Nothing in that post can do you any good if you`re trying to justify Chomsky`s obvious status as an anti American puppet of Marxism. The thread started with anti communist brainwashing. Noam and dml are pro communist brainwashers; second liar never stands a chance, you`re a defective recording of Noam, and you`re not wealthy like he is, so you`re not going to have a large audience of googoo eyed zombie`s hanging on your every word.

Kepp kicking and hugging this tar baby, there`s more evidence coming at you.

"Nothing in that post can do you any good if you`re trying to justify Chomsky`s obvious status as an anti American puppet of Marxism."

Except for pointing out you have yet to provide one example of Chomsky endorsing Marx.

AND pointing out one of your last posts on the subject was of Chomsky criticizing Marx.

AND to point to other anti-Marx or anti-hierarchy statements Chomsky has made:



“We are in a period of corporatization of power, consolidation of power, centralization. That’s supposed to be good if you’re a progressive, like a Marxist-Leninist. Out of the same background came three major things, fascism, Bolshevism, and corporate tyranny. They all grew out of the same more or less Hegelian roots. (Chomsky, Class Warfare p.23)

Chomsky sees Bakunin as one of the main sources of his political inspiration. Bakunin, “predicted that there would be two forms of modern intellectuals, what he called the ‘Red Bureaucracy’, who would use popular struggles to try to take control of state power and institute the most vicious and ruthless dictatorships in history, and the other group, who would see that there isn’t going to be an access to power that way and would therefore become the servants of private power and the state capitalist democracy, where they would, as Bakunin put it, ‘beat the people with the people’s stick,’ talk about democracy but beat the people with it. That’s actually one of the few predictions in the social sciences that’s come true, to my knowledge, and a pretty perceptive one.” (Chomsky, On Democracy and Education, p.248)

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/chomsky_part1.htm



"Power, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate. The burden of proof is on those in authority to demonstrate why their elevated position is justified. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Political_views



Chomsky is also right on with the war on drugs:

* He has opposed the U.S. global "war on drugs", claiming its language to be misleading, and referring to it as "the war on certain drugs." He favors education and prevention rather than military or police action as a means of reducing drug use.[54] In an interview in 1999, Chomsky argued that, whereas crops such as tobacco receive no mention in governmental exposition, other non-profitable crops, such as marijuana, are specifically targeted due to the effect achieved by persecuting the poor:[55]

"US domestic drug policy does not carry out its stated goals, and policymakers are well aware of that. If it isn't about reducing substance abuse, what is it about? It is reasonably clear, both from current actions and the historical record, that substances tend to be criminalized when they are associated with the so-called dangerous classes, that the criminalization of certain substances is a technique of social control."[56]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Political_views





"...there`s more evidence coming at you."

For there to be "more" there would have to be some to begin with.

For someone who talks a lot about evidence you are surprisingly short of links and sources.

In fact, I don't remember someone being proven wrong so often ... and yet you keep coming back for more. It's a bizarre pattern. You make a totally unsubstantiated statement, I counter with facts, you ignore facts or move on to a totally different unsubstantiated statement. Over and over again for months on end.

That's OK ... I wanted to collect these quotes together for all to see, so you're just doing me a favor by summing up the arrogant ignorance of North America so beautifully.

Chomsky says: ON COMMUNISM…

“One might argue, at least I would argue, that council communism... is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society.”
(Government in the Future [Seven Stories Press, 2005], p27)

Pay attention people:Noam Chomsky has never once, to my knowledge, ever supported democratic reform as a viable outcome to resolve conflict; to the contrary, he supports the violent and bloody tactics of communist revolutionary doctrines which resorts to purges through blacklisting any potential resistance to the revolution. That`s why the cocksucker`s photos can be found all over the net chumming up to any revolutionary of any cause which uses murder, not votes, to overcome political opposition.

So, before you follow any of dml`s examples of feigned activism, consider the results. Before you take up the banner of any cause, make sure you aquaint yourself with the results produced by the words and actions of the leaders of that cause.
I ask you to take a pause and ask yourselves,"Where is this cause heading, and does it really represent what it claims?"


Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. As I`ve said before, I`ve hung out with revolutionaries way back when us baby boomers` numbers were staggering. I chose to get the fuck away when the roots of so called democratic student anti war groups began holding up Marxist Leninist examples of what they declared superior to democratic America. Let me assure you that anti war movements are pro war all the way to the bone as long as the politically correct side is killing people. Be very cautious; anyone like dml and Chomsky who are polarized beyond reason are injurious to independent rationality, and they will stoop to any level of dishonesty to promote Socialist(tyrannical)) agendas.

Cop rodeo clown? DML; explain how being an asshole in public helps marijuana? Explain how being a drug dealer connected to scammers and ripoffs encourages confidence? I think you`re afraid that in the end, mj may not have enough merits to stand alone. You are not any better than the DEA is at promoting marijuana; to both I say, leave our weed alone, get a fucking life.

"Pay attention people:Noam Chomsky has never once, to my knowledge, ever supported democratic reform as a viable outcome to resolve conflict; to the contrary, he supports the violent and bloody tactics of communist revolutionary doctrines which resorts to purges through blacklisting any potential resistance to the revolution."

1) "Your knowledge" has proven to be extremely limited. Have you bothered to look up Chomsky on tactics or violence or democracy?

Chomsky on tactics ... he stresses education:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdM3xhICEQM

2) Your only supporting evidence to back up your ridiculous statement is Chomsky endorsing "council communism" - direct worker control - the opposite of the communism found in Cuba, the Soviet Union, Korea and other places, where the workers are ordered about by elites.




"Cop rodeo clown? DML; explain how being an asshole in public helps marijuana?"

On raid day you can send out images of powerlessness by one's passivity or of violence by aggressiveness - I choose to rebel non-violently, as a clown would.





"Explain how being a drug dealer connected to scammers and ripoffs encourages confidence?"

I was "connected" in the same way Obama was connected to Ayers ... I never took part in or was even aware of nor did I endorse other people's bad actions while I worked with them - nor would I ever do so.

I would like a list of all the people you ever worked with in your life and I bet one or two of them did bad things too.






"I think you`re afraid that in the end, mj may not have enough merits to stand alone."

The tree of life is a wonderful plant with more merit than any other plant on earth .... but it needs people to stand with it to defend it from monopolists and their servants.

"You are not any better than the DEA is at promoting marijuana;"

All my hundreds of Facebook friends and tens of thousands of High Society viewers disagree with you.



" to both I say, leave our weed alone,"

"Our" as in "me and Mr. Hand" or "our" as in "everybody"?





"... get a fucking life."

Oh ... I have one of those. When I'm not being creative with my various academic history education projects or fighting injustice in court, I'm out playing with the hot babes in the hotsprings and sauna vans.

What do you do with your life - aside from all the internet trolling?

Why should Chomsky ever endorse Marxism? That would be a fatal error. I`ve already posted Chomsky justifying Marxist atrocities. You are no different in practicing deception than Chomsky is.

The only question I would like our readers to give an opinion about is whether or not you are brainwashed.

Comments welcome.

For Class Struggle Against Imperialist Aggression!
Communist Tactics and the Anti-War Movement
The domestic political situation in the United States weighs heavily in the calculations of the imperialist chieftains as they prepare to unleash mass destruction on the people of Iraq. The White House has so far managed to keep a majority ‘‘on side,’’ but the support is very shallow, and is shrinking. Many black, Hispanic and white working people do not like the idea of going to war for Big Oil.

The war that the U.S. government is preparing to launch against Iraq is one in which American workers, and the oppressed and exploited of the whole world, have a side. The blockade of Iraq is, in itself, an act of war. Socialists must do everything possible to defend Iraq and defeat the aggressive designs of ‘‘our own’’ government.

