|
|
|
Anarchism Interview |
|
by Noam Chomsky and Ziga Vodovnik; December
06, 2004 |
July 14,
2004 in Cambridge, MA.
Ziga
Vodovnik: When somebody declares himself as an
anarchist, he basically tells very little about his inspirations and
aspirations - about the question of means and ends. This only confirms an old
truth that we can not define anarchism as self-sufficient dot, but rather as a
mosaic composed of many different dots or political views (and aspirations):
green, feminist, pacifist, etc. This question of means and ends is part of a
fascination of anarchism in theory but sometimes part of frustration in
practice. Do you think that this diversity makes anarchism ineffective and an
inconsequential body of ideas, or rather makes anarchism universally adaptable?
Noam
Chomsky: Anarchism is a very broad category; it means a
lot of different things to different people. The main strains of anarchism have
been very concerned with means. They have often tended to try to follow the
idea that Bakunin expressed, that you should build the seeds of the future
society within the existing one, and have been very extensively involved in
educational work, organizing and forming collectives, small collectives and
larger ones, and other kinds of organizations. There are other groups that call
themselves anarchist, who are also mostly concerned about means; so, what kind
of demonstrations should we carry out, what sort of direct actions are
appropriate and so on and so forth. I don’t think it is possible to ask whether
it is effective or not. There are different ways of proceeding, effective in
different circumstances. And there is no unified anarchist movement that has a
position to talk about. There are just many conflicting strains that often
disagree quite sharply. There have never been many anarchists, as far as I
know, who object to carrying out what they call reformist measures within
existing society - like improving women’s rights, worker’s health. There are
other anarchists whose positions are primitivist, who want to eliminate
technology and return to the soil.
ZV: In
theoretical political science we can analytically identify two main conceptions
of anarchism: a so called collective anarchism with Bakunin, Kropotkin and
Makhno as main figures and which is limited to Europe, and on another hand so
called individualistic anarchism which is limited to US. Do you agree with this
theoretical separation, and in this perspective, where do you see the
historical beginnings (origins) of anarchism in the U.S.
NC:
The individualistic anarchism that you are talking about, Stirner and others,
is one of the roots of -- among other things -- the so-called “libertarian”
movement in the US. This means dedication to free market capitalism, and has no
connection with the rest of the international anarchist movement. In the
European tradition, anarchists commonly called themselves libertarian
socialists, in a very different sense of the term libertarian. As far as I can
see, the workers’ movements, which didn’t call themselves anarchist, were
closer to the main strain of European anarchism than many of the people in the
US who called themselves anarchists. If we go back to the labor activism from the
early days of the industrial revolution, to the working class press in 1850s,
and so on, it’s got a real anarchist strain to it. They never heard of European
anarchism, never heard of Marx, or anything like that. It was spontaneous. They
took for granted wage labor is little different from slavery, that workers
should own the mills, that the industrial system is destroying individual
initiative, culture, and so on, that they have to struggle against the what
they called “the new spirit of the age” in the 1850s: “Gain Wealth, Forgetting
all but Self”. Sounds rather familiar. And the same is true of other popular
movements: let’s take the New Left movements. Some strains related themselves
to traditional collectivist anarchism, which always regarded itself as a branch
of socialism. But US and to some extent British libertarianism is quite a
different thing and different development, in fact has no objection to tyranny
as long as it is private tyranny. That is radically different from other forms
of anarchism.
ZV: Where
in a long and rich history of people’s struggles in the US do you see the main
inspiration of contemporary anarchism in the U.S.? What is your opinion about
the Transcendentalism as an inspiration in this perspective?
NC:
Maybe you’ll discover something in your research on this topic, but my feeling
is that the Transcendentalist movement, which was mostly intellectuals, may
have had some influence on individualist anarchism, but didn’t connect, to my
knowledge, in any significant fashion with the working class popular movements,
which much more resemble the anarchism of Bakunin, Kropotkin, the Spanish
revolutionaries and others.
ZV:
Most of the creative energy for radical politics, for the new movement of
movements or so-called anti-capitalist, even anti-globalization movement, is
nowadays coming from anarchism, but only few of the people involved in the
movement actually call themselves “anarchists”. Where do you see the main
reason for this?
NC:
I think it has always been true. Most activists, people in human rights
struggles, women’s struggles, labor struggles, and so on, didn’t call themselves
anarchists, they didn’t draw from any knowledge or understanding of anarchist
tradition. Maybe in the US they heard of Emma Goldman, but they just developed
out of their needs, concerns, instincts, natural commitments. I don’t think we
have to work very hard to bring ordinary people in the US, who never heard of
authentic anarchism, to help them come to the kind of understanding that young
women from the farms and workers from the urban slums had from 1850s, also on
their own. In the mid 19 century when the workers in the mills, in Lowell and
in Salem, were developing a very lively and active working class culture, I
doubt that they knew anything about the Transcendentalists, who were right from
the same neighborhood and about the same period.
ZV: Ordinary
people often confuse anarchism with chaos and violence, and do not know that
anarchism (an archos) doesn't mean life or state of things without rules, but
rather a highly organized social order, life without a ruler, “principe”. Is
pejorative usage of the word anarchism maybe a direct consequence of the fact
that the idea that people could be free was and is extremely frightening to
those in power?
NC:
There has been an element within the anarchist movement that has been concerned
with “propaganda by the deed” often with violence, and it is quite natural that
power centers seize on it in an effort to undermine any attempt for
independence and freedom, by identifying it with violence. But that is not true
just for anarchism. Even democracy is feared. It is so deep-seated that people
can’t even see it. If we take a look at the Boston Globe on July 4th - July 4
is of course Independence Day, praising independence, freedom and democracy, we
find that they had an article on George Bush’s attempt to get some support in
Europe, to mend fences after the conflict. They interviewed the foreign policy
director of the “libertarian” Cato Institute, asking why Europeans are critical
of the US. He said something like this: The problem is that Germany and France
have weak governments, and if they go against the will of the population, they
have to pay a political cost. This is the libertarian Cato Institute talking. The
fear of democracy and hatred of it is so profound that nobody even notices it. In
fact the whole fury about Old Europe and New Europe last year was very
dramatic, particularly the fact that the criterion for membership in one or the
other was somehow not noticed. The criterion was extremely sharp. If the
government took the same position as the overwhelming majority of the population,
it was bad: “Old Europe” bad guys. If the government followed orders from
Crawford, Texas and overruled an even larger majority of the population, then
it was the hope of the future and democracy: Berlusconi, Aznar, and other noble
figures. This was pretty uniform across the spectrum, just taken for granted. The
lesson was: if you have a very strong government you don’t have to pay a
political cost if you overrule the population. That’s admirable. That’s what
governments are for: to overrule the population and work for the rich and
powerful. It is so deep-seated that it wasn’t even seen.
ZV: What
your opinion about the dilemma of means - revolution versus social and cultural
evolution?
NC:
I don’t really see it as a dilemma. It makes sense, in any system of domination
and control, to try to change it as far as possible within the limits that the
system permits. If you run up against limits that are impassable barriers, then
it may be that the only way to proceed is conflict, struggle and revolutionary
change. But there is no need for revolutionary change to work for improving
safety and health regulations in factories, for example, because you can bring
about these changes through parliamentary means. So you try to push it as far
as you can. People often do not even recognize the existence of systems of
oppression and domination. They have to try to struggle to gain their rights
within the systems in which they live before they even perceive that there is
repression. Take a look at the women’s movement. One of the first steps in the
development of the women’s movement was so-called “consciousness raising
efforts”. Try to get women to perceive that it is not the natural state of the
world for them to be dominated and controlled. My grandmother couldn’t join the
women’s movement, since she didn’t feel any oppression, in some sense. That’s
just the way life was, like the sun rises in the morning. Until people can
realize that it is not like the sun rising, that it can be changed, that you
don’t have to follow orders, that you don’t have to be beaten, until people can
perceive that there is something wrong with that, until that is overcome, you
can’t go on. And one of the ways to do that is to try to press reforms within
the existing systems of repression, and sooner or later you find that you will
have to change them.
