Talking About: Noam Chomsky on Anarcho-Capitalism
I found this video online of Left-ideologist and philosopher Noam Chomsky talking about his negative opinions of Anarcho-Capitalism, saying that it is "a very sharp departure from traditional libertarianism".
Now, I do enjoy listening to Chomsky speak as he does give an excellent and detailed insight into Left-Anarchist principals and ideas. In this video however, he pulls apart Anarcho-Capitalism into something that it is not. In this post, I will respond to what he says from my Right-Anarchist POV.
At 20 seconds in:
"If you take a look at it, its advocacy of the most extreme form of autocracy and oppression that has ever existed."
This statement is extremely opinionated. From my POV, capitalism is the least oppressive and autocratic system to ever exist. Looking at communism or socialism, I see oppression, due to the fact that if you work harder than everyone else, you are not rewarded, if you don't work, you are leeching off of the labor of those that do, forcing them to work harder and harder to support your needs. The hard-workers are oppressed by the non-workers. No one prospers.
At 34 seconds in:
"The policies very quickly turn into concentration of power in the hands of unacountable, private institutions."
I assume that this statement is directed at powerful corporations, that have only been able to come into existence thanks to government corporatism. The point I think he is making relates to a corporations eventual involvement and control over the lives of workers. This is where the liberties of the people come into play. The people have to liberty to leave their job, and move to another. To leave the corporation of which may be oppressive, and to begin working for another. "Exploitation" of workers by corporations, which in leftist terms may lead to "wage-slavery", quickly results in the workers leaving their jobs, that's it. Workers in a free market situation, are not forced to work for anyone, meaning that businesses, big and small, are in a situation where they need to fight for their employees, not the other way around. In an actual free-market, where the booms and busts effect everyone equally, ensure that competition is maintained, fairly. Economically, a corporation is not able gain power over the workers so long as their is competition. In communism, the people have no choice of who or what to work for, whether they work for each other, or they work for the state, they do not have the liberty to decide for themselves.
At 1:18:
"If you have no means of support, then someone who has all the power(money) is willing to give you a couple of pennies, and you can make a voluntary agreement say OK I won't starve I'll be your slave."
The terminology he uses in this statements is designed to paint capitalism in a bad light once more. If you have no means of supporting yourself, and someone offers you a job, you would accept it as an opportunity to get back on your feet, not as someone else slaves, but indeed you are working for someone else who is far from your situation.
dictionary definition of slave:
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
As an employee you are not forced to work for anyone, you choose to. There is nothing stopping the man that was sleeping under the bridge from quitting his new job opportunity and going back and sleeping under the bridge. He is not the legal property of anyone, he is not forced to do anything. His actions are voluntary, and he can say no whenever he feels. He most definitely has an incentive to continue working, but an incentive doesn't have to be obeyed.
At 2:18:
On the topic of a technically lawless society: "Why should parents be forced by the state to feed their children, and if they accept their conception of liberty, that's true, why should you be?"
A very extreme example of what liberty would look like in an Anarcho-Capitalist society. Now, the big problem I have with this is the fact that humans, generally speaking, are very moral people. We know whats inherently good and whats inherently evil. Not feeding a baby is inherently evil. In a society with maximum liberties, the inherently good people have a right to stop the inherently evil people from committing such crimes. Atrocities much like Chomsky has described, occur in all societies, no matter the government situation. In a state-society, the government police has the right to stop such things from happen, in an anarchist-society, the people have the right to stop such things from happening, and there is a lot more people than there are police.
At 4:37:
"If in England... the manufacturers and merchants sold their goods abroad, manufactured abroad, and imported from abroad, the people of England would suffer... they'll (the manufacturers) be willing to sacrifice profit for the general good, so as if by an invisible hand, we'll be saved from the ravages of what's now called globalization."
This statement is a weird one. Chomsky suggests, and he paraphrasing Adam Smith, that if manufacturers and merchants produced abroard and imported and sold into England, even if they would be saving money in the production process, they wouldn't do so because the people of England would suffer. The way I see it, if the people are suffering, they could never afford to buy your products, so the manufacturers and merchants wouldn't produce domestically for the good of the people, they would do so because a wealthier nation can afford to buy more of their products. Obviously, Chomsky's reasoning may be correct, but mine is may also be correct.
In the last 15 seconds:
"The core of human nature is sympathy, concern for others, mutual support and so on, not hate everyone else, get as much as you can for yourself, make everyone else your slave and we'll call that freedom."
This statement is very much true. Have sympathy by hiring the poor who need work. Have concern for others by ensuring that your employees enjoy their work, and don't leave you for another job. Have mutual support for others by investing into the services that they provide through their business. Don't hate everyone else because they won't want to do business with you. Don't get as much as you can for yourself because no one wants to work with someone who doesn't pay high enough wages. Respect everyone else liberties and rights, and that's how you achieve freedom.
My Blog: Sailormann
Other Posts:
Anarcho-Communism is an OXYMORON
"Historically, the professional intellectual is a very recent phenomenon: he dates only from the industrial revolution. There are no professional intellectuals in primitive, savage societies, there are only witch doctors. There were no professional intellectuals in the Middle Ages, there were only monks in monasteries. In the post-Renaissance era, prior to the birth of capitalism, the men of the intellect — the philosophers, the teachers, the writers, the early scientists — were men without a profession, that is: without a socially recognized position, without a market, without a means of earning a livelihood. Intellectual pursuits had to depend on the accident of inherited wealth or on the favor and financial support of some wealthy protector. And wealth was not earned on an open market, either; wealth was acquired by conquest, by force, by political power, or by the favor of those who held political power. Tradesmen were more vulnerably and precariously dependent on favor than the intellectuals.
The professional businessman and the professional intellectual came into existence together, as brothers born of the industrial revolution. Both are the sons of capitalism — and if they perish, they will perish together. The tragic irony will be that they will have destroyed each other; and the major share of the guilt will belong to the intellectual."
Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, 12
If you keep talking common sense like that, people will start to talk! lolol
Thats the idea :)
Most of Chomskys position is based on the american 'Imperialist' model.
It's fairly simple to take apart the model by subtracting social constructs.
The left is looking at decades of sifting through the inconsistencies of their critique of capitalism and many hard looks in the mirror of their own political landscape.
The wise ones will come to hate the things they once built, the others will live a lie.
Excellent work.