Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Marxism & Hope for the Future

The following are excerpts of an interview with Noam Chomsky published in Issue 2 of Red & lack Revolution! R R can be contacted at Red & lack Revolution" #$ ox %&2'" (ublin '" Ireland! The interview was conducted in )ay %**& by +evin (oyle! 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 197 to !aniel "uerin's #narchism, but more recently, for instance in the film Manufacturin$ %onsent, you too& the opportunity to hi$hli$ht a$ain the potential of anarchism and the anarchist idea. 'hat is it that attracts you to anarchism( CHOMS !: ) was attracted to anarchism as a youn$ teena$er, as soon as ) be$an to thin& about the world beyond a pretty narrow ran$e, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. ) thin& it only ma&es sense to see& out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challen$e them* unless a +ustification for them can be $iven, they are ille$itimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. ,hat includes political power, ownership and mana$ement, relations amon$ men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future $enerations -the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view., and much else. Naturally this means a challen$e to the hu$e institutions of coercion and control/ the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. 0ut not only these. ,hat is what ) have always understood to be the essence of anarchism/ the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. 1ometimes the burden can be met. )f )'m ta&in$ a wal& with my $randchildren and they dart out into a busy street, ) will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. ,he act should be challen$ed, but ) thin& it can readily meet the challen$e. #nd there are other cases* life is a comple2 affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and $rand pronouncements are $enerally more a source of harm than of benefit. 0ut the perspective is a valid one, ) thin&, and can lead us quite a lon$ way. 0eyond such $eneralities, we be$in to loo& at cases, which is where the questions of human interest and concern arise. RBR: )t's true to say that your ideas and critique are now more widely &nown than ever before. )t should also be said that your views are widely respected. 3ow do you thin& your support for anarchism is received in this conte2t( )n particular, )'m interested in the response you receive from people who are $ettin$ interested in politics for the first time and who may, perhaps, have come across your views. #re such people surprised by your support for anarchism( #re they interested( CHOMS !: ,he $eneral intellectual culture, as you &now, associates 'anarchism' with chaos, violence, bombs, disruption, and so on. 1o people are often surprised when ) spea& positively of anarchism and identify myself with leadin$ traditions within it. 0ut my impression is that amon$ the $eneral public, the basic ideas seem reasonable when the clouds are cleared away. 4f course, when we turn to specific matters 5 say, the nature of families, or how an economy would wor& in a society that is more free and +ust 5 questions and controversy arise. 0ut that is as it should be. 6hysics can't really e2plain how water flows from the tap in your sin&. 'hen we turn to vastly more comple2 questions of human si$nificance, understandin$ is very thin, and there is plenty of room for disa$reement, e2perimentation, both intellectual and real5life e2ploration of possibilities, to help us learn more. RBR: 6erhaps, more than any other idea, anarchism has suffered from the problem of misrepresentation. #narchism can mean many thin$s to many people. !o you often find yourself havin$ to e2plain what it is that you mean by anarchism( !oes the misrepresentation of anarchism bother you( CHOMS !: #ll misrepresentation is a nuisance. Much of it can be traced bac& to structures of power that have an interest in preventin$ understandin$, for pretty obvious reasons. )t's well to recall !avid 3ume's 6rinciples of "overnment. 3e e2pressed surprise that people ever submitted to their rulers. 3e concluded that since 7Force is always on the side of the $overned, the $overnors have nothin$ to support them but opinion. ',is therefore, on opinion only that $overnment is founded* and this ma2im e2tends to the most despotic and most military $overnments, as well as to the most free and most popular.7 3ume was very astute 5 and incidentally, hardly a libertarian by the standards of the day. 3e surely underestimates the efficacy of force, but his observation seems to me basically correct, and important, particularly in the more free societies, where the art of controllin$ opinion is therefore far more refined. Misrepresentation and other forms of befuddlement are a natural concomitant. 1o does misrepresentation bother me( 1ure, but so does rotten weather. )t will e2ist as lon$ as concentrations of power en$ender a &ind of commissar class to defend them. 1ince they are usually not very bri$ht, or are bri$ht enou$h to &now that they'd better avoid the arena of fact and ar$ument, they'll turn to misrepresentation, vilification, and other devices that are available to those who &now that they'll be protected by the various means available to the powerful. 'e should understand why all this occurs, and unravel it as best we can. ,hat's part of the pro+ect of liberation 5 of ourselves and others, or more reasonably, of people wor&in$ to$ether to achieve these aims. 1ounds simple5minded, and it is. 0ut ) have yet to find much commentary on human life and society that is not simple5minded, when absurdity and self5servin$ posturin$ are cleared away. 8...9

"he Spanish Re#o$ution


RBR: )n the past, when you have spo&en about anarchism, you have often emphasised the e2ample of the 1panish :evolution. For you there would seem to be two aspects to this e2ample. 4n the one hand, the e2perience of the 1panish :evolution is, you say, a $ood e2ample of 'anarchism in action'. 4n the other, you have also stressed that the 1panish revolution is a $ood e2ample of what wor&ers can achieve throu$h their own efforts usin$ participatory democracy. #re these two aspects 5 anarchism in action and participatory democracy 5 one and the same thin$ for you( )s anarchism a philosophy for people's power( CHOMS !: )'m reluctant to use fancy polysyllables li&e 7philosophy7 to refer to what seems ordinary common sense. #nd )'m also

uncomfortable with slo$ans. ,he achievements of 1panish wor&ers and peasants, before the revolution was crushed, were impressive in many ways. ,he term 'participatory democracy' is a more recent one, which developed in a different conte2t, but there surely are points of similarity. )'m sorry if this seems evasive. )t is, but that's because ) don't thin& either the concept of anarchism or of participatory democracy is clear enou$h to be able to answer the question whether they are the same. RBR: 4ne of the main achievements of the 1panish :evolution was the de$ree of $rassroots democracy established. )n terms of people, it is estimated that over ; million were involved. :ural and urban production was mana$ed by wor&ers themselves. )s it a coincidence to your mind that anarchists, &nown for their advocacy of individual freedom, succeeded in this area of collective administration( CHOMS !: No coincidence at all. ,he tendencies in anarchism that )'ve always found most persuasive see& a hi$hly or$anised society, inte$ratin$ many different &inds of structures -wor&place, community, and manifold other forms of voluntary association., but controlled by participants, not by those in a position to $ive orders -e2cept, a$ain, when authority can be +ustified, as is sometimes the case, in specific contin$encies..

%emocracy
RBR: #narchists often e2pend a $reat deal of effort at buildin$ up $rassroots democracy. )ndeed they are often accused of 7ta&in$ democracy to e2tremes7. <et, despite this, many anarchists would not readily identify democracy as a central component of anarchist philosophy. #narchists often describe their politics as bein$ about 'socialism' or bein$ about 'the individual'5 they are less li&ely to say that anarchism is about democracy. 'ould you a$ree that democratic ideas are a central feature of anarchism( CHOMS !: %riticism of 'democracy' amon$ anarchists has often been criticism of parliamentary democracy, as it has arisen within societies with deeply repressive features. ,a&e the =1, which has been as free as any, since its ori$ins. #merican democracy was founded on the principle, stressed by >ames Madison in the %onstitutional %onvention in 17?7, that the primary function of $overnment is 7to protect the minority of the opulent from the ma+ority.7 ,hus he warned that in @n$land, the only quasi5democratic model of the day, if the $eneral population were allowed a say in public affairs, they would implement a$rarian reform or other atrocities, and that the #merican system must be carefully crafted to avoid such crimes a$ainst 7the ri$hts of property,7 which must be defended -in fact, must prevail.. 6arliamentary democracy within this framewor& does merit sharp criticism by $enuine libertarians, and )'ve left out many other features that are hardly subtle 5 slavery, to mention +ust one, or the wa$e slavery that was bitterly condemned by wor&in$ people who had never heard of anarchism or communism ri$ht throu$h the 19th century, and beyond.

&eninism
RBR:,he importance of $rassroots democracy to any meanin$ful chan$e in society would seem to be self evident. <et the left has been ambi$uous about this in the past. )'m spea&in$ $enerally, of social democracy, but also of 0olshevism 5 traditions on the left that would seem to have more in common with elitist thin&in$ than with strict democratic practice. Aenin, to use a well5&nown e2ample, was sceptical that wor&ers could develop anythin$ more than 7trade union consciousness75 by which, ) assume, he meant that wor&ers could not see far beyond their immediate predicament. 1imilarly, the Fabian socialist, 0eatrice 'ebb, who was very influential in the Aabour 6arty in @n$land, had the view that wor&ers were only interested in 7horse racin$ odds7B 'here does this elitism ori$inate and what is it doin$ on the left( CHOMS !:)'m afraid it's hard for me to answer this. )f the left is understood to include '0olshevism,' then ) would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Aenin was one of the $reatest enemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons )'ve discussed. ,he idea that wor&ers are only interested in horse5racin$ is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial loo& at labour history or the lively and independent wor&in$ class press that flourished in many places, includin$ the manufacturin$ towns of New @n$land not many miles from where )'m writin$ 5 not to spea& of the inspirin$ record of the coura$eous stru$$les of persecuted and oppressed people throu$hout history, until this very moment. ,a&e the most miserable corner of this hemisphere, 3aiti, re$arded by the @uropean conquerors as a paradise and the source of no small part of @urope's wealth, now devastated, perhaps beyond recovery. )n the past few years, under conditions so miserable that few people in the rich countries can ima$ine them, peasants and slum5dwellers constructed a popular democratic movement based on $rassroots or$anisations that surpasses +ust about anythin$ ) &now of elsewhere* only deeply committed commissars could fail to collapse with ridicule when they hear the solemn pronouncements of #merican intellectuals and political leaders about how the =1 has to teach 3aitians the lessons of democracy. ,heir achievements were so substantial and fri$htenin$ to the powerful that they had to be sub+ected to yet another dose of vicious terror, with considerably more =1 support than is publicly ac&nowled$ed, and they still have not surrendered. #re they interested only in horse5racin$( )'d su$$est some lines )'ve occasionally quoted from :ousseau/ 7when ) see multitudes of entirely na&ed sava$es scorn @uropean voluptuousness and endure hun$er, fire, the sword, and death to preserve only their independence, ) feel that it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom.7 RBR: 1pea&in$ $enerally a$ain, your own wor& 5 !eterrin$ !emocracy, Necessary )llusions, etc. 5 has dealt consistently with the role and prevalence of elitist ideas in societies such as our own. <ou have ar$ued that within ''estern' -or parliamentary. democracy there is a deep anta$onism to any real role or input from the mass of people, lest it threaten the uneven distribution in wealth which favours the rich. <our wor& is quite convincin$ here, but, this aside, some have been shoc&ed by your assertions. For instance, you compare the politics of 6resident >ohn F. Cennedy with Aenin, more or less equatin$ the two. ,his, ) mi$ht add, has shoc&ed supporters of both campsB %an you elaborate a little on the validity of the comparison( CHOMS !: ) haven't actually 7equated7 the doctrines of the liberal intellectuals of the Cennedy administration with Aeninists, but ) have noted stri&in$ points of similarity 5 rather as predicted by 0a&unin a century earlier in his perceptive commentary on the 7new class.7 For e2ample, ) quoted passa$es from McNamara on the need to enhance mana$erial control if we are to be truly 7free,7 and

about how the 7undermana$ement7 that is 7the real threat to democracy7 is an assault a$ainst reason itself. %han$e a few words in these passa$es, and we have standard Aeninist doctrine. )'ve ar$ued that the roots are rather deep, in both cases. 'ithout further clarification about what people find 7shoc&in$,7 ) can't comment further. ,he comparisons are specific, and ) thin& both proper and properly qualified. )f not, that's an error, and )'d be interested to be enli$htened about it.

