I studied with Howard Zinn, AG.
The word anarchist was never mentioned.
He might believe in that theory of yours, but he never mentioned it.
Mostly he spent his time trying to give us another lense to look at American history through.
It wouldn't have been fitting for him to have been accused of attempting to indoctrinate students with his political ideology, I would imagine. The usage of
A People's History of the United States as a course textbook around the country is already considered suspect by many of his critics, and his dismissal from Spelman was of course related to his "excessive" civil rights activism. But yes, Zinn indicated his anarchism to the cursory analyst through his play
Emma (based on the life of Emma Goldman), which was first performed in 1976. However, as definitively stated in
this interview:
I am an anarchist, and according to anarchist principles nation states become obstacles to a true humanistic globalization...I think what lies beyond the nation states is a world without national boundaries, but also with people organized. But not organized as nations, but people organized as groups, as collectives, without national and any kind of boundaries. Without any kind of borders, passports, visas. None of that! Of collectives of different sizes, depending on the function of the collective, having contacts with one another.
He was a Stalinist in the late 1930's or so, but he's maintained an anarchist philosophy for many years at this point.
Chomsky, OTOH, did talk about socialist kabutzes in the one seminar I had with him, but the word anarchist was also never mentioned.
I don't know if I'd label the kibbutzim "socialist"; their nature as relatively isolated collectives runs the risk of us excessively reducing matters to the individual economic agent by doing so. But I digress...Chomsky actually lived on a kibbutz for some time in...1953, if memory serves...and remarked
"the Israeli Kibbutzim...for a long period really were constructed on anarchist principles: that is, self-management, direct worker control, integration of agriculture, industry, service, personal participation in self-management." (
The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism) I think it's fairly well-known that Chomsky's an anarchist and libertarian socialist; as he also remarked:
I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantles, to increase the scope of human freedom.
(
Anarchism, Marxism, and Hope for the Future)
You sure these guys advocated this communal anarchist solution, or have they merely noted that these systems once existed in Spain?
Truthfully, I'd wondered why you'd retained relatively typical misconceptions about anarchism (not that you're to
blame for that) while simultaneously speaking of the accuracy of Chomsky.
It actually says a lot about you. Wisdom is not just book knowledge, no matter who you quote nor how you try and pretend it is so...Most of what you will learn it life doesn't come from books. You just have to be there.
This would be a relevant point had I claimed otherwise...or were it anything other than a standard cliched platitude. Unfortunately, neither is the case. Firstly, I've always attempted to emphasize the insufficiency of "book learning" for creating a well-formed character or wealth of true knowledge or wisdom, which I've criticized as one of the deficiencies of the current school system. I'm with John Taylor Gatto here:
I want to give you a yardstick, a gold standard, by which to measure good schooling. The Shelter Institute in Bath, Maine will teach you how to build a three thousand square-foot, multi-level Cape Cod home in three weeks' time, whatever your age. If you stay another week, it will show you how to make your own posts and beams; you'll actually cut them out and set them up. You'll learn wiring, plumbing, insulation, the works. Twenty thousand people have learned how to build a house there for about the cost of one month's tuition in public school.
Secondly, that isn't relevant to comments made on political topics here, and only has the capacity to manifest itself in the form of an
argumentum ad hominem, seemingly. Experience is of course a source of knowledge (though it's most commonly a source of anecdotal "evidence" that's insufficient for thorough analysis), but it's merely a means to an end. "Book learning" can be a similarly sufficient or greater means to the same end when it's related to political knowledge here.
I suppose in your case, every dark cloud has its silver lining. It's your lack of experience and emotional immaturity that weighed in on your side where your age is concerned.
Nope. Emotional immaturity is best indicated by the utilization of unqualified assertions about the character or identity of others in an effort to avoid reference to an argument...all because of ignorance of the repetitive legacy of considering certain concepts or ideas unworthy of even basic consideration because of their radicalism only to have them accepted as socially acceptable a few generations later. But the issue's irrelevant anyway; nothing
needed to "weigh in on my side."