What Chomsky misses is that authoritarian "War Communism", which he blames on Lenin was a reaction to the counterevolution by the White Tsarist forces. So it makes it hard to say that what Lenin did in 1918-22 was what Lenin saw as the ideal and ultimately wanted like Chomsky suggests,
rakovsky I tend to agree. The civil war lasted ten years and outside aggression exacerbated certain traits which move intrinsically against libertarian socialism. Struggle and cohesion in struggle has a negating impact on the individual aspect of the person. Rosa Luxembourg was one of the few to perceive and to describe how violent struggle could taint the process irremediably. She asked her comrades to be patient and to wait for less contingent circumstances in order to avoid violence and make the transformation process a democratic transition toward socialism. Unfortunately her views were vindicated through her murder. The Russian revolution had no precedent and there was a process of trial and error. Lenin died before he and Trotsky had time to tackle the problem of the state apparatus and the perverse effects of any centralized control. They considered this as a primary concern. Trotsky was a pragmatist, this is why he integrated more than 30,000 tsarists officers in the Red Army as he knew that cadres were urgently needed. The political officer corp was created to match each officer with someone loyal to the party. Another negative aspect of the war context was suspicion. Violence and suspicion are not what one would pack for the "workers paradise".
rakovsky Yes, he used that excuse over and over, like W. Bush saying he was a "wartime" President. But the massacre of the Kromstad sailers, for example, happened after the civil war as over. And that was still before Stalin.
"It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity..." Luxemburg was critically supportive of the Soviet Union, at least as far as the Bolshevik Revolution went. I think Chomsky's argument here misrepresents Luxemburg's critique. She certainly wouldn't have dismissed the whole revolution as a "coup," nor would she have considered private capitalist restoration a "small victory" in any way, shape or form. The Left-Marxists he so adores were agitating in the Soviet Union's early days for democratic reforms, not private capitalism. They would have been horrified at the direction it went as well as at the current state of Russia.
I'm sure he knows that the left Marxists were agitating for Democratic Reform, and not private capitalism. The thing is, private capitalism was revived under Lenin. After preaching against it for so long, it was a bitter pill for the Russian people to once again see shops that they could not afford to shop in, while they worked long hours in unhealthy conditions.. Lenin knew that he did not represent the left end of Marxism. Which is why he said, "Left-wing Communism is an infantile disorder." His go-to excuse was that the Societ Union was under attack from all sides, which was true. But one must wonder: if the system a revolution creates is not significantly better than the one it replaces, is it worth all that bloodshed and suffering to establish and protect that system? I'm inclined to think not. And, of course, Stalin pushed the Soviet Union into what was, in his own words, "State Capitalism."
Wow, that was fast. In any case, whatever the truth of all that may be, my point was only that his argument misrepresents Luxemburg's critique. Of course he knows they were agitating for reform...again, this misses the point. Since he knows this, he should know that Left Marxists would hardly consider what happened in 1991 a "small victory for socialism." As for to what extent pragmatic compromise in the face of threatening circumstances is necessary or acceptable, that's an ongoing debate we aren't going to resolve here, and in any case Rosa Luxemburg's comment quoted above from "The Russian Revolution" can speak for itself. Even self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalists have engaged in serious compromising pragmatism, for example in the form of participation in the legitimization of bourgeois elections, as well as reformist campaigns, which may improve workers' lives to a limited degree but which also sustain a capitalist/market economy.
This is one my favorite speakers...though not dynamic...but if you listen carefully, he articulates a very clear message with many facts and understanding of the connections in multiple movements.
i suggest writing main points as he speaks, and then read for yourself. it blows my mind every time i do it, on how many things i missed when i didn't take notes.
@Jens Gronning anywhere between 20-50k die because of a lack of public healthcare in the us alone Nestle contributes anywhere between 500k-1.5 million deaths (a year) with their baby formula in Africa and then pays off doctors etc to keep pushing it Atleast half a million are killed because of the military industrial complex just since 9/11 alone. About 25k a year The 100 million figure also includes abortions (since the USSR was the first country to legalise abortion). According to the WHO there are about 40 million abortions a year but I will be fair and only include 10 million. This is all just from 5 things done under capitalism. The real number could be much higher such as how private prisons try to keep their prisoners for longer than they should be because they get money for it.
As somewhat of an 'academic' myself I am always completely astonished by the depth of Chomsky's knowledge on so many important subjects. He seems to know all the important events and be aware of all of the relevant commentary. He must actually spend his life reading - and reading quickly whilst remembering everything - so that he can give brief talks like this at the drop of a hat.
I'm an admirer of Chomsky too. But it's on this point that the lady raises on which he will be remembered as being wrong on this vital point i.e. conflating Stalinism and Bolshevism. They were "separated by a river of blood". Regarding Lenin as being a "right wing deviation", this is unbelievably wrong and I can only put it down to Chomsky perhaps not having access to material that we have today on the subject. It is true that Trotsky was not a Bolshevik until the eve of revolution, for various reasons, but Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky were all regarded as orthodox Marxists who wrote large amounts of criticism against right-wing deviation (I e. against Kautsky et al). As I say, Chomsky is a principled progressive, but he was completely wrong here. The question, although asked nervously and passionately is actually bang on, and credit to that lady for raising it in an environment where much of the audience (and viewers of this TH-cam video) have no idea of the context and important historical nuances to which she was referring.
He also assumes others don’t look into these things as when they do you can pick holes in what he says as simply his own ideological lens in perceiving these facts
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.”
@ppitm You're seeing 1917 in splendid isolation from previous revolutions. The British glorious revolution, the French Revolution and the failure of the Paris Commune - is all the proof that Lenin needed to understand that the bourgeois counter revolution was inevitable. And when it came it would be bloody and ruthless.
Dubrae fox Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution. Lots of points are not quite substantiated. > Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries' > Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy. Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'. Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
Tiago Carvalhas where do I start ? As I obviously don’t have all day . Let’s do the bit about the Foucault encounter revealed in your link shall we . “A debate” I hope you agree is a search for truth or the defence of a claim purporting to be a true one . A postmodernist on the other hand is a person who at once dismisses the possibility of absolute truth but is too absurd to accept the obvious fact his whole project is ; making or defending absolute postmodernist truth claims . So ,no Foucault didn’t win the 1971 debate with Chomsky by incomprehensibly dickering around through out the whole course of it .
Nasha Naufal no, its the sign of self discipline. Also the understanding of little young crazy communist wamen... After all, that type of person still exists and did already 100-200 years ago. The same ree ree ree. Trump faced the same ree with that young wamen that asked him about when wamen finally will be paid the same. Milton friedman faced a lot of reees. Almost all public speekers face rees when they take questions
Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution. Lots of points are not quite substantiated. > Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries' > Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy. Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'. Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
@@kloschuessel773 I'm sorry. Can you say that in a more intellectual manner, not "ree ree ree" and "communist wamen". WTF is a ree? What the hell are you talking about.
michael parentis senile because he never used his brain. chomsky is still giving interviews about complex topics from science to linguistics to poltics at 94, ill stick with the person who uses his brain!
Chomsky is amazing and he’s basically educated 3 or 4 generations of people within his lifetime. Name another intellectual who has achieved that? You can’t. Though there’s no getting round the fact that he’s rather smug from time to time
@@tayrazor3325 They don't specify on linguistics, socioeconomics, sociology, political theory, economic theory, social structure, communication studies, and many other social sciences.
Added to that is the fact that the workers' section of the Petrograd Soviet already had a Bolshevik majority. Given that the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks directed the demonstrations of July 2 and 3, it is fair to say that they enjoyed overwhelming support in that city. I base that assessment on the July events and the figures above.
Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution. Lots of points are not quite substantiated. > Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries' > Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy. Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'. Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
I think that’s the problem I have with Anarchists they seem to think after the revolution the losers just go home and chill in their pyjamas and accept they’ve lost
Noam never said and neither believes that 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries'. Chomsky is simply saying that orthodox marxists like Lenin believe so, hence the justification of pushing the population through state capitalists accelerationism given by Lenin. He brings this point out in opposition of Lenin as claiming himself to be "orthodox Marxist", Lenin completely ignored Marx's later writing, which Marx living in russia at the time, said that YES a socialist revolution can also happen in backwards peasant society like Russia. Read Marx - Zasulich correspondence. So Chomsky is simply pointing out that even though Lenin claimed to be an orthodox Marxist aka believed 'socialism can only be built in the most industrially developed countries', Lenin completely ignored his own orthodox Marxists principles by completely ignoring Marx saying "Yes Socialist revolution can also happen in backwards peasant society as Russia" You misunderstood Chomsky's point completely
Beautiful analysis and great point made by mr. Chomsky in explaining how Soviet Union was neither governed by Soviets (worker's councils) or it was socialist !
Drug Addicted Pornstar If Norm is so smart why does he not seem to realize Socialism is a RELIGION ?? A belief system based on faith- no evidence needed or wanted ! Socialism has been tried over 100 times in the 1900's and always predictably failed ! Yet they keep up the mantra " The idea is good- THEY just had the wrong people in charge !" The wrong people 100 plus times should tell them there is a basic flaw with the idea- so they must either be religious zealots- or mad ! No matter how you tweak it- it will fail since it stifles human creativity, rewards mediocrity, can not afford tons of money for research ( except for the security of the state- ie, military and police) and spends more controlling the people than helping them ! It does have one good thing though- everyone works- or dies !
***** The idea that it stifles human creativity is simply not true. If you look at history, you will see that most advancements in science and technology come from the public sector. On top of that Cuba is poor as hell, thanks mainly to US sanctions, yet they are leading the world in health care advancement, and have more doctors per person than any other country in the world.
Steven Lamb I'm sorry but you are on the border of the ridiculous ! Advancement is from the public sector ? The only place that is even close to true is in the militarization of technology ! Government gave us cell phones ? Ipads? Tv ? Radio, Pc's ? Better yet- take the Internet- started as a military way to send real time communications of a secret nature. As long as it stayed in the "public" sector- it was top secret- you could go to prison just for disclosing it ! NASA was a military project also- notice all the uniforms at Canaveral ? It is when a few million independent minds look for a way to use something that it moves to the private sector- where profit is being hunted- that the "advancement" reaches the people. Further- in the private sector it doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime to develop and market a product- unlike the inefficient and corrupt government procurement system which is ALL at the taxpayers expense ! Cuba and medical advancement ?? Here is where you swallow propaganda like the river Nile swallows water ! Did Cuba invent a new throat swab or something ? They have a medical system that has a level for the top party members and small "storefront" clinics for everyone else. Need a suture, crutches, penicilin , fine- need more- good luck- wait in line ! Stop the stupid- "Cuba is poor because we have US santions" nonsense. First- ONLY we can't trade with them- they trade with ALL the other countries on the planet that want to trade with them, (2) If we make Cuba poor- how is it that Castro has BILLIONS of dollars in personal European bank accounts- mainly money from the USSR to supposedly "help" the people of Cuba (3) Trading with us has nothing to do with a system that traps people into the 1950's and totally prevents anyone from going into business for profit . Yeah- their health care is SO good that every time Castro needs more than an Aspirin- he ruins to Spain to locate a REAL doctor !
Really ? There are many there right now who would disagree. Funny how as the" Commune" got bigger and bigger it also got more and more "Corporate". Indeed, one would say it was far more Capitalist in it's approach to competition than anything else. Many think it's very size is the real reason it had to file bankruptcy I still wonder what all this has to do with the idea that the "Public" sector causes advances or even delivers the advancements to the general population..
Ethan Davidson Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist or a libertarian socialist. So yes, he's a communist, but not a Marxist. He's criticizing the USSR on the grounds that it was not actually socialist.
***** Yes, there is. Of course Marx was a critic of capitalism-that is why he is so famous. It's not all he did, though; he was also a prominent journalist, philosopher, political philosopher, staunch defender of workers' rights, leader of communist movements/parties and a brilliant economist in his own right. There is absolutely such a thing as Marxism. It's simply a name for the philosophical method Marx used (dialectical materialism), and the general concepts and worldview that result from its application to various fields (i.e. class struggle, class consciousness, historical materialism etc.). Marx drew his dialectical materialism from Hegel's dialectic, except Hegel was an idealist-that's why they say Marx turned Hegel "on his head". His application of dialectics to history formed historical materialism, which inevitably led to the conclusion that capitalism would be replaced by a superior system, socialism, which would resolve class struggle and someday form full communism. These notions are known collectively as Marxism.
Ethan Davidson *"But most people, when they hear Communist, only know about Leninists."* Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm a Luxemburgist and a big fan of Titoism (mainly workers' self-management) and it's a bit tiring to explain every time that I'm not some USSR fanatic. *"In any case, Marx said "I am not a Marxist. I am Marx."* The standard interpretation of that is that he was trying to distance himself from the bourgeois opportunists (social-democrats) who were trying to take advantage of his critique of capitalism to fuel their reformist drivel. But, as you see, Marxism has very little to do with Marx as an individual; he's important because he was the one to advance the method.
Noam Chomsky's grasp of political theory, history, current events and his ability to sort through all of it and explain it in such an organized fashion never ceases to amaze me.
Under Lenin, the Soviets were placed under state control, and only the Bolsheviks were allowed to participate in state affairs, so the Soviets were essentially privately owned by the state. This rigid bureaucracy made Lenin a capitalist, and was the precursor for Stalinist state capitalism. I recommend you read "My Disillusionment in Russia" by Emma Goldman.
Historian Anthony Wood, says that on October 25, the second all-Russian Congress of Soviets gathered at Smolny, where the Bolsheviks held 390 seats, the Mensheviks 80, and SRs. 180. These positions were elected, and not appointed, and represented Soviets throughout the state. By October 21, he says, the entire Petrograd garrison was with the Bolsheviks, and in the days before the seizure of power, Trotsky had brought over 100,000 soldiers to the side of the revolution.
I have consistently argued that taking the historical references I have cited into account, regarding the actual level of support for the Bolshevik party in the period prior to the October events, it is inaccurate to describe those events as a "coup" as a coup does not require the support of the people, only military muscle. The historical record also shows that there were very few fatalities in achieving the revolution , which I say confirms the argument that October enjoyed widespread support.
Maybe when he puts his freedom and/or life on the line like Marx, Engels, Goldman, Luxemburg, Lenin, and Trotsky have, I may have more respect for him.
"Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen." Leon Trotsky When commenting about what happened in the USSR you need to consider Trotsky's words.
It turned out the socialist can be just as tyrannical as the capitalist that's all. That socialism needs democracy can be said about capitalism. You could argue capitalism needed democracy as an excuse for whenever it fails. But then again people who lean left tend to not take responsibility so it's easier to blame the system regardless if its capitalist or socialist.
So, now 30 years later, this young lady is now a mid-level Executive at a Fortune 500 Corporation - and lives with her Attorney Husband and 4 teenage children in the affluent suburbs.
@@anonymousweeble2224 The irony is that she's a Radical Leftist, condemning Free Market Principles and Personal Wealth, while a College Student at an Expensive Private University.... BUT, as a working Adult, she's become a Corporate Executive, with a husband, who is an Attorney at a Prestigious Law Firm, and they live in an expensive suburb and send their children to Private Schools.... So, she's become the exact thing that she's condemned in this video.
I heard the same woman speak many many times in different time periods in different University halls with equal amounts of surface level understanding on a vast array of topics.
However, that said, in subsequent elections, the Bolsheviks power base in Petrograd increased in size considerably. Trotsky says that in the Moscow Soviet by June 1, the Bolsheviks had 206 seats as opposed to 176 Mensheviks and 110 SRs. Similar shifts in support for the Bolsheviks were taking place throughout the state.Over a three month period (April to end June 1917), the party more than doubled its membership in Petrograd alone.
I am. Terrible thing. Brazil had a terrible problem with national debt in the 80's prior to adopting several measures that would now be refered to as Austarity Measures, cutting government spending, privatizations, strict monetary policy allowed our economy to grow and got us out of the crisis. It is incredible to me how americans today are willingly going to the point where Brazil was 30 years ago and cheer for the government while they do it.
@TerrySleeper I agree with that, but it sounded to me like Callaghan was equating the motives of the two different regimes. I'm not dismissing the importance of the civil war, just pointing out that it didn't influence Lenin's belief that power needed to be seized forcefully from Kerensky. The civil war was naturally a factor in the harsh measures that Lenin adopted after he was in power in order to ensure the survival of the government.
You know you've wondered outside the sentient playpen when you get most of your exciting entertainment from Noam Chomsky responding to heated intellectual discourse with a disenfranchised audience member. Oouuuuu
The Soviet politicians spoke about socialism, but never implemented it. The dictature of the proletariat was indeed the dictature of the Communist party, that wasn't communist indeed
Check out what Chomsky says it means: direct worker control of their means of production. Why would it not work? It would certainly make the workers a lot more democratically involved in the work that they do, and thus probably a lot happier in their work-place.
But by no means was the Party ruined, nor was Lenin discouraged at this time. I also appreciate that this is not the revolution I am referring to here, but rather your references, which deserve examination in some detail. I ask you to consider the above inaccuracies, in the overall context, as I will be considering the two main sources I have, with this video in the coming week or so. I am not copping out. I am taking time to do further research before responding in full.
Gordon O'Gairbhith Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution. Lots of points are not quite substantiated. > Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries' > Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy. Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'. Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
Sixshooter 9 now, it boils down to 'I trust him bcz he has more authority'. Nicely done. I live in Russia and spent quite a while reading on the events in question. And Chomsky's rhetoric is a spitting image of what I heard from one of the leaders of our anarchists and that's such a sidesplitter, to be honest. Ideology makes them judge, not facts, or rather they pick and choose facts they need to prove their standing is firm. Anyway, you seem to be half as knowledgeable as one could guess and I'm twice as unwilling to continue as one could be after contemplating loose content of your comment.
To be fair to Lenin, he was seriously outnumbered at the time and surrounded by enemies. His own party thought he was crazy to attempt a revolution, but he saw a rare historical opportunity -- and went for it. It's very difficult for a revolution to escape the cycle of violence, and he attempted to warn about Stalin's power grab before his death.
Would've been heroic if not for the fact that he needlessly overthrew an already established democracy. Yes, the dual-power structure of the Provisional Government and Petrograd Soviet was a bit shaky but it was still a genuine democracy that actually represented the will of the people. Red October was not a revolution but a coup made by a party throwing a hissy fit that it lost the election.
Are you referring to the Spanish civil war? If yes, then you might be interested in checking out one of Chomsky's first essays, which treats this subject. I believe it is reprinted in The Chomsky Reader.
there were proletarian revolutions in germany (twice), hungary, france (may 68), america (blair mountain), russia, and all over south america and asia labour theory of value is absolutely correct
7:40 KGB?! Lenin and KGB?!!!! KGB wasn't a thing back then, and there was Tcheka (secret police or political police if you want to define it better) back then. Then in Stalin era came the NKVD and the in Khrushchev era KGB.
Why can't Chomsky ever give a simple one-liner as an answer that would make him quote(mine)able? I mean, it's not as if international relations and politics are complicated. We are right, they are not..... how simple can it be?
Rob van Senten The Marxist Holodomor and Marxist genocide of over 100 ethnic groups in the USSR, such as the Ukrainians, Volga Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Kazaks, Hungarians, Karelians, Latvians, Komi, Bulgarians, Koreans? All to make the "Ideal Soviet Man". gulagbarashevomovie.com/
Michael Kingsbury Wrong, idiot. Did you not watch the video? Chomsky is offering criticism on the USSR precisely on the grounds that it was a massive deviation from Marxism or actual socialism, which is why a lot of other Marxists (Trotsky, Luxembourg) criticized it. Few socialists support the USSR (especially, but not only, post-Lenin) because it was NOT socialist. Why is this so hard to understand? Morons like you, who haven't read a page of Marx's work but still want to wax lyrical, aren't helping.
Afonso Sousa Indeed, almost no socialist supports the USSR anymore. The Communists either a) became Left-Communists or Trotskyists, the socialists mostly completely abandoned revolutionary Democratic Socialism and became modern Social Democrats. Right-wingers need to learn that almost no socialist supports the USSR (or it's ideological Marxist-Leninist variations) anymore.
Chomsky is informative and makes some good points, but overall she is correct. Just read Lenin, Trotsky and Luxembourg and compare that to Stalin. Luxembourg was not against Lenin, as he falsely claims. And Pannekoek would certainly recognize fundamental differences between Lenin and Stalin his political disagreements with bolsheviks notwithstanding. Chomsky describes methods adopted during the Civil War as the ideal politics of the bolshevik party. In fact, Chomsky actually lays the ground here for distinguishing between Stalinism and Leninism, but fails to do so because of his own political commitment no anarcho-syndicalism. He could have expressed his anti-Leninism without conceding the point that Lenin = Stalin. It's absurd to invoque Luxembourg in this context - she considered Lenin a good comrade and worked with him frequently.
To date I have cited two historical references in support of my view that the events of October 1917 were a revolution. One of these was Leon Trotsky, who was a participant and someone who chronicled in great detail, the events which he himself took part in. The second is Anthony Wood whose short History book "The Russian Revolution" I suspect was written for consumption by school students, so it is more "mainstream" if you like.
BinaryStarofShaolin Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution. Lots of points are not quite substantiated. > Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries' > Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy. Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'. Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
@@clockfixer5049 "counter-revolution" bs that was the excuse for all the cruel crimes to stay in power. Where the Soviets and Menscheviks were also "counter-revolution" wake up man!
@@Gieszkanne can you think? At least, from time to time? Do you really believe that Bolsheviks wanted it 'the hard way'? Do you really believe they needed the bloodbath? Do you really believe capitalist countries wanted to forfeit their Russian capitals and market? Do you really believe that arguing about the Russian revolution is even productive in any way? Give me a break
@@clockfixer5049 Startin with an insult just show your weackness. Asking me to think than if I believe? Has nothing to do with either just knowing. Also I dont argue . You try to argue. You are a joke I dont take you serious. This more of a cult and religion for you. I know guy like you.
It's true that most all of the counties in the world have some mix of socialism and capitalism. But what Chomsky is saying is that what is important is not just how much of a safety net people have but also how much control they have over their work-places and their means of production. He's saying that when those are owned and controlled not by the workers themselves but either by private capitalists, or by a national government as happened in the Soviet Union, then there are problems.
Only playing with the 23rd of December carry on My research only goes up to around August / September 1917, so I can't address the November events. I am presently half way through the History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky in three volumes. I am studying this work as I am an active socialist, keen to learn the lessons history has to teach us, and .keen to familiarise myself with the events preceding the October Revolution. I hope we can argue the piece again some time. Take care
Well, you have to keep in mind that this was Madison, Wisconsin in the nineteen-eighties (one of the few things in this life I can claim to have had some real experience with).
Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution. Lots of points are not quite substantiated. > Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries' > Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy. Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'. Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
well the practice of moving towards socialism or small scale socialism happens and already is in affects/succeeds, mondragon is a large scale conglomerate thats worker owned and controlled, there are gaming companies that are worker owned like the company that made Dead Cells Motion Twin who descrine themselves as anarcho socialists. All laboreres that are fighting against management and for better working conditions'/democracy in the workplace are imposing "socialism" and working towards the ultimate goal so your comment is stupid and I realize the point youre making is mocking socialists for saying the USSR wasnt socialist which is true but youre too dumb and uneducated to know what actually existing socialism is bnecause of all the propaganda youve been fed
show me your source. i heard an interview where he said that the only choice was to vote for obama, and recently i heard an interview where he said that he sometimes votes democratic, sometimes republican and sometimes not at all.
@MillionthUsername I did not call homesteading force. I said the institution of private property was founded on force. I think the homesteading idea is nice when it refers to use rights, to occupancy and use. I also have a great deal of respect for people that work their own land, run their own thing. Even the Spanish anarchists had individualists tilling their own land alongside the collectives; it was land they worked on their own and self-managed, it is a very fine thing. (cont)
I think this comment is one of the few that really touches the center of the issue regarding leninism and revolutionary movements in advanced capitalism: even with economic crisis, there are not massive protests on the streets ( beside Spain and Greece ) and nowhere capitalism is challenge to say it has enter an hegemonic crisis; how necessary is today to "introduce" the revolutionary conscioussness into the working class ( or what remain of it ) and give life to revolutionary organizations...
@@austinpark7687 workers owning the means of production is a stupid notion that would never work in practical terms , socialism will eventually always lead to totalitarian form of government, but apparently no amount of historical evidence will ever convince marxists loonbags of this.
@@wtf2406Ever heard of worker cooperatives? They're out there and they work very well. There is no historical evidence because by definition, there has never been a socialist country. In the USSR the state owned the means of production. In China it's a centrally planned capitalist country. There has never been a country where the totality of the means of production have been owned by the workers. There are firms within this capitalist system that are socialist and as it said before, they work very well. The Mondragon cooperation is a great example of this.
Austin Park worker cooperative actually are not socialism at all and don’t violate a single fundamental of a free market system , so your only proof of socialism ever working is actually has a capitalist frameworks as noted by even Chomsky “Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker-owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make a profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others."
Wow, the woman sounds really pissed off, or "heated" at the very least. Dont get me wrong, i know there is a difference between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin was the last true "Dictator of the Proletariat. I used to really like Chomsky, and i agree with nost of what he says here. Lenin definitely deviated from most of his marxist peers, however i think that Lenin's application/his personal brand of communism was the only way it would/could work in Russia. Keep in mind, these people had just gone from being ruled by absolute monarchy, jumping from that right into a true, and real communist environment would just not be feasible!!
Wow! This was brilliant. Hits the nail on the head. His statement that the October Revolution wasnt really a revolution but a coup and that communism wasnt socialism but a form of totalitarianism are two points that are hard to disagree.
alex left-wing it’s a good point, the tzar wasn’t elected, but coup can be applied, as it was one group seizing power from a group who held power, in Russia’s case the royal family. Your second point is fair too, but let’s be realistic, bureaucracy wasn’t the only problem in the USSR and this is why Chomsky’s point made the most sense....because it wasn’t socialism, to call that form of communism socialism is a bad joke. Lenin and Stalin were power hungry megalomaniacs, Trotsky might have been better but not by much, just look at his dealing of the Kronstadt rebellion. If it had been genuine socialism then the millions who died in the USSR during the seventy years of communism, might have been spared and socialism wouldn’t be a dirty word in the vocabulary of right wing fanatics, but an ideal lots of other countries would aspire to.
"Confusion" - an apt word indeed. With all due respect, you have not attempted to address any of the points I raised in opposition to Chomsky's wooly thinking about politics and History. Nothing about Lenin and the Bolsheviks- nothing about the allegation of "coup" in respect of the 1917 Revolution, and nothing about what Mr C meant by "mainstream Marxist". I fail to see the point of your comment in the context of the concrete points I have raised.
Yups. And also having had made the choice of not going into quantum physics or other serious work. He worked on linguistics which I think carries less potential to harm someone's mindset (not the brain, mindset).
The Revisionism here is really embarrassing...but what else should we expect from movements that change the goal posts according to the whims of some hazy, far-away "Future" ideals...
"Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?!" dont attack me marxist leninst guys! Its just a joke!
Jonathan Walker The USSR (which was an Allied state) did the Holodomor genocide of 11 million Ukrainians and did the genocide of 30 million people from over 120 ethnic groups within the USSR before WW II even started, these ethnic groups, the Mordvan, Komi, Kazak, Volga Germans, Ukrainians, Karelian Finns, Koreans, were exterminated to create the "Ideal Soviet Man". gulagbarashevomovie.com/
Ethan Davidson I don't know if he mentioned any numbers. Such numbers would be suspect anyway. How do you gather them? But Chompsky did call the USSR "A gulag state." Clearly he is no fan of the soviet union, as one can learn just by watching this video.
The "accepted" if I can use that term, description by most historians is that the events of October of 1917 in Russia were a Revolution. Who in school has ever heard of the "Bolshevik Coup" or the "Russian Coup" of 1917? No, because it is referred to as the Bolshevik Revolution or the Russian Revolution. My point is, Chomsky is NOT mainstream. He is NOT Marxist, he is in fact of the anarchist perspective.
I have to admit, I feel that the intellectual basis of Marxism is formidable indeed, and the arguments it purports for social progress and equality are fairly substantial, but just listening to Chomsky, I can't help but admire the quiet ferocity with which he dismantles this woman's arguments. It's quite impressive.
The group of Bolsheviks who thought Lenin wasn't enough of a revolutionary, were the Jews who were such a prominent part of the Bolshevik party and who Churchill described as "professional revolutionairies alienated from their own traditions and culture". Sometimes one can hear people who still believe in socialism defend Trotsky against Stalin and claim that it was Stalin who betrayed Lenin and the international revolution. It's ofcourse far from the truth. Trotsky, who went into rage when someone reminded him of his Jewish past, did never criticize the brutality of the revolution until Stalin kicked him out of the party and exiled him. Photos from the civil war in the late 1920's show Trotsky at the front holding speaches to the soldiers dressed in a black leather uniform, looking like a SS fascist. Later, when he was touring Europe and America and became a revolutionary celebrity far away from the actual revolution, he distanced himself from the days when he shouted that the revolution washes its hands in Russian blood. It's worth to point out that very few in the Bolshevik leadership were Russians. My point is that the people Chomsky talks about were involved in a conspiration against everything people hold for right and true and ultimately they were a gang of killers who got killed. Socialists have a tendency to romanticize people like Trotsky and Rosa Luxembourg, but millions of people died because of their political insanity. The Russian revolution was a crime against Russia.
Where/how would Russia have ended up, say, 10 or 20 years after the time of the Revolution if the revolution never happened? What do you think would have come of the provisional government? I wonder that. But I do think Chomsky is right that there were a lot of socialists/Marxist at the time before the revolution who really didn't agree with Lenin's approach. I wonder if there would have been a reformist type of rise to power for socialists in Russia instead of a revolutionary one.
@@matts8708 When the Bolsheviks staged their coup d'etate, Russia had the biggest economical growth in Europe. It was never about saving Russia, it was all about bringing themselves to power and force the conspiracy socialism is on the Russian people. Russia would definitely be another country, politically and culturally, if this insanity hadn't ravaged the land. One must ofcourse take the world wars into consideration when one talks about Russia, but all of Europe, including Germany itself, suffered tremendously. It's true that it was much worse for Russia since Hitler declared "total war" on the Eastern front, but Russia had to deal with its mad socialist government at the same time, wich doubled the suffering. One can't rewind the time and put the pieces exactly right in another scenario, but I would say that the socialistic ideology hurt Russia deeply. The country still lives with the consequences from a more than 70 year long political experiment that ultimately and precisely like everywhere else socialism have been forced upon people, ended in misery. I think however that much of the criticism coming from western politicians is unfair and wrong, since they don't seem to understand or care about what Russia in its recent history been forced to go through. Instead they not only expect, but demand that Russia should be a state just like their states with a fully functioning open market under a perfect democratic rule. It's not the case anywhere, ofcourse, but western leaders have anyway an aptitude to present their countries and themselves that way. Putin is a great statesman who has set many things right in his country. He has definitely set Russia on the right track. Other statesmen want Russia to be less ambitious when it comes to win back its political prestige on the global scene, but that's ofcourse wishful thinking and definitely not realistic. I wouldn't call it chauvinistic, far from it, but there's definitely a feeling in Russia that they gave up their power too easy. Today I wouldn't mind if Russia returned to the global scene and balanced USA, power wise. It would probably be good for the US, as well. I don't think, for example, that the Gulf ward would have happened the way it did if Russia hadn't been cut off from the global decision making. I want to see Russia included in the European "gemeinschaft" instead of treated like an enemy with a persistent plan to destroy us. There's nothing there for Europe feeling this way. To the contrary, we have everything to lose should there be a confrontation between the US and Russia. To see Russia as an evil state makes only sense if one thinks about USA as a protector. The question is who's the real aggressor, though!
@@yosefaziz5240 When you draw a card too many times it gets worn and then blank. This time I can't read it. You should read what I write, instead of reacting on a reflex. The truth is rarely politically correct, so why should you be?
Interesting - we all learned all that in our Marxism classes, in middle school in former Yugoslavia. Yet, with all that knowledge and acknowledgment of the fallacy of the Soviet Socialism, the county remained corrupt.
EL Dragon seems to be systemic... Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even if you had that perfect individual that would build that perfect system... He or she will die or may even be killed and all that state power and money looks just too good :D
EL Dragon if you abandon or excuse lack of freedom in one part of society, it will transfer to another at some point. Especially if you have a greater goal which would „justify“ restricting freedoms. Restricting not just freedom in trade and business etc But also speech, voting etc.
@XenverX No, she criticized him for blithely equating Stalinism with Leninism. And he went to explain why he felt that Lenin wasn't true to Marxist ideology and was actually a precursor to later totalitarian political systems. That's completely relevant to her "question," which was actually just an extended impromptu criticism.
I was referring to the lady at the beginning of the vid. Perhaps not all the time. I'm sure there are many wise people who talk a lot. However pouring out excessive words without thought is one hall mark of a fool.
I have a character in my head for the lady at the beginning that gives that harangue disguised as a question. Like, I have met so many people that behave and sound like that that I can see them from a mile away.
The beauty of being a Marxist academic is that you can throw mud at people like Lenin, while propping up folks such as Luxembourg. When in fact both Noam and Rosa never found themselves in the position of actually having to make Marxism work. Chomsky should worry about closing universities and their beorgeoise notions of enlightenment as well as putting an , end tenure for indentured academics, before criticizing Marxists who actually had to face reality of both ruling and running a nation.
It stands to reason that if a worker feels they have control over their means of production and a say in their workplace conditions, then he/she is going to be a lot happier and more motivated than if he/she is only working to help make someone else get rich.
interesting is the case of hungarian marxist georgy lucaks who wrote the famous book ' history and class conciousness' analyzing the russian revolution, the though of lenin and rosa luxemburg; GLucaks was a "left" ( radical,hegelian,etc) marxist who recognized lenin as the best marxist of the international comunist movement after marx; GL said that in the mid 1920 the hope of an important european revolution made them concentrate on solidifying the russian revolution; in 1968 he talked on stalin
How can a linguist - or can only a linguist - utter a phrase like 'Bolshevism was a right-wing deviation" and still be regarded with any seriousness? That said, Chomsky is not exactly the 'useful idiot' Lenin envisioned. He's worth millions....
Haha! Well said. I would further bet that around 80% of the "comrades" listening to Chomsky's apologia aren't the ones paying for their "education." Mummy, Daddy...I want!
> _utter a phrase like 'Bolshevism was a right-wing deviation'_ He explained this in great detail in his speech. You, on the other hand, offer absolutely nothing.
Apple Pie sounded much like a revisionist, pro-Marxist attempt to paint the the failures of Communism as a Right Wing attempt at Marxism (in many less words than were uttered by Noam). As a way to disassociate the two view points, which is ok. It’s fine to discuss Lenin as being Right of the mainstream Marxist of the day based on his view and strategies towards implementing the Proletariat Revolution (as would continue with Stalinism). But to call him “Right Wing” on the Global, Political Scale is intellectually dishonest. His strategy of top down Revolution is Right of the most Leftist, Marxist, views but still vastly Left of center based on the Global, Political Spectrum. There just needs to be context added to his comments for the masses...
@@strechinpick where tf is the confusion dude? Google the Russian civil war. Leftists literally revolted against the Bolshevik party (hint: cause they were a right wing misinterpretation of socialism!) It's the same way Hitler is right wing. The right, in a traditional sense, is characterized by totalitarian/fascist regimes.
Lenin himself resembles Kautsky. They share a bourgeois conception of leadership. Lenin's understanding of the relationship between the working class and the revolutionary party is a bourgeois conception he absorbed through Kautsky, maintained even after breaking with the rest of his positions. Lenin held onto Kautsky's championing of bourgeois intellectuals (socialism must be thrust on the proletariat from outside it); this is reflected in the substitutionism of almost all Leninism.
Workers control of the production, sounds good you get control, be the boss and get the profits...but who decides which workers control which production? Can you change jobs? Who decides where students who leave school start work? What happens when a product becomes obsolete? This guy is just a dreamer and we are luckily he cant be bothered putting his thoughts into actions
I mean it is kinda true. For all I know, it's totally possible it never will work, so I'm not saying socialism necessarily works. But if you look at Marxist theory, and the ideas that came about surrounding socialism, none reflect what was done in the USSR or China. A basic tenet of socialism is "the workers own the means of production", and both the USSR and China had a ruling class which owned everything and oppressed the people (aka the workers) to get their way. That's as far from removed from basic socialism concepts as it gets.
But it never has because the elite have always feared the people taking full control. And in some ways its true that just putting a society in the hands of unprepared people might be risky. We clearly have never really seem true Marxism ever. All the states adopted Leninist models.
I get a TH-cam error when I try to post the link. But you can if you search for the Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky you can find it in the Marxist Archives. I do not see much differences between Kautsky and Chomsky.