Marxism
RBR:1pecifically, Aeninism refers to a form of mar2ism that developed with E.). Aenin. #re you implicitly distin$uishin$ the wor&s of Mar2 from the particular criticism you have of Aenin when you use the term 'Aeninism'( !o you see a continuity between Mar2's views and Aenin's later practices( CHOMS !: 0a&unin's warnin$s about the 7:ed bureaucracy7 that would institute 7the worst of all despotic $overnments7 were lon$ before Aenin, and were directed a$ainst the followers of Mr. Mar2. ,here were, in fact, followers of many different &inds* 6anne&oe&, Au2embour$, Mattic& and others are very far from Aenin, and their views often conver$e with elements of anarcho5syndicalism. Corsch and others wrote sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in 1pain, in fact. ,here are continuities from Mar2 to Aenin, but there are also continuities to Mar2ists who were harshly critical of Aenin and 0olshevism. ,eodor 1hanin's wor& in the past years on Mar2's later attitudes towards peasant revolution is also relevant here. )'m far from bein$ a Mar2 scholar, and wouldn't venture any serious +ud$ement on which of these continuities reflects the 'real Mar2,' if there even can be an answer to that question. 8...9 RBR: From my understandin$, the core part of your overall view is informed by your concept of human nature. )n the past the idea of human nature was seen, perhaps, as somethin$ re$ressive, even limitin$. For instance, the unchan$in$ aspect of human nature is often used as an ar$ument for why thin$s can't be chan$ed fundamentally in the direction of anarchism. <ou ta&e a different view( 'hy( CHOMS !: ,he core part of anyone's point of view is some concept of human nature, however it may be remote from awareness or lac& articulation. #t least, that is true of people who consider themselves moral a$ents, not monsters. Monsters aside, whether a person who advocates reform or revolution, or stability or return to earlier sta$es, or simply cultivatin$ one's own $arden, ta&es stand on the $rounds that it is '$ood for people.' 0ut that +ud$ement is based on some conception of human nature, which a reasonable person will try to ma&e as clear as possible, if only so that it can be evaluated. 1o in this respect )'m no different from anyone else. <ou're ri$ht that human nature has been seen as somethin$ 're$ressive,' but that must be the result of profound confusion. )s my $randdau$hter no different from a roc&, a salamander, a chic&en, a mon&ey( # person who dismisses this absurdity as absurd reco$nises that there is a distinctive human nature. 'e are left only with the question of what it is 5 a hi$hly nontrivial and fascinatin$ question, with enormous scientific interest and human si$nificance. 'e &now a fair amount about certain aspects of it 5 not those of ma+or human si$nificance. 0eyond that, we are left with our hopes and wishes, intuitions and speculations. ,here is nothin$ 7re$ressive7 about the fact that a human embryo is so constrained that it does not $row win$s, or that its visual system cannot function in the manner of an insect, or that it lac&s the homin$ instinct of pi$eons. ,he same factors that constrain the or$anism's development also enable it to attain a rich, comple2, and hi$hly articulated structure, similar in fundamental ways to conspecifics, with rich and remar&able capacities. #n or$anism that lac&ed such determinative intrinsic structure, which of course radically limits the paths of development, would be some &ind of amoeboid creature, to be pitied -even if it could survive somehow.. ,he scope and limits of development are lo$ically related. ,a&e lan$ua$e, one of the few distinctive human capacities about which much is &nown. 'e have very stron$ reasons to believe that all possible human lan$ua$es are very similar* a Martian scientist observin$ humans mi$ht conclude that there is +ust a sin$le lan$ua$e, with minor variants. ,he reason is that the particular aspect of human nature that underlies the $rowth of lan$ua$e allows very restricted options. )s this limitin$( 4f course. )s it liberatin$( #lso of course. )t is these very restrictions that ma&e it possible for a rich and intricate system of e2pression of thou$ht to develop in similar ways on the basis of very rudimentary, scattered, and varied e2perience. 'hat about the matter of biolo$ically5determined human differences( ,hat these e2ist is surely true, and a cause for +oy, not fear or re$ret. Aife amon$ clones would not be worth livin$, and a sane person will only re+oice that others have abilities that they do not share. ,hat should be elementary. 'hat is commonly believed about these matters is stran$e indeed, in my opinion. )s human nature, whatever it is, conducive to the development of anarchist forms of life or a barrier to them( 'e do not &now enou$h to answer, one way or the other. ,hese are matters for e2perimentation and discovery, not empty pronouncements.

"he future
RBR:,o be$in finishin$ off, )'d li&e to as& you briefly about some current issues on the left. ) don't &now if the situation is similar in the =1# but here, with the fall of the 1oviet =nion, a certain demoralisation has set in on the left. )t isn't so much that people were dear supporters of what e2isted in the 1oviet =nion, but rather it's a $eneral feelin$ that with the demise of the 1oviet =nion the idea of socialism has also been dra$$ed down. 3ave you come across this type of demoralisation( 'hat's your response to it( CHOMS !: My response to the end of 1oviet tyranny was similar to my reaction to the defeat of 3itler and Mussolini. )n all cases, it is a victory for the human spirit. )t should have been particularly welcome to socialists, since a $reat enemy of socialism had at last collapsed. Ai&e you, ) was intri$ued to see how people 5 includin$ people who had considered themselves anti51talinist and anti5 Aeninist 5 were demoralised by the collapse of the tyranny. 'hat it reveals is that they were more deeply committed to Aeninism than they believed. ,here are, however, other reasons to be concerned about the elimination of this brutal and tyrannical system, which was as much 7socialist7 as it was 7democratic7 -recall that it claimed to be both, and that the latter claim was ridiculed in the 'est, while the former was ea$erly accepted, as a weapon a$ainst socialism 5 one of the many e2amples of the service of 'estern intellectuals to power..

4ne reason has to do with the nature of the %old 'ar. )n my view, it was in si$nificant measure a special case of the 'North51outh conflict,' to use the current euphemism for @urope's conquest of much of the world. @astern @urope had been the ori$inal 'third world,' and the %old 'ar from 1917 had no sli$ht resemblance to the reaction of attempts by other parts of the third world to pursue an independent course, thou$h in this case differences of scale $ave the conflict a life of its own. For this reason, it was only reasonable to e2pect the re$ion to return pretty much to its earlier status/ parts of the 'est, li&e the %Fech :epublic or 'estern 6oland, could be e2pected to re+oin it, while others revert to the traditional service role, the e25Nomen&latura becomin$ the standard third world elite -with the approval of 'estern state5corporate power, which $enerally prefers them to alternatives.. ,hat was not a pretty prospect, and it has led to immense sufferin$. #nother reason for concern has to do with the matter of deterrence and non5ali$nment. "rotesque as the 1oviet empire was, its very e2istence offered a certain space for non5ali$nment, and for perfectly cynical reasons, it sometimes provided assistance to victims of 'estern attac&. ,hose options are $one, and the 1outh is sufferin$ the consequences. # third reason has to do with what the business press calls 7the pampered 'estern wor&ers7 with their 7lu2urious lifestyles.7 'ith much of @astern @urope returnin$ to the fold, owners and mana$ers have powerful new weapons a$ainst the wor&in$ classes and the poor at home. "M and E' can not only transfer production to Me2ico and 0raFil -or at least threaten to, which often amounts to the same thin$., but also to 6oland and 3un$ary, where they can find s&illed and trained wor&ers at a fraction of the cost. ,hey are $loatin$ about it, understandably, $iven the $uidin$ values. 'e can learn a lot about what the %old 'ar -or any other conflict. was about by loo&in$ at who is cheerin$ and who is unhappy after it ends. 0y that criterion, the victors in the %old 'ar include 'estern elites and the e25Nomen&latura, now rich beyond their wildest dreams, and the losers include a substantial part of the population of the @ast alon$ with wor&in$ people and the poor in the 'est, as well as popular sectors in the 1outh that have sou$ht an independent path. 1uch ideas tend to arouse near hysteria amon$ 'estern intellectuals, when they can even perceive them, which is rare. ,hat's easy to show. )t's also understandable. ,he observations are correct, and subversive of power and privile$e* hence hysteria. )n $eneral, the reactions of an honest person to the end of the %old 'ar will be more comple2 than +ust pleasure over the collapse of a brutal tyranny, and prevailin$ reactions are suffused with e2treme hypocrisy, in my opinion.

Capita$ism
RBR: )n many ways the left today finds itself bac& at its ori$inal startin$ point in the last century. Ai&e then, it now faces a form of capitalism that is in the ascendancy. ,here would seem to be $reater 'consensus' today, more than at any other time in history, that capitalism is the only valid form of economic or$anisation possible, this despite the fact that wealth inequality is widenin$. #$ainst this bac&drop, one could ar$ue that the left is unsure of how to $o forward. 3ow do you loo& at the current period( )s it a question of 'bac& to basics'( 1hould the effort now be towards brin$in$ out the libertarian tradition in socialism and towards stressin$ democratic ideas( CHOMS !: ,his is mostly propa$anda, in my opinion. 'hat is called 'capitalism' is basically a system of corporate mercantilism, with hu$e and lar$ely unaccountable private tyrannies e2ercisin$ vast control over the economy, political systems, and social and cultural life, operatin$ in close co5operation with powerful states that intervene massively in the domestic economy and international society. ,hat is dramatically true of the =nited 1tates, contrary to much illusion. ,he rich and privile$ed are no more willin$ to face mar&et discipline than they have been in the past, thou$h they consider it +ust fine for the $eneral population. Merely to cite a few illustrations, the :ea$an administration, which revelled in free mar&et rhetoric, also boasted to the business community that it was the most protectionist in post5war =1 history 5 actually more than all others combined. Newt "in$rich, who leads the current crusade, represents a superrich district that receives more federal subsidies than any other suburban re$ion in the country, outside of the federal system itself. ,he 'conservatives' who are callin$ for an end to school lunches for hun$ry children are also demandin$ an increase in the bud$et for the 6enta$on, which was established in the late 19G s in its current form because 5 as the business press was &ind enou$h to tell us 5 hi$h tech industry cannot survive in a 7pure, competitive, unsubsidiFed, 'free enterprise' economy,7 and the $overnment must be its 7saviour.7 'ithout the 7saviour,7 "in$rich's constituents would be poor wor&in$ people -if they were luc&y.. ,here would be no computers, electronics $enerally, aviation industry, metallur$y, automation, etc., etc., ri$ht down the list. #narchists, of all people, should not be ta&en in by these traditional frauds. More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and the population is very much open to them. !espite a hu$e mass of corporate propa$anda, outside of educated circles, people still maintain pretty much their traditional attitudes. )n the =1, for e2ample, more than ? H of the population re$ard the economic system as 7inherently unfair7 and the political system as a fraud, which serves the 7special interests,7 not 7the people.7 4verwhelmin$ ma+orities thin& wor&in$ people have too little voice in public affairs -the same is true in @n$land., that the $overnment has the responsibility of assistin$ people in need, that spendin$ for education and health should ta&e precedence over bud$et5cuttin$ and ta2 cuts, that the current :epublican proposals that are sailin$ throu$h %on$ress benefit the rich and harm the $eneral population, and so on. )ntellectuals may tell a different story, but it's not all that difficult to find out the facts. RBR: ,o a point anarchist ideas have been vindicated by the collapse of the 1oviet =nion 5 the predictions of 0a&unin have proven to be correct. !o you thin& that anarchists should ta&e heart from this $eneral development and from the perceptiveness of 0a&unin's analysis( 1hould anarchists loo& to the period ahead with $reater confidence in their ideas and history( CHOMS !: ) thin& 5 at least hope 5 that the answer is implicit in the above. ) thin& the current era has ominous portent, and si$ns of $reat hope. 'hich result ensues depends on what we ma&e of the opportunities. ,RC NOTE: In previous versions of my webpage" this was obtained by link! That link seems to be dead! -ortunately for me" I had

saved the text to my disk! .fter some consideration//including the reflection that Chomsky0s ideas are far too rarely disseminated outside a limited political circle//I decided to copy it here! I have cut a few 1&. for space! .s most anarchist publications are not copyrighted" I think I0m safe" but if the copyright holder cares to contact me I will proceed accordingly! The labor of 2T)3 markup was originally performed by Charles )unson!4

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen