and not only there. It is necessary to find a way to save the socialist ideal from its enemies in both of the world's major centres of power, from those who will always seek to be the State priests and social managers, destroying freedom in the name of liberation.

[Sir Comradical]

I edited that last quote and went direct.

[~Spectre]

I edited that last quote and went direct.

From the same article:


If we undertake the rational comparison, we conclude, indeed, that the Communist economic model was a disaster; and the Western one an even more catastrophic failure. There are nuances and complexities, but the basic conclusions are rather solid.

http://www.skeptic.ca/Chomsky_Goals_&_Visions.htm

He's right that would should celebrate the end of tyranny, and at the same time he contrasts Western capitalist failures against that tyranny. What's the problem?

You're not even reading what he writes. You're just cherry picking out of context quotes.

[Sir Comradical]

From the same article:



http://www.skeptic.ca/Chomsky_Goals_&_Visions.htm

He's right that would should celebrate the end of tyranny, and at the same time he contrasts Western capitalist failures against that tyranny. What's the problem?

You're not even reading what he writes. You're just cherry picking out of context quotes.

Well of course only a moron would be so oblivious as to ignore the devastation caused by capitalist restoration in the USSR. So Chomsky tries to cover his ass by saying it was catastrophic. If it was catastrophic, why then should anyone rejoice at the overthrow of the USSR?

[marl]

The USSR was holding us back. I'd elaborate on this but it's 1:35 AM and I am going to bed. Night.

[~Spectre]

Well of course only a moron would be so oblivious as to ignore the devastation caused by capitalist restoration in the USSR. So Chomsky tries to cover his ass by saying it was catastrophic. If it was catastrophic, why then should anyone rejoice at the overthrow of the USSR?

Based on your response, it's clear you haven't read the article you cherry picked from.

There are two articles posted and linked to on this very page, where Chomsky explains his views. I would suggest reading them first, and then making up your mind, not the other way around.

[the Leftâ„¢]

Ive always considered chomsky a gateway drug. I read his work on Gaza and Israel and I read more broadly some of his excerpts on theory, the 60's and anarchism. I would consider him the stepping stone to adopting and identifying with radical left philosophy. Doesnt mean he necessarily identifies with it himself though

[Dogs On Acid]

To the People saying all Capitalism is the same.

Simple question:

You rather live under Fascism or Social-Democracy?

[Renegade Saint]

To the People saying all Capitalism is the same.

Simple question:

You rather live under Fascism or Social-Democracy?
If that's ever an actual choice before us instead of a hypothetical it'll be worth answering.

In the USA the Democrats and Republicans are both Liberal Nationalist parties, neither are fascist or social democratic.

[Ocean Seal]

He's not a typical liberal, I'm sorry but that's BS.

He's just a softie democratic socialist.
Yes, that's why I don't like his thought. Moreover, "vote for the democrats b/c they are the lesser evil" isn't a well thought out idea. It has serious consequences, and it will get worse as we grow a little bit, but still aren't a serious threat to capital.

[Positivist]

If that's ever an actual choice before us instead of a hypothetical it'll be worth answering.

In the USA the Democrats and Republicans are both Liberal Nationalist parties, neither are fascist or social democratic.

Well they might seem a little different to the people cut off of social welfare programs if Republicans take control. Privatization of Medicare and the elimination of food stamps will ruin the lives of millions more people if implemented. I am not a democrat but I am a humanist, so even though I disagree with the dems and recognize them as bourgiose in nature, I still will take their welfarism over the Republicans anarcho-capitalism.

[Goblin]

I dont agree with Chomsky, but i wouldnt say that i hate him.

[NewLeft]

Well they might seem a little different to the people cut off of social welfare programs if Republicans take control. Privatization of Medicare and the elimination of food stamps will ruin the lives of millions more people if implemented. I am not a democrat but I am a humanist, so even though I disagree with the dems and recognize them as bourgiose in nature, I still will take their welfarism over the Republicans anarcho-capitalism.
That is assuming that they're for a welfare state, that's not the case.

[x359594]

This was my introduction to Chomsky:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-GUAxmxdk&feature=share

[ed miliband]

Well they might seem a little different to the people cut off of social welfare programs if Republicans take control. Privatization of Medicare and the elimination of food stamps will ruin the lives of millions more people if implemented. I am not a democrat but I am a humanist, so even though I disagree with the dems and recognize them as bourgiose in nature, I still will take their welfarism over the Republicans anarcho-capitalism.

lal swear down this is word for word something chomsky has said.

'cept actually chomsky has the sense to realise that the republicans aren't anarcho-capitalists and the democrats aren't welfarists.

and yo, the democrats are doing just that right now, aren't they?

[ed miliband]

so we have a family friend who is the stereotypical jew that anti-semite conspiracy theorists dream about - works in finance, ultra-liberal, from new yawk. anyway, he's related to chomsky and got sick on him at a family party. just a nice anecdote there.

[~Spectre]

Highlights in Chomskydom:

Chomsky v. Perle


sESIxjsvIjg


One of the greatest ass-kickings of all time.

[Renegade Saint]

Well they might seem a little different to the people cut off of social welfare programs if Republicans take control. Privatization of Medicare and the elimination of food stamps will ruin the lives of millions more people if implemented. I am not a democrat but I am a humanist, so even though I disagree with the dems and recognize them as bourgiose in nature, I still will take their welfarism over the Republicans anarcho-capitalism.
You're suffering from the delusion that the democrats are actually interested in "welfarism". Recall that it was a democratic administration that championed welfare reform that's resulted in more poor people being thrown off the welfare rolls than the republicans ever accomplished.

[black magick hustla]

actually i think a lot of anarchos who arent stuck in the head of a 19th century white man dislike chomsky. he is fucking boring and he doesn't really say anything new or interesting outside the media stuff. if you wanna see how dull and simplistic he is watch the video of his debate with foucault

[Dogs On Acid]

actually i think a lot of anarchos who arent stuck in the head of a 19th century white man dislike chomsky.

As if a lot of Communists weren't stuck in the head of a 19th century white man...

[Deicide]

Here's Chomsky at his most ''radical''.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kPlEJlmWuc

Government in the future speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49J47OU2Rd8

And class warfare speech.

[eyeheartlenin]

You're suffering from the delusion that the democrats are actually interested in "welfarism". Recall that it was a democratic administration that championed welfare reform that's resulted in more poor people being thrown off the welfare rolls than the republicans ever accomplished.

Last year, the Democratic administration called for raising the Medicare eligibility age (from 65) to 67. As this is an election year, I haven't heard much more about that proposal, which would royally stick it to millions of baby boomers, but I am sure once the 2012 elections are over, we will see, at least, an attempt by the Democrats to get the Medicare eligibility age raised. I cannot remember any Republican President in my lifetime, let alone any Democratic one, trying to do that. This is the most right-wing Democratic administration I have ever seen.

Plus, to return to the subject of the thread, the current poverty numbers, under the Democrats in power, are the worst since 1993, higher even than George W's. And all that means that Chomsky's claim, that workers do "marginally better" under the Democrats, is simply not true now. If you look at the US Census Bureau graph, about increasing poverty in the US, the line rises inexorably; i.e., the change in parties makes no difference, which, as far I can see, demolishes the basis of Chomsky's touching faith in bourgeois politics.

[x359594]

Does anyone here seriously feel compelled to follow Chomsky's bad advice about voting for Obama?

That aside, tell us what's wrong with his analysis of US imperialism (from the Vietnam War to the sponsorship of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, the proxy wars in Central America, the Gulf War and the current wars in Central Asia and the Middle East)? Or his critique of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the entire notion of "military humanism"? Or his 40 year attack on Zionism? Or his deconstruction of the corporate media?

[Althusser]

Obviously any socialist with a platform, in the US at least, should be in favor of democrats getting government seats. Laugh all you want, but I think there is some legitimate struggle between dems and republicans in office and congress. I'd rather have a house/senate with democrat majority as well as a democrat president, or at least a split, rather than an all out right wing government orgy bent on making the middle east an ocean of glass.

Which is more productive?

1.) Voting Democrat

2.) Masturbating


Inb4 hehehehehe dubm libruul, all struggl betwene dems and repubs in gubment is theatrics. lololol

[L.A.P.]

I don't like Chomsky's thought because his political philosophy is mediocre at best, he's written over 100 books (I think?) and his analysis of capitalism hasn't gone beyond Adam Smith. Also, Manufacturing Consent was by no means a class analysis, it resembled more of a liberal critique of "corporate greed in our news!" and was from the perspective of political economy. Like does anyone find the Chomskyan propaganda model all that great and insightful? I guess that's what happens when an analytic philosopher tries to critique society.

I still think his anti-war activism is appaudable and he's still an important figure in the Left. And though it's not that hard to criticize US foreign policy as all it takes is a bunch of wikipedia facts to show how terrible it is (just look at how Chomsky utterly destroys Buckley in that debate), it's still good to hear that there is someone who will simply state the truth of US imperialism.

I agree with black magic hustla that just by looking at this debate shows how dry Chomsky is

WveI_vgmPz8

S0SaqrxgJvw

[eyeheartlenin]

Does anyone here seriously feel compelled to follow Chomsky's bad advice about voting for Obama?

That aside, tell us what's wrong with his analysis of US imperialism (from the Vietnam War to the sponsorship of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, the proxy wars in Central America, the Gulf War and the current wars in Central Asia and the Middle East)? Or his critique of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the entire notion of "military humanism"? Or his 40 year attack on Zionism? Or his deconstruction of the corporate media?

For me, the thing about Chomsky is that, after all those books and journal articles, after all that research and erudition, the bottom line is still and always, the Democratic Party. Chomsky is supposedly so brilliant, but his solution is ... vote for the Democrats! What an absolute crock! It's no solution at all, and, with the elevated poverty rate under the current Democratic administration, you can't even say the Democrats are the lesser evil.

Yeah, lots of impressive books, lots of clever words on paper, but what it all, relentlessly, leads to is the imperialist, pro-war, pro-Patriot Act, Democratic Party. In other words, it's ultimately the same old Scheiss that we get daily from lesser intellects.

The first line of my signature links to a really nifty article by Chomsky, from 1991, where he advocated "severe" sanctions against Iraq. Wow! How radical! How anarchist! Calling on imperialism to punish the Iraqis! What an intellect! Plucky little America humbling mighty Iraq! How courageous of him! I repeat, it's all the same old arrogant imperialist Scheiss.

[~Spectre]

I don't like Chomsky's thought because his political philosophy is mediocre at best, he's written over 100 books (I think?) and his analysis of capitalism hasn't gone beyond Adam Smith. Also, Manufacturing Consent was by no means a class analysis, it resembled more of a liberal critique of "corporate greed in our news!" and was from the perspective of political economy. Like does anyone find the Chomskyan propaganda model all that great and insightful? I guess that's what happens when an analytic philosopher tries to critique society.

I still think his anti-war activism is appaudable and he's still an important figure in the Left. And though it's not that hard to criticize US foreign policy as all it takes is a bunch of wikipedia facts to show how terrible it is (just look at how Chomsky utterly destroys Buckley in that debate), it's still good to hear that there is someone who will simply state the truth of US imperialism.

I agree with black magic hustla that just by looking at this debate shows how dry Chomsky is

WveI_vgmPz8

S0SaqrxgJvw

God what a terrible post.

[x359594]

...Yeah, lots of impressive books, lots of clever words on paper, but what it all, relentlessly, leads to is the imperialist, pro-war, pro-Patriot Act, Democratic Party. In other words, it's ultimately the same old Scheiss that we get daily from lesser intellects...

On the contrary fellow worker. FW Chomsky (you know he's a Wob, right?) was very supportive of the New York City GMB when we ran the IWW Monthly Forum at St. Marks in the Bowery. He came down from Boston several times to give talks for the branch and raise money for organizing campaigns. Very pro-union in practice. In his old age he's become gradualist (not the same thing as reformist; he doesn't believe that capitalism can be reformed) but once a union man always a union man.

He doesn't support the Democratic party in any material way at all. Never given them a dime. If there's anything relentless it's his criticism of all capitalist politicians.

FW Chomsky has said, if you're going to vote then vote against the Republican in all cases, and if the only alternative is a Democrat, hold your nose. That's all it amounts to. And it only comes up once every four years.

[~Spectre]

For me, the thing about Chomsky is that, after all those books and journal articles, after all that research and erudition, the bottom line is still and always, the Democratic Party. Chomsky is supposedly so brilliant, but his solution is ... vote for the Democrats!

Pure fabrication on your end.



The first line of my signature links to a really nifty article by Chomsky, from 1991, where he advocated "severe" sanctions against Iraq. Wow! How radical! How anarchist! Calling on imperialism to punish the Iraqis! What an intellect! Plucky little America humbling mighty Iraq! How courageous of him! I repeat, it's all the same old arrogant imperialist Scheiss.

It's the same old "Chomsky's critics don't read shit" criticism. He wasn't advocating for sanctions against Iraq. He was pointing out how the Imperialist claims for war, were false. They argued that sanctions couldn't work, that only war could coerce Iraq. This was a false claim. Likewise, Chomsky has been one of the biggest U.S. opponents to the sanctions that were placed on Iraq, and has published on the matter many times.

