Chomsky and Chapman: Nailing Down Definitions

Dr. Chomsky:

It appears upon further study that you operate on different definitions on both anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism than the main stream, at least that I'm seeing.

1)  Anarchism means literally, "without rulers." 

The Chomsky definition is that Government must justify itself but may exist.

2)  The common understanding of anarcho-syndicalism is "stateless unionization."  

Your definition is privately owned business by the workers themselves.  

I would suggest that a union by itself will lead to inefficiencies from not seeking a free market profit for the worker/ owners, putting the enterprise out of business over time. 

In a benevolent anarcho-capitalist structure, that business (a trucking company, let's say) is owned by share holder/ workers.  I actually saw a vary large employee owned trucking company on the highway today. The free market is allowed to price the service, so it stays in business against competitors by the drive to stay efficient.  

Under any stateless system, you will have competitors, and they will want your market share.  

I think you and I are discussing two different sides of the same elephant.  I believe the elephant needs the exercise of the free market.  You believe the elephant will just be and remain alive and healthy on its own.  

Gene

Chomsky and Chapman/ Criticism of Friedman

Dr. Chomsky directs me to examine Alice Amsden to critique Freidmen's Hong Kong:

Chomsky:

Hong Kong is, of course, a pointless example, as discussed in serious scholarship on the notably, notably Alice Amsden’s work.

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

Chapman:

Yep, Hong Kong was enslaved to the free market (benevolent dictatorship).  If you ever come up with a footnote to any of your opposition to Friedman, I'd be happy to see it.  No disrespect intended, but if I had to describe you to a future generation, I'd say you were long on criticism and short on footnotes.  

Gene

Chomsky and Chapman on Friedman

Dr. Chomsky:

I have no recollection of being invited by PBS.  It’s easy to find credible opponents.  E.g., Robin Hahnel.  One easy opponent is Friedman himself. He had a marvelous opportunity to put his ideas in practice in Chile in 1973, almost perfect conditions, and he and his associates were repeatedly on the scene to praise the achievements, which practically tanked the economy within five years, requiring the state to intervene to take over more of the economy than under Allende – often called “the Chilean road to socialism”.

You seem to have some strange conception of anarchosyndicalism, unfamiliar to me.

There isn’t any reason to believe that there is necessarily accumulation of private power, as there would be under the radically anti-libertarian system of anarchocapitalism – but as I mentioned, it’s irrelevant

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


Chapman:

I know Dr. Friedman claimed that he was constantly challenging the autocrat Pinochet and only met him in his one seven day trip to Chile for a very brief moment.  The Catholic Church sent students from Chile to Chicago to study in Friedman's classes.  Dr. Friedman did not seem to take ownership Chile's economic system in the interview I saw.  

I would be happy to study any critique of Friedman you might offer.  I've seen your thinking about Adam Smith vs. Friedman.  My real interest is in seeing a society that you endorse for a comparison to Friedman's Hong Kong description.  

Anarcho-syndicalism, as I read, is a stateless society built around the union.  Everything is owned by the union.  And so the union bosses that would arise will control all.  Perhaps, I'm miss-informed?

I'm very sure I saw a youtube in recent days of Dr. Friedman saying that you had been invited to be on his Special to challenge him, but declined.  

You are welcome to critique my book, and I'll be happy to include any such critique in the 2nd Edition's printing.  I'll need an address where I should send it. I really don't think you and I are too far part.  I am just very particular about not setting up power structures, state, union or otherwise.  

Gene 

Chomsky and Chapman Continue

Dr. Chomsky:

In a stateless competitive capitalism, there would be no corporations, but there would be no barrier to vast accumulation of private power, perhaps ultimately realizing anarchocapitalist hero James Buchanan’s utopia in which everyone is his slave.

But it’s all irrelevant, because such as system would self-destruct, if only because of externalities.

I’d advise extreme caution in reading Friedman’s productions.  They collapse very quickly on examination.


-------------------------------- 



Chapman:

I'm sure there is a credible opponent to Dr. Friedman's work.  I just have not found him/ her yet. I saw that you were invited to appear on Dr. Friedman's PBS Special, "Free to Choose," but you declined. I'm curious why? 

As I'm sure you would agree, there is always an "accumulation of private power," some more private than others. Under your anarcho-syndicalism, that power is private (in the back room of the union hall).  And so I suggest property rights inherent to my system provide superior protections to the individual.  

Gene

Chomsky and Chapman On The Nature of Optimum Capitalism

Dr. Chomsky:

An anarchocapitalist society is a capitalist society, and therefore not only incorporates, but magnifies, the inherent injustices and destructive tendencies of capitalism, hence is radically anti-libertarian.

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

Chapman:

My understanding is that without the state, the corporation cannot exist.  The corporation is the state sanctioned monopoly that allows the extraordinary concentration of capital and the resulting violence placed upon the worker via that monopoly.  

The stateless competitive capitalism I envision is a man with a hot dog stand, not a corporate control (state sanctioned monopoly) system to exploit him within that state sanctioned structure.  

My interest in stateless competitive capitalism is in providing property for the individual.  Without property to stand upon, sleep upon, raise a family upon, he is a nomad swept across the landscape by the whim of the true owner.  Property taxes, for example, make us nomadic to whatever the extent the state wishes.  The state, under the Marxist-Malthusian assumptions, wish us nomadic to hold down our population potential for carbon footprint control purposes or to build David Ricardo's "wage floor," depending upon which narrative you wish to follow.  

Dr. Friedman tells us that optimum human civilization/ maximum care for the maximum number of humans comes from the free market/ freer market.  The freer the better.  Free market Hong Kong had a per capita income 1/3 rd below that of Socialist Great Britain in 1960 and 1/3 rd above Great Britain by 1995, Friedman tells us.   

Gene

Chapman and Chomsky Discussions on Human Civilization

Splitting Hairs with Dr. Chomsky, I think the biggest difference between us is that I am a benevolent anarcho-capitalist (one who seeks private ownership in a non-corporate structure, giving from the heart), while Dr. Chomsky is a philosophical anarcho-syndicalist (one who seeks group ownership of the means of production but currently sees merit in the state conception of life).

We are both philosophical anarchists (those who muse about how to get to zero state from here but not prepared to do harm in the process). We are both like the proverbial brain surgeon, who seeks to separate conjoined twins without maiming or killing one or both.

We both oppose corporate capitalism, crony capitalism, just about every capitalism; however, I support a stateless competitive capitalism, a capitalism that is not a corporation/ state monopoly.

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

Dr. Chomsky's Reply:  

I am glad that you are a benevolent person who believes in giving from the heart.

But that has nothing to do with the merits of anarcho-capitalism, a radically anti-libertarian conception.

I have no idea what you mean by “state conception of life”.

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

Hello Dr. Chomsky:

1)  Well, "state conception of life" comes right out of the pages of Tolstoy's book, "The Kingdom Of God Is Within You."  His state conception of life is the oath-centric conception of life, wherein a group takes some magical control of the individual to go to war, vote taxes upon individuals, etc.

2)  The Kingdom, as I understand it, is a 'libertarian stateless society driven by your conscience.'  

3)  I do see how anarcho-capitalism could be co-opted by power structures that would counter libertarianism.  People would have to be truth-centric and non-violent in the most Gandhian/ Christian sense to justify a move to this benevolent anarcho-capitalist form of human society.  We are a long way off.

4)  I was watching you on youtube explaining Anarchism, and I being more definition driven, as I am, look at you more as a minarchist seeking zero:  philosophical anarchist.  You don't seem like Larken Rose, for example, who advocates for immediate abolition of the state without consideration to what it might tear apart. Gandhiji was a "philosophical anarchist,"  so you are in good company, I think. 

The individual has obligations to the collective under your anarcho-syndicalism that I find very un-libertarian. (To define, I suggest libertarianism is the belief that individual liberty is the highest human possibility.  From it, we may find our optimum life here on earth and seek out for ourselves what may me optimum for us.) Anarcho-syndicalism (stateless unions) suggests that I must go to an elder like you, for example, to get the keys to the communal truck to do my work each morning.  Because your system is not free market, human production being centrally planned, I am constrained to get the key to the truck in some long line of reasoning each day to do my job.  Very inefficient. Inefficiency kills people.  

A stateless union, operating as a group to bid on mowing my 20 acres out near El Paso, would be free market and a fine concept to use in my optimum human civilization.  However, if one man or woman wants to bid that same job, while it may take longer, they should have that right.  You may say that I am pro-union and anti-state. 

5)  My book is due in from the printer any moment.  I do thank both you and Dr. Cornel West in the front for you guidance. I'd be happy to forward you a free copy for your examination of my proposed societal structures. 

Most respectfully,

Gene K. Chapman

The Man Who Broke The Silence.