Dr. Noam Chomsky on Anarchism

[Agent provocateur]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=41&ItemID=6805 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=6805)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Noam Chomsky
You should use whatever methods are available to you. There is no conflict between trying to overthrow the state and using the means that are provided in a partially democratic society, the means that have been developed through popular struggles over centuries. You should use them and try to go beyond, maybe destroy the institution. It is like the media. I am perfectly happy to write columns that are syndicated by the New York Times, which I do, and to write in Z Magazine. It is no contradiction. In fact, let's take a look at this place (MIT). It has been a very good place for me to work; I've been able to do things I want to do. I have been here for fifty years, and have never thought about leaving it. But there are things about it that are hopelessly illegitimate. For example, it is a core part of the military-linked industrial economy. So you work within it and try to change it.

That's "too easy".

He might as well say "I'll do whatever's convenient...or that someone will pay me to do."

It ignores the real content of what we do in favor of the words we use to describe what we think we're doing -- perhaps an occupational hazard for the world's most famous linguist.

You cannot convince people to rebel against capitalist "democracy" by acting as if it were legitimate.

You cannot convince people that the New York Times is a mouthpiece for capitalist despotism by writing for it.

And you cannot convince people that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology exists for the purpose of strengthening capitalism by teaching there.

If you think that oppressive and exploitative institutions can be "changed from within"...then you are a reformist in deeds no matter what label you paste on yourself.

If you really want such institutions destroyed, then you have to act like that from the beginning. You not only verbally attack their legitimacy but you also refuse to do anything that might be construed as conferring legitimacy on those rats' nests.

In my opinion, Chomsky's "anarchism" is just sentimental nostalgia.

Revolution is the last thing he wants to see.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[NoiseUnited]

Being anarchistic doesn't neccessarily mean for the overthrow of the current system. You could favor a gradual change of a system to and still be anarchistic. Therefore you could be a reformist anarchist. Just because he writes for articles for the New York Times makes his views are less valid? I would think the people that read that paper would need to hear those views the most. Besides, I think someone telling me to be weary of a certain function who is actually apart of that function only makes the warning more credible. I know it seems to you that he is actually helping that very function which he is condemning. But I think you'd agree the employees are only acting that way because the people that run it are ignorant of the facts. Therefore once the people are knowledgeable of the deeds of an organization, they can use there force to influence change. Change with out destruction, please go back and read the first paragraph from Mr. Chomsky's interview. If you think reformist methods are futile, that is another arguement completely.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:33 AM
Being anarchistic doesn't neccessarily mean for the overthrow of the current system.
You're quite right, it doesn't thanks to the distortions and justifications made by individualists and pseudo anarchist intellectuals.


You could favor a gradual change of a system to and still be anarchistic.

The theory of anarchism developed as a class struggle theory. Any variation on that is a distortion. Regardless on how dogmatic you think that statement is.

"[anarchism]...it means a lot of different things to different people."

He's right. To the bourgeoisie it means chaos and destruction, to the individualist it means trendy bourgeois apologist and to the pseudo social anarchists it means participation and co-operation with the very thing we are trying to destroy.

Are any of them right? Of course not!


Therefore you could be a reformist anarchist.

No better than reformists in general.


Just because he writes for articles for the New York Times makes his views are less valid?

What makes his views less valid is calling for support of John Kerry.


I know it seems to you that he is actually helping that very function which he is condemning.

It doesn't "seem" that way, it is that way.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NoiseUnited
But I think you'd agree the employees are only acting that way because the people that run it are ignorant of the facts.--emphasis added.

This is an old myth that goes back at least to the early 19th century social reformers.

The general idea is that the "people who run things" are "ignorant" of the consequences of their (poor) decisions. If they only "knew" how badly they were "screwing up", then they'd make different decisions and the world would be "a better place for all".

This is so far "off the mark" that it's ludicrous!

The ruling class is fully aware of the consequences of their decisions as far as the negative impact on most of their hapless subjects is concerned.

And they don't give a rat's ass! At least not until discontent approaches the boiling point...when they may feel compelled to "ease off a bit" and "let things cool down".

They don't "need" Chomsky to tell them that imperialist wars have devastating effects on the people of the "third world"...they know that. Now if Chomsky were to mail a free copy of one of his books to every mailing address in Harlem, that would be a different matter. But he's not going to do that, is he?

That would be costly...and even dangerous.

It would be "irresponsible" to give ordinary people the information that he's willing to convey to the ruling class and the academic "community". It might "cause trouble".

The last thing Chomsky wants is "trouble".

Instead, he presumably thinks that the upper classes who read the New York Times will realize that they've been unintentionally cruel and will reform themselves and behave better.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[NoiseUnited]

I'm not here to debate what methods are the most effective to the anarchistic cause. It is my current stance, and if you'd like to inform me why it is a futile mission I would more than welcome any information/ideals sent to my Che-Lives forum mailbox or otherwise directed toward me. It was not my intent to have the ruling class meant as the subject of the ignorant. I am fairly certain they procure the New York Times, but not exclusively and I'll bet are not the majority. Regardless, there are those who read the New York Times and do not make up the elite class. When I said people who ran the organizations, what I meant is the people who make the organizations run. It is my opinion that many of the employees of whatever organization that is enacting deplorable methods are simply ignorant of those actions. I do agree that his message is not aimed at the lower classes of people, but they are not alone in their ignorance. I hope my view is better repressented this time and that information given back to me is virtuous.

[redstar2000]

I'm afraid I'm losing track of what you're trying to say, NoiseUnited.

You posted a link to an interview with Chomsky about his "anarchism".

I replied to what I regarded as the key point in the interview...exposing what I consider the fakery at the roots of Chomsky's "perspective".

Then...well, then we disappear into the murk.

You seemed to suggest that upper class readers of the New York Times are unaware of the effects of imperialism and need to be informed by Chomsky so they'll "behave better".

Or perhaps you meant the publishers and editors of the Times are ignorant and need to read Chomsky. That makes no more sense than my initial interpretation of your remarks.

Then you say "employees"? You mean the file clerks and mailroom clerks who work at the Times? The guys who run the presses? After a day's work and a Manhattan commute, I don't think those folks have the energy to read any newspaper. They probably get their news from radio or television...or maybe the internet.

The demographics of the Times readership is very upscale...you can tell just by looking at the ads. Need to rent a villa in southern France or northern Italy? Or a castle in Scotland? You won't find those kinds of ads in the Daily News or the Post.

So, as I said, I don't understand what you're trying to say. If your view is that Chomsky has something worthwhile to say about anarchism, then not only do I think you're mistaken...but so do most real anarchists.

Chomsky has done very respectable and scholarly work on the details of U.S. imperialism. But in terms of resistance to imperialism within the United States...he has nothing useful to say.

I mean zero!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[NoiseUnited]

I'm puzzled by your assumption that only the upper class reads New York Times. But yes I do think alot of upper class citizens are ignorant of the way the world works. When I say upper class, I don't not mean the top 1% but the echelon below that. Of course there are much more readers than that of the New York Times. My point of employees was more directed towards the people who work for MIT, but also implying that most employees of malevolent organizations are ignorant of their actions. Your entitled to your opinions, but mine is educating people of those actions is the first step towards resistance. I'm curious of what methods of resistance you enact. I could use some direction in effective methods.

[CaptinAnarchy124]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:42 PM
It would be "irresponsible" to give ordinary people the information that he's willing to convey to the ruling class and the academic "community". It might "cause trouble".
He should give free to nearly free copies of his works, that'd be awesome. But then again, his work is fairly inexpensive. I bought "Understanding Power" which is a good 400+ pages with small print for only 20 bucks. But I think his purpose is to get people interested into the basic ideals of the movement, which then people discover their own "niche" within it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If you really want such institutions destroyed, then you have to act like that from the beginning. You not only verbally attack their legitimacy but you also refuse to do anything that might be construed as conferring legitimacy on those rats' nests.

...like working anywhere?

Redstar, you're just not making sense. How is MIT a more capitalistic institution than any other employer? And if it's not, then are you implying that if one have a job one is a reformist?


You cannot convince people to rebel against capitalist "democracy" by acting as if it were legitimate.

You cannot convince people that the New York Times is a mouthpiece for capitalist despotism by writing for it.

And you cannot convince people that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology exists for the purpose of strengthening capitalism by teaching there.

I agree that it's very "reformist" of him to preach anarchism in the New York Times. :lol:
But do you really think it would be more "revolutionary" of Noam to write for the Post? Maybe an independent news source...
And where do you think he should be a professor while usefully advocating anarchism?

But I do agree that it's absolutely impossible for his ideas to make the impact they're seemingly designed to make when they're delivered by capitalists who know that his writing will be ignored and disregarded by the liberals who read it.

[DaCuBaN]

The ruling class is fully aware of the consequences of their decisions as far as the negative impact on most of their hapless subjects is concerned.


Indeed - to provide a little anectdotal evidence, do you honestly think the "stresses of the job" are what makes all those grey hairs appear, and eventually depart groundwards? No: It's the memory of the thousands they have, by proxy perhaps (for the "nicer" ones), sent to their death through their "decisions".

[ComradeRed]

I bought "Understanding Power" which is a good 400+ pages with small print for only 20 bucks. I'd hate to sound like an old fart, but you don't know the value of a dollar; 20 bucks is too much for a book. The only time I'd buy a book would be hardcover copies of Das Kapital vol. I, II, III, and IV. A book bought by a buck is a buck brought to the bourgeois.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin
Redstar, you're just not making sense.

RZ, you're just not paying attention.

What makes Chomsky's "anarchism" fake is not that he's a professor at MIT...it is when he seriously suggests that MIT can be changed from within in a significant way.

That is a lie!

If he got up and said in a straightforward way, "Yes, I teach and do research at MIT, and the money's great, and the prestige is great...and this place is still an intellectual cesspool that exists only to strengthen the despotism of capital!" -- that would be an altogether different matter. If he went on to add that it will never be anything but a cesspool as long as capitalism exists, that would be even better. And if he actually said that hierarchy was the worst aspect of the whole damn place...well, hell, he'd actually start sounding like an anarchist.

The same thing is true of the other aspects of his public presence. Will his next op-ed piece in the New York Times be entitled "The NY Times: All the Lies that Fit, We Print"?

By your standards or mine, RZ, this guy is rich...that is, he has enough stashed away to live very comfortably for the rest of his life even if he never sees another paycheck. He can afford to speak out in a way that would be very risky for ordinary working people.

And he doesn't do it!

In fact, he does the opposite. He stays at MIT to "change it from within". He writes for the Times because it reaches "decision-makers" and "influences them for the better".

Good grief!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas