Noam Chomsky - What Was Leninism?, March 15th, 1989

An excerpt from the question and answer session from Noam Chomsky lecture MANUFACTURING CONSENT: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE MASS MEDIA, delivered on March 15, 1989, at the Wisconsin Union Theater on the Madison campus of the University of Wisconsin. The lecture was sponsored by the Wisconsin Union Directorates 1988-89 Distinguished Lecture Series. The entire lecture, along with the complete question and answer session, is available at the pdxjustice Media Productions website at pdxjustice.org.

[@bmortloff]

I respect the original questioner for putting herself out there like that. It's become a classic clip. I hope she has come to appreciate Chomsky's reply, because she seems to be sincere.

[@deejannemeiurffnicht1791]

oh i think she very very much appreciates noam. you hear the pains she went to to make this such a worthy question. anhd arrived at a valid critisism, HOW DO WE MAKE A BETTER WORLD FOR HUMAN BEINGS not corporate/military machines.

[@themightyquinn9843]

+MrOrtloff she did have something of a point too, regardless of the quality of Chomsky's response

[@robaquarian]

That woman was a total ideologue. Intellectually lazy and virtue signaling.

[@jimpalmer2981]

She didn't have a valid criticism. She fell into the most basic form of binary thinking: "US military/industrial complex bad. Lenin against US style capitalism. Thus, Lenin good" and then tried to shame Chomsky for his condemnation of Leninism. A condemnation also made by Rosa Luxemburg, too.

[@TheXitone]

Agreed Jim ...she's just mouthing off nonsense ,

[@progliberty429]

Chomsky is pretty impressive... he breaks an important issue down to simple basic parts, and communicates very well.

[@parabola714]

Doomsayer!

[@pinkville]

And he does it off the cuff. Remarkable

[@Peralon]

One of Chosmky's best rebukes! Humorous, rigorous, relentless, and yet, polite. "He will not by bullied. He will not be intimidated. He is a fearless, formidable, totally independent voice. He does something which is really quite simple but highy unusual. He tells the truth." (Harold Pinter - BBC - Pirates & Emperors)

[@nickthepeasant]

I re-watch this at least once a month to remind myself how to conduct yourself when debunking an assumption and educating without condescension. And Chomsky is the best.

[@diehardsmokerbuddy]

Lmao, his entire response is condescending as fuck, whats more important is that he is wholly wrong.

[@Prodigi50]

@@diehardsmokerbuddy Care to explain?

[@diehardsmokerbuddy]

@@Prodigi50 everything he is repeating is Trotskyism

[@Prodigi50]

@@diehardsmokerbuddy That has nothing to do with whether what he’s saying is true though. What about it being Trotskyism makes it untrue?

[@diehardsmokerbuddy]

@@Prodigi50 thats exactly what makes it untrue, Trotskyism is a fallacy.

[@IzabelParis]

The woman who asked this Q went to the heart of the crux of the core of the center of the problem. excellent Q and v well articulated.

[@jananilcolonoscopu4034]

Stopped watching the clip two minutes in, eh 😂

[@roadent217]

@@jananilcolonoscopu4034 Are you saying that the question as the woman presented it is bad?

[@jananilcolonoscopu4034]

@@roadent217 absolutely. Chomsky's answer exposes the fundamental distortion of history which forms the woman's false framework for her question.

[@ShiningSta18486]

@@jananilcolonoscopu4034 Chomsky literally buys into the distortions of history that Right Oppurtunists like Trotsky sold to the US which legitimized their disgusting Imperialism against the USSR resulting in one of the worst Humanitarian crises of all time, the Illegal Dissolution of the USSR

[@jananilcolonoscopu4034]

@@ShiningSta18486 hahaha! What a fantastically extravagant inversion of the truth you've produced. While Trotsky was someone who easily sold his principles to Lenin and joined Lenin in his right-wing, authoritarian project until he fell out of favor, he does not bear the major part of the responsibility for the many crimes committed by Lenin, his right wing regime, or the US. That rests with them. As for the dissolution of the USSR, it was the replacement of one plutocratic hellhole with an arguably worse plutocratic hell hole, but not the worst crime the US has committed frankly.

[@SagesseNoir]

I recall an inteesting comment by the Emma Goldman character in the movie REDS: "If Bolshevism means that the workers take over industry, and the peasnts take over the land, then Russia is one country in which there is no Bolshevism."

[@SagesseNoir]

***** Czarist Russia was a bureaucratic authoritarian system, and so was the system that emerged after Lenin's October Revolution. Victor Serge takes note of this in his MEMOIRS OF A REVOLUTIONIST.

[@SagesseNoir]

Yes, she did. I've read a couple of Rosa Luxemburg's essays on Lenin and the Russian Revolution. One was an essay criticizing the hierarchical and centralized model of the Bolshevik party. Another was an article which critique Bolshevik methods once they'd gotten to power

[@SagesseNoir]

OK, I found it. A slim volume published years ago by University of Michigan Press. it's "The Russian Revolution" and "Leninism or Marxism?" by Rosa Luxemburg

[@SagesseNoir]

***** University of Michigan published Rosa Luxemburg's articles "The Russian Revolution" and "Leninism or Marxism?". Her critiques of Lenin can be found in those articles.

[@milascave2]

sage: You bet. She wrote a whole book on the topic called "My Disillusionment in Russia," and it is a good read. She arrived in Russia fulling supporting the revolution and wanting to help. She left two years later very much against the Russian government, which she denounced for the rest of her life.

[@RSFO]

We wouldn't have such a clear Chomsky response without her.

[@arriuscalpurniuspiso]

She brought out the best in him. It's rare that he spoke so fully as he did here

[@CameronOrrmusic]

The other issue with this is that Trotskyists claim to be Leninists, at least the one's I've encountered have been. They're favorite insult is not "Leninist" but "Stalinist," or "Tankie." And yet tactically, they tend to be isolated over in a corner preaching dogmas that most people are completely unready for, generally do not participate in the democratic struggle via parliamentary and legal processes, and refuse to work with coalitions capabale of winning any type of winnable demands in existing governments. All of these things are denunciations of Leninist principles laid out in What Is To Be Done? and Left-Wing Communism. As Lenin said, it's very good for agitation, but not for a sustained movement. Leninists are accused of being opportunists because they believe strategies and tactics have to be based on an understanding of actually existing circumstances, including the subjective consciousness of the masses (and yet they are accused of being anti-democratic!). These are practical questions, the road to socialism is a long one including many stages and set backs. Merely launching moral critiques of every un-perfect manifestation of socialist struggle does no good. Moreover, it completely disregards Marx's own view that socialism exists in two stages, communism being the higher one. You can't just simply skip over steps in the real world, It only works in the imagination. Trotskyists and anarchists can provide us with a good reminder of where are headed, but ultimately they're sadly condemned to be windbags until the ultimate vision we are all striving for finally become a real possibility. That will never happen until state socialism has been established on a worldwide basis for some time. To speak of the failures of the USSR as based on Lenin's personal maniacal opportunistic quest for power, without taking into account the profound challenges the Soviet Union (and every other socialist state) faced in terms of isolation and imperialist sabotage, no matter how lofty your vision is, really does play into imperialist narratives, specifically by obscuring its historical role. Socialist states and movements tend to recycle their leaders with less frequency for the same reason that armies don't generally make the habit of constantly changing their leadership. It's called class war for a reason. People get so caught up with the question of representatives and whether they change faces and fail to wonder whether or not the people's best interests are being well represented, given the circumstances and relative to other capitalists states. It really is a kind of bourgeois fetish when at the end of the day, the same people will talk about how the changing of faces among our own elected fails to do anything to alter the reality that capitalist and monopolist interests are still in control of the entire political process. Chomsky won't even provide critical support for Cuba, as far as I know. To me, this really is throwing the working class socialist movement under the imperialist bus.

[@enfercesttout]

''Moreover, it completely disregards Marx's own view that socialism exists in two stages,'' Neither of which is a national state dictatorship

[@RottingintheMidwest]

It was Lenin, not Marx who divided socialism/communism into two separate stages. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was to be a transitionary stage from capitalism to socialism/communism. Lenin only gave us a dictatorship of the single-party state (and he labeled it "socialism").

[@Simone-xe9cw]

Applause.

[@jasonkelley9072]

You wrote all this to say you’re ok with dictators as long as it’s your guy

[@DmoneyS44]

@@jasonkelley9072 yes? Marxist leninists have never pretended to be non partisan

[@SagesseNoir]

Is there a place where one can hear the rest of Chomsky's lecture, the part that preceded the young woman's question?

[@TheYopogo]

This is brilliant. Exactly what I've thought for years, expressed better than I ever could.

[@aluisious]

He's so right on here. People say "blah blah my grandparents came from China/Cuba/Russia/whatever and they suffered and that's why they hate socialism." And I always say "what socialism? When the workers don't control the means of production, it's not socialism." In none of these places did the average person control anything. You want to talk about freedom? You're not free until you have a real say in what you do all day.

[@anthonyesposito7]

Yeah people will just never understand the point you made. They go on and on about the government this and that and socialism never works but you exactly right. Show me a time when a real workers state even existed. This people are criticizing the exact opposite of socialism and they don't even know what they are talking about it's sad. Workers must democratically own and control the means of production or it is NOT socialism end of discussion!

[@SeattlePioneer]

[@JakubRubas]

I was surprised that the question was actually under 3 minutes - it definitely seemed longer, but definitely hat off to her.

[@nickthepeasant]

I've re-watched this clip so many times - a masterclass in answering a question fully, accurately and without resorting to hyperbole and rhetoric.

[@ssssssssss1638]

That was the most humble intellectual take down i've ever seen

[@wishcraft4u2]

Why even call it a "take down"? I mean this kind of thing ought to be the staple of our political culture, just people having public debates about stuff like this. It's supposed to be a matter of course, a service you do to each other.

[@SagesseNoir]

That this kind of discourse is not the "staple of our political culture" indicates the poverty of our political culture. And it bodes ill for the future of democracy.

[@kentallard8852]

he's not trying to take down anyone, he isn't Ben Shapiro trying to beat someone in an argument.

[@jananilcolonoscopu4034]

@@kentallard8852 which makes the fact that he *does* win arguments so easily and apparently effortlessly even more impressive.

[@spyrosspyratos654]

Few arguments can be discussed. But to state October Revolution as a coup (actually coup goes with the word d'etat which was of course was not the case). A revolutionary army was created, the Red Army, that fought all remains of the past state and most of the imperialist countries that intervened to struggle the revolution. In order to perform a coup d'etat you need to control specific forces such as military units, police and other state organs such as counter-intelligence and so on which Bolshevics did not control, in fact they were persecuted by the those forces. October Revolution was not simply a revolution it was THE revolution that shooked the world. However, Professor Chomsky is a well-respected academic but in this case is wrong, in my point of view.

[@alonsofrancescutti4956]

You can praise and respect the october rev and also criticize all what it came afterwards

[@fenzelian]

Your point of view is combining too many different historical events into one large event in a way that is unwarranted. The Bolshevik coup is the coup against Karensky’s Provisional Government, in which they very much did have the support of the military - because they were the party that wanted to exit World War I and the other parties did not. At the the point of the Bolshevik coup the revolution had already been going on for months, the Tsar has already abdicated, and the workers and soldiers have already been organized into Soviets for some time - the people the Bolsheviks seized power from were not the old guard, but the other revolutionaries who had opposed the Tsarist regime, as the radical wave of a revolution that had been much more pluralistic and involved not just socialists but also liberals and social democrats, and even some conservatives. At the time the Tsarist police had already been abolished and Lenin was well on his way to reinstituting the police and the military under himself as a combined organization. It’s a mistake to combine the Russian Civil War, the October Revolution, and the other Revolutions in 1917 all into one event with the same sides - the sides changed rapidly because the whole thing was happening during the catastrophic losses of WWI. So even if you admire the role of the Red Army in the civil war, you might not admire what happens to the other socialist parties that are part of the revolution and how the new military and military police are leveraged against them as well.

[@theghostofhumankindness4312]

The Soviet leader Andropov had a plan to gradually democratize production. In fact, it was always one of the long-term objectives of the Soviet leadership. USSR was the only hope for the third world and actually ending poverty and feeding hungry people, not intellectuals sitting in coffee shops discussing the latest theory.

