Noam Chomsky And The Canadian Way: Anarchism Or Nationalism?

There are many Canadians who see into and through the pretensions of the American empire, yet many fail to see how dissidents from within the empire can and do perpetuate its ideological underpinnings. Chomsky was asked to give the CBC Massey Lectures in 1988 on the media. Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies told the tale, in five compact lectures and many a detailed appendix, on how and why the media works the way it does in our democratic societies. Many was the Canadian who bowed and tipped the hat at each and every world from the master. It was Canadians, yet again, who put together the first full length video on the varied life and activism of Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent was an instant hit and bumper crop seller to many who were, rightly so, longing to hear another voice other than from those of power, perks and privilege. There is no doubt that Chomsky has become the political guru and pope to many, and when he speaks (as he does often) his fans are silent and a hearty amen ends the sessions and seminars.

There is also no doubt that Chomsky gathers his followers from those who have a high sense of moral outrage about the way American foreign and domestic policy plays itself out. It is from such a clan that protest and advocacy politics is held high as a way of opposing and resisting a dishonest and oppressive state. Such a tribe tends to see the world of formal politics and party politics as beholden to corporate power, hence an ethos to be ever cynical and skeptical about. Such an ethos can do little or no good, and truth and justice can be best seen by the people who do the peace walks, do protest, write many an article on such power politics and work in advocacy and a variety of network groups. In short, so this fable goes, the world of high politics is riddled with the abuse and misuse of power, but the world of grass roots and people’s politics is the world of justice, equality, freedom and all that is good, true and beautiful.

Needless to say, this way of understanding how to both think and act politically tends to idealize and elevate the people and demonize and denigrate the state. Such a tradition tends to be both cynical and skeptical of formal party politics (democrats and republicans both eat at the pig’s trough of corporations) while pointing the way to a more decentralized and local way of bringing about the just, collegial and cooperative community. This either-or way of thinking and doing politics does need to be questioned, though. We might want to begin by asking, as Canadians, this rather simple question: what are the weaknesses and limitations of the anarchist way and what are the positive things the state has and does do? Needless to say, the misuse and abuse of power can appear in both the state and in anarchist cells and communities. Resistance and peace groups have a thick history of splitting, splintering and fragmenting in a variety of sad and sorry directions. It is this anarchist tradition of the left that sees itself as the pure St. George fighting the oppression dragon of the state that does need to be questioned. Is some form of utopian anarchism, in short, the best way to oppose globalization and corporate power? What role does the state have to play in resisting such a reality?

I mentioned above that there are many Canadians who see into and through the pretensions of the American empire yet fail to see how dissidents from within the empire can and do perpetuate its ideological underpinnings. There is little or no doubt that the USA was formed and forged on the anvil of liberty, individualism, conscience and equality. Happiness, within such a perspective, was meant to follow and flow from such a creed and dogma. It is from within such a tradition and heritage that the state is seen as a problem and should be seriously limited. Both the anarchist left and the libertarian right tend to share these perspectives at the level of principle. The intellectual foundation stones of the USA, the radical democratic tradition and anarchism are liberty, individualism, conscience and critical thinking. The building blocks of the Canadian way tend to be the common good, order and good government. When Canadians buy into the bow to the anarchist way (and those who embody and are disciples of it), they, interestingly enough, slip into a more subtle form of colonialism.

It is one thing to use moral outrage and protest politics as a means of exposing hypocrisy in high places. It is essential and important to state in the firmest, cleanest and clearest manner what a people do not want. It is quite another thing to organize and deliver, at a political level, what the people do want. It is much easier to deconstruct and expose than it is to create and bring into being the good society. We do need to question whether the anarchist approach can actually deliver the goods given the fragmented history of anarchism.

There are many ways Canadians can be colonized and taken captive by an imperial power. Some of these ways are crude and obvious. It does not take a great deal of thought and minimal observation to see the gap between rhetoric and reality in American thought and action. But, there are many other more subtle and nuanced ways colonialism can and does work. It is some of these more subtle ways we don need to ponder and not flinch from. When Canadians doff the cap and bow the head to individualism and liberty rather than the common good and order, are we not genuflecting to more subtle forms of American thought that this nation was founded on resisting and opposing? When we see the state as the source, centre and bastion of abusive power are we not buying into an American view of things?

The fact that many Canadians turn to Chomsky as their true north star should raise some eyebrows. The fact that Chomsky tends towards anarchist politics as the way bringing the good society into being should raise some questions for Canadians. The history of Canadian nationalism in Canada (whether in the Tory, Liberal, NDP or Maoist versions) tends to have a high regard for the state as a means to create the commonwealth from ocean to ocean.

Is the best way to resist, oppose and question the concentration of wealth in the media, military, party politics and corporation the anarchist way? Or, as Canadians, is not a strong and firm state the best way to oppose and stare down such obvious Goliaths? If, as Canadians, we hope to create and build a strong, just and affordable health care, educational, cultural, economic and political system to act as a counter to the USA, do we not need the counter weight of Ottawa to do so? The fact that anarchists are so cynical of the state (and the power embodied in it) means that the very vehicle and ship that could take us to the other shore is dismissed and not boarded.

When Canadians, therefore, turn to American anarchists (and there are many—Chomsky is just one of the better known), are they not being colonized in a more subtle and insidious way and manner? Dare we say that there just be a Canadian colonial and comprador class that under the guise of opposing power reinforces the very power they oppose by refusing to become involved in the formal political means that could oppose it?

Thomas More (aka Thomas Moore) wrote a fine missive in the 16th century. The tract for the times was called Utopia. Book 1 of Utopia probes and questions the nature of utopian idealism. The dialogue between More and Raphael is most instructive in this regards. Raphael had been to the new world and had come back with glowing reports. It was a paradise, so he reported, in which each and all shared the goods of the land. All were justly tended and cared for in a compassionate political system. Raphael returned from such an inspiring place to tell More of his find. More was most impressed. More was, like Raphael, irritated and vexed by all the injustices in England’s fair and pleasant land. More was also the foreign minister and minister of finance, so he was in a position to bring some changes. More was also a lawyer of some note and significance. More asked Raphael if he would join him in reforming England and making her as she should be. It is at this point in the discussion that Raphael begins to trot out all sorts of reasons and excuses for not getting involved in the formal political process. Raphael was, in short, so cynical of the state and its ability to deliver that he turned his back on it. More, unlike Raphael, realized probably much more than Raphael, the imperfections of the state, and yet he worked within it to bring about the common good, and there was much good he brought about before his execution. More was a tamed cynic who believed the state could deliver justice, and he worked within it. Raphael was cynical of the state and turned his back on it. Both men had a vision and shared such a utopian and idealistic vision. More thought that the state could deliver imperfect justice, whereas Raphael thought the state could never do such a thing. Anglo-Canadian nationalism tends to be grounded in the tradition of More. Anglo-American anarchism tends to have much affinity with Raphael.

We do need to ponder and answer, as Canadians, this rather simple and elementary question. Who are the Canadians that have thought through the nature of American imperialism in the same way Chomsky has and does? And, more importantly, who are the Canadians who have offered and do offer a more creative and political answer to injustice and globalization other than moral outrage, protest, anarchism and advocacy and network politics? There is a steady and solid nationalist tradition within Canada that we do need to turn our ear to if we ever hope to step out of going round and round with the same simple and reductionistic formulas and answers. Is not this turning to someone who knows little about Canada just not another way of turning to the imperial centre for out great and good place under the sun?

The stark contrast between the state and society (the former often denigrated and demonized, the latter elevated and idealized) was highlighted, in a visual form, in the recent "festschrift" for the beloved west coast anarchist, Jerry Zaslove. Anarcho-Modernism: Toward a New Critical Theory (2001) has on its cover pictures of both Stalin and an American Stealth bomber. If, of course, the state is viewed simply and only this way, anarchism has a point to make. But, there is much more to the state (in a positive way) and society (it does have its dark and negative side) than this. It is significant to note the Chomsky has published most of his books in Canada through one of the leading anarchist presses in Canada (Black Ross Press). We need also ponder why Naomi Klein’s No Logo was so popular a couple of years ago. The book, rightly so, asked some good and hard questions about the negative nature of globalization, but when serious questions are asked about how such a process can be challenged, Klein tends to have little to say about the role of the state and formal party politics. In short, Raphael tends, amongst such people, to trump More.

George Woodcock was, for many Canadians, a hero of sorts. Woodcock waved high the banner of anarchism, yet, like most establishment anarchists, he was quite willing to take money from the federal government for his many writing projects. Anarchists tend to question the role of the state, yet it is often the very largesse and generosity of the state that underwrites and pays for all their educational and publishing ventures. Such inconsistencies do need to be faced in all honesty.

Is the state, de facto, unable to be just and bring about the common good? Is the state so riddled through with negative power it can never be trusted? This tends to be the position of the anarchist left and the libertarian right. It also tends, in some important ways, to be the position of our new republican party in Canada (the Conservative party). Is society the best means to bring about the common good? What are the limitations of society and small decentralized groups in bringing about such a good? Power (its use and abuse) can be found at all levels of human and political life, and it does little good to project the misuse of power onto the state and locate the proper use of power to society. If only life was so simple? Those who have taken the smallest and shortest steps in life know only too well how power can be both abused and used well in both the state and society.

In conclusion, Canadians must we wary and aware about the more subtle ways we can be and are often colonized. There is a thoughtful anarchist comprador class in Canada that, rightly so, warns us about the dangers of American imperialism at one level, but, at another level, walks us into the very centre of the American web. It is our historical Canadian nationalist tradition that can keep the True North on guard both against the American military industrial complex and, equally important, an American ideology that priorizes liberty and individualism against the Canadian heritage of the commonweal and good government. More or Raphael, Raphael or More? Nationalism or anarchism, anarchism or nationalism? Which shall we chose and why? The road taken will take us, when day is done, to very different places.

But we must remember that even the dissidents can speak as members of the empire.

----
Ron Dart teaches in the political science/philosophy/religious studies department at University College of the Fraser Valley (UCFV) in Abbotsford, BC. Ron is the political science advisor to the Stephen Leacock museum, and the author of The Red Tory Tradition: Ancient Roots, New Routes (1999). The Canadian High Tory Tradition will be published this summer.

----
Want to know more about Chomsky and what he stands for? If you're interested in hearing the man speak for himself Vive offers an mp3 of his speech in Vancouver at the International Day of Action events, March 20, 2004. Visit: Hear Noam Chomsky's Vancouver Speech (Mar 20)

Note: Hear Noam Chomsky's Van...