Chomsky on anarchism . . .

". . . I would prefer to think of it as the libertarian left, and from
that
point of view anarchism can be conceived as a kind of voluntary
socialism,
that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist
anarchist, in  the tradition of say Bakunin and Kropotkin and others.
They
had in mind a highly organized form of society, but a society that was
organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities.  And
generally they meant by that the workplace and the neighbourhood, and
from
those two basic units there could derive through federal arrangements a
highly integrated kind of social organization, which might be national
or
even international in scope.  And the decisions could be made over a
substantial range, but by delegates who are always part of the organic
community from which they come, to which they return and in which, in
fact,
they live . . .
        Let me just say I don't really regard myself as an anarchist
thinker.  I'm a derivative fellow traveller, let's say . . .
         I think that industrialization and the advance of technology
raise
possibilities for self-management over a broad scale that simply didn't
exist in an earlier period.  And that in fact this is precisely the
rational mode for an advanced and complex industrial society, one in
which
workers can very well become masters of their own immediate affairs,
that
is, in direction and control of the shop, but can also be in a position
to
make the major substantive decisions concerning the structure of the
economy concerning social institutions, concerning planning regionally
and
beyond.  At present, institutions do not permit them to have control
over
the requisite information, and the relevant training to understand these

matters.  A good deal could be automated.  Much of the necessary work
that
is required to keep a decent level of social life going can be consigned
to
machines - at least in principle - which means humans can be free to
undertake the kind of creative work which may not have been possible
objectively, in the early stages of the industrial revolution.
         . . . the idea of anarchism is that delegation of authority is
rather minimal and that its participants at any . . . levels of
government
should be directly responsive to the organic community in which they
live.
In fact the optimal situation would be that participation in one of
these
levels of government should be temporary, and even during the period
when
it's taking place should be only partial; that is, the members of a
workers' council who are for some period actually functioning to make
decisions that other people don't have the time to make, should also
continue to do their work as part of the workplace or neighbourhood
community in which they belong.
        As for political parties, my feeling is that an anarchist
society
would not forcefully prevent political parties from arising.  In fact,
anarchism has always been based on the idea that any sort of
Procrustean
bed, any system of norms that is imposed on social life will constrain
and
very much underestimate its energy and vitality and that all sorts of
new
possibilities of voluntary organization may develop at that higher level
of
material and intellectual culture.  But I think it is fair to say that
insofar as political parties are felt to be necessary, anarchist
organization of society will have failed.  That is, it should be the
case,
I would think, that where there is direct participation in
self-management,
in economic and social affairs, then factions, conflicts, differences of

interest and ideas and opinion, which should be welcomed and cultivated,

will be expressed at every one of those levels.  Why they should fall
into
two, three or N political parties, I don't quite see.  I think that the
complexity of human interest and life does not fall in that fashion.
Parties represent basically class interests, and classes would have been

eliminated or transcended in such a society.

        Noam Chomsky "The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism."