Chomsky on Marx

[Arkham]

Here's a quick quote from Chomsky on Marx. I wanted people's thoughts on this. Agree, disagree? Do you think Chomsky is full of it?

"I'm not a big Marxologist. Marx had a theory of capitalism. You can read it for whatever interest it has. A lot. However, he had nothing to say about a post-capitalist society. Only about 5 sentences. Marx had no conception of socialism. He simply argued that capitalism was going to change in certain directions. Having said that, there is no way you can say that Marxism had its demise. Its conceptually impossible. It has had its demise if you don't like his theory of capitalism. Certainly an intelligent person should read it, and learn from it. It has its flaws. It was temporally bounded. It did not come from god."

(Edited by Arkham at 6:57 am on Feb. 20, 2003)

[Exploited Class]

Well first I would size up the two people. Chomsky who is current. In no way working for the ruling class or the controlled media. Has published many books and has hindsight as his companion. Is a leftists, although where he sits in that range I can not determine. I trust his intelligence and input on most subjects.

Marx, a man ahead of his time. A lot more boring to read than Chomsky which is hard to believe, but the level of excitment does not make qualified knowledge and insight. Marx was brilliant, there is no doubt about it. He is really the first and ahead of his time, first I mean by he set the gears in motion for socialism. He and several other writers.

He is simply that the first and if we were all to stop with the first and not improve on it, we would be flying in airplanes that go 300 feet and are made out of fabric, coal/wood would still be our primary fuel source and TV would be black and white and have 3 stations. His ideas are to be expanded upon, a refference point a historical observation.

Marx had a theory of capitalism. You can read it for whatever interest it has. A lot. However, he had nothing to say about a post-capitalist society. Only about 5 sentences.
I would agree with a lot of this. I trust Chomsky to begin with, and it sounds like he is especially speaking of the Communist Manifesto which is a cheerleading document. 100 points against and then a rally at the end. I've read it enough to see that. Then Das Kapital which most communist read 1/5th of (for good reason) and then espouse from it as if it was the bible and use it as bragging rights, "I've read Das Kapital so I know what I am saying" comes up all the time. As far as him having only 5 sentences, that is an under exageration. He has in personal notes written more, but it isn't in the detail that we can do now. He doesn't even go into the democratic process in which to use in a communist economic model.

Certainly an intelligent person should read it, and learn from it. It has its flaws. It was temporally bounded. It did not come from god."

I try to explain all the time to people that are either pro-capitalism or pro-communist. Marx is not the end all be all of everything communist. Capitalist along with Communists see him as being the Son of God, the Jesus of Communist. He is a genre, he doesn't explain how life should be lead. He was for all purposes just a man. Don't treat him like he is more than that.

An Economist, not a liberal, not a conservative. Not a politician or a leader. He was into theory and a writer.

I would agree with his quote.

(Edited by exploitedclass at 7:22 am on Feb. 20, 2003)

[peaccenicked]

Chomsky's view of Marx is too narrow. He should read more. The political economy of Marx has it use in everyday life. However Marx was more than a political economist . He was revolutionary humanist who had input on all visible human oppression and gave terms we still use to describe human estrangement.
Marx is the greatest genius the world has ever produced.
The early writings of Marx are more passionate than his later.
Marx is here today as great agency of understanding to-days world and Chomsky is perhaps unaware how deeply Marx has impacted human thinking. This debate (http://www.radford.edu/~junnever/theory/marx.htm) This fact alone indicates the better thinker. He wrote much more than 5 sentences on post capitalism. There is the Critique of the Gotha programme and literally hundred of references throughout the entire body of his work. By the way Chomsky role as a champion of the oppressed is immmeasurable but he has to be put in some perspctive.

[redstar2000]

In a way it's kind of futile, I think, to quibble over an individual's historical reputation.

If I want the well-documented details of some particular odious act of U.S. imperialism, I know Professor Chomsky is the guy to see...he will tell me more than I ever thought I wanted to know about the details.

But I can still remember the feelings I had when I began to read Marx and Engels...a chaotic and incoherent mass of human history suddenly clarified. Better still, it was not only possible to understand the world, it was possible to change it.

This is not to deny Professor Chomsky's insight: yes, Marx was a product of his time and suffered limitations in his vision that we have or will overcome.

But the same could be said of Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and others. Such people are like the person who domesticated fire or invented the wheel...no matter what their shortcomings, they each opened a new road for the human species, a road that we still travel today.

It may be (I am not competent to say) that Professor Chomsky himself may someday be numbered among those who have opened significant new roads; I am told that his work on human languages is, to all intents and purposes, the new paradigm in the field.

But if he feels that Marx's vision of post-capitalist society is inadequate (and he's right about that), he should write one himself...and show us how it's done.

:cool:

[Arkham]

I think the main point that Chomsky is trying to make, and to a lesser extent the one that I was trying to feel out by posting that quote was, do theories that stray from pure Marxism or as some would tout Marxism/Leninism still equal communism? The implication Chomsky seems to be making is that too many people accept Marx's views as some sort of religious figure in the world of communism, and that other views are not valid. He wants to assure us that communism isnt just that time, and that place. To put the impetus on Chomsky to come up with a new solution for change in our day seems to be missing the point. Too many people seem to think that only the special, select prodigies can change the world. What I take away from it is that we are all entitled to take control of our own destiny, using the intellectual stepping stones of our forebearers.

