While I would say the opposite is true. I believe most people are good, (to paraphase Hank Paulson:) "hard-working"
Given the right system (a cooperative sane economy), people would be motivated and "guided by values of solidarity, and sympathy, and concern for others"
RALPH NADER: Yeah. Yeah, a remarkable statement. A reporter asked him, "What's your biggest regret?" at the end of his great career as a labor leader. And Eugene Debs said, "My greatest regret is that, under our Constitution, the American people can have almost anything they want, but it just seems they don't want much of anything at all."
Fast-forward to 1945. We were the biggest power in the world after World War II. Western Europe was devastated, but those people pushed and got, by law, universal healthcare, decent pensions, living wage, decent public transit, paid vacation, paid maternity leave, paid family sick leave, university free education. They got it, by law.
Sixty-three years later, these two parties, the Republican and Democratic parties, still have not given the American people what people in western Europe got decades ago. So we're trying to raise the expectation level, Amy, of the American people. If they become cynical and withdraw, which is what cynicism does, then they're going to lose their country. These giant corporations that hijacked our government are tearing the heart and soul out of America.
Noam Chomsky: Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain... Now it's long been understood - very well - that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist - with whatever suffering and injustice it entails - as long as it's possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage of history either... the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community issues guided by values of solidarity, and sympathy, and concern for others, or - alternatively - there will be no destiny for anyone to control.
Another good lecture on "really existing free markets"
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19960413.htm
And here's Chomsky's view on human nature and government.
2. Critics complain that anarchism is "formless, utopian." You counter that each stage of history has its own forms of authority and oppression which must be challenged, therefore no fixed doctrine can apply. In your opinion, what specific realization of anarchism is appropriate in this epoch?
I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though hardly more so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and their intellectual servants over the years, for reasons that are all too easy to explain. The reason for the general formlessness and intellectual vacuity (often disguised in big words, but that is again in the self-interest of intellectuals) is that we do not understand very much about complex systems, such as human societies; and have only intuitions of limited validity as to the ways they should be reshaped and constructed.
Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.
In the present period, the issues arise across the board, as they commonly do: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the international political/economic order. And anarchist ideas -- challenging authority and insisting that it justify itself -- are appropriate at all levels.
3. What sort of conception of human nature is anarchism predicated on? Would people have less incentive to work in an egalitarian society? Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? Would democratic decision-making result in excessive conflict, indecision and "mob rule"?
As I understand the term "anarchism," it is based on the hope (in our state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that) that core elements of human nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern for others, and so on.
Would people work less in an egalitarian society? Yes, insofar as they are driven to work by the need for survival; or by material reward, a kind of pathology, I believe, like the kind of pathology that leads some to take pleasure from torturing others. Those who find reasonable the classical liberal doctrine that the impulse to engage in creative work is at the core of human nature -- something we see constantly, I think, from children to the elderly, when circumstances allow -- will be very suspicious of these doctrines, which are highly serviceable to power and authority, but seem to have no other merits.
Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? We don't know. If so, then forms of social organization would have to be constructed -- there are many possibilities -- to overcome this crime.
What would be the consequences of democratic decision-making? The answers are unknown. We would have to learn by trial. Let's try it and find out.
The best one is the quote which I can't seem to find in print, but Chomsky says and I paraphrase: all this talk about corporate greed is a diversion. Basically, corporations are greedy, they are nothing else. They are institutions created to interfere with markets to maximize profit. The Capitalist autocracy comes from the same intellectual roots as the other modern forms of totalitarianism. Asking corporations to be less greedy would be like asking a totalitarian government to be less brutal. The point is not to get a tyranny to be less brutal, but to get rid of it.
The best part was when Noam explains that there's nothing engraved in stone about capitalism, stalinism, fascism. They are human institutions and in the same way that stalinism and fascism fell, so too will capitalism fall.
