Noam Chomsky

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Opinions?

[JPSartre12]

Nice guy, decent speaker, amazing professor, writes good books.

I love the way that the guy critiques America's foreign policy and military power. That being said, I don't take everything that the guy says as gospel.

I have a friend at MIT that loves him.

[Caj]

His writings on U.S. foreign policy and imperialism, the mainstream media, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and linguistics are all good and insightful, but I don't bother with anything he writes on radical leftism. Politically, he's just another liberal.

[Conscript]

I need to get to reading manufacturing consent. I heard it's really good.

[JPSartre12]

Politically, he's just another liberal.

Nah, the guy's a self-described libertarian socialist. His far, far more of an anarchist than a liberal.

[Ostrinski]

He's alright on some things. But a lot of his commentary just either appeals to moral virtue or even worse legality (i.e. what the US is doing in such and such place is illegal!) It can be tiring to wade through the bullshit, but occasionally he'll provide some good insight on some things.

He should be taken with a grain of salt by anyone looking for a scientific analysis however, and he should be treated as a pundit rather than an intellectual.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

His writings on U.S. foreign policy and imperialism, the mainstream media, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and linguistics are all good and insightful, but I don't bother with anything he writes on radical leftism. Politically, he's just another liberal.

You're probably referring to how he isn't against voting (which lenin himself agreed with). Besides that he is at least a pseudo libertarian socialist.

[Comrade #138672]

Chomsky is quite insightful, but his status as a well-known academic keeps him from being radical, so that it's impossible for him to be an effective Socialist. He's still too close with the bourgeoisie.

[Ostrinski]

Nah, the guy's a self-described libertarian socialist. His far, far more of an anarchist than a liberal.I'd say he's a liberal. It's a cold day that he himself doesn't admit to attributing many of his own socialist views to Enlightenment figures such as Smith, Rousseau, and Jefferson. He's a socialist in the sense of wanting a socialist society but very liberal in his outlook. He synthesizes Enlightenment brand idealist virtue with some vaguely leftist views, and what you get is an admirer of anarchist theory that backs it up only with the virtue of the theory itself, not with any explanation for what makes it relevant.

[Ostrinski]

You're probably referring to how he isn't against voting (which lenin himself agreed with). Besides that he is at least a pseudo libertarian socialist.It's not his support of electoralism that's the problem in my opinion but his shameless and unfeigned shilling for the Democratic Party. To equate his position with Lenin's is absurd.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Voting for the socialist candidate in pres elections is a wasted vote. You pretty much have to shill for the democratic candidate in order to avoid an American dominion.

[RedHal]

Not only does he advocate voting for the "lesser evil" Dems, he also wrote an endorsement for Jill Stein and the Green Party. That's why he's beloved by Democracy Now! and their liberal progressive viewers. How can anyone take him seriously as an Anarchist?

[Ostrinski]

Voting for the socialist candidate in pres elections is a wasted vote. You pretty much have to shill for the democratic candidate in order to avoid an American dominion.http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-you-should-t175426/index.html

You'd be better off not voting than voting Democrat.

[Ostrinski]

Chomsky is quite insightful, but his status as a well-known academic keeps him from being radical, so that it's impossible for him to be an effective Socialist. He's still too close with the bourgeoisie.I dunno, there are plenty of well known academics like Negri and even the late Hobsbawm that are plenty more radical than Chomsky. Chomsky is radical enough for conservatives and most liberals to dismiss him as a wingnut and he really doesn't say anything that could be perceived as friendly to the bourgeoisie so I don't think that flies. It merely has to do with the fact that he's a pile of steaming shit theoretically and strategically.

[hatzel]

Fun fact: I've never in my whole life read anything by Chomsky (except for the foreword to...I forget which book. I can't be bothered to check my bookshelf, and a few citations here and there, as you do) and I don't really get the feeling I'm missing out on all that much. My main engagement with him was his being the non-Foucauldian side in that Foucault-Chomsky debate that one time, and the message I got from this is that you'd be far better off reading Foucault (for all his failings) than Chomsky...

[Yuppie Grinder]

I hate the man. I really do. The line everyone always says is that his work on U.S. foreign policy is good but the rest isn't. His writings on U.S. foreign policy could have been written by a Democratic politician if they had some of the rhetoric removed. The whole of Manufacturing Consent boils down to "Look at these ignorant sheeple workers, watching sports and drinking beer instead of reading Rosseau."

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

"Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical priorities" / take off your glasses and look me in the eye // I saw Noam Chomsky eating a burger at McDonalds. You don't believe me but why would I lie? / I'm sure he had some good ideas, like Kilgore Trout, or that guy who invented the atom bomb, but . . . // Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical" priorities / take off your glasses and look me in the eye / Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical" priorities / take off your glasses and look me in the eye."

- Fuck You Noam Chomsky, (Halifax indierock legends) Scribbler

Actually, I mostly find his analysis of US foreign policy well researched and valuable, and his dry wit highly entertaining. Not exactly stoked on his "anarchism", but, y'know, it's pretty above par as far as American public intellectuals go. I'd love to put him on a panel with Zizek, 'cos they'd probably talk at hilarious cross-purposes. Yup.

[the Leftâ„¢]

i always thought of chomsky as a gateway drug. he has lectured on anarchism and socialist philosophy, and has great foreign affairs political analysis. most off-put democrats/liberals read chomsky at some point during their lives

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I find his moth-eaten sweater aesthetic pretty offensive.

[Grenzer]

I really don't think his writings on imperialism are of any value. He pretty much just uncritically supports anyone so long as they oppose the United States. His "anti-imperialism" tends to be of the same sort as the Stalinists.

When Iran funds Islamist militants across the middle east, that's asserting their "right to self-determination", according to Chomsky. A dedicated Stalinoid couldn't have put it better themselves. I don't think he's a good "gateway drug" at all. My first reaction(and this was before I became a Marxist even) to reading some of his foreign policy writings is "Wow, this guy uses some seemingly progressive rhetoric, but he can be a fucking reactionary in effect".

[Yuppie Grinder]

"Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical priorities" / take off your glasses and look me in the eye // I saw Noam Chomsky eating a burger at McDonalds. You don't believe me but why would I lie? / I'm sure he had some good ideas, like Kilgore Trout, or that guy who invented the atom bomb, but . . . // Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical" priorities / take off your glasses and look me in the eye / Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical" priorities / take off your glasses and look me in the eye."

- Fuck You Noam Chomsky, (Halifax indierock legends) Scribbler

Actually, I mostly find his analysis of US foreign policy well researched and valuable, and his dry wit highly entertaining. Not exactly stoked on his "anarchism", but, y'know, it's pretty above par as far as American public intellectuals go. I'd love to put him on a panel with Zizek, 'cos they'd probably talk at hilarious cross-purposes. Yup.

Zizek would destroy him.

[Comrade #138672]

What does Chomsky think about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What does Chomsky think about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.?

He thinks the October revolution was a coup

[Comrade #138672]

He thinks the October revolution was a coupA coup by the majority? Is this possible?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

A coup by the majority? Is this possible?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI nope he thinks it was a minority action

[Ostrinski]

"Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical priorities" / take off your glasses and look me in the eye // I saw Noam Chomsky eating a burger at McDonalds. You don't believe me but why would I lie? / I'm sure he had some good ideas, like Kilgore Trout, or that guy who invented the atom bomb, but . . . // Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical" priorities / take off your glasses and look me in the eye / Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical" priorities / take off your glasses and look me in the eye."

- Fuck You Noam Chomsky, (Halifax indierock legends) Scribbler

Actually, I mostly find his analysis of US foreign policy well researched and valuable, and his dry wit highly entertaining. Not exactly stoked on his "anarchism", but, y'know, it's pretty above par as far as American public intellectuals go. I'd love to put him on a panel with Zizek, 'cos they'd probably talk at hilarious cross-purposes. Yup.I think Chomsky referred to Zizek as a "show off" and I don't think Zizek holds Chomsky in high esteem either so I can't see them working together.

Although, Zizek and Tariq Ali did do a discussion together recently and Zizek has talked negatively about Ali before so you never know.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Chomsky's view of the Russian Revolution has always struck me as Kautskyite/Menshevik at its heart.

[Let's Get Free]

I really don't have a problem with the man, and definitely don't think he deserves all the hate he gets on here. It's easy for us internet revolutionaries to pin a liberal ribbon on Chomsky, if he doesn't meet your own criteria of political hardness. In the grand scheme of things I don't really think that someone who is anti-state and anti-waged labor could be a liberal. Disagreeing with his ultra-pragmatism is one thing, but i don't think that that means makes him a "liberal" in an sense of the word.

Also Chomsky has more time for classical enlightenment figures than your typical (dogmatic) Marxist, but I fail to see how this is a problem, afterall Marx himself owes many an unpaid debt to them.

[l'Enfermé]

Chomsky's views on the October Revolution come directly from the writings of Mensheviks(not even Menshevik-Internationalists, but the pro-imperialist Mensheviks), Bernstein and Kautsky after he became a turn-cloak and defected to the side of the bourgeoisie.

