aftermath allowed for approx 85 - 130 million murdered between 1917 and 1990...
ffs,the particular the exact philosophical brand of Nationalsozialismus of the NSDAP was adopted, adapted and constantly tailored to deal with the situation and circumstances of the time that was at hand. To combat the planned communist takeover of western Europe, to resurrect the lifeless German economy and the crushed and charred remains of its infrastructure, and to quickly get out from under the thumb of
Wow, the misunderstandings and ignorance of what was going on behind the scenes found in some of these comments is frightening.
Russia during the 20th century, yes keys discuss the bloody economy in comparison with the so called political system of governance. Let's see, after they conjured up Marx & Co. to create a socio-political system tailor made for the infiltration and overthrow of European countries. Then they finally knocked off the Tsar and family, had the Bolshevik Revolution, it's a
Don't have to go to Harvard to realise that during the period Chomsky is whining about, Soviet Russia was fighting for its life against the Central Powers, the White Armies and then the Allied intervention. Chomsky gets extra points for cheering the overthrow of the USSR even though it destroyed the lives of millions of people but Chomsky gets paid anyway to peddle anti-communist propaganda.
@jumpnjza2 Anti-communist? Cheering for the overthrow of the USSR? Have you ever read one of Chomsky's books?
Chomsky would have liked to see the socialist movement be able to hold together. The actual one that Lenin tore apart shortly after he bullied his way into power. The result of this is would probably have been a very healthy country. The USSR would have never formed, and a large amount of suffering would have been avoided.
Liberal wankery. Even if you disagree with the method of revolution, the overthrow of the USSR plunged millions of people in poverty and despair. Chomsky considers this a 'victory for socialism'.
He called it a victory of socialism because the USSR collapsed under a system that in no way resembled socialism. If he thought the collapse of the USSR was a triumph because of all of the human suffering that took place then he would have said it was a triumph of capitalism and totalitarianism, because that's what Russia was.
Read one of Chomsky's books. "Understanding Power." He goes into detail what a terrible disaster the collapse was.
He said it was a 'small victory' again in 2003 most probably because he's a douche. On the other hand, Michael Parenti's analysis was spot on from 25/12/1991 onwards.
Chomsky is opposed to collapses of societies and human suffering. That's why he writes books to educate people on past atrocities so we can avoid them later.
@jumpnjza2 I already explained this. He's simply saying it demonstrates that capitalism is not an effective economic platform. If your brain doesn't have the capacity to understand something this basic, then it's pretty obvious you don't have the capacity to understand economics.
The April Theses and State and Revolution were "libertarian" works? What? Are you kidding? Lenin/the Bolsheviks were "right wing deviations"? Are you serious, Chomsky? Even with the left wing or otherwise anarchist description of libertarianism this doesn't make any sense. Chomsky's a real philistine when it comes to anything related to socialist history.
@XenverX No, she criticized him for blithely equating Stalinism with Leninism. And he went to explain why he felt that Lenin wasn't true to Marxist ideology and was actually a precursor to later totalitarian political systems. That's completely relevant to her "question," which was actually just an extended impromptu criticism.
Yeah but Chomsky - Rosa Rosenberg ended up with bullet in her head - this is the reality of democratic socialism - it always gets overthrown by reactionary forces - viz-a-viz Italy, Greece, Portugal, Germany, Chili, Congo, Argentina etc etc etc - Lenin and Trotsky knew this would happen in Russia - that's why they were so ruthless - if you fight fair, you'll lose - unfortunately, the Bourgeoisie are always with us.
@partisan49 Lenin might have been a authoritarian but unless you noticed he was up against some pretty ruthless enemies - this is what Asiatic communists realized that the western left didn't - as stipulated by Gramsci. The western left capitulated to Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and Hitler - because they were too weak. Fascism, after all, is just capitalism under siege and will always rear its ugly head when the left threatens bourgeois dominance of the economy - Lenin understood this totally.
@32peartree That's a moot point. There was no hint of fascism in 1917. Lenin was convinced that seizing power in Russia would cause all of Europe to turn socialist.
@ppitm You're seeing 1917 in splendid isolation from previous revolutions. The British glorious revolution, the French Revolution and the failure of the Paris Commune - is all the proof that Lenin needed to understand that the bourgeois counter revolution was inevitable. And when it came it would be bloody and ruthless.
The truth is capitalism has killed far more people than Lenin and Stalin put together. How many people die everyday due to no access to clean water and antibiotics. If the third world became Cubanized tomorrow it would save billions of lives. Long live the revolution.
Civil war - capitalist onslaughts, poverty and backwardness in Russia created fertile ground for Stalinist totalitarianism and continued isolation. However, the international movement that the events of 1917 triggered could have cut across this development, by a more advanced working class. Lenin went to his deathbed struggling against Stalinism.
@queenofshebalala Makes you wonder how things would of turned out if Lenin had lived longer or if Stalin had never come to power. Lenin did warn people in his government about how dangerous Stalin could be.
@mcm1345, f) Very illustrative is the statistics from 1938 – a year with intensive repressions. Arrested - 52,372; sentenced - 2,731; put to death 89; the rest were dismissed -49,641. Apparently the ministry of internal affairs was overzealous and the court had to dismiss most of the cases. In 1940 by official documents, the prisoners in Gulags were 1,668,200 (five times les then the number from Conquest.)
@mcm1345, e) Robert Conquest, a British pseudo historian, insists on 6 mill killed in 1938. Do you believe it? Here, some more realistic numbers. For the years of Stalin’s leadership, 1921-53, were arrested 3.7 mill citizens from which sentenced to death including criminals - 600,000. For the majority of them death row was replaced with life sentence. Less than 300,000 were carried out. 2.5 mill were sent to prison camps Gulag.
@mcm1345, d) Under sever international pressure the made a lot of mistakes. The power struggle was immense. Many people were wasted but not by millions. Russians lost 26 mill (22 mill men) during WWII. Before the war only men between 18 and 60 were in danger of arrest and prosecution. They were 44 mill from whole population. Western propaganda points 20 mill victims.
@mcm1345, c) The Whites applied pervasive terror wherever they managed to put their boots on. Lenin had to declare the famous slogan “To the white terror we return with red terror”. Eight mill people died and only 3.5 mill were soldiers. After the defeat of the whites, the West responded with economic blockade and flooded Soviet Russia with paid spies Bolsheviks had difficult economic situation.
@mcm1345, b) One has to take under consideration the exceptionally complicated domestic and international circumstances Soviet Russia had to be built up. Immediately, moths after the revolution Britain, France, and USA (secretly from their population) organized and funded the counter revolution. Poland participated directly and their police killed over 80,000 Russian revolutionaries and supporters in Belarus and Ukraine.
Moreover, nobody equates free market capitalism with Pinochet and Suhartu - no one says free market capitalism failed because Pinochet shot thousands of people in soccer stadiums - and Suhartu murdered a million communists. The truth is millions died on either side of gigantic class war - just as Marx predicted.
@32peartree You filthy commie-scumbag! No but seriously, what you said is genuinely interesting. I'll have to look up those names as, I'm ashamed to admit, I've never heard of them or their crimes. Just goes to show how ill informed the public is regarding the whole communism=evil/capitalism=good argument. If people weren't so ignorant then they'd probably give socialism or communism another chance.
being overthrown by its enemies, etc. Lenin did what he could to gain Bolshevik hold on power, and to guarantee that tenuous hold in the years following the revolution. Personally, Lenin was a man who lived simply, discouraged superstitions (including the worship of himself), and was genuinely committed to creating a worker's state. Lenin's early death and the rise of Stalin is what led to the perversion of the socialist experiment in Russia.
Chomsky went on to say that one of Lenin's first moves after the revolution was to crack down on the soviets in Russia. That is half-way true....Lenin did break up some of the councils where Bolshevik power was challenged, but that was in no case all of them. This action, as well as Lenin's previous and subsequent ones, must be seen through the lens of insecurity, because that is the one theme that predominates the revolution. Fear of being caught by the Okrana, fear of the fledgling govt.
It's not hard to examine Lenin's actions and to deride him as an opportunist, but I think Chomsky's analysis is a bit too harsh, because he divorces the revolution from its wider context. Socialist parties existed long before 1917, but none ever seemed to make much headway. Lenin's advocacy for an elite vanguard to lead the revolution was understandable, since cooperating with bourgeois govt.'s had achieved little up to that point.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
" . . . to a large extent the Bolshevik authoritarian approach was consistent with conceptions which pre-date the insurrection and which, therefore, had nothing to do with the exigencies of the situation they confronted after coming to power." - John Callaghan, "The Farl left in British Politics" (Oxford 1987), p.19.
@TerrySleeper Lenin conceived an authoritarian approach to governing the country and leading it towards communism because he believed it would be the most effective, or even the only possible way to achieve that end. I don't think it would have made a difference whether there was a civil war or not, but it's wrong to imply (as Callaghan seems to) that the motivation of the Bolsheviks was the same as the Tsarist govt. before them. No country, including Russia, has a "default" political system.
@Aaronthegreatest - no, what Callaghan is saying is that authoritarianism was rooted in Lenin's principles and practices. His motives were not those of the Tsarists, but his methods were - necessarily - not a million miles away from theirs.
You cannot be serious dismissing the importance of the civil war - as Trotsky said, it left the Bolsheviks running a country full of starvation and typhus.
@TerrySleeper why get bogged down with the excesses of the Soviet Union. What about the Anarchists killing McKinley and Franz Ferdinand - Bukunin and the 'propaganda of the deed' - the only reason why Anarchists haven't killed as many people as communists - is because they have never been in power.
@TerrySleeper so killing your political adversaries isn't force. I suppose the Baader Meinhof gang, for instance, were really just a bunch of shrinking violets who once they set up their little communes would swap their swords for plow shares. My arse! The truth is the anarchists lost the battle for the working class - because their ideology was too ramshackle, bourgeois and opaque. Lenin was right - Anarchists were a bunch of middle class vagabonds or cared nothing for the proletariat.
@TerrySleeper I agree with that, but it sounded to me like Callaghan was equating the motives of the two different regimes.
I'm not dismissing the importance of the civil war, just pointing out that it didn't influence Lenin's belief that power needed to be seized forcefully from Kerensky. The civil war was naturally a factor in the harsh measures that Lenin adopted after he was in power in order to ensure the survival of the government.
The alternative to WESTERN PRIVATE CAPITALISM has been STATE CAPITALISM OF ASIATIC MODALITY, in USSR case it restructrued itself and China should soon become the biggest WORLD CAPITALIST MARKET. The only real alternative is TO SHARE THE EARTH IN COOPERATION in a moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity where we express our multitude of creative energies in freedom of being rather the current minority tyrannical ABSTRACT ACCUMULATION and CONCENTRATION.
@arzoyan 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.
@ooohpie A classless,moneyless,stateless communities of humanity in cooperation to take care of our needs and well being , expressing our creative energies in freedom of being. Capitalism is the manipulation of resources and technology for the private gain of a few in a monetary system that enslaves immense humanity in wage slavery of useless employment system that dehumanises and denies our human creative potential for a world of harmony within and without
The bankers (Rothschilds Rockefellers) set these monsters up, just like Hitler and Mao. And there is no way Chomsky, if he's sooo smart, that he could not know this. He never talks about the CFR or the Federal Reserve - give me a break.
@clint525fuller If only the the FED were dissolved, we would all live in utopia. Go listen to Alex Jones and stop commenting on intellectual discussion. ehhhh!
@Joe2000King, what a brutal king you are; king of the village of ignorance and deficit of manners, who cannot hold his horses, burps, and vomits menace against alternative thinkers.
Chomsky, an in-door philosopher filling fussy in the lap of liberal capitalism, accuses, in shifting his philosophical positions, Lenin who was working in real social environment with internal problems and ferocious external pressure. In sculpturing his historical project, Lenin was learning if the clay is soft enough to fit the projections. Chomsky does not understand the complexity of this new type of society. It differs from the theoretical ideals and shocks with its perplexed metamorphoses.
@cosmopolite66 it s quiet harsh to brand lenin a right winger. at the same time his views on vanguardism and his efforts to depoliticize working class compel to think so but the economic comulsions which pushed lenin to that direection have to be given due consideration.the debate will be unending. but there is no point in bashing chomsky for being critical of lenin s views
@VALANIFS 1/ This critique to Chomsky is valid for the liberal western intelligentsia who had seen socialism only on paper and did not understand the reality is not so pure as some presupposition for philosophical theories. If it wasn't for Lenin there would not be Soviet Russia. Trotsky wanted to export revolution all over the World and to jeopardize Soviet project. If Stalin did not hold him he wanted to ignite permanent communist revolution and loose the battle.
@VALANIFS 2/ Western intelligentsia played very sinister role while in betraying the Soviet revolution which was an amazing achievement for all progressive people on the Earth. The western intelligentsia helped the bourgeoisie to split international workers’ solidarity and to easily defeat and destroy the Eastern bloc. They still do not understand that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy for the working people everywhere. You only look at the unleashed neocons in the west.
@VALANIFS 3/ They cannot wait to find pretexts to invade and bombard another country that obstructs their interest. How many people have to die so American intellectuals to understand that the fragmented workers’ movement benefits the greedy bourgeoisie? The western conservative propaganda with a lot of help from western intelligentsia managed to distort and to smear a lot of dirt on the image for the socialism so even the poorest people who struggle the most now believe in this rubbish.
@VALANIFS First Chomsky is an anarchist and fan of Bakunin; there is no way for him approving Lenin's revolution. My critique is on he compares what Lenin wrote before with what he did after. For a lame observer this is acceptable, however Chomsky wants to be taken as a scholar. I do not think Lenin did right wing policies; what he did on the first place was holding on his promise to Esers to do land reform, give land to peasants.
@VALANIFS What political decisions illustrate "Lenin's efforts to depoliticize working class?" No one communist , who rely on politically active work class would do that; Bolshevik party was struggling badly for lack of enough working class and had to use peasants for the army in the revolutionary wars. After the civil war the city was struggling for lack of food and the tired from the wars peasant would not care.
@cosmopolite66 thanks for your valuable comments.i agree with you to a large extent.probably i have to improve my understanding on post revolutionary working class conditions.
@xbertocoaylax If you are talking me defending Lenin, you are out of context. Chomsky accuses Lenin in changing his tactics and methods and I explained that this is the way a leader should act. He does not need to be a stubborn puritan in ideas but to act effectively. This does not show how I evaluate Lenin as a politician or philosopher. I think he made a lot of mistakes but I am not sure if I would make less. And, Lenin wasn't a dictator. He used collective methods when it was applicable.
@mcm1345, a) re: How did Stalin and Lenin deviate from Marx?
They did not; Marx actually did nit let any ‘instructions’ how the socialism had to be brought in built. Lenin, Stalin, and all Soviet leaders had to improvise. They made a lot of mistakes but not crimes. Whatever is written about Bolshevik criminal is propaganda. …
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That bitch needs to be punched in the face. Trotsky and Lenin were worse than Hitler. They murdered 30 million Gentiles in Russia. Marxism was a creation of Jewish global bankers who funded these blood thirsty pigs. They were Free Masons and they are alive and well in today's administration...Bush and Obama are both operatives of these same banking cartels.
I had no idea his discourse was so destructive, basically what he calls true socialism is basically anarchism, meaning the stateless utopia we should all be trying to get closer to. That anarchist society is communism's final goal as well and has always been. Chomsky here forgets that it seems and prefers to destruct all that was built by socialism in Russia towards that goal focusing only on the mistakes... Another socialist turning its back as soon as the battle is lost... no need for that...
@sinekonata Are you mentally deficient? He clearly stated that the core of socialism is workers control of the mode of production. He never ONCE mentioned anarchism AT ALL. His points are all valid about the destruction of SOCIALISM (workers control of the mode of production in case you don't know what that means). You leninist types really do need to look at history more often as you seem so keen to completely ignore it
Seriously, the left turned Hitler into a right winger, which he was not. Now they're trying to turn Lenin into a right winger? Europe has a strange outlook on left and right wing in the first place, both represent a strong centralized government. In the US, right wing is small government. Left wing is big government. Perhaps left wingers should say left right wing and left left wing instead of trying to make us real right wingers look bad.
be careful with all the left/right labels. the whole 'left and white' spectrum is invented.... orchestrated. when you have managed to keep societies busy and fighting around over who is 'left' or who is 'right', regardless of how strong or in which way(s), you can go another way. you know which way im talking about? hint: not straight backwards. you can basically do whatever you want. this might sound weird to you, but please do realize that its just tiny elite group in power in the west today.
@kissemurra12 I will spare you the incredible humiliation of having your argument destroyed before your very eyes. No It makes me laugh just at how incredibly wrong you are.
@joekopor glad you admit you were wrong then and your nationalsocialism as as evil as ever, like most other leftist socialism is^^haha let me guess, israel is wrong aswell and the jews deserve it?
@kissemurra12 If you would actually read what the leaders of NAZI Germany wrote, instead of just focusing on the word Sozialismus in NAZI, you would realize how wrong you are. Hitler never explained what kind of socialism he meant, but it seems to be clear that the word was used to try to gain support from the working classes. Rosenberg and Chirac did, however, answer what they meant with Socialism, and that has more to do with how feudal Germany was still at the time.
@ellitho They meant that people should be allowed to be judged by their ability, but not by their birthright and family heritage. So in saying that Nazi Germany had anything to do with any sort of Socialism is only discrediting you from any sensible discussion.
@ellitho if you actually read history what the nazi leaders did, the word socialism and they following socialistic military and economic policies it kinda contradicts and show how wrong you are. they did use socialistic policies in both economy and in military sense.. so your actually following nazism like any typical socialist
@kissemurra12 "...so your actually following nazism like any typical socialist"
PMSL. Your owners have you well trained. Socialism is about equality and justice a.k.a. social justice. Now tell me what the Nazis did to further social justice? Fuckwit.
@kissemurra12 Repeat after me: Socialism is about workers owning the means of production. That is it, that is what socialism is. The state supported economy of NAZI Germany was state corporatism that was borrowed from Mussolini's Italy and adapted to Germany. I don't know where you get "socialistic military and economic policies", maybe that's a Swedish thing, I don't know, but I don't understand what you are going on about.
@ellitho Repeat after me: socialism is just like national socialism, hence the word of it. its mostly left wing national socialism that is the worst, its close to islamism and other nazi idelogies. I dont know how you could not understand the socialistic military you used, maybe they dont teach you that in the "reeducation camps" of socialist nazi schools nor economic policies
@kissemurra12 it's amazing how stupid people can be. Just because there's the word 'socialist' in nazi. doesn't make it socialistic. or you would mayhaps argue that north korea is a democracy? You're another foxhead wasting a brain.
@2;00 "What was Leninism - Lenin was a right wing deviation" - Nim Chimpsky
No Lenin and Trotsky were comrades. There was no meaningful right wing deviation between Lenin or Trotsky. This idea is nonsene! He was a Bolshevik leader before the October revolution. He was only a Menshivik until 1904 (he left because of liberals). He palyed a major part in the mass murder and devistation that left wing Marxist Communism brought to Russia. He and Lenin were both LEFTISTS. Period. End of story.
Pause @0:01 clearly this egghead was a social outcast and he is just getting back at the popular and successful people that did him wrong. That is what 90% of American Universities are nowadays-- Social rejects that hate their own existsence and therefore their own society. They simply spend an extra 2 years in college to get a PhD so someone will listen to them for a change. What a pathetic group of backstabbing cunts they are. They play with action figures and the American youth. Disgusting.
The truth is lenin bastardized communism and turned it into something authoritarian. It was not supposed to be that. Instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat it became just a normal dictatorship with a dictator and the proletariat was imprisoned if he didn't submit to that tyranny.
No one who is familiar with the works and theories and Great Comrade Lenin and Chomsky threats Chomsky serious. The guy may be a great linguist (maybe not as good as the Great Comrade himself who was perfectly fluent on Russian, German, French and Italian and spoke English, Swedish, Finnish, Spanish and the language of a Siberian tribe very well) but his grasp of the social sciences is average but extremely poor compared with Lenin.
Of course...........and did Chomsky or the capitalist mass media tell you Lenin did that or did you decide it all on your own and without any help?
"Ignorance never yet helped anybody!" V. I. Lenin
It doesn't matter. As I said, no one familiar with the works and history of V. I. Lenin and the works of Chomsky takes anything Chomsky has to say seriously.
'Lenin was a right winger..ramble, ramble ramble on...' !!! <-------ROFLMA!!! Nim Chimpsky (one of the greatest liars on earth). A pseudo-historian with a cult of anti-American youthful and useful idiots still under his ignoramus spell. This idiot is incoherent. WTF?
Nice strawman bro, he said Leninism is a right-wing deviation of communism, meaning Leninism was to the right of mainstream communism but to the left of capitalism. Ya know, the very reason Left-Wing Communism is called Left-Wing Communism, because it's to the left of Leninism.
The louder the call for workers' control, the more left one is. Leninism certainly wants workers' control, in practice not so much though. In that sense it is to the right of libertarian Marxism which emphasizes workers' control as an immediate and unconditional demand workers' control of production. In that sense Leninism is to the left of capitalism but to the right of, say, council communism. Even Lenin admitted this as uch.
@GodOfTheInternets Lol Do you are ridiculous. "Workers control" <---- LOL Lenin was a leftist stereotype. There has never been a society with workers control. His word on being to the left or right of "libertarian Marxism" (also wrong) is laughable. Libertarians are FAR RIGHT. And it doesnt matter if there is another form of Marxism that is theoretically to the left of Lenin. THAT DOESNT MAKE HIM A RIGHT WINGER!!! ROFLMA!! Lenin was a left wing Marxist period! Wow. Chimpskyites are so confused.
I think you're confused on a couple of fronts. You seem to be operating under the assumption that Libertarianism in the United States is representative of Libertarian philosophy as a whole. Libertarian doctrine advocates minimizing the State's influence, and is not unique to the "left" or the "right." Market Liberalism (which is what I believe you're referring to) is considered a "right wing" ideology, whereas Libertarian Socialism is clearly a "left wing" philosophy.
@Colorouto Why wouldn't I. America is the first free nation and it has institutionalized libertarianism. We gave our people inalienable individual rights. Libertarian socialism is incoherent. There is no such thing. There can be no socialism without redistribution and there can be no redistribution without an soveriegn operating state. There can be no restriction of private property without a state either. Youre fancy label doesnt change pure facts.
@KingDingaLing090 First of all, define your terms. What do you mean by "free?" How did we give these inalienable rights to our citizens? Is Libertarian Socialism incoherent or nonexistant? It cannot be both; it must be extant in order to have properties. Further, Libertarian Socialism involves a cooperation between consenting individuals to collective the means of production. Just look at the communes in the Catalonian region during the Spanish Civil war; participation was entirely voluntary.
@Coloroutofspace They are theoretically God given (endowed by our creator) but the inalienable individual rights were materialized for American citizens with the constitution's bill of rights. Freedom is the existence of acting or choosing without the coecion or restraint of another while balancing the insidious nature of the state with the the insidious nature humanity.
And the CNT were Anarchists. Not "Libertarian socialists" <--- that doesnt even make sense.
@KingDingaLing090 Libertarian Socialism is used interchangeably with anarcho-communism. You have failed to note my assertion that libertarianism is simply the advocacy of minimizing the state's influence on the lives of private citizens, and is not unique to the "left" or the "right." The America you seem to idolize doesn't cohere with your definition of freedom. Turn-of-the-century Industrial America, anyone? Wage-slavery was quite common, and any attempt to change that was met with violence.
@Coloroutofspace So. They werent anarcho-communists, they were Anarchists (battling communists by the way).
You don't need to tell me what a libertarian is space. I am one. Have been my whole life and on top of that I have spent the last 4 years studying political science and political philosophy. I'm telling YOU there is no such thing as a "Libertarian socialist". Period.
The American definition of right and left simple. Left = more government Right = less government.
@KingDingaLing090 Let's stick to verifiable fact and logical argument instead of resorting to specious claims about "authority". They WERE anarcho-communists, and it is quite verifiable. I can provide you some sources, should you desire. Why should I accept a narrow and contextual definition when there is one that many more people use and are familiar with? Also, please TRY to make arguments of your own instead of simply bullying and "lol"ing your way through mine.
@Coloroutofspace They called themselves Anarcho-syndicalists. But spining reality so you can have an ideology with both no government and redistribution of wealth and a restriction on private property goes in the face of reality. It can not exist. It does not exist and it will never will exist.
The "wage slavery" you speak is a debasement of the word slavery. They werent held against their will. This is a cheap rhetorical phrase and it has no relationship to real slavery whatsoever.
@KingDingaLing090 Anarcho-syndicalism is a sub-stratum of Anarcho-communism. And again, you're misunderstanding. There was no "redistribution of wealth" and no "restriction" on private property. There was simply collective ownership of the means of production, a decision reached voluntarily by consenting individuals. Wage slavery entails a situation wherein an individual MUST work for wages in order to live, and is thus held bound in his position indefinitely and against his will.
@Coloroutof Then there was no communism. This little commune we are talking about has little or no bearing on functional society. It is just another prototype for a failed utopian project that could not sustain itself over time.
All individuals should work to live, why wouldnt they? Even the most primative humans had to work to survive either by hunting, gathering or plowing the fields. Animals work to survive. The only way humans don't work is when **someone else** works to take care of them.
@KingDingaLing090 Er, how was that not communism? Collective ownership of industry seems pretty communist-ey to me. The lack of "redistribution of wealth" can simply be attributed to the fact that the industry was, by definition, already owned by the community as a whole. You can't re-allocate something that everyone already has.
@ByrontheBulb1 -'der' Because if the collective ownership of production needs to provide goods to the community. If the community has collective ownership of production what use is it to them if they cannot ascertain the product or part of the product? This is the paradox of communism. That is why there is no such thing as a stateless communist society. And why it doesnt work. Someone has to plan the economy &distribute the goods. This person or people would be a government therefore a state.
@KingDingaLing090 There is no paradox. The workers are completely capable of "ascertaining the product," as you so ineptly put it. There is such a thing as stateless communism. It has been practiced before, in Catalonian Spain and the Free Territory in the Soviet Union. Anarchism doesn't necessitate the abolition of order, merely the establishment of a vertical hierarchy. You would realize this if you would actually refer to reality.
@Coloroutofspace Umm actaully that wasnt communism and lol it was a failure. Should I list the fails for you? And why are you focusing on Catalonia? Why don't you talk about other communist failures? Oh... right... because they were mass murdering dictatorships. I guess that makes sense.
If Anarchism establishes order then what is the establishment? It is a government, a state. You can't have it both ways and your random communes were not sustainable. Don't you get it? Seriously... wtf?
@KingDingaLing090 Every failed commune has been due to military intervention by an outside force. And you are getting your terms all confused; order does not necessitate a state or government. Organization can be present merely through cooperation by consenting parties. And I'm not focusing on Catalonia; in my last post I mentioned the Free Territory. How about the Paris Commune? All three, crushed by outside forces. And please don't associate statist communism with anarcho-communism.
Ah, really??? And who do you think will produce these things that are then free??? And why would people do so????
Let me show you what rotten COMMUNISTIC SHITHOLE communism will turn into and what "free products" you can ... buy ... (after a 12 years waiting list :-) )
@KingDingaLing090 I don't understand how you could claim that there was no communism. Communism is at its heart the collective ownership of the means of production. That was had. Therefore, we have communism. And it only failed because of the influence of outside forces, (namely, statist communism and fascism) which essentially conquered it. And yes, they had to work, but in this case the wage slave is given NO CHOICE but to work for paltry wages which barely sustain life.
@Color - Because there are other necessary organs in the system besides collective ownership of production (capital redistribution & public property). com·mu·nism def. 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
It's failure is not that simple, but if it cannot withstand outside forces it is not functional.
The "wage slave" has a choice to seek employment elsewhere.
@KingDingaLing090 The choice given to those victims of "wage slavery", in the modern sense of the term, isn't a choice at all: Work here for little money and in terrible conditions, or die. "Wage slaves" are often disadvantaged in terms of employment, due to a language barrier or pre-existing low socioeconomic status, which dramatically lowers the feasibility of things like higher education. These people can't go "elsewhere", because the only places they can go are just like what they left.
@ByrontheBulb1 "victims" lol Tell me why they didnt just quit? Answer: because they were lucky to have a job in the first place. Capitalism is the only sustainable society. Socialism produced a mountain of **dead** victims and hundreds of millions of slaves. (real slaves I might add) And bureaucratic socialism produced a mountain of debt and produced the future collapse of western civilization (and Japanese cililization I should add).
@KingDingaLing090 Why do you keep going back to your conception of socialism when that's not what we're discussing at all? You've yet to even address the assertions that the most horrid period of American history was during the industrial revolution--a time when oversight was minimal and conditions horrifying. Have you even read any account of what times were like, then? Or do you just prefer to circle-jerk your way through arguments shouting "AMERICA IS GREAT!"
@Color Are you going to post mulitple times now? Or is "Byron" your other channel?
Because communism is a form of socialism and so was National socialism. That's why.
It is funny how the liberal mind is so backwards that when we raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, guaranteed a better life for everyone in the country, we built the greatest fighting force in histroy, & we created a 'thousand year leap' in science & medicine, is somehow "a horrid period"
@KingDingaLing090 I'm assuming you're only making these "arguments" because you've been blessed with a brow prodigious enough to shield you from most forms of precipitation. You consistently ignore evidence, you do not address arguments directly, you engage in bad philosophy, and most of all you're infuriatingly wrong. I thank you, however, for showing me that one cannot bring knowledge to all; especially one so stubbornly entrenched as you are. Please, please rethink your certainty.
@Coloroutofspace "who admires neoliberal policies of todays Chinese government."
Yes, because they BETTERED the lives of 100s of millions of Chinese, idiot, while CHinese lived in utter communist POVERTY and STARVED to DEATH in FAMINES, 45 mio. during 1958-.62 alone, fool!
"that is a bold statement "
Socialism ALWAYS ended up in DICTATORSHIPS, TERROR and UN-FREEDOM. There is no argument that it would be possible in FREEDOM. Freedom and socialism contradict each other.
aftermath allowed for approx 85 - 130 million murdered between 1917 and 1990...
ffs,the particular the exact philosophical brand of Nationalsozialismus of the NSDAP was adopted, adapted and constantly tailored to deal with the situation and circumstances of the time that was at hand. To combat the planned communist takeover of western Europe, to resurrect the lifeless German economy and the crushed and charred remains of its infrastructure, and to quickly get out from under the thumb of
N1k1mon 1 month ago
Wow, the misunderstandings and ignorance of what was going on behind the scenes found in some of these comments is frightening.
Russia during the 20th century, yes keys discuss the bloody economy in comparison with the so called political system of governance. Let's see, after they conjured up Marx & Co. to create a socio-political system tailor made for the infiltration and overthrow of European countries. Then they finally knocked off the Tsar and family, had the Bolshevik Revolution, it's a
N1k1mon 1 month ago
Long live socialism . Down with capitalism
alizamzam11 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey Chomsky, there was this minor event called the Russian Civil War. Look it up you liberal douchebag.
jumpnjza2 1 month ago
Comment removed
jumpnjza2 1 month ago
@jumpnjza2
Deep. I'm guessing you're not at Harvard.
MrManFig 1 month ago
@MrManFig
Don't have to go to Harvard to realise that during the period Chomsky is whining about, Soviet Russia was fighting for its life against the Central Powers, the White Armies and then the Allied intervention. Chomsky gets extra points for cheering the overthrow of the USSR even though it destroyed the lives of millions of people but Chomsky gets paid anyway to peddle anti-communist propaganda.
jumpnjza2 1 month ago
@jumpnjza2 Anti-communist? Cheering for the overthrow of the USSR? Have you ever read one of Chomsky's books?
Chomsky would have liked to see the socialist movement be able to hold together. The actual one that Lenin tore apart shortly after he bullied his way into power. The result of this is would probably have been a very healthy country. The USSR would have never formed, and a large amount of suffering would have been avoided.
Chomky's views are extremely pro-socialist.
sk8tafrnk 4 days ago
@sk8tafrnk
Liberal wankery. Even if you disagree with the method of revolution, the overthrow of the USSR plunged millions of people in poverty and despair. Chomsky considers this a 'victory for socialism'.
jumpnjza2 4 days ago
@jumpnjza2 Dude, use your head.
He called it a victory of socialism because the USSR collapsed under a system that in no way resembled socialism. If he thought the collapse of the USSR was a triumph because of all of the human suffering that took place then he would have said it was a triumph of capitalism and totalitarianism, because that's what Russia was.
Read one of Chomsky's books. "Understanding Power." He goes into detail what a terrible disaster the collapse was.
sk8tafrnk 4 days ago
@sk8tafrnk
He said it was a 'small victory' again in 2003 most probably because he's a douche. On the other hand, Michael Parenti's analysis was spot on from 25/12/1991 onwards.
jumpnjza2 4 days ago
@jumpnjza2 Haha. Okay. You're an idiot.
Chomsky is opposed to collapses of societies and human suffering. That's why he writes books to educate people on past atrocities so we can avoid them later.
sk8tafrnk 4 days ago
@sk8tafrnk
Which is why he cheers the overthrow of the USSR like a liberal douche. Good one.
jumpnjza2 4 days ago
Comment removed
sk8tafrnk 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jumpnjza2 I already explained this. He's simply saying it demonstrates that capitalism is not an effective economic platform. If your brain doesn't have the capacity to understand something this basic, then it's pretty obvious you don't have the capacity to understand economics.
sk8tafrnk 4 days ago
@MrManFig I would guess that too
mogem 6 days ago
The April Theses and State and Revolution were "libertarian" works? What? Are you kidding? Lenin/the Bolsheviks were "right wing deviations"? Are you serious, Chomsky? Even with the left wing or otherwise anarchist description of libertarianism this doesn't make any sense. Chomsky's a real philistine when it comes to anything related to socialist history.
mikeplaid 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
I came here to hear Chomsky, not the world's most deserted vagina.
agamandia 1 month ago
@agamandia LOL good god that's funny
RitmoNegocisto 1 month ago
God, what a bitch 0:17
AltairEgo1 2 months ago
@AltairEgo1 Stop using such reactionary and sexists terms, especially when she just stated her opinion!
Nicolai0Nerland 1 month ago
@Nicolai0Nerland
Cool story troll
AltairEgo1 1 month ago
wow, he completely avoided her question and just started lecturing again lol.
