Chomsky's anti-Bolshevism

[Psy]

Searching through the Internet I can across this question and answer part from an old lecture by Chomsky Chomsky on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism & the Soviet Union (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI), where Chomsky paints Bolshevism as anti-socialist yet Chomsky seems to pretend Russia was in a vacume and that global capitalism played no role in how the two Russian revolution of 1917 played out and played no role in the action of the Bolsheviks.

Just though it would be interesting to discus Chomsky's view on Bolshevism.

[Chapter 24]

I enjoy Chomsky's lectures for the most part, but his libertarian socialist views (sometimes) conflict with a Marxist's*. For example, making the claim that capitalism and communism ("authoritarian", which I guess differentiates from the variants of Leninism, but still a piss-poor description of political thought) are two sides of the same coin. His talks on U.S. imperialism and its growing hegemony are refreshing from the usual talking heads on T.V., but I certainly don't agree with him on subjects such as this:

"Western and also Third World intellectuals were attracted to the Bolshevik counterrevolution because Leninism is, after all, a doctrine that says that the radical intelligentsia have a right to take state power and to run their countries by force, and that is an idea which is rather appealing to intellectuals."
The word "counterrevolution" really gets to me. Does Chomsky really believe that the Bolsheviks were a ragtag group of counterrevolutionary members all in the same gang, or does he believe the revolution itself was detrimental to Russia? :confused:
I'm not trying to derail the subject of the thread itself, but at least a man like Chomsky is on occasion seen on certain shows. He even makes the people who think Bill Maher and Michael Moore are far-left ponder his radical views. So even though I'm on occasion in disagreement with him, I'm still glad he's out there.

*I'm not saying Chomsky is a Marxist (he's not), but at least he's made it clear that the makeup of "postcommunist" societies are a setback toward liberation (despite the fact that's described "communism" as practiced in the USSR and Eastern Europe as "monstrosities").

[ZeroNowhere]

"Western and also Third World intellectuals were attracted to the Bolshevik counterrevolution because Leninism is, after all, a doctrine that says that the radical intelligentsia have a right to take state power and to run their countries by force, and that is an idea which is rather appealing to intellectuals."

That's silly. The bolshie revolution was certainly not a 'counterrevolution'.
Feudalism -> Capitalism is a revolution.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Chomskys views on the bolsheviks are standard anarchist ones. He just cuts the jargon and writes in such a way as to be accessable to the average american.

The USSR was state-capitalist. The bolshevik bureaucracy formed a new ruling class, for whom most russians worked in exchange for wages. There was massive class struggle from above, waged by the bolshevik state against the russian people, the methods usually copied from the old regime. The bolsheviks were counterrevolutionaries. They destroyed genuine revoutionary movements like the makhnovists and reinstated capitalism.

Of course global capitalism played a major role in how the russian revoultions played out. The threat of imperialism allowed the bolsheviks to entrench and maintain their power. If the threat had been less, the third revolution would have gone ahead, and the bolsheviks would have been overthrown. This doesn't make the bolsheviks any less anti-socialist.

I think Chomskys criticisms of the USSR are great. They generally come in the form of a comparison between the USSR (and its clients) and american client states, where the latter are demonstrated to be worse. Very effective when talking to those raised on US anti-USSR propaganda, as he was.

[Charles Xavier]

The Bolsheviks weren't radical intelligentsia though. They were Proletariat Peasants and Soldiers for the most part, what they lacked was professional class peoples and intellectuals. In fact the Universities during the Civil war were recruiting stations for the counter revolutionary cadets.

So Chomsky is fighting straw men.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

The Bolsheviks weren't radical intelligentsiaThe leaders were.

[Psy]

Chomskys views on the bolsheviks are standard anarchist ones. He just cuts the jargon and writes in such a way as to be accessable to the average american.

The USSR was state-capitalist. The bolshevik bureaucracy formed a new ruling class, for whom most russians worked in exchange for wages. There was massive class struggle from above, waged by the bolshevik state against the russian people, the methods usually copied from the old regime. The bolsheviks were counterrevolutionaries. They destroyed genuine revoutionary movements like the makhnovists and reinstated capitalism.

Of course global capitalism played a major role in how the russian revoultions played out. The threat of imperialism allowed the bolsheviks to entrench and maintain their power. If the threat had been less, the third revolution would have gone ahead, and the bolsheviks would have been overthrown. This doesn't make the bolsheviks any less anti-socialist.

I think Chomskys criticisms of the USSR are great. They generally come in the form of a comparison between the USSR (and its clients) and american client states, where the latter are demonstrated to be worse. Very effective when talking to those raised on US anti-USSR propaganda, as he was.

Capitalism was not the dominant system in Russia prior to 1917, how could the Bolsheviks have reinstated capitalism when Russia was feudalistic before 1917?

Anyway I find Chomsky's criticism to be a non-Marxist annalist. He ignored that in 1917 that Russian capitalists had yet fulfill their revolutionary role in Russia and they weren't going because the Russian capitalist class was too weak thus defended the feudal order. Thus you had the Bolsheviks thinking they can play the revolutionary role in place of the capitalists yet the idea is that the revolution would spread westward to nations where the capitalists already plaid their revolutionary role in smashing fedualism. Chomsky also ignores the issue of socialism in one country (the issue that it doesn't work) if the proletariat was empowered (like in a third revolution) the workers would have had to exploit themselves as capitalism is a global system were nations have no choice but to compete, only through spreading the revolution could Russia be liberated.

[RebelDog]

Capitalism was not the dominant system in Russia prior to 1917, how could the Bolsheviks have reinstated capitalism when Russia was feudalistic before 1917?

Anyway I find Chomsky's criticism to be a non-Marxist annalist. He ignored that in 1917 that Russian capitalists had yet fulfill their revolutionary role in Russia and they weren't going because the Russian capitalist class was too weak thus defended the feudal order. Thus you had the Bolsheviks thinking they can play the revolutionary role in place of the capitalists yet the idea is that the revolution would spread westward to nations where the capitalists already plaid their revolutionary role in smashing fedualism. Chomsky also ignores the issue of socialism in one country (the issue that it doesn't work) if the proletariat was empowered (like in a third revolution) the workers would have had to exploit themselves as capitalism is a global system were nations have no choice but to compete, only through spreading the revolution could Russia be liberated.

You are just re-emphasizing Chomsky's point. You indirectly justify the crushing of the soviets, workers and peasant democratic control, and the real revolutionary gains by intimating it was necessary to do so in the cause of socialism. How does one hope to spread revolutions by destroying them? How does one appeal to the international working-class to rise up and free themselves when one holds ones own working class in chains? Its doublespeak, pure and cynical doublespeak.

[Psy]

You are just re-emphasizing Chomsky's point. You indirectly justify the crushing of the soviets, workers and peasant democratic control, and the real revolutionary gains by intimating it was necessary to do so in the cause of socialism. How does one hope to spread revolutions by destroying them? How does one appeal to the international working-class to rise up and free themselves when one holds ones own working class in chains? Its doublespeak, pure and cynical doublespeak.

How does one appeal to the international working-class when you get crushed by global capitalists? How much did the 1905 uprisings of Russia incite global uprisings? The Bolsheviks were trying to defend the gains of the revolution that became increasing hard as Russia simply didn't have the means to support a socialist society in a capitalist world.

[RebelDog]

How does one appeal to the international working-class when you get crushed by global capitalists?It is probably the best time to appeal for help in the west when the western governments are actively attacking you. But you neither build socialism domestically and promote it internationally by acting to destroy the workers and peasants control and democracy. The idea that the Bolsheviks were defending the gains of the revolution is not even worthy of comment.

[Oneironaut]

Chomsky's works Failed States and Hegemony or Survival were the first introduction I had to leftism. That being said, I find his analysis of current global currents very convincing. However, I do feel his historical analysis of the Soviet Union is inadequate. I see what he says and I tend to agree with the majority of it, but the issue is he doesn't reflect enough on the historical conditions surrounding the 1917 Revolution. I do agree with his view that the Bolshevists were counter-revolutionaries but he neglects to offer the historical circumstances that led to the Bolshevists taking power over the proletariat. In this sense, his argument is not extremely compelling, he just needs to analyze further to make his argument complete. I don't know if I am making any sense right now...

