From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: Notes on Anarchism (Chomsky, 1970) (1/2)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:36:32 GMT

			======================
			``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.



Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive