Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Power vs Justice (1971)

Well, let me begin by referring to something that I have already discussed, namely, whether it is correct, as I believe it is, that a fundamental element of human nature is the need for creative work, creative research, free creation, without arbitrariness. limit the effects of coercive institutions, then of course it will follow that a decent society should maximize the possibilities for this fundamental human characteristic to be realized, which means trying to overcome the elements of repression, oppression, destruction and coercion that exist In any existing society, ours for For example, as a historical residue, now a decentralized federated system of free associations that incorporates economic and social institutions would be what I call anarcho-syndicalism and it seems to me to be the appropriate form of social organization for a technologically advanced society. advanced in that human beings do not have to be forced into positions of tools or machine gears in which the creative impulse that I believe is intrinsic to human nature will in fact be realized in any way that does not.

I know all the ways that it will be yes, I certainly agree with that, not only in theory but also in action, that is, there are two intellectual tasks, one and the one that I was discussing to try to create the vision of a just future. Another task is to understand very clearly the nature of

power

, oppression, terror and destruction in our own society and that certainly includes the institutions that you mentioned, as well as the central institutions of any industrial society, that is, the economic institutions, commercial and financial in particular. in the next period the large multinational corporations that are not far from us physically tonight uh those are the basic institutions of uh oppression and coercion and autocratic government that appear to be neutral after all say well, we are subject to the democracy of the I still believe that it would be a great shame to lose or completely leave aside the more abstract and philosophical if you like the task of trying to make the connections between a concept of human nature that gives full scope to freedom and dignity and creativity and others fundamental human characteristics and relates them to some notion of social structure in which those properties in which meaningful human life could take place could be realized and, in fact, if we are thinking about a social transformation or a social revolution, it would be absurd, Of course, try it.

To draw in detail the point we hope to get to, we should still know something about where we think we are going and that theory for us, well, I think in the intellectual domain of political action that is the domain. of trying to construct a vision of a just and free society based on some notion of human nature, in that area we face the same problem that we face in immediate political action, for example, to be quite concrete, much of my My own activity really has to do with the Vietnam War and a lot of my own energy goes into civil disobedience.

Well, civil disobedience in the United States is an action undertaken in the face of great uncertainties about its effects. For example, it threatens society. order in ways that, let's say, you could argue, bringing in fascism would be very bad for the United States, Vietnam, Holland and everyone else, so there is a danger, that is a danger in undertaking this particular act, on the other hand , there is a great danger. The danger is not undertaking it, that is, if you do not undertake it, the Indo-Indochina society will be torn apart by American

power

, and in the face of such uncertainties, one has to choose a course of action, similarly in the intellectual domain.

Faced with the uncertainties you rightly raise, our concept of human nature is certainly limited, partial, and socially conditioned by our own character defects and the defects and limitations of the intellectual culture in which we exist, but at the same time it is critically important. We have to have some direction in which we know what impossible goals we are trying to achieve if we hope to achieve some of the possible goals and that means we have to be bold enough to speculate and create social theories based on partial knowledge while remaining very open. to the strong possibility, in fact, the overwhelming probability that at least in some respects we are very far from reality, well, I don't really agree here, I think there is a kind of absolute basis, if you push me too hard.

I'm going to be in trouble because I can't outline it but some kind of absolute basis that ultimately lies in fundamental human qualities in terms of which a real notion of

justice

is founded and I think our existing

justice

systems, can I think? It is too hasty to characterize our existing justice systems as mere systems of class oppression. I don't think they are, I think they are, that they embody systems of class oppression and they embody elements of other types of oppression, but it also embodies a kind of groping towards the true human and humanly valuable concept of justice, decency, love, goodness , sympathy, etc., which I think you generate the story of justification.