Which living theorist will replace Chomsky as the godemperor of anarchism after he dies?

Not as relevant theorist.

Her stuff on anarchism isn't bad.

I actually got into Chomsky's anarchist writings after having to study his stuff for linguistics

Michael Albert or David Graeber

From the perspective of a Chomsky fan, Noam is irreplaceable.

His disciples will follow him even after he croaks. They'll think of him as the Jewish messiah and insist he's not actually dead but will awaken at any time to bring forth the utopian society on earth.

You will also start seeing multiple small cults pop up dedicated to Chomsky. Anarchist collectives insisting their reformist and humanist activities are contributing to bringing their man back from the dead.

I swear it's like there are children here.

bey is pedo scum

Don't tell Hakim Bey.

These are not very good lists. It's missing important economists like Andrew Kliman, Pierangelo Garegnani, Michael Reich and David Kotz. Also the first list includes Daivd Harvey, who is not an economists at all.

says the retard that enjoys Chomsky

Decent folk, not really anarchists. There are many particularly good criticisms leveled against them (including Zizek's).

Left-com, pretty based.

He's openly mysticist…

You beautiful bastard

I don't know what that has to do with him being or not being an anarchist.

I also don't think you could explain what exactly Zizek's argument against Hardt and Negri are or how it is valid, could you? Or why Hardt/Negri responses to criticism aren't valid. Just because a thing has been criticized, doesn't mean the criticism is solid.

Oh… mysticism means "magic" in this context. I assumed the guy was just religious… yikes.

David Harvey is totally underrated

Fredric Jameson on television and in the media would be so based and he'd fuck up normies. He wants to unionize soliders so we'll have a chance at the barricades.

I saw Hardt talk once in person, and all the old communists were really incredulous, they couldn't believe he got paid to talk, and wondered why he wasn't starting the revolution.

I will

Every time I hear or read these two they just come across as really based liberals or socdems who aren't ready to make the leap.

Hedges definition of a socialist seems to just be a New Deal Democrat.

Just last fall I remember Hedges saying something along the lines of "the problem isn't capitalism but corporate capitalism". He still needs to listen to more Wolff.

A few years ago I distinctly remember him saying he wasn't necessarily anti-capitalist but more of an anti-corporatist. We need to be wary of uplifting liberals as our spokesmen.

Yeah, fam. I'm not one of those fags who namecalls people just to get an easy pass on actually critiquing them. He's a literal mysticist.

Anyway… What's up with anarchism and mysticism: youtube.com/watch?v=k1qACd0wHd0 ?

There's more to this than a single imageboard reply can hope to encompass, but it should be noted that H&N's Empire (2000) had a crucial role in signalling that left theory and strategy still had a pulse after the collapse of the USSR. No matter how much one disagrees with them they had a crucial cultural role and both gentlemen are genuine militants (of sorts).

In all honesty I'm not in a predicament to be able to read (again) this Z article I'm about to cite and then give you a TL;DR about it just so rub it in your face that I can actually read and report on what I've read: lacan.com/zizblow.htm

My interests lie beyond their concrete proposals, because I'm more interested in the philosophical underpinnings, that is, the Deleuzian framework in which H&N wrote.

I could not give you a theory on it.

How is that a bad thing?

FYI all of these dudes are Marxists. I'm asking about ANARCHISTS.

TBH Chomsky used to be very radical up until he had the debate with Foucault. Foucault, while fucked up in his own right, pretty much succeeded in pulling the rug out from underneath Chomsky's utopian anarchism. Chomsky doesn't say it publicly, but it's very obvious the debate had a sorrowful effect on him, because afterwards he laid his utopian dreams to rest and pretty much went down the road of reformism ever since.

I'm not sure if Chomsky was ever the revolutionary you thought he was. And it wasn't until way after that debate did he publish "Notes on Anarchism", which is probably his most explicitly anarchist text.

He was a lot more radical (at least openly) before he debated Foucault. After the debate (which is still ambiguous as to who "won"), he stopped talking too much about revolutionary anarchism and mostly switched his focus to attacking US foreign policy.

I mean, he's critical of many parts of the BDS Movement when 45 years ago he would have given them all the support in the world, for instance.

I thought Foucalt won?

further questions?

Do you consider Christian and Muslim comrades to be comrades? Because Christianity and Islam are also idealist as fuck.

Why? Pretty sure Chomsky kicked his ass during the second half.

Hedges is strongly sympathetic to anarchism.

Most of those still alive will probably be dead within the next 5-10 years anyway. Can't imagine Habermas and Badiou have much time left.

I differantiate bw general cadre and theorists.

Graeber probs

What would be wrong with a religious anarchist theory so as long as the ends are the same?

Graeber talks a lot about economics but very little about imperialism and foreign policy like Chomsky.

Chomsky advocates lesser evil voting because that's all we can do right now. Capitalism is nowhere near collapse and the working people in America are nowhere near socially conscious.

No one can replace him.

Greenwald doesn't claim to be anything other than a liberal. His analysis of current events is often great, regardless of his political solutions. I think he's a dumb answer to a question, but he's still a breddy cool guy.

The ends of diamat and religious (whateverisms) can not be the same.

Reminder that this thread is not about posting your fav author, but it's about who could be a public figure similar to Chomsky. If you know somebody who mostly writes great take-downs of other obscure authors in academia, that might be entertaining for you, but that person is part of the academic circle-jerk then, which is not the kind of thing Chomsky would approve. Chomsky spends an insane amount of time talking with ordinary people, reading their emails, and so on.

Yeah, Graeber and Albert, if it has to be someone already popular. I guess that's about it, though I've never mixed up anything by these three guys. They all write in very different ways.

Garegnani is ☠.

Albert and Graeber don't really write on foreign policy. Chomsky's only strengths are his accessibility and his reliance on logic over emotion to respond to serious issues (being overly-logical isn't always a good thing but using it does rake in a lot of people who would otherwise be turned off by the emotionality of SJWs and tankies). I've met Graeber IRL and he's really not that much of a brilliant mind. His Debt book was full of historical errors, for instance.

He is the pinnacle of everything wrong with anarchism
Good riddance

Congrats, you found the only Leftist intellectual who epitomizes everything wrong with Leftism more than Chomsy.

I take that back, Richard "they aren't co-ops promiz" Wolff is the worst.

They aren't though. the only Marxist named in this thread was Dauve

pic related
t. actual leftcom

Explain why.

Daily reminder the Chomsky only supported Hillary because of Global Warming, which he is terrified of. Just goes to show how little he cares about starting an actual revolution I guess.

gegenstandpunkt.com/english/Chomsky.html

Daily reminder that a working class which sides with one faction of capital over another doesn't deserve to survive.
Death is preferable to humans without humanity.

...

Not sure how many people would agree, but what about Judith Butler? She's an anarcha-feminist who has written a lot about Palestine and who openly participates in BDS.

And then he turns around and advocates voting for Hillary

Why do you not like Garegnani? I've only read a few articles of his. i only know he was mostly relevant for the Cambridge debates.

Feral Fawn

I TRUSTED YOU TO BE PURE AND DEFINITELY NOT BE IMPRESSED

he aint no leftcom

Social democracy is better than neoliberalism. What's the problem with advocating for SocDem in the short-term?

because SocDems eventually always bend over for the fascists and take it right up the ass

Because social democracy doesn't challenge capital, it incorporates the corpses of radical proletarian movements into the monstrosity of bourgeois politics.

But it feeds workers today.

No, people (organized by capital) do. Social democracy is merely the dominant ideology the state took to in mediating the relations between people and that they took towards the state in the solidification of the capitalist nation-state.

*in past cycles of the reproduction of capital

That's unavoidable when the scope of your book is 5000 years of history. (What was really weird though was that he even got stuff wrong about very recent US history, like a description about Silicon Valley being off by a decade.)