After the July days, which was neither a bid for power nor a "riot" the party was suppressed. The office where the paper was produced was ransacked, and their printing press was destroyed. The comrades were ejected from their headquarters and a number imprisoned and some were shot dead. In the chapter, "Could the Bolsheviks have seized power in July, Leon Trotsky said :
Lenin was Right-Wing communist and even wrote a book called "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" after receiving criticism from Left-Wing communists such as Rosa Luxembourg over his authoritarian, "conspiratorial" revolution method which was also seen as anti-Proletarian as he ended up crushing workers and peasants uprisings which were disappointed over his state capitalist "new economy" dictatorship state
@@EdwardSkihands In that book he was talking about the Ultra leftists... He was an orthodox Marxist, he and Rosa were good friends they had critiques for each other but Rosa ended up looking at the Russian revolution (at Bolshevism) for inspiration in Germany, she wrote her critiques of the Russian revolution while in prison where she was literally in a Capitalist prison and she wasn't getting reliable information on the state of the revolution in Russia. When she was out of prison she saw the Russian revolution as it was when it first started, a healthy workers state facing the obstacles of being an isolated socialist revolution. You are totally incorrect in your assessment, Rosa like Lenin (and like Trotsky who wrote about this) understood that the Russian revolution or any revolution cannot survive on its own and there needs to be an international proletariat revolution. Lenin, Trotsky and Rosa would look at Chomsky now and call him what he is a bourgeois intellectual, an anarchist with no connection to the proletariat, an academic who's interests lie in academia, I much rather listen to Richard Wolff an actual socialist compared to this clown Chomsky. Lenin and Rosa were true comrades, true communists, and were both revolutionaries one can look up to. Quote from Rosa's text the Russian Tragedy "Their decision [Lenin and the party] was dictated by two revolutionary viewpoints: by the unshakable faith in the European revolution of the proletariat as the sole way out and the inevitable consequence of the world war, and by their equally unshakable resolve to defend by any means possible the power they had gained in Russia, in order to use it for the most energetic and radical changes." Of course, there were things to criticize of the Russian revolution things to criticize about Lenin and Trotsky but consider this, the material conditions of Russia were backward, Russia had no alternative support by any other proletariat revolution (Germany failing on several occasions due to the failure of the Social Democrats leadership that also eventual led to Rosa and Karl Liebnicht's DEATH'S), Russia's most educated citizens were members of the old regime and entered the socialist bureaucracy (which Lenin and Trotsky had many concerns about and which they had written about), there's too much to say about this subject but Lenin and the Bolshevik party led the most progressive political organization the world has ever seen EVEN considering all the obstacles they faced (it was only in the years after Lenin's death that the revolution became conservative/right-wing/nationalistic through Stalin's consolidation of power and his purges of the left wing in Russia) but for real read Left-wing Communism: an infantile disorder then read Utopian vs Scientific socialism by Engels please THEN read Rosa's texts on the Russian revolution, the Russian tragedy and "what is bolshevism" ! I'll end off here with some quotes by Rosa herself from again the Russian Tragedy written in 1918 " We would like to see the spineless jelly-fish, the moaners, the Axelrods, Dans, Grigoryanz [5], or whatever their names are, who, mouths frothing, sing their plaintive song against the Bolsheviks in foreign lands. And - just look! - they have found a sympathetic ear in such heroes as StrØbel, Bernstein, and Kautsky; we would like to see these Germans in the Bolsheviks’ place! All their superior understanding would rapidly exhaust itself in an alliance with the Milyukovs in domestic policy and with the Entente in foreign policy; to this would be added a conscious renunciation of all socialist reforms, or even of any move in this direction, in domestic policy - all this due to the conscious eunuch wisdom that says Russia is an agricultural country and Russian capitalism is not adequately cooked. The news now arriving from Russia about the situation of the Bolsheviks is a moving appeal to what vestiges of honour remain in the masses of German workers and soldiers. They have cold-bloodedly left the Russian Revolution to be torn to pieces, encircled and starve out. Let them now intervene, even at the eleventh hour, to save the revolution from the most terrible fate: from moral suicide, from an alliance with German imperialism... here is only one solution to the tragedy in which Russia in caught up: an uprising at the rear of German imperialism, the German mass rising, which can signal the international revolution to put an end to this genocide. At this fateful moment, preserving the honour of the Russian Revolution is identical with vindicating that of the German proletariat and of international socialists." And to end it off as a communist myself I will fight the bourgeois intellectual thought, and slander of anarchists like Chomsky who in the end help to serve the establishment of the rotten status quo that is Capitalism. A quote in "What is Bolshevism?" "The young people of the proletariat are obtained to carry out this great work as the true foundation of the Socialist state. They must show, even now, that they are equal to the great task of bearing the future of the human race upon their shoulders. There is still an old-world to be overthrown. A new world must be built!"
@@brianalonsoojeda tl:dr. Mainly because it's basically bs made up tp defend the REACTIONARY STATE CAPITALIST system and the revolution was basically just removal of Romanovs and replace them with Bolsheviks, far from socialism and communism Marx had in mind. Even Lenin thought the revolution won't start from Russia and the state was only put on halt to wait for real revolution. Proletariat progressed the nation, not the workers and peasants slaughtering bolsheviks. Their only job was to sit on top of hierarchy, it's also what Lenin alwsys had in mind. Socislist state was secondary. Are you tankie or nazbol by the way? Anyone who defends that reactionary failure isn't an actual Socialist with progression from capitalism to something bettet in mind
@@EdwardSkihands I'm a revolutionary and I know for a fact through my Marxist analysis that Russia was not state capitalist but it was a degenerated workers state. It was a series of complex processes where the proletariat did hold power and did change the mode of production to one which was socialist. It degenerated after Lenin's death in 1924. It's true Lenin did not believe the socialist revolution would not start in Russia, but I ask you this if you know your terms what does "Proletariat" mean... Cause proletariat is a term for the working class. I'm not a tankie i just know what I'm talking about, China is a state capitalist country and I will gladly very happily say that. Before you strawman my arguments read Scientific vs Utopian by Engels. also what does "workers and peasants slaughtering Bolsheviks" mean?? It's like you're looking at the majority, the working class, that you, as any revolutionary for justice of the oppressed classes, as a mindless uncritical unthinking plebian mass. To me that is disgusting, and Rosa would be terribly disappointed in you.
@@brianalonsoojeda Bolsheviks (majority) split from Mensheviks (minority) thanks to Lenin when he caused the breakdown of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). Fact is thought Mensheviks were majority at the times and Bolsheviks some other times and neither created the majority of population. Since society was mainly agrarian, by the year 1917 Revolutionary Socialist party that was mainly peasants was by far largest faction of the three main leftist revolutionary factions with up to 1 000 000 member whereas Bolsheviks had some 20 000 members. All that changed when Trotsky overthrew the government in Petrograd, that was only possible because there was very little resistance (if at all) as population including servicemen didn’t have much motivation to resist at that stage of dumpster fire the nation was at the time (ww1 which the Kerensky’s government joined, unrest’s from insecurity in general etc...) Short period of stability followed when Lenin pulled out of ww1, only for socialists starting revolution again after getting disappointed when realizing Lenin only used their motivation to fight and die for a change but ended up becoming the Tzar 2.0. Lenin himself considered socialist Proletarian (which means “urban” working class by the way. Peasants weren’t counted as ones) and peasant revolutionaries as greatest threat to his regime, bigger than Whites counter-revolution. He (or Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin pretty much) also crushed the revolutions, among many other socialists and socialist institutions as they proposed threat to his authority....
Actually, she asked a good question. And no, the speaker is not honest. He purposefully left out the issue of the Russian Civil War, the fact that Trotsky had to raise an army to defend the new workers state against invasion on 16 different fronts from 14 different countries, including the advanced imperialist countries of the west. He did this because it doesn't jive with his argument that raising a workers army was an authoritarian measure. It wasn't, it was a matter of survival for the new workers state. Ultimately, Chomksy can't break politically or socially from his petty-bourgeois class position - this is why he enjoined people to vote for Obama in 2008. He can't cut the umbilical cord to the pro-capitalist Democratic party. He is a well respected and internationally acclaimed academic, but his ideological attachments to anarcho-libertarianism prevent him from understanding objective features of capitalism like exploitation and the existence of class rule. You'll notice that he writes off labels like "working class" and "ruling class" as rhetoric, as if they weren't part of objective reality in life under capitalism but rather the product of imagination.
Yogen-In no senshi 1) Chomsky isn't an anarcho-libertarian 2) despite what you've just said Chomsky's argument still holds firm, Marxist-Leninist philosophy does not equate to Socialism. the fact that Trotsky had to raise an army is irrelevant to this.
XM8rifle: when in the marxist tradition we talk about a social class, we think of a determination relating the 'productive process' in the economic activity;classes are the bourgeoise, the proletariat, the peasants,etc; the party members that took charge of the political affairs of the country was more a bureaucracy than a class; no way their income (party bureaucracy) reflected the diferences between classes in europe or usa at the time;acceting they were a new class that class gab was smaller
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
Regardless of her policies, that woman at the beginning is incredibly nervous yet showing huge bravery to voice her opinion. Huge kudos to her!
I just found her annoying as heck. Wonder what became of her. Probably now an ultramaga
Have her courage in the ABC class
She sounds like a pompous ass
It can be hard challenging a respected professor in front of a lot of people like that.
Even his Leninism rants sound like pre-written prose. Truly a gifted mind.
One which distorts historical events however and misrepresents facts
@@mikeno8192 Honest question here, how does one navigate through the sea of falsehoods and misrepresentations and land on the truth of history?
@@mikeno8192 ...specify please.
@@mikeno8192 It's impossible to distort reality more than the bolsheviks did.
What Chomsky misses is that authoritarian "War Communism", which he blames on Lenin was a reaction to the counterevolution by the White Tsarist forces. So it makes it hard to say that what Lenin did in 1918-22 was what Lenin saw as the ideal and ultimately wanted like Chomsky suggests,
rakovsky I tend to agree. The civil war lasted ten years and outside aggression exacerbated certain traits which move intrinsically against libertarian socialism.
Struggle and cohesion in struggle has a negating impact on the individual aspect of the person. Rosa Luxembourg was one of the few to perceive and to describe how violent struggle could taint the process irremediably. She asked her comrades to be patient and to wait for less contingent circumstances in order to avoid violence and make the transformation process a democratic transition toward socialism. Unfortunately her views were vindicated through her murder.
The Russian revolution had no precedent and there was a process of trial and error. Lenin died before he and Trotsky had time to tackle the problem of the state apparatus and the perverse effects of any centralized control. They considered this as a primary concern.
Trotsky was a pragmatist, this is why he integrated more than 30,000 tsarists officers in the Red Army as he knew that cadres were urgently needed. The political officer corp was created to match each officer with someone loyal to the party.
Another negative aspect of the war context was suspicion. Violence and suspicion are not what one would pack for the "workers paradise".
rakovsky Yes, he used that excuse over and over, like W. Bush saying he was a "wartime" President. But the massacre of the Kromstad sailers, for example, happened after the civil war as over. And that was still before Stalin.
"It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity..."
Luxemburg was critically supportive of the Soviet Union, at least as far as the Bolshevik Revolution went. I think Chomsky's argument here misrepresents Luxemburg's critique. She certainly wouldn't have dismissed the whole revolution as a "coup," nor would she have considered private capitalist restoration a "small victory" in any way, shape or form. The Left-Marxists he so adores were agitating in the Soviet Union's early days for democratic reforms, not private capitalism. They would have been horrified at the direction it went as well as at the current state of Russia.
I'm sure he knows that the left Marxists were agitating for Democratic Reform, and not private capitalism. The thing is, private capitalism was revived under Lenin. After preaching against it for so long, it was a bitter pill for the Russian people to once again see shops that they could not afford to shop in, while they worked long hours in unhealthy conditions.. Lenin knew that he did not represent the left end of Marxism. Which is why he said, "Left-wing Communism is an infantile disorder." His go-to excuse was that the Societ Union was under attack from all sides, which was true. But one must wonder: if the system a revolution creates is not significantly better than the one it replaces, is it worth all that bloodshed and suffering to establish and protect that system? I'm inclined to think not. And, of course, Stalin pushed the Soviet Union into what was, in his own words, "State Capitalism."
Wow, that was fast. In any case, whatever the truth of all that may be, my point was only that his argument misrepresents Luxemburg's critique.
Of course he knows they were agitating for reform...again, this misses the point. Since he knows this, he should know that Left Marxists would hardly consider what happened in 1991 a "small victory for socialism."
As for to what extent pragmatic compromise in the face of threatening circumstances is necessary or acceptable, that's an ongoing debate we aren't going to resolve here, and in any case Rosa Luxemburg's comment quoted above from "The Russian Revolution" can speak for itself. Even self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalists have engaged in serious compromising pragmatism, for example in the form of participation in the legitimization of bourgeois elections, as well as reformist campaigns, which may improve workers' lives to a limited degree but which also sustain a capitalist/market economy.
This is one my favorite speakers...though not dynamic...but if you listen carefully, he articulates a very clear message with many facts and understanding of the connections in multiple movements.
+James Spades I love his lack of "dynamic" elements. No clouding emotion, just pure rational recitation of fact and logic.
Exactly unlike Zizek...
