I am disappointed at Noam Chomsky...he is a state socialist

[Kwunjin]

Even though I am a on the centrist/right side of the political scale. I had been very interested in Noam Chomsky, I viewed him as the humane and sane face of socialism and was impressed(even though not necessarily agree) with libertarian socialism..until I saw this video.
Chomsky: "abolishing the state" not a strategy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqPCRtzOBw&feature=relmfu

What he was basically saying was... libertarian socialism is not feasible at this stage...we need a state socialism to run national healthcare and such social egalitarian policies, we need to end what he called "corporate tyranny" until a stage of history when we can abolish the state and achieve libertarian socialism.
Did you hear right? Yes, state socialism is basically what he wants. Wow , what do you think? For me, I am really disappointed.

And then I am scared because the top comment:
"Noam is a classic anarchist in the style of Kropotkin and Bakunin, not some immature kid who believes "anarchism" means just smashing everything and dancing around a bonfire. His stances make total sense, you cannot completely get rid of the state overnight or else millions would die and fall into real, deadly chaos which is not what the actual anarchist philosophers envisioned."

So i suspect fellow libertarian socialist or similar people voted this up, so they also agreed with state socialism before libertarian socialism? Wow! That is exactly the same as lenin, mao, and stalin! They have uncovered their true face!

So all you modern libertarian socialists/socialists/communists, I challenge you to answer this question: What kind of system will bring about your ideal Libertarian socialist(or any non-state socialism) social change in a peaceful way without resorting to state socialism? What kind of concrete policy do you have? Do you actually know if it is going to work?

[Mike the Progressive]

I too am disappointed by the fellow, but primarily because he is Noam Chomsky.

[Kwunjin]

I too am disappointed by the fellow, but primarily because he is Noam Chomsky.

For years I really thought he is a libertarian socialist. But now even HE admits there is no way a libertarian socialist society is feasible without first implementing state socialist system! He and all leftists who supported him are BUSTED!!

[Tubbsalot]

There's no such thing as socialism without a State. Socialism is when the means of production are held by the State. So he's completely correct.

[Natapoc]

Even though I am a on the centrist/right side of the political scale. I had been very interested in Noam Chomsky, I viewed him as the humane and sane face of socialism and was impressed(even though not necessarily agree) with libertarian socialism..until I saw this video.
Chomsky: "abolishing the state" not a strategy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqPCRtzOBw&feature=relmfu

What he was basically saying was... libertarian socialism is not feasible at this stage...we need a state socialism to run national healthcare and such social egalitarian policies, we need to end what he called "corporate tyranny" until a stage of history when we can abolish the state and achieve libertarian socialism.
Did you hear right? Yes, state socialism is basically what he wants. Wow , what do you think? For me, I am really disappointed.

And then I am scared because the top comment:
"Noam is a classic anarchist in the style of Kropotkin and Bakunin, not some immature kid who believes "anarchism" means just smashing everything and dancing around a bonfire. His stances make total sense, you cannot completely get rid of the state overnight or else millions would die and fall into real, deadly chaos which is not what the actual anarchist philosophers envisioned."

So i suspect fellow libertarian socialist or similar people voted this up, so they also agreed with state socialism before libertarian socialism? Wow! That is exactly the same as lenin, mao, and stalin! They have uncovered their true face!

Most libertarian socialists do not agree with state socialism as a intermediary stage. No.

[Mano-Mana]

There's no such thing as socialism without a State. Socialism is when the means of production are held by the State. So he's completely correct.

No actually, that's not true.

[Natapoc]

There's no such thing as socialism without a State. Socialism is when the means of production are held by the State. So he's completely correct.

No. Socialism is not where the means of production is held by the state. Socialism is when the means of production is owned and controlled by the workers.

State socialism is when the state decides it does a better job at representing the workers than the workers do.

[Mano-Mana]

Most libertarian socialists do not agree with state socialism as a intermediary stage. No.

So how do you see your ideal society coming about?

[Kwunjin]

There's no such thing as socialism without a State. Socialism is when the means of production are held by the State. So he's completely correct.

But the messed up part is He has been advocating stateless socialism all his life. Libertarian Socialism is a stateless ideology, incidentally communism is also a state-less ideology, but many leftists try to hide that fact to distinguish themselves from the old communism which failed. Now Chomsky showed that he is just like Mao and Stalin who advocated state socialism as a necessary step toward true stateless communism.

[Tubbsalot]

No. Socialism is not where the means of production is held by the state. Socialism is when the means of production is owned and controlled by the workers.

Yes, owned and controlled by the workers through the apparatus of the State.

If it were controlled directly by the workers, that would be a communist system.

[Tubbsalot]

But the messed up part is He has been advocating stateless socialism all his life.

Huh, well that does suggest I'm probably speaking out of my ass here, doesn't it. He certainly knows more than me on the subject, I should imagine.

[Genivaria]

Most libertarian socialists do not agree with state socialism as a intermediary stage. No.

So how do you see your ideal society coming about?

Democratic Socialism myself. Work within the system to bring about change.
Granted, its less effective and takes longer, but its also has a far less chance of something going horribly wrong.

[Sovereign Rulers]

I think you must've misunderstood the video. I'm going to watch it in a moment.

Noam Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist, he held a seminar called "alternatives to state socialism" in Oslo, Norway 2011.

