2024-10-31

Noam Chomsky on Obama’s Foreign Policy, His Own History of Activism, and the Importance of Speaking Out | Democracy Now!

Noam Chomsky on Obama’s Foreign Policy, His Own History of Activism, and the Importance of Speaking Out | Democracy Now!



Noam Chomsky on Obama’s Foreign Policy, His Own History of Activism, and the Importance of Speaking Out
StoryMarch 15, 2010
Watch Full Show









Volume 90%










Listen
Media Options


This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.Donate

TopicsNoam Chomsky
Vietnam
Iraq
Guantanamo

GuestsNoam Chomsky
MIT professor speaking at the Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


We spend the hour with world-renowned linguist and dissident, Noam Chomsky. In a wide-ranging public conversation at the Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Chomsky talks about President Obama’s foreign and national security policies, the lessons of Vietnam, and his own activism. “You just can’t become involved part-time in these things,” Chomsky says. “It’s either serious and you’re seriously involved, or you go to a demonstration and go home and forget about it and go back to work, and nothing happens. Things only happen by really dedicated, diligent work.” [includes rush transcript]

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia last week to increase support for a new round of United Nations-imposed sanctions on Iran over its uranium enrichment program. While the Obama administration intensifies its efforts to win Chinese and Russian backing for tougher sanctions, France and Finland have indicated the European Union could consider unilateral measures against Iran if a UN resolution fails to materialize.


Well, as the United States, the EU and Israel step up the pressure on Iran, we spend the hour with the world-renowned linguist and dissident, Noam Chomsky, whose latest speech begins with a critical look at US policy towards Iran. An internationally celebrated professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chomsky is the author of over a hundred books on linguistics, mass media, American imperialism, and US foreign policy. The New York Times called him perhaps “the most important intellectual alive today,” but his opinions are rarely heard in the mainstream media.


Well, I had a wide-ranging conversation with Professor Chomsky at Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts just a week ago. He talked about antiwar activism, the lessons of Vietnam, President Obama’s foreign and national security policies, and also the risks that Noam Chomsky himself took as an activist and someone who has consistently spoken truth to power.


We begin with an excerpt of Chomsky’s speech, a critique of the Obama administration’s push for tighter sanctions against Iran.


NOAM CHOMSKY: My favorite newspaper, the London Financial Times, a couple of days ago identified Obama’s major foreign policy problem today as Iran. The occasion for the article was Hillary Clinton’s failure to convince Brazil to go along with the United States on calling for harsher sanctions and President Lula’s insistence that there should be engagement with Iran, commercial relations, and so on, and that it has a right to enrich uranium for producing nuclear energy, as do all signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Well, it was reported here, too, of course, and Lula’s position was considered sort of paradoxical. Why is he not going along with the international community, with the world? It’s an interesting usage, which is a very striking reflection of the depth of the culture of imperialism. Who is the international community? Well, it turns out, if you look, that the international community is Washington and whoever happens to agree with it at the moment. The rest are not part of the world. They’re kind of in opposition.


Well, in this case, Lula’s position happens to be that of most of the world. You can think it’s right or wrong or whatever, but just as a matter of fact, for example, it’s the position of the former non-aligned countries, the majority of countries of the world and the large majority of their populations. They have repeatedly and vigorously supported Iran’s right to enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, reiterating that it’s a signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which does grant that right. So they’re not part of the world.


Another group that’s not part of the world is the population of the United States. The last polls that I’ve seen, a couple of years ago, in those polls a considerable majority of Americans agreed that Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy, but of course not nuclear weapons. And in fact, as the poll demonstrated, the opinions of Americans on this issue were almost identical with opinions of Iranians on a whole range of issues. And, in fact, when the poll was presented in Washington at a press conference, the presenter pointed out that if people were able to make policy, could be that these tensions and conflicts would be resolved.


Well, that was a few years ago. Since then, there’s been a huge mass of propaganda about the threat of Iran and so on. And it’s very likely, I would guess, that if the poll were taken today, those figures for the American population would be different. But that was 2007, three years ago. So, at that point, Americans were not part of the world. Most of the majority of people of the world were not part of the world. And Lula, by repeating their view, is also not part of the world. Could be added that he’s almost surely the most popular political figure in the world, but that doesn’t mean anything, either.


So, what about the conflict with Iran and the threat of Iran? Nobody in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons, or anyone, for that matter. So, on that, there’s complete agreement. And in fact, there are significant problems about proliferation of nuclear weapons. It’s not a joke. And Obama’s vision forcibly includes, stresses the need to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to reduce or maybe remove nuclear weapons. Well, that’s the vision. What’s the practice?


Well, the practice became clear a couple of months ago. Once again, the Security Council passed a resolution, 1887 — I think it was October — calling on — with criticism of Iran for not living up to commitments that were demanded by the Security Council and also calling on all states to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to solve all their conflicts within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty without any threats of force. Well, that particular part of the resolution was not exactly headlined here, for a simple reason: it was directed at two countries, the two countries that are regularly threatening the use of force, the United States and Israel. The threat of force is in violation of the UN Charter, if anybody cares about that stale old stuff, even older than the ’60s. But that’s never mentioned. But every — just across the spectrum here, almost everyone insists that — the usual phrase is “we must keep all options open.” That’s a threat of force.


And the threat of force is not just idle. So, for example, Israel is sending its nuclear submarines into the Gulf, firing distance — they’re undetectable, basically — into areas where they could fire nuclear missiles — of course, Israel has plenty of nuclear weapons — fire them at Iran. The US and others are — its allies are carrying out field operations, you know, the exercises, plainly aimed at Iran. And there’s a little hitch, because Turkey is refusing to go along, but that’s what they’ve been trying to do. So there are regular threats, verbal and in policy. Israel actually is sending the nuclear submarines and other warships through the Suez Canal, with the tacit agreement of Egypt, the Egyptian dictatorship, another US client in the region. Well, those are all threats — constant, verbal, actual.


And the threats do have the effect of inducing Iran to develop a deterrent. Whether they’re doing it or not, I don’t know. Maybe they are. But if they are, the reason, as I think almost all serious analysts would agree, is not because they intend to use nuclear weapons and missiles with nuclear weapons. If they even loaded a missile was nuclear weapons, assuming they had them, the country would be vaporized in five minutes. And nobody believes that the ruling clerics, whatever one thinks about them, have a kind of a death wish and want to see the entire country and society and everything they own destroyed. In fact, US intelligence figures pretty high, who have talked about it, estimate the possibility of Iran ever actually using a nuclear weapon is maybe one percent, you know, so low that you can’t estimate it. But it’s possible that they develop them as a deterrent.


One of Israel’s leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, a couple of years ago, after the invasion of Iraq, wrote in the international press that of course he doesn’t want to see Iran have nuclear weapons, he said, but if they’re not developing them, they’re crazy. The US had just invaded Iraq, knowing that it was totally defenseless. It was part of the reason why they felt free to invade. Everybody can understand that. The Iranian leaders could certainly understand it. So, therefore, to quote van Creveld again, “if they’re not developing a nuclear deterrent, they’re crazy.”


Well, whether they are or not is another question. But there’s no doubt that the hostile and aggressive stance taken by the United States and its Israeli client are a factor in whatever planning that’s going on in top Iranian circles as to whether to develop a nuclear deterrent or not.

AMY GOODMAN: MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, speaking recently at Harvard University. When we come back from our break, I interview him about President Obama’s foreign policy. Stay with us.


[break]


AMY GOODMAN: We return to Professor Noam Chomsky. I interviewed him at the Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I began by asking him for his assessment of President Obama’s foreign policy.


NOAM CHOMSKY: When Obama came into office, or when he was elected, one high Bush official — I think it was Condoleezza Rice — predicted that Obama’s foreign policy would be a continuation of Bush’s second term. The first and second term of Bush were quite different. The first term was aggressive, arrogant, kicking the world in the face, even allies, and it had such a negative effect — this is in action as well as manner — that US prestige in the world sank to the lowest point it’s ever been. That was really harmful to the interests of those who actually set foreign policy — business world and corporate interests and, you know, state planners and so on. So there was a lot of criticism of Bush right from the mainstream in the first term. Well, you know, the second term was somewhat different. For one thing, some of the most extreme figures were kicked out. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, a couple of others, were sent off to pasture. They couldn’t get rid of Cheney, because he was the administration, so can’t dismantle it. But a lot of the others went, and policy shifted more towards the norm, to the more-or-less centrist norm. And a little talk about negotiations, I mean, less aggression, and so on. And a more polite attitude toward allies. So that was more acceptable, and fundamentally it didn’t change, but it was more acceptable. And this prediction was that that’s what Obama would do. And I think that’s pretty much what happened.


In fact, there’s a pretty interesting characterization of this, which sort of captures it, I think, pretty well. It’s anachronistic, but I think it applies. Back in 1962, at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world really was coming, you know, dangerously close to a nuclear war, which would have been sort of the end — most dangerous moment in history, Arthur Schlesinger called it, Kennedy’s adviser — right at the peak of the missile crisis, US planners were considering measures which they knew might destroy Europe, and in fact, in particular, Britain. So they were kind of playing out these scenarios which led to the destruction of Britain, but they — and taking them very seriously, in fact taking the steps towards it. But they didn’t let Britain know. Britain is supposed to have a special relationship with the United States, and the British were pretty upset. They couldn’t find out what was going on. The prime minister, Macmillan, all he could find out was what British intelligence was picking up. So here they’re — the best and the brightest are making plans that might well lead to the destruction of Britain, but they’re not telling them.


At that point, a senior adviser — I think it was probably Dean Acheson — of the Kennedy administration entered the discussion, and he defined the special relationship. He said the special relationship with Britain means that Britain is our lieutenant; the fashionable word is “partner.” And the British, of course, like to hear the fashionable word. Well, that’s pretty much the difference between Bush and Obama. Bush simply told them, “You’re our lieutenant. You do what we say, or you’re irrelevant.” In fact, that’s the word that I think Colin Powell used at the UN. “Do what we say, or you’re irrelevant. You’re just our lieutenant, and forget about it.” They don’t like to hear that. What they like to hear is “You’re our partner.” You know, “We love you.” And then, back in secret, we treat you as our lieutenant, but that’s OK. And I suspect that that’s the main difference.



AMY GOODMAN: What about the antiwar movement in the United States? You’ve long been a participant in it, very active in Vietnam right up until today. But where do you see it in relation to the person that many of them devoted tremendous efforts to elect?



NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, you know, there — actually, my view, which is not the standard one, is that the antiwar movement is far stronger now than it was in the ’60s. In the 1960s, there was a point, 1968, ’69, when there was a very strong antiwar movement against the war in Vietnam. But it’s worth remembering that the war in Vietnam started — an outright war started in 1962. By then, maybe 70,000 or 80,000 people had already been killed under the US client regime. But in 1962, Kennedy really opened an outright war, you know, sent the American Air Force to start bombing South Vietnam — under South Vietnamese markings, but everybody knew, it was even reported — authorized napalm, authorized chemical warfare to destroy crops and ground cover, started open — started the programs which drove ultimately millions of people from the countryside into what amounted to concentration camps, to try to — the words were “to protect them from the guerrillas,” who the government knew perfectly well they were supporting. Same kind of things you read now in Afghanistan, if you bother to read the fine print about the conquest of Marjah. But we had to drive them into concentration camps to protect them from the people, the guerrillas, they were supporting. That’s a war. You know, it’s a serious war.


Protest was zero, literally. I mean, it was years before you could get any sign of protest. I mean, those of you who are old enough may remember that in Boston, liberal city, in October 1965 — that’s three years after that, hundreds of thousands of American troops rampaging the country, you know, war spread to North Vietnam and so on — we tried to have our first public demonstration against the war on the Boston Common, usual demonstration place. This is October 1965. I was supposed to be one of the speakers. I couldn’t say a word. It was broken up, you know, violently. A lot of students marched over trying to break it up, hundreds of state police there. The next day, the Boston Globe, most liberal paper in the country, you know, devoted its whole front page to denouncing the demonstrators, not the ones who were breaking it up. You know, a picture of a wounded soldier in the middle, that sort of thing. Well, that was October 1965, you know, hundreds of thousands of troops there, war escalating beyond. Well, finally, after years, in 1968, you got a substantial antiwar movement, ’67, ’68. By then, South Vietnam was gone. It was virtually destroyed. And the same was true of much of the rest of Indochina. Well, the war did go on for a long time, with horrible effects, and we were unwilling to face the fact, even to report the fact. But nevertheless, the antiwar movement did have an effect very late.


Well, compare Iraq. There were huge protests before the war was officially launched. I mean, we now know that Blair and Bush were simply lying when they said that they were trying to work for a diplomatic settlement. They had already started the war. OK, that came out in the famous Downing Street memos in England, but it hadn’t been officially announced, so — but there were huge demonstrations. And I think they had an effect. The US war in Iraq was horrible enough, probably killed about a million people, drove a couple of million out of the country, devastated the country, destroyed it, horrible cultural destruction and so on. It was pretty awful. Could have been a lot worse. It’s not what the US did in South Vietnam. Nothing like it. You know, no saturation bombing with B-52s, chemical warfare and so on. And I think it was retarded by the antiwar movement. The population here had just become more civilized. That’s one of those grim effects of the 1960s.



AMY GOODMAN: And Afghanistan?



NOAM CHOMSKY: Pardon?



AMY GOODMAN: And Afghanistan?



NOAM CHOMSKY: Afghanistan is an interesting case. I mean, Afghanistan was sold here as a war to retaliate — a just — it’s always called a “just” war — to prevent terror, you know, retaliate against a terrorist attack. I mean, it’s such a standard view that to take it apart, you know, requires more time than I’d be allowed. But the fact of the matter is that that was not the goal of the war.


I mean, if the goal of the war was to isolate al-Qaeda, eliminate terror, there were straightforward ways to proceed. I mean, if you go back to that time, the jihadi movement itself was highly critical of the 9/11 attack. There were fatwas coming out from the most radical clerics, and, you know, Al Azhar University, the main theological center, denouncing al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the terrorist attacks — it’s not Islamic, we wouldn’t do that, and so on. Well, if you wanted to end terror, the obvious thing to do at that point is to isolate al-Qaeda, to try to gain support, even from the jihadi movement, and of course from the population they’re trying to mobilize. You know, terrorists regard themselves as a vanguard. They’re trying to mobilize others to their cause. I mean, every specialist on terrorism knows that. So you could have done it then, and you could have proceeded to identify the perpetrators, which, incidentally, they couldn’t do because they didn’t know who they were, and that was conceded later. But they could have tried to identify them, bring them to justice, you know, to trials — with fair trials and not torture, but fair trials, which would have probably sharply reduced, if maybe not — maybe even have ended Islamic terrorism.


Well, they did the opposite. What they tried to do is to mobilize the population and mobilize the jihadi movement to support al-Qaeda. That’s exactly the effect of first invading Afghanistan and later invading Iraq. And it’s also the effect of Guantánamo and Bagram and the other torture centers. I mean, everyone who’s involved in them, you know, seriously, knows, yeah, they created terrorists.



AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Obama should have these Guantánamo prisoners tried in New York?



NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, it depends whether we want to be — regard ourselves as a civilized country or as a rogue state. If you want to be a rogue state, you know, do whatever you like. You know, kill them, torture them, whatever. If you want to be part of the civilized world, and also if you want to reduce the appeal of the extreme jihadi movement, then try them in civilian courts.


In fact, the very fact that they’re in Guantánamo is outlandish. First of all, what’s Guantánamo? I mean, Guantánamo was taken from Cuba a century ago at gunpoint. They said, “Give us Guantánamo, or else.” Cuba was under military occupation. It’s called a treaty, but, you know — OK. And the treaty of Guantánamo, if you want to call it that, allowed Guantánamo to be used as a calling station for the Navy. Well, you know, it’s not what it’s being used for. In fact, as you know perfectly well, it was used for Haitian refugees. When Haitians were fleeing from the dictatorships that the US was supporting, the US refused to permit them political asylum. It claimed that they were just economic refugees. The Coast Guard tried to stop them, and if any got through, they sent them to Guantánamo. OK, now you know what they’re being used for.


Actually, what they are being used for is to create terrorists. It’s not my opinion; that’s the opinion of the main US interrogators, people like Matthew Alexander, who actually has an article on it in the same issue of National Interest that I mentioned. He said, yeah, it’s a great way to create terrorists. It inspires terrorism all over, and it turns many of these people there into terrorists, if they were picked up for whatever reason it was.


So, yes, if you want to — if your goal is to reduce the threat of, say, Islamic terrorism and to become part of the civilized world, you have civilian trials, just as those who are in Guantánamo — first of all, most of those who are in Guantánamo, I mean, it’s kind of outrageous anyway. They’re like some fifteen-year-old kid who was found holding a rifle when the US was invading his country. That’s a terrorist. OK, but that’s a large part of maybe almost all of what’s in Guantánamo. But if you want to — but what should have been done with them, if the goal was to be civilized and to reduce terrorism, is to put them in prison in the United States. There’s no security problem. You know, they’re not going to get out of a maximum-security prison, and they don’t have some magic way of spreading poison around the world or anything. But, of course, the government didn’t want to do that, because they had no evidence.


And if they were — they were sent to Guantánamo so that they could, it was hoped, be free from US jurisdiction, so you could play that — you could pretend that they weren’t under your US jurisdiction, so the laws didn’t apply. Well, the Supreme Court finally, after a long time, kind of whittled away at that and said, yes, they have the right of habeas corpus. The Bush administration accepted that; Obama doesn’t. Obama — the Obama administration is trying to overturn a decision by a right-wing Bush judicial appointee that the Supreme Court decision holds for Bagram, the torture center in Afghanistan. And the Obama administration is trying to override that, so that that means that the Supreme Court decision is just a joke. If you want to torture somebody, don’t send them to Guantánamo, because the Supreme Court said you can’t torture them there; let’s send them to Bagram. So if you pick somebody up in Yemen or, you know, wherever you pick him up, and you want them not to be subject to international law, also US law, OK, send him to Bagram. That’s the Obama administration position.


I mean, it’s for reasons like these that even the most hawkish anti-terrorism specialist, people like Michael Scheuer, who was in charge for the CIA of following Obama for years, he says that al-Qaeda’s — Osama bin Laden’s best ally is the United States. You know, we’re doing exactly what he wants. What he wants is he’s trying to sell a line to the Muslim world, you know, these guys are on a crusade, they’re trying to kill us, we’ve got to defend ourselves. And the US is acting, you know, as if they’re under command. Yeah, we do everything he wants.

AMY GOODMAN: MIT Professor Noam Chomsky in a public conversation at Harvard University. If you want a copy of today’s program, you can go to our website at democracynow.org. We’ll come back to our conversation after break. Stay with us.


[break]


AMY GOODMAN: We return now to the conclusion of our public conversation with Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We were speaking at Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We talked about the risks he took as an antiwar activist. But first, I asked him about what he thought of the Obama administration, what it should be doing with Israel and Palestine.


NOAM CHOMSKY: Israel-Palestine happens to be a particularly easy case. I mean, there has been an overwhelming international consensus for thirty-five years on how to settle the problem — short term, at least — namely, a two-state settlement on the international border, which everyone agrees on, with, the phrase was, “minor and mutual modifications.” That was US official policy until the US departed from the world in the early ’70s, as it did. That’s just overwhelming. I mean, there was a Security Council resolution in 1976 calling for a two-state settlement. The US vetoed it. And it just goes on from there. I won’t run through it, but if you get ’til today, there’s just overwhelming agreement. I mean, it includes all the Arab states for a long time. It includes Iran, the Organization of Islamic States. It includes Hamas. You know, in fact, everybody, except the United States and Israel.


So, what has Obama had to say about this? Well, it’s interesting. He has this great vision, but if you look — if you go below the vision and take a look at the words, it’s a little different. So his only word so far — there are two, really. One is to politely ask Israel to stop expanding settlements. Well, first of all, that’s meaningless. The issue is the existence, not the expansion of the settlements. But furthermore, those words were also meaningless. He was quoting Bush. In fact, he was quoting the — what’s called the Road Map, the official — you know, supposedly the agreed-upon scenario for moving forward. He was quoting it. OK, that’s meaningless, but that’s part of his great vision.


The other part, which is more interesting, was a few days after he took office, and he gave his one, and so far only, serious talk about Israel-Palestine. That’s when he was introducing George Mitchell as his negotiator, which is a good choice, if he’s given any leeway. And Obama explained what he was going to do. He said — this was his, you know, being very forthcoming to the Arab world. He said, well, there’s a constructive proposal on the table, the Arab peace proposal — you know, pat people on the head for producing it. And then he went on to say, “Well, it’s time for the Arabs to live up to their peace proposal. They should start normalizing relations with Israel.” Well, you know, Obama is literate, intelligent. I suppose he chooses his words carefully. He knows perfectly well that that was not the Arab peace proposal. The Arab peace proposal re-endorsed the longstanding international consensus and said, in the context of a two-state settlement, the Arab states will proceed even beyond to normalize relations with Israel. Well, Obama picked out the corollary, but omitted the substance, which is a way of saying we’re going to maintain our rejectionist stance. Couldn’t have been clearer. And that’s what’s happened.


With regard to his repetition of the call to stop expansion of settlements, he did go a little bit farther — not he, but his spokespersons in press conferences. They were asked, is the administration going to do anything about it if Israel rejects it? And they said, “No, it’s purely symbolic.” In fact, explicitly said that the administration is not going to do what George Bush the 1st did. George Bush the 1st had some light taps on the wrist if Israel continued to reject what the US was asking for. Clinton pretty much withdrew that, and Obama withdrew it totally. He said, “No, this is just symbolic.” Well, that’s telling Benjamin Netanyahu, “Go ahead and do what you like. We’ll say we don’t like it, but there will be a wink saying, yeah, go ahead. Meanwhile, we participate in it. You know, we send you the arms. We give you the diplomatic support and a direct participation.” That’s the vision. You know? It could hardly be clearer.


Now, what can we do about it? Well, you know, we can get the United States to join the world. In this case it’s literally the whole world. Just accept — join the world and accept the international consensus and stop the direct participation in violating it — I mean, what Israel is doing. And I should have said what the US and Israel are doing. Everything Israel does is a joint operation. They can’t go beyond what the US permits and participates in. So what the US and Israel are doing in Gaza and in the West Bank is destroying the hope of the —- for realization of the international consensus.


And there’s no alternative around, I should say, with regard to a lot of the anti— — to pro-Palestinian — you know, supporters of the Palestinians. In fact, some of the leading Palestinian activists themselves are saying, well, we ought to give up on the two-state solution and just let Israel take over all the territories, maybe annex them, and then there will be a civil rights struggle and like an anti-apartheid struggle, and that can work like South Africa. That’s just blindness. That’s not going to happen. The US and Israel are not going to permit that to happen. They’re going to continue with exactly what they’re doing: strangling Gaza, separating it from the West Bank, in violation of international agreements, and in the West Bank take over whatever they want.



AMY GOODMAN: As you look out on folks here, many young people, many students, I was wondering if you could reflect on your career at the moments when you had to make a decision about whether to take a risk that might risk your position or your standing in some way, when you felt — what you say to people when it comes to issues of courage.



NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, you know I don’t like to talk about myself. It’s not important. But since you ask, a couple of times. The first time — I mean, I had been a political activist all my life, you know, since childhood. I mean, you talked about my newsstand and so on. But with regard to, say, really doing something, say, becoming involved with the nonexistent antiwar movement, the first time was around 1962. You could see what was happening in 1962. It wasn’t really concealed. And I decided to try to get involved in organizing antiwar activism. Now, that wasn’t risky, but it meant giving up a lot. You cannot put — I don’t have to tell you — you can’t put one toe in this. If you get into it, it’s a full-time occupation.



AMY GOODMAN: Were you a tenured professor at the time? You — 1956, you went to MIT. You were teaching.



NOAM CHOMSKY: Nineteen fifty-five. I forget what year it was. But it wasn’t a consideration. In fact, it may be odd for you to think about, but MIT in the 1960s had two interesting characteristics. One was it was almost entirely funded by the Pentagon. In fact, I was in a lab which was 100 percent funded by the three armed services. Two, it was the main center of antiwar resistance. I’m not talking about dissent or, you know, protest. I’m talking about resistance, you know, organizing resistance activities, illegal activities. And the Pentagon didn’t care much, because, contrary to what a lot of people believe, one of the main functions of the Pentagon is just to provide a cover for the way the economy functions. The way the economy functions, it’s — you know, people like to claim it’s a free market economy, but, you know, most of it comes out of the state sector — I mean, computers, internet, airplanes, you know. The idea is the public is supposed to pay the costs and take the risks, and if anything works out, you hand it over to private enterprise. That’s called the free market. And the way it — when the economy was mainly electronics-based, the Pentagon was the cover. So, you know, you got to do this because the Russians are coming. But they actually didn’t really care what you were doing. I mean, it’s an interesting story. Anyhow, so, yeah, maybe I was tenured, maybe not, but it didn’t matter.


I got involved in 1962, and what that meant — so, like, if I’d give a talk in a church, which I sometimes did, it would mean four people —- you know, the minister, the organizer, a drunk who walked in off the street and a guy who wanted to kill me. That was a talk in a church. And that went on for a couple of years. The only really risky step -—



AMY GOODMAN: Are you suggesting the antiwar movement during Vietnam was mainly alcoholic?



NOAM CHOMSKY: Right. Don’t tell David Brooks.


In 1966 — in 1965, I tried to organize — a friend of — an artist friend of mine, since died, tried to organize a national tax resistance. Well, we got somewhere, so that’s taking, you know, sort of a mild risk. But in 1966, there were the stirrings of an effort to organize more serious resistance.



AMY GOODMAN: Did you not pay your taxes?



NOAM CHOMSKY: I didn’t pay my taxes for years. But what — you know, it’s — I mean, there is a — how the IRS reacted is kind of interesting. In my case, of course they can get the money, you know.



AMY GOODMAN: And did they just take it out of your salary?



NOAM CHOMSKY: They just took it. I got a nasty letter from them from some computer. But in some cases, they randomly, as far as I could tell, you know, they took people’s houses. People went to jail, and so on. So there’s a kind of a risk associated with it. But more serious was support of direct resistance, support for resisters, deserters, and so on and so forth. That began around 1966. It became public in 1967. And that did carry potential penalties. I mean, actually my wife — we had three kids. She went back to college after seventeen years, because we expected I’d probably end up in jail. And I came pretty close. I mean, I was — a trial was announced in ’68, which I was the main defendant. I was saved, as were others, by the Tet Offensive. The Tet Offensive came along in January 1968, and it convinced the business world in the United States that the US shouldn’t — that this was just becoming too costly.



AMY GOODMAN: What were you charged with?



NOAM CHOMSKY: The charges were conspiracy to, you know, resist the draft or overthrow the government or something or other. The conspiracy trials are kind of an interesting story. I could talk about them, but it was real, you know. If it hadn’t been for the Tet Offensive, I probably would have spent a couple years in jail. But —



AMY GOODMAN: Did you go through the trial?



NOAM CHOMSKY: The trials were called off right after the Tet Offensive. There was one that was underway, but — you know, the Spock trial, where they picked all the wrong people, but — and that was overturned on appeal, but mainly because of the Tet Offensive. I mean, the business world just said, “Look out.” In fact, what they did — what happened in 1968 is that a group of so-called wise men — you know, big shots from Wall Street and so on — went down to Washington and basically gave the President marching orders. It was a very real power play. Johnson was told, “Stop the bombing of North Vietnam. Don’t run for office again. And begin negotiations and start to withdraw.” And he followed orders, to the letter. Then Nixon came along and did it a different way. But the visible escalation of the war declined. Visible, I say, because some of the worst atrocities were in 1969, and then it went off to Cambodia and Laos, where it was even worse. But that was kind of invisible. It still is. But it kind of tempered at that point, and one of the things that was done was to call off the trials, because there was an effort on the part of the government to sort of make peace, you know, make peace with the students. And that was an interesting story, too. But that ended the trials.


But yeah, that was — yeah, it was risky. Civil disobedience is — it’s no fun. You know, I mean, you can’t really say it’s risky. So, maybe you get maced or beaten or something like that, spend a couple days in jail, but — not the pleasantest experience, but it’s not the kind of risk that dissidents take in other countries. But yeah — but that’s the kind of decisions you have to make. You just can’t become involved part-time in these things. It’s either serious and you’re seriously involved, or, you know, you go to a demonstration and go home and forget about it and go back to work, and nothing happens. I mean, things only happen by really dedicated, diligent work. I mean, we’re not allowed to say nice things about the Communist Party, right? That’s like a rule. But one of the reasons why the New Deal legislation worked, you know, which was significant — you know, just changed the country — was because there were people who were there every day. Whether it was a civil rights issue, a labor rights issue, organizing, anything else, they were there, ready to turn the mimeograph machines — no internet — organize demonstrations. They had a memory. You know, the movement had a memory, which it doesn’t have now. Now everyone starts over from fresh. But it had a kind of a tradition, a memory, that people were always there. And if you look back, it was very heavily Communist Party activists. Well, you know, that was destroyed. And it’s one of the — the lack of such a sector of dedicated, committed people who understand that you’re not going to win tomorrow, you know, you’re going to have a lot of defeats, and there’ll be a lot of trouble, you know, and a lot of things will happen that aren’t nice, but if you keep at it, you can get somewhere. That’s why we had a civil rights movement and a labor movement and so on.


The lesson that we ought to learn, there was a split in American public opinion, very sharp split, very visible, in the early ’70s, between elite opinion — you know, newspapers, Harvard faculty and so on — on the one hand, and the general population, on the other. Not the antiwar movement, the general population. In elite opinion, articulate opinion — and that you can read, so it’s easy to document — the most extreme condemnation of the war was that it was a mistake which proved to be too costly. OK, that’s about as far as you can go. Among the public, about 70 percent, in polls, said it’s not a mistake, it’s fundamentally wrong and immoral. OK? It’s a very sharp and significant split. And I think the lesson we ought to learn is, to bring it to today, that, say, when Obama is praised for opposing the war in Iraq because he thought it was a mistake, we should recognize that to be on a par with Nazi generals after Stalingrad who thought that the two-front war was a mistake. The issue isn’t was it a mistake; it’s whether it’s fundamentally wrong and immoral. Well, that’s the lesson that has to be drawn. That’s what the public probably already understands, but we have to do something with them and organize with them.



AMY GOODMAN: I’ll just say one thing. There’s this quote that I’ve been trying to find out who said it. “I think back on my life over all the times I thought I went too far, and I realize now I didn’t go far enough.” I don’t think Noam Chomsky said that.

AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned linguist and dissident, Noam Chomsky, speaking at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts at an event sponsored by the Harvard Extension International Relations Club. Oh, about 800 people packed Memorial Church.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Up Next
Noam Chomsky on Legacy of Radical Historian Staughton Lynd, Who Protested Korea, Vietnam & Iraq Wars

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia

Libertarian socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarian socialism is an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist political current that emphasises self-governance and workers' self-management. It is contrasted from other forms of socialism by its rejection of state ownership and from other forms of libertarianism by its rejection of private property. Broadly defined, it includes schools of both anarchism and Marxism, as well as other tendencies that oppose the state and capitalism.

With its roots in the Age of Enlightenment, libertarian socialism was first constituted as a tendency by the anti-authoritarian faction of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA), during their conflict with the Marxist faction. Libertarian socialism quickly spread throughout Europe and the American continent, reaching its height during the early stages of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and particularly during the Spanish Revolution of 1936. Its defeat during these revolutions led to its brief decline, before its principles were resurrected by the New Left and new social movements of the late 20th century.

While its key principles of decentralisationworkers' control and mutual aid are generally shared across the many schools of libertarian socialism, differences have emerged over the questions of revolutionary spontaneityreformism, and whether to prioritise the abolition of the state or of capitalism.

Political principles

[edit]

Libertarian socialism strives for a free and equal society,[1] aiming to transform work and everyday life.[2] Broadly defined, libertarian socialism encapsulates any political ideology that favours workers' control of the means of production and the replacement of capitalism with a system of cooperative economics,[3][4] or common ownership.[5] Libertarian socialists tend to see the working class as agents of social revolution, reject representative democracy and electoralism, and advocate for self-organisation and direct action as means to engage in class conflict.[6]

Anti-authoritarianism

[edit]

Libertarian socialism has a grassroots and direct democratic[7] approach to socialism, rejecting parliamentarism and bureaucracy respectively.[8] Libertarian socialists advocate the empowerment of individuals to control their own lives and encourage them to voluntarily cooperate with each other, rather than allow themselves to be controlled by a state. Libertarian socialists therefore uphold civil liberties such as freedom of choicefreedom of expression and freedom of thought.[9]

In contrast to authoritarian forms of socialism, libertarian socialism rejects state ownership and centralisation. Instead it upholds a decentralised model of self-governance, envisioning free association based on co-operative or participatory economics. Some libertarian socialists see such systems as complementary to statism, while others hold them to be an alternative to the state.[9]

Libertarian socialists tend to reject the view that political institutions such as the state represent an inherently good, or even neutral, power.[10] Some libertarian socialists, such as Peter Kropotkin, consider the state to be an inherent instrument of landlordism and capitalism, therefore opposing the state with equal intensity as they oppose capitalism.[11]

Anti-capitalism

[edit]

Libertarian socialism views corporate power as an institutional problem, rather than as a result of the influence of certain immoral individuals.[12] It thus opposes capitalism, which it sees as an economic system that upholds greed, the exploitation of labour and coercion, and calls for its overthrow in a social revolution.[13]

Libertarian socialists reject private property, as they consider capitalist property relations to be incompatible with freedom.[9] Instead, libertarian socialism upholds individual self-ownership, as well as the collective ownership of the means of production.[14] In the place of capitalism, libertarian socialists favour an economic system based on workers' control of production, advocating for a system of cooperative economics,[3][4] or common ownership.[5] They also advocate for workers' self-management, as they consider workers able to cooperate productively without supervisors, whether appointed by employers or by the state.[13]

They also tend to see free trade as inevitably resulting in the redistribution of income and wealth from workers to their corporate employers.[15] They advocate for the elimination of social and economic inequality through the coercive expropriation of property from the wealthy.[16]

History

[edit]

The roots of libertarian socialism extend back to the classical radicalism of the early modern period,[17] claiming the English Levellers and the French Encyclopédistes as their intellectual forerunners, and admiring figures of the Age of Enlightenment such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.[18] According to Mikhail Bakunin and Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, while authoritarian socialism had its origins in Germany, libertarian socialism was born in France.[19] The modern foundations of libertarian socialism lay in the utopian socialism expounded by Charles FourierRobert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon, who envisioned a democratic socialism guided by communitarianismmoralism and feminism.[20]

Emergence

[edit]
Mikhail Bakunin, leader of the libertarian socialist faction of the International Workingmen's Association

Libertarian socialism first emerged from the anti-authoritarian faction of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA), after it was expelled from the organisation by the Marxist faction at the Hague Congress of 1872.[21] The libertarian socialist Mikhail Bakunin had rejected Karl Marx's calls for a "dictatorship of the proletariat", as he predicted it would only create a new ruling class, composed of a privileged minority, which would use the state to oppress the working classes. He concluded that: "no dictatorship can have any other aim than to perpetuate itself, and it can only give rise to and instill slavery in the people that tolerates it."[22] Marxists responded to this by insisting on the eventual "withering away of the state", in which society would transition from dictatorship to anarchy, in an apparent attempt to synthesise authoritarian and libertarian forms of socialism.[23]

This put libertarian socialists into direct competition with social democrats and communists for influence over left-wing politics, in a contest which lasted for over fifty years.[21] Libertarian socialism proved attractive to British writers such as Edward Carpenter,[24][25][26] Oscar Wilde,[27] and William Morris, the latter of whom developed a kind of libertarian socialism based in a strong critique of civilisation, which he aimed to overthrow and replace with what he called a "beautiful society".[28] Morris drove the development of impossibilism, which became increasingly concerned with the bureaucratisation and moderation of the socialist movement, leading to the establishment of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.[29]

By the early 20th century, libertarian socialists had gained a leading influence over the left-wing in the NetherlandsFrance and Italy and went on to play major roles in the Mexican and Russian Revolutions.[21] In India, the libertarian socialist tradition was represented in the early twentieth century anti-colonial movement by Bhagat Singh.[30]

Russian Revolution

[edit]
Russian anarchist militiamen marching in formation during the 1917 Revolution

Russian libertarian socialists, including anarchistspopulists and left socialist-revolutionaries, led the opposition to the Tsarist autocracy throughout the late-19th century.[31] They created a network of both clandestine and legal organisations throughout Russia, with the aim of overthrowing the Russian nobility and bringing land under the common ownership of the mir. Their agitation for land reform in the Russian countryside culminated with the establishment of rural soviets during the 1905 Revolution.[32]

Anarchists also organised among the urban proletariat, forming clandestine factory committees that proved more attractive to revolution-minded workers than the more reformist trade unions favoured by the Bolsheviks. During the 1917 Revolution, in which libertarian socialists played a leading role, the Bolsheviks changed tack and adopted elements of the libertarian socialist programme in their appeals to the workers. But by 1919, the new Bolshevik government had come to view the libertarian socialists as a threat to their power and moved to eliminate their influence. Libertarian socialist organisations were banned and many of their members were arrested, deported to Siberia or executed by the Cheka.[33]

The Revolutions of 1917–1923 ended in defeat for the libertarian socialists, with either the social democrats, the Bolsheviks or nationalists rising to power. Libertarian socialists responded by reevaluating their positions, emphasising mass organisation over intellectual vanguardism and revolutionary spontaneity over substitutionism.[34] They also came to conceive the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a form of class power, rather than as the dictatorship of a political party. Many Marxists of the period were attracted to this position, including Rosa Luxemburg in Germany, Antonie Pannekoek in the Netherlands, Sylvia Pankhurst in Britain, György Lukács in Hungary and Antonio Gramsci in Italy.[35]

Spanish Revolution

[edit]
Spanish anarchist militiawomen during the 1936 Revolution

Libertarian socialism reached its apex of popularity with the Spanish Revolution of 1936, during which libertarian socialists led "the largest and most successful revolution against capitalism to ever take place in any industrial economy".[21]

In Spain, traditional forms of self-management and common ownership dated back to the 15th century. The Levante, where collective self-management of irrigation was commonplace, became the hotbed of anarchist collectivisation.[36] Building on this traditional collectivism, from 1876, the Spanish libertarian socialist movement grew through sustained agitation and the establishment of alternative institutions that culminated in the Spanish Revolution.[37] During this period, a series of workers' congresses, first convoked by the Spanish Regional Federation of the IWA, debated and refined proposals for the construction of a libertarian socialist society. Over several decades, resolutions from these congresses formed the basis of a specific program on a range of issues, from the structure of communes and the post-revolutionary economy to libertarian cultural and artistic initiatives.[38] These proposals were published in the pages of widely distributed libertarian socialist periodicals, such as Solidaridad Obrera and Tierra y Libertad, which each circulated tens of thousands of copies. By the outbreak of the revolution, the anarcho-syndicalist Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) enjoyed widespread popularity, counting 1.5 million members within its ranks.[39]

During the revolution, the means of production were brought under workers' control and worker cooperatives formed the basis for the new economy.[40] According to Gaston Leval, the CNT established an agrarian federation in the Levante that encompassed 78% of Spain's most arable land. The regional federation was populated by 1,650,000 people, 40% of whom lived on the region's 900 agrarian collectives, which were self-organised by peasant unions.[41]

Although industrial and agricultural production was at its highest in the anarchist-controlled areas of the Spanish Republic, and the anarchist militias displayed the strongest military discipline, liberals and Communists alike blamed the "sectarian" libertarian socialists for the defeat of the Republic in the Spanish Civil War. These charges have been disputed by contemporary libertarian socialists, such as Robin Hahnel and Noam Chomsky, who have accused such claims of lacking substantial evidence.[42]

Decline

[edit]

Following the defeat of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, libertarian socialism fell into decline.[43] Left-wing politics throughout the world came to be dominated either by social democracy or Marxism-Leninism, which attained power in a number of countries and thus had the means to support their ideological allies. In contrast, Hahnel argues, libertarian socialists were not able to gain influence within the labour movement. At a time when reformist trade unions were consistently winning concessions, the libertarian socialists' anti-reformist message gained little traction. Their platform of workers' self-management also failed to appeal to industrial workers.[44] Until the 1960s, libertarian socialists were limited mostly to making critiques of authoritarian socialism and capitalism, although Hahnel asserts that these arguments were largely overshadowed by those from neoconservatives and Marxists respectively.[45]

New Left

[edit]
Noam Chomsky, the most prominent advocate of libertarian socialism in the New Left

Libertarian socialist themes received a revival during the 1960s, when it was reconstituted as part of the nascent New Left.[46] This revival occurred largely unconsciously, as new leftists were often unaware of their libertarian socialist predecessors. The concepts of grassroots democracyworkers' controlsolidarity and autonomy were thus reinvented by the new generation.[47] They also picked up the principles of decentralisationparticipatory democracy and mutual aid.[48] These libertarian socialist themes drove the growth of the New Left, which by this point was disillusioned by the mainstream social democratic and Marxist-Leninist political groupings, due to the capitalistic tendencies of the former and the rigid authoritarianism of the latter.[46]

Sociologist C. Wright Mills, who displayed strong libertarian socialist tendencies in his appeals to the New Left, reformulated Marxism for the modern age in his work on The Power EliteWilhelm Reich's Freudo-Marxist theses on the authoritarian personality were also rediscovered by the New Left, who developed his programme for individual self-governance into a libertarian system of education used by the Summerhill School.[49] Drawing on the Freudo-Marxist conception of civilisation as "organised domination", Herbert Marcuse developed a critique of alienation in modern Western societies, concluding that creativity and political dissent had been undermined by social repression. Meanwhile, Lewis Mumford published denunciations of the military-industrial complex and Paul Goodman advocated for decentralisation.[48] In the process, the new generation of Marxists gravitated towards libertarian tendencies, sometimes closely resembling anarchism. Following on from Marcuse, Daniel Cohn-BenditE. P. ThompsonRaymond Williams and Stuart Hall all adopted forms of "libertarian Marxism", opposed to the bureaucracy and parliamentarism of statist tendencies.[50]

A specific and explicit libertarian socialist tendency also began to emerge. While some more libertarian Marxists adopted the term in order to distinguish themselves from authoritarian socialists,[51] anarchists began calling themselves "libertarian socialist" in order to avoid the negative connotations associated with anarchism.[52] The libertarian socialist Daniel Guérin specifically attempted to synthesise anarchism and Marxism into a single tendency, which inspired the growth of the French libertarian communist movement.[53] For a time, even the American anarcho-capitalist theorist Murray Rothbard attempted to make common cause with libertarian socialists, but later shifted away from socialism and towards right-wing populism.[54]

Many libertarian socialists of this period were particularly influenced by the analysis of Cornelius Castoriadis[55][56] and his group Socialisme ou Barbarie.[57] This new generation included the non-vanguardist Marxist organisation Facing Reality,[58] the British libertarian socialist group Solidarity,[59][60] and the Australian councilists of the Self-Management Group.[61] Some of this new generation of libertarian socialists also joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), swelling the old union's numbers, organising agricultural workers and launching a new journal, The Rebel Worker.[58] This libertarian socialist milieu, with their criticisms of democratic centralism and trade unionism, and their advocacy of workers' self-management and council democracy, went on to inspire the French situationists and Italian autonomists.[62]

Of the figures in the New Left, the American linguist Noam Chomsky became the most prominent spokesperson for libertarian socialism.[17] Inspired by the humanism of Bertrand Russell, the individualism of Wilhelm von Humboldt and the syndicalism of Rudolf Rocker, Chomsky championed a libertarian socialism that upheld individual liberty and self-ownership.[63] Chomsky has been outspoken advocate of anti-authoritarianism, opposing limits on individual freedoms by the state.[64] He has also focused much of his libertarian socialist critique on mass media in the United States, due to its role in the military-industrial complex.[65]

While most sections of the New Left expressed a form of libertarian socialism, others were instead being inspired by the Cuban and Chinese Communist Revolutions to embrace forms of authoritarian socialism such as Maoism–Third Worldism.[66] As such, according to Hahnel, the New Left failed to form a coherent ideological program or establish lasting support to carry forward the momentum of the late 1960s, resulting in many dropping out of activism altogether.[67]

New social movements

[edit]

A minority from the New Left continued their radical activism within the new social movements of the 1970s and 1980s, becoming involved in second-wave feminism, the gay liberation movementenvironmental movement and eventually the anti-globalization movement.[67] In this period, many librertarian socialists, such as Murray Bookchin, Cornelius Castoriadis, Andre GorzIvan Illich, E.P. Thompson and Raymond Williams, were committed to " in rethinking what socialism might come to mean in an age of ecological limit".[68]

According to Robin Hahnel, new social movements continued the New Left's tendency of failing to develop a "comprehensive libertarian socialist theory and practice". Libertarian socialist activism became focused on achieving practical reforms and theoretical developments centred around common "core values" such as economic democracyeconomic justice and sustainable development, without building a coherent critique of capitalism.[69] Activists from the 1970s and 1980s influenced by libertarian socialism did not advance coherent alternatives to markets and central planning, and had no reformist campaign. Eventually, Hahnel argues, they turned to traditional single-issue campaigns and abandoned their "big picture" libertarian socialist approach.[70]

These movements were somewhat successful in achieving their goals: the movements for gay and women's rights changed societal outlook on gender oppression; the anti-racist movement proved it necessary to tackle the social aspects of racialisation; the anti-imperialist movement reconceived of anti-imperialism outside of economic terms; and the environmentalist movement launched a wave of ecological defense and restoration. Together, Hahnel argues, they broke from the class reductionism prevalent in traditional forms of libertarian socialism, proving intersectional oppressions other than class also demanded attention.[71] Through the new social movements, libertarian socialism developed an awareness of different aspects of oppression, beyond class analysis.[72]

Contemporary era

[edit]

Libertarian socialism again received a revival of interest in the wake of the fall of communism and concurrent rise of neoliberalism.[43] It proved particularly attractive to people from the former Eastern Bloc, who saw it as an alternative both to western capitalism and Marxism-Leninism.[73] Since the end of the Cold War, there have been two major experiments in libertarian socialism: the Zapatista uprising in Mexico and the Rojava Revolution in Syria.[74]

In reaction against the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the privatisation of indigenous lands by the Mexican state, in 1994, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) rose up against the government,[75] enabling the formation of a self-governing autonomous territory in the Mexican state of Chiapas.[74][75][76] The Zapatistas have roundly rejected political sectarianism and ideological doctrine, including the state socialist model of seizing state power, with spokesman Subcomandante Marcos famously declaring "I shit on all the revolutionary vanguards of this planet."[74] As such, they have commonly been characterised as libertarian socialist,[74][76] or inspired by libertarian socialism.[75][77] They have in turn become a source of inspiration for libertarian socialists, including the autonomist Marxists Harry Cleaver and John Holloway, as well as some anarchists.[74]

In 2012, the Rojava Revolution established the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES; or "Rojava") to put "libertarian socialist ideas ... into practice",[78] and whose cantons present themselves as a "libertarian socialist alternative to the colonially established state boundaries in the Middle East."[74] Various sources have drawn parallels between the Rojava Revolution and the Zapatista uprising of 1994[79] or the Spanish Revolution of 1936,[80] and noted the influence of libertarian socialist Murray Bookchin, specifically his concept of libertarian municipalism, on the revolution.[81][80]

Libertarian socialist ideas have influenced some currents of the anti-austerity and new municipalist movements, such as Ada Colau's Barcelona en Comú party, in which they ally with democratic socialists.[82]

In Chile, there have been several libertarian socialist movements active since the 2010s in groups including Libertarian Left and the Broad Front (FA).[83] Gabriel Boric founded Social Convergence in 2018, bringing together the Autonomist MovementLibertarian Left and other libertarian socialist groups.[84] Boric, who describes himself as libertarian socialist, was elected president in 2021.[85][86][87]

Notable tendencies

[edit]

Libertarian socialism encompasses both the libertarian wing of socialism and the socialist wing of libertarianism,[88] including many different schools of thought under its banner.[89] The most commonly cited tendencies of libertarian socialism are anarchist communismanarcho-syndicalism and council communism.[90] Other Marxist strands of libertarian socialism include Western MarxismBordigism and impossibilism.[91] Additionally, utopian socialismguild socialismsocialist feminism and social ecology,[92] as well as various strands of the New Leftnew social movements and contemporary anarchism, have been listed among the other wings of libertarian socialism.[3]

Anarchist

[edit]

The currents of classical anarchism that developed in the 19th century were committed to autonomy and freedom, decentralization, opposing hierarchy, and opposing the vanguardism of authoritarian socialism.

In the 20th century, social anarchism emerged as a significant current of anarchism and explicitly identified as libertarian socialist. Anarcho-syndicalist Gaston Leval explained: "We therefore foresee a Society in which all activities will be coordinated, a structure that has, at the same time, sufficient flexibility to permit the greatest possible autonomy for social life, or for the life of each enterprise, and enough cohesiveness to prevent all disorder. [...] In a well-organised society, all of these things must be systematically accomplished by means of parallel federations, vertically united at the highest levels, constituting one vast organism in which all economic functions will be performed in solidarity with all others and that will permanently preserve the necessary cohesion".[93]

Significant thinkers in the anarchist tradition who are described as libertarian socialist include Colin Ward.[94]

Marxist

[edit]

A broad scope of economic and political philosophies that draw on the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism have been described as "Libertarian Marxism",[95] a tendency which emphasises autonomyfederalism and direct democracy.[95] Wayne Price identified it most closely with the tendency of autonomist Marxism and identified libertarian characteristics within council communism, the Johnson–Forest Tendency, the Socialisme ou Barbarie group and the Situationist International, contrasting them with orthodox Marxismsocial democracy, and Marxism–Leninism.[96] Michael Löwy and Olivier Besancenot have identified Rosa LuxemburgWalter BenjaminAndré Breton and Daniel Guérin as prominent figures of libertarian Marxism.[95] Ojeili identifies William MorrisDaniel De Leon, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Korsch Anton PannekoekRoland HolstHermann GorterSylvia PankhurstAntonio GramsciGrego Lukacs, Socialisme ou Barbarie, Henri SimonEchanges et Mouvements and Paul Mattick as significant Marxian libertarian socialists.[97]

Democratic socialist

[edit]

There was a strong left-libertarian current in the British labour movement[98] and the term "libertarian socialist" has been applied to a number of democratic socialists, including some prominent members of the British Labour Party.[99] The Socialist League was formed in 1885 by William Morris and others critical of the authoritarian socialism of the Social Democratic Federation.[28] It was involved in the new unionism, the rank-and-file union militancy of the 1880s–1890s, which anticipated syndicalism in some key ways (Tom Mann, a New Unionist leader, was one of the first British syndicalists). The Socialist League was dominated by anarchists by the 1890s.[100] The Common Wealth Party was inspired by Christian socialism as well as libertarian socialism.[101][102] Others in the tradition of the ILP and described as libertarian socialists included G. D. H. Cole (the founder of guild socialism and influenced by Morris),[103][98][104][105] George Orwell,[106][107] Michael Foot,[108][109] Raymond Williams,[68] and Tony Benn.[110] Another is former Labour Party minister Peter Hain,[111][112][113] who has written in support of libertarian socialism,[104] identifying an axis involving a "bottom-up vision of socialism, with anarchists at the revolutionary end and democratic socialists [such as himself] at its reformist end" as opposed to the axis of state socialism with Marxist–Leninists at the revolutionary end and social democrats at the reformist end.[114][115] Another recent mainstream Labour politician who has been described as a libertarian socialist is Robin Cook.[116]

Debates

[edit]

Reasons for decline

[edit]

American economist Robin Hahnel claimed that libertarian socialists "were by far the worst underachievers among 20th century anti-capitalists."[117] He contrasted libertarian socialist failings with those of social democracy, arguing that while the latter had abandoned their principles of economic democracy and justice in favour of reformism, the former had proved incapable of sustaining anti-capitalist uprisings and largely ignored the importance of political and economic reform.[118] Hahnel consequently suggested that, in the 21st century, libertarian socialists should work together with other anti-capitalist social movements, organize for reform without abandoning anti-capitalist principles and strive to build grassroots institutions of self-management, even if those projects are "imperfect".[21]

Priorities

[edit]

While most libertarian socialists consider it necessary to combat both economic and political power in tandem, regarding each as fundamental to the survival of the other, some consider it a priority to combat one or the other first.[119] Some, such as Mikhail Bakunin and Alexander Berkman, considered capitalism to rely on the support and protection of the state. They thus concluded that if the state were to be abolished, capitalism would naturally dissolve in its wake.[120] But others, including Noam Chomsky, believe that the state is only inherently oppressive because of its control by a plutocratic class and that "society is governed by those who own it". Chomsky holds that government, while not benign, can at least be held accountable, while corporate power is neither benign nor accountable.[121] Though he holds the abolition of the state to be desirable, Chomsky considers the abolition of capitalism to be of greater urgency.[122]

See also

[edit]
  • Freiwirtschaft ("free economy"), idea based on the "natural economic order"
  • Sociocracy, decentralized governance system based on consent developed in meeting circles
  • Libertarianism, a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core principle

