The viability of Noam Chomsky's political philosophy?

[Tammuz]

What do you think of Noam Chomsky's political ideology? He self-identifies as an anarchist, or libertarian socialist. He describes the kind of society he prefers:

... a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist, in the tradition of, say, Bakunin and Kropotkin and others. They had in mind a highly organized form of society, but a society that was organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities. And generally, they meant by that the workplace and the neighborhood, and from those two basic units there could derive through federal arrangements a highly integrated kind of social organization which might be national or even international in scope. And these decisions could be made over a substantial range, but by delegates who are always part of the organic community from which they come, to which they return, and in which, in fact, they live.

Do you think this is a viable model for a society?

Note that this thread is not about the validity of his critiques of American foreign policy (for which he is probably most well-known). So please don't let it rail into that.

 

[dystopian]

What do you think of Noam Chomsky's political ideology? He self-identifies as an anarchist, or libertarian socialist. He describes the kind of society he prefers:

... a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist, in the tradition of, say, Bakunin and Kropotkin and others. They had in mind a highly organized form of society, but a society that was organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities. And generally, they meant by that the workplace and the neighborhood, and from those two basic units there could derive through federal arrangements a highly integrated kind of social organization which might be national or even international in scope. And these decisions could be made over a substantial range, but by delegates who are always part of the organic community from which they come, to which they return, and in which, in fact, they live.

Do you think this is a viable model for a society?

Note that this thread is not about the validity of his critiques of American foreign policy (for which he is probably most well-known). So please don't let it rail into that.

I'm not sure how this system is different from what we already have; depending on where you live. I don't see how that paragraph is describing a system that is fundamentally different from the kind of local and decentralized government systems that already exist. They may not have the political ideology coloring them that he wants, but other than that it seems the same thing?

 

[ApostateAbe]

What do you think of Noam Chomsky's political ideology? He self-identifies as an anarchist, or libertarian socialist. He describes the kind of society he prefers:

... a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist, in the tradition of, say, Bakunin and Kropotkin and others. They had in mind a highly organized form of society, but a society that was organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities. And generally, they meant by that the workplace and the neighborhood, and from those two basic units there could derive through federal arrangements a highly integrated kind of social organization which might be national or even international in scope. And these decisions could be made over a substantial range, but by delegates who are always part of the organic community from which they come, to which they return, and in which, in fact, they live.

Do you think this is a viable model for a society?

Note that this thread is not about the validity of his critiques of American foreign policy (for which he is probably most well-known). So please don't let it rail into that.

The political organization as expressed in that quote seems to be no different from the current and common political system, so it has my support, I suppose. I was expecting something bizarre or incoherent from Noam Chomsky.

 

[arkirk]

What do you think of Noam Chomsky's political ideology? He self-identifies as an anarchist, or libertarian socialist. He describes the kind of society he prefers:



Do you think this is a viable model for a society?

Note that this thread is not about the validity of his critiques of American foreign policy (for which he is probably most well-known). So please don't let it rail into that.

I'm not sure how this system is different from what we already have; depending on where you live. I don't see how that paragraph is describing a system that is fundamentally different from the kind of local and decentralized government systems that already exist. They may not have the political ideology coloring them that he wants, but other than that it seems the same thing?

What do you mean "we already have?" Any system with any hope of success or survival must be capable of coping with over-arching problems that cannot be met by decentralized local government...cumulative environmental effects of society must be dealt with centrally at some point. The problem is in obtaining sufficiently widespread understanding of our effects on the environment and rational agreements to ameliorate the more onerous of our environmental problems. We have so many fragmenting factors in our society today everything from religious commandments to firmly entrenched ideologies, it seems next to impossible to arrive at a useful level of understanding and agreement between separate communities. I think that is what we have to do however just to deal with so much as ONE of the MANY environmental challenges facing mankind.

I feel when Chomsky tries to describe what he would like to see, there perhaps are not words enough to describe it and he casts about as we all do for the appropriate words to describe what he thinks might be appropriate. It is usually a string of rather amorphous ideas which I suspect even he knows is inadequate to describe how he feels things should be.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm not sure how this system is different from what we already have; depending on where you live. I don't see how that paragraph is describing a system that is fundamentally different from the kind of local and decentralized government systems that already exist. They may not have the political ideology coloring them that he wants, but other than that it seems the same thing?

What do you mean "we already have?" Any system with any hope of success or survival must be capable of coping with over-arching problems that cannot be met by decentralized local government...cumulative environmental effects of society must be dealt with centrally at some point. The problem is in obtaining sufficiently widespread understanding of our effects on the environment and rational agreements to ameliorate the more onerous of our environmental problems. We have so many fragmenting factors in our society today everything from religious commandments to firmly entrenched ideologies, it seems next to impossible to arrive at a useful level of understanding and agreement between separate communities. I think that is what we have to do however just to deal with so much as ONE of the MANY environmental challenges facing mankind.

He was just being ironic. There is no "decentralized government" and probably never will be. It doesn't work.

 

[untermensche]

Anarchism isn't a political philosophy.

It's an economic philosophy.

Chomsky's political philosophy can be described as democracy, but not a phoney democracy like the present US democracy that is really an oligarchy with a few democratic trappings.

And Anarchism proved it is a viable economic philosophy in Spain in the 1930's. It only failed because it was attacked by fascists with overwhelming force.

 

[arkirk]

What do you mean "we already have?" Any system with any hope of success or survival must be capable of coping with over-arching problems that cannot be met by decentralized local government...cumulative environmental effects of society must be dealt with centrally at some point. The problem is in obtaining sufficiently widespread understanding of our effects on the environment and rational agreements to ameliorate the more onerous of our environmental problems. We have so many fragmenting factors in our society today everything from religious commandments to firmly entrenched ideologies, it seems next to impossible to arrive at a useful level of understanding and agreement between separate communities. I think that is what we have to do however just to deal with so much as ONE of the MANY environmental challenges facing mankind.

He was just being ironic. There is no "decentralized government" and probably never will be. It doesn't work.

It all depends on what you regard as government. In general I agree with you on this, but there is a problem with huge centralized governments with maps that encompass large numbers of people with no political representation. Government needs to be diffuse and humanistic more than any other identifiable quality and also democatic. (SMALL d).

 

[Harry Bosch]

He was just being ironic. There is no "decentralized government" and probably never will be. It doesn't work.

It all depends on what you regard as government. In general I agree with you on this, but there is a problem with huge centralized governments with maps that encompass large numbers of people with no political representation. Government needs to be diffuse and humanistic more than any other identifiable quality and also democatic. (SMALL d).

Holy crap! if you agree with me, I'm buying a lottery ticket!!

 

[Axulus]

Anarchism isn't a political philosophy.

It's an economic philosophy.

Chomsky's political philosophy can be described as democracy, but not a phoney democracy like the present US democracy that is really an oligarchy with a few democratic trappings.

And Anarchism proved it is a viable economic philosophy in Spain in the 1930's. It only failed because it was attacked by fascists with overwhelming force.

What's the difference between phoney democracy and democracy, other than you tending to describe those systems in which the voters don't vote they way you like as "phony"?

 

[untermensche]

Anarchism isn't a political philosophy.

It's an economic philosophy.

Chomsky's political philosophy can be described as democracy, but not a phoney democracy like the present US democracy that is really an oligarchy with a few democratic trappings.

And Anarchism proved it is a viable economic philosophy in Spain in the 1930's. It only failed because it was attacked by fascists with overwhelming force.

What's the difference between phoney democracy and democracy, other than you tending to describe those systems in which the voters don't vote they way you like as "phony"?

It is not a wonder you do not know.

Real democracy is where the will of the majority finds expression in government.

 

[Togo]

I'm not sure how this system is different from what we already have; depending on where you live. I don't see how that paragraph is describing a system that is fundamentally different from the kind of local and decentralized government systems that already exist. They may not have the political ideology coloring them that he wants, but other than that it seems the same thing?

Substantially the same. The key differences, I suspect, are that the units in Chomsky's model are organic - that is based on community and connected relationships - rather than the more arbitrary détente-based units we have today. That and the democracy element, whereby delegates are members of the community from which they come, rather than stratified elites being appointed to run for representation in particular districts.

And while Spanish anarchism proved viable, at least in the short term, I prefer the Hungarian model.

 

[Axulus]

What's the difference between phoney democracy and democracy, other than you tending to describe those systems in which the voters don't vote they way you like as "phony"?

It is not a wonder you do not know.

Real democracy is where the will of the majority finds expression in government.

And how do you determine "the will of the majority"? Especially in cases where that will appears to contradict itself (i.e. there is majority support for two mutually exclusive or incompatible positions)?

An example is in the following case, which I know you hold dear to your heart:

Americans’ Views On Health Care: A Study In Contradictions

Americans’ attitudes toward their health care system and its financing have been the subject of numerous recent reports in both professional journals and the popular press. Many of these articles report significant dissatisfaction with the current U.S. health care system and a preference for some form of national health program. Others note apparent inconsistencies in popular views. The most obvious example is that while Americans express a preference for a “national health plan,” they do not want to pay additional taxes to support such a program.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/9/4/149.full.pdf

 

[Valjean]

He was just being ironic. There is no "decentralized government" and probably never will be. It doesn't work.

Wasn't feudalism a form of decentralized government -- small, self-contained, insular communities with little intercourse with the outside world?

 

[bilby]

He was just being ironic. There is no "decentralized government" and probably never will be. It doesn't work.

Wasn't feudalism a form of decentralized government -- small, self-contained, insular communities with little intercourse with the outside world?

Hmm. Yes, I guess feudalism is a kind of decentralised totalitarian dictatorship; at each level (apart from the very top and very bottom), people are under the autocratic control of those above them, while being in almost total authority over those below.

Whether that model can be made to work with freedom and/or democratic selection of leaders is hard to say; personally I doubt it - but likely it can't even be tried in a society with rapid communications and high levels of personal mobility both geographical and social.

 

[Togo]

Americans’ Views On Health Care: A Study In Contradictions

Americans’ attitudes toward their health care system and its financing have been the subject of numerous recent reports in both professional journals and the popular press. Many of these articles report significant dissatisfaction with the current U.S. health care system and a preference for some form of national health program. Others note apparent inconsistencies in popular views. The most obvious example is that while Americans express a preference for a “national health plan,” they do not want to pay additional taxes to support such a program. http://content.healthaffairs.org/con...4/149.full.pdf

Fascinating paper.

The authors seem desperate to conclude that people don't want a national healthcare system, even though all the data they cite points in the opposite direction:

For example, they constantly introduce the topic of tax increases, despite having no reason to suppose that national health coverage would be more expensive than the existing system. Even then:

Support for these components is mixed. The subgroup of people who say they prefer the Canadian system respond positively to provider choice (94 percent) and universal coverage (94 percent). They also find fee control for doctors and hospitals (88 percent) and paying for health care costs out of taxes (90 percent) acceptable. But when people are asked about the acceptability of paying substantially higher taxes to support the system, the approval figure drops to 57 percent.

Note that they focus on the drop there, and ignore the clear overall approval for the policy, even if coupled with a tax increase.

Regarding cost, 39 percent believe such a program would be less costly than the system we have now, but 31 percent think a government program would actually cost more; 18 percent think it would cost about the same. In short, nearly half say that a government program would cost at least as much as the system we have now (Exhibit 3).

