• mughaloid@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      But at least he was right on Ukraine and Palestine. Western leftism is far from perfect.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        But at least he was right on Ukraine and Palestine.

        Even Vaush is propalestinian, nobody is always wrong or right. And his take about Ukraine would be maybe better if he didn’t cheered for decades for what ultimately caused it, the destruction of USSR.

        Also dude writes for 70 years, he was bound to get one or two things right just by throwing the darts.

        Western leftism is far from perfect.

        That’s understatement and noticeable chunk of blame for that lies with him.

        • mughaloid@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          I think the major problems of left in America is not because of chomsky Or so. It’s because they didn’t have a problem living with capitalism and bombing the 3rd world . It’s during the post Regan years and 2008 crisis the Yanks have shown tilts towards anti capitalist ideologies still many are involved with anarchists and hell lot of redundant trends which cannot be found in the 3rd world. Still I think Chomsky has some values more than illogical trends in America like Infrared and MAGA thots. Still I don’t think US with EU will able to do any revolution for a long long time.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s because they didn’t have a problem living with capitalism and bombing the 3rd world

            Yes and Chomsky effectively supported it and channeled radicalizing people into anarchism, socialdemocracy and other nonsenses. As far as propagandists blame go, he’s one of the worst on the “left”.

            MAGA

            Open enemy is always better than backstabber.

            • voight [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              6 months ago

              He’s always said that the US allowing statements like his gives it a kind of superiority, which is so recursive it’s mind boggling

            • mughaloid@lemmygrad.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              6 months ago

              Yes and Chomsky effectively supported it and channeled radicalizing people into anarchism, socialdemocracy and other nonsenses. As far as propagandists blame go, he’s one of the worst on the “left”.

              Oh well, 😁 I just wonder why Vijay Prashad and Indian marxists are so fixated with him.

  • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Idealist rubbish. Culture, all superstructure, follows the basis. The USian culture is “psychotic” because the basis is capitalist. Would you say Chinese culture before the revolution was “psychotic”, what with the foot binding and the treatment of peasants? No, you would not. Would you say Russian culture is “psychotic”, given everything the Russian Empire had done? Then why would you slap a label on 300 million people?

    • cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      the basis is capitalist

      And also settler-colonial, which is a very important factor when it comes to culture in this sense.

      • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Imperial Russia was also “settler”. Everything east of Gorky was conquered from the natives and settled. In fact, conquest of Ural and siberia coincided with the European colonisation of Americas.

        Yet from this basis the USSR came to be.

        • cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Russian colonialism doesn’t change the importance of settler-colonialism in general and specifically in the US. The USSR was built on a basis of national liberation, and not on the “Great Russian” identity which would be analogous to the US identity here.

          Another difference is that the US is entirely settler colonial, a whole country founded solely by settlers, while the Russian empire’s colonies were all still tied to the metropolitan core in western Russia. The US was created through a revolt of the most reactionary settlers that wanted autonomy from Britain. The path forward for North America is strictly decolonial.

          • mughaloid@lemmygrad.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            While you say this I will add some points, Russian Tsars maintained a quasi federal attitude, large parts of central Asia remained Muslim and large parts of siberia had buddhists community. Though some ethnic cleansing had happened in the Caucasus. Dagestan had Muslim population for many centuries under Tsar . They also sided against the Ottoman empire . Tsar also didn’t have racist ideological perversion as their backbone. Alexander Pushkin was a great Russian poet and he came from a black lineage. Tsar had no problem raising black persons from Africa as their own in the royal courts. Meanwhile Americans… Ufff…

            • cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Your comment here is way too favorable to the tzar. There was plenty of racism against the non-Russian peoples in the empire. Plenty of pogroms and other horrors committed. The “Great Russians” were very chauvinistic in their attitude towards the other nationalities, and were very privileged in what positions they could occupy, for example. An important part of Bolshevik propaganda was fighting against racism and “Great Russian” chauvinism.

              From Walter Rodney’s ‘The Russian Revolution: A View from the Third World’:

              There was a group of people known as Russians, who ruled over Finns, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Georgians, Ukrainians, Armenians, Mongolians, and Turks, to name just a few. The Russians monopolized political power and sent their governors and settlers into the countries of these other peoples. As in all colonial states, there was a legal distinction between the citizen (Russian) and the colonial subject. The constitution of Tsarist Russia explicitly based discriminatory measures on the racial or national origin or religion of those affected. It was in some ways like the distinctions made under Portuguese and Belgian colonialism, and under South African and Rhodesian apartheid. In other words, Russian colonial rule hardly differed from that of the Western European powers. The British sent warships; the Russians sent the Cossacks. When its colonial subjects revolted, as Georgian workers and peasants had during the 1905 Revolution, the tsar, as we’ve seen, agreed to a few minor reforms but ultimately crushed the uprising and reverted to the old system of colonialism.

