[Peace-discuss] Libertarian socialism

[Morton K. Brussel]

He appears to equate Stalin (unmentioned) with Lenin, whom I think  
differ in many respects.
  --mkb

On Dec 15, 2008, at 4:39 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> I think "slippery" may the last thing Chomsky ever is, unless you  
> mean that he
> doesn't say what he doesn't know, an admirable trait.
>
> And he explains himself.  What do you mean by "(Stalinist?)"  --CGE
>
>
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> 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