So Who's Right-- Noam Chomsky Or Michael Parenti?

[FOREVER LEFT]

Who's on the ball and who's losing intellectual vigor? The Bolshevkis have been ousted. Anarchy seems to be gaining speed.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

In what way can you justify
Anarchy seems to be gaining speed.??

I'm very confused by this thread :blink:

[Raúl Duke]

Whats this all about?

Do yoy have any examples on why one is gaining the speed and the other is lossing "intellectual vigor"

Mostly Chomsky writes critiques about foreign policy, capitalism, etc. Yet he doesn't write much about anarchism. The only book(s) of his that seems to write about anarchy is "chomsky on anarchism" and maybe "radical priorities." Also this speech/essay about "creating a new society" or something like that.

While I never heard of Parenti....maybe I should check some info about him.

SO, even if maybe one is gaining more vigor than the other, I don't really see them really spreading anarchist theory (since Noam usually writes about foriegn policy) or communist theory (well, can't really state this since I don't know about this Parenti guy.)

[Poum_1936]

[QUOTE]Anarchy seems to be gaining speed.[CODE]

Uh... No?

Anarchism has been gaining followers but so has the Bolsheviks. Yet Bolshevisks is a loose term. We got Trotskyists, Stalinists, and Maosts claiming to be the "true" Bolsheviks. And us Bolsheviks are everywhere.

Also never heard of Parenti. And Chomksy as was said, usually deals with foriegn policy and linguistics, and has always been rather vague about anarchism. I do own "Radical Politics" but was fairly unimpressed.

Kropotkin is the man if your looking for anarchist theory.

Also, Parenti? Say something about the man.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I looked up Parenti.

Go to google video and just type Parenti in.

He seems to be a liberal/anarchist/Marxist. kinda wierd. Also, seems like he is really arrogant.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:16 pm
He seems to be a liberal/anarchist/Marxist. kinda wierd. Also, seems like he is really arrogant.
:lol: Parenti is not an anarchist, but he's a good historian, 'arrogant' wtf?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well i was only guessing based on a speech i saw on google video.

I thought he was arrogant, because he was really short with and didn't seem to care about the questions people through up.

what is this guys politics?

[Black Dagger]

AFAIK, marxist-leninist? I really on read his history texts though so i could be wrong (he's definately a marxist though).

[Whitten]

Michael Parenti is a marxist-leninist writer and historian. Among his most controversial views are his claims that Milosevic wasn't a war criminal, and that the genocides andethnic clensing is a conspiracy spread by the western media on behalf of the capitalist states splitting out of Yugoslavia.

[Q]

So, Parenti is a Stalinist?
Yeah, Stalinism is pretty much dead.
Bolshevism (the Lenin-Trotsky line) on the other hand is growing, not declining.

[IcarusAngel]

Parenti has his Ph.D in political science, not history. His book "Democracy for the Few" is a Marxist critique of the capitalist system, and is a pretty effective critique imo. I think he often refers to himself as a "radical" though. Parenti and Chomsky agree with each other on many areas.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:02 am
Parenti has his Ph.D in political science, not history.
You need a Ph.D in history to write history books? <_<

[sexyguy]

"Michael Parenti is a marxist-leninist writer and historian. Among his most controversial views are his claims that Milosevic wasn&#39;t a war criminal, and that the genocides andethnic clensing is a conspiracy spread by the western media on behalf of the capitalist states splitting out of Yugoslavia."

Great, I&#39;m happy to see this Parenti bloke is on the case. Good man&#33;

[PRC-UTE]

Anarchism is only popular with the youth in certain countries, it&#39;s not known throughout the world, unlike Marxism.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;[email protected] 13, 2007 08:17 am
Anarchism is only popular with the youth in certain countries, it&#39;s not known throughout the world, unlike Marxism.
That is a thoroughly ignorant statement to make.

Anarchism has support across across europe (particularly Spain (*cough*), Italy, Greece, France and Germany); the Americas (particularly USA, Mexico, Argentina and Venezuela); as well as South Africa & Japan - but yeah, you&#39;re right - anarchists have this rule where once you turn 25 you cant be an anarchist anymore :rolleyes:

What&#39;s next? &#39;Anarchists are usually of the petit-bourgeois class&#39; :blink:

[Vargha Poralli]

&#39;Anarchists are usually of the petit-bourgeois class&#39;

I think differently. But some anarchists ideals are very much of petty-bourgeoisie in Nature. One example i can think of is Proudhon.

But I certainly respect anarchism and anarchists. I disagree with the over-simplistic analysis of every issues and vulgar treatment of historical materialism which i normalyy see in this board

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by g.ram
But some anarchists ideals are very much of petty-bourgeoisie in Nature. One example i can think of is Proudhon.

Huh? What &#39;anarchist ideals&#39; are of a petit (not to be petty, but its petit not &#39;petty&#39; btw ;) ) bourgeois nature?

Furthermore Proudon is a horrible example to use in support of any argument contending to be saying something general about contemporary anarchists - the man has no currency in the contemporary anarchist movement (mutalism wtf?), his texts are rarely if at all read (and if they it usually begins and ends with &#39;what is property?&#39;) and as an individual he is regarded by most contemporary anarchists as a prejudiced douche-bag... sooo? Maybe choose a new example to illustrate your point?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Huh? What &#39;anarchist ideals&#39; are of a petit (not to be petty, but its petit not &#39;petty&#39; btw wink.gif ) bourgeois nature?

no, it can be and is frequently spelt petty bourgeois. Its just a mix between what words are translated from French to English and what are not.

[Black Dagger]

Not really, &#39;petty&#39; is not an english translation of &#39;petit&#39;; rather &#39;petty-bourgeois&#39; is an english bastardisation of the french &#39;petit-bourgeois.&#39;

We had a little discussion about this in the CC once after CDL corrected someone who said &#39;petit-bourgeois&#39;, suggesting they should have said petty-bourgeois&#33;


Originally posted by comrade red
Actually, it was originally petit-bourgeois to differentiate them from the haut-bourgeois, but the latter term fell out of use (and bourgeoisie took its spot) whilst petit-bourgeois remained.

It sounds exactly like "petty" in English, though the etymologically correct term would be "petit"; BD is correct in this history of the term

:P

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well petty was originally incorrectly used in place of Petit.

These days though, petty is used in place of Petit in all types of Marxist literature and books, ones that are English written, at least.

It like saying Das Kapital. Fine if you are German, weird if English is your first language.

[Question everything]

I read Chomsky, as a matter of fact I have never read Parenti (blame the crappy library) but I&#39;m not an anarchist, I think they (I&#39;m only presuming Parenti does this) spend more time on the Issue we all agree on "Fuck America"

[Cryotank Screams]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Parenti

[Devrim]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;UTE+--> (PRC&#045;UTE)Anarchism is only popular with the youth in certain countries, it&#39;s not known throughout the world, unlike Marxism. [/b]


Originally posted by black rose+--> (black rose)That is a thoroughly ignorant statement to make.[/b]

I don&#39;t like to have to agree with the anarchists, but the word ignorant is the one that comes to mind when reading that statement. You obviously, have no idea about either the history, or the present situation of the workers movement.


[email protected]
I think differently. But some anarchists ideals are very much of petty-bourgeoisie in Nature. One example i can think of is Proudhon


black rose
Furthermore Proudon is a horrible example to use in support of any argument contending to be saying something general about contemporary anarchists

Again you have got to agree with the anarchists. If I was one of them I would really begin to get annoyed every time some ill-educated &#39;Marxist&#39; pulled out the Proudhon example. As Black Rose said:


the man has no currency in the contemporary anarchist movement (mutalism wtf?), his texts are rarely if at all read (and if they it usually begins and ends with &#39;what is property?&#39;) and as an individual he is regarded by most contemporary anarchists as a prejudiced douche-bag... sooo?

This constant accusation of ‘Proudhon’ is about as boring as it would be if the anarchists pulled out a "what about Kautsky line?" every time Marxism came up.

Devrim

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by devrim
I don&#39;t like to have to agree with the anarchists

Why not?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by black rose+March 14, 2007 12:52 pm--> (black rose @ March 14, 2007 12:52 pm)
devrim
I don&#39;t like to have to agree with the anarchists

Why not? [/b]
Actually, there are lots of times when I agree with anarchists. That line is more of a rhetorical device to emphasise that I am not an anarchist.

Most people in our organisation are Marxists. There is one woman who is an anarchist though. We don&#39;t base ourselves around labels, but rather around political theory, a rejection of the social democratic ideas of the old workers movement. The sum it up briefly:
1)The rejection of parliamentarianism, and social democracy
2)The rejection of Trade Unionism
3)The rejection of all forms of nationalism, and the defence of internationalism

If you are interested you can see (a rather badly laid out version of) our basic principles on our (unfinished) website:

http://eks.internationalist-forum.org/en/basic-positions

As for anarchism today, I feel that much of it is the same as the rest of leftism, explicitly pro-nationalist. There are some revolutionary anarchists about though, which I suppose is more than you can say for &#39;Leninism&#39;.

Devrim

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by devrimankara+March 15, 2007 09:11 am--> (devrimankara @ March 15, 2007 09:11 am)
Originally posted by black [email protected] 14, 2007 12:52 pm

devrim
I don&#39;t like to have to agree with the anarchists

Why not?
Actually, there are lots of times when I agree with anarchists. That line is more of a rhetorical device to emphasise that I am not an anarchist.

