Video: Chomsky on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism and the Soviet Union

[The Feral Underclass]

In this video, Chomsky responds to a Leninist who criticises his talk on the basis of him equating Leninism with Stalinism. In his response, he provides an insight into the initial history of the Bolsheviks and the justification for why Leninism set the stage for Stalin.

yQsceZ9skQI

[Os Cangaceiros]

Oh man, prepare to get raged at! :grin:

I'm not a big fan of Lenin, but I think that the "Lenin more-or-less equals Stalin" line ignores some important facts. The most obvious being that Lenin lived in a Russia that was either involved in a war, or was in the immediate aftermath of a war, namely WW1 and the Russian civil war. War is not an excuse for all of Lenin's actions but it puts some of them into perspective. Stalin's situation in the 30's was obviously different.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

1930s Russia was not in the aftermath of a war and close to a new war?
Seems you are distorting some important historical facts as well.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also, it seemed like Lenin was intellectually honest and favored a more..."organic" (?) development of the Soviet economy than what was to ultimately transpire, ie hell-on-earth Preobrazhenskian "primitive socialist accumulation".


1930s Russia was not in the aftermath of a war and close to a new war?
Seems you are distorting some important historical facts as well.

Not in the immediate aftermath, no. Lenin died in 1924, that wasn't long after the RCW at all.

[Fourth Internationalist]

My respect for Chomsky has gone up immensely after watching that video.

[Comrade Jandar]

My respect for Chomsky has gone up immensely after watching that video.

Just the opposite happened to me. Strange.

[Red Enemy]

Oh, hi material conditions...didn't see you there. Chomsky isn't a Marxist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

He'd definitely agree with you there.

[Caj]

In addition to spouting so many historical inaccuracies to support his argument - such as Lenin being a "right-wing deviation" from the "mainstream Marxist movement" (when he was actually a left-wing deviation), the likes of Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek representing "mainstream Marxism" and showcasing its supposed denunciation of Bolshevism (even though Luxemburg and to a larger extent Pannekoek were well to the left of the "mainstream Marxists" and had supported Lenin and the Bolsheviks at the time), the October Revolution being a "coup" wherein "the radical intelligentsia exploit[ed] popular movements to seize state power," etc. - Chomsky also reveals himself to have virtually no knowledge of what socialism is. He argues that "the core of socialism was understood to be workers' control over production," which is completely false. The "core of socialism" was understood to be the abolition of classes, which further necessitates the abolition of private property, the law of value, markets, exchange, or, in short, the abolition of bourgeois and mercantile economy in all of its various forms. In a classless (socialist) society, workers' control would not exist; how can one have workers' control when there are no workers and there is nothing to control (the means of production being "controlled" by society as a whole)? Furthermore, workers' control is in no way inconsistent with the continuation of capitalism. Workers can control their factories while private property, markets, exchange, the operation of the law of value, and even exploitation through the extraction of surplus value still exist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh, hi material conditions...didn't see you there. Chomsky isn't a Marxist.

This is a bogus argument that makes the claim that economic hardship somehow precipitates political authoritarianism. Do you really want to make that claim?

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

To be fair, I think Chomsky used socialism as viewed by Leninists.

I wonder, if Lenin was "right-wing of marxist movement", what were Kautsky, Plekhanov, etc?

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

This is a bogus argument that makes the claim that economic hardship somehow precipitates political authoritarianism. Do you really want to make that claim?

"Economic hardship"? I think you meant sabotage, foreign intervention and Civil War.

[The Feral Underclass]

And to make the argument that this precipitates political authoritarianism is based on a bourgeois understanding of social relations.

[Le Socialiste]

This is a bogus argument that makes the claim that economic hardship somehow precipitates political authoritarianism. Do you really want to make that claim?

Would you agree that there's a definite interrelationship between the two (the sociopolitical and the economic)?

[Captain Ahab]

Would Leninists defend the controversial decisions Lenin made if they were carried out by someone who wasn't Lenin?
More importantly, why couldn't Lenin reverse these decisions after the Civil War?

