Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Noam chomsky supports elections and political partys

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by ungovernable, Jul 4, 2010.

  1. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,328

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada United States
    Another reason why Noam Chomsky is a dumbass.....



    To Noam Chomsky: Why We Boycott Elections

    On June 9, Bogusław Ziętek, the Polish Labour Party's (PPP) candidate for President, published on his election website a list of famous leftist supporters, headed by Noam Chomsky. The information was press released and republished in various media in Poland (spread by the official Polish Press Agency (PAP) under the title "Ken Loach and Noam Chomsky Support Me". (An example in the main Polish newspaper can be seen here: http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,7994946,Nawe ... ja_Bogus...) It also appeared in different languages on the websites of international left groups where we also can learn that Chomsky supposedly supports the electoral campaign of the "Anticapitalist Left". (See: http://www.anticapitalistas.org/node/3933).

    Later, when somebody wrote to Chomsky to complain, an email was received stating: "... I have no record of this support or who initiated it, so can't try to pursue the matter. Do you have a record of some petition that I might have signed?" (Text of that email to Chomsky is below.)

    The ZSP immediately thought to send a letter to Chomsky on the candidate Zietek but it is now questionable whether or not Chomsky actually signed his name to a list of supporters. Nevertheless, given Chomsky's occasional lapses into support of the authoritarian left, we thought he still deserved an open letter, not only on the topic of the candidate, but also on why we boycott elections in general.

    Our political vision does not include reform from above or the rule of the revolutionary avant-garde over society. The creation of a libertarian society can only be created from below, by a mass movement of the working class and the control of production, distribution and social services in the hands of both the workplaces involved and the society. We do not need to participate in electoral farces but to put all our attention and energy into building militant grassroots organzations which are capable not only of overthrowing the state and capitalism, but also of practicing direct democracy. We see the committed building of such movements as the primary task of all tendencies of the social anarchist tradition.

    We call on people to boycott elections not so much because of our criticism of the individual candidates, but because of the false promises of electoral democracy. Participation in "political life" is reduced to going to the ballot box and the society becomes alienated from the process.

    We do not have to present any deeper analysis of the voting issue to our fellow anarchists since just about every serious organization holds a similar opinion.

    Chomsky, a person who claims to identify himself with political philosophy, is often set in the role of "celebrity anarchist" - but this does not mean that his views are always representative of the anarchist movement. Although there are many different voices and opinions in this movement, we always find the views of the major organizations to have more legitimacy than those of individual celebrities, especially those with tenuous relations and no real participation in any of them.

    We appeal to Chomsky to take this into consideration the next time he goes around praising the authoritarian leaders of the so-called left such as Hugo Chavez. If he would still like to publically place himself in the anarchist tradition, he should please try to start being more consistent. We would also ask for a clearer statement on the purported support of Boguslaw Zietek in the Polish presidential elections.

    Members of the ZSP have been highly critical of this personality for a wide variety of reasons. First is the attempts to mobilize the left around a false prophet: Zietek has had and still maintains contacts with the ultra-nationalist right in Poland. His party is not necessarily anti-capitalist: they have had capitalists on their electoral lists. His union represents mainstream unionism, complete with extremely authoritarian bureaucracy and the union is instrumentalized for the purposes of building support of his political party. The support and financing of this party is less than clear. Furthermore, the party has participated in various acts of electoral malpractice, such as compiling false lists of candidates and running candidates with no political ties to the party but with the same names as other famous politicians, just to get votes from people who then mistakenly choose the wrong one on the ballot. The amount of political sleaze Zietek has been involved with is disturbing, as is the fact that he has even been found guilty by the labour court of violating workers' rights on several occasions himself.

    We will send Noam Chomsky more details, along with the relevant documentation, in a separate letter.

    ZSP is calling for a boycott of the upcoming presidential elections. Our dreams can never fit in their ballot box. We will not hand over our power willingly and will fight with our last breath to take it back. We call for a more conscious, popular resistance to the electoral process and the representative bodies which make up the state in general. People intuitively know that these bodies do not really represent their best interests yet many see no active, viable alternatives. We call on people to get active and create organizations which will be the foundation of a truly popular movement which can undermine the state.

    Noam Chomsky: do the right thing! Instead of supporting yet another authoritarian leftist leader, consider your support for election boycotts!

    ZSP

    ********

    This is the text of the letter mailed to Noam Chomsky mentioned above:

    To: "Noam Chomsky" <>
    Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:01 PM
    Subject: YOU SUPPERTED VERY BAD MAN IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN POLAND!

    Dear Sir!

    You expressed your official support for one of candidates for the President of Poland, Boguslaw Zietek (trade union "Sierpien 80" and Polska Partia Pracy - PPP - Polish Labour Party).

    Persons which induced you for expressing their support hid a lot of facts associated with this man from You.

    You don't probably know about it, that Boguslaw Zietek was sentenced by the Polish industrial tribunal for breaking workers' laws. The sentence in this matter is valid. He was also also sentenced by a Polish work standards and safety inspectorate for breaking workers' laws. The control of a work standards and safety inspectorate showed that Boguslaw Zietek had obeyed workers' rights to none of persons employed by oneself. At the industrial tribunal a next matter is pending against this man.

    It is proving that this man isn't treating seriously workers' laws and matters of the working class.

    Boguslaw Zietek is talking recently about himself, that he is a socialist. But a few years ago he belonged to the camp of the extreme right wing. The trade union "Sierpien 80" a few years ago cooperated with the extreme
    right wing from Europe and the United States: French Front National (J.M.LePen) and Lyndon LaRouche (The Schiller Institute).

    Directed through Boguslaw Zietek Polska Partia Pracy (PPP) was founded as a union of several groups of the extreme right: Polish Confederation of Independent (Konfederacja Polski Niepodleglej - KPN), Christian Union of
    National (Zjednoczenie Chrzescjansko-Narodowe - ZChN) and Polish National Rebirth (Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski - NOP). The activists of these parties of the extreme right are still the leaders of the PPP.

    The paper "Kurier Zwiazkowy", published by the union "Sierpien 80", was publish several "right wing" articles:

    http://www.kurier.wzz.org.pl/kz/kz82/13.shtml

    http://www.kurier.wzz.org.pl/kz/kz85/3.shtml

    ftp://ftp.wzz.org.pl/kurier/kurier73.pdf

    ftp://ftp.wzz.org.pl/kurier/kurier82.pdf

    http://www.kurier.wzz.org.pl/kz/kz139/

    ftp://ftp.wzz.org.pl/kurier/kurier138.pdf

    ftp://ftp.wzz.org.pl/kurier/kurier139.pdf

    Several years ago the Polish left wing (Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej, SLD- Democratic Left Alliance) began to lose public support because of poor governance. Then PPP proclaim, that PPP is the only left, to take the place SLD. That's why PPP in 2005 concluded an agreement with the extreme Left parties. But the true is that change of political allies by Boguslaw Zietek nad PPP it was only a change of tactics but not change of political
    opinions. Boguslaw Zietek, in fact, is still a polish nationalist and anti-Semite and also he is anti-German.

    In fact, Boguslaw Zietek never backed the fight of Palestinians up. He is simply an anti-Semite he has always been which as the Polish nationalist.

    Persons connected with the radical Left in world (especially tied around French Trockists) which are advisers of Boguslaw Zietek are saying that this man is leftist. It's not true. They must this way say, because their
    political career depends on it. Therefore they are lying to many known people which don't know, what is happening in Poland. So that's why they didn't inform you of all facts associated with Boguslaw Zietek.

    Many Polish citizens know these facts, therefore nobody wants to vote for Boguslaw Zietek.

    ******

    Below we attach a second letter written by some Polish anarchists. This is not signed by ZSP since some anarchists have cooperated with the August 80 union through Boguslaw Zietek himself, sometimes quite uncritically until recently. Since reference to that cooperation is here, we cannot sign it has we have always been against cooperation with this politician. Furthermore, we believe our straight opposition to electoralism to be more relevant than the historical examples alluded to in this letter.

    Dear Mr. Chomsky

    It came to our attention that according to his website you have signed a support letter for Boguslaw Zietek - lider of the Polska Partia Pracy (Polish Labour Party) and the Solidarnosc'80 trade union - a candidate
    in the presidential run.

