This landed in my mailbox from another list and without a URL for the
original - It's longish, but it's snipped. MP
===========================================================

                  Noam Chomsky on

     Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future

                 First published in Red & Black Revolution No 2 1996
                        From the All about Anarchism page

Noam Chomsky is widely known for his critique of U.S foreign policy, and
for his work as a linguist. Less well known is his ongoing support for
libertarian socialist objectives. In a special interview done for Red and
Black Revolution, Chomsky gives his views on anarchism and marxism, and
the prospects for socialism now. The interview was conducted in May 1995
                                by Kevin Doyle.

RBR: First off, Noam, for quite a time now you've been an advocate for
the anarchist idea. Many people are familiar with the introduction you
wrote in 1970 to Daniel Guerin's Anarchism, but more recently, for
instance in the film Manufacturing Consent, you took the opportunity to
highlight again the potential of anarchism and the anarchist idea. What
is it that attracts you to anarchism?

CHOMSKY: I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I
began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't
seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only
makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy,
and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a
justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be
dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes
political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women,
parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations
(the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my
view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge
institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable
private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international
economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always
understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden
of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled
if that burden cannot be met.

Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my
grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only
authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be
challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are
other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about
humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source
of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and
can lead us quite a long way.

Beyond such generalities, we begin to look at cases, which is where the
questions of human interest and concern arise.

RBR: It's true to say that your ideas and critique are now more widely
known than ever before. It should also be said that your views are widely
respected. How do you think your support for anarchism is received in
this context? In particular, I'm interested in the response you receive
from people who are getting interested in politics for the first time and
who may, perhaps, have come across your views. Are such people surprised
by your support for anarchism? Are they interested?

CHOMSKY: The general intellectual culture, as you know, associates
'anarchism' with chaos, violence, bombs, disruption, and so on. So people
are often surprised when I speak positively of anarchism and identify
myself with leading traditions within it. But my impression is that among
the general public, the basic ideas seem reasonable when the clouds are
cleared away. Of course, when we turn to specific matters -- say, the
nature of families, or how an economy would work in a society that is
more free and just -- questions and controversy arise. But that is as it
should be. Physics can't really explain how water flows from the tap in
your sink. When we turn to vastly more complex questions of human
significance, understanding is very thin, and there is plenty of room for
disagreement, experimentation, both intellectual and real-life
exploration of possibilities, to help us learn more.

RBR: Perhaps, more than any other idea, anarchism has suffered from the
problem of misrepresentation. Anarchism can mean many things to many
people. Do you often find yourself having to explain what it is that you
mean by anarchism? Does the misrepresentation of anarchism bother you?

CHOMSKY: All misrepresentation is a nuisance. Much of it can be traced
back to structures of power that have an interest in preventing
understanding, for pretty obvious reasons. It's well to recall David
Hume's Principles of Government. He expressed surprise that people ever
submitted to their rulers. He concluded that since Force is always on the
side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but
opinion. 'Tis therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and
this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as
well as to the most free and most popular. Hume was very astute -- and
incidentally, hardly a libertarian by the standards of the day. He surely
underestimates the efficacy of force, but his observation seems to me
basically correct, and important, particularly in the more free
societies, where the art of controlling opinion is therefore far more
refined. Misrepresentation and other forms of befuddlement are a natural
concomitant.

So does misrepresentation bother me? Sure, but so does rotten weather. It
will exist as long as concentrations of power engender a kind of
commissar class to defend them. Since they are usually not very bright,
or are bright enough to know that they'd better avoid the arena of fact
and argument, they'll turn to misrepresentation, vilification, and other
devices that are available to those who know that they'll be protected by
the various means available to the powerful. We should understand why all
this occurs, and unravel it as best we can. That's part of the project of
liberation -- of ourselves and others, or more reasonably, of people
working together to achieve these aims.

Sounds simple-minded, and it is. But I have yet to find much commentary
on human life and society that is not simple-minded, when absurdity and
self-serving posturing are cleared away.

RBR: How about in more established left-wing circles, where one might
expect to find greater familiarity with what anarchism actually stands
for? Do you encounter any surprise here at your views and support for
anarchism?

CHOMSKY: If I understand what you mean by established left-wing circles,
there is not too much surprise about my views on anarchism, because very
little is known about my views on anything. These are not the circles I
deal with. You'll rarely find a reference to anything I say or write.
That's not completely true of course. Thus in the US (but less commonly
in the UK or elsewhere), you'd find some familiarity with what I do in
certain of the more critical and independent sectors of what might be
called established left-wing circles, and I have personal friends and
associates scattered here and there. But have a look at the books and
journals, and you'll see what I mean. I don't expect what I write and say
to be any more welcome in these circles than in the faculty club or
editorial board room -- again, with exceptions.

The question arises only marginally, so much so that it's hard to answer.

RBR: A number of people have noted that you use the term 'libertarian
socialist' in the same context as you use the word 'anarchism'. Do you
see these terms as essentially similar? Is anarchism a type of socialism
to you? The description has been used before that anarchism is equivalent
to socialism with freedom. Would you agree with this basic equation?

CHOMSKY: The introduction to Guerin's book that you mentioned opens with
a quote from an anarchist sympathiser a century ago, who says that
anarchism has a broad back, and endures anything. One major element has
been what has traditionally been called 'libertarian socialism'. I've
tried to explain there and elsewhere what I mean by that, stressing that
it's hardly original; I'm taking the ideas from leading figures in the
anarchist movement whom I quote, and who rather consistently describe
themselves as socialists, while harshly condemning the 'new class' of
radical intellectuals who seek to attain state power in the course of
popular struggle and to become the vicious Red bureaucracy of which
Bakunin warned; what's often called 'socialism'. I rather agree with
Rudolf Rocker's perception that these (quite central) tendencies in
anarchism draw from the best of Enlightenment and classical liberal
thought, well beyond what he described. In fact, as I've tried to show
they contrast sharply with Marxist-Leninist doctrine and practice, the
'libertarian' doctrines that are fashionable in the US and UK
particularly, and other contemporary ideologies, all of which seem to me
to reduce to advocacy of one or another form of illegitimate authority,
quite often real tyranny.

The Spanish Revolution

RBR: In the past, when you have spoken about anarchism, you have often
emphasised the example of the Spanish Revolution. For you there would
seem to be two aspects to this example. On the one hand, the experience
of the Spanish Revolution is, you say, a good example of 'anarchism in
action'. On the other, you have also stressed that the Spanish revolution
is a good example of what workers can achieve through their own efforts
using participatory democracy. Are these two aspects -- anarchism in
action and participatory democracy -- one and the same thing for you? Is
anarchism a philosophy for people's power?

CHOMSKY: I'm reluctant to use fancy polysyllables like philosophy to
refer to what seems ordinary common sense. And I'm also uncomfortable
with slogans. The achievements of Spanish workers and peasants, before
the revolution was crushed, were impressive in many ways. The term
'participatory democracy' is a more recent one, which developed in a
different context, but there surely are points of similarity. I'm sorry
if this seems evasive. It is, but that's because I don't think either the
concept of anarchism or of participatory democracy is clear enough to be
able to answer the question whether they are the same.

RBR: One of the main achievements of the Spanish Revolution was the
degree of grassroots democracy established. In terms of people, it is
estimated that over 3 million were involved. Rural and urban production
was managed by workers themselves. Is it a coincidence to your mind that
anarchists, known for their advocacy of individual freedom, succeeded in
this area of collective administration?

CHOMSKY: No coincidence at all. The tendencies in anarchism that I've
always found most persuasive seek a highly organised society, integrating
many different kinds of structures (workplace, community, and manifold
other forms of voluntary association), but controlled by participants,
not by those in a position to give orders (except, again, when authority
can be justified, as is sometimes the case, in specific contingencies).

Democracy

RBR: Anarchists often expend a great deal of effort at building up
grassroots democracy. Indeed they are often accused of taking democracy
to extremes. Yet, despite this, many anarchists would not readily
identify democracy as a central component of anarchist philosophy.
Anarchists often describe their politics as being about 'socialism' or
being about 'the individual'- they are less likely to say that anarchism
is about democracy. Would you agree that democratic ideas are a central
feature of anarchism?

CHOMSKY: Criticism of 'democracy' among anarchists has often been
criticism of parliamentary democracy, as it has arisen within societies
with deeply repressive features. Take the US, which has been as free as
any, since its origins. American democracy was founded on the principle,
stressed by James Madison in the Constitutional Convention in 1787, that
the primary function of government is to protect the minority of the
opulent from the majority. Thus he warned that in England, the only
quasi-democratic model of the day, if the general population were allowed
a say in public affairs, they would implement agrarian reform or other
atrocities, and that the American system must be carefully crafted to
avoid such crimes against the rights of property, which must be defended
(in fact, must prevail). Parliamentary democracy within this framework
does merit sharp criticism by genuine libertarians, and I've left out
many other features that are hardly subtle -- slavery, to mention just
one, or the wage slavery that was bitterly condemned by working people
who had never heard of anarchism or communism right through the 19th
century, and beyond.

Leninism

RBR: The importance of grassroots democracy to any meaningful change in
society would seem to be self evident. Yet the left has been ambiguous
about this in the past. I'm speaking generally, of social democracy, but
also of Bolshevism -- traditions on the left that would seem to have more
in common with elitist thinking than with strict democratic practice.
Lenin, to use a well-known example, was sceptical that workers could
develop anything more than trade union consciousness- by which, I assume,
he meant that workers could not see far beyond their immediate
predicament. Similarly, the Fabian socialist, Beatrice Webb, who was very
influential in the Labour Party in England, had the view that workers
were only interested in horse racing odds! Where does this elitism
originate and what is it doing on the left?

CHOMSKY: I'm afraid it's hard for me to answer this. If the left is
understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself
from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism, in my
opinion, for reasons I've discussed. The idea that workers are only
interested in horse-racing is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a
superficial look at labour history or the lively and independent working
class press that flourished in many places, including the manufacturing
towns of New England not many miles from where I'm writing -- not to
speak of the inspiring record of the courageous struggles of persecuted
and oppressed people throughout history, until this very moment. Take the
most miserable corner of this hemisphere, Haiti, regarded by the European
conquerors as a paradise and the source of no small part of Europe's
wealth, now devastated, perhaps beyond recovery. In the past few years,
under conditions so miserable that few people in the rich countries can
imagine them, peasants and slum-dwellers constructed a popular democratic
movement based on grassroots organisations that surpasses just about
anything I know of elsewhere; only deeply committed commissars could fail
to collapse with ridicule when they hear the solemn pronouncements of
American intellectuals and political leaders about how the US has to
teach Haitians the lessons of democracy. Their achievements were so
substantial and frightening to the powerful that they had to be subjected
to yet another dose of vicious terror, with considerably more US support
than is publicly acknowledged, and they still have not surrendered. Are
they interested only in horse-racing?

I'd suggest some lines I've occasionally quoted from Rousseau: when I see
multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn European voluptuousness and
endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve only their
independence, I feel that it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom.

RBR: Speaking generally again, your own work -- Deterring Democracy,
Necessary Illusions, etc. -- has dealt consistently with the role and
prevalence of elitist ideas in societies such as our own. You have argued
that within 'Western' (or parliamentary) democracy there is a deep
antagonism to any real role or input from the mass of people, lest it
threaten the uneven distribution in wealth which favours the rich. Your
work is quite convincing here, but, this aside, some have been shocked by
your assertions. For instance, you compare the politics of President John
F. Kennedy with Lenin, more or less equating the two. This, I might add,
has shocked supporters of both camps! Can you elaborate a little on the
validity of the comparison?

CHOMSKY: I haven't actually equated the doctrines of the liberal
intellectuals of the Kennedy administration with Leninists, but I have
noted striking points of similarity -- rather as predicted by Bakunin a
century earlier in his perceptive commentary on the new class. For
example, I quoted passages from McNamara on the need to enhance
managerial control if we are to be truly free, and about how the
undermanagement that is the real threat to democracy is an assault
against reason itself. Change a few words in these passages, and we have
standard Leninist doctrine. I've argued that the roots are rather deep,
in both cases. Without further clarification about what people find
shocking, I can't comment further. The comparisons are specific, and I
think both proper and properly qualified. If not, that's an error, and
I'd be interested to be enlightened about it.


[SNIP]

More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and the
population is very much open to them. Despite a huge mass of corporate
propaganda, outside of educated circles, people still maintain pretty
much their traditional attitudes. In the US, for example, more than 80%
of the population regard the economic system as inherently unfair and the
political system as a fraud, which serves the special interests, not the
people. Overwhelming majorities think working people have too little
voice in public affairs (the same is true in England), that the
government has the responsibility of assisting people in need, that
spending for education and health should take precedence over
budget-cutting and tax cuts, that the current Republican proposals that
are sailing through Congress benefit the rich and harm the general
population, and so on. Intellectuals may tell a different story, but it's
not all that difficult to find out the facts.