Chomsky on Socialism

Noam Chomsky responds to a caller's request for his thoughts on socialism, during a 2003 interview by Brian Lamb, for C-SPAN's "In Depth" program. He describes how socialism was equated with the Leninist model of the Soviet Union by both the USA and its allies on the one hand, and the USSR and its allies on the other.

Full interview available @ http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

I also recommend the following video, where Chomsky further describes the double-sided anti-socialist propaganda (beginning @ 7:55): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ...

And here's a 1986 essay by Chomsky on the Soviet half of the anti-socialist duo: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986...

• Category

  Education

[woodyallensmother]

Can u please just explain where this argument is false:

Absolute truth exists. Our knowledge of that truth MIGHT be 100% correct. BUT it is impossible to know when it is. So we cannot have absolute knowledge.

Notice i'm not saying everything we think is wrong, nor am I assuming that. I'm saying we can never be sure about our knowledge.

[Michael Black]

That might happen, yeah, but it needn't necessarily, especially if there are good democratic structures in place.

When people disagree about something, what do they do? They talk it out and try and reach a consensus. There are lots of organisations that already run their affairs on that principle. In that kind of structure, disagreement isn't a bad thing but a good thing. You're thinking in an authoritarian way.

[EyesWideShut007]

I guarantee you a commune ran from the bottom up will fail. The people will be divided on some issue and that will eventually cause people to leave. This is why socialist societies are a failure or they are controlled by force.

[Michael Black]

"Collectivism and communism are in conflict with individual rights". Depends. When that communism is from the bottom up, and decided upon by the people themselves, then it is in fact the only thing that may properly safeguard those individual rights. Propertarian relations are certainly very injurious to individual rights. There is a tradition which tries to balance maximum individuality with maximum sociability. That tradition is called anarchism.

[Terry O'Brien]

Following on.

Integrated lives cannot be lived by mixing whatever idea someone wants at whatever level they want it to be. Government regulations and political correctness are at conflict with individualism. Collectivism and communism are in conflict with individual rights. Administration and regulation are in conflict with free trade. What we are in life, has to follow into our work, society and politics in a single, uninterrupted flow or the conflicts created between levels causes collapse

[Terry O'Brien]

We live in a mixed economy now. It's not working. The USA right now spends $1.5 trillion paying 2 million people to regulate the population through 27 thousand pages of regulations. They also incarcerate a greater % of their population that any society in history.

The EU is an un-elected administration heading in the same direction.

Post-modernist allows us to mix whatever philosophies and economics we like, just because it looks good, with no underlying principles. (See next post)

[Terry O'Brien]

First up, socialism can't exist without capitalism. Can you say China?

Or are you going to tell us all that it also isn't a good example of socialism, like all the other failures.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

This is something you are never, and I mean never, going to be able to argue around.

It takes force to have this, not freedom.

It takes huge and expensive administrations to maintain.

It takes all pervasive monitoring of everyone's activities.

[Terry O'Brien]

You're going to have to study epistemology a little, particularly some writings by Piekoff perhaps.

That nothing can be completely known is a postmodernist construct. In other words, it's looking at it from a primacy of consciousness perspective. Quantum physics is a great example of it.

By looking at the world from a primacy of existence perspective, what we know about something, we know absolutely, and what more we learn increases understanding and reinforces the knowledge had to that point.

[woodyallensmother]

Look. I don't know what the fuck post modernism is. All i'm saying is that even on scientific level, absolute knowledge does not exist. When it comes to human matters, which are way more complex, people have nothing more than beliefs. And a Belief is not good enough a reason to die.

Radicals act on their beliefs, Hitler acted on his beliefs, stalin, Mao, You and me are all acting on our beliefs. It's better if we don't kill each other in the proccess.

[lukozzade]

the reason they leave is because there are still capitalist countries that must be eradicated, because socialism cannot survive in a capitalist world, if the world was socialist then there would be incentive and things would carry on as usual, and you think that rules and regulations are wrong? Funny, because every time a government tries to stop regulation, something like mad cows disease happens, or the pill testing scandal in America, or swine flu etc.