home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
- Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
- From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
- Subject: Notes on Anarchism (Chomsky, 1970) (1/2)
- Message-ID: <1992Sep4.233632.16553@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
- Followup-To: alt.activism.d
- Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
- Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Organization: ?
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:36:32 GMT
- Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Lines: 263
-
- ======================
- ``Notes on Anarchism''
- in
- _For Reasons of State_
- ======================
- Noam Chomsky, 1970
- ======================
-
- [Transcribed by Bill Lear <rael@ll.mit.edu>]
-
- A French writer, sympathetic to anarchism, wrote in the 1890s that
- ``anarchism has a broad back, like paper it endures anything''---including,
- he noted those whose acts are such that ``a mortal enemy of anarchism could
- not have done better.''[1] There have been many styles of thought and
- action that have been referred to as ``anarchist.'' It would be hopeless to
- try to encompass all of these conflicting tendencies in some general theory
- or ideology. And even if we proceed to extract from the history of
- libertarian thought a living, evolving tradition, as Daniel Gu\'erin does
- in _Anarchism_, it remains difficult to formulate its doctrines as a
- specific and determinate theory of society and social change. The anarchist
- historian Rudolph Rocker, who presents a systematic conception of the
- development of anarchist thought towards anarchosyndicalism, along lines
- that bear comparison to Gu\'erins work, puts the matter well when he writes
- that anarchism is not
-
- a fixed, self-enclosed social system but rather a definite trend
- in the historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with
- the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and governmental
- institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all
- the individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a
- relative, not an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to
- become broader and to affect wider circles in more manifold ways.
- For the anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical
- concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being
- to bring to full development all the powers, capacities, and
- talents with which nature has endowed him, and turn them to
- social account. The less this natural development of man is
- influenced by ecclesiastical or political guardianship, the more
- efficient and harmonious will human personality become, the more
- will it become the measure of the intellectual culture of the
- society in which it has grown.[2]
-
- One might ask what value there is in studying a ``definite trend in the
- historic development of mankind'' that does not articulate a specific and
- detailed social theory. Indeed, many commentators dismiss anarchism as
- utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities
- of a complex society. One might, however, argue rather differently: that at
- every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of
- authority and oppression that survive from an era when they 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. If so, there will be no doctrine of social change
- fixed for the present and future, nor even, necessarily, a specific and
- unchanging concept of the goals towards which social change should tend.
- Surely our understanding of the nature of man or of the range of viable
- social forms is so rudimentary that any far-reaching doctrine must be
- treated with great skepticism, just as skepticism is in order when we hear
- that ``human nature'' or ``the demands of efficiency'' or ``the complexity
- of modern life'' requires this or that form of oppression and autocratic
- rule.
- Nevertheless, at a particular time there is every reason to develop,
- insofar as our understanding permits, a specific realization of this
- definite trend in the historic development of mankind, appropriate to the
- tasks of the moment. For Rocker, ``the problem that is set for our time is
- that of freeing man from the curse of economic exploitation and political
- and social enslavement''; and the method is not the conquest and exercise
- of state power, nor stultifying parliamentarianism, but rather ``to
- reconstruct the economic life of the peoples from the ground up and build
- it up in the spirit of Socialism.''
-
- But only the producers themselves are fitted for this task, since
- they are the only value-creating element in society out of which
- a new future can arise. Theirs must be the task of freeing labor
- from all the fetters which economic exploitation has fastened on
- it, of freeing society from all the institutions and procedure of
- political power, and of opening the way to an alliance of free
- groups of men and women based on co-operative labor and a planned
- administration of things in the interest of the community. To
- prepare the toiling masses in the city and country for this great
- goal and to bind them together as a militant force is the
- objective of modern Anarcho-syndicalism, and in this its whole
- purpose is exhausted. [P. 108]
-
- As a socialist, Rocker would take for granted ``that the serious,
- final, complete liberation of the workers is possible only upon one
- condition: that of the appropriation of capital, that is, of raw material
- and all the tools of labor, including land, by the whole body of the
- workers.''[3] As an anarchosyndicalist, he insists, further, that the
- workers' organizations create ``not only the ideas, but also the facts of
- the future itself'' in the prerevolutionary period, that they embody in
- themselves the structure of the future society---and he looks forward to a
- social revolution that will dismantle the state apparatus as well as
- expropriate the expropriators. ``What we put in place of the government is
- industrial organization.''
