Chomsky on Anarchism.pdf - Zine Library

INTRODUCTION
B
working together in comradely relationships." Equally important is <strong>Chomsky</strong>'s
perceprion of class as the central tenet of anarchism. It's a theme he will keep
returning to and a theme that is out of synch with both Woodcock and some
elements of contemporary anarchism. For <strong>Chomsky</strong>, it is quite straightforward:
within modern capitalism we see matters of class arising all the time. To
deny or minimize them is nonsensical. Such a position can lead him to harsh
criticisms of anarchists like Srirner, primitivists, and all those who cannot see
the importance of solidarity and community in a class-based way.
Woodcock and <strong>Chomsky</strong> are nO( roo fa r apart however on the central q uesrion
oEhow an anarchy can be brought about. Both seem to shy away from the
idea of a single revolutionary moment that will ovenhrow capitalism. Rather,
they imagine it could well be a long, drawn-out process. It's an idea shared by
other anarchists such as Colin Ward who, in his Anarchy in Action (I 973),
argues that:
an anarchist society, a society that organizes itself without
authority, is always in existence ... buried under the weight of the
state and its bureaucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege, religious
differences, nationalism and its suicidal loyalries, religious
differences and their superstitious separatism.
h is an idea that has always had resonance with some anarchists-Rocker is a
notable example-and perhaps allows us to understand some of <strong>Chomsky</strong>'s
ideas more clearly. Surely, like Ward, he sees a fundamental human decency in
people. A decency that has somehow survived, and will continue to survive, all
the weapons that capitalism can throw at it. From this decency comes ways of
being that can operate within capitalism and point the way to a future of anarchy.
Hence, <strong>Chomsky</strong> can argue that progressive taxation and Social Security
are created by attitudes which, if pushed a little more, would be anarchist. It's
a little bit reminiscent of Kropotkin arguing that lifeboatmen were an example
of anarchist communism in action, or the syndicalist idea the certain kinds of
unions could become the source of a new society-the new in the shell of the
old. Such an attitude certainly answers the problem of how we create anarchy
in our day-to-day lives. It also explains the myriad of examples <strong>Chomsky</strong> gives
of how to move towards anarchy, many of which implicitly suggest the richness
of character and ability to provide mutual aid prevalent in many people.
A cynical reader may well want ro ask how long one must wait for the state to
be eroded by these examples of anarchy in action, or might point our the suppleness
and malleability of capitalism in incorporating many of these ideas as
its own. But, as Woodcock argues of anarchists: "h is to liberating the great
network of human co-operation that even now spreads through all the levels
of our lives than to creating or even imagining brave new worlds that they have
bent their efforts."
<strong>Chomsky</strong>'s anarchism has always been grounded in history. It might be
hard for liS now, in an era where there are numerous sympathetic accounts of