Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

VulgarMarxist wrote

The Paris Commune wasn't true Communism. At least not by any Marxist interpretation of the word "Communism". Rather, it was an example of what the Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat could look like. Marx at least described it as such in his(& Engels') work about the 1871 civil war in France.

Communism isn't a state of affair to which reality will have to adjust itself. Communism isn't a set of policies to be implemented. Communism isn't a "right/wrong" thing. Communism is the movement to abolish the present state of things, meaning the Capitalist/Liberal/Bourgeoisie/Whateverothernamesithas mode of production, to give rise to the next mode of production, which would be the Socialist mode of production,

Also: Chomsky is a US college Commie with no ties to any Labourers, sitting in his glass castle in MIT, and while he raises some legitimate critiques of Capitalism, his ideas are inherently flawed, in that he doesn't actually offer solutions, nor does he actively aim to help the working class.

1

gooey wrote

I didn't said it was, it had elements in it, some workplaces were run without money and hierarchy (it's so interesting that whenever a leftist revolution happens, some people immediately abandon greed and money, as if it's just a burden on them, thought ancoms are always a minority, mostly syndicalists prevail as a temporary idea, because communism can only happen after all forms of exploitation and domination dissapear).

The Paris Commune was Radical Socialism as the Wiki page describes and that is fair, that is why I said partially.

Also: Chomsky is a US college Commie with no ties to any Labourers, sitting in his glass castle in MIT, and while he raises some legitimate critiques of Capitalism, his ideas are inherently flawed, in that he doesn't actually offer solutions, nor does he actively aim to help the working class.

That is true. He is a middle-class intellectual. But come on give peace to the man, he is a very valuable intellectual, the most prominent one of Libertarian Socialist school of the 20th century.

Everyone does what they can, and in the capitalist system you can't blame anyone for trying to do their best even if they fail. Capitalism provides limited opportunities for activists /intellectuals.

Chomsky focused his work largely criticizing US foreign policy, Soviet Union, Corporate Media and Politics including Burgeoise criticism, Corporations, Nuclear War and recently Climate Change.

In normal circumstances radical leftists work together with Social Democrats, and that is what he did too, so I don't blame him for that.

2

VulgarMarxist wrote

Your last segment where you list the Paris Commune is literally called "***What was True Communism (or at least as close as we can get to it, obviously not perfect):"*

The Free Territories of Ukraine weren't exactly that great either. They existed only as a state in revolutionary Warfare, instead of as a revolution by themselves. The same goes for revolutionary Catalonia. Rather than being carried through Revolutions, these two examples came from warfare, and were upheld by warfare. Not by revolutionary vigor. Oppertunism was what it was, nothing more.

I'll repeat myself. Communism is not a thing that "happens". It is not a state of affairs. To claim so is useless Utopianist drivels.

**"**Es macht ihn ein Geschwätz nicht satt,

das schafft kein Essen her."

Chomsky is overrated. There are plenty of earlier critiques of Capitalism that make the same points as him, the only difference being that Chomsky just happened to be the right place at the right time. There is a reason why we don't hear about him here in Europe, because all of his points were made by figure back when he was a kid, or even before he was born. Chomsky is only regurgitating old Socialist thought to young ears. His intellectual value is questionable at best, considering that his audience isn't the workers, but mostly students, who then continue to take their education, and at best themselves become armchair anarchists, leaving behind their activism when they leave their education.

I only now started on a University education, after getting a traditional labour job at a brewery right out of my Gymnasiumial education, and I see this all around me. Plenty of fired up ideologues, but no activists. They come out for May Day and that's it. They join Yellow Unions, and say "it's the same". They praise the Liberal turns in the Social Democratic party, saying that it "at least still helps the workers".

Calling Chomsky the most Prominent Libertarian Socialist of the 20th century is a direct insult to people like Luxemburg, Korsch, Reich, Rühle, Durruti, Hoffmann, Debord, and many others far more prominent thinkers. Hell, I wouldn't even consider Chomsky the most prominent American Libertarian Socialist of the 20th century, when you also have figures like Mattick, Day, Boggs, Thomson, and Bookchin.

Chomsky was only lucky to be picked out by the media. He is nothing more than a lucky face among many possible. To claim that Chomsky hasn't been given opportunities is wrong as well. He has been literally spoon fed from the day he was born. He has had plenty of time to throw himself into active Labour party politics. Instead he has placed himself in his aforementioned glass castle, and plays "the perfect theoretician".

2

martasultan wrote

The Free Territories of Ukraine weren't exactly that great either. They existed only as a state in revolutionary Warfare, instead of as a revolution by themselves... these two examples came from warfare, and were upheld by warfare. Not by revolutionary vigor. Oppertunism was what it was, nothing more.

I just want to say, there isn't really a much better time to seize autonomy for yourself (e.g. modern Rojava) than when the government is pre-occupied with other foes, and often isn't very present in your region; I also note they were revolutions as well, having overthrown the local tentacles of the Directorate before being able to establish their own communes and councils in place, as the Ukrainian People's Republic had already government in the area.

Capitalism is global and a global revolution is unlikely to happen soon; the best choice is to be 'opportunist' if you wish to secure a land where you can be free of capitalism, because there's no better time thus far.

-1

gooey wrote (edited )

Not by revolutionary vigor. Oppertunism was what it was, nothing more.

Ah come on, what kind of argument is that. I said there that it was not perfect. Like how can you even expect perfect communism where capitalism encloses the entire planet, of course it will be tainted by some form of imperfection.

Bakunin was slightly misogynist, Marx mooched off of his friends, Kropotkin supported WW1 Germany.

Does that mean that we throw all their ideas in the trash?

Just pick out what is good and discard the rest, we know what communism is, and if we identify new forms of oppression then we act on it.

So they did their best what they could at the time. Women and LGBT were barely getting liberated, and most revolutionaries were white people with patriarchal tendencies.

Now we know that is bad, so in the past 60 years we have improved our ideology, but you can't blame them in the historical context they did their best.

Communism is not a thing that "happens". It is not a state of affairs.

Yes communism is a goal, it's a state of being in total harmony with nature. Did I claim otherwise?

His intellectual value is questionable at best, considering that his audience isn't the workers, but mostly students,

21 century Anarchism doesn't focus that much on the working class, because the industrial working class is alredy going away in automation. Instead we are trying to be more inclusive and work with groups that we can.

Students are always a good and energetic group that can help us progress society and be the future intellectuals.

Chosmky is not organizing a revolution but rather planting seeds of progressiveness and socialism in the next generation of capable intellectuals who will have the opportunity to be influential.

Plus he also wrote plenty of books that anyone can read and teach their own groups from.

Chomsky is more an indirect influencer, and his material is mostly aimed towards civil societies that look for social issues. He is not a labor activist obviously.

As I said, we want to abolish all forms of oppression, and Capitalism is just 1 of them. It's pretty hard to dismantle Capitalism so focusing on other forms of oppression might be easier.

Calling Chomsky the most Prominent Libertarian Socialist of the 20th century

Sorry, I mean the 2nd half of the 20th century.

2

martasultan wrote

Sorry, I mean the 2nd half of the 20th century.

What of Libertarians that actually acted upon it, like Apo? Or theorists that actually influenced things that have happened like Bookchin?

2

VulgarMarxist wrote

What I hear from you is that you think that the US should aim to become more like where I live, Denmark, because it's "better" Capitalism, right?

You are nothing but someone with loose ideas trying to fit your ideology into Bourgeoisie politics, instead of aiming to solve the problems of the Bourgeoisie systems, you embrace them.