Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)

[Money2Burn]

I posted the question in reaction to this post zasterguava made:

[ QUOTE ]
But unlike the statist socialists of his time, Proudhon's solution is not to give each person an equal amount of property, but to deny the validity of legal property in natural resources altogether.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was somehow related to the OP. When I heard this it made me consider what would happen to me if I constructed some sort of shelter on a piece of land and put locks on the doors so I could sleep withouth worring about someone coming in and messing with me. According to the above statement, this would not be considered acceptable because I have no authority to deny people access to the property my shelter is built on. I did not like the implications that would have for such a society, which is why I asked the question because there is a good chance I misunderstood what was being said.

[ QUOTE ]
You are missing the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood that Chomsky didn't want to get into specifics because he thinks it's too complicated to get very specific. I think that if you are talking about the ideals or tennants or whatever that a particular societal structure is based upon then it is possible to predict implications that would have for the society. I think one particular implication for this type of society would be that it would not tolerate locks or fences being constructed.

I understand that this was rather unimportant to the overall discussion at hand, but I was curious. If it was inappropriate or just retarded, that's cool just let me know.

[tame_deuces]

Chomsky's view isn't exactly unique. Many anarchists hold the notion that private property rights can't exist in a voluntarist society and propose syndicate solutions instead.

And there is no need to go overboard on the Cambodia thing either. Yes he deserves criticism for it because he made blunders, but from all his writings and speeches it is also clear this is not a man who in any way supports genocide.

And besides everybody deserves criticism for the Cambodia incident. Entire world sat on their asses and watched and only Vietnam did something.

[BCPVP]

Been listening to some Salerno lectures, Boro? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Been listening to some Salerno lectures, Boro? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He repeatedly advocates an anarchy where there are basically no rules or property at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example?

And the lock business. Jesus, he was drunk on pretend beer, in a conversation that never occurred. Do you have any better evidence of his views?



[/ QUOTE ]


Yes I would recommend you read his work for evidence of this view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is another way of saying that YOU don't have the evidence. Can you even specify which work this would appear in, much less an actual quote?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke , perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chomsky, within a few lines of praising rationality makes an argument based entirely on emotion. There is not a point for him to make rationally here though because history totally destroys his position. Where are these potentates of capitalism? The Fords, Gates and Hills of capitalism built their empires by paying their employees more, by making products more freely available to those that wanted them, by making so many things that people want and need. And what do these potentates do with their vast sums of wealth? They give it away. Heartless bastards dragging peasants behind their carts for fun all of em.

[Qrawl]

People only like Chomsky because of his name. They think 'Noam Chomsky' sounds sophisticated. I doubt anyone would care what he said if his name was John Brown.

[tame_deuces]

Anarcho-syndicalism is based on principles of equality & freedom. Anarcho-capitalism is based on principles of property rights & freedom.

There really isn't much more to it than that. Of course we can debate these premises endlessly, but all in all we'll boil down to difference in opinion on these basic premises.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]

Anarcho-syndicalism is based on principles of equality & freedom. Anarcho-capitalism is based on principles of property rights & freedom.

There really isn't much more to it than that. Of course we can debate these premises endlessly, but all in all we'll boil down to difference in opinion on these basic premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the former cannot sustain a modern advanced civilization based on a high degree of specialization and the division of labor, and the latter can. So unless you want 95% of the world's population to die and the rest live at a Stone Age level of subsistence, you are pretty much forced to discard the "egalitarian" principle.

Also, anarcho-capitalism is in fact based on equality. It's just not based on equality of outcome, but rather a universalizable ethic. The two are incompatable.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Anarcho-syndicalism is based on principles of equality & freedom. Anarcho-capitalism is based on principles of property rights & freedom.

There really isn't much more to it than that. Of course we can debate these premises endlessly, but all in all we'll boil down to difference in opinion on these basic premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the former cannot sustain a modern advanced civilization based on a high degree of specialization and the division of labor, and the latter can. So unless you want 95% of the world's population to die and the rest live at a Stone Age level of subsistence, you are pretty much forced to discard the "egalitarian" principle.

Also, anarcho-capitalism is in fact based on equality. It's just not based on equality of outcome, but rather a universalizable ethic. The two are incompatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could have specified the equality, but I didn't really see the need. Equality of opportunity and outcome for the individual is what most people would see as equality anyway.

Anyhow...semantics is boring. Equality is MORE important to AS than AC, I don't think anyone can dispute that.

As for working, I think AS can work nicely for smaller entities but its pretty far fetched for larger ones.