ZV: Do
you think that the change should be achieved through institutionalized (party)
politics, or rather through other means such as disobedience, building parallel
frameworks, alternative media, etc?
NC:
It is impossible to say anything general about it, because it depends on
circumstances. Sometimes one tactic is right, sometimes another one. Talk of
tactics sounds sort of trivial, but it is not. Tactical choices are the ones
that have real human consequences. We can try to go beyond the more general
strategic choices speculatively and with open minds, but beyond that we descend
into abstract generalities. Tactics have to do with decisions about what to do
next, they have real human consequences. So for example, let’s take the
upcoming Republican National Convention. If a large group that calls itself
anarchist acts in such a way as to strengthen the systems of power and
antagonize the public, they will be harming their own cause. If they can find
actions that will get people to understand why it makes sense to challenge
systems of formal democracy without substance, then they picked the right
tactic. But you cannot check or look in a textbook to find the answers. It
depends on careful evaluation of the situation that exists, the state of public
understanding, the likely consequences of what we do, and so on.
ZV: The
United States has a very long history of “Utopism “ of different attempts
towards alternative social orders. Transcendentalism was also famous because
its Brook Farm and Fruitlands experiments. French thinker Proudhon once wrote
that:” Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order.” Where do you see life after or beyond
(nation) state?
NC:
My feeling is that any interaction among human beings that is more than
personal - meaning that takes institutional forms of one kind or another - in
community, or workplace, family, larger society, whatever it may be, should be
under direct control of its participants. So that would mean workers' councils
in industry, popular democracy in communities, interaction between them, free
associations in larger groups, up to organization of international society. You
can spell out the details in many different ways, and I don't really see a lot
a point in it. And here I disagree with some of my friends; I think spelling
out in extensive detail the form or future society goes beyond our
understanding. There surely will have to be plenty of experimentation - we
don't know enough human beings and societies, their needs and limitations. There
is just too much we don't know, so lots of alternatives should be tried.
ZV: On
many occasions activist, intellectuals, students, have asked you about your
specific vision of anarchist society and about your very detailed plan to get
there. Once you have answered “that we can not figure out what problems are
going to arise unless you experiment with them.” Do you also have a felling that many left intellectuals are
loosing too much energy with their theoretical disputes about the proper means
and ends, to even start experimenting in practice.
NC:
Many people find this extremely important and find that they cannot act as, let’s
say, organizers in their community unless they have a detailed vision of the
future that they are going to try to achieve. OK, that’s the way they perceive
the world and themselves. I would not presume to tell them it's wrong, maybe it
is right for them, but it is not right for me. A lot of flowers have a right to
bloom. People do things in different ways.
ZV: With
the process of economic globalization getting stronger day after day, many on
the left are caught between a dilemma - either one can work to reinforce the
sovereignty of nation-states as a defensive barrier against the control of
foreign and global capital; or one can strive towards a non-national
alternative to the present form of globalization and that is equally global. What's
your opinion about this riddle?
NC:
As usual, I don't see it as a conflict. It makes perfect sense to use the means
that nation states provide in order to resist exploitation, oppression,
domination, violence and so on, yet at the same time to try to override these
means by developing alternatives. There is no conflict. 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.
ZV: Many
oppose democracy since it is still a form of tyranny: tyranny of the majority. They object to
the notion of majority rule, noting that the views of the majority do not
always coincide with the morally right one. Therefore we have an obligation to
act according to the dictates of his conscience, even if the latter goes
against majority opinion, the presiding leadership, or the laws of the society.
Do you agree with this notion?
NC:
It is impossible to say. If you want to be a part of the society, you have to
accept the majority decisions within it, in general, unless there is a very
strong reason not to. If I drive home tonight, and there is a red light, I will
stop, because that is a community decision. It doesn't matter if it is 3 a.m.
and I may be able to go through it without being caught because nobody is
around. If you are part of the community, you accept behavioral patterns that
maybe you don't agree with. But there comes a point when this is unacceptable,
when you feel you have to act under your own conscious choice and the decisions
of the majority are immoral. But again, anyone looking for a formula about it
is going be very disappointed. Sometimes you have to decide in opposition to
your friends. Sometimes that would be legitimate, sometimes not. There simply
are no formulas for such things and cannot be. Human life is too complex, with
too many dimensions. If you want to act in violation of community norms, you
have to have pretty strong reasons. The burden of proof is on you to show that
you are right, not just: "My conscience says so." That is not enough
of a reason.
ZV: What
is your opinion about so-called “scientific anarchism” - attempts to
scientifically prove Bakunin's assumption that human beings have instinct for
freedom. That we have not only a tendency towards freedom but also a biological
need. Something that you were so successful in proving with universal grammar (language).
NC:
That is really a hope, it is not a scientific result. So little is understood
about human nature that you cannot draw any serious conclusions. We can't even
answer questions about the nature of insects. We draw conclusions -- tentative
ones -- through a combination of our intuitions, hopes, some experiences. In
that way we may draw the conclusion that humans have an instinct for freedom. But
we should not pretend that it is derived from scientific knowledge and
understanding. It isn't and can't be. There is no science of human beings and
their interactions or even simpler organisms that reaches anywhere near that
far.
ZV: Last
question. Henry David Thoreau opens his essay “Civil Disobedience” with the following sentence: “That government
is the best that governs the least or doesn’t govern at all.” History teaches
us that our freedom, labor rights, environmental standards have never been
given to us from the wealthy and influential few, but have always been fought
out by ordinary people with civil disobedience. What should be in this respect
our first steps toward another, better world?
NC:
There are many steps to achieve different ends. If we take the immediate
problems in the US, probably the main domestic problem we face is the collapse
of the health care system, which is a very serious problem. People can't get
drugs, can't get medical care, costs are out of control, and it is getting
worse and worse. That is a major problem. And that can be, in principle and I
think in fact, dealt within the framework of parliamentary institutions. In
some recent polls 80% of the population prefer much more reasonable programs,
some form of national health insurance, which would be far cheaper and more
efficient and would give them the benefits they want. But the democratic system
is so corrupted that 80% of the population can't even put their position on the
electoral agenda. But that can be overcome. Take Brazil, which has much higher
barriers than here, but the population was able to force through legislation
which made Brazil a leader in providing AIDS medication at a fraction of the
cost elsewhere and in violation of international trade rules imposed by the US
and other rich countries. They did it. If Brazilian peasants can do it, we can
do it. Instituting a reasonable health care system is one thing that should be
done, and you can think of a thousand others. There is no way of ranking them;
there is no first step. They should all be done. You can decide to be engaged
in this one or that one or some other one, wherever your personal concerns,
commitments and energy are. They are all interactive, mutually supportive. I do
things I think are important, you do things you think are important, they do
what they think is important, they can all be means for achieving more or less
the same ends. They can assist one another, achievements in one domain can
assist those in others. But who am I to say what the first step is?
ZV: Do
you go to the polls/ Do you vote?
NC:
Sometimes. Again, it depends on whether there is a choice worth making, whether
the effect of voting is significant enough so it is worth the time and effort. On
local issues I almost always vote. For example, there was recently a referendum
in the town where I live that overrode ridiculous tax restrictions, and I voted
on that. I thought it is important for a town to have schools, fire stations,
libraries and so on and so forth. Usually the local elections make some kind of
difference, beyond that it is: If this state (Massachusetts) were a swing
state, I would vote against Bush.
ZV: And
what about upcoming elections?
NC:
Since it is not a swing state, there are other choices. One might have reasons
to vote for Ralph Nader, or for the Green Party, which also runs candidates
apart from the presidency. There are a variety of possible choices, depending
on one’s evaluation of the significance.
* Ziga
Vodovnik is Assistant/Young Researcher at the Department of Social Sciences,
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, Europe.