Most people in our organisation are Marxists. There is one woman who is an anarchist though. We don&#39;t base ourselves around labels, but rather around political theory, a rejection of the social democratic ideas of the old workers movement. The sum it up briefly:
1)The rejection of parliamentarianism, and social democracy
2)The rejection of Trade Unionism
3)The rejection of all forms of nationalism, and the defence of internationalism

If you are interested you can see (a rather badly laid out version of) our basic principles on our (unfinished) website:

http://eks.internationalist-forum.org/en/basic-positions

As for anarchism today, I feel that much of it is the same as the rest of leftism, explicitly pro-nationalist. There are some revolutionary anarchists about though, which I suppose is more than you can say for &#39;Leninism&#39;.

Devrim [/b]
You folks must know how to refute Lennin&#39;s "Left-Wing Communism" by heart then.

[Leo]

Yah, we do actually:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/192...etter/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm)

Enjoy&#33;

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by black [email protected] 13, 2007 01:19 pm

Huh? What &#39;anarchist ideals&#39; are of a petit (not to be petty, but its petit not &#39;petty&#39; btw ;) ) bourgeois nature?


He&#39;s talking about some anarchists who believe in markets, because he has a vulgar marxist idea of them.

Furthermore Proudon is a horrible example to use in support of any argument contending to be saying something general about contemporary anarchists -Are you serious? What is wrong with Proudhon, is it the fact he advocated markets? Perhaps you are also a little too into the vulgar Marxism.



the man has no currency in the contemporary anarchist movement (mutalism wtf?), What exactly is wrong with mutualists and individual anarchists? They have made some great contributions to our understanding of capitalism and the state. They are far better allies than any leninist.
They actually realise the true nature and role of the state and the market.

his texts are rarely if at all read (and if they it usually begins and ends with &#39;what is property?&#39;) They are definitely worth reading as are
much of the later individual anarchistm works as well as even some left-libertarians, far more profitable than any leninist work.

Have you ever read anything by Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Kevin Carson or particularly Franz Oppenheimer&#39;s The state?


and as an individual he is regarded by most contemporary anarchists as a prejudiced douche-bag... sooo? By some sections perhaps, but those sections are basically Marxist in all but name. The kind of people Malatesta described.

It seems unbelievable that even today, after everything that has happened & is happening in Russia, there are people who still imagine that the difference between socialists(ie leninists, and state socialists.) & anarchists is only that of wanting revolution gradually or quickly.

ERRICO MALATESTA

Now Marx himself and some libertarian Marxists have made definite contributions but those anarchists who are nothing more than Marxists in disguise need to rethink.

[TC]

Originally posted by FOREVER [email protected] 11, 2007 08:21 pm
Who&#39;s on the ball and who&#39;s losing intellectual vigor? The Bolshevkis have been ousted. Anarchy seems to be gaining speed.
LOL we&#39;re stronger in Latin America and Asia now than we&#39;ve ever been whereas the Anarchists have never found even limited success anywhere. Sorry but you have it reversed.


Chomsky is brilliant as a philosopher, and like most philosophers, stupid as political scientist. Parenti is just brilliant.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:41 pm
Michael Parenti is a marxist-leninist writer and historian. Among his most controversial views are his claims that Milosevic wasn&#39;t a war criminal, and that the genocides andethnic clensing is a conspiracy spread by the western media on behalf of the capitalist states splitting out of Yugoslavia.
Is he...by chance...a Marcyite?

[ComradeRed]

Just face it, they&#39;re both wrong.

As a matter of fact, I think, most Leninists don&#39;t like this Parenti; and most anarchists don&#39;t like Chomsky.

I could be wrong though.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:45 pm

LOL we&#39;re stronger in Latin America and Asia now than we&#39;ve ever been whereas the Anarchists have never found even limited success anywhere. Sorry but you have it reversed.



When has leninism ever achieved anything? Except perhaps gulags and extermination.
You are right you have implemented your policies on a much wider scale than anarchists and everytime it ended in totalitarian dictatorships and usually mass-murder.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:22 am
Just face it, they&#39;re both wrong.

As a matter of fact, I think, most Leninists don&#39;t like this Parenti; and most anarchists don&#39;t like Chomsky.

I could be wrong though.
Chomsky is fine, he is just one of those people who is not quite convinced that anarchism can actually work, so just advocates libertarian socialism.

He believes in non-violence I think, but that is not something special in anarchism, even if it upsets those anarchists who are extremely influenced by vulgar Marxism.

