@@una877 I'm almost certain that she is historian Nancy MacLean, now at Duke, at the time a PhD student at UW-Madison. Full Q&A for those who want to go deeper: ua-cam.com/video/5oOjwjgV4G0/v-deo.html
@@timbozza1678 She also got boos. Nevertheless, she was asking a confrontational question to Chomsky, whom the audience was there to see. This isn't difficult.
@@duxnihilo Think you were watching a different video. I didn't hear any boos. Do you have a timestamp? She got a round of applause after her question, even though it was quite the long question.
@@pauloandradeabreu8582 Not even just manipulated. Chomsky himself decrees that the media is a section of the gigantic mega-corporate network that makes up what we call "the elite."
@NEVER A-Communist-America ur recomending a Holocaust denier. This is why I'm looking at conversations had between leftists, because they're not completely delusional
@NEVER A-Communist-America The problem is that the opposing side of this argument are at best milquetoast liberals and at worst blood and soil fascists. Like the person you insisted was relevant in offering anything even remotely resembling a critique of leftist ideology. But what you offered was tantamount to truisms and analogies. The point being that there is no intellectual support for the ideology you are pushing. Just blind support of unjustifiable hierarchy.
@@Cjnw wait, are you actually insinuating that me, an anarchist, and the other one who is likely a communist, are also fascists? Like the ACTUAL fascist in this comment thread? In which case, how do you go about life with such an incredibly smooth brain? Or am I missing something, in which case, explain it to me and my smooth brain.
Some quotes: 2:10 What was Leninism? “Lenin was a right wing deviation of the socialist movement and he was so regarded. He was regarded as that by the Marxists, by the mainstream Marxists. But we’ve forgotten who the mainstream Marxists were because they lost. And you only remember the guys who won. But if you go back to that period the mainstream Marxists were people like for example, like Anton Pannekoek, who was head of education for the Marxist movement. He’s one of the people Lenin later denounced as an infantile Leftist. But he was one of the leading intellectuals of the actual Marxist movement. (2:48) Rosa Luxemburg was another mainstream Marxis. And there were others. … and they were all very critical of Leninism because of what they regarded as opportunistic vanguardism, the idea that the radical intelligencia were going to exploit popular movements to seize state power and then to use that state power to whip the population into the society that they chose. Now that was quite inconsistent with Marxism as understood by the mainstream, I’d say Left Marxist. From this point of view Bolshevism was a right wing deviation. Trotsky made the same points up til 1917. (3:30) Now when Lenin came back to Russia in April 17th he took a different line. Quite a different line than the one he had in the past. … Take a look at April 1917 it became kind of Libertarian. … these were basically Libertarian works. They were very much more in the main stream of Left Libertarian Socialism. This range that goes from anarchism to Left Marxism of the Pannekeok, Luxemburg variety. And he talked about Soviets and the need for worker organization and so on. And in fact, really came closer to what the essence of what Socialism was always understood to be. After all, the core of socialism was understood to be worker’s control over production. That was the core to begin with then you go on to other things. But the beginning is the control by the workers over production. That’s where it begins. (4:41) Then Lenin took power in October of 1917 in what’s called a revolution but in my view ought to be called a coup. And things followed that coup, a revolution if you want to call it that. (4:53) One of the things that followed it was the immediate moves to destroy the Soviets in the factory counsels. Those were some of the first moves of Lenin and Trotsky, Trotsky joined at that point, after they took state power. In fact, if you look at what Lenin wrote in that period, or did, you’ll find it’s a reversion of the earlier position, this sort of left deviation is that, a deviation. You could ask why. In my view it was just opportunistic. He knew that in order to gain power he was going to have to go along with the popular currents that were developing. Which were in fact spontaneous and libertarian, socialist, as most popular movements are, have been since the 17th century. And being an astute politician, which he was, he sort of went along with that and talked the line that the people wanted to hear. It’s just like when an American politician goes somewhere and his pollsters tell him to say so and so and he says it. I think Lenin was doing the same thing without polls. In any event whatever your interpretation is, when he took power reverted to the former vanguardism and moved at once to eliminate the organs of worker control. Now that meant he was moving to destroy socialism if socialism has at its core worker’s control over production. The soviets in factory counsels were instruments of workers control. (6:23) … they were the instruments that had been developed in the course of popular struggle to implement basically worker’s control and those were the first things to go. (6:30) By 1918 this is now still really before the civil war set in. Lenin’s view was pretty clearly expressed. It was the view that both he and Trotsky took position that what you need is what Trotsky called a ‘labor army’ which is submissive to the control of a single leader. He said modern progress, development of socialism requires that the mass of the population subordinate themselves to a single leader in a disciplined workforce. Well, that has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of it, and was criticized for that in a spirit of some solidarity because the revolutionary forces were still operative. He was criticized for that by people like Rosa Luxemburg, by Pannekoek, Gorter and the other mainstream sort of Left Marxists. (7:23) And I think they were right. And then it just goes on from there. I mean Lenin reconstructed the Czarist systems of oppression, often more efficiently, Cheka, KGB, and other techniques of control and oppression. I think from that point on there was nothing remotely like socialism in the Soviet Union. I think it was in fact, in my view it was a precursor of later forms of totalitarianism. That’s what I think happened and that’s what I think you’ll discover if you look at the facts. (7:55) Now, why is it called socialism? I think that’s complicated and we should look at it. The Soviet Union calls it ‘socialism’ and they did take control pretty soon of most of the international socialist movement. Because primarily the prestige of having created something sort of socialism. Incidentally, just a side remark, Lenin remained despite it all sort of an orthodox Marxist in many respects. And as an orthodox Marxist he didn’t believe that it was possible to have socialism in the Soviet Union. This was supposed to be up to his death, shortly before his death when he was still writing, speaking lucidly. He kept the view that the Soviet Revolution was a holding action. They were just going to hold things in place until the real revolution took place in Germany. Because the revolution according to Marxist doctrine was going to take place in the most advanced sector of modern industrial capitalism you know, for all the reasons you read about in Marx. That’s where the revolution had to take place. That obviously wasn’t the Soviet Union. So it couldn’t be socialism there it had to be some kind of holding action. And that presumably gave some sort of justification for eliminating the socialist institutions. I don’t think it’s a real justification but probably that was the internal justification. And again, in taking that view he was in accord with the mainstream Marxist tradition. (9:27) Well, after that comes the view that all of this is ‘socialism’. And why should the Communist parties take that view? I think the reason is because they wanted to exploit the moral force of socialism, which was quite real. You know it’s kind of hard to remember that today. But at that time it was very real. This was regarded as a progressive moral force. And by associating their own destruction of socialism with the aura of socialism they hoped to gain credit in the working classes and the other progressive sectors. Now the West also identified that with socialism. And they did it for the opposite reason. They wanted to associate socialism with the brutality of the Russian State that undermined socialism. So what you had is the two major world propaganda agencies for their own and quite different reasons were claiming that this is socialism. That this destruction of socialism is socialism. And it’s very hard to break out of the control of world’s two major propaganda agencies when they agree. They agreed for different reasons but they basically agreed and that then became doctrine and dogma. Well, I think people should ask whether that’s true. Take a look back and see whether the moves that Lenin took, and Trotsky supported him in taking, being that they both advocated, had anything to do with socialism as it was understood by say the Marxist tradition or the Left Libertarian tradition.”
What's missing from this essentialist exchange is the practical reality of the period, or what I would call "other facts" which was dictated by western military imperialism of the developed nations. Without centralization and "totalitarianism" the tsarist and capitalist bourgeoisie in Russia and abroad would have squashed the communists whatever they called themselves, just like they later have done in 1965 politicide in Indonesia which systemically butchered 500,000-1,000,000 non-violent, succesful democratic socialists and communists. It sure is easy to pontificate now, but even USA invaded russian soil to support reactionaries against the revolutionaries.
bunch of utopian, romantic , dissorienting shit. Glory to the Soviet Union, glory to great Lenin and Stalin. No reformist dog will break the movement in the future, we will make sure of this
@@sapienssapiens35 Honest question: In what way did these attacks create the need for totalitarian leadership? Why couldn't the worker soviets still exist next to let's say a centralized military power? In the Indonesian example the purge followed after an unsuccessful coup and was started by the government & military, so the 2 situations aren't really comparable I would say. Especially if we can agree that pure non violence has proven to render any attempt of meaningful revolution useless. Reasons I could imagine at the time were the lack of real time communication and consensus building between the different soviets and especially in such a large geographic area. Maybe you have some more information on how it was internally legitimized? (I mean in the end it didn't work either as it seems they somehow stopped trying to get workers in control/actively suppressed attempts to do so) But nowadays we have many ways of fast communication and exchange over long distances. I would even go as far as to say that nowadays there is no need for a strictly centralized strictly authoritarian (as in your superiors are never to be questioned) military/armed forces as the YPG/YPJ were relatively successful (in terms of military effectiveness with their available resources) in the war against isis/to some extent the syrian government. These points I only bring up because you mentioned Indonesia which was in a different time period and I understood it as an example why such a authoritarian structure would be necessary today, sorry if this was not the point you were making :)
@@Marius-yu9bs To be clear, I used the US incursion to highlight the underappreciated western aggression against Russia and percieved political left in general, not to claim that is something that directly necessitated totalitarianism, and I'm still not sure it did fully necessitate it, I'm just saying I understand why they believed in what they were doing. I'm not a specialist on the subject, and I haven't read any of the internal sources but from what I remember from lectures and reading, the problems more broadly came from the convergence of at least a few factors: the lack of capacity to actually run the worker soviets, the need for a centralized war economy due to the immediate urgency that flowed from the understanding that foreign powers were more developed and halfway through waging de facto racist wars of exploitation, combined with the opposition of internal counter-revolutionary enemies (who opposed any kind of socialism and usually democracy and republicanism too). And both of those happening with the backdrop of the geopolitical layout of Russia, which was a vast, low population density and culturally decentralized nation, without the kind of comprehensive intellectual class that existed in western Europe that made progressive socialism seem feasible, and on top of all that, the understanding and a memory of how awful things had been before Lenin with the violent, abusive land and legal mismanagement. And of course corruption and self interest are always a part. Whatever the case may be, hyperfocusing on individual actors just doesn't do justice to explain the social composition of so many people who had to make their bets with much more limited knowledge than we have today. If we have to draw comparisons then I think in retrospect Russia from that period was more similar to precursors for the chinese cultural revolution than the Phillipines, and by no means am I implying totalitarianism was an obvious or necessary development, but I think for people who actually lived in those times, who couldn't google translate, didn't have the international diplomacy and legal structure we have today, and who had credible fears of previous invasions and current wars accepting paranoia and jingoistic ruthlessness came even easier than it does today and it eclipsed whatever optimism and hope of mutual economic development. We are told to accept hysteria over things like 9/11 taking our civil rights today, but when it comes to soviet Russia even Chomsky says we should simplify the entire picture to some ideological beliefs of a few writers who disagreed on stuff under much more credible threats to their physical safety. It just lacks perspective imho. Maybe the better way to put this is to simply say that in order to have an economic revolution happen and succeed, you need to have a sufficient amount of peace, stability, room for error, and ability for self-reflection, and all of those are missing in the world of sociopathic, spoiled, emperor-wannabies who think might makes right.
Chomsky's encyclopedic memory always stuns me. Historians must hate listening to a linguist raddle off dates of relatively minor historical events with such ease.
@@richardhill7050 It would be easier to list what he tells the truth about. A lot shorter, that list. The entire way he characterizes Soviet history isn't just misleading, but directly aiding the thing Chomsky sometimes criticizes in correct ways (imperialism). Michael Parenti puts it far, far better than I could. But here's just a very small example: “The rise of corporations was in fact a manifestation of the same phenomena that led to Fascism and Bolshevism, which sprang out of the same totalitarian soil.” This leads the reader (or listener) to put the October Revolution and building of the first ever worker state, the most democratic country history had yet seen, the first attempt at building socialism on a mass scale... on par with "totalitarianism" and Fascism. Which, if we understand how society actually functions, we know this is completely inaccurate. That we are not just given an array of choices for what we'd like to do. What we do is always based in the conditions we are presented. (And the Soviets were presented a hostile imperialist world, which immediately invaded it, blockaded it from all trade--a form of warfare--, and continually faced internal and external counter-revolution, sabotage, and war crimes against them throughout its entire existence; and that's just scratching the surface of context) Parenti says of Chomsky and his ilk, "They claim socialists hunger for power, instead of wanting the power to end hunger" (which is, indeed, what the Bolsheviks did). Chomsky, likes he always manages to do when talking about actual socialism in the real world, fails to give context, uses misleading language that amounts to outright lies, spreads inaccuracies (like "authoritarianism", calling USSR "dictatorship", etc). Lets also remember that Chomsky got his start writing at Partisan Review Magazine, which was created and funded by the CIA in their "Congress for Cultural Freedom" anti-communist operation, still receives CIA funding to this day (which is why he is able to be critical of the military industrial complex, but not imperialist soft power) and even specifically endorses CIA brass he is friendly with. Not that this means he's wrong on everything. Far from it. But because he's right on some things makes the lies he is complicit in that much more dangerous, especially to those of us genuinely interested in building socialism. Which I hope you are. If you want to read about Lenin and the Bolsheviks, I can help with some resources. I recommend you get an understanding of what Marxism is first, though. Just let me know. I run a Marxist education program online and we always love more people. :)
@@Bob-uh6gf not directly. And it's not like he was a CIA agent. It doesn't really work like that. They fund what's in the interests of the Imperialists, distribute it, etc He got his start writing for a magazine called "partisan review" which was taken over by the CIA and he was one of the first writers of that time. There were also a couple of their companies that owned distribution for a few of his books. Notably, "manufacturing consent" was not one of them, which is kinda funny. But his department at MIT is openly funded by the military industrial complex too. He's a good friend of CIA heads. There's a few books about it, but that don't focus on Chomsky. I can track down the titles if you're interested.
What I love about Chomsky is that everytime he's challenged with a difficult question and I'm thinking, "Oh boy, that's tough, he might just have some blind spots regarding that critique or to that particular grand stander," he then goes on to give a slew of dates, references, and examples to clarify why he holds a certain position.
Oh boy, here we go. The Jews are the fault of everything, yuck yuck yuck. How pathetic of a loser do you have to be to blame the Jews for all your perceived woes? Never mind the fact that Chomsky isn't a Zionist or even a fundamentalist of any religion. Nor is he an establishment capitalist or an orthodox Marxist.
You are one lost little pup. I loathe Bibi and abhor totalitarian communism, i.e. the Leninist/Stalin variety or the Maoist iteration. You've been worked up into a stupor by bad faith actors, namely the libertarian fringe groups and right wing think tanks. One can appreciate Marxist criticisms of deregulated capitalism while not subscribing to orthodox Marxism or its bastardized versions found throughout history. You're being isolated in thought and ideology because it serves the interest of bankers, capitalists, and those who benefit mightily from monopolies. Do you really think Robert Mercer, the Koch brothers, or Rupert Murdoch give two shits about communism or Jews or even strict libertarian policies? Fuck no they don't. They craft their rhetoric to curtail democracy and labor standards by duping fools.
She was asking him how can he be a leftist and criticize Lenin? Also she asked, if Lenin and the Soviet Union was not in any way a model from which we can learn from, then what can take apart capitalism.
Here Chomsky explains why Leninism and its offshoots including Trotskyism and Stalinism and Maoism are not proper ideologies for the working class to get behind.
I've been puzzled at the confusion and irritation the question at the end brought to this comment section. Maybe I've been in too many leftish discussions like this one. The question was a bit convoluted and mixed some implicit critique. The answer was long and touched many different arguments. But they both seem clear. I offer my reductionist interpretation: The woman asking the question considers Russian Revolution as a real triumph of the proletariat, later ruined by Stalin. She's upset at other leftist people (particularly someone like Chomsky, who she probably respects for other reasons) attacking a hero like Lenin and a great triumph like Russian Revolution. She must feel that a prominent opinion leader like Chomsky should be trying to unite all the left under a common cause, and instead he plays the role of a useful fool, promoting capitalists ideas. Chomsky considers the Russian Revolution a fake. It made more harm than good to Russia and to the left. It's a big lie from both the USSR and USA that Lenin was a real communist, he cites Lenin's own ideas, and also some communist detractors, like Rosa Luxemburg. He gives some historical context and events to justify his point. He argues that we should learn from mistakes, instead of pretending it was the right path to follow. In conclusion, it's a typical argument between an anarchist and a leninist. [Edit: this used to say Chomsky is not a communist. He is not a marxist, but he seems to align with communist ideas (from an anarchist perspective)]
Lots of Marxists who deny the Soviet Union was ever even communist, rather, after they declared "war communism" in 1918, they were practicing from that point forward a form of "state capitalism." The Soviet claim that war communism ended in 1921 is said to be false, the State continued to take the profits from agriculture and industry production and invest/distribute as it deemed most useful.
Exactly. Spot on she feels That the Soviet Union was a great triumph spoiled by Stalin and worries about the extension of the Stalinist critique to Lenin. He feels that Lenin was in fact worthy of this critique due to his decision to nuke workers councils etc. Chomsky is against authoritarian forms of vanguard communism, and for bottom up worker control.
Chomsky goes so far as to say Lenin was a right wing opportunist who used popular currents of the time to gain power (by coup not revolution) and then turned back towards the previous iteration. Smashing worker control would be a core violation of socialism (if you consider worker control of production a core tenant of a socialism). Uses Lenin’s own worlds and those of others like critical marxists of the time and Rosa and Trotsky and factual events to back his claim. I think he’s saying, leftists do themselves harm by trying to defend Lenin as a left wing socialist because (which is essentially what the questioner does), according to Chomsky Lenin wasn’t. Personally I think he decimated her.
"Chomsky considers Russian Revolution a fake. It made more harm than good to Russia and to the left. " And he is wrong. At least when it comes to Russia and "fakeness" of our revolution.
It's a good synopsis. I'd only add that I don't find the terms: bolshevism, Leninism, Stalinism, socialism, anarchism and the other 'isms' neither interesting nor useful; or spending time to tease out the differences, the underlying theories, or the rights and wrongs of each. Regardless of the 'ism', Chomsky is objecting to the behaviour of Lenin and his chums as a totalitarian, repressive regime and in this I feel he is correct. It doesn't really matter a whole lot what dreams for humanity, or other ideals you claim to hold while you behave like a brutally arrogant shit. Arguing that people needed to behave in this way at the time, or through expediency, is no defence. The world doesn't need authoritarian self appointed experts with a prescriptive cure for all our problems, to be delivered from the top floor of some large building, at the point of a gun, by armed bully boys.
Really thought it wasn't going to say "Think"... Really thought it was going to say "Love". People can think wrong or evilly... Thoughts can be programmed to believed good, but are evil. Thoughts can betray you, and so many other things, but none of that can happen... If your love is in the right place. Our logic is unseparatable from our emotions, no matter how much we lie to ourselves, or "think" we've suppressed them as if we were Spock or turned them off like Data... We must balance the two, or be conquered by the one.
The mumbling and ramblings of Chomsky. Many times, he started off on a tangent from his main reply. And he would tone down his speech because he wasn't sure how far he wanted to go in the secondary direction.
I love to see dialogue like this, without shit-flinging or accusations of power hunger/naivety by either side. I'm near the middle of these two viewpoints, a bit closer to Chomsky's, but I wish socialists could have these conversations peacefully and respectfully like this more often.
This is an incorrect way of looking at this interaction. While capitalism exists there is only the struggle between the classes, everything, from top to bottom is a manifestation of this struggle and thus everything is political. Chomsky does a lot of academic leaning onto the idea of "what is true" to which I would contest with "what is truth and what purpose does it serve?". Truth itself is political and thus a manifestation of the struggle between capital and labor. "shit-flinging" as you put it, is not a thing to be derided but rather a thing to be co-opted, to be weaponized and leveled at capital in all ways possible, and this is the reason above all other why Lenin triumphs over Chomsky.
@@carycrow8845 what in the name of class reductive nonsense did I just read? Because it sounds like you're saying we should whip up bullshit as the best strategy to take on capital.
its impossible in the end due the falsity of believe. > man is ultimately good and wrong structures are cause of evil. This is the reason that all the "good" leaders are killed if there is some sort of revolution. there is always more resentful people whos end goal was all the time ( sometimes not knowing it ) mass suicide /mayhem/ death; and virtue was just a facade.