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Capitalism was not the dominant system in Russia prior to 1917, how could the Bolsheviks have reinstated capitalism when Russia was feudalistic before 1917?Serfdom was abolished in 1861. After that, surplus value was extracted from most russian workers through wage labour and the payment of rents (capitalism).


if the proletariat was empowered (like in a third revolution) the workers would have had to exploit themselvesDo elaborate. Why exactly would they have had to compete in the global capitalist system?

[Psy]

Serfdom was abolished in 1861. After that, surplus value was extracted from most russian workers through wage labour and the payment of rents (capitalism).

That is half-true, Serfdom was abolished yet fedualism persisted as peasants were still bound to the land through debt to the feudal land lords.



Do elaborate. Why exactly would they have had to compete in the global capitalist system?
For the same reason why we can't just have a socialist commune. The rest of the capitalist world continue pressure Russia, Russian workers would have to compete with exploited workers in order to get capital to exchange for commodities that Russia didn't produce, Russia would have to spend resources in defense to protect itself from competing military powers.

[Charles Xavier]

The leaders were.


Most were soldiers in the armed forces.

[Charles Xavier]

How does one appeal to the international working-class when you get crushed by global capitalists? How much did the 1905 uprisings of Russia incite global uprisings? The Bolsheviks were trying to defend the gains of the revolution that became increasing hard as Russia simply didn't have the means to support a socialist society in a capitalist world.

Funny this is what was said by the right wing counter-revolutionary wing of the Mensheviks. Who preferred that the Cadets crush the Bolsheviks.

Honestly looking at the Bolshevik Revolution you had to realize it was do or die. If the bolsheviks didn't vote in favour of armed insurrection, it would have caused a massive attack on the working class. The Bolsheviks were about to be militarily attacked by the armed forces. They had 2 choices, fight or die. You underestimate the political climate of Russia, it was life or death.


It is probably the best time to appeal for help in the west when the western governments are actively attacking you. But you neither build socialism domestically and promote it internationally by acting to destroy the workers and peasants control and democracy. The idea that the Bolsheviks were defending the gains of the revolution is not even worthy of comment.

There was two governments the Constitute assembly lead by Bourgeioisie and Monarchists and there was the Soviets. The soviets were to be crushed by order of the Constitute assembly. The Soviets being the embodiment of worker and peasants democracy. The Bolsheviks were their lone defender. They organized the people to save the soviets. They had the power, they had two choices take power and bring rule to the working class or don't take power and be crushed and killed and allow the counter-revolution to win. The Bolsheviks were the first time in human history when the working class controlled the whole of state and defended it against the counter-revolution and interventionists. There is no pleasing some people.

[JimmyJazz]

Chomsky bugs the crap out of me, but Manufacturing Consent is a good book. :)

Seriously, Chomsky's cult of personality rivals Stalin's. It's incredibly hypocritical. And yes, he feeds into it with things that he says, and no, I can't provide examples because I don't own the books I've read these things in. But he does.


I'm not saying Chomsky is a Marxist (he's not)

He's certainly not, in fact in Understanding Power he goes on a long, obnoxious tangent about Marxism being 'like a religion', etc.

He obviously must not know many Marxist activists, most of whom are a lot more pragmatic and down-in-the-struggle than he is.

[Chapter 24]

Seriously, Chomsky's cult of personality rivals Stalin's. It's incredibly hypocritical. And yes, he feeds into it with things that he says, and no, I can't provide examples because I don't own the books I've read these things in. But he does.
Definitely. Chomsky is a scholar with certain ideas practical to leftists (imperialism, corporate media, etc.), but his political ideas really do appeal most to many anarchists who do, in a sense, worship the man.


He's certainly not, in fact in Understanding Power he goes on a long, obnoxious tangent about Marxism being 'like a religion', etc.
And here I thought this was a common argument used among capitalists!

[scarletghoul]

As an appreciator of Chomsky, I am a little bit worried because I haven't seen a new article by him for a while... Its probably nothing though

[Die Neue Zeit]

He's certainly not, in fact in Understanding Power he goes on a long, obnoxious tangent about Marxism being 'like a religion', etc.

He obviously must not know many Marxist activists, most of whom are a lot more pragmatic and down-in-the-struggle than he is.

Some Marxist "intellectual" or group of "intellectuals" should gang together and "linguistically" discredit this usefully idiotic, petit-bourgeois piece of crap (sorry for repeating "petit-bourgeois" stereotypes of anarchists, but Chomsky's otherwise excellent stuff on language needs to be separated from his lifestylist politics)! :mad:

[Charles Xavier]

Chomsky is a fucking fascist linguistically.

[GPDP]

Whoa, here we go with the fascist labeling.

I've toned down my Chomsky semi-worshiping considerably since I started coming here, and I certainly do not hold Marxism in as much contempt as he does, but come on.

[scarletghoul]

Hahaha, 'fascist, linguistically'.

fascist is a political term and can not be appliled very well to this science.

what about his linguistics do you considor fascist?

[JimmyJazz]

Whoa, here we go with the fascist labeling.

I've toned down my Chomsky semi-worshiping considerably since I started coming here, and I certainly do not hold Marxism in as much contempt as he does, but come on.

Yeah the Chomsky-bashing went to sky-high levels pretty fast after my post, sheesh.

I don't think Chomsky actually calls himself an anarchist does he? He's just an anarchist appreciator or something? I dunno, the people I've met who loved him have always been (1) far-left liberal, usually obsessive Naderites, and (2) prone to conspiracy theories. Actual anarchists are worthy of a lot more respect than the hardcore Chomsky supporters I've met.

[Comrade_Red]

The man believes that after the Revolution, they put power directly in the hands of Lenin and Trotsky, and that was wrong.

i'm a Chomsky-appreciator, but on that aspect, and his critique of Marxism, whatever.

[GPDP]

Chomsky does identify as an anarchist, though he seems to prefer the more general "libertarian socialist" label. I remember him saying somewhere that his politics follow the tradition set by Bakunin and Kropotkin.

As for his conspiracy nut fans, Chomsky has no time for them. He usually makes sure to distance himself from conspiracy theories, and has even spoken out against them.

[scarletghoul]

Yes. There are a lot of conspiracy people who hate chomsky and think he is some propaganda spy employed by the zionists to suppress the truth even in dissent etc etc just because he believes al-qaeda done 9/11

[Devrim]

but his political ideas really do appeal most to many anarchists who do, in a sense, worship the man.

This must be a North American thing. Anarchists I have spoken about him to in Europe see him more as an interesting liberal.

Devrim

[Rascolnikova]

Interesting liberal seems about right.

I actually appreciate Chomsky a great deal; for me he provided some important steps between reformist and revolutionary, and I--having not nearly read all of it--I think that his work is of substantial benefit to the possibility of revolution in the west. The difference between radical reform and revolution is, after all, tactical.

[Herman]

This must be a North American thing. Anarchists I have spoken about him to in Europe see him more as an interesting liberal.

Devrim, mark this down in your diary.

I totally agree with you.

[JimmyJazz]

Interesting liberal seems about right.

I actually appreciate Chomsky a great deal; for me he provided some important steps between reformist and revolutionary, and I--having not nearly read all of it--I think that his work is of substantial benefit to the possibility of revolution in the west. The difference between radical reform and revolution is, after all, tactical.

I disagree 100%. The difference between radical reform and revolution is that one has a detailed program for replacing the current social order and the other does not.

[Rascolnikova]

I disagree 100%. The difference between radical reform and revolution is that one has a detailed program for replacing the current social order and the other does not.

Interesting. I know people I call reformists who have that. Would you call them revolutionaries?

[Revy]

Chomsky endorsed Kerry in 2004 quietly but notoriously. I actually e-mailed him about it back in 2007. He replied back. He told me he did it because he didn't want Bush to win, and that it was more about swing states, and that he actually voted for a socialist alternative privately.

I thought that was a disappointing reply. Chomsky writes nice books, and if he's introducing people to radical left politics that's great. But I can't get over his lack of support for any kind of socialist ticket instead going on this absurd lesser evilism that is just so 2004. I'd be happier if he didn't endorse anyone rather than endorsing Obama, which he did recently before the election.

