A Review of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM
I eagerly anticipated receiving CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM, Selected and Edited by Barry Pateman and published by AK Press 2005, which I had ordered from AK Press web site www.akpress.com. I was intrigued by the publisher's synopsis of the book. It is intended, so the publishers of the book enticed in their catalog, to be a statement of what Noam Chomsky is for, assuming that it is generally known what he is against.
Professor Chomsky and I share an interest in linguistics and anarchy. His father, William Chomsky, made significant contributions to the study of the Hebrew language. I was quite sure that I would be fascinated by the book. The blurb on the back cover effuses:"…Chomsky on Anarchism will be an exciting, and surprising, experience." Whoever wrote that was half right.
The book is a compilation of some of Chomsky's writings and interviews with him over the period of 1969 – 2004.
I began to read the first chapter "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship." The topic of the essay was certainly interesting enough. I soon found myself rather puzzled as to why I was plodding through some of the most boilerplate prose I have ever read. Had this really issued from the pen of the man who has been acclaimed as the "father of modern linguistics"? The writing style was muddy and wholly unentertaining. It was my interest in the subject of the Spanish Civil War that held me to that chapter. The author's style of writing certainly did not command my attention. I chalked the tedious prose of the first chapter of the book up to Chomsky's relative youth when he wrote the essay. I was wrong. The "style" is consistent throughout the book. The only "highlights" in Chomsky's prose is occasional, wholly superfluous sarcasm.
Chomsky does his homework, it must be said to his credit. The 75-page essay is accompanied by an additional 25 pages of references. As Charles Weigl promises in his Preface to the book; the requisite tenacity I called upon to get through "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" paid off with having learned many things valuable.
The first surprise came in reading Chapter Four: "The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism", the text of an interview that was conducted by Peter Jay in 1976 for BBC's program London Weekend TV. During the course of that interview, Chomsky says: "Let me just say I don't really regard myself as an anarchist thinker. I'm, a derivative fellow traveler, let's say." That is a very strange comment for a number of reasons. First, the phrase "derivative fellow traveler" is quite an inscrutable, obtuse and non-committal phrase coming from a renowned linguist. I communicated with Chomsky a couple of times a few years ago. I was very impressed by the lucidity of his thought and clarity and exactitude of his phraseology. It was hard for me to believe that author of those correspondences is the same man who wrote " derivative fellow traveler, let's say". Second, Noam Chomsky is generally thought of as an Anarchist (after all, the book is entitled CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM and the editors refer to him as an Anarchist). He is generally revered as "one of us" among Anarchists. Is he not one of us? Third, he has written extensively about Anarchy and has made a considerable reputation and academic career being a spokesperson for Anarchy. Last, and most certainly not least, he states in "Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future" (1995): "I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes."
The second surprise that jumped off the pages of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM at me is something that Chomsky says in the course of a talk he delivered in Glasgow, Scotland in January of 1990 at the "Glasgow Conference on Self-Determination and Power: Life Task, Political Task." He said: "Fame, fortune, and respect await those who reveal the crimes of official enemies; those who undertake the vastly more important task of raising a mirror to ourselves can expect quite different treatment, in any society. George Orwell is famous for Animal Farm and 1984 which focus on the official enemy, or could at least be interpreted in this light. Had he kept to the more interesting and significant question of thought control in relatively free and democratic societies, it would not have been appreciated, and instead of wide acclaim, he would have faced silent dismissal or obloquy. Let us nevertheless turn to the more important and unacceptable questions." One would think that a comment like this would come from someone who, as a result of having treated the "important and unacceptable [societal] questions had endured the disgrace of "silent dismissal" or "obloquy". In fact, Noam Chomsky is far more famous, venerated and, as we shall see presently, handsomely remunerated than George Orwell every hoped to be. The back cover of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM effuses: "His brilliant critiques of - among other things – capitalism, imperialism, domestic repression and government propaganda, have become mini-publishing industries unto themselves." The back cover of the book also says: He lives in Lexington, Massachusetts. I was curious to know what has become of Lexington, MA since the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired there. I found the following as part of the entry "Lexington, Massachusetts" in Wikipedia: "The median income for a household in the town was $96,825, and the median income for a family was $111,899. Males had a median income of $81,857 versus $50,090 for females. The per capita income for the town was $46,119. About 1.8% of families and 3.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.2% of those under age 18 and 3.4% of those age 65 or over." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington,_Massachusetts). I should say, those are hardly the median incomes of soothsayers facing societal "silent dismissal or obloquy".
This point leads to the overriding revelation ("surprise", as the person who wrote the blurb on the back cover of the book would have it) of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHY. The book opens with Chomsky treating the phenomenon of what Conor Cruise O'Brien termed the "counterrevolutionary subordination" of the liberal intelligentsia "which", Chomsky tells us, "poses a threat to scholarly integrity in our own counterrevolutionary society…" (Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship, 1969). In Chapter Eight, "Goals and Visions", written in 1996, he would write: "The labor press also condemned what it called the "bought priesthood" of the media, the universities, and the intellectual class, apologists for power who sought to justify the despotism that was strengthening its grip and to instill its demeaning values." By 1996 Chomsky felt sure enough of himself and his position to not only be so rude as to cut off those who interviewed him in mid-question (Chapter Nine, Anarchism, Intellectuals and the State, 1996, and again in , his 2004 interview with Barry Pateman), but to be brazenly honest enough to say: "My short term goals are to defend and even strengthen elements of state authority which, though illegitimate in fundamental ways, are critically necessary right now to impede dedicated efforts to "roll back" the progress that has been achieved in extending democracy and human rights…"(Goals and Visions).
He would take self-revelation further still in his interview with Ziga Vodovnik in 2004, which constitutes the Chapter Eleven of the book. Therein he would state uninhibitedly: "As usual I don't see a conflict. It makes perfect sense to use the means that the nation states provide in order to resist exploitation, oppression, domination, violence and so on, yet at the same time try to override these means by developing alternatives…I am perfectly happy to write columns that are syndicated by the New York Times, which I do, and to writ in Z Magazine. It is no contradiction. In fact, let's take a look at this place (MIT). It has been a very good place for me to work; I've been able to do things I want to do. I have been here for fifty years, and have never thought about leaving it. But there are things about it that are hopelessly illegitimate. For example, it is a core part of the military-linked industrial economy. So you work within in and try to change it." Chomsky's true colors are emerging for all to see. Opportunists don't see conflicts. They just see opportunities for self-advancement. Neither do they experience moral cognitive dissonance. It is becoming eminently clear that Chomsky is one of the intellectuals in a state of "counterrevolutionary subordination". His job, as a hired mouthpiece for the establishment, is to present "trenchant analysis" (as the back cover of the book describes his work) for the purpose of providing the illusion to real Leftist and Anarchists who venerate Chomsky, that they have an indefatigable, articulate ally and that change for the better in society is in the offing.
As to his statement: "It makes perfect sense to use the means that the nation states provide in order to resist exploitation, oppression, domination, violence and so on, yet at the same time try to override these means by developing alternatives", one must ask: "What alternatives, Professor Chomsky, have you developed in the half-century that you've been working at the military industrial complex's fair-haired boy, MIT? Have "exploitation, oppression, domination, violence and so on" been eradicated, or at least reduced, during the period that Chomsky has enjoyed all of the advantages of being a Professor Emeritus at MIT?
He goes on, and here the surprises reach a crescendo: ""Take for example the rich people here. Take those like me who are in the top few percent of the income ladder. We could cut back our luxurious lifestyles, pay proper taxes, there are all sorts of things (That "all sorts of things" is left very much up in the air. Can the "father of modern linguistics" not articulate what sorts of things he is referring to? Parentheses mine.). I'm not even talking about Bill Gates, but people who are reasonably privileged. Instead of imposing the burden on poor people here and saying "well, you poor people have to give up your jobs because even poorer people need them over there, we could say "okay, we rich people will give up some small part of our ludicrous luxury and use it to raise living standards and working conditions elsewhere, and to let them have enough capital to develop their own economy, their own means." True enough. Rich people, Chomsky now including himself as being part of, could do all that. But then they might no longer be able to afford to live in Lexington, Massachusetts, particularly if they are prepared to give up more than a piddling "some small part" of their "ludicrous luxury". One doesn't set out on a career to mangle the minds of Leftists and Anarchists if one is the type of person who is genuinely satisfied with a smaller slice of the American apple pie.
CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM is a study in hypocrisy. It reveals Chomsky for exactly what he is: every slithering dishonest thing that he accuses the liberal intelligentsia, who at least have the decency to admit that they work for the government, of being. The smokescreen of being the very thing he has spent decades ostensibly decrying evidently worked. By the time that Chomsky began to speak conspicuously about who is really is and what he is really doing he was a member in good standing of the Industrial Workers of the World and highly respected and trusted by Leftists and Anarchists. It is truly ironic that a Professor Emeritus at MIT is a member of IWW. One might ask: Just which industry are you employed by? The military industrial complex, as are your colleagues? Having become accustomed to thinking of him as a friend, Leftists and Anarchists are finding it difficult to accept that they have been duped and betrayed by him. Barry Pateman, who seems to admire Chomsky tremendously writes in his Introduction to the book: "It's a position that will spark debate and, in the eyes of some, question his whole conception of anarchism". Evidently, Pateman is aware there are some Leftists and Anarchists who find reasons to entertain questions about Chomsky's sincerity. We can but hope that Pateman will join our ranks.
In addition to, but certainly not less important than, Chomsky's usefulness to the powers that be as someone who has infiltrated the Left and Anarchist camps in order to confuse and render them impotent; "His brilliant critiques of - among other things – capitalism, imperialism, domestic repression and government propaganda, have become mini-publishing industries unto themselves" (my italics), as I have quoted. Chomsky is generating a lot of money.
He is an disgrace to the memory of his illustrious father Ze'ev (William) Chomsky, the great Hebrew scholar, who was a member of the IWW not out of opportunism and as a "mole", but out of genuine ideology.
According to the Wikipedia entry "Noam Chomsky" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky), Yiddish was the family's first language, but it was "taboo" to be spoken at home. I am sure that Chomsky will understand these Yiddish words, the first and derived from Hebrew, the second still in use in German: Chutzpah and eine Schande.
The following is my response to the comments made about this book review by someone who goes by the name Jakks on the Google Group "Socialism: An Intelligent Discussion", which can be found on the following URL: http://tinyurl.com/jj775
Thank you for your taking the time and trouble to express your viewpoint. I considered each point you raised.
I am still convinced that Chomsky is disingenuous, opportunistic and working for the government against the interests of Leftists and Anarchists, as the last part of this post will demonstrate.
He certainly collects fees like a real writer and lecturer despite the fact that he doesn't think he's very good at either.
I don't see him as a very good Libertarian Socialist either, living as he does in
I do not accept the fact that one has to make a name for oneself as an academic in order for his or her political opinions to be taken seriously. Does he presume to model himself on Einstein?
Most of the great names in Anarchist thought were not professional academics because they would not have the parameters of their thought described by a university as academics do. That's mere self-justification. Read what Helen Keller has to say about universities on the IWW site.
http://www.iww.org/culture/articles/hkeller1.shtml
To which he responded: "I always do that. I think it's been 40 years since I've gone anywhere just to give linguistics talks. I always combine them. In fact, usually I go for the social/political movements and give linguistics talks on the side. So, if I give a talk in the
The response above is an admission that he is giving his harmful lectures on Anarchy under the auspices of the Linguistics Department of MIT and on their nickel. MIT, which he states clearly in the book, is "a core part of the military-linked industrial economy" is paying him to do the Anarchist movement a disservice.
He also mentions one David Noble who used to work at MIT but who no longer does because "...he was a bit too radical." (Chapter Ten, Interview with Barry Pateman, 2004).
If Chomsky was half the radical he is making himself out to be he would not be working for MIT either.
The guy is as fake as a three-dollar bill.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan,
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
