5 ms·

I started this discussion about Marxism-Leninism because I believe that Marxist-Leninist countries invariably turn brutal, for various reasons (and you seem to

I started this discussion about Marxism-Leninism because I believe that Marxist-Leninist countries invariably turn brutal, for various reasons (and you seem to basically agree with me). That being the case, Chomsky should have assumed from the beginning that reports that Cambodia was brutal were probably accurate, and I assume he didn't because he has some mistaken ideological beliefs. And that being the case people should not be defending him. I think this is part of a much larger problem. I think everyone should have an understanding of Marxism-Leninism and what is right or wrong about it. One of many reasons everyone needs to understand Marxism-Leninism is that China continues to be considerably influenced by it. I am in my 70's, and it used to be a fair amount of the population had this understanding, but nowadays very few people do. This has happened partly because the left, both pro-and anti-communist, has basically stopped explaining it to people. One consequence is mistakenly defending people like Chomsky when they go wrong due to poor ideological understanding. I think there are various reasons the left has stopped explaining Marxism-Leninism, but I think it is very unfortunate and am angry at them for this, and I take every opportunity to explain it, and in fact I am planning on someday writing an article on it. Let me add it's nice to talk to someone who understands these issues far better than most people do.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>That being the case, Chomsky should have assumed from the beginning that reports that Cambodia was brutal were probably accurate, and I assume he didn't because he has some mistaken ideological beliefs From Chomsky's viewpoint, the drop in population had two likely causes. Cambodian atrocities, or the lingering effect from the known US atrocities/possibly still ongoing ones. When the only reports pinning it on Cambodia comes through refugee statements made to the US, Chomsky thought independent verification was necessary. As for the rest of your post, I've made myself clear that I'm not a proponent of Leninism. That said, Marxism-Leninism never had the strong or lasting influence you claim. It was used to foster the revolution, and then pulled out for various political uses. Any violence inherent in the ideology is shared by most revolutionary creeds. During the nineteenth century, it was assumed that any "liberal" revolution would also inevitably turn brutal as well. And as for wanting the "left" to explain Marxism-Leninism, most of the left experience the same twelve years of propaganda on the subject as the right. I don't see this drastic difference between the sides.
- woodandsteel 6y ago
  Thank you for replying. I think a lot about these issues, but I haven't really talked with someone on the left about them. Let me see if I understand what you are saying. First of all, I get the impression you are a democratic socialist. Is that right? And I take it part of the reason is that you see violent revolution as at least very often leading to oppressive regimes. On that I agree. Ok, now that being the case, I say Chomsky should have predicted this for Cambodia, but he didn't. And that would seem to indicate that he disagreed with people like you on the idea that violent revolution leads to oppression. And if that is true, then I think people on the democratic left who respond to Chomsky ought to make clear that he was wrong on the question of violent revolution and oppression. But I have read lots of things by leftists about Chomsky, and I don't think I have ever seen one that said that. Maybe they are out there, but the left is sure not communicating this idea to people in the public who don't read leftist literature, but do run across lots of things by leftists in forums that reach a larger public. So first let me ask you, am I right that Chomsky apparently disagrees with you on the strong connection between violent revolution and political oppression? And if I am, would agree you that when the democratic left is communicating with the larger public about Chomsky, one of the things they should do is make clear that he is wrong about this? And if you disagree, then why not?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Democratic socialist is probably broadly what I would be, but I don't have much certainty on if it's the best choice, and I don't hold much stock in those kinds of ideologies. On Chomsky, no matter how certain you are that violent revolution will lead to oppression, you need sufficient proof that it is happening before you condemn the government. Chomsky had, in my mind, legitimate reason to doubt the evidence coming through the US, and wanted independent verification. I doubt he thought Cambodia would never do such things. Even when a state is run by a terrible tyrant, that does not mean they are guilty of every crime imaginable. Wanting sufficient proof of their misdeeds before any potential punishment is sane. Waiting may cause more oppression, but brazenly punishing may hurt more people overall. To me, the Iraq War largely proves Chomsky's point. Hussein was a tyrant, and as he had used weapons of mass destruction in the past there was plenty of reason to suspect he had them. He did not have them though, and the Iraq War has ruined millions of lives.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>That being the case, Chomsky should have assumed from the beginning that reports that Cambodia was brutal were probably accurate, and I assume he didn't because he has some mistaken ideological beliefs From Chomsky's viewpoint, the drop in population had two likely causes. Cambodian atrocities, or the lingering effect from the known US atrocities/possibly still ongoing ones. When the only reports pinning it on Cambodia comes through refugee statements made to the US, Chomsky thought independent verification was necessary. As for the rest of your post, I've made myself clear that I'm not a proponent of Leninism. That said, Marxism-Leninism never had the strong or lasting influence you claim. It was used to foster the revolution, and then pulled out for various political uses. Any violence inherent in the ideology is shared by most revolutionary creeds. During the nineteenth century, it was assumed that any "liberal" revolution would also inevitably turn brutal as well. And as for wanting the "left" to explain Marxism-Leninism, most of the left experience the same twelve years of propaganda on the subject as the right. I don't see this drastic difference between the sides.

woodandsteel 6y ago
Thank you for replying. I think a lot about these issues, but I haven't really talked with someone on the left about them. Let me see if I understand what you are saying. First of all, I get the impression you are a democratic socialist. Is that right? And I take it part of the reason is that you see violent revolution as at least very often leading to oppressive regimes. On that I agree. Ok, now that being the case, I say Chomsky should have predicted this for Cambodia, but he didn't. And that would seem to indicate that he disagreed with people like you on the idea that violent revolution leads to oppression. And if that is true, then I think people on the democratic left who respond to Chomsky ought to make clear that he was wrong on the question of violent revolution and oppression. But I have read lots of things by leftists about Chomsky, and I don't think I have ever seen one that said that. Maybe they are out there, but the left is sure not communicating this idea to people in the public who don't read leftist literature, but do run across lots of things by leftists in forums that reach a larger public. So first let me ask you, am I right that Chomsky apparently disagrees with you on the strong connection between violent revolution and political oppression? And if I am, would agree you that when the democratic left is communicating with the larger public about Chomsky, one of the things they should do is make clear that he is wrong about this? And if you disagree, then why not?
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Democratic socialist is probably broadly what I would be, but I don't have much certainty on if it's the best choice, and I don't hold much stock in those kinds of ideologies. On Chomsky, no matter how certain you are that violent revolution will lead to oppression, you need sufficient proof that it is happening before you condemn the government. Chomsky had, in my mind, legitimate reason to doubt the evidence coming through the US, and wanted independent verification. I doubt he thought Cambodia would never do such things. Even when a state is run by a terrible tyrant, that does not mean they are guilty of every crime imaginable. Wanting sufficient proof of their misdeeds before any potential punishment is sane. Waiting may cause more oppression, but brazenly punishing may hurt more people overall. To me, the Iraq War largely proves Chomsky's point. Hussein was a tyrant, and as he had used weapons of mass destruction in the past there was plenty of reason to suspect he had them. He did not have them though, and the Iraq War has ruined millions of lives.