A Query about Noam Chomsky's Political Philosophy
One of the things I value in any thinker is clarity. Close behind is systematic thinking and mode of expression. Thankfully, many of the people I like to read (mostly anglophone analytic political philosophers) exhibit these qualities. My own philosophical interests are in questions relating to liberty, rights, property, political obligation, and the State.
Something I have observed from reading a lot of libertarian philosophy is that the 'right-wing' expressions of libertarianism are generally very clear and systematic. They tend to begin from a set of seemingly uncontroversial first principles, and guide you through a series of arguments which, even if one is not finally persuaded by them, are easily engaged with because they tend be presented so clearly. Maybe this is because many right-libertarians are also economists, or knowledgeable in economics (Robert Nozick uses the vocabulary of economics in his 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia', and Murray Rothbard was an economist by training who nonetheless wrote prolifically in political philosophy).
Less so among 'left-wing' libertarians. This is rather a large pot, but I find myself frustrated that people on the left who, like the more conventional private-property and pro-market libertarians, are sceptical of government power but who also want a more egalitarian distribution, do not tend to present their views with the same clarity or systematicity. The few exceptions I have found are Hillel Steiner (whose 'An Essay on Rights' I highly recommend) and Michael Otsuka (author of the less impressive 'Libertarianism without Inequality').
In particular, I have in mind anarcho-syndicalist Noam Chomsky, who is of course something of a celebrity, while also still being authentically an intellectual. My frustration with Chomsky is that it is very difficult to pin down what his philosophy is, and why he holds to it. Chomsky has written and said a great deal that is political. He is critical of a great many people and institutions; particularly, governments and capitalism. But, among his (more than 100) books, I have yet to find one in which he lays out his political philosophy with clarity, reasoning his way up from first principles. He typically takes remote pot-shots against the idea of capitalism, or neo-classical economics, or the employer-employee relationship, but, as far as I can tell, he does not ever reason us there in a systematic way. I wonder if there is such a book, and I have just not heard of it.
His particular brand of leftism, anarcho-syndicalism, may be traced (as far as I can tell) to Rudolf Rocker. Chomsky even wrote the foreword to the modern edition of Rocker's 'Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice'. Even here, however, there is no reasoning up from principles. It is simply taken as given that Statism and capitalism are both coercive institutions, and Rocker proceeds from there (I agree in the first case, but not in the second).
For anyone who knows, is there a book in which Chomsky lays out his own political philosophy (since he very clearly has one) from the ground up, as it were?
Something I have observed from reading a lot of libertarian philosophy is that the 'right-wing' expressions of libertarianism are generally very clear and systematic. They tend to begin from a set of seemingly uncontroversial first principles, and guide you through a series of arguments which, even if one is not finally persuaded by them, are easily engaged with because they tend be presented so clearly. Maybe this is because many right-libertarians are also economists, or knowledgeable in economics (Robert Nozick uses the vocabulary of economics in his 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia', and Murray Rothbard was an economist by training who nonetheless wrote prolifically in political philosophy).
Less so among 'left-wing' libertarians. This is rather a large pot, but I find myself frustrated that people on the left who, like the more conventional private-property and pro-market libertarians, are sceptical of government power but who also want a more egalitarian distribution, do not tend to present their views with the same clarity or systematicity. The few exceptions I have found are Hillel Steiner (whose 'An Essay on Rights' I highly recommend) and Michael Otsuka (author of the less impressive 'Libertarianism without Inequality').
In particular, I have in mind anarcho-syndicalist Noam Chomsky, who is of course something of a celebrity, while also still being authentically an intellectual. My frustration with Chomsky is that it is very difficult to pin down what his philosophy is, and why he holds to it. Chomsky has written and said a great deal that is political. He is critical of a great many people and institutions; particularly, governments and capitalism. But, among his (more than 100) books, I have yet to find one in which he lays out his political philosophy with clarity, reasoning his way up from first principles. He typically takes remote pot-shots against the idea of capitalism, or neo-classical economics, or the employer-employee relationship, but, as far as I can tell, he does not ever reason us there in a systematic way. I wonder if there is such a book, and I have just not heard of it.
His particular brand of leftism, anarcho-syndicalism, may be traced (as far as I can tell) to Rudolf Rocker. Chomsky even wrote the foreword to the modern edition of Rocker's 'Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice'. Even here, however, there is no reasoning up from principles. It is simply taken as given that Statism and capitalism are both coercive institutions, and Rocker proceeds from there (I agree in the first case, but not in the second).
For anyone who knows, is there a book in which Chomsky lays out his own political philosophy (since he very clearly has one) from the ground up, as it were?
Comments (67)
I would agree that they are very clear and systematic, but I think they are also simplistic in their analyses of how things really work; and they tend to start from the assumption that selfishness or individualism is true and good, something I strongly disagree with.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
In my opinion, Chomsky might as well work for the GRU. His criticisms do a lot to undermine Western institutions, which are a mix of good and bad, not just evil as he seems to imply.
No book of his directly tackling what you're after that I know of. But there is this collection of his writings that aims to do so:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12618.On_Anarchism
It is someone else's part--my part, your part, anyone's part--to decide what kind of political action to take.
Read Chomsky, listen to his speeches. But what, Virgo Avalytikh, do you want to do?
