[log in to unmask] wrote:
>Noam Chomsky on
> Anarchism
> Tom Lane
> December 23, 1996
>Introduction
>Though Chomsky has written a considerable amount about anarchism in the
>past three decades, people often ask him for a more tangible, detailed
>vision of social change. His political analysis never
>fails to instill outrage and anger with the way the world works, but many
>readers are left uncertain about what exactly Chomsky would do to change
>it. Perhaps because they regard his analytical work with such respect,
>they anticipate he will lay out his goals and strategy with similar
>precision and clarity, only to be disappointed with his generalized
>statements of libertarian socialist values. Or perhaps many look to a
>great intellectual to provide a "master plan" for them to follow
>step-by-step into a bright shining future.
>Yet Chomsky shys away from such pronouncements. He cautions that it is
>difficult to predict what particular forms a more just social organization
>will take, or even to know for sure what alternatives to the current
>system are ideal. Only experience can show us the best answers to these
>questions, he says. What should guide us along the way are a general set
>of principles which will underly whatever specific forms our future
>society will take. For Chomsky, those principles arise from the historical
>trend of thought and action known as anarchism.
>Chomsky warns that little can be said about anarchism on a very general
>level. "I haven't tried to write anything systematic about these topics,
>nor do I know of anything by others that I could recommend," he wrote to
>me in reply to a set of questions on the subject. He's written here and
>there about it, notably in the recent Powers and Prospects, but there just
>isn't a lot to say in general terms. "The interest lies in the
>applications," he thinks, "but these are specific to time and place.
>"In Latin America," Chomsky says, "I talked about many of these topics,
>and far more important, learned about them from people who are actually
>doing things, a good deal of which had an anarchist flavor. Also had a
>chance to meet with lively and interesting groups of anarchists, from
>Buenos Aires to Belem at the mouth of the Amazon (the latter I didn't know
>about at all -- amazing where our friends show up). But the discussions
>were much more focused and specific than I often see here; and rightly, I
>think."
>As such, Chomsky's responses to these questions are general and terse.
>However, as a brief introduction to some of his thoughts on anarchism,
>perhaps they may inspire the reader to pursue other writings on the
>subject (a list appears at the end of the questions), and more
>importantly, to develop the concept of anarchism through the process of
>working for revolutionary social change.
>Tom Lane
>Answers from Chomsky to eight questions on anarchism
>General comment on all the questions:
>No one owns the term "anarchism." It is used for a wide range of different
>currents of thought and action, varying widely. There are many self-styled
>anarchists who insist, often with great passion, that theirs is the only
>right way, and that others do not merit the term (and maybe are criminals
>of one or another sort). A look at the contemporary anarchist literature,
>particularly in the West and in intellectual circles (they may not like
>the term), will quickly show that a large part of it is denunciation of
>others for their deviations, rather as in the Marxist-Leninist sectarian
>literature. The ratio of such material to constructive work is
>depressingly high.
>Personally, I have no confidence in my own views about the "right way,"
>and am unimpressed with the confident pronouncements of others, including
>good friends. I feel that far too little is understood to be able to say
>very much with any confidence. We can try to formulate our long-term
>visions, our goals, our ideals; and we can (and should) dedicate ourselves
>to working on issues of human significance. But the gap between the two is
>often considerable, and I rarely see any way to bridge it except at a very
>vague and general level. These qualities of mine (perhaps defects, perhaps
>not) will show up in the (very brief) responses I will make to your
>questions.
>1. What are the intellectual roots of anarchist thought, and what
>movements have developed and animated it throughout history?
>The currents of anarchist thought that interest me (there are many) have
>their roots, I think, in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and
>even trace back in interesting ways to the scientific revolution of the
>17th century, including aspects that are often considered reactionary,
>like Cartesian rationalism. There's literature on the topic (historian of
>ideas Harry Bracken, for one; I've written about it too). Won't try to
>recapitulate here, except to say that I tend to agree with the important
>anarchosyndicalist writer and activist Rudolf Rocker that classical
>liberal ideas were wrecked on the shoals of industrial capitalism, never
>to recover (I'm referring to Rocker in the 1930s; decades later, he
>thought differently). The ideas have been reinvented continually; in my
>opinion, because they reflect real human needs and perceptions. The
>Spanish Civil War is perhaps the most important case, though we should
>recall that the anarchist revolution that swept over a good part of Spain
>in 1936, taking various forms, was not a spontaneous upsurge, but had been
>prepared in many decades of education, organization, struggle, defeat, and
>sometimes victories. It was very significant. Sufficiently so as to call
>down the wrath of every major power system: Stalinism, fascism, western
>liberalism, most intellectual currents and their doctrinal institutions --
>all combined to condemn and destroy the anarchist revolution, as they did;
>a sign of its significance, in my opinion.
>2. Critics complain that anarchism is "formless, utopian." You counter
>that each stage of history has its own forms of authority and oppression
>which must be challenged, therefore no fixed doctrine can apply. In your
>opinion, what specific realization of anarchism is appropriate in this
>epoch?
