[Peace-discuss] Libertarian socialism

[C. G. Estabrook]

	"I think that the libertarian socialist concepts, and by that I mean a range of 
thinking that extends from left-wing Marxism through anarchism, I think that 
these are fundamentally correct and that they are the proper and natural 
extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society. 
In contrast, it seems to me that the ideology of state socialism, that is, what 
has become of Bolshevism, and of state capitalism, the modern welfare state, 
these of course are dominant in the industrial countries, in the industrial 
societies, but I believe that they are regressive and highly inadequate social 
theories, and that a large number of our really fundamental problems stem from a 
kind of incompatibility and inappropriateness of these social forms to a modern 
industrial society."  --Noam Chomsky, 1970

[I've been a devotee of Noam Chomsky's thought since I heard him lecture in my 
youth.  The lecture I heard ("Government in the Future") has recently been 
republished (& see <www.pentaside.org/article/chomsky-govt-in-the-future.html>). 
  I still think that it's the single best piece of political writing I've read. 
Here are some more recent answers from Chomsky to questions on libertarian 
socialism/anarchism.  --CGE]


CHOMSKY. 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.

Q. What are the intellectual roots of anarchist thought, and what movements have
developed and animated it throughout history?

CHOMSKY. 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.

Q. 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?

CHOMSKY. 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.

Q. 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"?

CHOMSKY. 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.

Q. Anarchism is sometimes called libertarian socialism -- How does it differ
from other ideologies that are often associated with socialism, such as Leninism?

CHOMSKY. 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.

Q. 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?

CHOMSKY. 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.

Q. 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?

CHOMSKY. 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.

Q. 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?

CHOMSKY. I wouldn't dream of trying to do this. These are matters about which we
have to learn, by struggle and experiment.

Q. What are the prospects for realizing anarchism in our society? What steps
should we take?

CHOMSKY. 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.

Noam