Mike Morris, June 2018
Colorado Springs, Colorado
There’s a new piece out with MIT professor Noam Chomsky, adapted from a previous interview, titled Noam Chomsky Explains Exactly What’s Wrong With Libertarianism . He doesn’t do this, but instead, characteristic of Chomsky, goes on vague rants which appear to offer no real, workable solutions to the problems in the world. Indeed, Chomsky would appear quite favorable to the state; at least, relative to the market economy which he fears would be a unchecked force without the state.
The first non-argument set forth by Chomsky, intended as a way to make libertarianism seem so obscure that it must be illegitimate, is to say that, “what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, [it] doesn’t really exist anywhere else.”
This would be the same as to say that, since only few people have acknowledged the validity of something, that it’s not valid. This is often invoked as a case against free-market (Austrian) economics. “If it’s correct/the best way,” the opponent will claim, “why isn’t it the prevailing doctrine?” Well, because there is nothing to stop bad ideas from taking over.
Left-anarchists overall like to use this Chomsky non-argument to say that, since “anarchism was historically socialist,” therefore “anarcho-capitalism is not real anarchism.” It is true that anarcho-capitalism is more modern relative to anarcho-socialism, but historical or etymological origin doesn’t change meanings. It doesn’t change that the anarcho-capitalist is extremely hostile to the state (more so than Chomsky), and that it emerged from centuries of anti state classical liberalism.
Thus, even if we grant the validity of the argument, it isn’t even true the anarchists always cited — or the ones existing in the 19th century — were opposed to individualism, free-markets, and property rights. As anarcho-capitalist Bryan Caplan noted, “ despite a popular claim that socialism and anarchism have been inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist movement, many 19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favor of private property (merely believing that some existing sorts of property were illegitimate, without opposing private property as such).
Caplan goes on to quote the American anarchist Benjamin Tucker, who, writing in 1887, said that,
“it will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save his declaration that ‘property is robbery’ to learn that he was perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when you read his book and find that by property he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at all the possession by the laborer of his products.”
Chomsky then continues to strawman the anarcho-libertarian tradition following the above non-argument, saying that it, “permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes.”
This is not at all the case. The libertarian holds to the non-aggression principle, which condemns aggression as criminal, and permits the use of force only in self-defense of rightful ownership of body and property. It is the idea of the state in which power can be unleashed to do whatever it likes; and it would seem Chomsky is fond of this solution.
Chomsky has a loose way with words which must turn some people on to, well, whatever his ideas really are, such as to say that “concentrated private power” will take over. He is, again, quite vague on what it is he really stands for, generally self-identifying as an “anarcho syndicalist.”
“Private power”
Chomsky is afraid of what he repeatedly calls “private power,” perhaps such as to make you fear freedom from the state; he uses this term eight times in this piece. But he leaves out that these corporations he speaks of have always went to the state to obtain the power that they were unable to on the market.
As documented by Murray Rothbard in The Progressive Era , in every industry, every time, private attempts at cartels and monopolies failed, and these businesses saw to it that the only way they would be successful is to turn to the strong arm of the state. And so they did, putting forth various laws, such as the Federal Reserve Act, to gain control of the economy which they found impossible to do so without state assistance.
Chomsky would seem to hold the view that the state came in to save everyone in the 1930s, and the preceding progressive era, rather than this being a time when private interests indeed worked to secure special privileges from the state. The progressive era was not one where unchecked private power was finally checked; it was a time when these private interests saw to it that the government secure their position in the economy.
However, Chomsky, the alleged anarchist, believes that we need more of the state to check them. Despite acknowledging the “concentration of private power through the use of state system,” he would seemingly like to have it both ways: the state can be convenient and socialist, too.
While the anarcho-capitalist acknowledges that not every quasi-private business in our crony-socialist economy is legitimate, being that many of them have been privileged by the state in various ways, the solution remains that denying them the state — and its special privileges, subsidies, contracts — would lead them to fail . Private power came about through state power, and Chomsky is completely backward — my guess, wittingly — in his idea of the role of the state.
A strategy for liberty?
In the voluntaryist tradition, which Chomsky would deride as giving way to “private power,” it is never acceptable to use statist means toward libertarian ends; the state is patently coercive and anarchists should avoid associating with it in any capacity (voting, taking office, etc).
Long a question to anarchists is how this anarchist society will be achieved.
Especially if the political means are off the table. Some will agree that it sounds ideal, but being that we do have a state, how do we get there?
According to Chomsky,
“One way, incidentally, is through use of the state, to the extent that it is democratically controlled.”
Trying to reconcile this with their alleged anarchism, the state is justified “in the context of the capitalist economy.” So long as there is private power — though, how will anarcho-syndicalism rid the world of private property? — the state may be a useful tool in controlling it.
If they fear “private power,” which economists such as Ludwig von Mises had always distinguished from state power for that the market economy exists to serve the consumers, then it would seem that Chomsky and anarcho syndicalists are scared of statelessness. For, how would they stop people from accumulating capital, freely exchanging, using money, etc., in a world without the state? It seems they believe they couldn’t , and the state may hold the solution.
It is almost as if they rightly realize the state is socialist and exists as the means to trample on private property rights. So much for the “capitalist state,” as the interviewer suggests, it is correctly realized that the state is the means of having socialism; and that a stateless society would in fact mean capitalism.
To Chomsky, the state is useful because it “provides devices to constrain the much more dangerous forces of private power.”
While the world isn’t perfect, and the scope of discussion is very much what is preferable , e.g., liberty to the state, Chomsky is clear that he believes the private, market economy is “much more dangerous” than the state. That the state is preferable to the market is all that’s needed to confirm that one is not an anarchist.