XenverX 2 months ago
@XenverX No, she criticized him for blithely equating Stalinism with Leninism. And he went to explain why he felt that Lenin wasn't true to Marxist ideology and was actually a precursor to later totalitarian political systems. That's completely relevant to her "question," which was actually just an extended impromptu criticism.
fromis111 2 months ago 4
lenin was a zionist
berguss22 2 months ago
@berguss22 Cool story bro
Nicolai0Nerland 1 month ago
he shouldve ended it by saying "now get back in the kitchen"
partisan49 2 months ago
Why has this video been edited? Can you see all the different parts in their entireties?
pimpingmrli 2 months ago
Yeah but Chomsky - Rosa Rosenberg ended up with bullet in her head - this is the reality of democratic socialism - it always gets overthrown by reactionary forces - viz-a-viz Italy, Greece, Portugal, Germany, Chili, Congo, Argentina etc etc etc - Lenin and Trotsky knew this would happen in Russia - that's why they were so ruthless - if you fight fair, you'll lose - unfortunately, the Bourgeoisie are always with us.
32peartree 2 months ago
Lenin was and is a hero and the standard all Humans should strive to emulate.
Extremism is simply a tool to an end.
Anathema1984 2 months ago
@Anathema1984
he was a hero in the sense that he was the figurehead in overthrowing the Czar but he was actually a fascist under the guise of the red banner
partisan49 2 months ago
@partisan49 Lenin might have been a authoritarian but unless you noticed he was up against some pretty ruthless enemies - this is what Asiatic communists realized that the western left didn't - as stipulated by Gramsci. The western left capitulated to Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and Hitler - because they were too weak. Fascism, after all, is just capitalism under siege and will always rear its ugly head when the left threatens bourgeois dominance of the economy - Lenin understood this totally.
32peartree 2 months ago
@32peartree That's a moot point. There was no hint of fascism in 1917. Lenin was convinced that seizing power in Russia would cause all of Europe to turn socialist.
ppitm 2 months ago
@ppitm You're seeing 1917 in splendid isolation from previous revolutions. The British glorious revolution, the French Revolution and the failure of the Paris Commune - is all the proof that Lenin needed to understand that the bourgeois counter revolution was inevitable. And when it came it would be bloody and ruthless.
32peartree 2 months ago
The truth is capitalism has killed far more people than Lenin and Stalin put together. How many people die everyday due to no access to clean water and antibiotics. If the third world became Cubanized tomorrow it would save billions of lives. Long live the revolution.
32peartree 3 months ago
Civil war - capitalist onslaughts, poverty and backwardness in Russia created fertile ground for Stalinist totalitarianism and continued isolation. However, the international movement that the events of 1917 triggered could have cut across this development, by a more advanced working class. Lenin went to his deathbed struggling against Stalinism.
queenofshebalala 3 months ago 2
@queenofshebalala Makes you wonder how things would of turned out if Lenin had lived longer or if Stalin had never come to power. Lenin did warn people in his government about how dangerous Stalin could be.
195ashes 2 months ago
@queenofshebalala I'm happy to see people on youtube, who are not ignorant of 20th century history.
Incognitoification1 2 months ago
"Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."
Leon Trotsky
When commenting about what happened in the USSR you need to consider Trotsky's words.
queenofshebalala 3 months ago
@mcm1345, f) Very illustrative is the statistics from 1938 – a year with intensive repressions. Arrested - 52,372; sentenced - 2,731; put to death 89; the rest were dismissed -49,641. Apparently the ministry of internal affairs was overzealous and the court had to dismiss most of the cases. In 1940 by official documents, the prisoners in Gulags were 1,668,200 (five times les then the number from Conquest.)
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
@mcm1345, e) Robert Conquest, a British pseudo historian, insists on 6 mill killed in 1938. Do you believe it? Here, some more realistic numbers. For the years of Stalin’s leadership, 1921-53, were arrested 3.7 mill citizens from which sentenced to death including criminals - 600,000. For the majority of them death row was replaced with life sentence. Less than 300,000 were carried out. 2.5 mill were sent to prison camps Gulag.
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
@mcm1345, d) Under sever international pressure the made a lot of mistakes. The power struggle was immense. Many people were wasted but not by millions. Russians lost 26 mill (22 mill men) during WWII. Before the war only men between 18 and 60 were in danger of arrest and prosecution. They were 44 mill from whole population. Western propaganda points 20 mill victims.
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
@mcm1345, c) The Whites applied pervasive terror wherever they managed to put their boots on. Lenin had to declare the famous slogan “To the white terror we return with red terror”. Eight mill people died and only 3.5 mill were soldiers. After the defeat of the whites, the West responded with economic blockade and flooded Soviet Russia with paid spies Bolsheviks had difficult economic situation.
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
@mcm1345, b) One has to take under consideration the exceptionally complicated domestic and international circumstances Soviet Russia had to be built up. Immediately, moths after the revolution Britain, France, and USA (secretly from their population) organized and funded the counter revolution. Poland participated directly and their police killed over 80,000 Russian revolutionaries and supporters in Belarus and Ukraine.
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
fuck you
WorldRevolutionaries 3 months ago
non stop bs mumbo jumbo
drusha1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drusha1 "non stop bs mumbo jumbo"
I guess reality must seem that way to the willfully ignorant.
TheGodlessGuitarist 3 months ago
Moreover, nobody equates free market capitalism with Pinochet and Suhartu - no one says free market capitalism failed because Pinochet shot thousands of people in soccer stadiums - and Suhartu murdered a million communists. The truth is millions died on either side of gigantic class war - just as Marx predicted.
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree You filthy commie-scumbag! No but seriously, what you said is genuinely interesting. I'll have to look up those names as, I'm ashamed to admit, I've never heard of them or their crimes. Just goes to show how ill informed the public is regarding the whole communism=evil/capitalism=good argument. If people weren't so ignorant then they'd probably give socialism or communism another chance.
195ashes 2 months ago
being overthrown by its enemies, etc. Lenin did what he could to gain Bolshevik hold on power, and to guarantee that tenuous hold in the years following the revolution. Personally, Lenin was a man who lived simply, discouraged superstitions (including the worship of himself), and was genuinely committed to creating a worker's state. Lenin's early death and the rise of Stalin is what led to the perversion of the socialist experiment in Russia.
Aaronthegreatest 3 months ago
Chomsky went on to say that one of Lenin's first moves after the revolution was to crack down on the soviets in Russia. That is half-way true....Lenin did break up some of the councils where Bolshevik power was challenged, but that was in no case all of them. This action, as well as Lenin's previous and subsequent ones, must be seen through the lens of insecurity, because that is the one theme that predominates the revolution. Fear of being caught by the Okrana, fear of the fledgling govt.
Aaronthegreatest 3 months ago
It's not hard to examine Lenin's actions and to deride him as an opportunist, but I think Chomsky's analysis is a bit too harsh, because he divorces the revolution from its wider context. Socialist parties existed long before 1917, but none ever seemed to make much headway. Lenin's advocacy for an elite vanguard to lead the revolution was understandable, since cooperating with bourgeois govt.'s had achieved little up to that point.
Aaronthegreatest 3 months ago
wowww As soon as I hit that play button...I regretted it >.< that woman needs to CHILL.
Aaronthegreatest 3 months ago
Lenin - Trotsky lived in the real world - unlike this ivory tower nebbish. Stay in your gilded cage fool.
32peartree 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
" . . . to a large extent the Bolshevik authoritarian approach was consistent with conceptions which pre-date the insurrection and which, therefore, had nothing to do with the exigencies of the situation they confronted after coming to power." - John Callaghan, "The Farl left in British Politics" (Oxford 1987), p.19.
Discuss?
TerrySleeper 3 months ago
@TerrySleeper Lenin conceived an authoritarian approach to governing the country and leading it towards communism because he believed it would be the most effective, or even the only possible way to achieve that end. I don't think it would have made a difference whether there was a civil war or not, but it's wrong to imply (as Callaghan seems to) that the motivation of the Bolsheviks was the same as the Tsarist govt. before them. No country, including Russia, has a "default" political system.
Aaronthegreatest 3 months ago
@Aaronthegreatest - no, what Callaghan is saying is that authoritarianism was rooted in Lenin's principles and practices. His motives were not those of the Tsarists, but his methods were - necessarily - not a million miles away from theirs.
You cannot be serious dismissing the importance of the civil war - as Trotsky said, it left the Bolsheviks running a country full of starvation and typhus.
TerrySleeper 3 months ago
@TerrySleeper why get bogged down with the excesses of the Soviet Union. What about the Anarchists killing McKinley and Franz Ferdinand - Bukunin and the 'propaganda of the deed' - the only reason why Anarchists haven't killed as many people as communists - is because they have never been in power.
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree - Anarchists don't want power do they? LOL!
TerrySleeper 3 months ago
@TerrySleeper so killing your political adversaries isn't force. I suppose the Baader Meinhof gang, for instance, were really just a bunch of shrinking violets who once they set up their little communes would swap their swords for plow shares. My arse! The truth is the anarchists lost the battle for the working class - because their ideology was too ramshackle, bourgeois and opaque. Lenin was right - Anarchists were a bunch of middle class vagabonds or cared nothing for the proletariat.
32peartree 3 months ago
@TerrySleeper I agree with that, but it sounded to me like Callaghan was equating the motives of the two different regimes.
I'm not dismissing the importance of the civil war, just pointing out that it didn't influence Lenin's belief that power needed to be seized forcefully from Kerensky. The civil war was naturally a factor in the harsh measures that Lenin adopted after he was in power in order to ensure the survival of the government.
Aaronthegreatest 3 months ago
The alternative to WESTERN PRIVATE CAPITALISM has been STATE CAPITALISM OF ASIATIC MODALITY, in USSR case it restructrued itself and China should soon become the biggest WORLD CAPITALIST MARKET. The only real alternative is TO SHARE THE EARTH IN COOPERATION in a moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity where we express our multitude of creative energies in freedom of being rather the current minority tyrannical ABSTRACT ACCUMULATION and CONCENTRATION.
arzoyan 2 weeks ago 4
arzoyan 3 months ago 20
@arzoyan Take your zeitard retardation somewhere else.
tjohn1986 3 months ago
@arzoyan Ok, but how is that actually achieved??????? What are the logistics????
PolitikReal 3 months ago
@PolitikReal A majority democratic movement of no leaders no followers .
arzoyan 3 months ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@arzoyan 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
@arzoyan Exactly mate. Zeitgeist movement FTW. Abolishing money is the only way to be free from banks/corporations/apparatchiks.
historypoliticsbb 3 months ago
@arzoyan venus project
aiiiunluckykid 3 months ago
@arzoyan fuck off you trot!
ooohpie 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ooohpie A classless,moneyless,stateless communities of humanity in cooperation to take care of our needs and well being , expressing our creative energies in freedom of being. Capitalism is the manipulation of resources and technology for the private gain of a few in a monetary system that enslaves immense humanity in wage slavery of useless employment system that dehumanises and denies our human creative potential for a world of harmony within and without
arzoyan 2 months ago
@arzoyan Oops... Reality just slapped you in the face.
PolitcalIslam 1 month ago
Who is the girl talking at the beginning, for an American she is awesome - I think I love her
NilSatis1983 3 months ago
Who is the crazy bitch talking at the beginning.
xbertocoaylax 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A tour de force.
youfatstinkypoo 3 months ago
The bankers (Rothschilds Rockefellers) set these monsters up, just like Hitler and Mao. And there is no way Chomsky, if he's sooo smart, that he could not know this. He never talks about the CFR or the Federal Reserve - give me a break.
clint525fuller 4 months ago
@clint525fuller If only the the FED were dissolved, we would all live in utopia. Go listen to Alex Jones and stop commenting on intellectual discussion. ehhhh!
MPArmstrong84 3 months ago
@Joe2000King, what a brutal king you are; king of the village of ignorance and deficit of manners, who cannot hold his horses, burps, and vomits menace against alternative thinkers.
cosmopolite66 4 months ago
Chomsky, an in-door philosopher filling fussy in the lap of liberal capitalism, accuses, in shifting his philosophical positions, Lenin who was working in real social environment with internal problems and ferocious external pressure. In sculpturing his historical project, Lenin was learning if the clay is soft enough to fit the projections. Chomsky does not understand the complexity of this new type of society. It differs from the theoretical ideals and shocks with its perplexed metamorphoses.
cosmopolite66 4 months ago
@cosmopolite66 it s quiet harsh to brand lenin a right winger. at the same time his views on vanguardism and his efforts to depoliticize working class compel to think so but the economic comulsions which pushed lenin to that direection have to be given due consideration.the debate will be unending. but there is no point in bashing chomsky for being critical of lenin s views
VALANIFS 3 months ago
@VALANIFS 1/ This critique to Chomsky is valid for the liberal western intelligentsia who had seen socialism only on paper and did not understand the reality is not so pure as some presupposition for philosophical theories. If it wasn't for Lenin there would not be Soviet Russia. Trotsky wanted to export revolution all over the World and to jeopardize Soviet project. If Stalin did not hold him he wanted to ignite permanent communist revolution and loose the battle.
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
@VALANIFS 2/ Western intelligentsia played very sinister role while in betraying the Soviet revolution which was an amazing achievement for all progressive people on the Earth. The western intelligentsia helped the bourgeoisie to split international workers’ solidarity and to easily defeat and destroy the Eastern bloc. They still do not understand that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy for the working people everywhere. You only look at the unleashed neocons in the west.
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
@VALANIFS 3/ They cannot wait to find pretexts to invade and bombard another country that obstructs their interest. How many people have to die so American intellectuals to understand that the fragmented workers’ movement benefits the greedy bourgeoisie? The western conservative propaganda with a lot of help from western intelligentsia managed to distort and to smear a lot of dirt on the image for the socialism so even the poorest people who struggle the most now believe in this rubbish.
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
@VALANIFS First Chomsky is an anarchist and fan of Bakunin; there is no way for him approving Lenin's revolution. My critique is on he compares what Lenin wrote before with what he did after. For a lame observer this is acceptable, however Chomsky wants to be taken as a scholar. I do not think Lenin did right wing policies; what he did on the first place was holding on his promise to Esers to do land reform, give land to peasants.
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
@VALANIFS What political decisions illustrate "Lenin's efforts to depoliticize working class?" No one communist , who rely on politically active work class would do that; Bolshevik party was struggling badly for lack of enough working class and had to use peasants for the army in the revolutionary wars. After the civil war the city was struggling for lack of food and the tired from the wars peasant would not care.
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
@cosmopolite66 thanks for your valuable comments.i agree with you to a large extent.probably i have to improve my understanding on post revolutionary working class conditions.
VALANIFS 3 months ago
@cosmopolite66 You could use that logic to defend almost any authoritarian dictator.
xbertocoaylax 3 months ago
@xbertocoaylax If you are talking me defending Lenin, you are out of context. Chomsky accuses Lenin in changing his tactics and methods and I explained that this is the way a leader should act. He does not need to be a stubborn puritan in ideas but to act effectively. This does not show how I evaluate Lenin as a politician or philosopher. I think he made a lot of mistakes but I am not sure if I would make less. And, Lenin wasn't a dictator. He used collective methods when it was applicable.
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
money money money makes suckers out of everyone
MartyredxMaiden 4 months ago
How does Stalin and Lenin deviate from Marx????
mcm1345 5 months ago
@mcm1345, a) re: How did Stalin and Lenin deviate from Marx?
They did not; Marx actually did nit let any ‘instructions’ how the socialism had to be brought in built. Lenin, Stalin, and all Soviet leaders had to improvise. They made a lot of mistakes but not crimes. Whatever is written about Bolshevik criminal is propaganda. …
cosmopolite66 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That bitch needs to be punched in the face. Trotsky and Lenin were worse than Hitler. They murdered 30 million Gentiles in Russia. Marxism was a creation of Jewish global bankers who funded these blood thirsty pigs. They were Free Masons and they are alive and well in today's administration...Bush and Obama are both operatives of these same banking cartels.
ScrapMetalBomb 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gnome Chomsky, what a goon.
NoSocialistLeech 5 months ago
I had no idea his discourse was so destructive, basically what he calls true socialism is basically anarchism, meaning the stateless utopia we should all be trying to get closer to. That anarchist society is communism's final goal as well and has always been. Chomsky here forgets that it seems and prefers to destruct all that was built by socialism in Russia towards that goal focusing only on the mistakes... Another socialist turning its back as soon as the battle is lost... no need for that...
sinekonata 5 months ago
@sinekonata There was no socialism in Russia.
