Social Democracy and Liberalism

[Kindness]

It seems many here have a deep-seated hatred of social democracy and liberalism (in the American sense, a watered-down form of social democracy). Why is that? Yes, these things are not socialism, but they do at least accomplish some good for the working class, such as instituting universal healthcare, lowering unemployment, and so on, and this speaks in some small way to the leftist goal of improving the lives of the working class.

Obviously, these things should not be the main goal for revolutionary leftists, but I still see them as steps in the right direction and a much-needed, if inadequate, counter to reactionary conservatism.

[conmharáin]

"Liberals" in the United States are quite far to the right of social democrats.

I don't have a high opinion of social democracy as it occurs in Europe, because it doesn't really resolve the problems of private property and the state. Its end goal strikes me as more or less a welfare state. "Liberalism" doesn't even really exist in the United States; it's the "blue" flavor of America's "friendly fascism." See my signature quote for further information.

[tuwix]

And both of these terms are misused to the original meaning. 'Liberal' has its origin in liberty that is freedom. 'Liberal' means a person loving freedom. And Obama who sent bombs for oil in Libya loves freedom? :D
Besides description of (slight) left-wingers as liberals comes from Proudhon's (anarchist) understanding of freedom that exclude enslaving people by paid slavery.

'Social democracy' means the social power/authority of people which is DotP. And so-called social-democrats want the DotP? :D

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Social democracy is about social peace and preserving capitalism by modifying it, therein lays its inherent evil and repugnance.

[Nevsky]

I agree with the marxist analysis that social-democracy serves as the capitalist's appeasement policy. However, I don't regard it as an evil plan fabricated by capitalists to enslave the workers. European social-democracy as it is (or rather was) present in federal Germany since the early post-WW2 years was actually a rather well thought out and well functioning model between 'murica style capitalism and soviet socialism. Slavoj Zizek was pretty much right when he said that the years of true social-democracy in Europe were great. Those years are over, though, and the european welfare-state dream fades away.

Its limit was correctly foreseen by marxist theorists; only complete emancipation from capitalism can lead the people into a real prosperous future and social-democratic revisionism is anti-revolutionary per definition. Nontheless, I'd certainly vote a social-democratic party over a neoliberal one. As I said before, not every single social-democrat is an evil, scheming capitalism defender.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It seems many here have a deep-seated hatred of social democracy and liberalism (in the American sense, a watered-down form of social democracy). Why is that?As ideologies they are opposed to a revolutionary understanding and so that's the first level. Of course so do conservative ideologies and so on - and I think you'd find most people on the radical left have a much more "deep-seated" revusion to those ideas.

But I think specifically, some of the animosity has to do with the fact that if you're active (or even if you're not but are a worker with radical ideas) then soc-dem and liberal ideas are going to be the ones on a practical level that influence workers and students and neighbors that you interact with - especially when interacting in a strike or activism.

If someone's a racist, then many leftists would just write them off (maybe unless it was clear that it was out of a very shallow level of pure ignornace) - they probably won't be on a strike and probably wouldn't be involved in the same movements or causes. But in our practical activities, the dominant ideas tend to be liberal or some kind of reformism and since the people who hold these ideas might half agree with us, it becomes frustrating for some people I guess. And for the real ideologues, the reformist activists and liberal politicians and whatnot, the anger comes from their appeal to people who we might be able to convince and their co-option of movements only to drive them into the ground or back into useless lobbying or whatnot.


Yes, these things are not socialism, but they do at least accomplish some good for the working class, such as instituting universal healthcare, lowering unemployment, and so on, and this speaks in some small way to the leftist goal of improving the lives of the working class. Personally I seperate reforms from reform-ism. Reforms can make people's lives more tolerable on one level - and the confidence gained from a popular or bottom-up reform effort (and the material gains, such as union rights or more wages or more rights) can help give people confidence in self-activity and organization. To be a revolutionary and support reforms means, I think, seeing the reform not as an end to itself but as a way to help people to build up their own power and make their own class demands.

Reform-ism however suggests that capitalism and all it's contractictions can be smoothed out. That the problems of capitalism are technical or legal problems that can be plastered up for common benifit. Liberalism in the neoliberal era isn't about that so much, but soc-democracy is (even if it too has been pulled towards neo-liberal arguements).