>I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though hardly more
>so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other
>ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and their intellectual
>servants over the years, for reasons that are all too easy to explain.
>The reason for the general formlessness and intellectual vacuity (often
>disguised in big words, but that is again in the self-interest of
>intellectuals) is that we do not understand very much about complex
>systems, such as human societies; and have only intuitions of limited
>validity as to the ways they should be reshaped and constructed.
>Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of
>proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are
>necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that
>conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend
>should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate
>authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.
>In the present period, the issues arise across the board, as they commonly
>do: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the
>international political/economic order. And anarchist ideas -- challenging
>authority and insisting that it justify itself -- are appropriate at all
>levels.
>3. What sort of conception of human nature is anarchism predicated on?
>Would people have less incentive to work in an egalitarian society? Would
>an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? Would
>democratic decision-making result in excessive conflict, indecision and
>"mob rule"?
>As I understand the term "anarchism," it is based on the hope (in our
>state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that) that core elements of human
>nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern
>for others, and so on.
>Would people work less in an egalitarian society? Yes, insofar as they are
>driven to work by the need for survival; or by material reward, a kind of
>pathology, I believe, like the kind of pathology that leads some to take
>pleasure from torturing others. Those who find reasonable the classical
>liberal doctrine that the impulse to engage in creative work is at the
>core of human nature -- something we see constantly, I think, from
>children to the elderly, when circumstances allow -- will be very
>suspicious of these doctrines, which are highly serviceable to power and
>authority, but seem to have no other merits.
>Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? We
>don't know. If so, then forms of social organization would have to be
>constructed -- there are many possibilities -- to overcome this crime.
>What would be the consequences of democratic decision-making? The answers
>are unknown. We would have to learn by trial. Let's try it and find out.
>4. Anarchism is sometimes called libertarian socialism -- How does it
>differ from other ideologies that are often associated with socialism,
>such as Leninism?
>Leninist doctrine holds that a vanguard Party should assume state power
>and drive the population to economic development, and, by some miracle
>that is unexplained, to freedom and justice. It is an ideology that
>naturally appeals greatly to the radical intelligentsia, to whom it
>affords a justification for their role as state managers. I can't see any
>reason -- either in logic or history -- to take it seriously. Libertarian
>socialism (including a substantial mainstream of Marxism) dismissed all of
>this with contempt, quite rightly.
>5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do
>what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others.
>Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?
>Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever
>implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few
>counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that
>its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they
>would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea
>of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a
>sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the
>consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.
>I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with
>people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of
>issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And
>I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I
>do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or
>their profound moral failings.
>6. How do anarchist principles apply to education? Are grades,
>requirements and exams good things? What sort of environment is most
>conducive to free thought and intellectual development?
>My feeling, based in part on personal experience in this case, is that a
>decent education should seek to provide a thread along which a person will
>travel in his or her own way; good teaching is more a matter of providing
>water for a plant, to enable it to grow under its own powers, than of
>filling a vessel with water (highly unoriginal thoughts I should add,
>paraphrased from writings of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism).
>These are general principles, which I think are generally valid. How they
>apply in particular circumstances has to be evaluated case by case, with
>due humility, and recognition of how little we really understand.
>7. Depict, if you can, how an ideal anarchist society would function
>day-to-day. What sorts of economic and political institutions would exist,
>and how would they function? Would we have money? Would we shop in stores?
>Would we own our own homes? Would we have laws? How would we prevent
>crime?
>I wouldn't dream of trying to do this. These are matters about which we
>have to learn, by struggle and experiment.
>8. What are the prospects for realizing anarchism in our society? What
>steps should we take?
>Prospects for freedom and justice are limitless. The steps we should take
>depend on what we are trying to achieve. There are, and can be, no general
>answers. The questions are wrongly put. I am reminded of a nice slogan of
>the rural workers' movement in Brazil (from which I have just returned):
>they say that they must expand the floor of the cage, until the point when
>they can break the bars. At times, that even requires defense of the cage
>against even worse predators outside: defense of illegitimate state power
>against predatory private tyranny in the United States today, for example,
>a point that should be obvious to any person committed to justice and
>freedom -- anyone, for example, who thinks that children should have food
>to eat -- but that seems difficult for many people who regard themselves
>as libertarians and anarchists to comprehend. That is one of
>the self-destructive and irrational impulses of decent people who consider
>themselves to be on the left, in my opinion, separating them in practice
>from the lives and legitimate aspirations of suffering people.
>So it seems to me. I'm happy to discuss the point, and listen to
>counter-argument, but only in a context that allows us to go beyond
>shouting of slogans -- which, I'm afraid, excludes a good deal of what
>passes for debate on the left, more's the pity.
>----------------------------------------
>Dan Clore
>mailto:[log in to unmask]
>The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
>Welcome to the Waughters....
>The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
>Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
>"Hziulquoigmnzhah" ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>> Iqhui dlosh odhqlonqh!
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
I apologize for the long quote but I did not want to accidentally
take any of Chomsky out of context. I also wanted to credit the source
fully.
I think this speaks for itself and is highly relevant to this group
annd the Chomsky List.
|
