By Manila Ryce
Published Friday, June 15th, 2007, 1:57 am
Filed under: Videos: Debate, Videos: Political, Economic, Videos, US Politics

6 Responses to “Noam Chomsky - Free Market Fantasies: Capitalism in the Real World”

1. i think you should learn, and learn very well, the crucial difference between libertarian socialism (which would fare well under, for example, ron paul’s limited constitutional government policies) and authoritarian socialism, or state socialism, which chomsky is as much against as the capitalist relations enforced through elite privatization, and for the same reason: it leads to the inevitable transfer of power from the workers to the bureaucrats.

   remember, in a truly free market, anarcho-syndicalist work forces could, in theory, *compete* with capitalist work forces–and, as paul would say, we should let the market decide.

   i think it would behoove you to read chomsky’s “notes on anarchism” in this light. here is a quote:

   The consistent anarchist, then, should be a socialist, but a socialist of a particular sort. He will not only oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers, but he will also insist that this appropriation be direct, not exercised by some elite force acting in the name of the proletariat. He will, in short, oppose

   the organization of production by the Government. It means State-socialism, the command of the State officials over production and the command of managers, scientists, shop-officials in the shop….The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie. It is only realized by the workers themselves being master over production.

   These remarks are taken from “Five Theses on the Class Struggle” by the left-wing Marxist Anton Pannekoek, one of the outstanding left theorists of the council communist movement. And in fact, radical Marxism merges with anarchist currents.

   As a further illustration, consider the following characterization of “revolutionary Socialism”:

   The revolutionary Socialist denies that State ownership can end in anything other than a bureaucratic despotism. We have seen why the State cannot democratically control industry. Industry can only be democratically owned and controlled by the workers electing directly from their own ranks industrial administrative committees. Socialism will be fundamentally an industrial system; its constituencies will be of an industrial character. Thus those carrying on the social activities and industries of society will be directly represented in the local and central councils of social administration. In this way the powers of such delegates will flow upwards from those carrying on the work and conversant with the needs of the community. When the central administrative industrial committee meets it will represent every phase of social activity. Hence the capitalist political or geographical state will be replaced by the industrial administrative committee of Socialism. The transition from the one social system to the other will be the social revolution. The political State throughout history has meant the government of men by ruling classes; the Republic of Socialism will be the government of industry administered on behalf of the whole community. The former meant the economic and political subjection of the many; the latter will mean the economic freedom of all—it will be, therefore, a true democracy.

   (to read the full text, go to my blog: www.reconstitutionrevolution.blogspot.com)

   Bon
   06/15/07 at 4:13 pm
   
2. 

   @Bon
   Generalize much? Who exactly are you talking to that supports state socialism outright? Learn very well indeed.

   Additionally, Chomsky’s views are not as simple as you have said. Though he supports anarchism, he believes in temporarily strengthening state authority to protect libertarianism. Hence, I don’t think he’s a big Ron Paul supporter.

   By the way, your links don’t work.

   Manila Ryce
   06/15/07 at 4:25 pm
   

3. here is the link: www.thereconstitutionrevolution.com

   well, it’s quite simple: do you, or do you not, think that your particular brand of socialism should be implemented on the state level? from what i have read of your entries, especially about ron paul and dennis kucinich, it seems that this is indeed the case.

   and i’m not sure which chomsky you are referring to…but the chomsky i have read in “notes on anarchism” would not be so naive as to think strengthening any kind of state authority would somehow protect libertarianism. in fact, this seems an “outright” paradox of principles.

   i would appreciate your comments on this classic text.

   -b-

   Bon
   06/15/07 at 10:11 pm
   

4. @Manila Ryce

   Thank you for the post, I found in very informatory. Mr. Chomsky makes some excellent points, but I think he is slightly too idealistic. He masks this with his intense realism about the situation of Capitalism today, but you can tell he is, in many ways, portraying the situation to fit his views. Again thought, I think he very right in very many ways.

   “Though he supports anarchism, he believes in temporarily strengthening state authority to protect libertarianism.”

   I think I should respond to this with a cliched, but true, quote: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I don’t any strengthening of state authority can ever be ‘temporary’. Even if it is specifically planned for it to be temporary, the state will always find a way to extend it. After a power is given to the government, taking it away is impossible in most systems and near impossible in a system like ours. The history of the government of the United States has been, like most governments’ histories, one of the constant expansion of power. There are very few instances of power be taken away. I think any man who can plan to grant temporary power to the government in order protect a concept so opposed to central government (libertarianism) is guilty of criminal disregard for history. In this way, I must agree with Bon.

   @Bon

   I do not, however, agree with you that Mr. Chomsky’s brand of socialism will ever work. I do not think you can be a true libertarian without being a Capitalist, or a least without rejecting socialism and communism. Socialism does the same thing a Dictatorship or Despotism does to civil liberties to economic liberties. Without economic liberties, civil liberties naturally disappear. Taking away the inalienable right to own property essentially takes away the equally inalienable right to liberty. If you can not even call something you earned your own, if the government can take it away to give to who it sees as more deserving, how free are you? Your ability to own property is your freedom, and they cannot be separated. Incidentally, without freedom, the pursuit of happiness becomes impossible.

   Absolute Communism, if it would work, would be a Utopian system. The problem with it is irreparable however: Even if we gave up our libertarian principles and our devotion to our inalienable rights up in order to live in a system which is equally fair to everyone (As true communism would be), it would not last. Humans have a need to improve themselves, to better themselves. This is self-interest in the mundane and greed in the extreme. It is a evolutionary trait that we possess, it is the reason we survive today. Even in a society where people have voluntarily given up their libertarian ideas in order to live in a completely fair society, some will rise to the top. It cannot be helped. The smarter, better, and faster men will become the natural leaders of their communities. So, like all societies, a upper class will eventually come to develop. As this upper class increases in power, it will offset the balance that a communist society sets to uphold, and thereby create a despotism.

   I think that if Noam Chomsky says a consistent Anarchist should be a Socialist, I will respond by saying that a consistent libertarian must be a anti-socialist.

   Garrison Seeber
   06/15/07 at 11:39 pm
   
5. 

   @Bon
   “and i’m not sure which chomsky you are referring to…but the chomsky i have read in ‘notes on anarchism’ would not be so naive as to think strengthening any kind of state authority would somehow protect libertarianism. in fact, this seems an ‘outright’ paradox of principles.”

   Well then perhaps you are thinking of a different Chomsky, because from what he wrote in Powers and Prospects, it seems he fits your definition of naivety.

   “In particular, the anarchist vision, in almost every variety, has looked forward to the dismantling of state power. Personally, I share that vision, though it seems to run counter to my goals. Hence the tension to which I referred.

   My short-term goals are to defend and even strengthen elements of state authority which, though illegitimate in fundamental ways, are critically necessary right now to impede the dedicated efforts to “roll back” the progress that has been achieved in extending democracy and human rights. State authority is now under severe attack in the more democratic societies, but not because it conflicts with the libertarian vision. Rather the opposite: because it offers (weak) protection to some aspects of that vision.”

   Manila Ryce
   06/15/07 at 11:44 pm
   
6. 

   @Garrison Seeber
   “After a power is given to the government, taking it away is impossible in most systems and near impossible in a system like ours. The history of the government of the United States has been, like most governments’ histories, one of the constant expansion of power. There are very few instances of power be taken away.”

   If you understand the state as it has been for a few hundred years, with government and corporate powers being one in the same, then you’re correct, power is not easily surrendered. Chomsky is arguing for a transitional period, such as in Marxist theory, where the goals of the proletariat are progressed by the state. In a capitalist society, political power is a commodity. In a non-capitalist democratic society, politics are representational. With this understanding, the problem is with the tyrannical nature of capitalism, not the potentially democratic nature of government. If a government is made more democratic, by ending the influence of tyrannical institutions, then economic power no longer equals political power and the government is whatever the people want it to be.

   Manila Ryce
   06/16/07 at 12:10 am
   

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>