Obviously, these things should not be the main goal for revolutionary leftists, but I still see them as steps in the right direction and a much-needed, if inadequate, counter to reactionary conservatism.In the US, if people go from passivity to supporting universal healthcare or other reforms, then in a general sense this is a step forward in that more people are rejecting the neoliberal framework against such things, but by itself that doesn't mean much one way or another. If people take to the streets and make demands rather than waiting for "good politicians" or business to do it, then it probably shows the development of more class confidence, anger, and maybe organization.

But I don't see it as a inadaquate step towards a better system, rather maybe it could be a small step in the development of broader working class forces and activity. So I guess the point is that reforms should be seen not in of themselves, but in relation to the class struggle and how it impacts working class organization and confidence. A hard-fought reform by workers will mean that people will see the value of that right (at least in the short-term) and have the skills and ability and confidence to defend it or expand on it. A reform won passivly, will just be worked around or watered-down and it will confuse and maybe demoralize supporters - such as with Obama's watered-down pro-insurance health plan.

[CommunistPenguin]

Social democrats are not leftists, neither are liberals. Both want to keep the capitalist system afloat.

[Rafiq]

It seems many here have a deep-seated hatred of social democracy and liberalism (in the American sense, a watered-down form of social democracy). Why is that? Yes, these things are not socialism, but they do at least accomplish some good for the working class, such as instituting universal healthcare, lowering unemployment, and so on, and this speaks in some small way to the leftist goal of improving the lives of the working class.

Obviously, these things should not be the main goal for revolutionary leftists, but I still see them as steps in the right direction and a much-needed, if inadequate, counter to reactionary conservatism.

American liberals are a bunch of spineless fucks who do a better job in reinforcing the hegemony of bourgeois ideology than the obviously apparent idiot conservatives, just as the scumfuck Chomsky does a better job in reinforcing the hegemony of bourgeois ideology among his sensless followers than the actual organs of formal bourgeois ideology (that is, the state-legalist liberalism). And the nerve you have, spouting about all of this bullshit. Are to support those slave owners who improved the lives of their slaves, after all, as abolitionists, all we want is the improvement of the lives of slaves, right? Let me tell you something, as Leftists, we are not the watchful guardians of the working class, the French revolution is over. In the superstructural sense, we are the working class, we embody and represent their interests. We aren't utilitarians, we don't want to increase a standard of living. We want to crush the class enemy with the mighty hammer of Communism and through state dictatorship solidify the emancipation of the proletariat.

Those "reforms" in social democratic countries were not reforms, they were concessions fought with the blood of the proletariat, at gunpoint forcing the bourgeoisie to concede to those demands. They were not won through the benevolence of activists. Once the power of the proletariat disinigrated, as soon as our arms were lowered, they bit the proletariat right in the ass, threw them in a cage and locked the door.

Beven through bourgeois logic- namely, even through this charity-esque sickening logic of "helping the workers", where are your social democratic states now? Morphing into the great beast that is European Austerity, trampling upon any sort of gains made. This alone proves that not only is the bourgeoisie unwilling to concede to these simple demands, but that the systemic contradictions intrinsic to capitalism are incapable of sustaining social democracy. Neoliberalism wasn't a result of greed or free will, it was an absolute necessity for the survival of the capitalist mode of production.

[Per Levy]

since at least 1914, the first nature of social democratic partys is betrayal, betrayal of the workers that they send into the wars of the bourgeoisie. and even the wellfare state the social dems pride themselfs with, they are gutting once they are in power.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I think it often gives the impression of merely being capitalism with a human face to some far leftists, and so it can help perpetuate the capitalist system, rather than outright abolishing capital. Where as hard core neo-liberalism is unashamedly the harsh and most basic face of capitalism, and doesn't try to hide it through concessions to workers.

[Kindness]

American liberals are a bunch of spineless fucks who do a better job in reinforcing the hegemony of bourgeois ideology than the obviously apparent idiot conservatives, just as the scumfuck Chomsky does a better job in reinforcing the hegemony of bourgeois ideology among his sensless followers than the actual organs of formal bourgeois ideology (that is, the state-legalist liberalism).

Thanks for your kind words.

A few things:

1) What is "bourgeois ideology?"

2) How is Prof. Chomsky (a committed, lifelong anarchist who has served the cause of liberation for nearly a century) a "scumfuck" who promotes "bourgeois ideology?"

3) What is your definition of "bourgeois?"


And the nerve you have, spouting about all of this bullshit.

The nerve to ask a question?


Are to support those slave owners who improved the lives of their slaves, after all, as abolitionists, all we want is the improvement of the lives of slaves, right?

You can't compare capitalism to slavery. Yes, capitalism is horrible, but it pales in comparison to the whippings, beatings, rapes, mutilations, cultural genocide, family separations, denials of education, and false prosecutions that my ancestors faced under slavery in America. Please kindly check your privilege, friend.


Let me tell you something, as Leftists, we are not the watchful guardians of the working class, the French revolution is over. In the superstructural sense, we are the working class, we embody and represent their interests. We aren't utilitarians, we don't want to increase a standard of living. We want to crush the class enemy with the mighty hammer of Communism and through state dictatorship solidify the emancipation of the proletariat.

How is doing nothing -- which hurts the working class -- supporting the interests of the working class? By doing nothing to at least tacitly support liberalism and social democracy, one hurts the interests of working individuals and families.


Those "reforms" in social democratic countries were not reforms, they were concessions fought with the blood of the proletariat, at gunpoint forcing the bourgeoisie to concede to those demands.

There was no bloodshed in places like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.


Once the power of the proletariat disinigrated, as soon as our arms were lowered, they bit the proletariat right in the ass, threw them in a cage and locked the door.

This is true, and it is why I seek the end of capitalism, rather than just social democratic reforms.


namely, even through this charity-esque sickening logic of "helping the workers",

Would you rather workers go hungry from unemployment and die from lack of healthcare just so that you don't have to compromise your fundamentalist hardline ideological purity?


where are your social democratic states now? Morphing into the great beast that is European Austerity, trampling upon any sort of gains made.

Exactly, which is why I am an anarcho-socialist, not a social democrat. I oppose social democracy in the big picture, but supporting it is the best option we have right now for the working class and the poor. Anarchist revolution isn't going to happen anytime soon, so the best we can do is support the working class in any way we can.


This alone proves that not only is the bourgeoisie unwilling to concede to these simple demands, but that the systemic contradictions intrinsic to capitalism are incapable of sustaining social democracy. Neoliberalism wasn't a result of greed or free will, it was an absolute necessity for the survival of the capitalist mode of production.

I agree with this, which is why I'm not a liberal or soc-dem, although I definitely think cold hard greed, not just material conditions, led to the rise of neoliberalism.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

2) How is Prof. Chomsky (a committed, lifelong anarchist who has served the cause of liberation for nearly a century) a "scumfuck" who promotes "bourgeois ideology?"

Heh, reminds me of this Chomsky moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKIu-JjfIXE)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Heh, reminds me of this Chomsky moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKIu-JjfIXE)


The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AConfusedSocialDemocrat For This Useful Post: Kindness (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=76702), NGNM85 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29065)

EXTRA! EXTRA!
The Chomskyan Triumvirate! The Worst that Revleft has to Offer! Now with 35% More Liberalism!

[LOLseph Stalin]

The negativity towards these ideologies generally stems from the fact they're just seeking to throw a band aid over the wound rather than curing it completely. I do have some respect for certain aspects of the European models of social democracy(such as their free university), but at the same time I also recognize it's not enough. There's still exploitation, it's just not felt as much because of the fact strong social programs exist. It's actually a pretty clever tactic on the bourgeoisie's part I think since it gives the workers the illusion of not being exploited thus they won't become a threat.

As for American liberals, most of them are pretty far to the right actually. They may seem incredibly progressive on social issues, but in reality they still support the same exploitative system that is keeping people down. Not to mention, they're blindly supporting American imperialism now simply because "their guy" is doing it now rather than Bush. I once had a liberal actually try to defend the drone strikes; her defenses essentially consisted of "it's better than sending in innocent Americans to get killed!"

[#FF0000]

Why is that?

Because I've worked with them.

[Akshay!]

I agree with the people above who say that liberalism does a better job of reinforcing the current system and makes it more stable, that it's like treating slaves a little better, and that the current system cannot be reformed, it must be overthrown, but all that said, let's not be too harsh on Chomsky. Whatever you think about his philosophy, I think everybody can agree that his analysis of US Imperialism, how the media works, etc.. is something that has changed the thinking of thousands of people (including me). You don't have to agree with him on every single thing to agree that his analysis has been a great contribution to the debate.

[NGNM85]

EXTRA! EXTRA!
The Chomskyan Triumvirate! The Worst that Revleft has to Offer! Now with 35% More Liberalism!

How infantile. I might attempt to refute this bogus accusation, if I thought you were remotely capable of having an intelligent, honest conversation. Frankly; I'm not convinced you even know what the word means.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

EXTRA! EXTRA!
The Chomskyan Triumvirate! The Worst that Revleft has to Offer! Now with 35% More Liberalism!

The Chomskyan conspiracy is why I'm not a winner!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

2) How is Prof. Chomsky (a committed, lifelong anarchist who has served the cause of liberation for nearly a century) a "scumfuck" who promotes "bourgeois ideology?"

If an actuator served the cause of moving things as much as the esteemed professor Chomsky serves the cause of liberation, it would have to be replaced at first opportunity. What has Chomsky done, exactly? He has written a couple of books, and has become a celebrity. Hardly something that serious revolutionaries should praise.


You can't compare capitalism to slavery. Yes, capitalism is horrible, but it pales in comparison to the whippings, beatings, rapes, mutilations, cultural genocide, family separations, denials of education, and false prosecutions that my ancestors faced under slavery in America.

And people are not whipped under capitalist regimes? Every oppressed group in the Middle East, in Southeast Asia and so on would kindly beg to differ. People are not beaten? People are not raped? I should only point to the recent wars in Bosnia and Rwanda, both generously sponsored by the imperialist bourgeoisie. People are not denied education in capitalist states? What?


Please kindly check your privilege, friend.

That's an interesting phrase. As far as I know, most people that use it are part of the tumblr "social justice" brigade, who are as far from proletarian radicalism as they are from sanity.

[No_Leaders]

The issue with social dems is as some others said it puts a band aid to cover up what really is a broken failed system. It's a system based on exploitation, putting profits before people, it's a system which needs to torn down, we need tear apart these monuments to greed and build our new world from the broken pieces. Sure social dems can make some reforms that may make day to day struggles in life a little bit better, just a tad bit more tolerable but in the end it's not going to make the types of changes which we as revolutionary leftists wish to see. What are these social dems doing to annihilate the state and abolish an exploitative economic system?

They're perpetuating the cycle and belief of representative ''democracy'', that capitalism works, that reforms to appease the lower classes will keep 'the rubble' at bay. They wish to keep the masses complacent, to shut out any revolutionary fervor before it cultivates to something that threatens their seat of power. Once that seat of power is under threat, you'll see how much the social dems care about the same people they pretend to champion. You'll see it bright and clear when they unleash thugs with billy clubs to round up the masses and beat people into submission. Social dems might seem like a "friendlier" face, but they're not on our side, they're not radicals, and they're definitely not anti-capitalists.

[#FF0000]

The issue with social dems is as some others said it puts a band aid to cover up what really is a broken failed system.

It wouldn't even be so bad if that was the case, but American liberals don't even want that.

Found a pretty neat passage out of a Time article bout Marx today:

"The political left, dragged rightward since the free-market onslaught of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, has not devised a credible alternative course. “Virtually all progressive or leftist parties contributed at some point to the rise and reach of financial markets, and rolling back of welfare systems in order to prove they were capable of reform,” Rancière notes."

Pretty much sums up the problem with liberals. Add to the fact that, on the ground, liberals and democrat-supporters will throw you and your organization under the bus if you aren't supporting their candidate or are pushing an issue that might hurt their candidate (See: the anti-war movement)

[Kindness]

It wouldn't even be so bad if that was the case, but American liberals don't even want that.

Found a pretty neat passage out of a Time article bout Marx today:

"The political left, dragged rightward since the free-market onslaught of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, has not devised a credible alternative course. “Virtually all progressive or leftist parties contributed at some point to the rise and reach of financial markets, and rolling back of welfare systems in order to prove they were capable of reform,” Rancière notes."

This is why capitalism must be overthrown, not simply managed in a "fairer" manner.


Pretty much sums up the problem with liberals. Add to the fact that, on the ground, liberals and democrat-supporters will throw you and your organization under the bus if you aren't supporting their candidate or are pushing an issue that might hurt their candidate (See: the anti-war movement)

I agree that this is one of the most frustrating things about liberals.

