Glorifying small-scale production 

Chomsky's quote on economic laws and the role of the state also raises 
the specific charge that there is no inherent advantage to automation 
over earlier forms of production. If large-scale machine industry has 
nonetheless conquered small production, he can only explain this by 
the state coming in and subsidizing its development. It's true that 
present-day capitalism is far from a pure market, but involves a lot 
of government intervention on behalf of the capitalists. And there 
have been ebbs and flows of state intervention during the history of 
capitalism. But it's absurd to argue that there is no inherent 
advantage in employing the latest technology.

In fact, capitalist competition itself, 
without any assistance from the state, 
compels each competing owner toward 
utilizing technological innovation. 
Advances in production techniques create 
cheaper goods, and the capitalist who 
fails to match their competitors in this 
regard will become extinct.

The process of advancing production capabilities under capitalism also 
decimates the working class and creates an army of unemployed, thus 
creating more competition among the workers and driving their 
conditions down. Thus, capitalism advances production through ruining 
the workers. But the point is not that capitalism treats the workers 
well, but that

a tendency toward automation and 
large-scale production is an inherent 
tendency of capitalist economy, 
regardless of the degree, or lack 
thereof, of state interference.

The capitalists may enlist the state in various ways to assist this 
process, but the process goes on with or without state aid. 

If Chomsky can see no legitimate reason for the triumph of large-scale 
modern industry, what is his attitude toward small production? In the 
main Chomsky gives tacit support to small capitalism by confining his 
criticism of capitalism to the big corporations. But sometimes he 
directly lauds small production as superior to large-scale production.
For instance, he promotes Gandhi's scheme for economic development in 
India based on small-scale production. Chomsky writes of Gandhi's 
"emphasis on village development, self-help and communal projects" 
that 

    "That would have been very healthy for India. Implicitly he was 
    suggesting a model of development that could have been more
    successful and humane than the Stalinist model that was adopted 
    (which emphasized the development of heavy industry, etc.)."(x) 

Chomsky's argument here is that since Stalin was for modern 
large-scale industry, modern large-scale industry is suspect. 
No doubt the state-capitalist economy erected under Stalin's 
phony communist regime took a heavy toll on the masses, as 
capitalist modernization has done everywhere. But what sort 
of alternative would small production offer?

Chomsky presumably thinks that small production 
would avoid capitalism. Yet around the world 
the small economy of the peasant village has 
given rise to capitalist relations and class 
differentiation. Indeed, eventually large-scale 
capitalism arises from the competition between 
the small capitalists.

[ ... ]

Chomsky's fondness for small capitalism as an alternative to modern 
industry can also be seen in his sympathy for what he calls a 
"genuine conservative" opposition to capitalism. He writes: 

    "Genuine conservatives continued to recognize that market forces
    will destroy what is of value in human life unless sharply
    constrained."(x) 

The conservative opposition that Chomsky refers to here sees the 
solution to the evils of capitalism in somehow keeping the market 
forces as they were in an earlier stage. For instance, Chomsky refers 
to Alexis de Toqueville's view that the "manufacturing aristocracy" 
arising in the U.S. in the first half of the nineteenth century might 
eventually jeopardize democracy in the U.S. So if only we can go back 
to the good old days before the manufacturing aristocracy, everything 
will supposedly be fine.

Once again, Chomsky ignores that even if the 
big manufacturers were eliminated, that would 
still leave the small capitalists and the 
market itself intact, with competition 
eventually giving rise to monopoly again.

Really, Chomsky's "genuine conservative" opposition is not opposition 
to ruinous "market forces" themselves, as Chomsky mistakenly puts it, 
but support for capitalism at an earlier stage versus capitalism at a 
later stage. 

Chomsky's efforts to fight capitalism by seeking sanctuary from the 
horrors of modern production in petty commodity production is futile. 
But it reflects the typical anarchist view that sees in capitalist 
development only terrible things, and not also the creation of 
conditions that will lead to the replacement of capitalism by a 
higher economic order, socialism. Chomsky sees the suffering of the 
masses resulting from the growth of capitalist industry, but he does 
not see that large-scale production, by centralizing economic 
operations, is what makes societal control of production possible. 
He does not see that the colossal productive powers of modern 
industry make it possible to dramatically improve the conditions of 
the masses and reduce the working day, both of which are necessary 
for the elimination of classes. Of course, the working masses will 
not enjoy such things unless capitalism is overthrown. But it is 
capitalism, through the development of large-scale social production, 
which also creates and concentrates together vast forces of 
propertyless workers who have the potential power to accomplish this 
task so that the productive powers now used against them can be put 
at their disposal. 

Denying economic laws leads Chomsky down a blind path 

Had Chomsky paid attention to the real laws governing capitalist 
development, he would have seen why there was no point in returning 
to pre-monopoly capitalism. He would have seen that these laws create 
limits to the future possibilities. For instance,

there will always be a definite general pattern 
that emerges from the spread of market relations. 
One may wish for a commodity production which 
doesn't lead to a division between rich and poor, 
exploiter and exploited, but this division 
will occur just the same.

Likewise, not paying attention to these laws means not seeing the 
conditions for socialism emerging from within capitalism itself 
and instead diverting oneself into schemes to keep capitalism from 
developing, thereby only postponing the creation of the conditions 
for working class liberation. 

But, as we have seen, Chomsky denies the existence of economic 
and historical laws altogether. According to Chomsky, the market 
giving rise to bad things is not "inexorable" or "immutable" 
because that would deny that human institutions are created by 
a choice, a choice of what values to uphold. But this 
counterposition of "choice" to economic "laws" is wrong. He 
doesn't bother to directly contest the findings of Marx, who 
demonstrated the general laws of historical development and 
the particular laws of capitalist economy. He just dismisses 
the notion of laws of capitalism out of hand because Chomsky 
is offended by what he believes are the implications of such 
laws for free choice.

He fails to understand that in order for the
choices people make to have the desired effect, 
they have to be based a profound understanding
of the operations of the society they seek 
to change. If there are no laws of human 
societal development, then there isn't any way 
to know what the result of one's actions will be. 
Of course, someone can make a blind and arbitrary 
choice based on ignorance, which is what free 
choice amounts to in that case. But in that case 
their efforts are bound to fail, because the 
forces of which they are ignorant will continue 
to work against them despite not being consciously 
acknowledged. This is what human choice is reduced 
to if laws affecting the development of human 
institutions are denied. But if by freedom 
is meant the ability to consciously bring about 
change in a desired direction and not just be 
helpless as history churns ahead, the task is 
to strive to discover the laws of societal 
development.

Chomsky thinks ignoring the laws of capitalism is the key to freedom 
from the market. Actually it has meant he is reduced to moral 
indignation against its evils while having no idea how to replace it. 
He looks to small commodity production, but that's market production 
too. Chomsky, who is never consistent, at times flirts with 
anarcho-syndicalism, which accepts large-scale industry. But the 
federations of entire industries advocated by the anarcho-syndicalists 
are so weak that, in effect, they amount to dividing the different 
industries, and even the enterprises in each industry, among 
independent groups of workers. Such trends falsely imagine they can 
overcome the market in this way. But in essence dividing up the 
enterprises among autonomous groups means keeping private ownership 
and the market. 

Chomsky wonders if markets are "preferable" 

Chomsky's inability to find an alternative to the market even leads 
him to openly declare that markets may be necessary in his future 
society. As Chomsky puts it: 

    "I understand well enough what's wrong with them, but that's
    not sufficient to demonstrate that a system that eliminates
    market operations is preferable."(x) 

Such an open admission may seem strange. But if there are no economic 
laws, then why should the market be excluded? If human institutions 
can be shaped solely by choice, why can't a way be found to make the 
market serve the needs of the masses? This has long been a common idea 
of reformist apologists for capitalism. Look at the social-democratic 
governments that have come to power in Europe over the years. They too 
were "socialists" who imagined that the economy could operate on a 
capitalist basis, but that they could balance the profit-making of 
the capitalists with the needs of the masses. But the idea that class 
contradictions were going to be overcome in this way has been proved 
false. In fact, the concern of the social-democrats for the 
profit-margins of the corporations has time and again led them to 
slash the social programs that were supposed to redistribute the 
wealth to the masses. Marxism points out that the way a society 
distributes wealth reflects the way in which that wealth is produced. 
If there's private ownership of the means of production by the 
capitalists, then they will accumulate vast wealth at the expense of 
the working masses. Neither Chomsky nor the social-democrats believe 
in this law, but history has consistently proved it to be true. 
Chomsky asserted that recognizing capitalist economic laws would 
eliminate any choice but capitalism. But it turns out that ignoring 
these laws led Chomsky to speculate that maybe the market is 
"preferable" after all. 

Does freedom from the state imply an end to capitalism? 

Chomsky makes it clear that he thinks the struggle of today should be 
based on the principles of the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th 
century. The best Enlightenment figures developed ideas against 
tyranny, religion, superstition, etc. that they believed would lead 
to human emancipation. They were progressive in their day, and the 
philosophical materialists among them advanced the cause of 
scientific inquiry. But rather than general emancipation, they 
actually paved the way for the rise of a new set of exploiters, the 
bourgeoisie. Thus, despite their claims to be speaking for all 
humanity, their ideas on society are wholly inadequate for the modern 
class struggle, which scarcely existed at that time. 

Not according to Chomsky, though, who argues: 

    "In fact, on the very same assumptions that led classical
    liberalism to oppose the intervention of the state in social
    life, capitalist social relations are also intolerable. . . . 

    ". . . It is true that classical libertarian thought is
    opposed to state intervention in social life, as a consequence
    of deeper assumptions about the human need for liberty,
    diversity, and free association. On the same assumptions,
    capitalist relations of production, wage labor, competitiveness,
    the ideology of the 'possessive individualism' -- all must be
    regarded as fundamentally antihuman. Libertarian socialism
    [read: "anti-capitalist anarchism" -- Mark] is properly to be
    regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the
    Enlightenment."(x) 

In reality, opposition to the state in no way automatically implies 
opposition to capitalism.

The assumption of classical liberalism was 
that without government interference in society, 
freedom and prosperity for all would reign.

Actually it meant free reign for the development of capitalism and 
new class antagonisms. Chomsky, like many anarchists, recognizes 
that capitalism is now also a problem. But the anarchist cure for 
this disease remains trapped in general prescriptions that not only 
had nothing to do with fighting capitalism, but paved the way for it.

Classical liberalism fought for liberty 
from the state, but didn't see that individual 
producers freely interacting with each other 
would lead to the enslavement of society by 
the market and the rise of a new state. 
Anarchism shares the same basic idea even though 
they denounce capitalism. It holds that once you 
eliminate the state, you have freedom for 
autonomous enterprises, sovereign and independent 
from one another. So far we have nothing but 
a mirror image of classical liberalism.

But what about overcoming the capitalist economy? The anarchist would 
take the enterprises from the corporations and divide them up among 
independent, sovereign collectives of workers and peasants. The 
problem is that insofar as these new enterprises really are free to 
carry out transactions with each other as they see fit, and not by 
a conscious plan serving society as a whole, the laws of the market 
will again assert themselves. Anarcho-syndicalists feel this problem 
will be overcome if there are some loose federations of the local 
enterprises. But in this scheme no part of the federation is obligated 
to follow any societal plan. The anarchists oppose any agreement 
binding on everyone, which means rejecting any institution that can 
effectively represent the interests of society as a whole. 

Chomsky, however, has no way to really overcome the market, so he 
prefers to romanticize the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy. He 
writes: 

    "As always in the past, one can choose to be a democrat in 
    [Thomas] Jefferson's sense, or an aristocrat. . . . Today's
    world is far from that of Thomas Jefferson or mid-nineteenth
    century workers. The choices it offers, however, have not
    changed in any fundamental way."(x) 

But Jeffersonian democracy, while preferable to despotism, was also 
a form of bourgeois class rule. It was a political form corresponding 
to the early capitalism which preceded production becoming centralized
in the hands of a relatively few monopolies, which also became 
dominant politically. Chomsky, however, dresses up Jeffersonian 
democracy as opposition to the state itself, saying 

    "The aristocrats of his [Jefferson's] day were the advocates 
    of the rising capitalist state, which Jefferson regarded with
    dismay, recognizing the obvious contradiction between democracy
    and capitalism -- or more accurately, 'really existing
    capitalism,' linked closely to state power."(x) 

Thus, according to Chomsky, bourgeois democracy in the form supported 
by Jefferson has no class character and is against capitalism. This 
again shows how Chomsky has no clue that less developed capitalism is 
still capitalism. Indeed, Jefferson was a "founding father" of a 
revolution which aimed to spur the growth of the bourgeoisie in the 
American colonies by freeing it from the colonial restrictions of 
the British Empire. It was neither a revolt against the state in 
general nor intended to halt bourgeois development. By ignoring the 
class nature of early capitalist democracy Chomsky converts it into 
the end of class rule. Just as Chomsky declared war on the market 
only to embrace it in an earlier form, so he rids himself of the 
state and classes by creating illusions in bourgeois democracy in 
its beginning stages. Behind all the brave "socialist", 
"anti-capitalist", and anti-state phrases of Chomsky's anarchism, 
the essential content does not go beyond the limits of bourgeois 
democracy. 

Anarchism vs. the workers' state 

Chomsky looks with fright on the workers establishing a unified 
control of the economy. For Chomsky, any political or economic 
centralization is evil. As he puts it, 

    "This natural struggle for liberation runs counter to the 
    prevailing tendency towards centralization in economic and
    political life."

Chomsky does not realize that his independent enterprises will, 
through market relations, wind up centralizing themselves with 
monopolies just as the competition between the enterprises of 
early capitalism did. The real issue is not one of avoiding 
centralization of production, which cannot be avoided so long 
as we wish to maintain modern productive capabilities. Rather 
it's whether this centralized production shall remain in private 
hands, as it does now and would in a different form under 
anarchism also, or under the control of the working class. 

Unless the workers are able to establish such a control, there is 
no way to overcome the market, no way to replace anarchic production 
with planned production. After the bourgeois state is vanquished by 
a victorious workers' revolution there still remains the enormous 
task of transforming the economic system which will still be 
dominated by private ownership. The workers will need to keep the 
defeated bourgeoisie from making a comeback and must step-wise make 
take over the means of production, converting it into the property 
of society as a whole. They will also need a high degree of 
centralized organization to reorganize the economy under the 
conscious control of the workers as a whole. This means the workers 
cannot immediately dispense with the state, but must use their own 
state as a weapon to transform the economy along socialist lines. 
But while the workers' state is a form of class rule like all states, 
it differs dramatically from all other states in that it represents 
the vast majority, the toilers. Indeed, its most important task is 
to activate all the workers for the administration of the economy 
and all important social matters. When class distinctions are 
overcome and the economy is really run by all, the distinction 
between government and the population ends, and there will no 
longer be any state. Society will still need to run in an organized 
way and will require planning institutions and certain rules that 
everyone will obey. But with the elimination of classes, these 
institutions no longer represent the rule of one section of society 
over another. 

It should be noted that a real workers' state has nothing in common 
with the fake communist regimes that eventually consolidated 
themselves in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and that 
still rule in China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. In these countries the 
ruling party and state officials eventually hardened into a 
privileged bureaucracy lording over the masses and living in relative 
splendor off the labor of the workers. This bureaucracy maintained 
it was Marxist-Leninist, but distorted it beyond recognition to 
justify the construction of a new type of state-capitalist system. 
The old capitalists were largely expropriated, but the new state 
property was run along capitalist lines. These methods encouraged 
the development of private interests among the enterprise managers 
and the ministries, which assured that the economy could not overcome 
anarchic production no matter how many state production plans were 
drawn up. Indeed, the growth of private interests under this 
state-capitalist rule paved the way for the transition from 
state-capitalism to private capitalism that has gone on not only 
where the phony communist regimes fell, but where they still rule. 
Today, it is the duty of genuine Marxist-Leninists to clarify the 
difference between the revisionist distortion of communism and a 
revolutionary workers' government carrying out a transition to 
socialism.

Chomsky, though, rejects the very concept of a workers' government. 
For him the basic problem with the regimes in the Soviet Union, 
China, etc., was that they supposedly were workers' regimes. He 
argues that if the workers' state takes over production, this means 
that the workers themselves are not taking over production, just a 
new "elite." But the workers' government ceases to be such if it is 
not sanctioned by the workers and is not drawing the workers into 
the task of administering society. It's notable that while anarchists 
often claim that a workers' state is anti-democratic, the prince of 
anarchism, Bakunin, argued that even if the workers' government were 
democratic, he would be against it. Chomsky himself cites Bakunin's 
argument that 

    "No state, however democratic, not even the reddest republic
    -- can ever give the people what they really want, i.e., the
    free self-organization and administration of their own affairs 
    from the bottom upward, without any interference or violence 
    from above."(x) (emphasis added) 

So no matter if the workers' state democratically 
represents the masses. If the workers have 
the nerve to elect their most trusted comrades 
to represent their interests, that supposedly 
violates their "free self-organization"!

That's "violence from above"! The very act of representing is 
suspect, as it supposedly works against "the workers themselves" 
deciding things.

But wait. Chomsky himself touts various anarchist schemes that call 
for each enterprise to have elected representatives. Presumably this 
means the workers have authorized them to act on their behalf in some 
way. Either these representatives have no duties, and the whole 
exercise was a farce, or they have been entrusted to do certain 
things, in which case, by the standards applied by the anarchists 
against Marxist socialism, these representatives are exercising 
tyranny over those who elected them. Indeed, Chomsky at times 
promotes schemes for regional and national elective bodies. Thus, 
he must be promoting wholesale persecution of the masses! 

And what of the bogeyman of organizing from above, which is presented 
as in all instances an obstacle to organizing from below? In the 
above-mentioned stand of Bakunin, he is railing against "from above" 
to discredit the notion of a revolutionary workers' government. His 
reasoning is that the workers' revolution only operates from below 
and a workers' state is, in his terms, from "above", and as such must 
be rejected. But by rejecting the idea of a workers' state, Bakunin 
ignores that such a state is also a product of a revolution of the 
masses from below. When the workers are able to establish themselves 
as a ruling class, or before that, to develop their own revolutionary 
party, this signifies huge strides in their ability to organize 
themselves. It marks their ability to have a general means to force 
their will on the bourgeoisie. In this context, Bakunin's outcry 
against "from above" is simply shrieking against any high degree of 
organization the workers are able to achieve. The workers' revolution 
from below, if you like, gives rise to representative bodies that it 
grants certain powers. This state, in turn from above carries out a 
certain program on behalf of the workers which requires the 
mobilization of the whole class into the duties of running society. 
So action from above has, in this case, assisted action from below. 
Also, as the transition to socialism progresses, new mass movements 
assisting the accomplishment of this task will spontaneously well-up, 
and must be encouraged and assisted by the state. So in a very real 
sense, the process of achieving socialism will take place both from 
above and from below. 

In reality, all the anarchist charges against the workers' state
as being "from above" and not "the workers themselves" are a 
smokescreen. What the anarchists really mean when they say "from 
below" is that each local group or enterprise should be able to 
do whatever it wants, regardless of the wishes of the workers as 
a whole. Power for my little group, none for society. That's the 
anarchist ideal.

The anarchists cannot fathom that the workers 
can freely agree that each of their local 
organizations would be obliged to obey 
the decisions of bodies representing 
the interests of the workers overall.
That would be a sin in the anarchists' eyes 
because that would require accepting an 
"authority" and "centralization" which 
Chomsky and other anarchists consider 
anathema to everything they stand for. 
Never mind that this authority is that of 
the workers as a whole. Never mind that this 
centralization is necessary to replace anarchy 
of production between autonomous producers 
with societal planning.

The transitional workers' state is a boon to 
the organization and mobilization of the 
workers. The anarchist outcry against it is 
an example of how their standpoint against 
authority in general undermines organization 
of the workers.

Indeed, if we take seriously the anarchist idea that authority is 
the principal evil in the world and must always be evil in every 
case, then the whole notion of organization itself must also be 
questioned. To see this, let's see how Chomsky deals with the 
question of authority. He puts forward that the grand idea informing 
anarchism is "the conviction that the burden of proof has to be 
placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden 
cannot be met."(x) Under the category of "authority", Chomsky 
includes many forms of oppression that really should be fought. 
But for him, it is authority in general that is the problem, and 
not merely the ills that arise from class society. Authority in 
general, however, is not merely something found in unjust 
institutions and relationships, but is implicit in organization 
in general. The oppressed need organization and collective effort, 
for without it they are weaponless against the exploiters.

Organization requires the individual to submit 
to some degree to the will of the group. Of 
course, the workers' movement doesn't need any 
sort of authority, but authority based on mass 
control and not just centralism, but democratic
centralism.

Chomsky qualifies his stand against authority in 
general by conceding the possibility, remote though it may be, that 
some authority can be justified. Translation: the less organization, 
the better. The bourgeoisie, with all sorts of brutal organization 
at its command, must really be quaking at the anarchist Chomsky 
assuring the oppressed that the less organized they are, the better! 

[ ... ]

The problems with Chomsky's view reflect many of the basic problems 
of anarchism as a whole. Anarchism promises deliverance from 
oppression and exploitation. It curses the evil capitalist order. 
And no doubt many followers of anarchism sincerely want revolutionary 
change. But when one looks past the radical phrases, anarchism has 
no real alternative to the market and has no understanding of what 
needs to be done to overcome class oppression. It speaks in the name 
of the activity of the masses, but runs from the organizational tasks 
necessary to build a strong revolutionary movement.

That's why anarchism cannot deliver on its anti-capitalist promises.

[ ... ]