[For The World Libertarian]
must carefully preserve the memory of anarchist ideas and more, inspiring the struggles of peoples who sought to free themselves from oppression and domination: not as ways to fix the mind in new molds, but as a base from which to understand both the social reality and the work he will do for the exchange st
N. Chomsky
I would return here on a very recent interview Noam Chomsky in which answers questions put to him on anarchism [1]. Three reasons lead me to do.
The first is that what Chomsky says is never uninteresting.
The second is that it is relatively rare in recent years at least, he decides on anarchism and especially on the health status of contemporary anarchism, as is the case in this interview.
The third is what he suggests is likely to stimulate discussion that we should have between us on important issues point to which Chomsky.
But before we get to these topics, I feel a word report Chomsky's anarchism. I insist, however: it is only a word and the question of the relationship of anarchism to Chomsky, considered globally and in the length of his theoretical activity and activist, is more complex than what I will tell in the following lines, which offer only a modest overview of an unknown territory - and ask to be carefully explored.
reports constant and singular
It is often mistaken, it seemed to me, Chomsky on Anarchism, sometimes to deny him (sic) he claims that name yet. But
Chomsky has continued to claim that it is commonly known, without denying the appellation anarchist, libertarian socialism. His interest in these ideas is old and the first text he published nine years in the school newspaper when he attended, was on the English Civil War, which was then raging, and which Later, he devoted even other writings, including a major text on objectivity in the work academic. Chomsky, in fact, never cease altogether to write about anarchism, to talk about it or demand it.
I will begin two comments on this anarchism Chomsky.
The first is its anti-authoritarianism, which stems from the belief that human beings grow optimally in conditions of freedom. The result is of course the rejection of capitalism and market economy, corporations are described as total institutions, but also of the planned economy and state socialism. It also follows from this emphasis on freedom, conceptions of education, politics, government, culture and many other topics where the stresses at each time are a priori perceived as suspicious and to be justified - the slaughter became the watchword when they can not pass the test of their justification. (Note no power to insist that the demand for freedom has always been, in anarchism, in tension with an egalitarian ideal and the term libertarian socialism commonly used by Chomsky has the merit of the recall.)
My second remark is to recall that Chomsky's anarchism firmly inscribed in the tradition of the Enlightenment and the rationalism that characterizes them. The reference to the rationalism of course means a strong commitment to reason, science, the rigor and argumentative debate, but it also means defending a particular conception of human beings in which freedom mentioned above is Central, in which he admitted some cons and cons culturalism some empiricism which increases indefinitely malleable, that human beings have natural characteristics that define them. As we suspected, his work in linguistics and cognitive science give credence to these ideas, even if Chomsky has always been very careful about the relationship between contributions to the linguist and his libertarian political views, refusing to see anything but weak links and set at a fairly high level of abstraction. Anyway, this rationalism thus defined also singled Chomsky among anarchists, at first, but also within the left.
In total, Chomsky is an idea of anarchism large enough, if not to reflect, at least bring that authors would be required by some as, if not outside the movement, or at least being at its fringes - for example Anton Pannekoek theorist workers' councils. He also expressed deep sympathy for anarchists relatively less known authors, like Diego Abad de Santillan or Rudolph Rocker.
Chomsky calls in total to a non-dogmatic view of anarchism, which recognizes both the importance and singularity in the history of ideas and political movements and news: he has to repeatedly reminded about the value that anarchism, as he conceives it, is advancing, its hopes, its political and economic project and affirmed their relevance in solving the challenges we face today. What this link to these hopes and projects is well described in the following statement: "I want to believe, says Chomsky, that human beings have an instinct for freedom and they want to actually control their own affairs, they do not want to be rushed, neither ordered nor so downtrodden., and they want the opportunity to do things that make sense, like constructive work and they control - they control or with others. "
So, you may have guessed, with a priori very open and friendly that Chomsky talks about anarchism present at about which he nevertheless some criticisms and comments that deserve to be heard.
few observations and assumptions of Chomsky on Anarchism contemporary
I present these observations and hypotheses into three parts. They relate respectively atomism and bigotry of at least a share of the current anarchist movement, and his hostility towards science and technology and finally, the question of reformism.
Chomsky began by noting that if there are (relatively) many people who say they are tied to anarchism and who claim that they be considered anarchism, however there are few exceptions, such as Spain, the anarchist movement. Anarchism tends to be, at least in the U.S. (and presumably elsewhere) rather fragmented, not only individuals more or less isolated, but also sometimes very sectarian groups and spend considerable time in s attacking each other.
Chomsky sees this as something special (and I would add: from REM), that, at least in his country, except at very short historical periods, there has never been so many anarchists that today but neither has so little anarchy, at least if by that word means a unified movement that would be rather common in combat and that could therefore criticize, reject, or otherwise wish to improve kill and so on.
A task he seems to be the order: the overcoming bigotry and intolerance, and in recognition of our ignorance of what will be a libertarian society, the admission that there is room for disagreement healthy and constructive, but you need to know to express, as he says, discussions held "in a civilized manner and fraternal and with a sense of solidarity in sustained pursuit of a common goal. "
The second set of remarks of Chomsky extends precisely from consideration of this issue to pursue common goals. Which to choose? And how to pursue them effectively? He pointed out two which seem particularly vital: nuclear proliferation and the environmental crisis. However, as regards the latter, he adds, there are also among some anarchists, an attitude of opposition to science that immediately disqualifies Avenue anarchism as credible and serious. "At less, he said, to consent to [reduce humanity] to 100,000 hunter-gatherers, if we take seriously the survival of billions of human beings, their children and grandchildren, it will require scientific breakthroughs and technology. "
Note here that Chomsky does not endorse in any way an idolatry of science or technology, as it should be noted also that he knows nothing either (remember what he said about nuclear proliferation) of uses potentially lethal to the species as a whole we can do: it is not difficult to identify individuals or groups, among anarchists but not only there, that indeed this attitude he describes an attitude that may well have indeed, in the end, he dreads the terrible effects.
The third set of comments concerns, if I understand his thinking, the type of action we should take to confront this vast and powerful system for both corporate and state in which we live and which has established Suddenly decades of social engineering conducted a large scale. This
what it wants to attract attention, this time it's the fact that this struggle, both on the terms of thinking that concrete action and practice, demands and will require much more than great and righteous declarations of adherence to distant targets (say: 'I want to live in a just society, free and equal') : this requires the advocacy, goals closer and modest, and through "recognition of the social and economic reality as it is" the creation of patient and progressive institutions of the future within the company today - as already said Bakunin.
stay in the purity of the proposals, thinks Chomsky hinders effective militant action that should be causes to defend human rights of workers, environmental issues, the fight against poverty and so on. Otherwise, we run, "he said, the risk of falling into" the sectarianism, this narrowness, this lack of solidarity and shared goals that has always been a condition of marginal groups, particularly on the left. "
This sectarianism can also be harmful to those that would specifically help its promoters, since it leads to adopt strategies that activists, under the guise of radicalism, ultimately strengthen the position of the dominant institutions while we are away from battles that must be conducted and those with whom we should fight.
Chomsky is here as an example, American anarchism who take refuge behind an anti-statism of principle not to support the health reform that is taking place, imperfect as it is, and that millions of people will benefit . Such a course of conduct also forbids all purposes to help educate and mobilize the required economic crisis, with the same people who earlier suffered the first.
Fortunately, says Chomsky, newspapers and anarchist organizations do not fall into these gaps and to care about these short-term goals. It also, thankfully, is accurate.
ago, I think, enough supply ample discussions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment