>Noam Chomsky (as someone else alluded to) has a very good bit about 1)
>What Lenin and Trotsky were like when they were out of power and on the
>sidelines, outsiders looking in, vs. 2) What they were like when they were
>in power.
>
>Perhaps not surprisingly, there is a stark contrast! Trotsky and Lenin,
>while out of power, were almost libertarian socialist in their sentiments.
>("State and Revolution.")
>
>But when in power - Wow! Check out what they wrote - or, even more
>importantly, what they DID! Google, say, "Immediate Tasks of the Soviet
>Government," by Lenin, and cross-check that with Voline's _Unknown Revolution_.
>
>-B.
i was going to ask if this was a general stand against being "in power" but I decided to find out what Chomsky said.
But boy, he does come off as a fuckwad in the beginning. _She_ engages in rhetoric, _he_ engages in facts. What an annoying fuckwad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI
glad i watched the vid, though, since Chomsky is basically saying that they were liars, sleazy politicians, opportunists, vanguardists, etc. It was not that he was corrupted by being "in power". He was rather, according to Chomsky, just that they were opportunists. "He knew that in order to gain power, he was going to have to go along with the popular currents that were developing." He was just a fucker, like any old American politician. Phew. I'm glad that was cleared up for me!
i got a kick out of the next link in the results, though: http://www.marxist.com/noam-chomsky-marxism-authoritarianism2151004-4.htm
what to make of it, i don't know. i really detest sectarian disputes over mao, trotsky, chomsky, engels, stalin, lenin, various anarchits, blah. but I do find anything that criticizes Chomsky entertaining enough!