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Cornell 2012, pp. 182–183.
  2. ^ Kinna & Prichard 2012, p. 12.
  3. Jump up to:a b c Hahnel 2005, p. 392n1.
  4. Jump up to:a b Frère, Bruno; Reinecke, Juliane (2011). "A Libertarian Socialist Response to the 'Big Society': The Solidarity Economy". In Hull, Richard; Gibbon, Jane; Branzei, Oana; Haugh, Helen (eds.). The Third Sector. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pp. 125–126. doi:10.1108/S2046-6072(2011)0000001015hdl:2268/172850ISBN 978-1-78052-280-7ISSN 2046-6072The libertarian socialist cooperative movement was one of the two forms of socialist responses to the rise of capitalism and the concentration of private ownership in the middle of the 19th century." "Proudhon's left libertarian socialism promotes the decentralisation of power and public sovereignty ... through the formation of locally managed mutual and cooperative organisations ....
  5. Jump up to:a b Intropi, Pietro (2022-06-01). "Reciprocal libertarianism"European Journal of Political Theory23 (1): 23–43. doi:10.1177/14748851221099659hdl:2262/98664ISSN 1474-8851I show that reciprocal libertarianism can be realised in a framework of individual ownership of external resources or in a socialist scheme of common ownership (libertarian socialism).
  6. ^ Pinta & Berry 2012, p. 298.
  7. ^ Asimakopoulos, John (April–June 2016). "A radical proposal for direct democracy in large societies"Brazilian Journal of Political Economy36 (2): 430–447. doi:10.1590/0101-31572016v36n02a10ISSN 0101-3157Direct democracy is what today is referred to as libertarian socialism including anarchism. The very idea upon which libertarian socialism is founded is that every person in the community represents themselves and votes directly with the community on matters related to its governance.
  8. ^ Kinna & Prichard 2012, p. 13.
  9. Jump up to:a b c Long 1998, pp. 305–306.
  10. ^ Long 1998, p. 318.
  11. ^ Long 1998, pp. 306–307.
  12. ^ Long 1998, pp. 331–332.
  13. Jump up to:a b Hahnel 2005, p. 140.
  14. ^ Vrousalis 2011, p. 211.
  15. ^ Long 1998, p. 332.
  16. ^ Long 1998, p. 340.
  17. Jump up to:a b Long 1998, p. 305.
  18. ^ Long 1998, p. 310.
  19. ^ Marshall 2008, p. 484.
  20. ^ Hahnel 2005, pp. 139–140.
  21. Jump up to:a b c d e Hahnel 2005, p. 138.
  22. ^ Long 1998, p. 320.
  23. ^ Long 1998, pp. 320–321.
  24. ^ Marshall 2008, pp. 168–169.
  25. ^ Salveson, Paul (1 October 1996). "Loving Comrades: Lancashire's Links to Walt Whitman". Walt Whitman Quarterly Review14 (2–3): 57–84. doi:10.13008/2153-3695.1500ISSN 0737-0679.
  26. ^ Sally Goldsmith (23 March 1929). "Edward Carpenter"Totley History Group. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
  27. ^ Marshall 2008, p. 180.
  28. Jump up to:a b Marshall 2008, p. 171.
  29. ^ Ojeili 2001, p. 403.
  30. ^ Drèze, Jean (3 October 2015). "Anarchism in India"RAIOTArchived from the original on 9 September 2024. Retrieved 9 September 2024.
  31. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 141.
  32. ^ Hahnel 2005, pp. 141–142.
  33. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 142.
  34. ^ Ojeili 2001, p. 400.
  35. ^ Ojeili 2001, pp. 403–404.
  36. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 143.
  37. ^ Hahnel 2005, pp. 144–145.
  38. ^ Hahnel 2005, pp. 145–146.
  39. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 146.
  40. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 145.
  41. ^ Hahnel 2005, pp. 143–144.
  42. ^ Hahnel 2005, pp. 146–147.
  43. Jump up to:a b Hahnel 2005, pp. 138–139.
  44. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 147.
  45. ^ Hahnel 2005, pp. 147–148.
  46. Jump up to:a b Hahnel 2005, p. 148; Marshall 2008, p. 540.
  47. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 148.
  48. Jump up to:a b Marshall 2008, p. 541.
  49. ^ Marshall 2008, pp. 540–541.
  50. ^ Marshall 2008, pp. 541–542.
  51. ^ Marshall 2008, p. 641.
  52. ^ Boraman 2012, p. 257; Marshall 2008, p. 641.
  53. ^ Berry 2012, p. 199.
  54. ^ Long 1998, p. 310n17.
  55. ^ Claude LefortWriting: The Political Test, Duke University Press, 2000, Translator's Foreword by David Ames Curtis, p. xxiv, "Castoriadis, the historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet, now Lefort ... are themselves quite articulate in their own right and historically associated with a libertarian socialist outlook..."
  56. ^ Ojeili, Chamsy (2001b). "Post-Marxism with Substance: Castoriadis and the Autonomy Project". New Political Science23 (2): 225–239. doi:10.1080/07393140120054047ISSN 0739-3148Receiving his political inheritance from the broad libertarian socialist tradition, Castoriadis continues to challenge the domination of state and capital and to insist on the liberatory possibilities of direct democracy.
  57. ^ Boraman 2012, p. 252; Cornell 2012, p. 177.
  58. Jump up to:a b Cornell 2012, p. 177.
  59. ^ Boraman 2012, pp. 252, 257; Cornell 2012, p. 177; Marshall 2008, p. 495.
  60. ^ "What is libertarian socialism? An interview with Ken Weller"libcom.org. 26 October 2015. Archived from the original on 24 March 2024. Retrieved 11 September 2024.
  61. ^ Boraman 2012, pp. 251–271.
  62. ^ Cornell 2012, pp. 177–178.
  63. ^ Marshall 2008, p. 578.
  64. ^ Marshall 2008, pp. 578–579.
  65. ^ Marshall 2008, p. 579.
  66. ^ Marshall 2008, pp. 542.
  67. Jump up to:a b Hahnel 2005, pp. 148–149.
  68. Jump up to:a b Stevenson, Nick (12 July 2018). "Raymond Williams and the possibilities of 'committed' late Marxism"Key Words: A Journal of Cultural Materialism16. The Raymond Williams Society. ISSN 1369-9725. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  69. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 149.
  70. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 149.
  71. ^ Hahnel 2005, pp. 150–151.
  72. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 151.
  73. ^ Marshall 2008, p. 660.
  74. Jump up to:a b c d e f Pinta et al. 2017.
  75. Jump up to:a b c Plasters, Bree (January 9, 2014). "Critical Analysis: The Zapatista Rebellion: 20 Years Later"Denver Journal of International Law & PolicyUniversity of Denver Sturm College of Law. Archived from the original on June 4, 2023. Retrieved July 23, 2023.
  76. Jump up to:a b Woodman, Stephen (December 2018). "From armed rebellion to radical radio"Index on Censorship47 (4): 73. doi:10.1177/0306422018819354ISSN 0306-4220.
  77. ^ Cardozo, Mario Hurtado (2017-09-23). "Crisis de la forma jurídica y el despertar antisistémico: una mirada desde el pluralismo jurídico de las Juntas de Buen Gobierno (jbg)"IUSTA (in Spanish). 2 (47): 28. doi:10.15332/s1900-0448.2017.0047.04ISSN 2500-5286Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.
  78. ^ Colella, Chris (Winter 2017). "The Rojava Revolution: Oil, Water, and Liberation – Commodities, Conflict, and Cooperation"Commodities, Conflict, and CooperationEvergreen State CollegeArchived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.
  79. ^ Savran, Yagmur (2016). "The Rojava Revolution and British Solidarity"Anarchist Studies24 (1). Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Lawrence & Wishart.
  80. Jump up to:a b Aretaios, Evangelos (March 15, 2015). "The Rojava revolution"openDemocracyArchived from the original on 2017-02-21. Retrieved 2023-07-23.
  81. ^ "United Explanations – What is municipalism and why is it gaining presence in Spain?". 18 January 2016. Archived from the original on 9 September 2024. Retrieved 9 September 2024.
  82. ^ Davies, Jonathan S. (24 March 2021). Between Realism and Revolt: Governing Cities in the Crisis of Neoliberal Globalism. Bristol University Press. p. 27, 129, 139. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1jf2c6bISBN 978-1-5292-1093-4a heterodox array of egalitarian anti-austerity forces re-emerged across Europe and the USA, including "new municipalist" currents (Russell, 2019; Thompson, 2020). These currents... have been influenced mainly by network-theoretical ideas linked to Anarchist, Altermondialiste and libertarian socialist traditions, in which solidarity is anchored by affinity (Day, 2005)... These themes have continued to influence struggles for the past 20 years, including anti-austerity movements and new municipalisms in which anarchist and libertarian socialist traditions ally uneasily with institutionalist and state-friendly variants of democratic socialism (Taylor, 2013; Barcelona en Comú, 2019).
  83. ^ "Interview: The anarchists of Chile"Freedom News. 8 January 2019. Archived from the original on 9 September 2024. Retrieved 9 September 2024.
  84. ^ "Partidos, movimientos y coaliciones: Partido Convergencia Social" (in Spanish). Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile. 2020. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
  85. ^ The Economist (12 March 2022). "A new group of left-wing presidents takes over in Latin America"The EconomistArchived from the original on 13 September 2024. Retrieved 17 August 2024WHEN GABRIEL BORIC, who is 36 and calls himself a "libertarian socialist", is sworn in as Chile's president on March 11th it will mark the most radical reshaping of his country's politics in more than 30 years.
  86. ^ Boric, Gabriel (21 January 2022). "No espero que las élites estén de acuerdo conmigo, pero sí que dejen de tenernos miedo"BBC News Mundo (Interview) (in Spanish). Interviewed by Andrea Vial Herrera. Santiago de Chile. Archived from the original on 18 March 2022. Retrieved 23 March 2022Yo provengo de la tradición socialista libertaria americanista chilena.
  87. ^ "Can a rise of leftist leaders bring real change to Latin America?"Al Jazeera. 23 March 2022. Archived from the original on 12 April 2024. Retrieved 17 August 2024Boric, who considers himself a libertarian-socialist
  88. ^ Long 1998, p. 306.
  89. ^ Pinta & Berry 2012, pp. 295–296; Ojeili 2001, p. 393.
  90. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 392n1; Ojeili 2001, p. 393.
  91. ^ Ojeili 2001, p. 393.
  92. ^ Affairs, Current (31 May 2023). "Introducing Murray Bookchin, the Extraordinary Originator of 'Social Ecology'"Current AffairsArchived from the original on 10 September 2024. Retrieved 9 September 2024.
  93. ^ Leval, Gaston (1959). "Libertarian Socialism: A Practical Outline" Archived 2019-08-08 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 22 August 2020 – via The Anarchist Library.
  94. ^ Stevenson, Nick (27 September 2016). "E. P. Thompson and Cultural Sociology: Questions of Poetics, Capitalism and the Commons". Cultural Sociology11 (1). SAGE Publications: 11–27. doi:10.1177/1749975516655462ISSN 1749-9755.
  95. Jump up to:a b c Löwy, MichaelBesancenot, Olivier (2018). "Expanding the horizon: for a Libertarian Marxism"Global Discourse8 (2): 1–2. doi:10.1080/23269995.2018.1459332S2CID 149816533Archived from the original on 2022-11-13. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  96. ^ Price, Wayne (2004). "Libertarian Marxism's Relation to Anarchism"The Utopian4: 75–76. Archived from the original on 2023-03-07. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  97. ^ Ojeili 2001.
  98. Jump up to:a b Carpenter, L. P. (1973). G. D. H. Cole. Cambridge [Eng.]: CUP Archive. ISBN 0-521-08702-3In his conversion to socialism as Morris had described it, Cole entered the socialist movement on the libertarian wing.[p.11]... Guild Socialism was an important restatement of the libertarian features of British socialism.[p.45]... [Cole] occasionally called himself a Marxist, within this humanistic, empiricist interpretation. Cole could accept this kind of Marxism because Marx's philosophy of history contains basic insights reached independently by libertarian British socialists from their own experience. The Marxism he set forth in The Meaning of Marxism was really the common sense of the British Labour movement.[p.227
  99. ^ Bowie, Duncan (2022). Twentieth Century Socialism in Britain. Socialist History Society. ISBN 978-1-9163423-5-4Henderson [formerly in the Socialist League and later in the ILP] was a libertarian socialist and was also closed to a number of anarchists, including Fred Charles and Charles Mowbray who were also active in the Norwich socialist movement.[p.12]... Russell was pluralist in his politics but can best be described as a libertarian socialist and pacifist, conviction he retained throughout his life.[p.17]... Pankhurst adopted an antiparliamentary position and collaborated with other libertarians including her partner, the Italian anarchist, Sylvio [sic] Corio.[p.23]... Beyond The Fragment [adopted] a pluralist libertarian socialist approach...[p.59]
  100. ^ Goodway, David (1 October 2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool University Press. doi:10.5949/liverpool/9781846310256.003.0002ISBN 978-1-84631-025-6.
  101. ^ Bowie, Duncan (13 June 2018). "Common Wealth Manifesto, 1943"ChartistArchived from the original on 29 May 2024. Retrieved 11 September 2024Its programme of common ownership echoed that of the Labour Party but stemmed from a more idealistic perspective, later termed "libertarian socialist". It came to reject the State-dominated form of socialism adopted by Labour under the influence of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, increasingly aligning itself instead with co-operative, syndicalist and guild socialist traditions.
  102. ^ Taylor, Antony; Enderby, John (15 March 2021). "From 'flame' to embers? Whatever happened to the English radical tradition c.1880-2020?" (PDF)Cultural and Social History18 (2): 243–264. doi:10.1080/14780038.2021.1893922ISSN 1478-0038Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 July 2024. Retrieved 13 September 2024During the 1940s, the radical tradition was pushed to the margins... The spirit of libertarian socialism opposed to the statism of Labour was very apparent in this strain of politics, especially in the public utterances of Sir Richard Acland, and the new Common Wealth party.[pp.249-50]
  103. ^ Goodway, David. "G.D.H. Cole: A Libertarian Trapped in the Labour Party"Socialist History SocietyArchived from the original on 11 September 2024. Retrieved 11 September 2024.
  104. Jump up to:a b Hain, Peter (July 2000). "Rediscovering our libertarian roots"Chartist. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 20 August 2024.
  105. ^ Goodway, David (2016). "G.D.H. Cole: A Socialist and Pluralist". Alternatives to State-Socialism in Britain. Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 245–270. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-34162-0_9ISBN 978-3-319-34161-3ole continued to identify himself as a Guild Socialist: that is, he was a socialist pluralist, or libertarian socialist, and, perhaps surprisingly, sympathetic to anarchism.
  106. ^ Barry, Peter Brian (16 August 2023). "George Orwell and Left-Libertarianism". George Orwell. Oxford University PressNew York. pp. 189–217. doi:10.1093/oso/9780197627402.003.0007ISBN 978-0-19-762740-2.
  107. ^ Woodcock, George (1984). The crystal spirit: A study of George OrwellISBN 978-0-8052-0755-2. Retrieved 11 September 2024[George] Orwell appeared on the platform with Herbert ReadFenner Brockway and a few other leaders of the libertarian Left.[p.18]... Julian Symons was substantially correct when he said, in his London Magazine article, that Orwell retained his faith in libertarian socialism until his death, but that in the end this belief 'was expressed for him more sympathetically in the personalities of unpractical Anarchists than in the slide rule Socialists who made up the bulk of the British Parliamentary Labor Party'.[p.27]... Orwell's affinities were...with William Morris, another libertarian Socialist who distrusted doctrinaires.[p.83]
  108. ^ Morgan, Kenneth O. (22 August 2015). "Historian looks at Labour favourite's prospects of leading from the left"Daily RecordArchived from the original on 10 September 2024. Retrieved 10 September 2024Foot also was a distinctly libertarian socialist
  109. ^ Rowlands, Carl (18 February 2012). "Securing a legacy for Michael Foot"LabourListArchived from the original on 11 September 2024. Retrieved 11 September 2024Michael Foot is well recognised as a libertarian socialist.
  110. ^ Bowie, Duncan (12 April 2020). "Tony Benn: Arguments for Socialism (1979)"ChartistArchived from the original on 10 September 2024. Retrieved 10 September 2024Interested in the history of ethical socialism, having been sympathetic to the wartime Common Wealth party in his youth, Benn became interested in a more libertarian socialist approach, supporting the syndicalist Institute for Workers Control and the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders workers cooperative of 1975 and advocating industrial democracy.
  111. ^ "the establishment radical"BBC News. 10 January 2002. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
  112. ^ Carl Packman (29 January 2012). "Book Review: Outside In by Peter Hain"British Politics and Policy at LSE. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
  113. ^ Passmore, Biddy (15 May 1998). "No more fire, but plenty of spark; Interview: Peter Hain"Tes Magazine. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
  114. ^ Hain, Peter (1995). Ayes to the Left: A Future for Socialism. Lawrence and Wishart. p. 8ISBN 978-0-85315-832-5.
  115. ^ Evarist Bartolo (27 April 2008). "Why I am a libertarian socialist"MaltaToday. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
  116. ^ Chris Smith said in 2005 that in recent years Cook had been setting out a vision of "libertarian, democratic socialism that was beginning to break the sometimes sterile boundaries of 'old' and 'New' Labour labels."."Chris Smith: The House of Commons was Robin Cook's true home". Commentators, Opinion. The Independent. London. 2005-08-08. Archived from the original on 2007-09-30. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
  117. ^ Hahnel 2005, p. 137.
  118. ^ Hahnel 2005, pp. 137–138.
  119. ^ Long 1998, p. 330.
  120. ^ Long 1998, pp. 329–330.
  121. ^ Long 1998, pp. 318–319.
  122. ^ Long 1998, p. 319.

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]