BARRY PATEMAN- CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM. BLACK OAK BOOKS SF. WED JUNE 29, 2005

            Last Wednesday I attended a presentation at Black Oak Books, near the intersection of Broadway and Columbus. I knew next to nothing about the event, other than it was somehow associated with Noam Chomsky and his new book on anarchism, appropriately titled, "Chomsky on Anarchism." put out by AK Press. This was more than enough to draw me out of the house. It turned out to be a reading by Barry Pateman, the man responsible for putting together, as well as conducting most of the interviews in the aforementioned book. Pateman, after a brief introduction by one of the Black Oak's staff, ambled out from behind a row of books. He was a large man with wild hair, even wilder mutton chops, and large, boxy glasses. He spoke with a thick northern English accent. In other words, not a thing at all like Chomsky, aside from similar hair color, and, I supposed, similar choice of eyewear. He began by explaining that the event had little to do with him. He was only there to serve as a medium, and to speak, as best he could, for Noam Chomsky. From there he mostly read passages from the new book to offer brief glimpses into Chomsky's views and approach to anarchy. He outlined the difference between anarchy and anarchism. Anarchism, he said, is the idea. It is passive in the sense that it is only a philosophy. Anarchy is active. It is a state, it is a lifestyle, it is a way of being. Anarchy is a system of social organization based on consent and agreement between individuals rather than on the enforcement of laws and power. The idea behind it is predicated on the belief that all forms of government are inherently violent and therefore, wrong. Anarchy strives for the removal of government through the dissolution of its necessity. It is a system based on cooperation and consent. Laws are not required to maintain order. Laws create, rather than suppress, conflict.

        A point that Pateman stressed was central to Chomsky's approach to anarchy is that the most important area of conflict in a capitalist system is class. All conflict, he explained, is a result of class struggle; the attempt to pass the burden of responsibility on to the lower classes. Chomsky says that in any conflict, class will be at the root of it; whether clear on the surface or not. Anarchy's aim is for the obliteration of the need for class in the first place. Class, it is argued, is a nonessential part of society.

        Another point that was hammered in, that may come as a surprise, especially to the "wild in the streets" breed of anarchist is; "that the way to destroy the state is to strengthen it." If this seems contrary to logic, you are not thinking about it deeply enough. If the state is strong, it can provide for people the necessities of living--i.e., health care, sanitation, welfare, education (in the future, maybe even basic rent and food, given the rise of widespread real estate profiteering). When people's needs are met they have more freedom, and therefore more power. Strengthening   the state is the first step to dismantling it. It's also a way of fighting back against private industry gone out of control. At this point the state is very weak. It is private businesses that really control the government. By ousting these corporate interests and re-establishing the state as the primary moderator and organizer of society, we bring a great deal of power back to the people. A power that they could one day use to do away with government rule all together.

        It all came off sounding quite well founded, as ideas presented by Chomsky usually are. It was a refreshing contrast to the popular image, mostly fueled by the media, or the lawless, destructive, criminal anarchist. It was a kinder gentler anarchy that was being presented. A very cooperative, humanitarian, creative, nurturing sort of system. Not at all chaotic, but rather, highly organized, and a very peaceful, organic form of organization; able to change and modify itself based on the consent of the people. It is a very human system because there is nothing more to it than humans. Humans interacting and cooperating with other humans to build a better society. Very idyllic, but founded on very solid, pragmatic ground. And besides, there is nothing wrong with idealism. Idealism is simply hope, and if we aren't hoping for a better future, what are we doing?

        As long as we play by their rules we are subject to their control, but the moment we create new rules, we create entirely new possibilities for our future. Control is maintained through domination of thought and attitude. It forces us to make choices between a limited number of options. It forces us to be blind to all the other choices that exist.   Break from these constraints and the power is gone. That is the path to anarchy. That is the message that Barry Pateman, speaking for Noam Chomsky, was trying to convey last Wednesday. I think it came across quite clearly.

        ...Oh, and I'm going to buy the book now.