Capitalism is good but ITS NOT PERFECT - So let's take the good and throw out the bad instead of enslaving us to these ideals that are false. Like democracy. It doesn't automatically guarantee freedoms but it does help. Hell democracy was only for white men during the foundation of the USA.
Chomsky should be ashamed for parroting Cold War propaganda about the October Revolution supposedly being a "coup." Even non-Leninist historians acknowledge that when the Bolsheviks led the overthrow of the provisional government, they enjoyed the support of the masses of workers. Consult Alexander Rabinowich's "The Bolsheviks Come to Power: the Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd," published at least a decade before this speech.
The people in general, outside Petrograd, were not part of the revolution, little support came from there, thus it can rightfully be called a coup. Not?
@ZzzparkzzZ This is simply untrue. The Bolsheviks not only enjoyed the broadest of support from the urban workers in cities across Russia, but also from a majority of the peasants. On Moscow, look at Murphy's book about metal workers. Or for a survey, consult EH Carr's The Bolshevik Revolution. If you are really interested in these issues, I would recommend Acton's Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution.
Facts are facts and ideologies are mythology. Capitalism and Communism are specially corrupt myths. If we don't give the search for REAL Democracy a chance the human species is doomed.
(cont) Trotsky himself admitted this: "We have been more than once accused of having substituted for the dictatorship of the soviets the dictatorship of our own Party [...] In this substitution of the power of the party for the power of the working class there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class [...]" Trotsky, Chap. 7 of Terrorism and Communism.
When Leninists speak of democracy, workers' control, soviet power, etc., one should immediately ask: how is this power being implemented institutionally? Never by workers, always by the Party. To a Leninist, the fundamental interests of the working class are represented by the Party, so you don't even need working people democratically making their own decisions. (cont)
@stephenfs03 if you look at what actually happened in comparison to your "mission statement" you'll find yourself wrong. Freedom of religion can be redefined as abolishment of religion. Why would a leader want to do this? Well in the past churches have overthrown leaders and inspired many to go against the ruling. Take out the church and then you have more control. As for the czars, you don't appoint a dictator to ensure a revolution; you start a revolution to appoint a dictator. Orwell said th
Chomsky is incorrect, Lenin didn't whip up vanguardism merely to get popular support on his side in order to create a dictatorial society on the basis of some sort of imagined Leninist elitism. No. During Lenin's existence, from the late 1800's to 1917, 1923 etc, vanguardism, like everything else in life, evolved. In its penultimate development, Lenin supported universal emancipation, religion being no barrier, for as long as Soviet power could emancipate the working class from czarist oppressio
@stephenfs03 "Chomsky is incorrect, Lenin didn't whip up vanguardism merely to get popular support..."
Chomsky did not claim Lenin whipped up vanguardism to get popular support (seriously, what workers would be attracted to having their lives run by an elite cadre?). Chomsky claims that Lenin changed his rhetoric to undermine the Provisional Government, viz. by supporting soviets and factory councils. Which he did (cont.)
@stephenfs03 (cont) And after Lenin did this, he shifted back to the right wing of the socialist movement again, having no interest in workers control over the means of production (i.e. socialism). Thus, as Chomsky correctly points out (though it has been pointed out before), Lenin had no interest in socialism or democracy. He was more into Party control over production (by imitating German capitalism, in particular, as I pointed out), which he subsequently implemented.
@murray1234567891011, but if one could take heed to my comments, and others from the IS tradition below, we'll clearly see the limits of Chomsky, and hopefully - if only for the good of all humanity - see that the IS tradition is the only way. Three cheers for democratic socialism and in it being the path to the emancipation of the oppressed in this world. Occupy the World, but down with consensus politics.
The first speaker, "Nancy," is correct. Lenin presents the only reasonable approach to class revolution. The movement requires professional revolutionaries, an informed body to lead and organize the workers. Otherwise, one is left with naive and immature anarchism. A "happy" socialism or transitional moment cannot emerge, cohesively, from class revolution. That's bourgeois radicalism rooted in an ivory tower politics of affect, e.g., "Love, love, love."
@SteveShaw008 By "professional revolutionaries", you mean professionals like Lenin and Trotsky who were bought and paid for by "professional" Wall Street bankers? The Bolshevik revolution was really a revolution of Wall Street. As Chomsky said, Russia was intended to be a holding ground for international socialism. State socialism will prevail, as it is prevailing in the US. We are on the path towards a one world government, headed by these international bankers.
@ACDC7369 No, that's not what I mean by professional revolutionaries. Accepting financing for revolutionary activity doesn't make the actors necessarily beholden to or complicit with those backing. One does what one has to. Yours is the same capitalist logic that condemns a Marxist for driving a car, wearing a watch, and so on. Chomsky's politics are attractive and he comes close, but his revolution through reason and "universal grammar" reveal his bourgeois history and soft radicalism.
@SteveShaw008 But Trotsky and Lenin WERE complicit to those who were backing them. That was the entire point. There is plenty of evidence that the Bolshevik revolution was a coup engineered by Wall Street so that it could exert its investment influence over the Soviet Union. And it most certainly did. The Soviet Union was immediatley built up from the beginning by Wall Street and US Taxpayers.
@ACDC7369 It seems as if you're suggesting that Wall Street wanted a new market, and Lenin and Trotsky were conspiring to give WS what it wanted. Please point us to one instance of proof that Trotsky and Lenin aimed to convert Russia into a capitalist market.
@SteveShaw008, I agree with you Steve. Both Trotsky and Lenin were the antithesis of capitalism, despised by the west, unlike Stalin of which the west could find their capitalistic interests realised in World War 2, and the so-called fight against fascism.
@ACDC7369, immediately after October 1917 the West (including US capitalist interests) adopted a policy of containment against the rise of Bolshevik socialism, assisting in the fomenting of the disastrous civil war, where the west clearly inflated the reactionarinism of the Whites, not supporting the Reds. This is something I and Chomsky agree upon. The Soviet Union was immediately opposed by Wall Street. It wasn't until the world war that Stalinist Russia intertwined with Western interests.
Chomsky's claim that Lenin was a right wing deviation of socialism is an understatement. Lenin and Trotsky were Wall Street Puppets. Trotsky was literally owned by Jacob Schiff and Lenin of the Rockefeller family. The October Revolution was engineered by Wall Street. The Soviet Union was built up and maintained as an investment vehicle for western corporations and banks.
it's amazing how much the super far left and super far right have in common, they just use different terminology to describe the system under which the elite are attempting to control the world. the left call it "capitalism", the right call it "socialism". Let's call it what it really is: Corporatism
@ACDC7369, but to say that the 'far left' are qualitatively the same as the 'far right' is nonsense. Most of the 'far left', a good proportion of the Trotskyist left as I know them, favour common ownership over the destinies of our lives and a really truthful democratic structure are the antithesis of the 'far right' who want to see us pay for economic crisis, who want to see us submit religiously to their dictates because they're the 'experts', for us to take on the burden of the cuts
@stephenfs03 I said absolutely no such thing. The corporatists you're talking about are not "far right", they are mainstream moderates. The far right are anarcho-capitalists, compared to the far left who are anarcho syndicalists.
The ruling class controls the leftists who control the working class. Middle class socialists! Lenin was a totalitarian social engineer who dreamed of destroying the family so that children could be dog trained to serve the enlightened elite.
Who is this guy kidding? Read the communist manifesto: it explicitly calls for a vanguard party to lead the way to the violent overthrow of the capitalism.
@Allrightteam Right Marxist……There are Left Marxist and Right Marxist(Neo Marxist)…I'm not too well informed about this subject myself,but I'm certain that Lenin is not a Right wing,conservatives or right et al.
I think you give to much credit to the bias assumptions of Americans. They fooled us in 1913 with the Federal Reserve act and many more illegal laws. Bush never won the elections (see vote machine trials on youtube), and Americans banded together to stop the bailout from happening but then they slipped it in anyway, thus leading to protests. I think you should take a look around brother, the octopus has you too, name your country and I'll provide some facts...
as much as chomsky has an incredible, outstandingly exceptional mind with more insight than most people, & should be an inspiration for everyone.... he is still just a human being & people would do well to remember that not everything that comes out of his mouth is gospel. he does make mistakes, & he doesn't always have a clear perspective (this isn't regarding this particular video by the way). question what he says as much as you would do with anyone else.
I think vanguardism is an important part in moving towards socialism. Without it we have anarchy,a lack of direction. Vanguardism is interconnected with democratic centralism, encompassing the 'best' of working class consciousness, geared towards tactically manouvering around the obstacles that capitalism throws up against us (THE solution to the problems so to speak). Stalinism is the product of a defeat of socialism materially, contingent on it spreading and on capitalist containment.
@stephenfs03 But vanguardism is about vanguards of elite intellectuals steering the revolution the way they want (self-declared 'professional revolutionaries'). What does this have to do with working class consciousness?
In fact, Lenin was quite clear that he wanted to imitate the state capitalism of the Germans. Lenin and Trotsky both wanted to use elements of capitalist domination as revolutionary tactics. Nothing socialist about this-- Simply authoritarianism and elitism, viz. Leninism.
@agapeiron Vanguardism isn't elitism. Struggling workers, moving towards socialism, require a solution to this end. This solution is democratically cenralised in the Party, a solution geared towards emancipating oppressed workers, representing the best of class consciousness. The party is the best of the working class, learning from and defined upon our struggles, a vanguard party optimally assisting workers in their quest towards a better world. The party teaches the, and learns from, the class
@stephenfs03 The vanguard party is only the "best of the working class" to the vanguard party. The working class may despise the vanguard party. And the vanguard party would respond by saying the working class is against the working class. Like I said, nothing to do with working class consciousness.
The definition of an elite is a group of people that consider themselves "the best" of the society (due to *power* or race or wealth)-- Vanguardism is elitist.
@stephenfs03 I also like how you totally hid from my point about Lenin's praise for German state capitalism. At the level of labor, ever notice the remarkable similarities between Lenin in power and capitalism? With capitalism you get a boss or a firm that you must obey, with Lenin you get one man management that must be obeyed under an ideology of iron discipline (after Lenin and Trotsky disarmed the soviets and factory councils).
@stephenfs03 If you actually knew your Lenin, you would know that he had no faith in working class consciousness. He did not actually think the working class was capable of revolutionary class consciousness. He believed the working class could only achieve "trade union consciousness"-- Which is why he believed it was up to people like himself (a child of the Russian bourgeoisie) to steer them in the direction he wanted. (cont)
@stephenfs03 (cont.) Trotsky at one point rightly criticized this self-declared vanguard mentality as "substitutionism"-- A party form that *substitutes itself* for the class its supposed to lead. Marx and Engels wrote a letter to Bebel precisely against this kind of this substitutionism, this bourgeois coordinatorism: "The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself." Look it up online and read it.
@agapeiron You can see how a state indoctrination combined with a truly anti-education style of schooling leads to a working class who don't vote , don't understand anything that happens, and will salute anything with the stars and stripes on it. Those fat lazy uneducated dimwits will vote for fascists like ron paul and think it's freedom. They will never emancipate themselves.
@nilbud ---I think you give to much credit to the bias assumptions of Americans. They fooled us in 1913 with the Federal Reserve act and many more illegal laws. Bush never won the elections (see vote machine trials on youtube), and Americans banded together to stop the bailout from happening but then they slipped it in anyway, thus leading to protests. I think you should take a look around brother, the octopus has you too, name your country and I'll provide some facts...
@stephenfs03 --would you agree that the G20 has its roots in the congress of Vienna? Seems like the world has become total Plutocracy with the consolidation of money and resources funneling into some old money families...
@agapeiron, vanguardism isn't about 'vanguards of elite intellectuals steering' etc. Sure, vanguards may be intellectually inclined, but why hold that against them? Nowhere did Lenin want to imitate the statism of Hitler, as you claim. Working classes need to organise at the point of production in order to open historical possibility. Emancipation being realised very much depends on solution/tactics. You can't do without intellectual ability and a solvent consciousness to realise this
@stephenfs03 Lenin and Trotsky advocated one-man management. This is contrary to self-management and democracy. Organization at the point of production means organization by the workers in their work places; emancipation of the workers by the workers themselves (Marx). Lenin and Trotsky opposed this.
@stephenfs03 "The workers must not be allowed to roam all over Russia. They must be sent where they are needed, called up and directed like soldiers" (Trotsky).
"To study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it, (to not) shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it" (Lenin).
@agapeiron, the above quotes from Trotsky and Lenin are unknown to me, keeping aside the misquoted historical context they may be presented in (if only I could care to find out). Instead, ask whether the workers should democratically run society or whether we should persist with the same old elitism of capitalist order? Answering the former would mean finding a solution to our impasse, the need of intellectual predisposition, thus a vanguard upholding a consciousness that would workers' dilemma.
@stephenfs03 Whether you are unfamiliar with the quotes does not mean they were not said. Not caring to look into them only makes your own fervent belief in the rightness of the Bolshevik position more conspicuous.
@stephenfs03 Leninists have never had any serious interest in workers democratically running their own societies-- Outside of, perhaps, Bordiga. Otherwise, they have generally been in favor of one-man management of factories, iron discipline, one party rule, and the like. These strategies owe more to the bourgeois consciousness of a self-declared intelligentsia than the revolutionary consciousness of the working classes.
@stephenfs03, Chomsky helped me understand the dilemma of this world, in understanding history and oppressive forces, in part steering me consciously towards political (and workplace) activism. And I agree that Chomsky has he's limits, and others before him (like Lenin, Marx etc) also have their limits, everyone in part being a product of history. We can equally learn important things from Lenin as much as Chomsky. For vanguardism and its fruits we are in part indebted to Lenin.
I'm almost alone on this but, as far as I can see, Capitalism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. They both believe in the monetary system, which is the fundamental cause of our problems. They differ only over who should have the money - private enterprises or the state. The problem is that as long as money is power there will be uneven agglomerations of it in the hands of those who are more powerful. So even if it is in the hands of the state, the problem of capital as power persists.
@historypoliticsbb (cont.) So in a socialist state, those with the levers of the state will have dominion of those who do not - in that sense party apparratchiks and bankers are not all that different. We know that there is more than enough food to feed everyone over 3000 calories a day. We have more than enough resources, even with the inefficiencies in our current system, to give all 7 billion people are good standard of living. Capital, whoever controls it, is simply in the way.
@historypoliticsbb It is not true that socialism per se believes in monetarism. On the contrary classical socialism seeks to abolish money for the most part. Some were just more emphatical than others. Anarcho-syndicalism effectively abolished money in Catalonia 1936. Personally I don't care what you would call what society, but it is definitely not true that socialists are pro-money.
Socialist or not, I have been against the monetary price system ever since I was seven years old.
@RSFO Sorry but the Communist Manifesto mentions taxation numerous times, and calls the abolition of inheritance (let the state take what your parents owned - disgusting and anti-thetical to freedom), called for 'heavy progressive income tax' and 'Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.' Marx was obsessed with money. He just suggested the state own all of it rather than the people. Much of his work reads like
@RSFO (cont.) a blueprint for global domination by the international banking elite. Because the question is, who owns the state? Certainly not the masses, not in the USSR, the USA or the UK. It was a genius propaganda piece to convince everyone to hand their land, property, money and freedom to the state, where it was centralised and thus easier to control for the banking elite who love centralisation - EU, IMF, UN, World Bank, just check out who the Presidents of these things are.
@historypoliticsbb You imply that you must be a follower of Marx if you are a socialist. This is not the truth at all. It is certainly not true either that you would be a follower of the Communist Manifesto (CM). They received heavy criticism from the anarchist branch of the socialist movement, particularly Bakunin. I have only read an excerpt from the CM, where they emphasized making the state obsolete in the socalled communist face of a society. They were however only criticized for the way...
@RSFO I own a copy of the CM, I was quoting Chapter II directly, no need to be doubtful. I agree with points 1 and 3 of your blueprint. I haven't studied Peirce, or Popper for that matter, in enough detail for me to possibly agree with your 2nd point. However I can say that I oppose anything designated as 'state religion', surely that contradicts a bit with point 3? Ultimately I think we need to focus on more immediate goals -
1) Nationalise the Bank of England. 2) Abolish it. 3) Abolish money.
@historypoliticsbb (cont.) ...they wanted to deploy communism by the anarchists. I haven't read what you say about the CM, but I find it quite doubtful. And I don't think Marx wanted anything like what we saw in USSR, China etc. He wanted to found the "science" on how to crush power over people. He also wrote some more interesting things *after* the CM, but neither the West nor the former East Block wanted us to read that. But in the end it is the scientific method we should use...
@historypoliticsbb (cont.) ... to continually correct Marx, Adam Smith, Bakunin, Technocracy, Zeitgeist etc. to find a way to live without the price system. Humanity is in dire need to live without the oppressive price system. Only some people would find it necessary to read Marx, Adam Smith or Bakunin. But I think it is much more required to have people understand the idea of a physical/energy economy as suggested by the Technocracy movement. The only thing I think they completely lack is...
@RSFO (cont.) So politically I can't call myself a socialist. From an academic standpoint however,all serious academics owe at least a small debt to Marx, even Niall Ferguson, who in his words is 'A Marxist but I am on the side of the bourgeoisie'. Most importantly however, we share the same aim: to abolish the monetary system.
@historypoliticsbb Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
@esoparagon. There are contradictions in the world. This is a problem for our brains. Our brains try to put everything in a straight line. We look for contradictions and then we try to solve these contradiction. Truth, actually, involve "buts." We cannot eliminate all the "buts" in the Natural world. When you agree with Chomsky, you are trying to put everything in a straight line. Capitalism is the man. Socialism is the woman. Let them marry. The Scandanavian countries understand.
@JayGatsbyOdysseus There are contradictions between oversimplifications we make about the world. Hegel realised this obvious fact, and being an idealist, projected the contradictions onto the world itself. Rather unfortunately, Marx took this aspect of Hegel's philsophy, together with other, more useful ones.
The Chomsky of the present day frequently speaks at ISO-organized events. I can only think that he was unread in Lenin at this point. Especially to refer to Trotsky and Luxemburg as if they were not firm allies of Lenin... very strange. It's also elitist to complain that the workers flooded into the Bolshevik Party against their better interest because they were basically too stupid to know better.
This is why Noam Chomsky can't be taken too seriously as a left-wing theorist but just a good critic of US foreign policy and linguist. His theory is filled with idealism, his rhetoric is full of liberalism, and his understanding of capitalism doesn't go farther than Adam Smith classical economics.
@xx1994xxversion2 It's not so much that he doesnt understand economics, he just points out that there are other/better ways to organise societies...rather than by default, just blindly embracing capitalism because we're indoctrinated at an early age, and told that there arent any possible alternatives.
Chomsky is a State Socialist, he promotes coercive State ownership of Capital (just like Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism). Instead of being open about this he uses cover-terms such as 'democratic control over production' in his article 'The Soviet Union Versus Socialism', which is exactly the same thing as State ownership of Capital; a State is a coercive monopoly initiated over a geographical area. That includes a coercive mob rule 'democratic' monopoly initiated over a geographical area: a State.
No. Chomsky is a socialist but an anarchist, and anarchists dislike the state AND big businesses. The underlying reason is that concentration of power (materially speaking concentration of capital) has always been socially disastrous. To be an anarchist you have to be a socialist, but being socialist you can be collectivist (Stalin) but never an anarchist. When he talks about ‘democratic control over production’ he really means it.
@Esoparagon The so called anarcho-capitalism, as far as I understand it, is dangerous utopianism (just look at the current news) and a truly contradiction in terms. “Anarcho”- capitalists should call their doctrines, as it has been common usage since the nineteenth century: laissez-faire, or simply capitalism. On my side I like the term vulgar liberalism. Anyhow, they should stop calling themselves anarchists. Anarchism hardly needs more discredit.
@Alexopolux It's only a contradiction in terms if you take the term anarchism in the traditional sense whereby private property is abolished necessarily when the state is abolished. We deny that the state is necessary for private property. We are opposed to the state and are for its destruction and in that sense we are definitely true anarchists by the definition 'a political theory favoring the abolition of governments'.
@Esoparagon The current news are showing the disastrous results (once again for rich countries) of attempting to impose that utopia called laissez-faire. The emphasis is in "attempting" since as you correctly said, this capitalism cannot simply exist and in fact never existed.
@Alexopolux Funny. It seems thousands more regulations and a slew of social programs doesn't count as 'attempting to impose' laissez-faire. That's the exact opposite. If anything the trend is nothing less than the consistent and methodical abandonment of laissez-faire in any form.
@Esoparagon Your post is good insofar as in order to explain this (apparent) contradiction, it would require a book. Fortunately that book exists. Polanyi’s Great Transformation was published in the same year as Hayek’s Road (1944). Why Hayek was given more publicity than Polanyi in spite of the intellectual superiority of the latter is in itself interesting. Anyway Polanyi disclosed the contradiction you correctly observe, in his terms the “dual movement”. If you have the time, please read it.
No. Chomsky is a socialist but an anarchist, and anarchists dislike the state AND big businesses. The underlying reason is that concentration of power (materially speaking concentration of capital) has always been socially disastrous. To be an anarchist you have to be a socialist, but being socialist you can be collectivist (Stalin) but never an anarchist. When he talks about ‘democratic control over production’ he really means it.
"In my view ought to be called a coup" ... Oh chomsky , that one line is enough to make me feel ill , you know the history well enough to know that statement is wrong.
@comanchio1976 As bluntly as possible : The dictionary definition of a coup detat would exclude a mass movement of people . If you are not interested in even looking up the events of the October revolution then fine. You would find,however, a vast number of people , not just a small number of Bolsheviks , took power. Frankly , I am none too interested in a semantics debate in videos comments . If you want a discussion of any volume just contact me.
Chomsky is such a menshevick, it's disgusting. He wouldn't know anything about Lenin if he got to interview him. To call the October Revolution a coup! What academic bourgeoisie drivel, but what can you expect from a linguist professor that sells books all his life, and has done little else of substance. STFU CHOMSKY!
@amsterdam78 So do you actually have an objection to his arguments, or do you simply reject it offhand because it doesn't fit your discredited Marxist religion?
@agapeiron Of course he was. Not only were they a direct threat to the revolution, they were being manipulated by radical anarchists. Also, there were no workers in Kronstadt, only sailors.
@amsterdam78 That assumes that any revolution that Leninists happen to be in is "their" revolution (the self-declared "revolutionary leadership). Therefore, revolutionaries like the Kronstadters become a "threat" to the revolution, because the revolution is just whatever Lenin and Trotsky say, etc.
@amsterdam78 "Also, there were no workers in Kronstadt, only sailors."
Another absurd Leninist fantasy. If there were no workers, why were there factory committees in Kronstadt? Why was there a revolutionary Kronstadt trade union council? Do you even check the accuracy of things you say, or if a Leninist in your silly group or sect says so, does that make it justifiable to repeat?
@amsterdam78 But then again, it makes sense. According to Trotskyist logic: Trotsky is good, anything he does is good. Therefore massacring the Kronstadters is good. Since Trotsky is good, and Trotsky supports the workers, then there must not be any workers in Kronstadt, or else Trotsky would be bad. Trotsky can never be bad, because Stalin killed him. Therefore-- and I can see you leaping to these conclusions after skimming an ISO or SWP blurb on it-- there were no workers in Kronstadt...
@agapeiron I found a flaw in your logic, which is obviously anarchistic. There were no workers in the Kronstadt fortress, it's a fact not an opinion. I find the ISO and SWP a joke, and not Trotskyist, I'm in the International Marxist Tendency.
@amsterdam78 The fortifications themselves are of course military-oriented. Saying there were no workers in the fortifications is kind of a joke-- The civilians in alliance with soldiers and sailors were still part of Kronstadt. And what about sailors slaving away on board ships? They don't do "work"-- They're not "workers" anymore?
All Trotskyism is a joke, that's why none of you consider other Trotskyists to truly be Trotskyists. Leninism needs to die.
@amsterdam78 If they are, then Leninism is a joke too, but with a dictatorship enforcing the joke on everyone else, and killing them if they protest against it.
@amsterdam78 I like how you don't even offer counter-arguments about Kronstadt anymore. You just say "anarchism is a joke" or "I have written books on the subject." Maybe you should get Alan Woods to hop on Youtube and make your arguments for you...
@agapeiron I just have time for kids. If you want to know our stance on Anarchists like the Kronstadt sailors, well I should say that, only some were, the rest were influenced by them, but go to Marxist(dot)com and listen to Alan Woods on Marxism and anarchism. That said, I back Trotsky and Lenin's decision 100%
@agapeiron I would Like to point out that Chomsky on this video stated that Trotsky backed Hitler in a statement in the 1930's, which is completely false, and a low blow even for him. That was a malicious lie, that Trotsky never acquiesced to, and was made-up by Stalin himself. For Chomsky to perpetuate it is unforgivable.
@amsterdam78 Well perhaps you should listen to that part yourself then. Noam Chomsky did *not* state that Trotsky backed Hitler. Chomsky said that Trotsky was charged with agreeing with the fascists for criticizing the Soviet Union. That's what Stalin said, not what Chomsky says in this video. But similarly many Trotskyists and Leninists charge Chomsky with supporting "the Capitalists" for criticizing Trotsky and Lenin.
@RSFO Maybe you should listen to it again? Even bringing up the charge is a slanderous attack on Trotsky's credibility. It's casting doubt on Trotsky, and mainly because Chomsky is not 1/9 the theoretician Trotsky was. To advance his own view he repeats slurs and slanders carefully, to inject doubt. This linguist knows that in 100 years no one will read Chomsky, but Trotsky will be read forever.
Chomsky is a clever man, but the fact that he dismisses leninism, doesn't make it weaker, since it is one of the most influential modern-day political doctrines. Its' practical success proves its truthfulness. And makes Chomsky himself nothing more than "infantile leftist".
@agapeiron that's kind of a pointless thing to say, isn't it? for example, if i defended evolution, surely you wouldn't try to discedit me by saying i must be a darwinist...
@timfidotru The fact that Leninism is "influential" does not demonstrate that it's true; Tea Party conservatism is influential, yet it's clearly a mess of contradictions. If you have an objection to Chomsky's arguments, explain them and begin a discussion.
@EllyMcCormack thanks 4 your reply. I didnt mean that she shdn't ask a question. I think my comment was just an immediate response to the fact that she was so long-winded. When I first read about Leninism and Stalinism I couldn't see the difference either. Then I read an essay by Stephen F Cohen that said they were similar in theory but different in practice. If I recall correctly, I think he said that Stalinism was far more violent in its approach to internal dissent
I will continue to use "right wing" the way I have because it has contemporary relevance, and because it differentiates left libertarian thought from right libertarian thought. I understand people like you try to argue the meaning of "right" to make their justification of inequality seem "neither left or right" etc. A clever gambit, indeed, like how the Libertarian Party is neither liberal or conservative! The ultimate "neutrality" such "libertarians" are impressed by.
It really is amazing how collectivists decry capitalism and its well known penchant for punishing failure yet all believe darwinist theory of survival of the fittest.seems like a survival of the fittest mentality should go hand in hand with an economic system that rewards hard work and innovation
The facist crony system we have been under for about 100 years is finally failing and needs to fail so true economic liberty can prevail
@teecuzbruh Perfect. You, my dear conservative fool, just made a fine example of your own warped political ideology, giving us more proof that free market twits try to make capitalism seem as natural as evolutionary biology. Capitalism, a system created people (that always spins out of control, causing unemployment, further poverty, recessions and needs massive cash injections to get it to work again) is for free market dogmatists like you as natural as a peaceful meadow or a placid stream!
@agapeiron Stories about supposed "instability" of a free market is simply not true. It never spins out of control and in free markets there is no "cash injections" they have nowhere to come from. This goes to show unfamiliarity with a basis of free markets.
@teecuzbruh I recommend stefbot-s "450 Libertopia ", search here on YouTube ;)
@zg76 Straw-man argument. Reread my comment on capitalism and reply again without your free market idealism bending what I said retroactively. In the mean time, good luck trying to implement your right wing dream of a totally free market.
@agapeiron Ha, ha, why don't you correct my "Straw-man argument". I was not rearranging you comment, just pointed out you ignorance about free markets ideas!
Huuu.. right wing-spookyyy.. You don't have to dream if you are looking for Society without a government, stateless society (Stefan Molyneux), natural order (prof Hoppe), look at your life! You, I would hope, still do not use force, let alone monopoly of force, to deal with you friends and foes alike. ;)
@zg76 No, you did misread my comment. And you just repeated the mistake again. So please see my reply to your reply again if you want to continue this.
@agapeiron "..free market twits try to make capitalism seem as natural as evolutionary biology. Capitalism,a system created by people (that always spins out of control,causing unemployment,further poverty,recessions and needs massive cash injections to get it to work again)" and I said that this simply is not true. It never spins out of control and in free markets there is no "cash injections" they have nowhere to come from because there is no state.
@agapeiron original free-marketers were on the left. that's where they sat when the first left right was developed after the french revolution.
your comment is typical of historically ignorant dipshits who want to make it seem as though right wing = capitalism.
the 'right-wing' (consevatives/ monarchy sympathisers) took advantages of free-markets, by being an unnessary parasite for their 'in' group of modern nobels. classical liberals/left= opposed
@100CommonCents What's historically ignorant is the attempt to ahistorically comprehend the political spectrum, viz. an abstract schema for visualizing politics which we use for the sake of communication. When I say something is right wing, I refer to our contemporary usage of the term. So if you want to define it that way and pretend that inequalities and relations of exploitation don't exist in markets, go ahead, and title your justifications "leftist" if it makes you feel like a "leftist."
@agapeiron my point wasn't to advocate some kind of never changing definition - it was to show you that they DO change, and that it is beyond inane to label libertarians/classical liberals as 'right-wing' when in fact they were the two main opposing ideologies, and still fundamentally oppose each other.
you're purposely (or ignorantly) using an ambiguous word 'right-wing', which in many ways is defined by ' being AGAINST social freedoms.
@100CommonCents The fact that every "libertarian" I've met was a crypto-GOP loon that hated "lazy union workers" and "welfare queens" etc. doesn't convince me that you guys are these magically neutral "libertarians" that don't have screeching reactionaries beneath the crust of your civil liberties rhetoric. Though I'm not saying your politics are like that, you must understand that the overwhelming majority of "libertarians" I've met had no problem characterizing their politics as "right wing."
@agapeiron There are a lot of right wingers who call themselves libertarians, but not all libertarians are like that. I, for example, am a left-leaning libertarian. I want the gov out of my life. I don't want the gov telling me who to marry, if I can have a gun, if I want to take drugs etc. I want a real police force and not the paramilitary force we have today that passes for police and also want a lower tax burden, maybe by not murdering foreigners in my name.
@christo930 I understand your grievances with being labeled like the rest of them. But, friend, your use of the word libertarian is still that of the recent right wing appropriation, domesticated into establishment discourse. It used to mean socialist, anarchist; I am a libertarian socialist. In that sense I'm a left libertarian.
In America, words are losing their actual meaning due to appropriations by right wingers who want to claim them, "libertarian" and "anarchist" both.
@christo930 For example, if you look back before free market people on the American right began using "libertarian" towards the end of the 20th century, it will become immediately apparent that previous uses of the word "libertarian" were vigorously revolutionary and anti-capitalist. Taxation would not be an issue because capitalism was to be brought down altogether, done away with for being inhumane. The idea of a capitalist calling themselves a libertarian would have been regarded as absurd.
@agapeiron I am definitely not anti-capitalist. For all of it's problems, capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system ever invented. Competition lowers prices and losses eliminate wasteful uses of resources. Today our system is much closer to fascism than to any capitalist system.
@christo930 I didn't think you were anti-capitalist. I was just clearing things up for you regarding history and terminology.
Trust me, I have a built-in capitalist radar system. It's harder picking up people permeated by the values of the market system when they pay lip service to capitalist values unconsciously in their words and deeds. But an actual self-conscious ideological capitalist is easy to spot!
On Chomsky videos, it goes beep beep beep, as right wingers leave angry comments, etc
@agapeiron Are you anti-capitalism? I am left leaning and I believe in a progressive taxation system and social safety nets. OTOH, I am against things like minimum wage and am pro capitalism. I don't think it's perfect and sometime people do suffer, but there doesn't appear to be any large scale socialist systems that work in practice. Minimum wage laws create a permanent underclass, a thing I deplore. I want a system with the least amount of suffering for the most number of people.
@christo930 I hear you. Yes I'm anti-capitalist, but I don't think its a constructive way to describe politics with a little "anti." Most attempts at socialist societies in the 20th century were oppressive totalitarian dictatorships based on the USSR model, which was Leninist ideologically. It poured its power into creating similar dictatorships elsewhere, and of crushing opposing socialisms. I'm more from the libertarian socialist tradition, and I favor market abolition.
@agapeiron Within socialism, what are the mechanisms to increase efficiency and to prevent or stop production that combines land, labor and capital in inefficient ways? What are the incentives for people with new ideas to try them out and to start a business? How does an existing business raise capital to expand production if they are making something people want at a price they can afford? I don't ask rhetorically, I assume you have answers for these things if you support it.
@christo930 Are you sure you're not just asking them because you're miffed that I'm a socialist and I burst your right wing "libertarian" fantasy?
If you're serious about these questions and are interested in the kind of socialism I advocate-- you cannot expect me to speak for ALL socialists-- then message me and rephrase the questions without your capitalist assumptions (such as businesses in a socialist society!).
If you are not serious, don't bother because it's not worth my time.
@agapeiron I am not idealogical about it, more pragmatic. I am genuinely interested in how a socialist system could work. I thought my tone was pretty neutral or accommodating so I am very surprised that you seem a little taken back. If you are interested in discussing how socialism can work, we can take it offline where there is no 500char limit. I look forward to hearing from you.
@agapeiron one of my co-workers is actually a progressive libertarian... he is also a devout Mormon, who happens to also be cosmologically a Mahayana Buddhist. It is really interesting.
Capitalism is good but ITS NOT PERFECT - So let's take the good and throw out the bad instead of enslaving us to these ideals that are false. Like democracy. It doesn't automatically guarantee freedoms but it does help. Hell democracy was only for white men during the foundation of the USA.
YCDPKLD 2 weeks ago
Chomsky should be ashamed for parroting Cold War propaganda about the October Revolution supposedly being a "coup." Even non-Leninist historians acknowledge that when the Bolsheviks led the overthrow of the provisional government, they enjoyed the support of the masses of workers. Consult Alexander Rabinowich's "The Bolsheviks Come to Power: the Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd," published at least a decade before this speech.
moonwolf711 2 weeks ago
@moonwolf711
The people in general, outside Petrograd, were not part of the revolution, little support came from there, thus it can rightfully be called a coup. Not?
ZzzparkzzZ 2 weeks ago
@ZzzparkzzZ This is simply untrue. The Bolsheviks not only enjoyed the broadest of support from the urban workers in cities across Russia, but also from a majority of the peasants. On Moscow, look at Murphy's book about metal workers. Or for a survey, consult EH Carr's The Bolshevik Revolution. If you are really interested in these issues, I would recommend Acton's Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution.
moonwolf711 1 week ago
@moonwolf711
I hear you. Thanks for the recommendations.
ZzzparkzzZ 6 days ago
Facts are facts and ideologies are mythology. Capitalism and Communism are specially corrupt myths. If we don't give the search for REAL Democracy a chance the human species is doomed.
mose3 3 weeks ago
(cont) Trotsky himself admitted this: "We have been more than once accused of having substituted for the dictatorship of the soviets the dictatorship of our own Party [...] In this substitution of the power of the party for the power of the working class there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class [...]" Trotsky, Chap. 7 of Terrorism and Communism.
agapeiron 1 month ago
When Leninists speak of democracy, workers' control, soviet power, etc., one should immediately ask: how is this power being implemented institutionally? Never by workers, always by the Party. To a Leninist, the fundamental interests of the working class are represented by the Party, so you don't even need working people democratically making their own decisions. (cont)
agapeiron 1 month ago
@stephenfs03 if you look at what actually happened in comparison to your "mission statement" you'll find yourself wrong. Freedom of religion can be redefined as abolishment of religion. Why would a leader want to do this? Well in the past churches have overthrown leaders and inspired many to go against the ruling. Take out the church and then you have more control. As for the czars, you don't appoint a dictator to ensure a revolution; you start a revolution to appoint a dictator. Orwell said th
Talisgoodatwow 1 month ago
Chomsky is incorrect, Lenin didn't whip up vanguardism merely to get popular support on his side in order to create a dictatorial society on the basis of some sort of imagined Leninist elitism. No. During Lenin's existence, from the late 1800's to 1917, 1923 etc, vanguardism, like everything else in life, evolved. In its penultimate development, Lenin supported universal emancipation, religion being no barrier, for as long as Soviet power could emancipate the working class from czarist oppressio
stephenfs03 1 month ago
@stephenfs03 "Chomsky is incorrect, Lenin didn't whip up vanguardism merely to get popular support..."
Chomsky did not claim Lenin whipped up vanguardism to get popular support (seriously, what workers would be attracted to having their lives run by an elite cadre?). Chomsky claims that Lenin changed his rhetoric to undermine the Provisional Government, viz. by supporting soviets and factory councils. Which he did (cont.)
agapeiron 1 month ago
@stephenfs03 (cont) And after Lenin did this, he shifted back to the right wing of the socialist movement again, having no interest in workers control over the means of production (i.e. socialism). Thus, as Chomsky correctly points out (though it has been pointed out before), Lenin had no interest in socialism or democracy. He was more into Party control over production (by imitating German capitalism, in particular, as I pointed out), which he subsequently implemented.
agapeiron 1 month ago
That 1st question was a mouth full.
Saebeck32 1 month ago
the entire SWP should be made to sit down and watch this.
murray1234567891011 1 month ago
@murray1234567891011, but if one could take heed to my comments, and others from the IS tradition below, we'll clearly see the limits of Chomsky, and hopefully - if only for the good of all humanity - see that the IS tradition is the only way. Three cheers for democratic socialism and in it being the path to the emancipation of the oppressed in this world. Occupy the World, but down with consensus politics.
stephenfs03 1 month ago
@stephenfs03, I meant to say "three cheers for democratic centralism", not "democratic socialism".
stephenfs03 1 month ago
The first speaker, "Nancy," is correct. Lenin presents the only reasonable approach to class revolution. The movement requires professional revolutionaries, an informed body to lead and organize the workers. Otherwise, one is left with naive and immature anarchism. A "happy" socialism or transitional moment cannot emerge, cohesively, from class revolution. That's bourgeois radicalism rooted in an ivory tower politics of affect, e.g., "Love, love, love."
SteveShaw008 1 month ago 2
@SteveShaw008 By "professional revolutionaries", you mean professionals like Lenin and Trotsky who were bought and paid for by "professional" Wall Street bankers? The Bolshevik revolution was really a revolution of Wall Street. As Chomsky said, Russia was intended to be a holding ground for international socialism. State socialism will prevail, as it is prevailing in the US. We are on the path towards a one world government, headed by these international bankers.
ACDC7369 1 month ago
@ACDC7369 No, that's not what I mean by professional revolutionaries. Accepting financing for revolutionary activity doesn't make the actors necessarily beholden to or complicit with those backing. One does what one has to. Yours is the same capitalist logic that condemns a Marxist for driving a car, wearing a watch, and so on. Chomsky's politics are attractive and he comes close, but his revolution through reason and "universal grammar" reveal his bourgeois history and soft radicalism.
SteveShaw008 1 month ago
@SteveShaw008 But Trotsky and Lenin WERE complicit to those who were backing them. That was the entire point. There is plenty of evidence that the Bolshevik revolution was a coup engineered by Wall Street so that it could exert its investment influence over the Soviet Union. And it most certainly did. The Soviet Union was immediatley built up from the beginning by Wall Street and US Taxpayers.
ACDC7369 1 month ago
@ACDC7369 It seems as if you're suggesting that Wall Street wanted a new market, and Lenin and Trotsky were conspiring to give WS what it wanted. Please point us to one instance of proof that Trotsky and Lenin aimed to convert Russia into a capitalist market.
SteveShaw008 1 month ago
@SteveShaw008, I agree with you Steve. Both Trotsky and Lenin were the antithesis of capitalism, despised by the west, unlike Stalin of which the west could find their capitalistic interests realised in World War 2, and the so-called fight against fascism.
stephenfs03 1 month ago
@ACDC7369, immediately after October 1917 the West (including US capitalist interests) adopted a policy of containment against the rise of Bolshevik socialism, assisting in the fomenting of the disastrous civil war, where the west clearly inflated the reactionarinism of the Whites, not supporting the Reds. This is something I and Chomsky agree upon. The Soviet Union was immediately opposed by Wall Street. It wasn't until the world war that Stalinist Russia intertwined with Western interests.
stephenfs03 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky's claim that Lenin was a right wing deviation of socialism is an understatement. Lenin and Trotsky were Wall Street Puppets. Trotsky was literally owned by Jacob Schiff and Lenin of the Rockefeller family. The October Revolution was engineered by Wall Street. The Soviet Union was built up and maintained as an investment vehicle for western corporations and banks.
ACDC7369 1 month ago
it's amazing how much the super far left and super far right have in common, they just use different terminology to describe the system under which the elite are attempting to control the world. the left call it "capitalism", the right call it "socialism". Let's call it what it really is: Corporatism
ACDC7369 1 month ago
@ACDC7369, but to say that the 'far left' are qualitatively the same as the 'far right' is nonsense. Most of the 'far left', a good proportion of the Trotskyist left as I know them, favour common ownership over the destinies of our lives and a really truthful democratic structure are the antithesis of the 'far right' who want to see us pay for economic crisis, who want to see us submit religiously to their dictates because they're the 'experts', for us to take on the burden of the cuts
stephenfs03 1 month ago
@stephenfs03 I said absolutely no such thing. The corporatists you're talking about are not "far right", they are mainstream moderates. The far right are anarcho-capitalists, compared to the far left who are anarcho syndicalists.
ACDC7369 1 month ago
The ruling class controls the leftists who control the working class. Middle class socialists! Lenin was a totalitarian social engineer who dreamed of destroying the family so that children could be dog trained to serve the enlightened elite.
pkpapers 1 month ago
Who is this guy kidding? Read the communist manifesto: it explicitly calls for a vanguard party to lead the way to the violent overthrow of the capitalism.
zzzak123 1 month ago
@zzzak123 no it doesn't, lenein did, you stupid fuck.
JagjeetMann 1 month ago
@JagjeetMann
Upon further review, I see you are correct. I hope your profanity makes you happy.
zzzak123 1 month ago
Problem with socialists is that they do not think with the mind but with the heart and it comes at the expense of the mind and eventually the body.
zzzak123 1 month ago
Did he just describe Lenin as right wing? Wow.
Allrightteam 1 month ago
@Allrightteam Right Marxist……There are Left Marxist and Right Marxist(Neo Marxist)…I'm not too well informed about this subject myself,but I'm certain that Lenin is not a Right wing,conservatives or right et al.
koothecool 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think you give to much credit to the bias assumptions of Americans. They fooled us in 1913 with the Federal Reserve act and many more illegal laws. Bush never won the elections (see vote machine trials on youtube), and Americans banded together to stop the bailout from happening but then they slipped it in anyway, thus leading to protests. I think you should take a look around brother, the octopus has you too, name your country and I'll provide some facts...
GVTRTH 1 month ago
Comment removed
GVLBRTY 1 month ago
as much as chomsky has an incredible, outstandingly exceptional mind with more insight than most people, & should be an inspiration for everyone.... he is still just a human being & people would do well to remember that not everything that comes out of his mouth is gospel. he does make mistakes, & he doesn't always have a clear perspective (this isn't regarding this particular video by the way). question what he says as much as you would do with anyone else.
oc00011 1 month ago
That Women's tone at the beginning was very forthright and unsettling.
fLcGambit 1 month ago
I think vanguardism is an important part in moving towards socialism. Without it we have anarchy,a lack of direction. Vanguardism is interconnected with democratic centralism, encompassing the 'best' of working class consciousness, geared towards tactically manouvering around the obstacles that capitalism throws up against us (THE solution to the problems so to speak). Stalinism is the product of a defeat of socialism materially, contingent on it spreading and on capitalist containment.
stephenfs03 3 months ago
@stephenfs03 But vanguardism is about vanguards of elite intellectuals steering the revolution the way they want (self-declared 'professional revolutionaries'). What does this have to do with working class consciousness?
In fact, Lenin was quite clear that he wanted to imitate the state capitalism of the Germans. Lenin and Trotsky both wanted to use elements of capitalist domination as revolutionary tactics. Nothing socialist about this-- Simply authoritarianism and elitism, viz. Leninism.
agapeiron 3 months ago
@agapeiron Vanguardism isn't elitism. Struggling workers, moving towards socialism, require a solution to this end. This solution is democratically cenralised in the Party, a solution geared towards emancipating oppressed workers, representing the best of class consciousness. The party is the best of the working class, learning from and defined upon our struggles, a vanguard party optimally assisting workers in their quest towards a better world. The party teaches the, and learns from, the class
stephenfs03 3 months ago
@stephenfs03 The vanguard party is only the "best of the working class" to the vanguard party. The working class may despise the vanguard party. And the vanguard party would respond by saying the working class is against the working class. Like I said, nothing to do with working class consciousness.
The definition of an elite is a group of people that consider themselves "the best" of the society (due to *power* or race or wealth)-- Vanguardism is elitist.
agapeiron 3 months ago
@stephenfs03 I also like how you totally hid from my point about Lenin's praise for German state capitalism. At the level of labor, ever notice the remarkable similarities between Lenin in power and capitalism? With capitalism you get a boss or a firm that you must obey, with Lenin you get one man management that must be obeyed under an ideology of iron discipline (after Lenin and Trotsky disarmed the soviets and factory councils).
agapeiron 3 months ago
@stephenfs03 If you actually knew your Lenin, you would know that he had no faith in working class consciousness. He did not actually think the working class was capable of revolutionary class consciousness. He believed the working class could only achieve "trade union consciousness"-- Which is why he believed it was up to people like himself (a child of the Russian bourgeoisie) to steer them in the direction he wanted. (cont)
agapeiron 3 months ago
@stephenfs03 (cont.) Trotsky at one point rightly criticized this self-declared vanguard mentality as "substitutionism"-- A party form that *substitutes itself* for the class its supposed to lead. Marx and Engels wrote a letter to Bebel precisely against this kind of this substitutionism, this bourgeois coordinatorism: "The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself." Look it up online and read it.
agapeiron 3 months ago
@agapeiron You can see how a state indoctrination combined with a truly anti-education style of schooling leads to a working class who don't vote , don't understand anything that happens, and will salute anything with the stars and stripes on it. Those fat lazy uneducated dimwits will vote for fascists like ron paul and think it's freedom. They will never emancipate themselves.
nilbud 2 months ago
Comment removed
GVLBRTY 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nilbud ---I think you give to much credit to the bias assumptions of Americans. They fooled us in 1913 with the Federal Reserve act and many more illegal laws. Bush never won the elections (see vote machine trials on youtube), and Americans banded together to stop the bailout from happening but then they slipped it in anyway, thus leading to protests. I think you should take a look around brother, the octopus has you too, name your country and I'll provide some facts...
GVLBRTY 1 month ago 4
Comment removed
BxCAD 1 month ago
@stephenfs03 --would you agree that the G20 has its roots in the congress of Vienna? Seems like the world has become total Plutocracy with the consolidation of money and resources funneling into some old money families...
GVLBRTY 1 month ago
@agapeiron, vanguardism isn't about 'vanguards of elite intellectuals steering' etc. Sure, vanguards may be intellectually inclined, but why hold that against them? Nowhere did Lenin want to imitate the statism of Hitler, as you claim. Working classes need to organise at the point of production in order to open historical possibility. Emancipation being realised very much depends on solution/tactics. You can't do without intellectual ability and a solvent consciousness to realise this
stephenfs03 1 month ago
@stephenfs03 Lenin and Trotsky advocated one-man management. This is contrary to self-management and democracy. Organization at the point of production means organization by the workers in their work places; emancipation of the workers by the workers themselves (Marx). Lenin and Trotsky opposed this.
agapeiron 1 month ago
@stephenfs03 I did not say the statism of Hitler, I said the German state (it's true). Lenin wasn't even alive for Hitler's Third Reich.
agapeiron 1 month ago
@stephenfs03 "The workers must not be allowed to roam all over Russia. They must be sent where they are needed, called up and directed like soldiers" (Trotsky).
"To study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it, (to not) shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it" (Lenin).
agapeiron 1 month ago
@agapeiron, the above quotes from Trotsky and Lenin are unknown to me, keeping aside the misquoted historical context they may be presented in (if only I could care to find out). Instead, ask whether the workers should democratically run society or whether we should persist with the same old elitism of capitalist order? Answering the former would mean finding a solution to our impasse, the need of intellectual predisposition, thus a vanguard upholding a consciousness that would workers' dilemma.
stephenfs03 1 month ago
@stephenfs03 Whether you are unfamiliar with the quotes does not mean they were not said. Not caring to look into them only makes your own fervent belief in the rightness of the Bolshevik position more conspicuous.
agapeiron 1 month ago
@stephenfs03 Leninists have never had any serious interest in workers democratically running their own societies-- Outside of, perhaps, Bordiga. Otherwise, they have generally been in favor of one-man management of factories, iron discipline, one party rule, and the like. These strategies owe more to the bourgeois consciousness of a self-declared intelligentsia than the revolutionary consciousness of the working classes.
agapeiron 1 month ago
@stephenfs03, Chomsky helped me understand the dilemma of this world, in understanding history and oppressive forces, in part steering me consciously towards political (and workplace) activism. And I agree that Chomsky has he's limits, and others before him (like Lenin, Marx etc) also have their limits, everyone in part being a product of history. We can equally learn important things from Lenin as much as Chomsky. For vanguardism and its fruits we are in part indebted to Lenin.
stephenfs03 1 month ago
I'm almost alone on this but, as far as I can see, Capitalism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. They both believe in the monetary system, which is the fundamental cause of our problems. They differ only over who should have the money - private enterprises or the state. The problem is that as long as money is power there will be uneven agglomerations of it in the hands of those who are more powerful. So even if it is in the hands of the state, the problem of capital as power persists.
historypoliticsbb 3 months ago
@historypoliticsbb (cont.) So in a socialist state, those with the levers of the state will have dominion of those who do not - in that sense party apparratchiks and bankers are not all that different. We know that there is more than enough food to feed everyone over 3000 calories a day. We have more than enough resources, even with the inefficiencies in our current system, to give all 7 billion people are good standard of living. Capital, whoever controls it, is simply in the way.
historypoliticsbb 3 months ago
@historypoliticsbb It is not true that socialism per se believes in monetarism. On the contrary classical socialism seeks to abolish money for the most part. Some were just more emphatical than others. Anarcho-syndicalism effectively abolished money in Catalonia 1936. Personally I don't care what you would call what society, but it is definitely not true that socialists are pro-money.
Socialist or not, I have been against the monetary price system ever since I was seven years old.
RSFO 3 months ago
@RSFO Sorry but the Communist Manifesto mentions taxation numerous times, and calls the abolition of inheritance (let the state take what your parents owned - disgusting and anti-thetical to freedom), called for 'heavy progressive income tax' and 'Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.' Marx was obsessed with money. He just suggested the state own all of it rather than the people. Much of his work reads like
historypoliticsbb 3 months ago
@RSFO (cont.) a blueprint for global domination by the international banking elite. Because the question is, who owns the state? Certainly not the masses, not in the USSR, the USA or the UK. It was a genius propaganda piece to convince everyone to hand their land, property, money and freedom to the state, where it was centralised and thus easier to control for the banking elite who love centralisation - EU, IMF, UN, World Bank, just check out who the Presidents of these things are.
historypoliticsbb 3 months ago
@historypoliticsbb You imply that you must be a follower of Marx if you are a socialist. This is not the truth at all. It is certainly not true either that you would be a follower of the Communist Manifesto (CM). They received heavy criticism from the anarchist branch of the socialist movement, particularly Bakunin. I have only read an excerpt from the CM, where they emphasized making the state obsolete in the socalled communist face of a society. They were however only criticized for the way...
RSFO 3 months ago
@historypoliticsbb (cont.) philosophy of science, especially from people like Karl Popper or Charles S. Peirce.
Our blueprint should be something like this:
Physical economy (no price system)
Have the scientific method as exemplified by Peirce as "state religion", where the problem of duality has to be overcome.
Each and every citizen should have free access criticize to correct the system.
The system should technically impossible to abuse for power gain. Everything a technicality. Why not?
RSFO 3 months ago
@RSFO I own a copy of the CM, I was quoting Chapter II directly, no need to be doubtful. I agree with points 1 and 3 of your blueprint. I haven't studied Peirce, or Popper for that matter, in enough detail for me to possibly agree with your 2nd point. However I can say that I oppose anything designated as 'state religion', surely that contradicts a bit with point 3? Ultimately I think we need to focus on more immediate goals -
1) Nationalise the Bank of England. 2) Abolish it. 3) Abolish money.
historypoliticsbb 3 months ago
@historypoliticsbb (cont.) ...they wanted to deploy communism by the anarchists. I haven't read what you say about the CM, but I find it quite doubtful. And I don't think Marx wanted anything like what we saw in USSR, China etc. He wanted to found the "science" on how to crush power over people. He also wrote some more interesting things *after* the CM, but neither the West nor the former East Block wanted us to read that. But in the end it is the scientific method we should use...
RSFO 3 months ago
@historypoliticsbb (cont.) ... to continually correct Marx, Adam Smith, Bakunin, Technocracy, Zeitgeist etc. to find a way to live without the price system. Humanity is in dire need to live without the oppressive price system. Only some people would find it necessary to read Marx, Adam Smith or Bakunin. But I think it is much more required to have people understand the idea of a physical/energy economy as suggested by the Technocracy movement. The only thing I think they completely lack is...
RSFO 3 months ago
@RSFO (cont.) So politically I can't call myself a socialist. From an academic standpoint however,all serious academics owe at least a small debt to Marx, even Niall Ferguson, who in his words is 'A Marxist but I am on the side of the bourgeoisie'. Most importantly however, we share the same aim: to abolish the monetary system.
historypoliticsbb 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@historypoliticsbb Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
I pay you € 1.000.000, if you are able to.
joaquinveyron 3 months ago
...socialism .. what a joke
SanguineBullet667 3 months ago
@esoparagon. There are contradictions in the world. This is a problem for our brains. Our brains try to put everything in a straight line. We look for contradictions and then we try to solve these contradiction. Truth, actually, involve "buts." We cannot eliminate all the "buts" in the Natural world. When you agree with Chomsky, you are trying to put everything in a straight line. Capitalism is the man. Socialism is the woman. Let them marry. The Scandanavian countries understand.
JayGatsbyOdysseus 4 months ago
@JayGatsbyOdysseus There are contradictions between oversimplifications we make about the world. Hegel realised this obvious fact, and being an idealist, projected the contradictions onto the world itself. Rather unfortunately, Marx took this aspect of Hegel's philsophy, together with other, more useful ones.
KapStuf 3 months ago
The Chomsky of the present day frequently speaks at ISO-organized events. I can only think that he was unread in Lenin at this point. Especially to refer to Trotsky and Luxemburg as if they were not firm allies of Lenin... very strange. It's also elitist to complain that the workers flooded into the Bolshevik Party against their better interest because they were basically too stupid to know better.
boleroinferno 4 months ago
@boleroinferno Trotsky and Luxemburg were allies of Lenin...and fierce critics of Lenin. And he of them.
KapStuf 3 months ago
"millions of lives", huh. You haven't noticed that you've already dropped that ball several times? You guys are hopeless.
ThePythagoran 5 months ago
This is why Noam Chomsky can't be taken too seriously as a left-wing theorist but just a good critic of US foreign policy and linguist. His theory is filled with idealism, his rhetoric is full of liberalism, and his understanding of capitalism doesn't go farther than Adam Smith classical economics.
xx1994xxversion2 6 months ago
@xx1994xxversion2 It's not so much that he doesnt understand economics, he just points out that there are other/better ways to organise societies...rather than by default, just blindly embracing capitalism because we're indoctrinated at an early age, and told that there arent any possible alternatives.
comanchio1976 5 months ago
Chomsky is a State Socialist, he promotes coercive State ownership of Capital (just like Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism). Instead of being open about this he uses cover-terms such as 'democratic control over production' in his article 'The Soviet Union Versus Socialism', which is exactly the same thing as State ownership of Capital; a State is a coercive monopoly initiated over a geographical area. That includes a coercive mob rule 'democratic' monopoly initiated over a geographical area: a State.
qwertypoiu4321 6 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
No. Chomsky is a socialist but an anarchist, and anarchists dislike the state AND big businesses. The underlying reason is that concentration of power (materially speaking concentration of capital) has always been socially disastrous. To be an anarchist you have to be a socialist, but being socialist you can be collectivist (Stalin) but never an anarchist. When he talks about ‘democratic control over production’ he really means it.
