Chomsky Anarchism & Marxism.pdf

Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Marxism & Hope for the Future

The following are excerpts of an interview with Noam Chomsky published in Issue 2 of Red & Black

Revolution. RBR can be contacted at Red & Black Revolution, PO Box 1528, Dublin 8, Ireland. The

interview was conducted in May 1995 by Kevin Doyle.

RBR: First off, Noam, for quite a time now you've been an advocate for the anarchist idea. Many

people are familiar with the introduction you wrote in 1970 to Daniel Guerin's Anarchism, but more

recently, for instance in the film Manufacturing Consent, you took the opportunity to highlight

again the potential of anarchism and the anarchist idea. What is it that attracts you to anarchism?

CHOMSKY: I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about

the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes

since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and

domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be

given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That

includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and

children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the

environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge

institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most

of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have

always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be

placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the

burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I

will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged,

but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we

understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a

source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a

long way.

Beyond such generalities, we begin to look at cases, which is where the questions of human interest

and concern arise.

RBR: It's true to say that your ideas and critique are now more widely known than ever before. It

should also be said that your views are widely respected. How do you think your support for

anarchism is received in this context? In particular, I'm interested in the response you receive from

people who are getting interested in politics for the first time and who may, perhaps, have come

across your views. Are such people surprised by your support for anarchism? Are they interested?

CHOMSKY: The general intellectual culture, as you know, associates 'anarchism' with chaos,

violence, bombs, disruption, and so on. So people are often surprised when I speak positively of

anarchism and identify myself with leading traditions within it. But my impression is that among the

general public, the basic ideas seem reasonable when the clouds are cleared away. Of course, when

we turn to specific matters - say, the nature of families, or how an economy would work in a society

that is more free and just - questions and controversy arise. But that is as it should be. Physics can't

really explain how water flows from the tap in your sink. When we turn to vastly more complex

questions of human significance, understanding is very thin, and there is plenty of room for

disagreement, experimentation, both intellectual and real-life exploration of possibilities, to help us

learn more.

RBR: Perhaps, more than any other idea, anarchism has suffered from the problem of

misrepresentation. Anarchism can mean many things to many people. Do you often find yourself

having to explain what it is that you mean by anarchism? Does the misrepresentation of anarchism

bother you?

CHOMSKY: All misrepresentation is a nuisance. Much of it can be traced back to structures of

power that have an interest in preventing understanding, for pretty obvious reasons. It's well to

recall David Hume's Principles of Government. He expressed surprise that people ever submitted to

their rulers. He concluded that since "Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors

have nothing to support them but opinion. 'Tis therefore, on opinion only that government is

founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to

the most free and most popular." Hume was very astute - and incidentally, hardly a libertarian by

the standards of the day. He surely underestimates the efficacy of force, but his observation seems

to me basically correct, and important, particularly in the more free societies, where the art of

controlling opinion is therefore far more refined. Misrepresentation and other forms of

befuddlement are a natural concomitant.

So does misrepresentation bother me? Sure, but so does rotten weather. It will exist as long as

concentrations of power engender a kind of commissar class to defend them. Since they are usually

not very bright, or are bright enough to know that they'd better avoid the arena of fact and argument,

they'll turn to misrepresentation, vilification, and other devices that are available to those who know

that they'll be protected by the various means available to the powerful. We should understand why

all this occurs, and unravel it as best we can. That's part of the project of liberation - of ourselves

and others, or more reasonably, of people working together to achieve these aims.

Sounds simple-minded, and it is. But I have yet to find much commentary on human life and society

that is not simple-minded, when absurdity and self-serving posturing are cleared away. [...]

The Spanish Revolution

RBR: In the past, when you have spoken about anarchism, you have often emphasised the example

of the Spanish Revolution. For you there would seem to be two aspects to this example. On the one

hand, the experience of the Spanish Revolution is, you say, a good example of 'anarchism in action'.

On the other, you have also stressed that the Spanish revolution is a good example of what workers

can achieve through their own efforts using participatory democracy. Are these two aspects -

anarchism in action and participatory democracy - one and the same thing for you? Is anarchism a

philosophy for people's power?

