>Now these are serious crimes that Washington has levied against a sovereign state… and we have to remember that is the United States who disrupted the democratically elected governments of these regions… and I myself have met officials of these governments, and personally, I wasn't their strongest supporter by any means, in fact, my criticisms exist in the record… but it's completely not what the mainstream media is painting them as… your listeners only have to spend some time on this to see how much of a blatant lie the United States has peddled, I mean…
>One need only look at the literature… I mean, it's really quite astounding, when one merely acquaints oneself with what's out there… it's a complete falsity, I'm afraid, and these war aims, I mean, they're overwhelmingly fabricated, and none of the sweeping anti-privacy laws and draconian policies brought in are even justified, they’re not even justified… and they’re so regarded, in fact, by mainstream western Marxists that this criminal state’s, which is essentially what the United States is, this criminal state’s casus belli cannot be supported even by Washington's own legal frameworks… just take them at their word and it falls apart… America is just acting like a rogue state… completely, utterly terroristic—a pariah in the global community. It's really quite appalling from any normative ethical point of view.
And he’s right
And he’s right
And he‘s right
Chomsky talks I go zzzzz ZZZz zzzZZZ Zzzzzzzz
If you're criticizing his slow cadence and constant pauses for breath when talking about anything in later media appearances, give the guy a break he's like 400 years old. I don't think he can even speak at all anymore since the stroke, he's pretty much got one foot in the grave at this point. It's sad that he'll be gone soon, there's not many brilliant thinkers like him in the world.
How the fuck is he still alive?????
>>2524984This man is the reason I became anarchist and believe in a better world (although the current situation is bleak). I admire him and see him like a father-figure even though I never met him. Im eternally grateful
>>2525269>I admire him and see him like a father-figurewtf and i thought MLs were retarded
Faurisson says hello to his old friend Chomsky
Some of (((us))) can be gommunists without a constant reminder on how to be a gommunisht
Isn't he an epsteinite
>>2525541he's the mastermind of the entire operation. but good luck getting him to admit it now.
>>2525620Based Chomskey standing up against TYRANNY
>>2525769whitest shit ive ever seen
>>2525773yuletide is an ancient holiday
>>2525774Celebrating Yuletide would be even whiter than celebrating Noam Chomsky day
>>2525775i am considering whiteness in this context to be a cultural affection, not an ethnic heritage. the hippies celebrating "noam chomsky day" exude whiteness more than they signal their european heritage.
>>2525776I wasn't talking about ethnic heritage either my friend. Pagan larping is about the whites thing a person can do
>>2525280Everyone thinks that ML/MLMs are the stupidest of socialist until they met any non marxist socialist
>>2525620nobody deny he is ultimately a lib, but at least he is an honest one, and he is pretty good at exposing his own country hypocrisy
I mean the guy is a lib, but he still correctly identified the ukraine war as nato fault, which place him above the pro nato ""anti campist"" crowd!
His contributions to linguistics theory don't get as much attention as his political commentary, but are arguably even more influential. Before Chomsky the field of linguistics was nothing but European nationalist pseudoscience and behavioralist B.F. Skinner bullshit. He was the first to propose the radical theory that language is not a learned behavior but an intrinsic biological structure of the brain and much evidence supports his theory and basically turned the entire field of linguistics on its head, proving that our entire understanding of human language is completely fundamentally wrong.
>>2525769holy shit that was funny.
>>2526158>His contributions to linguistics theory don't get as much attention as his political commentarythats because he was sponsored by MIT and his linguistic models were used for missile targeting systems and universal grammar is an idealist quantification that is equally pseudoscientific
https://neuburger.substack.com/p/chomsky-and-robinson-national-interest
<From The Myth of American Idealism, by Chomsky and Robinson
>Needless to say, because even oppressive, criminal, and genocidal governments cloak their atrocities in the language of virtue, none of this rhetoric should be taken seriously. There is no reason to expect Americans to be uniquely immune to self- delusion. If those who commit evil and those who do good always both profess to be doing good, national stories are worthless as tests of truth. Sensible people pay scant attention to declarations of noble intent by leaders, because they are a universal. What matters is the historical record.
>The received wisdom is that the United States is committed to promoting democracy and human rights (sometimes called “Wilsonian idealism” or “American exceptionalism”). But the facts are consistent with the following theory instead: The United States is very much like other powerful states. It pursues the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors of the domestic population. In practice, this means that the United States has typically acted with almost complete disregard for moral principle and the rule of law, except insofar as complying with principle and law serves the interests of American elites. There is little evidence of authentic humanitarian concern among leading statesmen, and when it does exist, it is acted upon only to the extent that doing so does not go against domestic elites’ interests. American foreign policy is almost never made in accordance with the stated ideals, and in fact is far more consistent with what Adam Smith called “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind” in “every age of the world,” namely: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people.”
>We might also call this the Mafia Doctrine. Its logic is straightforward and completely rational. The Godfather’s word is law. Those who defy the Godfather will be punished. The Godfather may be generous from time to time, but he does not tolerate disagreement. If some small storekeeper fails to pay protection money, the Godfather sends his goons, not just to collect the money, which he wouldn’t even notice, but to beat him to a pulp so that others do not get the idea that disobedience is permissible. But Godfathers, too, are known to convince themselves that they are kindly and benevolent.
>The term “national interest” is itself a euphemism, for what is usually meant is the interest of a small sector of wealthy domestic elites. The American working class, whose members die in the country’s wars, do not have their “interest” served in any way by the wars that kill them. Nor are their interests served by the government spending money on weapons that could be used to repair school buildings. Indeed, when American actions abroad are exposed to the judgment of public opinion, they often prove deeply unpopular with the “nation” whose “interests” they are supposedly serving. A sophisticated propaganda system must keep the public in the dark, for if the truth were known, it would become immediately apparent that the public has a very different view of its “interests” than U.S. elites have.
>We should also remember this the next time we hear talk about what “the Russians” or “Iran” have done. Totalitarians wish us to think that a country speaks with one voice, that it has a “national interest.” While it is the convention to refer to actions by the state as if they were actions by the country as a whole, and is unavoidable in discussions of policy, the formulation is ultimately misleading. The thousands of heroic antiwar protesters thrown in prison by Vladimir Putin have just as much claim to represent Russia as their ruler does. This is why it is an error to treat this book as arguing that “the United States is terrorist and destructive,” if the “United States” is understood to refer to some kind of collectivist of all Americans. Many in the United States have taken to the streets, and risked their lives and livelihoods, to oppose the acts of their government— when they have been permitted to learn about them, that is. >>2525766I thought his biggest L was that he's betty booj pro-US anarchist, everything else is just downstream from that.
I guess I'll just leave this here
https://redsails.org/on-chomsky/>>2525766It is just his anti-Tatar/Chuvash racism towards Great Lenin. Western Leftists love to do this, to shit on the backwards Attila-type Lenin and Stalin and to glaze on the wholesome NA and west/central European civilised thinkers like Pannekoek, Rosa, Emma Goldman etc. They will idealise POUM, the Catalan anarchists etc and shit on the scary Stalinists at every opportunity, when the latter were the most selfless comrades who were the most consistent, selfless and endured the greatest sacrifice.
Parenti dunked on him pretty well when Chomsky was like ‘who cares’ on the JFK assassination.
>>2525620Had socialism for a few weeks only, over by 1918.
Can Chomsky show us how the socialism was socialismising between October 1917 and 1918? Pretty sure there was a civil war going on. Would love to see those few weeks of soshalizum
>>2524984Maybe you should read his books instead of getting your information through podcasts
>>2525620Hes well read and smart enough to understand the basic argument that "socialism requires abolition of commodity production/money/capital" etc that Lenin outlined multiple times in his writings post 1918, also when Lenin explicitly called the USSR economy capitalist. So hes just opportunistically lying here.
This is why there is no leftcom well known intellectual in the West or anywhere really. There are far more popular and numerous Stalinist apologists in the West than Leftcoms. The real criticism of the USSR continues to remain suppressed, both by the ruling class and leftists.
>>2528232You are distorting what Lenin wrote about capitalism. He spoke about the NEP and the need to collectivize the petty-bourgeois peasants for collective labor in cooperatives to initiate economic planning throughout the economy, and this was achieved with Stalin through collectivization.
Let's start with the quotes, then:
<But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.
<Let us enumerate these elements:
<(1)patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;
<(2)small commodity production (this includcs the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);
<(3)private capitalism;
<(4)state capitalism;
<(5)socialism.
<Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific feature of the situation.
<The question arises: What elements predominate? Clearly, in a small-peasant country, the petty-bourgeois element predominates and it must predominate, for the great majority—those working the land—are small commodity producers. The shell of state capitalism (grain monopoly, state-controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain.
<It is in this field that the main struggle is being waged. Between what elements is this struggle being waged if we are to speak in terms of economic categories such as “state capitalism”? Between the fourth and fifth in the order in which I have just enumerated them? Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state-capitalist or state-socialist. This is an unquestionable fact of reality whose misunderstanding lies at the root of many economic mistakes. The profiteer, the commercial racketeer, the disrupter of monopoly—these are our principal “internal” enemies, the enemies of the economic measures of the Soviet power. A hundred and twenty-five years ago it might have been excusable for the French petty bourgeoisie, the most ardent and sincere revolutionaries, to try to crush the profiteer by executing a few of the “chosen” and by making thunderous declarations. Today, however, the purely French approach to the question assumed by some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries can arouse nothing but disgust and revulsion in every politically conscious revolutionary. We know perfectly well that the economic basis of profiteering is both the small proprietors, who are exceptionally widespread in Russia, and private capitalism, of which every petty bourgeois is an agent. We know that the million tentacles of this petty-bourgeois octopus now and again encircle various sections of the workers, that instead of state monopoly, profiteering forces its way into every pore of our social and economic organism.
<Those who fail to see this show by their blindness that they are slaves of petty-bourgeois prejudices….
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921, The Tax in Kind, (The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htmRemembering that the Soviet Union abolished private property, unemployment and all characteristics of capitalism for the planning of the economy. The state capitalism, small commodity production and private capitalism of the NEP by peasants in the rural sector were eventually abolished by Stalin who made the rest of the economy organized by a socialist economy according to an economic plan with state farms and agricultural cooperatives that do not compete for profit.
Marx and Engels supported the idea that a socialist revolution should be carried out as soon as possible without waiting for capitalism to develop “on its own” and destroy the peasantry. Lenin’s policy of worker-peasant alliance, developing of agricultural co-operatives and using state-capitalism as a transition from semi-feudalism and undeveloped capitalism to socialism is in accordance with Marx and Engels.
<We, of course, are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to make it possible for him to remain on his small holding for a protracted length of time to think the matter over, should he still be unable to bring himself to this decision. We do this not only because we consider the small peasant living by his own labor as virtually belonging to us, but also in the direct interest of the Party. The greater the number of peasants whom we can save from being actually hurled down into the proletariat, whom we can win to our side while they are still peasants, the more quickly and easily the social transformation will be accomplished. It will serve us no reason to wait with this transformation until capitalist production has developed everywhere to its extreme consequences, until the last small craftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale production.
<Engels, The Peasant Question in France and Germanyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htmThis is what Lenin said in 1923:
<Infinitely stereotyped, for instance, is the argument they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, but as certain “learned” gentleman among them put it, the objective economic premises for socialism do not exist in our country… “The development of the productive forces of Russia has not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible.” All the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, beat the drums about this proposition. They keep harping on this incontrovertible proposition in a thousand different keys, and think that it is decisive criterion of our revolution… You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?
<Lenin, “Our Revolution” (1923)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htmLenin reiterates that it is feasable and necessary to implement measures of proletarian state-control, which is not socialism, but a step towards it:
<Under no circumstances can the party of the proletariat set itself the aim of “introducing” socialism in a country of small peasants so long as the overwhelming majority of the population has not come to realise the need for a socialist revolution.
<But only bourgeois sophists, hiding behind “near-Marxist” catchwords, can deduce from this truth a justification of the policy of post poning immediate revolutionary measures, the time for which is fully ripe; measures which have been frequently resorted to during the war by a number of bourgeois states… the nationalisation of the land, of all the banks and capitalist syndicates, or, at least, the immediate establishment of the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, etc., over them… which are only steps towards socialism, and which are perfectly feasible economically.
<Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution (1917)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ch09.htm#v24zz99h-073-GUESSLenin also realized that in order to transition to socialism it was necessary to create a collective agriculture sector. He said in 1923, talking about agricultural co-operatives:
<As a matter of fact, the political power of the Soviet over all large-scale means of production, the power in the state in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc, …is not this all that is necessary in order from the co-operatives – from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly treated as huckstering, and which, from a certain aspect, we have the right to treat as such now, under the new economic policy – is not this all that is necessary in order to build a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building.
<Lenin, “On Cooperation” (1923)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htmLenin’s opponents claimed that Lenin was going backwards and betraying socialism by advocating development on state-capitalist lines. Lenin reminded them of what he said already in 1917:
<For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.[…]
<Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.
<Lenin, “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it” (1917)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm#v25zz99h-360In the question about commodity production, I suggest this quote to answer several questions about money:
<But in the trading between the commune and its members the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate; to use Marx's phrase, it is “merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption”, and in carrying out this function, it is “no more ‘money’ than a ticket for the theatre”. It can therefore be replaced by any other token, just as Weitling replaces it by a “ledger”, in which the labour-hours worked are entered on one side and means of subsistence taken as compensation on the other. [121] In a word, in the trading of the economic commune with its members it functions merely as Owen’s “labour money”, that “phantom” which Herr Dühring looks down upon so disdainfully, but nevertheless is himself compelled to introduce into his economics of the future. Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the “obligation to produce”, and thus of the earned “right to consume” {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin is absolutely of no consequence for this purpose.[…]
<Thus neither in exchange between the economic commune and its members nor in exchange between the different communes can gold, which is “money by nature”, get to realise this its nature.
<Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels, 1877, Part III: Socialism, IV. Distributionhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm >>2529042The leftcom critique of stalin is his social-chauvinism, nationalism and the falsification that commodity production IS socialism. His economic programme was a necessary capitalist transformation and even carried out some communistic demands. You are shadowboxing
Federalism in the ussr was the actual mistake, critics of "stalinism" unironically make pro nationalist arguments, but it's ok because nationalism is ok for small nations for some reason
>>2524984hes right you know
Unique IPs: 31