The Chomsky Rule

[Kuppo Shakur]

Here is a selection from Noam Chomsky's introduction to Daniel Guerin's Anarchism:

...at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when the might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to - rather than alleviate - material and cultural deficit.This is an idea that is present in just about all of Chomsky's political writings, and has become a central part of my own ideology. However, I don't believe I have seen this idea put forth by any other political writers (Not that I've read everything, quite the contrary).

What does everyone here have to say about this? Do you disagree? Do you believe, as I do, that this idea needs to be emphasized more, in all revolutionary politics?
What other writers have had similar ideas?

[Widerstand]

That's funny, I just started reading that book today!

What he basically says is, as I interpret it, that there will never be a perfect status quo, that the revolution is not a one time event leading to a perfect society, but rather needs to be adjusted over and over.

I can quite agree with this.

Foucault brought something similar up in a debate with Chomsky, it's an argument for the "Chomsky Rule" (even though not phrased as one in the debate):

S0SaqrxgJvw

[RebelDog]

...at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when the might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to - rather than alleviate - material and cultural deficit.

I think it has some correlation with Marxism. Marx said something like capitalism developing to a stage whereapon it no longer has any use in developing the "productive forces" of society and becomes a 'fetter'. Marx also believed that the economic base gave rise to the superstructure of society which includes things like culture, so that is a similar idea. I believe both Chomsky and Marx are basically right here. Capitalism may no longer be capable of real growth and having any systematic capacity to address these problems. Anarchists and Marxists have a lot of similar ideas as to what is happening in economic terms and how the capitalists hegemony and their institutions are illegitimate, it is on how we change this when the scism appears.

[NGNM85]

I actually cited this earlier this morning. Yeah, it's essentially the most fundamental premise of Anarchism. It's also just an excellent first principle, it's almost impossible to go wrong following it as a guide.

[Stephen Colbert]

http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278738013&sr=8-1

Also, chomskys excerpt on politics in The Chomsky-Focault Debate, is very fascinating in regards to vietnam, student activism, etc.

[Blackscare]

Like RebelDog said, this really isn't a new idea.

Society goes through a series of stages based upon changing modes of production, and as one new age is ushered in the remnants of the old must be destroyed. The capitalist revolutions of the past sought to remove from society the tendencies that came with feudalism, and so will be the task of the next wave of socialist revolutions; to erase the relations and power structures that became prevalent in the era of capitalism, but are no longer relevant or progressive.