On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, B Sandford wrote:

[snipped: a discussion of whether Chomsky is an anarchist]

> 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.

You are missing my point, but perhaps I was not clear enough.

I do not criticize Chomsky for being practical, or even for trying to work
within the system.  That is not my point.

My criticism rests on his hope for a future society.  He thinks
the government should have more power now, as long as "private tyrannies"
exist, and that it should eventually be decentralized and _possibly_
dismantled.

In other words, if society were to change in the way he hopes, he is not
sure whether it would retain a government.  This is a very strange thing
for an anarchist to say, because anarchists oppose any and all forms of
government.  If we could have our way, there would be no government.  It
may be expedient to compromise today, to work within the system, but
eventually we want to eliminate government, because we see all forms of
government as harmful.

Yet Chomsky says he isn't sure about government.  He is sure, though, that
the state needs more power now, to combat private tyrannies.  That idea is
abhorrent to me, an individualist anarchist, and it is also rejected by
collectivist anarchists I know.

In fact, Chomsky's notion that the state needs a lot of power now, but
might eventually be eliminated, sounds like it is taken right out of the
Communist Manifesto.