> On Sat, 12 Jun 1999, Carkner wrote:
>
> > Uh, I always though noam chomsky was an anarchist.
> > This person thinks he isn't...but I'm still on noam's side.
> > http://elaine.teleport.com/~jaheriot/whochoms.htm
> > He has made me understand so many things, I can't blame
> > him for not showing me more.
>
> If you read his writing, he is clearly not an anarchist.  You could
> reasonably say he is "associated with anarchism," or that he "likes
> anarchist ideals."  But he has said he is not sure if government should
> be eliminated altogether, which means he is not sure if he is an
> anarchist.  As Emma Goldman put it, anarchism is a theory that states all
> forms of government are wrong and harmful.
>
> If you are not sure of government, you cannot call yourself an
> anarchist--indeed you cannot call yourself much of anything until you make
> up your mind.

I don't buy this. I believe that Chomsky is an anarchist, but he is also a
practical thinker and activist. The fact that someone recognises that they
must work in association with the system, because there actually is no
alternative to this if one wishes to achieve anything beyond the smugness of
a fanatical adherence to 'principle', need not disqualify them as opponents
of the system. Chomsky's practical activism, like that of many others, is
anarchistic because of the beliefs that inform it. The compromises that seem
to contradict anarchist principles may just as readily be seen in the light
of fulfilling the needs of a strategy that bears a 'best' chance of success
against massive odds. The past masters of anarchism were all highly
principled, as many anarchists of today surely are, but despite this
admirable commitment we live in a world that is yet further removed from the
promise of revolution. Means are important, and I admire Chomsky because
he's not so foolish as to allow a slavish adherence to ideological purity to
stand in the way where a practical advance can be made.