[Rascolnikova]

Chomsky endorsed Kerry in 2004 quietly but notoriously. I actually e-mailed him about it back in 2007. He replied back. He told me he did it because he didn't want Bush to win, and that it was more about swing states, and that he actually voted for a socialist alternative privately.

I thought that was a disappointing reply. Chomsky writes nice books, and if he's introducing people to radical left politics that's great. But I can't get over his lack of support for any kind of socialist ticket instead going on this absurd lesser evilism that is just so 2004. I'd be happier if he didn't endorse anyone rather than endorsing Obama, which he did recently before the election.

I think his books matter much more than his vote or his endorsements.

[Lamanov]

Searching through the Internet I can across this question and answer part from an old lecture by Chomsky Chomsky on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism & the Soviet Union (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI), where Chomsky paints Bolshevism as anti-socialist yet Chomsky seems to pretend Russia was in a vacume and that global capitalism played no role in how the two Russian revolution of 1917 played out and played no role in the action of the Bolsheviks.

He's talking about the role of the Russian Revolution in global terms according to Lenin as well, so your objection is false. Everything he said in this speech is true.

Besides, the "role of global capitalism" in the 1917 Revolution is an empty argument. Lenin did dismantle workers' control, the essence of socialism, Trotsky did call for militarisation of labor, etc. None of these acts have a direct connection to "global capitalism", but with the situation at hand.

[scarletghoul]

If it weren't for Chomsky, I probably would still be one of those ignorant people that thinks that anarchy = chaos. He hasn't really changed any of my beliefs on specific issues but has reinforced many of them and his good argument is very good when it reaches a mainstream audience.

[Psy]

He's talking about the role of the Russian Revolution in global terms according to Lenin as well, so your objection is false. Everything he said in this speech is true.

Besides, the "role of global capitalism" in the 1917 Revolution is an empty argument. Lenin did dismantle workers' control, the essence of socialism,

This ignores historical context, as one Bolshevik said "we have dictatorship of the proletariat without the proletariat", the proletariat was a minority before 1917 and their power deteriorated quickly during the civil-war as the proletariat were the first to volunteer to fight and the rest moved back to the farms to survive as factories shutdown starving for men and material.



Trotsky did call for militarisation of labor, etc. None of these acts have a direct connection to "global capitalism", but with the situation at hand.
Have you read Trotsky's reasoning? His logic was that in a worker's state the workers should have nothing to fear from the state, and the State should fully control the unions. Yet Lenin's view this was "Introduction of genuine labor discipline is conceived only if the whole mass of participants in productions take a conscious part in the fulfillment of these tasks. This cannot be achieved by bureaucratic methods and orders from above"

[Charles Xavier]

He's talking about the role of the Russian Revolution in global terms according to Lenin as well, so your objection is false. Everything he said in this speech is true.

Besides, the "role of global capitalism" in the 1917 Revolution is an empty argument. Lenin did dismantle workers' control, the essence of socialism, Trotsky did call for militarisation of labor, etc. None of these acts have a direct connection to "global capitalism", but with the situation at hand.


Lenin dismantled workers control? Yet brought all power to the Soviets made production social and abolished exploitation, gave Peasants land, established a democratic peace, nationalized major industry and the banks without compensation, established an 8 hour work day, introduced price controls, open the warehouses of speculators and distributed food to the people, gave trade unions direct role in management, and fought counter-revolution and interventionists. What exactly did he do to dismantle worker's control?

Besides, the "dismantling worker's control" in the 1917 October Revolution is an empty argument


Hahaha, 'fascist, linguistically'.

fascist is a political term and can not be appliled very well to this science.

what about his linguistics do you considor fascist?


The fact he believes English to be the most supreme language in the world despite the fact he is monolingual

[Wanted Man]

He thinks that the US is "the greatest and freeest country in the world" and that the fall of the USSR was a victory for socialism. How misguided can a person be? He is an interesting liberal intellectual, nothing more.

[Revy]

He thinks that the US is "the greatest and freeest country in the world" and that the fall of the USSR was a victory for socialism. How misguided can a person be? He is an interesting liberal intellectual, nothing more.

Um, no he doesn't. How misguided can you be to even interpret it that way?

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

That is half-true, Serfdom was abolished yet fedualism persisted as peasants were still bound to the land through debt to the feudal land lords.People being bound by debt is capitalism. I agree that with the abolition of serfdom, the relationship between the peasants and their erstwhile feudal landlords changed its form and not its function. But the change was pretty much identical to that which happened as a result of the french revolution.


For the same reason why we can't just have a socialist commune. The rest of the capitalist world continue pressure Russia, Russian workers would have to compete with exploited workers in order to get capital to exchange for commodities that Russia didn't produce, Russia would have to spend resources in defense to protect itself from competing military powers.Take down the red&black flag avatar, it does not suit.

Russia is gigantic, there is no comparison with a bunch of guys starting a commune within capitalism. Anarchist spain was under blocade (so no imports) and at war. Its economic performance was fantastic. Russia is much larger than spain. A classless society would be well worth functioning in autarky, and the massive improvements in inovation/efficiency which would have resulted from workers self management would have allowed the economy to cope easily.

Efforts to ensure a classless society would ensure defence much better than a class society, where those in control are more scared of their own people than external agressors, and so endeavour to keep them weak and incapable of resistance. The people armed and encouraged to organise their defense and a culture of active engagement and organisation would be unconquerable.

Sure, any revolution will face chalenges. But if you think that a free society will fall at the first hurdle like this, then whats the point?


Most were soldiers in the armed forces.Those who determined bolshevik policy, lenin, trotsky et al sure weren't.

[Wanted Man]

"In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations. The United States comes closer to classlessness in terms of interpersonal relations than virtually any society." - Noam Chomsky 2003. Chomsky on Democracy & Education. Routledge. p. 399

How else can it be interpreted? Of course, after saying this, he goes on about how America is supposedly less authoritarian in social relations. But when he says "that's true too" about the US having very limited state coercion, and coupled with his statement on the USSR (which you didn't respond to), it shows an opinion on "freedom" and "authority" that is distinctly liberal.

[JimmyJazz]

Can you provide the quote for the USSR statement too? (I've read similar things by him, but would like to have a quote).

[Psy]

People being bound by debt is capitalism. I agree that with the abolition of serfdom, the relationship between the peasants and their erstwhile feudal landlords changed its form and not its function. But the change was pretty much identical to that which happened as a result of the french revolution.

Have you read Marx's capital?

Debt pre-dates capitalism, Money->Commodity->More Money is the cycle capitalism, the cycle of feudal lords in Russia was Commodity->Money->Commodity, they were not exploiting their ownership of production to accumulate ever more capital yet they simply exploited capital to maintain their levels of consumption without working.



Take down the red&black flag avatar, it does not suit.

I support anarcho-syndicalism, yet think for a second. In 1917 the Russian proletariat was a minority, the civil-war make the Russian proletariat even more of a minority and less militant as peasants took the ranks of the industrial workers lost during the civil-war.



Russia is gigantic, there is no comparison with a bunch of guys starting a commune within capitalism.

Russia was also primitive with few industries.



Anarchist spain was under blocade (so no imports) and at war. Its economic performance was fantastic. Russia is much larger than spain. A classless society would be well worth functioning in autarky, and the massive improvements in inovation/efficiency which would have resulted from workers self management would have allowed the economy to cope easily.

Anarchist Spain also lost to Pinochet, even if Anarchist Spain won the civil-war how would Spain defend itself against large imperialist powers like Britain, France and Germany in the long run? Socialism in one country just doesn't work, either the capitalist will conquer the socialist country or the socialist country would sacrifice socialism to transform into a armed camp to defend its borders from capitalists powers.



Efforts to ensure a classless society would ensure defence much better than a class society, where those in control are more scared of their own people than external agressors, and so endeavour to keep them weak and incapable of resistance. The people armed and encouraged to organise their defense and a culture of active engagement and organisation would be unconquerable.

Sure, any revolution will face chalenges. But if you think that a free society will fall at the first hurdle like this, then whats the point?

Those who determined bolshevik policy, lenin, trotsky et al sure weren't.
You are ignoring the context of the Russian revolution, Like GeorgiDimitrovII stated that the bolsheviks were righting for survival and against a violent reaction by the ruling classes.

[GPDP]

Anarchist Spain also lost to Pinochet

wut

[Psy]

wut

Opps, I mean Franco

[KC]

I support anarcho-syndicalism, yet think for a second. In 1917 the Russian proletariat was a minority, the civil-war make the Russian proletariat even more of a minority and less militant as peasants took the ranks of the industrial workers lost during the civil-war.

The proletariat in Russia was in a minority, but at the same time many peasants were drawn to side with the proletariat against the kulaks.


Russia was also primitive with few industries.

This is completely untrue. At the time of the revolution Russia was one of the most industrious countries in the world. It had one of the world's largest steel and coal industries worldwide, if I remember correctly.

Russia was a victim of imperialism, which is why it was so unevenly developed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Noam Chomsky is sometimes useful for his criticisms of U.S. imperialism, but not much else.

You're talking about an 'anarchist' who called on people to vote for John Kerry and who says the United States is the 'freest country in the world.'

[GPDP]

To be fair, he only really advocates voting if one lives in a swing state. Otherwise, he rarely votes, as he lives in Massachusetts, a solid "blue" state.

[Revy]

Well I don't really think that's better. He's telling people in "swing states" that voting socialist is a privilege they can't have because of their geography, to serve some weird ass logic. I live in Florida, a swing state, and I find such logic annoying.

The right thing to do would be to reject lesser evilism and capitalist options, not only the Democrat but also the Greens, and Nader and his self-movement.

[Glenn Beck]

Chomsky always seemed to me to encapsulate what it would mean to be a radical liberal. His writings and arguments tend to focus on the ways in which the liberal capitalist order fails to live up to its own standards of behavior in very damning ways. It doesn't seem like he, in his writing at least, goes beyond the farthest fringe of his own idiosyncratic radical liberalism, but he has lead a great many people, including myself, to realize the bankruptcy of liberal ideology through a sort of extended reductio ad absurdum. That, I think, is the value of his body of work given that its targeted to a first world and predominantly North American audience.

I'm sure we can all point to stupid shit he has said about how great the US is and he often falls into the kind of pointless moralism that characterizes liberalism. I also seem to recall that he supported the opposition in Nicaragua in the past year or two, which is pretty unconscionable to me given that no matter how corrupt Sandinismo gets, Nicaragua is still a major victim of imperialism. But I think he on the balance helps much more than he hurts, for a great many people he's served as a kind of gateway drug into leftism and in a country as reactionary as the US even being a Naderite or something is a hell of alot better than falling for the bipartisan sham.

I see him more as a commentator on current affairs and recent history, a media critic, and in some ways a muckraking journalist. He shouldn't be taken as, and I don't think he pretends to be, a serious political theorist.

[Chapter 24]

This must be a North American thing. Anarchists I have spoken about him to in Europe see him more as an interesting liberal.

Devrim

I'm not saying, at the least, that all anarchists worship Chomsky. There are just many that do - what's the word - "overappreciate" him.

[Dean]

Searching through the Internet I can across this question and answer part from an old lecture by Chomsky Chomsky on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism & the Soviet Union (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI), where Chomsky paints Bolshevism as anti-socialist yet Chomsky seems to pretend Russia was in a vacume and that global capitalism played no role in how the two Russian revolution of 1917 played out and played no role in the action of the Bolsheviks.

Just though it would be interesting to discus Chomsky's view on Bolshevism.

Chomsky doesn't "pretend that russia was in a vacuum." That's just an asinine attempt to color any opposition or criticism of USSR-ism as "narrow." He correctly asserts that the elitism of leninism ostracised the party from the working class, and subsequently helped invite the destruction of the revolution, by removing all traces of revolutionary character from the state.

[Psy]

Chomsky doesn't "pretend that russia was in a vacuum." That's just an asinine attempt to color any opposition or criticism of USSR-ism as "narrow." He correctly asserts that the elitism of leninism ostracised the party from the working class, and subsequently helped invite the destruction of the revolution, by removing all traces of revolutionary character from the state.
Yes he does, he kind of acknowledges that Bolsheviks were against the theory socialism in one country and mostly waiting for successful revolution in the west to drag out of its backwardness yet then pretends this was just political posturing. He also ignores that Lenin and Trotsky were trying to spread the revolution in the west even though they both knew that it would undermined the power base which is why Stalin revived the theory of stages to tell communists telling the underdeveloped world had have a capitalist revolution first then decades later they can think about a proletariat revolution.

Chomsky is a utopian waiting for the perfect revolution that will never accrue.

[Lamanov]

This ignores historical context, as one Bolshevik said "we have dictatorship of the proletariat without the proletariat", the proletariat was a minority before 1917 and their power deteriorated quickly during the civil-war as the proletariat were the first to volunteer to fight and the rest moved back to the farms to survive as factories shutdown starving for men and material.

First of all, there was enough of proletariat and peasantry that leaned towards socialism to actually establish something other than the vanguard-dictatorship. Second, proletariat still counted millions of people and it was self-organised. Third, the closing down of factories was the product of a crisis that workers were ready and willing to "fix" by their own means and self-organising through factory-committee movement, but Sovnarkom, in its desire to control and coordinate everything, put a halt on those attempts.


Have you read Trotsky's reasoning? His logic was that in a worker's state the workers should have nothing to fear from the state, and the State should fully control the unions. Yet Lenin's view this was "Introduction of genuine labor discipline is conceived only if the whole mass of participants in productions take a conscious part in the fulfillment of these tasks. This cannot be achieved by bureaucratic methods and orders from above"

Yet, discipline was forced from above without any scruples simply by decreeing that the Government (Sovnarkom) now represents the "Workers' State". There was no logic in these explanations.

Lenin wasn't about to wait for "self-discipline". He and Trotsky wanted "Discipline Now!"


Lenin dismantled workers control? Yet brought all power to the Soviets made production social and abolished exploitation, gave Peasants land, established a democratic peace, nationalized major industry and the banks without compensation, established an 8 hour work day, introduced price controls, open the warehouses of speculators and distributed food to the people, gave trade unions direct role in management, and fought counter-revolution and interventionists. What exactly did he do to dismantle worker's control?

Yes, he dismantled workers' control. It wasn't he that brought "all the power to the Soviets"; Soviets did not abolish exploitation; factory committees tried to abolish exploitation, but Sovnarkom and Vesenka abolished them and introduced state-run exploitation; Peasants did get the land only to get requisition squads; peace wasn't democratic, since most of people in Russia didn't want such a peace offered and signed at Brest-Litovsk; unions were given a "direct role in the management" only in a bourgeois sence, i. e. union bureaucracy was supervising the discipline of the workers at work; etc.

[Dean]

Yes he does, he kind of acknowledges that Bolsheviks were against the theory socialism in one country and mostly waiting for successful revolution in the west to drag out of its backwardness yet then pretends this was just political posturing.
It was political posturing. How can you call Chomsky "idealist" when you have such a naive view of Lenin, a Machiavellian character? Chomsky of course completely acknowledges that Bolsheviks believed in global revolution, but points out the disparity between that and their nationalist actions.


He also ignores that Lenin and Trotsky were trying to spread the revolution in the west even though they both knew that it would undermined the power base which is why Stalin revived the theory of stages to tell communists telling the underdeveloped world had have a capitalist revolution first then decades later they can think about a proletariat revolution.
Rhetorically, of course they were trying. In fact, their resources were spent in a Russo-nationalist fashion, as to be expected. Further, it was an elitist endeavor.

Now, I'm willing to submit that Lenin and Trotsky had good intentions. But their intelligentsia-cracy is simply counterrevolutionary. Everything about Marxism completely contradicts that system, I don't accept that it is revolutionary in any capacity.


Chomsky is a utopian waiting for the perfect revolution that will never accrue.
The typical kind of insult you'll seen targeted against any more productive, more egalitarian system. It seems like leftists like to place themselves somewhere on the spectrum between anarchy and decentralized government, and always criticize those who fall farther from the norm. This is a reactionary position which puts us all closer to the shit situation our society experiences today.

[Post-Something]

Noam Chomsky is sometimes useful for his criticisms of U.S. imperialism, but not much else.

You're talking about an 'anarchist' who called on people to vote for John Kerry and who says the United States is the 'freest country in the world.'

