Lenin (and Marx) were quite right recognizing the fundamental petty-bourgeois class outlook of this kind of philosophy: individualism, anti-union (except perhaps a perfect One Big Union), pristine intrinsic human nature (something Engels dashed 130 years ago in 'Origin of Family, Private Property and the State'), and above all, anarchism's opposition to any state power whatsoever. Nothing could serve small proprietary capital better than such a self-defeating philosophy.
Chomsky quotes Engels writing:
"The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organization of the state....But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries, and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris commune."
I assume Chomsky would support laying down arms, disbanding the state and the Red army as the 15 imperialist nations invaded the Boshevik state in 1917. If he follows Bakunin, he certainly would decry the first proletarian state (or proletarian dictatorship) - the Paris Commune. Anarchists would advocate laying down arms and disbanding, presumably making the 'Semaine Sanglante' during the Commune's overthrow even more bloody than it was at 50,000 dead.
Chomsky's essentially an anarchist/libertarian who makes a religion of individualism. Good fact-checker. Poor ideologue, strategist or historian. And yet, one can't help but give such a valuable person his due who has earned in spades the eternal hatred of the Zionists and the New York Times. Certainly one of those historically contradictory characters.
^^^^ CB: Appreciate your remarks,especially those above.