- Marxist and democratic socialist
Tougemaster06 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tougemaster06 In saying "There was no socialism in Russia" you show you know nothing; you repeat as a little parrot who was jus taught ugly slurs.
cosmopolite66 4 months ago
@sinekonata Are you mentally deficient? He clearly stated that the core of socialism is workers control of the mode of production. He never ONCE mentioned anarchism AT ALL. His points are all valid about the destruction of SOCIALISM (workers control of the mode of production in case you don't know what that means). You leninist types really do need to look at history more often as you seem so keen to completely ignore it
joekopor 5 months ago
Seriously, the left turned Hitler into a right winger, which he was not. Now they're trying to turn Lenin into a right winger? Europe has a strange outlook on left and right wing in the first place, both represent a strong centralized government. In the US, right wing is small government. Left wing is big government. Perhaps left wingers should say left right wing and left left wing instead of trying to make us real right wingers look bad.
opacid 5 months ago
be careful with all the left/right labels. the whole 'left and white' spectrum is invented.... orchestrated. when you have managed to keep societies busy and fighting around over who is 'left' or who is 'right', regardless of how strong or in which way(s), you can go another way. you know which way im talking about? hint: not straight backwards. you can basically do whatever you want. this might sound weird to you, but please do realize that its just tiny elite group in power in the west today.
sebaz1982 5 months ago
@opacid agreed. Hitler was and always will be a hardcore leftist with leftist policies. nationalSOCIALISM
kissemurra12 5 months ago
@kissemurra12 lol your argument makes me cringe with laughter
joekopor 5 months ago
@joekopor glad you admit you were wrong and your nationalsocialism and other leftist are the same^^
kissemurra12 5 months ago
@kissemurra12 I will spare you the incredible humiliation of having your argument destroyed before your very eyes. No It makes me laugh just at how incredibly wrong you are.
joekopor 4 months ago
@joekopor glad you admit you were wrong then and your nationalsocialism as as evil as ever, like most other leftist socialism is^^haha let me guess, israel is wrong aswell and the jews deserve it?
more islamisation and bullshit^^
kissemurra12 4 months ago
@kissemurra12 If you would actually read what the leaders of NAZI Germany wrote, instead of just focusing on the word Sozialismus in NAZI, you would realize how wrong you are. Hitler never explained what kind of socialism he meant, but it seems to be clear that the word was used to try to gain support from the working classes. Rosenberg and Chirac did, however, answer what they meant with Socialism, and that has more to do with how feudal Germany was still at the time.
ellitho 4 months ago
@ellitho They meant that people should be allowed to be judged by their ability, but not by their birthright and family heritage. So in saying that Nazi Germany had anything to do with any sort of Socialism is only discrediting you from any sensible discussion.
ellitho 4 months ago
@ellitho if you actually read history what the nazi leaders did, the word socialism and they following socialistic military and economic policies it kinda contradicts and show how wrong you are. they did use socialistic policies in both economy and in military sense.. so your actually following nazism like any typical socialist
kissemurra12 3 months ago
@kissemurra12 "...so your actually following nazism like any typical socialist"
PMSL. Your owners have you well trained. Socialism is about equality and justice a.k.a. social justice. Now tell me what the Nazis did to further social justice? Fuckwit.
TheGodlessGuitarist 3 months ago
@kissemurra12 Repeat after me: Socialism is about workers owning the means of production. That is it, that is what socialism is. The state supported economy of NAZI Germany was state corporatism that was borrowed from Mussolini's Italy and adapted to Germany. I don't know where you get "socialistic military and economic policies", maybe that's a Swedish thing, I don't know, but I don't understand what you are going on about.
ellitho 3 months ago
@ellitho Repeat after me: socialism is just like national socialism, hence the word of it. its mostly left wing national socialism that is the worst, its close to islamism and other nazi idelogies. I dont know how you could not understand the socialistic military you used, maybe they dont teach you that in the "reeducation camps" of socialist nazi schools nor economic policies
kissemurra12 1 month ago
@kissemurra12 it's amazing how stupid people can be. Just because there's the word 'socialist' in nazi. doesn't make it socialistic. or you would mayhaps argue that north korea is a democracy? You're another foxhead wasting a brain.
tristbjorn 1 month ago 11
@tristbjorn Haha exactly
RitmoNegocisto 1 month ago
@tristbjorn Glenn Beck told him that nazi's were socialist.
ProletarianTakeover 1 month ago
@kissemurra12 Enroll in a political science. Only ignorant people would say socialism and national socialism are similar.
dsbrck 5 days ago
@kissemurra12 How the hell was Hitler anywhere near the left during a dictatorship?
VampirePraemium 5 months ago
@VampirePraemium how the hell wasnt he?
kissemurra12 1 month ago
@2;00 "What was Leninism - Lenin was a right wing deviation" - Nim Chimpsky
No Lenin and Trotsky were comrades. There was no meaningful right wing deviation between Lenin or Trotsky. This idea is nonsene! He was a Bolshevik leader before the October revolution. He was only a Menshivik until 1904 (he left because of liberals). He palyed a major part in the mass murder and devistation that left wing Marxist Communism brought to Russia. He and Lenin were both LEFTISTS. Period. End of story.
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
Pause @0:01 clearly this egghead was a social outcast and he is just getting back at the popular and successful people that did him wrong. That is what 90% of American Universities are nowadays-- Social rejects that hate their own existsence and therefore their own society. They simply spend an extra 2 years in college to get a PhD so someone will listen to them for a change. What a pathetic group of backstabbing cunts they are. They play with action figures and the American youth. Disgusting.
KingDingaLing090 6 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 2 extra years to get a PhD? LOL. you dont know much about education do you?. May take 6 to 10 years
QuantumProphet 6 months ago
@QuantumProphet Ummm actually I do.
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090
Do you have actual arguments or are you just a Psychological Conspiracy Theorist.
GodOfTheInternets 6 months ago
@GodOfTheInternets Hmm why did you capitalize "Psychological Conspiracy Theorist"?
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090
Because I'm German.
GodOfTheInternets 5 months ago
@GodOfTheInternets - yeah? You're also a douche...
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
The truth is lenin bastardized communism and turned it into something authoritarian. It was not supposed to be that. Instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat it became just a normal dictatorship with a dictator and the proletariat was imprisoned if he didn't submit to that tyranny.
xbertocoaylax 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No one who is familiar with the works and theories and Great Comrade Lenin and Chomsky threats Chomsky serious. The guy may be a great linguist (maybe not as good as the Great Comrade himself who was perfectly fluent on Russian, German, French and Italian and spoke English, Swedish, Finnish, Spanish and the language of a Siberian tribe very well) but his grasp of the social sciences is average but extremely poor compared with Lenin.
reyter2007 6 months ago
Comment removed
reyter2007 6 months ago
and exactly what gives this idiot the right to think he can pass judgment on Great Comrade Lenin?
reyter2007 6 months ago
@reyter2007 Yes Tyrants and dictators who murder people and crush free speech are beyond criticism.
xbertocoaylax 6 months ago
@xbertocoaylax
Of course...........and did Chomsky or the capitalist mass media tell you Lenin did that or did you decide it all on your own and without any help?
"Ignorance never yet helped anybody!" V. I. Lenin
It doesn't matter. As I said, no one familiar with the works and history of V. I. Lenin and the works of Chomsky takes anything Chomsky has to say seriously.
reyter2007 6 months ago
'Lenin was a right winger..ramble, ramble ramble on...' !!! <-------ROFLMA!!! Nim Chimpsky (one of the greatest liars on earth). A pseudo-historian with a cult of anti-American youthful and useful idiots still under his ignoramus spell. This idiot is incoherent. WTF?
KingDingaLing090 6 months ago
@KingDingaLing090
Nice strawman bro, he said Leninism is a right-wing deviation of communism, meaning Leninism was to the right of mainstream communism but to the left of capitalism. Ya know, the very reason Left-Wing Communism is called Left-Wing Communism, because it's to the left of Leninism.
GodOfTheInternets 6 months ago 3
@GodOfTheInternets In what ways is it right wing?
KingDingaLing090 6 months ago
@KingDingaLing09
The louder the call for workers' control, the more left one is. Leninism certainly wants workers' control, in practice not so much though. In that sense it is to the right of libertarian Marxism which emphasizes workers' control as an immediate and unconditional demand workers' control of production. In that sense Leninism is to the left of capitalism but to the right of, say, council communism. Even Lenin admitted this as uch.
GodOfTheInternets 6 months ago
@GodOfTheInternets Lol Do you are ridiculous. "Workers control" <---- LOL Lenin was a leftist stereotype. There has never been a society with workers control. His word on being to the left or right of "libertarian Marxism" (also wrong) is laughable. Libertarians are FAR RIGHT. And it doesnt matter if there is another form of Marxism that is theoretically to the left of Lenin. THAT DOESNT MAKE HIM A RIGHT WINGER!!! ROFLMA!! Lenin was a left wing Marxist period! Wow. Chimpskyites are so confused.
KingDingaLing090 6 months ago
@KingDingaLing090
I think you're confused on a couple of fronts. You seem to be operating under the assumption that Libertarianism in the United States is representative of Libertarian philosophy as a whole. Libertarian doctrine advocates minimizing the State's influence, and is not unique to the "left" or the "right." Market Liberalism (which is what I believe you're referring to) is considered a "right wing" ideology, whereas Libertarian Socialism is clearly a "left wing" philosophy.
Coloroutofspace 5 months ago
@Colorouto Why wouldn't I. America is the first free nation and it has institutionalized libertarianism. We gave our people inalienable individual rights. Libertarian socialism is incoherent. There is no such thing. There can be no socialism without redistribution and there can be no redistribution without an soveriegn operating state. There can be no restriction of private property without a state either. Youre fancy label doesnt change pure facts.
