What are some obscure but great left wing thinkers?

Henry George isn't that obscure if you're familiar with economics beyond knowing only Marx, Smith, and Sowell.

William Lane

I don't know any obscure thinkers. He is the most obscure. Progress and Poverty has 229 ratings on goodreads.

I'm simply pointing out that the guy only became famous because of work entirely irrelevant to his politics and activism. The idea he is some superstar intellectual is ridiculous given that his work is based in linguistics and compsci (iirc)

For the record, I have disagreements with his anti-war/American foreign policy views and I believe his point regarding bias within media in capitalist societies is inane. I also disagree with his ideal societal structure

Here's a guy you might not have heard of, but be careful, he might bust your spooks ;^)

They don't exist

If they were great thinkers they wouldn’t be left wing user

No one cares that you disagree. I'm asking you to refute points he makes. You said he has no idea what he is talking about it. Prove it.

His politics is the reason he isn't just some guy that linguistics people know. I'm not an expert on politics but so far I've never heard of a left wing political thinker better than him.

Yeah, I guess he's not probably read too much anymore but he was hugely influential in a way few philosophers can hope to be, given that his writings formed a lot of the intellectual grounding for trustbusting in the 1900s. Some people still read him, but yeah mainly academics. He's no Piketty.

>one even close to Chomsky.
AHAHAHHAHAAAHAHAHAAHHAA

haha imagine being so ignorant that you think the landscape of political thought is literally one dimensional, left vs right

Name a right wing thinker that is as consistent and factual as Chomsky.

To further prove my point. Manufacturing Consent 11k ratings, Hegemony or Survival 11k, While Syntactic Structures has 547 ratings, Language and Mind 848.

His anti-Americanism/imperialistic views were borderline insane, and this blinded him to objective facts. Everytime the US did something horrible he was quick to condemn, but failed to acknowledge the good they also did (the american-phillipino wars vs. America liberating the Philippines in WW2, for instance.)

He claimed that the cold war was essentially all America's fault, that they had fabricated the Soviet Union's threat outside their most immediate sphere of influence (countries just to the south of Russia, for instance, were seen as justifiably nervous for him)

He dismissed the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge because it was the fault of communists and "distracted from American killings"

He wrote the introduction to a book that claims Hitler’s death camps and gas chambers, even Anne Frank’s diary, are fictions, created to serve the cause of American Zionists

He equates the US bombing a pharma factory (after their had been two attacks on the US embassy that had resulted in casualties and had been conducted at night so there would be no civilians) in Sudan with 9/11

Chomsky basically founded modern linguistics, he then used the reputation he rightly deserved to become a political commentator, which made him even more famous. I don't understand what the points of those ratings are

Georges Sorel, although he was also a rightist for awhile.

Rudolph Rocker, one of the forefathers of anarcho-syndicalism.

Daniel de Leon, American syndicalist.

Robert Owen , Scottish socialist and labor reformer.

Francois Babeuf, political activist and major player during the French Revolution.

These kind of depend on how well you know history and left wing literature.

>He dismissed the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge because it was the fault of communists and "distracted from American killings"

Journalist Christopher Hitchens defended Chomsky and Herman. They "were engaged in the admittedly touchy business of distinguishing evidence from interpretations." Chomsky and Herman have continued to argue that their analysis of the situation in Cambodia was reasonable based on the information available to them at the time, and a legitimate critique of the disparities in reporting atrocities committed by communist regimes relative to the atrocities committed by the U.S. and its allies. Nonetheless, in 1993, Chomsky acknowledged the massive scale of the Cambodian genocide in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent. He said, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury."

>He wrote the introduction to a book that claims Hitler’s death camps and gas chambers, even Anne Frank’s diary, are fictions, created to serve the cause of American Zionists

He wasn't condoning the book. He signed a petition and rewrote the preface simply as a matter of protecting free speech.

"I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson's work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it). Rather, I restricted myself to the civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it was even necessary to recall Voltaire's famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." [...] Many writers find it scandalous that I should support the right of free expression for Faurisson without carefully analyzing his work, a strange doctrine which, if adopted, would effectively block defense of civil rights for unpopular views."

>He equates the US bombing a pharma factory (after their had been two attacks on the US embassy that had resulted in casualties and had been conducted at night so there would be no civilians) in Sudan with 9/11

According to Kamm, I “deployed fanciful arithmetic to draw an equivalence” between 9-11 and Clinton’s destruction of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant, which produced half of Sudan’s supplies. The equivalence is, again, his fanciful construction. Discussing the “horrendous crime” committed on 9-11 with “wickedness and awesome cruelty,” I mentioned that the toll may be comparable to the consequences of Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan, about which I said nothing further. This single phrase was a considerable understatement, judging by the “fanciful arithmetic,” which Kamm again scrupulously ignores, and which, as he surely knows, I reviewed in detail in response to Kamm-style fabrications about this phrase. The review includes the assessment of the German Ambassador to Sudan in the Harvard International Review that “several tens of thousands” died as a result of the bombing and the similar estimate in the Boston Globe by the regional director of the respected Near East foundation, who had field experience in Sudan, along with the immediate warning by Human Rights Watch that a “terrible crisis” might follow, reporting very severe consequences of the bombing even in the first few weeks. And much more.