    Assuming he wouldn't dare to fake such a support and that were sure you have no time to study any group asking for your backing, we, undersigned members of polish anarchist groups decided to write to you informing that we find it deeply concerning not only because of our disillusion with party-politics but also because Zietek personally represents a very mercenary approach to unionism. Our opinion is that he is using the union to forward his own political agenda, to the level of work-court cases against him be the union's employees.

    On the other hand the political history of his party also requires noting - it emerged in 2001 out of a coalition between a number of political groups including hardcore right wing groups like KPN and NOP (Konfederacja Polski Niepodległej and Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski), which define the far-right wing side of polish politics and who's militant skinheads stand behind attacks against the left, anarchist and union movements in Poland. Halfway through the decade the party made a sharp turn to left, using the union to 'size' the left wing non parliamentary
    groups and place itself in the current position.

    Although we do sometimes cooperate, on the union level and meet them on marches we have no trust in them and find your support for them very surprising. The history of Russia, Ukraine and our own left-leaning military dictatorship before the second world war thought us not to trust the governmental approach and politicians. We find no actual steps taken by his groups to advance self-organisation or basic political education of the union members at the very least. Given the time one could easily draw parallels between his formations and bolshevism.

    We would like to ask you to either denounce or back out from your support for this man. We can provide more in depth information regarding their activities, that had been omitted here out of respect for your time.

    http://www.zsp.net.pl/chomsky
     

  2. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,676

    152

    697

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Ouch! Maybe Noam is going senile? I have to point out his many contradictions to anarchist friends all the time and they defend him like I'm just being a contrarian and a fanatical Anarcho-Syndicalist... :ecouteurs:
     
  3. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,328

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada United States
    yeah same here...

    if we critic him we are elitists and sectarians but worshipping him and refusing to question is not, of course :mdr:
     
  4. durruti3434

    durruti3434Member Forum Member


    17

    0

    0

    Jul 5, 2010
     
    One time , Noam Chomsky said he is an anarcho-syndicalist sympathizer and an anarchist fellow traveler . He specifically said he personally identifies with the "libertarian socialist" tradition that tradition ranging from "libertarian Marxism" to "anarchism" so Chomsky is not necessarily an anarchist . So even tough Chomsky represents a modern model to uphold for the long libertarian tradition we must understand that he is a reformist in a way he upholds Karl Marx's principle that certain economic and social conditions must be needed so a revolution can take place and take form so Chomsky supports some statist policies that directs society into that way .
     
  5. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,328

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada United States
    Still contradictory.

    Neither marxism, nor anarchism, nor libertarian socialism has something to do with supporting state democracy and electorialism
     
  6. Carlos

    CarlosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    257

    1

    4

    Jan 1, 2010
     
    yes i have always been skeptic about noam chomsky, although he has written some great reading materials,

    anyhow can anyone tell me what they think about this; i dont vote (never planned to) and im not registered to any political party, but this november californians are going to be voting on many props, one being prop 9, which would legalize marijuana for recreational use, and i was thinking of actually voting for this, but then again this would mean that the herb would be state taxed...therefore state controlled capitalism on marijuana, so would it even be worth it to vote on this?
     
  7. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,328

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada United States
    Big dilema... Legalisation is not really better like you said it would be state taxed and controlled by the government but it is still a step forward...

    At least you are not voting for a political party, thats still reformism but at least you dont contribute to elect a government. The only time i think would have voted is when quebec had a vote for the independence of quebec, but i didnt have the age to vote
     
  8. durruti3434

    durruti3434Member Forum Member


    17

    0

    0

    Jul 5, 2010
     
    Libertarian Marxism and many Marxist traditions within libertarian socialism have many to do with acts such this . Libertarian Marxists advocate Karl Marx's economic determinism and historicism so as far as political philosophy goes he does nothing wrong but enforce what he believes . We can't agree with him here but we can't condemn him neither he is a deteminist and historicist .
     
  9. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,328

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada United States
    Marx never supported elections, he was a revolutionnary. Saying Marxists support elections is meaningless, some anarchist support elections too.

