3 ms·

Ok, we agree that Leninism leads to oppression. My point is that, as far as I can tell, Chomsky doesn't agree, and the same is true of many on the left. And tha

Ok, we agree that Leninism leads to oppression. My point is that, as far as I can tell, Chomsky doesn't agree, and the same is true of many on the left. And that this is why he took the position he did on Cambodia, and why so many defend him. Let me say some about where I am coming from. I have been interested in these issues since the late 1950's. At the time the left was split over Stalin and the Soviet Union. Many of them said they were wonderful. Many others said they were terrible, and this was the inevitable result of leninist philosophy. Later like with Solzinitzen, it became impossible to defend Stalin. So many on the left switched to arguing that leninism could turn out fine, and it had gone badly in this case because the leaders had fallen away from good communist principles. It seems to me that this is Chomsky's position, and many on the left who defend him. But you seem to be a lot more familiar with Chomsky than I am. So let me ask you, what is his position on leninism?

boomboomsubban 6y ago
His words >Leninist doctrine holds that a vanguard Party should assume state power and drive the population to economic development, and, by some miracle that is unexplained, to freedom and justice. It is an ideology that naturally appeals greatly to the radical intelligentsia, to whom it affords a justification for their role as state managers. I can't see any reason -- either in logic or history -- to take it seriously. Libertarian socialism (including a substantial mainstream of Marxism) dismissed all of this with contempt, quite rightly https://web.archive.org/web/20070205081148/http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070205081148/http://www.zmag.o... As I've said, Chomsky's defense of Cambodia was based on a distrust of the US controlled sources.
- woodandsteel 6y ago
  So it looks like I was wrong. Thank you very much, that's just what I was looking for.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

His words >Leninist doctrine holds that a vanguard Party should assume state power and drive the population to economic development, and, by some miracle that is unexplained, to freedom and justice. It is an ideology that naturally appeals greatly to the radical intelligentsia, to whom it affords a justification for their role as state managers. I can't see any reason -- either in logic or history -- to take it seriously. Libertarian socialism (including a substantial mainstream of Marxism) dismissed all of this with contempt, quite rightly https://web.archive.org/web/20070205081148/http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070205081148/http://www.zmag.o... As I've said, Chomsky's defense of Cambodia was based on a distrust of the US controlled sources.

woodandsteel 6y ago
So it looks like I was wrong. Thank you very much, that's just what I was looking for.