Noam is correct but could have gone much farther. Abuse of human rights was so pervasive, so vicious, so clearly directed from the top of the revolutionary Bolshevik administration that it MUST be counted as a criminal regime. It would be naive to suppose that Stalin did not learn a great deal from his master, nor was Trotsky innocent as leader of military operations. Have you heard of the sack of Odessa during the final stages of the Civil War, in which 'class warfare' was expressed through mass rape of 'bourgeois' women by Bolshevik forces? Under Stalin Soviet troops did the same thing, halting operations in Germany to indulge in orgies of gang rape, even of children. An ex-Soviet officer gave this testimony!! It did not come from a Western or Nazi source. In 1920, under Trotsky, the Reds invaded Poland but were driven back. In 1939, Stalin made a pact ith zhitler, and the two of them divided Poland. The lady was DECEIVED. The LORD JESUS, Who during His earthlu ministry served the poor and the oppressed unstintingly, has said: 'BY THEIR FRUITS YOU WILL KNOW THEM.' This applies no less to socialists than to capitalists!!
@@Matthew-Anthony as in what it means as DrCruel does seem to be having some problems accepting that the death of stalin is not entirely accurate, among other things
Chomsky is an encyclopaedia 👍 and most importantly he has a fertile brain to analyze every fact with reflective rigour . Love you sir ...huge love from India
@@squwooshk No matter how many concrete examples he was provided with, Chomsky was never able to grasp that the Vanguardism he laments in Lenin, with it's deviantiation from what he calls 'mainstream Marxism' into fascism is the inevitable consequence of the class struggle by which the proletariat are taught to wrest control of the state. Oor Noam has always been a very insightful, very eloquent, and very Useful Idiot. Look up the term.
Great comment; I'm still laughing. As I have said many times before, there is but one universal truth in the world of polemics: If you try to argue with Chomsky you will lose.
He's slowed down as he's gotten older. Young Chomsky was a motor-mouth. Either his memory isn't what it used to be, or he considers his answers more these days.
what good are you? what good was your love? what good indeed was he? this was 40 years ago and the wealth gap is greater than ever....this is book sales and celebrity academia...kinda makes me puke really
@@AugustusOmega The good of it was that he's opened a lot of eyes that would have remained forever closed. It's a wound that never heals. I know you suffer, but that's all our lot now.
@@AugustusOmega yes and he is the sole reasons that millions have moved left and thousands have become socialists or anarchists what have you done what ground do you stand on to criticize him
@@owengaul3226 My critical faculties are my credentials...for 40 years this guy has been at the avantguard, at the forefront, he is the spokesman for the humanist space....ever notice how calm, soothing and appeasing his talking style is. He is the perfect socialist mouthpiece a clutch of billionaires would choose as the token socialist allowed in their club..lest anything more militant and effective may come along like Mlk...he is a gentle Jew who likes money and dinner parties. DONT ROCK THE FKN BOAT for petes sake.
Tl;dw questioner asked a good question from a leninist perspective about praxis; chomsky eloquently explained why the russian revolution wasn't one to be celebrated by socialists
It's called playing the man, not the ball - your right of course; it's used so often one would think people would be aware of it and see it for what it is.
@@IndigoVagrant Just bc you don't like the facts don't make them falsehoods. And yes, HOW ELSE does one interpret silence?? It is THE most clear indicator of a failure/loss on that topic. Short clip & a the most cringe-worthingly painful ex. there'll ever be: ua-cam.com/video/qOjbn4GwobE/v-deo.html
Her question: How do we implement systematic overhaul to take the power from the elite and give it to the workers? Also it seems problematic to try to achieve this while calling Lenin a monster so address that pls. Skip to 2:05. There. Easy.
@@alistairkinnear8737 not a Marxist zelote, real Marxists don't care about lenin and its dictatorship of the party. Because It was the worm in the fruit.
When did this take place? I love this kind of civil debate about ideas. No one is trying for a "gotcha" line and it's a welcome change from the __________ DESTROYS ________ posts that are becoming tiresome
Yes Yousef Alamri, if'n ya add citizen Chomsky's curiosity which complements any good academic's attentiveness to the points being made by engaged dissent to any part of Chomsky's views. Beyond respect, which is important in maintaining the dynamics of discussion (or dialogue if only 2 are present), Noam C is like playing a sport or pastime with someone who is better than you or I as an athlete or strategist\tactician. By playing tennis with a better tennis player or chess player or racing another swimmer we each get better and the act of generosity comes from the better athlete and\or strategist\tactician for being willing to be part of an opponent's singular sort of education and improvement in some skill or sport that the learning player\competitor may likely soon surpass the teacher in. Health and balance Noam C like many who argue honestly is the antidote to the feeling of "gaslighting" (from the plot machinations of the movie Gaslight) we around the Pandemic plagued world have felt as we sense the institutions we depend on are like our physical infrastructure, in a state of crumbling decay. We as whole societies would respond better individually, familialy and socially to the challenges and stresses of natural and human-made wear and tear if we strengthened our commitment to the Public Interest and privileged it over the Private Interests. I share the view one can hear off-camera and far from a live broadcast microphone in our corporate-captured Pay2Play media system echo chamber that the weaponized propaganda one finds in the few academics like Milton Friedman, who through government contracting were turned into "SHRINK BIG GOVERNMENT" and "GREED IS GOOD" heretical meme spouting machines. These manufactured mass media popular celebrities and designated "thinkers for a nation" during the Cold War years of ideological warfare with the Soviets and Maoists (really just flipped stick figures committed to the same centralized cults of personality that western electoral Pay2Play politics runs on) were actually doing what authoritarian and Banana Republic dictators do to maintain order in failing states. They seek their own personal fortification within some illusory social consensus that papers over reliable intel that in a healthy and free society is ever vetted and as trustworthy as its sources are widespread and unobstructed. Leaders like Putin of failed nation\states like Russia can hire U.S. commercial Public Relations firms as President for Life Putin did when he hired Ketchum Communications to place his personal op-eds and his individually devised propaganda into the western world's; by which I mean the PRIVATIZERS and Networked Investor\Trade groups from Wall Street to London to Zurich's Feudal Lords of High Finance and High Tech. However, mis-leaders like Putin who rule through fear also command too little trust and\or loyalty from the very sources of intel and policy analysis to maintain social stability and eventually to defend against the invariable hostile takeover attempts of corporate-captured militarism. Timothy Geithner, who was the Obama-Biden-Holder-Rubin-Summers choice after the Bush-Cheney-Paulson TARP bail-out by tax-payers of yet another global collapse of the fraudulent self-gorging financiers who feudally lord over the London to Wall Street to Gstad and Biarritz Axis Powers' resorts of GLOBAL ENGORGEMENT called PRIVATIZATION and CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH into appropriately communistic-corporate centralization of all the world's supply lines, that Timothy Geithner as the heir to the post of Secretary of Treasury who signed the world's reserve currency with his own name during his years heading the Treasury just as Trump's former OneWest Bank owner Hollywood Steve Mnuchin signed all of our world's reserve currency when he headed Trump's Treasury. Both Geithner and Mnuchin, two relatively young well-educated go-getters were fond of answering all critiques of their wealth-concentrating and wage stagnating policies with the West Point Default Meme of militaristic choice: "PLAN BEATS NO PLAN." Here's how that has turned out: www.populardemocracy.org/news-and-publications/kamala-harris-fails-explain-why-she-didn-t-prosecute-steven-mnuchin-s-bank Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Sifters, Code Shifters, PsalmSong Chasers Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa (Refuge of Atonement Seekers) Media Discussion List\Looksee
The good manners of debate this is from along time ago. Allowing one the time to state their view and then allowed to answer fully. The excitement in her voice, lady thought she had him on a topic, then an explanation and he takes the crowd through a history lesson and confirms his point. Every time someone questions he backs himself with an answer.
@@SpaceHeavy-4 yeah dude, average intelligence has continued to increase every generation due to increased availability of learning resources. Your beliefs fall in line with those of religious zealots who kepy crying about the "obvious moral decay" of each new generation, and you're just as wrong as every single one of them.
What Chomsky fails to take into account was that, even though the revolution itself wasn't very violent, the external retaliation by imperialist nations created a civil war. And in order to defend the newly-founded state, you need to fight those external powers and reactionary forces from within. The dictatorship of the proletariat isn't socialism, but the building of socialism. We can discuss what mistakes were made in the process and why the soviet union collapsed, but to deny its legacy as a whole as many american socialists do is just counter-productive. Just because a material revolution didn't go according to their idealized vision of socialism, we have to dismiss it entirely? Then what even is the point of building revolutionary movements, if they're never going to live up to our dreamed utopia?
where does he say he dismisses everything about it? independent nationalist development can be an upgrade from being a client state/feudal state whatever but dont call it socialism when youre doing nothing to actually build it
@@ssssssssss1638 He calls the october revolution a coup and Lenin a right-winger, that's pretty dismissive to me. Also, there are plenty of nationalist development projects that did little to change society's fundamental structures -- Brasil under Vargas, South Korea under Park Chung-hee . Soviet Union built universal housing, healthcare and education, they helped out poor countries against imperialist agression, had extremely low levels of inequality, aren't that all socialist measures? Naturally there were still internal contradictions within the system, but that is inevitable, socialism is not built in a day.
@@matheusvillela9150 yes there were welfare measures, plenty of socdem countries have done the same doesnt change the fact that the means with which they dictated and workers were organized is the same way capitalists do which makes lenin right wing, a right wing socdem. sure you can claim that in 200 years is when they actually give workers direct control, like china currently claims, but that doesnt change the fact of what youre doing. If I have slaves, house them give them all of lifes ammenities but they have to follow my orders otherwise x bad thing will happen to them and say that ill give them freedom when the conditions are right does that make me a good person? no. you can find some justifications in what lenin did under the circumstances of a civil war but a lot of it like destroying the workers councils, the kronstandt incident, destroying makhnovia were completely unjustifiable and everything that followed that with stalin was just an extension of the means and methods that they employed at the start of the revolution
@@ssssssssss1638 Social democracies still rely on the exploitation of the global south and a history of colonialism. And to be fair, a lot of the supposed bureocracy from the soviet union, even under Stalin, was exaggerated by western media and revisionist writers -- there's even a CIA doc on Stalin which clearly states that calling him a totalitarian the likes of Hitler was not very accurate, since the soviet system was much more collective and decentralized than fascist regimes at the time. I'll see if I can find this document and post it here.
Heisenberg, Gödel, and Chomsky walk into a bar: Heisenberg looks around the bar and says, “Because there are three of us and because this is a bar, it must be a joke. But the question remains, is it funny or not?” Gödel thinks for a moment and says, “Well, because we’re inside the joke, we can’t tell whether it is funny. We’d have to be outside looking at it.” Chomsky looks at both of them and says, “Of course it’s funny. You’re just telling it wrong.”
@@xillegal_alienx401 You can’t handle the conflicts in the process of rebuilding a nation it has been proven again and again. Take revolution in Germany in 1920s(notice: Nazi is radical racism but also anti-capitalism, it’s national socialism, they rebuilt economy faster than anyone else) Russia in 1910s, China during 40s to 70s. It costs tens of millions of lives and all end up failing. They turned into dictatorship or capitalism. There are too many examples, French Revolution turned into dictatorship of Napoleon. Revolutions in Africa and South America turned into dictatorship or warlords controlling. Almost none of them succeeded. But when China decided to play capitalism game, their economy boomed.
Which is why communism, a form of government literally named after communes, maybe shouldn’t be attempted on a scale of hundreds of millions. A central government controlling that many people, regardless of how much they claim to value the workers, is kind of doomed to become corrupt
@@xillegal_alienx401 You can't. Without diminishing the rights for some and expanding them for others. All 19th century has proven this system is capable of is the dismantlement of an opressive ruling class to replace it with an even more opressive ruling class.
I don't know where Chomsky got the idea that Lenin dissolved the soviets right after the revolution because that's just plain untrue. He's either lying or (and this is more likely) just confused about something ge might have read. I think he's just passed because of Lenin's Left-wing Communism An Infantile Disorder book which basically takes apart the type of politics that Chomsky has always adhered to.
I'm a millennial and I just learned about Noam Chomsky this past year. I wish I knew about him earlier in my life but I'm glad I know about him now. His knowledge on politics, geopolitics & international relations as a whole is unmatched.
Chomsky is a fool. The reason you haven't heard of him is because his ideas are pure garbage, and he is constantly exposed as a fraud and charlatan but remains a fixture mostly because people don't do their own research. You probably haven't read that much to make such a silly statement. He has literally contributed NOTHING to our society aside from appearing on Democracy now once a week to shit on the USA, and enriching himself writing the same book over and over again and giving speeches at colleges to other silly pretentious people. HE is a pseudo-intellectual. His main body of work "universal grammar" has been discredited. He is not even an important thinker in his own field. Notice he never once debated anybody serious who could give him a run for his money on any of his silly ideas. He prefers soft target people like Michel Foucalt, Alan Dershowitz, William F Buckley, etc. If you are looking for more serious scholarship try "intellectuals and society" by Thomas Sowell, there is an audiobook free on youtube. Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, even Jordan Peterson could wipe the floor with him but he is too old now to find out.
@@matthewosburn Thomas Sowell LMAO holy shit dude, I hope you realize nobody would put him in the same universe of "serious scholarship" as Chomsky. Sowell's about as explicit a propagandist as can be
Well I used to like Chomsky... Until I learned of Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics. Now the world makes sense and Chomsky is almost gone! Can't wait
What's sad is that leftists fall in this trap of equating Communism with Stalin, and the Soviets. Thus they start to defend Stalin saying "he wasn't that bad". Its depressing.
@@forestgreen9002 i just red the Communist Manifesto and the Principles of Communism by Engels. Instead of presenting the Communist alternative, they just criticize Capitalism (with weak arguments imo). Not one word about how would Communism work, how would the proletariat rule. They wanted to enrage the people to become violent and start chaos / a violent revolution. Then they (the Communist Party, again not one word about how the Party is structured / who takes the decisions, etc) would take over, and rule in the name of the people. Btw its funny that they keep specifying that they're against religion, while we know that the vast majority of people are religious. They dismiss any alternative as utopian if its not violent and its too rational, with ad hominem (logical fallacy) arguments. (instead of criticizing the system, they make personal attacks about the people which wrote about these systems). Imo they are not Communists. They were Revolutionaries or Anti-Capitalists. They were proposing a Dictatorship by a shady untransparent Party. So imo Communism is left at point zero (starting point). Unfortunately its impossible to find Communists on the internet, because the forums/subreddits are taken over by Stalinists. They kicked me off when i proposed my solution for how would Communism work. I proposed a Forum with rational debates on the Policies that would rule the country. With a logical fallacy section, and a scoring system of the proposed policy. For example you can take the number of positively impacted people multiplied by the degree of positive impact (judged in accordance with Maslow's pyramid of human needs, and the existing evaluating system of ethics). This would give the positive score, and the vice-versa for the negative score, also taking into account the international human rights. In the end, the policy proposal with the best score should turn into Policy. So the ruling is done transparent, any person can propose solutions and give arguments in favor of or against proposed policies. Thus this would not be a technocracy, not a Stalinist Dictatorship, not a Direct Democracy, and not a Representative Democracy. That my humble solution. But in any case, i think there needs to be a system of letting the people rule the country, but to filter out they biased / dumb side (always manipulated by politicians / media) and let the Reasoning part of them do the ruling.
@@Rasmajnoon I completely agree with you. I think that Dr. Peterson is completely correct and I did listen to this videos and many others like it. Chomsky is basically saying " if I had been in charge, as a real socialist, then the promised utopia would have materialised. " How many times does humanity have to repeat this failed experiment?
Marx literally said the proletariat should seize the state and use it, he said it in the communist manifesto. He said to then build up productive forces to make socialism possible. Go and read it. And this is precisely what happened in the USSR under Lenin and Stalin. Rosa Luxemburg supported the soviets. Trotsky was no less "authoritarian" than Stalin or Lenin. Lenin wasn't opportunistic, if the whole world is against you - the whites and the imperialist powers you can't be libertarian. That's why chomsky can't point to a communist that he likes that actually won. To call the revolution a coup seems ridiculous when you consider it needed a long civil war. Lenin thought socialism wouldn't be possible in Russia, but Stalin built a socialist state.
"Because the Russian Revolution and its ideas still have such a strong influence over people’s spirits, it’s necessary to more profoundly penetrate its fundamental character. In a few words, it was the last bourgeois revolution, though carried out by the working class. “Bourgeois revolution” signifies a revolution that destroys feudalism and opens the way to industrialization, with all the social consequences this implies. The Russian Revolution is thus in the direct line of the English Revolution of 1647, and the French Revolution of 1789, as well as those that followed in 1830, 1848 and 1871. During the course of these revolutions the artisans, the peasants and the workers furnished the massive strength needed to destroy the ancien régime. Afterwards, the committees and political parties of the men representing the rich strata that constituted the future dominant class came to the forefront and took control of governmental power. This was a natural result, since the working class was not yet mature enough to govern itself. In this new class society, where the workers were exploited, such a dominant class needs a government composed of a minority of functionaries and politicians. In a more recent era, the Russian Revolution seemed to be a proletarian revolution, the workers having been its authors through their strikes and mass actions. Nevertheless, the Bolshevik Party, little by little, later succeeded in appropriating power (the laboring class being a small minority among the peasant population). Thus the bourgeois character (in the largest sense of the term) of the Russian Revolution became dominant and took the form of state capitalism. Since then, due to its ideological and spiritual influence in the world, the Russian Revolution has become the exact opposite of a proletarian revolution that liberates the workers and renders them masters of the productive apparatus." Anton Pannekoek 1954 www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1953/socialisme-ou-barbarisme.htm
@daniel garcia garcia This is a very nice excerpt from Pannekoek. For those of you who are wondering how this is relevant, Chomsky mentioned Pannekoek several times in his response and this excerpt is a succinct form of a much larger critique of how the Russian Revolution was executed. The critique is from a Marxist, not from a capitalist or monarchist or anything like that.
I don't know when this was filmed but it honestly feels like it's from a different world, I can't remember the last time I saw calm and rational discussion of political ideologies without emotional outbursts and blustering, seems most people now don't want to even think about what ideas they hold and just want to prove those who think differently are wrong or evil
@@xenmwi Which has nothing to do with Chomsky himself and everything to do with the public's perception of Chomsky. Take up arms against them, but you won't get anywhere because you're a nobody. Next.
If you consider the fact that the woman who asked the question in the video wouldve been considered ‘emotional’ back then, world has really changed for the worse
As we seek a future beyond capitalism in the 21st century, we need to remember this history and these debates between libertarian socialists and the Leninists, or we will be doomed to repeat the tragedies of the 20th century.
Instead of making excuses and being useful idiots for dead guys like Stalin and Mao. I think more people would be socialists if it weren't for tankies I was ancap for ages just because I couldn't get past tankie rhetoric and arguments. They're the loudest group confronting libertarians and right wingers, so I was never able to get past it. What finally got me was mutualism, proudhon, the actual works of Karl marx, orthodox economic class conflict opposed to rhetoric about "colonists" and such. This what got me to finally move past anarcho capitalilism into a more mutualist kind of anarchy. I never hated the idea of worker owned businesses. I like commerce and markets. U have these kids who know nothing about socialism or economics or theory who think socialism is woke social democracy. And it's not. And thats what turns people like me off. People who are actually proletarian being led astray by white middle class bourgeoise fake antifa punks.