(Edited by Arkham at 4:08 pm on Feb. 20, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Marx is the authority on things communist. Though I do not blindly follow every line from their every text, Marx & Engels alone were creators of Marxism or Communism.
Chomsky lacked insight on the subject. Marx had much to say about a post-Capitalist society and how Communism would eventualy come after Socialism. His entire theory rested on the failures and the fall of Capitalism, but it clearly stated what would come afterwards.

[Revolution Hero]

“ Marx had a theory of capitalism. You can read it for whatever interest it has. A lot. However, he had nothing to say about a post-capitalist society.”

Obviously, Chomsky didn’t receive a proper Marxist education. Marx is not just about “Capital”, he did develop socialistic theory and that was exactly Marx who created a theory of dictatorship of proletariat.
The same can be also said about Engels. In his work “Anti-Duhring” Engels did talk about socialistic society and gave detailed description of it.

If Chomsky is not a marxist, then who the hell is he?

[redstar2000]

Arkham, I don't think any serious Marxist regards Marx as a "god".

If someone wants to posit a "post-Marxist" version of communism, no one is stopping them.

Einstein came up with a more universal theory than Newton...but Newton's understanding is included in Einstein and is still valid once you grasp its limitations. The planetary probes launched by NASA are all based on Newtonian physics...and work beautifully (provided everyone remembers to convert English measures to metric measures).

A "post-Marxist" communism would presumably "include" Marxism as a "special case" in a more universal theory. I'd love to see it!

Until then...

:cool:

[antieverything]

Marx is the authority on things communist. Though I do not blindly follow every line from their every text, Marx & Engels alone were creators of Marxism or Communism. Marx isn't the creator of communism, only of Marxism. Fuck, he didn't even come up with the labor theory of value.

[bolshevik1917]

Chomsky has his head up his own arse

[Azygous]

Chomsky is an anarchist....

[Just Joe]

Chomsky has it right about Marx. his (Marx) critique of capitalism is still the best around, but he talks too much about how capitalism is bad, and not enough about how socialism is good. he didn't add that much to socialism. only claimed his socialism was scientific not utopian.

his theories on the 'dictatorship of the prolateriat' is the perfect example of him skipping over vital points of his theory. he left this loose term too open to interpretation so tyrants like Stalin and Lenin could impose there one party states on the masses. same with his economic ideas. he left them too open.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Azygous on 6:29 am on Feb. 25, 2003
Chomsky is an anarchist....


This explains a lot- typical ignorant anarchist!

[Arkham]

Yes, if its one word that describes Chomsky, its "ignorant".

Was that post /sarcasm?

[redstar2000]

No, Arkham, he means it. RH always says exactly what he means!

:cool:

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Just Joe on 7:28 pm on Feb. 25, 2003
Chomsky has it right about Marx. his (Marx) critique of capitalism is still the best around, but he talks too much about how capitalism is bad, and not enough about how socialism is good. he didn't add that much to socialism. only claimed his socialism was scientific not utopian.

his theories on the 'dictatorship of the prolateriat' is the perfect example of him skipping over vital points of his theory. he left this loose term too open to interpretation so tyrants like Stalin and Lenin could impose there one party states on the masses. same with his economic ideas. he left them too open.


Yes. It is one fault that I wished Marx had patched up...time travel would be such a great thing. We could ask him to clear a few things up. :(

[DEFMARX]

I think that those of you who are viewing Chomsky as having misguided views on Marxism, I must say that I think you are wrong. Chomsky viewed himself as a libertarian socialist. In a speech he made on governmetn in the future, back in 1970 he said:
"I think that the libertarian socialist

[DEFMARX]

Sorr about that. Anyway, Chomsky was saying that:
"I believe that the libertarian socialist concepts, and by that I mean a range of thinking that extends from left wing Marxism through Anarchism. I think that these are fundamentally correct and that they are the proper and natural extension of of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society..."

So Chomsky certainly is sympathetic and supportive of the Marxist thought and ideology. What I believe he was referring to when he he mentioned Marx not writing about post capitalist society is the fact that Marx did not mention any concrete specifics as to the implementation of a functional society.

It was not Marx's goal to structure a new for of economy and political system. Marx's genius and beauty came not only from his ability to analyze the flow and struggle of society, but to incorporate it into his concept of man. It was Marx's view of humanity that was the goal. He did not know how to run a country. The amount of planning and uniquness of each revolution would make it rediculous for him to have done so.


Also- Revolutionary Hero- I believe that calling Noam Chomsky of all people ignorant does nothing but hurt the cause we all obviously support. Noam Chomsky has studied and held prestigious positions at the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and MIT. He is by far one of the most brilliant minds and social critics today. If you truly support the cause, Noam Chomsky is not a man you try to discredit. He has been fighting capitalism longer, and more effectively than anyone preaching to the converted here at this sight.

(Edited by DEFMARX at 6:40 am on Mar. 11, 2003)