Noam Chomsky vs. Angsty "Socialists"

"If the Spartacist League cared about working people, poor people, people elsewhere in the world who suffer and so on, they would care about the large outcomes that follow from those small differences. If you don't care about what happens to those people and you want to live in some abstract seminar somewhere, then you don't care. But it's a fact, and we can't deny it."

From 4/29/04 talk at MIT regarding John Negroponte's appointment to the Iraq Embassy.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• chomsky
• third
• party
• voting
• john
• kerry
• george
• bush
• 2004
• election
• socialism
• marxism
• communism
• anarchism
• anarcho-syndicalism
• libertarian
• democracy
• tyranny
• iso
• international
• socialist
• organization
• jean
• bertrand
• aristide
• haiti

[CrazyCheeseMagee]

That girl is why many have a negative view on socialists. People see socialists like her and think that we're all an uneducated bunch who just throw around words like capitalism, class warfare, and imperialism like they're meaningless buzzwords.

Thankfully, Chomsky pwned her.

[TheLockon00]

"I'm sure I opposed them far more strongly than you did."

What a boss.

[ftw522]

@76libertyordeath Chomsky is an anarchist, so I don't really know how you came to the conclusion that he wants to expand government. He has plenty of literature on the subject, if you want to look into his views.

[maxwellnolan]

Chomsky cites everything thoroughly. He's pretty much on point with historical references and citations. What exactly are you trying to say? I'm a liitle lost.

[76libertyordeath]

I am curious where is the data to support his assertions? Political therory is far different from scientific therory! It is clear that his assertions are incorrect if you research history! The only solution to the evils of government is the absent of government itself! Expanding government to attain his utopia is clearly the only way to attain his vision. What then? Democracy? Hardly! Socialism? Hardly! Dictatorship! Absolutely and history proves this just not in chomsky's labratory.

[Logarithmify]

Revolutionary socialists give reform/democratic socialists a bad name.

[peoman2]

Don't anger the Chomsker his massive intellect will eat you

[32peartree]

@teevanator I've seen too many democratically elected left-wing governments violently overthrown to believe in "libertarian socialism". It might upset western liberal sensibilities - but perhaps dictatorship is the only way the working class can be protected from their ideological enemies. This is probably the real politik that the USSR recognized and the western left didn't.Of course I'd like to believe in libertarian socialism - but the caveat is - it never quite seems to materialize.

[teevanator]

@32peartree Well you seem to take a very traditional Marxist view of History. I tend to think that assessing History teleologically will always lead to your desired outcome; for you that would be the vindication of class struggle. Seek and ye shall find. I for one would much rather live, uncontrolled and free, in a Libertarian Socialist society (if technically possible) than a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Power inherently corrupts. That is the brutal reality.

[32peartree]

@teevanator Therefore libertarian socialism is an oxymoron - socialism by its nature has to be authoritarian for the simple reason that bourgeois elements will always try to overthrow it. Chomsky likes to hang on to his precious principles and ignore brutal realities.

[32peartree]

Democracy can also be hijacked very very easily too. Besides, when ever a communist party has looked like it was going to be elected within a democratic system - reactionary bourgeois forces have nearly always opted to dissolve universal suffrage.This is the real politik laying behind the realities of the cold war - because what might first have appeared to be power hungry Nonemklaturas grabbing control were, in retrospect, an inevitable consequence of gigantic class struggles.