U know what got me to? Was an interesting episode of Futurama. It's the one with the 80s guy that has boneitis. He convinced fry and mom to buy the planet express from the workers. As it turns out the professor is a bit of a socialist. He pays his workers in stock and profit sharing. And the capitalists try to take control of the company, its actually a funny episode that is really cool and shows what the future of socialism actually looks like. Its not mass surveillance and George Soros. Or it doesent have to be. I work at a hotel where I audit all of the charges on the graveyard shift.. I just think man how great would my life be if I had an honest to God SHARE of these profits. $15 an hour with benefits is actually OK. But goddamn if i had just a measly 5% share of the hotel profits I would be sitting very well. I wouldn't even care if my manager got say 10%, as she does work more hours and more complex tasks. I just don't understand why anyone would be against that, without being coerced. As a voluntaryist I never liked coercion. Then I started reading Marx and at first kinda scoffed at it but when I really got into it I realized, a true voluntaryist would want a worked controlled business. Of course if u WANT to live in a capitalist structure I still say go for it. But I don't understand why I can't hold shares for my actual work over a wage. The only reason is greed and using the concept of private property as coercion. Just like they use the concept of copy right to keep medicine prices high and keep some musicians as millionaires while other more talented ones starve. Capitalism is a relic of fuedalism and now that we have mass production and surplus it just doesent make sense anymore. I wish more people can go down the path I went down. I think people who read lenin and mao and think "wow this is great" are actually getting into socialism the wrong way. The libertarian left pipeline is actually getting a lot of people. There's even a group called rothbardian syndalicists who are you know socialists but inspired by the early works of Murray Rothbard before his jump to paleo conservatism. When I realized that anarcho capitalism was just a jump to neo reactionaryism and neo fuedalism and mocking anarchy, I dropped it like a hot rock. I really believed in these ideas like voluntary contracts and still still. But it's clear they can't really be implemented under a capitalist framework. It's a neat idea but it will never work for the working man like me. Not in the real world. I started to realize the ideals that got me into anarcho capitalism are actually much better realized under a proudhon style mutualism or rothbardian syndacalism. The workers controlling the means of production doesent have to necessarily mean they are limited to their work either. Free markets means u can trade, like I could trade some of my hotel stock for computer stock and gold and diversify my portfolio just as I do now under capitalism but instead of slaving for wages to save and set this money aside and buy stock i could get an honest and direct trade for my work and the surplus income I help produce. The key here is helping libertarians like myself to understand that free markets can still exist in a socialist system. When u get to the point where we can just give everyone resources money becomes obsolete. Kinda like how bitcoin doesent need to function the same way as fiat currency and acts more like a stock. U don't need to be able to buy things with it for it to have and store value. In that sense money is already becoming obsolete. Taking power away from the governments. Now we just need to spread that wealth beyond whoever owns property and generators to "mine" and property to run businesses and give the workers a fairer share. There's no Reason the capitalists can't maintain their current lifestyles and still allow everyone else to advance to a closer level.
@@juanmccoy3066 you see, when ideology confronts reality, concessions have to be made. Your libertarian utopia will be trampled in a month wither from the inside or from the outside. Authoritarian measures are required to achieve any revolutionary progress.
@@Apelles42069 What do you mean no? That isnt a matter of pinion, that is a fact of nature. Revolution by it nature is an authoritarian action, one group violently overthrows and suppresses the other. Ideology and theory always has to give way to reality because they may not fit well the material conditions of a revolution. Some things have to be adapted and changed. Libertarianism relies on the most totalitarian form of organisation(capitalist enterprise) to archive freedom. Your boss already has all the power ver hald of yor day, lets give them all the rest. The only useful idiot here is you.
@@westernman1482 'Nicola Tesla' for name/avatar, conspiracy teories, monarchism, and ending your redundant shit-cluster of an argument with 'wake the fuck up people', could you possibly be more of an edgelord neckbeard stereotype?
B olton Karl Marx was a Jew and as you know the the one who wrote the communist manifesto! It all started with a Zionist plot to overthrow governments. After the Jewish revolution happened, name being that out of the five hundred individuals that orchestrated it, they were almost all Jews! They murdered the true crowned family of Russia to gain control. Once in control Bolshevism started and the tens of millions of ethnic Russians who tried to resist the new controllers were murdered. Historical churches were burned down as those who sake refuge within them were persecute. Firing squads massacred endless citizens. How come everyone’s supposed to feel bad for the Jews, but ignore the genocides and atrocities they’ve committed? Double standard commies do that. It’s so funny how this page attracts brainwashed Marxist indoctrinated fools. All the critical theory and Marxist teachings came to America after WW2 when the Jewish Frankfurt group arrived and were allowed to spread communistic ideals into universities starting with Columbia university in New York. Meanwhile you could still be imprisoned for be a communist at the time! All the commie lovers want a utopia and promote it constantly. You prove my point by defining it as an improvement on the world! It seems people will believe anything as long as you convince them with words that resonate to their liking. The United Nations is controlled by these same globalists since it’s founding along with the European Union and other continental unions. I can’t imagine never questioning the repercussions of what a one world dictatorship styled government would bring.... no sells pitch given by globalists and their puppets could ever make me support that.
Don't hate the rich, hate what they do and strive to establish a system that doesn't give them a reason or means to do it. Eliminating class divisions economically should be our goal, not eliminating all those of another class. One is solid economic policy, the other is just killing. We shouldn't be seeking to solve our problems by eating the kulaks, we should be unionizing, be it in workplaces or elsewhere, to secure the rights of the working class and eliminate the systems by which they're oppressed.
I am always astonished - not ONLY by Chomsky's wonderful intellect, - but by his memory; I am only in my mid-sixties, and while I have no present concerns for my cognitive abilities, I desperately long for greater fact-retention. Noam Chomsky, at 91, is a virtual universe of sociopolitical knowledge. He is also a thoughtful Humanist and a rare example of caring in an uncaring world.
Constantly amazed at the memory this guy must have. He can rattle down through years to some obscure event or person and detail the subject with a fine tooth comb.
@@tomasmccauley569 the core element is workers control. He abolished that. And killed people who were fighting for it or were already making it happen (Makhnovia for example). leninism is not socialism, as socialism was understood at the time. I guess by post-USSR definitions of socialism it is. Cuz the word got corrupted to its root to mean "authoritarianism and centralized state capitalism" I wonder though, what exactly do you like about the USSR? That it was a lesser evil? That it killed a dream and we are still suffering the consequences? Imagine if Lenin wasn't a lying piece of shit. Man.. where we could be.
@@tomasmccauley569 So you're for representative democracy. You're making a lesser evil argument. Which I am ok with in context of no de facto power (as we are currently, so at least we can vote for lesser evils and do egalitarian things on the side), but at the time there was actual hope for change. Marxists were in the position to set the direction, to be a leading example. Russian monarchy was weak and had fallen. aaaand here comes Lenin to fuck it up. Uses this to gain power for himself and his posse, creates the new oligarchy. So fuck Lenin. He was one of the greatest evils of the 20th century because he killed an idea with his "representative democracy" bs
@@tomasmccauley569 essentially, you're agreeing with Lenin because he did some things right and are choosing to ignore how he set the wrong course and killed marxism with it. We are still struggling with the consequences where people are anti-marxist thought because they perceive it to mean "20th century USSR vanguardist authoritarianism". Which Lenin was for. And created (not by himself, true, there were many other authos he co-worked to make his coup)
@@tomasmccauley569 Its both the USSR's authoritarianism and the capitalist propaganda machines' fault. The USSR was totalitarian and its rule resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths. To deny that is to deny the facts. Lenin defeated the white army - fine. But after that he used the newly gained power to solidify it in him and his posse. His first moves: remove worker councils, destroy the black army (which could have been allies), kill dissenting voices (who were in large part more leftist marxists, so de facto allies), etc. He was a fraud. He exploited the movement to gain power. And all he created was a centrally planned capitalist state. And still to this day, because of some social policies, people like you are apologists for him. Its the same argument people use for the social democracies "well it works better so it was the best possible thing we could have had, realistically". Doesn't work like that. A lesser evil is not good enough. And especially when there were other options. If you ask me - Joe Biden or Trump, the choice is clear. And we have to make it to reduce evil as much as possible. But this situation is one where you have very limited choice (this is not to say one shouldn't fight in other areas where they have more control). But when you look at the USSR in its inception - there was SO much choice and it was FAR better than what Lenin and his vanguardist tankies were putting on the table. To make a pick there and compare it with the monarchists and say "well it was a lesser evil and was the only practical" is simply *wrong*. You have to compare it to the other leftist options at the time. Not to the now defeated monarchists. Its not at all a case of a locked system, it had just become liberated. It could have been set in the right path of true marxism but was instead set in the path of social-policies-oligarchy. Sure - better than a monarchy but marginally. The potential was an ocean. Fuck Lenin. he is one of the most vile people, because he killed marxism. Because he was there, at the place and time when the potential existed and had the power to do right. But chose power.. the only explanation - he was a fraud. Maybe cuz he was stupid and didnt get where the course he was setting led to, or maybe he was just evil. Regardless, he failed spectacularly, at least in terms of establishing marxism. as for his struggle with the monarchy, sure, "he" won (a whole lot of people rather), but the monarchy was weak and its not something uncalled for throughout history. Countless emperors win against other emperors. Big deal. What are you winning for is what matters
I love the: "Astute politician...which he was" line. Levy any criticism that everyone on "the left" has heard about Chomsky a million times, this is a criticism based entirely upon factual evidence. Still, Chomsky is honest enough to address all sources, whether pro Leninist or the opposite.
Well, dong listen to Chomsky on it lol. If you can find some Victor Serge (anarchist that turned to be a bolshevik during the october revolition), and Jean-Jacques Marie (a weird politician, but a good historian), you will find some very interesting and clear infos on it.
@@miloszfedorowicz5382 yeah don’t listen to one of the most respected anarchists of our time with arguably better dialectical materialist skills than many self described Marxists. Won’t help at all
@@Alfredocap not sure we understand the same thing when talkin about dialectics... Either way, Chomsky is not a historian, nor a specialist of early USSR. I was just saying that reading an actual historian, and an anarchist who joined the october revolution can be more interesting
I admire Chomsky, but, respectfully, and I may be wrong, he tries to be very subtle and use his great intelligence to deny some truths. The first is that all of Marx predictions turned out to be wrong. The "capitalistic" society with all its faults created a middle class and, thanks to modern technology, what Galbraith called the opulent society, contradicting his view of progressive poverty of the proletariat. Second the Communist Parties never came even close to a majority in any of the industrialized countries like Germany, England, USA where it was supposed to win. The reason is obvious: any person who has a small property wants to keep it and opposes communism, and both the agricultural peasants who have a field or a worker who owns an apartment will not be communist. The philosophy of Marx which minimizes human history to just an economic struggle of classes is, to say the least, simplistic. The only way communism could triumph if by the imposition of a dictatorship for the obvious reason that the communist party, as I said, is going to be always a minority. Final minor observation: Trotsky was not better than Lenin as far wanting a dictatorship and he was brutal and bloody in his dealings with the opposition.
It’s a privilege to listen whether you support his views or not. A good idea doesn’t care who it belongs to. We have a saying in Australia: in the horse race of life, always back the runner called ‘self interest’ because at least you know it’s trying.
Read Marx's reply to Vera Zasulich in 1882. Marx saw possibility of revolution in Russia if socialisation of Mir prevailed. Marx was not particular about advanced country or German revolution.
Chomsky's argument has a massive flaw in it; it assumes that the Mensheviks were more left wing than the bolsheviks. That however, couldn't be further from the truth. The Mensheviks were the moderate majority faction which believed in a slow transition from capitalism to socialism to communism. They are more akin to Democratic Socialists than Marxists. The Bolsheviks however, were so radical that they didn't want to slowly phase out capitalism, they wanted Socialism and they wanted it now. This division caused a severe rift and lots of infighting, which culminated in Lenin purging the party of the Mensheviks and establishing a more left wing approach to achieving Marxist Utopia. This is what Noam Chomsky gets wrong here, the Bolsheviks were more radically in support of Marxism and its ideas. However, Leninists created a strong state because they could not survive the pressures of Capitalist nations as an Anarchist Utopia, and they were right. Much of Lenin's career was spent simply trying to preserve the revolution he helped in achieving. This is where the fractures between Anarchists and Pragmatist Marxists begin to show. The "Tankies" (Pragmatist Marxists) the Anarchists so despise are more pragmatist than the idealistic Anarchists like Chomsky. This is an important distinction to make. While Anarchists think that things will just be perfect when they do their little revolution in Vuvuzuela, Tankies know better. In practice, the only Communist revolutions that survived were the ones that quickly built a strong state. This is called Vanguard Communism by Anarchists, a supposed bad thing which achieves nothing but repression and evil, despite history stating the contrary. To conclude, Chomsky is quite wrong in many aspects, not linguistics though. Noam Chomsky is just an example of a left wing Jordan Peterson. A big loud speaker that blares out his particular political ideology while providing no actual solutions to anything, unlike Lenin who was well known for his "calm demeanour". In short, Chomsky is a pundit who shouldn't be trusted.
@@popcornyogurt1 Yeah no thanks. I don't have to read every piece of left wing theory to understand Communism or Marxism. I don't have to read industrial society and its future to understand the impact technology has had on the environment, and I definitely shouldn't have to read every Anarchist thought piece in history. It's all about theory this and theory that, but when push comes to shove, the only revolutions that survived had Marxist-Leninist and Vanguard Communist undertones. The rest were either crushed by Capitalist forces or collapsed before a proper revolution could even occur. Anarchists are just angry that their idealist ideas don't work in practice, and are even angrier that Vanguard Communism survives to this day in Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, China and Cuba. At the end of the day, despite Lenin's flaws as a person and his flaws in his beliefs, at least he was able to preserve his revolution.
all revolutions need borders and an army to fortify against a world of capitalist nations with borders and armies, I don't know many on the left who would disagree with this undeniable reality. but why do ML states always decay into free market oligarchies? china is so terminally liberal that even healthcare is privatized, which is something most capitalist nations were able to move past. if we compare social democratic nations to post-revolutionary nations in the modern day, it would seem that the mensheviks were right.
نعوم شومسكي so smart so good with words that he destroy interviewer in israel with tones of facts and beautifully selected words with his calm voice poker face
Great vid. Chomsky is almost always refreshing. Even on the rare occasions when I find him too different from my own viewpoint, he’s still always kind and totally honest.❤️ On a similar vein, I’ve read about how Orwell was excoriated by some for not supporting Stalinism. I myself was similarly put down for using contemporary dictionaries for the definition of imperialism - a term which according to these sources predates Marxism and Leninism both, and was used in the past by both those who attempted to justify it as well as those who hated it. The ones who hated it were not “Marxist” since it hadn’t been formulated, nor were they “Libertarian” as that hadn’t come sbout either; nor were they “Paleo-Conservatives”, “Populists” etc., though one might discern some string similarities in any of the later political philosophies that were anti-interventionists/anti-imperialists. Likewise, one could draw parallels between pro-imperialists and Fascism, though it certainly includes Royalists, religionists, and some major tribes (like the Aztecs who regularly invades surrounding tribes). For myself I like to stick to the simple fundamentals that are common to practically all the various groups that abhor gross, artificially imposed inequality and/or any kind of imperialism, whether military, cultural, economic - or whatever. It’s the way history gets distorted, and the way this always ends up dividing people that is the main problem. Unfortunately I don’t see any easy way around that, though it isn’t categorically, %100 hopeless by any means. Have a great day!!
State and Revolution still absolutely kicks ass. Dunno how exactly we're gonna move beyond the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but eventually workers are gonna own and control the means of production. Wage slavery must end. ❤✊☭
very informative answer, learned something about lenin. but i don't think prof. chomsky got the full weight of her question, which was how do we get rid of (corrupt) capitalism, she side tracked into chomsky giving critics ammunition by calling into question vladimir lenin's motives. of course mr. chomsky, being the professor he is, gave us a brief history of the bolshevik revolution and lenin's involvement in it. we are on the same side here.
Like most people, he has absolutely no idea. That's an open problem still, and too big a question to address. Chomsky's skill is in understanding the world and drawing inferences. He leaves the rest to us.
3:38 "we have forgotten who the mainstream Marxist were because they have lost and we only remember the ones who have won" yes because the ones who have won were the only people that were actually right about the struggle. not including the fact many leftist parties (but not all) and including Rosa Luximberge herself despite having criticisms of the Russian revolution still supported it in the end. Lenin and Rosa would frequently send letters to one another and Lenin having to clarify his position and ultimately had to side with him. you guys only know how to lose and that's it, it seems you don't care at all about this shit and are just a bunch of larpers who want this "real Socialism" BS utopia fantasy that expects every aspect to be in absolute perfection. there are reasons why they lost, it's not a "might makes right" fallacy because the very point about the socialist movement is to dismantle the capitalist state and bring about socialism. the ones that did this, the ones who have won in the past, shows us how to take control of political power and bring about our vision. Stop it with this insane stuff, i care too much about this to let you people say this bullshit over and over again and make us look like dumbasses who don't know what they're talking about. the 2nd international failed just like the 1st because when the world war hit, all the social democratic parties throughout Europe went against one another and made Lenin pissed to see them destroy themselves which is why the concept of the vanguard and democratic centralism became a thing. it was a development that recognizes the fault of the 2nd international and to make sure to never repeat the same mistake which you assholes are always doing. you've learned nothing! you cannot call yourself to be a friend of the proletariat, you're against it, only to fuel your own dogmatic insane view of "socialism" and to circle jerk yourselves all day long. Wake the fuck up!
@@legrandliseurtri7495 that's literally a lie you made up. There is none, not one shred of evidence to suggest this. Literally ever since the Bolsheviks got into power life expectancy grew, infant mortality decreased, housing, education, healthcare for all, guaranteed job security, higher wages, improvements to women's rights that the rest of the world was falling behind on compared to them. The soviets were leaders in science and art, culture, and filmmaking as well with many breakthroughs happening in them. Even the parties that thought of the Russian revolution as a degenerate socialist state even they saw that things did change for the better. It's people like you that prove what Lenin was talking about when he wrote "left-wing communism: an infantile disorder"
@@ulysses7157 Well, bravo, they turned a peasant country dominated by an autocrat into a industrialized country dominated by an oligarchie. Of course the life expectancy would grow, ect. But the USA was more advance in every single field...
@@legrandliseurtri7495 you know the soviets were democratic right? And it was, in fact, more democratic than U.S. elections were. What they haven't taught you that in school? Of course, they didn't because they falsify history and just say "Stalin did everything". There was no "oligarchy" in most of the Soviet era. There were no rich people in the soviet union, everyone was on the same economic bases and not one person "owned" any production. All production was owned by social organizations elected and controlled by regular people. social organizations such as co-ops and collectives and the state that produce for the social good. That's why it's called "socialism".
Chomsky talks about Marx like Lenin believing that socialism had to begin in an industrialised capitalist country, but he doesn't say why. It seems to be that both Lenin and Marx believed that for socialism to survive it had to be established in an industrialized country because industrialization was necessary to produce the type of technology that ensured security from famine and also the type of weaponry that could fend off attacks from other capitalists and imperialists. How would the Bolsheviks to move off the land and into the factories which would produce the equipment they thought necessary for the country's and system's survival? If the workers were to decide that own fate it would have taken a very long time, time the Bolsheviks didn't have. They were in a civil war from 1917 and attacked by several foreign armies in 1918. With no real economy to speak off and relying on sales on timber and oil to countries who were now and war with them and who would later sanction them, they had to industrialize and had no time for a long transition period. The war lasted until 1922 by which time Lenin was sick, Stalin officially took over in 1924. Hitler was gaining prominence in that time and in 1927 Stalin saw the need to speed up industrialization......he would not a prophet, Hitler had published a work talking about the USSR as a place for German expansion, American and British private companies had begun to finance the Nazis and his rise to power was imminent. If Hitler had not attacked it would have only been a matter of time before the Allies would be back for a second attempt to oust the Bolsheviks.......a system Churchill said should be strangled in it's cradle. The five year plans were designed to achieve that, but stiff resistance was met from the farmers. The Bolsheviks had promised land, peace and bread. The land had been divided between the peasants but in such a large country with the transport and communication system available at the time (which was equivalent to early 18th century America's) it was difficult to achieve this fairly. The larger land owners refused to part with their produce for taxes, they pled bad harvests to tax inspectors and sold their produce to profiteers who sold it in towns for exorbitant prices. When the army came with the inspectors to take taxes the farmers organized and fought back and set fire to their harvests rather than give them up. In 1941 when the Germans attacked, Stalin was a year away from being ready........an astonishing feat considering that he had begun with a broken over 90 percent agrarian country. By 1943 while still at war the Soviet Union had officially the biggest, most well equipped army in the world, which is why at the end of the war (in which the Russians wiped out more than 80% of the German army) they were such a force to be reckoned with; so much so that the Americans dropped atom bombs on Japan to intimidate the USSR. If the Russians had not been industrialized enough to develop atomic technology, the Soviet Union may well have the recipient of the next American nuclear strike.