    Also, there is no such thing as "libertarian marxism" its just a big joke (yes i am aware some people call themselves as libertarian marxists like Guy Debord and Daniel Guerin)

    To me libertarian marxists are just marxists thats arent marxist-leninist. Other than this, marxism is still dictatorship of the proletariat, if its not then its not marxism
     
  10. durruti3434

    durruti3434Member Forum Member


    17

    0

    0

    Jul 5, 2010
     
    Marx and Engels saw the State as being a product of class struggle in some instances even supported elections in the case of the German SDP . About the state they said the state was the executive committee of the ruling class. It was an instrument by which one class rules another. In most of their writings they seem to see the State as a neutral tool. It can be taken and used by either workers or capitalists.

    Their classical political statement is The Communist Manifesto . In its 10 main demands it calls for the centralisation of credit, transport and means of production under the State. This is justified (according to Marx) because:

    "political power, properly called, is merely the instrument of one class for oppressing another"

    Here we have the idea of the State as a tool to be used by either class (capitalists or workers).

    In his Comments on Bakunin Marx claims that the workers:

    "must employ forcible means hence governmental means"

    He also said :

    They [the German workers] rendered a second great service to their cause...they supplied their comrades in all countries with a new weapon, and one of the sharpest, when they showed them how to make use of universal suffrage".


    And one thing more my friend Non Leninist Marxism is called Libertarian Marxism because the term Marxism was denounced and subverted by Leninism. Libertarian Marxism is an approach to Marxism that takes a far less authoritarian, or in many cases anti-authoritarian, view of Marxist theory than conventional currents of Marxism-Leninism such as Stalinism, Maoism, and Trotskyism . Non Leninist Marxism is more anti-authoritarian in nature that's why is called Libertarian because the term libertarian usually revolves around anti-authoritarianism .
     
  11. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,328

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada United States
    Marxism itself is against Marxism Leninism, no need for a term like "Libertarian Marxism" to define that you oppose to marxism leninism. I think Libertarian Marxism is a contradictory term because marxism is authoritarian in its nature, like Bakunin and others said. And authoritarism can't be libertarian. Leninism was never representative of Marxism, it was State Capitalism
     
  12. durruti3434

    durruti3434Member Forum Member


    17

    0

    0

    Jul 5, 2010
     
    I totally agree that Marx was an authoritarian but these philosophical tendencies that we call "libertarian Marxist" are the libertarian interpretations of Marxist theory . Please don't be so absolute about this . These people draw this libertarian perspective of Marx from his early works such as the "Grundrisse" and "The Civil War in France". Please read them and you will see . If you study Marx you will see that early in his career he was more libertarian later in his life after what happened in the Paris Commune he started being more authoritarian . There are tendencies within Marxism that are libertarian in nature such as "council communism" , "Autonomism" or even "Luxemburgism" . All these tendencies are grouped into this Libertarian Marxist or left wing Marxist tradition .
     
  13. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,328

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada United States
    Marx was never a libertarian, even before the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Libertarian "marxism" would be anarchism influenced by marxist critic of capitalism. I can't see how there can be a middle ground, either you support the state and the ruling of the majority by a minority of super-proletarians who have access to power, or either you dont and you have nothing to do with marxism..
     
  14. durruti3434

    durruti3434Member Forum Member


    17

    0

    0

    Jul 5, 2010
     
    Please study Marxist theory and stop being so dogmatic about it . Marx was ambiguous in his views he was everything in his life . Denying certain philosophical tendencies within Marxism is ideological sectarianism .
     
  15. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,328

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada United States
    Hahahaha. Oh really? So Bakunin, Jacques Desjacques, Proudhon and the whole first international was sectarian and dogmatics ? Now you are just being really stupid.

    I did study marx, and i have read a couple of his writting, i never said everything he wrote should be throwed to garbage he did a very good critic of capitalism etc... But his ideas are shit. And for the only couple of ideas from marxism that arent shitty, you also find the same ideas in anarchism.

    My opinion is that you are either anarchist or marxist, no middle ground.

    And thats exactly why most of the famous philosophers calling themselves libertarian marxist are considered as anarchists, like Guy Debord and Daniel Guerin.

    You have a big dogmatic and sectarian elitist in your signature. He was the biggest opponent to marxism and the one who said he is an authoritarian. How funny. Maybe YOU should study bakunin before quoting him. And also study the first international while you're at it.
     
