Murray Rothbard on Chomsky, Left Anarchists

Written by Dixie Flatline

Got inspired to post from something I read on a list, which referenced a comment from Facebook.

This is from the June 1971 edition of The Libertarian Forum.  I removed the original emphasis and added my own.

The question of whether a future free society will be “coop” or communal or capitalist brings up the most disturbing problem about the anarcho-syndicalists and communalists. This is the famous “question of Auban” – the question that “Auban”, the individualist anarchist hero of John Henry Mackay’s novel The Anarchists, put to the left-wing anarchists. In essence: would you, in your proposed anarchist society, permit those who so wished to have private property, to engage in free market transactions, to hire workers in “capitalist’ relations; etc.?[¹] The communist anarchists in Mackay’s book never answered the question clearly and lucidly, and neither do any leftwing anarchists that one may encounter today. (For the Auban speech from Mackay, see Krimerman and Perry, eds., Patterns of Anarchy (Doubleday, 1966), pp. 16-33.) Generally, the left-anarchists reply that, in their Utopian society, no one will be so base as to want to indulge in private property or in capitalist social relations. [²] But suppose they do? one persists. The answer is generally either a repeat of the Utopian answer or an evasive silence.

And when the left-anarchists can be pressed for an answer, the response is disturbing indeed. Take for example one of our most distinguished socialist-anarchists, Professor Noam Chomsky. Professor Chomsky has recently expressed a great deal of worry about the recent rise of our “right-wing” libertarian movement; apparently he is – I am afraid unrealistically – concerned that we might succeed in abolishing the State before the State has succeeded in abolishing private property! Secondly, Chomsky has written that the anarcho-capitalist society would constitute “the greatest tyranny the world has ever known”. (What, Noam? Greater than Hitler? than Ghengis Khan?) Whether or not anarcho-capitalism would be tyrannical is here irrelevant; the problem is that, in so expressing his horror at the possible results of complete freedom, Professor Chomsky reveals that he is not really an “anarchist” at all, indeed that he prefers statism to an anarcho-capitalist world. That of course is his prerogative, and scarcely unusual, but what is illegitimate is for this distinguished linguist to call himself an “anarchist”. And I very much fear that the same can be said for the other varieties of left-anarchists: communal, syndical, or whatever. Beneath a thin veneer of libertarian rhetoric there lies the same compulsory and coercive collectivist that we have encountered all too often in the last two centuries. Scratch a left-wing “anarchist” and you will find a coercive egalitarian despot who makes the true lover of freedom yearn even for Richard Nixon (Arghhl) in contrast.

If this analysis is correct, as I believe it is, then it makes all the more absurd the hankering by so many of our “left-wing” for an intimate comradely alliance with the anarcho-left. [³] Beneath superficial agreement in rhetoric, there is nothing in common between genuine libertarians and collectivist “anarchists”. Superficially, we both oppose the existing system – but so too do monarchists, Nazis, and those who hanker for a return to the Inquisition – scarcely enough for a warm and comradely dialogue. It is indeed fortunate for Liberty that the left-anarchists have about as much chance of victory as some of our Conservatives have to restore the Bourbon dynasty. For if they did, we would soon find that the embrace of left-anarchy is the embrace of Death.

  1. Left-anarchists are not anarcho-capitalist fellow travelers when it comes to non-aggression.
  2. Thick libero–utopian-arianism.
  3. The obsession with reaching out to the statist and anarcho left as superior to the statist and anarcho right alienates a great many people through false characterizations (vulgar this, vulgar that) and partisan/adolescent clique games.

Related Blogs

  • Blogs Related to rothbard

7 Comments »

  1. Cork

    Rothbard was completely dead on in this article, which despite being published in 1971, could have been written yesterday.

    The left-wing anarchists, in my opinion, make even the worst left-progressives look good in comparison. For instance, when Paul Krugman was interviewed on the Young Turks, he admitted that the welfare/regulatory state in Germany goes too far. There’s no doubt in my mind that the left-anarchists over there want it expanded, just as they do in every other country.

    Comment — June 8, 2009 @ 11:39 pm

  2. Mike Gogulski

    My distrust is, unfortunately, enhanced. Thanks for this.

    Comment — June 9, 2009 @ 12:03 am

  3. Tiberius Leodis

    Rothbard says Chomsky is “concerned that we might succeed in abolishing the State before the State has succeeded in abolishing private property!”

    Is that supposed to be a joke? Where has Chomsky ever said he advocates the state ‘abolising private property’?

    Comment — June 9, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

  4. James Tuttle

    Rothbard’s question is pertinent and Chomsky’s reply is passionate and unfortunate.

    I am reminded of the debate between Karl Hess and Alfred Henley where, according to Hess’ autobiography “Mostly on the Edge” pg 186, Communist True-believer Henley said, “(Hess would) never understand revolution until you have had to order an execution.”

    Is this true of all lefty-anarchists? No, it is not a position I hold as a lefty-anarchist of the mutualist persuasion, and it is also not held by other lefties who are committed to moral-suasion, mutual aid and agorism.

    This position is also found in the archives of our movement as well. I submit Gertrude B. Kelly’s “The Wages of Sin is Death.”text (pg.5)

    Toast to the Revolution,

    –James

    This

    Comment — July 16, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

  5. Jay

    I think it would probably depend on who you ask within the anarcho communist camps. Same could be asked for an anarcho capitalist. What if you had your society and a group within it wanted to own their property and businesses communally, would they have the freedom to do so? To be truly anarchist of any stripe (capitalist, mutualist, communist, etc) you would have to allow people the free choice as to how they order themselves both individually and collectively. Since people would have the freedom to do that, capitalism, mutualism, and communism would essentially be preferences. A group might form one community based on capitalist ideas, call that community A. Another forms on mutualist ideas, community B. A third forms on communist ideas, community C. Then there could also be a community D that has a mixture of capitalism, mutualism, and communism. All four hopefully would live in peace and learn from the others experience.

    Comment — November 4, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

  6. Don

    Not that simple, Jay. The capitalistic community A, driven by its greedy, profit-driven members will economically harass B and C to privatize B and C’s means of subsistence and force them into wage-slavery. Nevertheless, I appreciated your social tolerance.

    P.S: I’m an anarcho-communist.

    Comment — January 7, 2010 @ 1:54 am

  7. Garrett

    By “economically harass”, do you mean outperform in terms of standard of living (as capitalist economies inevitably do)? Or that the temptation to join the successful capitalist camp is too compelling to remain voluntarily enslaved to the other members of the collective?

    Jay, it is that simple.

    Comment — January 21, 2010 @ 8:42 am

Leave a comment