[Art Vandelay]

Chomsky is quite clearly intellectually dishonest in this video. There are valid criticisms of the Bolsheviks to make, however this one is quite poor.

[The Feral Underclass]

Would you agree that there's a definite interrelationship between the two (the sociopolitical and the economic)?
What do you mean by "definite interrelationship"?

[Art Vandelay]

This is a bogus argument that makes the claim that economic hardship somehow precipitates political authoritarianism. Do you really want to make that claim?

The economic base of society does highly affect the political superstructure; obviously it isn't simply a uni-casual relationship, however it is undoubtedly the main influence. Do you really want to make a claim otherwise? I thought this was Marxism 101, to be honest. An example would be that Fascism is capitalism in decay: changes in the economic base (the petite-bourgeoisie based movement's reaction) resulted in a massive shift in the form of political 'authoritarianism.'

Obviously the situation was quite different then the situation the Bolsheviks found themselves in, but to say that the economic base of society played no part in the correlating material conditions, is idealism at its finest.

Edit: I would of expected you to reply to Caj, he kinda destroyed the idea that this video has any merit whatsoever.

[Le Socialiste]

What do you mean by "definite interrelationship"?

That political structures and institutions, including social classes, reflect economic developments and activities.

[The Feral Underclass]

The economic base of society does highly affect the political superstructure; obviously it isn't simply a uni-casual relationship, however it is undoubtedly the main influence. Do you really want to make a claim otherwise? I thought this was Marxism 101, to be honest.

You haven't addressed anything. You've simply restated the position.


An example would be that Fascism is capitalism in decay: changes in the economic base (the petite-bourgeoisie based movement's reaction) resulted in a massive shift in the form of political 'authoritarianism.'

I am happy to compare Leninism to fascism if you wish.


Obviously the situation was quite different then the situation the Bolsheviks found themselves in, but to say that the economic base of society played no part in the correlating material conditions, is idealism at its finest.

But that's not really what I said, is it?


Edit: I would of expected you to reply to Caj, he kinda destroyed the idea that this video has any merit whatsoever.

What Caj actually did was offer a counter interpretation of the same events that Chomsky interpreted in the video without providing any documentary evidence.

Chomsky says that if you look at the facts, i.e. historical record, you can see his claims are backed up. There is nothing more that I could possibly say to strengthen the points Chomsky has already made.

If Caj or you or others wish to go and check those facts and come back with some history to look at, which refutes Chomsky's decades of academic interrogation, then by all means do so.

Right now, at this particular moment, I am more inclined to believe the academic, historian and professor over some anonymous guy on the internet who's argument essentially amounts to "no, you're wrong."

[The Feral Underclass]

That political structures and institutions, including social classes, reflect economic developments and activities.

Right, but this isn't an argument for the precipitation of political authoritarianism, it's an analysis of society.

[Art Vandelay]

You haven't addressed anything. You've simply restated the position.

Yes I've stated my position. You're the one claiming that this highly accepted interpretation (among radicals) of social science is apparently false. Could you explain why? You seem to be quite big on telling others to back up their claims, but I haven't really seen this from you, in all honesty.


I am happy to compare Leninism to fascism if you wish.

Which would be silly and shows a pseudo-scientific understanding of the two phenomenons. Its as ridiculous as the charge of 'totalitarianism,' attempting to tie together polar opposites of the political spectrum. It's a lazy argument, that allows one to not do the necessary intellectual engagement with the material conditions which sprouted the two movements.


But that's not really what I said, is it?

It seemed to be what you were alluding to. Again, perhaps if you could elucidate your opinion, it would be easier for us to know what you are talking about.


What Caj actually did was offer a counter interpretation of the same events that Chomsky interpreted in the video without providing any documentary evidence.

Chomsky says that if you look at the facts, i.e. historical record, you can see his claims are backed up. There is nothing more that I could possibly say to strengthen the points Chomsky has already made.

If Cak or you or others wish to go and check those facts and come back with some history to look at which refutes Chomsky's decades of academic interrogation, then by all means do so.

Right now, at this particular moment, I am more inclined to believe the academic, historian and professor over some anonymous guy on the internet who's argument essentially amounts to "no, you're wrong."

I"ll let Caj address that if he wants. I very well could spend the next bit of my day, internet searching for sources (as they very well exist) which would disprove the nonsense that Chomsky spouts; but in all honesty, what would be the point? You've clearly got your mind made up, Leninism is akin to fascism is some way to you. You do not consider me a comrade and have already openly advocated my execution at the beginning of any revolutionary upsurge.

Simply accept, without any back up information, those who speak from an anti-Bolshevik stance all you wish, enjoy your willful ignorance. Again, there are criticisms of the Bolsheviks to make (I have some of my own), however what Chomsky presents here is pretty theoretically weak (as is most of his work outside of linguistics and U.S. foreign policy).

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes I've stated my position. You're the one claiming that this highly accepted interpretation (among radicals) of social science is apparently false. Could you explain why? You seem to be quite big on telling others to back up their claims, but I haven't really seen this from you, in all honesty.

But I haven't claimed that...


Which would be silly and shows a pseudo-scientific understanding of the two phenomenons. Its as ridiculous as the charge of 'totalitarianism,' attempting to tie together polar opposites of the political spectrum. It's a lazy argument, that allows one to not do the necessary intellectual engagement with the material conditions which sprouted the two movements.

You're the one who brought up fascism to back up your point.


It seemed to be what you were alluding to. Again, perhaps if you could elucidate your opinion, it would be easier for us to know what you are talking about.

I don't understand how it seemed that way. What I said was very simple: Material conditions don't precipitate political authoritarianism.


Simply accept, without any back up information, those who speak from an anti-Bolshevik stance all you wish, enjoy your willful ignorance.

This way that you extrapolate from people's arguments is really fucking beginning to get boring.

I don't "simply accept...those who speak from an anti-Bolshevik stance" and you have no reason to make that stupid claim.

I do, however, accept the views of a leading academic and historian who has spent decades and decades interrogating this history and these traditions and written and spoken extensively on the subjects as an intellectual and as a radical.

If someone is going to have an in depth and coruscating insight into this history, it is going to be Noam Chomsky. I have no reason to accept anything you or Caj has to say on the matter.

Perhaps when you become a leading academic, intellectual and historian, with decades of experience and 10 books under your belt, you may find I am more interested in what you say.

[Art Vandelay]

But I haven't claimed that...

I don't understand how it seemed that way. What I said was very simple: Material conditions don't precipitate political authoritarianism.

Yes and what I'm asking you, for the third time, is to further elucidate that blanket statement you keep making. You appear to have no interest in doing that, so don't bother.


You're the one who brought up fascism to back up your point.


Yes as an example of how differing material conditions, produce different level of political authoritarianism. If you somehow see that as me comparing 'Leninism' to fascism, then you must not know how to read, or are simply being purposely ignorant.


This way that you extrapolate from people's arguments is really fucking beginning to get boring.

That's fine, I've lost all interest in engaging in polemics with you. The way you handle yourself makes you come across as a dick, you've already advocated for my execution and I know enough about your past on the board that I didn't have much respect for you to begin with. Why someone like you, is allowed on this board is beyond me. However I'll bite my tongue here cause I don't want to get banned.


I don't "simply accept...those who speak from an anti-Bolshevik stance" and you have no reason to make that stupid claim.

You've admitted that Chomsky provides no evidence for his claims, but merely pays lip service to having 'historical evidence' on his side. So yes I do have reason to make that claim.


I do, however, accept the views of a leading academic and historian who has spent decades and decades interrogating this history and these traditions and written and spoken extensively on the subjects as an intellectual and as a radical.

If someone is going to have an in depth and coruscating insight into this history, it is going to be Noam Chomsky. I have no reason to accept anything you or Caj has to say on the matter.

Perhaps when you become a leading academic, intellectual and historian, with decades of experience and 10 books under your belt, you may find I am more interested in what you say.

Then why are you on here, you're clearly not interested in discussion with other radicals. Just go read your Chomsky books. Feel free not to respond, cause I'm done with you.

[Caj]

Chomsky says that if you look at the facts, i.e. historical record, you can see his claims are backed up. There is nothing more that I could possibly say to strengthen the points Chomsky has already made.

If Caj or you or others wish to go and check those facts and come back with some history to look at, which refutes Chomsky's decades of academic interrogation, then by all means do so.

Right now, at this particular moment, I am more inclined to believe the academic, historian and professor over some anonymous guy on the internet who's argument essentially amounts to "no, you're wrong."


I do, however, accept the views of a leading academic and historian who has spent decades and decades interrogating this history and these traditions and written and spoken extensively on the subjects as an intellectual and as a radical.

If someone is going to have an in depth and coruscating insight into this history, it is going to be Noam Chomsky. I have no reason to accept anything you or Caj has to say on the matter.

Perhaps when you become a leading academic, intellectual and historian, with decades of experience and 10 books under your belt, you may find I am more interested in what you say.

You do realize Chomsky isn't an historian of the USSR and October Revolution, right? He has not spent "decades of academic interrogation" studying the subjects, nor has he "written and spoken extensively" about them. His areas of expertise are linguistics, U.S. foreign policy, and mass media. Of course, I am not an authority on the subject either, but there are plenty of actual historians of the USSR and Russian Revolution - Sheila Fitzpatrick, Alexander Rabinowitch, and Stephen Cohen come to mind - who would strongly object to the baseless claims Chomsky makes in this video.

I'm not going to bother writing a detailed and cited exposition on the October Revolution and the rise of Stalin for you that refutes the characterizations of these events presented by Chomsky in this video because a) I do not have the time, and b) you would likely reject it out-of-hand. Instead, I'll leave this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html) link to such an exposition on the Russian Revolution and the structure of the Bolshevik Party written by ComradeOm, who is undoubtedly the most knowledgeable member of this forum when it comes to the subject.

Also, if you are not interested in what any of the other users have to say about this video, then why the fuck did you post it?

[The Feral Underclass]

You do realize Chomsky isn't an historian of the USSR and October Revolution, right? He has not spent "decades of academic interrogation" studying the subjects, nor has he "written and spoken extensively" about them. His areas of expertise are linguistics, U.S. foreign policy, and mass media.

As well as political history.

[l'Enfermé]

As well as political history.
He doesn't even speak Russian...

:confused:

[goalkeeper]

The fact that he calls Lenin the "right wing" of the mainstream marxist movement shows how little knowledge he has on the subject.

I read an essay Chomsky wrote on the Russian Revolution. I can't remember what year it was, but he hadn't engaged at all with modern scholarship of the Russian Revolution and the USSR. Not that it would convince him of the "glories of Lenin" or whatever, they is still plenty of stuff about the revolution and the Bolsheviks to not like as an anarchist.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Would Leninists defend the controversial decisions Lenin made if they were carried out by someone who wasn't Lenin?


Yeah, sure. I support Stalin's decision of collectivization and industrialization.

[Let's Get Free]

I agree with much of what Chomsky has to say about Lenin. But when it all comes down to it, i see Lenin the same way I see Abraham Lincoln- as a great bourgeois revolutionary. Nothing spectacular from a socialist point of view- as he eventually crushed all of the socialistic tendencies within the Russian revolution.

[Ostrinski]

Chomsky? A HISTORIAN? I guess we're all historians now :lol:.

[Le Socialiste]

Right, but this isn't an argument for the precipitation of political authoritarianism, it's an analysis of society.

Are political structures not an aspect of broader society? Are they a thing a part, immune to external developments? Or are you simply saying that what you deem 'political authoritarianism' arises out of a vacuum, with no relation to socioeconomic shifts and changes?

[Comrade Jandar]

I agree with much of what Chomsky has to say about Lenin. But when it all comes down to it, i see Lenin the same way I see Abraham Lincoln- as a great bourgeois revolutionary. Nothing spectacular from a socialist point of view- as he eventually crushed all of the socialistic tendencies within the Russian revolution.

Hold on a second. You're comparing Abraham Lincoln to Lenin? And please tell me more about the widespread, advanced socialist consciousness among the Russian masses that Bolshevik reaction from the very start of their seizing of state power attempted to destroy.

[Let's Get Free]

And please tell me more about these widespread socialistic tendencies among the Russian masses that developed irrespective of the Bolsheviks and other political organizations.

Well, we see the Russian revolution happening in two movements, one, the spontaneous abandonment of war, the dropping of weapons and the seizing of the land and factories by the workers and peasants; the other the re-territorialization of the existent Russian revolutionary movement onto the model of 1789 via an ideology that fetishizes state power as a neutral, objective technique.

[Ostrinski]

Hold on a second. You're comparing Abraham Lincoln to Lenin? And please tell me more about these widespread socialistic tendencies among the Russian masses that developed irrespective of the Bolsheviks and other political organizations.To be fair the anarchists did kind of get fucked. The Left-SRs did as well, but they deserved it.

[Comrade Jandar]

Well, we see the Russian revolution happening in two movements, one, the spontaneous abandonment of war, the dropping of weapons and the seizing of the land and factories by the workers and peasants; the other the re-territorialization of the existent Russian revolutionary movement onto the model of 1789 via an ideology that fetishizes state power as a neutral, objective technique.


So the February Revolution that resulted in the bourgeois Kerensky government was more radical than what happened the following October merely because it was more "spontanteous?"

[Let's Get Free]

So the February Revolution that resulted in the bourgeois Kerensky government was more radical than what happened the following October merely because it was more "spontanteous?"

Actually, the anarchists agreed that Kerensky's war-mongering bourgeois republic should be brought to an end, and were at the forefront of the struggle. The provisional government did not begin peace negotiations and made no attempt to get out of the war. It did not embark on agrarian reform. It took no measures against the forces of reaction. The people got neither peace nor bread nor land. What is more, despite all the rights and freedoms, strong democratic institutions (apart, perhaps, from the Soviets) were not created in the country. Thus, there was nothing surprising about the Bolshevik takeover. A reactionary military dictatorship was also a real possibility at the time.

[Ostrinski]

Oh boy. Dr. Chomsky begins by telling us that Lenin was in fact a right wing deviation of the socialist movement and that the mainstream Marxists regarded him that way. Really, Noam? The SPD deputies at the Reichstag that voted for war credits, the renegade Kautsky who failed to oppose the war in a principled manner, the French socialist deputies who took part in the wartime government, Plekhanov who talked of wanting to bayonet Germans during the war, Martov and Axelrod who cowardly refused to denounce the coalitionists and defencists within the moderate Mensheviks who were bent on putting off working class emancipation into the sunset, and the rest of the reformists, coalitionists, and defencists in the degenerate Second International, are the folks who we are referring to if we are to as Chomsky says "look at the facts."

Huh. And these folks stood to the left of Lenin and the internationalists, defeatists, revolutionaries, and staunch partisans of working class emancipation within the Bolshevik party. Weird. Professor Chomsky must be using some extremely idiosyncratic standards for what constitutes a "right wing deviation" - most likely of his own devision. Or maybe he is purposefully being intellectually dishonest and consciously knows that the garbage that is coming out of his mouth is horseshit of an unmatched variety. Or, perhaps, he's just that fucking stupid. Folks, we may never know.

No to the imperialist war? Down with the provisional government? All power to the soviets?! A right wing deviant I tell you! :laugh:

But wait, it gets better: He actually lists Pannekeok as a mainstream Marxist, and as "head of education of the Marxist movement" no less! As a left wing social-democrat he was a nobody and he was a nobody until his involvement with the communist left in Germany and the Netherlands but by the time the communist left became a force the "mainstream Marxist movement" had been dominated by Stalinism in replacement of social-democracy. He then proceeds to throw Luxemburg's name in there, as if she wasn't supportive of the revolution in Russia until the end, and as if she didn't address both Lenin and Trotsky in her writings (however critical) as "comrade" until the end.

