Raúl Zibechi, 14/2/2026
The adoration of public figures, to whom enormous merits are attributed, to the point of turning them into “almost gods,” is a problem that has persisted for a long time on the left and in emancipatory movements. Virtues are exalted, but never defects. A reality is invented in shades of black or white, excluding nuances, the greys, and anything that might tarnish the deified figure.
The very word “grey” is used as a derogatory adjective.
“A grey person” is boring, without merit, incapable of attracting us or
capturing our attention, let alone any kind of admiration. However, reality is
painted in multiple colors and is much richer than the binary black-white. With
this cleavage, we most often seek to calm our uncertainties, fleeing from the
uncomfortable nuances that cause us so much insecurity. Because, let’s admit
it, the white, Western human is desperately seeking security.
Many left-wing people admit that the personality cult
around Stalin was something negative, but they accept the cult of Lenin or
Marx, for example. I believe that on this point, the “emancipatory” culture of
the left is heir to the caudillismo [cult of strongmen] and the cult of kings
so present in human history, from the earliest societies to today. With the
aggravating factor that today’s cults are disguised as emancipation, but at
heart they are as absurd as submission to kings and queens.
Even today, we see how this cult continues its
tremendous work of paralyzing societies, whether in the uncritical support for
Evo Morales or Hugo Chávez, to give just two examples. The progressive
processes in Latin America have all been linked to a caudillo, from Néstor
Kirchner to Lula, through Correa and those already mentioned.
In Chomsky’s case, the gravity of his close link with
the pedocriminal millionaire Epstein stands out, even after he was convicted
and his misdeeds became known. However, if Epstein hadn’t been a pedocriminal,
would anything have changed? Can we validate that a left-wing public figure has
close ties with a millionaire? Not every friendship is acceptable, with just
anyone, overlooking class, political positions, and people’s status. Not to
mention that Chomsky committed other sins, like working for military programs.
Can a person like us, the readers of this page,
associate with just anyone, a Berlusconi, a Bolsonaro, or a Putin? I’m not
referring to grassroots people who may have supported these figures, but to
relationships with the dominant elites, a style cultivated in parliaments
around the world, when deputies in opposing political positions eat at the same
table and end up socializing in the same spaces.
What Chomsky did is simply repugnant. Even more
serious because he is a public personality who should set an example and
apologize when he is wrong. What I aim for with these lines is to hold up a
collective mirror to ourselves, as the Zapatistas often say, to ask: And what
about us?
How many Chomskys are there in our brains and hearts?
Putting all the evil on the linguist is the same as putting all the merits on a
caudillo, like Pepe Mujica, for example. Being Uruguayan, I suffer every time
grassroots people in some corner of the planet tell me wonders about a figure
who, in this country, we know and do not admire, at least not the author of
these lines and a large part of his friends.
The personality cult also reveals our proverbial
individualism, since we place all the positive values in one person, but not in
a collective. The Zapatistas do well to cover their faces, to make themselves
all equal with the balaclava and the bandana. Observe that all capitalist
culture revolves around individuals, from Messi to Trump, whether to deify or
condemn. Even in the case of Zapatism, our attitudes are not the same towards Subcomandante
Marcos or towards any of the comandantas, including the author of these lines.
Perhaps the lesson we can learn from the
Epstein-Chomsky case is that we must be more careful, more moderate when it
comes to mitycizing figures. But above all, be more community-oriented,
highlight the collective and the simple, the innocence of children before the
system leads them to the adoration of celebrities.
