Chomsky on anarcho-syndicalism.

[Alceste]

I found an old interview where Chomsky describes more or less the same ideal model of society I personally subscribe to.

There may very well mean no policemen, but I don't think they would mean no rules of the road. In fact, I should say to begin with that the term anarchism is used to cover quite a range of political ideas, but I would prefer to think of it as the libertarian left, and from that point of view anarchism can be conceived as a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist, in the tradition of, say, Bakunin and Kropotkin and others. They had in mind a highly organized form of society, but a society that was organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities. And generally, they meant by that the workplace and the neighborhood, and from those two basic units there could derive through federal arrangements a highly integrated kind of social organization which might be national or even international in scope. And these decisions could be made over a substantial range, but by delegates who are always part of the organic community from which they come, to which they return, and in which, in fact, they live.

The Relevance of Anarcho-syndicalism, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Peter Jay

I've actually already got my eye on a couple of BC communities that already function along these lines to a large extent.

Thoughts?

 

[Iti oj]

What's the ability to escape? Whether it's join another start your own or live in a shack in the woods? A none currencies?

 

[Revoltingest]

Chomsky is long on words, but short on specifics.
It seems, without his specifically saying so, that individuals could still associate
with other in a capitalistic fashion, without government prohibition.

 

[Alceste]

What's the ability to escape? Whether it's join another start your own or live in a shack in the woods? A none currencies?

The communities I have my eye on have a few things in common.

They are fairly small in terms of population and the local economy is a healthy mix of agriculture, arts, handicrafts and small businesses.

The majority of people in these communities make their living as entrepreneurs / sole proprietors. IOW, they are directly in control of their own work life, and they directly reap the benefits of their work.

There is no permanent police or government presence. On one of the Islands I'm looking at, when the RCMP shipped a trailer over to establish a permanent office, the community got together, stuck it on a barge and shipped it back.

People are engaged in the community. Events like farmer's markets, fundraisers, concerts, festivals, community centres etc. are common, well attended and passionately supported by the local population.

Decisions affecting the use of the commons in these communities tend to be made by voluntary boards consisting of unpaid locals with the objective of enhancing local life and culture rather than exploiting local resources for private profit.

The population tends to mobilize to prevent development that they would consider to be detrimental to the character, environment or culture of their community. So, it's very difficult for external interests to orchestrate a clear cut, gravel pit, mine or other form of long-term exploitation and destruction for short term private gain.

Perhaps most importantly, these communities are largely self-sufficient. They have the capacity to produce and control their own food, water, energy and shelter as needed.

Barter in these communities is a common form of trade, since hard currency tends to be in short supply due to the locals' aversion to renting themselves out for less than a fair price. They are also more or less inclined to share what they have with one another.

You asked about escape and currency - living in one of these communities IS the escape I am scheming towards. Currency is an obstacle, since however healthy the anarchist vibe is, land and shelter are still privately owned and therefore prohibitively expensive to obtain.

 

[Alceste]

Chomsky is long on words, but short on specifics.
It seems, without his specifically saying so, that individuals could still associate
with other in a capitalistic fashion, without government prohibition.

Of course. Has anyone suggested otherwise?

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course. Has anyone suggested otherwise?

It can be hard to tell exactly what he "suggests".
I prefer straightforward statements & examples.

 

[Alceste]

It can be hard to tell exactly what he "suggests".
I prefer straightforward statements & examples.

He gives two:

"I myself think the most dramatic example is perhaps the Israeli kibbutzim, which for a long period really were constructed on anarchist principles, that is: self-management, direct worker control, integration of agriculture, industry, service, personal participation in self-management. And they were, I should think, extraordinarily successful by almost any measure that one can impose. "

"A good example of a really large-scale anarchist revolution -- in fact the best example to my knowledge -- is the Spanish revolution of 1936, in which, over most of Republican Spain, there was a quite inspiring anarchist revolution that involved both industry and agriculture over substantial areas, developed in a way which to the outside, looks spontaneous. Though, in fact, if you look at the roots of it, you discover that it was based on some three generations of experiment, thought and work which extended anarchist ideas to very large parts of the population in this largely pre-industrial -- though not totally pre-industrial -- society.

And that, again, was, by both human measures and indeed anyone's economic measures, quite successful. That is, production continued effectively; workers in farms and factories proved quite capable of managing their affairs without coercion from above, contrary to what lots of socialists, communists, liberals and others wanted to believe. And in fact, you can't tell what would have happened. That anarchist revolution was simply destroyed by force, but during the brief period in which it was alive I think it was a highly successful and, as I say, in many ways a very inspiring testimony to the ability of poor working people to organize and manage their own affairs, extremely successfully, without coercion and control. How relevant the Spanish experience is to an advanced industrial society one might question in detail."