Alexopolux 6 months ago
@Alexopolux except for anarcho-capitalists.
Esoparagon 5 months ago
@Esoparagon The so called anarcho-capitalism, as far as I understand it, is dangerous utopianism (just look at the current news) and a truly contradiction in terms. “Anarcho”- capitalists should call their doctrines, as it has been common usage since the nineteenth century: laissez-faire, or simply capitalism. On my side I like the term vulgar liberalism. Anyhow, they should stop calling themselves anarchists. Anarchism hardly needs more discredit.
Alexopolux 5 months ago
@Alexopolux It's only a contradiction in terms if you take the term anarchism in the traditional sense whereby private property is abolished necessarily when the state is abolished. We deny that the state is necessary for private property. We are opposed to the state and are for its destruction and in that sense we are definitely true anarchists by the definition 'a political theory favoring the abolition of governments'.
Esoparagon 5 months ago
@Alexopolux And the current news cannot be blamed on laissez-faire capitalism. No such capitalism exists.
Esoparagon 5 months ago
@Esoparagon The current news are showing the disastrous results (once again for rich countries) of attempting to impose that utopia called laissez-faire. The emphasis is in "attempting" since as you correctly said, this capitalism cannot simply exist and in fact never existed.
Alexopolux 5 months ago
@Alexopolux Funny. It seems thousands more regulations and a slew of social programs doesn't count as 'attempting to impose' laissez-faire. That's the exact opposite. If anything the trend is nothing less than the consistent and methodical abandonment of laissez-faire in any form.
Esoparagon 5 months ago
@Esoparagon Your post is good insofar as in order to explain this (apparent) contradiction, it would require a book. Fortunately that book exists. Polanyi’s Great Transformation was published in the same year as Hayek’s Road (1944). Why Hayek was given more publicity than Polanyi in spite of the intellectual superiority of the latter is in itself interesting. Anyway Polanyi disclosed the contradiction you correctly observe, in his terms the “dual movement”. If you have the time, please read it.
Alexopolux 5 months ago
@Alexopolux Cheers. I'll look it up. :)
Esoparagon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@qwertypoiu4321
No. Chomsky is a socialist but an anarchist, and anarchists dislike the state AND big businesses. The underlying reason is that concentration of power (materially speaking concentration of capital) has always been socially disastrous. To be an anarchist you have to be a socialist, but being socialist you can be collectivist (Stalin) but never an anarchist. When he talks about ‘democratic control over production’ he really means it.
Alexopolux 6 months ago
"In my view ought to be called a coup" ... Oh chomsky , that one line is enough to make me feel ill , you know the history well enough to know that statement is wrong.
CryptSphinx 6 months ago
@CryptSphinx You must have a different interpretation of what a coup actually means, and how the 'revolution' wasnt one...do tell?
comanchio1976 5 months ago
@comanchio1976 As bluntly as possible : The dictionary definition of a coup detat would exclude a mass movement of people . If you are not interested in even looking up the events of the October revolution then fine. You would find,however, a vast number of people , not just a small number of Bolsheviks , took power. Frankly , I am none too interested in a semantics debate in videos comments . If you want a discussion of any volume just contact me.
CryptSphinx 5 months ago
Sounds like that one is about to cry.
JeresyMike18 6 months ago
Political opinions aside; a wonderfully eloquent lady.
rumtastic 6 months ago
DOUBLE BACKHANDED JUSTICE!
MjXllcommando 6 months ago
PUT HIS HAT BACK ON!!!11
mplayer98 6 months ago
155 liberals want a revolution without a revolution
brianofoblivion 6 months ago
@brianofoblivion We might want a revolution without a "vanguard" party to take opportunity.
RSFO 6 months ago
This was recorded 9 days before I was born. Humph!
Mattprole 7 months ago
Chomsky is such a menshevick, it's disgusting. He wouldn't know anything about Lenin if he got to interview him. To call the October Revolution a coup! What academic bourgeoisie drivel, but what can you expect from a linguist professor that sells books all his life, and has done little else of substance. STFU CHOMSKY!
amsterdam78 7 months ago
@amsterdam78 So do you actually have an objection to his arguments, or do you simply reject it offhand because it doesn't fit your discredited Marxist religion?
QuatFax 7 months ago
@amsterdam78 LOL
LordAcheron92 7 months ago
@amsterdam78 Fuck off, Trotskyist.
agapeiron 7 months ago
@agapeiron Sorry, but Trotsky was right. You can't see it it's because your selectively blind like chomsky.
amsterdam78 7 months ago
@amsterdam78 Trotsky was right to support the crushing of the Kronstadt sailors and workers?
agapeiron 7 months ago
@agapeiron Of course he was. Not only were they a direct threat to the revolution, they were being manipulated by radical anarchists. Also, there were no workers in Kronstadt, only sailors.
amsterdam78 7 months ago
@amsterdam78 That assumes that any revolution that Leninists happen to be in is "their" revolution (the self-declared "revolutionary leadership). Therefore, revolutionaries like the Kronstadters become a "threat" to the revolution, because the revolution is just whatever Lenin and Trotsky say, etc.
agapeiron 7 months ago
@amsterdam78 "Also, there were no workers in Kronstadt, only sailors."
Another absurd Leninist fantasy. If there were no workers, why were there factory committees in Kronstadt? Why was there a revolutionary Kronstadt trade union council? Do you even check the accuracy of things you say, or if a Leninist in your silly group or sect says so, does that make it justifiable to repeat?
agapeiron 7 months ago
@amsterdam78 But then again, it makes sense. According to Trotskyist logic: Trotsky is good, anything he does is good. Therefore massacring the Kronstadters is good. Since Trotsky is good, and Trotsky supports the workers, then there must not be any workers in Kronstadt, or else Trotsky would be bad. Trotsky can never be bad, because Stalin killed him. Therefore-- and I can see you leaping to these conclusions after skimming an ISO or SWP blurb on it-- there were no workers in Kronstadt...
agapeiron 7 months ago
@agapeiron I found a flaw in your logic, which is obviously anarchistic. There were no workers in the Kronstadt fortress, it's a fact not an opinion. I find the ISO and SWP a joke, and not Trotskyist, I'm in the International Marxist Tendency.
amsterdam78 7 months ago
@amsterdam78 The fortifications themselves are of course military-oriented. Saying there were no workers in the fortifications is kind of a joke-- The civilians in alliance with soldiers and sailors were still part of Kronstadt. And what about sailors slaving away on board ships? They don't do "work"-- They're not "workers" anymore?
All Trotskyism is a joke, that's why none of you consider other Trotskyists to truly be Trotskyists. Leninism needs to die.
agapeiron 6 months ago
@agapeiron Anarchism, and social-Democracy is a joke.
amsterdam78 6 months ago
@amsterdam78 If they are, then Leninism is a joke too, but with a dictatorship enforcing the joke on everyone else, and killing them if they protest against it.
agapeiron 6 months ago
@agapeiron You don't know what you are talking about. I have read and written books on the subject, and have a degree in the subject.
amsterdam78 6 months ago
@amsterdam78 I like how you don't even offer counter-arguments about Kronstadt anymore. You just say "anarchism is a joke" or "I have written books on the subject." Maybe you should get Alan Woods to hop on Youtube and make your arguments for you...
agapeiron 6 months ago
@agapeiron I just have time for kids. If you want to know our stance on Anarchists like the Kronstadt sailors, well I should say that, only some were, the rest were influenced by them, but go to Marxist(dot)com and listen to Alan Woods on Marxism and anarchism. That said, I back Trotsky and Lenin's decision 100%
amsterdam78 6 months ago 2
@amsterdam78 *I just don't...*
amsterdam78 6 months ago
@agapeiron I would Like to point out that Chomsky on this video stated that Trotsky backed Hitler in a statement in the 1930's, which is completely false, and a low blow even for him. That was a malicious lie, that Trotsky never acquiesced to, and was made-up by Stalin himself. For Chomsky to perpetuate it is unforgivable.
amsterdam78 6 months ago
@amsterdam78 Where does Noam Chomsky say that Trotsky backed Hitler? I can't find it.
RSFO 6 months ago
@RSFO 3:14
amsterdam78 6 months ago
@amsterdam78 Well perhaps you should listen to that part yourself then. Noam Chomsky did *not* state that Trotsky backed Hitler. Chomsky said that Trotsky was charged with agreeing with the fascists for criticizing the Soviet Union. That's what Stalin said, not what Chomsky says in this video. But similarly many Trotskyists and Leninists charge Chomsky with supporting "the Capitalists" for criticizing Trotsky and Lenin.
RSFO 6 months ago
@RSFO Maybe you should listen to it again? Even bringing up the charge is a slanderous attack on Trotsky's credibility. It's casting doubt on Trotsky, and mainly because Chomsky is not 1/9 the theoretician Trotsky was. To advance his own view he repeats slurs and slanders carefully, to inject doubt. This linguist knows that in 100 years no one will read Chomsky, but Trotsky will be read forever.
amsterdam78 6 months ago
When was this video taken? 1977?
singularityneuroman1 8 months ago
@singularityneuroman1 89
LordAcheron92 7 months ago
Why is that woman so vicious? Shut up bitch
FarhadTv 8 months ago
Chomsky is a clever man, but the fact that he dismisses leninism, doesn't make it weaker, since it is one of the most influential modern-day political doctrines. Its' practical success proves its truthfulness. And makes Chomsky himself nothing more than "infantile leftist".
timfidotru 9 months ago
@timfidotru Yeah, practical successes of Leninism. Right...
Oh wait! You must be a Leninist!
agapeiron 9 months ago
@agapeiron that's kind of a pointless thing to say, isn't it? for example, if i defended evolution, surely you wouldn't try to discedit me by saying i must be a darwinist...
warmongerpro 9 months ago
@warmongerpro Are you the guy I just replied to on a different user name?
Actually, I think being outed as a Leninist or a Stalinist or a Maoist or what have you is discrediting in itself.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@timfidotru The fact that Leninism is "influential" does not demonstrate that it's true; Tea Party conservatism is influential, yet it's clearly a mess of contradictions. If you have an objection to Chomsky's arguments, explain them and begin a discussion.
QuatFax 7 months ago
that girl speaker is really emotional and almost sounds nervous
jaguarandi2 9 months ago
@jaguarandi2 i'd be nervous if i was challenging Noam Chomsky, too.
hotchrislee 9 months ago
@EllyMcCormack thanks 4 your reply. I didnt mean that she shdn't ask a question. I think my comment was just an immediate response to the fact that she was so long-winded. When I first read about Leninism and Stalinism I couldn't see the difference either. Then I read an essay by Stephen F Cohen that said they were similar in theory but different in practice. If I recall correctly, I think he said that Stalinism was far more violent in its approach to internal dissent
RecruitingAnimal 9 months ago
She should shut up
RecruitingAnimal 10 months ago
@RecruitingAnimal Maybe she learned something. I know in Chomsky's response, I certainly did.
EllyMcCormack 9 months ago
I will continue to use "right wing" the way I have because it has contemporary relevance, and because it differentiates left libertarian thought from right libertarian thought. I understand people like you try to argue the meaning of "right" to make their justification of inequality seem "neither left or right" etc. A clever gambit, indeed, like how the Libertarian Party is neither liberal or conservative! The ultimate "neutrality" such "libertarians" are impressed by.
agapeiron 10 months ago
wow, the questioner sounds so whiny and bitchy :/
100CommonCents 10 months ago
It really is amazing how collectivists decry capitalism and its well known penchant for punishing failure yet all believe darwinist theory of survival of the fittest.seems like a survival of the fittest mentality should go hand in hand with an economic system that rewards hard work and innovation
The facist crony system we have been under for about 100 years is finally failing and needs to fail so true economic liberty can prevail
Someone help me understand how
teecuzbruh 11 months ago
@teecuzbruh Perfect. You, my dear conservative fool, just made a fine example of your own warped political ideology, giving us more proof that free market twits try to make capitalism seem as natural as evolutionary biology. Capitalism, a system created people (that always spins out of control, causing unemployment, further poverty, recessions and needs massive cash injections to get it to work again) is for free market dogmatists like you as natural as a peaceful meadow or a placid stream!
agapeiron 11 months ago
@agapeiron Stories about supposed "instability" of a free market is simply not true. It never spins out of control and in free markets there is no "cash injections" they have nowhere to come from. This goes to show unfamiliarity with a basis of free markets.
@teecuzbruh I recommend stefbot-s "450 Libertopia ", search here on YouTube ;)
zg76 11 months ago
@zg76 Straw-man argument. Reread my comment on capitalism and reply again without your free market idealism bending what I said retroactively. In the mean time, good luck trying to implement your right wing dream of a totally free market.
agapeiron 11 months ago
@agapeiron Ha, ha, why don't you correct my "Straw-man argument". I was not rearranging you comment, just pointed out you ignorance about free markets ideas!
Huuu.. right wing-spookyyy.. You don't have to dream if you are looking for Society without a government, stateless society (Stefan Molyneux), natural order (prof Hoppe), look at your life! You, I would hope, still do not use force, let alone monopoly of force, to deal with you friends and foes alike. ;)
Have a great day!
zg76 11 months ago
@zg76 No, you did misread my comment. And you just repeated the mistake again. So please see my reply to your reply again if you want to continue this.
agapeiron 11 months ago
@agapeiron "..free market twits try to make capitalism seem as natural as evolutionary biology. Capitalism,a system created by people (that always spins out of control,causing unemployment,further poverty,recessions and needs massive cash injections to get it to work again)" and I said that this simply is not true. It never spins out of control and in free markets there is no "cash injections" they have nowhere to come from because there is no state.
Whats there Straw-man argument or misread?
zg76 11 months ago
@agapeiron original free-marketers were on the left. that's where they sat when the first left right was developed after the french revolution.
your comment is typical of historically ignorant dipshits who want to make it seem as though right wing = capitalism.
the 'right-wing' (consevatives/ monarchy sympathisers) took advantages of free-markets, by being an unnessary parasite for their 'in' group of modern nobels. classical liberals/left= opposed
w w w . fff . org / freedom / fd0706b . asp
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents What's historically ignorant is the attempt to ahistorically comprehend the political spectrum, viz. an abstract schema for visualizing politics which we use for the sake of communication. When I say something is right wing, I refer to our contemporary usage of the term. So if you want to define it that way and pretend that inequalities and relations of exploitation don't exist in markets, go ahead, and title your justifications "leftist" if it makes you feel like a "leftist."
agapeiron 10 months ago
@agapeiron my point wasn't to advocate some kind of never changing definition - it was to show you that they DO change, and that it is beyond inane to label libertarians/classical liberals as 'right-wing' when in fact they were the two main opposing ideologies, and still fundamentally oppose each other.
you're purposely (or ignorantly) using an ambiguous word 'right-wing', which in many ways is defined by ' being AGAINST social freedoms.
yet classical liberals fight FOR social freedoms.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents The fact that every "libertarian" I've met was a crypto-GOP loon that hated "lazy union workers" and "welfare queens" etc. doesn't convince me that you guys are these magically neutral "libertarians" that don't have screeching reactionaries beneath the crust of your civil liberties rhetoric. Though I'm not saying your politics are like that, you must understand that the overwhelming majority of "libertarians" I've met had no problem characterizing their politics as "right wing."
agapeiron 10 months ago 20
@agapeiron There are a lot of right wingers who call themselves libertarians, but not all libertarians are like that. I, for example, am a left-leaning libertarian. I want the gov out of my life. I don't want the gov telling me who to marry, if I can have a gun, if I want to take drugs etc. I want a real police force and not the paramilitary force we have today that passes for police and also want a lower tax burden, maybe by not murdering foreigners in my name.
christo930 9 months ago
@christo930 I understand your grievances with being labeled like the rest of them. But, friend, your use of the word libertarian is still that of the recent right wing appropriation, domesticated into establishment discourse. It used to mean socialist, anarchist; I am a libertarian socialist. In that sense I'm a left libertarian.
In America, words are losing their actual meaning due to appropriations by right wingers who want to claim them, "libertarian" and "anarchist" both.
agapeiron 9 months ago
@christo930 For example, if you look back before free market people on the American right began using "libertarian" towards the end of the 20th century, it will become immediately apparent that previous uses of the word "libertarian" were vigorously revolutionary and anti-capitalist. Taxation would not be an issue because capitalism was to be brought down altogether, done away with for being inhumane. The idea of a capitalist calling themselves a libertarian would have been regarded as absurd.
agapeiron 9 months ago
@agapeiron I am definitely not anti-capitalist. For all of it's problems, capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system ever invented. Competition lowers prices and losses eliminate wasteful uses of resources. Today our system is much closer to fascism than to any capitalist system.
christo930 9 months ago
@christo930 I didn't think you were anti-capitalist. I was just clearing things up for you regarding history and terminology.
Trust me, I have a built-in capitalist radar system. It's harder picking up people permeated by the values of the market system when they pay lip service to capitalist values unconsciously in their words and deeds. But an actual self-conscious ideological capitalist is easy to spot!
On Chomsky videos, it goes beep beep beep, as right wingers leave angry comments, etc
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Are you anti-capitalism? I am left leaning and I believe in a progressive taxation system and social safety nets. OTOH, I am against things like minimum wage and am pro capitalism. I don't think it's perfect and sometime people do suffer, but there doesn't appear to be any large scale socialist systems that work in practice. Minimum wage laws create a permanent underclass, a thing I deplore. I want a system with the least amount of suffering for the most number of people.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930 I hear you. Yes I'm anti-capitalist, but I don't think its a constructive way to describe politics with a little "anti." Most attempts at socialist societies in the 20th century were oppressive totalitarian dictatorships based on the USSR model, which was Leninist ideologically. It poured its power into creating similar dictatorships elsewhere, and of crushing opposing socialisms. I'm more from the libertarian socialist tradition, and I favor market abolition.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Within socialism, what are the mechanisms to increase efficiency and to prevent or stop production that combines land, labor and capital in inefficient ways? What are the incentives for people with new ideas to try them out and to start a business? How does an existing business raise capital to expand production if they are making something people want at a price they can afford? I don't ask rhetorically, I assume you have answers for these things if you support it.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930 Are you sure you're not just asking them because you're miffed that I'm a socialist and I burst your right wing "libertarian" fantasy?
If you're serious about these questions and are interested in the kind of socialism I advocate-- you cannot expect me to speak for ALL socialists-- then message me and rephrase the questions without your capitalist assumptions (such as businesses in a socialist society!).
If you are not serious, don't bother because it's not worth my time.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I am not idealogical about it, more pragmatic. I am genuinely interested in how a socialist system could work. I thought my tone was pretty neutral or accommodating so I am very surprised that you seem a little taken back. If you are interested in discussing how socialism can work, we can take it offline where there is no 500char limit. I look forward to hearing from you.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930 I'm not taken back! I'd like to hear from you if you're serious, obviously. Message me with all the questions you want.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron The Libertarian party is right wing. Actual libertarianism can be leftist, centrist, or right wing.
LordAcheron92 7 months ago
@agapeiron one of my co-workers is actually a progressive libertarian... he is also a devout Mormon, who happens to also be cosmologically a Mahayana Buddhist. It is really interesting.
Craigipedia 7 months ago