Keith Turner agreed
Keith Turner im sure most rational people are so bombarded w such hyperbole injected rhetoric that this is somehow almost intellectually soothing lol
i suggest writing main points as he speaks, and then read for yourself. it blows my mind every time i do it, on how many things i missed when i didn't take notes.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it” -Karl Marx
Tell that to the 200 million people dead under his disgusting world vision. Oh yeah you can’t they’re dead.
@@jensgronning4436 like 20 million die a year because of capitalism. Why don't you ask them what they think.
Oh yeah, you cant
@@AT-AT26 that’s laughable, I’d love to hear how you justify your your bogus statement.
@Jens Gronning anywhere between 20-50k die because of a lack of public healthcare in the us alone
Nestle contributes anywhere between 500k-1.5 million deaths (a year) with their baby formula in Africa and then pays off doctors etc to keep pushing it
Atleast half a million are killed because of the military industrial complex just since 9/11 alone. About 25k a year
The 100 million figure also includes abortions (since the USSR was the first country to legalise abortion). According to the WHO there are about 40 million abortions a year but I will be fair and only include 10 million.
This is all just from 5 things done under capitalism. The real number could be much higher such as how private prisons try to keep their prisoners for longer than they should be because they get money for it.
@@jensgronning4436 lmao imagine believing the black book of communism as a reliable source
As somewhat of an 'academic' myself I am always completely astonished by the depth of Chomsky's knowledge on so many important subjects. He seems to know all the important events and be aware of all of the relevant commentary. He must actually spend his life reading - and reading quickly whilst remembering everything - so that he can give brief talks like this at the drop of a hat.
Acting like you know something actually knowing something aren't the same thing.
I'm an admirer of Chomsky too. But it's on this point that the lady raises on which he will be remembered as being wrong on this vital point i.e. conflating Stalinism and Bolshevism. They were "separated by a river of blood". Regarding Lenin as being a "right wing deviation", this is unbelievably wrong and I can only put it down to Chomsky perhaps not having access to material that we have today on the subject. It is true that Trotsky was not a Bolshevik until the eve of revolution, for various reasons, but Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky were all regarded as orthodox Marxists who wrote large amounts of criticism against right-wing deviation (I e. against Kautsky et al). As I say, Chomsky is a principled progressive, but he was completely wrong here. The question, although asked nervously and passionately is actually bang on, and credit to that lady for raising it in an environment where much of the audience (and viewers of this TH-cam video) have no idea of the context and important historical nuances to which she was referring.
He also assumes others don’t look into these things as when they do you can pick holes in what he says as simply his own ideological lens in perceiving these facts
@@jamesyanchek779 he is a genius
Does anyone even come close to his ability to respond so effortlessly with such profound detail and sagacity?
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.”
Eric Fortune thanks for your effort in transcribing this
Eric Fortune :: Great job ! Much easier to understand when written ! And an exact quotation ! It must have been very labor-intensive !
Thank you !
@@cliffgaither Thank you! It's a labor of love. And it def helps me learn better.
@@efortune357 :: Yeah ! Chomsky definitely helps us learn.
@@efortune357hey! Great job man, thanks!
@ppitm You're seeing 1917 in splendid isolation from previous revolutions. The British glorious revolution, the French Revolution and the failure of the Paris Commune - is all the proof that Lenin needed to understand that the bourgeois counter revolution was inevitable. And when it came it would be bloody and ruthless.
Btw are you still alive
Dizzying intellect... Many can articulate, this guy simplifies
Dubrae fox Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution.
Lots of points are not quite substantiated.
> Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries'
> Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy.
Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'.
Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
The definition of genius .
@@Jide-bq9yf Indeed the definition of genius, for the less astute.
The Illoustrious One , Not according to Einstein ; “If you can’t explain it simply ; you really don’t understand it .”
Tiago Carvalhas where do I start ? As I obviously don’t have all day . Let’s do the bit about the Foucault encounter revealed in your link shall we . “A debate” I hope you agree is a search for truth or the defence of a claim purporting to be a true one . A postmodernist on the other hand is a person who at once dismisses the possibility of absolute truth but is too absurd to accept the obvious fact his whole project is ; making or defending absolute postmodernist truth claims . So ,no Foucault didn’t win the 1971 debate with Chomsky by incomprehensibly dickering around through out the whole course of it .
That lady was quite angry when she ask Chomsky but Chomsky reply without an ounce of hatred or biased in emotion which is the sign of a genius.
Nasha Naufal no, its the sign of self discipline.
Also the understanding of little young crazy communist wamen...
After all, that type of person still exists and did already 100-200 years ago.
The same ree ree ree.
Trump faced the same ree with that young wamen that asked him about when wamen finally will be paid the same.
Milton friedman faced a lot of reees.
Almost all public speekers face rees when they take questions
Its dicipline and control which for him comes naturally easier as he has a more bland personality.
Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution.
Lots of points are not quite substantiated.
> Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries'
> Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy.
Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'.
Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
@@kloschuessel773 I'm sorry. Can you say that in a more intellectual manner, not "ree ree ree" and "communist wamen". WTF is a ree? What the hell are you talking about.
Cillian Moran no, you can google and find out
You all should listen to Michael Parenti instead of Chomsky
michael parentis senile because he never used his brain. chomsky is still giving interviews about complex topics from science to linguistics to poltics at 94, ill stick with the person who uses his brain!
He’s too right wing
Chomsky is amazing and he’s basically educated 3 or 4 generations of people within his lifetime. Name another intellectual who has achieved that? You can’t. Though there’s no getting round the fact that he’s rather smug from time to time
Unequivocally the world’s greatest intellectual. How is it that most of the world doesn’t even know who he is?
Newton…Einstein…Turring…Von Neuman
@@tayrazor3325 They don't specify on linguistics, socioeconomics, sociology, political theory, economic theory, social structure, communication studies, and many other social sciences.
I wish that I had a fraction of this mans schooling on history and socialism. A great man.
Helps when you’ve lived through a lot of it like this guy has!
Added to that is the fact that the workers' section of the Petrograd Soviet already had a Bolshevik majority. Given that the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks directed the demonstrations of July 2 and 3, it is fair to say that they enjoyed overwhelming support in that city. I base that assessment on the July events and the figures above.
What a brilliant mind, pity so many here couldn't watch the whole video before making ignorant comments.
gotta sustain ye olde traditions
6:17, the ghost of Lenin has entered the chat.
Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution.
Lots of points are not quite substantiated.
> Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries'
> Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy.
Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'.
Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
I think that’s the problem I have with Anarchists they seem to think after the revolution the losers just go home and chill in their pyjamas and accept they’ve lost
Noam never said and neither believes that 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries'.
Chomsky is simply saying that orthodox marxists like Lenin believe so, hence the justification of pushing the population through state capitalists accelerationism given by Lenin. He brings this point out in opposition of Lenin as claiming himself to be "orthodox Marxist", Lenin completely ignored Marx's later writing, which Marx living in russia at the time, said that YES a socialist revolution can also happen in backwards peasant society like Russia. Read Marx - Zasulich correspondence.
So Chomsky is simply pointing out that even though Lenin claimed to be an orthodox Marxist aka believed 'socialism can only be built in the most industrially developed countries', Lenin completely ignored his own orthodox Marxists principles by completely ignoring Marx saying "Yes Socialist revolution can also happen in backwards peasant society as Russia"
You misunderstood Chomsky's point completely
Beautiful analysis and great point made by mr. Chomsky in explaining how Soviet Union was neither governed by Soviets (worker's councils) or it was socialist !
Drug Addicted Pornstar If Norm is so smart why does he not seem to realize Socialism is a RELIGION ?? A belief system based on faith- no evidence needed or wanted ! Socialism has been tried over 100 times in the 1900's and always predictably failed ! Yet they keep up the mantra " The idea is good- THEY just had the wrong people in charge !" The wrong people 100 plus times should tell them there is a basic flaw with the idea- so they must either be religious zealots- or mad ! No matter how you tweak it- it will fail since it stifles human creativity, rewards mediocrity, can not afford tons of money for research ( except for the security of the state- ie, military and police) and spends more controlling the people than helping them ! It does have one good thing though- everyone works- or dies !
***** The idea that it stifles human creativity is simply not true. If you look at history, you will see that most advancements in science and technology come from the public sector. On top of that Cuba is poor as hell, thanks mainly to US sanctions, yet they are leading the world in health care advancement, and have more doctors per person than any other country in the world.
Steven Lamb
I'm sorry but you are on the border of the ridiculous ! Advancement is from the public sector ? The only place that is even close to true is in the militarization of technology ! Government gave us cell phones ? Ipads? Tv ? Radio, Pc's ? Better yet- take the Internet- started as a military way to send real time communications of a secret nature. As long as it stayed in the "public" sector- it was top secret- you could go to prison just for disclosing it ! NASA was a military project also- notice all the uniforms at Canaveral ? It is when a few million independent minds look for a way to use something that it moves to the private sector- where profit is being hunted- that the "advancement" reaches the people. Further- in the private sector it doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime to develop and market a product- unlike the inefficient and corrupt government procurement system which is ALL at the taxpayers expense ! Cuba and medical advancement ?? Here is where you swallow propaganda like the river Nile swallows water ! Did Cuba invent a new throat swab or something ? They have a medical system that has a level for the top party members and small "storefront" clinics for everyone else. Need a suture, crutches, penicilin , fine- need more- good luck- wait in line ! Stop the stupid- "Cuba is poor because we have US santions" nonsense. First- ONLY we can't trade with them- they trade with ALL the other countries on the planet that want to trade with them, (2) If we make Cuba poor- how is it that Castro has BILLIONS of dollars in personal European bank accounts- mainly money from the USSR to supposedly "help" the people of Cuba (3) Trading with us has nothing to do with a system that traps people into the 1950's and totally prevents anyone from going into business for profit . Yeah- their health care is SO good that every time Castro needs more than an Aspirin- he ruins to Spain to locate a REAL doctor !
***** It's actually worked pretty well in say, Revolutionary Catalonia. Also, look up Mondragon.
Really ? There are many there right now who would disagree. Funny how as the" Commune" got bigger and bigger it also got more and more "Corporate". Indeed, one would say it was far more Capitalist in it's approach to competition than anything else. Many think it's very size is the real reason it had to file bankruptcy I still wonder what all this has to do with the idea that the "Public" sector causes advances or even delivers the advancements to the general population..
And yet. they still call Chompsky a Communist.
Ethan Davidson Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist or a libertarian socialist. So yes, he's a communist, but not a Marxist. He's criticizing the USSR on the grounds that it was not actually socialist.
*****
Yes, there is. Of course Marx was a critic of capitalism-that is why he is so famous. It's not all he did, though; he was also a prominent journalist, philosopher, political philosopher, staunch defender of workers' rights, leader of communist movements/parties and a brilliant economist in his own right.
There is absolutely such a thing as Marxism. It's simply a name for the philosophical method Marx used (dialectical materialism), and the general concepts and worldview that result from its application to various fields (i.e. class struggle, class consciousness, historical materialism etc.). Marx drew his dialectical materialism from Hegel's dialectic, except Hegel was an idealist-that's why they say Marx turned Hegel "on his head". His application of dialectics to history formed historical materialism, which inevitably led to the conclusion that capitalism would be replaced by a superior system, socialism, which would resolve class struggle and someday form full communism. These notions are known collectively as Marxism.
+Afonso Sousa Correct. But most people, when they hear Communist, only know about Leninists.
+Afonso Sousa In any case, Marx said "I am not a Marxist. I am Marx."
Ethan Davidson
*"But most people, when they hear Communist, only know about Leninists."*
Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm a Luxemburgist and a big fan of Titoism (mainly workers' self-management) and it's a bit tiring to explain every time that I'm not some USSR fanatic.
*"In any case, Marx said "I am not a Marxist. I am Marx."*
The standard interpretation of that is that he was trying to distance himself from the bourgeois opportunists (social-democrats) who were trying to take advantage of his critique of capitalism to fuel their reformist drivel. But, as you see, Marxism has very little to do with Marx as an individual; he's important because he was the one to advance the method.
Dear lord that conference is so calm and everyone so well spoken. What is it doing on the internet?
Noam Chomsky's grasp of political theory, history, current events and his ability to sort through all of it and explain it in such an organized fashion never ceases to amaze me.
Doesn’t mean he’s spot on - he’s completely wrong on this here. He acts like he knows - he simply doesn’t
@@mikeno8192 care to elaborate?
Under Lenin, the Soviets were placed under state control, and only the Bolsheviks were allowed to participate in state affairs, so the Soviets were essentially privately owned by the state. This rigid bureaucracy made Lenin a capitalist, and was the precursor for Stalinist state capitalism.
I recommend you read "My Disillusionment in Russia" by Emma Goldman.
Historian Anthony Wood, says that on October 25, the second all-Russian Congress of Soviets gathered at Smolny, where the Bolsheviks held 390 seats, the Mensheviks 80, and SRs. 180.
These positions were elected, and not appointed, and represented Soviets throughout the state.
By October 21, he says, the entire Petrograd garrison was with the Bolsheviks, and in the days before the seizure of power, Trotsky had brought over 100,000 soldiers to the side of the revolution.
I have consistently argued that taking the historical references I have cited into account, regarding the actual level of support for the Bolshevik party in the period prior to the October events, it is inaccurate to describe those events as a "coup" as a coup does not require the support of the people, only military muscle. The historical record also shows that there were very few fatalities in achieving the revolution , which I say confirms the argument that October enjoyed widespread support.
Chomsky is so far left, so revolutionary that even the CIA loves him.
what?
Lol
Filthy Marxist-Leninist detected
Damn! Then Mr.Chomsky walked forward, & dropped the mike at her feet.
Maybe when he puts his freedom and/or life on the line like Marx, Engels, Goldman, Luxemburg, Lenin, and Trotsky have, I may have more respect for him.
Every once in a while I come back to watch this clip, many thanks to the poor, misguided woman who stepped to Noam.
Did her hysterical strained tone strike you as much as it did me?
I have to wonder if this woman ever attained a modicum of self awareness?
If you detected "hysterical" in her well phrased and measured critique, I'd challenge you to look at how you'd receive what she said if it were a man.
"Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."
Leon Trotsky
When commenting about what happened in the USSR you need to consider Trotsky's words.
queenofshebalala u need to consider way more, my friend.
Yeah then USSR decide to give Trotsky an pickaxe lol
No doubt why Lenin and Trotsky ousted Martov for being a democrat.
It turned out the socialist can be just as tyrannical as the capitalist that's all. That socialism needs democracy can be said about capitalism. You could argue capitalism needed democracy as an excuse for whenever it fails. But then again people who lean left tend to not take responsibility so it's easier to blame the system regardless if its capitalist or socialist.
So, now 30 years later, this young lady is now a mid-level Executive at a Fortune 500 Corporation - and lives with her Attorney Husband and 4 teenage children in the affluent suburbs.
Really? Can you source?
@@oneman7039 Joking, dude!
Can you explain the basis for this joke?
@@anonymousweeble2224 The irony is that she's a Radical Leftist, condemning Free Market Principles and Personal Wealth, while a College Student at an Expensive Private University....
BUT, as a working Adult, she's become a Corporate Executive, with a husband, who is an Attorney at a Prestigious Law Firm, and they live in an expensive suburb and send their children to Private Schools....
So, she's become the exact thing that she's condemned in this video.
brilliant. he's right here based on the debates I'm reading in the papers then being published in that time period in Russia.
I heard the same woman speak many many times in different time periods in different University halls with equal amounts of surface level understanding on a vast array of topics.
However, that said, in subsequent elections, the Bolsheviks power base in Petrograd increased in size considerably. Trotsky says that in the Moscow Soviet by June 1, the Bolsheviks had 206 seats as opposed to 176 Mensheviks and 110 SRs. Similar shifts in support for the Bolsheviks were taking place throughout the state.Over a three month period (April to end June 1917), the party more than doubled its membership in Petrograd alone.
I am. Terrible thing. Brazil had a terrible problem with national debt in the 80's prior to adopting several measures that would now be refered to as Austarity Measures, cutting government spending, privatizations, strict monetary policy allowed our economy to grow and got us out of the crisis. It is incredible to me how americans today are willingly going to the point where Brazil was 30 years ago and cheer for the government while they do it.
An intellectual titan at work...
This by far my favorite video on youtube. This is why I describe myself as Marxist and not Marxist-Leninist.
GOOD question.
@Revo Red To what are you refering?
@TerrySleeper I agree with that, but it sounded to me like Callaghan was equating the motives of the two different regimes.
I'm not dismissing the importance of the civil war, just pointing out that it didn't influence Lenin's belief that power needed to be seized forcefully from Kerensky. The civil war was naturally a factor in the harsh measures that Lenin adopted after he was in power in order to ensure the survival of the government.
Don't know why I used 'scare quotes' just then, I may just not be keeping up it being so late in my part of the world right now.
You know you've wondered outside the sentient playpen when you get most of your exciting entertainment from Noam Chomsky responding to heated intellectual discourse with a disenfranchised audience member. Oouuuuu
L are you Mrs Yin or Mr Yang ? Joking . Thar was hilarious . 😊
This is absolute nonsense. I had no idea how much of a phony Chomsky was
The Soviet politicians spoke about socialism, but never implemented it. The dictature of the proletariat was indeed the dictature of the Communist party, that wasn't communist indeed
So collectivization is not a socialist policy? and how about the govermens support of (trade)unions?
martijn games nl collectivism is not socialist inherently
Check out what Chomsky says it means: direct worker control of their means of production. Why would it not work? It would certainly make the workers a lot more democratically involved in the work that they do, and thus probably a lot happier in their work-place.
But by no means was the Party ruined, nor was Lenin discouraged at this time. I also appreciate that this is not the revolution I am referring to here, but rather your references, which deserve examination in some detail. I ask you to consider the above inaccuracies, in the overall context, as I will be considering the two main sources I have, with this video in the coming week or so. I am not copping out. I am taking time to do further research before responding in full.
She's getting very emotional over this
Gordon O'Gairbhith Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution.
Lots of points are not quite substantiated.
> Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries'
> Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy.
Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'.
Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
Sixshooter 9 now, it boils down to 'I trust him bcz he has more authority'. Nicely done.
I live in Russia and spent quite a while reading on the events in question. And Chomsky's rhetoric is a spitting image of what I heard from one of the leaders of our anarchists and that's such a sidesplitter, to be honest.
Ideology makes them judge, not facts, or rather they pick and choose facts they need to prove their standing is firm.
Anyway, you seem to be half as knowledgeable as one could guess and I'm twice as unwilling to continue as one could be after contemplating loose content of your comment.
Sixshooter 9 btw, read about Stalin or another b e l i e v e r? ;)
It is fine she is getting emotional, that's natural. It is an important topic to discuss.
@@Name-jw4sj I don't remember what I what happened in this because its been a year, but emotion gets in the way of reason.
To be fair to Lenin, he was seriously outnumbered at the time and surrounded by enemies. His own party thought he was crazy to attempt a revolution, but he saw a rare historical opportunity -- and went for it. It's very difficult for a revolution to escape the cycle of violence, and he attempted to warn about Stalin's power grab before his death.
Would've been heroic if not for the fact that he needlessly overthrew an already established democracy. Yes, the dual-power structure of the Provisional Government and Petrograd Soviet was a bit shaky but it was still a genuine democracy that actually represented the will of the people. Red October was not a revolution but a coup made by a party throwing a hissy fit that it lost the election.
Are you referring to the Spanish civil war? If yes, then you might be interested in checking out one of Chomsky's first essays, which treats this subject. I believe it is reprinted in The Chomsky Reader.
It worked in Spain in 1936. You can read George Orwell's glowing review of society there. Then it was crushed by outside forces.
there were proletarian revolutions in germany (twice), hungary, france (may 68), america (blair mountain), russia, and all over south america and asia
labour theory of value is absolutely correct
7:40 KGB?! Lenin and KGB?!!!! KGB wasn't a thing back then, and there was Tcheka (secret police or political police if you want to define it better) back then. Then in Stalin era came the NKVD and the in Khrushchev era KGB.
Why can't Chomsky ever give a simple one-liner as an answer that would make him quote(mine)able?
I mean, it's not as if international relations and politics are complicated.
We are right, they are not..... how simple can it be?
Rob van Senten The Marxist Holodomor and Marxist genocide of over 100 ethnic groups in the USSR, such as the Ukrainians, Volga Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Kazaks, Hungarians, Karelians, Latvians, Komi, Bulgarians, Koreans? All to make the "Ideal Soviet Man". gulagbarashevomovie.com/
The same thing happened here in the US and Canada with the 500 native nations that killed for their land. You forgot about that genocide did you?
The subject is the Marxist USSR genocide.
Michael Kingsbury Wrong, idiot. Did you not watch the video? Chomsky is offering criticism on the USSR precisely on the grounds that it was a massive deviation from Marxism or actual socialism, which is why a lot of other Marxists (Trotsky, Luxembourg) criticized it. Few socialists support the USSR (especially, but not only, post-Lenin) because it was NOT socialist. Why is this so hard to understand? Morons like you, who haven't read a page of Marx's work but still want to wax lyrical, aren't helping.
Afonso Sousa Indeed, almost no socialist supports the USSR anymore. The Communists either a) became Left-Communists or Trotskyists, the socialists mostly completely abandoned revolutionary Democratic Socialism and became modern Social Democrats. Right-wingers need to learn that almost no socialist supports the USSR (or it's ideological Marxist-Leninist variations) anymore.
Noam Chomsky is that nigga!
Chomsky is informative and makes some good points, but overall she is correct. Just read Lenin, Trotsky and Luxembourg and compare that to Stalin.
Luxembourg was not against Lenin, as he falsely claims. And Pannekoek would certainly recognize fundamental differences between Lenin and Stalin his political disagreements with bolsheviks notwithstanding.
Chomsky describes methods adopted during the Civil War as the ideal politics of the bolshevik party.
In fact, Chomsky actually lays the ground here for distinguishing between Stalinism and Leninism, but fails to do so because of his own political commitment no anarcho-syndicalism. He could have expressed his anti-Leninism without conceding the point that Lenin = Stalin. It's absurd to invoque Luxembourg in this context - she considered Lenin a good comrade and worked with him frequently.
To date I have cited two historical references in support of my view that the events of October 1917 were a revolution. One of these was Leon Trotsky, who was a participant and someone who chronicled in great detail, the events which he himself took part in. The second is Anthony Wood whose short History book "The Russian Revolution" I suspect was written for consumption by school students, so it is more "mainstream" if you like.
Who is arguing that October 1917 wasn't a revolution, Richard?
@@fenceyhen4249 Umm... Chomsky right here in this clip.
I agree with richard
He's right.
BinaryStarofShaolin Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution.
Lots of points are not quite substantiated.
> Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries'
> Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy.
Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'.
Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
@@clockfixer5049 "counter-revolution" bs that was the excuse for all the cruel crimes to stay in power. Where the Soviets and Menscheviks were also "counter-revolution" wake up man!
@@Gieszkanne can you think? At least, from time to time? Do you really believe that Bolsheviks wanted it 'the hard way'? Do you really believe they needed the bloodbath? Do you really believe capitalist countries wanted to forfeit their Russian capitals and market? Do you really believe that arguing about the Russian revolution is even productive in any way?
Give me a break
@@clockfixer5049 Startin with an insult just show your weackness. Asking me to think than if I believe? Has nothing to do with either just knowing. Also I dont argue . You try to argue. You are a joke I dont take you serious. This more of a cult and religion for you. I know guy like you.
@@Gieszkanne exactly. anyway, when the dust settles, you either think or better not blurt out false truisms so widespread among anarchists
You've been studying history since you were 2?
Top lecture - thanks for uploading.
It's true that most all of the counties in the world have some mix of socialism and capitalism. But what Chomsky is saying is that what is important is not just how much of a safety net people have but also how much control they have over their work-places and their means of production. He's saying that when those are owned and controlled not by the workers themselves but either by private capitalists, or by a national government as happened in the Soviet Union, then there are problems.
Only playing with the 23rd of December carry on My research only goes up to around August / September 1917, so I can't address the November events. I am presently half way through the History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky in three volumes. I am studying this work as I am an active socialist, keen to learn the lessons history has to teach us, and .keen to familiarise myself with the events preceding the October Revolution. I hope we can argue the piece again some time. Take care
The lady asking the question sounds crazy.
How so???
Well, you have to keep in mind that this was Madison, Wisconsin in the nineteen-eighties (one of the few things in this life I can claim to have had some real experience with).
Hysterical certainly.
Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution.
Lots of points are not quite substantiated.
> Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries'
> Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy.
Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'.
Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
She isn't crazy. She is indoctrinated. Like being a Bible Belt Babtist, you know the lingo, you have the belief, you follow the leader.
Real socialism has never been tried!!
well the practice of moving towards socialism or small scale socialism happens and already is in affects/succeeds, mondragon is a large scale conglomerate thats worker owned and controlled, there are gaming companies that are worker owned like the company that made Dead Cells Motion Twin who descrine themselves as anarcho socialists. All laboreres that are fighting against management and for better working conditions'/democracy in the workplace are imposing "socialism" and working towards the ultimate goal so your comment is stupid and I realize the point youre making is mocking socialists for saying the USSR wasnt socialist which is true but youre too dumb and uneducated to know what actually existing socialism is bnecause of all the propaganda youve been fed
show me your source. i heard an interview where he said that the only choice was to vote for obama, and recently i heard an interview where he said that he sometimes votes democratic, sometimes republican and sometimes not at all.
@MillionthUsername I did not call homesteading force. I said the institution of private property was founded on force. I think the homesteading idea is nice when it refers to use rights, to occupancy and use. I also have a great deal of respect for people that work their own land, run their own thing. Even the Spanish anarchists had individualists tilling their own land alongside the collectives; it was land they worked on their own and self-managed, it is a very fine thing. (cont)
I think this comment is one of the few that really touches the center of the issue regarding leninism and revolutionary movements in advanced capitalism: even with economic crisis, there are not massive protests on the streets ( beside Spain and Greece ) and nowhere capitalism is challenge to say it has enter an hegemonic crisis; how necessary is today to "introduce" the revolutionary conscioussness into the working class ( or what remain of it ) and give life to revolutionary organizations...
Somebody needs to explain this to Jordan Peterson's lobsters.
When socialism goes wrong, it's not socialism anymore.
@@andrecampos5732 It was not socialism. The workers did not own the means of production, the state did. Jesus Christ, did you not watch the video?
@@austinpark7687 workers owning the means of production is a stupid notion that would never work in practical terms , socialism will eventually always lead to totalitarian form of government, but apparently no amount of historical evidence will ever convince marxists loonbags of this.
@@wtf2406Ever heard of worker cooperatives? They're out there and they work very well. There is no historical evidence because by definition, there has never been a socialist country. In the USSR the state owned the means of production. In China it's a centrally planned capitalist country. There has never been a country where the totality of the means of production have been owned by the workers. There are firms within this capitalist system that are socialist and as it said before, they work very well. The Mondragon cooperation is a great example of this.
Austin Park worker cooperative actually are not socialism at all and don’t violate a single fundamental of a free market system , so your only proof of socialism ever working is actually has a capitalist frameworks as noted by even Chomsky “Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker-owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make a profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others."
Wow, the woman sounds really pissed off, or "heated" at the very least. Dont get me wrong, i know there is a difference between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin was the last true "Dictator of the Proletariat. I used to really like Chomsky, and i agree with nost of what he says here. Lenin definitely deviated from most of his marxist peers, however i think that Lenin's application/his personal brand of communism was the only way it would/could work in Russia. Keep in mind, these people had just gone from being ruled by absolute monarchy, jumping from that right into a true, and real communist environment would just not be feasible!!
Wow! This was brilliant. Hits the nail on the head. His statement that the October Revolution wasnt really a revolution but a coup and that communism wasnt socialism but a form of totalitarianism are two points that are hard to disagree.
alex left-wing it’s a good point, the tzar wasn’t elected, but coup can be applied, as it was one group seizing power from a group who held power, in Russia’s case the royal family. Your second point is fair too, but let’s be realistic, bureaucracy wasn’t the only problem in the USSR and this is why Chomsky’s point made the most sense....because it wasn’t socialism, to call that form of communism socialism is a bad joke. Lenin and Stalin were power hungry megalomaniacs, Trotsky might have been better but not by much, just look at his dealing of the Kronstadt rebellion. If it had been genuine socialism then the millions who died in the USSR during the seventy years of communism, might have been spared and socialism wouldn’t be a dirty word in the vocabulary of right wing fanatics, but an ideal lots of other countries would aspire to.
"Confusion" - an apt word indeed. With all due respect, you have not attempted to address any of the points I raised in opposition to Chomsky's wooly thinking about politics and History. Nothing about Lenin and the Bolsheviks- nothing about the allegation of "coup" in respect of the 1917 Revolution, and nothing about what Mr C meant by "mainstream Marxist". I fail to see the point of your comment in the context of the concrete points I have raised.
Yups. And also having had made the choice of not going into quantum physics or other serious work. He worked on linguistics which I think carries less potential to harm someone's mindset (not the brain, mindset).
The Revisionism here is really embarrassing...but what else should we expect from movements that change the goal posts according to the whims of some hazy, far-away "Future" ideals...
Ok, tell us how it really was then, oh woke one.
I notice he has nothing further to add. Sounds like a troll.
"Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?!"
dont attack me marxist leninst guys! Its just a joke!
V.I. LENIN
Insightful
Jonathan Walker The USSR (which was an Allied state) did the Holodomor genocide of 11 million Ukrainians and did the genocide of 30 million people from over 120 ethnic groups within the USSR before WW II even started, these ethnic groups, the Mordvan, Komi, Kazak, Volga Germans, Ukrainians, Karelian Finns, Koreans, were exterminated to create the "Ideal Soviet Man". gulagbarashevomovie.com/
Michael Kingsbury Chompsky did not say anything that would contradict that.
Ethan Davidson Where did Chompsky say 65 million were killed in USSR GULAG, as Solzhenitsyn and Kurganov did?
Ethan Davidson I don't know if he mentioned any numbers. Such numbers would be suspect anyway. How do you gather them? But Chompsky did call the USSR "A gulag state." Clearly he is no fan of the soviet union, as one can learn just by watching this video.
+Ethan Davidson what is gulag
The "accepted" if I can use that term, description by most historians is that the events of October of 1917 in Russia were a Revolution. Who in school has ever heard of the "Bolshevik Coup" or the "Russian Coup" of 1917? No, because it is referred to as the Bolshevik Revolution or the Russian Revolution. My point is, Chomsky is NOT mainstream. He is NOT Marxist, he is in fact of the anarchist perspective.
I have to admit, I feel that the intellectual basis of Marxism is formidable indeed, and the arguments it purports for social progress and equality are fairly substantial, but just listening to Chomsky, I can't help but admire the quiet ferocity with which he dismantles this woman's arguments. It's quite impressive.
The group of Bolsheviks who thought Lenin wasn't enough of a revolutionary, were the Jews who were such a prominent part of the Bolshevik party and who Churchill described as "professional revolutionairies alienated from their own traditions and culture". Sometimes one can hear people who still believe in socialism defend Trotsky against Stalin and claim that it was Stalin who betrayed Lenin and the international revolution. It's ofcourse far from the truth. Trotsky, who went into rage when someone reminded him of his Jewish past, did never criticize the brutality of the revolution until Stalin kicked him out of the party and exiled him. Photos from the civil war in the late 1920's show Trotsky at the front holding speaches to the soldiers dressed in a black leather uniform, looking like a SS fascist. Later, when he was touring Europe and America and became a revolutionary celebrity far away from the actual revolution, he distanced himself from the days when he shouted that the revolution washes its hands in Russian blood. It's worth to point out that very few in the Bolshevik leadership were Russians. My point is that the people Chomsky talks about were involved in a conspiration against everything people hold for right and true and ultimately they were a gang of killers who got killed. Socialists have a tendency to romanticize people like Trotsky and Rosa Luxembourg, but millions of people died because of their political insanity. The Russian revolution was a crime against Russia.
Where/how would Russia have ended up, say, 10 or 20 years after the time of the Revolution if the revolution never happened? What do you think would have come of the provisional government? I wonder that. But I do think Chomsky is right that there were a lot of socialists/Marxist at the time before the revolution who really didn't agree with Lenin's approach. I wonder if there would have been a reformist type of rise to power for socialists in Russia instead of a revolutionary one.
@@matts8708 When the Bolsheviks staged their coup d'etate, Russia had the biggest economical growth in Europe. It was never about saving Russia, it was all about bringing themselves to power and force the conspiracy socialism is on the Russian people. Russia would definitely be another country, politically and culturally, if this insanity hadn't ravaged the land. One must ofcourse take the world wars into consideration when one talks about Russia, but all of Europe, including Germany itself, suffered tremendously. It's true that it was much worse for Russia since Hitler declared "total war" on the Eastern front, but Russia had to deal with its mad socialist government at the same time, wich doubled the suffering. One can't rewind the time and put the pieces exactly right in another scenario, but I would say that the socialistic ideology hurt Russia deeply. The country still lives with the consequences from a more than 70 year long political experiment that ultimately and precisely like everywhere else socialism have been forced upon people, ended in misery. I think however that much of the criticism coming from western politicians is unfair and wrong, since they don't seem to understand or care about what Russia in its recent history been forced to go through. Instead they not only expect, but demand that Russia should be a state just like their states with a fully functioning open market under a perfect democratic rule. It's not the case anywhere, ofcourse, but western leaders have anyway an aptitude to present their countries and themselves that way.
Putin is a great statesman who has set many things right in his country. He has definitely set Russia on the right track. Other statesmen want Russia to be less ambitious when it comes to win back its political prestige on the global scene, but that's ofcourse wishful thinking and definitely not realistic. I wouldn't call it chauvinistic, far from it, but there's definitely a feeling in Russia that they gave up their power too easy. Today I wouldn't mind if Russia returned to the global scene and balanced USA, power wise. It would probably be good for the US, as well. I don't think, for example, that the Gulf ward would have happened the way it did if Russia hadn't been cut off from the global decision making.
I want to see Russia included in the European "gemeinschaft" instead of treated like an enemy with a persistent plan to destroy us. There's nothing there for Europe feeling this way. To the contrary, we have everything to lose should there be a confrontation between the US and Russia. To see Russia as an evil state makes only sense if one thinks about USA as a protector. The question is who's the real aggressor, though!
@@matts8708 Several times. There were the SR's, Mensheviks and Workers Opposition who were opposed to the Bolsheviks.
*antisemite alert*
@@yosefaziz5240 When you draw a card too many times it gets worn and then blank. This time I can't read it. You should read what I write, instead of reacting on a reflex. The truth is rarely politically correct, so why should you be?
Interesting - we all learned all that in our Marxism classes, in middle school in former Yugoslavia. Yet, with all that knowledge and acknowledgment of the fallacy of the Soviet Socialism, the county remained corrupt.
EL Dragon seems to be systemic...
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Even if you had that perfect individual that would build that perfect system...
He or she will die or may even be killed and all that state power and money looks just too good :D
EL Dragon if you abandon or excuse lack of freedom in one part of society, it will transfer to another at some point.
Especially if you have a greater goal which would „justify“ restricting freedoms.
Restricting not just freedom in trade and business etc
But also speech, voting etc.
That woman in the beginning sure was annoying.
@XenverX No, she criticized him for blithely equating Stalinism with Leninism. And he went to explain why he felt that Lenin wasn't true to Marxist ideology and was actually a precursor to later totalitarian political systems. That's completely relevant to her "question," which was actually just an extended impromptu criticism.
This is a golden nugget of a speech.
you think so because you have no f. idea of what he is talking about. in short, he said nothing in this "nugget' of a speech.
The empty can rattles the loudest.
Does it?
I was referring to the lady at the beginning of the vid. Perhaps not all the time. I'm sure there are many wise people who talk a lot. However pouring out excessive words without thought is one hall mark of a fool.
sgt7 But how does an empty can rattle at all?
Cockoff Gewgle I'm going to presume that you don't need me to tell you that the phrase used is a figure of speech :)!!
Cheap metaphores wont make an argument
I already know what that lady looks like just by hearing the way she talks.
bob loblaw what??
I have a character in my head for the lady at the beginning that gives that harangue disguised as a question. Like, I have met so many people that behave and sound like that that I can see them from a mile away.
Oh, okay.
Tankies gonna tank.
The beauty of being a Marxist academic is that you can throw mud at people like Lenin, while propping up folks such as Luxembourg. When in fact both Noam and Rosa never found themselves in the position of actually having to make Marxism work.
Chomsky should worry about closing universities and their beorgeoise notions of enlightenment as well as putting an , end tenure for indentured academics, before criticizing Marxists who actually had to face reality of both ruling and running a nation.
+howie fox if you can´t make it work without slaughtering people, you shouldn´t do it or be called human scum.
@@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi4493 exactly
@@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi4493 i agree the US should stop their capitalist system because its slaightering thousands in the process
Even the harsh critics of Rosa would b left speechless by your comment😷
It stands to reason that if a worker feels they have control over their means of production and a say in their workplace conditions, then he/she is going to be a lot happier and more motivated than if he/she is only working to help make someone else get rich.
interesting is the case of hungarian marxist georgy lucaks who wrote the famous book ' history and class conciousness' analyzing the russian revolution, the though of lenin and rosa luxemburg; GLucaks was a "left" ( radical,hegelian,etc) marxist who recognized lenin as the best marxist of the international comunist movement after marx; GL said that in the mid 1920 the hope of an important european revolution made them concentrate on solidifying the russian revolution; in 1968 he talked on stalin
How can a linguist - or can only a linguist - utter a phrase like 'Bolshevism was a right-wing deviation" and still be regarded with any seriousness?
That said, Chomsky is not exactly the 'useful idiot' Lenin envisioned. He's worth millions....
Haha! Well said. I would further bet that around 80% of the "comrades" listening to Chomsky's apologia aren't the ones paying for their "education." Mummy, Daddy...I want!
> _utter a phrase like 'Bolshevism was a right-wing deviation'_
He explained this in great detail in his speech. You, on the other hand, offer absolutely nothing.
Apple Pie sounded much like a revisionist, pro-Marxist attempt to paint the the failures of Communism as a Right Wing attempt at Marxism (in many less words than were uttered by Noam). As a way to disassociate the two view points, which is ok. It’s fine to discuss Lenin as being Right of the mainstream Marxist of the day based on his view and strategies towards implementing the Proletariat Revolution (as would continue with Stalinism). But to call him “Right Wing” on the Global, Political Scale is intellectually dishonest. His strategy of top down Revolution is Right of the most Leftist, Marxist, views but still vastly Left of center based on the Global, Political Spectrum. There just needs to be context added to his comments for the masses...
@@strechinpick where tf is the confusion dude? Google the Russian civil war. Leftists literally revolted against the Bolshevik party (hint: cause they were a right wing misinterpretation of socialism!) It's the same way Hitler is right wing. The right, in a traditional sense, is characterized by totalitarian/fascist regimes.
Please read Lenins leftwing communism
After listening to Jordan Peterson, some of these speakers are like Ambien.
Quite erudite.
How else? in this case...right?
Lenin himself resembles Kautsky. They share a bourgeois conception of leadership. Lenin's understanding of the relationship between the working class and the revolutionary party is a bourgeois conception he absorbed through Kautsky, maintained even after breaking with the rest of his positions. Lenin held onto Kautsky's championing of bourgeois intellectuals (socialism must be thrust on the proletariat from outside it); this is reflected in the substitutionism of almost all Leninism.
Workers control of the production, sounds good you get control, be the boss and get the profits...but who decides which workers control which production?
Can you change jobs? Who decides where students who leave school start work? What happens when a product becomes obsolete?
This guy is just a dreamer and we are luckily he cant be bothered putting his thoughts into actions
Same old tired canard: "Socialism totally works, it's just never been implemented correctly."
I mean it is kinda true. For all I know, it's totally possible it never will work, so I'm not saying socialism necessarily works.
But if you look at Marxist theory, and the ideas that came about surrounding socialism, none reflect what was done in the USSR or China. A basic tenet of socialism is "the workers own the means of production", and both the USSR and China had a ruling class which owned everything and oppressed the people (aka the workers) to get their way. That's as far from removed from basic socialism concepts as it gets.
But it never has because the elite have always feared the people taking full control. And in some ways its true that just putting a society in the hands of unprepared people might be risky. We clearly have never really seem true Marxism ever. All the states adopted Leninist models.
He’s right
"Listen here, you little shit..."
*Boss Music Begins*
Poor speech, poor understanding of the events. Woody Allen might have given a better talk on the subjects.
Do you have an actual reference where one might find a better understanding, other than Woody Allen? That would be more helpful.
I get a TH-cam error when I try to post the link. But you can if you search for the Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky you can find it in the Marxist Archives.
I do not see much differences between Kautsky and Chomsky.
After the July days, which was neither a bid for power nor a "riot" the party was suppressed. The office where the paper was produced was ransacked, and their printing press was destroyed. The comrades were ejected from their headquarters and a number imprisoned and some were shot dead. In the chapter, "Could the Bolsheviks have seized power in July, Leon Trotsky said :
WHAT LENIN WAS A RIGHT WING DEVIATION OF MARXISM???? WHAT THE FUCK LOOOL IM DYING
Lenin was Right-Wing communist and even wrote a book called "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" after receiving criticism from Left-Wing communists such as Rosa Luxembourg over his authoritarian, "conspiratorial" revolution method which was also seen as anti-Proletarian as he ended up crushing workers and peasants uprisings which were disappointed over his state capitalist "new economy" dictatorship state
@@EdwardSkihands In that book he was talking about the Ultra leftists... He was an orthodox Marxist, he and Rosa were good friends they had critiques for each other but Rosa ended up looking at the Russian revolution (at Bolshevism) for inspiration in Germany, she wrote her critiques of the Russian revolution while in prison where she was literally in a Capitalist prison and she wasn't getting reliable information on the state of the revolution in Russia. When she was out of prison she saw the Russian revolution as it was when it first started, a healthy workers state facing the obstacles of being an isolated socialist revolution. You are totally incorrect in your assessment, Rosa like Lenin (and like Trotsky who wrote about this) understood that the Russian revolution or any revolution cannot survive on its own and there needs to be an international proletariat revolution.
Lenin, Trotsky and Rosa would look at Chomsky now and call him what he is a bourgeois intellectual, an anarchist with no connection to the proletariat, an academic who's interests lie in academia, I much rather listen to Richard Wolff an actual socialist compared to this clown Chomsky. Lenin and Rosa were true comrades, true communists, and were both revolutionaries one can look up to.
Quote from Rosa's text the Russian Tragedy "Their decision [Lenin and the party] was dictated by two revolutionary viewpoints: by the unshakable faith in the European revolution of the proletariat as the sole way out and the inevitable consequence of the world war, and by their equally unshakable resolve to defend by any means possible the power they had gained in Russia, in order to use it for the most energetic and radical changes."
Of course, there were things to criticize of the Russian revolution things to criticize about Lenin and Trotsky but consider this, the material conditions of Russia were backward, Russia had no alternative support by any other proletariat revolution (Germany failing on several occasions due to the failure of the Social Democrats leadership that also eventual led to Rosa and Karl Liebnicht's DEATH'S), Russia's most educated citizens were members of the old regime and entered the socialist bureaucracy (which Lenin and Trotsky had many concerns about and which they had written about), there's too much to say about this subject but Lenin and the Bolshevik party led the most progressive political organization the world has ever seen EVEN considering all the obstacles they faced (it was only in the years after Lenin's death that the revolution became conservative/right-wing/nationalistic through Stalin's consolidation of power and his purges of the left wing in Russia) but for real read Left-wing Communism: an infantile disorder then read Utopian vs Scientific socialism by Engels please THEN read Rosa's texts on the Russian revolution, the Russian tragedy and "what is bolshevism" ! I'll end off here with some quotes by Rosa herself from again the Russian Tragedy written in 1918
"
We would like to see the spineless jelly-fish, the moaners, the Axelrods, Dans, Grigoryanz [5], or whatever their names are, who, mouths frothing, sing their plaintive song against the Bolsheviks in foreign lands. And - just look! - they have found a sympathetic ear in such heroes as StrØbel, Bernstein, and Kautsky; we would like to see these Germans in the Bolsheviks’ place! All their superior understanding would rapidly exhaust itself in an alliance with the Milyukovs in domestic policy and with the Entente in foreign policy; to this would be added a conscious renunciation of all socialist reforms, or even of any move in this direction, in domestic policy - all this due to the conscious eunuch wisdom that says Russia is an agricultural country and Russian capitalism is not adequately cooked.
The news now arriving from Russia about the situation of the Bolsheviks is a moving appeal to what vestiges of honour remain in the masses of German workers and soldiers. They have cold-bloodedly left the Russian Revolution to be torn to pieces, encircled and starve out. Let them now intervene, even at the eleventh hour, to save the revolution from the most terrible fate: from moral suicide, from an alliance with German imperialism...
here is only one solution to the tragedy in which Russia in caught up: an uprising at the rear of German imperialism, the German mass rising, which can signal the international revolution to put an end to this genocide. At this fateful moment, preserving the honour of the Russian Revolution is identical with vindicating that of the German proletariat and of international socialists."
And to end it off as a communist myself I will fight the bourgeois intellectual thought, and slander of anarchists like Chomsky who in the end help to serve the establishment of the rotten status quo that is Capitalism.
A quote in "What is Bolshevism?"
"The young people of the proletariat are obtained to carry out this great work as the true foundation of the Socialist state. They must show, even now, that they are equal to the great task of bearing the future of the human race upon their shoulders. There is still an old-world to be overthrown. A new world must be built!"
@@brianalonsoojeda tl:dr. Mainly because it's basically bs made up tp defend the REACTIONARY STATE CAPITALIST system and the revolution was basically just removal of Romanovs and replace them with Bolsheviks, far from socialism and communism Marx had in mind. Even Lenin thought the revolution won't start from Russia and the state was only put on halt to wait for real revolution. Proletariat progressed the nation, not the workers and peasants slaughtering bolsheviks. Their only job was to sit on top of hierarchy, it's also what Lenin alwsys had in mind. Socislist state was secondary.
Are you tankie or nazbol by the way? Anyone who defends that reactionary failure isn't an actual Socialist with progression from capitalism to something bettet in mind
@@EdwardSkihands I'm a revolutionary and I know for a fact through my Marxist analysis that Russia was not state capitalist but it was a degenerated workers state. It was a series of complex processes where the proletariat did hold power and did change the mode of production to one which was socialist. It degenerated after Lenin's death in 1924. It's true Lenin did not believe the socialist revolution would not start in Russia, but I ask you this if you know your terms what does "Proletariat" mean... Cause proletariat is a term for the working class. I'm not a tankie i just know what I'm talking about, China is a state capitalist country and I will gladly very happily say that. Before you strawman my arguments read Scientific vs Utopian by Engels. also what does "workers and peasants slaughtering Bolsheviks" mean?? It's like you're looking at the majority, the working class, that you, as any revolutionary for justice of the oppressed classes, as a mindless uncritical unthinking plebian mass. To me that is disgusting, and Rosa would be terribly disappointed in you.
@@brianalonsoojeda Bolsheviks (majority) split from Mensheviks (minority) thanks to Lenin when he caused the breakdown of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). Fact is thought Mensheviks were majority at the times and Bolsheviks some other times and neither created the majority of population. Since society was mainly agrarian, by the year 1917 Revolutionary Socialist party that was mainly peasants was by far largest faction of the three main leftist revolutionary factions with up to 1 000 000 member whereas Bolsheviks had some 20 000 members. All that changed when Trotsky overthrew the government in Petrograd, that was only possible because there was very little resistance (if at all) as population including servicemen didn’t have much motivation to resist at that stage of dumpster fire the nation was at the time (ww1 which the Kerensky’s government joined, unrest’s from insecurity in general etc...)
Short period of stability followed when Lenin pulled out of ww1, only for socialists starting revolution again after getting disappointed when realizing Lenin only used their motivation to fight and die for a change but ended up becoming the Tzar 2.0.
Lenin himself considered socialist Proletarian (which means “urban” working class by the way. Peasants weren’t counted as ones) and peasant revolutionaries as greatest threat to his regime, bigger than Whites counter-revolution. He (or Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin pretty much) also crushed the revolutions, among many other socialists and socialist institutions as they proposed threat to his authority....
the woman sounds like a real loudmouth
Who's the shrill?
His name is Noam Chomsky.
Yogen-In no senshi
no, no, I mean the screetchy voice that confuses a declaration with an honest question to an honest speaker.
Actually, she asked a good question. And no, the speaker is not honest. He purposefully left out the issue of the Russian Civil War, the fact that Trotsky had to raise an army to defend the new workers state against invasion on 16 different fronts from 14 different countries, including the advanced imperialist countries of the west. He did this because it doesn't jive with his argument that raising a workers army was an authoritarian measure. It wasn't, it was a matter of survival for the new workers state.
Ultimately, Chomksy can't break politically or socially from his petty-bourgeois class position - this is why he enjoined people to vote for Obama in 2008. He can't cut the umbilical cord to the pro-capitalist Democratic party. He is a well respected and internationally acclaimed academic, but his ideological attachments to anarcho-libertarianism prevent him from understanding objective features of capitalism like exploitation and the existence of class rule.
You'll notice that he writes off labels like "working class" and "ruling class" as rhetoric, as if they weren't part of objective reality in life under capitalism but rather the product of imagination.
Yogen-In no senshi 1) Chomsky isn't an anarcho-libertarian 2) despite what you've just said Chomsky's argument still holds firm, Marxist-Leninist philosophy does not equate to Socialism. the fact that Trotsky had to raise an army is irrelevant to this.
Yogen-In no senshi not a libertarian in the way your using the word anyways.
On a lighter note, I applaud your animal rights work. I have been a volunteer in shelters in three different countries now. and have always had pets.
XM8rifle: when in the marxist tradition we talk about a social class, we think of a determination relating the 'productive process' in the economic activity;classes are the bourgeoise, the proletariat, the peasants,etc; the party members that took charge of the political affairs of the country was more a bureaucracy than a class; no way their income (party bureaucracy) reflected the diferences between classes in europe or usa at the time;acceting they were a new class that class gab was smaller