Chomsky on Leninism 2 of 2

Answering someone from the ISO

Category:

Education

Tags:

• chomsky
• lenin
• leninism
• iso
• socialism
• anarchism

[HolyFerdinand]

@prikhod all political doctrines are corrupt comrade, and Marxism is no exception. As a means of understanding the conflict that class has created throughout history it's a valuable philosophical tool, but as a vanguard institution it goes to shit, that's pretty much what Chomsky is saying. And please, don't act like admission of this is any sort of victory for capitalist ideals. Read some Bakunin and smash the state.

[khoroshoorange]

@HolyFerdinand

"I am not a Marxist" - Karl Marx

[slovakmath]

@KrugmanTheKing so i read my original post to IamMrAwesome from 5 months ago; yours & my discussion resulted from that. I stated all recent US presidents can be considered liberal b/c spending habits &foreign policy. On your behalf however, I shouldve replaced my words "due to" with the words "in regards to" & also should've not said "foreign policy" since I wasnt referring to politics. I should've also been more clear that I wasnt referring to politics but rather spending habits

[slovakmath]

@KrugmanTheKing haha, now that you mention it, i did too, ill go back and watch the video again and see what my original point was

[KrugmanTheKing]

@slovakmath

I ignore why I didn't catch the formulation last time... but yeah, the word liberal can means an attitude toward customs and norms. Now that I go through it, it's obvious. But, what was the point of the intervention; I lost sight of the discussion.

[slovakmath]

@KrugmanTheKing i already wrapped it up and bagged this one, you are silly for responding then arent you? ill try to explain it again but this time ill pretend i am speaking to a 5 year old:

I m referring to one's spending habits. for example, if a person spends a lot of money on houses and clothes and goes way beyond their means, than it can be said, and could have always been said that that person has liberal spending habits. I already said I am not talking about politics.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@slovakmath

What Americans call liberal has virtually nothing to do with liberalism; what they call conservative has also nothing to do with conservatism; what they call libertarian means the opposite of what it always meant...

You can't use those words the way they use it as they are emptied of their meaning when you do so; they become ideological excuses for undertaking actions favorable to few and damageable to many.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@slovakmath

It's not the classical definition of the term... I gave you the classical definition of the term. And, of course, they sustained a political doctrine as any person to legitimize their platform.

What is truly a result of medias is for you to consider them liberal altogether: that's pretty far from using the word properly. There's nothing even in his discourse which echoes the idea of the primacy of freedom: hence, he's not a liberal.

[slovakmath]

@KrugmanTheKing yet when not referring topolitics it can stil be said that their spending habits were all very liberal, and that is the classical definition of the word. I'm not referring to "their" politics because they had no politics, all of that is controlled by medias banks and wall street. Presidents are merely puppets, but they do have an ink pen which allow each of them to sign away trillions of dollars for "nothing". i am referring to their spending, not politics

[sharonmyk]

Wow.

[ped200014]

@HolyFerdinand No he's not. He's saying bolshevics used a basterdization of menshevic socialism for propaganda purposes. The Menshevics were popularist Marxists and Lenin called them infantile liberals. That anarcho-socialism within a market system couldn't work and was a juvenile fantasy. Therefore a central government had to run industry not the workers themselves. Class is created by government. Capitalism being a form of government and a perversion of free markets in a post-industrial world.

[interestingperson121]

What Chomsky is saying is a very powerful defense of his ideals. Now me, you, the next guy or the guy next to us might try and sit down and come up with a in-depth critique or possible presentation of a possibly better mechanism of production or a better societal fabric, but that's for another debate altogether. The idiotic woman who felt violated because of Chomsky's bright-as-daylight analysis of the Soviets, seriously got hammered in this response.