@@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."
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.
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.
@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.
2:05 3:45 Antonie ln Pannekoek 5:35 Core of Socialism 6:10 How Lenin destroyed instruments of popular control. (Soviets, factory councils) Herman Gorter 7:50 Lenin and Trotsky's lsbour army 8:50 Instruments to control the population (Cheka/KBG/Secret Police) 10:00 Internal justification for the destruction of Socialism 10:45 Why was the USSR called Socialist/Communist?
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.
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.
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.
@joooooeeeeeee Yes. The full quote is: "We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." Essentially: libertarianism without socialism is de facto plutocracy, a rule by the wealthy, and exceedingly corrupt by its nature, as business interests manipulate the status quo entirely for their benefit. And socialism without liberty is State Communism, not really any kind of socialism at all. Top down, and the people have no say in how they are ruled. Do this, because it's for the benefit of all. Why? Because we told you to. Work or get sent to the camps, slave.
I’m glad you’re discussing definitions, as many debaters on socialism, Marxism, communism, Leninism, etc., talk past each other by using the same term with radically different meanings. One thing I appreciate about Chomsky is that he started as a groundbreaking linguistic scholar, meaning that he was (and is) very deliberate in peeling away layers of obfuscation through misinterpretation caused by deliberate misrepresentation of terms for political gain. The most interesting idea I think he presented in his answer is the bastardization of the term ‘socialism’ by both the far left and far right. They both agreed it was bad, but for antithetical reasons, because they were both attempting to use the term to advance their own agenda. You can see the denigration of the word ‘socialism’ today, when Republicans (in the US) put up the boogeyman of Venezuela. Bernie Sanders, I think, has got it right by using the term ‘democratic socialism’ and pointing to Nordic countries as examples of its success. As Aristotle pointed out, most things are best when they are neither excessive, nor deficient.
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!!
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.
Hi, Van Doren. Thanks for your response. I'm just pointing out that cooperatives is something that Richard Wolff talks about. He cites examples of existing cooperatives. Depending on where you live, you might be able to find one and see how it works.
Good question. I really don't know much about cooperatives, just what I heard from Richard Wolff. I do know one cooperative, a supermarket called Rainbow Grocery located in San Francisco. It's well run, but I haven't talked to the workers to see how they run it. I suggest you google "Richard Wolff on cooperatives" and you can probably get a better idea of how a cooperative is managed.
@@corazondelince Here is an awesome channel that's involved with cooperatives and other grass roots concepts ua-cam.com/channels/Ar5sK9Rmu6m81nEn_lTL1Q.html the sustainable economies law center (SELC). This is something I believe in, too. I think the reason socialism, communism and now capitalism ultimately fail is due to the large scale at which they are applied. When resources are stockpiled and the group becomes too large, corruption rises due to anonymity. If the group is too small, like the family unit, the economic power is lost or isn't enough. The answer is the small eco village where people know each other and where ideas like car share, buying clubs, etc can lower the cost of living and raise the quality of life. Other key ideas could be paying forward, or gift economy, where the "haves" make opportunity for the "have nots" by buying land for the next village, and making this part of annual fees so that each member doesn't have to reinvent the wheel but simply pay their fee. Another idea for the village is to put in place wildlife corridors and ensure habitat. Once a template is created and made open source, such an economic incentive (low cost of living, easy buy in) might cause exponential growth. It could work these days (as compared to early 20th century) because of internet marketplace and off grid energy which enables the purchase of large pieces of cheap land in economically depressed areas. What do you think?
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
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.
I was impressed by how the young lady articulated her overly verbose machine gun delivered question. Slight grammattickle and vocab alterations to that sentence because I thought it necessary.
Superb job of responding in a strong and civil way. He refuted unequivocally, but with respect for the views of the many who feel as the questioner did. Chomsky let his logic be forceful, without assuming a vehement tone. In other words, he refrained from leaping into sectarian zeal. Wonderful example.
@@mattfinish2287 She was rushed because of the 90-second time limit. And we could not hear the original statements of Chomsky that she was responding to. I think her question was rooted in the feeling that leftists in the U.S. criticize the USSR out of a desire, conscious or not, to gain a little footing with the mainstream in the U.S.
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.
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.
@@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
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.”
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
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.
One of the best explanations of why many people equate socialism with totalitarianism, when in fact they are ideological antitheses of each other. He sums up the various inputs into why socialism is only now, after a century, starting to regain the moral force it once had. There's a lesson in there for political propagandists; never have the opponents of a political ideology been so successful at turning against it the very people it holds the potential to benefit (which, in socialism's case, is >= 75% of the population.)
Ironically, the Russian revolution may have set the socialist movement back by centuries. The way modern day Communists cling to it and it's major figures makes me shake my head.
In Marxist theory, socialism is understood as the transitional phase between capitalism and communism, characterized by the 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' where the working class seizes political power to dismantle capitalist structures. According to this doctrine, the transition from capitalism to socialism may involve violence against the bourgeoisie, as class struggle is seen as an inherent and necessary component of societal transformation. While Marx envisioned the socialist state as a tool for achieving class emancipation, its centralized and coercive nature often leads to authoritarianism, with some interpretations regarding it as inherently totalitarian.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
@@JackKnight762try both. Thought without information is just an ouroboros. Information without thought is just regurgitation. If you want to approximate the truth, you can’t do it without both.
It's not, Chomsky is completely disregarding physical reality , and replacing it with western degenerate metaphysical, idealist bullshit. Material reality in the fact that Rosa Luxembourg and others have failed, and were in fact, killed, for exactly the reasons Lenin called them infantile leftists. He just skims over that and calls Lenin "right wing" and than blurts about a century of nothing. Zero. Chomsky is a quintessential liberal (capitalist bootlicker), and never was anything other than that, even when holding progressive views.
except for that it's not. Chomsky just uses professional sounding language to cover up that his points completely lack substance. The woman absolutely had correct criticism. Noam just made a statement that has zero backup.
Kim O'Brien I've read a few of your posts, and and I agree with most of your views about Chomsky, and I largely agree with you about the Russian Revolution. I wrote a lengthy post under the comment "she is wifu material", assessing the circumstances of the Russian Revolution and the civil-interventionist war which followed, and I think it comes into partial conflict with some of your views on the subject. I encourage you to give it a read. But dude, don't you think you're going a little too hard on Chomsky? Firstly, he has done more than talk. He has participated in numerous sit-ins, teach-ins, and marches, and has a long history of struggle beyond that in the 60s including visiting several foreign nations under foreign domination, including Laos, and worked tirelessly on the behalf of the subjugated populations in those areas. Just because he isn't as active now that he's like 80 doesn't mean he hasn't earned respect. Also, he doesn't act as though anarchism is separate from socialism. He himself defines anarchism in his book on the subject just as Rudolf Rocker did, as (paraphrasing) a "definite historical trend in human history." I think anarchists tend to deny certain fundamental social, economic, and political realities, but anarchism as a philosophical trend essentially distills the abstract essence of Marxist thought, that is of a population of workers exercising more democratic control and achieving more freedom from authoritarian forces. This fact is to be admired in anarchism and accredited to its adherents, despite their quixotic tendencies. I admire Chomsky for his anarchist (read: socialist) ideals and think he has inspired generations of people by re-awakening in an apathetic population the latent class consciousness which was robbed of them. Additionally, their is a real material difference between vanguardists and anarchists in regard to the importance of the proliferation of class consciousness. To many anarchists, and to me, democratized class consciousness means more than the workers state itself. If one cannot hope to proliferate this ideal to critical mass, socialism itself is a an exercise in futility. Were I in Trotsky or Lenins position, I would be a vanguardist out of sheer necessity, but I would never forget this fact and I would never declare the dictatorship as dominant over the democracy (as Trotsky did), as the preservation of democracy is paramount to socialism. Without it's dominance, the point of socialism is lost. Lastly, on a slightly unrelated note, your comparison of the Bolshevik party to labor unions is woefully simplistic and misleading. This sums up Soviet Constitutionalism and the manner in which the party theoretically worked very well, but denies the reality that Lenin and Trotsky did suppress the Soviets through denial of recall of electees to the general assembly, their disbanding of Soviets in March of 1918 for electing right social revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and their banning factions in the communist party (the only party) in 1921, effectively subjecting the party to purges which stripped the party of opposition forces with legitimate and pressing grievances. Also, Mikhail Bakunin's predictions about the tyranny of the "Red Bureaucracy" proved to be startlingly accurate. Not disrespecting the efforts of these pioneering revolutionaries, having inherited the worst of situations, and not to lend credence to some of Bakunins more absurd ideas, but it is worth keeping in mind. I respect your opinion a lot more than I do most based on what I've read, and eagerly await your response.
Chomsky as scholar is a linguist, he has researched lots of history and has noted views that lead to expressing his anarchist opinions. He finds so many wrongs and errors committed by everyone else that no one can possible ask him to join an organization nor can he build one of his own. He will sign on to petitions for release of political prisoners and support united front actions against US foreign policy and speak at teach-ins. If you believe that organizations are just the sum of the individuals than obviously there is no need to have any.
I like Chomsky's take on how the mainstream Marxists criticized Lenin for his ultra-centralist vanguard party. They saw how concentrated the Russian communist party's power was, and they saw it as a remnant of feudalist Russia where the few ruled the majority. But the crux of the matter in that situation was that it was actually a remnant of Lenin's strategy under the Czar. He needed to protect the movement from the secret police so he wanted a small party of people totally committed to the cause. That's why the vanguard party existed, right? The woman is right that stalinism and leninism are not the same. Chomsky said that Lenin reversed his take on the party to promote socialism internationally, Stalin didn't and wouldn't relinquish his own power that way. So how could they be equated?
Additionally, or at least this was what I interpreted, the logical conclusion of capitalism outlined in Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism ( htps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ ) is that the vanguard party's purpose is also in defending against external imperialist forces. Hell, I'm pretty sure the US gave resources to the white army to this ends, but [citation needed].
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
yee, particularly given the dozens of popular revolts which have occurred and failed without a vanguard, Chomsky doesn't do a service by not giving an alternative to Leninism, which came the closest to building genuine worker power.
@@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.
"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.
@@ftlbs928 Please pay more attention, he said not that Lenin was a right-winger, but rather that he was further right than orthodox Marxists. Also this comment is 4 years old, you accomplish nothing.
Chomsky is a genius. I never knew anything about his philosophy until I began studying his linguistics. He converted me from having been a die hard committed conservative.
@@scottlaux6934 I think the issue with people that a really committed to one side (blindly) either left or right will often overlook the issues with their side, or just constantly take the stance their ‘tribe’ takes
I’m trying to look at both sides as objectively as possible to figure out where I stand politically on economic issues. Does anyone have any suggestions for authors? Obviously Chomsky. Who else do you recommend? I guess I’ll figure it out as I begin to research. I want to look at both sides and really break down and understand their arguments
@@samrichards880 you ask a great question. I find myself on neither side of the aisle nor am I in the center. I remember taking an unusual class in high school. It was an elective on how to read the news. It basically covered telltale signs of picturesque speech intended to imply a narrative. It took me over a decade to discover I wasn’t doing it right.
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.
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
@@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.
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.
Chomsky has told, on another video, the funniest thing ever. He said that rhetoric was a form of violence and that people who had the gift of eloquent speech should always be careful not to use that gift. Why do I think this is funny? Because the one of the best lectures of all time said it!