On the campuses there is already widespread opposition to Bush’s aggression against Iraq. A teach-in at Berkeley on 14 September attracted some 1500 students. Besides a section of isolationist conservatives represented by right-wing ideologue Pat Buchanan, most of those who oppose the war preparations are those identified with the radical-liberal left: ‘‘solidarity’’ activists, black community representatives, feminists, peaceniks, liberal clerics and ostensible socialists. Yet, if popular support for war falls further, a ‘‘dovish’’ wing of the Democrats will doubtless emerge.

Lessons of the Vietnam Antiwar Movement
The reformist left anticipates just such a development and consciously aims to recreate the popular-frontist anti-Vietnam war movement of the 1960s. This movement was dominated organizationally by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), but subordinated politically to the liberal imperialists of the Democratic Party by the SWP’s insistence that the antiwar movement be limited to the ‘‘single issue’’ of U.S. Troops ‘‘Out Now!’’ There is nothing wrong in uniting with other organizations around a single common-denominator demand, but revolutionaries in such a united front cannot limit themselves to the minimal common political basis of unity. In setting the political limit in its antiwar front groups with the demand for American withdrawal, the SWP consciously ruled out any expression of Marxist, class-struggle politics.

As the war dragged on, a substantial section of the U.S. bourgeoisie came to believe that they should cut their losses and get out of Vietnam. The National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC) gathered considerable resources and built massive peace marches featuring Democratic Party doves like Bella Abzug and Vance Hartke. Every NPAC march featured preachers, labor bureaucrats and liberal dignitaries who droned on endlessly about the need for ‘‘peace.’’ Keeping this ‘‘broad mass movement’’ intact meant ensuring that no discordant anti-imperialist speakers got close to the microphones.

Under the guise of building a ‘‘single issue’’ movement, the SWP excluded all attempts to connect the Vietnam war with the need for revolutionary struggle against U.S. imperialism. The liberal politics of NPAC also dictated the form of protest—the SWP was positively hostile to suggestions for work stoppages and all other class-struggle tactics. By politically policing the hundreds of thousands of radical youth and disaffected workers who came to oppose the imperialist war, the SWP helped ensure that the protests never spilled over to challenge the racist and anti-working class domestic policies of the American rulers. By limiting the politics of the movement to the requirements of the liberal wing of the capitalists, the SWP effectively aborted the opportunity for the development of a class-conscious current within the American working class that could oppose imperialist militarism at its roots. When U.S. troops were finally pulled out, the antiwar movement evaporated.

WWP/SA: Competing Pop-Frontist Coalition Builders
The same questions about how Marxists should organize against imperialist war that were posed 25 years ago at the beginning of the Vietnam antiwar movement are again raised by the unfolding Gulf crisis. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Bolshevik Tendency (BT) has attempted to intervene in recent antiwar mobilizations on the basis of a consistent revolutionary Marxist perspective.

There are two main antiwar coalitions in the Bay Area, each dominated by an ostensibly socialist organization. The ‘‘Emergency Committee to Stop the U.S. War in the Middle East’’ (ECSUSWME) was initiated by the crypto-Stalinist reformists of the Workers World Party (WWP). The BT attended several ECSUSWME planning meetings and proposed that the coalition be open to all organizations opposed to U.S. aggression in the Gulf. We also argued that all participants should be allowed to express their points of view at events. Our comrades advanced two slogans as a political basis of unity: ‘‘No War for Big Oil/U.S. Out of the Middle East!’’ and ‘‘No U.S. Intervention in the Middle East!’’ At the 22 August ‘‘Emergency Committee’’ meeting, BT comrades argued for this approach, and proposed to drop the slogan ‘‘Money for Human Needs, Not War,’’ from the committee’s program because it amounts to calling for the ‘‘progressive’’ wing of the U.S. capitalists (i.e., the Democrats) to reform the imperialist system. Of course, this is why the demand appeared in the first place—to keep the door open for the Democrats or their surrogates. The unwritten rule of popular-frontist formations is that no one can present a Marxist analysis of the contradictions of imperialism, or the necessity for revolutionary struggle, because this would ‘‘alienate’’ people still in the liberal-Democratic camp. The BT proposal generated considerable discussion, and was narrowly defeated. But the WWP had a majority, and so the ECSUSWME remained a popular-frontist propaganda bloc based on a reformist/utopian program.

After losing this critical vote, which confirmed the popular-frontist character of the ECSUSWME, the BT comrades sat through the rest of the meeting as non-voting observers. A subsequent leaflet by a couple of sloppy centrists, who style themselves the Revolutionary Trotskyist Tendency (RTT), erroneously stated that the BT ‘‘claims to be in the left wing of the Committee,’’ and chastised us for not voting for one of the many RTT amendments put forward to give the coalition’s popular-frontist program a more leftist coloration.

The BT has also intervened in the other major coalition in the Bay Area, Socialist Action’s ‘‘Committee Against a Vietnam War in the Middle East’’ (CAVME). CAVME is organized around a single demand: ‘‘U.S. Out of the Middle East!’’ But Socialist Action (SA) proved no more open to the proposal to create a united front than the WWP. It is not just a matter of excluding revolutionaries. The SA reformists are so firmly committed to building a multi-class ‘‘single issue’’ antiwar movement based on liberal politics that they do not put forward their own speaker at CAVME events! True to their 1960s SWP heritage, SA measures the success of an event purely by how many people participate, rather than the politics that they are organized around. SA considered the teach-in at Berkeley on 14 September a huge success. A BT spokesperson who attended a 22 September CAVME meeting disagreed:

‘‘We do not think the ‘teach-in’ on the 14th was a big success from a revolutionary perspective because out of the over 20 speakers, not one, not one put forward a revolutionary defeatist position; nor was a class-struggle perspective to end war put forward. In our opinion this amounts to an anti-communist exclusion of your left-wing opponents.’’

http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums...owflat&fpart=16

Keep struggling; tar baby gonna eat yo ass!

"I`ve already posted Chomsky justifying Marxist atrocities."

I don't see how you can call the Vietnamese people defending themselves from a US invasion as a "Marxist atrocity".

If some country invaded the USA (and bombed it repeatedly from the air for years before and during the invasion) killing hundreds of thousands ... and then you and your fellow Americans fought back and killed a few hundred of the invaders and those who worked with them, would the violence that you used to repell the invaders be considered an "atrocity"?

Usually the party that invades is ultimately responsible for the deaths on both sides of the conflict - no invasion means no deaths. At least it was that way for the Nuremberg trials.

It's only an atrocity when it happens to the US and it's allies? According to you, I guess it is.

"The only question I would like our readers to give an opinion about is whether or not you are brainwashed."

I bet. That way we can avoid talking about your sketchy historical "facts".

I don't think we have any "readers" ... I think I'm just kicking your ass for my own entertainment.

http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no9/no09babt.html

What does all that have to do with Chomsky?

Or have you now switched topics yet again?

This whole "switch topics when facts get in your way" game is boring me ... got any other games to play?

All it takes to change this is a good old fashioned economic meltdown, in which case, the Red Bureaucracy will almost certainly try its best to foment civil unrest, leading to an armed revolutionary takeover. What? Do you really think that the United States has never been through periods where industrialists held sway over government policies? Neither Bakunin or Chomsky will ever aknowlege the tremendous flexibility of democracies. Both together are too rigid in their perceptions to realize or concede that it was the rigidity of communism which makes it such a short term means to dissipation.

Who endorses Noam, and why? He`s got too many Marx brothers on his side.

"All it takes to change this is a good old fashioned economic meltdown, in which case, the Red Bureaucracy will almost certainly try its best to foment civil unrest, leading to an armed revolutionary takeover."

All the more reason to be supportive of all the anarchists and libertarian socialists (such as Chomsky) who offer the most articulate and nuanced attack on Marxism in the world.




"Do you really think that the United States has never been through periods where industrialists held sway over government policies?"

It's hard to pinpoint a time where their "sway over" the government was greater than 95% ... but let's look at the history of industrialists ruling the USA:

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
-Thomas Jefferson to Horatio Gates Spafford, 17 Mar. 1817, cited in Papers 14:221 (1)

"Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations."
-President Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837 (2)

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . .corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864, from a letter to Col. William F. Elkins (3)


"You will make war when it suits us and keep peace when it doesn't And in return you shall have the support of my newspapers, and the delight of imagining that you are a great statesman."
-Undershaft, the armament maker, in Bernard Shaw's "Major Barbara," Act III, 1905


"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
-President Franklin D. Roosevelt (76)




"I think we are in a position, after the experience of the last 20 years, to state two things: in the first place, that a corporation may well be too large to be the most efficient instrument of production and of distribution, and, in the second place, whether it has exceeded the point of greatest economic efficiency or not, it may be too large to be tolerated among the people who desire to be free."
-Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, testimony before the Committee on Interstate Commerce, 1911. (102)

"The masters of the government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States."
-President Woodrow Wilson, address, New York City, 9 September, 1912. (103)

"Behind the visible government there is an invisible government upon the throne that owes the people no loyalty and recognizes no responsibility. To destroy this invisible government, to undo the ungodly union between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the task of a statesman."
-Teddy Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States, during his 1912 election campaign (104)

"With terror, tyranny came to power, and with terror, it holds onto its power. The sciences have been subordinated to authoritarian rule. Biology has been falsified, in order to externalize the privileges of the propertied classes."
-Manifesto, Second International Congress of Socialist Physicians in Brno, Czechoslovakia, 1934 (105)

"Power that controls the economy should be in the hands of elected representatives of the people, not in the hands of an industrial oligarchy."
-Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas ruling against the United States Steel Corporation in 1948 (106)


"In the councils of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
-U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell address to the Nation, Jan. 17, 1961, Washington, D.C. (107)



http://www.potshot.ca/pm/index.php?n=Main.Notes


http://www.potshot.ca/pm/index.php?n=Main.Potshot19





"Neither Bakunin or Chomsky will ever aknowlege the tremendous flexibility of democracies."

There's nothing flexible about corporate rule. But the institutions that do function within the US that have democratic elements to them are not only flexible, they are adaptable ... they can evolve beyond representative democracy into direct democracy.



"Both together are too rigid in their perceptions to realize or concede that it was the rigidity of communism which makes it such a short term means to dissipation."

If you check back a few posts in this thread, you can find criticisms of Marxism by BOTH Bakunin and Chomsky that criticize communist "rigidity", except neither of them pussy out and avoid calling it what it really is - tyranny and brutality.

It's funny ... considering what words they use to describe communism and what words YOU use, it almost sounds like YOU'RE the commie apologist!

Ben you fukin commie! Get off welfare and get a real job!







The "Bolivarian Missions" have entailed the launching of government anti-poverty initiatives,[123] the construction of thousands of free medical clinics for the poor,[124] the institution of educational campaigns that have reportedly made more than one million adult Venezuelans literate,[125] and the enactment of food[126] and housing subsidies.[127] The infant mortality rate fell by 18.2% between 1998 and 2006.[128][129] The government earmarked 44.6% of the 2007 budget for social investment, with 1999-2007 averaging 12.8% of GDP.[130] The Gini coefficient has fallen from 48.7 in 1998 to 42 in 2007 (claims that the Gini has risen were based on data from two different (non-comparable) statistical series).[131] During the Chávez Presidency, poverty and extreme poverty have gone down strongly: poverty fell from 59.4% in 1999 to 30.2% in 2006 and extreme poverty went down from 21.7% to 9.9% in the same period.

...

Throughout his presidency, Chávez has hosted the live talk show known as Aló Presidente ("Hello, President!").[206] The show broadcasts in varying formats on state owned Venezolana de Televisión (VTV—Venezuelan State Television) each Sunday at 11:00 AM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez


Well ... as tyrants go I've seen ones that were a bit more evil than Chavez ... he's sort of a power-sharing guy for a military man. If he encourages people to read Chomsky maybe there's a bit of anarchist in him too.