Re: Noam Chomsky?

["Bryan A. Alexander" <bnalexan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Once again we wade into the morass of easy anarchist-bashing.

Bryan Alexander
Department of English
University of Michigan
**********************

On Mon, 8 Jan 1996 g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> ...
> Now as to his politics he is of course an anarchist and that has its own
> sluagh of plusses and minuses.  He is the kind of anarchist though that I
> do not mind.  he is an anarcho-syndicalist and works with a class model.
> so for that one is eternally grateful.

Nearly every anarchist I've read, from Godwin to Bookchin, works with a
class model.  Scotch one easy myth.

>...
> His weaknesses are those of anarchists.  He lacks  coherent social
> and economic theories IMHO and despite his public scorn for Marxism he is
> heavily indebted to Marxist thinking.

Setting aside the bizarre contradiction between "lack[ing] coherent
social and economic theories" and being "heavily indebted to Marxist
thinking," it's important to realize the most of Chomsky's critique of
Marxism is based on criticisms of Soviet-style regimes (even this is
qualified strongly) rather than Marx's writings.  In this vein he's an
anarchist in the tradition of Bakunin's criticism of Marxist statism and
Kropotkin's warnings about Bolshevism.  This criticism should lead us to
a careful discussion of the role of the state - as it often does on this
list - not to binary dismissals.

>
> His media theory is "crude but good." He says that we get the kind of
> media which corresponds to the class structure.  The elites get a media
> which tells them the truth about the world.  the "political class" get a
> media which is full of propaganda (i.e. lies).  This develops a false
> consciousness (ideology) within the political class. the working class get
> distracted by popular culture e.g. sport.

Whoa!  Chomsky argues that the major *point* of modern capitalist media
is to distract and nullify that working class - to prevent it from
*becoming* a poltical class - not sports!  Sheesh.

> ...
> his model is of course functionalist.

Good point - best one so far.  Please develop!
>
> Problems are that he collapses the state into the elites or the ruling
> class.  His model is really too crude here. he does not allow for
> contradiction or
> relative autonomy.  Actually he could do with a good course in Althusser.

Like a good rolfing, eh? I thought you were going to recommend Gramsci
instead.  Can you develop for us what an Althusserian critique of Chomsky
would be?
        As for contradiction, Chomsky consistently raises it: to pick
some recent examples, I heard a speech from last month where he addresses
the apparent opposition of parties in the US, in order to show their
basic identity.  Was reading MANUFACTURING CONSENT (like your freshmen) last
night and was pleased by his (and Herman's) address of the problem of prominent
displays of dissent in mass media.  Time and again he turns to the
ideology of the transnationals and its contradictions (laissez-fair vs.
corporate subsidies, to pick a ready example).

> >
> I use Manufacturing Consent with my first year students.   It gives them
> some kind of political orientation even if it's of the "them bad, us good
> type".  Compared with the unbelievable shit about space and the body that
> has taken over cultural studies Chomsky is at least concerned with how
> capitalism is reproduced.

True.
>
> there is I beleive at least one web site devoted to his work.

Also true.
> ...
I don't want to defend Chomsky by himself - I always resent his vague
notions of what resistance would be, his odd conjunction of proclaiming
himself an anarchist while arguing for massive state redistribution, his
endorsement of the idiotic LIBERATING THEORY volume, his labeling of
nontheoretically-impressive anarchists as theorists.  I'm saddened by his
criticism of token dissenters, since he so clearly is one.  I'm sure the
rest of this list has further criticisms.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------