Even simpler for you:
If a cop says he had to kill a drug addict, because arrest wouldn't have worked, I can point out how that's wrong, without endorsing the arrest.

Reading, it's wonderful.

[Renegade Saint]

Which is more productive?

1.) Voting Democrat

2.) Masturbating

George Carlin answered that better than I could.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

[eyeheartlenin]

FW Chomsky ... doesn't support the Democratic party in any material way at all. Never given them a dime. If there's anything relentless it's his criticism of all capitalist politicians....

So Chomsky doesn't support Democratic politicians? Seriously? The hell he doesn't! He most certainly does:

In 2004, Chomsky endorsed his fellow millionaire, pro-war Democrat John Kerry, the richest man in the US Senate, for President:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/20/uselections2004.usa

And in 2008, Chomsky endorsed pro-war millionaire Barack Obama, saying: “I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions.”

* * *

What's wrong with all of this, as anyone in the IWW should recognize, is that the bourgeois parties represent no solution for working people. The state of this country, after three years of a Democrat in the Oval Office proves that:

(There are now) "12.7 million workers without jobs, lacking the resources to feed their families. Throughout 2011, unemployment exceeded 13 million workers, reaching a peak of over over 14 million workers in June 2011, representing an unemployment rate of 9.1%. At the current rate of job creation, the US will not achieve full employment until 2019.

"This mass unemployment hits working people where they live: by January of this year, over 7 million homes were undergoing foreclosure, with nearly 5 million more homes at risk." [The figures come from the AFL-CIO]

"In addition to mass unemployment, workers in this country face a 15.1% poverty rate, which concretely means that 46.2 million people in this rich land do not have enough money to acquire what is needed for physical survival, like shelter, food and clothes. The current US poverty figure represents a leap from 43.6 million to 46.2 million in merely one year. Working people face the highest poverty figure since 1993: that is, there is more poverty in the US under the Obama administration than under George W. Bush, the liberals' nemesis." (Quoting from a leaflet our IWW branch issued, in connection with building the May Day General Strike)

As economist Robert Polin observed years ago, "Working people vote Democratic and get Republican results." Anyone in the IWW should recognize that the elections are a shell game, a situation where workers, given the Tweedledum–Tweedledee choice between the twin parties of perpetual war and grinding poverty, cannot win.

Chomsky is smart enough to know that, yet he continues to be a shill for pro-war Democratic Party politicians every four years, reinforcing the self-defeating illusions working people have in the pro-war, pro-Patriot Act (they all voted for it, except Kucinich) Congressional Democrats.

It is never too soon to tell workers the truth about the pro-war bourgeois parties: Voting for a bourgeois politician, including the Democrats, always goes against the interests of working people, since the Democrats, just like the Republicans, exclusively serve the interests of the rich, not workers. The calamitous state of working people, after three years of a Democratic administration, proves that.

[~Spectre]

What a new an innovative "argument" that totally hasn't been shot down multiple times in this thread.

[TrotskistMarx]

Yeah and watch this video on how Chomsky said that Lenin and Trotsky are fascists right-wingers. I think Noam Chomsky is just too anti-realism and too utopian


yQsceZ9skQI
Source of this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI


He's written some good stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a moralistic liberal.

[RedSonRising]

I think people are taking Chomsky's call for voting for the democrats as calls to look to the voting system as a solution, which isn't the case. Chomsky could be doing more to actually agitate the masses (though perhaps maybe not at his old age), rather than make a career out of critiquing the hierarchy of the world capitalist system, but his ideal is a worker-run society, and the literature he has produced over the years is a valuable contribution to movements looking to realize such an ideal.

[x359594]

...In 2004, Chomsky endorsed his fellow millionaire, pro-war Democrat John Kerry...

Ah, here's the tell. Chomsky is a millionaire. He's not. This statement tells me that your argument against him is made in bad faith.

[eyeheartlenin]

Ah, here's the tell. Chomsky is a millionaire. He's not. This statement tells me that your argument against him is made in bad faith.

Hey, guess what, Chomsky-worshiper: You people are not entitled to your own facts!

* * *

Noam Chomsky BY NATIONAL POST MARCH 21, 2006

One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky's work has been class warfare. The iconic MIT linguist and left-wing activist frequently has lashed out against the "massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich," and criticized the concentration of wealth in "trusts" by the wealthiest 1%. He says the U.S. tax code is rigged with "complicated devices for ensuring that the poor -- like 80% of the population -- pay off the rich."

But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of US$2-million, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax planning," set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.

Chomsky favours massive income redistribution -- just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning....

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=1385b76d-6c34-4c22-942a-18b71f2c4a44

[Yehuda Stern]

There's a very good and simple reason to "hate on" Chomsky: he's a Zionist. Not pro-Zionist, not soft on Zionism, not for two states - he's an out and out Zionist. He was in a Zionist youth group when he was younger, and he still supports Zionism to this day.

[ed miliband]

There's a very good and simple reason to "hate on" Chomsky: he's a Zionist. Not pro-Zionist, not soft on Zionism, not for two states - he's an out and out Zionist. He was in a Zionist youth group when he was younger, and he still supports Zionism to this day.

any evidence for this assertion?

[x359594]

Hey, guess what, Chomsky-worshiper: You people are not entitled to your own facts!

Thanks fellow worker. I appreciate it.

Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers? Especially the capitalist newspapers?

In any case, it seems to me that this is a classic ad hominem argument. First, there's an attack against the character of person and second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's arguments are false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).



This is a bad faith argument.

[Renegade Saint]

Thanks fellow worker. I appreciate it.

Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers? Especially the capitalist newspapers?

Has Chomsky ever denied it? Not that I've heard. Personally Chomsky's net worth is low on my list of criticisms, but it seems like he is indeed quite wealthy.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

There's a very good and simple reason to "hate on" Chomsky: he's a Zionist. Not pro-Zionist, not soft on Zionism, not for two states - he's an out and out Zionist. He was in a Zionist youth group when he was younger, and he still supports Zionism to this day.

...what? Yes, he said he was a Zionist but he said that he believed Zionism meant something different back in the day than it does now. Whether he is right or not is a whole different story though.

In his book, The Fateful Triangle, he argues against Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands and argues for a 2 state solution (which you claimed he didn't support). Chomsky has honestly been a pretty harsh critic of Israel.

I like Chomsky's writings on foreign policy (although I do not agree with him on everything) and the media. As far as his writings on socialism though.....

[x359594]

If Chomsky's a Zionist, what does that make Alan Dershowitz? Part I of a multi-part video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULvJrb5lKu4

[~Spectre]

It's a sign of how bizarre Chomsky's critics are becoming, that their arguments is that Chomsky is a schill for the United States and Israel.

He was part of a zionist youth group? When he was what, thirteen? Are these really the stupid games we're going to play?

The fact is, Chomsky is universally considered to be the most articulate critic of Israel, and specifically the most influential American Jewish critic of Israel. There's a reason that Israel won't let him into the West Bank anymore to lecture.

[L.A.P.]

God what a terrible post.

Because one-liners are so much better.

[Misanthrope]

Anger over someone encouraging voting is just as petty as actually voting. Chomsky turns a lot of people on to leftist media. "He's such a liberal!" Is this fox news? Chomsky is vehemently anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, he is not a liberal.

[Renegade Saint]

Anger over someone encouraging voting is just as petty as actually voting. Chomsky turns a lot of people on to leftist media. "He's such a liberal!" Is this fox news? Chomsky is vehemently anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, he is not a liberal.
I don't know about how "vehement" he is. Can one be a "vehement" anti-imperialist while calling the greatest imperial power the world has ever seen "the freest country in the world"? (apparently his definition of 'freedom' is that neo-nazis can march through Skokie Illinois. Which coincidentally is the liberal definition of 'freedom').

[~Spectre]

I don't know about how "vehement" he is. Can one be a "vehement" anti-imperialist while calling the greatest imperial power the world has ever seen "the freest country in the world"? (apparently his definition of 'freedom' is that neo-nazis can march through Skokie Illinois. Which coincidentally is the liberal definition of 'freedom').

Yes. Because empire, and domestic political freedom are two different things. He constantly points out how many of these freedoms are "illusory", but his point is always that Americans should challenge their own governments more, because they have more freedom to do so. Again, similar to what Marx has said:


Of all countries, England is the one where the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is most highly developed. The victory of the English proletarians over the English bourgeoisie is, therefore, decisive for the victory of all the oppressed over their oppressors. Hence Poland must be liberated not in Poland but in England. So you Chartists must not simply express pious wishes for the liberation of nations. Defeat your own internal enemies and you will then be able to pride yourselves on having defeated the entire old society.

tl,dr: Killing people doesn't mean the U.S. doesn't have some of the most extensive internal protections of political speech.

[~Spectre]

I don't know about how "vehement" he is. Can one be a "vehement" anti-imperialist while calling the greatest imperial power the world has ever seen "the freest country in the world"? (apparently his definition of 'freedom' is that neo-nazis can march through Skokie Illinois. Which coincidentally is the liberal definition of 'freedom').

Also, the hidden irony of this is hilarious. Unless you're claiming that all countries feature the exact same level of "freedom", your objection can only imply that some other country is the "freest". Which country do you have in mind I wonder? Some member of NATO? Maybe some social democracy where certain forms of non-violent speech is literally jail worthy?:laugh:

[Misanthrope]

I don't know about how "vehement" he is. Can one be a "vehement" anti-imperialist while calling the greatest imperial power the world has ever seen "the freest country in the world"? (apparently his definition of 'freedom' is that neo-nazis can march through Skokie Illinois. Which coincidentally is the liberal definition of 'freedom').

Those statements don't have any relevance to his socio-economic position. Chomsky is a staunch anti-imperialist, that goes with out saying. I'm curious to know what a "liberal definition" is, considering you just gave an example not a definition. Is there a liberal dictionary?

Chomsky denounces the American Empire for what it is an imperialist, capitalist empire that has committed numerous atrocities and war crimes. Saying that America is the "freest country in the world" is rather irrelevant and you're simply picking and choosing quotes that have "liberal" connotations.

[seventeethdecember2016]

He attracts Liberals to the Leftist movement, which pisses me off.

[Misanthrope]

He attracts Liberals to the Leftist movement, which pisses me off.

Wow, how fucking pretentious you are. Anyone being attracted to the Leftist movement is a good thing. You are in favor of class consciousness aren't you? Of actually learning class analysis and revolutionary theory.

[eyeheartlenin]

Thanks fellow worker. I appreciate it.

Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers? Especially the capitalist newspapers? .... This is a bad faith argument.

Here's some free advice, X3: Why don't you produce one printed source that proves that Chomsky's net worth is less than a million?

"Bad faith" would mean that I knew Chomsky was not a millionaire. I know no such thing. What I have read, in two sources now, is that he is worth somewhere around $2 million, so that's what I put in my post. That's not bad faith. Given what Chomsky must receive from extensive lecturing and publishing, it seems reasonable to conclude that he is quite wealthy.

And I would never stoop to lying; I would never say, for instance, that Chomsky does not support Democrats (the way you did), since I know that to be false. He sure as hell backed Kerry, and then he backed Obama, two pro-war plutocrats, which makes the claim that Chomsky is "anti-capitalist" and "anti-imperialist," assertions that has been made on this thread, nonsensical.

Indeed, Chomsky is so far from being "anti-imperialist" that he appealed to imperialism to slap sanctions on the long-suffering, unfortunate Iraqis in a 1991 article.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Wow, how fucking pretentious you are. Anyone being attracted to the Leftist movement is a good thing. You are in favor of class consciousness aren't you? Of actually learning class analysis and revolutionary theory.
I'm sorry if I pinched some kind of nerve. I dislike the idea of Liberals joining for personal reasons.

Would you like it if the party became distorted? Or gain a Liberal or Keynesian tendency? Would you like malcontent Liberals lobbying against everything?

When I was younger, there was a Liberal who became a Marxist thanks to me. A few months later, he denounce Communism as a Totalitarian ideology- apparently after being intrigued by some rightist.

[x359594]

...And I would never stoop to lying; I would never say, for instance, that Chomsky does not support Democrats (the way you did), since I know that to be false...

Alright then, how much money did he donate to these campaigns? How many times did he appear on the campaign stump with them? How many photos ops? In other words, what constitutes support?

As a matter of interest, where does this hot emotional response come from? How come you're so angry?

[~Spectre]

Here's some free advice, X3: Why don't you produce one printed source that proves that Chomsky's net worth is less than a million?

"Bad faith" would mean that I knew Chomsky was not a millionaire. I know no such thing. What I have read, in two sources now, is that he is worth somewhere around $2 million, so that's what I put in my post. That's not bad faith. Given what Chomsky must receive from extensive lecturing and publishing, it seems reasonable to conclude that he is quite wealthy.

This is another bizarre rant. I'm sorry, what should he be doing besides lecturing, teaching, and writing books? Dig up Engels' corpse and ask him for some of that surplus value from the mill?

The fact is Chomsky could be making more money by being a right wing schill (like Hitchens and Horowitz did). He didn't do that. In fact, he handicapped his own earnings by continuing to be radical, and thus getting shunned by major publishers and major book reviewers.



Indeed, Chomsky is so far from being "anti-imperialist" that he appealed to imperialism to slap sanctions on the long-suffering, unfortunate Iraqis in a 1991 article.

Your argument was already demolished here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2411309&postcount=104

You dodged it and are now reposting as if you weren't challenged. You're arguing in bad faith, comrade.

[~Spectre]

As a matter of interest, where does this hot emotional response come from? How come you're so angry?

I think it's because this comrade once had a bad experience with Chomsky. In fact, I think I found him/her:

ZKIu-JjfIXE


Chomsky addresses some spartacist on both the "voting!" and "sanctions!" charges.

[Misanthrope]

I'm sorry if I pinched some kind of nerve. I dislike the idea of Liberals joining for personal reasons.

I think "joining" is the wrong word. The proletariat are already members of the leftist movement, aware or not, the whole ideology centers on its liberation.



Would you like it if the party became distorted? Or gain a Liberal or Keynesian tendency? Would you like malcontent Liberals lobbying against everything? What party...? Obviously liberals would not be on a communist platform if they are you know.... liberals. Seriously, a democrat isn't going to watch a Chomsky video on youtube and sign up for a ML party and start leading a liberal take over.




When I was younger, there was a Liberal who became a Marxist thanks to me. A few months later, he denounce Communism as a Totalitarian ideology- apparently after being intrigued by some rightist.

Okay, point being what?

[Rafiq]

When I get back home in a couple days, this thread will have hell to pay.

[Per Levy]

When I get back home in a couple days, this thread will have hell to pay.

i allready was wondering why you didnt post in this thread. this is going to get good.

[Misanthrope]

When I get back home in a couple days, this thread will have hell to pay.

Us liberal anarchist softies will be waiting tough guy (;

[~Spectre]

When I get back home in a couple days, this thread will have hell to pay.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/200/420/BRTky.jpg?1321408042

[DaringMehring]

Noam Chomsky writes some useful and provocative stuff. His work showing bluntly and clearly the lies of the Imperialists is good. He has helped open a lot of eyes for people living "in the belly of the beast." (people living abroad usually aren't so naive)

To me, his weaknesses are 2:

1) I'm not sure if he's even a Marxist, but in what I've read he doesn't deploy anything like the rigorous class analysis of Marx. Chomsky is good at showing how the capitalist system leads to various inhumane results, but Marx really dissected it and showed its internal workings -- and therefore, how to fight it.

Furthermore, from what I've read of his, he roots the need for socialism in human nature matched with Enlightenment values -- not in the specific historical needs of a certain social configuration. In short, a dash of liberalism and idealism flavors his work. I wonder if he could even be called a materialist at all.

2) He's an intellectual and not an organizer, which is fine on the face of it, but -- when you've been heavy into on-the-ground fights and organizing, I think it develops a different perspective than Chomsky's when he does dabble in actually building a force for a new society (mentioning anarchism in Spain; "critical" votes for Democrats). Basically, a Leninist perspective. Leninism is practical and about actually winning -- Chomsky I don't think is very practical or has any blueprint about actually winning, like a lot of liberalism/anarchism/individualism.

Personally he's a nice guy, I've talked with him once, and politically he does a lot of good in raising awareness, but he has his limits. Following Chomsky and Chomsky-thought will not lead to developing a revolutionary movement.

[seventeethdecember2016]

I think "joining" is the wrong word. The proletariat are already members of the leftist movement, aware or not, the whole ideology centers on its liberation.
I have no problem with Proletarians joining, what on Earth gave you that idea?


What party...?.
When I said party I was referring to all Far-Left parties(at least Far-Left using the Western Frame of Reference.)



Okay, point being what?
Yes, yes... It was a fallacy... Whatever.... I'm was just trying to give some reasoning for why I distrust Liberals on the grounds of 'personal reasons,' which was mentioned earlier.

[Yehuda Stern]

For evidence of Chomsky's Zionism, see this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCtYecGbQz8) video.

I never said Chomsky did not support the two state solution. This is a Zionist position which denies the Palestinians right of self-determination, as well as the right of return. I don't see how his support for it contradicts anything I've said. And yes, he was (by definition) young when in the Zionist youth group; the point is that he is a Zionist to this day, i.e., he has been a life-long Zionist.

With regards to Chomsky being "universally considered... the most articulate critic of Israel" - now, I would really love to see evidence of that. But even if he is, what does it matter? Obama is universally considered to be a much better President than Bush. Israel is universally considered to be a democratic state (in the US, at least). Relying on bourgeois public attitude like that is just lazy reformism, but then so is support for Chomsky's position.


There's a reason that Israel won't let him into the West Bank anymore to lecture.
Yes, the reason is that the Zionist state is suffering from an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy and is unable to withstand even the most mild criticisms of its policy. Left-Zionists are similarly harassed and persecuted by Israeli security forces, as anyone who knows anything about Israeli politics could tell you. So what?

[Lucretia]

In the abstract he thinks anarchism is a great idea. In reality he's a liberal Democrat upset that he thinks he has nowhere to go except a political party that isn't open to his critiques of imperialism.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I don't know much about Chomsky, but I remember reading in the news that he backed John Kerry during the 2004 election. If I remember right, he used "the lesser of two evils" argument. I brushed him off then since I hated such rhetoric then, and now. Eight years later, I see no reason to pay attention to him. I don't understand why so many people here do. Politically, "radical" members of the intelligentsia like him are a dime a dozen.

[x359594]

I don't know much about Chomsky, but I remember reading in the news that he backed John Kerry during the 2004 election. If I remember right, he used "the lesser of two evils" argument...

It depends on what you mean by "backed." Chomsky didn't contribute money to his campaign, appear at Kerry fundraisers, pose for photo ops, etc. This point has been made exhaustively throughout this thread. Chomsky has in fact stated repeatedly that elections are the least significant form of politics. He did say that if you're going to vote, than vote against the Republican. He's never used the lesser evil argument. He did say that there are slight differences between the two candidates that could translate into more or less destructive policy decisions.

[Lucretia]

It depends on what you mean by "backed." Chomsky didn't contribute money to his campaign, appear at Kerry fundraisers, pose for photo ops, etc. This point has been made exhaustively throughout this thread. Chomsky has in fact stated repeatedly that elections are the least significant form of politics. He did say that if you're going to vote, than vote against the Republican. He's never used the lesser evil argument. He did say that there are slight differences between the two candidates that could translate into more or less destructive policy decisions.

The "small differences translating into large policy outcomes" is just an attempt at regurgitating the lesser-of-two-evils argument in more sophisticated, palatable terms for wanna-be radicals who don't want to admit to themselves what they're doing by supporting the Dems.

[Franz Fanonipants]

more like gnome chumpsky amrite

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I disagree, x359594; I'm afraid your defense of Chomsky doesn't convince me. Even if he did not contribute money to Kerry's campaign, I hardly see how this does not amount to "backing" him. But after I read the original interview, I realized that I should have clarified my previous comment more; "reluctant backing" would be more accurate than simply "backing". Have you read the interview that was made by Left Hook? If not, look on "chomskyDOTinfo" (written on February 4) since I cannot yet post links.

In my opinion the interview confirms this "reluctant backing". The interviewer asks Chomsky whether it is better to support "anyone but Bush" or whether the democratic candidates "differ only in rhetoric and not goals". Chomsky answers that both opinions are "basically correct". He does not seem to offer any way out of the suffering caused by the Iraq war except for "holding one's nose and voting for some Democrat." Kerry did not become the presidential candidate until July, but by then he had been one of the Democrats that approved of the imperialist adventure in Iraq.

An column he wrote for the British paper "The Guardian" is even more telling. It was written on March 16, 2004.

After speaking kindly of Nader and the Democrat Kucinich, Chomsky again affirms the lack of differences between the two big business parties but says that the "fraction" of difference between them is enough "because the present group [Bush] is particularly cruel and savage...."

In my opinion, this is a deep case of armchair cynicism. Given the content of the interviews, I still hold that Chomsky adopted the argument of "the lesser of two evils".

[x359594]

I disagree, x359594; I'm afraid your defense of Chomsky doesn't convince me....

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but I am suggesting that some nuance is called for in the larger scheme of things. Politics doesn't begin and end on election day, it's an on-going process, possibly the least significant as Chomsky suggests. But I supose if you make a fetish of voting, than Chomsky has committed an unforgivable sin. And in an earlier century Karl Marx "backed" the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln during his 1864 re-election campaign.

I can tell you that Chomsky has backed a large number of leftist organizations ranging from South End Press to the IWW, including contributing to small revolutionary magazines and newspapers, free talks to raise money for refugees from the Indonesian genocide in East Timor (for years he was alone in denouncing this US-backed invasion by the Indonesian military,) ditto for Salvadoran refugees, and during the 1960s he attended almost every anti-Vietnam War demonstration, incurring arrests and routine IRS audits along the way. To paraphrase an ancient carpenter, "By their fruits ye shall know them, not by their disclaimers."

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but I am suggesting that some nuance is called for in the larger scheme of things. Politics doesn't begin and end on election day, it's an on-going process, possibly the least significant as Chomsky suggests. But I supose if you make a fetish of voting, than Chomsky has committed an unforgivable sin. And in an earlier century Karl Marx "backed" the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln during his 1864 re-election campaign.

Certainly, it is advantageous to look at the bigger picture and this is especially true in politics. But I believe that you're being misleading here. First of all, I was not aiming to make a fetish in voting, nor is voting the central issue here. The point is that Chomsky chose to place faith in bourgeois politics so that a "fraction" of difference will be made in a brutal imperialist war that would not have stopped or "lessened" no matter which candidate was elected in 2004. Second, your comparison of Chomsky's situation to Marx backing Lincoln in 1864 is, in my opinion, rather ahistorical. The United States was then in the middle of a civil war in which the issue of slavery was central. Marx backed Lincoln because he was the representative of the bourgeois revolution that threatened to permanently break chattel slavery, not to mention that slavery's elimination would mean the emergence of the American proletariat as an independent force. It seems that for Marx, they could not have been independent otherwise. I'll let Marx speak for himself here: (Letter to Lincoln, written between November 22 & 29, 1864)

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.As you can see, Marx's support for a civil war that would destroy slavery in the interests of the class struggle is very different than a member of the Anarchist left providing reluctant support to a bourgeois politician who likely would have committed himself to continuing an imperialist war based on nothing but lies and criminal intrigue; that war did not stop at only destroying Hussein's regime, it nearly destroyed Iraq itself and from then on was governed by "democratic" puppets. Now we have a president who is expanding US imperialism despite his anti-war rhetoric made during the last election. Alas, Chomsky backed him as well, and urged people to do so "without illusions". We can see how that has turned out. Where exactly does this place Chomsky in the "process" you spoke of? At the very least, you cannot say that this speaks well of him.

I can tell you that Chomsky has backed a large number of leftist organizations ranging from South End Press to the IWW, including contributing to small revolutionary magazines and newspapers, free talks to raise money for refugees from the Indonesian genocide in East Timor (for years he was alone in denouncing this US-backed invasion by the Indonesian military,) ditto for Salvadoran refugees, and during the 1960s he attended almost every anti-Vietnam War demonstration, incurring arrests and routine IRS audits along the way. To paraphrase an ancient carpenter, "By their fruits ye shall know them, not by their disclaimers."
I am sure you're correct that Chomsky has backed a number of leftist groups. But whether Chomsky is sincere in his leftism was never in question for me. The question is whether he backed John Kerry, a pro-war and right-wing "democratic" candidate, for president as the best means to oust Bush. I believe this is exactly what he did, and it was entirely cynical and two-faced of him to do so. You're correct in saying that we should also look at Chomsky's "fruits", as per your analogy. But a tree also produces rotten fruits, and this one is rotten and putrid to its very core.

[x359594]

...The point is that Chomsky chose to place faith in bourgeois politics so that a "fraction" of difference will be made in a brutal imperialist war that would not have stopped or "lessened" no matter which candidate was elected in 2004...The question is whether he backed John Kerry, a pro-war and right-wing "democratic" candidate, for president as the best means to oust Bush. I believe this is exactly what he did, and it was entirely cynical and two-faced of him to do so...

If Chomsky was being cynical than he couldn't have had faith in bourgeois politics (faith being predicated on sincere belief,) but if he was being sincere, then he was mistaken in his assumptions about bourgeois politics. Either way, tens of millions voted in that election for one or another of those candidates, and I'm fairly sure that Chomsky had nothing to do with their decision.


...You're correct in saying that we should also look at Chomsky's "fruits", as per your analogy. But a tree also produces rotten fruits, and this one is rotten and putrid to its very core.

Well, Kerry lost, so that indicates to me that few leftists voted for him, so Chomsky's endorsement seems not have produced any fruit at all here. Would you vote for a Democratic presidential candidate on Chomsky's recommendation? Would anyone who posts at RevLeft? I doubt it.

Frankly, I don't think many people pay attention to Chomsky at election time. To conservatives he's a communist subversive who should be shot on site. To liberals, he's a dangerous provocateur who should be silenced (the liberal publishing firm of Random House dropped him after his book Peace in the Middle East? was published at the insistence of its board of trustees, his book After the Cataclysm co-written with Edward Herman was pulped after the CEO of Time Books heard about it, and the liberal New York Review of Books dropped him too.) To liberal Zionists he's a self-hating Jew (the entry under "Self-Hating Jews" in the Dictionary of Jewish Literacy cites Chomsky and Karl Marx as examples of self-hating Jews.)

