So, Noam Chomsky’s (attempted) response to Roderick Long’s AMA question for him is probably one of the most depressing things I’ve seen in a while.
1. This is basically a video of an anarchist telling another anarchist that anarchism is silly and that he should grow up.
2. “You just can’t do it. There’s nothing to replace it. If there was a rich, powerful, network of co-operatives, community organizations, worker-controlled industry spanning over the whole country, the whole world in fact, yeah, then you can talk about eliminating the State. But to talk about eliminating the State in the world as it exists is simply to keep yourself in some remote academic seminar, or small group saying ‘gee, this would be nice.’ It’s not a strategy, so it can’t be a better strategy.”
…So, uh, obviously, the strategy is to make those institutions, so that you can get rid of the State. But nah, Noam decides that strengthening the power of the State (and thus making it much less likely for those kinds of institutions to come about) is a better call. What the hell am I listening to?
3. He completely ignores the regulatory capture arguments.
4. The fact that the commenters are praising these non-answers is the most upsetting part.
5. I’ve concluded that Noam Chomsky is the Milton Friedman of social anarchism. I mean that with both all of the strongly positive and strongly negative connotations that it holds.
Excellent commentary, though I think calling Chomsky the Milton Friedman of left-anarchism is way too much praise for Chomsky, at least Chomsky the political theorist.