That may have something to do with Chomsky being an anarchist (though many see him as a lefty and slightly liberal) and Trotsky helped put down non-bolshevik uprisings etc AND he wouldn't recognise any government as being revolutionary as an anarchist although sometimes 'anarchists' do sometimes form them and/or in Noam's case pay lip service to them! (Venezuela etc) hence he gets called a 'lefty' and a liberal by some. (Liberal in the non-American sense!)
i agree with everything Chomsky says, but the guy's so anti-USSR he doesn't even like Trotsky. (!) The USSR was aiding the progressive revolutionary government of Afghanistan, who askred for their help. Gorbachev, the traitor, pulled out of Afghanistan because the war was bankrupting the USSR.
Also, your opinion on Afghanistan sounds a bit Stalinist. I'm not sure how accurate that is and I would suggest do some research i.e not Wikipedia. It sounds like you're just paying lip service to the old Soviet bureaucracy. I am no expert on the subject either so if you find any texts worth reading let me know. I am currently looking myself.
that's very condescending. What makes you think that i haven't found anything 'worth reading?' it sounds like i'm just calling history like it is. Did you know that over half of the Sandinista economy was in state hands? i see so much Soviet bashing and the words 'state' and 'bureaucracy' thrown around so much; forgetting the USSR's help to third world. i certainly don't believe it was perfect, or Marxist in the truest sense, but a force for good nontheless. And no, i'm not russian.
Jesus, I was being sincere. As in if you thought a text was unbiased critical and 'good' i.e worth reading let me know cos I wanna read it too. I'm rarely interested in a party statement. I'll send you a link to a fantastic text on the 1991 Kurdish uprising later. It includes many first hand accounts and may make you think twice about the role of the vangaud, parties of the left and the peoples and workers themselves. If you have anything to share please do, comrade.
"i certainly don't believe it was perfect, or Marxist in the truest sense, but a force for good nontheless."
Of course the USSR wasn't Marxist in the true sense but it's questionable whether it was Marxist in any sense!
Wage labour, commodity production and the state were all in existence. There may have been some limited workers and peasants democracy and control early on but it didn't last very long. It was a Soviet Union without any bloody soviets (workers councils).
Was it 'socialist'? No, if you're understanding of Socialism equals Communism which historically has meant one and the same thing. Sadly over the decades Socialism has come to mean some lefty, reformist full employment, healthcare, education etc. These can and are liberal democratic demands. It does not equate to either Socialism or Communism. I'd even have trouble calling the USSR State Socialism. Perhaps it was a reformist state capitalism? But with even less 'democracy' than normal states.
That may have something to do with Chomsky being an anarchist (though many see him as a lefty and slightly liberal) and Trotsky helped put down non-bolshevik uprisings etc AND he wouldn't recognise any government as being revolutionary as an anarchist although sometimes 'anarchists' do sometimes form them and/or in Noam's case pay lip service to them! (Venezuela etc) hence he gets called a 'lefty' and a liberal by some. (Liberal in the non-American sense!)
ButherLi55ett 2 years ago
Yep...that's a good point about Chomsky's view on Chavez.
longlivetheloud2 2 years ago
i agree with everything Chomsky says, but the guy's so anti-USSR he doesn't even like Trotsky. (!) The USSR was aiding the progressive revolutionary government of Afghanistan, who askred for their help. Gorbachev, the traitor, pulled out of Afghanistan because the war was bankrupting the USSR.
longlivetheloud2 2 years ago
Also, your opinion on Afghanistan sounds a bit Stalinist. I'm not sure how accurate that is and I would suggest do some research i.e not Wikipedia. It sounds like you're just paying lip service to the old Soviet bureaucracy. I am no expert on the subject either so if you find any texts worth reading let me know. I am currently looking myself.
ButherLi55ett 2 years ago
that's very condescending. What makes you think that i haven't found anything 'worth reading?' it sounds like i'm just calling history like it is. Did you know that over half of the Sandinista economy was in state hands? i see so much Soviet bashing and the words 'state' and 'bureaucracy' thrown around so much; forgetting the USSR's help to third world. i certainly don't believe it was perfect, or Marxist in the truest sense, but a force for good nontheless. And no, i'm not russian.
longlivetheloud2 2 years ago
Jesus, I was being sincere. As in if you thought a text was unbiased critical and 'good' i.e worth reading let me know cos I wanna read it too. I'm rarely interested in a party statement. I'll send you a link to a fantastic text on the 1991 Kurdish uprising later. It includes many first hand accounts and may make you think twice about the role of the vangaud, parties of the left and the peoples and workers themselves. If you have anything to share please do, comrade.
ButherLi55ett 2 years ago
"i certainly don't believe it was perfect, or Marxist in the truest sense, but a force for good nontheless."
Of course the USSR wasn't Marxist in the true sense but it's questionable whether it was Marxist in any sense!
Wage labour, commodity production and the state were all in existence. There may have been some limited workers and peasants democracy and control early on but it didn't last very long. It was a Soviet Union without any bloody soviets (workers councils).
ButherLi55ett 2 years ago
Was it 'socialist'? No, if you're understanding of Socialism equals Communism which historically has meant one and the same thing. Sadly over the decades Socialism has come to mean some lefty, reformist full employment, healthcare, education etc. These can and are liberal democratic demands. It does not equate to either Socialism or Communism. I'd even have trouble calling the USSR State Socialism. Perhaps it was a reformist state capitalism? But with even less 'democracy' than normal states.
ButherLi55ett 2 years ago
i meant to say, 'Over half of the Sandinista economy was in private hands."
longlivetheloud2 2 years ago
It'd be nice if someone subtitled this
rujiel17 2 years ago
I seriously thought about that b4 i posted it. I'm up late tonight, perhaps that's what I'll do.
kickinghorse892 2 years ago
If you want to know the truth behind all this smoke and mirrors you should watch a documentary called,
"The Power of Nightmares"
Available on Google video or torrent.
CivilRadiant 2 years ago
The BBC documentary, right? Seen it...own it... share it often.
kickinghorse892 2 years ago