Anarchists from Godwin to Tolstoy to Tucker have been non-violent and many like Kropotkin wanted to limit it to the bare minimum, now I know many of the above mentioned have little respect for these anarchists(except Kropotkin.) but they do well to rethink their positions, they&#39;ll get far more from them than they will Lenin or Trotsky, hell you&#39;d get more of Albert.J.Nock, Karl Hess or Murray Rothbard in his left and right alliance era than you would Lenin or Trotsky.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+March 19, 2007 04:55 am--> (Nusocialist @ March 19, 2007 04:55 am)
[email protected] 18, 2007 07:45 pm

LOL we&#39;re stronger in Latin America and Asia now than we&#39;ve ever been whereas the Anarchists have never found even limited success anywhere. Sorry but you have it reversed.



When has leninism ever achieved anything? Except perhaps gulags and extermination.
You are right you have implemented your policies on a much wider scale than anarchists and everytime it ended in totalitarian dictatorships and usually mass-murder. [/b]
So are you saying counterrevolutionaries just disappear overnight? In reality, when revolutions succeed, they need to be defended, and that entails doing more than squatting or dumpster diving. The fact is that the measures socialist countries have taken to defend themselves from reactionaries are/were both necessary and reasonable.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 19, 2007 05:50 am

So are you saying counterrevolutionaries just disappear overnight? In reality, when revolutions succeed, they need to be defended, and that entails doing more than squatting or dumpster diving. The fact is that the measures socialist countries have taken to defend themselves from reactionaries are/were both necessary and reasonable.
What do you mean necesary and reasonable, they failed to create anything except brutal totalitarian, class states that were worse than many of the capitalist nations of the time, I&#39;d rather have lived in the UK in the 50s than the USSR for instance.
What is necesary is to stick to libertarian means and motivate the people, submission and class rule exists only when it exists in their minds as does the revolution, if they refuse to give in then a handfull of conservative elites can do precious little damage.

But if you use authoritarian means these shape and warp the revolutionary ends and you will simply create what every Leninist revolution has so far.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:45 pm
LOL we&#39;re stronger in Latin America and Asia now than we&#39;ve ever been whereas the Anarchists have never found even limited success anywhere. Sorry but you have it reversed.
Never Found Limited Success?

Oh common, do we have to go over this AGAIN&#33;&#33;&#33;?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+March 20, 2007 03:55 am--> (Nusocialist @ March 20, 2007 03:55 am)
manic [email protected] 19, 2007 05:50 am

So are you saying counterrevolutionaries just disappear overnight? In reality, when revolutions succeed, they need to be defended, and that entails doing more than squatting or dumpster diving. The fact is that the measures socialist countries have taken to defend themselves from reactionaries are/were both necessary and reasonable.
What do you mean necesary and reasonable, they failed to create anything except brutal totalitarian, class states that were worse than many of the capitalist nations of the time, I&#39;d rather have lived in the UK in the 50s than the USSR for instance.
What is necesary is to stick to libertarian means and motivate the people, submission and class rule exists only when it exists in their minds as does the revolution, if they refuse to give in then a handfull of conservative elites can do precious little damage.

But if you use authoritarian means these shape and warp the revolutionary ends and you will simply create what every Leninist revolution has so far. [/b]
We&#39;re having the same discussion in another thread ("Leninism without Lenin?"), so it&#39;s unnecessary to respond to you here.


Yah, we do actually:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/192...etter/index.htm

Enjoy&#33;

It&#39;s interesting that the most significant work of left-communism is a pamphlet written by a hardly consequential figure. When he talks of leaders who are "one with the masses", it seems as though he basically means no leaders at all (which, in turn, translates into no progress at all).

[Idola Mentis]

Found the Chomsky FAQ on anarchism (fairly high on google - just type anarchism). I&#39;m not familiar with his anarchism, but with is other works. The guy annoys me. He holds opinions I agree with, but holds them for reasons I disagree with. His theory of linguistics doesn&#39;t hold up, though that doesn&#39;t invalidate all of his work, as the part that fails isn&#39;t as central as you&#39;d think. His works on politics are exercises in modern linguistic rhetorics, twisting quotes so fast and elegantly you&#39;re left dizzy. But not scientific in the historical or political science sense.

Anway, my main gripe with his opinions in the FAQ is his refusal to give even a hint of how he envisions an anarchist society. Uncertainty about how it would work does not mandate uncertainty in how one should get there. While he sits telling people to throw everything they know into a dark pit as an experiment, without knowing if there&#39;s cushions on the bottom, the pressure builds.

As it says in my profile, I think evolutions arrive, wether you want it or not, and the harder you supress them, the worse they get when they finally arrive. Those who have nothing to lose will jump into that pit no matter what you tell them might be down there. Those who have something will do everything they can to stop them, unless you can really, inconclusively show them there&#39;s light at the other end of the tunnel. Glib statements of "let&#39;s try it and see what happens" just drags out the suffering.