[Mano-Mana]

So how do you see your ideal society coming about?

Democratic Socialism myself. Work within the system to bring about change.
Granted, its less effective and takes longer, but its also has a far less chance of something going horribly wrong.

Does this not lead to a certain type of state socialism, albeit not in the same vein as stalin, mao and the rest?

[Tubbsalot]

Good god, my definitions of socialism and communism have been way off for ages now. Why didn't anyone tell me??

[Genivaria]

Democratic Socialism myself. Work within the system to bring about change.
Granted, its less effective and takes longer, but its also has a far less chance of something going horribly wrong.

Does this not lead to a certain type of state socialism, albeit not in the same vein as stalin, mao and the rest?

Hardly. The furthest it could reasonably get is a kind of mixed market with corporate regulations and progressive taxation.
Remember the "Democratic" part, there will be people pulling in the opposite direction the entire time, any new taxes or regulations will meet heavy opposition and will be the opposite of arbitrary.

[Kwunjin]

Democratic Socialism myself. Work within the system to bring about change.
Granted, its less effective and takes longer, but its also has a far less chance of something going horribly wrong.

Does this not lead to a certain type of state socialism, albeit not in the same vein as stalin, mao and the rest?

Stalin and Mao had the vision of true communism which is now called libertarian socialism(stateless, classless, no private property). Democratic socialism is certainly not the same as state socialism. State socialist aimed for the vision of the ultimate withering of the state, at all cost. It feeds the ideals of the minority into the majority who could not careless about politics, who only wanted good life(a fair assumption). Democratic socialism works within the framework of a democratic system. State socialism is not democratic, it is at best a workers control system- what about people other than workers?

[Genivaria]

Does this not lead to a certain type of state socialism, albeit not in the same vein as stalin, mao and the rest?

Stalin and Mao had the vision of true communism which is now called libertarian socialism(stateless, classless, no private property). Democratic socialism is certainly not the same as state socialism. State socialist aimed for the vision of the ultimate withering of the state, at all cost. It feeds the ideals of the minority into the majority who could not careless about politics, who only wanted good life(a fair assumption). Democratic socialism works within the framework of a democratic system. State socialism is not democratic, it is at best a workers control system- what about people other than workers?

Wait what? Stalin and Mao most certainly were NOT pushing for the stateless, classless variation.
Other then that you sound about right.

[Mano-Mana]

Hardly. The furthest it could reasonably get is a kind of mixed market with corporate regulations and progressive taxation.

Well this is where we're at now in many western nations (especially those in Scandinavia) so my question is what next, and what in your opinion will make up the rest of the transition?

[Kwunjin]

I think you must've misunderstood the video. I'm going to watch it in a moment.

Noam Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist, he held a seminar called "alternatives to state socialism" in Oslo, Norway 2011.

I look forward to it. Even as a centrist/rigtist who believe in democracy and the market, I respect Noam Chomsky as a intelligent and humane. I am sure he still is, but he has to be careful---State socialism is not a joke.

[Kwunjin]

Stalin and Mao had the vision of true communism which is now called libertarian socialism(stateless, classless, no private property). Democratic socialism is certainly not the same as state socialism. State socialist aimed for the vision of the ultimate withering of the state, at all cost. It feeds the ideals of the minority into the majority who could not careless about politics, who only wanted good life(a fair assumption). Democratic socialism works within the framework of a democratic system. State socialism is not democratic, it is at best a workers control system- what about people other than workers?

Wait what? Stalin and Mao most certainly were NOT pushing for the stateless, classless variation.
Other then that you sound about right.

I am not too sure about Stalin. But I am definitely right about Mao--he was definitely pushing for state-less communism. He once said that Chinese Communist Party will wither away when China achieved Communism---of course it is fair to assume it will never wither away and CCP will stay in power pretty much forever. Mao either believed in what he is saying or lying his butt off to stay in power. I suspect the latter.

[Genivaria]

Hardly. The furthest it could reasonably get is a kind of mixed market with corporate regulations and progressive taxation.

Well this is where we're at now in many western nations (especially those in Scandinavia) so my question is what next, and what in your opinion will make up the rest of the transition?

What transition? Your assuming I support the idea of a classless, stateless society. I don't.

[Hippostania]

This comic really says it all about Noam Chomsky. He's a crazy hypocrite.

[Mano-Mana]

Well this is where we're at now in many western nations (especially those in Scandinavia) so my question is what next, and what in your opinion will make up the rest of the transition?

What transition? Your assuming I support the idea of a classless, stateless society. I don't.

There may have been a misunderstanding here. I was assuming that Natapoc is a stateless socialism/anarchist advocate (judging by the flag, motto, region and the comment s/he chose to respond to in the trhead) and so was wondering exactly how this socity can be achieved if not through state socialism (not that I necessarily agree that state socialism can achieve this type of society).

But given that you call yourself a democratic socialist, do you not consider yourself to advocate more of a mixed economy, or "social capitalism" through the policies you actually support?

[Natapoc]

No. Socialism is not where the means of production is held by the state. Socialism is when the means of production is owned and controlled by the workers.

Yes, owned and controlled by the workers through the apparatus of the State.

If it were controlled directly by the workers, that would be a communist system.

No it would not be.

In communism the class system is also destroyed and money is abolished and the state destroyed.