Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future
Noam Chomsky
[First published in Red & Black Revolution,
No.2, 1996; reposted from the All about Anarchism page]
Noam Chomsky is widely known for his critique
of U.S foreign policy, and for his work as a linguist. Less well
known is his ongoing support for libertarian socialist
objectives. In a special interview done for Red and Black
Revolution, Chomsky gives his views on anarchism and marxism,
and the prospects for socialism now. 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 areavailable
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.
RBR: How about in more established left-wing circles, where one might
expect to find greater familiarity with what anarchism actually stands
for? Do you encounter any surprise here at yourviews and support for
anarchism?
CHOMSKY: If I understand what you mean by established left-wing
circles, there is not toomuch surprise about my views on anarchism,
because very little is known about my views on anything. These are not
the circles I deal with. You'll rarely find a reference to anything I
say or write. That's not completely true of course. Thus in the US
(but less commonly in the UK or elsewhere), you'd find some
familiarity with what I do in certain of the more critical and
independent sectors of what might be called established left-wing
circles, and I have personal friends and associates scattered here and
there. But have a look at the books and journals, and you'll see what
I mean. I don't expect what I write and say to be any more welcome in
the secircles than in the faculty club or editorial board room --
again, with exceptions. The question arises only marginally, so much
so that it's hard to answer.
RBR: A number of people have noted that you use the term 'libertarian
socialist' in the same context as you use the word 'anarchism'. Do you
see these terms as essentially similar? Is anarchism a type of
socialism to you? The description has been used before that anarchism
is equivalent to socialism with freedom. Would you agree with this
basic equation?
CHOMSKY: The introduction to Guerin's book that you mentioned opens
with a quote from an anarchist sympathiser a century ago, who says
that anarchism has a broad back, and endures anything. One major
element has been what has traditionally been called 'libertarian
socialism'. I've tried to explain there and elsewhere what I mean by
that, stressing that it's hardly original; I'm taking the ideas from
leading figures in the anarchist movement whom I quote, and who rather
consistently describe themselves as socialists, while harshly
condemning the 'new class 'of radical intellectuals who seek to attain
state power in the course of popular struggle and to become the
vicious Red bureaucracy of which Bakunin warned; what's often called
'socialism'. Irather agree with Rudolf Rocker's perception that these
(quite central) tendencies in anarchism draw from the best of
Enlightenment and classical liberal thought, well beyond what he
described. In fact, as I've tried toshow they contrast sharply with
Marxist-Leninist doctrine and practice, the 'libertarian' doctrines
that are fashionable in the US and UK particularly, and other
contemporary ideologies, all of which seemto me to reduce to advocacy
of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real
tyranny. 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 workerscan achieve
through their own efforts using participatory democracy. Arethese 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. Theachievements of Spanishworkers and peasants, before
the revolution was crushed, were impressive inmany ways. The
term'participatory democracy' is a more recent one, which developed in
adifferent context, but theresurely are points of similarity. I'm
sorry if this seems evasive. It is, butthat's because I don't
thinkeither the concept of anarchism or of participatory democracy is
clearenough to be able to answerthe question whether they are the
same.
RBR: One of the main achievements of the Spanish Revolution was the
degreeof grassrootsdemocracy established. In terms of people, it is
estimated that over 3million were involved. Ruraland urban production
was managed by workers themselves. Is it a coincidenceto your mind
thatanarchists, known for their advocacy of individual freedom,
succeeded inthis area of collectiveadministration?
CHOMSKY: No coincidence at all. The tendencies in anarchism that I've
alwaysfound mostpersuasive seek a highly organised society,
integrating many different kindsof structures (workplace,community,
and manifold other forms of voluntary association), butcontrolled by
participants, not bythose in a position to give orders (except, again,
when authority can bejustified, as is sometimes thecase, in specific
contingencies). Democracy
RBR: Anarchists often expend a great deal of effort at building
upgrassroots democracy. Indeedthey are often accused of taking
democracy to extremes. Yet, despite this,many anarchists wouldnot
readily identify democracy as a central component of
anarchistphilosophy. Anarchists oftendescribe their politics as being
about 'socialism' or being about 'theindividual'- they are less likely
tosay that anarchism is about democracy. Would you agree that
democratic ideasare a central featureof anarchism?
CHOMSKY: Criticism of 'democracy' among anarchists has often been
criticismof parliamentarydemocracy, as it has arisen within societies
with deeply repressivefeatures. Take the US, which hasbeen as free as
any, since its origins. American democracy was founded onthe
principle, stressed byJames Madison in the Constitutional Convention
in 1787, that the primaryfunction of government isto protect the
minority of the opulent from the majority. Thus he warnedthat in
England, theonly quasi-democratic model of the day, if the general
population wereallowed a say in publicaffairs, they would implement
agrarian reform or other atrocities, and thatthe American system
mustbe carefully crafted to avoid such crimes against the rights of
property,which must be defended (infact, must prevail). Parliamentary
democracy within this framework doesmerit sharp criticism bygenuine
libertarians, and I've left out many other features that are
hardlysubtle -- slavery, to mentionjust one, or the wage slavery that
was bitterly condemned by working peoplewho had never heardof
anarchism or communism right through the 19th century, and beyond.
Leninism
RBR: The importance of grassroots democracy to any meaningful change
insociety would seem tobe self evident. Yet the left has been
ambiguous about this in the past. I'mspeaking generally, ofsocial
democracy, but also of Bolshevism -- traditions on the left thatwould
seem to have more incommon with elitist thinking than with strict
democratic practice. Lenin, touse a well-knownexample, was sceptical
that workers could develop anything more than tradeunion
consciousness-by which, I assume, he meant that workers could not see
far beyond theirimmediate predicament.Similarly, the Fabian socialist,
Beatrice Webb, who was very influential inthe Labour Party inEngland,
had the view that workers were only interested in horse racingodds!
Where does thiselitism originate and what is it doing on the left?
CHOMSKY: I'm afraid it's hard for me to answer this. If the left
isunderstood to include'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin wasone of the greatestenemies of
socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed. The ideathat
workers are onlyinterested in horse-racing is an absurdity that cannot
withstand even asuperficial look at labourhistory or the lively and
independent working class press that flourished inmany places,
including themanufacturing towns of New England not many miles from
where I'm writing --not to speak of theinspiring record of the
courageous struggles of persecuted and oppressedpeople 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
conditionsso 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
justabout anything I know of elsewhere; only deeply committed
commissars could fail to collapse with ridicule when they hearthe
solemn pronouncements of American intellectuals and political leaders
about how the US has toteach Haitians the lessons of democracy. Their
achievements were sosubstantial 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
seem ultitudes of entirelynaked savages scorn European voluptuousness
and endure hunger, fire, thesword, and deathto preserve only their
independence, I feel that it does not behoove slavesto reason
aboutfreedom.
RBR: Speaking generally again, your own work -- Deterring
Democracy,Necessary Illusions, etc.-- has dealt consistently with the
role and prevalence of elitist ideas insocieties such as our own.You
have argued that within 'Western' (or parliamentary) democracy there
isa deep antagonism toany real role or input from the mass of people,
lest it threaten the unevendistribution in wealth whichfavours the
rich. Your work is quite convincing here, but, this aside, somehave
been shocked byyour 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 ofboth camps! Can
youelaborate 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 under
management that is the real threat to democracy is anassault 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 beenlightened about it.
[SNIP]More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and
the population is very much open tothem. Despite a huge mass of
corporate propaganda, outside of educated circles, people still
maintain pretty much their traditional attitudes. In the US, for
example, more than 80% of the population regard the economic system as
inherently unfair and the political system as a fraud, which serves
the special interests, not the people. Overwhelming majorities think
working people have too little voice in public affairs (the same is
true in England), that the government has the responsibility of
assisting people in need, that spending for education and health
should take precedence over budget-cutting and tax cuts, that the
current Republicanproposals that are sailingthrough Congress benefit
the rich and harm the general population, and soon. Intellectuals may
tell adifferent story, but it's not all that difficult to find out the
facts.
|