3 ms·

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

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.
- woodandsteel 6y ago
  Sorry I haven't responded. I've been busy. I plan to respond tomorrow
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Going to add one more thing. I did a little research on what Chomsky's stated position on violent revolution is, and he feels it should be a last resort avoided if possible, as the welfare of the people often suffers. He generally advocates against all forms of violence.
    - woodandsteel 6y ago
      That's good to know.
  - woodandsteel 6y ago
    Part 2 (sorry, the order is fouled up here) Ok, with respect to your views, I think I can narrow it down to a single question. I said that Marxism-Leninism has goals that can be achieved only through a great deal of violence against the population, and as a consequence whenever Marxist-Leninists come to power, this is what they practice. That means that even if a Marxist-Leninist party came to power that was headed by a basically good person, and was not threatened externally, it would still behave quite oppressively toward its population. My question is, do you agree that due to the nature of its basic goals, Marxist-Leninist regimes must be so oppressive?
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      I keep saying this, but I have strong doubts in Leninism. I don't think someone would push for that system unless they cared more about seizing power than the wellbeing of the people. That will likely lead to oppression, without any policy changes. I'll address some points, though for the most part I am nor considering a Leninist central party. >The problem is that invariably a large portion of the population is opposed to this, to the bottom of their souls. I don't agree with this. The bourgeoisie would be opposed to it, but they can't be described as a large portion of the population. Ideally, everybody else benefits from the change, they have no reason to oppose what's going on and there should be no reason to opress them. So yes, any such revolution must involve some manner of getting rid of the bourgeoisie. They would likely feel oppressed, though they would just be losing privileges unique to them. They would also likely turn to violence, but wide scale lasting oppression you describe.

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.

woodandsteel 6y ago
Sorry I haven't responded. I've been busy. I plan to respond tomorrow
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Going to add one more thing. I did a little research on what Chomsky's stated position on violent revolution is, and he feels it should be a last resort avoided if possible, as the welfare of the people often suffers. He generally advocates against all forms of violence.
  - woodandsteel 6y ago
    That's good to know.
- woodandsteel 6y ago
  Part 2 (sorry, the order is fouled up here) Ok, with respect to your views, I think I can narrow it down to a single question. I said that Marxism-Leninism has goals that can be achieved only through a great deal of violence against the population, and as a consequence whenever Marxist-Leninists come to power, this is what they practice. That means that even if a Marxist-Leninist party came to power that was headed by a basically good person, and was not threatened externally, it would still behave quite oppressively toward its population. My question is, do you agree that due to the nature of its basic goals, Marxist-Leninist regimes must be so oppressive?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    I keep saying this, but I have strong doubts in Leninism. I don't think someone would push for that system unless they cared more about seizing power than the wellbeing of the people. That will likely lead to oppression, without any policy changes. I'll address some points, though for the most part I am nor considering a Leninist central party. >The problem is that invariably a large portion of the population is opposed to this, to the bottom of their souls. I don't agree with this. The bourgeoisie would be opposed to it, but they can't be described as a large portion of the population. Ideally, everybody else benefits from the change, they have no reason to oppose what's going on and there should be no reason to opress them. So yes, any such revolution must involve some manner of getting rid of the bourgeoisie. They would likely feel oppressed, though they would just be losing privileges unique to them. They would also likely turn to violence, but wide scale lasting oppression you describe.