[@asphal.t]

TheGhostof HumanKindness What do you think could be done now to get people out of the coffee shops and into positions where they are creating policies like this? Do you think it would be possible to enter office now with these goals? And do you think any of those policies/plans would do first world countries any good?

[@fubaralakbar6800]

Then why wouldn't they let people leave?

[@milkyway52]

Not only they did not achieve their objective but there is no indication they ever tried.

[@Pillowpants8495]

Is he referring to a specific book that I can find when he says "I've written about this."?

[@jsbart96]

There is an essay by Chomsky called 'The Soviet Union versus Socialism' I think. Just search it on google :)

[@tracksuitjim]

this comment is super old but i'll answer anyway lol a lot of what Chomsky says sounds like he read the book "The Guillotine at Work" by GP Maximoff. the ideas that Lenin opportunistically adopted anarchist ideas to appeal to the largely anarchist tendencies in Russian socialism and that the system Lenin created was a precursor of future totalitarian regimes are both elaborated on by Maximoff. it's a rly interesting book, a lot of Marxists would rly hate it but even if you don't take the hardline Maximoff does, it's definitely worth a read. also ppl like Sylvia Pankhurst, Hermann Gorter, and others ("Non-Leninist Marxism: Writings on the Workers' Councils") say similar things. the Situationists also have a similar critique of Leninist-style state socialism. edit: i just read it and in the already mentioned essay, Chomsky references a book called "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control" by Maurice Brinton which was also referenced by Maximoff.

[@leknin2021]

@@tracksuitjim Thank you for sharing

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

@@jsbart96 Its available online "Union versus ..." but he has scattered remarks on these issue. I'd say his early essays on Spain deal with this fully though he was pro-Mao at that time.

[@lorezyra]

He also mentioned "State and Revolution" by V. I. Lenin @6:15

[@calllllllllllllllolol]

Now I'm new to this history, but it seems pretty unfair to say Lenin's shift away from libertarianism as purely opportunistic. The Soviet union was facing such heavy opposition from global powers and surrounding nations (not to mention the world had just experienced the greatest show of force between nations in the history of man), and the parties view that the revolution/coup was in a really volatile place. There's an important difference between Lenin and the Bolsheviks seizing power to "whip the peasants into shape" because they thought of their lifestyle as inferior as Chomsky implies, and seizing power because they consider the peasantry unable to defend the revolution or structure the organization of a large-scale socialist economy. I hate commodity production as much as the next guy, but just cause the Bolsheviks saw Vanguardism as necessary doesn't mean they're antisocialists just as those advocating for centralized socialism aren't necessarily anti-communist. Wether that was a move that doomed the revolution to repression or was a necessary choice ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But who knows maybe it was all to insure the proletariat kept a steady supply of beard trimming technology available for Lenin to maintain his exquisite style

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

Chomsky is talking about the period BEFORE "USSR" was officially announced when the country was in civil war and the Bolsheviks made a choice to centralize power

[@happiegiraphie8148]

Chan Thorpe Chan Something to keep in mind with Russia at the time was that they had to deal with at least 14 different foreign invaders at once. The white Russians were being supplied armaments from all the advanced imperialist nations. Russia was very under-industrialized with a majority uneducated (fuedal) peasantry with no concept of fair democracy. Literacy rates were round 20 percent. The white and red armies both kept taking food from the peasantry to sustain the war effort. Some Kulaks hoarding food to sell at a marked up value on the black market. (The Czardom had bought their Mosins from the French btw. There was not much weapon manufacturing to speak of at the time.) They thought if the revolution in Germany failed then they couldn’t succeed, but despite hardship they became a global superpower. Anarcho-commie here the authoritarianism sucked, but it was a result from the environment and a demand for strong action to secure sovereignty. Also they went from WW1 under Czar, straight to the civil war period, and then directly to WW2 with the same government while struggling through isolation and trade embargoes. Hitler’s war of annihilation took a toll with the bullet holocausts, and later true holocausts of not just Jews, but slavs and many non german heritage groups. The revolution was even followed up with insurrectionary forces (not unlike America at several occasions). More local autonomy woulda been awesome, but oof so much paranoia and fear of reactionary usurpation. (Like a modern day threat of terrorism, lead to much consolidation of state authority especially political authority) to their detriment.

[@matthewmcree1992]

@@happiegiraphie8148 I absolutely appreciate your analysis of the decisions of the early Soviet Union. I tend to lean towards the more anti-authoritarian forms of Marxism and don't want the model for a future socialist society to be like the Soviet Union (especially post-Lenin's death), but it's undeniable that the Soviet Union chose authoritarian policies because of how the entirety of the capitalist world wanted to destroy them by any means necessary, and had no choice for the sake of survival but to rapidly develop the economy and productive capacity in order to maintain the gains of the October Revolution. The USSR was a backwards country with an illiterate population, just barely out of feudalism when the Bolsheviks took power. They could have chosen anti-authoritarian policies, but this would likely have led to much slower growth of productive capacity, and it would have been much easier for the capitalist world to destroy them early on. Does this excuse the purges or the misuse of psychiatry to discredit and quiet others? No, but some actions of the Politburo only make sense in the context of the hostile capitalist world as it was.

[@enuajsifoto]

@@matthewmcree1992 Thank you for the true analysis of the USSR - wikipedia very gingerly talks about the 400K+ soldiers from around the world (Japan alone sent over 200K) sent to kill the October Revolution.

[@3brenm]

"There's an important difference between Lenin and the Bolsheviks seizing power to "whip the peasants into shape" because they thought of their lifestyle as inferior as Chomsky implies, and seizing power because they consider the peasantry unable to defend the revolution or structure the organization of a large-scale socialist economy". No there isn't. The result is exactly the same on the peasants and workers. The very people socialism is meant to be about.

[@emanekafecaftoggaf6893]

all salad, no meat and potatoes

[@maxheadrom3088]

I would love to see the whole lecture and Q&A!

[@VictorFr0st]

Holy shit that was like a lecture disguised as a question

[@SagesseNoir]

Chomsky is really good, well informed and analytically sharp

[@indonesiaamerica7050]

Your emperor is naked.

[@SagesseNoir]

Chomsky doesn't believe in emperors

[@indonesiaamerica7050]

SagesseNoir He's delusional, isn't he. He's a "Libertarian Socialist." That alone, unless he's talking about the US Constitution for a real world model, marks him as an idiot. And because on top of that he decries "capitalism" - which is nothing more than liberty to trade and prosper - we know for a fact that he's insane. It's sad how insane so many of you are. You think he's an intellectual and he's destroying your ability to think.

[@SagesseNoir]

Indonesia America The fact that Chomsky disagrees with your pro-capitalist views is hardly proof that he's an idiot. Some people would see your view of capitalism--"the liberty to trade and prosper"--as naïve and silly as far as real capitalism is concerned. Should they take that as evidence that you're an idiot or insane? As far as Chomsky being an intellectual, I can't think of a good reason not to see him as such. It never occurs to me to say that conservative writers and thinkers aren't intellectuals simply because I disagree with them. But I am perhaps more broadminded here than you. And a lot depends on what one thinks an intellectual to be. Furthermore, Chomsky is a thinker--a distinguished one at that--however much this is denied by both dogmatic Marxists and dogmatic right wingers like you. And it is far from clear that a thinker merely in thinking is destroying someone else's ability to think. If anything I believe Chomsky stimulates thinking in others--even in many people who may disagree with him.

[@indonesiaamerica7050]

SagesseNoir Moron, What is "capitalism" if not liberty to trade and prosper? "Furthermore, Chomsky is a thinker--a distinguished one at that--however much this is denied by both dogmatic Marxists and dogmatic right wingers like you." You got it 180 degrees backwards. As evidenced by your employment of dogma with zero substance. "If anything I believe Chomsky stimulates thinking in others--even in many people who may disagree with him." He and his followers only ever come up with idiotic and delusional criticism. The fact that the world is imperfect doesn't make your thoughts profound. Name one solution that he's ever offered. One. Just one. And what precisely is this "libertarian socialism" that he proposes? You offered your little "smack talk" response without refuting what I wrote about capitalism. Anyone that disparages capitalism without explaining their critique, just as a matter of common sense, as you did, is a nonthinking stooge. You "feel" like it's all about "thinking" but it's just cult-signaling and random impulses that you feel must be useful because you're defending your silly cult. Try again. What "thinking" person can possibly be against "capitalism," and what precisely is the problem? The answer is that it allows disparity. Now prove that disparity is bad rather than good, natural and innately progressive. Have fun, dumbass.

[@safyan9442]

An exceptionally intelligent and brilliant man who's analytical power is just astronomical. More respect to him because he comes clean with not pretenses and unnecessary rhetorical jibes to secure applauses. All this explanation and at the end when most people pause to get applauded, he moves to another question how swiftly.

[@edwardjones2202]

Yup. you pinpointed everything I love about him

[@tenaciouscraig]

Incredible.

[@rippedtorn2310]

Superb

[@fatehahmadpanah9315]

his answers are really logical and explicit.chomsky is a good thinker and good lecturer.like his works on language and syntax his lectures are understandable .

[@kropotkinbeard1]

You'll have to give an example of how you feel it is that Chomsky sees 'no material conditions needed for socialism', and/or explain what this means.

[@jorgealexphoto]

Final fantasy intro!!!

[@waindayoungthain2147]

In my opinion it’s the https//: of how much the people live well. In what’s political in Peace for everyday’s life’s, I always respect.

[@hiraethum]

I don't think fighting at the local and larger scale (overturning global capitalism) are mutually exclusive. We should do both. The local scale fight is just as crucial. The advancement of things like worker cooperatives and local occupy initiatives gives people experience in alternative structures, meets immediate needs, and gives positive examples of what we are fighting for.

[@piffdiddyash]

This is a great clip. Answers a lot of the questions I had about the Soviet Union.

[@NathanRichan]

piffdiddyash I think Noam would say it's not supposed to answer questions but raise them. He wants you to check for yourself whether or not he's correct.

[@danceswithcritters]

now that's how you answer a question.

[@diehardsmokerbuddy]

By being wrong? Lmao

[@danceswithcritters]

@@diehardsmokerbuddy So then lets hear the correct answer from you , genius ? Can you do better than "Lmao"?

[@diehardsmokerbuddy]

@@danceswithcritters lol which part? I stopped listening after he called Lenin a right wing opportunist. Left coms are the most retarded of the lot.

[@danceswithcritters]

@@diehardsmokerbuddy That's why you never learn anything, you always stop listening . Willful ignorance .

[@diehardsmokerbuddy]

@@danceswithcritters willful ignorance is taking Noam Chomskys word for it without doing research yourself. You know how much Ive studied this shit and Im supposed to take Chomsky for his word? He probably only read Trotsky and Bordogia and called it good. Lmao

[@noprofitmaximierung]

Here is another example: We all hate wage labor, right, but are anarchists really thinking that we can all of a sudden jump into communism at some local level, getting rid of hierarchies, wage labor, and the state right away? Material conditions.

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

No. Anarchists differ - some are pro-democracy others anti-democratic. The issue is communities self-regulate. I am not pro-anarchist myself but the THEORY says there are no hierarchies in the first place - people just arbitrarily have more resources.

[@tommurray9441]

Served

[@evanamsrud2583]

For those who want to know, the woman asking the question was Nancy MacLean and has written "Behind the Mask of Chivalry" about the KKK and "Democracy in Chains" about the rise of the radical right. She's a professor at Duke University.

[@Xsdwolf]

I loved Democracy in Chains, didn’t know this was her! :O

[@kentallard8852]

what is your source for this?

[@OMGSoothsayer95]

It's funny how Trotsky himself defended the assertion of 'the USSR is socialist' calling bullshit on this stuff

[@MrUndersolo]

Absolutely nailed it!

[@xjtbarnesx]

Worker control doesn't mean A worker or SOME workers; it means ALL workers. When all workers share an interest, there is no elevation, no hierarchy, "no bosses". Power is structured horizontally and managed democratically.

[@johnwatts8346]

hierarchy is a simply fact of life it can never go away and neither will bosses, you d bag

[@Rbrennan215]

Such a blatant misunderstanding of the entire period in history, it's sad he keeps repeating it and so many people just take his word for it.

[@__bolshebec6697]

Yep….a very western view and an irresponsible one. Why does Chomsky hate Lenin so much

[@goosenik2219]

@@__bolshebec6697 because he wasn’t perfect, and not as good as the many great western revolutions… oh wait, there are none

[@frogstrap]

People really need to read Parenti, he completely dismantles Chomsky's anti-communist rhetoric.

[@KleineJumbie]

After all gets clear, skip back to the question lol

[@mattendahl2236]

Great clip. 2:13 It's worth noting that Chomsky didn't compare Lenin to Stalin in his lecture. If you go back to the original lecture, check the following timestamps. Chomsky brought up Lenin at 26:10 (until about 27:42) when he makes a comparison between the how the U.S. and the Soviet Union used propaganda in a similar way in the 1920's. But this person asking the question misunderstood it as a comparison between Lenin and Stalin.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@Carl Oh Wrong. There are many good examples of workers' control. Mondragon, John Lewis Partnership etc.

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

LOL. No. Those are examples of employee-ownership NOT workers control. Workers do not control Mondragon - there is a "council" where control is centralized. But there is evidence workers have some say but they do not control the company

[@glasszeraki9195]

I wish I knew WHY Lenin did what he did after taking power, what he thought and why he thought it.

[@NathanielRises606]

This idea that the “radical intelligentsia were going to exploit popular movements” in a vanguardist tendency is 100% right. You can’t possibly leave the working class to their own decisions.

[@wdirtymonkey]

Queen

[@oliverlee988]

7:08 - What does he mean by 'coo(?)' ?

[@Traeumeer]

Maybe it's a bit late, but anyway: He says "coup". Meaning: sudden overthrow of a government. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat It has a more prejorative nuance than revolution and is, propably, used to underline his low opinion of Leninism.

[@edwardjones2202]

@@Traeumeer Yeah, he's underlining that Lenin was joining a spontaneous revolution against the Tsar and then reversing its initial tendencies. "Coup" is used to indicate it's illegitimacy: Lenin wasn't representing the salient political tendencies but was opposing them

[@MrBillcale]

some good thinky shit right here

[@henriashurst-pitkanen8735]

Chomsky has done fantastic work on media analysis, hegemony and great work for Palestine and linguistics, but his thoughts on Leninism are deeply rooted in Cold War propaganda and it's unfortunate that he's so lacking in this aspect.

[@mailtv910]

Can you list examples of the "propaganda" Chomsky has fallen for, in your opinion?

[@gadam4254]

@@mailtv910 lenin=stalin thing lol and overall not seeing why at all the labour army was needed in soviet russia (because western countries intervened to stop the revolution which is a fact well... i would not say hidden but a one usually not talked about in the west) etc. and also the very view of ussr as the ultimate evil is a result of him being brainwashed. in this very video notice how he talks about trozky lol as if trozky joined the evil side when he joined the bolsheviks and before that he was great. chomsky is 100% typical american. american government controls the minds of american people totally.

[@mailtv910]

@@gadam4254 Given how critical he is of other regimes, I don't think it's fair to assume that Chomsky saw the Soviet union as the ultimate evil. I think he saw it as what it was: An authoritarian dictatorship, that had nothing to do with socialism.

[@gadam4254]

@@mailtv910 do you think there was something more evil in chomsky's worldview than soviet union? if so, please name that entity. p.s. concerning dictatorship, who exactly was the dictator in soviet union?

[@mailtv910]

@@gadam4254 I cannot speak for Chomsky, you should ask him. He did call the Republican party the most dangerous organization in history, that probably includes the Soviet Union.

[@garrywarne1]

Right, because an ad hoc distribution of tax revenue based upon what individuals want would be absolutely fantastic...

[@saeedafyouni619]

SNAP @ 3:09

[@garrywarne1]

Yes, I would. Do you know how ignorant of politics the average citizen is? Additionally, what do you think would happen were there to be no central planning as to the distribution of tax revenue?

[@dickhamilton3517]

who is the questioner? what happened to her?

[@travancore.]

Kgb got her

[@edwardjones2202]

FBI took her down for sedition

[@SeattlePioneer]

> That's right. After world revolution failed, and after revolution failed in Germany, what were the Bolsheviks to do? GIVE IT BACK to the capitalists? That's the question Stalin posed in "Socialism in One Country." The title provides Stalin's answer. Stalin muddled through, using the methods of state terrorism, gulags and mass executions that Lenin inaugurated and the Stalin turned into an extraordinary mass phenomena. I'm no Marxist and no Leninist and no Trotskyist. I'm currently finishing volume two of Stephen Kotkins excellent three volume biography of Stalin. The justification for Stalin's mass terror is that he created the instrument that defeated Nazi Germany. He created the system of power, he created the industrialization that produced thousands of T34 tanks and thousand of modern aircraft, and he produced the Red Army that eventually ground down the German Army to dust. If that doesn't justify that terror fine. It should mitigate it considerably, at a minimum. Kotkins doesn't picture Stalin as a psychopath, or even an egomaniac. He is picture as being enormously talented as an organizer and politician and enormously hard working. Even Stalin's contemporaries thought there was no one who could replace him after he got started, and I think that's true. He also made plenty of mistakes and was no genius. Kotikins describes the Red Army as one of the greatest facts of the twentieth century. It changed world history. And Stalin was the one who created that instrument.;

[@jayallen81]

You just got Chomsky'D.

[@hopperthemarxist8533]

Government owning business has got nothing to do with Leninism. Stalin was forced to deliver state capitalism because the Soviet Union was so badly starved that they needed centralized control to survive.

[@benjaminhennessy8050]

Well what do you think is the effect of having an intellectual controlled vanguard party dictate how the soviet councils operate? Certainly it's a far cry from the worker self management advocated by mainstream Marxists of the time.

[@hhll9294]

Dude trying to stretch the video out

[@Left_it]

Lenin was a 'right wing deviation' ? Absolutely ridiculous. Luxembourg although holding differences to Lenin was absolutely on the side of the Soviet Union - which Chomsky has never been.

[@NathanielRises606]

Bet the person who asked the question is now 2.4 with the 4x4 now

[@nordfreiheit]

Wasn't Rosa Luxemburg good friends with Lenin, and together didn't they create the Sparticist League?