@Paris Sanders Oh yes, this was all predicted in "The Protocols Of Zion". And the Romanov family were not murdered by Lenin's orders, they were sacrificed in a blood ritual by Satan worshiping Jews....dear me, who taught you people such muddled headed history? Goebbels? A banker who happens to be Jewish (and not a particularly practicing one - he went to temple 'as habit") is foremost a banker. If he didn't get his way, despite your view of Jewish banking cartels controlling the world, doesn't that seem odd to you? At the time of the American Civil War, the Romanovs could barely get there own shit together. Oh well, if you want to see every thing through that prism of yours, that's just being lazy; I can't help your sloppy thinking. Disciplined thought is not a feature of youtube comments generally. You have a nice day now..
TY. This is basically the context of the bolcheviks critique to the leftist opposition (which failed due to not havin a centralized organization such as the bolchevisks. See R. Luxemburg). However it is true that the revolution took a "right turn" in the 20s; and many of the initial bolchevik policies where abandoned.
Yea, great straw man right there buddy. Chomsky obviously agreed with Marx (and Lenin) on that point, but he doesn't see this "holding out for the german revolution" as an excuse for deconstructing socialism and implementing a system quite akin to totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Two systems, that do not agree with socialism in any single way.
lol. Never saw more uninformed statement till now... Wallstreet made Russia fit for the war... check it ... (try real sources and not only these from your gender-professors)
There are many things to admire about Chomsky. His Anti-Communism is not one of them. Lenin led a successful and transformational revolution. Chomsky told us to vote for Democrats.
He never said a good thing about the USSR until AFTER it fell. He refused to tell the truth about AIDS until the peak of the plague was over. He refused to be honest about the Yugoslavia war until after the war was over and the "privatisation to foreign investors" side won. He still refuses to tell the truth about JFK, 911, and COVID, and he actively ridicules and belittles those people who dare to speak the truth. I've noticed a pattern there.
He was just giving historical facts though. Leninism as a "right-wing deviation" - This is accurate in the sense that many contemporary Marxists did criticize Lenin's ideas. Destruction of worker-controlled institutions - This is largely accurate. The Bolsheviks did centralize power and reduce the autonomy of soviets and factory committees. Soviet system as precursor to totalitarianism - This is a widely held view among many historians, though it's still somewhat interpretive. The claim that both the Soviet Union and the West had reasons to associate Soviet practices with socialism is accurate. The Soviet Union sought legitimacy by claiming to be socialist, while Western powers often equated socialism with the authoritarianism of the Soviet regime to discredit socialism more broadly.
Also, the discussion on whether the Soviet Union was truly socialist or a distortion of socialism is a longstanding debate. Chomsky presents a critical view suggesting that the Soviet Union was not socialist in any meaningful sense and was instead a precursor to totalitarianism. This critique is shared by many left-wing critics of Leninism. The text argues that Lenin and Trotsky moved to destroy worker control and the Soviets after taking power, which is accurate in the sense that the Bolshevik government did centralize power and suppress opposition, including from left-wing critics.
4:26 this characterization of vanguardism is the level I would expect a liberal to have, really nonsensical. The vanguard party is made by members of the working class which then become professional revolutionaries dedicated to the revolution, this plus requirements on entry to the party, because (shockingly!) not all workers are socialist. The party would then act within worker organizations to mobilize the people for revolution because (again, shockingly) you cant make a revolution without popular support. The idea that the vanguard party is about a minority of people seizing power "in the name" of the workers is liberal nonsense, it was never the idea nor the practice. It's historically wrong to say that trotsky was an anti-bolshevil until 1917, he actually had more to do with the bolsheviks than the mensheviks, his disagreement with lenin was because lenin wanted to professionalize the sectors of the party and restrict entry to socialists, while the mensheviks accepted anyone, trotsky was more of a united-front guy and expect the mensheviks to join the revolution when it happened... guess what? he was wrong and later accept the fact that lenin was right. Also both the menshevik and bolshevik part had the same structure. Chomsky also cites Rosa Luxembourg but she had way more to do with lenin than to any left-communist. Chomsky's points here are a regurgitation of anti-communist myths, and then libertarian socialists complain that ML's are critical of them
@Daniel Sadjadi i just checked out this guy bc some guy said how smart he is. I really don't care about the view as much that most people didn't get his message & imo the guy just likes to talk. Basically socialism can't exist as long as people have human emotions. Makes sense. I think what is interesting is that 1st people think they can get it to work, & the amount of people that are praising Stalin, talking about how USSR was this wonderful country. This 1 person said he couldn't find any sources to prove this. I told him there were lots of books that proved that the USSR wasn't the utopia these people claimed. I told him he could talk to older Russian & Polish immigrants. He said that he talked to several Polish immigrants & they missed the USSR. I really don't think he did bc I have yet to meet a Polish person who talks about the great days of the USSR. I don't think a of people here really know much, that are just here trying to sound smart. Thanks for your time & have a great day :)
@@t.c.8697 I'm not sure you understood what Chomsky is saying in this video. He literally says that Leninism and the USSR are representative of totalitarianism and NOT socialism - he points to specific periods of time and actions to show that Lenin knowingly used the label of socialism for its popular appeal, but that he fundamentally disagreed with the central idea of socialism, and took clear steps to undermine it.
Props? Sorry, but she betrayed a woeful ignorance of the movement she claims allegiance to. The old leftist claim that Stalin betrayed Lenin's 'real socialism' is pure propaganda and wishful thinking. That she espoused such an idea shows that she is just regurgitating third-hand leftist ideas, and has never actually read Lenin. A cursory reading of Lenin himself will immediately dispel any such notions. As early as 1902 he was already arguing that a permanent group of 'professional revolutionaries' (such as himself of course), would have to lead the 'awakening masses' of the working class. And he accused those arguing for ACTUAL workers control as the 'worst enemies' of socialism - self-serving demagogues telling the workers what they want to hear. Oh the irony. I'm not the biggest fan of Chomsky, but at least he is educated, and honest here. Fundamentally wrong imo.. but honest.
I very much appreciated this brief critique of the early 20th century Marxist / socialist movements. What Chomsky does in providing several details is to explain that there were several different kinds of Marxists. (And by extension different kinds of socialism.) - Noam mentions mainstream/left wing Marxists and right wing Marxists. Noam mentions the “actual Marxist movement” (vs a less actual Marxist movement). Chomsky also discusses what socialism is and that it has different definitions. * I’m younger than Chomsky but fairly old and I recall discussing politics with many Marxists/socialists at my university. They were Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyites. There were supporters of Che. * Noam mentions libertarian socialists which is an odd combination of words today (since libertarianism is usually associated now with a type of capitalism). What Noam is talking about imo is anarchist socialism which briefly existed in the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune. Later on these anarchist movements were affected by Marx’s writings. - Finally, Chomsky says that Lenin was a sort of orthodox Marxist. * How can there be so many different kinds of Marxists? Karl Marx wrote and stated a wide variety opinions. “Marxist” leaders could pick out various views which supported a certain political/economic program. * A wide variance of what Marxism remains today. What socialism has even more variance in meaning as Chomsky mentioned it was defined by both the USSR and the capitalist countries in the 1930s. - But the bending of definitions of what socialism is continued to evolve in every political movement. Currently when someone mentions socialism, it requires a detailed definition of what the person saying the word means.
Noam’s brilliance shines through. See how he wove the entire logical exposition right up to the end, bringing back what he had said about Trotsky earlier.
Noam should've mentioned Kronstadt's "heroes of the revolution" as an example of how Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik/Menshevik parties betrayed the working class and the core of Marxist/Communist thought (abolition of state and capital + democratic ownership of the means of production) after the revolution in the name of "vanguard" totalitarianism and "state capitalism" essentially setting the stage for Stalin's regime. There's several books about this that people should read, Berkman's 'The Bolshevik Myth' (aka 'The Russian Tragedy') and Voline's 'The Unknown Revolution: 1917-1921' come most immediately to mind as they are first-hand experiences of those who set the seeds for communism through ground-level organizing and were exiled by the Tsar and returned after the revolution only to witness the same/worse treatment from the Soviets.
The struggle is always for power. A value system is nothing but a struggle for power by establishing its core value and then maintaing them. Becuase a system when established will always protect the interests of its establishers but it will always be accepted if it involues some corevalues. The first of the core value is personal incentive which is not only uncontrolled but in a sense protected by the capitalist system. The opponents of this system, regardless of who they may be, when somehowe acquire the reigns of power will try to establish their value system. In the course of time another anti-group to the newly established system will arise and challenge them and the process continues. So we come to the conclusion that any system if left unchecked will produce an anti-system effect which in time will weaken and overthrow the main system.
You are correct. But what are you going to do about it? Conclude that we are living through a struggle for power which has already been won, or that the matter is not resolved? And if it isn't resolved, what are you going to do about it?
I agree but this is what I think too but you might disagree with me "there is always capitalism some one capitalise while the other slaves his life away there's the person who lives on the hill with servants and a nice car money wise or politacly and then there's and in some societies like India if you work in the sewers you will remain in the sewers for being unclean . Of coarse i saw that 15 years ago in a national geographic article . My point is who ever is in power capitilzes.
@@TheRealGnolti no one system stands completely defeated. It is a cycle of system and antisystem and this antisystem become the system and again an antisystem confronts it. The only thing in materialist word that unchanging is 'change' it self.
@@philosophicalminds. Again, I agree. The problem is that people create (and defend) systems, and if eternal conflict therefore defines the human condition, I don't see why anyone who doesn't simply lust for power would want to embrace any system. What's wrong with letting it all go and just going back to hunting-gathering, until we eliminate each other as a species?
has anyone ever heard this guy agree with any form of government, I haven't. He is critical of everything a anything in regards to government of any kind everywhere.
You're right, Pedro, in one sense, Chomsky has a keen eye for where power lies in political relationships, and since he has said that he identifies with anarcho-syndicalism ('democratic socialism', roughly), it's natural that he'd be critical whenever it seems that the-powers-that-be cannot satisfactorily justify their maintaining control; so one then tends to find fault everywhere, since real democracy exists almost nowhere. On the other hand, I've heard him speak longingly for democracy, i.e., something Aristotle would recognize as democracy [but for everybody, not just elite citizens as in Aristotle's day (and ours incidentally--see Gilens and Page: scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf)], not what we have today, which is something more like plutocratic oligarchy. So, three pillars for him politically: 1) Power that cannot justify itself (i.e., that is arbitrary, or over-reaching) is illegitimate (that's the anarchism part), and 2) The purpose of the state (if it even has one) is to see to the people's needs (that's the socialism part), and 3) The decisions and policies of the government should reflect the will of the majority of the people, not just the interests of a wealthy elite (that's the democracy part). For another perspective on Chomsky's politics, check out George Orwell's book "Homage to Catalonia"--a favourite of Chomsky's--set during the Spanish Civil War, in which anarcho-syndicalism has roots. (Or TLDR: bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/what-happens-when-anarchists-run-a-country-history-has-an-answer) If we actually had real democracy anywhere, I think Noam would take it just fine.
If I had a very large library, and all the professors in a modest political science department at my disposal, I think I could, given 5 or 6 years of to research, come up with the kind of response to that question that Chomsky composed completely extemporaneously.
@Chris McCarthy i will save you the TIME, this IDIOTIC MORON LIBTARD WOMAN IS INSANE! LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISEASE AND LIBTARDS ARE CERTIFIABLY INSANE! Freedom WORKS!! Liberty WORKS!!! Independence WORKS!!!! what this woman wants is power to control others and is the WORST of all humans to seek power over others!
With all due respect to those ideas and ideals, isn't it time to look at our present and future? Marx's theories were based on industrial societies where the proletariat was the majority . These days, we are beyond the post-industrial era and facing a time where a lot of people may become part of a useless class, displaced from the work force by automation and AI. If you look at the most powerful companies in the world, how much value was added by unskilled workers?
Consider it from this angle: when Marx lived, there was an abundance of working class men, women, and children. Not exactly "useless' but very replacable because unemployment was kept high and wages very low. Today, despite a broad-based consumer economy that requires the majority of people to have disposable income the 1% ensure that half the country (or more) lives paycheck to paycheck. Most people are not factory workers, miners, or farmhands, but they're still the proletariat and Marx's ideas are still relevant.
A true intellectual is the one who listens to all sides and that makes constructive arguements while always respecting their opponent in a Debate and a person who for most of the time stays calm. -I came up of that out of my mind, can someone tell me if I am right.
I had that discussion with my friend years ago about movie 'The beach' and he had this conclusion that utopia never works. This is something to consider for all sort of Marxist, socialist and communists.
Spot on enlightening description of how the "soviet" union was a front for a very right wing ideology if not another form of fascism using red to gain support, and how the west saw this opportunity and used this to redefine socialism as authoritarianism.
Without authority or state power how do you deal with imperialist forces or domestic reactionaries/counter-revolutions? What Noam says here may sound enlightening but it also goes unchallenged. I never once seen Chomsky give any praise for actually existing socialist movements other than Catalonia. Also this talk of red fascism just gives fuel to the fire of anti-communists to say "That wasn't real socialism". Its a common anarchist talking point.
My wife is just as passionate as the woman asking the question. Only it's about things such as nail polish, my failure to read her mind, my failure to take the garbage out on May 27, 2019, her coworkers who are lazy and get paid more than her, her sister in law, etc.... 😢😢😢
@@LeoWhalen1933 If your serious, you have my deepest sympathies. She must be good at something for you to deal with that. I'm nothing like that. Grew up with lots of boys, think like a male and dont teally like the company of most women. Can't take the drama.
Lenin did make soviets that were a mainstay and did not regress on them: in agriculture he made sovkhoz that was STATE owned monoculture, but somethink socialism to mean publicly owned economy but they could easily make public ownership of sovkhoz worker influenced and they probably did. I think Chomsky is forgetting about a key aspect of society agriculture in the soviet union. Public ownership is more worker control than private.
She assumed she'd have one chance in her life to question Chomsky, so, made the most of it.
Pretty much.
"One shot"
As one should
She absolutely did, I want to know who she is
@@una877 I'm almost certain that she is historian Nancy MacLean, now at Duke, at the time a PhD student at UW-Madison. Full Q&A for those who want to go deeper: ua-cam.com/video/5oOjwjgV4G0/v-deo.html
@@onurtasyakan32 I read Nancy MacLean 's book Democracy In chains and I can highly recommend it
Props to her for having the courage to ask a confrontational yet polite question to such a prominent intellectual in a hostile audience.
hostile audience: she got several rounds of applause for the question, did she not? Don't think they were hostile.
@@timbozza1678 She also got boos. Nevertheless, she was asking a confrontational question to Chomsky, whom the audience was there to see. This isn't difficult.
would be more props if she were a bit more concise jees
@@dnsfsn I believe she was concise enough given the extent of her points.
@@duxnihilo
Think you were watching a different video. I didn't hear any boos. Do you have a timestamp?
She got a round of applause after her question, even though it was quite the long question.
Imagine if he had just replied with a deadpan 'I'm sorry I wasn't listening, could you repeat the question?'
Big oof
@NEVER A-Communist-America stfu
@NEVER A-Communist-America Um. Do you have any clue who Chomsky is.
@NEVER A-Communist-America Wage labor is slavery
NEVER A-Communist-America communist countries don’t exist ya dingus
This is the kind of discussions that TV and internet should be full of
TV and Internet are extremely manipulated.
@@pauloandradeabreu8582 Not even just manipulated. Chomsky himself decrees that the media is a section of the gigantic mega-corporate network that makes up what we call "the elite."
It can be. It just starts with you.
@@Jtoob-z5n Ya' think?
@@stloupenbray here it is and here we are
This is the kind of intraleftist dialogue I like to hear
@NEVER A-Communist-America ur recomending a Holocaust denier. This is why I'm looking at conversations had between leftists, because they're not completely delusional
@NEVER A-Communist-America smh
@NEVER A-Communist-America The problem is that the opposing side of this argument are at best milquetoast liberals and at worst blood and soil fascists. Like the person you insisted was relevant in offering anything even remotely resembling a critique of leftist ideology. But what you offered was tantamount to truisms and analogies. The point being that there is no intellectual support for the ideology you are pushing. Just blind support of unjustifiable hierarchy.
Intrafascist dialogue 😖
@@Cjnw wait, are you actually insinuating that me, an anarchist, and the other one who is likely a communist, are also fascists? Like the ACTUAL fascist in this comment thread? In which case, how do you go about life with such an incredibly smooth brain? Or am I missing something, in which case, explain it to me and my smooth brain.
All I know, is Stalin didnt write Imagine.
Yeah. John smacked Yoko around a bit. Stalin would have just shot her...
Yeah, Stalin lived in the real world, and not among rich hippies doing drugs in luxury homes.
lol, but *imagine* if he did
When Lennon was shot Yoko said "and with him dies my last warm feelings for humanity"
nope, he just inspired it.
Some quotes:
2:10 What was Leninism?
“Lenin was a right wing deviation of the socialist movement and he was so regarded. He was regarded as that by the Marxists, by the mainstream Marxists. But we’ve forgotten who the mainstream Marxists were because they lost. And you only remember the guys who won.
But if you go back to that period the mainstream Marxists were people like for example, like Anton Pannekoek, who was head of education for the Marxist movement. He’s one of the people Lenin later denounced as an infantile Leftist. But he was one of the leading intellectuals of the actual Marxist movement.
(2:48) Rosa Luxemburg was another mainstream Marxis. And there were others. … and they were all very critical of Leninism because of what they regarded as opportunistic vanguardism, the idea that the radical intelligencia were going to exploit popular movements to seize state power and then to use that state power to whip the population into the society that they chose. Now that was quite inconsistent with Marxism as understood by the mainstream, I’d say Left Marxist. From this point of view Bolshevism was a right wing deviation. Trotsky made the same points up til 1917.
(3:30) Now when Lenin came back to Russia in April 17th he took a different line. Quite a different line than the one he had in the past. … Take a look at April 1917 it became kind of Libertarian. … these were basically Libertarian works. They were very much more in the main stream of Left Libertarian Socialism. This range that goes from anarchism to Left Marxism of the Pannekeok, Luxemburg variety. And he talked about Soviets and the need for worker organization and so on. And in fact, really came closer to what the essence of what Socialism was always understood to be. After all, the core of socialism was understood to be worker’s control over production. That was the core to begin with then you go on to other things. But the beginning is the control by the workers over production. That’s where it begins.
(4:41) Then Lenin took power in October of 1917 in what’s called a revolution but in my view ought to be called a coup. And things followed that coup, a revolution if you want to call it that.
(4:53) One of the things that followed it was the immediate moves to destroy the Soviets in the factory counsels. Those were some of the first moves of Lenin and Trotsky, Trotsky joined at that point, after they took state power. In fact, if you look at what Lenin wrote in that period, or did, you’ll find it’s a reversion of the earlier position, this sort of left deviation is that, a deviation. You could ask why. In my view it was just opportunistic. He knew that in order to gain power he was going to have to go along with the popular currents that were developing. Which were in fact spontaneous and libertarian, socialist, as most popular movements are, have been since the 17th century. And being an astute politician, which he was, he sort of went along with that and talked the line that the people wanted to hear. It’s just like when an American politician goes somewhere and his pollsters tell him to say so and so and he says it. I think Lenin was doing the same thing without polls. In any event whatever your interpretation is, when he took power reverted to the former vanguardism and moved at once to eliminate the organs of worker control.
Now that meant he was moving to destroy socialism if socialism has at its core worker’s control over production. The soviets in factory counsels were instruments of workers control.
(6:23) … they were the instruments that had been developed in the course of popular struggle to implement basically worker’s control and those were the first things to go.
(6:30) By 1918 this is now still really before the civil war set in. Lenin’s view was pretty clearly expressed. It was the view that both he and Trotsky took position that what you need is what Trotsky called a ‘labor army’ which is submissive to the control of a single leader. He said modern progress, development of socialism requires that the mass of the population subordinate themselves to a single leader in a disciplined workforce. Well, that has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of it, and was criticized for that in a spirit of some solidarity because the revolutionary forces were still operative. He was criticized for that by people like Rosa Luxemburg, by Pannekoek, Gorter and the other mainstream sort of Left Marxists.
(7:23) And I think they were right. And then it just goes on from there. I mean Lenin reconstructed the Czarist systems of oppression, often more efficiently, Cheka, KGB, and other techniques of control and oppression. I think from that point on there was nothing remotely like socialism in the Soviet Union. I think it was in fact, in my view it was a precursor of later forms of totalitarianism. That’s what I think happened and that’s what I think you’ll discover if you look at the facts.
(7:55) Now, why is it called socialism? I think that’s complicated and we should look at it. The Soviet Union calls it ‘socialism’ and they did take control pretty soon of most of the international socialist movement. Because primarily the prestige of having created something sort of socialism. Incidentally, just a side remark, Lenin remained despite it all sort of an orthodox Marxist in many respects. And as an orthodox Marxist he didn’t believe that it was possible to have socialism in the Soviet Union. This was supposed to be up to his death, shortly before his death when he was still writing, speaking lucidly. He kept the view that the Soviet Revolution was a holding action. They were just going to hold things in place until the real revolution took place in Germany. Because the revolution according to Marxist doctrine was going to take place in the most advanced sector of modern industrial capitalism you know, for all the reasons you read about in Marx. That’s where the revolution had to take place. That obviously wasn’t the Soviet Union. So it couldn’t be socialism there it had to be some kind of holding action. And that presumably gave some sort of justification for eliminating the socialist institutions. I don’t think it’s a real justification but probably that was the internal justification. And again, in taking that view he was in accord with the mainstream Marxist tradition.
(9:27) Well, after that comes the view that all of this is ‘socialism’. And why should the Communist parties take that view? I think the reason is because they wanted to exploit the moral force of socialism, which was quite real. You know it’s kind of hard to remember that today. But at that time it was very real. This was regarded as a progressive moral force. And by associating their own destruction of socialism with the aura of socialism they hoped to gain credit in the working classes and the other progressive sectors.
Now the West also identified that with socialism. And they did it for the opposite reason. They wanted to associate socialism with the brutality of the Russian State that undermined socialism. So what you had is the two major world propaganda agencies for their own and quite different reasons were claiming that this is socialism. That this destruction of socialism is socialism. And it’s very hard to break out of the control of world’s two major propaganda agencies when they agree. They agreed for different reasons but they basically agreed and that then became doctrine and dogma. Well, I think people should ask whether that’s true. Take a look back and see whether the moves that Lenin took, and Trotsky supported him in taking, being that they both advocated, had anything to do with socialism as it was understood by say the Marxist tradition or the Left Libertarian tradition.”
What's missing from this essentialist exchange is the practical reality of the period, or what I would call "other facts" which was dictated by western military imperialism of the developed nations. Without centralization and "totalitarianism" the tsarist and capitalist bourgeoisie in Russia and abroad would have squashed the communists whatever they called themselves, just like they later have done in 1965 politicide in Indonesia which systemically butchered 500,000-1,000,000 non-violent, succesful democratic socialists and communists.
It sure is easy to pontificate now, but even USA invaded russian soil to support reactionaries against the revolutionaries.
Thank you!
bunch of utopian, romantic , dissorienting shit. Glory to the Soviet Union, glory to great Lenin and Stalin. No reformist dog will break the movement in the future, we will make sure of this
@@sapienssapiens35 Honest question: In what way did these attacks create the need for totalitarian leadership? Why couldn't the worker soviets still exist next to let's say a centralized military power? In the Indonesian example the purge followed after an unsuccessful coup and was started by the government & military, so the 2 situations aren't really comparable I would say. Especially if we can agree that pure non violence has proven to render any attempt of meaningful revolution useless. Reasons I could imagine at the time were the lack of real time communication and consensus building between the different soviets and especially in such a large geographic area. Maybe you have some more information on how it was internally legitimized? (I mean in the end it didn't work either as it seems they somehow stopped trying to get workers in control/actively suppressed attempts to do so)
But nowadays we have many ways of fast communication and exchange over long distances. I would even go as far as to say that nowadays there is no need for a strictly centralized strictly authoritarian (as in your superiors are never to be questioned) military/armed forces as the YPG/YPJ were relatively successful (in terms of military effectiveness with their available resources) in the war against isis/to some extent the syrian government. These points I only bring up because you mentioned Indonesia which was in a different time period and I understood it as an example why such a authoritarian structure would be necessary today, sorry if this was not the point you were making :)
@@Marius-yu9bs To be clear, I used the US incursion to highlight the underappreciated western aggression against Russia and percieved political left in general, not to claim that is something that directly necessitated totalitarianism, and I'm still not sure it did fully necessitate it, I'm just saying I understand why they believed in what they were doing. I'm not a specialist on the subject, and I haven't read any of the internal sources but from what I remember from lectures and reading, the problems more broadly came from the convergence of at least a few factors: the lack of capacity to actually run the worker soviets, the need for a centralized war economy due to the immediate urgency that flowed from the understanding that foreign powers were more developed and halfway through waging de facto racist wars of exploitation, combined with the opposition of internal counter-revolutionary enemies (who opposed any kind of socialism and usually democracy and republicanism too). And both of those happening with the backdrop of the geopolitical layout of Russia, which was a vast, low population density and culturally decentralized nation, without the kind of comprehensive intellectual class that existed in western Europe that made progressive socialism seem feasible, and on top of all that, the understanding and a memory of how awful things had been before Lenin with the violent, abusive land and legal mismanagement. And of course corruption and self interest are always a part. Whatever the case may be, hyperfocusing on individual actors just doesn't do justice to explain the social composition of so many people who had to make their bets with much more limited knowledge than we have today.
If we have to draw comparisons then I think in retrospect Russia from that period was more similar to precursors for the chinese cultural revolution than the Phillipines, and by no means am I implying totalitarianism was an obvious or necessary development, but I think for people who actually lived in those times, who couldn't google translate, didn't have the international diplomacy and legal structure we have today, and who had credible fears of previous invasions and current wars accepting paranoia and jingoistic ruthlessness came even easier than it does today and it eclipsed whatever optimism and hope of mutual economic development. We are told to accept hysteria over things like 9/11 taking our civil rights today, but when it comes to soviet Russia even Chomsky says we should simplify the entire picture to some ideological beliefs of a few writers who disagreed on stuff under much more credible threats to their physical safety. It just lacks perspective imho.
Maybe the better way to put this is to simply say that in order to have an economic revolution happen and succeed, you need to have a sufficient amount of peace, stability, room for error, and ability for self-reflection, and all of those are missing in the world of sociopathic, spoiled, emperor-wannabies who think might makes right.
Chomsky's encyclopedic memory always stuns me. Historians must hate listening to a linguist raddle off dates of relatively minor historical events with such ease.
It's easy when you're making up most of the factual content regarding the Soviet Union.
Noah Herschyvik such as?
@@richardhill7050 It would be easier to list what he tells the truth about. A lot shorter, that list. The entire way he characterizes Soviet history isn't just misleading, but directly aiding the thing Chomsky sometimes criticizes in correct ways (imperialism).
Michael Parenti puts it far, far better than I could. But here's just a very small example:
“The rise of corporations was in fact a manifestation of the same phenomena that led to Fascism and Bolshevism, which sprang out of the same totalitarian soil.”
This leads the reader (or listener) to put the October Revolution and building of the first ever worker state, the most democratic country history had yet seen, the first attempt at building socialism on a mass scale... on par with "totalitarianism" and Fascism. Which, if we understand how society actually functions, we know this is completely inaccurate. That we are not just given an array of choices for what we'd like to do. What we do is always based in the conditions we are presented. (And the Soviets were presented a hostile imperialist world, which immediately invaded it, blockaded it from all trade--a form of warfare--, and continually faced internal and external counter-revolution, sabotage, and war crimes against them throughout its entire existence; and that's just scratching the surface of context) Parenti says of Chomsky and his ilk, "They claim socialists hunger for power, instead of wanting the power to end hunger" (which is, indeed, what the Bolsheviks did). Chomsky, likes he always manages to do when talking about actual socialism in the real world, fails to give context, uses misleading language that amounts to outright lies, spreads inaccuracies (like "authoritarianism", calling USSR "dictatorship", etc).
Lets also remember that Chomsky got his start writing at Partisan Review Magazine, which was created and funded by the CIA in their "Congress for Cultural Freedom" anti-communist operation, still receives CIA funding to this day (which is why he is able to be critical of the military industrial complex, but not imperialist soft power) and even specifically endorses CIA brass he is friendly with.
Not that this means he's wrong on everything. Far from it. But because he's right on some things makes the lies he is complicit in that much more dangerous, especially to those of us genuinely interested in building socialism. Which I hope you are.
If you want to read about Lenin and the Bolsheviks, I can help with some resources. I recommend you get an understanding of what Marxism is first, though.
Just let me know. I run a Marxist education program online and we always love more people. :)
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 Do you have any sources on him being funded by the CIA?
@@Bob-uh6gf not directly. And it's not like he was a CIA agent. It doesn't really work like that. They fund what's in the interests of the Imperialists, distribute it, etc
He got his start writing for a magazine called "partisan review" which was taken over by the CIA and he was one of the first writers of that time.
There were also a couple of their companies that owned distribution for a few of his books. Notably, "manufacturing consent" was not one of them, which is kinda funny.
But his department at MIT is openly funded by the military industrial complex too. He's a good friend of CIA heads.
There's a few books about it, but that don't focus on Chomsky. I can track down the titles if you're interested.
Do not play Trivial Pursuit against this man.
What I love about Chomsky is that everytime he's challenged with a difficult question and I'm thinking, "Oh boy, that's tough, he might just have some blind spots regarding that critique or to that particular grand stander," he then goes on to give a slew of dates, references, and examples to clarify why he holds a certain position.
Your lack of memory is all on you.
Oh boy, here we go. The Jews are the fault of everything, yuck yuck yuck.
How pathetic of a loser do you have to be to blame the Jews for all your perceived woes?
Never mind the fact that Chomsky isn't a Zionist or even a fundamentalist of any religion. Nor is he an establishment capitalist or an orthodox Marxist.
Good grief you're an idiot.
You are one lost little pup. I loathe Bibi and abhor totalitarian communism, i.e. the Leninist/Stalin variety or the Maoist iteration.
You've been worked up into a stupor by bad faith actors, namely the libertarian fringe groups and right wing think tanks.
One can appreciate Marxist criticisms of deregulated capitalism while not subscribing to orthodox Marxism or its bastardized versions found throughout history.
You're being isolated in thought and ideology because it serves the interest of bankers, capitalists, and those who benefit mightily from monopolies.
Do you really think Robert Mercer, the Koch brothers, or Rupert Murdoch give two shits about communism or Jews or even strict libertarian policies? Fuck no they don't. They craft their rhetoric to curtail democracy and labor standards by duping fools.
what was the question again
She didn't want Chomsky to equate Leninism with Stalinism. She's very likely a Trotskyist, and this is why Chomsky mentioned Trotsky so many times.
LOL
She was asking him how can he be a leftist and criticize Lenin? Also she asked, if Lenin and the Soviet Union was not in any way a model from which we can learn from, then what can take apart capitalism.
Here Chomsky explains why Leninism and its offshoots including Trotskyism and Stalinism and Maoism are not proper ideologies for the working class to get behind.
I thought you'd like this Board on Pinterest... pin.it/4432a6biq55ktq
I've been puzzled at the confusion and irritation the question at the end brought to this comment section.
Maybe I've been in too many leftish discussions like this one.
The question was a bit convoluted and mixed some implicit critique. The answer was long and touched many different arguments. But they both seem clear. I offer my reductionist interpretation:
The woman asking the question considers Russian Revolution as a real triumph of the proletariat, later ruined by Stalin. She's upset at other leftist people (particularly someone like Chomsky, who she probably respects for other reasons) attacking a hero like Lenin and a great triumph like Russian Revolution. She must feel that a prominent opinion leader like Chomsky should be trying to unite all the left under a common cause, and instead he plays the role of a useful fool, promoting capitalists ideas.
Chomsky considers the Russian Revolution a fake. It made more harm than good to Russia and to the left. It's a big lie from both the USSR and USA that Lenin was a real communist, he cites Lenin's own ideas, and also some communist detractors, like Rosa Luxemburg. He gives some historical context and events to justify his point. He argues that we should learn from mistakes, instead of pretending it was the right path to follow.
In conclusion, it's a typical argument between an anarchist and a leninist.
[Edit: this used to say Chomsky is not a communist. He is not a marxist, but he seems to align with communist ideas (from an anarchist perspective)]
Lots of Marxists who deny the Soviet Union was ever even communist, rather, after they declared "war communism" in 1918, they were practicing from that point forward a form of "state capitalism." The Soviet claim that war communism ended in 1921 is said to be false, the State continued to take the profits from agriculture and industry production and invest/distribute as it deemed most useful.
Exactly. Spot on she feels That the Soviet Union was a great triumph spoiled by Stalin and worries about the extension of the Stalinist critique to Lenin.
He feels that Lenin was in fact worthy of this critique due to his decision to nuke workers councils etc.
Chomsky is against authoritarian forms of vanguard communism, and for bottom up worker control.
Chomsky goes so far as to say Lenin was a right wing opportunist who used popular currents of the time to gain power (by coup not revolution) and then turned back towards the previous iteration. Smashing worker control would be a core violation of socialism (if you consider worker control of production a core tenant of a socialism). Uses Lenin’s own worlds and those of others like critical marxists of the time and Rosa and Trotsky and factual events to back his claim.
I think he’s saying, leftists do themselves harm by trying to defend Lenin as a left wing socialist because (which is essentially what the questioner does), according to Chomsky Lenin wasn’t.
Personally I think he decimated her.
"Chomsky considers Russian Revolution a fake. It made more harm than good to Russia and to the left. "
And he is wrong. At least when it comes to Russia and "fakeness" of our revolution.
It's a good synopsis. I'd only add that I don't find the terms: bolshevism, Leninism, Stalinism, socialism, anarchism and the other 'isms' neither interesting nor useful; or spending time to tease out the differences, the underlying theories, or the rights and wrongs of each.
Regardless of the 'ism', Chomsky is objecting to the behaviour of Lenin and his chums as a totalitarian, repressive regime and in this I feel he is correct. It doesn't really matter a whole lot what dreams for humanity, or other ideals you claim to hold while you behave like a brutally arrogant shit. Arguing that people needed to behave in this way at the time, or through expediency, is no defence. The world doesn't need authoritarian self appointed experts with a prescriptive cure for all our problems, to be delivered from the top floor of some large building, at the point of a gun, by armed bully boys.
Damn how many centuries ago was this? He looks so young.
1989.
1989
In the words of Bertolt Brecht:
"General, Man is very useful. He can fly and he can kill. But he has one defect:
He can THINK"!
insanityrulestheday my boy
Really thought it wasn't going to say "Think"... Really thought it was going to say "Love".
People can think wrong or evilly... Thoughts can be programmed to believed good, but are evil. Thoughts can betray you, and so many other things, but none of that can happen... If your love is in the right place.
Our logic is unseparatable from our emotions, no matter how much we lie to ourselves, or "think" we've suppressed them as if we were Spock or turned them off like Data... We must balance the two, or be conquered by the one.
William Buckley, George Will, Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell can think too. Thankfully they do not think like Chomsky.
@B olton Don't you have it the other way around?
At least some of them.
Thank you Noam for speaking at a detectable decibel level.
@@ProxyAuthenticationRequired lolwut.
before the grumble set in.
:))
The mumbling and ramblings of Chomsky. Many times, he started off on a tangent from his main reply. And he would tone down his speech because he wasn't sure how far he wanted to go in the secondary direction.
Gotta strain to hear him now but still worth it.
I love to see dialogue like this, without shit-flinging or accusations of power hunger/naivety by either side. I'm near the middle of these two viewpoints, a bit closer to Chomsky's, but I wish socialists could have these conversations peacefully and respectfully like this more often.
This is an incorrect way of looking at this interaction. While capitalism exists there is only the struggle between the classes, everything, from top to bottom is a manifestation of this struggle and thus everything is political. Chomsky does a lot of academic leaning onto the idea of "what is true" to which I would contest with "what is truth and what purpose does it serve?". Truth itself is political and thus a manifestation of the struggle between capital and labor. "shit-flinging" as you put it, is not a thing to be derided but rather a thing to be co-opted, to be weaponized and leveled at capital in all ways possible, and this is the reason above all other why Lenin triumphs over Chomsky.
@@carycrow8845 what in the name of class reductive nonsense did I just read? Because it sounds like you're saying we should whip up bullshit as the best strategy to take on capital.
its impossible in the end due the falsity of believe. > man is ultimately good and wrong structures are cause of evil.
This is the reason that all the "good" leaders are killed if there is some sort of revolution. there is always more resentful people whos end goal was all the time ( sometimes not knowing it ) mass suicide /mayhem/ death; and virtue was just a facade.
@@carycrow8845 Spoken like a true commie. That sort of thinking is why most art and entertainment is trash because it tries to be political
Noam is correct but could have gone much farther. Abuse of human rights was so pervasive, so vicious, so clearly directed from the top of the revolutionary Bolshevik administration that it MUST be counted as a criminal regime.
It would be naive to suppose that Stalin did not learn a great deal from his master, nor was Trotsky innocent as leader of military operations.
Have you heard of the sack of Odessa during the final stages of the Civil War, in which 'class warfare' was expressed through mass rape of 'bourgeois' women by
Bolshevik forces?
Under Stalin Soviet troops did the same thing, halting operations in Germany to indulge in orgies of gang rape, even of children. An ex-Soviet officer gave this testimony!! It did not come from a Western or Nazi source.
In 1920, under Trotsky, the Reds invaded Poland but were driven back.
In 1939, Stalin made a pact ith zhitler, and the two of them divided Poland.
The lady was DECEIVED.
The LORD JESUS, Who during His earthlu ministry served the poor and the oppressed unstintingly, has said:
'BY THEIR FRUITS YOU WILL KNOW THEM.'
This applies no less to socialists than to capitalists!!
screen goes dark at one point... I hear that Milton Friedman turned out the lights
Dr: It was when Milton wrote paradise lost that the demons of---oh, forget it.
DrCruel you do know that the film, the death of stalin is a comedy film and not a documentary right?
@Adam Shaw its almost like hes been indoctrinated into his own ideology and cannot grasp the truth of socialist ideology...
@@josephrohrbach1588 What is the truth of socialist ideology?
@@Matthew-Anthony as in what it means as DrCruel does seem to be having some problems accepting that the death of stalin is not entirely accurate, among other things
Chomsky is an encyclopaedia 👍 and most importantly he has a fertile brain to analyze every fact with reflective rigour . Love you sir ...huge love from India
Not a "fertile brain", just a brain full of fertiliser.
@@peterlloyd5285 You know you're correct when you insult your opponents.
@@squwooshk No matter how many concrete examples he was provided with, Chomsky was never able to grasp that the Vanguardism he laments in Lenin, with it's deviantiation from what he calls 'mainstream Marxism' into fascism is the inevitable consequence of the class struggle by which the proletariat are taught to wrest control of the state. Oor Noam has always been a very insightful, very eloquent, and very Useful Idiot. Look up the term.
@@gentlebreeze6414 you’re making up words again
I only wish I could ask that question so clearly and thoroughly and still have chomsky dismantle me. Choms, do me next
Great comment; I'm still laughing. As I have said many times before, there is but one universal truth in the world of polemics: If you try to argue with Chomsky you will lose.
What sort of world would we have if Chomsky were a roast comedian, I wonder?
But in process of loosing, you will learn and grow. How good and satisfying is for your pride to shatter@@RussCR5187
I've never seen Chomsky talk this fast.
Check out his debate with Buckley.
He's slowed down as he's gotten older. Young Chomsky was a motor-mouth. Either his memory isn't what it used to be, or he considers his answers more these days.
@@johnnyjohnny2650 I remember seeing his interview with Zack De la Rocha and being surprised at how much faster he was.
He was younger then too.
Well the man is 92 years old
Facts, details, dates, accuracy, a mention to Rosa Luxembourg. Noam being Noam.