Then, he builds up that oh very classic caricature of vanguardism, where "the radical intelligentsia exploits popular movements to grab state power and do what it wants with society" completely ignoring how the Bolshevik party functioned both internally and externally in its relation to other institutions. What he also neglects to mention, and even falsely asserts the opposite, is that both Pannekoek (at the time) and Luxemburg were every bit as staunch vanguardists as Lenin himself!

Man, and I'm only halfway through this bullshit. I'll respond to the other half later.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I do, however, accept the views of a leading academic and historian who has spent decades and decades interrogating this history and these traditions and written and spoken extensively on the subjects as an intellectual and as a radical.

If someone is going to have an in depth and coruscating insight into this history, it is going to be Noam Chomsky. I have no reason to accept anything you or Caj has to say on the matter.

Perhaps when you become a leading academic, intellectual and historian, with decades of experience and 10 books under your belt, you may find I am more interested in what you say.How can an Anarchist espouse this dogmatic nuttery? It doesn't matter how old and 'experienced' you are; a certain subject is vilified by sources and facts to give it a basis and back it up, not by the popularity or social position of a particular person. People know sped-up global warming exists not because 'the scientists say so', but because there has been a long history of collecting data that reveal from their inspection such a case.

Chomsky is dead stupid about a lot of things, the crap about Lenin included. His visage as a wise and gloriously knowledgeable man means jack-shit when there is readily available information that tosses his shallow perceptions to the dogs.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Oh, hi material conditions...didn't see you there. Chomsky isn't a Marxist.

That also implies that only Fascists are allowed to have an opinion on or judge Fascists.

A liberal judging a liberal, etc.

So from your view, you are not allowed to judge Hitler anymore...


Not saying Chomsky is right, just that your argument isn't.

[Ostrinski]

That also implies that only Fascists are allowed to have an opinion on or judge Fascists.

A liberal judging a liberal, etc.

So from your view, you are not allowed to judge Hitler anymore...


Not saying Chomsky is right, just that your argument isn't.He wasn't saying that only Marxists can judge communist movements. He was saying that him not being a Marxist explains why he has such a complete disregard for understanding things within their socio-historical context.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

He wasn't saying that only Marxists can judge communist movements. He was saying that him not being a Marxist explains why he has such a complete disregard for understanding things within their socio-historical context.

Didn't really sound like that, but okay.

Still, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, although The Anarchist Tension might have been more open to other opinions.
I just might imagine his uneasyness with the angry comments thrown at him.

I, for one, am inclined only to listen to people who can give their opinion in an easy manner. Don't scream at me: i won't listen and i'll just scream back at you.

[CyM]

Chomsky has always been fairly useless. He has that disease we can refer to as "academia". A fatal condition, it leaves its sufferer incapable of any concrete revolutionary thought or action.

What has Chomsky actually done? Nothing at all. He gives lectures and goes on tours, and then dares to accuse the Bolsheviks of being "radical intelligentsia" disconnected from the masses.

What is the real crime of the Bolsheviks? These members of the intelligentsia, Lenin and Trotsky, got their hands dirty and used their intellect to carry out the overthrow of capitalism. Convenient for an academic, you've done nothing, "why of course not, I am not arrogant enough to impose my ideas on reality, impose them on the masses". It is simply theoretical cover for his own cowardice.

If you have ideas, you must attempt win a majority for those ideas in the movement, win the masses, and carry the revolution out.

You may lose in the long run, as the thousands of Bolsheviks drowned in the river of blood Stalin spilled to smash them can attest, but future generations will learn from the attempt.

Chomsky, on the otherhand, will not be very instructive for anyone wishing to learn how to carry out the revolution.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

He wasn't saying that only Marxists can judge communist movements. He was saying that him not being a Marxist explains why he has such a complete disregard for understanding things within their socio-historical context.
I find that to be a weak excuse (if, indeed, it is to be regarded as one). The notion of appreciating historical context isn't exclusive to Marxism.

[CyM]

Historical Materialism is the bedrock of Marxism. Flights of fancy and a loose acquaintance with reality covered with big words and a degree are the bedrock of the ivory tower academia.