[@TheFreeFlow]

+Mason Bliss Lenin and rosa may have met, however, it was rosa and liebknecht who formed the spartacist league, lenin was in russsia lol.

[@SagesseNoir]

No. The Spartacists were organized in Germany by Rosa and others whom she worked with in Germany. Lenin and Luxemburg were not friends, but didn't seem to regard each other as enemies. But Rosa was a severe critique both of Bolsheviks party model and their policies after they seized power.

[@paullake2736]

Chomsky says that Lenin was a left-wing Marxist up until April 1917. Then he crossed over to the right. If they were friends before that date, I'm sure they weren't afterwards. Luxemburg was murdered by German soldiers and here body thrown in a canal in January 1919

[@robertdavidson8028]

I think there could be a better title for this (very useful) clip - instead of "what is Leninism" I think " What socialism is - and isn't " would be preferable.

[@PresidentGeraldFord]

He was condemning the Soviet Union...not justifying it...

[@matthewgabbard6415]

This is Chomsky saying get off my side

[@deejannemeiurffnicht1791]

she fails in that she only neede ask "how do we mjake the world better?" bless her for gettinbg all that in,and offering a question worthy enough and at pains and passion with charge.

[@tylerblogger]

Chomsky is an absolute class act in response to this woman

[@thatyoutubechannel9953]

It took a lot to be a theory nerd before the internet, nowadays there are 16 year olds who will call 50 year old doctors of economics morons and scream about the LTV all day on Twitter

[@gabeb4326]

Twitter toxicity aside, i have to say 50 year old econ phds getting called morons by high schoolers is one of the better developments of the 21st century

[@thatyoutubechannel9953]

@@gabeb4326 It is pretty cool that there are 16 year olds (not many, but a small few) who genuinely understand economics well enough to tear apart people who have been trained in the field for a lifetime. The bad part is that there are way way way more who THINK they're educated enough to do that and just make fools of themselves.

[@christophereduardo9903]

Leninism is still alive and growing. What is leninism would be a better title.

[@atayo490]

neoliberal state capitalism is still going that is true

[@eddiebaby22]

Great speech lady

[@drg111yt]

Great hysteria, certainly.

[@UYAelmo76587]

yeah what a bitch am i right fucking rhetorician

[@voyagersa22]

Sounds like Camille Paglia

[@jimpalmer2981]

Nothing more irritating than a self-righteous tankie.

[@nathanking8842]

Trotskyists aren’t tankies.

[@theriversexitsense]

actually a super brilliant question the ISO as UW is still live and well!

[@ERASERHEADFUCKERS]

F

[@jananilcolonoscopu4034]

Haha nah, it was a silly question actually, a thinly veiled promo for Leninism, which is of course a vanguardist, right wing tradition

[@themadmattster9647]

yeah theres a lot of commies in this town, sadly. i can point them out cuz they're still wearing masks while driving alone lol

[@jestrada1617]

Nancy went on to work on Wall Street.

[@Email-mu1mv]

Putin an ex-KGB agent who was born and brought up in USSR doesn't like Leninism Stalinism or Communism, whereas Noam Chomsky from UK a monarchy wants it. I think we must listen to Putin.

[@kentallard8852]

Chomsky is not from the UK, he is from America. Chomsky does not advocate Communism, he advocates Anarchism. Putin is a crook out for himself and his cronies.

[@TheMindIlluminated]

Good exchange between a Communist and a Syndicalist

[@mlem474]

4:00 Trotsky x leninism 5:22 critique 6:02 shift 7:15 after the rev 9:00 workers army 10:01 no more communism 12:30 western soviet propaganda

[@musictomyears8]

The key problem is whether there can be socialism without central planning. Lenin and Mao and many others thought it was not feasible. Central planning and coordination led to a managerial form of economy.

[@kazkazo6709]

Where is this girl? she was so much on the right lines. What she said wasn't rhetoric. We need to make a better world and who do you turn to if you want to organise a socialist revolution? Lenin who actually showed how the workers can organise themselves politically and seize power or Chomsky? where does this talk or many talks of Chomsky takes you? Are you any wiser as what it is all about and what is to be done? Because if you are confused and don't know what to do then you will carry on with the status quo, that is Chomsky's solution to world problems of course with a dash of workers resistance. The village fool.

[@AdrianSheepherd]

+Kaz Kazo Lenin did not organize any workers. The workers organized themselves. Lenin then dismantled workers self-organization after taking state power.

[@kazkazo6709]

garbageboy Really? Wise words from the always liberal bourgeoisie faction. How did he dismantled it if he did not organise it? You are contradicting yourself which is typical of liberal bourgeois, they love contradictions, dilemmas, circular definitions anything that leave the working class more confused and ultimately lame.

[@kokorodokoro]

+Kaz Kazo "How did he dismantled it if he did not organise it?" Are you acting stupid on purpose? It's like asking "How did Mussolini abolish the democracy if he didn't create it?". Most of what you have written here looks highly confused, I must say.

[@kazkazo6709]

kokorodokoro I think it is the liberalism that is confused. Using confusing analogy between a system of governing people and a movement.

[@kokorodokoro]

Kaz Kazo Soviet organizations *is* a system of government. What are you on about? And that wasn't even the point. You were suggesting that there was no way that Lenin (or anyone) could have dismantled a system of organization that he himself did not create, which is absurd.

[@xs10tl1]

Who is the Initial Speaker asking Questions?

[@jessenfox6357]

A fine answer for a different question. What Chomsky misses here, and what so many people who critique the missteps of revolutionaries miss, is what should they have done INSTEAD? I love Noam, but its easy for an extremely comfortable American Ivy league professor with unparalleled freedom of speech to criticize people who were among other things, were constantly in hiding from the police, living in exile, writing their pamphlets in prison, and also leading a revolution in frigid temperatures with next to no modern amenities. If the mainstream marxists were so darn great, why did Lenin topple his country's government and his contemporaries did not? It often to me just sounds like sour grapes. It is not easy to overthrow a government and take the largest step towards socialism in history. It is not easy to fend off a civil war and then stand alone as all the capitalist nations join together to prey on your downfall. People act like they would have done something much better and much smarter if it had been then and all I can do is laugh as most American leftists barely even go door knocking enough to get a socialist on their city council.

[@GreenIronFist]

A fucking men.

[@geistov7075]

Agreed. Chomsky’s answer is a bit myopic and most notably lacking a rigorous contextualization of early 20th century Russian society - something that is highly essential if we are looking to make an ethical judgement on Lenin, Stalin, etc. This video kind of encapsulates the Arendt-influenced teleological revisionism that has caused so many people to mindlessly repudiate the Soviet Union.

[@owfan4134]

This is a fair point. Not much is ever mentioned in Chomsky’s talks about what alternative solutions exist, you’d have to read his papers to find those. He goes into some detail only indirectly in other videos, I’ll try and paraphrase it: take the JSTOR issue, where some kid hacked into MIT’s servers and released the entire collection of academic papers out from behind the paywall and into the internet. Was what he did justified? A lot of people got access to crucial information that they might have otherwise never had access to, but remember that liberating information will remove the ability for the journal to support itself, and then no one has access to it. Is causing massive structural damage and forcing people to figure it out or perish the proper choice? That’s your choice, and if you ever have the opportunity to exercise it, it is imperative to be aware. Likely, none of us typing here will ever have any real impact at such a level, and the kid who did ended up killing himself because the state prosecutor took it upon herself to personally fucj him over in the most extreme manner possible. This was presumably because she wanted to set an example by ruining his life, a small price to pay for keeping her empire safe from the threat of random college students with laptops and big ideas. The ethical judgement here is not a coffee shop academic discourse on epistemology, it’s quite simple. Killing people for belief systems is wrong. It is not the right thing to commit atrocities today for a better tomorrow. There are no excuses. These things are written on our hearts from birth, everyone knows what it’s like to lose a loved one and be left alone, the only reason why atrocities occur is because of a refusal to acknowledge the reality of one’s suffering and the cause of it. When you blame external things and direct your hate towards them, you are just making them more powerful by means of perpetuating the cycle. The history of the Soviet Union proves that violence and repression do nothing but compound ignorance and unawareness, which are the true causes of suffering that marxists claim to oppose. Chomsky takes these factors a priori, and makes no effort to justify them. I happen to agree with that sentiment, though I understand the lack of progress and stagnation such indecision naturally leads to. I wish there was an easier way, or that I had a better answer, but I really don’t. Chomsky does, but even then I don’t know if I believe it. His intellect is astounding, but he’s just a human being like you and I, and his perspective as an Ivy League professor naturally prevents him from being able to know what it’s like to be a 20th century Russian dissident writing manifestos from prison. All I’m saying is we should not abandon the notion of morality in any way, and clearly there are limits which must never be crossed if we are to create a better world for all. A war to end slavery was justified, what about a war against private property and the right to hoard resources? If the answer is yes, will you justify atrocities to achieve that goal? What sort of world will come out from those ashes, and will it be anything like the other totalitarian regimes before it? Human beings will always find a reason to kill and dominate each other, we should not forget that in any discussion of utopian ideals and concentration of power in a centralized society. Thanks for reading.

[@adenizenabroad9593]

💯

[@talismanbrunski2582]

​@geistov7075 the USSR under Stalin and then Kruschev became incredibly imperialistic and not only invaded and annexed but subjected several smaller formerly autonomous countries (such as the Baltic states) to highly oppressive rule. There is no justification for that

[@garrywarne1]

Without government what would happen to public services?

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

LOL there are many self-regulating communities - this is discussed independent of Chomsky. Look up work by E Ostrom an economist. She died recently.

[@jodie4609]

Leninism ? It's a hard day's night

[@immachanguropinin1110]

Chomsky does a really bad job of conflating Lenin with Blanquism. People like Rosa Luxembourg make these equivalents but at least she uses the word “Blanquism” and doesn’t just throw the word in the memory hole like Chomsky. State and Revolution goes into detail in Chapter 6 on Pannekoek and Blanquism. The purpose of a Vanguard is to defend the Proletariat from threats. The Bolsheviks were the only party capable of defending the Russian working class from the Kerensky government. Democratic centralism *was* important to opposing capitalism in Russia because of bourgeois leaders like Kerensky. It is fine to want to approach different approaches to communism besides Democratic centralism, but it is the responsibility of critics of Lenin to be specific about what Lenin did that interceded between the workers and their means of production.

[@mathias4851]

Imagine defending fk Lenins policy

[@MatheusLegenda]

Oh, it's just me watching this video for the thousandth time.

[@nathanstempleton7754]

This women takes her time but she is a socialist so I like her.

[@kwakkers68]

Worth contrasting Parenti's analysis with Chomsky here - arguably a slightly more rounded appraisal - factoring in Western machination etc

[@manuelgironi8903]

I love the way how Mr.Chomsky has not actually answered to the question of the girl at beginning.

[@edwardjones2202]

He did. She said he had mischaracterised Leninism as being the same as Stalinism. He then gives a wealth of detail to the effect that Lenin reinstituted the systems of state repression and abandoned the Leftist tendencies of socialism which the Russian Revolution effected in its early stages

[@Booer]

Anti-communism at its finest

[@PlankySmith]

Good video but it could do without the tedious intro and outro.

[@garrywarne1]

How would it be regulated? What is this public authority?

[@gg_rider]

playing students for fools by discussing history? You must have assumed this was "Go Anarchism/Communism!" Why listen when you know already? His comment was not FOR anything. He had criticized systems of both USA and USSR, including imposed by violence. He criticized Lenin as Rightist who took measures to *crush* socialists. He contrasted Lenin to core Left socialist activists of 1920s who failed a/or were killed by Bolsheviks. You call that "PREACHING" ... and FOR Bolshevik murderers?

[@tomlahr9372]

"Sagesse..etc."..do your research and study. It's all at your fingertips today. Chomsky, is undoubtably confirmed by multiple and vast documented facts, but it is still repressed in US education, media and for the most part, art. With that accurate view, you need to wake up.

