Chomsky On Capitalism

CHOMSKY on Capitalism, Libertarian Party, Anarchism [Excerpts from Feb 14, 1992 appearance on _Pozner/Donahue_] CHOMSKY: ...that's why if you look at the *ideology* of the founding fathers -- not what they actually *believed* -- but at the doctrines that they professed, which is something quite different, they were opposed to centers of power and authority. In the 18th century that meant they were opposed to the feudal system, and the absolutist state and the church and so on. Now those *very* same doctrines apply to the 19th century and the 20th century and they *should*, if we take them seriously, make *us* opposed to the patterns of authority and domination that exist *now* -- like for example *corporate capitalism*, which is a system of authoritarian control that Jefferson never *dreamt* of. Or the powerful 20th century state *linked* to the corporate elite, which, again, is a system of power and domination on a scale that, say, Jefferson couldn't have *imagined*. But the same *principles* would lead us to be opposed to *them*.

From CALL-IN section: QUESTION: ...What's the difference between your [Anarchist] views and the Libertarian Party? [This, among four other back-to-back call-in quations (see below)] CHOMSKY: Well let me begin with the question about the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is familiar here -- unknown elsewhere. There's a *long* tradition of Anarchism, Libertarian thought outside the United States, which is *diametrically* opposed to the positions of the Libertarian Party -- but it's unknown here. That's the *dominant* position of what's always been considered Socialist Anarchism. Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *Capitalist* Party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to.. people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way. So while I share a lot of..there's a lot of shared ground with the special, U.S. rightwing anarchism, which really exists only here (and in fact have plenty of friends, and so on), I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner. (Another caller asked in response to Chomksy' subscribing to Anarchy, that sure there are abuses but wouldn't Anarchism be furtile ground for dictatorship?)

CHOMSKY: ..As to whether Anarchism could lead to dictatorship -- first of all, let's distinguish Anarchism from "anarchy"; I'm not in favor of everybody doing anything they feel like -- Anarchism as *I understand it* is a highly democratic system, it's a system -- and in fact a highly organized, and structured system -- it's just structured and organized *from the bottom up*. It's organized through voluntary association, agreement, federation, up to the world [level] if you like -- it could be a highly structured system. But's it's going to have to come out of popular involvement. *Could* it lead to dictatorship, well, you know -Pozner: Is it a system in which people are truly responsible, as you understand it? NC: It would have to be -Pozner(?): Because otherwise you'd have "anarchy" -NC: I mean if people do *not* want -- It's based on an assumption: that assumption is that human beings want to be *free*. Now if that's wrong, if human being want to be slaves, there's no hope in Anarchism... [...] [The number on the screen, may or may not still be vaild, for transcripts: 1-800-777TEXT (note date of Chomsky's appearance on _Pozner/Donahue_ at top)] [Chomsky's address: Prof Noam Chomsky, Dept of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambrige, Mass]