The following are some impressions of mine after reading John Zerzan’s essay, Who is Chomsky?, which I found thoroughly ridden with errors. I will just quote a few of the things he said and add my comments, and then I will write some brief assessment of Zerzan and of the kind of thinking of which, perhaps, he is the leading representative.

“Noam Chomsky is probably the most well-known American anarchist, somewhat curious given the fact that he is a liberal-leftist politically, and downright reactionary in his academic specialty, linguistic theory.”
Here he implies that being a “liberal-leftist” precludes Chomsky from being an anarchist. The fact that many anarchists, including myself, consider themselves liberals and leftists is proof enough that that no such dilemma exists. It is just a matter of terminology, though; both ‘liberal’ and ‘leftist’ are value-terms. The second claim is the more interesting because the word ‘reactionary’ isn’t used in scientific discourse. It is especially odd for him to apply that term to Chomsky in regard to linguistics, since he is universally regarded as an innovator in that field.

“Reading through his many books and interviews, one looks in vain for the anarchist, or for any thorough critique.”
I am not sure how many “books and interviews” of Chomsky’s Zerzan has read. Would he say the author of the introduction to Daniel Guerin’s Anarchism: From Theory and Practice (which can be found at Chomsky’s official site under the title Notes on Anarchism), or the person interviewed in The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism isn’t an anarchist? Can’t he find any “thorough critique” in the book Manufacturing Consent? Has he read any of them? It doesn’t appear so.

“Instead of a critique of capital, its forms, dynamics, etc., Chomsky calls (1992) for ‘social control over investment. That's a social revolution.’ What a ridiculous assertion.”
If the assertion he is alluding to is, “That’s a social revolution,” he doesn’t allow us to see if it is ridiculous or not, because he doesn’t really quote what Chomsky is referring to by the word “That’s.” As Zerzan could have easily found out with any search engine, Chomsky actually said, “It seems to me that these decisions should not be made by business and the representatives of business who we call government. These should be popular decisions. They should be made beginning from the plant floor and from the community, and that would mean social control over investment. That’s a social revolution.” The quote was clearly taken out of context to distort its meaning. In context it is apparent that Chomsky is describing a radical change not only in the mode of production but also in society itself, with much more decentralized decision-making. It is quite like Kropotkin’s definition of a social revolution, that it is, “the reorganization of the industrial, economic life of the country and consequently also of the entire structure of society.”

“His focus, almost exclusively, has been on U.S. foreign policy, a narrowness that would exert a conservative influence even for a radical thinker.”
He doesn’t think Chomsky is a “radical”? Like ‘liberal’ and ‘leftist’ the word ‘radical’ is a value-term in any event so it doesn’t much matter. What is interesting here is his claim that Chomsky focuses “almost exclusively” on U.S. foreign policy, which I don’t think would be such a damning thing to say even if it were true. In the past few decades that Chomsky has been criticizing American foreign policy the U.S. has been directly responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent civilians, and for many more indirectly through its military support of corrupt and even fascist regimes. But it isn’t true. Chomsky has written and spoken a great deal on economics, the environment, media analysis, and political theory, in addition to all of his professional work in linguistics and the philosophy of mind.

“And completely ignoring key areas (such as nature and women, to mention only two), makes him less relevant still.”
Unlike the phrase, “almost exclusively” above, here we have the absolute word “completely,” so just one example each will do to prove the two claims false. In 1989 Chomsky told Bill Moyers that alongside preventing nuclear conflict, protecting the environment is one of, “the most awesome problems of human history.” In 1991 he told the Journal of Advanced Composition that the feminist movement has, “had an enormous effect in liberating conscious¬ness and thought and making people aware of forms of oppression that they had internalized and not noticed.” In fact, he goes on to say that the feminist movement is, “the one that’s had the most profound influ¬ence and impact...and I think it’s very important.”

“He has consistently argued (in books like The Fateful Triangle, 1983) for a two-state solution to the Palestinian question.”
This is demonstrably false. Chomsky says now that the near-international consensus for a two-state solution is the best feasible option there is, though he has since childhood thought a binational (one-state) solution more desirable. “Personally,” says Chomsky, “I would be very pleased if there were support now for the kind of federal binationalism that could have been implemented in the 1967-73 period.” He wrote much in favor of a binational solution then, but there wasn’t much support for it in Palestine or Israel. He adds, “If popular movements for binationalism did take shape...I would of course be delighted. But that seems to me a vain hope.” He is for a two-state solution now only because he thinks it is the only possible way to end Israeli occupation, and has even written, “My own judgment, since childhood and still today, is that among these alternatives, the no-state solution is by far the best (not just in this region), a binational state second, and a two-state solution worst.” Of course he has argued consistently that a two-state solution is better than the ongoing illegal occupation. Does Zerzan disagree?

“Chomsky has long complained that the present system and its lap-dog media have done their best, despite his many books in print, to marginalize and suppress his perspective.”
Zerzan wouldn’t even have to read the book Manufacturing Consent to know that this isn’t true, he could have just watched the documentary of the same name. In it, he explains that when he talks about bias in the media he isn’t complaining about his own coverage or lack thereof. In that film after one of his lectures a frat-boy got up and said that he isn’t being kept out of the limelight and in other countries he would be shot for saying the things he is saying, and among other things, “we are allowing you to speak,” so, “what are you whining about?” Chomsky responded, “First of all I haven’t said one word about my being kept out of the limelight. The way it works here is quite different, I don’t think you heard what I was saying, but the way it works here is there is a system…which gives a certain perception of the world. I gave you one example, I’ll give you sources where you can find thousands of others. And it has nothing to do with me, it has to do with marginalizing the public, and ensuring that they don’t get in the way of elites who are supposed to run things without interference.” The next scene in the documentary begins with someone asking Chomsky whether he has been forced to the margins, and he says the opposite is true. “The fact is,” he says, “it is much easier to gain access to even the major media now than it was twenty years ago.”

“Uncritically championing the liberal-left media while totally ignoring our own media can hardly be an accident or an oversight.”
This again is demonstrably false if by “our own media” independent or even anarchist media is meant. He has repeatedly been interviewed by David Barsamian, Amy Goodman and many other independent journalists. He has written for Z Magazine since its creation, and has been interviewed by anarchists Michael Albert of Z Communications, Barry Pateman of the AK Press, among others.

“Professor Chomsky sees language as a fixed, innate part of some ‘essential human nature’ (Barsamian, 1992).”
Considering that this is a polemic, and the phrase is put in quotes, it seems to imply that Zerzan assumes that there is no such thing as human nature. Zerzan provides no evidence for this assumption, remarks on none of the mountains of counterevidence, nor does he even mention that this person or that person said so.

“In other words, language, that most fundamental part of culture, has no real relationship with culture and is a matter of instinct-driven formation through biological specialization.”
The above view is ascribed to Chomsky, but Chomsky never says anything of the sort. He has repeatedly said in the technical literature, in popular writing and in interviews that the formation of language is determined by the cultural milieu into which we are born and in which we develop, as well as genetic predispositions. “The basic structures are innate,” he says, though, “The specific details of how they grow would depend on interaction with the environment.” He has never written or said anything remotely like that language has no relationship with culture.

“For those of us who see our task as aiding in the utter abolition of our "Modern industrial society," it is repellant in the extreme to find its realization abjectly celebrated.”
This is in response to the quote that, “The task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now technically realizable.” Of course many very different things are “now technically realizable.” This quote, again, is only a snippet of the original sentence, as Zerzan even admits, interestingly. What Chomsky is referring to, by what is “now technically realizable,” is, “a society which is really based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control, and with limited hierarchal structures, possibly none at all.” Zerzan offers us no reasons why we shouldn’t agree with Chomsky and his distinctively anarchist hope for a non-hierarchical society. It also clashes with Zerzan’s insistence that Chomsky is, “not an anarchist at all.” Whereas in other essays Zerzan uses quotes to bolster his position, here he merely says that Chomsky’s view is “repellant.” One wonders how he wishes to convince anyone. He chides Chomsky in the beginning questioning whether his, “thinking has liberatory value,” but what liberatory value can Zerzan’s have if he restricts himself to preaching to the choir, and simply dismisses those he disagrees with?

It seems quite clear from reading Who is Chomsky? with some understanding of Chomsky’s work that Zerzan repeatedly writes about that which he does not know. It also seems strikingly odd that Zerzan, who claims to be an anarchist, would want to write such a vicious polemic against another anarchist. It speaks of someone bent on attacking just for the sake of attacking. Why else would Zerzan split hairs over such ill-defined terms as “liberal,” “leftist,” “radical,” and even “anarchist?” Why else would there be so many errors? I would guess that if the motivation behind the article were some genuine disagreement, it would be much better argued. The level of this low-polemic must make us wonder about Zerzan’s judgment in general. It is extremely easy to find out about Chomsky’s ideas, much more so than other things Zerzan has decided to write about. If he makes such blatant errors regarding such easily accessible information, indeed, it should get us to take what he has to say about other things with a grain of salt. Like a televangelist rattling off this quote or that quote from this verse and that chapter, Zerzan often seems to write as though he assumes that no one will ever check up on his sources.
Zerzan’s ideas aren’t only incorrect, however, they are quite pernicious. Not only do they tarnish the more reasonable people who call themselves anarchists, they also pose a danger in causing serious physical harm. If my first point is doubted, one need only ask why the mainstream media in the United States ignore Chomsky almost completely (unlike the foreign press, where he appears constantly), but doesn’t mind bringing up Zerzan. He has been mentioned in several national newspapers, and other national media, as has Ted Kaczynski. It should be obvious why the U.S. corporate media, which usually ignores anarchist and even anti-capitalist figures and ideas, would jump on the prospect of calling the Unabomber the “king of anarchists” (Time Magazine). What better to perpetuate the stereotype of the criminal, bomb-making anarchist than a bomb-making criminal who claims to be an anarchist? The media focuses on Kaczynski and Zerzan because doing so allows them to easily discredit anarchism as a whole by association.

It seems to go without saying that to a traditional anarchist, all people should have a say in the decisions that affect them. Anarchists have long believed that those who make decisions for others claim a right no one can have, and in doing so exert illegitimate authority. In this vein Mikhail Bakunin said that, “Every command is a slap in the face of liberty.” “Green anarchists” acted contrary to this anarchist notion in the infamous Battle of Seattle in 1999, to use the most famous example. There were fifty- to seventy-thousand people there, mostly peaceful protestors, many of which were willing to disrupt the WTO meeting with non-violent direct action such as blocking streets. However, the “green anarchists” decided on their own to smash windows and so on, resulting predictably in a more violent police response for everyone. This provoked Michael Albert to write, “I remember all too vividly some sixties demonstrations in which over-eager dissenters would taunt and otherwise provoke police and then disappear, leaving others, often utterly unprepared families, to bear the brunt of the response.” He wrote that if it had been spontaneous he could have empathized, “But the fact that at least part of the trashing was pre-planned despite the overall demonstration's contrary self-definition, and that it was seemingly undertaken without concern for its impact on the work of others or even on their safety, brings back memories of the Weathermen, a late 1960s organization that similarly bragged about avoiding police batons some thirty years ago.”

To a traditional anarchist, violence is almost always wrong. Like hierarchy, violence embodies coercion. Bakunin, again, wrote that, “The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual.” Thus an anarchist in the tradition of Bakunin and others would abhor violence in most every case, since it necessarily entails the imposition of an external control, and one with painful and damaging effects, at that. Zerzan, conversely, sees fit to tell a reporter, “They ain't innocent,” in regard to Ted Kaczynski’s bomb-victims, “Which isn't to say that I'm totally at ease with blowing them to pieces. Part of me is. And part of me isn't.” Zerzan defends Kaczynski by saying he, “decided he had to kill people to bring up this suppressed point of view. And he forced them to publish it.” Suppose everyone thought that way. To see whether this is a good principle we should see how it stacks up when we apply it to others. Would Zerzan defend a neo-Nazi who sent letter-bombs to Jews, if he, “decided he had to kill people to bring up this suppressed point of view”? “And he forced them to publish it”? No, that would be a disgusting totalitarian thing to do. The principle of universality says that we ought to apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others. Therefore, even someone that agreed with Kaczynski and Zerzan in principle would have to acknowledge that what Kaczynski did was diabolical, it was a disgusting totalitarian thing to do.

However, to agree with Kaczynski and Zerzan in principle requires one to take a callous view to suffering and coercion. For instance, Kaczynski has said that, “As I see it, I don't think there is any controlled or planned way in which we can dismantle the industrial system. I think that the only way we will get rid of it is if it breaks down and collapses. That's why I think the consequences will be something like the Russian Revolution, or circumstances like we see in other places in the world today like the Balkans, Afghanistan, Rwanda.” Needless to say, all four examples are noted for their extreme totalitarian violence. Immediately after that sentence he adds,
This does, I think, pose a dilemma for radicals who take a non-violent point of view. When things break down, there is going to be violence and this does raise a question, I don't know if I exactly want to call it a moral question, but the point is that for those who realize the need to do away with the techno-industrial system, if you work for its collapse, in effect you are killing a lot of people. If it collapses, there is going to be social disorder, there is going to be starvation, there aren't going to be any more spare parts or fuel for farm equipment, there won't be any more pesticide or fertilizer on which modern agriculture is dependent. So there isn't going to be enough food to go around, so then what happens? This is something that, as far as I've read, I haven't seen any radicals facing up to.
Not all radicals shirk away from the mass genocide to which Kaczynski is alluding. Zerzan, for one, was almost open about it on at least one occasion. An interviewer told him, “The first and seemingly main objection thrown at a primitivist outlook is that ‘millions will die immediately’ whether through starvation or genocide, if the state and industrial civilization were dismantled. How do you respond to this accusation?” “Perhaps the key word in your question is ‘immediately,’” responded Zerzan. It would have been more accurate to say, “Well really the figures would have to be in the billions.” After all, when all people lived as hunter-gatherers, there were only about ten million people on the earth, and according to Jared Diamond and other scientists, it was rises in population then that resulted in the adoption of agriculture. Therefore, those who wish to see agriculture abandoned would need to wish to see the population of the earth fall significantly below ten million, lest increases in population cause some to reconstitute food production just as they did thousands of years ago. Thus billions of people, almost everyone on the planet, would have to die. One simply cannot logically approve of one without the other.