Where Chomsky has influence is with anti-Zionists, anarcho-syndicalists (who are not voters as a matter of principal,) Wobblies (most of whom also don't vote and the few that do, vote for SPUSA candidates,) Latin American social democrats (who can't vote in US elections,) East Timorese militants (who also can't vote in US elections,) and anti-golbalization activists. He has absolutely no influence on Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Hoxhaists, Stalinists, or 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Nor on the AFL-CIO, SEIU, the Teamsters or any other major union (with the possible exception of the California Nurses Association,) that 13% of the organized US working class.

This is why it's puzzling that so much attention is focused on a handful of statements about voting out of hundreds of speeches and interviews and a million words of written text.

Unless of course one has contempt for the critical faculties of the working class and assumes that because Noam said, they believe it and that does it.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Unless of course one has contempt for the critical faculties of the working class and assumes that because Noam said, they believe it and that does it.
I will just make this last statement, because if I replied to every problem I had with your last response and so forth, this argument would drag on forever and unfortunately I don't have enough time these days in which I could see it through.

Anyway, I do hope that you are not implying that I am one who has contempt for the proletariat's critical faculties. This is not about what they may or may not think, it's not about Chomsky's influence on anybody (let alone the electorate), and it's not at all about voting, as I have stressed before; I don't know why you keep trying to push that issue. This is about Chomsky's political conduct during the 2004 election in the US. From the beginning this is all I was trying to comment on, though I admit I should have made that more clear. Initially, you said I was incorrect to say that Chomsky used the "lesser of two evils" argument to back Kerry. By citing articles specific to the issue, I believe I have proven that he did. Regarding anything else, I cannot comment on it right now.

[~Spectre]

This is a Zionist position which denies the Palestinians right of self-determination, as well as the right of return.

Such nonsense. He's in favor of right of return. His point has always been that it's not going to happen. And he's right. The people with all the guns in Israel will not allow this. Unless you're willing to go to war with a nuclear power (and who would be doing the war fighting I wonder?), then right of return is a pipe dream.

I think the real damning evidence here is actually in your signature - agaisnt you. You're a liberal that's more focused on creating a Palestinian state "from Jordan to the sea" than you are with socialism. You add in "worker state", but then one asks, why stop at Jordan? You convict yourself with your own words.

[~Spectre]

This is about what Chomsky's political conduct during the 2004 election in the US.

Besides the fact that you're arguments have been addressed already. Simple question:

Which is worse, backing various imperialist wars, or observing that John Kerry is probably a little less extreme than George W. Bush?

[~Spectre]

Following Chomsky and Chomsky-thought will not lead to developing a revolutionary movement.

If anything, I'd say he'd be the first to agree with you here. If you derive anything from Chomsky, it's that one should never be a follower. Think critically at all times.

As Marx himself once said when answering a questionaire, echoing many great minds before him:


Your motto?: "De omnibus dubitandum [doubt everything] – Descartes"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/04/01.htm

[x359594]

...Anyway, I do hope that you are not implying that I am one who has contempt for the proletariat's critical faculties.

No, certainly not.


...This is about Chomsky's political conduct during the 2004 election in the US. From the beginning this is all I was trying to comment on, though I admit I should have made that more clear. Initially, you said I was incorrect to say that Chomsky used the "lesser of two evils" argument to back Kerry. By citing articles specific to the issue, I believe I have proven that he did...

To what end?

Other than a qualified endorsement of Kerry, what else do you object to about his political conduct during the 2004 election?

[DaringMehring]

If anything, I'd say he'd be the first to agree with you here. If you derive anything from Chomsky, it's that one should never be a follower. Think critically at all times.

As Marx himself once said when answering a questionaire, echoing many great minds before him:



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/04/01.htm

Ok. So in other words there is no such thing as a correct revolutionary method, because "everything must be doubted?" Of course we should be skeptics and have inquiring minds etc. etc. Duh. That doesn't mean that there isn't some actual truth to be discovered and "followed."

Chomsky does good things, but when it comes to organizing anything resembling a revolutionary agent, well, I don't think anyone who "doubts everything" could find any way to not dismiss him...

[~Spectre]

Ok. So in other words there is no such thing as a correct revolutionary method, because "everything must be doubted?" Of course we should be skeptics and have inquiring minds etc. etc. Duh. That doesn't mean that there isn't some actual truth to be discovered and "followed."

Chomsky does good things, but when it comes to organizing anything resembling a revolutionary agent, well, I don't think anyone who "doubts everything" could find any way to not dismiss him...

I think the point is, saying "I'm not a Chomskyist" isn't a way to dismiss him. You shouldn't simply divide your mind into simple little "will I be a him-ist, or not?".

Plenty of people that don't get their name turned into an"ist", shouldn't necessarily be dismissed. Similarly, Marx didn't organize a successful revolutionary agent. You still seem to call yourself a Marxist.

[DaringMehring]

I think the point is, saying "I'm not a Chomskyist" isn't a way to dismiss him. You shouldn't simply divide your mind into simple little "will I be a him-ist, or not?".

Plenty of people that don't get their name turned into an"ist", shouldn't necessarily be dismissed. Similarly, Marx didn't organize a successful revolutionary agent. You still seem to call yourself a Marxist.

Marx's theory laid the ground-work of Lenin, so yes his thought is relevant to organizing a revolutionary agent.

It's not a matter of being an X-ist anyway, it's a matter of, when you look at Chomsky's work, you find -- useful stuff for exposing the inhumanity of imperialism, and not much useful on how to overthrow capitalism. I think that is a cold assessment and has nothing to do with what -ist I think of myself.

In fact you and others in this thread have showed a lot more of -ist thinking with the way you have handled assessment of Chomsky. You have shown no ability to admit that Chomsky makes mistakes, has weaknesses, etc. (like all human beings). Even on something elementary like "Chomsky is well-off" (a wealth of a couple million is by the way not that great for a top professor and well-published author) there is some wall of unreasonable denial.

It is easy to wrap yourself up in thinking "I'm not dogmatic, everybody else is an -ist" especially with the fact that there are actual personality cultists on this board. But check your own post pattern. In their deeds, you shall see truth.

[~Spectre]

Marx's theory laid the ground-work of Lenin, so yes his thought is relevant to organizing a revolutionary agent.

And Marx drew off people like Smith and Ricardo. I doubt you'd make that same leap of Smith and Ricardo as helpful to organizing "revolutionary agents".


In fact you and others in this thread have showed a lot more of -ist thinking with the way you have handled assessment of Chomsky. You have shown no ability to admit that Chomsky makes mistakes, has weaknesses, etc.

I stated my position earlier. I find so many of the criticisms leveled at him to be weak and dishonest, and that's what I'm attacking.

