Chomsky on Anarchism.pdf - Zine Library

CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM
But nor on the other hand would a lot of peasants with pitchforks and
spades ...
We're not talking about peasants; we're talking about a highly sophisticated,
highly urban industrial society. And it seems to me its best method of
defense would be its political appeal to the working class in the countries that
were pan of the anack. But again, I don't wanr to be glib; it might need tanks,
it might need armies. And if it did, I think we can be fairly sure that that would
contribute to the possible failure or at least decline of the revolutionary forcefor
exactly the reasons that you mentioned. That is, I think it's extremely hard
to imagine how an effective centralized army, deploying tanks, planes, strategic
weapons and so on, could function. If that's what's required to preserve the
revolutionary structures, then I think they may well not be preserved.
If the basic deftnse is the political appeal, or the appeal of the political and
economic organization, perhaps we could look in a little more detail at that.
You wrote, in one of your essays, that "in a decent society, everyone would
have the opportunity to find interesting work, and each person would be
permitted the fidlest possible scope for his talents. " And then you went on to
ask: "W}){lt mure wuuld be required in partinddr, extrim'ic reward in tile
form of wealth and power? Only if we assume that applying ones talents in
interesting and socially usefol work is not rewarding in itself" I think that
that line of reasoning is certainly one of the things that appeals to a lot of
people. But it still needs to be expldined, I think, why the kind of work
which people would find interesting and appealing and folfilling to do
would coincide at all closely with the kind which actually needs to be done,
if we're to sustain anything like the standard of living which people demand
and are used to.
Well, there's a cenain amounr of work that JUSt has to be done if we're to
maintain that standard of living. It's an open question how onerous that work
has to be. Let's recall that science and technology and intellect have not been
devoted to examining that question or to overcoming the onerous and
self-destructive character of the necessary work of society. The reason is that it
has always been assumed that there is a substantial body of wage-slaves who
will do it simply because otherwise they'll starve. However, if human intelligence
is turned to the question of how ro make the necessary work of society
itself meaningful, we don't know what the answer will be. My guess is that a
fair amount of it can be made entirely tolerable. It's a mistake to think that
even back-breaking physical labor is necessarily onerous. Many peoplemyself
included-do it for relaxation. Well recently, for example, I gOt it into
my head to plant thirty-four trees in a meadow behind the house, on the State
Conservation Commission, which means I had to dig thirty-four holes in the
sand. You know, for me, and what [do with my time mostly, that's pretty hard
141