[l'Enfermé]

I really don't have a problem with the man, and definitely don't think he deserves all the hate he gets on here. It's easy for us internet revolutionaries to pin a liberal ribbon on Chomsky, if he doesn't meet your own criteria of political hardness. In the grand scheme of things I don't really think that someone who is anti-state and anti-waged labor could be a liberal. Disagreeing with his ultra-pragmatism is one thing, but i don't think that that means makes him a "liberal" in an sense of the word.

Also Chomsky has more time for classical enlightenment figures than your typical (dogmatic) Marxist, but I fail to see how this is a problem, afterall Marx himself owes many an unpaid debt to them.
It does you no good to speak of Marx when your entire knowledge of him comes from Anarchist charlatans like Bakunin and quotes you copy-paste from Wikipedia, comrade.

[Grenzer]

I really don't have a problem with the man, and definitely don't think he deserves all the hate he gets on here. It's easy for us internet revolutionaries to pin a liberal ribbon on Chomsky, if he doesn't meet your own criteria of political hardness. In the grand scheme of things I don't really think that someone who is anti-state and anti-waged labor could be a liberal. Disagreeing with his ultra-pragmatism is one thing, but i don't think that that means makes him a "liberal" in an sense of the word.

Also Chomsky has more time for classical enlightenment figures than your typical (dogmatic) Marxist, but I fail to see how this is a problem, afterall Marx himself owes many an unpaid debt to them.

So we should dump materialism in exchange for bourgeois idealism and romanticism of the 18th century, in your opinion. Sounds like a plan, man.

Also, had to lol when you describe someone who supports the Democrats as "anti state and anti-waged labor".

[Zeus the Moose]

Not only does he advocate voting for the "lesser evil" Dems, he also wrote an endorsement for Jill Stein and the Green Party. That's why he's beloved by Democracy Now! and their liberal progressive viewers. How can anyone take him seriously as an Anarchist?

There actually are a number of self-described anarchists who work with the Green Party because of their stated support for decentralisation and localist solutions to a number of problems. I think a number of "New Left" anarchists were actually responsible for the formation of the US Greens in the first place (combined with descendents from the New Communist Movement and others,) so the connection between self-described anarchists and the Green Party does make at least some more sense than a similar connection to the Democrats.

In many respects the Greens are really a product of the 60s "New Left," though not necessarily in a directly recognisable form, though the Greens themselves don't seem to be too keen on connecting with that bit of their early history.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I think Chomsky referred to Zizek as a "show off" and I don't think Zizek holds Chomsky in high esteem either so I can't see them working together.

I think they share a similar view on Obama, so there is a common ground there somewhere.

[Let's Get Free]

So we should dump materialism in exchange for bourgeois idealism and romanticism of the 18th century, in your opinion. Sounds like a plan, man.
Huh, I didn't know I said that


Also, had to lol when you describe someone who supports the Democrats as "anti state and anti-waged labor".


No, Chomsky doesn't "support" the democrats. In the 2004 election, he gave his "reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party's presidential contender, John Kerry" which was very far from being enthusiastic. he said they were "two factions of the business party" and Kerry was a "Bush-lite", only a "fraction" better than his Republican opponent. He argued that the Bush administration was so exceptionally "cruel and savage" and "deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century no matter what the cost to the general population," that "despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

Now, you may argue that this is wishful thinking instead of a clear-headed political analysis, but it's a flat out lie to say he "supports the democrats."

[cynicles]

Ugh, liberal analysis, anarcho-romanticism with no real anarchism and playing an active role in undermining BDS. Pass.

[ed miliband]

I dunno, there are plenty of well known academics like Negri and even the late Hobsbawm that are plenty more radical than Chomsky. Chomsky is radical enough for conservatives and most liberals to dismiss him as a wingnut and he really doesn't say anything that could be perceived as friendly to the bourgeoisie so I don't think that flies. It merely has to do with the fact that he's a pile of steaming shit theoretically and strategically.

nah, chomsky is definitely "more radical" than hobsbawm. hobsbawm spent the last 30 years of his life supporting the right-wing of the labour party, and hobnobbing with new labour figures like neil kinnock and tony blair. shit, the labour party paid tribute to him after his death; i doubt you'll see leading democrats saying what a great fellow chomsky was...

[Ostrinski]

Oh. Ok well then forget Hobsbawm but my point still stands. There are plenty of well known radical academics.

[Lucretia]

Nah, the guy's a self-described libertarian socialist. His far, far more of an anarchist than a liberal.

And I am the self-described Pope. Somehow I doubt you're now going to line up to kiss my ring.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that a big part of the reason he's seen as a "liberal" is because he openly admires large parts of the liberal tradition. He views the ideal social system as being one that combines what he considers to be the finer points of the liberal revolutions & the Englightment (ie rational individualism, humanism etc.) w/ the egalitarian ideals of the socialist movement. If you read "Chomsky on Anarchism", he talks about this a lot.