Ditto.

[Psy]

It was political posturing. How can you call Chomsky "idealist" when you have such a naive view of Lenin, a Machiavellian character? Chomsky of course completely acknowledges that Bolsheviks believed in global revolution, but points out the disparity between that and their nationalist actions.

It may have also been political posturing but it was a huge issue, have you forgotten that Lenin had a huge fight with the Bolshevik party over this point and it cost him dearly at the time? That it was a uphill battle to direct the Bolsheviks towards permanent revolution and away from stages as most communists even outside Russia at the time thought Russia first had to have a capitalist revolution then after capitalism matured they could talk about communism. Even with the theory of permanent revolution it still meant socialism in one country (i.e. socialism in Russia) was off the table that really all they could do was move towards socialism as far as global capitalism would allow.

That is unless Chomsky subscribes to they theory of socialism in one country, which goes against Marx as Marx clearly stated capitalism was a global system and that it heavily effected individual nations.



Rhetorically, of course they were trying. In fact, their resources were spent in a Russo-nationalist fashion, as to be expected. Further, it was an elitist endeavor.

So it was elitist to try and create revolution that would overshadow Russia? Both Lenin and Trotsky knew that Revolution in say Germany would mean that Russia would have quickly become insignificant in world socialism.

[PRC-UTE]

can someone go more into his linguistic theories, if they're useful or not? (someone referred to them as fascist earlier is why I ask)

[RebelDog]

Noam Chomsky is sometimes useful for his criticisms of U.S. imperialism, but not much else.

You're talking about an 'anarchist' who called on people to vote for John Kerry and who says the United States is the 'freest country in the world.'

Which countries in the world are freer than USA and why? He isn't calling it a utopia.
If he is as useless and deluded as you say it should be easy for you to refute what he is saying about the Russian revolution.

[KC]

If he is as useless and deluded as you say it should be easy for you to refute what he is saying about the Russian revolution.

It is easy, and has been done countless times.

[Sasha]

can someone go more into his linguistic theories, if they're useful or not? (someone referred to them as fascist earlier is why I ask)

:confused: fascist? how the hell would the overtrow of skinners behaviorism in favor of cognitive psychology be fascist?
most modern linguistics and psychologists consider Chomsky's work as groundbreaking and accepted proven science.
anyway, if your intrested in chomsky's scientific thoughts i would encourage you to start with his wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
it explains it better than i could.

[Sean]

can someone go more into his linguistic theories, if they're useful or not? (someone referred to them as fascist earlier is why I ask)
Chomsky has always said that his linguistic theory is seperate from political work. However its certainly noticable in his writing when he analyses the language used in the media, political speeches etc. The main reason he stresses that the two are unrelated is to break down the notions that he is somehow "allowed" to speak on such matters because he is an academic, something which lots of the dwellers of Ivory Towers like to have people believe. While his expertise in the field sometimes shows in some of the methods he uses to explain events, the two are not particularly connected, if anything its closer to a mannerism than an overlapping field.
Anyway back to the question at hand. To say that Noam Chomsky's advances in linguistics are fascist makes as much sense as inferring the sexual orientation of a scientist because he is a Biologist. GeorgiDimitrovII (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=17356) is a troll sockpuppet and why the account hasn't been killed yet, God knows.
[05:46] <Georgidimitrovii> All women cook and clean
[05:46] <Georgidimitrovii> its their role in society
[05:46] <Georgidimitrovii> and to work full time and take care of the kids
[05:46] <Georgidimitrovii> and serve their men
[05:46] <Georgidimitrovii> by giving them beer and sex
[18:11] <OI_OI_OI> my latest trolling is kind of clever
[18:12] <OI_OI_OI> especialy on the learning section
[18:12] <OI_OI_OI> and its not about sucking cock this timeThe same person. Ignore it.

[PRC-UTE]

I thought that sounded pretty absurd, but wanted to see what the story was, or rather if there was one.

I'm familiar with the basics of his arguments about language. I read a bit on it but it was a long time ago.

thanks.

[Hessian Peel]

"If the Left is understood to include 'Bolshevism', then I would flatly dissociate myself from the Left."

^ Noam Chomsky. Chomsky On Anarchism p. 182.

[Led Zeppelin]

If history has taught us something it's that Chomsky is a political joker. Sure, he whines (writes) a lot and gives a lot of speeches and lectures, but since he doesn't connect that to any real political solution it is pretty much pointless.

His solution is some vague notion of "community democracy", where he advises people to get involved in their community and "participate more" and "look critically at the news and find your own news sources". Wow, that's for that great contribution. We never knew that it was a good idea to do all that.

Now, having told us that, Mr. Chomsky, how do you propose we work on building and organizing a new revolutionary socialist political party? Oh, right, we're supposed to vote Democrat.

It's hilarious that someone like him criticizes serious revolutionaries like Lenin and Trotsky.

[Sasha]

"If the Left is understood to include 'Bolshevism', then I would flatly dissociate myself from the Left."

^ Noam Chomsky. Chomsky On Anarchism p. 182.

thanx for the quote, i like him now even more :lol:

[RebelDog]

There are people here who are simply attacking Chomsky personally and not addressing what he says about the Bolsheviks. Could at least one Trotskyist/leninist attempt to refute his claims.

[Psy]

There are people here who are simply attacking Chomsky personally and not addressing what he says about the Bolsheviks. Could at least one Trotskyist/leninist attempt to refute his claims.

Well Chomsky downplays the socialism in one question as if Lenin and Trotsky was only against socialism in one question for personal political gains, ignoring that this stance personally hurt Lenin and Trotsky politically. Chomsky ignores the stages debate that took place in Russia and the significance of this debate, and ignore what the theory of permanent revolution meant and that this theory has root is the writings of Marx.

[Rascolnikova]

"look critically at the news and find your own news sources". Wow, that's for that great contribution. We never knew that it was a good idea to do all that.


Actually, I didn't know, when I first encountered Chomsky. Everyone has to start somewhere.

[Led Zeppelin]

Actually, I didn't know, when I first encountered Chomsky. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Good for you and everyone else who didn't know and needed Chomsky to tell them, but now that you do know that, he doesn't really have much more to offer, does he?

[Wanted Man]

There are people here who are simply attacking Chomsky personally and not addressing what he says about the Bolsheviks. Could at least one Trotskyist/leninist attempt to refute his claims.
Refute what? You mean having the whole Kronstadt, Goldman, Makhno, Spanish Civil War, etc. debates all over again? Those are just isolated issues that anarchists and "bolsheviks" on RevLeft will be debating for all eternity, but the issues themselves are not the core of the matter, that Chomsky takes a certain position on them is not the problem.

The problem is that Chomsky applies hypocritical standards between the "bolsheviks" and the rest of the "left". He endorses the Democrats as the viable left option, but he doesn't think that the bolsheviks are part of the "left". He thinks the US is the greatest and freeest country in the world, but he thinks that the fall of the former USSR is "a victory for socialism".

Virulent anti-communism is nothing new on the "left". It's the one issue where left liberals, social-democrats, "democratic socialists" (quotation marks, because the term can have lots of meanings) and some anarchists can all agree on: "bolshevism" is an enemy akin to capitalism or fascism, it cannot be reconciled with. The fall of the USSR may have constituted an economic and demographic rape of massive proportions, but at least it saved the "good name" of "the left".*

*This position also happens to place the importance of ideological image above material reality, yet another way in which these "lefts" embrace liberal mumbo jumbo. Communists, anti-revisionists, and even most maoists and trotskyists, as well as some other anarchists, can at least agree that the fall of the USSR removed the last remains of the gains of the working class in the former USSR, regardless of whether they considered it socialist, a degenerated workers' state, state capitalist, or whatever, and that it was not a thing to be cheerful about in any way.

[Charles Xavier]

Chomsky has always said that his linguistic theory is seperate from political work. However its certainly noticable in his writing when he analyses the language used in the media, political speeches etc. The main reason he stresses that the two are unrelated is to break down the notions that he is somehow "allowed" to speak on such matters because he is an academic, something which lots of the dwellers of Ivory Towers like to have people believe. While his expertise in the field sometimes shows in some of the methods he uses to explain events, the two are not particularly connected, if anything its closer to a mannerism than an overlapping field.
Anyway back to the question at hand. To say that Noam Chomsky's advances in linguistics are fascist makes as much sense as inferring the sexual orientation of a scientist because he is a Biologist. GeorgiDimitrovII (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=17356) is a troll sockpuppet and why the account hasn't been killed yet, God knows.The same person. Ignore it.

I'm not a sock puppet of OI OI OI or a troll. I remember OI OI OI, he was on the board while I was still here. If you recall I debated OI OI OI against Entryism and his trotskyite clique fightback.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/statement-communist-party-t86978/index.html?p=1222209#post1222209

I was being sarcastic in the Chatroom. As if I am the most reactionary of people on here.

Concerning Noam Chomsky's linguistic theories are bs. He has made some contributions but his main work is very Anglo-centric. Saying English is the most superior language because of its use of auxiliary verbs, while not speaking or studying any other languages.

[PRC-UTE]

It's hilarious that someone like him criticizes serious revolutionaries like Lenin and Trotsky.

that's just it- a bourgeois professor attacking actual revolutionaries is a bit of a cliche like.

[scarletghoul]

Better than 'actual revolutionaries' killing and suppressing actual revolutionaries

>>

[Comrade_Red]

Chomsky is a genius. i don't agree with him on everything, but the man is a genius.

[Comrade_Red]

Chomsky is a utopian waiting for the perfect revolution that will never accrue.

like many people on this site, it seems...

[Rascolnikova]

Good for you and everyone else who didn't know and needed Chomsky to tell them, but now that you do know that, he doesn't really have much more to offer, does he?

Awe. . . I appreciate a view that makes me so important, but I think there are actually other people who he can be of use to as well. :)

A lot of other people.

[Led Zeppelin]

Awe. . . I appreciate a view that makes me so important, but I think there are actually other people who he can be of use to as well. :)

A lot of other people.

Sorry but I think you missed a part of my post, I wasn't just referring to you, I also said: "Good for you and everyone else who didn't know and needed Chomsky to tell them..."

[Tower of Bebel]

What is there to refute? He doesn't say much about the Bolsheviks, I can't find an example where he analysed the Bolsheviks. So I expect his views to be similar to his solution to bourgeois class supremacy today: just another radical, (petty) bourgeois view of society that can only give the workers some radical trade union consciousness; not a revolutionary, socialist consciousness.

[Rascolnikova]

Sorry but I think you missed a part of my post, I wasn't just referring to you, I also said: "Good for you and everyone else who didn't know and needed Chomsky to tell them..."

Everyone else who didn't, past tense--and now that you know, singular. Believe it or not, there are still quite a few who haven't caught on. . . and I believe Chomsky will continue to be useful to that population for some time.

[Led Zeppelin]

Everyone else who didn't, past tense--and now that you know, singular. Believe it or not, there are still quite a few who haven't caught on. . . and I believe Chomsky will continue to be useful to that population for some time.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

I said in the past tense "good for you and everyone else who didn't know and needed Chomsky", meaning that it was actually a good thing, meaning that it would still be a good thing in the future.

However I also said that beyond that, he doesn't have anything else to offer.

[Rascolnikova]

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

You included no future tense usefulness of chomsky. . . . and no, I'm just being compulsively precise about language.

it really is compulsive, before I notice it.:blushing:

[ernie]

thanx for the quote, i like him now even more :lol:
Well, the problem is that Chomsky criticizes the USSR because it was "immoral", as opposed to criticizing it because it didn't lead to communism. One must come to the conclusion that even if the USSR had led to communism, Chomsky would have still opposed it based on moral grounds. That's just silly...

[Chapter 24]

Better than 'actual revolutionaries' killing and suppressing actual revolutionaries


Um, I thought you were very fond of Mao. He was very fond of these, as you describe them, 'actual revolutionaries' killing and suppressing actual revolutionaries'. Why all the hate for the Bolsheviks and all the love for Mao, especially when the latter claimed to be following Marxism-Leninism?

[Sean]

I'm not a sock puppet of OI OI OI or a troll. I remember OI OI OI, he was on the board while I was still here. If you recall I debated OI OI OI against Entryism and his trotskyite clique fightback.
Forgive me for confusing your trolling with someone elses. If you are not the same person then that means that there are two Canadian dicks hanging around deliberately trying to piss off people. I'm not convinced that you aren't him, nor do I particularly care - trolling is trolling and all I've ever heard out of you on IRC was nasty bullshit, joke or not, so I have no intention of picking through your posts to see which ones are serious and which ones are to wind people up.

Good for you and everyone else who didn't know and needed Chomsky to tell them, but now that you do know that, he doesn't really have much more to offer, does he?


Sorry but I think you missed a part of my post, I wasn't just referring to you, I also said: "Good for you and everyone else who didn't know and needed Chomsky to tell them..."
This argument reminds me of a bit in Monty Python's The Life of Brian; What have the Romans ever given us? (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IaE3EaQte78)
However, I will admit that his points are really labored in his books. He brings everything back to what happened in South America or Vietnam, "This one time, in band camp..." :)
Like Rasco, it took Chomsky to spell it out for me, and, regardless of his specific ideas for revolution (or lack of them as has been rightfully mentioned in this thread) pointing out problems alone is sometimes constructive too, especially when noone else in the mainstream will do so in such terms. If you don't like his politics, fine, but I still recommend him and consider some of his work as central to my political makeup.

[ZeroNowhere]

Chomsky is a utopian waiting for the perfect revolution that will never accrue.
Must we always resort to cliched and silly attacks?

[Rascolnikova]

I am sorry, but is Chomsky actually working against capitalism? Is he a member of a revolutionary party and spend his time on actual issues reflected through succinct polemics, as opposed to long books only other intellectuals would read? As far as I know, he writes some good debunking of the undemocratic nature of bourgeois rule, but isn't he like a professor at a bourgeois university or something?

Seriously, Chomsky might have a point when he is a revolutionary, not a writer.

Calling the university system Bourgeois is a becoming a questionable prospect these days, depending on how one uses the term, since a Bachelors functions much like a HS diploma used to in the job market. .

[Sean]

I am sorry, but is Chomsky actually working against capitalism? Is he a member of a revolutionary party and spend his time on actual issues reflected through succinct polemics, as opposed to long books only other intellectuals would read?Your criticism of Chomsky is that his books are too wordy? A child could read Chomsky. I'll be sure to pass on your suggestions to him. A pop-up book version of Necessary Illusions perhaps?
As far as I know, he writes some good debunking of the undemocratic nature of bourgeois rule, but isn't he like a professor at a bourgeois university or something?
Translation: I have just googled "Noam Chomsky". The amount of knowledge I have of Chomsky could be written on the pack of a cigarette carton however rather than letting frivolous matters like knowing anything of the subject I'll just type something here.

Seriously, Chomsky might have a point when he is a revolutionary, not a writer.That makes no sense. You just implied that you are unfamilar with his work, what point are you refuting and what spirits are you channeling that tell you what to write if this opinion you have has just been pulled out of the fucking air?

Tell me, while we're here have you any other works that you have never read but nevertheless want to voice an opinion on? Give me a review of Gulliver's Travels assuming you havent cheated and actually read it. Go on, just hammer away at the keyboard again.:laugh:

[Yoghourt]

Chomsky is a fucking fascist linguistically.
I'd be interested in your reasons for thinking that...

On the subject of Russian state-capitalism, however, Chomsky is absolutely correct. The intention of the Bolsheviks was to establish state-capitalism and that is precisely what they did. Now, Lenin, being the confused anti-working class moron that he was, thought that the working class were too stupid too understand Marx, and that they had to have socialism imposed on them from above by a revolutionary elite. (There is little, if anything, in Marx to support this notion.) Whereas Marx spoke ofthe dictatorship of the proletariat as a means of facillitating the development of the then fragmented means of production to the point where socialism would become possible, Lenin actually initiated a dictatorship over the proletariat. And from there it was but a short step to Stalin's atrocities, which, as we know, rivalled Hitler's.

[manic expression]

I'd be interested in your reasons for thinking that...