Damn, I love him.
what good are you? what good was your love? what good indeed was he? this was 40 years ago and the wealth gap is greater than ever....this is book sales and celebrity academia...kinda makes me puke really
@@AugustusOmega you said nothing at all..
@@AugustusOmega The good of it was that he's opened a lot of eyes that would have remained forever closed. It's a wound that never heals. I know you suffer, but that's all our lot now.
@@AugustusOmega yes and he is the sole reasons that millions have moved left and thousands have become socialists or anarchists what have you done what ground do you stand on to criticize him
@@owengaul3226 My critical faculties are my credentials...for 40 years this guy has been at the avantguard, at the forefront, he is the spokesman for the humanist space....ever notice how calm, soothing and appeasing his talking style is. He is the perfect socialist mouthpiece a clutch of billionaires would choose as the token socialist allowed in their club..lest anything more militant and effective may come along like Mlk...he is a gentle Jew who likes money and dinner parties. DONT ROCK THE FKN BOAT for petes sake.
I love hearing Chomsky talk on the fly
hes a grubby fascist
He knows nothing about the fly,hes a Marxist
Wolfram Debris So is he a Facist or a Marxist or are you just throwing around terms our media told you were bad...
Art Hunter he is both
Wolfram Debris So he's far left and far right all at the same time. That's a clever trick. Perhaps you can elaborate a little further...
A peculiar feeling hits me when I watch something from a very long time. 29 years ago, ma man I feel old.
Rami Al Taki The ideas, nonetheless, sound as fresh and inspiring as ever.
Tl;dw questioner asked a good question from a leninist perspective about praxis; chomsky eloquently explained why the russian revolution wasn't one to be celebrated by socialists
The debate style of speaking fast, with confidence, and just throwing information at your opponent and accepting silence as victory works far to often
If you're talking about the woman, she had limited time.
The White Nationalist Ben Shapiro fits this description.
Isn't that basically what Shapiro does with blatant falsehoods? Go on a Gish gallup and act like you achieved something?
It's called playing the man, not the ball - your right of course; it's used so often one would think people would be aware of it and see it for what it is.
@@IndigoVagrant Just bc you don't like the facts don't make them falsehoods. And yes, HOW ELSE does one interpret silence?? It is THE most clear indicator of a failure/loss on that topic. Short clip & a the most cringe-worthingly painful ex. there'll ever be: ua-cam.com/video/qOjbn4GwobE/v-deo.html
Hmm.... Apparently the idea of "Mainstream media" is older than i thought.
It is even older than that. Probably as old as the idea of media as a more or less discernible and self contained class.
Almost everything is older than you thought if you think about it.
It's been around since the 1920s. As a critique of the propaganda from WW1.
Google Edward Bernays
Gabriel 707 Ahhh, the famous Einstein defense
Her question: How do we implement systematic overhaul to take the power from the elite and give it to the workers? Also it seems problematic to try to achieve this while calling Lenin a monster so address that pls.
Skip to 2:05. There. Easy.
thanks
Straight up though if you don't like listening to this woman talk you probably aren't attracted to women. She gave me chills.
She's a marxist zeaIot..if that's what turns your crank.
Attraction is subjective
@@alistairkinnear8737
not a Marxist zelote, real Marxists don't care about lenin and its dictatorship of the party. Because It was the worm in the fruit.
When did this take place? I love this kind of civil debate about ideas. No one is trying for a "gotcha" line and it's a welcome change from the __________ DESTROYS ________ posts that are becoming tiresome
Tiresome or not, Chomsky did destroy the Leninist here.
I've never been captivated by a personality, eagerness, and seriousness as I have been with Chomsky's!
Ouch
Triple jabbed & boosted up? Mask on?.....still?.......Noam is a hack who think Lenin was a right-winger.
Yes Yousef Alamri, if'n ya add citizen Chomsky's curiosity which complements any good academic's attentiveness to the points being made by engaged dissent to any part of Chomsky's views. Beyond respect, which is important in maintaining the dynamics of discussion (or dialogue if only 2 are present), Noam C is like playing a sport or pastime with someone who is better than you or I as an athlete or strategist\tactician. By playing tennis with a better tennis player or chess player or racing another swimmer we each get better and the act of generosity comes from the better athlete and\or strategist\tactician for being willing to be part of an opponent's singular sort of education and improvement in some skill or sport that the learning player\competitor may likely soon surpass the teacher in.
Health and balance
Noam C like many who argue honestly
is the antidote to the feeling of "gaslighting" (from the plot machinations of the movie Gaslight)
we around the Pandemic plagued world have felt as we sense the institutions we depend on
are like our physical infrastructure, in a state of crumbling decay. We as whole societies would
respond better individually, familialy and socially to the challenges and stresses of natural and
human-made wear and tear if we strengthened our commitment to the Public Interest and privileged
it over the Private Interests.
I share the view one can hear off-camera and far from a live broadcast microphone
in our corporate-captured Pay2Play media system echo chamber that the weaponized propaganda one finds in the few academics like Milton Friedman, who through government contracting were turned into "SHRINK BIG GOVERNMENT" and "GREED IS GOOD" heretical meme spouting machines. These manufactured mass media popular celebrities and designated "thinkers for a nation" during the Cold War years of ideological warfare with the Soviets and Maoists (really just flipped stick figures committed to the same centralized cults of personality that western electoral Pay2Play politics runs on) were actually doing what authoritarian and Banana Republic dictators do to maintain order in failing states. They seek their own personal fortification within some illusory social consensus that papers over reliable intel that in a healthy and free society is ever vetted and as trustworthy as its sources are widespread and unobstructed.
Leaders like Putin of failed nation\states like Russia can hire U.S. commercial Public Relations firms as President for Life Putin did when he hired Ketchum Communications to place his personal op-eds and his individually devised propaganda into the western world's; by which I mean the PRIVATIZERS and Networked Investor\Trade groups from Wall Street to London to Zurich's Feudal Lords of High Finance and High Tech. However, mis-leaders like Putin who rule through fear also command too little trust and\or loyalty from the very sources of intel and policy analysis to maintain social stability and eventually to defend against the invariable hostile takeover attempts of corporate-captured militarism.
Timothy Geithner, who was the Obama-Biden-Holder-Rubin-Summers choice after the Bush-Cheney-Paulson TARP bail-out by tax-payers of yet another global collapse of the fraudulent self-gorging financiers who feudally lord over the London to Wall Street to Gstad and Biarritz Axis Powers' resorts of GLOBAL ENGORGEMENT called PRIVATIZATION and CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH into appropriately communistic-corporate centralization of all the world's supply lines, that Timothy Geithner as the heir to the post of Secretary of Treasury who signed the world's reserve currency with his own name during his years heading the Treasury just as Trump's former OneWest Bank owner Hollywood Steve Mnuchin signed all of our world's reserve currency when he headed Trump's Treasury. Both Geithner and Mnuchin, two relatively young well-educated go-getters were fond of answering all critiques of their wealth-concentrating and wage stagnating policies with the West Point Default Meme of militaristic choice: "PLAN BEATS NO PLAN." Here's how that has turned out:
www.populardemocracy.org/news-and-publications/kamala-harris-fails-explain-why-she-didn-t-prosecute-steven-mnuchin-s-bank
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Sifters, Code Shifters, PsalmSong Chasers
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa (Refuge of Atonement Seekers)
Media Discussion List\Looksee
Check out Christopher Hitchens
The good manners of debate this is from along time ago.
Allowing one the time to state their view and then allowed to answer fully.
The excitement in her voice, lady thought she had him on a topic, then an explanation and he takes the crowd through a history lesson and confirms his point.
Every time someone questions he backs himself with an answer.
Idiocracy in full effect.
Not a debate
@@SpaceHeavy-4 pretty fashy bro
That movies theory of intelligence is pure eugenics.
@@SpaceHeavy-4 yeah dude, average intelligence has continued to increase every generation due to increased availability of learning resources. Your beliefs fall in line with those of religious zealots who kepy crying about the "obvious moral decay" of each new generation, and you're just as wrong as every single one of them.
@@donov25 eugenics is like human experimentation, we don't do it because it an immoral and cruel affront to humanity, not because it isn't scientific
"here comes the butt" -noam chomsky, 19XX
'89
What Chomsky fails to take into account was that, even though the revolution itself wasn't very violent, the external retaliation by imperialist nations created a civil war. And in order to defend the newly-founded state, you need to fight those external powers and reactionary forces from within. The dictatorship of the proletariat isn't socialism, but the building of socialism. We can discuss what mistakes were made in the process and why the soviet union collapsed, but to deny its legacy as a whole as many american socialists do is just counter-productive. Just because a material revolution didn't go according to their idealized vision of socialism, we have to dismiss it entirely? Then what even is the point of building revolutionary movements, if they're never going to live up to our dreamed utopia?
where does he say he dismisses everything about it? independent nationalist development can be an upgrade from being a client state/feudal state whatever but dont call it socialism when youre doing nothing to actually build it
@@ssssssssss1638 He calls the october revolution a coup and Lenin a right-winger, that's pretty dismissive to me. Also, there are plenty of nationalist development projects that did little to change society's fundamental structures -- Brasil under Vargas, South Korea under Park Chung-hee . Soviet Union built universal housing, healthcare and education, they helped out poor countries against imperialist agression, had extremely low levels of inequality, aren't that all socialist measures? Naturally there were still internal contradictions within the system, but that is inevitable, socialism is not built in a day.
@@matheusvillela9150 yes there were welfare measures, plenty of socdem countries have done the same doesnt change the fact that the means with which they dictated and workers were organized is the same way capitalists do which makes lenin right wing, a right wing socdem. sure you can claim that in 200 years is when they actually give workers direct control, like china currently claims, but that doesnt change the fact of what youre doing. If I have slaves, house them give them all of lifes ammenities but they have to follow my orders otherwise x bad thing will happen to them and say that ill give them freedom when the conditions are right does that make me a good person? no. you can find some justifications in what lenin did under the circumstances of a civil war but a lot of it like destroying the workers councils, the kronstandt incident, destroying makhnovia were completely unjustifiable and everything that followed that with stalin was just an extension of the means and methods that they employed at the start of the revolution
@@ssssssssss1638 Social democracies still rely on the exploitation of the global south and a history of colonialism. And to be fair, a lot of the supposed bureocracy from the soviet union, even under Stalin, was exaggerated by western media and revisionist writers -- there's even a CIA doc on Stalin which clearly states that calling him a totalitarian the likes of Hitler was not very accurate, since the soviet system was much more collective and decentralized than fascist regimes at the time. I'll see if I can find this document and post it here.
@@matheusvillela9150 got that CIA doc yet that disproves what everyone already knows about the USSR?
Heisenberg, Gödel, and Chomsky walk into a bar: Heisenberg looks around the bar and says, “Because there are three of us and because this is a bar, it must be a joke. But the question remains, is it funny or not?”
Gödel thinks for a moment and says, “Well, because we’re inside the joke, we can’t tell whether it is funny. We’d have to be outside looking at it.”
Chomsky looks at both of them and says, “Of course it’s funny. You’re just telling it wrong.”
This reminds me how fuckin little I know. Time to do some more reading
try thinking instead...
Everybody is so libertarian, until the revolution ends and you have to organize the country.
You and 10 more dont understand shit
You can organize without having to use authoritarian means
@@xillegal_alienx401 You can’t handle the conflicts in the process of rebuilding a nation it has been proven again and again.
Take revolution in Germany in 1920s(notice: Nazi is radical racism but also anti-capitalism, it’s national socialism, they rebuilt economy faster than anyone else) Russia in 1910s, China during 40s to 70s.
It costs tens of millions of lives and all end up failing.
They turned into dictatorship or capitalism.
There are too many examples, French Revolution turned into dictatorship of Napoleon.
Revolutions in Africa and South America turned into dictatorship or warlords controlling.
Almost none of them succeeded.
But when China decided to play capitalism game, their economy boomed.
Which is why communism, a form of government literally named after communes, maybe shouldn’t be attempted on a scale of hundreds of millions. A central government controlling that many people, regardless of how much they claim to value the workers, is kind of doomed to become corrupt
@@xillegal_alienx401 You can't. Without diminishing the rights for some and expanding them for others. All 19th century has proven this system is capable of is the dismantlement of an opressive ruling class to replace it with an even more opressive ruling class.
He didn't really the second part of her question: if not Leninism, then what IS to be done?
If we knew, the world would be a much better place today. All we can do is try.
Exactly. The questioner's point still stands and Chomsky clearly misrepresents a number of facts of the Revolution.
I don't know where Chomsky got the idea that Lenin dissolved the soviets right after the revolution because that's just plain untrue. He's either lying or (and this is more likely) just confused about something ge might have read. I think he's just passed because of Lenin's Left-wing Communism An Infantile Disorder book which basically takes apart the type of politics that Chomsky has always adhered to.
I'm a millennial and I just learned about Noam Chomsky this past year. I wish I knew about him earlier in my life but I'm glad I know about him now. His knowledge on politics, geopolitics & international relations as a whole is unmatched.
Chomsky is a fool. The reason you haven't heard of him is because his ideas are pure garbage, and he is constantly exposed as a fraud and charlatan but remains a fixture mostly because people don't do their own research. You probably haven't read that much to make such a silly statement. He has literally contributed NOTHING to our society aside from appearing on Democracy now once a week to shit on the USA, and enriching himself writing the same book over and over again and giving speeches at colleges to other silly pretentious people. HE is a pseudo-intellectual. His main body of work "universal grammar" has been discredited. He is not even an important thinker in his own field. Notice he never once debated anybody serious who could give him a run for his money on any of his silly ideas. He prefers soft target people like Michel Foucalt, Alan Dershowitz, William F Buckley, etc. If you are looking for more serious scholarship try "intellectuals and society" by Thomas Sowell, there is an audiobook free on youtube. Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, even Jordan Peterson could wipe the floor with him but he is too old now to find out.
Salute my brother
@@matthewosburn Thomas Sowell LMAO holy shit dude, I hope you realize nobody would put him in the same universe of "serious scholarship" as Chomsky. Sowell's about as explicit a propagandist as can be
I discovered Chomsky almost 4 years ago, at the age of 23. It was a life changing discovery. I hope you find the value that I did in him.
Well I used to like Chomsky... Until I learned of Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics. Now the world makes sense and Chomsky is almost gone! Can't wait
Absolutely brilliant commentary on how socialism was distorted by history.
KGB KGB Trust me ....you’re IQ is low.
What's sad is that leftists fall in this trap of equating Communism with Stalin, and the Soviets. Thus they start to defend Stalin saying "he wasn't that bad". Its depressing.
@@ubuntuposix That's kind of where I am, Stalin was obviously horrible but hes tainted the image of communism so deeply.
@@forestgreen9002 i just red the Communist Manifesto and the Principles of Communism by Engels.
Instead of presenting the Communist alternative, they just criticize Capitalism (with weak arguments imo). Not one word about how would Communism work, how would the proletariat rule. They wanted to enrage the people to become violent and start chaos / a violent revolution. Then they (the Communist Party, again not one word about how the Party is structured / who takes the decisions, etc) would take over, and rule in the name of the people.
Btw its funny that they keep specifying that they're against religion, while we know that the vast majority of people are religious.
They dismiss any alternative as utopian if its not violent and its too rational, with ad hominem (logical fallacy) arguments. (instead of criticizing the system, they make personal attacks about the people which wrote about these systems).
Imo they are not Communists. They were Revolutionaries or Anti-Capitalists. They were proposing a Dictatorship by a shady untransparent Party.
So imo Communism is left at point zero (starting point).
Unfortunately its impossible to find Communists on the internet, because the forums/subreddits are taken over by Stalinists.
They kicked me off when i proposed my solution for how would Communism work. I proposed a Forum with rational debates on the Policies that would rule the country. With a logical fallacy section, and a scoring system of the proposed policy. For example you can take the number of positively impacted people multiplied by the degree of positive impact (judged in accordance with Maslow's pyramid of human needs, and the existing evaluating system of ethics). This would give the positive score, and the vice-versa for the negative score, also taking into account the international human rights.
In the end, the policy proposal with the best score should turn into Policy. So the ruling is done transparent, any person can propose solutions and give arguments in favor of or against proposed policies. Thus this would not be a technocracy, not a Stalinist Dictatorship, not a Direct Democracy, and not a Representative Democracy.
That my humble solution. But in any case, i think there needs to be a system of letting the people rule the country, but to filter out they biased / dumb side (always manipulated by politicians / media) and let the Reasoning part of them do the ruling.
So, pretty much every communist tainted the true glory of communism. And socialism is distorted by "history". Got it.
3:37 - If you only watch a small excerpt, this summarizes the entire point beautifully.
2022 the woman's question is even MORE relevant.
This is where everyone who thinks Jordan Peterson has anything credible to say about Marxism ought to be brought and made to listen.
Mrxism brings maximum suffering,logically count the dead
@@Rasmajnoon I completely agree with you. I think that Dr. Peterson is completely correct and I did listen to this videos and many others like it. Chomsky is basically saying " if I had been in charge, as a real socialist, then the promised utopia would have materialised. " How many times does humanity have to repeat this failed experiment?
Marx literally said the proletariat should seize the state and use it, he said it in the communist manifesto. He said to then build up productive forces to make socialism possible. Go and read it. And this is precisely what happened in the USSR under Lenin and Stalin. Rosa Luxemburg supported the soviets.
Trotsky was no less "authoritarian" than Stalin or Lenin.
Lenin wasn't opportunistic, if the whole world is against you - the whites and the imperialist powers you can't be libertarian. That's why chomsky can't point to a communist that he likes that actually won.
To call the revolution a coup seems ridiculous when you consider it needed a long civil war.
Lenin thought socialism wouldn't be possible in Russia, but Stalin built a socialist state.
Exactly
The good news is none of this matters because socialism is dead.
This is some great historical knowledge that most Western people don't have.
"Because the Russian Revolution and its ideas still have such a strong influence over people’s spirits, it’s necessary to more profoundly penetrate its fundamental character. In a few words, it was the last bourgeois revolution, though carried out by the working class. “Bourgeois revolution” signifies a revolution that destroys feudalism and opens the way to industrialization, with all the social consequences this implies. The Russian Revolution is thus in the direct line of the English Revolution of 1647, and the French Revolution of 1789, as well as those that followed in 1830, 1848 and 1871. During the course of these revolutions the artisans, the peasants and the workers furnished the massive strength needed to destroy the ancien régime. Afterwards, the committees and political parties of the men representing the rich strata that constituted the future dominant class came to the forefront and took control of governmental power. This was a natural result, since the working class was not yet mature enough to govern itself. In this new class society, where the workers were exploited, such a dominant class needs a government composed of a minority of functionaries and politicians. In a more recent era, the Russian Revolution seemed to be a proletarian revolution, the workers having been its authors through their strikes and mass actions. Nevertheless, the Bolshevik Party, little by little, later succeeded in appropriating power (the laboring class being a small minority among the peasant population). Thus the bourgeois character (in the largest sense of the term) of the Russian Revolution became dominant and took the form of state capitalism. Since then, due to its ideological and spiritual influence in the world, the Russian Revolution has become the exact opposite of a proletarian revolution that liberates the workers and renders them masters of the productive apparatus."
Anton Pannekoek 1954 www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1953/socialisme-ou-barbarisme.htm
@daniel garcia garcia This is a very nice excerpt from Pannekoek. For those of you who are wondering how this is relevant, Chomsky mentioned Pannekoek several times in his response and this excerpt is a succinct form of a much larger critique of how the Russian Revolution was executed. The critique is from a Marxist, not from a capitalist or monarchist or anything like that.
Fair.
I don't know when this was filmed but it honestly feels like it's from a different world, I can't remember the last time I saw calm and rational discussion of political ideologies without emotional outbursts and blustering, seems most people now don't want to even think about what ideas they hold and just want to prove those who think differently are wrong or evil
Chomsky is overated
1989, it flashed for a moment on the screen about half way through
@@xenmwi xenmwi is vastly underrated (in his own mind)
@@xenmwi Which has nothing to do with Chomsky himself and everything to do with the public's perception of Chomsky. Take up arms against them, but you won't get anywhere because you're a nobody. Next.
If you consider the fact that the woman who asked the question in the video wouldve been considered ‘emotional’ back then, world has really changed for the worse
As we seek a future beyond capitalism in the 21st century, we need to remember this history and these debates between libertarian socialists and the Leninists, or we will be doomed to repeat the tragedies of the 20th century.
Instead of making excuses and being useful idiots for dead guys like Stalin and Mao. I think more people would be socialists if it weren't for tankies
I was ancap for ages just because I couldn't get past tankie rhetoric and arguments. They're the loudest group confronting libertarians and right wingers, so I was never able to get past it.
What finally got me was mutualism, proudhon, the actual works of Karl marx, orthodox economic class conflict opposed to rhetoric about "colonists" and such. This what got me to finally move past anarcho capitalilism into a more mutualist kind of anarchy.
I never hated the idea of worker owned businesses. I like commerce and markets. U have these kids who know nothing about socialism or economics or theory who think socialism is woke social democracy. And it's not.
And thats what turns people like me off. People who are actually proletarian being led astray by white middle class bourgeoise fake antifa punks.
U know what got me to? Was an interesting episode of Futurama. It's the one with the 80s guy that has boneitis. He convinced fry and mom to buy the planet express from the workers. As it turns out the professor is a bit of a socialist. He pays his workers in stock and profit sharing. And the capitalists try to take control of the company, its actually a funny episode that is really cool and shows what the future of socialism actually looks like. Its not mass surveillance and George Soros. Or it doesent have to be.
I work at a hotel where I audit all of the charges on the graveyard shift.. I just think man how great would my life be if I had an honest to God SHARE of these profits. $15 an hour with benefits is actually OK. But goddamn if i had just a measly 5% share of the hotel profits I would be sitting very well. I wouldn't even care if my manager got say 10%, as she does work more hours and more complex tasks.
I just don't understand why anyone would be against that, without being coerced.
As a voluntaryist I never liked coercion. Then I started reading Marx and at first kinda scoffed at it but when I really got into it I realized, a true voluntaryist would want a worked controlled business. Of course if u WANT to live in a capitalist structure I still say go for it. But I don't understand why I can't hold shares for my actual work over a wage. The only reason is greed and using the concept of private property as coercion.
Just like they use the concept of copy right to keep medicine prices high and keep some musicians as millionaires while other more talented ones starve. Capitalism is a relic of fuedalism and now that we have mass production and surplus it just doesent make sense anymore.
I wish more people can go down the path I went down. I think people who read lenin and mao and think "wow this is great" are actually getting into socialism the wrong way.
The libertarian left pipeline is actually getting a lot of people. There's even a group called rothbardian syndalicists who are you know socialists but inspired by the early works of Murray Rothbard before his jump to paleo conservatism.
When I realized that anarcho capitalism was just a jump to neo reactionaryism and neo fuedalism and mocking anarchy, I dropped it like a hot rock. I really believed in these ideas like voluntary contracts and still still. But it's clear they can't really be implemented under a capitalist framework. It's a neat idea but it will never work for the working man like me. Not in the real world.
I started to realize the ideals that got me into anarcho capitalism are actually much better realized under a proudhon style mutualism or rothbardian syndacalism.
The workers controlling the means of production doesent have to necessarily mean they are limited to their work either. Free markets means u can trade, like I could trade some of my hotel stock for computer stock and gold and diversify my portfolio just as I do now under capitalism but instead of slaving for wages to save and set this money aside and buy stock i could get an honest and direct trade for my work and the surplus income I help produce.
The key here is helping libertarians like myself to understand that free markets can still exist in a socialist system. When u get to the point where we can just give everyone resources money becomes obsolete. Kinda like how bitcoin doesent need to function the same way as fiat currency and acts more like a stock. U don't need to be able to buy things with it for it to have and store value. In that sense money is already becoming obsolete. Taking power away from the governments.
Now we just need to spread that wealth beyond whoever owns property and generators to "mine" and property to run businesses and give the workers a fairer share.
There's no Reason the capitalists can't maintain their current lifestyles and still allow everyone else to advance to a closer level.
@@juanmccoy3066 you see, when ideology confronts reality, concessions have to be made.
Your libertarian utopia will be trampled in a month wither from the inside or from the outside.
Authoritarian measures are required to achieve any revolutionary progress.
@@Cyborg_Lenin No.
@@Apelles42069 What do you mean no?
That isnt a matter of pinion, that is a fact of nature. Revolution by it nature is an authoritarian action, one group violently overthrows and suppresses the other.
Ideology and theory always has to give way to reality because they may not fit well the material conditions of a revolution. Some things have to be adapted and changed.
Libertarianism relies on the most totalitarian form of organisation(capitalist enterprise) to archive freedom. Your boss already has all the power ver hald of yor day, lets give them all the rest.
The only useful idiot here is you.
Very interesting verbal treatise on Leninism and the Soviet State system - many thanks for uploading; educational and engaging.
3:50 Anton Pannekoek, Dutch astronomer and Marxist
Thanks!
@B olton Slam dunk
@@westernman1482 'Nicola Tesla' for name/avatar, conspiracy teories, monarchism, and ending your redundant shit-cluster of an argument with 'wake the fuck up people', could you possibly be more of an edgelord neckbeard stereotype?
@@westernman1482 i'm not sure i see the problem with any of that
B olton Karl Marx was a Jew and as you know the the one who wrote the communist manifesto! It all started with a Zionist plot to overthrow governments. After the Jewish revolution happened, name being that out of the five hundred individuals that orchestrated it, they were almost all Jews! They murdered the true crowned family of Russia to gain control. Once in control Bolshevism started and the tens of millions of ethnic Russians who tried to resist the new controllers were murdered. Historical churches were burned down as those who sake refuge within them were persecute. Firing squads massacred endless citizens. How come everyone’s supposed to feel bad for the Jews, but ignore the genocides and atrocities they’ve committed? Double standard commies do that.
It’s so funny how this page attracts brainwashed Marxist indoctrinated fools. All the critical theory and Marxist teachings came to America after WW2 when the Jewish Frankfurt group arrived and were allowed to spread communistic ideals into universities starting with Columbia university in New York. Meanwhile you could still be imprisoned for be a communist at the time!
All the commie lovers want a utopia and promote it constantly. You prove my point by defining it as an improvement on the world! It seems people will believe anything as long as you convince them with words that resonate to their liking. The United Nations is controlled by these same globalists since it’s founding along with the European Union and other continental unions. I can’t imagine never questioning the repercussions of what a one world dictatorship styled government would bring.... no sells pitch given by globalists and their puppets could ever make me support that.
In short... to sum up... How do we hate the rich in the right way.
Don't hate the rich, hate what they do and strive to establish a system that doesn't give them a reason or means to do it. Eliminating class divisions economically should be our goal, not eliminating all those of another class. One is solid economic policy, the other is just killing. We shouldn't be seeking to solve our problems by eating the kulaks, we should be unionizing, be it in workplaces or elsewhere, to secure the rights of the working class and eliminate the systems by which they're oppressed.
@@cooldude6651 So... Hate the rich...
Okay NPC.
@@cooldude6651 I think the op was making just a joke, but your answer was on point.
I am always astonished - not ONLY by Chomsky's wonderful intellect, - but by his memory; I am only in my mid-sixties, and while I have no present concerns for my cognitive abilities, I desperately long for greater fact-retention. Noam Chomsky, at 91, is a virtual universe of sociopolitical knowledge. He is also a thoughtful Humanist and a rare example of caring in an uncaring world.
Constantly amazed at the memory this guy must have. He can rattle down through years to some obscure event or person and detail the subject with a fine tooth comb.
@@tomasmccauley569 the core element is workers control. He abolished that.
And killed people who were fighting for it or were already making it happen (Makhnovia for example).
leninism is not socialism, as socialism was understood at the time. I guess by post-USSR definitions of socialism it is. Cuz the word got corrupted to its root to mean "authoritarianism and centralized state capitalism"
I wonder though, what exactly do you like about the USSR? That it was a lesser evil? That it killed a dream and we are still suffering the consequences? Imagine if Lenin wasn't a lying piece of shit. Man.. where we could be.
@@tomasmccauley569 So you're for representative democracy. You're making a lesser evil argument. Which I am ok with in context of no de facto power (as we are currently, so at least we can vote for lesser evils and do egalitarian things on the side), but at the time there was actual hope for change. Marxists were in the position to set the direction, to be a leading example. Russian monarchy was weak and had fallen.
aaaand here comes Lenin to fuck it up. Uses this to gain power for himself and his posse, creates the new oligarchy.
So fuck Lenin. He was one of the greatest evils of the 20th century because he killed an idea with his "representative democracy" bs
@@tomasmccauley569 essentially, you're agreeing with Lenin because he did some things right and are choosing to ignore how he set the wrong course and killed marxism with it. We are still struggling with the consequences where people are anti-marxist thought because they perceive it to mean "20th century USSR vanguardist authoritarianism". Which Lenin was for. And created (not by himself, true, there were many other authos he co-worked to make his coup)
@@tomasmccauley569 Its both the USSR's authoritarianism and the capitalist propaganda machines' fault.
The USSR was totalitarian and its rule resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths. To deny that is to deny the facts.
Lenin defeated the white army - fine. But after that he used the newly gained power to solidify it in him and his posse. His first moves: remove worker councils, destroy the black army (which could have been allies), kill dissenting voices (who were in large part more leftist marxists, so de facto allies), etc.
He was a fraud. He exploited the movement to gain power.
And all he created was a centrally planned capitalist state. And still to this day, because of some social policies, people like you are apologists for him.
Its the same argument people use for the social democracies "well it works better so it was the best possible thing we could have had, realistically". Doesn't work like that.
A lesser evil is not good enough. And especially when there were other options.
If you ask me - Joe Biden or Trump, the choice is clear. And we have to make it to reduce evil as much as possible. But this situation is one where you have very limited choice (this is not to say one shouldn't fight in other areas where they have more control).
But when you look at the USSR in its inception - there was SO much choice and it was FAR better than what Lenin and his vanguardist tankies were putting on the table. To make a pick there and compare it with the monarchists and say "well it was a lesser evil and was the only practical" is simply *wrong*. You have to compare it to the other leftist options at the time. Not to the now defeated monarchists. Its not at all a case of a locked system, it had just become liberated. It could have been set in the right path of true marxism but was instead set in the path of social-policies-oligarchy. Sure - better than a monarchy but marginally. The potential was an ocean.
Fuck Lenin. he is one of the most vile people, because he killed marxism. Because he was there, at the place and time when the potential existed and had the power to do right. But chose power.. the only explanation - he was a fraud. Maybe cuz he was stupid and didnt get where the course he was setting led to, or maybe he was just evil. Regardless, he failed spectacularly, at least in terms of establishing marxism.
as for his struggle with the monarchy, sure, "he" won (a whole lot of people rather), but the monarchy was weak and its not something uncalled for throughout history. Countless emperors win against other emperors. Big deal. What are you winning for is what matters
I love the: "Astute politician...which he was" line.
Levy any criticism that everyone on "the left" has heard about Chomsky a million times, this is a criticism based entirely upon factual evidence. Still, Chomsky is honest enough to address all sources, whether pro Leninist or the opposite.
This must be from the late 70s or early 80s. It would help understanding context to disclose the dates of recordings like this.
The more I read and learn about the early USSR the more I am confused.
Well, dong listen to Chomsky on it lol. If you can find some Victor Serge (anarchist that turned to be a bolshevik during the october revolition), and Jean-Jacques Marie (a weird politician, but a good historian), you will find some very interesting and clear infos on it.
@@miloszfedorowicz5382 yeah don’t listen to one of the most respected anarchists of our time with arguably better dialectical materialist skills than many self described Marxists. Won’t help at all
@@Alfredocap whaaaat 😂😂 Chomsky a materialist dialectician ? His political theory is barely a theory
@@miloszfedorowicz5382 🤷♂️ many anarchists get down with d.m. my friend and, as Chomsky would say, orthodox Marxism
@@Alfredocap not sure we understand the same thing when talkin about dialectics...
Either way, Chomsky is not a historian, nor a specialist of early USSR. I was just saying that reading an actual historian, and an anarchist who joined the october revolution can be more interesting
I admire Chomsky, but, respectfully, and I may be wrong, he tries to be very subtle and use his great intelligence to deny some truths. The first is that all of Marx predictions turned out to be wrong. The "capitalistic" society with all its faults created a middle class and, thanks to modern technology, what Galbraith called the opulent society, contradicting his view of progressive poverty of the proletariat. Second the Communist Parties never came even close to a majority in any of the industrialized countries like Germany, England, USA where it was supposed to win. The reason is obvious: any person who has a small property wants to keep it and opposes communism, and both the agricultural peasants who have a field or a worker who owns an apartment will not be communist. The philosophy of Marx which minimizes human history to just an economic struggle of classes is, to say the least, simplistic. The only way communism could triumph if by the imposition of a dictatorship for the obvious reason that the communist party, as I said, is going to be always a minority. Final minor observation: Trotsky was not better than Lenin as far wanting a dictatorship and he was brutal and bloody in his dealings with the opposition.
It’s a privilege to listen whether you support his views or not. A good idea doesn’t care who it belongs to. We have a saying in Australia: in the horse race of life, always back the runner called ‘self interest’ because at least you know it’s trying.
Honestly, if I think I get to ask Noam Chomsky a single question, and only one time, I will do exactly like her. Bravo. And Bravo to Chomsky as well.
Here to see how far I’ve grown out of anarchism.
oops I wanted kfc, thought the picture of lenin was a young Colonel
Dumbass
Finger Lenin' Good.
@@muslimamerican4129 go back to Afghanistan
@@banessuperbrutalmetalfunti2561 LOL ROTF!!! That's terrific! Luv it!
@@muslimamerican4129 STFU, a--hole!
That was a very long winded way of saying: Lenin didn't do communism/socialism right, I would do it much better!
Correct, Leninism is not a good form of socialism
Read Marx's reply to Vera Zasulich in 1882. Marx saw possibility of revolution in Russia if socialisation of Mir prevailed. Marx was not particular about advanced country or German revolution.
first you went to black screen, then the speech was plainly edited. What did you take out? Why?
Chomsky's argument has a massive flaw in it; it assumes that the Mensheviks were more left wing than the bolsheviks. That however, couldn't be further from the truth. The Mensheviks were the moderate majority faction which believed in a slow transition from capitalism to socialism to communism. They are more akin to Democratic Socialists than Marxists. The Bolsheviks however, were so radical that they didn't want to slowly phase out capitalism, they wanted Socialism and they wanted it now. This division caused a severe rift and lots of infighting, which culminated in Lenin purging the party of the Mensheviks and establishing a more left wing approach to achieving Marxist Utopia. This is what Noam Chomsky gets wrong here, the Bolsheviks were more radically in support of Marxism and its ideas. However, Leninists created a strong state because they could not survive the pressures of Capitalist nations as an Anarchist Utopia, and they were right. Much of Lenin's career was spent simply trying to preserve the revolution he helped in achieving.
This is where the fractures between Anarchists and Pragmatist Marxists begin to show. The "Tankies" (Pragmatist Marxists) the Anarchists so despise are more pragmatist than the idealistic Anarchists like Chomsky. This is an important distinction to make. While Anarchists think that things will just be perfect when they do their little revolution in Vuvuzuela, Tankies know better. In practice, the only Communist revolutions that survived were the ones that quickly built a strong state. This is called Vanguard Communism by Anarchists, a supposed bad thing which achieves nothing but repression and evil, despite history stating the contrary.
To conclude, Chomsky is quite wrong in many aspects, not linguistics though. Noam Chomsky is just an example of a left wing Jordan Peterson. A big loud speaker that blares out his particular political ideology while providing no actual solutions to anything, unlike Lenin who was well known for his "calm demeanour". In short, Chomsky is a pundit who shouldn't be trusted.
if you think they were establishing socialism then read maurice brintons bolsheviks and workers control
@@popcornyogurt1 Yeah no thanks. I don't have to read every piece of left wing theory to understand Communism or Marxism. I don't have to read industrial society and its future to understand the impact technology has had on the environment, and I definitely shouldn't have to read every Anarchist thought piece in history. It's all about theory this and theory that, but when push comes to shove, the only revolutions that survived had Marxist-Leninist and Vanguard Communist undertones. The rest were either crushed by Capitalist forces or collapsed before a proper revolution could even occur. Anarchists are just angry that their idealist ideas don't work in practice, and are even angrier that Vanguard Communism survives to this day in Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, China and Cuba. At the end of the day, despite Lenin's flaws as a person and his flaws in his beliefs, at least he was able to preserve his revolution.
I knew something was off when he tried to discount the female speaker by acting like her use of rhetoric was below him, what a clown.
all revolutions need borders and an army to fortify against a world of capitalist nations with borders and armies, I don't know many on the left who would disagree with this undeniable reality. but why do ML states always decay into free market oligarchies? china is so terminally liberal that even healthcare is privatized, which is something most capitalist nations were able to move past.
if we compare social democratic nations to post-revolutionary nations in the modern day, it would seem that the mensheviks were right.
Where can I find the full version?
Mariam Batselashvili pretty sure this clip is from the docu, manufacturing consent, it’s on UA-cam
Here you go: ua-cam.com/video/5oOjwjgV4G0/v-deo.html
@@onurtasyakan32
Thanks
نعوم شومسكي so smart so good with words that he destroy interviewer in israel with tones of facts and beautifully selected words with his calm voice poker face
Great exposition by a great man.
So what Chomsky is saying is that USSR never had people own means of productions, but rather authoritarian state did..?
@@groberunfug7952 So killing million is good? Ok.
Great vid. Chomsky is almost always refreshing. Even on the rare occasions when I find him too different from my own viewpoint, he’s still always kind and totally honest.❤️
On a similar vein, I’ve read about how Orwell was excoriated by some for not supporting Stalinism.
I myself was similarly put down for using contemporary dictionaries for the definition of imperialism - a term which according to these sources predates Marxism and Leninism both, and was used in the past by both those who attempted to justify it as well as those who hated it. The ones who hated it were not “Marxist” since it hadn’t been formulated, nor were they “Libertarian” as that hadn’t come sbout either; nor were they “Paleo-Conservatives”, “Populists” etc., though one might discern some string similarities in any of the later political philosophies that were anti-interventionists/anti-imperialists.
Likewise, one could draw parallels between pro-imperialists and Fascism, though it certainly includes Royalists, religionists, and some major tribes (like the Aztecs who regularly invades surrounding tribes).
For myself I like to stick to the simple fundamentals that are common to practically all the various groups that abhor gross, artificially imposed inequality and/or any kind of imperialism, whether military, cultural, economic - or whatever.
It’s the way history gets distorted, and the way this always ends up dividing people that is the main problem. Unfortunately I don’t see any easy way around that, though it isn’t categorically, %100 hopeless by any means.
Have a great day!!
What a great question to a great thinker! Listening to the likes of Jordan Peterson and Doug Murray makes us thing how far we lagged behind.
Extremely interesting.
I would love to have a tea and a chat with that lady.
dude it 😬. Enjoy?
State and Revolution still absolutely kicks ass. Dunno how exactly we're gonna move beyond the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but eventually workers are gonna own and control the means of production. Wage slavery must end.
❤✊☭
very informative answer, learned something about lenin. but i don't think prof. chomsky got the full weight of her question, which was how do we get rid of (corrupt) capitalism, she side tracked into chomsky giving critics ammunition by calling into question vladimir lenin's motives. of course mr. chomsky, being the professor he is, gave us a brief history of the bolshevik revolution and lenin's involvement in it. we are on the same side here.
Like most people, he has absolutely no idea. That's an open problem still, and too big a question to address. Chomsky's skill is in understanding the world and drawing inferences. He leaves the rest to us.
3:38 "we have forgotten who the mainstream Marxist were because they have lost and we only remember the ones who have won" yes because the ones who have won were the only people that were actually right about the struggle. not including the fact many leftist parties (but not all) and including Rosa Luximberge herself despite having criticisms of the Russian revolution still supported it in the end. Lenin and Rosa would frequently send letters to one another and Lenin having to clarify his position and ultimately had to side with him. you guys only know how to lose and that's it, it seems you don't care at all about this shit and are just a bunch of larpers who want this "real Socialism" BS utopia fantasy that expects every aspect to be in absolute perfection.
there are reasons why they lost, it's not a "might makes right" fallacy because the very point about the socialist movement is to dismantle the capitalist state and bring about socialism. the ones that did this, the ones who have won in the past, shows us how to take control of political power and bring about our vision. Stop it with this insane stuff, i care too much about this to let you people say this bullshit over and over again and make us look like dumbasses who don't know what they're talking about. the 2nd international failed just like the 1st because when the world war hit, all the social democratic parties throughout Europe went against one another and made Lenin pissed to see them destroy themselves which is why the concept of the vanguard and democratic centralism became a thing. it was a development that recognizes the fault of the 2nd international and to make sure to never repeat the same mistake which you assholes are always doing. you've learned nothing!
you cannot call yourself to be a friend of the proletariat, you're against it, only to fuel your own dogmatic insane view of "socialism" and to circle jerk yourselves all day long. Wake the fuck up!
Lenin made the country worse than capitalism would have.
@@legrandliseurtri7495 that's literally a lie you made up. There is none, not one shred of evidence to suggest this. Literally ever since the Bolsheviks got into power life expectancy grew, infant mortality decreased, housing, education, healthcare for all, guaranteed job security, higher wages, improvements to women's rights that the rest of the world was falling behind on compared to them. The soviets were leaders in science and art, culture, and filmmaking as well with many breakthroughs happening in them.
Even the parties that thought of the Russian revolution as a degenerate socialist state even they saw that things did change for the better. It's people like you that prove what Lenin was talking about when he wrote "left-wing communism: an infantile disorder"
@@ulysses7157 Well, bravo, they turned a peasant country dominated by an autocrat into a industrialized country dominated by an oligarchie. Of course the life expectancy would grow, ect. But the USA was more advance in every single field...
@@legrandliseurtri7495 you know the soviets were democratic right? And it was, in fact, more democratic than U.S. elections were. What they haven't taught you that in school? Of course, they didn't because they falsify history and just say "Stalin did everything".
There was no "oligarchy" in most of the Soviet era. There were no rich people in the soviet union, everyone was on the same economic bases and not one person "owned" any production. All production was owned by social organizations elected and controlled by regular people. social organizations such as co-ops and collectives and the state that produce for the social good. That's why it's called "socialism".
@@ulysses7157 Ah yes, and people loved Stalin so much that they kept him in power for 20 years...
The year will be 3025 and people will still be angry at Chomsky for absolutely nothing and i find this hilarious.
Chomsky talks about Marx like Lenin believing that socialism had to begin in an industrialised capitalist country, but he doesn't say why. It seems to be that both Lenin and Marx believed that for socialism to survive it had to be established in an industrialized country because industrialization was necessary to produce the type of technology that ensured security from famine and also the type of weaponry that could fend off attacks from other capitalists and imperialists.
How would the Bolsheviks to move off the land and into the factories which would produce the equipment they thought necessary for the country's and system's survival? If the workers were to decide that own fate it would have taken a very long time, time the Bolsheviks didn't have. They were in a civil war from 1917 and attacked by several foreign armies in 1918.
With no real economy to speak off and relying on sales on timber and oil to countries who were now and war with them and who would later sanction them, they had to industrialize and had no time for a long transition period.
The war lasted until 1922 by which time Lenin was sick, Stalin officially took over in 1924. Hitler was gaining prominence in that time and in 1927 Stalin saw the need to speed up industrialization......he would not a prophet, Hitler had published a work talking about the USSR as a place for German expansion, American and British private companies had begun to finance the Nazis and his rise to power was imminent. If Hitler had not attacked it would have only been a matter of time before the Allies would be back for a second attempt to oust the Bolsheviks.......a system Churchill said should be strangled in it's cradle.
The five year plans were designed to achieve that, but stiff resistance was met from the farmers. The Bolsheviks had promised land, peace and bread. The land had been divided between the peasants but in such a large country with the transport and communication system available at the time (which was equivalent to early 18th century America's) it was difficult to achieve this fairly. The larger land owners refused to part with their produce for taxes, they pled bad harvests to tax inspectors and sold their produce to profiteers who sold it in towns for exorbitant prices. When the army came with the inspectors to take taxes the farmers organized and fought back and set fire to their harvests rather than give them up.
In 1941 when the Germans attacked, Stalin was a year away from being ready........an astonishing feat considering that he had begun with a broken over 90 percent agrarian country. By 1943 while still at war the Soviet Union had officially the biggest, most well equipped army in the world, which is why at the end of the war (in which the Russians wiped out more than 80% of the German army) they were such a force to be reckoned with; so much so that the Americans dropped atom bombs on Japan to intimidate the USSR. If the Russians had not been industrialized enough to develop atomic technology, the Soviet Union may well have the recipient of the next American nuclear strike.
Perfectly put words.
@Paris Sanders Oh yes, this was all predicted in "The Protocols Of Zion". And the Romanov family were not murdered by Lenin's orders, they were sacrificed in a blood ritual by Satan worshiping Jews....dear me, who taught you people such muddled headed history? Goebbels? A banker who happens to be Jewish (and not a particularly practicing one - he went to temple 'as habit") is foremost a banker. If he didn't get his way, despite your view of Jewish banking cartels controlling the world, doesn't that seem odd to you? At the time of the American Civil War, the Romanovs could barely get there own shit together. Oh well, if you want to see every thing through that prism of yours, that's just being lazy; I can't help your sloppy thinking. Disciplined thought is not a feature of youtube comments generally. You have a nice day now..
TY.
This is basically the context of the bolcheviks critique to the leftist opposition (which failed due to not havin a centralized organization such as the bolchevisks. See R. Luxemburg).
However it is true that the revolution took a "right turn" in the 20s; and many of the initial bolchevik policies where abandoned.
Yea, great straw man right there buddy. Chomsky obviously agreed with Marx (and Lenin) on that point, but he doesn't see this "holding out for the german revolution" as an excuse for deconstructing socialism and implementing a system quite akin to totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Two systems, that do not agree with socialism in any single way.
lol. Never saw more uninformed statement till now...
Wallstreet made Russia fit for the war... check it ... (try real sources and not only these from your gender-professors)
There are many things to admire about Chomsky. His Anti-Communism is not one of them. Lenin led a successful and transformational revolution. Chomsky told us to vote for Democrats.
He never said a good thing about the USSR until AFTER it fell. He refused to tell the truth about AIDS until the peak of the plague was over. He refused to be honest about the Yugoslavia war until after the war was over and the "privatisation to foreign investors" side won. He still refuses to tell the truth about JFK, 911, and COVID, and he actively ridicules and belittles those people who dare to speak the truth. I've noticed a pattern there.
@illarionbykov7401 yes. The intellectuals are the kings of hindsight
He was just giving historical facts though. Leninism as a "right-wing deviation" - This is accurate in the sense that many contemporary Marxists did criticize Lenin's ideas. Destruction of worker-controlled institutions - This is largely accurate. The Bolsheviks did centralize power and reduce the autonomy of soviets and factory committees. Soviet system as precursor to totalitarianism - This is a widely held view among many historians, though it's still somewhat interpretive.
The claim that both the Soviet Union and the West had reasons to associate Soviet practices with socialism is accurate. The Soviet Union sought legitimacy by claiming to be socialist, while Western powers often equated socialism with the authoritarianism of the Soviet regime to discredit socialism more broadly.
Also, the discussion on whether the Soviet Union was truly socialist or a distortion of socialism is a longstanding debate. Chomsky presents a critical view suggesting that the Soviet Union was not socialist in any meaningful sense and was instead a precursor to totalitarianism. This critique is shared by many left-wing critics of Leninism.
The text argues that Lenin and Trotsky moved to destroy worker control and the Soviets after taking power, which is accurate in the sense that the Bolshevik government did centralize power and suppress opposition, including from left-wing critics.
YT is deleting my comments even on this low profile channel
Mr. Chomsky, thank you for helping so many people learn more about the truth of history and politics.
4:26 this characterization of vanguardism is the level I would expect a liberal to have, really nonsensical. The vanguard party is made by members of the working class which then become professional revolutionaries dedicated to the revolution, this plus requirements on entry to the party, because (shockingly!) not all workers are socialist. The party would then act within worker organizations to mobilize the people for revolution because (again, shockingly) you cant make a revolution without popular support. The idea that the vanguard party is about a minority of people seizing power "in the name" of the workers is liberal nonsense, it was never the idea nor the practice. It's historically wrong to say that trotsky was an anti-bolshevil until 1917, he actually had more to do with the bolsheviks than the mensheviks, his disagreement with lenin was because lenin wanted to professionalize the sectors of the party and restrict entry to socialists, while the mensheviks accepted anyone, trotsky was more of a united-front guy and expect the mensheviks to join the revolution when it happened... guess what? he was wrong and later accept the fact that lenin was right. Also both the menshevik and bolshevik part had the same structure. Chomsky also cites Rosa Luxembourg but she had way more to do with lenin than to any left-communist. Chomsky's points here are a regurgitation of anti-communist myths, and then libertarian socialists complain that ML's are critical of them
Anytime you need a quick barometer who's right, even if they claim left, look at their adoration for and enforcement of hierarchy.
Excellent point! Best wishes :)
@Daniel Sadjadi i just checked out this guy bc some guy said how smart he is. I really don't care about the view as much that most people didn't get his message & imo the guy just likes to talk. Basically socialism can't exist as long as people have human emotions. Makes sense. I think what is interesting is that 1st people think they can get it to work, & the amount of people that are praising Stalin, talking about how USSR was this wonderful country. This 1 person said he couldn't find any sources to prove this. I told him there were lots of books that proved that the USSR wasn't the utopia these people claimed. I told him he could talk to older Russian & Polish immigrants. He said that he talked to several Polish immigrants & they missed the USSR. I really don't think he did bc I have yet to meet a Polish person who talks about the great days of the USSR. I don't think a of people here really know much, that are just here trying to sound smart. Thanks for your time & have a great day :)
@@t.c.8697 I'm not sure you understood what Chomsky is saying in this video. He literally says that Leninism and the USSR are representative of totalitarianism and NOT socialism - he points to specific periods of time and actions to show that Lenin knowingly used the label of socialism for its popular appeal, but that he fundamentally disagreed with the central idea of socialism, and took clear steps to undermine it.
What's wrong with hierarchy again?
It is degrading and goes against human nature. Therefore, it is an illegitimate structure in society.
Chomsky isn't right about everything and no one should just take someone's word because of their status.
Agreed. Although, what makes you say this? Do you have an interpretation or piece of information that Noam neglected in this video?
Props to whomever she was. I've always shared Chomsky's sentiment here, but it's awesome when people show they're really thinking.
Props? Sorry, but she betrayed a woeful ignorance of the movement she claims allegiance to.
The old leftist claim that Stalin betrayed Lenin's 'real socialism' is pure propaganda and wishful thinking. That she espoused such an idea shows that she is just regurgitating third-hand leftist ideas, and has never actually read Lenin. A cursory reading of Lenin himself will immediately dispel any such notions. As early as 1902 he was already arguing that a permanent group of 'professional revolutionaries' (such as himself of course), would have to lead the 'awakening masses' of the working class. And he accused those arguing for ACTUAL workers control as the 'worst enemies' of socialism - self-serving demagogues telling the workers what they want to hear. Oh the irony.
I'm not the biggest fan of Chomsky, but at least he is educated, and honest here. Fundamentally wrong imo.. but honest.
"Lenin was a right-wing deviation of socialism" Oh lord. Next up: ethical capitalism.
I very much appreciated this brief critique of the early 20th century Marxist / socialist movements.
What Chomsky does in providing several details is to explain that there were several different kinds of Marxists. (And by extension different kinds of socialism.)
- Noam mentions mainstream/left wing Marxists and right wing Marxists. Noam mentions the “actual Marxist movement” (vs a less actual Marxist movement). Chomsky also discusses what socialism is and that it has different definitions.
* I’m younger than Chomsky but fairly old and I recall discussing politics with many Marxists/socialists at my university. They were Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyites. There were supporters of Che.
* Noam mentions libertarian socialists which is an odd combination of words today (since libertarianism is usually associated now with a type of capitalism).
What Noam is talking about imo is anarchist socialism which briefly existed in the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune.
Later on these anarchist movements were affected by Marx’s writings.
- Finally, Chomsky says that Lenin was a sort of orthodox Marxist.
* How can there be so many different kinds of Marxists?
Karl Marx wrote and stated a wide variety opinions. “Marxist” leaders could pick out various views which supported a certain political/economic program.
* A wide variance of what Marxism remains today.
What socialism has even more variance in meaning as Chomsky mentioned it was defined by both the USSR and the capitalist countries in the 1930s.
- But the bending of definitions of what socialism is continued to evolve in every political movement. Currently when someone mentions socialism, it requires a detailed definition of what the person saying the word means.
Noam’s brilliance shines through. See how he wove the entire logical exposition right up to the end, bringing back what he had said about Trotsky earlier.
Noam should've mentioned Kronstadt's "heroes of the revolution" as an example of how Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik/Menshevik parties betrayed the working class and the core of Marxist/Communist thought (abolition of state and capital + democratic ownership of the means of production) after the revolution in the name of "vanguard" totalitarianism and "state capitalism" essentially setting the stage for Stalin's regime. There's several books about this that people should read, Berkman's 'The Bolshevik Myth' (aka 'The Russian Tragedy') and Voline's 'The Unknown Revolution: 1917-1921' come most immediately to mind as they are first-hand experiences of those who set the seeds for communism through ground-level organizing and were exiled by the Tsar and returned after the revolution only to witness the same/worse treatment from the Soviets.
The struggle is always for power. A value system is nothing but a struggle for power by establishing its core value and then maintaing them. Becuase a system when established will always protect the interests of its establishers but it will always be accepted if it involues some corevalues. The first of the core value is personal incentive which is not only uncontrolled but in a sense protected by the capitalist system. The opponents of this system, regardless of who they may be, when somehowe acquire the reigns of power will try to establish their value system. In the course of time another anti-group to the newly established system will arise and challenge them and the process continues.
So we come to the conclusion that any system if left unchecked will produce an anti-system effect which in time will weaken and overthrow the main system.
You are correct. But what are you going to do about it? Conclude that we are living through a struggle for power which has already been won, or that the matter is not resolved? And if it isn't resolved, what are you going to do about it?
I agree but this is what I think too but you might disagree with me "there is always capitalism some one capitalise while the other slaves his life away there's the person who lives on the hill with servants and a nice car money wise or politacly and then there's and in some societies like India if you work in the sewers you will remain in the sewers for being unclean . Of coarse i saw that 15 years ago in a national geographic article . My point is who ever is in power capitilzes.
@@davidmills9685 exactly
@@TheRealGnolti no one system stands completely defeated. It is a cycle of system and antisystem and this antisystem become the system and again an antisystem confronts it. The only thing in materialist word that unchanging is 'change' it self.
@@philosophicalminds. Again, I agree. The problem is that people create (and defend) systems, and if eternal conflict therefore defines the human condition, I don't see why anyone who doesn't simply lust for power would want to embrace any system. What's wrong with letting it all go and just going back to hunting-gathering, until we eliminate each other as a species?
That woman needs a boyfriend/girlfriend/vibrating toy/life.
What an amazing historical treatise from a massive mind.
I agree with my husband
has anyone ever heard this guy agree with any form of government, I haven't. He is critical of everything a anything in regards to government of any kind everywhere.
What a stupidly imprecise question.
He is an anarchist.
You're right, Pedro, in one sense, Chomsky has a keen eye for where power lies in political relationships, and since he has said that he identifies with anarcho-syndicalism ('democratic socialism', roughly), it's natural that he'd be critical whenever it seems that the-powers-that-be cannot satisfactorily justify their maintaining control; so one then tends to find fault everywhere, since real democracy exists almost nowhere.
On the other hand, I've heard him speak longingly for democracy, i.e., something Aristotle would recognize as democracy [but for everybody, not just elite citizens as in Aristotle's day (and ours incidentally--see Gilens and Page: scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf)], not what we have today, which is something more like plutocratic oligarchy.
So, three pillars for him politically: 1) Power that cannot justify itself (i.e., that is arbitrary, or over-reaching) is illegitimate (that's the anarchism part), and 2) The purpose of the state (if it even has one) is to see to the people's needs (that's the socialism part), and 3) The decisions and policies of the government should reflect the will of the majority of the people, not just the interests of a wealthy elite (that's the democracy part). For another perspective on Chomsky's politics, check out George Orwell's book "Homage to Catalonia"--a favourite of Chomsky's--set during the Spanish Civil War, in which anarcho-syndicalism has roots. (Or TLDR: bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/what-happens-when-anarchists-run-a-country-history-has-an-answer)
If we actually had real democracy anywhere, I think Noam would take it just fine.
He agrees with the US neocons that US should remain illegally in Syria. So there is that....
@@danielgyllenbreider --- i think he agrees for different reasons
Hi, I've read 15 books and I'd like to be owned by someone who's read 15,000 books. Thank you.
For the benefit of an audience, pretty laudable to be honest. Established intellectuals need hard questioning (and I think they appreciate it)
If I had a very large library, and all the professors in a modest political science department at my disposal, I think I could, given 5 or 6 years of to research, come up with the kind of response to that question that Chomsky composed completely extemporaneously.
@Chris McCarthy i will save you the TIME, this IDIOTIC MORON LIBTARD WOMAN IS INSANE! LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISEASE AND LIBTARDS ARE CERTIFIABLY INSANE! Freedom WORKS!! Liberty WORKS!!! Independence WORKS!!!! what this woman wants is power to control others and is the WORST of all humans to seek power over others!
Use grad students. They work for free or very close to it.
With all due respect to those ideas and ideals, isn't it time to look at our present and future? Marx's theories were based on industrial societies where the proletariat was the majority . These days, we are beyond the post-industrial era and facing a time where a lot of people may become part of a useless class, displaced from the work force by automation and AI. If you look at the most powerful companies in the world, how much value was added by unskilled workers?
Consider it from this angle: when Marx lived, there was an abundance of working class men, women, and children. Not exactly "useless' but very replacable because unemployment was kept high and wages very low. Today, despite a broad-based consumer economy that requires the majority of people to have disposable income the 1% ensure that half the country (or more) lives paycheck to paycheck. Most people are not factory workers, miners, or farmhands, but they're still the proletariat and Marx's ideas are still relevant.
A true intellectual is the one who listens to all sides and that makes constructive arguements while always respecting their opponent in a Debate and a person who for most of the time stays calm.
-I came up of that out of my mind, can someone tell me if I am right.
Not exactly, and I can't understand half of what you say.
Chomsky tells us to vote for the Democratic Party. Lenin stood for revolution. I’m with Lenin!
I had that discussion with my friend years ago about movie 'The beach' and he had this conclusion that utopia never works. This is something to consider for all sort of Marxist, socialist and communists.
Spot on enlightening description of how the "soviet" union was a front for a very right wing ideology if not another form of fascism using red to gain support, and how the west saw this opportunity and used this to redefine socialism as authoritarianism.
Without authority or state power how do you deal with imperialist forces or domestic reactionaries/counter-revolutions? What Noam says here may sound enlightening but it also goes unchallenged. I never once seen Chomsky give any praise for actually existing socialist movements other than Catalonia. Also this talk of red fascism just gives fuel to the fire of anti-communists to say "That wasn't real socialism". Its a common anarchist talking point.
My wife is just as passionate as the woman asking the question. Only it's about things such as nail polish, my failure to read her mind, my failure to take the garbage out on May 27, 2019, her coworkers who are lazy and get paid more than her, her sister in law, etc....
😢😢😢
why is she your wife if that matters so much to you? why come here to complain about your wife?
@@LeoWhalen1933 If your serious, you have my deepest sympathies. She must be good at something for you to deal with that. I'm nothing like that. Grew up with lots of boys, think like a male and dont teally like the company of most women. Can't take the drama.
Thank you for bitching about your wife to strangers online in the comments section of a Chomsky video. That took courage.
Lenin did make soviets that were a mainstay and did not regress on them: in agriculture he made sovkhoz that was STATE owned monoculture, but somethink socialism to mean publicly owned economy but they could easily make public ownership of sovkhoz worker influenced and they probably did. I think Chomsky is forgetting about a key aspect of society agriculture in the soviet union. Public ownership is more worker control than private.