[Peace-discuss] Libertarian socialism

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Chomsky's thoughts and writing are certainly useful.
*
> 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....
>
> 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...
>
> [Anarchism is sometimes called libertarian socialism...]


*
And this from Chomsky describes our problem and our challenge well.
Chomsky perceives what is going on "behind the curtain"..."the game that 
the players seldom perceive".

...a corporate elite of managers and owners governs the economy and the 
political system as well, at least in a very large measure...This 
program, that both parties adopt more or less exactly...basically the 
interests of one or other element in the corporate elite... /Now this is 
obviously no conspiracy, I think it is simply implicit in the system of 
corporate capitalism. /

These people and the institutions they represent are in effect in power 
and their interests are the national interests. It is this interest that 
is served primarily and overwhelmingly by the overseas empire and the 
growing system of military state capitalism at home.

If we were to withdraw the consent of the governed, as I think we 
should, we are withdrawing our consent to have these men and the 
interests they represent; govern and manage American society and impose 
their concept of world order and their criteria for legitimate political 
and economic development in much of the world. Although an immense 
effort of propaganda and mystification is carried on to conceal these 
facts, nonetheless facts they remain.

We have today the technical and material resources to meet man's animal 
needs. We have not developed the cultural and moral resources or the 
democratic forms of social organization that make possible the humane 
and rational use of our material wealth and power. Conceivably, the 
classical liberal ideals, as expressed and developed in their 
libertarian socialist form, are achievable. But if so, only by a popular 
revolutionary movement, rooted in wide strata of the population, and 
committed to the elimination of repressive and authoritarian 
institutions, state and private. To create such a movement is a 
challenge we face and must meet if there is to be an escape from 
contemporary barbarism.


C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>     "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
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081213/6c9a77cc/attachment.html