[Orange Juche]

People who are more right wing, honestly, bother me less. Because basically, it's like "look at me, I'm full of shit, and I'm right here." I know where they stand, no bullshit, no games. The social democrat types drive me up a fucking wall because it's all about "compromise" and "pragmatism" and blah blah blah bullshit - they are taking people otherwise leaning in the right direction and holding them to being moderate and participating in political activities of futility. And they are probably the most obnoxious, self-entitled political group ever.

[MarxArchist]

Yes, these things are not socialism, but they do at least accomplish some good for the working class, such as instituting universal healthcare, lowering unemployment

Universal healthcare? Low unemployment? You're too kind.

[Althusser]

People who are more right wing, honestly, bother me less. Because basically, it's like "look at me, I'm full of shit, and I'm right here." I know where they stand, no bullshit, no games. The social democrat types drive me up a fucking wall because it's all about "compromise" and "pragmatism" and blah blah blah bullshit - they are taking people otherwise leaning in the right direction and holding them to being moderate and participating in political activities of futility. And they are probably the most obnoxious, self-entitled political group ever.

Agree 100%


This is why capitalism must be overthrown, not simply managed in a "fairer" manner.



I agree that this is one of the most frustrating things about liberals.


What is going on here?

[Kindness]

I never said social democratic reforms are all that is needed, only that such reforms re ultimately good for the working class. If we can't have a revolution, these reforms will make people's lives better.

[aty]

There was no bloodshed in places like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.




Yes, there was...Sweden had most labor disputes in the world, constant riots, military put in that killed workers many times. Bombs and constant attacks against scabs.

Democracy was put in place in Sweden because of the russian revolution and the following revolutionary spirit among the working class in Sweden. The social democrats came into power on the backbone of Ådalen 1931 when 5 workers were killed and shot down and many injured by the military, this evolved into the famous Saltsjöbads-treaty between labor and capital some years later.

[Akshay!]

He has written a couple of books, and has become a celebrity. Hardly something that serious revolutionaries should praise.

What? Are you kidding? o_O
Last time I checked, he had written about 112 books. (Not to mention that he's been giving lectures for the last, I don't know, 46 years?)

As I said earlier, you don't have to agree with him (and I don't!) to know that his analysis of US Imperialism, how the media works (Manufacturing consent, Necessary Illusions, etc.) are a great contribution. I've met many many people who became socialists/anarchists because of Chomsky. He has spent his whole life criticizing and documenting imperialism and its affects. I know he's not a revolutionary. He's a 60% Anarchist, 30% social democrat and 10% liberal, but in spite of that his writings and lectures have been enormously helpful to everyone on the left. And saying that he has written a "couple of books" is just plain false even if you think that everything he says is wrong. So the argument is factually inaccurate to begin with, and then suggests that he's not a revolutionary. Well, don't the people who like Chomsky's work already know that?

EDIT: Just to add one more thing, you could say the same thing for Howard Zinn too. That he's a reformist, not a revolutionary (and then you could add a couple of factual inaccuracies like "he has only written 3 books" or something like that..) But would anyone in his right mind say that his People's History of the US didn't change the way he/she thought about history? You don't have to agree with these people to like some of their work.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What? Are you kidding? o_O
Last time I checked, he had written about 112 books. (Not to mention that he's been giving lectures for the last, I don't know, 46 years?)

I was engaging in hyperbole; the point is that writing books, even 112 books, that present a somewhat "left-wing" viewpoint, is not enough.


As I said earlier, you don't have to agree with him (and I don't!) to know that his analysis of US Imperialism, how the media works (Manufacturing consent, Necessary Illusions, etc.) are a great contribution.

I might consider his work a "great contribution" (to what?) if I thought that he offers a cogent materialist analysis. He does not; his "leftism" is nothing but bourgeois moralism and idealism.


So the argument is factually inaccurate to begin with, and then suggests that he's not a revolutionary. Well, don't the people who like Chomsky's work already know that?

They should; but even on this thread we have avowed revolutionaries proclaiming themselves "Chomskyians".


EDIT: Just to add one more thing, you could say the same thing for Howard Zinn too. That he's a reformist, not a revolutionary (and then you could add a couple of factual inaccuracies like "he has only written 3 books" or something like that..) But would anyone in his right mind say that his People's History of the US didn't change the way he/she thought about history?