On the subject of Russian state-capitalism, however, Chomsky is absolutely correct. The intention of the Bolsheviks was to establish state-capitalism and that is precisely what they did. Now, Lenin, being the confused anti-working class moron that he was, thought that the working class were too stupid too understand Marx, and that they had to have socialism imposed on them from above by a revolutionary elite. (There is little, if anything, in Marx to support this notion.) Whereas Marx spoke ofthe dictatorship of the proletariat as a means of facillitating the development of the then fragmented means of production to the point where socialism would become possible, Lenin actually initiated a dictatorship over the proletariat. And from there it was but a short step to Stalin's atrocities, which, as we know, rivalled Hitler's.

Your argument is beyond absurd. First, the intention of the Bolsheviks was certainly not to establish state-capitalism; unless of course you define state-capitalism as the abolition of private property and of capitalism itself, both of which was carried out thanks to the Bolsheviks. When most of the Bolshevik leaders talked of state-capitalism, it was in reference to the later NEP, which is hardly what you or Chomsky are referring to. Nevertheless, the immediate and lasting result of Lenin's leadership was the establishment of Soviet power and the abolition of capitalism.

As has been stated about a million times, a vanguard is not separate from the main body. The vanguard of the working class is inherently part of the working class. It is the contention of the anarchists that if the most politically advanced and dedicated workers organize themselves and further the interests of their class, they are no longer workers! Your manufactured indignation is nothing but a denial of class conflict itself. Further, Lenin did not think the working class incapable of understanding Marx, far from it. The Bolsheviks were singular in their concerted efforts to spread Marxism throughout the proletariat. Lenin did think, and realistically so, that not every worker could possibly be a committed revolutionary. Did you even try to understand this fact, or did you simply parrot the anarchist slogans you've heard in the past?

And how did the Bolsheviks initiate anything but a dictatorship of the proletariat? They put the Soviets fully in power and made those councils the central pillar of the new state. Lenin was elected to his office through the Soviets themselves, meaning the organs of working class power supported him, meaning your blind hatred of Lenin is misled and naive.

[Sendo]

I find Chomsky to worried more with the spirit of a policy than its effects sometimes. I don't blame him for blaming Lenin/Trot elitism for making the USSR authoritarian. I don't agree fully, but I understand.

In this regard he differs from guys like Parenti who mention that flawed as the USSR was, it pulled millions out of serfdom. Sometimes Chomsky comes off a bit foggy and I don't really understand what he wants. He seems as quick to condemn the USSR as to condemn US foreign policy in the Cold War, which seems disproportionate to me. Many arachists and leftcommies are like that, tohough.

[Charles Xavier]

I'd be interested in your reasons for thinking that...

On the subject of Russian state-capitalism, however, Chomsky is absolutely correct. The intention of the Bolsheviks was to establish state-capitalism and that is precisely what they did. Now, Lenin, being the confused anti-working class moron that he was, thought that the working class were too stupid too understand Marx, and that they had to have socialism imposed on them from above by a revolutionary elite. (There is little, if anything, in Marx to support this notion.) Whereas Marx spoke ofthe dictatorship of the proletariat as a means of facillitating the development of the then fragmented means of production to the point where socialism would become possible, Lenin actually initiated a dictatorship over the proletariat. And from there it was but a short step to Stalin's atrocities, which, as we know, rivalled Hitler's.
I've answered this previously in the thread. Chomsky's idea of the English language is the most superior language because of its "adaptability" and use of auxiliary verbs. Yet he only speaks 1 language and doesn't prove his point. Completely ignoring the economic reasoning behind English being widely spoken.

[RedSonRising]

After reading much of Chomsy, I find him the most valuable source for information. True, he isn't protesting and dedicating his life to a current of lefist action, but the wealth of insight and the advantage he takes in being a respected intellectual allows his libertarian socialist perspective to shed light on many topics. He is quick to criticize both the USSR and the United States in their forein policy, but both were Class-ruled governments with opressive policies towards many of their neighboring countries (satellite countries, Latin America) and little to aid the virtues of democracy or workers' control they preached in the wake of their revolution. Both countries betrayed their original doctrines by eventually reverting to authoritarianism. and Chomsky's objective nature is important. As Rosa said, Marxism is at its best with self critical, and Communists, even Leninists, must recognize that justice is the key to the socialist movement, and that putting that justice aside for the sake of a greater political goal is simply wrong. Chomksy uses capitalism as a way to reach the masses with his books, undoing it, and he is a great writer and researcher. I disagree with but respect many of his views, and regardless he is too smart a man to ride off as hypocritically lazy or not revolutionary enough. How can any leftist simply bow to a country that waves a red flag when it commits the same atrocities as market-chasing nations? A Socialist's sense of right and wrong cannot be offput by superficial politics.

[paul c]

Chomsky's critique of US imperialism is second to none but he is a typical ultra-leftist, he commits the very same error that he wrongfully accuses the bolsheviks of. He is a bourgeois intellectual who is distant from the class struggle itself but likes to criticize when things go wrong, as a member of a vanguard party I would like to say at least we engage day to day with the working class. He account of Lenin, Trotsky and the Russian revolution is misleading a number of ways. Firstly he acusses Lenin of of being a "right" deviation from the mainstream left Marxism of the time. Well the mainstream current within the movement of the time was actually the growing right "evolutionary" current based on Burnstein's work "evolutionary socialism". Lenin was to left of this current arguing that in the advanced countries the conditions were ripe for a socialist revolution. When it came to the less advanced countries such as Russia he was until 1914 pretty much in agreement with the mainstream of the second international that the revolution to overthrow autocracy would be the work of the proletariat but they would only go as far installing capitalism. Whereas Trotsky on the other hand argued for the theory of permanent revolution, which argued that in less advanced countries the workers could carry through a socialist revolution which would in tern inspire revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries, so there was genuine disagreement between the two. When 1917 came around the views of the two kind of met in the middle as since the outbreak of world war one Lenin had been arguing that revolution was imminent in the west so a socialist revolution in Russia could be be successful as they would only have to wait a short time for help from the advanced western counties. This pretty much fit in with Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution.
Chomsky commits the classic mistake here of calling October a coup. What actually happened in Russia was that a situation of dual rule developed. You had the Duma, the bourgeois government in struggle with the Soviets. The bolsheviks by October held a democratic majority in the soviets and through the armed organs of the soviets the red guards carried out October with a democratic mandate from the working class. The mistake Chomsky makes here is that he expects all revolutions to be crowds marching through the streets singing songs and chanting, things don't always work the way in reality, a revolution isn't simply a romantic aesthetic. It doesn't make October any less of a revolution. By saying that it was a coup he simply delegitimizes the very thing he seems to by trying to defend, the independent organizations of the working class, the soviets.
Another claim that Chomsky makes is that Lenin changed his views during 1917, so that he could be more in tune with "spontaneous" and "Libertarian" mood of the revolution. This is not true, yes he did change his mind, but the situation had changed and the difference between a Marxist and a dogmatist is that a Marxist will change their methods to what best suits the situation. So whilst Lenin argued that under Tzarism the Bolshevik party had to be a secret underground organization of professional revolutionaries to avoid cadres being captured by the secret police, in 1917 the party became a broad mass party. This demonstrated when you look at the debates that occurred between 1917 and 28 between the main currents and factions in the party, hardly the monolith people make it out to be. As for the spontaneous nature of events Lenin argued that yes the initial stages of a revolution are spontaneous but without leadership and organization the movement would lose steam and peter out. This seems correct if you look at history, can anyone name me one example of a successful leadershipless movement?.
And finally we come to the accusation that Lenin and Trotsky destroyed the soviets. Now it is true Lenin banned other parties. But those other parties had rose up against the soviets with arms, so what else were the Bolsheviks to do?. Also people usually forget to mention that the first Soviet government was a coalition of the Bolsheviks and Left SR's, until the Left SR's to turned on the soviets. Many Soviets themselves were destroyed during the civil war by advancing White Guards, so when they were re-founded they lacked the same organic bottom up nature and were inevitably weaker having lost some of the more able personnel during the fighting. If anyone has ever taken the time to read the first constitution of the USSR you will also find that nowhere does it ban other parties, other parties didn't exist simply because they had either merged into the Communist Party or betrayed the revolution other didn't emerge because there were no leaders or positions that had any credibility amongst the workers or peasants at the time. It was only in 1936 after the consolidation of the counter revolution that opposition parties were banned by clause 6 of the "Stalin" constitution.
So far from the facts backing up Chomsky's version of events, you will actually find that Chomsky has swallowed the captalist medias line hook line and sinker. His comparison with Trotsky is just daft because Trotsky saw what happened for himself and worked out his own analysis, it just sounds like Chomsky has watched a documentary about the Russian revolution the discovery channel. Besides don't get me started on the appalling record of "Anarchists" and "Libertarians" like Peter Kropotkin backing the imperialist war and then the liberal Duma during 1917.
Any way don't take my word for it to find out more I suggest you read "What Is To Be Done" and the "State and Revolution" by Lenin "Ten Days That Shook The World" by John Reed for an account that captures the mood of the time, if not the accurate facts, "The History Of The Russian Revolution" by Trotsky for a factual account and "The Revolution Betrayed" again by Trotsky for accurate analysis of the Soviet states degeneration.

[lyoung777]

I don't know how old this thread is, I came on it in a search, but I wanted to comment:

I think we should be careful in hasty dismissals or criticisms of Chomsky that may result in a definite reductionism of his very (I think no one can dispute this) views on political, historical, etc., matters. I.e., don't write him off because he "endorsed Kerry" or wrote something negative about Lenin (both of which I think are much more complex issues of his overall ideology than merely simple "Chomsky's bad" or "Chomsky's good"). He should be criticized scientifically, or as close to scientific analysis can approach such matters. That is, PARSING his ideas while attempting to understand them in an overall context (his general and/or basic thought context). This would include looking at his ideas on reform (including statements that "endorse" medicare, social security, and a host of other New Deal/Great Society type programs), his criticisms of the Bolsheviks (which, I think, should be looked at in the context of US political spectrum, which I think he sometimes is influenced by—that is, the requirements of being a public mouthpiece for far left viewpoints has effected such a viewpoint, for whatever indirect causal reasons), his statements on anarchism (and its relation to his linguistics work, despite what he says about it being unconnected: I think one must note that Chomsky takes a position, as displayed in the Manufacturing Consent film excerpt of his interview with Bill Moyer, which conceives of the human brain, specifically in terms of the nature of language, as predisposed to expression, i.e., predisposed to, as he says in the documentary, creativity; which I think is intimately linked to his conception of “how” anarchism is possible—meaning, it is not utopian, the mind’s functions are available to creative transformation), his ideas on the nature of power at its essence (which relate to everything in his work, not simply economic/etc situations, but any situation or natural phenomena, which reaches down to his implicit/explicit rejection of rhetoric when attempting to talk to an audience and so on, ...he seems to have an analysis of capital “p” Power that avoids the negative traps and foxholes of Foucaltian analysis, but which still maintains a very skeptical analysis of any impulse toward power, the backend of which is that it might lead to repression and any host of more extreme atrocities), and so on (I mean one must parse his ideas as well as one can, considering all the evidence without prejudgment). I do not say this as a Chomsky “fan” or obsessee, or whatnot, as I find only part of his work valuable (i.e., I’m not an anarchist, and don’t apologize for anything he does); I say this in the desire of bringing his life (which will probably shortly end, as he’s 80 I think, and his wife just died) into proper focus. He is, from my manner of thinking at least, the essential 20th (and 21st, of what we’ve had) century analyst of US foreign policy (and the way in which “states” work in general). He is, as has been suggested by many, including himself, a tool for the revolutionary class against the oppressor(s), --I mean he is surpassed by no one in the meticulousness of his analysis of the wrongdoing (and the NATURE of the wrongdoing, i.e., THAT IT GOES ON CONTINUALLY, and will CONTINUE to do so), and in the convincing nature of his style of presentation. He is subtle, piercing, and elaborate in his decipherment of the “documentary record” and what it literally means; he does so with a scientific eye—meaning he works in the way of a scientist going over details of evidence. And so on (w/respect to his work analyzing the state, especially the US state). Beyond that, he has “passion” for what he is doing. He is a good example, at least of principle, for any revolutionary. He may not be a good model for the life of a revolutionary (i.e., he’s not Lenin or Mao, as militaristic, aggressive personality, which is required for such a role), but he is a good example of principle (one also has to consider Chomsky’s personality: he is a timid, shy, scholarly character; he’s probably put his life to better use than he could have in any other way, analyzing meticulously the facts of American oppression—and other states’ oppression). His “passion” and where it is directed can be criticized—I disagree with his alignment with Emma Goldman so straightforwardly as he does it; the idea that “free speech” is possibly in a war zone revolution is absurd (unworkable)—which goes into the realm of theory and application of theory.

Anyway:

I’m a little drunk on gin and have mis-shaped this post with digressions and parentheses, so I’ll stop now...I suppose if I didn’t entirely register the sense you can ask me what I mean or take me up on whatever point, and I’ll try to explain or argue.

[Led Zeppelin]

lyoung, I trashed your last post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/spam-t98144/index.html?p=1319861#post1319861), please don't spam.

If people want to reply they will reply.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Chomsky always seemed to me to encapsulate what it would mean to be a radical liberal. His writings and arguments tend to focus on the ways in which the liberal capitalist order fails to live up to its own standards of behavior in very damning ways. It doesn't seem like he, in his writing at least, goes beyond the farthest fringe of his own idiosyncratic radical liberalism, but he has lead a great many people, including myself, to realize the bankruptcy of liberal ideology through a sort of extended reductio ad absurdum. That, I think, is the value of his body of work given that its targeted to a first world and predominantly North American audience.

I'm sure we can all point to stupid shit he has said about how great the US is and he often falls into the kind of pointless moralism that characterizes liberalism. I also seem to recall that he supported the opposition in Nicaragua in the past year or two, which is pretty unconscionable to me given that no matter how corrupt Sandinismo gets, Nicaragua is still a major victim of imperialism. But I think he on the balance helps much more than he hurts, for a great many people he's served as a kind of gateway drug into leftism and in a country as reactionary as the US even being a Naderite or something is a hell of alot better than falling for the bipartisan sham.

I see him more as a commentator on current affairs and recent history, a media critic, and in some ways a muckraking journalist. He shouldn't be taken as, and I don't think he pretends to be, a serious political theorist.
I'm not so his moralism is pointless. I think there is the strong argument to be made that his moralism serves as the conscience of Capitalism that allows it to continue. I highly recommend this essay by Slavoj Zizek where he criticizes the "critics" of capitalism like Mr. Chomskey


The response of some critics on the postmodern Left to this predicament is to call for a new politics of resistance. Those who still insist on fighting state power, let alone seizing it, are accused of remaining stuck within the ‘old paradigm’: the task today, their critics say, is to resist state power by withdrawing from its terrain and creating new spaces outside its control. This is, of course, the obverse of accepting the triumph of capitalism. The politics of resistance is nothing but the moralising supplement to a Third Way Left....

The lesson here is that the truly subversive thing is not to insist on ‘infinite’ demands we know those in power cannot fulfil. Since they know that we know it, such an ‘infinitely demanding’ attitude presents no problem for those in power: ‘So wonderful that, with your critical demands, you remind us what kind of world we would all like to live in. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where we have to make do with what is possible.’ The thing to do is, on the contrary, to bombard those in power with strategically well-selected, precise, finite demands, which can’t be met with the same excuse.

[lyoung777]

If people want to reply they will reply.

Sorry, I was actually quite high at the time and wanted a debate.

[Mister X]

I was going through that thread that had numerous talks about state-capitalism in Russia and all that usual talk . Also I saw attacks to Bolshevism that were so ridiculus such as" They were intellectuals and they wanted to take power by force that why Bolshevism is so appealing to intellectuals"

But of course all these ideas are thrown out with 0 justification and when the justification comes, it comes with false facts , assumptions and no scientific evidence.
I wonder how people take that stuff for granted.
I can say elephants fly, why can't you believe me about that but you believe similar statements with the same amount of justification?

On another note Noam Chomsky is really good on analyzing capitalism but he is careful not to tell us how we can get rid of it. No alternative and no tactics towards realizing this alternative. Chomsky is the classic example of the pseudo-radical petit bourgeois intellectual who is so isolated due to the objective conditions he lives in that he has a distorted view of the world.