>His anti-Americanism/imperialistic views were borderline insane, and this blinded him to objective facts. Everytime the US did something horrible he was quick to condemn, but failed to acknowledge the good they also did (the american-phillipino wars vs. America liberating the Philippines in WW2, for instance.)

I don't know what you are talking about with him and America liberating the Philippines. Can you a little more in-depth on that? Anyways is he required to say a good thing about America everytime he says a bad thing? He does say good things about America.

>He claimed that the cold war was essentially all America's fault, that they had fabricated the Soviet Union's threat outside their most immediate sphere of influence (countries just to the south of Russia, for instance, were seen as justifiably nervous for him)

I don't know anything about this. Haven't read what he said about the cold war but seeing how I refuted the stuff above I'm sure I could do the same if you give the quotes you used to infer this.

>Chomsky basically founded modern linguistics, he then used the reputation he rightly deserved to become a political commentator, which made him even more famous. I don't understand what the points of those ratings are.

You implied that the only reason he is famous is because of his linguistics and it's pretty well known he is a super star intellectual because of both his linguistics and politics but more his politics.

my sides
carlyle alone is worth the entire history of leftist "thought"

>Trying to read through Carlyle's the French revolution
>It's possibly the densest and most detailed history book I've ever read considering the time period it was written

It's astounding how in touch he was with the revolution. He was probably one of the right's greatest geniuse in the modern age

>carlyle
lmfao, at least pick someone who's actually good like Strauss

>Strauss
>conservative

>Carlyle
>Not good
Levels of brainlets that shouldn't even be possible

>They "were engaged in the admittedly touchy business of distinguishing evidence from interpretations." Chomsky and Herman have continued to argue that their analysis of the situation in Cambodia was reasonable based on the information available to them at the time, and a legitimate critique of the disparities in reporting atrocities committed by communist regimes relative to the atrocities committed by the U.S. and its allies. Nonetheless, in 1993, Chomsky acknowledged the massive scale of the Cambodian genocide in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent. He said, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury."

user, acknowledging it 20 years after does not change the fact that he believed the US made up the deaths of 1/3rd of the cambodian population to hide their own killings. The fact you would even promote that idea is proof of how unreasonable your stance is.

>He wasn't condoning the book. He signed a petition and rewrote the preface simply as a matter of protecting free speech.

You're missing:

"That was too much for Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who challenged fellow leftist Chomsky to a debate. In the debate, Dershowitz keyed in on the fact that Chomsky had described Faurisson’s conclusions as “findings,” and claimed that they grew out of “extensive historical research.”

"Dershowitz noted that Chomsky also wrote the following: “I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence of gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.”

>I don't know what you are talking about with him and America liberating the Philippines. Can you a little more in-depth on that? Anyways is he required to say a good thing about America everytime he says a bad thing? He does say good things about America.

It's an example of how, in his critique of America's foreign policy, that he doesn't fairly acknowledge the good that America has done. Given the language he has used about America's "imperialism" (which I'm sure you don't need to me highlight) it paints an unfair picture of the US. Did they commit atrocities? Sure, but Chomsky takes it to an intellectually indefensible extreme.

>I don't know anything about this. Haven't read what he said about the cold war but seeing how I refuted the stuff above I'm sure I could do the same if you give the quotes you used to infer this.

youtube.com/watch?v=j9Z05xyGB0c&t=132s

This is false based on the geography of the cold war alone

>
You implied that the only reason he is famous is because of his linguistics and it's pretty well known he is a super star intellectual because of both his linguistics and politics but more his politics.

Well if I implied that I apologise but my point it that he was only able to become famous for his politics because of his linguistics

>muuuuh heroeees reeeeee
>good
he was a retarded romantic
>strauss
>not right wing

Sure he's right wing, but he's a radical variety of right wing, not a conservative.

I never claimed he was a conservative

Not him, but given the fact we were talking about left vs. right I'd say that whether he's a conservative or a reactionary is entirely irrelevant

oh, thought we were talking about conservatives for some reason. Got mixed up with the other thread. Very well, carry on, carry on.

>When your ability to criticize carlyle comes from Veeky Forums memes
Levels of brainlets that shouldn't ven be possible. By all means, explain why Carlyle is wrong without using internet memes. Pro tip: you can't.

Your probbaly some idiot who thinks Carlyle's historical critiques are a one dimensional hero worship phase and who immediately sees Carlyle defend romanticism and have no idea how he does so yet dismiss him

>one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th century
>i dun lyk him cuz big hero brain mak me feel smal

>Carlyle is wrong because reasons
Well...We are waiting

This guy

>y-your probably some idiot who just doesnt get it l-lol
I'm going to waste my "ability to criticize" with someone who comes into a thread and immediatly starts acting like a monkey. (lol u get it? leftist ""thought"" haha).
Is that an argumentum ad popolum i hear? By this logic Marx is the greatest thinker ever. Nice self portrait by the way.
See above. If you want to have a serious discussion don't act like a tribalistic monkey (I know it's hard for right-wingers, but at least try).

2/10

4/10, but only because you got trips

>s-stop disrupting my echo chamber y-you silly baiter
monkeys

>
>echochamber

>user, acknowledging it 20 years after does not change the fact that he believed the US made up the deaths of 1/3rd of the cambodian population to hide their own killings. The fact you would even promote that idea is proof of how unreasonable your stance is.

reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/2750um/chomsky_on_cambodia/chxy7am/

This is unreasonable?

>“findings, “extensive historical research.”

He didn't say those things. That's what was on the petition he signed.

"Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question.

Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.
We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him.

We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights."

>"Dershowitz noted that Chomsky also wrote the following: “I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence of gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.”

Does denying the existence of gas chambers, or denying the holocaust automatically make you anti-Semite? I don't think so. The guy never expressed anything anti-Semitic. You can't brand him a Nazi. He was almost beaten to death by Jews because of this.

>It's an example of how, in his critique of America's foreign policy, that he doesn't fairly acknowledge the good that America has done. Given the language he has used about America's "imperialism" (which I'm sure you don't need to me highlight) it paints an unfair picture of the US. Did they commit atrocities? Sure, but Chomsky takes it to an intellectually indefensible extreme.

Well he does take it to the extreme but that's because it's the subject he is writing about. Why does he need to go "America did this horrible thing but they also did this good thing" every single time he points out the bad thing that the US does.

>This is false based on the geography of the cold war alone

Can you quote him if you don't mind?

>Well if I implied that I apologise but my point it that he was only able to become famous for his politics because of his linguistics

Why would his linguistic work be the only reason he became famous. I thought the reason he became famous was because anti-Vietnam activism. What does his linguistic work have to do with his anti-vietnam activism?

>Ask to provide a legitimate criticism of carlyoe
>Immediatelt assumes I'm some other poster
>Has to dehumanize the opposition because he can't actually critique them
Sounds about right
>Echo chamber
Nice buzzword

>Chomsky's response to the claim about the petition

Vidal-Naquet misunderstood a sentence in the petition that ran, "Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to...." The term "findings" is quite neutral. One can say, without contradiction: "He made his findings public and they were judged worthless, irrelevant, falsified...." The petition implied nothing about quality of Faurisson's work, which was irrelevant to the issues raised. [...]

Paul Goodman
Dwight Macdonald
Is Hannah Arendt considered obscure?

>Is Hannah Arendt considered obscure?
no

Mario Tronti for sure

none.

left wingers who are known are only so cause they write well, for their ideas cant attract any real interest.

so, if they dont write well they will remain in obscurity because their ideas, like those of the famous ones, suck. they cant be good.

America is the current global imperialist superpower. That you think this is irrelevant and that America should be treated as any other country when it commits atrocities is ludicrous. Everything America does has global implications.

refute chomsky faggot. other guy tried and left

Sam Moss
Jacques Camatte
Vaneigem
Fredy Perlman
Monsieur Dupont
Tiqqun
John Zerzan
Alfredo Bonanno (Armed Joy got him sent to jail)
Dominique Karamazov (The Poverty of Feminism, interesting because it so accurately describes everything that became of feminism, written back in the 70s or early 80s)
Gilles Dauve
The American Situationists (The Right to be Greedy)
Basically all anti-Left thinkers who are still Leftist. Mostly non-academics, although Dauve may be academic, tiqqun definitely were, and half of Monsieur Dupont.
Perlman, Camatte, and Zerzan are probably the most useful beyond obscure Leftist anti-organisationalism.

>are known are only so cause they write well, for their ideas cant attract any real interest.

I won't get into the left-right debate whatsoever, the roles could be reversed for all that matters, but this position often pops up in any group and it's retarded. It's not that their ideas can't attract real interest, it's that YOU are not interested in the ideas. Obviously, those who like them may like them for their ideas and not because they write well.

Although this may seem obvious to anyone but you, your post is a good example of those who simply rehash their own views over and over again. You are saying they are not worth it because you think they are not worth it, but you nevertheless make this circular argument in order to sustain the belief that you are simply just following what is given to you ("oh well, they are a priori shit, so I won't read them").

It's also about invalidating and taking the legitimacy out of ideas which are strange to you. A legitimate idea can be criticized and be wrong and still be legitimate. An illegitimate idea is not even considered. You are not considering that left wingers like left winger writers because they write left wing ideas, even if you may disagree entirely with them and their ideas.

This good shit. Thanks. I only know Vaneigem so I'll go through all these guys.