[The Sabbaticus]

There was an uproar recently when Chomsky claimed that the Republican Party was the most dangerous organization in history. The BBC repeated this question, which caused a couple of headlines. Chomsky was of course referring to climate change and the renewed brinkmanship game with the Russians, which could lead to nuclear war. These are both his standard talking points.

[Suntzu]

He would also vote for Lenin.

[MB.]

Another very interesting and timely interview, The Sabbaticus. I mainly want to comment on the conclusion in which Chomsky agreed that Assange should be freed, which will hopefully happen after the liberation of Chelsea Manning and the dropping of the charges against Assange himself by Sweden.

There seems to be agreement amongst these panels that Jeremy Corbyn will lose the election in Britain. Both Chomsky and Zizek stated that the left needs to clearly articulate and demonstrate to the people how it will implement policies that will benefit the working class.

[Brother of Karl]

He would also vote for Lenin.

I doubt it. Chomsky is very much against Leninism and Stalinism. He's an anarchist and very skeptical of all forms of authoritarianism, including authoritarian socialism.

[JohnRawls]

@MB.
@The Sabbaticus

Actually we have a historical precedent to what Chomsky describes. There has existed an institution that was designed more or less to tackle this kind of problems. It existed in the days of the Roman republic and it was known as the the Plebeian Assembly/Council of the plebs.

It was lead by the so called " Tribune of the plebs ". To Summarise his job:

Tribunus plebis, rendered in English as tribune of the plebs, tribune of the people, or plebeian tribune, was the first office of the Roman state that was open to the plebeians, and throughout the history of the Republic, the most important check on the power of the Roman senate and magistrates. These tribunes had the power to convene and preside over the Concilium Plebis, or people's assembly; to summon the senate; to propose legislation; and to intervene on behalf of plebeians in legal matters; but the most significant power of these tribunes was the power to veto the actions of the consuls(Well reads as senate) and other magistrates, thus protecting the interests of the plebeians as a class. The tribunes of the plebs were sacrosanct, meaning that any assault on their person was prohibited by law.

Also one important part is only Poor/Middle class could be a member of the Council of the plebs and Tribune of the plebs. Senators, Rich etc were not allowed to be members of the plebian council.

This institution held a significant amount of power along with the senate. It could even block Council elections under certain circumstances as the times of Ceasar ,Cisero, Pompey, Krassus, Cato etc show.

You can read about them on wiki:
Tribune: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_of_the_Plebs
Council: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebeian_Council

[The Sabbaticus]

What problem are you referring to? And wouldn't that just be the parliament? Roman society was tribalistic in nature and highly violent. Add the two, and you'll readily see that this institution was quite susceptible to 'undue influence' from the patricians, factions within the plebs and the sort.

[Zionist Nationalist]

That just confirms the fact that the labor party is shit

[skinster]

[JohnRawls]

What problem are you referring to? And wouldn't that just be the parliament? Roman society was tribalistic in nature and highly violent. Add the two, and you'll readily see that this institution was quite susceptible to 'undue influence' from the patricians, factions within the plebs and the sort.

Indeed this is correct. But the Council of the plebs along with the Tribune of the plebs was able to block legislature if it didn't serve the needs of the plebs. Basically it is like any institution that can be swayed but its objective was to protect the plebs which it did to a degree. It also gave the plebs a sense of participation in the roman rule. This is the thing that Chomsky describes nowadays. Loss of believe in democracy, lessening protections because of legislature that they can do nothing about etc.

This institution can be revived with enough will honestly. Mostly the laws that considered non-pleb related passed with ease because nobody had an interest in them but laws that produced issues could be disputed by the council and blocked. The council itself could not append/change the law but it could block it.

Simply moving this format to the internet and some local points can allow the institute to exist in a modern form. Let us say if any particular law has more than 10% of the voting population votes and has more "nays" then it should be vetoed. This kinda makes it a mini referendum for every law. So if people do not like some law, then they can block it given that the population as a whole is interested to a degree. It also provides a solution for the negative side of representative democracy: That candidates do not follow up on their promises. If they do not do that, then people can just block their legislature, again, if there is enough interest in it within the population as a whole.

[Goldberk]

That just confirms the fact that the labor party is shit

Not as shit as the Israeli Labour Party,

On the topic, it's a disappointing intervention, Chomsky should know that a tactic of transitional demands that Corbyn represents is not something libertarian socialists should be supporting, in fact putting so much political energy behind Corbyn is likely to damage the movements that work towards proletarian liberation.