His lectures are eloquent only to intellectuals because they are chock full of historical facts followed by comparative analysis and interpretation . I`m guessing that Noam `s reference to those with "the gift of eloquent speech " refers more to Charismatic speech which the masses would falsely consider "more eloquent " than Chomsky`s speeches and lectures.
@@zachfranzi6695 Yes, probably more along the lines of the fascists. Beware sophistry and rhetoric, basically. Do you want to buy some swampland in Florida? Can I run your country?
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.
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.
By the time she's finished whatever she was saying I stopped caring what she might have been talking about. However, once Chomsky begins speaking and by the time he's finished, here we can really see how and why the West views socialism, why it is so hostile to it and how the West demonstrates the myth of the "socialism" we've been hearing throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. When viewed through the lens described by Chomsky, we can accurately decode the disinformation we're constantly being fed, throughout all Western institutions, both liberal and conservative; educational institutions and mainstream media (though not only mainstream media) regarding social structures versus private ones.
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
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.
11:50 Chomsky makes a powerful point that when the propaganda movements of opposing powers happen to accord with one another it is difficult for outside forces to argue with them.
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.
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 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.
My problem with Noam's explanation is that it is divorced from the facts on the ground. OK Reds seize power in an attempt to spark world revolution, the immediate problem was that hunger existed and the German army refused to stop fighting plus Czarist generals were with the help Britain and France organising. What people in the USSR did must be viewed in the light of what is happening not just the ideas in their heads. I still think that the anarchist Victor Serge gives the best on the ground account and as for Luxembourg representing real Marxism she clearly stated that she supported the revolution despite its faults.
Just out of curiosity (since I do not know that much about the whole complex historical picture of the time) -- how does this justify destroying worker's councils, solidifying state power in a party of professional revolutionaries and thereafter acting like a corporation would in matters regarding investment and production?
the problem was the entire concept of seizing power. the mensheviks were right; russia was not capitalist, not totally. it had a very strong, over-exploited and crucial industrial proletariat, sure. but that power base alone was dwarfed by like 80% of the country who were peasants. they were doomed to play out the same situation that had befallen france several times; the entire country was nowhere near as radical as the city centers were, so there was inevitably going to be a) blood and terror to quash resistance to revolutionary rule, and b) in the soviet case, an extreme amount of blood to both keep society functioning and to industrialize in the extremely short amount of time that was required to prepare for another war. had the peasants had genuine political power in a revolutionary government, there is no way in hell there would've been war communism or collectivization or de-kulakisation. and that was the "path" that the other european countries had taken; a struggle of power between agrarian interests and urban interests, where agrarian interests constantly checked the power of the radicals in the cities. in the bolshevik case, an extreme clique just ruthlessly enforced the "urban" interest, although not even the interests of the proletariat were satisfied shortly into the civil war and forever after. marx thought that peasants were a counter-revolutionary class. this was what he was talking about; he was looking at the history of france and germany. in russia, obviously, something very different happened. the "revolution" that luxemburg spoke of was a huge and wide-ranging affair at that point; it had started in february 1917 and there was no way to know that the bolsheviks would be in power for long, or even if that style of bolshevik rule would predominate. luxemburg supported overthrowing the tsar and the bourgeois provisional government, and she did not support state terror and party dictatorship. i think its as simple as that. whether or not that's a naive position for her to hold is a separate debate
Were the Bolsheviks really trying to start a world revolution for which orthodox Marxists did not think the world was ready? Trotsky had to invent his theory of 'permanent revolution' to justify haste. Were they not seizing an opportunity as it presented itself? Don't forget that Lenin's trip from Switzerland back to Russia was arranged by Germany, using 'neutral' Sweden as an intermediary. The fact remains that Lenin proved useful for the Imperial German war effort. And what do you make of intermittent efforts by the Soviets between the wars to cultivate ties with the German far Right? These culminated in the joint attack on Poland, Sept. 1939. I think their interests were geopolitical rather than 'socialist' in nature. As the Scripture says, 'YOU LUST AND DO NOT HAVE, SO YOU COMMIT MURDER....'. This applies to socialists just as to anyone else. And facts on the ground indicate that Bolsheviks were prolific butchers. Therefore Rosa was not innocent of sympathizing with butchers.
Britain and France had very little interest in, and did almost nothing about, internal Russian politics. Their only real interests in this regard were keeping Russia in the war against Germany, and keeping military supplies they had sent to the Czarist government from falling into German hands when the Russian war effort fell apart. If you look at the details of their interventions it is quite apparent that these were their purposes.
@@brucetucker4847 Of course you're right about the main point. German sponsorship of Lenin's trip from Switzerland to Russia only reinforces the point. I wonder if they had any idea how monumentally impactful their cheeky plan of sabotage would eventually prove to be. However it was not enough to gain them the victory. There is a moral calculus which defeats human ingenuity. But as I've heard, domestic discontent was mounting during during 1917, manifesting for example in mutiny among French troops on the Western front, which was put down with severity but also met with changes in leadership. Now had the mutiny not been quelled, could France have fallen into political disarray as Russia did when its military situation became untenable? I've long believed that the insanity of the First World War generated many subsequent fits of insanity, one of them being the USSR. Lenin promised peace and bread, but provided neither, and I don't think he cared. Supposedly Britain refused asylum to King George's lookalike cousin Nicky and his family, a betrayal which ultimately led to their capture by the Bolsheviks and their disgustingly roughshod execution in 1918. The story goes that the Brits were afraid of inflaming left-wing revolutionary sentiment among British working-class organizations. I've never been a fan of monarchy, but even in my 'leftist' days I wasn't a fan of regicide either. One can't hide behind the sins of another. A murderer can't justify his crime by saying that his cause is better than the next murderer's. It is God Who said categorically, 'Do not murder' And while Christian theology might be foreign to Mr. Chomsky's understanding, I thoroughly approve his aversion to bloodshed.
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
@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.
Great point, the apocalyptic conditions of Russia PROBABLY had something to do with the emergency policy of central planning...the Lenin is an opportunist cliche simplifies the complex and terrifying revolutionary situation of 1917-1923. I guess we establish another anarchy of production, like capitalism, to bring feudal Russia into the 21st century...oh wait, a nationally centralized planned economy was imperative to the survival of ANY SOCIALIST PROJECT in Russia, especially in 1917-1919; Kornilov and Counterrevolution loomed over October's gains. So, worker’s control of production IS vital, but if not for the "rightward deviation", the Whites would have prevented any socialist project, whether Kerensky's milquetoast Democratic Socialist regime, some Ultraleft Libertarian Socialism, or the Bolsheviks themselves. These are the summary of objective material conditions, NOT RHETORIC.
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.
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)
I totally disagree with Chomsky here. I think he has a problem with Lenin's anti-anarchist views, which by the way are mostly identical to Marx. "State and Revolution" in fact is based mostly around quotes from Marx and Engels and calling it an "anarchist" book couldn't be further from the truth. Did Chomsky even read this book? Lenin spends big parts of this book to criticize anarchist views. Calling Lenin "right-wing" at the same time, just cause he was not anti-authoritarian (this is my guess, he doesn't even really explain this claim) is a stretch. Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg and Clara Zetkin were friends with Lenin and (while also critizing it in parts) supported the Russian revolution. Zetkin and many other Marxists in fact fled to the USSR after the Nazis took over in Germany. So pretending like Lenin was some isolated right-wing guy who pretended to be a marxist for opportunistic reasons couldn't be further from the truth. And calling his work "anarchist" is just as wrong.
I think most people, myself included, view Lenin as an anarchist figure is because of his opinions on global fraternity and self-determination of states compared with the main stream Marxist thinkers of his time. In this sense 'anarchism', and Lenin as an anarchist figure, does not mean 'more libertarian' but are closer to what Chomsky calls 'orthodox Marxism'. Both Marks and Lenin agree that the right of states to succeed would in a best case scenario lead to federation between the two nations and emphasized the necessity for workers of both oppressing and oppressed nations to form relationships over common class struggle.
@@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?
"Fooled" is the wrong term. We rely on public infrastructure built by socialist institutions to even begin to allow private enterprise to generate prosperity. Worker-owned businesses are socialist institutions. Blanket dismissal of socialism is foolish and ignorant. The most prosperous countries on earth have strong socialist tendencies and policies.
An excellent question and I think she’s really borne out in history. The still existing communist states that are left were the ones, as Vincent Bevins points out, are the ones who were militant and organized. Criticisms from anarchists about the nature of the state are good but in this world revolutions need access to the state in order to defend themselves against capitalism.
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
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!!
@@crysiscore2051 Questions aren't always phrased as questions. They are often unresolved issues in the person's mind about which they give a long rave to TRY to work out exactly how to phrase their query. Of course, many audience members just like to rave and rant or joust with the speaker for their own aggrandizement. And polemical speakers can be the same. Many just talk back generally without directly answering a direct question -- as if the questioner isn't really there, ie, a question time is, to them, just more time to prattle on. Noam always likes to deconstruct a question because, to him, nothing is ever as simple as it seems (to us)!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
2:05
3:45 Antonie ln Pannekoek
5:35 Core of Socialism
6:10 How Lenin destroyed instruments of popular control. (Soviets, factory councils)
Herman Gorter
7:50 Lenin and Trotsky's lsbour army
8:50 Instruments to control the population (Cheka/KBG/Secret Police)
10:00 Internal justification for the destruction of Socialism
10:45 Why was the USSR called Socialist/Communist?
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.
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.
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.
Damn how many centuries ago was this? He looks so young.
1989.
1989
About 11 centuries ago. This was filmed in Wessex during the great heathen invasion of the Vikings.
Go watch the Foucault debate he looks younger 😂
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.
Been looking for this snippet of an anarchist critique of Leninism for ages. Thanks for uploading this.
You should also look up Leninist critique of Anarchism, because this dialogues I feel leaves out a lot and interprets stuff in really weird ways
@joe When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick".
@joooooeeeeeee Yes. The full quote is: "We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."
Essentially: libertarianism without socialism is de facto plutocracy, a rule by the wealthy, and exceedingly corrupt by its nature, as business interests manipulate the status quo entirely for their benefit.
And socialism without liberty is State Communism, not really any kind of socialism at all. Top down, and the people have no say in how they are ruled. Do this, because it's for the benefit of all. Why? Because we told you to. Work or get sent to the camps, slave.
anarchism is a joke
I’m glad you’re discussing definitions, as many debaters on socialism, Marxism, communism, Leninism, etc., talk past each other by using the same term with radically different meanings. One thing I appreciate about Chomsky is that he started as a groundbreaking linguistic scholar, meaning that he was (and is) very deliberate in peeling away layers of obfuscation through misinterpretation caused by deliberate misrepresentation of terms for political gain.
The most interesting idea I think he presented in his answer is the bastardization of the term ‘socialism’ by both the far left and far right. They both agreed it was bad, but for antithetical reasons, because they were both attempting to use the term to advance their own agenda.
You can see the denigration of the word ‘socialism’ today, when Republicans (in the US) put up the boogeyman of Venezuela. Bernie Sanders, I think, has got it right by using the term ‘democratic socialism’ and pointing to Nordic countries as examples of its success. As Aristotle pointed out, most things are best when they are neither excessive, nor deficient.
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!!
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.
Richard Wolff, an economist, has a similar take on socialism. He talks a lot about cooperatives, i.e., enterprises owned and run by the workers.
Hi, Van Doren. Thanks for your response. I'm just pointing out that cooperatives is something that Richard Wolff talks about. He cites examples of existing cooperatives. Depending on where you live, you might be able to find one and see how it works.
Good question. I really don't know much about cooperatives, just what I heard from Richard Wolff. I do know one cooperative, a supermarket called Rainbow Grocery located in San Francisco. It's well run, but I haven't talked to the workers to see how they run it. I suggest you google "Richard Wolff on cooperatives" and you can probably get a better idea of how a cooperative is managed.
Wolff has kinda the opposite views on Lenin thou
@@corazondelince Here is an awesome channel that's involved with cooperatives and other grass roots concepts ua-cam.com/channels/Ar5sK9Rmu6m81nEn_lTL1Q.html the sustainable economies law center (SELC). This is something I believe in, too. I think the reason socialism, communism and now capitalism ultimately fail is due to the large scale at which they are applied. When resources are stockpiled and the group becomes too large, corruption rises due to anonymity. If the group is too small, like the family unit, the economic power is lost or isn't enough. The answer is the small eco village where people know each other and where ideas like car share, buying clubs, etc can lower the cost of living and raise the quality of life. Other key ideas could be paying forward, or gift economy, where the "haves" make opportunity for the "have nots" by buying land for the next village, and making this part of annual fees so that each member doesn't have to reinvent the wheel but simply pay their fee. Another idea for the village is to put in place wildlife corridors and ensure habitat. Once a template is created and made open source, such an economic incentive (low cost of living, easy buy in) might cause exponential growth. It could work these days (as compared to early 20th century) because of internet marketplace and off grid energy which enables the purchase of large pieces of cheap land in economically depressed areas. What do you think?
@@projectmalus Thank you for the link and the thoughtful response. Very interesting. I'll check out the channel you recommended.
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
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 was impressed by the young lady's articulated verbose question.
Why
lol
It annoyed the hell out me.
I was impressed by how the young lady articulated her overly verbose machine gun delivered question. Slight grammattickle and vocab alterations to that sentence because I thought it necessary.
I'm curious to see everyone answering to OP above try to speak in public.
how fast time goes by.. now Chomsky is much older.. Hope people finally give him the credit he deserves in his lifetime.
His speech is a bit slower but his mind and memory are just as sharp as ever. We will lose a shining beacon of knowledge when he passes.
@@JTheTeach i very much agree with you on that. it will be a sad day for humanity.
no
Credit?! He’s been awarded tons of prizes and accolades and is cited more than just about any other scientists in his field.
"older"...? he's a walking cadaver
Superb job of responding in a strong and civil way. He refuted unequivocally, but with respect for the views of the many who feel as the questioner did. Chomsky let his logic be forceful, without assuming a vehement tone. In other words, he refrained from leaping into sectarian zeal. Wonderful example.
Except he didn't back up his opinion with facts.
@@mattfinish2287 She was rushed because of the 90-second time limit. And we could not hear the original statements of Chomsky that she was responding to. I think her question was rooted in the feeling that leftists in the U.S. criticize the USSR out of a desire, conscious or not, to gain a little footing with the mainstream in the U.S.
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.
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.
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
Great speech, and gotta appreciate the detailed question and answer
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.”
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.
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
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?
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...
One of the best explanations of why many people equate socialism with totalitarianism, when in fact they are ideological antitheses of each other. He sums up the various inputs into why socialism is only now, after a century, starting to regain the moral force it once had. There's a lesson in there for political propagandists; never have the opponents of a political ideology been so successful at turning against it the very people it holds the potential to benefit (which, in socialism's case, is >= 75% of the population.)
Ironically, the Russian revolution may have set the socialist movement back by centuries. The way modern day Communists cling to it and it's major figures makes me shake my head.
In Marxist theory, socialism is understood as the transitional phase between capitalism and communism, characterized by the 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' where the working class seizes political power to dismantle capitalist structures. According to this doctrine, the transition from capitalism to socialism may involve violence against the bourgeoisie, as class struggle is seen as an inherent and necessary component of societal transformation. While Marx envisioned the socialist state as a tool for achieving class emancipation, its centralized and coercive nature often leads to authoritarianism, with some interpretations regarding it as inherently totalitarian.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
This reminds me how fuckin little I know. Time to do some more reading
try thinking instead...
@@JackKnight762try both. Thought without information is just an ouroboros. Information without thought is just regurgitation. If you want to approximate the truth, you can’t do it without both.
Wow, that woman knows her shit and wasn't afraid to challenge Noam
This is truly some seven dimensional big brain chess dialogue and I’m thankful for it
No it isn't.
It's not, Chomsky is completely disregarding physical reality , and replacing it with western degenerate metaphysical, idealist bullshit. Material reality in the fact that Rosa Luxembourg and others have failed, and were in fact, killed, for exactly the reasons Lenin called them infantile leftists. He just skims over that and calls Lenin "right wing" and than blurts about a century of nothing. Zero.
Chomsky is a quintessential liberal (capitalist bootlicker), and never was anything other than that, even when holding progressive views.
@@I-Libertine real convincing argument there big boy
@@Jack-e5t 😂 (argue with what, exactly?) 😂
except for that it's not. Chomsky just uses professional sounding language to cover up that his points completely lack substance. The woman absolutely had correct criticism. Noam just made a statement that has zero backup.
I love Chomsky for his body of work but I think im on the questioners side here.
Chomsky has talked about class war extensively. He does it all the time.
Yup and that's all he ever does. Talk! Even then he didn't start talking until after tenure was confirmed.
Kim O'Brien
I've read a few of your posts, and and I agree with most of your views about Chomsky, and I largely agree with you about the Russian Revolution. I wrote a lengthy post under the comment "she is wifu material", assessing the circumstances of the Russian Revolution and the civil-interventionist war which followed, and I think it comes into partial conflict with some of your views on the subject. I encourage you to give it a read. But dude, don't you think you're going a little too hard on Chomsky?
Firstly, he has done more than talk. He has participated in numerous sit-ins, teach-ins, and marches, and has a long history of struggle beyond that in the 60s including visiting several foreign nations under foreign domination, including Laos, and worked tirelessly on the behalf of the subjugated populations in those areas. Just because he isn't as active now that he's like 80 doesn't mean he hasn't earned respect.
Also, he doesn't act as though anarchism is separate from socialism. He himself defines anarchism in his book on the subject just as Rudolf Rocker did, as (paraphrasing) a "definite historical trend in human history." I think anarchists tend to deny certain fundamental social, economic, and political realities, but anarchism as a philosophical trend essentially distills the abstract essence of Marxist thought, that is of a population of workers exercising more democratic control and achieving more freedom from authoritarian forces. This fact is to be admired in anarchism and accredited to its adherents, despite their quixotic tendencies. I admire Chomsky for his anarchist (read: socialist) ideals and think he has inspired generations of people by re-awakening in an apathetic population the latent class consciousness which was robbed of them. Additionally, their is a real material difference between vanguardists and anarchists in regard to the importance of the proliferation of class consciousness. To many anarchists, and to me, democratized class consciousness means more than the workers state itself. If one cannot hope to proliferate this ideal to critical mass, socialism itself is a an exercise in futility. Were I in Trotsky or Lenins position, I would be a vanguardist out of sheer necessity, but I would never forget this fact and I would never declare the dictatorship as dominant over the democracy (as Trotsky did), as the preservation of democracy is paramount to socialism. Without it's dominance, the point of socialism is lost.
Lastly, on a slightly unrelated note, your comparison of the Bolshevik party to labor unions is woefully simplistic and misleading. This sums up Soviet Constitutionalism and the manner in which the party theoretically worked very well, but denies the reality that Lenin and Trotsky did suppress the Soviets through denial of recall of electees to the general assembly, their disbanding of Soviets in March of 1918 for electing right social revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and their banning factions in the communist party (the only party) in 1921, effectively subjecting the party to purges which stripped the party of opposition forces with legitimate and pressing grievances.
Also, Mikhail Bakunin's predictions about the tyranny of the "Red Bureaucracy" proved to be startlingly accurate. Not disrespecting the efforts of these pioneering revolutionaries, having inherited the worst of situations, and not to lend credence to some of Bakunins more absurd ideas, but it is worth keeping in mind.
I respect your opinion a lot more than I do most based on what I've read, and eagerly await your response.
Garet Roth he is the intellectual source. What else do you expect him to do, pick up a rifle? Everyone has their role and value.
Chomsky as scholar is a linguist, he has researched lots of history and has noted views that lead to expressing his anarchist opinions. He finds so many wrongs and errors committed by everyone else that no one can possible ask him to join an organization nor can he build one of his own. He will sign on to petitions for release of political prisoners and support united front actions against US foreign policy and speak at teach-ins. If you believe that organizations are just the sum of the individuals than obviously there is no need to have any.
Eer: Chompsky is not actually a Marxist, though, he is an Anarcho-syndicalist. So your comment means nothing except that you are a nazi a hole.
This is some great historical knowledge that most Western people don't have.
I like Chomsky's take on how the mainstream Marxists criticized Lenin for his ultra-centralist vanguard party. They saw how concentrated the Russian communist party's power was, and they saw it as a remnant of feudalist Russia where the few ruled the majority. But the crux of the matter in that situation was that it was actually a remnant of Lenin's strategy under the Czar. He needed to protect the movement from the secret police so he wanted a small party of people totally committed to the cause. That's why the vanguard party existed, right?
The woman is right that stalinism and leninism are not the same. Chomsky said that Lenin reversed his take on the party to promote socialism internationally, Stalin didn't and wouldn't relinquish his own power that way. So how could they be equated?
I wish you were in my classrooms
Cindy Chau Alexander Solsynyetsin thinks different.
Stalin tried to relinquish power a few times, and Stalinism isn’t really a thing. Stalin’s ideology is Marxism-Leninism.
Additionally, or at least this was what I interpreted, the logical conclusion of capitalism outlined in Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism ( htps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ ) is that the vanguard party's purpose is also in defending against external imperialist forces. Hell, I'm pretty sure the US gave resources to the white army to this ends, but [citation needed].
@@Fuck12-t8d Spoken like a true Stalinist!
Not sure why but I’ve watched this over ten times
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
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.
yee, particularly given the dozens of popular revolts which have occurred and failed without a vanguard, Chomsky doesn't do a service by not giving an alternative to Leninism, which came the closest to building genuine worker power.
3:37 - If you only watch a small excerpt, this summarizes the entire point beautifully.
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.
"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.
Very interesting verbal treatise on Leninism and the Soviet State system - many thanks for uploading; educational and engaging.
Naom has an incredible memory, we need people like Chomsky who can see the patterns that most of us miss.
....you've missed plenty of patterns as evidenced by your admiration of Noam, the guy who thinks Lenin is a right-winger!
@@ftlbs928 Please pay more attention, he said not that Lenin was a right-winger, but rather that he was further right than orthodox Marxists. Also this comment is 4 years old, you accomplish nothing.
@@ftlbs928 Lenin laid the groundwork for Stalin to take form
@@joeyyc8515and Marx laid the groundwork for Lenin i suppose? Simplify,simplify and lie that's your strategy?
Mr. Chomsky, thank you for helping so many people learn more about the truth of history and politics.
The passion behind that voice at the begining brought me to tears, that was beautiful.
I have heard that voice before, but never expressing such a tight series of ideas
Chomsky is a genius. I never knew anything about his philosophy until I began studying his linguistics. He converted me from having been a die hard committed conservative.
Me too. I voted for Reagan and then read Chomsky. 40 years and thousands of books later I have never voted for another republican.
@@scottlaux6934 I think the issue with people that a really committed to one side (blindly) either left or right will often overlook the issues with their side, or just constantly take the stance their ‘tribe’ takes
I’m trying to look at both sides as objectively as possible to figure out where I stand politically on economic issues. Does anyone have any suggestions for authors? Obviously Chomsky. Who else do you recommend? I guess I’ll figure it out as I begin to research. I want to look at both sides and really break down and understand their arguments
@@samrichards880 you ask a great question. I find myself on neither side of the aisle nor am I in the center. I remember taking an unusual class in high school. It was an elective on how to read the news. It basically covered telltale signs of picturesque speech intended to imply a narrative. It took me over a decade to discover I wasn’t doing it right.
You might try thinking for yourself.
Noam Chomsky didn't read about Asiatic Mode of Production and Mir in Russia. However his view on destruction of Soviets of workers is correct.
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.
"here comes the butt" -noam chomsky, 19XX
'89
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
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.
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.
Chomsky has told, on another video, the funniest thing ever. He said that rhetoric was a form of violence and that people who had the gift of eloquent speech should always be careful not to use that gift. Why do I think this is funny? Because the one of the best lectures of all time said it!
Was his tone sincere?
His lectures are eloquent only to intellectuals because they are chock full of historical facts followed by comparative analysis and interpretation . I`m guessing that Noam `s reference to those with "the gift of eloquent speech " refers more to Charismatic speech which the masses would falsely consider "more eloquent " than Chomsky`s speeches and lectures.
@@zachfranzi6695 Yes, probably more along the lines of the fascists. Beware sophistry and rhetoric, basically. Do you want to buy some swampland in Florida? Can I run your country?
@@zachfranzi6695 that sound right. Silver tongued smooth talkers
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.
I can only say: this is a brilliant analysis.
This must be from the late 70s or early 80s. It would help understanding context to disclose the dates of recordings like this.
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.
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
By the time she's finished whatever she was saying I stopped caring what she might have been talking about.
However, once Chomsky begins speaking and by the time he's finished, here we can really see how and why the West views socialism, why it is so hostile to it and how the West demonstrates the myth of the "socialism" we've been hearing throughout the 20th century and into the 21st.
When viewed through the lens described by Chomsky, we can accurately decode the disinformation we're constantly being fed, throughout all Western institutions, both liberal and conservative; educational institutions and mainstream media (though not only mainstream media) regarding social structures versus private ones.
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
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.
11:50 Chomsky makes a powerful point that when the propaganda movements of opposing powers happen to accord with one another it is difficult for outside forces to argue with them.
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.
2022 the woman's question is even MORE relevant.
Marxists never believed capitalism could be abolished by a stroke of a pen.
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 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.
A brilliant and fluent answer from Professor Chomsky.
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.
My problem with Noam's explanation is that it is divorced from the facts on the ground. OK Reds seize power in an attempt to spark world revolution, the immediate problem was that hunger existed and the German army refused to stop fighting plus Czarist generals were with the help Britain and France organising. What people in the USSR did must be viewed in the light of what is happening not just the ideas in their heads. I still think that the anarchist Victor Serge gives the best on the ground account and as for Luxembourg representing real Marxism she clearly stated that she supported the revolution despite its faults.
Just out of curiosity (since I do not know that much about the whole complex historical picture of the time) -- how does this justify destroying worker's councils, solidifying state power in a party of professional revolutionaries and thereafter acting like a corporation would in matters regarding investment and production?
the problem was the entire concept of seizing power. the mensheviks were right; russia was not capitalist, not totally. it had a very strong, over-exploited and crucial industrial proletariat, sure. but that power base alone was dwarfed by like 80% of the country who were peasants. they were doomed to play out the same situation that had befallen france several times; the entire country was nowhere near as radical as the city centers were, so there was inevitably going to be a) blood and terror to quash resistance to revolutionary rule, and b) in the soviet case, an extreme amount of blood to both keep society functioning and to industrialize in the extremely short amount of time that was required to prepare for another war. had the peasants had genuine political power in a revolutionary government, there is no way in hell there would've been war communism or collectivization or de-kulakisation. and that was the "path" that the other european countries had taken; a struggle of power between agrarian interests and urban interests, where agrarian interests constantly checked the power of the radicals in the cities. in the bolshevik case, an extreme clique just ruthlessly enforced the "urban" interest, although not even the interests of the proletariat were satisfied shortly into the civil war and forever after. marx thought that peasants were a counter-revolutionary class. this was what he was talking about; he was looking at the history of france and germany. in russia, obviously, something very different happened.
the "revolution" that luxemburg spoke of was a huge and wide-ranging affair at that point; it had started in february 1917 and there was no way to know that the bolsheviks would be in power for long, or even if that style of bolshevik rule would predominate. luxemburg supported overthrowing the tsar and the bourgeois provisional government, and she did not support state terror and party dictatorship. i think its as simple as that. whether or not that's a naive position for her to hold is a separate debate
Were the Bolsheviks really trying to start a world revolution for which orthodox Marxists did not think the world was ready? Trotsky had to invent his theory of 'permanent revolution' to justify haste. Were they not seizing an opportunity
as it presented itself? Don't forget that Lenin's trip from Switzerland back to Russia was arranged by Germany, using 'neutral' Sweden as an intermediary.
The fact remains that Lenin proved useful for the Imperial German war effort.
And what do you make of intermittent efforts by the Soviets between the wars to cultivate ties with the German far Right? These culminated in the joint attack on Poland, Sept. 1939. I think their interests were geopolitical rather than 'socialist' in nature.
As the Scripture says, 'YOU LUST AND DO NOT HAVE, SO YOU COMMIT MURDER....'.
This applies to socialists just as to anyone else.
And facts on the ground indicate that Bolsheviks were prolific butchers.
Therefore Rosa was not innocent of sympathizing with butchers.
Britain and France had very little interest in, and did almost nothing about, internal Russian politics. Their only real interests in this regard were keeping Russia in the war against Germany, and keeping military supplies they had sent to the Czarist government from falling into German hands when the Russian war effort fell apart. If you look at the details of their interventions it is quite apparent that these were their purposes.
@@brucetucker4847
Of course you're right about the main point. German sponsorship of Lenin's trip from Switzerland to Russia only reinforces the point. I wonder if they had any idea how monumentally impactful their cheeky plan of sabotage would eventually prove to be. However it was not enough to gain them the victory. There is a moral calculus which defeats human ingenuity.
But as I've heard, domestic discontent was mounting during during 1917, manifesting for example in mutiny among French troops on the Western front, which was put down with severity but also met with changes in leadership.
Now had the mutiny not been quelled, could France have fallen into political disarray as Russia did when its military situation became untenable? I've long believed that the insanity of the First World War generated many subsequent fits of insanity, one of them being the USSR.
Lenin promised peace and bread, but provided neither, and I don't think he cared.
Supposedly Britain refused asylum to King George's lookalike cousin Nicky and his family, a betrayal which ultimately led to their capture by the Bolsheviks and their disgustingly roughshod execution in 1918.
The story goes that the Brits were afraid of inflaming left-wing revolutionary sentiment among British working-class organizations.
I've never been a fan of monarchy, but even in my 'leftist' days I wasn't a fan of regicide either. One can't hide behind the sins of another. A murderer can't justify his crime by saying that his cause is better than the next murderer's.
It is God Who said categorically, 'Do not murder'
And while Christian theology might be foreign to Mr. Chomsky's understanding, I thoroughly approve his aversion to bloodshed.
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
Hello I am very glad to be here it is nice to know somebody is listening
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.
When is this footage from? He looks so young on that video
okay, march 1989, now i see
Great point, the apocalyptic conditions of Russia PROBABLY had something to do with the emergency policy of central planning...the Lenin is an opportunist cliche simplifies the complex and terrifying revolutionary situation of 1917-1923. I guess we establish another anarchy of production, like capitalism, to bring feudal Russia into the 21st century...oh wait, a nationally centralized planned economy was imperative to the survival of ANY SOCIALIST PROJECT in Russia, especially in 1917-1919; Kornilov and Counterrevolution loomed over October's gains. So, worker’s control of production IS vital, but if not for the "rightward deviation", the Whites would have prevented any socialist project, whether Kerensky's milquetoast Democratic Socialist regime, some Ultraleft Libertarian Socialism, or the Bolsheviks themselves. These are the summary of objective material conditions, NOT RHETORIC.
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.
I road the train with him for a while i was doing work at m.i.t. he was a real down to earth guy and very funny
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)
I totally disagree with Chomsky here. I think he has a problem with Lenin's anti-anarchist views, which by the way are mostly identical to Marx. "State and Revolution" in fact is based mostly around quotes from Marx and Engels and calling it an "anarchist" book couldn't be further from the truth. Did Chomsky even read this book? Lenin spends big parts of this book to criticize anarchist views. Calling Lenin "right-wing" at the same time, just cause he was not anti-authoritarian (this is my guess, he doesn't even really explain this claim) is a stretch. Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg and Clara Zetkin were friends with Lenin and (while also critizing it in parts) supported the Russian revolution. Zetkin and many other Marxists in fact fled to the USSR after the Nazis took over in Germany. So pretending like Lenin was some isolated right-wing guy who pretended to be a marxist for opportunistic reasons couldn't be further from the truth. And calling his work "anarchist" is just as wrong.
I think most people, myself included, view Lenin as an anarchist figure is because of his opinions on global fraternity and self-determination of states compared with the main stream Marxist thinkers of his time. In this sense 'anarchism', and Lenin as an anarchist figure, does not mean 'more libertarian' but are closer to what Chomsky calls 'orthodox Marxism'. Both Marks and Lenin agree that the right of states to succeed would in a best case scenario lead to federation between the two nations and emphasized the necessity for workers of both oppressing and oppressed nations to form relationships over common class struggle.
Good question, very informative answer. Now I get it!
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?
Chomsky is amazing.
Yes its truly amazing to see a clever man being fooled by the allure of Socialism,it amazes me too
"Fooled" is the wrong term. We rely on public infrastructure built by socialist institutions to even begin to allow private enterprise to generate prosperity. Worker-owned businesses are socialist institutions. Blanket dismissal of socialism is foolish and ignorant. The most prosperous countries on earth have strong socialist tendencies and policies.
Eerimen Bzej you read that in some "banned" book? Just stop it man, you sound like an uneducated flat earth believer.
Neil Hillis But we shouldn’t rely on the state to build infrastructure.
Fool
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!
An excellent question and I think she’s really borne out in history. The still existing communist states that are left were the ones, as Vincent Bevins points out, are the ones who were militant and organized. Criticisms from anarchists about the nature of the state are good but in this world revolutions need access to the state in order to defend themselves against capitalism.
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
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!!
Hmmm, Noam expertly deconstructed the question but did not actually answer it, ie address her real point of what is the way to CHANGE the status quo.
She barely had a question, really a comment.
@@crysiscore2051
Questions aren't always phrased as questions. They are often unresolved issues in the person's mind about which they give a long rave to TRY to work out exactly how to phrase their query. Of course, many audience members just like to rave and rant or joust with the speaker for their own aggrandizement. And polemical speakers can be the same. Many just talk back generally without directly answering a direct question -- as if the questioner isn't really there, ie, a question time is, to them, just more time to prattle on. Noam always likes to deconstruct a question because, to him, nothing is ever as simple as it seems (to us)!
first you went to black screen, then the speech was plainly edited. What did you take out? Why?