Even just the style of attack. I've conceded that Chomsky may very easily be quite wrong on the voting issue. The point I've been making is that it's not so much of an error to the point that one should dismiss him over it.

Marx and others have made greater errors, and we rightfully don't dismiss their value as useful and insightful thinkers.

Likewise now, I find your criticism of "he's not useful for organizing a revolution" to be, even if true, kinda weird.

Chomsky has never claimed to be an organizer. He merely helps out those who organize. It's like if you read a book by a physicist and said "a lot of the math seems correct, but I don't think this will help use create a "revolutionary agent".

It's odd and unfair.

[Yehuda Stern]

Spectre: So he is for the right of return, he just doesn't think it's realistic. Is that like how some "communists" are for a socialist revolution, but just don't think it'll ever happen, so they support reformism? Give me a break. Chomsky is a liberal who doesn't believe in the power of the masses to fight their oppressors. By the looks of it, so are you. If you go by the logic that says that the people with guns can never be defeated, you'll never have a socialist revolution or even any sort of successful protest movement anywhere. This where pro-Democrat liberalism comes from: middle class contempt for the working class and the masses in general.

As for your babbling criticism of my organization's slogan - if you bothered to read a few lines past the first, you would see that we also call for a socialist federation of the Middle East and a world socialist revolution. I don't know many liberals who do that. In fact, if you had known anything about the history of the communist movement, you'd know that all revolutionaries have at times called for federations of different countries because they knew that certain people would want a chance to exercise their right of self-determination. There's probably no one who needs that more than the people of Palestine.

[Yehuda Stern]

Spectre: Also, I would like it if you could tell me what those "straight up lies" you complained about in your neg rep were. (But then, you probably can't, huh?)

[Lucretia]

Well, Kerry lost, so that indicates to me that few leftists voted for him, so Chomsky's endorsement seems not have produced any fruit at all here. Would you vote for a Democratic presidential candidate on Chomsky's recommendation? Would anyone who posts at RevLeft? I doubt it.

Oh, yes. Because if all the many leftists in the U.S. had voted for Kerry, then Kerry definitely would have won. Can't argue with that logic :rolleyes:

[Lucretia]

Spectre: Also, I would like it if you could tell me what those "straight up lies" you complained about in your neg rep were. (But then, you probably can't, huh?)

Spectre apparently finds it much easier to make drive-by snide pot-shots while neg-repping people than to have an open debate about the issues.

[x359594]

Oh, yes. Because if all the many leftists in the U.S. had voted for Kerry, then Kerry definitely would have won. Can't argue with that logic :rolleyes:

If you think so comrade.

[Prinskaj]

When I get back home in a couple days, this thread will have hell to pay.
So.. When exactly is that ass-whooping going to arrive?

[escapingNihilism]

Chomsky's the reason for my left turn starting in 2009 or so. not everyone needs to be a master theoretician. he does a great service by writing 'the facts' that Zizek has been critical of. and, though he isn't working along these lines any longer, Manufacturing Consent was certainly a work of theory and a fantastic one at that. not revolutionary theory, perhaps, but a great resource.

no reason to hate on the dude.

[Art Vandelay]

Chomsky is to anarchism, what Marxism-Leninism is to communism. It generally serves as an introductory stage in the political development of a young radical; until they smarten up and move on to actual radical politics. Chomsky was my intro into anarchism.

[Chicano Shamrock]

He encourages people to go out and vote in elections for Democrats. He just doesn't strike me as someone who really has an interest in class struggle.

Classwar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49J47OU2Rd8

Voting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oelb_akG_3Y

[Psy]

The USSR was holding us back. I'd elaborate on this but it's 1:35 AM and I am going to bed. Night.
How so? There was worker militancy on both sides of the iron curtain and was no spike of worker militancy when the iron curtain fell, thus the existence of the USSR played no role in holding back communism.

Sure the USSR was an obstacle but capitalism was a larger obstacle and the collapse of the USSR just made capitalist a even larger obstacle as capitalists are no trying to compete with the living standards of the USSR.

[SpiritiualMarxist]

One reason why I think some of the left doesn't like him is
youtube[.]com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

Also, I think some people need to chill the fuck out. Not everyone has to live up to your rubric of what makes a "good socialist"

There's no real reason I've seen laid out here to dislike him besides what he DOESN'T write about. Can't you just take him for what he is?

There's plenty of people who've written about various struggles and various injustices in society that don't write about "class analysis" but there seems to be only hate for people who've identified openly as socialist. For example, no sane leftist would dare hate on Malcolm X or leaders in black liberation nor leaders in the first couple of waves of feminism. Of course there are slight critiques such as "they did't go all the way." But that type of stuff bares no resemblance to the left on left bashing that goes on nowadays.

I think some people on the left need to quit looking for things to hate other leftist for and need to start looking for the benefits of various materials and how they can be an introduction for the general public to bring them on our side. For example, MLK wasn't a marxist and he was what you guys would call "liberal" with his politics, but leftist have a problem with using his legacy especially later in his life when he was increasingly starting to get involved with the labor movement and budding anti-war movement. So again, take them for what they are because they're actually allies rather than enemies.

[Psy]

One reason why I think some of the left doesn't like him is
youtube[.]com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

Also, I think some people need to chill the fuck out. Not everyone has to live up to your rubric of what makes a "good socialist"

There's no real reason I've seen laid out here to dislike him besides what he DOESN'T write about. Can't you just take him for what he is?

There's plenty of people who've written about various struggles and various injustices in society that don't write about "class analysis" but there seems to be only hate for people who've identified openly as socialist. For example, no sane leftist would dare hate on Malcolm X or leaders in black liberation nor leaders in the first couple of waves of feminism. Of course there are slight critiques such as "they did't go all the way." But that type of stuff bares no resemblance to the left on left bashing that goes on nowadays.

I think some people on the left need to quit looking for things to hate other leftist for and need to start looking for the benefits of various materials and how they can be an introduction for the general public to bring them on our side. For example, MLK wasn't a marxist and he was what you guys would call "liberal" with his politics, but leftist have a problem with using his legacy especially later in his life when he was increasingly starting to get involved with the labor movement and budding anti-war movement. So again, take them for what they are because they're actually allies rather than enemies.
The problem is Chomsky sees the "progressive" capitalists in Russia taking power as the end of the revolution where the provisional government made zero reforms to the system it was the same Tzarist system just without the Tzar and solved none of the contradiction that led to Russian revolution thus why the revolution didn't stop there.

Chomsky also ignores that Stalin gained support by being a "moderate", by saying "we don't need to spread the revolution we'll have socialism just here in the USSR", while the Bolshivks were pushing for revolutions beyond the borders of the USSR and thus beyond their control.