...I would? And I know that there are comrades in the United States that have come to historical materialism through engagement in radical politics or through reading actual Marxist work.

I mean, alright, Chomsky or Zinn might have inspired some comrades to become revolutionary socialists. But what of it? These comrades could only have become revolutionary socialists by transcending the moralistic reformism of these authors.

I myself must have first heard about socialism when reading Wells - does this mean that his bureaucratic, racist authoritarianism is something that we should ignore, and that we should praise him? It does not.


You don't have to agree with these people to like some of their work.

You do have to like their work, though, which is difficult when the work is riddled with theoretical inconsistencies and preaching.

[Comrade #138672]

They do more harm than good.

[NGNM85]

I was engaging in hyperbole; the point is that writing books, even 112 books, that present a somewhat "left-wing" viewpoint, is not enough.

Out of sheer curiosity; what is; 'enough', and how do you make this determination?

It is also worth mentioning that not only have Chomsky, and Zinn done more for the working class than every single member of this forum, but they have done more for the working class than every single member of this forum, combined.


I might consider his work a "great contribution" (to what?) if I thought that he offers a cogent materialist analysis.

Evidence, please.


He does not; his "leftism" is nothing but bourgeois moralism and idealism.

Nonsense.


They should; but even on this thread we have avowed revolutionaries proclaiming themselves "Chomskyians".

'Chomskyan' has absolutely no meaning outside of the field of linguistics. Philosophically, Noam Chomsky is not really philosophically distinct from any number of other Anarchists.


I mean, alright, Chomsky or Zinn might have inspired some comrades to become revolutionary socialists. But what of it?

'Some', as in; hundreds of thousands, if not more.

Can you say the same? (The answer is; 'No.')


These comrades could only have become revolutionary socialists by transcending the moralistic reformism of these authors.

Neither Noam Chomsky, or Howard Zinn, is a moralist, or a reformist.


I myself must have first heard about socialism when reading Wells - does this mean that his bureaucratic, racist authoritarianism is something that we should ignore, and that we should praise him? It does not.

This is about the only sensible thing you've said, here. I would say that we should recognize the totality of the man, and his thought, both good, and bad. That would be the rational approach.


You do have to like their work, though, which is difficult when the work is riddled with theoretical inconsistencies and preaching.

If you're going to start penalizing people for preaching; you'll have to indict 99.9% of the forum, including yourself.

Specifically; what theoretical inconsistencies?

[NGNM85]

What? Are you kidding? o_O
Last time I checked, he had written about 112 books. (Not to mention that he's been giving lectures for the last, I don't know, 46 years?)

Longer than that. He also does a lot more than simply lecture.


As I said earlier, you don't have to agree with him (and I don't!) to know that his analysis of US Imperialism, how the media works (Manufacturing consent, Necessary Illusions, etc.) are a great contribution. I've met many many people who became socialists/anarchists because of Chomsky. He has spent his whole life criticizing and documenting imperialism and its affects.

Yes.


I know he's not a revolutionary. He's a 60% Anarchist, 30% social democrat and 10% liberal, ..

Here's the only part I take issue with. Chomsky is not a Reformist. He also isn't 1% this, or whatever imaginary meaningless numbers you want to invent; he's 100% an Anarchist.


but in spite of that his writings and lectures have been enormously helpful to everyone on the left. And saying that he has written a "couple of books" is just plain false even if you think that everything he says is wrong. So the argument is factually inaccurate to begin with, and then suggests that he's not a revolutionary. Well, don't the people who like Chomsky's work already know that?

No, they don't; because this is not true.


EDIT: Just to add one more thing, you could say the same thing for Howard Zinn too. That he's a reformist, not a revolutionary...

That would, also, be false.


... You don't have to agree with these people to like some of their work.

Obviously.

[Chris]

In my case, as a Norwegian, social-democracy isn't progressive as it is an inherent defence of the current, capitalist, status-quo (and in fact, social-democrats here are gradually destroying the gains of the welfare state).

Modern, european, social-democrats are the result of socialists who took the bribe that the marshall-aid was, and became some of the most fervent defenders of private property and the free market there is. In the case of Norway, the Worker's Party was aligning with the USSR and gradually instituting as planned economy (as per the original doctrine of social-democracy).

Then the Marshall-Plan came along, and they abandoned all pretense of socialism in favour of a quick buck from the USA, as well as a way to combat the rising popularity of Communist Parties among their voters. The modern Social-Democratic Project should be despised, because it is the greatest defender Capital has. They are 'nice' and march on the 1st of May, but when push comes to shove they march in line with liberals, conservatives, imperialists and capitalists to defend the status-quo.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Then the Marshall-Plan came along, and they abandoned all pretense of socialism in favour of a quick buck from the USA, as well as a way to combat the rising popularity of Communist Parties among their voters. The modern Social-Democratic Project should be despised, because it is the greatest defender Capital has. They are 'nice' and march on the 1st of May, but when push comes to shove they march in line with liberals, conservatives, imperialists and capitalists to defend the status-quo.

I'm afraid the norwegian social-dems started to crumble long before the marshall plan. One of the definitive points were when the social democrats made (or supported such a law? can't remember atm) the state have the final word in strikes, reducing the strength of the weapon the strike was until then.

But yeah, I honestly despise social democrats, at least those central in the party and government. Worst paternalistic spin doctors.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Caveat lector; due to another bout of insomnia, the prose in this post is purple and tortured even by my standards. But such is life.


Out of sheer curiosity; what is; 'enough', and how do you make this determination?

Any significant contribution to proletarian liberation would probably be "enough"; I "make the determination" simply by adapting the proletarian-revolutionary (not bourgeois-humanistic) standpoint.


It is also worth mentioning that not only have Chomsky, and Zinn done more for the working class than every single member of this forum, but they have done more for the working class than every single member of this forum, combined.

Quite the contrary; the members of this site might not have done much for the proletariat, though several noted posters are members of established revolutionary parties, but people like Chomsky have actively hindered the development of a revolutionary class-consciousness with their reactionary, moralist rigmarole. Not by much, in all likelihood, but still. The worst bourgeois ideologist is the one that has convinced themselves that they are a "socialist" or an "anarchist". These people are, sadly, quite common; before Chomsky and Zinn there were people like Webb - pardon me, the lord Passfield - and Tolstoy.


Evidence, please.

He admits so himself:

« One might ask what value there is in studying a "definite trend in the historic development of mankind" that does not articulate a specific and detailed social theory. Indeed, many commentators dismiss anarchism as utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society. One might, however, argue rather differently: that at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to -- rather than alleviate -- material and cultural deficit. If so, there will be no doctrine of social change fixed for the present and future, nor even, necessarily, a specific and unchanging concept of the goals towards which social change should tend. Surely our understanding of the nature of man or of the range of viable social forms is so rudimentary that any far-reaching doctrine must be treated with great skepticism, just as skepticism is in order when we hear that "human nature" or "the demands of efficiency" or "the complexity of modern life" requires this or that form of oppression and autocratic rule. »

(Notes on Anarchism, emphasis mine)


Nonsense.

From the same article:

« [Bakunin's] ideas grew out of the Enlightenment; their roots are in Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality, Humboldt's Limits of State Action, Kant's insistence, in his defense of the French Revolution, that freedom is the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom, not a gift to be granted when such maturity is achieved. With the development of industrial capitalism, a new and unanticipated system of injustice, it is libertarian socialism that has preserved and extended the radical humanist message of the Enlightenment and the classical liberal ideals that were perverted into an ideology to sustain the emerging social order. In fact, on the very same assumptions that led classical liberalism to oppose the intervention of the state in social life, capitalist social relations are also intolerable. »

And after that:

« On the same assumptions, capitalist relations of production, wage labor, competitiveness, the ideology of "possessive individualism" -- all must be regarded as fundamentally antihuman. Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment. »

This also demonstrates how far Chomsky is from materialism - good grief, the man thinks capitalism is bad because it is "possessively individualist" and "antihuman". How is that any better than the priest who thinks that capitalism is wrong because it contradicts the Bible?


'Chomskyan' has absolutely no meaning outside of the field of linguistics.

Why is that? Because no one calls themselves a "Chomskyian"? But first of all, this is demonstrably false, and second, no one called themselves a "Pabloite" either, yet Pabloism was widely recognised as an existing tendency. "Chomskyanism" is simply the liberal, moralistic deformation of socialism, popular in the least conscious, least consistent section of the intelligentsia, just as post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, etc. etc., were popular (and still are to an extent).


