: : I think Chomsky got it more or less right:
: : "One might, however, argue... that at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to---rather than alleviate---material and cultural deficit. If so, there will be no doctrine of social change fixed for the present and future, nor even, necessarily, a specific and unchanging concept of the goals towards which social change should tend. Surely our understanding of the nature of man or of the range of viable social forms is so rudimentary that any far-reaching doctrine must be treated with great skepticism, just as skepticism is in order when we hear that "human nature" or "the demands of efficiency" or "the complexity of modern life" requires this or that form of oppression and autocratic rule."
: : (From notes on anarchism)
: : I hesitate to call myself socialist in the sense that i do not consider myself a marxist socialist. I prefer, at least in the short term, softer forms of socialism. I abhor the idea of violent revolution, just as i abhor the idea of a communist government forcing dogma upon its citizens.
: For what it's worth, that's my position as well.
Now this kind of consensus based political aggitation is far more progressive than sectarian back stabbing and zealotry and this or that blueprint.
I believe Chomsky is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (JOIN THAT!!! JOIN IT NOW!! I WOULD GIVEN HALF A CHANCE!!) a 'statist' organisation which I guess demonstrates his position, that is akin to my own, that we must agree our opposition to capitalism an alternative to capitalism will naturally evolve as a consequence through trial and error.
We still have to avoid the Strollers of this life though.