[Comrade Lenin]

Noam Chomsky is very intelligent and is very good at explaining how the world works. However he is one of those intellectuals who criticizes the shit out of every government that ever existed and whose vision for what society should be like is idealist and completely unlikely at this point in time.... its sometimes annoying how critical he is about things..but thats how it goes...

[Art Vandelay]

I, for one, am frankly disgusted to see any support for that capitalist liberal bastard on a site supposedly for the revolutionary left.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that Noam Chomsky is a pretty good popularizer of ideas. Reading something that Noam Chomsky wrote is many people's (myself included) first introduction to nominally left-wing ideas. The first time I ever saw anarchism or communism mentioned in a non-negative light was when I looked up Chomsky's analysis of the Spanish Civil War after I read a brief mention of it somewhere on the internet. Before that the only thing I knew about communism was that it was invented by some guy named Karl Marx, who inspired some other guy named Joseph Stalin to turn all of Russia into a giant slave camp.

I don't agree with everything Chomsky says, very far from it. Some of his points are not very good and I think he's a pretty bad public speaker. But I really don't get all of the Chomsky hate that I sometime see on this site, like "fuck Chomsky, that stupid piece of shit! I hope he gets torn apart BY RABID DOGS!!!!" It's like, damn dude, chill. Chomsky ain't all that important. Some people read him and become communists, some people read him and become liberals, some conservatives read him just cuz they're curious, but all of those people who read him in regards to modern political science at least come away with a more nuanced, educated perspective than they had before. Just take what's useful and leave the rest.

[Art Vandelay]

I, personally despise the man, (1) due to the fact that he litteraly makes money off of reinvesting capital (not in worker friendly stocks may I add),(2) his pseudo leftist politics and (3) his apparent regurgitation of false historical claims (the man is simply way too intelligent to actually believe this historical falsities he spouts off, let alone the intense research that he puts into almost anything he does, has left me with the impression he must simply be intellectually dishonest).

[Let's Get Free]

I, for one, am frankly disgusted to see any support for that capitalist liberal bastard on a site supposedly for the revolutionary left.

Noam Chomsky is consistently anti-capitalist.



I, personally despise the man, (1) due to the fact that he litteraly makes money off of reinvesting capital

I don't know if that's true, but even if it is, why don't you despise Engels for the same reason?

[Red Banana]

Chomsky provides some of the best, well informed critiques on western imperialism and neoliberalism I've seen. He's a lot weaker on theory though.

That being said, Chomsky like everyone else realizes that there was history before Marx and that there are things to be learned from those who came before him. No matter how "ideologically pure" some people here might think they are, they too take influence from the enlightenment. Most people here are probably secularists, a product of the enlightenment. The enlightenment was the beginning of the end of feudalism. It's silly to just completely write off someone like Rousseau because he doesn't come from a Marxist standpoint when Marx wasn't even born yet.

It is also a well known fact that some people on rev left call people from different tendencies liberal to discredit them without actually discrediting them. Chomsky is an anarchist. Some people like to call him a liberal because he criticizes certain groups on the anti capitalist left and that makes them really butthurt *cough*leninists*cough*

[Art Vandelay]

Noam Chomsky is consistently anti-capitalist.




I don't know if that's true, but even if it is, why don't you despise Engels for the same reason?

While perhaps using some anti-capitalist rhetoric; Chomsky is far from an anarchist or an anti capitalist. The reason I don't despise Engels for the same reason, is because Engels actually produced something of value for the proletarian cause, while funding the life and work of Marx; Chonsky, the millionaire, regurgitates garbage and historical falsities while claiming capitalism has never existed on the face of the earth.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Personally, I think Chomsky has taken some very gutsy stands. He recently made his first trip to the Gaza Strip, and he expressed some pungent criticisms of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, whom he apparently is defending against Israel's attacks. Good for him! Those stands set him apart from most academics, so that is all to his credit.

However, in the same video (at http://mostlywater.org/it_murder_noam_chomsky_israeli_invasion_gaza) where Chomsky blasts Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, he made a casual endorsement of imperialist chieftain Obama, saying, about Obama's re-election, " ... The worst didn't happen, and it might have...."


.... Chomsky is an anarchist. ...

and that is the problem I have with Chomsky and those who admire him, namely, every four years Chomsky publicly expresses support for the Democratic presidential candidate, as a lesser evil, and, from that it follows, if words mean anything, that Chomsky is no anarchist, for the simple reason that anarchists reject politics. In my mind, logic applies to everyone, even a suburban millionaire like Chomsky: If you vote, you forfeit your right to be known as an anarchist.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

He defends Obama. If that's not fucking liberal then I don't know what is. And that goes without mentioning his abhorrently repudiative politics. It only takes a short read of some of his works to show that many of the opinions he has about society are incredibly egotistic. Esperanto is a 'repulsive and unnatural language that makes it's speakers gag in disgust whenever they talk in it at length' according to him, albeit having no actual referrences to back himself up and not being able to speak a word of the language himself. He does these weird, emotional 'I DON'T LIKE IT' script lasers all the time, on anything he has an emotional beef with.

I wouldn't put anything past the man.

[Art Vandelay]

I can't help but feel like the majority on here defending Chomsky (minus Os; although there may be others that I haven't seen yet) are merely in the same political position I was, about a year and a half ago; there is no shame in that either, its just that eventually you'll need to recognize Noam for what he is.

[Let's Get Free]

"If the Bush administration didn’t like somebody, they’d kidnap them and send them to torture chambers.

If the Obama administration decides they don’t like somebody, they murder them."- Chomsky

Where the fuck are people getting this idea that Noam "defends Obama"

[Art Vandelay]

"If the Bush administration didn’t like somebody, they’d kidnap them and send them to torture chambers.

If the Obama administration decides they don’t like somebody, they murder them."- Chomsky

Where the fuck are people getting this idea that Noam "defends Obama"

No one is saying that he defends him; simply that he supports the "lesser of two evils" argument when it comes to voting; a convictions which should result in a ban on this site, in my opinion.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

"If the Bush administration didn’t like somebody, they’d kidnap them and send them to torture chambers.

If the Obama administration decides they don’t like somebody, they murder them."- Chomsky

Where the fuck are people getting this idea that Noam "defends Obama"
I'm sorry, but if someone puts on the ridiculous liberal argument of "It's not that I like you Mr. Obama.......but.......you're the best we've damn got, for freedom!!!1!11!" then they are supportive of Senator Barrack Bomb-the-Middle-East-Smiling, emotional convictions or not.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I, for one, am frankly disgusted to see any support for that capitalist liberal bastard on a site supposedly for the revolutionary left.Meh, save the contempt for actual apologists, comrade - not academics with some dubious positions. If we view Chomsky compared to revolutionary militants, yes he is quite lacking. Compared to left-academics though, he's probably better than most... at least the ones of his stature.

For who he is and what he does, Chomsky has been more helpful than not. My main problem with him (though I disagree with him on many specific things) is his sort of pessimism and neglect in terms of an alternative. He's a very good example of the famous Marx quote: Philosophers only examine the world, but the point is to change it. Chomsky's political failings, his tacit support for lesser-evilism and so on (I don't think he supports the Democrats in any way, he just fell into lesser-evil arguments in 2004, but so did Zinn who I admire) have to do with his apparent lack of a sense (or interest) in how and what people can do about the things he describes.

He gained his stature as a left-academic during the long ruling class push-back, so it makes sense in a way that he would reflect that and internalize some of the pessimism of the "there is no alternative"-era.

His disinterest in arguing for an alternative is probably why he is popular among liberals and progressives - you can feel smart by understanding why the world is such shit, but you never feel like you have to actually get your hands dirty.

[Krano]

"Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical priorities" / take off your glasses and look me in the eye // I saw Noam Chomsky eating a burger at McDonalds. You don't believe me but why would I lie? / I'm sure he had some good ideas, like Kilgore Trout, or that guy who invented the atom bomb, but . . . // Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical" priorities / take off your glasses and look me in the eye / Fuck you, Noam Chomsky, and your "radical" priorities / take off your glasses and look me in the eye."

- Fuck You Noam Chomsky, (Halifax indierock legends) Scribbler

Actually, I mostly find his analysis of US foreign policy well researched and valuable, and his dry wit highly entertaining. Not exactly stoked on his "anarchism", but, y'know, it's pretty above par as far as American public intellectuals go. I'd love to put him on a panel with Zizek, 'cos they'd probably talk at hilarious cross-purposes. Yup.
Chomsky is mortal?

[Comrade #138672]

I, personally despise the man, (1) due to the fact that he litteraly makes money off of reinvesting capital (not in worker friendly stocks may I add),(2) his pseudo leftist politics and (3) his apparent regurgitation of false historical claims (the man is simply way too intelligent to actually believe this historical falsities he spouts off, let alone the intense research that he puts into almost anything he does, has left me with the impression he must simply be intellectually dishonest).How do you know this? Do you have a source?


No one is saying that he defends him; simply that he supports the "lesser of two evils" argument when it comes to voting; a convictions which should result in a ban on this site, in my opinion.That's kind of extreme.

[Red Banana]

[/QUOTE]
He gained his stature as a left-academic during the long ruling class push-back, so it makes sense in a way that he would reflect that and internalize some of the pessimism of the "there is no alternative"-era.

His disinterest in arguing for an alternative is probably why he is popular among liberals and progressives - you can feel smart by understanding why the world is such shit, but you never feel like you have to actually get your hands dirty.[/QUOTE]

He does argue for an alternative and quite often argues against the Thatcherite "there is no alternative" argument. He's just not good at it. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and that's one of his weaknesses. He's really good at critical analysis of policy and bad at theory.

[Philosophos]

I really like him. He's a great talker with a smooth voice, he describes the capitalist system and propaganda very nicely but either I can't totally understand his way of thinking because of the language or he says some things that are almost impossible... I think it's the first but you never know...

[Jimmie Higgins]

He gained his stature as a left-academic during the long ruling class push-back, so it makes sense in a way that he would reflect that and internalize some of the pessimism of the "there is no alternative"-era.

His disinterest in arguing for an alternative is probably why he is popular among liberals and progressives - you can feel smart by understanding why the world is such shit, but you never feel like you have to actually get your hands dirty.

He does argue for an alternative and quite often argues against the Thatcherite "there is no alternative" argument. He's just not good at it. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and that's one of his weaknesses. He's really good at critical analysis of policy and bad at theory.

Ok. I have not really read much of that - he always seems to either be pessimistic about the ability to alter the sorts of attacks he often describes or only analyzes imperialism and hegemony. But I've only read a couple of books and various articles and interviews with him.

In my mind I always counterposed his appreoach with Zinn's which was to highlight the subjective fightback of workers and the oppressed.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

the "good on foreign policy/bad on theory" meme is pretty spot on.
he seems to have fulfilled the niche in American culture for left-wing criticism in the "anarcho-liberal" mold, for better or for worse (think Naomi Klein). like almost every academic of our times, and most revolutionaries in general during reactionary times, he drifts towards a more pessimistic view as the years pass.
he's pretty much the only socialist you'll be exposed to in good faith by liberal America, but often with accompanying mockery and slander.

Marxists understandably throw him under the bus because he takes the textbook / sectarian anarchist line on the Bolsheviks, and he's said before that Marxism basically contributed nothing to philosophy (although not Marx, mind you).
the guy is a historian with a pretty Kantian set of morals; given what the Bolshies did to save their state after socialism became impossible in Russia, it's not surprising that he doesn't like the Bolsheviks. the "coup" thing was always funny to me though. is that out of Kautsky or something?

[helot]

I'd say he's a liberal. It's a cold day that he himself doesn't admit to attributing many of his own socialist views to Enlightenment figures such as Smith, Rousseau, and Jefferson. He's a socialist in the sense of wanting a socialist society but very liberal in his outlook. He synthesizes Enlightenment brand idealist virtue with some vaguely leftist views, and what you get is an admirer of anarchist theory that backs it up only with the virtue of the theory itself, not with any explanation for what makes it relevant.

In his defence referencing the Enlightenment was probably taken from Rudolf Rocker. Although Rocker, after identifying the influence liberalism has had on socialist ideas, does then go on to state that the supposed founding principles of liberalism and democracy are a fraud due to the realities of capitalist economy.


Anyway, i've not read anything Chomsky's written and the few times i've tried to listen to him say something i gave up due to him being terrible at public speaking.

[Jimmie Higgins]

he seems to have fulfilled the niche in American culture for left-wing criticism in the "anarcho-liberal" mold, for better or for worse (think Naomi Klein).

I completely get your point here, so I'm not nit-picking but just asking a question: isn't Naomi Klein pretty openly a social-democrat?

I think you are right that they appeal to the same general audience - I'm just honestly not sure what her politics are specifically.

Time for a new thread?:lol:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Naomi Klein's an anarcho-liberal (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-liberal-t168080/index.html), haven't you heard?

[GoddessCleoLover]

A liberal by any other name would still be a liberal. Naomi Klein is just a liberal seeking to be hip.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A liberal by any other name would still be a liberal. Naomi Klein is just a liberal seeking to be hip.

Failing hard. Silly journalist, the kids are doing Neon-Luddite Electro-Communism with dykey haircuts, not diffuse-social-democracy with Layton moustaches. Out of the CFS and in to the streets!

[cynicles]

Can we all just agree Chomsky is for the highschool/freshman leftist crowd?

[Caj]

Can we all just agree Chomsky is for the highschool/freshman leftist crowd?

