General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNoam 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, theyre being replaced, to a certain extent, by worker owned and partially worker-managed enterprises. There is one huge institution thats 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.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)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 theyre 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 doesnt 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)I wish more DUer's would push back against DU's favorite Libertarians.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)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.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)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.