Chomsky on Anarchism.pdf - Zine Library

CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM
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 oJ globalization and that is equally global. What'
your opinion about this riddle?
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 ro 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. J 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 militarylinked
industrial economy. So you work within it and rry to change if.
Many oppose ''democracy'' since it is still a form oJtyranny-tyranny oJthe 23.
majority. They object to the notion of majority n.t/e, 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 this comcience, even if
the latter goes against majority opinion, the presiding leadership, or the laws
oj the society. Do you agree with this notion'
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 withom being caught because nobody is around. If you
are part of the community, you accept behavioral patterns that maybe you
don't agree with. Bm there comes a point when (his 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 fo r a fo rmula about it is
going be very disappointed. Sometimes you have to decide in opposition to
your friends. Sometimes that would be legitimate, sometimes nor. There simply
are no fo rmulas 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.