A Tribute to a Great Leftist: Noam Chomsky

[AlwaysAnarchy]

With all the tributes going around to bloody dictators like Mao and Stalin, I thought I would take a few moments and give a tribute to a man I'm sure most of you are familar with: Noam Chomsky.

For those that don't know, Professor Chomsky has been one of the most influential members of the left over the last 50 years. He has been hailed as one of the greatest intellectuals not only of our time, but of all time. The New York Tims called him, "Arguably the greatest intellectual alive today." U2's Bono called him "rebel without a pause" He is ranked just ahead of Freud as one of the most cited authors of all time.

He is the author of dozens of books and pamphlets, constantly going on speaking tours to college campuses and what not to educate young people and workers and a tireless activist: He started his activism during the Vietnam War, when he risked going to jail in order to stop it even though he had a comfortable middle class existence at home.

He wrote his first article when he was just 10 years old: about the Spanish Civil War. He was on the side of the Republic fighting against both Fascism and Stalinism.

Although his field of study is linguistics, this did not stop him from being best known in politics and political analysis. He is one of America's great dissidents and most severe critics, especially of US foreign policy. His bestselling books include "911", "What Uncle Same Really Wants", and perhaps his most famous "Manufacturing Consent" The last one is an excellent work which is highly recommended. There is also a very worthwhile DVD on the subject that is worth checking out.

Professor Chomsky is also an Anarchist. Unlike many of his left contemporaries, he has consistently been against the Soviet Union. He rightly called it state capitalism and a red dictatorship. When his left colleagues were left shattered after the horrors of Stalinism were revealed, Chomsky emerged unscathed and firmer in his conviction of Anarchism with the workers leading the way not some Great Leader and not some secret vanguard.

Noam Chomsky. One of the great intellectuals and leaders for the Left. Perhaps the Karl Marx or Hegel of our generation.

Thank you Professor Chomsky for all your work and tireless dedication to making this world a better place!

[IronColumn]

Right on!

viva chomsky

[violencia.Proletariat]

Chomsky is not a class war anarchist. He has libertarian ideals which he does not consider when making decisions on what needs to be done in the present.

He has a good critique and analysis of the US imperialist state, thats about it. A revolutionary? A great leftist, of all time? Absolutely not.

[Demogorgon]

Aye, a great man indeed.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 03:27 AM
Chomsky is not a class war anarchist. He has libertarian ideals which he does not consider when making decisions on what needs to be done in the present.

He has a good critique and analysis of the US imperialist state, thats about it. A revolutionary? A great leftist, of all time? Absolutely not.
Exactly...he describes himself as a libertarian socialist with certain anarcho-syndicalism tendencies

He's a great man for analyzing and denouncing American foreign an domestic policy, and for his tireless activism
But putting him in the same group as Marx, dream on...
I've yet to see Chomskyist movements around the world.... :rolleyes:

[RebelDog]

Chomsky is a hero. I've read 'Hegenomy or Survival' about a month ago and its like another language. A superb counter to the shite were fed by the mainstream media. If everyone on this planet read Chomsky our job would be so much the easier. A top guy, I cannot praise him enough.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Heck yea! Chomsky opened my eyes to so much of how the world works! He's a very, very cool guy!

[KC]

Chomsky sucks, for the reasons stated by v.P

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 03:27 AM
Chomsky is not a class war anarchist. He has libertarian ideals which he does not consider when making decisions on what needs to be done in the present.

He has a good critique and analysis of the US imperialist state, thats about it. A revolutionary? A great leftist, of all time? Absolutely not.
He did endorse voting for John Kerry, as many leftists did, but thats just cause hes pragmatic.

The thing is hes an Anarchist but while in the short term, since we're not in the revoutionary stage , he advocates doing what we can.

Noam Chomsky is a great leftist.

[Leo]

He did endorse voting for John Kerry, as many leftists did, but thats just cause hes pragmatic.

No, that's cuz he's a spineless liberal.

He is not in any way a proletarian anarchist or has revolutionary politics. Calling him a petty-bourgeois anarchist would be a compliment.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

I think that's a little harsh...

Lots of leftists voted for Kerry, not saying I agree with it, but they just wanted the best thing for workers to come out of that election. Even though they disagreed with Kerry on a number of issues.

What else to do during elections? Not vote?

[Leo]

What else to do during elections? Not vote?

Yah. A worker who says: "Fuck those politicians, they are all the same piece of shit" has much more class consciousness than a worker who votes and still believes in bourgeois democracy.

[Tekun]

Voting in bourgeois elections is only legitimizing and attempting to reform the system that we're trying to destroy

In addition, how can any worker believe us if we're involved with the system that exploits and degrades them? By voting, we're giving the wrong impression about our commitment to true revolution
Revolutions destroy systems, they don't reform them

[Jazzratt]

Pfah. Puffed up Liberal.

Still he has some interesting writings.

[A CLOCKWORK ORANGE]

His writings on U.S imperalism and global dominance are superb. But that's where it stops.

[Comrade Doug]

Marx and Lenin > Chomsky


I'd like to see chomsky do more then discuss politics on the BBC. He is a highly intelligent man who has great analysis on american injustice, but i have no tolerance for any forms of libertarianism. Socialist or not.

[chimx]

fortunately libertarians have no tolernace for leninist scum.

chomsky considers himself an anarcho-syndicalist, or at least did when discussing the matter on a televised debate with foucault. its on youtube if you do a search for it.

[Comrade Doug]

This is probably why somebody told me to stay away from these forums. Scum? Leave your insecurity at the door. I say again, lenin was the catalyst in the creation of the first socialist state to ever exsist. Chomsky was the catalyst that made suburban white kids think twice about waving an american flag.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2006, 01:47 AM
This is probably why somebody told me to stay away from these forums. Scum? Leave your insecurity at the door. I say again, lenin was the catalyst in the creation of the first socialist state to ever exsist. Chomsky was the catalyst that made suburban white kids think twice about waving an american flag.
:lol: :lol: Excellent Comrade! And so true!!

Comparing Lenin to Chomsky would like comparing Marx to Nader. Sure they make good points at time; one about US foriegn policy and the other about the abuses of corporate America but at heart both are reformists and not revolutionaries.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Stalin's Law+Sep 27 2006, 09:31 PM--> (Stalin's Law @ Sep 27 2006, 09:31 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 28 2006, 01:47 AM
This is probably why somebody told me to stay away from these forums. Scum? Leave your insecurity at the door. I say again, lenin was the catalyst in the creation of the first socialist state to ever exsist. Chomsky was the catalyst that made suburban white kids think twice about waving an american flag.
:lol: :lol: Excellent Comrade! And so true!!

Comparing Lenin to Chomsky would like comparing Marx to Nader. Sure they make good points at time; one about US foriegn policy and the other about the abuses of corporate America but at heart both are reformists and not revolutionaries.

Clearly, the only revolutionary option for serious people, that has proven to work in real-world situations is this:

http://nitnit.net/nitnit-content/lenin.jpg [/b]
Do you know what year it is? It's 2006, not 1917. What had success (to a degree) in feudal Russia in 1917 cannot be applied to a neo-capitalist first-world nation. Stop digging up these corpes and learn to think for yourself!

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:38 AM
Do you know what year it is? It's 2006, not 1917. What had success (to a degree) in feudal Russia in 1917 cannot be applied to a neo-capitalist first-world nation. Stop digging up these corpes and learn to think for yourself!
I do think for myself - if not, I would have the majority viewpoint here on these forums, but I do not; I have a minority viewpoint here and am constantly debating with the revisionists and anarchists.

As for Marxism, it was designed for advanced capitalist states, not feudal Russia. So if anything, the ideas of Marx are more relevant today, in fact much more so, than they were in the backward peasant state of Russia. And if the ideas of Marxism are outdated then certainly those of bourgeois capitalism, which are far older, must be as well, yet I rarely hear someone go up to a capitalist and say "What! You still believe in capitalism!? liberal bourgeois "democracy!" Christ, man that's so old! Think for yourself!"

No. This charge is only leveled at the true defenders of Marxism from bourgeois opponents.

Furthermore, the ideas of Marx and Lenin are not sacrosanct, they are entirely adaptable to the unique needs and concerns of the present situation one is dealing with. Both Marx and Lenin were very clear about this. However, what we Marxists contend is that Marxism has laid out the blueprint for social revolution. If you have a better, alternative philosophy other than "think for yourself!" or "anarchy man! yeaaaa!" then by all means, let's hear it.

[VenceremosRed]

Chomsky is fine to read about the injustices of the system, but he is worthless at pointing a way out - which is REALLY the point.

"Bloody dictators" like Mao actually changed the world for the better (yes, see any comparative study between Kiang-Ki-Shek China and Mao's China - a vast difference!)

But still, as someone that upholds Mao, I also recognize Chomsky as a good person to read.

[Raj Radical]

"Hegemony or Survival" was the top seller on Amazon.com after Hugo Chavez held it up in front of the UN.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:55 AM
Aye, a great man indeed.
I agree! :)

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2006, 01:47 AM
This is probably why somebody told me to stay away from these forums. Scum? Leave your insecurity at the door. I say again, lenin was the catalyst in the creation of the first socialist state to ever exsist. Chomsky was the catalyst that made suburban white kids think twice about waving an american flag.
Lenin was the catalyst for the creation of a brutal state capitalist system and the gulags. If you want to read more about it check up on my post titled The Case Against Vladimir Lenin.

And hey, nothing wrong with opening up the eyes of white suburban kids!

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2006, 01:47 AM
This is probably why somebody told me to stay away from these forums. Scum? Leave your insecurity at the door. I say again, lenin was the catalyst in the creation of the first socialist state to ever exsist. Chomsky was the catalyst that made suburban white kids think twice about waving an american flag.
Did the person who told you to stay away from RevLeft happen to be vanguard scum also?

Just kidding...but yeah, RevLeft isent too friendly to anything Soviet usually.

[Son of a Strummer]

I think Noam is an exemplary revolutionary socialist. Both the works of Chomsky and Marx have been indispensible to me. Karl taught me more about capitalism and the evolution of economic systems. Noam seems more articulate about issues of human nature, modern propaganda, and the role of the state in maintaining class dominance. I greatly admire Noam for a certain kind of minimalism that eschews the trappings of "scientism." He is a man of science who is clearly aware how much the playing field changes once social affairs involving human choice are included in the analysis. But it is worth stressing that even their work taken together is not sufficient for understanding contemporary reality. The raising of revolutionary consciousness has increasingly become a cooperative project as the world becomes increasingly complicated.

I always had one major regret about Karl pertaining to a certain ambiguity or inappropriate reticence concerning grassroots democratic values and institutions. Based on scattered references I think he was in favour of grassroots democracy and autonomy (in the original greek sense of the word). Nevertheless I think if he would have brought democracy closer to the center of his concerns it might have saved the world alot of trouble. At least the hypocricies underlying those militarized and totalitarian nationalist movements who had the effrontery to the call themselves "Marxist" would have been all the more conspicuous.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Amen to that! This deserves to be noted by all what a revolutionary Noam Chomsky is..and his tireless activism and dedication to the cause and the movement.

Did you now that he personally response to each and every email this is sent to him?? That's literally hundreds every night! How many other high-profile writers of either the left or the right willingly do this??

[which doctor]

The funny thing is that Noam lives in a nice suburban home in Lexington, Massachusetts.

[LoneRed]

Chomsky is another burnt out intellectuall. His political "theory" if you can even call it that, is horrible. Just what the doctor ordered, he poses little threat to the establishment

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Chomsky uses the capitalist system to his advantage, yes, but he is still a supporter of revolutionary politics. His ideas about how to create change are poor. His analysis of what the problems are is amazing.

Education is important, and Chomsky works hard at educating people. Unfortunately, he does not use his reputation to support non-reformist revolutionary activity to the extent that he could.

[Lings]

Chomsky is like situationsist therory when you first get in to radical politics, its very easy to read yourself drunk on it/him. Lord knows i've done it. In Chomskys case i think it has a lot to do with Chomsky being a linguist, and a damn good one to. He simply knows how to write well, making his every stance seem logical. And some of it is, he presents quite often rather good and insightful analysis of western imperialism. But so does Michael parenti, who's a soviet revisionist, you can learn alot from both of them. But hey, you can learn alot from anybody if your any good at reading and thinking and things like that. You know, human attributes.
I can also apritiate chomskys kind of embracement of everybody who does any good, hes not a revolutionary purist.

But when it comes down to the practical everyday struggle of the people of the world, chomsky has no class analysis, no real strategy for signifigant change. Even though he has a lot of followers, he does not even attempt to build real political organisation. He actually say out aloud that he wont have anything to do with organizing becouse its no fun, says that its not for him.

And that kind of points to what he really is. He's a highlevel petty bourgies white intelectual who reads a lot of newspapers and takes a decent anti-imperialist stand most of the time, even though through kibbutz romanticism and such, he quite often holds a moderate "nice" zionist approch when it comes to the question of israel.
And i've never seen him be clear on the principal right of iraqies to shoot American, British or other occupation soldiers, even though he "hints" to it being what he thinks.

He's no bad man, you can learn some things from reading him. His points can be discussed over coffee, you can respect his political works from a critical but friendly point of view. But he isnt someone to look towards in a revolutionary situation.
Or even a strike, or building of a local chapter or mobilizing to a demonstration-
He's not important whenever you do anything "real".

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 02:57 pm
The funny thing is that Noam lives in a nice suburban home in Lexington, Massachusetts.
QFT. I laughed when I saw a doco on him.

[u.u]

Stop digging up these corpes and learn to think for yourself!

:lol: just stop

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 10:16 pm
With all the tributes going around to bloody dictators like Mao and Stalin
...you thought you'd add a tribute to someone who doesn't even offer to contribute to the actual liberation of our class, but only criticizes the enemy?

Rock throwers can be helpful, sometimes.

But most of the time, we need revolutionary leaders. ;)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Lings is pretty much spot on, except about Parenti being a "Soviet revisionist."

[bolshevik butcher]

I also agree with Lings. Chomskey does present an excellent analysis of American imperialism, but he presents no way out as has already been mentioned, he isn't all that interested it seems in actual revolution or the organiasion of the working class.

[Anarcho-Stalinist]

Yeah, hes too comfortable in his position.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+September 27, 2006 03:46 pm--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ September 27, 2006 03:46 pm)
[email protected] 27 2006, 03:27 AM
Chomsky is not a class war anarchist. He has libertarian ideals which he does not consider when making decisions on what needs to be done in the present.

He has a good critique and analysis of the US imperialist state, thats about it. A revolutionary? A great leftist, of all time? Absolutely not.
He did endorse voting for John Kerry, as many leftists did, but thats just cause hes pragmatic.

The thing is hes an Anarchist but while in the short term, since we're not in the revoutionary stage , he advocates doing what we can.

Noam Chomsky is a great leftist. [/b]
It's never pragmatic for an "anarchist" to participate in the bourgeois spectacle of elections.

[Son of a Strummer]

A sad but telling display...

Most revolutionary leftists are ignorant of the extent to which Chomsky has devoted his financial resources to good causes, such as Nicaraguan solidarity campaigns which he sponsored or his tireless activism in raising consciousness (often by donating speaking fees) about human catastrophe in East Timor perpetrated and supported by Western governments that was ignored, even by the left for decades. http://www.peace.ca/iremember.htm, He has also been a frequent speaker at labour and civil society conferences worldwide.

I doubt we will ever have a credible revolution if, in our discourse, we just let our egos run rampant and spout off opinion and slogans like "petty bourgeois" without being able to substantiate them with real reasons and facts. "Revolutionary leftism" will be just another lifestyle fad among a whole multitude of other "identity choices" if we cannot make a commiitment to intellectual and moral discipline. I suggest that revolutionary leftists here have a hard look at themselves in the mirror. Are you really such a stirling class warrior or are you just putting on an act? I'm finding all the "holier-than-thou" posturing rather unconvincing.


I would be interested in hearing Ling substantiate the following comment:

"He actually say out aloud that he wont have anything to do with organizing becouse its no fun, says that its not for him."

When and where did he say that? What was the context?


I would also be interested in hearing what living figures those who have criticized Chomsky in the last few posts would pick as exemplary leaders?


Look he does what he does and he does it very well. Any credible revolutionary movement will have diverse roles, and both specialists and generalists. The criteria for evaluating them should be the effort they put into doing what they are doing to build a better world. We will need all kinds. And we will have to be serious about value of solidarity---if we want to build a credible reloution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I must've seen "we're not in a revolutionary period" used as a justification for reformism 5 times in the last two days here.

Reminds me of something Che said about the "defeatist attitude of revolutionaries or pseudo-revolutionaries who remain inactive ... who sit down to wait until in some mechanical way all necessary objective and subjective conditions are given without working to accelerate them."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I doubt we will ever have a credible revolution if, in our discourse, we just let our egos run rampant and spout off opinion and slogans like "petty bourgeois" without being able to substantiate them with real reasons and facts.

Are you trying to tell us that Chomsky is not petty bourgeois? Are you fucking kidding me? Which class do you think he belongs to?

He admits himself that he's not working class, has no conections to it, and doesn't want any.

See the documentary "Rebel without a pause" when a petty bourgeois student asks him at a talk how anarchists can go to workers with anarchist ideas.. he tells her that he's an intellectual, and that he's above that, not involved in those sorts of things.

Yeah, a real working class revolutionary. :rolleyes:


I would also be interested in hearing what living figures those who have criticized Chomsky in the last few posts would pick as exemplary leaders?

I'd "pick" the working class to lead working class revolution. I know it's a bit crazy, but I'm just a bright eyed dreamer. :lol:

[Son of a Strummer]

Are you trying to tell us that Chomsky is not petty bourgeois? Are you fucking kidding me? Which class do you think he belongs to?

You and others are using the "petty bourgeois" label pejoratively, as if we should dismiss anyone's ideas who is not strictly and technically a member of the "working class." Well Marx was no more a member of the working class than Chomsky, should we dismiss his ideas on that basis too? The fact is, some rare intellectuals have had great empathy not just for the working class but for all humanity, they do occasionally articulate truths for us; even better the good ones help us to exercise our minds. It is far more accurate to describe Chomsky (and for that matter Marx) as organic intellectuals, and note that they align themselves with working class interests. You would have a hard time showing that because he is technically petty-bourgeois Chomsky actually advocates petty-bourgeois politics. Some dogmatic Marxists try of course, but it has never been convincing.


He admits himself that he's not working class, has no conections to it, and doesn't want any.

Get serious. Can you substantiate this "admission" by any hard proof? I mean something direct rather than your undoubtedly distorted interpretations.


when a petty bourgeois student asks him at a talk how anarchists can go to workers with anarchist ideas...

lmao! oh please do tell me how you knew this was a "petty-bourgeois" student? What caused you to conclude that this student made his livelihood based on self-ownership of the means of production?

[Son of a Strummer]

some of my own evidence from Chomsky's famous essay on anarchism...


"The consistent anarchist, then, should be a socialist, but a socialist of a particular sort. He will not only oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers, but he will also insist that this appropriation be direct, not exercised by some elite force acting in the name of the proletariat. He will, in short, oppose...

"the organization of production by the Government. It means State-socialism, the command of the State officials over production and the command of managers, scientists, shop-officials in the shop....The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie. It is only realized by the workers themselves being master over production."

These remarks are taken from "Five Theses on the Class Struggle" by the left-wing Marxist Anton Pannekoek, one of the outstanding left theorists of the council communist movement. And in fact, radical Marxism merges with anarchist currents." http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp000281.html

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Marx became proletarianized in the corse of the struggle. See the numerous other threads on that. He had children starve to death and had to pawn his clothes to buy potatoes to feed his family at one point. He had to beg for a few penies to buy writing paper at another. There's nothing petty bourgeois about any of that.

And yes, class makeup does matter. It's called materialism. Being determines conciousness. Check it out sometime when you're not voting for the Democrats.


Get serious. Can you substantiate this "admission" by any hard proof? I mean something direct rather than your undoubtedly distorted interpretations.

Um, yeah, I did in that post.. you know, the part you forgot to quote.

"See the documentary "Rebel without a pause" when a petty bourgeois student asks him at a talk how anarchists can go to workers with anarchist ideas.. he tells her that he's an intellectual, and that he's above that, not involved in those sorts of things."

He's a petty bourgeois professor/intellectual/author. That's his class character. Deal with it.


lmao! oh please do tell me how you knew this was a "petty-bourgeois" student? What caused you to conclude that this student made his livelihood based on self-ownership of the means of production?

Like I said, watch the documentary. The student identifies herself as petty bourgeois by saying "how can we take these ideas to workers, instead of just circulating them amongst ourselves". Obviously, if she was a worker, she wouldn't be asking about "going to the workers".

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Dude, Marx lived like a bourgeois at hte end of his life, thanks to money from Engles. His children also lived wealthy after he died, one of his daughters married into wealth. Engels was a complete capitalist and even ran the family business, he was by all accounts a wealthy man.

The idea that revolutionaries have to be working class is just ahistorical man! Castro, Che, Lenin where do you think they all came from?? The working class?? Guess again.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by FoB+November 02, 2006 11:24 pm--> (FoB @ November 02, 2006 11:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 03:46 pm

[email protected] 27 2006, 03:27 AM
Chomsky is not a class war anarchist. He has libertarian ideals which he does not consider when making decisions on what needs to be done in the present.

He has a good critique and analysis of the US imperialist state, thats about it. A revolutionary? A great leftist, of all time? Absolutely not.
He did endorse voting for John Kerry, as many leftists did, but thats just cause hes pragmatic.

The thing is hes an Anarchist but while in the short term, since we're not in the revoutionary stage , he advocates doing what we can.

Noam Chomsky is a great leftist.
It's never pragmatic for an "anarchist" to participate in the bourgeois spectacle of elections. [/b]
I disagree. Sometimes it is the only thing one can do. And in non revolutionary situations, why not try to make small change when possible? Pragmatic maybe but to say he's not a revolutionary is sectarian.

[Intelligitimate]

I think others have already gone over most of the reasons not to support Chomsky, so I won't repeat them (though I didn't read everything to see if anyone mentioned anything about him being a millionaire who moved out of his old neighborhood because blacks starting moving in. Yes, Chomsky has flown on White-Flight airlines.)

I'd just like to mention that the only work of his I've read worth reading is Manufacturing Consent, and Chomsky told me himself it is mainly the work of Edward Herman.