Philosophically, Noam Chomsky is not really philosophically distinct from any number of other Anarchists.

Chomsky is, of course, not the only "anarchist" that lacks even the most basic understanding of revolutionary politics. But he is as far from the positions of proletarian anarchists as renegades like Bernstein and de Man are from the positions of revolutionary Marxists.


'Some', as in; hundreds of thousands, if not more.

Well, then, surely you can prove that our intrepid professor has indeed led "hundreds of thousands" of people to consistent, revolutionary socialism.


Can you say the same? (The answer is; 'No.')

So what? I am not being offered as an example of a "revolutionary" figure that we all should praise and respect.


Neither Noam Chomsky, or Howard Zinn, is a moralist, or a reformist.

Chomsky's moralism has already been demonstrated, as for reformism, well, here are the words of Saint Noam of the Bookstore on "revolution":

« Through the 1970s, as the decline was setting in, there were some important events that took place. In 1977, U.S. Steel decided to close one of its major facilities in Youngstown, Ohio. Instead of just walking away, the workforce and the community decided to get together and buy it from the company, hand it over to the work force, and turn it into a worker-run, worker-managed facility. They didn’t win. But with enough popular support, they could have won. It’s a topic that Gar Alperovitz and Staughton Lynd, the lawyer for the workers and community, have discussed in detail.


It was a partial victory because, even though they lost, it set off other efforts. And now, throughout Ohio, and in other places, there’s a scattering of hundreds, maybe thousands, of sometimes not-so-small worker/community-owned industries that could become worker-managed. And that’s the basis for a real revolution. That’s how it takes place.
In one of the suburbs of Boston, about a year ago, something similar happened. A multinational decided to close down a profitable, functioning facility carrying out some high-tech manufacturing. Evidently, it just wasn’t profitable enough for them. The workforce and the union offered to buy it, take it over, and run it themselves. The multinational decided to close it down instead, probably for reasons of class-consciousness. I don’t think they want things like this to happen. If there had been enough popular support, if there had been something like the Occupy movement that could have gotten involved, they might have succeeded.


And there are other things going on like that. In fact, some of them are major. Not long ago, President Barack Obama took over the auto industry, which was basically owned by the public. And there were a number of things that could have been done. One was what was done: reconstitute it so that it could be handed back to the ownership, or very similar ownership, and continue on its traditional path.


The other possibility was to hand it over to the workforce -- which owned it anyway -- turn it into a worker-owned, worker-managed major industrial system that’s a big part of the economy, and have it produce things that people need. And there’s a lot that we need.


We all know or should know that the United States is extremely backward globally in high-speed transportation, and it’s very serious. It not only affects people’s lives, but the economy. In that regard, here’s a personal story. I happened to be giving talks in France a couple of months ago and had to take a train from Avignon in southern France to Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris, the same distance as from Washington, DC, to Boston. It took two hours. I don’t know if you’ve ever taken the train from
Washington to Boston, but it’s operating at about the same speed it was 60 years ago when my wife and I first took it. It’s a scandal.


It could be done here as it’s been done in Europe. They had the capacity to do it, the skilled work force. It would have taken a little popular support, but it could have made a major change in the economy. »


This is about the only sensible thing you've said, here. I would say that we should recognize the totality of the man, and his thought, both good, and bad. That would be the rational approach.

Perhaps, if we were priests debating whether the person under consideration will be eternally rewarded by some sky tyrant or will burn in an underground prison that might be metaphorical. We are not. Well, I am not; I am concerned mainly with the relation of one Noam Chomsky, and the co-indicted Howard Zinn, to the proletariat and to the revolutionary socialist movement. The "totality" of these men is irrelevant to me.


If you're going to start penalizing people for preaching; you'll have to indict 99.9% of the forum, including yourself.

The preachers think that everyone preaches. Now, demonstrate that I have, in fact, preached, or retract the slander.


Specifically; what theoretical inconsistencies?

He considers himself a materialist and then talks about universal moralities and how the goals of a revolution are "tainted" by the methods. He takes the standpoint of some imagined supra-class "humanity" but then addresses himself to the workers and talks about their liberation, etc. etc.