I don't know, it seems a little cheap to me. Critiquing the status quo - even voluminously or insightfully - is a relatively trivial undertaking. Justifying the principles by which one does so in the battle of ideas, where one has so many competitors, is more ambitious. Until he does so, he is leaving the substance of his philosophical system open to the reconstruction of an interpreter, and Chomsky's inner consistency, and even his first principles, are still very much in question. Simply, it is just not at all clear that Chomsky is right.
Take his critique of modern right-libertariansm. He asserts confidently that it is really no such thing; not really 'libertarian' at all, because it actually endorses coercive institutions. Now, a claim like this is far easier to assert than to justify. Even if it is true, it is not obviously true, and even if it is obvious to some, it is not obvious to me. As with his hero Rocker before him, these things are simply stipulated. Hearing him critique Nozock's 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia', a work of extraordinary breadth and ambition (even if misguided in places), makes me want to see if Chomsky can respond in kind, which he has not done.
Chomsky isn't God, of course. But I think you might cut him some slack if he doesn't happen to meet your criticism needs at some particular moment.
I found that what I’ve read from Chomsky is pretty disturbing and scary stuff. I think his criticisms should be leveled at the individuals who led and continue to lead these institutions more so than the institutions themselves. My opinion.
I haven't heard Chomsky speak recently, but as I recollect, he didn't shy away from targeting specific human actors. The thing is, though, the NYT has many writers, reporters, editors, and managers. Criticizing "The New York Times" is easier than naming every person who wrote something that adds up to the NYT presentation of Iraq, Vietnam, Trump, Obama, et al.
If the critique is good, then it is very useful. If it is not, then it is not.
It seems to me you are ruling out the value of critique in the absence of a clearly outlined alternative. A bit like when people say you can't complain unless you have a solution.
I think this is not a good position. First, some people might be better at seeing problems. They have one skill but not the other. I see no reason for them to suppress this skill. We have often have different roles in organizations. Red teams can be very valuable, for example. Decomposers in nature.
Second, there can also be a set of steps to any process of change. Let's say you think something is wrong in society. First you may have to convince a significant portion of society that that something is problematic. Once you have a significant agreement on this, solutions are more easily found and accepted. Now you have many minds in many portions of society ready to look and change and consider.
They will not look at alternative and potential solutions in the same way before there is a significant group in agreement that change would be good, if there was a viable alternative.
It's cart before the horse to debate solutions when in fact most people don't think there is a problem or assume that this must be the best option because they are not seeing the problems.
If one wants to say his critique has no merit or little or no merit, then a set of arguments demonstrating this are appropriate. But it seems to me that the OP implicity asserts that regardless of whether his critique is valid or not, it is wrong to present critique unless one has an alternative. I think that is a bad restriction on all of us.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
My own opinion on the matter is that western thinking has some kind of indigestion concerning the issue of self-interest, spectacularly exemplified during that silly bout of 20th-century Soviet Marxism. Other cultures have much better handled, and adjusted to, the scaling problem of the hamlet economy.
In the hamlet economy, people don't engage much in tit-for-tat trade. They rather tend to share. For example, today, you get a chicken from me, and tomorrow I can get a piece of the ox that you will slaughter. Fine, very lofty, but unfortunately it does not scale. If you live in a metropolis of ten million inhabitants, you cannot allow all of them to exercise hamlet-style sharing rights on your assets. No matter how many resources you have, you will undoubtedly still go under in Gambler's Ruin.
A switch to tit-for-tat trade, instead of liberally sharing resources, is not inspired by individualistic selfishness. It is rather a strategy to cope with the scaling problem of the hamlet economy.
The Soviet approach to solving the scaling problem of hamlet-style sharing, which already dramatically fails to scale at relatively small scale, was to implement it at the largest possible scale, i.e. the national scale. It obviously did not work.
If you look at Chomsky's political philosophy:
[Noam Chomsky] envisions an anarcho-syndicalist future with direct worker control of the means of production and government by workers' councils, who would select representatives to meet together at general assemblies.
And concerning Chomsky's "workers' councils":
According to the official historiography of the Soviet Union, the first workers' council (soviet) formed in May 1905 in Ivanovo (north-east of Moscow) during the 1905 Russian Revolution (Ivanovsky Soviet). However, in his memoirs, the Russian Anarchist Volin claims that he witnessed the beginnings of the St Petersburg Soviet in January 1905.
You can see that Chomsky advocates a return to the initial, embryonic stage of Soviet collectivism; of which the later stages can be assumed to be a natural consequence and dramatic sequel of their otherwise modest beginnings.
There is actually no need for grand social experiments. In other cultures, such as for example Islamic one, (tit-for-tat) trade is considered a viable social practice, if it is respectful of not engaging in explicitly forbidden behaviours, and if it is supplemented with a system of mandatory (zakaat) and voluntary charity (sadaqah); with mandatory charity not required to exceed a preset level of assets/income.
In my opinion, human society is effectively capable of scaling into the millions (and even billions) without unduly restricting personal freedom or imposing ill-founding collectivism; which is what Noam Chomsky's political philosophy would lead to. (Well, it historically certainly did.)
Of course, it is not a trivial undertaking if he is right, but whether he is right remains to be seen. It's not unreasonable to hold him to the same standard as many of the political philosophers he critiques, given that he himself has a political philosophy, even if he does not articulate it or seek to justify it in the same systematic way. Maybe it is a matter of starting point. I imagine that, if you are already in Chomsky's camp going in, you will find his critiques impressive, whereas if you are not, you will find them rather empty as I do.
I think you might have misunderstood me. I have not said that you should not critique the status quo unless you have an alternative solution. Chomsky has an alternative: anarcho-syndicalism. What I have said is that levelling a barrage of critiques against the status quo presupposes a political philosophy, but Chomsky has not laid down or argued for that philosophy in a way that aims to convince someone who might disagree with, or simply be ignorant of, his first principles. The result is that, in my view, Chomsky does an awful lot of preaching to the converted. This is unfortunate since, among anarcho-syndicalism's rivals, especially on the right, there are such clear systematic works of political philosophy.
No, I think I am making largely the same critique of both, but the problem is more pronounced with Chomsky. The writings of many of Chomsky's syndicalist heroes, like Rocker and Proudhon, have not aged terribly well, and so making uncritical appeal to them, as Chomsky seems to do, is not all that impressive. It would be a worthy use of time and ink, it seems to me, for Chomsky to bring these ideas up to date, and to present them clearly in his own modern treatise, and it is disappointing that he has not done this over the span of his extremely long career.
You may think you do. I do not think you do.
Could be. I reread it and it's seems more ambigous now.Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
It would certainly presuppose values, but not necessarily a fully thought out system. He may have one. I don't know. I guess I would still take the word 'barrage' to imply it wasn't ok to criticise so much if you haven't made clear what your political philosophy is, how your proposed system would work (better, presumably). Like it might be ok if one leveled a smaller number, but if one is going to be systematically or continually critical, then one has this other obligation.Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
I am not sure how putting forward critiques in the absence of a set of principles is more preaching to the converted than not doing this. Those principles will likely be at least as polarized politically and appealing, in his case, to part of the Left and certainly not the right.
For example, Chomsky often points out the way news judgment is inconsistantly applied to the behavior of Allies, the West, The US, Israel, and countries that are communist or Muslim or whatever. This can include or be using the values presented by the West and showing it is not being applied fairly. Here no need to provide an alternative is present. If he adds to this that we should have the following structures as priorities in society - equal distribution of wealth or whatever - that seems just as much preaching to the choir.
If we move into critiques that are aimed at economics and capitalism directly, again it seems to me no more polarizing or preaching to the choir to present critiques without also presenting anarcho-syndicalism. For example someone on the right or in the center might read why Chomsky says and think, damn, I did not realize things were like this, while at the same time not wanting to shift to anarcho-syndicalism. I think critique without the alternate system actually allows more swing room for opponents and fence sitters. They can more easily concede points. I mean this in practical terms, or perhaps better put psychological terms.
I also think there are separate issues, in every instance.
In the life project of a philosopher, well, perhaps it makes sense to also present a system, if one has one fully fleshed out.
On the other hand, if it is something that is new,then on some level their should be humility about how it would actually look. As a society moved towards his version of anarcho-syndicalism there is going to be a lot of intermediate stages which will teach us and supporters problems and challenges and consquences they did not forsee. This might tweak or radically change the actual form of the 'solution' or the solution.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh This was in response to someone else, but I think it is relevent. Of course it is not unreasonable to hold his solutions to the same standard as the solutions or systems he is critical of. But these are in the end separate issues. IOW perhaps much of his criticism is correct but his solution is terrible - I have often though this was true of some of Marx's analyses. Still, his criticism stands on its own. They need not be hinged. If he puts forward a system as better, well, certainly we are all free to criticize that system. In fact I can't imagine that not happening with great vigor, in the future and in the past. But the poverty of his solution does not eradicate the use of his criticism. Unless we truly have the best of all possible systems and this can be known. Then the response to him can be, yes, but your points don't matter nothing could be done about that and no system could be better. Those are the inevitable lesser evils of capitalism.
I was thinking that selfishness and individualism cannot be the sole foundation as there is a duality to humanity which includes concern for the community. There is a selfishness and an altruistic drive in most people who aren’t psychopaths or sociopaths.
That’s why I believe in responsible capitalism with aspects of democratic socialism, namely the inclusion of unions, worker inclusion on company boards, and a strong social safety net.
You sound like you'd be fun to debate.
If you like to win, then yes. I’m a terrible debater.
Haha, fair enough.
In my opinion, the very first question is rather: do corporations even make sense any longer?
We do not need taxi companies any longer, because we have Grab, Lyft, and Uber. We do not need hotels any longer, because we have Airbnb and similar networks. If it weren't for government regulations protecting existing cartels, this principle would now generalize much, much faster.
If you don't know what to do with your time, and you want to make money, then just create the Uber of {X}, and duly disrupt the existing corporate nonsense.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
It is obviously time that will tell, but in my opinion, the inevitable bankruptcy of the US social security system will undoubtedly put a stop to that particular social experiment.
I believe that social safety needs to be provided, first and foremost, by the extended family. If that happens to fail, mandatory and voluntary charity will kick in.
If that is still insufficient -- rather unlikely -- only then I could, as a matter of exception, agree to other urgent, emergency measures.
You see, it used to be that people would make sure to have children to have someone to take care of them in their old age. Now they do not need to do that any more, because the government will take care of them. And where does the government get the resources to do that? Answer: from other people's children.
The entire system works like that. Lots of women say that they do not need a man (as a provider). Why? Because the government will provide them with money and free services. And where does the government get the money for that? From the men, of course.