  16. durruti3434

    durruti3434Member Forum Member


    17

    0

    0

    Jul 5, 2010
     
    Libertarian Marxism is lumped into anarchism that's no secret but its lumped because it defines socialism exactly like anarchist philosophers defined the difference is they take this definition from Marx not from anarchist philosophers so please study political philosophy . And we are not in the times of the first international anymore so stop invoking the memories of Bakunin and such . Many things changed philosophy changes in time its not something absolute , Marx is dead , Bakunin is dead their ideas changed and mutated philosophies have the tendencies to change over time to mutate and merge with one another or to split as it happened in the times of Bakunin . So please LOVE ME DON'T HATE ME !!! LOL <3 :'( :lmao: :thumbsup:
     
  17. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,328

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada United States
    ??????
    Who cares about the definition and who it comes from ??? It's still the same thing.

    You keep telling me to study political philosophy but you can't even explain it proprely. You are the one who sounds ignorant..

    So what ??

    I usually hear this ridiculous argument from the mouth of marxists. Who cares if the international is dead ? Marxism is not dead and anti-authoritarism is not dead. Marxism is still authoritarian and the differences that divided marxists and anarchists in the first international still divide us today. Marxists still have a very different conception of the revolution and post-revolution than anarchists. The two are still incompatible. Bakunin and the first international is still very appropriate and on-topic.

    If you dont care about bakunin why the fuck would you quote him in your signature.... sounds hypocrite to me...

    If you are going to quote someone, then dont support what he fought against during his whole life. Please study bakunin before telling me to study political philosophy ;)

    Your argument is ridiculous.... even if marx and bakunin is dead they still stand for everything they always stood for.
     
  18. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Debord was incredibly critical of anarchism and more specifically anarchists, refer Society of the Spectacle.
    Just because Situationism, Council Communism, Autonomous Marxism, etc, share more with anarchism than Marxism does not make them anarchist. Rather, they are Marxists that share a critique of Marx's position on the State and the DOtP with anarchists, and, in cases such as Debord, are authors whose works have influenced anarchism to a large degree.

    This kinda stream of Marxism is often labelled as 'post-workerist communism' , and includes folks like Negri, Marcuse, Foucault, Adorno, Italian autonomist Marxism, etc. They are Marxist insofar as that's how they tend to self-identify, regardless of how far they deviate from classical Marxism and Marx's authoritarian stance on numerous matters.

    In my opinion, the rigid dogma of Marxism has for a long time been one of the weaknesses of Marxism. Conversely, anarchism as a dynamic, pragmatic and progressive school of political thought is its strength, we develop our analysis based on socio-economic circumstances rather than try and fit current contexts into Marx's framework. The more Marxist political thinkers do this, the better; hence why writers such as Debord, Guerin, Negri, etc move toward anarchist (or libertarian) solutions, as they are better. ;) Maybe Marxism would still be relevant today if Marxists actually based their politics on the world they lived in rather than standing firm in outdated Marxist-Leninist dogma.

    So basically, ungov, this in no way implies that Marx was at all a 'libertarian Marxist', or that the critique of Marx by writers such as Bakunin are not legitimate, but rather (as i think durruti3434 is alluding to) that there are certain Marxists who have critiqued Marx along very similar lines to anarchists. This does not make them anarchists, rather they are the 'left-wing', 'post-workerist', 'autonomous', or 'libertarian' (whatever label you desire) of Marxism. This is however a rather difficult position to maintain due to the fact that they break with core tenets of the ideology of a person Karl Marx whom they have named themselves after. :/ :lmao:
     
  19. markalanrussell

    markalanrussellMember New Member


    8

    0

    0

    Oct 31, 2011
     
    CRASS - Shock slogans and token tantrums - signed by Noam Chomsky

    I got to meet my hero and I asked him to sign something for me. My much worn out Crass booklet. I painted his portrait which he is going to hang in his office.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uvlg06E7DfE/T ... 00/sig.jpg
     
  20. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,328

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada United States
    Re: CRASS - Shock slogans and token tantrums - signed by Noam Chomsky

    "your hero" :lmao:
     
Loading...