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 First of all, define your terms. What do you mean by "free?" How did we give these inalienable rights to our citizens? Is Libertarian Socialism incoherent or nonexistant? It cannot be both; it must be extant in order to have properties. Further, Libertarian Socialism involves a cooperation between consenting individuals to collective the means of production. Just look at the communes in the Catalonian region during the Spanish Civil war; participation was entirely voluntary.
Coloroutofspace 5 months ago
@Coloroutofspace They are theoretically God given (endowed by our creator) but the inalienable individual rights were materialized for American citizens with the constitution's bill of rights. Freedom is the existence of acting or choosing without the coecion or restraint of another while balancing the insidious nature of the state with the the insidious nature humanity.
And the CNT were Anarchists. Not "Libertarian socialists" <--- that doesnt even make sense.
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 Libertarian Socialism is used interchangeably with anarcho-communism. You have failed to note my assertion that libertarianism is simply the advocacy of minimizing the state's influence on the lives of private citizens, and is not unique to the "left" or the "right." The America you seem to idolize doesn't cohere with your definition of freedom. Turn-of-the-century Industrial America, anyone? Wage-slavery was quite common, and any attempt to change that was met with violence.
Coloroutofspace 5 months ago
@Coloroutofspace So. They werent anarcho-communists, they were Anarchists (battling communists by the way).
You don't need to tell me what a libertarian is space. I am one. Have been my whole life and on top of that I have spent the last 4 years studying political science and political philosophy. I'm telling YOU there is no such thing as a "Libertarian socialist". Period.
The American definition of right and left simple. Left = more government Right = less government.
"Wage slavery"? Lol
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 Let's stick to verifiable fact and logical argument instead of resorting to specious claims about "authority". They WERE anarcho-communists, and it is quite verifiable. I can provide you some sources, should you desire. Why should I accept a narrow and contextual definition when there is one that many more people use and are familiar with? Also, please TRY to make arguments of your own instead of simply bullying and "lol"ing your way through mine.
Coloroutofspace 5 months ago
@Coloroutofspace They called themselves Anarcho-syndicalists. But spining reality so you can have an ideology with both no government and redistribution of wealth and a restriction on private property goes in the face of reality. It can not exist. It does not exist and it will never will exist.
The "wage slavery" you speak is a debasement of the word slavery. They werent held against their will. This is a cheap rhetorical phrase and it has no relationship to real slavery whatsoever.
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 Anarcho-syndicalism is a sub-stratum of Anarcho-communism. And again, you're misunderstanding. There was no "redistribution of wealth" and no "restriction" on private property. There was simply collective ownership of the means of production, a decision reached voluntarily by consenting individuals. Wage slavery entails a situation wherein an individual MUST work for wages in order to live, and is thus held bound in his position indefinitely and against his will.
Coloroutofspace 5 months ago
@Coloroutof Then there was no communism. This little commune we are talking about has little or no bearing on functional society. It is just another prototype for a failed utopian project that could not sustain itself over time.
All individuals should work to live, why wouldnt they? Even the most primative humans had to work to survive either by hunting, gathering or plowing the fields. Animals work to survive. The only way humans don't work is when **someone else** works to take care of them.
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 Er, how was that not communism? Collective ownership of industry seems pretty communist-ey to me. The lack of "redistribution of wealth" can simply be attributed to the fact that the industry was, by definition, already owned by the community as a whole. You can't re-allocate something that everyone already has.
ByrontheBulb1 5 months ago
@ByrontheBulb1 -'der' Because if the collective ownership of production needs to provide goods to the community. If the community has collective ownership of production what use is it to them if they cannot ascertain the product or part of the product? This is the paradox of communism. That is why there is no such thing as a stateless communist society. And why it doesnt work. Someone has to plan the economy &distribute the goods. This person or people would be a government therefore a state.
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 There is no paradox. The workers are completely capable of "ascertaining the product," as you so ineptly put it. There is such a thing as stateless communism. It has been practiced before, in Catalonian Spain and the Free Territory in the Soviet Union. Anarchism doesn't necessitate the abolition of order, merely the establishment of a vertical hierarchy. You would realize this if you would actually refer to reality.
Coloroutofspace 5 months ago
@Coloroutofspace Umm actaully that wasnt communism and lol it was a failure. Should I list the fails for you? And why are you focusing on Catalonia? Why don't you talk about other communist failures? Oh... right... because they were mass murdering dictatorships. I guess that makes sense.
If Anarchism establishes order then what is the establishment? It is a government, a state. You can't have it both ways and your random communes were not sustainable. Don't you get it? Seriously... wtf?
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 Every failed commune has been due to military intervention by an outside force. And you are getting your terms all confused; order does not necessitate a state or government. Organization can be present merely through cooperation by consenting parties. And I'm not focusing on Catalonia; in my last post I mentioned the Free Territory. How about the Paris Commune? All three, crushed by outside forces. And please don't associate statist communism with anarcho-communism.
Coloroutofspace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Coloroutofspace "with socialism there would be no competition,"
Hahhahahahahahahahaha ... exactly. That s why socialism was, is and always will be an array of MISERY, POVERTY and FAMINES.
"with capitalism, that we produce a huge surplus yet 6.5 million children starve every year"
Exactly without capitalism there wouldnt be 6.5 mio starving p.y., but 650 mio.
joaquinveyron 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KingDingaLing090 #
#
"EVERYTHING is free! So pratically its better "
Ah, really??? And who do you think will produce these things that are then free??? And why would people do so????
Let me show you what rotten COMMUNISTIC SHITHOLE communism will turn into and what "free products" you can ... buy ... (after a 12 years waiting list :-) )
watch?v=Cu8I4tKkuZ4
or here:
watch?v=n1VmF14xJ2c
joaquinveyron 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 I don't understand how you could claim that there was no communism. Communism is at its heart the collective ownership of the means of production. That was had. Therefore, we have communism. And it only failed because of the influence of outside forces, (namely, statist communism and fascism) which essentially conquered it. And yes, they had to work, but in this case the wage slave is given NO CHOICE but to work for paltry wages which barely sustain life.
Coloroutofspace 5 months ago
@Color - Because there are other necessary organs in the system besides collective ownership of production (capital redistribution & public property). com·mu·nism def. 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
It's failure is not that simple, but if it cannot withstand outside forces it is not functional.
The "wage slave" has a choice to seek employment elsewhere.
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 The choice given to those victims of "wage slavery", in the modern sense of the term, isn't a choice at all: Work here for little money and in terrible conditions, or die. "Wage slaves" are often disadvantaged in terms of employment, due to a language barrier or pre-existing low socioeconomic status, which dramatically lowers the feasibility of things like higher education. These people can't go "elsewhere", because the only places they can go are just like what they left.
ByrontheBulb1 5 months ago
@ByrontheBulb1 "victims" lol Tell me why they didnt just quit? Answer: because they were lucky to have a job in the first place. Capitalism is the only sustainable society. Socialism produced a mountain of **dead** victims and hundreds of millions of slaves. (real slaves I might add) And bureaucratic socialism produced a mountain of debt and produced the future collapse of western civilization (and Japanese cililization I should add).
Have you ever had a job Byron? lol (a real job?)
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 Why do you keep going back to your conception of socialism when that's not what we're discussing at all? You've yet to even address the assertions that the most horrid period of American history was during the industrial revolution--a time when oversight was minimal and conditions horrifying. Have you even read any account of what times were like, then? Or do you just prefer to circle-jerk your way through arguments shouting "AMERICA IS GREAT!"
Coloroutofspace 5 months ago
@Color Are you going to post mulitple times now? Or is "Byron" your other channel?
Because communism is a form of socialism and so was National socialism. That's why.
It is funny how the liberal mind is so backwards that when we raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, guaranteed a better life for everyone in the country, we built the greatest fighting force in histroy, & we created a 'thousand year leap' in science & medicine, is somehow "a horrid period"
You are an idiot! lol
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
@KingDingaLing090 I'm assuming you're only making these "arguments" because you've been blessed with a brow prodigious enough to shield you from most forms of precipitation. You consistently ignore evidence, you do not address arguments directly, you engage in bad philosophy, and most of all you're infuriatingly wrong. I thank you, however, for showing me that one cannot bring knowledge to all; especially one so stubbornly entrenched as you are. Please, please rethink your certainty.
Coloroutofspace 5 months ago
@Coloroutofspace "who admires neoliberal policies of todays Chinese government."
Yes, because they BETTERED the lives of 100s of millions of Chinese, idiot, while CHinese lived in utter communist POVERTY and STARVED to DEATH in FAMINES, 45 mio. during 1958-.62 alone, fool!
"that is a bold statement "
Socialism ALWAYS ended up in DICTATORSHIPS, TERROR and UN-FREEDOM. There is no argument that it would be possible in FREEDOM. Freedom and socialism contradict each other.
joaquinveyron 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KingDingaLing090 "Im a democratic socialist "
Hahhahahahaha, "democractic socialism" thats somewhat l