[lbo-talk] The Soviet Union Versus Socialism - Noam Chomsky

Tayssir John Gabbour tjg at pentaside.org
Tue May 3 16:32:11 PDT 2011


On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:54 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Maybe Chomsky's full context would alter your opinion
>> (http://pentaside.org/article/chomsky-govt-in-the-future.html):
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> So he's rejecting the well-known conclusions of classical liberalism,
>> but extending classical liberalism's lesser-known reasoning. (At least
>> Humboldt's form of it.)
>
> CB: A big weakness of this understanding of the state is it is not
> based in an analysis of economic classes. This is a general weakness
> of _lib_eral and _lib_ertarian theory. The state , the socialist
> state, should intervene in social life substantially to abolish the
> capitalist class.

Chomsky offers explicit class analysis:

"Robert Tucker for one has rightly emphasized that Marx sees the

revolutionary more as a frustrated producer, than as a dissatisfied

consumer. And this, far more radical, critique of capitalist

relations of production, flows directly, often in the same words,

from the libertarian thought of The Enlightenment. For this reason,

I think, one must say that classical liberal ideas, in their

essence though not in the way they developed, are profoundly

anti-capitalist. The essence of these ideas must be destroyed for

them to serve as an ideology of modern industrial capitalism."

...

"A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means

of production. Such property is indeed, as Proudhon in his famous

remark asserted, a form of theft. But a consistent anarchist will

also oppose the organisation of production by government. I'm

quoting: "it means state socialism, the command of the state

officials over production and the command of managers, scientists,

shop officials, in the shop. The goal of the working class is

liberation from exploitation and this goal is not reached and

cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class

substituting itself for the bourgeoisie. It is only realized by the

workers themselves being the master of production by some form of

workers' councils." These remarks, it happens, are quoted from the

left wing Marxist Anton Pannekoek and in fact radical Marxism, what

Lenin once called infantile ultra leftism, merges with anarchist

currents."


> "Authoritarianism" is a abstract and flawed liberal and libertarian
> concept, because it is based in lack of understanding of the role of
> the state in the transitional phase out of capitalism to communism.

In my view, authoritarianism isn't a particularly important concept in libertarian analysis. More general is "power relations". Power relations is obviously important when analyzing institutions, as it affects outcomes.

Of course, antagonistic interests (as with economic class analysis) is also an important property to look at.

All the best, Tj



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list