As far as I am concerned, that particular social experiment is just a pile of steaming bullshit. I am 100% convinced that it won't keep flying. The long-term trends for that particular social experiment are all pointing off the cliff and into the abyss. Good riddance!
Well, obviously I disagree, but I don’t want to battle you on social policy.
What are Grab, Lyft, Uber, Airbnb, et al if not corporations listed on stock exchanges?
The first food chain stores disrupted the locally owned food stores. Sears and Wards disrupted retail trade across the country. The auto disrupted the horse business, and we are still talking about events a century past. What Amazon or Airbnb calls "disruption" or "innovation" is the old capitalist principle of "creative destruction". The "destruction" isn't "creative". The purpose of destruction is to get rid of a competitor in order to create new business. We didn't need CDs; the music companies needed a way of destroying the old vinyl record business so they could sell it all again. CDs have since been "disrupted".
Quoting alcontali
Speaking of something steaming, This is unadulterated bullshit.
I am in agreement with you. I just didn’t feel like ripping into someone I like. Besides, I’ve been through this song and dance before. Usually the right-wing libertarians give straw man arguments and oversimplify how the world works. I just get exhausted arguing with them.
Wow. Talk about pulling a Chomsky.
Where have you outlined your views?
Great, can I see the book?
I don’t have a copy anymore. I deleted it in a self-destructive fit.
Well, 'morally bankrupt' is quite a serious charge if you don't have anything with which to back it up. 'I wrote a book but then deleted it' isn't too impressive, you understand.
Yeah, I can be a bitch (or dick), too. I just choose not to be right now.
?
I'm not being a bitch about anything. I'm just pointing out that for me to say 'Socialism is morally bankrupt' is the easy part. Justifying it is the hard part. Isn't that what this place is for?
Of that, I have no doubt. May I ask which right-libertarians you have read?
I am only familiar with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and the many right-wing politicians who espouse that philosophy.
It's strange, Ayn Rand seems to be a household name in the USA. In the academic literature, she is hardly influential at all. As is often the way. I had been studying libertarianism for a long time before I had even heard of her. Robert Nozick is of course a milestone, but I would recommend Murray Rothbard and David Friedman as an entry point. Rothbard's 'The Ethics of Liberty' and Friedman's 'The Machinery of Freedom' are both very good, and all a lot more profound than Rand.
If I ever get out of this quagmire of apathy that I’m in, then I will read those thinkers’ works. As of now, I’m just trying to survive each day.
Is David Friedman the one who writes for the New York Times? Whichever Friedman that is, I like what he has to say.
I don't know, I don't read the New York Times.
I don't think it's the same person.
In the video @Baden posted Chomsky drops some names of left-libertarian/anarchist/etc. thinkers that might appeal more to your sensibilities, too.
We are also working diligently on that "stock exchanges" issue.
If you are a bit adventurous and not too scared of Big Brother -- and if you are, do it from Malta -- then issue an ICO instead (Initial Coin Offering) of listing on a bankster-controlled stock exchange.
Yeah, as Donald Trump recently clarified, we still have work to do.
So, according to our beloved Donald, bitcoin is not money, but you still need a "money" transmitter license, or else, you apparently qualify for an extra round of face fisting.
So, yes, things are getting better and better. We are getting increasingly close to the point where our beloved Donald will have to admit that his views, "la chose et son contraire", have finally become openly trivialist.
State-ochestrated fiat banksterism is undoubtedly in its last laps. With a bit of patience, we will be able to stare with awe and admiration at some more bouts of frantic bug fixing. Not that is going to make any difference, obviously, except for its capacity to amuse us.
Nozick is in the "Know Your Enemy" section of the Anarchist bookstore that I go to sometimes. I haven't actually read Nozick, though. I've only read Ayn Rand as well, I guess. I was thinking of reading Rothbard's Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature so that I could level a polemical onslaught against it, but will probably ultimately dismiss such notions as being rather childish. There is no real reason to sift through the pathology of so-called Anarcho-Capitalists. Libertarianism is an appropriated political concept in my opinion, but I just simply generally accept what the Wikipedia article has to say about it. I don't think that Chomsky ever outlined what he particularly means by Anarcho-Syndicalism. I would honestly bet that he could only tell you so much. His political work is much more in the way of social critique. Manufacturing Consent is fairly popular because it was made into a documentary. Chomsky is in the IWW which, I would bet, is why he is an Anarcho-Syndicalist. I think that the IWW is pretty alright, but don't really agree with Anarcho-Syndicalism, myself. The IWW isn't strictly Anarcho-Syndicalist, but Anarcho-Syndicalism is the prevailing ideology within the IWW. Your critique seems to be something along the lines of that left-wing libertarians have no model of what kind of society it is that they would like to create which is more or less just true. We honestly don't know what it precisely is that we do want. We are just simply critical of everything. To me, it stands to common reason to conclude that society should be as liberal and egalitarian as possible. Whatever social configuration acheives this is best. I don't really have a model of what Anarchist society should like aside from "a loosely affiliated set of freely associated societies" who engage in participatory democracy. I haven't really gotten too much further than that. I write off everything else that I come up with as being "Fascist". Who knows if I or anyone else will ever be able to give you an answer?
Chomsky has repeatedly stated, for the last 60 years, what he sees as the essential principle of anarchism:that power should be justified. That is to say, that structures of power, hierarchy, domination, and control are not self-justifying -- that they have the responsibility to justify themselves and, if they can't, should be dismantled.
It's hard to imagine how one manages to overlook this, given Chomsky's presence over the years and his hundreds of books, articles, and YouTube videos.
Quoting Xtrix
That sounds wonderful - the problem is that this is a statement which would also be endorsed by figures who arrive at radically different conclusions from Chomsky, figures who have written with far more clarity and systematicity. So much is left unsaid; hence why a systematic political programme would be welcome.
You're moving the goalposts. You specifically mentioned his "principles." That's been given. Anyone who accepts this principle may arrive at different ways to implement it politically, but different conclusions? I don't think so - unless they're simply professing to believe in it. What "figures" who endorse this principle are you talking about specifically?
Chomsky has been both "clear" and "systematic" for 60 years. If you deign to read anything he's written, you'd quickly find that out.
As far as a "systematic political programme" -- this is meaningless, until it's explained what you mean by it. Chomsky has addressed specifically the idea that workers (of a factory or a business) who run the company should own the company. This has very specific and real-world applications which we could get into. As opposed to sophomoric academic political system-building which may be fun, but which are both easy and useless.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
No. So much is left unread. By you.
What I bemoaned was the lack of a work of systematic political philosophy in which the reader is led to anarcho-syndicalism from a set of first principles. I observed that neither Chomsky nor his heroes (Rocker, Proudhon, Bakunin) seem to have produced such a work. Libertarian writers of the Austrian school provide such formal treatises, for instance Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State, Power and Market, and The Ethics of Liberty. What would be a refreshing breath of air is for Chomsky to produce something similar. I make this observation constructively, not as an enemy of Chomsky, but as an academic with an interest. This is why I do read him.
So the principle that power should be justified and the principle that workers who run the companies should own the companies is what, exactly? Gibberish? Seems very clear to me. The fact that he doesn't write in precisely the same way as the Austrian school is a merit, in my view. But even if you don't agree, what exactly are you asking for, specifically? As someone who has read Chomsky widely, I'd be happy to answer to the best of my ability.
If you want philosophical principles on which his anarchism itself is based, Chomsky discusses this too -- at length.
I didn't accuse you of being an enemy of Chomsky, but I am a bit skeptical about how much you've read- since so far what you've claimed he's lacking he's expressed consistently and clearly throughout his writings.
If you want it formatted differently - like in a list or something, fine. But that's hardly a fair criticism. Chomsky's principles and political philosophy can be understood despite not writing like Rothbard.
Not gibberish, just vague. Take 'power' for instance: 'power', like other foundational concepts in political philosophy, like liberty, rights, obligation, equality, etc., admit of numerous conceptions. They do not come pre-interpreted for us. And what of 'justification'? What, in principle, would or could constitute a 'justification' of a coercive institution? As for the claim that workers should own the companies in which they work, there is nothing axiomatic about this. This claim must be arrived at on the strength of a robust philosophy of property, which as far as I am aware Chomsky does not lay out.
Political philosophy in general benefits greatly from being presented in a cumulative, systematic form, beginning from first principles and making plain the assumptions at work. It is the strength of libertarianism's/liberalism's intellectual tradition that it tends to present its thoughts in this way. Why the shunning of this would be a 'strength', I haven't a notion. The point is, right-libertarianism's opposition to the State and advocacy for the free market are logical derivations from its more fundamental opposition to aggression. 'Aggression' is not left as a vague banner behind which to rally, but is defined in terms of a system of property which is explored and defended at length, and which itself has a tradition going back to Locke. And this is not unique to the 'right': Marxist philosopher Gerry Cohen also manages to present himself in this way (he is far and away the best Marxist, precisely on account of his clarity). The issue is that Chomsky is not particularly persuasive, except to the already-convinced, and this is owing to the relative informality of his approach.
There is no escaping Chomsky. Like God, he's omnipresent.
Which is why I explained earlier what is meant in this context by power: structures of hierarchy and control. In any situation, from families to businesses. In the workplace (the most relevant here) you have bosses giving orders to people below them in rank, etc. You see people organized like this everywhere - in the church, in the military, in corporations, and so on.
You can claim it's all "vague" and play philosophical games with semantics, but it's not vague at all. Spending a little less time in the classroom or library, you'll see it all around you. You'll see it in academia as well. To claim these principles are "vague" is to claim anything is vague. Fine, we all know that's a move for philosophy students -- and not always a useless one. But in this case, my sense is you're not confused at all. You're just playing games.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
Chomsky often uses the example of his granddaughter running into the road. If he grabs her arm and pulls her back -- that's control, use of force, etc., but he could give a justification for its use. Hence why he's not a pacifist -- war can be justified. Although it's rare, it can be done. As far as coercive institutions -- you can invent all kinds of scenarios where they could be justified, although admittedly it almost never happens in the real world. There's a lot of pretense, of course, but we easily see through that. Going to war is a good example -- always some "justification" for it, usually pretty flimsy.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
You didn't ask for an axiom. The world is a complex place, and this isn't mathematics. You asked for various principles on which Chomsky bases his critiques and political philosophy. I've given some.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
And I gave you some principles. Must every thinker lay out his thoughts like the libertarian thinkers you happen to admire? Who says philosophy benefits greatly by laying it out in this way? Remember your original post:
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
And again I ask: what exactly are you looking for? You asked for principles, claiming Chomsky doesn't lay them out -- I've given them. Then you claim those principles are too vague and aren't "axioms." It appears all you're really saying is "anyone who doesn't lay out their political philosophy like my favorite political thinkers is unclear." Fine. But Chomsky isn't unclear to me, and I've both talked with him and read him widely.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
Vague. What is the "free market"? How can a "system of property" (vague) be "aggressive"? What in Locke are you referring to?
It seems exactly like another "banner behind which to rally," only for some reason you think it more axiomatic than "systems of power/authority/domination/control should be justified," which is kind of ridiculous considering the latter is a principle you yourself live by every day.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
I did not show up to Chomsky "already convinced," by any means. It took some effort to understand his thought, an effort which apparently you're unwilling to make.
That's funny.
I really don't think it's necessary to get quite this prickly. I have not attacked Chomsky. My query was just that - a query:
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
It sounds as if the answer is 'No'. You might have lots of reasons excusing the fact that this is the answer, but that really isn't relevant, which is why I have to confess some bemusement at your passion, especially so late in the day.
In any case, 'power' and 'justification' still have not been defined. Expressions of 'power' are indeed everywhere, which is why they are multivalent and don't admit of an easy, monolithic definition that unites them. I might be justified in pulling a child back from a busy road, but that still doesn't give a 'justification condition'. What precisely is the condition of justified coercion? Multiplying examples does not give us such a condition.
Quoting Xtrix
The best exploration of the nature of a 'market' is Ludwig Von Mises's Human Action. A market is 'free' to the extent that it is not subject to invasion, and the best exploration of the nature of this invasion is Rothbard's Power and Market. For an application of Locke's classical liberalism to the ethical categories of libertarianism (e.g. property, aggression), see Ibid., The Ethics of Liberty.
How the World Works, Understanding Power, American Power and the New Mandarins, Powers and Prospects, Who Rules the World?, Government in the Future, Because we Say So, etc. I skipped the recommendations and went straight for an answer to your question about principles, since I've read Chomsky widely. But nevertheless, here you go.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
They have been defined. It's quite true that there are no easy definitions that accounts for all situations, and in fact one can define a word anyway one likes. What's interesting is finding out why the notion is defined in this way in a larger theory and ask about the theory itself, whether it's sensible, etc. Regardless, if you knew that "power" -- in the same way as "truth" or "beauty" or anything else -- is multivalent, then why ask for a definition at all?
Also, to say "power is indeed everywhere" is already admitting there's something you believe to be "power," something that allows you to pick out those examples as examples of power.
I don't know what you mean by "justification condition." The point isn't to create a rule that one can follow in every situation. If that's what you're asking, then neither you nor I can provide it. You have to look to specific situations, not abstract fantasies. Chomsky excels, more than any living writer, in precisely that: the real world and the effects of policies on real people, all around the world. Worrying about "principles" and abstract philosophizing doesn't concern him much, it's true. That's not to say he doesn't have them or hasn't discussed them, but something like "the workplace should be democratized" and "structures of hierarchy and control aren't self-justifying" are clear enough formulations for what should be done.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
Still undefined. Sounds rather vague, as well. What is a "market"? Why should Von Misse's definition of "free market" be any more important than anyone else's? "Free market" is multivalent, after all. I recommend reading less of these "libertarians," but feel free to synopsize-- perhaps there's something interesting there. Personally I think the ideas thrown around over the years about "free markets" is pure fantasy; they've seemingly never existed except in libertarians' imaginations. In the real world, there's almost always strong state intervention in the economy.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
I don't see what was "prickly." The problem is that you've asked a question, received an answer, and then changed the question.
(1) You asked for principles, claiming you couldn't find any in Chomsky. I gave several.
(2) You then ask for "definitions," which I gave.
(3) Then you say they're not definitions because they don't account for all the data, that the terms are "multivalent." You ask for "axioms" and dismiss Chomsky as "informal" writing and not presenting his views "systematically" enough (which, it seems, only means "Not in the fashion of my favorite libertarian writers").
It's a little circular.
More importantly, I have also said, repeatedly, that I'll answer any specific question you have about Chomsky's political philosophy. You've failed to ask one. Instead you ask for books where he lays this out, which I gave (above). I assume you'll next say that those aren't good enough because they're not written in the style of Rothbard? But then all this has boiled down to is: "I don't think Chomsky is as clear as Rothbard et al." Which is fine -- but that's not really a "query" is it?
Of course I'm putting words in your mouth there, so maybe I'm wrong about the last part.
Oh, and what exactly makes this the "best exploration"? According to who? You?
(You see how easy it is to play these philosophy games.)
I'm sorry, but you are making a storm in a teacup here. This wasn't even a debate or discussion post until you unearthed it after I don't know how many months. I can see that Chomsky is your favourite, but I can't tell you how uninteresting this conversation is. Thank you for your book recommendations.
When building a political system, there are starting assumptions that are taken for granted. That I own my own body is the starting point of Nozick, and that coercive control over another is illegitimate is the starting assumption of libertarians (both left and right). Suppose that I ask, why is it that you own your own body? If it a first principle, that I own my own body, then the question will be greeted with the reply that this is what has been taken for granted as true.
