Professor Chomsky, perhaps we should stop by
trying to define what is
not meant by anarchism but whether anarchy after all is derived from the
greek, literally meaning
no government, and presumably people talk
about
anarchy or anarchism as a system of political philosophy 
don't just mean, as it were, as of
January the first next year
government, as we know, understand it,
would suddenly ceased, there would be
no policemen no rules, no roads,
no laws,
no tax collectors,
no post office
and so forth, primarily would be something more
complicated than that
>>>Well yes to some of those questions known
to others, they may well mean 
no policemen
but i don't think that would mean
overall no rules on the road. in fact
I should say to begin with that
the term anarchism is used to cover
quite a range of
political ideas but I am going to
follow your lead and think of it as the
libertarian left
and from that point of view
anarchism can be conceived as a kind of
voluntary socialism, that is
 a libertarian socialist or anarcho-sindicalist,
or communist-
anarchist
in the tradition of say the
commandment propulsion and others
had in mind the highly organized
forms of society
but a society organized on the
basis of
organic
units, organic communities
and generally they meant by that
 the workplace
or the neighborhood, or both
and from those two basic units
involving the place where a person
works and spends his creative
energies
and the place where he lives and
relation to his neighbors and others
around them
from those two basic units there could
derive through
federal arrangements
highly integrated kind of
suppose social organization
which might be
national or even international in scope
where decisions
could be made over
substantial
range, but by
delegates
who are always part of the
organic community from which they
come and returned to attend
are revocable and in general would live
there
>>> So it doesn't mean society in which literally speaking a government some us
is that it was the
primary authority or social authority
comes, as it were, from the bottom up not
from the top down, at where
representative democracy
as we have it in the U.S. and in
Britain would be regarded as a form of
from the top down authority although ultimately
the voters decide?
>>>Well represented democracy
as in say the U.S. and  G.B.
would be
would be criticized by anarchist schoools
on two grounds;
 First of all, because
there is a monopoly power centralized in
the state
and secondly
and critically because 
representative democracies limited to
the political sphere
and in no way, in a serious way encroaches 
on the economic sphere and anarchists
of this traditional have always held that
democratic control of
one's
productive life
is at the core of any 
serious human liberation or for
that matter insignificant democratic
practice
that is as long as there are
as long as individuals are compelled to
rent themselves
on the market, to
 those who are willing to
to hire them
and as long as their role in production is simply that of
answer to tools, then
there are striking elements of
coercion oppression
but make talked of democracy very
limited or even meaningful.
>>>Historically have it being india
sustained
and of course on the
substantial scale of
societies which approximated to the
anarchist ideal?
>>>There are
small societies
small in number
that have I think done so
quite well and there are
a few examples of large-scale
 libertarian revolutions which were
largely anarchist in their structure
 as to the first, small societies
extending over a long period
I myself think the most dramatic
examples and perhaps the israeli keep
scheme
which for a long period
may or may not be true, for a long period
were 
really were constructed on
anarchist principles, that is of
self-management
direct worker control
integration of
agriculture industries service, personal
life
and an egalitarian basis with
direct and in fact quite active
participation in management and
were
I should think extraordinarily successful by
were almost any measure that one can
incude....>>>But they were presumably and still are
in the framework of a conventional state which guarantees certain...
...responsabilities.
>>>The active history is very interesting
up until
since 1948 they've been in the framework of the
conventional speak rather that they were
within the framework of a
colonial enclave
and in fact there was a subterranean
society larger cooperative society
which was not really part of the
system of
British mandate
but was functioning outside of it
and to some extent that survived the
establishment of
of the state, of course it became
integrated into the state and
in my view were
lost some of the paramount of its 
libertarian socialist character through
this process and through other processes
which are
unique to the history of
that region which we did not go into
however as
functioning
libertarian socialist institutions
I think there are interesting
model that 
I think is highly relevant to advanced industrial societies in the way
in which
some of the other examples of existing
question mark
A good example of a really large-scale anarchist revolution are
largely anarchist revolutions.
The best example to my knowledge is
the Spanish revolution in 1936
in which
most of republic in Spain there was
a time
of
quite inspiring ideal
anarchist revolution
that involved both industry and
agriculture over substantial areas 
 developed
in a way which to the outside looks
spontaneous. In fact if you look at the
groups of it one discovers that it
was based on
three generations with 
experiment, thought and work
which extended
anarchist ideas to very large parts 
of the population in this
largely pre-industrial total pre-industrial real society
and that again was
well, 
by human measures and 
even anyone's economic measures
quite successfully, in his production
continued effectively, workers in
farms and factories proved quite capable
of managing their affairs without
coercion from above
contrary to what
lots of socialists, communists, and
liberals models wanted to believe
and in fact,
you can't tell what had happened at
that
anarchist revolution was destroyed
was simple destroyed by force but during
the period of its
in which it was alived I think it was
highly successful and as I say
it was an inspiring testimony to
the ability of 
poor working people to 
organize and manage
their afairs, extremely successfully
without coercion or control
how relevant Spanish experiences to
an advanced industrial society one might
 question in detail.
>>>It's clear that the
fundamenta ideas is the primacy of
individual, not in isolation, but the other
individuals and uh... and the
fulfillment of
its freedom
this in the sentence looks awfully
likely finding ideas of the
United States of America
What is it about the American
experience which is made
freedom as used in that condition but
come 
suspected in the vote
tainted phrase in the minds of 
anarchist and libertarian socialist think of themseves?
Well,
many anarchist 
let me just say I don't really regard
myself as an anarchist thinker
derivative
fella traveling with him
Anarchist thinkers have
constantly been referred to the
American experience into the ideal
Jeffersonian democracy very
very favorably
however what they've been so, you know,
Jefferson's concept that the best
government does, the government which
governs least or in addition to
that that the best government of the one
that doesn't govern at all
there's one that's
often repeated by
anarchist thinkers into modern times
however the concept of Jefferson in democracy
Putting aside the fact that it was an slave society
 developed in a century pre-capitalist
system
that is in a society in which 
there was a
monopolistic control of
 that there were no centers of private
power, no significance in terms of
private power
It's striking to read today to go back
and read some the
classic ibertarian
if one reads
city of the hong kong humble swim
critique of the state
1792 work with
certain inspired Mill
and a
significant classic  pure libertarian text
he doesn't speak at all of the
need to resist private concentration of
power
rather he speaks of the need to
resist
the encroachment
coercive state powere
and 
that is
what one
find also in the early American
tradition....
taken for granted that
individuals are roughly equivalent
in their private power and that the only
reeling balance of power that one
sees is the centralized authoritarian
state
and individual freedom must be
 sustained against its intrution
the state of the church networking feels
one must read this no
uh... when he speaks a humble for
example of
the need for
controll of
ones creative life
whe he
decries the alination of labor
that arises from
coercion or even instruction or
guidance in one's work rather than
self-management in one's work
he's giving an
anti status anti-autocratic ideology
the same principles applied very
welcoming
a capitalist industrial society that
emerged later