CHOMSKY: I'm reluctant to use fancy polysyllables like "philosophy" to refer to what seems

ordinary common sense. And I'm also uncomfortable with slogans. The achievements of Spanish

workers and peasants, before the revolution was crushed, were impressive in many ways. The term

'participatory democracy' is a more recent one, which developed in a different context, but there

surely are points of similarity. I'm sorry if this seems evasive. It is, but that's because I don't think

either the concept of anarchism or of participatory democracy is clear enough to be able to answer

the question whether they are the same.

RBR: One of the main achievements of the Spanish Revolution was the degree of grassroots

democracy established. In terms of people, it is estimated that over 3 million were involved. Rural

and urban production was managed by workers themselves. Is it a coincidence to your mind that

anarchists, known for their advocacy of individual freedom, succeeded in this area of collective

administration?

CHOMSKY: No coincidence at all. The tendencies in anarchism that I've always found most

persuasive seek a highly organised society, integrating many different kinds of structures

(workplace, community, and manifold other forms of voluntary association), but controlled by

participants, not by those in a position to give orders (except, again, when authority can be justified,

as is sometimes the case, in specific contingencies).

Democracy

RBR: Anarchists often expend a great deal of effort at building up grassroots democracy. Indeed

they are often accused of "taking democracy to extremes". Yet, despite this, many anarchists would

not readily identify democracy as a central component of anarchist philosophy. Anarchists often

describe their politics as being about 'socialism' or being about 'the individual'- they are less likely

to say that anarchism is about democracy. Would you agree that democratic ideas are a central

feature of anarchism?

CHOMSKY: Criticism of 'democracy' among anarchists has often been criticism of parliamentary

democracy, as it has arisen within societies with deeply repressive features. Take the US, which has

been as free as any, since its origins. American democracy was founded on the principle, stressed by

James Madison in the Constitutional Convention in 1787, that the primary function of government

is "to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority." Thus he warned that in England, the

only quasi-democratic model of the day, if the general population were allowed a say in public

affairs, they would implement agrarian reform or other atrocities, and that the American system

must be carefully crafted to avoid such crimes against "the rights of property," which must be

defended (in fact, must prevail). Parliamentary democracy within this framework does merit sharp

criticism by genuine libertarians, and I've left out many other features that are hardly subtle -

slavery, to mention just one, or the wage slavery that was bitterly condemned by working people

who had never heard of anarchism or communism right through the 19th century, and beyond.

Leninism

RBR: The importance of grassroots democracy to any meaningful change in society would seem to

be self evident. Yet the left has been ambiguous about this in the past. I'm speaking generally, of

social democracy, but also of Bolshevism - traditions on the left that would seem to have more in

common with elitist thinking than with strict democratic practice. Lenin, to use a well-known

example, was sceptical that workers could develop anything more than "trade union consciousness"-

by which, I assume, he meant that workers could not see far beyond their immediate predicament.

Similarly, the Fabian socialist, Beatrice Webb, who was very influential in the Labour Party in

England, had the view that workers were only interested in "horse racing odds"! Where does this

elitism originate and what is it doing on the left?

CHOMSKY: I'm afraid it's hard for me to answer this. If the left is understood to include

'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest

enemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed. The idea that workers are only

interested in horse-racing is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial look at labour

history or the lively and independent working class press that flourished in many places, including

the manufacturing towns of New England not many miles from where I'm writing - not to speak of

the inspiring record of the courageous struggles of persecuted and oppressed people throughout

history, until this very moment. Take the most miserable corner of this hemisphere, Haiti, regarded

by the European conquerors as a paradise and the source of no small part of Europe's wealth, now

devastated, perhaps beyond recovery. In the past few years, under conditions so miserable that few

people in the rich countries can imagine them, peasants and slum-dwellers constructed a popular

democratic movement based on grassroots organisations that surpasses just about anything I know

of elsewhere; only deeply committed commissars could fail to collapse with ridicule when they hear

the solemn pronouncements of American intellectuals and political leaders about how the US has to

teach Haitians the lessons of democracy. Their achievements were so substantial and frightening to

the powerful that they had to be subjected to yet another dose of vicious terror, with considerably

more US support than is publicly acknowledged, and they still have not surrendered. Are they

interested only in horse-racing?

I'd suggest some lines I've occasionally quoted from Rousseau: "when I see multitudes of entirely

naked savages scorn European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to

preserve only their independence, I feel that it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom."

RBR: Speaking generally again, your own work - Deterring Democracy, Necessary Illusions, etc. -

has dealt consistently with the role and prevalence of elitist ideas in societies such as our own. You

have argued that within 'Western' (or parliamentary) democracy there is a deep antagonism to any

real role or input from the mass of people, lest it threaten the uneven distribution in wealth which

favours the rich. Your work is quite convincing here, but, this aside, some have been shocked by

your assertions. For instance, you compare the politics of President John F. Kennedy with Lenin,

more or less equating the two. This, I might add, has shocked supporters of both camps! Can you

elaborate a little on the validity of the comparison?

CHOMSKY: I haven't actually "equated" the doctrines of the liberal intellectuals of the Kennedy

administration with Leninists, but I have noted striking points of similarity - rather as predicted by

Bakunin a century earlier in his perceptive commentary on the "new class." For example, I quoted

passages from McNamara on the need to enhance managerial control if we are to be truly "free,"

and about how the "undermanagement" that is "the real threat to democracy" is an assault against

reason itself. Change a few words in these passages, and we have standard Leninist doctrine. I've

argued that the roots are rather deep, in both cases. Without further clarification about what people

find "shocking," I can't comment further. The comparisons are specific, and I think both proper and

properly qualified. If not, that's an error, and I'd be interested to be enlightened about it.

Marxism

RBR: Specifically, Leninism refers to a form of marxism that developed with V.I. Lenin. Are you

implicitly distinguishing the works of Marx from the particular criticism you have of Lenin when

you use the term 'Leninism'? Do you see a continuity between Marx's views and Lenin's later

practices?

CHOMSKY: Bakunin's warnings about the "Red bureaucracy" that would institute "the worst of all

despotic governments" were long before Lenin, and were directed against the followers of Mr.

Marx. There were, in fact, followers of many different kinds; Pannekoek, Luxembourg, Mattick and

others are very far from Lenin, and their views often converge with elements of anarcho-

syndicalism. Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in Spain, in fact.

There are continuities from Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities to Marxists who were

harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism. Teodor Shanin's work in the past years on Marx's later

attitudes towards peasant revolution is also relevant here. I'm far from being a Marx scholar, and

wouldn't venture any serious judgement on which of these continuities reflects the 'real Marx,' if

there even can be an answer to that question. [...]

RBR: From my understanding, the core part of your overall view is informed by your concept of

human nature. In the past the idea of human nature was seen, perhaps, as something regressive, even

limiting. For instance, the unchanging aspect of human nature is often used as an argument for why

things can't be changed fundamentally in the direction of anarchism. You take a different view?

Why?

CHOMSKY: The core part of anyone's point of view is some concept of human nature, however it

may be remote from awareness or lack articulation. At least, that is true of people who consider

themselves moral agents, not monsters. Monsters aside, whether a person who advocates reform or

revolution, or stability or return to earlier stages, or simply cultivating one's own garden, takes stand

on the grounds that it is 'good for people.' But that judgement is based on some conception of

human nature, which a reasonable person will try to make as clear as possible, if only so that it can

be evaluated. So in this respect I'm no different from anyone else.

You're right that human nature has been seen as something 'regressive,' but that must be the result of

profound confusion. Is my granddaughter no different from a rock, a salamander, a chicken, a

monkey? A person who dismisses this absurdity as absurd recognises that there is a distinctive

human nature. We are left only with the question of what it is - a highly nontrivial and fascinating

question, with enormous scientific interest and human significance. We know a fair amount about

certain aspects of it - not those of major human significance. Beyond that, we are left with our hopes

and wishes, intuitions and speculations.

There is nothing "regressive" about the fact that a human embryo is so constrained that it does not

grow wings, or that its visual system cannot function in the manner of an insect, or that it lacks the

homing instinct of pigeons. The same factors that constrain the organism's development also enable

it to attain a rich, complex, and highly articulated structure, similar in fundamental ways to

conspecifics, with rich and remarkable capacities. An organism that lacked such determinative

intrinsic structure, which of course radically limits the paths of development, would be some kind of

amoeboid creature, to be pitied (even if it could survive somehow). The scope and limits of

development are logically related.

Take language, one of the few distinctive human capacities about which much is known. We have

very strong reasons to believe that all possible human languages are very similar; a Martian scientist

observing humans might conclude that there is just a single language, with minor variants. The

reason is that the particular aspect of human nature that underlies the growth of language allows

very restricted options. Is this limiting? Of course. Is it liberating? Also of course. It is these very

restrictions that make it possible for a rich and intricate system of expression of thought to develop

in similar ways on the basis of very rudimentary, scattered, and varied experience.

What about the matter of biologically-determined human differences? That these exist is surely true,

and a cause for joy, not fear or regret. Life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane

person will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share. That should be elementary.

What is commonly believed about these matters is strange indeed, in my opinion.

Is human nature, whatever it is, conducive to the development of anarchist forms of life or a barrier

to them? We do not know enough to answer, one way or the other. These are matters for

experimentation and discovery, not empty pronouncements.

The future

RBR: To begin finishing off, I'd like to ask you briefly about some current issues on the left. I don't

know if the situation is similar in the USA but here, with the fall of the Soviet Union, a certain

demoralisation has set in on the left. It isn't so much that people were dear supporters of what

existed in the Soviet Union, but rather it's a general feeling that with the demise of the Soviet Union

the idea of socialism has also been dragged down. Have you come across this type of

demoralisation? What's your response to it?

CHOMSKY: My response to the end of Soviet tyranny was similar to my reaction to the defeat of

Hitler and Mussolini. In all cases, it is a victory for the human spirit. It should have been

particularly welcome to socialists, since a great enemy of socialism had at last collapsed. Like you, I

was intrigued to see how people - including people who had considered themselves anti-Stalinist

and anti-Leninist - were demoralised by the collapse of the tyranny. What it reveals is that they were

more deeply committed to Leninism than they believed.

There are, however, other reasons to be concerned about the elimination of this brutal and tyrannical

system, which was as much "socialist" as it was "democratic" (recall that it claimed to be both, and

that the latter claim was ridiculed in the West, while the former was eagerly accepted, as a weapon

against socialism - one of the many examples of the service of Western intellectuals to power). One

reason has to do with the nature of the Cold War. In my view, it was in significant measure a special

case of the 'North-South conflict,' to use the current euphemism for Europe's conquest of much of

the world. Eastern Europe had been the original 'third world,' and the Cold War from 1917 had no

slight resemblance to the reaction of attempts by other parts of the third world to pursue an

independent course, though in this case differences of scale gave the conflict a life of its own. For

this reason, it was only reasonable to expect the region to return pretty much to its earlier status:

parts of the West, like the Czech Republic or Western Poland, could be expected to rejoin it, while

others revert to the traditional service role, the ex-Nomenklatura becoming the standard third world

elite (with the approval of Western state-corporate power, which generally prefers them to

alternatives). That was not a pretty prospect, and it has led to immense suffering.

Another reason for concern has to do with the matter of deterrence and non-alignment. Grotesque as

the Soviet empire was, its very existence offered a certain space for non-alignment, and for perfectly

cynical reasons, it sometimes provided assistance to victims of Western attack. Those options are

gone, and the South is suffering the consequences.

A third reason has to do with what the business press calls "the pampered Western workers" with

their "luxurious lifestyles." With much of Eastern Europe returning to the fold, owners and

managers have powerful new weapons against the working classes and the poor at home. GM and

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: