Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:23 AM Dec 2013

Noam Chomsky: The Nutty Antics of Right-Wingers Distract Us from the Agenda of the 1%

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/noam-chomsky-tea-party-mostly-white-petty-bourgeois



***SNIP


Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism

SN: I kind of want to start up by asking you to briefly describe what is anarchism and more specifically anarcho-syndicalism?

NC: Well, I think the best characterization that I know is given by one of the leading thinkers and activists in the modern anarcho-syndicalist world, Rudolf Rocker, who described anarchism in general as not a specific set of beliefs that provides particular answers to all the questions that can arise, but rather what he called 'a general tendency in the history of humanity' which aims to inquire into the nature of social, economic, political structures to detect structures of hierarchy and domination and to challenge them to demonstrate their legitimacy. They are not self-justified and if they cannot defend their legitimacy on some plausible grounds then to dismantle them and reconstruct then from below. And to do this in the context of the existing society, developing alternative institutions that are more free and more just in the hope of moving on to a world of free associations of workers’ communities controlling their own institutions, their own fate in association with one another of various kinds of federal arrangements and so on. That is the basic thrust of anarchism. Altogether it is myview and of anarcho-syndicalism in particular which is designed for complex industrial societies.

SN: So, you are talking about workers controlling their own work and controlling the enterprises that work in expanding out to the community?

NC: It's one of crucial aspect of it. In fact, anarcho-syndicalism kind of shades off into left anti-Bolshevik Marxism. People like Anton Pannekoek, Paul Mattick, Karl Korsch and others have sympathetic relationships and ideas and the great anarchist achievement like the 1936 Spanish Revolution before it was crushed, did have the strong and sympathetic support of left Marxists who felt a community of interests and commitments.

SN: I'm kind of wondering how workers are controlling their own work. How is this organized? And how does it arise?

NC: Well, it's all over the place. First of all it is a constant development takes place all over. There were efforts in Eastern Europe, for example, in self-management in Yugoslavia. Right now in the U.S., in the old decaying Rust Belt, where industries are collapsing, they’re being replaced, to a certain extent, by worker owned and partially worker-managed enterprises. There is one huge institution that’s undergone great conglomerate in Spain which is worker owned and the manager is selected by workers but not actually worker-managed which is a collection of heavy industries, banks, hospitals, community living and so on.


6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Noam Chomsky: The Nutty Antics of Right-Wingers Distract Us from the Agenda of the 1% (Original Post) xchrom Dec 2013 OP
+10000000000000000 woo me with science Dec 2013 #1
Nice criticism of Libertarianism. joshcryer Dec 2013 #2
The Tea Party aligns economically, policy-wise, with the corporate Third Way. woo me with science Dec 2013 #3
+1 Scuba Dec 2013 #5
Sure, fuck the Third Way. joshcryer Dec 2013 #6
k/r marmar Dec 2013 #4

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
1. +10000000000000000
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:30 AM
Dec 2013

We are played like fools.


The reason that they are successful is that they have enormous amount of private capital supporting them. They are very heavily funded, they have media-outlets I mean they’re a genuine, popular movement, they have a base and they kind of mostly almost entirely white, mostly petty bourgeois, small store-keepers and so on, many of them. ... There's elements that are highly nationalist as racist elements. They basically just … their power and significance doesn’t come from their numbers, but by the backing that they have. They do serve the interests of significant elements of private capital.

joshcryer

(62,270 posts)
2. Nice criticism of Libertarianism.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 07:51 AM
Dec 2013

I wish more DUer's would push back against DU's favorite Libertarians.

NC: I wouldn't call them "revolutionary." I think one of the best description of them is by one of the leading conservative political analysts, Norman Ornstein, who was referring to the Republican Party altogether, the modern Republican Party, but the Tea Party is an extreme example. He described them as a radical insurgency opposed to rationality, to political compromise, to participation in a parliamentary system, in fact with no positive goals in themselves. They do oppose too much state power, but that is a bit of a joke, they also support state power. They support the powerful systems that sustain private power and put their concentration of power as opposed to the traditional anarchists were opposed to the relation of dominance between masters and servants, between owners and workers. That is one of the major, one of the most elemental types of dominance that have always been opposed by any anarchist but not by them, they are in favor of it. They want, they're in favor of having the population subordinated to concentrated private power, which should have no limits. When they call themselves "anti-government," that means they don't want government to limit the capacity of concentrated private power to dominate the society. That is very far from any anarchism. The reason that they are successful is that they have enormous amount of private capital supporting them. They are very heavily funded, they have media-outlets I mean they’re a genuine, popular movement, they have a base and they kind of mostly almost entirely white, mostly petty bourgeois, small store-keepers and so on, many of them. ... There's elements that are highly nationalist as racist elements. They basically just … their power and significance doesn’t come from their numbers, but by the backing that they have. They do serve the interests of significant elements of private capital.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
3. The Tea Party aligns economically, policy-wise, with the corporate Third Way.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:21 AM
Dec 2013

Chomsky has written extensively about the corporate business party that runs this country, masquerading as both corporate Democrats (the Third Way) and corporate Republicans.

Love the attempt to distract to fringe Libertarians, though, who never get anywhere *near* the Presidency. They never get anywhere near the Presidency not just because the people detest their cruel views on social programs, but also and especially because the corporate elite will not back them financially. Why? Because corporatists detest Libertarian views against warmongering, the surveillance state, and the drug wars.

Yet the Third Way is nevertheless pathetically desperate to focus on these fringe politicians. Why? Because they remind voters of Third Way betrayals on the wasteful, cruel drug wars; the bloody wars of empire; and the neo-fascistic surveillance state.

There's an easy solution to the Third Way obsession with fringe Libertarians:

[font size=3] Become the party that not only ends the outrageous drug wars, but also reins in Wall Street, restores our Constitution, reduces inequality, and STRENGTHENS social safety nets.[/font size]


Third Way Democrats would not have to worry about fringe Libertarians at all if they would crawl out of their corporate Masters' pockets for long enough to own the issues they SHOULD own.



joshcryer

(62,270 posts)
6. Sure, fuck the Third Way.
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:41 AM
Dec 2013
Love the attempt to distract to fringe Libertarians, though, who never get anywhere *near* the Presidency.


Except the Presidency isn't where the power is.

The war on drugs will end in 10 years tops.

The war on gay marriage will end in 5 years tops.

The war on health care will end in 15 years tops.

These things have little to do with ideology, it's just their sustainability. They aren't sustainable, therefore they will fall to the wayside.

Corporatists don't actually detest "Libertarian views against warmongering, the surveillance state, and the drug wars." They actually strive for such an approach. They would never be for anti surveillance laws that prevent corporations from data-mining, they would absolutely be for corporate militias running banana republics abroad. As far as the drug war they would absolutely be for corporations running drug distribution and would be against any regulations that minimize the impacts of overuse.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Noam Chomsky: The Nutty A...