But he’s not done yet. The state has won so many concessions for the people, it is believed, that surely the enactment of more laws for “the workers” would be good. One starts to get the feel that there is no real difference in an anarcho-socialist and a state-socialist; socialism always means to violate property rights. It is typical of left-anarchist types that state-run healthcare, labor laws, minimum wage laws, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc., are all good; to abolish them would be horrendous. What does Chomsky suggest is good in the state?
“Rules for safety and health in the workplace for example. Or insuring that people have decent health care, let’s say. Many other things like that.”
Again, on not realizing that “private power” turned to the state for real power, these interests —and not “the workers” — were always the ones behind these acts. It was those at the top pushing for workman’s compensation and other labor laws, knowing this would increase the costs of doing business, thus heightening the barriers to entry into the market and keeping out competition.
What is “decent” healthcare is apparently to be decided by Chomsky.
Again, ignorant that markets do provide, Chomsky tells us these wonderful things the state has given us are “not going to come about through private power.”
So how might an “anarchist” suggest they will come about?
“They can come about through the use of the state system under limited democratic control…to carry forward reformist measures. I think those are fine things to do. they should be looking forward to something much more, much beyond, — namely actual, much larger-scale democratization.”
Chomsky is essentially a democratic-socialist, hence his giddy support for the Bernie Sanders campaign, respecting Sanders for being brave enough to come out as a socialist. Indeed, he says of “anarcho-syndicalism” that “democracy of that kind should be the foundational elements of a more general free society.” Worse, Chomsky appears quite fond of Chavez and the Venezuelan prospect of offering the world an alternative (just as Sanders praised it).
Typical of a democratic socialist, which is but a softcore variety of communism, distance is sought from the much more heinous episodes in socialism, while a “huge” difference is presented to exist between both degrees of socialism. Chomsky is content with the latter, still statist, variety.
“As for state socialism, depends what one means by the term. If it’s tyranny of the Bolshevik variety (and its descendants), we need not tarry on it. If it’s a more expanded social democratic state, then the comments above apply.”
There you have it: state-socialism isn’t bad per se ; it “depends what one means” by it. There is thus an implicit admission that the state is in fact socialist (not capitalist), and this is good so long as it’s democratic . Seemingly his, and other anarcho-syndicalist’s, only problem with the state is that it isn’t democratic enough.
He continues
Further into this think-piece, Chomsky sounds the alarm of “climate change,” saying “we are facing a threat, a serious threat, of catastrophic climate change. And it’s no joke.” Presumably, the state would be used to check this, too. The solution, may we suggest, would be a greater enforcement of property rights, which doesn’t come under the state, to where any polluter, without a free pass, could be tried for aggression against the property rights of others.
It is true that the state rests on legitimacy, and not simply force alone, but Chomsky’s idea of indoctrination and propaganda is not that of the state indoctrinating people, but rather corporations who use clever marketing to dupe them. It’s as if people are forced to watch television or buy products in the same way they’re forced to fund the state through taxes. Chomsky doesn’t seem to care much to talk about how the state seeks to control people. Rather, he thinks the state can be used as a device to do the controlling.
In a way, Chomsky is much like Sanders to simply point out a problem which most anyone agrees is a problem (say, prices are rising), but fail to identify the cause to the reader (monetary inflation), on top of offering no real solution to this problem (a return to sound money). He voices his concern that “one of the main problems for students today — a huge problem — is skyrocketing tuitions.” In democratic socialist fashion, this must be compared to other, relatively rich countries, and we should ask “why do we have tuitions that are completely out-of-line with other countries?” Nevermind the massive government meddling in education in the United States, where there is no free-market in education, where should Americans look for examples of better models?
“Go across the ocean: Germany is a rich country. Free tuition. Finland has the highest-ranked education system in the world. Free … virtually free. So I don’t think you can give an argument that there are economic necessities behind the incredibly high increase in tuition.”
Chomsky is obviously not an economist, but to make use of his renown, speaks of economic issues anyway. Someone needs to tell Chomsky “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” and that “taxation is theft” already, because this “anarchist” had a lot to learn.
Chomsky and libertarian-anarchism
To be so hostile to anarcho-capitalism, Chomsky is quite vague here in what it is he believes are the solutions, though he does mention these anarcho-syndicalist models which he says are still in need of work. Anyone looking for clear, concise, coherent arguments against the state and for liberty will have to look toward the anarcho-libertarian tradition set forth by figures such as Murray N. Rothbard, who Chomsky has also commented on. They won’t find it from left-anarchists.
In the interview, Chomsky gives us his [vague] definition of anarchism:
“Anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics.”
Rothbard gives us something of much more substance, in his Society Without a State .
“I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual.”
Whereas anarchism and the market is a “spontaneous order” to many anarcho-libertarians (of the American phenomenon!), the leftist-egalitarian variety of anarchism is apparently something that needs to be planned; it is not the market economy where many individuals privately associate with one another.
In the end Chomsky doesn’t offer much of anything to one interested in ideas to reach liberty. He gives us the solution of the state, which has been no solution at all. Maybe the elites, perhaps Chomsky included, genuinely fear the libertarian tradition, for it serves as a decisive smack-down of the state and leaves no wiggle-room, as Chomsky likes to create, for the possibility that the state is a public benefactor. Contra Chomsky, to Rothbard, “the state is organized crime, murder, theft, and enslavement incarnate.” There are no exceptions.
If the government really needed to pay a shill to confuse those with anarchist inclinations, and turn them back to the state, Chomsky would be their guy. If they were ever in need of a guy to make anarchism seem like an incoherent, impossible ideology, Chomsky is their man.
Mike Morris’s work can be found at the Front Range Voluntaryist
Did we read the same Chomsky interview? You took the article, and turned it into the target of a strawman argument, by misreading what he said.