[Peace-discuss] Libertarian socialism

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Not at all.  The following is excerpted from an interview with Chomsky in "New 
Left Review" I/57, September-October 1969.  --CGE]

Q: Do you not accept Leninism as the basis of the revolutionary theory you would 
like to see develop? Are you anti-Leninist as well as anti-Stalinist?

CHOMSKY: It would be a grotesque error to say that Stalin was simply the 
realization of Leninist principles or anything like that. Lenin himself insisted 
quite correctly, that in a backward country like Russia the revolution could not 
succeed unless there was an international revolution. There are different 
strands in Lenin’s theories. On the one hand, there is State and Revolution, 
which is basically fine, and on the other hand, there is the effective 
dismantling of the Soviets, there is Kronstadt and the suppression of the 
Workers’ Opposition, which was under Lenin’s aegis at least. We could go into 
the history of all this and we could criticize one thing and laud another. But I 
think there are really two competing tendencies. There is a model which stresses 
the leadership role of the vanguard party of committed intellectuals, which 
controls and determines the course of the movement. That is an aspect of the 
Leninist tradition which laid the groundwork for Stalin. Then, contrasted to 
this, there is a model which sees the revolutionary movement as based on 
voluntary mass associations which have control themselves and which are 
encouraged to exercise it, politicizing themselves in the process. This is a 
tendency associated more with Rosa Luxemburg and her criticisms of Lenin’s 
concept of the party, though, of course, we should not forget there is also the 
Lenin of the April Theses and of State and Revolution.

Q: Do you not think that the Leninist tradition should be held responsible for 
the Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions if it is going to be held responsible for 
Stalinism?

CHOMSKY: Frankly I think the Chinese overestimate their dependence on the 
Bolshevik model and they underestimate the populist element that exists in 
Maoism. Without this they might not have had the success they did in involving 
masses of people in a way which was not characteristic of the Russian revolution.

Q: Lenin stressed the need to involve the masses.

CHOMSKY: Yes, that is the side of Lenin which shows up in the April Theses and 
State and Revolution. But after the Bolsheviks took power, they followed a very 
different course...

[See also "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism," 
<http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm> --CGE]


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 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