Chomsky's answers to eight questions about anarchism

                                                                                       
Chomsky's answers to eight questions about anarchism
The term "anarchism" is based on hope, that the essential elements of human nature include feelings of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern for others, and others.

Chomsky has written a considerable amount of ideas about anarchism in recent decades, people often ask for a more tangible and detailed vision of social change. In this interview conducted in 1996 by journalist Tom Lane for ZMag magazine, the renowned linguist reviews his anarchist thinking.

No one owns exclusively the term "anarchism." This is used for a wide range of different currents of thought and action, varying widely between them. There are many anarchists "in their own way" who insist, often with great passion, that theirs is the only true way, and that others do not deserve the term (and perhaps they are criminals of one kind or another). A look at contemporary anarchist literature, particularly in the West and within the "intellectual circles" (they may not like the term), will quickly show that a large part of it is a denunciation of others for their deviations, both as in the sectarian Marxist-Leninist literature. The proportion of this material with respect to construction work is depressingly high.

Personally, I have no assurance, in my own opinion, about a "right path," and I am not impressed by the sure pronouncements of others, including those of good friends. I think that considering yourself available and able to speak with confidence is to advance very little. We can try to formulate our long-term visions, our goals, our ideals; and we can (and should) dedicate ourselves to work on matters of human significance. But the gap between the two is quite considerable, and I hardly see any way to connect them except on a very general and vague level. This distinction of mine (perhaps flawed, perhaps not) will be discovered in the (very brief) answers I will ask your questions.
 

1. What are the intellectual roots of anarchist thinking, and what movements have developed and encouraged them 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 find traces, interestingly, within the scientific revolution of the 17th century, including aspects that are even considered reactionaries, such as Cartesian rationalism. There is literature on this point (from the historian of ideas, Harry Bracken, for example; I have written about this as well). I don't want to recapitulate here, I just want to say that I tend to agree with the important anarcho-syndicalist writer and activist Rudolf Rocker that the ideas of classical liberalism have fallen into the ruins of industrial capitalism, never to recover (I'm referring to Rocker in the 1930s; decades later, he thought differently). Ideas have been continually reinvented; in my opinion, because they reflect real human perceptions and needs. The Spanish Civil War is perhaps the most important example; although we must emphasize that the anarchist revolution that reached a good part of Spain in 1936, taking various forms, was not a sudden and spontaneous rise, but has been prepared through many decades of education, organization, struggles, defeats, and sometimes wins. It was very significant. Enough to arouse the anger of all the great systems of power: 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 "utopian, unstructured." You oppose that each stage in history has its own forms of authority and oppression, and that they must be challenged, and then no predetermined doctrine can be applied. In your opinion, what specific realization of anarchism is appropriate at this time?

I usually agree that anarchism is utopian and unstructured, although more severely than the insubstantial doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other ideologies that have appealed to [or have used] the absolute Power and its servants intellectuals over the years, for reasons that are very easy to explain. The reason for the general structure and the intellectual gap (often disguised in great words, but this is due to the particular interests of intellectuals) is that we do not know as much about complex systems as of human societies; and we only have intuitions of limited validity about how our societies could be rebuilt and shaped.

Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the "proof of validity" [N. del T .: burden of proof, something like Damocles' sword] must always fall on those who argue that domination and authority are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with real, solid and consistent arguments, that this conclusion is correct. If they cannot do it, then the institutions they defend must be considered illegitimate. How one should react to an illegitimate authority depends on the circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.

At this time, the topics of discussion cross a whole spectrum, as they commonly do: from personal relationships in the family and anywhere, even in the international political / economic order. And anarchist ideas - challenging authority and instigating that it should justify itself as such - are appropriate for all levels.

3. What kind of conception of human nature is what anarchism preaches? Will people be less incentive to work in a society with equal rights? Will an absence of government allow the strongest to dominate the weak? Will the democratic decision-making in excessive conflict result, leading to indecision and "oclocracy" (the rule of the crowd)?

