Chomsky Question

[CoexisT]

I don't like to take Wikipedia's word for it so I'm asking you guys. I would go ahead and read his books to find out for myself but I'm in the middle of a rather long book right now (Das Kapital).

So, according to the wikipedia page:


Libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky supports dismantling all forms of unjustified social or economic power, while also emphasizing that state intervention should be supported as a temporary protection while oppressive structures remain in existence.


So he is saying that...

Revolution is the only way to dismantle the unjustified social/economic power

but

While the US capitalist system is still around, and until the revolution, one should support state intervention (Such as Democrats and Socialists running for office).

Did I get that right, or no?

[Gold Against The Soul]

If you look in the politics of Noam Chomsky section, it says :


Chomsky does not totally object to electoral politics; his stance on U.S. elections is that citizens should vote for their local Democrat where this will keep the Republicans out, and support more radical candidates such as the Greens in areas where there is no risk of letting the Republicans win (he officially endorsed Green candidate Paul Lachelier).

I vaguely remember the stuff about him supporting a green candidate, so this is probably accurate.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Everyone thinks he so amazing because hes a college proffessor, when all hes good at remembering are dates and events in the world.

[CoexisT]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 2 2006, 11:03 PM
Everyone thinks he so amazing because hes a college proffessor, when all hes good at remembering are dates and events in the world.
Thanks for that incredibly useful piece of information.

[CoexisT]

Originally posted by Gold Against The [email protected] 2 2006, 10:56 PM
If you look in the politics of Noam Chomsky section, it says :


Chomsky does not totally object to electoral politics; his stance on U.S. elections is that citizens should vote for their local Democrat where this will keep the Republicans out, and support more radical candidates such as the Greens in areas where there is no risk of letting the Republicans win (he officially endorsed Green candidate Paul Lachelier).

I vaguely remember the stuff about him supporting a green candidate, so this is probably accurate.
Didn't know there was a section for him. I'll have to check it out! Thanks.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Gold Against The [email protected] 2 2006, 03:56 PM
If you look in the politics of Noam Chomsky section, it says :


Chomsky does not totally object to electoral politics; his stance on U.S. elections is that citizens should vote for their local Democrat where this will keep the Republicans out, and support more radical candidates such as the Greens in areas where there is no risk of letting the Republicans win (he officially endorsed Green candidate Paul Lachelier).

I vaguely remember the stuff about him supporting a green candidate, so this is probably accurate.
I've seen him say that on video before too, so that is definitely correct.

[southernmissfan]

Chomsky is good, especially as a "beginner", to learn about imperialism, capitalist media, government, etc. But he is not a Marxist, and his role is mostly to tell you what happened, not understand why (i.e. don't read him looking for analysis).

Howard Zinn is a similar person. Both, when you get right down to it, are probably more left-liberal or social democrat than anything. You get the impression that they would be happy if the US was more like Sweden. But their work can still be interesting and useful, assuming you approach it with historical materialism and Marxist analysis to come to your own conclusions.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:54 PM
Howard Zinn is a similar person. Both, when you get right down to it, are probably more left-liberal or social democrat than anything.
Perhaps, though I've heard Chomsky say that he's sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism.

[CoexisT]

Originally posted by Delta+Aug 3 2006, 01:39 AM--> (Delta @ Aug 3 2006, 01:39 AM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 05:54 PM
Howard Zinn is a similar person. Both, when you get right down to it, are probably more left-liberal or social democrat than anything.
Perhaps, though I've heard Chomsky say that he's sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism. [/b]
It does state that on his wikipedia page.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:39 AM
Perhaps, though I've heard Chomsky say that he's sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism.
Whatever. :rolleyes:

[Urban Rubble]

Chomsky was wrong on telling people to vote Dem for president, he's been wrong before on other issues too. That doesn't mean you discard the man's work and stop taking him seriously.


Everyone thinks he so amazing because hes a college proffessor, when all hes good at remembering are dates and events in the world.

You are an incredible idiot.


But he is not a Marxist, and his role is mostly to tell you what happened, not understand why (i.e. don't read him looking for analysis).

Chomsky isn't a Marxist, you're right, he's an Anarchist. However, you are absolutely wrong when you say don't look to him for analysis. His historical work is full of analysis, as is any historian's. Chomsky has contributed to my comprehension (meaning true understanding, not just bare facts) of history more than anyone else.


Howard Zinn is a similar person. Both, when you get right down to it, are probably more left-liberal or social democrat than anything. You get the impression that they would be happy if the US was more like Sweden.

Zinn maybe, Chomsky, no, you're out of your mind. Chomsky is very outspoken about his Anarchism, the only possible reason you could have for saying he is a Social Democrat would be that his views of bourgeoise elections differ from traditional Anarchists.


Whatever.

Again, you're an idiot.

Read "Chomsky on Anarchism" it's pretty in-depth Anarchist theory.

[Martin Blank]

Chomsky is a fraud. He's a liberal who masquerades as a "radical" and "anarchist", but when it really matters he runs back to the bourgeois Democratic Party. Even intellectually, on the question of linguistics, he is considered a fraud by others in his field who have much more solid leftwing credentials than he does.

Miles

[LoneRed]

one of you said he told people to vote kerry, or greens, that is why i am not an anarchist.


Rick

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:44 AM
Chomsky is a fraud. He's a liberal who masquerades as a "radical" and "anarchist", but when it really matters he runs back to the bourgeois Democratic Party.

Not quite sure how he masquerades as an anarchist given that I'm pretty sure that most people who have heard of him are unaware that he's an anarchist. Perhaps one of the criticisms of him is that he hasn't made enough of his anarchism.

I think calling him a fraud is pretty unfair. I disagree with his stance on the elections but he's fairly up front about it and sees it very much as fitting with his definition of anarchism.


Even intellectually, on the question of linguistics, he is considered a fraud by others in his field who have much more solid leftwing credentials than he does.

I've heard a couple of people who are left-wing and have experience in linguistics criticise Chomsky and say he has failed to develop his linguistics and is still stuck defending some views that have been surpassed, but I've never heard anyone say he is a fraud.

Mind you, I've never read everything Chomsky's produced so if you can provide some evidence of why he is a fraud rather than simply having some views you disagree with it would be much appreciated.

[Marion]

From reading what was actually said in the transcripts in full context it's a lot more nuanced than you suggest...

[CoexisT]

He believes it is the greatest country in the world because the USA has freedom of the press/speech/expression, but he also says that even thought we have freedom of expression, the corporations and government can control thought, so we don't have freedom of the mind.

I'm pretty sure he either said that in a BBC interview or a CNN interview. Whichever it was, it can be found on youtube.com by just searching for his name. It was a 2 part interview.

I would, however, still have to disagree with him. After looking at the RSF list of countries with the freest press (US being 44th) I would much rather live in northern europe :)

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:24 PM
one of you said he told people to vote kerry, or greens, that is why i am not an anarchist.


Rick
Your logic sure is faultless! :o

You wanna run that by me again?

Chomsky said something, and that means you're 'not an anarchist', Chomsky is the deal-breaker in terms of whether you support anarchism or not?

You're trying to be a smart-arse?

I don't get it.

[Urban Rubble]

Chomsky is a fraud. He's a liberal who masquerades as a "radical" and "anarchist", but when it really matters he runs back to the bourgeois Democratic Party. Even intellectually, on the question of linguistics, he is considered a fraud by others in his field who have much more solid leftwing credentials than he does.

If you don't have an understanding of linguistics, you can't possibly confirm or deny this. Therefore, this statement is comepletely pointless.

As far as Chomsky not being an Anarchist, how about something to support that? The man has written on Anarchism extensively, has participated in much more direct action than you or I, and has devoted his life to providing an Anarchist's perspective on history. How is he not an Anarchist again? Because he disagrees with one commonly held Anarchist belief?