Again, they take the most negative position they can here. It would be better supported to say the opposite, that more than half think that costs would go down or stay the same, but they choose not to do so.

The main message to take away here is that, even with some trying their hardest to spin the results, the 'will of the majority' is actually pretty clear, at least in this example.

 

[untermensche]

It is not a wonder you do not know.

Real democracy is where the will of the majority finds expression in government.

And how do you determine "the will of the majority"? Especially in cases where that will appears to contradict itself (i.e. there is majority support for two mutually exclusive or incompatible positions)?

I did not say that perfection was possible.

Right now we have a government that is mainly responsive to the wills of a tiny few very wealthy people.

Anything is better than that.

The will of this most greedy minority is driving us over an environmental cliff. It is also polluting all discourse since it also controls the media.

Do you think if a majority had control we would still be driving as fast as we can towards environmental disaster? What would be their gain for doing so? We know what the tiny most greedy minority is gaining by doing it.

But I do sympathize with the problem. The US is so corrupted, so far from a functioning democracy that it is very hard to imagine what one would would look like, because it would look completely different from the present system dripping with the corruption of wealth. A system where money wins over prudence and providing for basic needs, like a livable environment in the future, almost every time.

 

[dismal]

It is not a wonder you do not know.

Real democracy is where the will of the majority finds expression in government.

And how do you determine "the will of the majority"?

I think I am able to safely conclude the majority do not clamor for Chomskyite anarcho-socialism.

I have deduced this from near-complete lack of clamoring for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anarchism only works in a world where there are no bad people. It presumes evil comes from governments--but what are governments but groups of people? How is evil an emergent phenomenon?

If evil individuals exist anarchism is unable to deal with them. It also does awfully poorly with those who fare poor socially. (Say, most everyone on the autism spectrum.)

 

[dystopian]

What do you mean "we already have?" Any system with any hope of success or survival must be

First of all, why? We have very successful systems right now that don't cope with the problems you mention; and there's little reason to think that these system couldn't survive in some form even if we had a global crash of some sort.

Secondly, that's great and all and I don't necessarily disagree... but that system wasn't the one being described in the op.

capable of coping with over-arching problems that cannot be met by decentralized local government...cumulative environmental effects of society must be dealt with centrally at some point.

So... you mean the central government? Which we also already have? Not good enough? How about central trans-national government? The EU? The UN? Again, I'm not seeing anything described we don't already have. Just because they don't meet some arbitrary level of success in solving certain problems doesn't mean the systems don't exist. The only two things that could possibly transcend these forms of flawed governing systems and create the unity of ideas you think necessary for us to solve our problems is if we 1) invented some form of technological telepathy and forced it on the entire global population; create a hive mind and you'd solve all the problems you complained about. Or 2) Created Artificial General Intelligence and allowed it to run our governments for us. If you're not willing to consider these options, then you'd better give up on finding anything that's significantly better or different at solving our problems than what we already have.

 

[dystopian]

He was just being ironic. There is no "decentralized government" and probably never will be. It doesn't work.

Uhm. There *is* decentralized government and it can actually work exceptionally well. A confederation is an example of a decentralized government; and my country experienced its golden age during its time as a highly decentralized confederal republic. Even today though, we have a very decentralized government, with our provinces and cities taking on the brunt of government and with the power to frequently and openly defy the central government. Beyond this, there are a great number of decentralized functional features of government in our country; the waterboards, regional democratically elected organizations that have full responsibility and authority for water management in their region are probably the best example of this. They're highly decentralized, with there being no less than 24 of them in a pretty small overall area. In general, our decentralization actually works quite well.

It's really only when we're in transitional periods, going from either more to less centralization or the other way around (right now there's a decentralization wave happening with a great many tasks being moved over to local governments where they used to be the responsibility of the central government) that things (temporarily) start to break down.

Or were you talking specifically about a completely amorphous distributed government with no central node as opposed to a government having strongly decentralized features?