8 ms·

This video is appallingly deceitful. E.g. where he argues that the USSR was not only not socialism, but in fact as far from it as possible. He deftly redefines

by anatoly 15y ago

This video is appallingly deceitful. E.g. where he argues that the USSR was not only not socialism, but in fact as far from it as possible. He deftly redefines the core idea of socialism to make it look superficially plausible. If socialism was ever about one bug thing, it was the collective ownership of the means of production. This was the slogan of all socialist movements, particularly Marxist socialist movements. And the USSR was exactly that kind of society: the defining feature of its economy was a total ban on private ownership of the "means of production". Meaning, you could own an apartment, a house, a car, a wrench. You could buy and sell goods privately at a market. But you could not own a factory that made toy cars, or a tool shop that sold wrenches, or a company that wrote software. That was owned by the state collectively. Now of course one can argue that the implementation of this ideal was twisted because e.g. the actual workers at a particular factory didn't control its planning or production, which were governed by the party apparatus. But even if true, (and it's actually not true; centralized control over the means of production is perfectly compatible with Marxism), this is still infinitely closer to the actual ideal of socialism than, say, a capitalist state with an oligarchy at power, where means of production can be and are privately owned. To claim that the USSR was not socialism and in fact some kind of anti-socialism (Chomsky: "as about remote from socialism as you can imagine"), is just such so offensively misleading; such a gross lie, clearly meant to influence people who've never lived in a socialist economy or actually read Marx. (And it's in fact not true that workers were "virtual slaves" in the Soviet Union. They had shitty lives, to be sure, just as everybody else except state bureaucracy, but they were quite free in their choices, and made more money on average than any other class in the society. It was peasants who were virtual slaves, disenfranchised by the state and in fact forbidden to move to a different village or city without the state sanction well into the 1960s).

kinghajj 15y ago
I think Chomsky follows the definition of socialism as you, "collective ownership of the means of production," but where he differs is that his definition doesn't include "government ownership of the means of production." To anarchists, like Chomsky, if any hierarchical structure controls the means of production, it is not truly collectively-owned. He and other anarchists use the term "state capitalism" to describe the USSR, since it's capitalism where one hierarchy (the state) controls capital, instead of private entities as in liberal capitalism. I haven't seen the video yet, but you don't quote him as saying that the USSR wasn't Marxist, just that it wasn't socialist. A huge historical difference between Marxists and socialists is how to transition from capitalism to socialism. Marx believed that a "worker's state/council" would be needed, whereas the anarchists predicted that a "red bureaucracy" would only be worse than the one it replaced.
- anatoly 15y ago
  So what you're saying is that Chomsky means that USSR's regime wasn't anarcho-socialism. I agree that it wasn't. But Chomsky isn't saying that; he's saying that it wasn't socialism, and not only that, that it was "about as remote from socialism as possible". That's just a lie. Anarcho-socialists were never the only or the "true" socialists in any reasonable sense. They weren't even the most dominant faction in socialism, most of the time. Chomsky has to know that. He may privately believe that the only real socialism is anarcho-socialism, but that's his business.
scarmig 15y ago
Well, I think the issue is that socialism (and capitalism, for that matter) means very different things to different people. For instance, you identify "collective ownership of the means of production" as central to the idea of socialism, and the USSR as a society with collective ownership of the means of production. There's a tricky elision there, though, in that it identifies "state ownership" with "collective ownership." Chomsky and other anarchists raise hell at that idea because to them, the State is not an instrument of collective decision making. For more context: anarchists played a major role in revolutionary socialist Russia, with the popular party of the peasantry (the Socialist Revolutionaries) being in some ways one of the more anarchist political parties in history (supporting, for instance, land and industry collectivization instead of land and industry nationalization). They were quite popular, having over twice the number of representatives as the Bolsheviks, the second largest party. They quickly came to oppose the Bolsheviks and were among Lenin's first victims. This is is in addition to a hardcore anarchist movement also popular in Russia at the time (and also heavily victimized by the Bolsheviks). The point of all that? They all considered themselves socialist and disagreed that Bolshevism would lead to socialism, disagreeing strongly enough that it often led to their deaths. Chomsky isn't pulling the "the USSR wasn't socialist" out of a hat, but is bringing up an ideological point that's existed since even before the USSR formally existed. And to an anarchist, the idea that the USSR was socialism is as alien to them as the idea that the USSR was capitalist is to you. (The fact that the USSR called itself socialist they would argue was just a propagandist slogan, just as a Tea Partyer might consider Obama calling himself a capitalist as meaningless political rhetoric to take advantage of the less critically minded.)
- Florin_Andrei 15y ago
  There was nothing "socialist" about the communist-era Eastern Bloc. There was no collective ownership whatsoever. Each country was owned entirely by a small group organized like a gorilla tribe, who used terror, oppression, propaganda and brainwashing to control the rest of the population. The satellite tribes were partially subordinate to the big apes in the Kremlin. N.B.: I am not an anarchist, but I did grow up in the Eastern Bloc under dictatorship. P.S.: In its most pathologic forms, it was a theocracy, with Dear Leader as God. The comparison is a lot more accurate than it would seem at a cursory glance. The official doctrine was the religious dogma. There was a Paradise - the ideal "communist" society. There was salvation, albeit a collective one. There was confession (public mea culpa, which were mandatory). There was Mass - the dreaded communist meetings. They had Bible equivalents (the writings of Dear Leader) and saints (Marx, Lenin). Goes on and on like this.
Florin_Andrei 15y ago
> And the USSR was exactly that kind of society No, it was not. Your username is Slavic, so perhaps you grew up in the Eastern Bloc; I certainly did. Those were not socialist countries. Private enterprise was definitely banned, but the goods were not collectively owned either. The entire country was owned by a small clique with a rigid pyramidal structure. Dictatorship is a much better word.
- drumdance 15y ago
  IMO dictatorship is the inevitable result of Marxism. I once had a girlfriend who was a Marxist. She used to talk about how when the revolution comes, the mean capitalists would all go to prison. I pointed out that mean people don't disappear. They adapt to the system. So a meanie who is adept at scaling the corporate ladder to the commanding heights is equally adepts at scaling the government ladder. Only now he controls the entire economy, education system, courts etc, not just one entity.
  - Florin_Andrei 15y ago
    Marx advocated some pretty violent means to achieve the change he desired - so, by the principle of "sow wind, reap hurricane", you must be right. The history of Eastern Europe in the 20th century definitely does agree with you. Just be careful to not unwarrantedly extend the shadow of violence and dictatorship over the socialist ideas too. I know it sounds like trying to tell apples from oranges, but surprisingly many are ignorant, consciously or not, of the difference, especially in the US. A free market system with socialist overtones can work wonderfully well. Just look at Northern Europe.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > A free market system with socialist overtones can work wonderfully well. Just look at Northern Europe. Anything will work with Northern Europeans (or Mormons, in reference to another thread) so that doesn't prove anything. The key test is whether {something} works with cultures where other things fail.
nhaehnle 15y ago
If socialism was ever about one bug thing, it was the collective ownership of the means of production. What you have to keep in mind in such discussions is that political terms like that tend to have vastly different meaning to people from different backgrounds. One of the best known example of this is that the term "liberal" has a very different meaning in the US than it does in Europe. In a similar vein, "socialism" over here does not imply the collective ownership of the means of production. If that's what you want to articulate, you should use the term "communism" to be less ambiguous.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
slurgfest 15y ago
No, I think it's valid to say that the USSR was not socialism. That doesn't mean that the USSR was good, or that socialism is good, it just means that they have never been the same thing. (Unlike Chomsky, I am not concerned to save or favorably present either one, they simply have never been the same) To be more specific, it wasn't even a simple readout of Marxism - hence the creation of separate terms like Leninism and Stalinism and Trotskyism and Maoism. I am not defending Marx, but one's disagreement with an entire class of people does not remove their significant internal disputes. But the USSR used the ideas and words of socialism as justification quite a bit. That is very significant. It certainly justifies skepticism about anyone selling socialism, and about the robustness of socialism in the face of conditions like the establishment of simple old-school dictatorships by ruthless butchers.
Selvik 15y ago
CAVEAT: I'm only familiar with Marx from second hand sources. I'm inclined to give Chomsky the benefit of doubt here. As a small l libertarian I can totally relate to the idea of ruling elites who falsely claim to share your ideals but are actually in politics for money, sex and ego stroking.

by anatoly 15y ago

kinghajj 15y ago

I think Chomsky follows the definition of socialism as you, "collective ownership of the means of production," but where he differs is that his definition doesn't include "government ownership of the means of production." To anarchists, like Chomsky, if any hierarchical structure controls the means of production, it is not truly collectively-owned. He and other anarchists use the term "state capitalism" to describe the USSR, since it's capitalism where one hierarchy (the state) controls capital, instead of private entities as in liberal capitalism. I haven't seen the video yet, but you don't quote him as saying that the USSR wasn't Marxist, just that it wasn't socialist. A huge historical difference between Marxists and socialists is how to transition from capitalism to socialism. Marx believed that a "worker's state/council" would be needed, whereas the anarchists predicted that a "red bureaucracy" would only be worse than the one it replaced.

anatoly 15y ago
So what you're saying is that Chomsky means that USSR's regime wasn't anarcho-socialism. I agree that it wasn't. But Chomsky isn't saying that; he's saying that it wasn't socialism, and not only that, that it was "about as remote from socialism as possible". That's just a lie. Anarcho-socialists were never the only or the "true" socialists in any reasonable sense. They weren't even the most dominant faction in socialism, most of the time. Chomsky has to know that. He may privately believe that the only real socialism is anarcho-socialism, but that's his business.

scarmig 15y ago

Well, I think the issue is that socialism (and capitalism, for that matter) means very different things to different people. For instance, you identify "collective ownership of the means of production" as central to the idea of socialism, and the USSR as a society with collective ownership of the means of production. There's a tricky elision there, though, in that it identifies "state ownership" with "collective ownership." Chomsky and other anarchists raise hell at that idea because to them, the State is not an instrument of collective decision making. For more context: anarchists played a major role in revolutionary socialist Russia, with the popular party of the peasantry (the Socialist Revolutionaries) being in some ways one of the more anarchist political parties in history (supporting, for instance, land and industry collectivization instead of land and industry nationalization). They were quite popular, having over twice the number of representatives as the Bolsheviks, the second largest party. They quickly came to oppose the Bolsheviks and were among Lenin's first victims. This is is in addition to a hardcore anarchist movement also popular in Russia at the time (and also heavily victimized by the Bolsheviks). The point of all that? They all considered themselves socialist and disagreed that Bolshevism would lead to socialism, disagreeing strongly enough that it often led to their deaths. Chomsky isn't pulling the "the USSR wasn't socialist" out of a hat, but is bringing up an ideological point that's existed since even before the USSR formally existed. And to an anarchist, the idea that the USSR was socialism is as alien to them as the idea that the USSR was capitalist is to you. (The fact that the USSR called itself socialist they would argue was just a propagandist slogan, just as a Tea Partyer might consider Obama calling himself a capitalist as meaningless political rhetoric to take advantage of the less critically minded.)

Florin_Andrei 15y ago
There was nothing "socialist" about the communist-era Eastern Bloc. There was no collective ownership whatsoever. Each country was owned entirely by a small group organized like a gorilla tribe, who used terror, oppression, propaganda and brainwashing to control the rest of the population. The satellite tribes were partially subordinate to the big apes in the Kremlin. N.B.: I am not an anarchist, but I did grow up in the Eastern Bloc under dictatorship. P.S.: In its most pathologic forms, it was a theocracy, with Dear Leader as God. The comparison is a lot more accurate than it would seem at a cursory glance. The official doctrine was the religious dogma. There was a Paradise - the ideal "communist" society. There was salvation, albeit a collective one. There was confession (public mea culpa, which were mandatory). There was Mass - the dreaded communist meetings. They had Bible equivalents (the writings of Dear Leader) and saints (Marx, Lenin). Goes on and on like this.

Florin_Andrei 15y ago

> And the USSR was exactly that kind of society No, it was not. Your username is Slavic, so perhaps you grew up in the Eastern Bloc; I certainly did. Those were not socialist countries. Private enterprise was definitely banned, but the goods were not collectively owned either. The entire country was owned by a small clique with a rigid pyramidal structure. Dictatorship is a much better word.

drumdance 15y ago
IMO dictatorship is the inevitable result of Marxism. I once had a girlfriend who was a Marxist. She used to talk about how when the revolution comes, the mean capitalists would all go to prison. I pointed out that mean people don't disappear. They adapt to the system. So a meanie who is adept at scaling the corporate ladder to the commanding heights is equally adepts at scaling the government ladder. Only now he controls the entire economy, education system, courts etc, not just one entity.
- Florin_Andrei 15y ago
  Marx advocated some pretty violent means to achieve the change he desired - so, by the principle of "sow wind, reap hurricane", you must be right. The history of Eastern Europe in the 20th century definitely does agree with you. Just be careful to not unwarrantedly extend the shadow of violence and dictatorship over the socialist ideas too. I know it sounds like trying to tell apples from oranges, but surprisingly many are ignorant, consciously or not, of the difference, especially in the US. A free market system with socialist overtones can work wonderfully well. Just look at Northern Europe.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > A free market system with socialist overtones can work wonderfully well. Just look at Northern Europe. Anything will work with Northern Europeans (or Mormons, in reference to another thread) so that doesn't prove anything. The key test is whether {something} works with cultures where other things fail.

nhaehnle 15y ago

If socialism was ever about one bug thing, it was the collective ownership of the means of production. What you have to keep in mind in such discussions is that political terms like that tend to have vastly different meaning to people from different backgrounds. One of the best known example of this is that the term "liberal" has a very different meaning in the US than it does in Europe. In a similar vein, "socialism" over here does not imply the collective ownership of the means of production. If that's what you want to articulate, you should use the term "communism" to be less ambiguous.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

slurgfest 15y ago

No, I think it's valid to say that the USSR was not socialism. That doesn't mean that the USSR was good, or that socialism is good, it just means that they have never been the same thing. (Unlike Chomsky, I am not concerned to save or favorably present either one, they simply have never been the same) To be more specific, it wasn't even a simple readout of Marxism - hence the creation of separate terms like Leninism and Stalinism and Trotskyism and Maoism. I am not defending Marx, but one's disagreement with an entire class of people does not remove their significant internal disputes. But the USSR used the ideas and words of socialism as justification quite a bit. That is very significant. It certainly justifies skepticism about anyone selling socialism, and about the robustness of socialism in the face of conditions like the establishment of simple old-school dictatorships by ruthless butchers.

Selvik 15y ago

CAVEAT: I'm only familiar with Marx from second hand sources. I'm inclined to give Chomsky the benefit of doubt here. As a small l libertarian I can totally relate to the idea of ruling elites who falsely claim to share your ideals but are actually in politics for money, sex and ego stroking.