>I strongly disagree that only the bourgeoisie would be opposed. Leninist revolutions take place in preindustrialized societies
I made myself very clear that I was not discussing a Leninist system. As I said, that system prioritizes obtaining power over the wellbeing of the people.
Many Leninists thought their seizure of power could then be used to help the people, but prioritizing anything over the wellbeing of the people is going to end in some form of oppression. Plenty of Russian Socialists agreed with this take, it was at least part of the reason for the Bolshevik/Menshevik split.
I don't understand what conversation you're trying to have. You've abandoned your attempted condemnation of Chomsky, and seem to be trying to get me to defend an ideology I oppose.
Ok, we agree that Leninism leads to oppression. My point is that, as far as I can tell, Chomsky doesn't agree, and the same is true of many on the left. And that this is why he took the position he did on Cambodia, and why so many defend him.
Let me say some about where I am coming from. I have been interested in these issues since the late 1950's. At the time the left was split over Stalin and the Soviet Union. Many of them said they were wonderful. Many others said they were terrible, and this was the inevitable result of leninist philosophy.
Later like with Solzinitzen, it became impossible to defend Stalin. So many on the left switched to arguing that leninism could turn out fine, and it had gone badly in this case because the leaders had fallen away from good communist principles. It seems to me that this is Chomsky's position, and many on the left who defend him.
But you seem to be a lot more familiar with Chomsky than I am. So let me ask you, what is his position on leninism?
>Leninist doctrine holds that a vanguard Party should assume state power and drive the population to economic development, and, by some miracle that is unexplained, to freedom and justice. It is an ideology that naturally appeals greatly to the radical intelligentsia, to whom it affords a justification for their role as state managers. I can't see any reason -- either in logic or history -- to take it seriously. Libertarian socialism (including a substantial mainstream of Marxism) dismissed all of this with contempt, quite rightly
I made myself very clear that I was not discussing a Leninist system. As I said, that system prioritizes obtaining power over the wellbeing of the people.
Many Leninists thought their seizure of power could then be used to help the people, but prioritizing anything over the wellbeing of the people is going to end in some form of oppression. Plenty of Russian Socialists agreed with this take, it was at least part of the reason for the Bolshevik/Menshevik split.
I don't understand what conversation you're trying to have. You've abandoned your attempted condemnation of Chomsky, and seem to be trying to get me to defend an ideology I oppose.