[Peace-discuss] Libertarian socialism

[Morton K. Brussel]

Chomsky comes across to me in this interview as a "utopian  
pragmatist". He's distressingly careful to avoid answering specific  
questions, digressing into general reponses. He expresses humility in  
saying we cannot know or predict how certain programs/systems would  
play out but very assertive otherwise. An enlightenment influenced- 
anarchist-semiMarxist (anti-Capitalist)-antiLeninist (Stalinist?) who  
says that the specific situation should govern what should be done.

He's rather slippery in this interview, although always interesting  
and even instructive. He's best as a counter-puncher, not as a  
formulator.
--mkb


On Dec 12, 2008, at 10:40 PM, 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