Keep on spamming that after you got BTFO about it. Maybe nobody on here saw that thread, huh?

What I meant was that the thread is supposed to be about living theorists.

So did feudalism

Zizek is the new hot meme philosopher, and he is a marxists.
Lol at anarchism in 2017
i am lmaoing at your life

SocDem is neoliberalism

Foucault, undoubtedly. And I'm not even a fan.

Chomsky was just using dated humanist arguments.

The thread.

that's given me the triggerds

I also don't think Graeber touches upon the same topics Chomsky does. Where does the former ever talk about US imperialism or hegemony?

Explain.

Parenti then

wew

He's only a few years behind Chomsky anyway.

Parenti outtanks most tankies.

No one can replace Chomsky and his level of pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-radicalism.

Incomprehensible

Liberal

Liberal

He's written a single good book and is obnoxious as fuck.

She's written one good PAMPHLET.

No and no.

Maybe.

Illogical mystical bullshit and not-so-crypto-pedo.

Graeber's anthropology books aren't that good. Anarchists only read them because they think he "refutes" Marxism when he basically uses all the same old anarchist cliches and applies capitalist concepts to non-capitalist societies, aka sophism.

Harvey is decent.

Jameson is PoMo who denies being PoMo.

Wolff just strikes me as a Keynesian who employs a lot of Marxist concepts but remains reformist none the less.

Absolutely not. PoMo is garbage as it is. We don't need to prop up one of its biggest culprits.

You haven't read any Graeber. Hes jabs at Marxism are most often in foot notes.

No, I've read him and he still sucks.

refute the central argument of Debt

Not him, but Graeber claims debt and hierarchy will always exist and have always existed, and the only thing that changes is the way individuals perceive debt and hierarchy. If that's not some postmodernist drivel I don't know what is.

Where does he claim this?

How was I BTFO?
I haven't been on leftypol since my last response in that exchange.

Explain what's wrong with their article

IDGAF either way
Don't know who that is (not saying that she must be unworthy because I haven't heard of her, I'm not an Anarchist myself). Had a glance at her blog, and found the writing a bit too artsy-fartsy touchy-feely. Maybe that is because it is her blawg after all, and she also writes in another style somewhere else?

Can you even say in your own words what the critique was that you claim you replied to? If you can't, there is no point having this conversation.

Also Graeber talks about this tonnes.

Debt is essentially a book about how the US monetary system came to be the world monetary system by the end

No he doesn't, at least not to the extent Chomsky does.

Look at it this way:

Mutualism pretty much died out a few years after Proudhon's death.

Anarchism nearly became extinct in the US for a time after Goldman was deported.

Bookchin was hella popular but when he died very few comrades returned to his work up until Rojava became a thing.

When Chomsky goes, I doubt you'll see many "chomskyists" anymore. Anarcho-syndicalism will start to die off or morph into something else like Democratic Confederalism because they no longer have a living, evolving source of inspiration to draw from.

Mutualists were actually the ones who build the Paris Commune but you're right, after that they pretty much died.

Chomsky isn't comparable to Proudhon or Bookchin at all when it comes to anarcho-syndicalism. He's offered up no original theory in the ideology. His main contributions to the left all revolve around his curation of western atrocities and it's hypocritical foreign policy.

There are no shortage of anarcho-syndicalists who will center most of their practice around the things Chomsky suggests, i.e. lesser-evil voting, democratizing the state, union organizing.

Aside from the garbage fire that is "lesser eviliism" none of that is exclusive to Chomsky. There's no Chomskyism.

Well many an-syns would say otherwise, if not explicitly.

When Chomsky dies (which will be sooner than later), I'm certain most modern IWW members will take inspiration from the YPG and the efforts they're making in Rojava, rather than continuing Chomsky's legacy.

Well they'd be wrong. If the only distinction between "Chomskyism" and regular ol' anarcho-syndicalism is that you vote Democrat you're probably a fucking liberal who's embarrassed by the Dem elite.