Noam Chomsky on Anarchism
An Interview By Tom Lane
December 23, 1996
Introduction
Though Chomsky has written a considerable amount about anarchism in the
past three decades, people often ask him for a more tangible, detailed
vision of social change. His political analysis never fails to instill
outrage and anger with the way the world works, but many readers are left
uncertain about what exactly Chomsky would do to change it. Perhaps because
they regard his analytical work with such respect, they anticipate he will
lay out his goals and strategy with similar precision and clarity, only to
be disappointed with his generalized statements of libertarian socialist
values. Or perhaps many look to a great intellectual to provide a "master
plan" for them to follow step-by-step into a bright shining future.
Yet Chomsky shys away from such pronouncements. He cautions that it is
difficult to predict what particular forms a more just social organization
will take, or even to know for sure what alternatives to the current system
are ideal. Only experience can show us the best answers to these questions,
he says. What should guide us along the way are a general set of principles
which will underly whatever specific forms our future society will take.
For Chomsky, those principles arise from the historical trend of thought and
action known as anarchism.
Chomsky warns that little can be said about anarchism on a very general
level. "I haven't tried to write anything systematic about these topics, nor
do I know of anything by others that I could recommend," he wrote to me in
reply to a set of questions on the subject. He's written here and there
about it, notably in the recent Powers and
Prospects, but there just isn't a lot to say in general terms.
"The interest lies in the applications," he thinks, "but these are specific
to time and place.
"In Latin America," Chomsky says, "I talked about many of these topics,
and far more important, learned about them from people who are actually
doing things, a good deal of which had an anarchist flavor. Also had a
chance to meet with lively and interesting groups of anarchists, from Buenos
Aires to Belem at the mouth of the Amazon (the latter I didn't know about at
all -- amazing where our friends show up). But the discussions were much
more focused and specific than I often see here; and rightly, I think."
As such, Chomsky's responses to these questions are general and terse.
However, as a brief introduction to some of his thoughts on anarchism,
perhaps they may inspire the reader to pursue other writings on the subject, and more importantly, to
develop the concept of anarchism through the process of working for
a more free and democratic society.
Answers from Chomsky to eight
questions on anarchism
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.
1. What are the intellectual roots of anarchist thought, and what movements have developed and animated it throughout history?
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.
2. 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?
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.
3. 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"?
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.
4. Anarchism is sometimes called libertarian socialism -- How does it differ from other ideologies that are often associated with socialism, such as Leninism?
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.
5. 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?
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.
6. 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?
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.
7. 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?
I wouldn't dream of trying to do this. These are matters
about which we have to learn, by struggle and experiment.
8. What are the prospects for realizing anarchism in our society? What steps should we take?
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
In another letter, Chomsky offered this expansion on his thoughts
regarding a future society:
About a future society, I...may be repeating, but it's something I've
been concerned with every since I was a kid. I recall, about 1940, reading
Diego Abad de Santillan's interesting book After the
Revolution, criticizing his anarchist comrades and sketching in some
detail how an anarchosyndicalist Spain would work (these are 50 year old
memories, so don't take it too literally). My feeling then was that it
looked good, but do we understand enough to answer questions about a society
in such detail? Over the years, naturally I've learned more, but it has only
deepened my skepticism about whether we understand enough. In recent years,
I've discussed this a good deal with Mike Albert, who has been encouraging
me to spell out in detail how I think society should work, or at least react
to his "participatory democracy" conception. I've backed off, in both cases,
for the same reasons. It seems to me that answers to most such questions
have to be learned by experiment. Take markets (to the extent that they
could function in any viable society -- limited, if the historical record is
any guide, not to speak of logic). I understand well enough what's wrong
with them, but that's not sufficient to demonstrate that a system that
eliminates market operations is preferable; simply a point of logic, and I
don't think we know the answer. Same with everything else.
Source:
More info about anarchism...