              Every colonial relationship in history has involved cultural domination, namely the imposition of language, religion and way of life on the subjugated peoples. In the Russian Empire, there were numerous other religions apart from the Russian Orthodox church. None of these were respected. The Catholics in Polish Russia were persecuted. The Jews were hounded wherever they were found, especially in the Ukraine. The Muslims were treated as enemies of Christian civilization. And those elements of the population who believed in their own family gods and traditional religion were the most despised of all, in the same way that European missionaries came to Africa and denounced African religion as devil worship and black magic. […] When faced with a more technologically advanced culture, such groups were victims of genocidal policies.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              6 months ago

              Pushkin’s ancestor was a curiosity gifted to Peter the Great.

              Sort of a house slave treated well due to his rareness.

              Russian servants would be treated worse due to there being a bigger supply of them (some would, though, instead of peasants become soldiers of his toy regiments and sometimes more).

              Then at some point, yes, Peter, consistently with his other hobbies, decided to free him, make him an officer, put him in uniform etc, ultimately marrying him to a girl of noble descent and making him a noble himself, of course.

              That’s not quite the same as not being racist.

              Though some ethnic cleansing had happened in the Caucasus.

              That’s usually called genocide.

    • FistOfTheRedStar@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think there is room for both processes if we’re to give Chomsky some leeway no? The capitalist basis, and the power relations which follow, is of course the “driver” of this but there are still differences between the US, which has essentially destroyed the world many times over, and capitalist countries like modern day Germany or Norway. Can it be explained solely, and deterministically, by the power expansion of the capitalist base? Or are there other processes, call them culture, or ideation, which exhacerbate the psycotic nature of the base? I believe so, but I don’t know if the word culture is best to describe and lump such processes together, but does that matter?

      It is of course an idealist interpretation but I believe these can help in materialist investigation, or in the construction of a critical theory.

    • mughaloid@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Nah, I feel general American leaders and intellectuals to be psychotic. Full of Jesus is coming on the next war Armageddon , so let’s bomb Russia crazy 😌 , Russian empire was just benign when compares to US imperialism in 20 to 21st century or it’s genocidal campaign against the native Americans and land grab of Mexico. Uff… Just beyond fucked up… People are not allowed to dig up the past there I feel.

      • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Just to nitpick, someone who is “psychotic” is just someone with psychosis, a mental illness, and they aren’t dangerous for that. The common use of the word to mean “sick, twisted and dangerous” isn’t really fair to people who are suffering and not dangerous at all. It’s like the word “schizo” or similar, using mental illness and “craziness” as a synonym for “dangerous and violent.”

        • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          This is a good point. I’ve been careful to scare quote the word when I’ve used it because I think it’s problematic. However I do think the author has a point. There’s something uniquely brutal about American culture.

    • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Then why doesn’t every other culture in capitalist states exhibit even remotely the same degree of social psychosis?

      The school shootings, the murder rate, the mass imprisonments, the death count around the world is around 5 million people in the past two decades.

      You need to explain why the US is quantitatively off the charts compared to other capitalist states.

      Aside, I’m noticing a lot of knee jerk defensiveness lately on this comm when the US is criticised. It’s really weird.

      • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Because it was the center of the capitalist class. That’s about it. Every other capitalist state has issues you’ve described. I’m in Russia, and we get school shootings, stabbings and more nowadays. Despite having significantly more strict gun control laws.

        Think dialectically. USSR began to have issues with gang violence in its later days, as the society was entering a crisis and the leadership was slowly, but surely abandoning socialist principles.

        Aside, I’m noticing a lot of knee jerk defensiveness lately on this comm when the US is criticised

        Point an instance of my comment “defending the USA”.

        • GreatSquare@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          19 Countries with the Most School Shootings (total incidents Jan 2009-May 2018 - CNN):

          United States — 288

          Mexico — 8

          South Africa — 6

          Nigeria & Pakistan — 4

          Afghanistan — 3

          Brazil, Canada, France — 2

          Azerbaijan, China, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kenya, Russia, & Turkey — 1

          (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country)

          One country seems a bit higher than the others 🤔

        • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          the center of the capitalist class.

          What does this even mean? It’s different because it’s the centre but it’s the same anyway?

          The claim was that the “psychosis” of the US was because it was capitalist and that everywhere else was therefore the same. I’ve pointed out that there is nowhere quantitatively similar in a variety of areas. To that you say, well it’s because it’s the centre.

          It seems to be that I’m the only one thinking dialectically here. It we want to think dialectically, we need to know what things like “the centre of the capitalist class” is. If England for example was once it, then why didn’t it exhibit the same behaviour?

          USSR began to have issues with gang violence in its later days

          And therefore…?

          Denying the unique “psychosis” (not my word) of the US and equivalising it with every other capitalist states can be seen as defending it.