There are plenty of high school leftists on this site, myself included, who despise Chomsky's politics and regard him as a liberal.

[ed miliband]

Failing hard. Silly journalist, the kids are doing Neon-Luddite Electro-Communism with dykey haircuts, not diffuse-social-democracy with Layton moustaches. Out of the CFS and in to the streets!

nope. i'm a "kid" and we seem to mostly be doing social-democracy with added 'standing outside shop-fronts'. i mean, maybe we'll smash the shop-fronts in, but the wider politics never go beyond social-democracy -- i.e. targeting shops specifically because they don't pay tax, to convince them that they should.

e: i mean, the quebec student movement is obv a bit different, but it isn't widespread.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

I completely get your point here, so I'm not nit-picking but just asking a question: isn't Naomi Klein pretty openly a social-democrat?

I think you are right that they appeal to the same general audience - I'm just honestly not sure what her politics are specifically.

not sure really, but what you're getting at is what I'm getting at (and is precisely why I used the trendy term in scare quotes). I find that anarchist intellectuals and social democrats act pretty much exactly the same in the U.S.

[Zeus the Moose]

I completely get your point here, so I'm not nit-picking but just asking a question: isn't Naomi Klein pretty openly a social-democrat?

I think you are right that they appeal to the same general audience - I'm just honestly not sure what her politics are specifically.

Time for a new thread?:lol:


Naomi Klein's an anarcho-liberal (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-liberal-t168080/index.html), haven't you heard?

It seems like what the Jacobin folks argue is that while Klein's politics are fundamentally social democratic, she seems to reject the organisational aspects of social democracy, such as large-scale parties, trade unions (NGOS nowadays?), which social democracy gets from its history as a degenerate descendent of Marxism. Instead it combines social democratic politics with localist and "organic" organisational norms which betray influence from anarchism, the New Left, and the Green movement (perhaps somewhat redundant considering where the Green movement gets its organisational strategy from.) I think part of this comes from Klein being at least somewhat oppositional, in that she has not integrated herself within the bourgeois order the way social democracy by and large has, and when formally oppositional mass movements become integrated into society there seems to be a tendency to reject the the strategy of building mass movements in general.

So I don't necessarily see being a social democrat and being an anarcho-liberal as necessary contradictory, at least if anarcho-liberalism is seen more from an organisational perspective than a political one.

[Agathor]

norm chomsky is a nice man

[Ostrinski]

Naomi Klein is so hot :wub:

[Let's Get Free]

Naomi Klein is so hot :wub:

Uhhh, she's aight I guess.

[Agathor]

naomi klein is a petit-bourgeois liberl reactionery. would not fuck.

is naomi the feminine of noam ???

[cynicles]

There are plenty of high school leftists on this site, myself included, who despise Chomsky's politics and regard him as a liberal.
Then you sir deserve a lollipop, red or black?

Naomi Klein is a red baby(she comes from a jewish family originally full of communists and marxists) who cobbles together various progressive views into a reformist chimaera with a dose of hatred for structuralist theory, thus her inability to create any adequate and comprehensive theories.

[Let's Get Free]

I think calling Chomsky a "liberal" amounts to posturing. ie. "Look how radical I am, I'm to the left of Noam!"

[GoddessCleoLover]

Naomi Klein is hot.

Noam Chomsky is not.

[Lucretia]

I think calling Chomsky a "liberal" amounts to posturing. ie. "Look how radical I am, I'm to the left of Noam!"

I think it's just true to point out that Noam's politics are not radical. His analyses are, not his politics. He like the social democrats of the second international, talks a very good game, publishes a lot of fancy best-selling books disseminating a kind of watered-down but nevertheless radical message about how power operates in the US and around the world. But when it comes time to choose whether to opt in with the bourgeois order, and the two-party system that props it up, or to reject it, Noam unequivocally opts in. And as others have already brought up, he is so disturbed by the thought of bringing deeds into line with ideas, of living out ideas so that they will have tangible political consequences, that he never hesitates to label the October Revolution a coup. Presumably the Bolsheviks should have continued supporting the lesser of evils, and waited to see where that would have taken them, while publishing dozens of best-selling pamphlets about the evils of provisional government.

He can claim to be the Queen of Sweden for all I care. The man's politics are objectively reformist.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Failing hard. Silly journalist, the kids are doing Neon-Luddite Electro-Communism with dykey haircuts, not diffuse-social-democracy with Layton moustaches. Out of the CFS and in to the streets!


naomi klein is a petit-bourgeois liberl reactionery. would not fuck.

Somehow this type of conversation is not helping RevLeft stay afloat intellectually; identifying hairstyles by calling such as "dykey" ("Dyke" being a slur for Lesbians) and thread derailment on which political philosopher one would "fuck." :thumbdown:

[cynicles]

I think it's just true to point out that Noam's politics are not radical. His analyses are, not his politics. He like the social democrats of the second international, talks a very good game, publishes a lot of fancy best-selling books disseminating a kind of watered-down but nevertheless radical message about how power operates in the US and around the world. But when it comes time to choose whether to opt in with the bourgeois order, and the two-party system that props it up, or to reject it, Noam unequivocally opts in. And as others have already brought up, he is so disturbed by the thought of bringing deeds into line with ideas, of living out ideas so that they will have tangible political consequences, that he never hesitates to label the October Revolution a coup. Presumably the Bolsheviks should have continued supporting the lesser of evils, and waited to see where that would have taken them, while publishing dozens of best-selling pamphlets about the evils of provisional government.

He can claim to be the Queen of Sweden for all I care. The man's politics are objectively reformist.
His analysis isn't even radical all the time, it generally revolves around applying the standards set by those in power to those in power and pointing out their hypocrisy, which is fine but not really that radicals either. Radicals should never except the way those in power even frame the question, let alone the answer.

[TheOther]

Because the USA has this relativist philosophical system in which nothing is true, and nothing is false. In which people can write a book about any thing they want, and say any thing they want and invent things. Well, what I want to say is that there is a video of Noam Chomsky many years ago, where he said that Lenin and Trotsky were right-wingers and fascists. I think Chomsky is too utopian and too much into theory and not into realism. Since he is so old and weak and he cannot fight a real physical fight against capitalist, maybe that's why he would like to see a complete quick change from capitalism to state-less socialism without the need of the dictatorial stage of the dictatorship of the workers. So i think that's why he said that the Bolsheviks were fascists.

Another thing is that Chomsky is a celebrity like Michael Moore, and humans have a tendency to believe the words of celebrities and pompous people even if they are wrong, more than anonymous internet non-celebrities like us. I think that's why Chomsky has lots of fans like Naomi Klein, Paul Krugman and Michael More and Oliver Stone, who are mainstream bourgeoise liberal middle class college leftists





His writings on U.S. foreign policy and imperialism, the mainstream media, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and linguistics are all good and insightful, but I don't bother with anything he writes on radical leftism. Politically, he's just another liberal.

[hatzel]

You realise there was a time when Chomsky wasn't 'old and weak' (such is the nature of gradual aging), but he still had pretty much the same opinions, right? Your little theory here is kind of...unfounded...

Also I quite like the absolute car crash of words at the end there, 'mainstream bourgeoise liberal middle class college leftists.'

[cynicles]

You realise there was a time when Chomsky wasn't 'old and weak' (such is the nature of gradual aging), but he still had pretty much the same opinions, right? Your little theory here is kind of...unfounded...

Also I quite like the absolute car crash of words at the end there, 'mainstream bourgeoise liberal middle class college leftists.'
Talk about redundant.

[RadioRaheem84]

A.) the guy is too smart to spread the level of anti-Marxism he does. It borders on intellectual dishonesty and Menshivik propaganda. He uses the word "totalitarianism" and other liberal buzzwords.

B.) Leninists akin to "fascists"? Apparently, if he uses this whole politics comes full circle BS then that is pretty liberal-ish too.

C.) He hardly ever just comes out against capitalism. It's always, "well I would be against capitalism if that's what we really had in the literal sense of the word, but it's far from it" or some other BS that reeks of right wing libertarian "statist" logic.

OP, if Chomsky is a "gate way" skip it and just snort a huge line of some Michael Parenti. He really got the ball rolling for me. I was still a confused liberal after reading too much Chomsky.

[cynicles]

A.) the guy is too smart to spread the level of anti-Marxism he does. It borders on intellectual dishonesty and Menshivik propaganda. He uses the word "totalitarianism" and other liberal buzzwords.

B.) Leninists akin to "fascists"? Apparently, if he uses this whole politics comes full circle BS then that is pretty liberal-ish too.

C.) He hardly ever just comes out against capitalism. It's always, "well I would be against capitalism if that's what we really had in the literal sense of the word, but it's far from it" or some other BS that reeks of right wing libertarian "statist" logic.

OP, if Chomsky is a "gate way" skip it and just snort a huge line of some Michael Parenti. He really got the ball rolling for me. I was still a confused liberal after reading too much Chomsky.
Can I steal that for my signature!!!???:drool:

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Chomsky is an anarchist, at least nominally. I think that's a more likely reason for being anti-Bolshie than being intellectually dishonest. intelligence doesn't equate to great politics.