Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

3

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

More like Noam Chumpsky. This dude gave up on anything outside of basic reformism decades ago. I wish the leftist media would finally figure out that this Chump is not on our side anymore, and we don't give one wet shit about anything he says.

1

ziq wrote

The leftist media isn't exactly on our side either.

2

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

But how hard is it, as an anarchist to listen to Chomsky and know almost immediately that this guy isn't on our side? Why do we have people constantly interviewing him? Why are there Chomsky posts on anarchist projects, sites, and forums/subreddits?

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Because most 'anarchists' are liberals. I share his stuff because I kno it appeals to white American baby anarchists.

3

selver wrote (edited )

Please don't link this outside of here, it's supposed to be behind the person's patreon paywall but I wanted to share it.

At what point can Chomsky finally be irrefutably removed from the history of anarchism? It's wild that I still see tons of people putting his work out there as anarchist. He has zero interest in opposing Statism.

To be clear, it's not his views on gun control that I have a problem with, but with the last minute here.

2

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

What he’s advocating for is an accountable state vs unaccountable state.

This is similar to why he advocates for unions, even though they are power structures, that power is somewhat accountable to union members verses being fully concentrated in the hands of business owners.

So, what he’s saying, is that realistically you need to have some sort of government to oppose private(unaccountable) power that would inevitably attempt to become a totalitarian government to exploit its citizens.

Chomsky is essentially trying to optimize for maximum individual liberty, while recognizing there needs to be a way to prevent private power from taking away individual liberty.

1

selver wrote (edited )

You've just described the quintessential liberal / state socialist position, so I guess we agree then?

Except for the last sentence, in this video Chomsky brushes aside concerns about the individual's relationship to the state as right-wing delusional paranoia, and not a serious concern for leftists.

2

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

I think Chomsky would agree to supporting state socialism/social democracy.

I didn’t feel like he glossed over the relationship of the individual and the state. He directly, but unemotionally, addresses the injustices and illegitimacy of the US government in respect to natives and slaves.

I think his primary point in this very short interview was to shed light on the absurdity of gun overship keeping the state in check. It wasn’t meant to be an all encompassing thesis.

His definition of anarchy is not the absence of hierarchy all together, but the practice of challenging and tearing down illegitimate power structures. That the power of violence should be democratically controlled verses privately controlled. I tend to agree with him, but I do acknowledge the risk of corruption. I’m not dogmatic, I just don’t know what would achieve anarchists goals of maximizing individual freedom better.

I wouldn’t lump him in with HRC or Pelosi. He obviously doesn’t support capitalism of the US/globalist variety and I think he supports suppression of fascist speech. Not exactly your vanilla liberal.

So, from my perspective he’s on the left side of anarchy and I wouldn’t vote him out of the community if there were such a thing.

2

Ant wrote

I'm not in a rush to defend Chomsky generally, I might not have been able to listen to it properly because of my setting, but it just seems like he's stating some facts, and in relation to those facts he can be read differently
he says

right libertarians try to prevent private power from being restrained

right libertarians hope that the state won't be captured by the people and used against private power

because in "this world", this context, the state does have the potential power to do that


this is not so much an endorsement the state but an explanation of the action/thought of right wing defenders of private power

?

2

selver wrote

In reaction to the question about the individual & the state, his answer is that there are two ways of looking at the state; as an oppressive force against the individual, or an "instrument that is of, by, and for the people." He identifies the former with the crazy right libertarians who've been tricked by corporations into blaming the state for their problems rather than capital, and the latter as the progressive tool that functions as the last defense against corporate tyranny. He falls in the latter group. It is absolutely a defense of the state, he consistently refuses to engage with anarchist theories of the state, or even anarchist solutions to problems.