You guys are talking shit. Plain and simple.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Well, Chomsky isn't the greatest anarchist ever, but he might be an anarchist. Chomsky thinks reformism can achieve benefits for the proletariat without achieving communism. He seems to believe participating in reformism has no negative effects on the long-term revolutionary movement - or the benefits it brings are worth risking long-term goals.

He doesn't really justify why he believes in small amounts of reformism when a mound of counterarguments is floating about within communist theory.

[KC]

Chomsky’s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term war profiteer. In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand.

http://www.hooverdigest.org/061/schweizer.html

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Chomsky is okay.

His main problem is his popularity.

To get his message out, which is essentially rubbishing everything american and imperialist, he needs to make some conscessions.

To be taken seriously, invited to give lectures to students, have his books on college reading lists and go on liberal radio and Tv he cant be as politically radical as he probably would like.

He gets the idea that "american capitalism = bad for everyone" out quite well though.

[southernmissfan]

I have no doubt that he bitterly opposes imperialism, but he has little more understanding of it and class analysis than any Green party member or liberal on Counterpunch.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 3 2006, 05:03 AM
You are an incredible idiot.
Hey butt-dumpling no one would care about Known Chomsky if he wasn't a college professor or linguist. No one would even know who he is.

He backed John Kerry and that says enough for any so-called anarchist.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

He backed John Kerry and that says enough for any so-called anarchist.

Well if he thinks the U$ electoral system is a joke, then whats the harm in it?

Remeber, he is not pandering to anarchists, or seeking aproval of the Left in general.

He is attempting to reach the average american person. Many of whom will vote democrat. Some will go on to read chomsky and then mature politically.

[LoneRed]

you probably dont "get" it because you havent read all the responses, someone said hes an anarchist, regardless of whether i believe it or not, so i said what you read above.


Rick

[Delta]

Shifting the political atmosphere to the left is important, and if his statements help do that then that's great. If he turns Republicans into Democrats and Democrats into Greens that's a damn good thing.

Don't misunderestimate the importance of even the most basic freedoms in helping to develop the revolution. Worker's movements never fared very well when the law didn't allow for unionization, and free speech being restricted is also very damaging.

Anarchist movements should not be participating in politics, but making the average American more politically aware is very good. You can't lay it all out there at once, because if so it will appear too extreme and they will be more likely to reject it.

[Entrails Konfetti]

You can't turn the average Joe into a revolutionary by taling bourgeois political parties, you can't show an alternative to the whole society by being an oppositional politician. You don't forumlate a platform, you just show what you're "not for". Chomsky went for the democrats as the republicans were gaining momentum, and the greens when the democrats were gaining momentum,

The best anyone can do with bourgeois politics is starting a whole new party, but this party can only be used for campaigning a whole new idea--to teach people, and not to win office.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:15 AM
you probably dont "get" it because you havent read all the responses, someone said hes an anarchist, regardless of whether i believe it or not, so i said what you read above.


Rick
Of course i read all the responses, how about you actually justify your post instead of just dodging my question? What does chomsky's opinions have to do with ALL anarchists? You made a stupid generalisation, just admit it.

[rouchambeau]

one of you said he told people to vote kerry, or greens, that is why i am not an anarchist

Whoa whoa whoa. Don't think that Chomsky is some kind of anarchist poster-child. He's not like most anarchists.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:12 PM
He gets the idea that "american capitalism = bad for everyone" out quite well though.
I'd be far more impressed if he did that:

1) Without endorsing the Democratic Party
2) From a vantage point other than a comfortable MIT office
3) Without making a whole load of money in the process

[chimx]

i think my grandpa voted for *gasp* john kerry as well. does anybody have any spare nails so we can crucify him as well.

here is a video of chomsky speaking of anarchism with foucault (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phRibrhsmsw)

[Zero]

Attack of the lifestylists!

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:53 AM
i think my grandpa voted for *gasp* john kerry as well. does anybody have any spare nails so we can crucify him as well.
Suddenly I've lost all respect for your grandfather as an anti-capitalist figure.