As I understand the term "anarchism," it is based on the hope (in our state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that) that the essential elements of human nature include feelings of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern for others, and others.

Will people work less in a society with equal rights? Yes, as long as they are driven to work by the need for survival; or for a material reward, a kind of pathology, I think, of the kind that leads someone to get pleasure by torturing others. No, those who find reasonable the classical liberal doctrine that speaks of the impulse to engage in creative work is part of the essence and of human nature - something we constantly see, I think, from childhood to old age, when circumstances they count– (it will seem very suspicious on the part of these doctrines, which are highly servile to power and authority, but this seems to have no other motivations).

Will an absence of government allow the strongest to dominate the weak? We do not know. If so, then some forms of social organization will have to be built - there are many possibilities - to stop this crime.

What will be the consequences of direct and democratic decision making? The answer is an unknown. We will have to learn by trying. Let's try it and find out.

4. Anarchism is sometimes called libertarian socialism - how does it differ from other ideologies that are also associated with socialism, such as Leninism?

The Leninist doctrine argues that a vanguard Party must assume state power and lead the people to economic development, and, by some miracle that is not yet explained, to freedom and justice. It is an ideology that naturally appeals greatly to "radical intelligence," to whom it provides a justification for its role as a state administrator. I cannot find any reason - neither in logic nor in history - to take it seriously. Libertarian socialism (including a substantial part of Marxism) opposes this with the greatest contempt; and with all the reason.

5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" say that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and enter into free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism, from your point of view?

 Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, will lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that will have few points of comparison in human history. There is not the slightest possibility that these ideas (in my opinion, horrendous) are implemented, since they would quickly destroy any society that makes this colossal mistake. The idea of ​​"free contract" between the economically potentate and his starving subject is a cruel joke; It may merit some time in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of these ideas (in my opinion, absurd), but nowhere else.

I must add, however, that I find myself in many respects in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists; and for many years, I could write only in their newspapers. And I also admire their commitment to rationality - which is rare - although I don't think they see the consequences of the doctrines they defend, or their deep moral failures.

6. How do anarchist principles apply to education? Are grades, requirements and exams good things? What kind of (environment) environment is most conducive to free thinking and intellectual development?

What I feel, based in part on my personal experience in this case, is that a decent education should seek to provide a conductive thread through which a person will open their own paths; Teaching well is more a matter of providing water to a plant, to allow it to grow with its own power, than to fill a glass with that water (with almost all unnatural thoughts you can add, paraphrased from writings of Illuminism and classical liberalism) . These are general principles, which I think are generally valid. On how these will be applied in each particular circumstance, it must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, doubly with humility and recognition of how little we really understand.

7. Describe, if you can, how an ideal anarchist society would work day by day. What kind of economic and political institutions could exist, and how would they work? Would we have money? Would we buy in stores? Would we own our own homes? Would we have laws? How would we prevent crime?

I could not dream trying to do this. These are questions on which we have to learn, through struggle and experience.

8. What are the perspectives of realizing anarchism in our society? What steps should we take?

The prospects for freedom and justice are unlimited. The steps we should take depend on what we want to achieve, with which we try to end. There are not, and may not be, general responses. The question is wrong. I am remembering a good slogan of the rural workers movement in Brazil (from where I just returned): they said they should expand the cell floor, to the point where they can break the bars. Sometimes, it would even require defending the cage against other even worse predators that were outside: defense of illegitimate state power against private predatory tyranny in the United States today, for example, a point that should be obvious to anyone committed to freedom and justice - anyone, for example, who thinks that children should have food to eat - but that it seems difficult to conceive for many people who consider themselves as libertarian and anarchist. That is one of the self-destructive and irrational impulses of decent people who consider themselves as part of the left, in my opinion, separating themselves in the practice of lives and the legitimate aspirations of the people who suffer.

Well, that's how it seems to me. I am happy to discuss these points, and hear counter-arguments, but only in a context that allows us to go beyond shouting slogans - which, I fear, excludes a good part of what goes through the debate on the left, As much as I regret it.