Noam Chomsky interviewed by Javier Sethness
JAVIER SETHNESS: Professor Chomsky, thank you so kindly for taking the
time today to converse with me about ecology and anarchism. It is a true
honor to have this opportunity to speak with you. Before we pass to
these subjects, though, I would like to ask you initially about ethics
and solidarity. Would you say that Immanuel Kant's notion of treating
humanity as an end in itself has influenced anarchist and
anti-authoritarian thought in any way? The concept of natural law
arguably has a "natural" affinity with anarchism.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Indirectly, but I think it's actually more general. My own
view is that anarchism flows quite naturally out of major concerns and
commitments of the Enlightenment, which found an expression in classical
liberalism, and classical liberalism essentially was destroyed by the
rise of capitalism -- it's inconsistent with it. But anarchism, I think,
is the inheritor of the ideals that were developed in one or another
form during the Enlightenment -- Kant's expression is one example --
exemplified in a particular way in classical liberal doctrine, wrecked
on the shoals of capitalism, and picked up by the libertarian left
movements, which are the natural inheritors of them. So in that sense,
yes, but it's broader.
JS: You have described humanity as being imperiled by the destructive
trends on hand in capitalist society -- or what you have termed "really
existing capitalist democracies" (RECD). Particularly of late, you have
emphasized the brutally anti-ecological trends being implemented by the
dominant powers of settler-colonial societies, as reflected in the tar
sands of Canada, Australia's massive exploitation and export of coal
resources, and, of course, the immense energy profligacy of this
country. You certainly have a point, and I share your concerns, as I
detail in Imperiled Life: Revolution against Climate Catastrophe, a book
that frames the climate crisis as the outgrowth of capitalism and the
domination of nature generally understood. Please explain how you see
RECD as profoundly at odds with ecological balance.
NC: RECD -- not accidentally, pronounced "wrecked" -- is really existing
capitalist democracy, really a kind of state capitalism, with a
powerful state component in the economy, but with some reliance on
market forces. The market forces that exist are shaped and distorted in
the interests of the powerful -- by state power, which is heavily under
the control of concentrations of private power -- so there's close
interaction. Well, if you take a look at markets, they are a recipe for
suicide. Period. In market systems, you don't take account of what
economists call externalities. So say you sell me a car. In a market
system, we're supposed to look after our own interests, so I make the
best deal I can for me; you make the best deal you can for you. We do
not take into account the effect on him. That's not part of a market
transaction. Well, there is an effect on him: there's another car on the
road; there's a greater possibility of accidents; there's more
pollution; there's more traffic jams. For him individually, it might be a
slight increase, but this is extended over the whole population. Now,
when you get to other kinds of transactions, the externalities get much
larger. So take the financial crisis. One of the reasons for it is that
-- there are several, but one is -- say if Goldman Sachs makes a risky
transaction, they -- if they're paying attention -- cover their own
potential losses. They do not take into account what's called systemic
risk, that is, the possibility that the whole system will crash if one
of their risky transactions goes bad. That just about happened with AIG,
the huge insurance company. They were involved in risky transactions
which they couldn't cover. The whole system was really going to
collapse, but of course state power intervened to rescue them. The task
of the state is to rescue the rich and the powerful and to protect them,
and if that violates market principles, okay, we don't care about
market principles. The market principles are essentially for the poor.
But systemic risk is an externality that's not considered, which would
take down the system repeatedly, if you didn't have state power
intervening. Well there's another one, that's even bigger -- that's
destruction of the environment. Destruction of the environment is an
externality: in market interactions, you don't pay attention to it. So
take tar sands. If you're a major energy corporation and you can make
profit out of exploiting tar sands, you simply do not take into account
the fact that your grandchildren may not have a possibility of survival
-- that's an externality. And in the moral calculus of capitalism,
greater profits in the next quarter outweigh the fate of your
grandchildren -- and of course it's not your grandchildren, but
everyone's.
Now the settler-colonial societies are particularly interesting in this
regard because you have a conflict within them. Settler-colonial
societies are different than most forms of imperialism; in traditional
imperialism, say the British in India, the British kind of ran the
place: They sent the bureaucrats, the administrators, the officer corps,
and so on, but the place was run by Indians. Settler-colonial societies
are different; they eliminate the indigenous population. Read, say,
George Washington, a leading figure in the settler-colonial society we
live in. His view was -- his words -- was that we have to "extirpate"
the Iroquois; they're in our way. They were an advanced civilization; in
fact, they provided some of the basis for the American constitutional
system, but they were in the way, so we have to extirpate them. Thomas
Jefferson, another great figure, he said, well, we have no choice but to
exterminate the indigenous population, the Native Americans; the reason
is they're attacking us. Why are they attacking us? Because we're
taking everything away from them. But since we're taking their land and
resources away and they defend themselves, we have to exterminate them.
And that's pretty much what happened -- in the United States almost
totally -- huge extermination. Some residues remain, but under horrible
conditions. Australia, same thing. Tasmania, almost total extermination.
Canada, they didn't quite make it. There's residues of what are called
First Nations around the periphery. Now, those are settler-colonial
societies: there are elements of the indigenous populations remaining,
and a very striking feature of contemporary society is that, throughout
the world -- in Canada, Latin America, Australia, India, all over the
world, the indigenous societies -- what we call tribal or aboriginal or
whatever name we use -- they're the ones who are trying to prevent the
race to destruction. Everywhere, they're the ones leading the opposition
to destruction of the environment. In countries with substantial
indigenous populations, like say in Ecuador and Bolivia, they've passed
legislation, even constitutional provisions, calling for rights of
nature, which is kind of laughed at in the rich, powerful countries, but
is the hope for survival.
Ecuador, for example, made an offer to Europe -- they have a fair amount
of oil -- to leave the oil in the ground, where it ought to be, at a
great loss to them -- huge loss for development. The request was that
Europe would provide them with a fraction -- payment -- of the loss -- a
small fraction -- but the Europeans refused, so now they're exploiting
the oil. And if you go to southern Colombia, you find indigenous people,
campesinos, Afro-Americans struggling against gold mining, just
horrible destruction. Same in Australia, against uranium mining; and so
on. At the same time, in the settler-colonial societies, which are the
most advanced and richest, that's where the drive is strongest toward
the destruction of the environment. So you read a speech by, say, Obama,
for example, at Cushing, Oklahoma -- Cushing is kind of the center for
bringing together and storing the fossil fuels which flow into there and
are distributed. It was an audience of oil types. To enormous applause,
he said that during his administration more oil had been lifted than
any previous one -- for many, many years. He said pipelines are crossing
America under his administration to the extent that practically
everywhere you go, you're tripping across a pipeline; we're going to
have 100 years of energy independence; we'll be the Saudi Arabia of the
21st century -- in short, we'll lead the way to disaster. At the same
time, the remnants of the indigenous societies are trying to prevent the
race to disaster. So in this respect, the settler-colonial societies
are a striking illustration of, first of all, the massive destructive
power of European imperialism, which of course includes us and
Australia, and so on. And also the -- I don't know if you'd call it
irony, but the strange phenomenon of the most so-called "advanced,"
educated, richest segments of global society trying to destroy all of
us, and the so-called "backward" people, the pre-technological people,
who remain on the periphery, trying to restrain the race to disaster. If
some extraterrestrial observer were watching this, they'd think the
species was insane. And, in fact, it is. But the insanity goes back to
the basic institutional structure of RECD. That's the way it works. It's
built into the institutions. It's one of the reasons it's going to be
very hard to change.
JS: In Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe (2013), you argue that
global society must be reorganized so that "care for 'the commons' [...]
become[s] a very high priority, as it has been in traditional
societies, quite often."(1) You make similar conclusions in an essay
from last summer reflecting on the importance of the efforts to defend
Gezi Park in Istanbul, which you frame as being part of a "a struggle in
which we must all take part, with dedication and resolve, if there is
to be any hope for decent human survival in a world that has no
borders." How do you see the possibility of thoroughgoing social
transformation and the devolution of power taking place in the near
future -- through the emergence and sustained replication of workers'
and community councils, as in the participatory economic model
(Parecon), for example?
NC: That's a well-worked out, detailed proposal for one form of
democratic control of popular institutions -- social, economic,
political, others. And it is particularly well-worked out, in extensive
detail. Whether that's the right form or something other, I think it's a
little early to tell. My own feeling is that a fair amount of
experimentation has to be done to see how societies can and should
function. I'm a little skeptical about the possibility of sketching it
in detail in advance. But that certainly should be taken very seriously,
along with other proposals. But something along those lines seems to me
a prerequisite first of all for reasonable life, put aside the
environment -- just the way a society ought to work, with people in a
position where they can make decisions about the things that matter to
them. But also I think it is a prerequisite for survival at this point. I
mean, the human species is reaching a point which is unique in human
history -- just take a look at species' destruction, forget humans.
Species destruction now is at the level of 65 million years ago, when an
asteroid hit the Earth and destroyed the dinosaurs and a huge number of
species -- massive species destruction. That's being replicated right
now, and humans are the asteroid. And we're on the list, not far.
JS: In a speech reproduced over 20 years ago in the film version of
Manufacturing Consent, you describe hegemonic capitalist ideology as
reducing the life-world of Earth to an "infinite resource" and "an
infinite garbage can." Even then, you had identified the capitalist
tendency toward total destruction: you speak of a looming cancellation
of destiny for humanity if the madness of capitalism is not halted
within this, the "possibly terminal phase of human existence." The very
title and argumentation of Hegemony or Survival (2003) continue in this
line, and in Hopes and Prospects (2010), you claim the threat to the
chance for decent survival to be one of the major externalities
produced, again, by RECD. How do you think a resurgent international
anarchist movement might respond positively to such alarming trends?
NC: In my view, anarchism is just the most advanced form of political
thought. As I've said, it draws from the Enlightenment, its best ideals;
the primary contributions of classical liberalism carry it forward.
Parecon, which you mentioned, is one illustration -- they don't call
themselves anarchists -- but there are others like it. So I think that a
resurgent anarchist movement, which would be the peak of human
intellectual civilization, should join with the indigenous societies of
the world so that they don't have the burden to save humanity from its
own craziness. This should take place within the richest, most powerful
societies. It's kind of a moral truism that the more privilege you have,
the more responsibility you have. It's elementary in every domain: you
have privilege; you have opportunities; you have choices: you have
responsibilities. In the rich, powerful societies, privileged people
like us -- we're all privileged people -- we have the responsibility to
take the lead in trying to prevent the disasters that our own social
institutions are creating. It's outrageous to demand or even observe the
poorest, most repressed people in the world taking the lead in trying
to save the human species and in fact innumerable other species from
destruction. So we should join them. That's the role of an anarchist
movement.
JS: In "Human Intelligence and the Environment" (2010), you raise the
possibility of factory workers taking control of the means of production
and autonomously deciding to break with business as usual, opting
instead to produce solar panels or high-speed rail. This recommendation
is entirely anarcho-syndicalist in nature, in keeping with your own
proclivities: indeed, it bears much affinity with the prospect of an
ecological anarcho-syndicalism, a concept that has been advanced by the
Environment Union Caucus of the Industrial Workers of the World
(IWW-EUC) recently. A particularly promising proposal the EUC has made
is that of an ecological general strike. In a similar vein, economic
historian Richard Smith recently called for the mass shuttering of large
corporations and vast swathes of industry as a means of giving humanity
and nature a chance against climate destruction. Moreover, since the US
military is the single largest contributor to the problem of
anthropogenic climate disruption, the Pentagon should effectively be
dismantled for this reason, among others, of course. How might activists
present these pressing goals in ways that do not lend themselves to
being dismissed as mere utopianism?
NC: Well, let's take the idea of converting industry to producing solar
panels, mass-transportation, and so on. That was not utopian. The US
government virtually nationalized the auto industry a couple years ago
-- not entirely, but took over large parts of it. There were choices at
that point. If there had been a powerful movement of the kind that we're
discussing, with a popular base, it could have pressed for something
very realistic, which I think would have had the support of the working
class. A strike will be regarded as a weapon against them -- it's taking
away their livelihoods, their survival. The choices were two, really:
either the government rescues the auto industry at the taxpayers'
expense and hands it back to pretty much the original owners, maybe
different faces, but structurally the same owners, and have them produce
what they were doing before, which is destructive. That was one
possibility; that was the one that was taken. The other possibility,
which could have been taken, and with a sufficient powerful popular
movement might well have been taken, is to put those factories into the
hands in the working class, and have them make their choices rationally,
in the interests of themselves, their communities, the general society
-- and do exactly what you were describing: produce solar panels.
Take mass transportation. Going back to markets -- if you take an
economics course, they tell you markets offer choices. That's partly
true, but very narrowly. Markets restrict choices, sharply restrict
choices. Mass transportation is an example. Mass transportation is not a
choice offered on the market. If I want to go home today, the market
does offer me a choice between a Ford and a Toyota, but not between a
car and a subway. That's just not one of the choices available in market
systems, and this is not a small point. Choices that involve common
effort and solidarity and mutual support and concern for others -- those
are out of the market system. The market system is based on
maximization of individual consumption, and that is highly destructive
in itself. It's destructive even for the human beings involved -- it
turns them into sociopathic individuals. But it also means that the
kinds of things that are needed for survival are out of the market
system -- like mass-transportation. That's the form of economic growth
that could help preserve the hopes for survival. I don't think that it
was at all unrealistic for that to have been done; there was nothing
utopian about that.
Now as compared with things like say general strikes, I think that's
much a better step to take. It's not saying, let's throw a wrench in the
machine and harm everybody in the interest of some longer-term goal.
It's saying, let's take a wrench and fix the machine, so it can function
right now, with all you guys working, doing better jobs, running it
yourselves. You're better off psychologically, socially, in every
respect, and you're also producing a world that makes sense to live in.
That's, I think, the better way to proceed, in general.
JS: According to German critical theorist Herbert Marcuse, revolution
can be defined in part as action which seeks to secure the life,
freedom, and happiness of future generations.(2) In light of looming
catastrophic climate change, this definition would seem to hold a great
amount of importance today. Within the modern Western revolutionary
tradition, some of the most promising movements have arguably been
Gracchus Babeuf and the Conspiracy of Equals, Rosa Luxemburg and the
Spartacus League, and the Spanish anarchists. What would you say is the
role of direct action in revolutionary struggle?
NC: First of all, I think we shouldn't assume that revolutionary
struggle is the only option. What we've just been discussing, for
example, you can call reformist if you like: it's taking the
institutions, reshaping them, reconstructing them, turning them into
democratic institutions, and carrying out actions that are quite
feasible and would be beneficial for all of us. Is that a revolution, is
it a reform? Who knows? What's the role of direct action, say, in that?
Well, the role of direct action would have been realistically for
popular movements to have pressured the government to take that
direction, which would not have been impossible. In fact, right now in
the Rust Belt -- something like this happened in the old Rust Belt, on a
much smaller scale. Back in 1977, US Steel, a major corporation,
decided to close its operations in Youngstown, Ohio, which was a steel
town that had been built by steelworkers, by the union; it was a major
steel town. That was going to destroy everyone's occupation, the
community, the society, everything -- and it's a decision made by
bankers somewhere, who weren't making enough profit. The steelworkers
union offered to buy the plants and have them run by the workforce. This
was an effort that the corporation didn't want. Actually it's kind of
interesting -- it would have been more profitable for them, but I think a
class interest militated against it. This happens frequently. A
multinational frequently will refuse an offer by the workers to buy out
something they want to close and prefer to take the loss of just
destroying it to having the precedent of worker-owned enterprises.
That's what it looks like to me; I can't prove it. Corporations are
totalitarian institutions -- we don't get access to their internal
decisions -- but that's what it looks like.
Anyway, the company refused, and it went to the courts. I think it went
all the way to the Supreme Court. Staughton Lynd argued the case for the
community and the steelworkers; they lost, but they could have won,
with enough popular support. Anyhow, after they lost, the steel
[factories] were abandoned, but they didn't give up. Working people
started developing small enterprises -- worker-owned -- which they tried
to integrate into the community, and it's now proliferated
significantly. Around Cleveland, northern Ohio, there's quite a network
of worker-owned enterprises -- not worker-managed. There's a gap. But
worker-owned enterprises which can become worker-managed. It's
expanding. Right now there's an effort by the US steelworkers union to
make some sort of a deal with Mondragón, the huge Basque conglomerate
which is again worker-owned, with management selected by workers, but
not worker-managed. And that's got some prospects, too.
So what is direct action? Well, all of these things are direct action;
they're direct action geared to the existing circumstances. Direct
action has to be based on an analysis of what the existing circumstances
are, and how an action can modify them positively. There's no general
formula; you can't say direct action is good or bad. Sometimes it can
harmful, sometimes it can be beneficial; sometimes it can be
revolutionary, sometimes it can be reformist. You simply ask yourself
what can be achieved now. So these developments in, say, northern Ohio,
really are reformist -- they're even supported by Republican governors
and by some sectors of business, because it sort of fits their
right-wing, libertarian conceptions. Fine, let's pursue that -- nothing
wrong with it. But you just can't give general formulas for tactical
choices. They depend on an exact, close analysis of the situation.
The Spartacists are a good case in point. Rosa Luxemburg went along with
the Spartacist uprising, though she was opposed to it. She was opposed
to it not in principle but because she realized it was going to fail,
was going to be crushed. But out of solidarity she went along with it,
and she was killed.
JS: Returning to the question of natural law, I would like to ask
whether you think natural right applies to non-human animals? In an
interview from 2010, you acknowledged that there exists a "moral case"
for vegetarianism, but at a recent talk at University College London,
you claimed that animals cannot have the same rights as humans because,
lacking reason, they cannot be considered to have responsibilities. Can
you clarify what you mean by this? As you likely know, many anarchists
and anti-authoritarians today consider vegetarianism and veganism
essential to the project of reducing humanity's domination over nature.
NC: That makes sense, but that's separate from the question of whether
animals have the same rights as humans. It's a fact that animals don't
have responsibilities; we can't overlook that. If I have a dog, the dog
has no responsibilities. Maybe I'd like it to bark when a criminal
comes, but I can't say the dog's guilty if it didn't do it. So it's a
fact that animals don't have responsibilities. Responsibilities are
related to rights. This does not say you should murder animals, but it
is a recognition of reality. In fact, vegetarianism or veganism, I
think, have a moral basis. But so do lots of other things. Like when you
got here, you drove or took public transportation, meaning you used
energy -- that harms the environment. You made a choice: your choice was
to harm the environment in order to come here so we could have this
discussion. We're making choices like that every moment of the day.
Well, one of the choices has to do with people in countries where there
is meat, but not much else: should they eat it? That's another choice.
We have our own choices. We are always -- we can't overlook the fact
that we are constantly making choices which have negative effects, and
this is one of them. There is an opportunity cost to vegetarianism.
Personally, I'm not a vegetarian -- I almost never eat meat. The reason
is I just don't have time for it; I don't have the time to think about
it; I don't want to think about it. I just pick up whatever saves me
time, which usually is not meat, but I don't purposely check to see if
there's a piece of chicken in the salad. Okay, that's a choice. I don't
like -- I don't think we should have factory farming; the free-range
business is mostly a joke -- I understand that very well. With regard to
rights and responsibilities, they do relate, and I don't think we can
overlook that. You can say the same about an infant: an infant doesn't
have responsibilities. But the reason we grant the infant rights is
because of speciesism, and you can't overlook that, either.
JS: In theoretical terms, I sense a great affinity between the analysis
you and Edward S. Herman present in Manufacturing Consent and the
dissident cultural research engaged in by Western Marxists during the
twentieth century. You are famously given to quoting Antonio Gramsci's
saying, "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will." I would like
to ask whether you believe the US populace to be too conservative,
distracted, and enthralled by the system to move radically against it?
Do you think the public will become the "second superpower" you hope for
in Hegemony or Survival?
NC: I'm not sure the public is that conservative, frankly. There are
some interesting indications to the contrary. So for example in 1976,
the bicentennial of the Declaration of Independence, there were polls
taken in which people were asked what they thought was in the
Constitution. Nobody has a clue what's in the Constitution. But the
answers basically were: Do you think this is an obvious truth, and if it
is -- it's probably in the Constitution. One of the questions was "from
each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," and
the majority of the population thought that was in the Constitution,
because it's obviously true. In the late 1980s, there were polls taken
asking people, "do you think that a right to health care is in the
Constitution?" A very large proportion, I think maybe a majority of the
population, thought it was in the Constitution. If you take a look at
polls generally, you find that even among sectors of the population that
are considered very right-wing -- you do studies of people who say,
"get the government off my back, I don't want the government" -- they
turn out to be social democrats. They want more spending on health, more
spending on education, more spending on, say, mothers with dependent
children -- but not welfare, because welfare was demonized by racists,
Reagan and others. And this runs across the board, even on international
affairs. So a majority of the population thinks that the US ought to
give up the veto at the Security Council, and follow what the general
world population believes is right. You take a look at taxes, and it's
striking. There've been polls on taxes for about 40 years.
Overwhelmingly, the population thinks the rich should be taxed more --
they're undertaxed. The policy goes in the opposite direction. Polls are
not definitive: you have to inquire into why people are answering the
way they do; there could be a lot of reasons. But they're not
insignificant, either.
My own feeling is that people like Adam Smith were basically right, that
there is a natural sympathy for others. I think the rich and powerful
understand that. I think that's one of the reasons why there's such
massive effort to destroy the institutions in the society that are based
on solidarity. So, for example, why is the right wing -- and in fact
not just the right wing, because it goes over to Obama -- so intent on
undermining Social Security? It costs nothing, essentially; it's a very
efficient program; people survive on it; it works very well; there's no
economic problems that couldn't be tinkered with -- it's really
marginal. But there's a major effort to destroy it. Why? It's based on
solidarity. It's based on concern for others. There's a major attack on
the public schools -- deep underfunding, vouchers, all kinds of things.
Foundations are trying to undermine them. Why? Public schools are a
major contribution to modern society. They're one of the real
contributions of American society -- mass public education. Why destroy
them? Well, they're based on solidarity. If you take the ideology that
we're supposed to believe in, why should I pay taxes for the schools in
my neighborhood? I don't have kids in school, I don't have grandchildren
in school, and I never will. Why should I pay taxes? Well, you pay
taxes so that the kid across the street will go to school, because you
care about other people. But that has to be driven out of people's
heads. It's a little like markets and consumption. Markets are favored
by the economics profession, by the rich, and so on, up to a point --
they really don't believe in them, they want the powerful state to come
in and save them if they're in trouble. But ideologically they're
preferred, because they restrict human action to individual
self-gratification -- not mutual support, not protection of the commons.
Actually the commons are an interesting case. We're coming up to the
eight hundredth anniversary of the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta had two
parts. One part was the Charter of Liberties -- the central part was
presumption of innocence. That's out the window. By now, being "guilty"
means Obama wants to kill you tomorrow; that's the definition of guilty.
"Innocent" means he hasn't gotten around to it yet. But the other part
of the Magna Carta was the Charter of the Forests -- that's the part
that you find in popular myth, like the Robin Hood myths. Robin Hood was
protecting the commons from the predators. That's a big part of our
history -- English history. The commons were cultivated by the general
population. The commons were the forests, the fields, the source of
fuel, food, welfare -- you know, widows would pick things from the
forest to survive. And it was nurtured -- it was nurtured by the public,
it was cared for -- they weren't let to grow into jungles. They were
carefully cared for. The Charter of the Forests was an effort not by the
population but by the barons to protect the commons from the king, but
the population wanted to protect the commons for themselves.
Then you move into the capitalist period, beginning with the enclosure
movements which drove people off the land and so on, and you have a
destruction of the commons. Today, in the capitalist ethic, there's a
concept called the "tragedy of the commons" which you study in
economics, which teaches you that if you don't have private ownership of
the commons, it's going to be destroyed. Well, based on capitalist
morality, that's true. If I don't own it, what should I do to try to
preserve it? But in ordinary human life, that's just totally false.
Privatization is the tragedy of the commons. We can see that in fact:
When you privatize the commons, it gets destroyed for private profit. If
the commons are kept under common control, they are cultivated and
nurtured, because people care about each other, and they care about the
future. When you ask, is the population conservative? I doubt it. I
think these are deeply rooted sentiments and understandings which show
up all the time: They showed up in labor struggles against the
industrial system which was dehumanizing people, in peasant societies
they show up, in indigenous societies today struggling against, say,
gold mines -- maybe it'll give them more material wealth, but it'll
destroy their lives. You find this everywhere. And in the great thinkers
of the past, you know, in the people we aren't supposed to admire, like
Adam Smith, it's a central doctrine.
Actually it's kind of interesting, if you look at Smith -- everybody
knows the phrase "invisible hand," but practically nobody looks at how
he used the phrase. He rarely used it, a couple of times. One of the
uses is when he discusses what would happen -- it's an agrarian society
he's talking about -- what would happen if some landlord controlled
almost all the land? What would happen? He says, well, out of his
natural sympathy and concern for other people, he would distribute the
wealth, so, as if by an invisible hand, society would end up being
egalitarian. That's the invisible hand. The other major usage of it
actually is in an argument against -- against -- what we call neoliberal
globalization. He considers England and asks what would happen if in
England the merchants and manufacturers decided to invest abroad and
import from abroad. He says, they would gain, and England would suffer.
However, they have a kind of natural tendency to want to function in
their own society -- a kind of a "home bias," it's sometimes called,
kind of like an affinity to their own societies. So as if by an
invisible hand, England will be saved from the ravages of what we call
neoliberal globalization. That's not what you're taught. But they're
coming from a different era. That's the precapitalist era, and
conceptions were quite different before capitalist morality distorted
them.
1. Noam Chomsky and Laray Polk, Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2013), 83.
2. Herbert Marcuse, "Ethics and Revolution," in Ethics and Society:
Original Essays on Contemporary Moral Problems, ed. Richard T. De George
(New York: Anchor Books, 1964), 140-1.
Postagens