[@chazzismo2768]

he admits that the mainstream marxists he refers to were not successful and thus that's why we don't hear about them. when you have hundreds of cases of successful revolutions using leninist tools competing with a few months' success of anarchist catalonia, what should the oppressed risk their lives on? after studying workers' struggles that left themselves to spontaneity and rejecting a vanguard, which of them led to socialism, communism, or anarchism, and which ended simply in a change in cabinet, or even worse, neoliberal working conditions? it's fine to criticize leninism and the degree and types of advancements made in the USSR. but nobody can say that cuba, vietnam, etc have not made clear progress in the face of their struggles, and that the USSR was in many ways a huge improvement over tsarist russian society. and we can see what spontaneous working class movement did in Poland and other former eastern bloc nations post cold war. they had real grievances with their ruling parties, but didn't realize that the leninist lines about being surrounded by imperialism and needing a united, if not, centralized, organ to stave off capitalism, were at least true. imo even anarchists should consider reading lenin & mao, if anything just to learn what these central historical questions are, if they want to come up with a better answer. because in lieu of a better answer, people's best bet fighting capitalism & imperialism today is going to be adopting those models. the working classes of the world deserve land, peace, and bread in this lifetime.

[@mohq9573]

Controlled opposition and I have proof

[@TTuoTT]

Does anyone has a quote or reference to the mentioned writings of Lenin about the Russian Revolution not beeing a socialist one in a marxist sense?

[@kelly980]

Search is speeches. google 'lenin, Soviet Union not socialist yet.' I've read him say it wasn't socialist. siuz is ignorant telling you chomsky is on bs.

[@RedAgent2020]

Based Chomsky. I have to see what of his speeches soon.

[@deejannemeiurffnicht1791]

it;s not clear what you mean.

[@punkassbamboo]

WHO IS SHE??!?!!

[@georgewashington9173]

Who is "Nancy?" We'll never know...

[@raggledaggle721]

Although I also value the work Chomsky has made in his critique on the mass media, I think he's still a man who sits in an ivory tower. His cozy position at MIT, "which does mountains of work for the US Defense Department" as mentioned below, is only possible for his stance against communism and the confusion it brings among the ranks of workers and students who effectively want to change capitalism. His attack on Bolshevism, or Leninism, is basically an attack made against a Marxism that was grounded on a mountain of revolutionary experience (!) under the tsarists regime. It combined legal and illegal work, did agitation, propaganda and education in all sorts of way's, endured hardships, sacrifices and made use of all sorts of strategy's for different situations throughout the years and had many more practical and theoretical contributions. Their ideas were grounded on the experience of two revolutions of which the latter was also a successful revolution through the leadership of the worker's vanguard party which had 611,000 active members, workers, before the revolution. All ideas are tested in practice, and Lenin's theory's at the time have been proven to be correct. Off course we should criticize faults and mistake, but to throw away the contributions of Lenin's theory, which have been forged through hardships, blood and practice is a sad thing to do.

[@wishcraft4u2]

First of all, you are blatantly arguing completely besides the points Chomsky is actually making about Marxism, in this very video no less. Then, what is this "proof" of Lenin being correct concerning anything whatsoever?

[@ChristianNorge]

If a revolution - most likely a brutal one - is only going to result in something a la the Soviet union, it's not worth it.

[@DmoneyS44]

@@ChristianNorge as opposed to us, comfortable in the west? No. As opposed to a third world country? The soviet union and china under mao committed atrocities but they developed poor countries into richer ones. They ended famines that used to be all too common. Why dont we simply use the parts that made people better off and not do the atrocities in the future?

[@BarbarraBay]

The questioner is hysterically emotional. These people are insane. The Biblical Jewish ideals that became Communism, which these Jews like Chomsky continue to embrace due their social & psychological conditioning, even failed in modern Israel, which began as a society of Kibbutzim but is now a capitalist & militaristic state. Just like in the ancient Bible, when the Israelites demanded a king (David), & just as Trotsky militarized, societies always need militarism to protect them, which is why an idea of workers governing society is ridiculous from a practical point of view & has never existed in a complex developed world. Russia was looted by the Westerners who financed the Bolsheviks. The revolution became imperialist robbery.

[@bjrnhagen4484]

Chomsky's analysis is typical for reasoning from definitions of concepts, _i.e., rationalism,_ with little to no regard for whether these concepts have anything to do with reality or not. Socialism understood as _workers' ownership of the means of production_ is such a floating abstraction. It exists only in Plato's realm of perfect forms. This notion of a policy based on common ownership of the means of production rests on another floating abstraction, namely on a notion that the economy is evenly rotating, _i.e., perfect competition, i.e., information, knowledge, preferences, incentives, etc are evenly distributed among people._ The workers will, to their horror, find out that the economy is far from evenly rotating should they get rid of all business-men and take over the means of production themselves. In the absence of business-men prices would start to jump up and down, shortages would occur, they would be faced with an uncertain future in the form of profit and loss, which mean that many of them, or even most of them, would trade an uncertain future of profit and loss, with a certain future in the form of a wage _(a wage is a guaranteed payment for work done regardless of whether the product is sold or not)._ In other words, over time, most workers would sell out their share in the company and become wage-earners. So, if Lenin had left the economy and the workers to themselves, they would have developed capitalism. Since a development like that is out of the question, socialism, regardless of nominal definitions, will always be state ownership of the means of production in real life.

[@atayo490]

there is no reality, democracy, worker control can take any form. a single boss or even controlled by the stars, very good point

[@kentallard8852]

"Socialism understood as workers' ownership of the means of production is such a floating abstraction." - lolwut, how is that a floating abstraction? Either the workers own it or they dont. Typical theory obsessed left cant see out of its own rear end.

[@bjrnhagen4484]

There is no natural drive toward equilibrium in an economy, it is businessmen by conscious actions who drive the economy towards equilibrium. If you get rid of businessmen, the economy's disequilibrium will increase, i.e., an increase in surplus goods (also known as "mud-pies"), an increase in shortages, and an increase in the misallocation of resources, which in the long run will completely paralyze the whole economy.

[@sausag3onthefloor]

uwotm8

[@lukastaylor9544]

She practiced that question the entire week before

[@becauseitscurrentyear8397]

i could never quite put my finger on why chomsky is wrong in his conclusions so often. its cause he looks at politics in a hostile 1d thinking, and even after he takes control of the mainstream he still acts like he is some underdog.

[@kentallard8852]

wut