Interview with Read and Black Revolution (1995)
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.
More at:
http://www.worldmedia.com/archive/interviews/9505-anarchism.html
|