I guess your issue is how is it that the left and right-libertarian, have similar-sounding starting assumptions, have differing levels of detail as to how society will be organized?
If we compare Nozick with Chomsky, then Nozick sets out to make the case for minarchism in the form that trained philosophers go about in making the case for anything, but Chomsky doesn't have this background and may not have realized that anyone expected this of him.
Or is your issue, that the starting assumptions of the left-libertarian seem to imply the conclusion that he wants to prove so that they seem too vague?
I am not sure that this is the case. While libertarians do indeed hold to self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, they are not simply taken as self-evident axioms. Rothbard, for instance, argues for self-ownership from the impossibility or arbitrariness of the alternatives. One alternative would be that one part of humanity begins by owning another part of humanity, and the other would be that every person in the world is jointly co-owned by everybody. Rothbard argues that the former is arbitrary, since some members of one and the same natural kind are afforded a 'natural right' that others are not, and he argues that the latter is impossible to implement, for all sorts of reasons which I won't rehearse here. Whatever we make of his arguments, the point is that they are not simply stipulated.
Quoting Walter B
Just a nit-pick: libertarians don't claim to have any idea how society should be organised. That is why they are libertarians. Libertarianism is really just classical liberalism in this respect: there is no 'blueprint' for making the world a better place, that is housed in the head of a genius somewhere. There is knowledge which is capable of making the world a better place, but it is de-centralised, spread across many individuals. This is why markets work as miraculously well as they do (see F. A. Hayek's The Use of Knowledge in Society), whereas collective decision-making processes tend towards market failure and function less and less well as the scale increases (see my topic, Anarchy, State and Market Failure).
Quoting Walter B
This is quite right.
Quoting Walter B
That would depend on the left-libertarian. I love to read Hillel Steiner, for instance. I am greatly appreciative of his The Structure of a Set of Compossible Rights.
This is a half-formed thought of mine as I'm about to pass out in bed, but: as a left-libertarian myself who loves to hear Chomsky speak (haven't read anything of his unfortunately), who came to my position by way of right-libertarianism and a formal philosophical education, I love the axiomatic approach, "the form that trained philosophers go about in making the case for anything", and I enjoy framing my own version of left-libertarianism in such a way (even a propertarian way, decomposing ownership via a Hohfeldian analysis of rights into more primitive deontic notions, and then building back up to an anti-capitalist form of propertarianism from there), so I would love to read somewhere a concise and rigorous axiomatic buildup of Chomsky's views like the OP is asking for, if such a thing exists. Links appreciated.
Why should it be that when I own someone that I am afforded a natural right? Rothbard is already invoking talk of natural rights to describe slavery, and so something of political nature is already assumed when describing slavery. Why not give an account of slavery that is descriptive? Here is an example: when I own slaves it is often against their will.
Or will Rothbard defend his argument without axioms?
'Ownership' is a statement about property rights. We are not just talking about de facto possession here; a thief who pinches my purse now physically possesses it, but this does not imply that he has a rightful claim to it (a world in which all de facto possession implies a rightful claim of ownership is praxeologically indistinguishable from a Hobbesian state of nature; we might as well not speak of rights at all, if such a world obtained). To speak of a right as 'natural' is simply to say that the right in question is not 'bestowed' upon one by an institution, such as the State. This is pertinent here, because Rothbard is considering the question of starting points: who starts off as the property of whom?
Quoting Walter B
Well, one problem is that it does not seem possible to define slavery apart from rights (specifically, property rights, which fundamentally are the only kinds of rights there are). The 'account' of slavery you have just given is not a definition. It does not give us a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for distinguishing cases of slavery from cases of non-slavery. Moreover, in the description you have given you have invoked the concept of 'ownership'. This is not a wertfrei description, for it simply throws us back upon the question, 'Who is the rightful owner of the person in question?' Trying to define slavery independently of property rights is like trying to define theft independently of property rights. If I take something from you against your will, is that 'theft'? Not necessarily - maybe it was my property, and you had previously stolen it from me. Distinguishing cases of theft from non-theft requires us to have a system of rights in place, and I would suggest that such is also necessary for distinguishing cases of slavery from non-slavery (e.g. employment).
The closest thing would be Gerry Cohen, especially Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. Like so many works of political philosophy, I disagree with it while also being profoundly appreciative of it.
Also some of the left-libertarians I mentioned above: Hillel Steiner, Michael Otsuka, Peter Vallentyne, Roderick Long. I find these thinkers much more compelling than Chomsky himself, despite their lacking his celebrity status. Steiner's An Essay on Rights is especially brilliant.
It doesn't seem that this is necessarily true. If I say that I own someone, then it could be meant that I have engaged in brute force against that person so that they are under my control. There is no need to invoke property rights to make sense of the statement that I own someone else.
"We are not just talking about de facto possession here; a thief who pinches my purse now physically possesses it, but this does not imply that he has a rightful claim to it (a world in which all de facto possession implies a rightful claim of ownership is praxeologically indistinguishable from a Hobbesian state of nature; we might as well not speak of rights at all, if such a world obtained)."
To say that I "stole" an item from you can mean that I have taken something without informing anyone of my action. No need to invoke property rights to describe this action either.
"To speak of a right as 'natural' is simply to say that the right in question is not 'bestowed' upon one by an institution, such as the State. This is pertinent here, because Rothbard is considering the question of starting points: who starts off as the property of whom?"
And why begin with this question? Why not ask the more basic question: are there really such things as natural rights at all?
"Well, one problem is that it does not seem possible to define slavery apart from rights (specifically, property rights, which fundamentally are the only kinds of rights there are)."
Slavery can be described in a politically neutral manner. When brute force is employed to control another, so that that other must obey the whims of the controller under threat of force, then that person is a slave. If someone threatens to torture me unless I do whatever it is that they want, then I am a slave to that person.
"The 'account' of slavery you have just given is not a definition."
Correct, it was a description of slavery. Not a definition of slavery itself.
"It does not give us a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for distinguishing cases of slavery from cases of non-slavery."
I thought it was clear that I was trying to ask for a politically neutral description of slavery that anyone from any political background can agree with. A definition of slavery that is purely descriptive is not necessary, however, since leftists have their own starting principle that hierarchies that find their basis in brute force are illegitimate. Since most have an intuitive believe that actions that justify themselves by brute force are illegitimate, then slavery may be rejected simply based on how the enslaved remains a slave by the slaver. This is why anyone who embraces the non-aggression principle will also reject slavery without having to know the definition of slavery; so even right-libertarians can reject slavery without having to debate the nature of property with the left-libertarian. This is why I find it strange that you think that a definition is truly necessary here.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
It looks like you think that if property rights don't exist, then we can't make sense of statements like "he stole my purse." I already noted that these statements can be made sense of without aligning oneself to any political position.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
You must understand that definitions that are not politically neutral are not going to be accepted by your political opponent and they will charge you with begging the question. If you are debating the definition of property, and your definition of property is biased in favor of individualism, will the left-libertarian agree with you or will he challenge your definition as biased against him?
Think about how Chomsky talks about freedom. When Chomksy describes freedom it is in no way compatible with right libertarianism and while leftists may rejoice upon hearing of it, the right will not be moved at all.
This seems to be largely a linguistic issue, but from my understanding of English, 'property' and 'ownership' are essentially coterminous. To say that something is my property is to say that it is proper to me; i.e. that it is my own. Slavery just is a case where one person is considered to be the property of another; they are considered 'chattel'.
Moreover, the definition you have given seems too permissive. Suppose that I use force against somebody else so as to encourage them into furnishing me with their labour. Suppose that they have previously signed an employment contract, consenting to furnish me with said labour for a price (wage), and suppose that they have neglected to do so. In using force, I am doing nothing more than enforcing our contract. In refusing to work for me, they are defrauding me and violating my property rights as a result. Am I 'enslaving' them? By no means - it is precisely on the basis of consent (contract) that cases of slavery are distinguished from cases of mere employment. So, the fact that I am using force in order to claim some article of property (in this case, my employee's body, so that they may make good on their commitments) is not automatically slavery.
Quoting Walter B
One ambiguity here is what it means to 'take' something. One possibility is that I have 'taken' something just in case it is physically on my person; in my hand, for instance. But this is obviously too permissive. This would mean that I 'steal' my own coffee cup when I take it from my cupboard without anybody knowing. It is more difficult than you think it is to define 'taking' in such a way that is neutral to property rights, since 'taking' something from somebody else is not always a matter of transferring it from their immediate person to mine. If I hotwire your car while it sits empty in your garage, I am 'taking' it from you, not because it is being transferred physically from you to me (you might not be anywhere near it at the time), but because the car is associated with you according to a principle of ownership.
Quoting Walter B
Rothbard does: see The Ethics of Liberty, ch. 1.
Quoting Walter B
I don't know what you are trying to get at here. As I mentioned above, there are cases in which I am within my rights in using force to compel someone to furnish me with their labour; i.e. when enforcing a contract. So the suggestion that 'slavery' is just any case in which force is used to compel the labour of another is not politically neutral, since the right-libertarian would not consider this to be a case of slavery, but of the enforcement of an employment contract.
A definition of slavery in terms of property rights is necessary. The NAP does not simply oppose 'force'. It opposes the initiation of force (including the invasion of justly held property). It permits the defensive use of force. But, it is not possible to distinguish which acts of force are initiatory and which are defensive, except in reference to a system of property rights.
Suppose, for instance, that I am a rightful self-owner. This means that, if somebody forcefully invades my person and compels me to work for them against my will, this is a rights-violation, and 'slavery' is the term we use to designate this. If I were to use force to resist them, my use of force would be defensive, whereas theirs is initiatory. So they are in violation of the NAP, but I am not. But suppose that I am instead considered the rightful property of some other person. When they put me to work, they are simply exercising their property rights. If I use force to resist them, I am invading their property by acting as though I rightfully own myself, where we have stipulated that I do not. Here, then, I am the aggressor, and they are the victim. Their use of force is now defensive, protecting their property from somebody else (me) who is depriving them of its use.
So, the NAP depends upon a system of property rights in order to distinguish who is or is not an aggressor, and that is why, from the libertarian standpoint, slavery must be understood in these terms.
Quoting Walter B
Again, no. Your attempt at defining 'theft' in purely physical terms results in a definition that is too permissive for the libertarian to accept, so it is not politically neutral.
Quoting Walter B
The fact that somebody may charge the libertarian with question-begging does not imply that she really is question-begging. There are good reasons for libertarians to define their terms as they do, as I hope I have already indicated, and as can be discovered further by reading some of these figures.