-
- Anarcho-syndicalists are convinced that a Socialist economic
- order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes of a
- government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the
- workers with hand and brain in each special branch of production;
- that is, through the taking over of the management of all plants
- by the producers themselves under such form that the separate
- groups, plants, and branches of industry are independent members
- of the general economic organism and systematically carry on
- production and the distribution of the products in the interest
- of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements. [p. 94]
-
- Rocker was writing at a moment when such ideas had been put into
- practice in a dramatic way in the Spanish Revolution. Just prior to the
- outbreak of the revolution, the anarchosyndicalist economist Diego Abad de
- Santillan had written:
-
- ...in facing the problem of social transformation, the Revolution
- cannot consider the state as a medium, but must depend on the
- organization of producers.
- We have followed this norm and we find no need for the
- hypothesis of a superior power to organized labor, in order to
- establish a new order of things. We would thank anyone to point
- out to us what function, if any, the State can have in an
- economic organization, where private property has been abolished
- and in which parasitism and special privilege have no place. The
- suppression of the State cannot be a languid affair; it must be
- the task of the Revolution to finish with the State. Either the
- Revolution gives social wealth to the producers in which case the
- producers organize themselves for due collective distribution and
- the State has nothing to do; or the Revolution does not give
- social wealth to the producers, in which case the Revolution has
- been a lie and the State would continue.
- Our federal council of economy is not a political power but
- an economic and administrative regulating power. It receives its
- orientation from below and operates in accordance with the
- resolutions of the regional and national assemblies. It is a
- liaison corps and nothing else.[4]
-
- Engels, in a letter of 1883, expressed his disagreement with this
- conception as follows:
-
- The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the
- proletarian revolution must _begin_ by doing away with the
- political organization of the state....But to destroy it at such
- a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which
- the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power,
- hold down its capitalist adversaries, and carry out that economic
- revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in
- a new defeat and a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those
- after the Paris commune.[5]
-
- In contrast, the anarchists---most eloquently Bakunin---warned of the
- dangers of the ``red bureaucracy,'' which would prove to be ``the most vile
- and terrible lie that our century has created.''[6] The anarchosyndicalist
- Fernand Pelloutier asked: ``Must even the transitory state to which we have
- to submit necessarily and fatally be a collectivist jail? Can't it consist
- in a free organization limited exclusively by the needs of production and
- consumption, all political institutions having disappeared?''[7]
- I do not pretend to know the answers to this question. But it seems
- clear that unless there is, in some form, a positive answer, the chances
- for a truly democratic revolution that will achieve the humanistic ideals
- of the left are not great. Martin Buber put the problem succinctly when he
- wrote: ``One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has
- been turned into a club to put forth leaves.''[8] The question of conquest
- or destruction of state power is what Bakunin regarded as the primary issue
- dividing him from Marx.[9] In one form or another, the problem has arisen
- repeatedly in the century since, dividing ``libertarian'' from
- ``authoritarian'' socialists.
- Despite Bakunin's warnings about the red bureaucracy, and their
- fulfillment under Stalin's dictatorship, it would obviously be a gross
- error in interpreting the debates of a century ago to rely on the claims of
- contemporary social movements as to their historical origins. In
- particular, it is perverse to regard Bolshevism as ``Marxism in practice.''
- Rather, the left-wing critique of Bolshevism, taking account of the
- historical circumstances surrounding the Russian Revolution, is far more to
- the point.[10]
-
- The anti-Bolshevik, left-wing labor movement opposed the
- Leninists because they did not go far enough in exploiting the
- Russian upheavals for strictly proletarian ends. They became
- prisoners of their environment and used the international radical
- movement to satisfy specifically Russian needs, which soon became
- synonymous with the needs of the Bolshevik Party-State. The
- ``bourgeois'' aspects of the Russian Revolution were now
- discovered in Bolshevism itself: Leninism was adjudged a part of
- international social-democracy, differing from the latter only on
- tactical issues.[11]
-
- If one were to seek a single leading idea within the anarchist
- tradition, it should, I believe, be that expressed by Bakunin when, in
- writing on the Paris Commune, he identified himself as follows:
-
- I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique
- condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness
- can develop and grow; not the purely formal liberty conceded,
- measured out and regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in
- reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some
- founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic,
- egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the School
- of J.-J. Rousseau and other schools of bourgeois liberalism,
- which considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by
- the State which limits the rights of each---an idea that leads
- inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to zero. No, I
- mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty
- that consists in the full development of all the material,
- intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person;
- liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those
- determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot
- properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not
- imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are
- immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material,
- intellectual and moral being---they do not limit us but are the
- real and immediate conditions of our freedom.[12]
-
- These ideas grew out of the Enlightenment; their roots are in
- Rousseau's _Discourse on Inequality_, Humboldt's _Limits of State Action_,
- Kant's insistence, in his defense of the French Revolution, that freedom is
- the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom, not a gift to be
- granted when such maturity is achieved. With the development of industrial
- capitalism, a new and unanticipated system of injustice, it is libertarian
- socialism that has preserved and extended the radical humanist message of
- the Enlightenment and the classical liberal ideals that were perverted into
- an ideology to sustain the emerging social order. In fact, on the very same
- assumptions that led classical liberalism to oppose the intervention of the
- state in social life, capitalist social relations are also intolerable.
- This is clear, for example, from the classic work of Humboldt, _The Limits
- of State Action_, which anticipated and perhaps inspired Mill. This classic
- of liberal thought, completed in 1792, is in its essence profoundly, though
- prematurely, anticapitalist. Its ideas must be attenuated beyond
- recognition to be transmuted into an ideology of industrial capitalism.
- Humboldt's vision of a society in which social fetters are replaced by
- social bonds and labor is freely undertaken suggests the early Marx., with
- his discussion of the ``alienation of labor when work is external to the
- worker...not part of his nature...[so that] he does not fulfill himself in
- his work but denies himself...[and is] physically exhausted and mentally
- debased,'' alienated labor that ``casts some of the workers back into a
- barbarous kind of work and turns others into machines,'' thus depriving man
- of his ``species character'' of ``free conscious activity'' and
- ``productive life.'' Similarly, Marx conceives of ``a new type of human
- being who _needs_ his fellow men....[The workers' association becomes] the
- real constructive effort to create the social texture of future human
- relations.''[13] It is true that classical libertarian thought is opposed
- to state intervention in social life, as a consequence of deeper
- assumptions about the human need for liberty, diversity, and free
- association. On the same assumptions, capitalist relations of production,
- wage labor, competitiveness, the ideology of ``possessive
- individualism''---all must be regarded as fundamentally antihuman.
- Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the inheritor of the
- liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.
- Rudolf Rocker describes modern anarchism as ``the confluence of the
- two great currents which during and since the French revolution have found
- such characteristic expression in the intellectual life of Europe:
- Socialism and Liberalism.'' The classical liberal ideals, he argues, were
- wrecked on the realities of capitalist economic forms. Anarchism is
- necessarily anticapitalist in that it ``opposes the exploitation of man by
- man.'' But anarchism also opposes ``the dominion of man over man.'' It
- insists that ``_socialism will be free or it will not be at all_. In its
- recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification for the
- existence of anarchism.''[14] From this point of view, anarchism may be
- regarded as the libertarian wing of socialism. It is in this spirit that
- Daniel Gu\'erin has approached the study of anarchism in _Anarchism_ and
- other works.[15] Gu\'erin quotes Adolph Fischer, who said that ``every
- anarchist is a socialist but not every socialist is necessarily an
- anarchist.'' Similarly Bakunin, in his ``anarchist manifesto'' of 1865, the
- program of his projected international revolutionary fraternity, laid down
- the principle that each member must be, to begin with, a socialist.
-
-
-