SpiritOfTito wrote

Putin was just a KGB officer in 1993. Whats your point?

Parent was talking about the 3000 communists shot dead by Yeltsin in 1993 when he illegally dissolved the supreme soviet to pave the way for capitalist restoration.


SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

4 links on why Chomsky sucks





Michael Parenti - Another View of Chomsky

In the April 1999 Monthly Review (50, no. 11:40–47), Robert McChesney gives what amounts to an encomium to Noam Chomsky. McChesney credits the MIT professor with (a) leading the battle for democracy against neoliberalism, (b) demonstrating “the absurdity of equating capitalism with democracy” (44), and (c) being the first to expose the media’s complicity with the ruling class. I would suggest that in these several areas credit for leading the way goes to the generations of Marxist writers and other progressive thinkers who fought the good fight well before Chomsky made his substantial and much appreciated contributions.

More important is the question of Chomsky’s politics. McChesney says that Chomsky can be “characterized as an anarchist or, perhaps more accurately, a libertarian socialist” (43). “Libertarian socialist” is a sweeping designation, safely covering both sides of the street. Of course, the ambiguity is not McChesney’s but Chomsky’s. As far as I know, Chomsky has never offered a clear explication of his anarcho-libertarian- socialist ideology. That is to say, he has never explained to us how it would manifest itself in organized political struggle or actual social construction.

McChesney says that Noam Chomsky has been a persistent “opponent and critic of Communist and Leninist political states and parties” (43). I would add that, as a “critic,” Chomsky has yet to offer a systematic critique of existing Communist parties and states. (Not that many others have.) Here is a sampling of Chomsky’s views on Communism and Leninism:

In an interview in Perception (March/April 1996), Chomsky tells us: “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.” Like Orwell and most bourgeois opinion makers and academics, Chomsky treats Communism and fascism as totalitarian twins, offering no class analysis of either, except to assert that they are both rooted in some unspecified way to today’s corporate domination.

In Z Magazine (October 1995), four years after the Soviet Union had been overthrown, Chomsky warns us of “left intellectuals” who try to “rise to power on the backs of mass popular movements” and “then beat the people into submission....You start off as basically a Leninist who is going to be part of the Red bureaucracy. You see later that power doesn’t lie that way, and you very quickly become an ideologist of the Right.... We’re seeing it right now in the Soviet Union [sic]. The same guys who were communist thugs two years back, are now running banks and [are] enthusiastic free marketeers and praising America.”

In its choice of words and ahistorical crudity, this statement is rather breathtaking. >The Leninist “communist thugs” did not “very quickly” switch to the right after rising to power. For more than seventy years, they struggled in the face of momentous Western capitalist and Nazi onslaughts to keep the Soviet system alive. To be sure, in the USSR’s waning days, many like Boris Yeltsin crossed over to capitalism’s ranks, but other Reds continued to resist free-market incursions at great cost to themselves, many meeting their deaths during Yeltsin’s violent repression of the Russian parliament in 1993.

In the same Perception interview cited above, Chomsky offers another embarrassingly ill-informed comment about Leninism: “Western and also Third World intellectuals were attracted to the Bolshevik counterrevolution [sic] because Leninism is, after all, a doctrine that says that the radical intelligentsia have a right to take state power and to run their countries by force, and that is an idea which is rather appealing to intellectuals.” Here Chomsky fashions a cartoon image of ruthless intellectuals to go along with his cartoon image of ruthless Leninists. They do not want the power to end hunger, they merely hunger for power.

In his book Powers and Prospects (1996, 83), Chomsky begins to sound like Ronald Reagan when he announces that Communism “was a monstrosity,” and “the collapse of tyranny” in Eastern Europe and Russia is “an occasion for rejoicing for anyone who values freedom and human dignity.” Tell that to the hungry pensioners and child prostitutes in Gorky Park. I treasure freedom and human dignity as much as anyone, yet I find no occasion for rejoicing. The post-Communist societies do not represent a net gain for such values. If anything, what we are witnessing is a colossal victory for gangster capitalism in the former Soviet Union, the strengthening of the most retrograde forms of global capitalism and economic inequality around the world, a heartless and unrestrained increase in imperialistic aggression, and a serious setback for revolutionary liberation struggles everywhere.

We should keep in mind that Chomsky’s political underdevelopment is shared by many on the left whose critical views of “corporate America” represent their full ideological grasp of the political world. Be he an anarcho-libertarian or libertarian- socialist or anarcho-syndicalist-socialist or just an anarchist, Chomsky appeals to many of the young and not so young. For he can evade all the hard questions about organized struggle, the search for a revolutionary path, the need to develop and sustain a mass resistance, the necessity of developing armed socialist state power that can defend itself against the capitalist counterrevolutionary onslaught, and all the attendant problems, abuses, mistakes, victories, defeats, and crimes of Communist revolutionary countries and their allies.

What we used to say about the Trotskyites can apply to the Chomskyites: they support every revolution except those that succeed. (Cuba might be the exception. Chomsky usually leaves that country unmentioned in his sideswipes at existing or once- existing Communist countries.) Most often, organized working- class struggles and vanguard parties are written off by many on the left (including Chomsky) as “Stalinist,” a favorite, obsessional pejorative made all the more useful by remaining forever undefined; or “Leninist,” which is Chomsky’s code word for Communist governments and movements that have actually gained state power and fought against the west to stay in power. Through all this label-slinging, no recognition is given to the horrendous battering such countries and movements endure from the Western imperialists. No thought is given to the enormously distorting impact of capitalist counterrevolutionary power upon the development of existing and once-existing Communist governments, nor the evils of international capitalism that the Communists and their allies were able to hold back, evils that are becoming more and more apparent to us today.

Bereft of a dialectical grasp of class power and class struggle, Chomsky and others have no critical defense against the ideological anti-Communism that inundates the Western world, especially the United States. This is why, when talking about the corporations, Chomsky can sound as good as Ralph Nader, and when talking about existing Communist movements and society, he can sound as bad as any right-wing pundit. In sum, I cannot join McChesney in heaping unqualified praise upon Noam Chomsky’s views. When Chomsky departs from his well-paved road of anticorporate exposé and holds forth on Communism and Leninism, he shoots from the hip with disappointingly facile and sometimes incomprehensible pronunciamentos. We should expect something better from our “leading icon of the Left.”


SpiritOfTito wrote

A) if you read the article I linked you'd know I view you as nothing else as a left anti communist. Therefore I'm not mad. Youre a dime a dozen.

b) that article succintly says what I think. Theres no need for me to elaborate because the only thing id do is run a hackneyed version of that article. No need to reinvent the wheel.

c) if you're gonna deviate from what was a polite conversation thats on you. But go fuck yourself.


SpiritOfTito wrote

Geopolitics aside this is fantastic news.

An oil embargo would leave the people of NK starving.


SpiritOfTito wrote

the key difference in our solution is that your approach leaves a possibility to be usurped

Your position leaves everyone murdered.

And your country returned to a bannana republic under US control.

Its idealist and has been shown to be absolutely incapable of obtaining and keeping power in a global capitalist ideology.

If you want my eloquent, thorough and thought out opinion of it I would suggest reading the link I posted of Michael Parents article, Left anti communism the unkindest cut.

It deals with pretty much everything in your post.


SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

It's frankly not a yes or no question. It depends would be my answer.

There's a reason why most anarchist societies end up against walls within 3 months of establishing their "horizontal society".

I agree though. That's how socialism would develop if it were ever allowed a normal development.

It never has so far apart from in small towns like Marinaleda.


SpiritOfTito wrote

do you honestly believe those who take power in any communist revolution would one day relinquish that power? show me one example of this in the history of all of humankind.

Name me one anarchist state (commune or collective if you don't like the connotation of state) that has lasted longer than 3 years.

Most ended like the Paris commune - everyone against a wall shortly about to take a bullet in the head 3 months after taking power.

If anarchists can ever square the circle of producing an anarchist state without the Lenins/Castroites/Maoists brought together to last over 70 years then I'm all ears.

If we can simply skip the hard part and be in a land of Worker Owned Enterprises that'd be fantastic.

do you honestly believe those who take power in any communist revolution would one day relinquish that power? show me one example of this in the history of all of humankind.

You measure them against an ideal years and years after those communists attempted to build socialisms not with their dreams but what material reality gave them.

I measure pretty much all of the communist states in the 20th century as massive success.

Cuba: In Killing Hope (William Blum) there's a chapter where the US is trying to create a program to bring up the material conditions of latin american countries to a higher standard than Cuba to deter them from communism (they named it Alliance or something). It measured live expectancy , literacy rates, infant mortality etc. etc.

After 5 years Cuba was the only country in Latin America hitting Alliance programs goals. I call that a success.

65 percent of russians who were alive in the USSR want communism back

A country that suffered horrendous losses in ww2 and was subject to every form of subversion short of outright nuclear attack.

And still, they preferred their economic system


China the same: prior to communism they were under the boot of the US and UK.

1 million of the 4 million population of Shanghai at the time were drug addicts.

Most people in the GDR preferred life in the GDR


Romanians preferred their communism .


Now you can pull out the familiar "that was state capitalism" which I diasgree with. Why? Because the capitalists made such a distinction that it was a big deal and they never tired to point that out. The biggest spread of wealth was more like 4-1

If you compared a billionaire in a capitalist nation to it's more like 100,000-1

A wealth disparity you'd have to go back to ancient egypt to get.

But I think that's how it would go. Capitalist nations falling like dominos and strenghtening as they go. And through cultural hegemony a gradual shift.


SpiritOfTito wrote

That'd be an easy answer if subversion and destabilisation came in the form of a uniformed capitalist man coming up and saying "hey this isn't on".

The lengths of subversion and destabilisation they will go to are pretty well outlined in Killing Hope by William Blum. Including sabotaging ships arriving to communist nations to produce food shortages, paying people to protest, assasination attempts, bombing of food production facilities, bombing of farms (to make the "economy scream").

Your commune /state whatever you prefer is going to be under attack from day one and it's not going to be men in capitalist uniforms identifying themselves.

It's going to be your own people demanding you feed them because the americans have sunk your grain shipments in your own docking yards. It's going to be because they bombed your food production facilities and now your commune is starving.

And when people are starving and looking for answers they'll swoop in offering food/money/gifts to reactionaries and fascists and funding and arming their ascent to power.

I like the sentiment: It's simple and easy. But it's abstracted and doesn't make sense given what we know happened to every nation that deviated from Washington in the 20th century (Im not even talking about socialist states. There were plenty the US overthrew simply because they were against US interest).


SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

Short story: because anarchists and most socialists would immediately denounce the state(commune if you'd prefer) they'd created as not living up to their romantic, abstracted dreams and turn against it. They'd compare the ideal of socialism abstracted from it's material conditions and compare that against the physical building of communism in the mess that is reality and sure enough reality comes off a pure second.

They have no answer for how they'll protect themselves from the reactionary counter revolution that is absolutely sure to come. They've no answer to dealing with the kind of pervasive CIA subversion the entire globe was subjected to from 45 onward.

Long story: http://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/05/23/left-anticommunism-the-unkindest-cut/


SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

Really great news for N.Korea.

Despite the US's rhetoric about invading NK hopefullly this has made it impossible. Though I don't doubt the US would happily get involved in a war on the Korean peninsula because the majority of the deaths would not be american.

Hopefully this has made them untouchable and they can start to let their guard down and trade openly with the international community

I'm not a fan of their monarchistic regime but it should be down to the Korean people to overthrow their government.

Not the west.


SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

Stalin absolutely was a communist. The problem was he was committed to it by any means necessary and understood the globe (having lived through two world wars) as geopolitical rivalries.

He wasn't a good one though and I'm not a fan of his authortarianism.

Why did the vanguard states fail? Within weeks of Castro coming to power the cia imported African swineflu into Cuba that had never been seen before on the continent and Cuba had to slaughter 500,000 pigs. Thats aside from their bombing of food production facilities and endless assassination attempts.(1. Killing hope, william blum).

Hell look at Chile where a marxist got into power via the ballot (so no vanguard there!after years of sabotage and millions of dollars in propaganda and what happened to fhe democratically elected Allende? Killed by airstrikes in the presidential palace then Pinochet shaking hands with the CIA and assuming power who then takes death squads through the country side after purging all the democratically elected communists and socialists.

Or Greece who were told "fuck your constitution and fuck your democracy" by the US ambassador when it looked like they may elect a leader that wanted leftist policies and possible turn to the east. He was shortly overthrown and again death squads and torture for those that supported the government deposed by the US. Alongside an absolute purge of communists (elected btw) from the government.

Or italy 1948.

You're praxis is shit, your history ahistorical and revisionist so I guess I'm glad you're banned. But i don't think you should be for holodomor questioning or anti stalinism


SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

I mean the second revolution was absolutely a revolution.

It was just a bourgeois revolution like the english civil war.

My point was how frequent revolutions happen.


SpiritOfTito wrote

I mean sure on a long enough time scale. Revolutions are an incredibly common affair.

Egypt has had two in the last decade.

Those two were interesting. The forst was they wanted their corrupt government out but when the only people to rise up with a program and a vision for a country was the Muslim brother hood they were back on the streets inside a few years demanding the army take over the country and imprison the muslims brotherhood.

Imagine if a strong socialist party had been there with a dozen very good orators. The period we've lived in is an anomaly not the status quo.

The US, the biggest anti communist org the world has ever known, being a hyper power since 1991 was never going to last.


SpiritOfTito wrote

I dispute the fact the article asserts they lost 13 or so percent of their population.

This article, quoted from a tool of imperialism, says they lost 20 percent of their population.

The bombing was long, leisurely and merciless, even by the assessment of America’s own leaders. “Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984.

Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops.


Which actually makes the crimes against north korea worst than what happened to the Poles in ww2