
        "I remember a couple of years ago here, during the Eastern strike, when
Frank Lorenzo was trying to break the union, he at one point lowered air fares
to New York.  The fares were ridiculously low.  People were just flocking to
Eastern, including radical kids.  I remember talking to student activist groups
about this and saying I didn't understand it.  Granted, the pilots and steward-
esses aren't Mexican farm workers, but still, [they're] working people and the
machinists' union is behind it.  How can you guys cross the machinists' union's
picket lines?  The reaction I kept getting was, we're on the side of the work-
ing man and working woman, and we don't see any reason why they should be
pushed around by these union bosses.  If they want to go to work that's fine,
the unions shouldn't be able to stop them from going to work.
        "At this point you hardly know what to answer.  You've got to begin
from kindergarten and explain what it means to have a class struggle and to
fight against oppression and to work together with others.  That's been lost.
And not by accident...."

                                --Noam Chomsky, _Chronicles of Dissent_, p. 324
	
			- * -

	"You say you're an anarchist.  Maybe you shouldn't take any benefits
from the state?"

	"That view is published, repeatedly.  For example, I remember a book by
Norman Podhoretz, some right-wing columnist, in which he accused academics in
the peace movement of being ingrates because we were working against the gov-
ernment, but we were getting grants from the government.  That reflects an ex-
tremely interesting conception of the state, in fact a fascist conception of
the state.  It says the state is your master, and if the state does something
for you, you have to be nice to them.  That's the underlying principle.  So the
state runs you, you're its slave...  Notice how exactly opposite that is to
democratic theory.  According to democratic theory, you're the master, the
state is your servant.  The state doesn't give you a grant, the population is
giving you a grant.  The state's just an instrument.  But the concept of democ-
racy is so remote from our conception that we very often tend to fall into
straight fascist ideas like that, that the state is some kind of benevolent
uncle, ... it's not your representative, and of course it's true, but it's not
supposed to be; and therefore if your benevolent uncle happens to give you a
piece of candy, it's not nice not to be nice to him back.  But it's a strictly
fascist conception.  That's one of the reasons why fascism would be so easy to
institute in the United States.  It's deeply rooted in everybody's mind al-
ready."

				--Noam Chomsky, interview on 1/28/88, printed
				in _Language and Politics_, pp. 747-8


			- * -

"Personally, I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central
institutions of society have to be under popular control.  Now, under
capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition.  Capitalism is a
system in which the central institutions of society are in principle
under autocratic control.  Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if
we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has
tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at
every level -- there's little bargaining, a little give and take, but
the line of authority is perfectly straightforward.  Just as I'm
opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism.  I
think that until the major institutions of society are under the
popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to
talk about democracy."
                                          from Noam Chomsky
                                          Language and Politics (1988)
                                          p.162.
			
			- * -

"With regard to freedom of expression there are basically two
positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you
reject it in favor of Stalinist/Fascist standards."
	--Noam Chomsky., "Force and Opinion," _Z_, July/Aug. '91.

			- * -

   "To derail concern over whether you should _support_their_policy_,
the PR system focuses attention on whether you _support_our_troops_ --
meaningless words, as empty as the question of whether you support the
people of Iowa.

   "That of course, is just the point: to reduce the population to
gibbering idiots, mouthing empty phrases and patriotic slogans, waving
ribbons, watching gladiatorial contests and the models designed for
them by the PR industry, but, crucially, not thinking or acting.

	--Noam Chomsky, "Post War Teach-In," _Z_, Apr. '91


			- * -

	The "Communist Threat"


Shortly before the CIA coup [crushing Guatemala's first and last
democracy, which threatened the interests of US corporations, in
particular the United Fruit Company], Guatemalan Foreign Minister
Toriello commented accurately that US policy amounts to

	cataloguing as `Communism' every manifestation of
	nationalism or economic independence, any desire for social
	progress, any intellectual curiosity, and any interest in
	progressive or liberal reforms... any Latin American
	government that exerts itself to bring about a truly national
	program which affects the interests of the powerful foreign
	companies, in whose hands the wealth and the basic resources
	in large part repose in Latin America, will be pointed out as
	Communist; it will be accused of being a threat to continental
	security and making a breach in continental solidarity, and so
	will be threatened with foreign intervention.

[Quoted in Noam Chomsky, _Turning the Tide_, page 52. Footnote [21]
cites Connell-Smith, _Inter-American System_, 161f]
   
			- * -

    "The task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is
    now technically realizable, namely, a society which is really
    based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and
    create, live their lives freely within institutions they control,
    and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all"

		--Noam Chomsky, quoted page 62, "Economic Roundtable"
		on Albert/Hahnel's books "Looking Forward --
		Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century"
		proposing a system free of Capitalist or
		Coordinatorist/Statist (East European) oppression
		Z magazine, July/August, 1991.

		- * -

[Excerpts from Feb 14, 1992 appearance on _Pozner/Donahue_]
 
CHOMSKY: ...that's why if you looks at the *ideology* of the founding
fathers -- not what they actually *believed* -- but at the doctrines
that they professed, which is something quite different, they were
opposed to centers of power and authority. In the 18th century that
meant they were opposed to the feudal system, and the absolutist state
and the church and so on.
 
Now those *very* same doctrines apply to the 19th century and the 20th
century and they *should*, if we take them seriously, make *us*
opposed to the patterns of authority and domination that exist *now*
-- like for example *corporate capitalism*, which is a system of
authoritarian control that Jefferson never *dreamt* of. Or the
powerful 20th century state *linked* to the corporate elite, which,
again, is a system of power and domination on a scale that, say,
Jefferson couldn't have *imagined*. But the same *principles* would
lead us to be opposed to *them*.
 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| From CALL-IN section:                                          |
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
QUESTION: ...What's the difference between your [Anarchist] views and
the Libertarian Party?
 
[This, among four other back-to-back call-in quations (see below)]
 
CHOMSKY: Well let me begin with the question about the Libertarian Party.
The Libertarian Party is familiar here -- unknown elsewhere. There's a
*long* tradition of Anarchism, Libertarian thought outside the United
States, which is *diametrically* opposed to the positions of the
Libertarian Party -- but it's unknown here.
 
That's the *dominant* position of what's always been considered
Socialist Anarchism.  Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *Capitalist*
Party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of
authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private
ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of
domination -- people have to.. people can survive, by renting
themselves to it, and basically in no other way.
 
So while I share a lot of..there's a lot of shared ground with the
special, U.S. right-wing anarchism, which really exists only here (and
in fact have plenty of friends, and so on), I do disagree with them
*very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the
*fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and
control, including the control of the manager and the owner.
 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Another caller asked in response to Chomksy' subscribing to Anarchy,
that sure there are abuses but wouldn't Anarchism be furtile ground
for dictatorship?)
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
CHOMSKY: ..As to whether Anarchism could lead to dictatorship -- first
of all, let's distinguish Anarchism from "anarchy"; I'm not in favor
of everybody doing anything they feel like -- Anarchism as *I
understand it* is a highly democratic system, it's a system -- and in
fact a highly organized, and structured system -- it's just structured
and organized *from the bottom up*. It's organized through voluntary
association, agreement, federation, up to the world [level] if you
like -- it could be a highly structured system. But's it's going to
have to come out of popular involvement. *Could* it lead to
dictatorship, well, you know --
 
Pozner: Is it a system in which people are truly responsible, as you
understand it?
 
NC: It would have to be --
 
Pozner(?): Because otherwise you'd have "anarchy" --
 
NC: I mean if people do *not* want -- It's based on an assumption:
that assumption is that human beings want to be *free*. Now if that's
wrong, if human being want to be slaves, there's no hope in
Anarchism...
 
[...]
 
[The number on the screen, may or may not still be vaild, for
transcripts: 1-800-777-TEXT (note date of Chomsky's appearance on
_Pozner/Donahue_ at top)]
 
[Chomsky's address: Prof Noam Chomsky, Dept of Linguistics and

		- * -
		
Chomsky, on the "free" Nicaraguan elections of 1990:

[...] The most interesting point, however, is the third.  Suppose that
the USSR were to follow the U.S. model as the Baltic states declare
independence, organizing a proxy army to attack them from foreign
bases, training its terrorist forces to hit "soft targets" (health
centers, schools, etc.) so that the governments cannot provide social
services, reducing the economies to ruin through embargo and other
sanctions, and so on, in the familiar routine.  Suppose further that
when elections come, the Kremlin informs the population, loud and
clear, that they can vote for the CP or starve.  Perhaps some
unreconstructed Stalinist might call this a "free and fair election."
Surely no one else would.


		- * -
		
		The "Communist Threat"


Signs of successful development simply magnify the dangers of 
independence and, even worse, popular organization: the "virus" 
might spread and the "rotten apple" might "infect" the barrel as 
others are tempted to pursue the same path -- the "domino theory" 
of public rhetoric.  As Washington moved to overthrow the first 
(and last) democratic government in Guatemala in 1953, State 
Department officials warned that Guatemala "has become an 
increasing threat to the stability of Honduras and El Salvador. 
Its agrarian reform is a powerful propaganda weapon; its broad 
social program of aiding the workers and peasants in a victorious 
struggle against the upper classes and large foreign enterprises 
has a strong appeal to the populations of Central American 
neighbors where similar conditions prevail." {note: Quoted by 
Piero Gleijeses, _Shattered Hope_ (Princeton, 1991), 365.} 

[Noam Chomsky, _Aftermath: Voices from Below_, Z, October 1991]



