I’d love to see Keith Preston and Kevin Carson’s take on this. Kind of reactionary leftoid stuff I’d expect to see in the New York Times or Daily Kos, not a “radical” or “anarchist” like Chomsky. Anyhow;
I am not a left-libertarian/mutualist. Nonetheless, I gotta say; even by your standards, this stuff has got to be ten times more vulgar than anything George Reisman or the Adam Smith Institute has ever written. Anyone who endorses Hillary Clinton over Ron Paul is not a libertarian in any way, shape or form, be it left, right, center, third positionist, collectivist, individualist, syndicalist, etcetera.
In general: This is why I think alliances with syndicalists/the New Left/Occupiers et.al are a waste of time. They only hate the government because they think it’s the protector of private property and “white privilege”, and only hate the IMF/World Bank/other globalist groups because they think they are “neoliberals” who want to dismantle “democracy” (i.e. localist Progressive interventionism or outright communism ala Venezuela).
Do they criticize the cronyist American financial sector? Sure. So did the Soviets and Nazis. Much like the Soviets only criticized the banksters due to them being the “bourgeois” and the Nazis only criticized them due to being “der Juden”, these folks only hate corporatism because it offends their egalitarian value system. There’s no fundamental oppositon to the concept of compulsory wealth and income redistribution or government-business partnership, only that it’s done by and to the “wrong” people.
Chomsky’s hysterical spiel on Ron Paul’s foreign policy is especially hilarious. It’s like he wants to be seen as taking a totally different stand on the issue from the evul raysist right wing anti-democratic reactionary Ron Paul, and so throws out all that rhubarb about “ultranationalism”. Call me Glenn Beck, but I’ll take Ayn Rand or even Pat Buchanan any day of the week over a Mao/Pol Pot apologist who rambles on about “communal decisions”.