Chomsky and Anarchism Concept of the Free Individual

The following is a link to a brief interview of Chomsky and his Anarchism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gS6g41m_NU

Chomsky fails to analyze Anarchism's own rich history of failure and even elitism that he accuses the Leninism of the Left and even that of the Right i.e. corporate capitalism. Anarchism single revolutionary experiment in Spain's failed revolution of the 1930's documents that Anarchism quickly deteriorated into that very same Stalinism that he accused Leninists of creating. Most of Anarchism other political efforts never got anywhere close to that failure. Anarchism has been around almost as long as Marxism. Bakunin borrowed a great deal from Marxism, before he branched out on his own.

Chomsky fantastic assumption is that the individual exists but cannot be seen because it is repressed. The problem is that history means nothing to Chomsky, Neither that history before his miserable existence nor the history that he has gone through, has any sign of this mythical free individual been seen. He just assumes the individual into existence by an act of will of that of one of those superhuman Leninist human beings that he claims to hate, i.e his own Nietzschean will to power.

He does not document when this free individual has ever existed. We are supposed to accept on strictly his personal experience that since he is one of these free individuals it must exist.

Clearly Human History is a 6000 year document of class society rule. According to Chomsky strict accounting Society must then be defined as Leninist from the very beginning of Human society. We can only possibly concede an presocietal era in which a mythical tribe of Communists, bumped into one of these Leninist tibes and was conquered. It then became all Leninist dictatorships since by Chomsky reckoning.

The problem is that Chomsky does not accuse George Washington or Jefferson of being Leninist. Nor any of the Kings, Popes, Emirs, Emperors, Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc... running the World. As long as there is space for the petty bourgeois to pontificate against Leninism, Chomsky is satisfied that the free individual exists.

Chomsky will not accept the fact that precisely because he attacks Leftists versions of Leninism, that they will tolerate his right wing Leninist criticisms. After all the rise of a single Leninist dictatorship is less to be feared than by a ruling class of Lenins in Chomsky's mathematics. Chomsky obviously feels more free in the bourgeois Democracy of the US then that of a Stalinist state.

Context here to is ignored. Perhaps a wealthier Stalinist state could appear to be more free than a poor bourgeois state. Perhaps if Chomsky compared the Soviet Union to the Capitalist Italy before Mussolini he might not be confusing the possibilities of sharing the loot in the richest Imperialist empire with that of a failed revolution which was surrounded by brutal enemies on all its borders.

I have always found it amazing that Chomsky has not found it embarrassing to publish and preach so much anti-elitist and anti-imperialist propaganda from one of the most elitist and most pro imperialist universities on the planet. A University famous for the research on the creation of WMDS of all kinds. I believe that Chomsky is among its finest and among its most dangerous WMD.

Chomsky believes that his almost unfettered access to the bourgeois mass media all around the World is due to his brilliance and accomplishments. His acolytes might dispute his brilliance, but his accomplishments have no political or even sociological content. No sign of any them on the horizons, yet the book royalties and speaking fees keep rolling in. While he is getting too old to matter, he has bred a replacement sprouting the same poisonous and divisive petty bourgeois reformism, i.e. his daughter. Maybe his very young recently married wife will take up the gauntlet when this great master of Liberalism passes away.