Chomsky muses fondly about . . . Anarchism ?

[syzygy]

want a peek into this pointy-headed fellow's dark, creepy psyche ? yeees ? wonderful.

because in the link below is an essay of his entitled 'notes on anarchism' that sheds a very
bright light into his mild, innocent, though rather twisted nature.

this essay presents a side of chomsky most 'no-blood-for-oil' types do not care to advertise.
he believes anarchism holds an important nugget of truth that can guide today's revolutionaries.
the essay is rather dry BUT notice how open he is to anarchism as a still viable socio-philosophical
theory.

to consider it viable he needs to ignore not only the countless failed experiments in social
revolution, but, more importantly, the - literally - countless number of people slaughtered to
see these revoltuions through. what i truly find loathsome is how nonchalantly and 'intellectually'
he trades in these ideas without any apparent concern for their actual history of application.

from lenin to stalin to pol pot to michael aflaq - ba'athist founder and godfather - whose most
infamous protege was saddam hussein. between them, this pantheon of evil can count millions
of innocent victims.

the read is longish, not too bad though.

chomsky - notes on anarchism

a few choice excerpts:

But it seems clear that unless there is, in some form, a positive answer, the chances for a truly
democratic revolution that will achieve the humanistic ideals of the left are not great.

this quote comes up a third of the way down and it addresses excerpts from the writings of
bakunin, guerin, engels, among others. why is he scraping for a 'positive answer' in the traditions
of anarchism, communism, and radical libertarians if his devotees claim him to be rational ?

Rudolf Rocker describes modern anarchism as "the confluence of the two great currents which
during and since the French revolution have found such characteristic expression in the intellectual
life of Europe: Socialism and Liberalism." The classical liberal ideals, he argues, were wrecked on the
realities of capitalist economic forms. Anarchism is necessarily anticapitalist in that it "opposes the
exploitation of man by man." But anarchism also opposes "the dominion of man over man."

rudolph rocker

 

[Moonbeam]

I see point-headism, I don't see creepy. What exactly do you think he said. Seems to me he was arguing for a search for a means of successful revolution, not the horrors you cited. Or had you thought that people are just going to live with exploitation and smile. Sounded like it was about freedom to me. That's creepy, I guess.

 

[Shalmanese]

Originally posted by: syzygy


from lenin to stalin to pol pot to michael aflaq - ba'athist founder and godfather - whose most
infamous protege was saddam hussein. between them, this pantheon of evil can count millions
of innocent victims.

lenin, stalin and pol pot were anarchists... funny way of showing it dontchathink?

 

[sandorski]

In a similar vain as the previous posts: Read it again, try to understand what he is saying. Answer these questions to help you understand:

1) Is Chomsky advocating a method? If so, what and whose?
2) Are all the sources in agreement as per method?
3) Does Chomsky even offer his opinion or is he merely discussing the issue?
4) Despite method, what would "Anarchy" be if acheived?

I'm not sold on Anarchy, especially at this point in history, but it is conceivable. IMO, the only way a lasting Anarchy could possibly come about would be through a slow(very) "evolution". It's something that must be agreed and accepted upon by a significant majority, no sudden revolution will work in bringing about.

 

[sandorski]

Quote:"his quote comes up a third of the way down and it addresses excerpts from the writings of
bakunin, guerin, engels, among others. why is he scraping for a 'positive answer' in the traditions
of anarchism, communism, and radical libertarians if his devotees claim him to be rational ?

Are you suggesting that these guys were irrational? What would make Chomsky "irrational" by using these guys as references?

 

[syzygy]

I see point-headism, I don't see creepy. What exactly do you think he said. Seems to me he was arguing
for a search for a means of successful revolution, not the horrors you cited. Or had you thought that people
are just going to live with exploitation and smile. Sounded like it was about freedom to me. That's creepy,
I guess.

he is 'arguing for a search for the means of a successful revolution'. agreed. no contention there. the problem
is he is strolling down a path that has been tread before. he's not trailblazing through undiscovered country here.

as i pointed out above, the people who chomsky cites, especially bakunin, were central players in the upheavels
that racked the world between 1875 and 1975, a period that included figures like lenin through pol put and mao.
their methods of revolution resulted in the horrors, not out of accident, but because they themselves sought to
sweep away the old world and implement their visions of a new society through violence, as lenin and bakunin
state explicitly.

lenin, stalin and pol pot were anarchists... funny way of showing it dontchathink?

lenin was a anarcho-terrorist in that he was the original author of politics as total war thinking. lenin chose
to destroy his opponents completely, and largely succeeded. the 'cheka' was his baby. these thugs roved the
country in the early years of revolution (1918-1921) killing all you did not fit the boshevik mold. in fact, if you
read any of the books written by richard pipes, a world authority on the russian revolution, you will learn that
lenin even advocated murdering completely innocent people just to impress upon his new subjects the
needed dedication .

stalin learned these lessons at his master's knee, followed by hitler, mao, and others (including saddam, who
emulated and privately worshipped stalin).

I'm not sold on Anarchy, especially at this point in history, but it is conceivable. IMO, the only way a lasting
Anarchy could possibly come about would be through a slow(very) "evolution". It's something that must be
agreed and accepted upon by a significant majority, no sudden revolution will work in bringing about.

to answer all your other questions, and address these comments, you simply need to look at the vast amount
of history that chomsky is ignoring. chomsky can't propose these fond musings inside a historical vaccum. they
need roots. where are they his fond political musings ?

by saying you're not 'sold on anarchy' you too are following chomsky's example by ignoring the people who
tried to enact their visions of a fresh new world result and caused the deaths of countless people who would
not bend or did not fit into these social paradises.

chomsky oversights are especially egregious because he cites individuals, long dead, who were central players
in those revolutions. bakunin, rocker, and guerin were either communist apologists who justified stalin's excesses
because 'sacrifices' were unavoidable OR advocated themselves criminal war against their own societies. read
the bakunin link especially for confirmation.

Are you suggesting that these guys were irrational? What would make Chomsky "irrational" by using these
guys as references?

irrational ? yes ! irrational in the full definition of the term and in every conceivable sense. you start with 'irrational'
and work down to more appropriate adjectives that describe their loony ways. engels too advocated aggression
against established old world regimes. he was simply more calculating and an appeaser rather than bakunin
who wanted to turn everything upside down as fast as possible, more or less.

their ideas could never be applied because at their core lies a pathological naivete about how people and
society come together to function. workers did not uniteas they prophesied. people like engels, lenin, and
nakunin were an intellectual minority. indeed, they were a minority of a minority, who represented only
themselves, and in the case of lenin, hated the overwhelming majority of people (the peasants - 95% of
russian society then) because they represented all that wrong with the russian person's mind. not surprising
that lenin's feelings vis-a-vis the peasants resulted in stalin collectivization policies. the pupil learned well.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think I'm really more worried about burning my toast.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: syzygy

I see point-headism, I don't see creepy. What exactly do you think he said. Seems to me he was arguing
for a search for a means of successful revolution, not the horrors you cited. Or had you thought that people
are just going to live with exploitation and smile. Sounded like it was about freedom to me. That's creepy,
I guess.

he is 'arguing for a search for the means of a successful revolution'. agreed. no contention there. the problem
is he is strolling down a path that has been tread before. he's not trailblazing through undiscovered country here.

as i pointed out above, the people who chomsky cites, especially bakunin, were central players in the upheavels
that racked the world between 1875 and 1975, a period that included figures like lenin through pol put and mao.
their methods of revolution resulted in the horrors, not out of accident, but because they themselves sought to
sweep away the old world and implement their visions of a new society through violence, as lenin and bakunin
state explicitly.

lenin, stalin and pol pot were anarchists... funny way of showing it dontchathink?

lenin was a anarcho-terrorist in that he was the original author of politics as total war thinking. lenin chose
to destroy his opponents completely, and largely succeeded. the 'cheka' was his baby. these thugs roved the
country in the early years of revolution (1918-1921) killing all you did not fit the boshevik mold. in fact, if you
read any of the books written by richard pipes, a world authority on the russian revolution, you will learn that
lenin even advocated murdering completely innocent people just to impress upon his new subjects the
needed dedication .

stalin learned these lessons at his master's knee, followed by hitler, mao, and others (including saddam, who
emulated and privately worshipped stalin).

I'm not sold on Anarchy, especially at this point in history, but it is conceivable. IMO, the only way a lasting
Anarchy could possibly come about would be through a slow(very) "evolution". It's something that must be
agreed and accepted upon by a significant majority, no sudden revolution will work in bringing about.

to answer all your other questions, and address these comments, you simply need to look at the vast amount
of history that chomsky is ignoring. chomsky can't propose these fond musings inside a historical vaccum. they
need roots. where are they his fond political musings ?

by saying you're not 'sold on anarchy' you too are following chomsky's example by ignoring the people who
tried to enact their visions of a fresh new world result and caused the deaths of countless people who would
not bend or did not fit into these social paradises.

chomsky oversights are especially egregious because he cites individuals, long dead, who were central players
in those revolutions. bakunin, rocker, and guerin were either communist apologists who justified stalin's excesses
because 'sacrifices' were unavoidable OR advocated themselves criminal war against their own societies. read
the bakunin link especially for confirmation.

Are you suggesting that these guys were irrational? What would make Chomsky "irrational" by using these
guys as references?

irrational ? yes ! irrational in the full definition of the term and in every conceivable sense. you start with 'irrational'
and work down to more appropriate adjectives that describe their loony ways. engels too advocated aggression
against established old world regimes. he was simply more calculating and an appeaser rather than bakunin
who wanted to turn everything upside down as fast as possible, more or less.

their ideas could never be applied because at their core lies a pathological naivete about how people and
society come together to function. workers did not uniteas they prophesied. people like engels, lenin, and
nakunin were an intellectual minority. indeed, they were a minority of a minority, who represented only
themselves, and in the case of lenin, hated the overwhelming majority of people (the peasants - 95% of
russian society then) because they represented all that wrong with the russian person's mind. not surprising
that lenin's feelings vis-a-vis the peasants resulted in stalin collectivization policies. the pupil learned well.

He quotes a variety of sources, some are in support of what happened in the USSR and other "Communist" countries, others are not. He has pointed out 2 basic schools of thought on the subject: 1) Anarchy through a Political period of transition, similar to what we've seen in the Soviet Union etc, 2) Anarchy through a Social period of transition, only acheived temporarily on small scales, Amish, Doukhabours, Mennonites, some Hippies, and a few other Religious Sects. He isn't advocating the Soviet Method, nor does he appear, to me, to be advocating any method, he's just discussing the idea and using the thoughts of those who originated the idea(s). No big whoop, no one will be pillaging your house soon.

Irrational:

#

1. Not endowed with reason.
2. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
3. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.

#

1. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
2. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.

? splain.

Many like to discredit Chomsky for his "ignoring of history", yet none make as many historical references as he. It's a silly retort that has become a cliche counter arguement, saying it doesn't make it so. The same could be said of the "Establishment" or "Capitalism", "Capitalism" wasn't all enlightned like it is today you know. In fact, Engels, Marx, and these other Leftist Anarchists were very much the product of the ugly side of Rightest Capitalism.

Re Capitalism: Capitalism, at it's heart, is just the flipside of the coin of Leftist Anarchy. Capitalism is Rightest Anarchy, with nothing more than the "Invisible Hand of the Market" offering Societal control.

Re My state of acceptance(being sold on the idea): I certainly am not ignoring History. I full well see the horrors of Leninism and especially Stalinism and would not accept any such attempt within my country(Canada). I must ask again, What do you think Anarchy is? Is it pickup loads of drunken idiots with guns shooting up the town, or is it a Society that governs itself through common interest with no reliance on a Political Bureaucracy?

No one wants the drunken idiots, but the lack of a Political Institution is a long way off, if even possible, IMO.

 

[syzygy]

He quotes a variety of sources, some are in support of what happened in the USSR and other
"Communist" countries, others are not.

among the critical sources he chooses to quote is bakunin, a virulent anti-democrat and professed
anarchist. quoting a bakunin criticism against the reds would be like a bank robber calling a larcenist
a thief. not too smart.

and the mere fact you admit - the obvious - that his quoting-spree included favorable comments for
those loveable soviet mass murderers proves his moral confusion and hypocrisy. at least he looks
harmless.

He has pointed out 2 basic schools of thought on the subject: 1) Anarchy through a Political period
of transition, similar to what we've seen in the Soviet Union etc, 2) Anarchy through a Social period of
transition, only acheived temporarily on small scales, Amish, Doukhabours, Mennonites, some Hippies,
and a few other Religious Sects.

amish ? doukhobours ? hippies ! ! ! are you serious ?!? i wish you were serious. if only anarchism
would rise and stop at the level of these groups there would be nothing to argue against.

what exactly do you mean by this first 'school' of anarchism for which you cite the soviet union as
your example ?

i judge by results. the students of this first school were very crafty in destroying their traditional societies
and eliminating quite a few undesirables. is this chomsky's criteria for success ? is it yours ? this 'school'
also arose in china, albania, cambodia, east germany, and still exists in a (relatively) milder form in north
korea. are any of these 'first schools' graduating succesful revolutionaries in your estimation ?

He isn't advocating the Soviet Method, nor does he appear, to me, to be advocating any method,
he's just discussing the idea and using the thoughts of those who originated the idea(s). No big whoop,
no one will be pillaging your house soon.

i don't think you agree with yourself. just above you cite that chomsky 'quotes a variety of sources . . .
some in support of what happened in the ussr'. you can't have it both ways.

your right on one point though, no one will be pillaging my or anyone's house here within the borders
of this country in the foreseeable future. thats because anarchic ideas have not taken root here. see
the cure ?

but the ideas aren't always as harmless as the professor's are today. as recently as a few months ago,
lenin's ideological progeny in iraq were running a very effective (and a very stalinesque) totalitarian police
state.

Many like to discredit Chomsky for his "ignoring of history", yet none make as many historical references
as he. It's a silly retort that has become a cliche counter arguement, saying it doesn't make it so.

yes, he likes his 'historical references'. the problem is they don't help him. citing a bakunin criticism (or a
guerin or a rocker) against these so-called deviations, like the bolsheviks, is a sad form of unintended
self-mockery.

I must ask again, What do you think Anarchy is ?

given its history, anarchy is an endless, unmitigated, murderous failure.

 

[sandorski]

He's discussing an issue, some of those who conceived the idea were in support of Soviet style, some were not. Was he supposed to just ignore the ugly side of Anarchy?

It seems obvious you really don't like the guy, but he isn't white washing the issue. He doesn't try to hide the potential ugly side of Anarchy.