Combining Chomsky and Szasz - Part 2.

There is evidence that Chomsky does not (yet?) "get it" with regard to Szasz.

He is by no means the only one in this respect. Even those who profess to admire Szasz don't always  - it seems to me - fully understand him.

See the comments under the article linked below:

Chomsky on Szasz?

https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/08/lessons-ancient-philosophy/

(*See below. The renowned psychiatric survivor and campaigned Judi Chamberlin interviewed Chomsky apparently and he did not seem to agree with her about the oppression inherent in psychiatry).

Szasz himself tried to enlist Popper in his struggle against psychiatric coercion - with limited success.

Such is the power of psychiatric ideology to blinker even the most supposedly enlightened amongst us.

Szasz is not seen as a left-wing figure but his ideas seek to end the terrible and major oppression of psychiatric slavery. I think this is a liberatory and revolutionary struggle. In this sense I see Szasz as left-wing.

This struggle does not seem to yet be a mass struggle. It needs to be.

Chomsky seems to focus more on fighting the oppression of wage slavery. Also not perhaps yet a popular struggle but undoubtedly equally necessary.

Fighting wage slavery does not seem to be a priority for Szasz.

But how can we doubt that whilst Szasz seems to have believed in the economic value of work and in capitalism - he would not have believed in social justice and freedom? (He wrote that "the primary source of wealth is work" - which is simply not true in my opinion.)

Szasz was not an anti-capitalist, but he believed in individual freedom and emancipation.

Szasz didn't fully "get it" with regard to Chomsky one may even suggest - going in the other direction. Though of course there is no evidence that Szasz was an ardent supporter of U.S. foreign policy! Just as it can't be doubted that Chomsky would not be an ardent supporter of the abuses of psychiatry, assuming he were fully aware of them!

Szasz wrote that he was a believer in "the Anglo-American philosophy of freedom, with its roots in the works of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Lord Acton." 

Chomsky has in common with this at least a belief in freedom. He makes a critique of Locke's defence of the right to property. ("This country was founded on the principle that the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority. And so it remains", Chomsky said - as sampled by the Manic Street Preachers).

At a basic level, Szasz seems to identify capitalism with freedom - as so many do; whereas Chomsky - and many others of course - on the other hand identify capitalism with the denial of freedom. This is a complex question, but I personally believe that Chomsky is closer to the truth on this point.

The works of Szasz and Chomsky have their own particular concerns that perhaps leave little room for seeing other concerns. Szasz was concerned with Psychiatry, whereas Chomsky is still concerned with Linguistics and Politics.

It hardly needs saying that Chomsky is of course an intellectual superstar with a great deal of status and respect in global intellectual culture - even though not everyone agrees with his views; whereas Szasz's work is undoubtedly less well-known and less respected. I think Szasz is worthy of the same reverence as Chomsky and I hope that one day that comes to pass.

Combining the insights of the two thinkers is, I believe, vital and not something that Chomsky - the only one still living of course - has yet achieved.

============================

*Here is the relevant part of the link, which is well worth reproducing here:

Here’s what I was referring to, it’s from an interview with Judi Chamberlin, godmother of the mental patients’ liberation movement, with Darby Penney:

” DP: I think still to this day there are lots of people who are otherwise progressive, who just plain don’t get it.
JC: Oh, yeah.
DP: Why do you think that is?
JC: Some times I think it’s because they’ve had personal experiences in their family and they just think. well, this person is really nuts, crazy, whatever and they really can’t deal with them. Some times I think it’s because they’re therapized… There’s this wonderful book about the women’s movement written by two British psychologists, one of whom is an ex and an activist. It’s called Changing Our Minds. It’s about how the women’s movement kind of got highjacked by the therapy movement. About three or four years ago, this British magazine that’s published by Mind (which is kind of like the British Mental Health Association but it’s much more radical than ours, although the activists there find it pretty conservative) asked me to do an interview with Noam Chomsky. And I was so thrilled, you know, I was going to talk to Noam Chomsky about these issues. He didn’t get it at all.
DP: You’re kidding me.
JC: Didn’t get it at all. It was so disillusioning.
DP: Oh, that is disillusioning, because he’s my hero.
JC: Yeah, he didn’t get it at all.
DP: Ah, geeze.
JC: I was so disappointed I never wanted to transcribe the tape…
DP: Well, I’ll never write him in for president again.
JC: (Laughing) Yeah. I felt the same thing. I figured that someone that bright, with that good a political analysis of things, someone who really sees all kinds of oppression…It’s about medicine, he kept saying. It’s about illness and…
DP: And that’s the thing that I’ve heard from other progressives who say oh, it’s a medical thing.
JC: Ah huh. Yup.
DP: But even still. Even if you believe that it’s a medical thing, which I don’t, why does that justify the violation of human rights?
JC: Right. If you’re walking down the street and a dermatologist looks at you and says, “God, you’ve got the most terrible case of acne I’ve ever seen. Come to my office right now,” and drags you there by your hair…”

Combining Szasz and Chomsky

I would say that describing Szasz as "right-wing" is perhaps slightly misleading.
He was certainly a libertarian and defending liberty was certainly the major basis of his thinking.
In terms of his economic views he was perhaps on the right - there is evidence of this.
But the major emphasis of his thinking - as I say - was libertarian.

If believing in freedom is not regarded as left-wing then we can have little hope for the left. I personally regard myself as very much on the left. I would like to describe myself personally as something like a Green libertarian socialist. As is well-known, Noam Chomsky also describes himself as a libertarian socialist.

I very much doubt that Szasz would ever have described himself as any kind of socialist,
and he was suspicious of mass social movements and large collectivities in general.
He seems to have regarded Freud as wanting to found such a mass movement. He was sceptical of Marxism and was I think an admirer of Karl Popper. I also personally am very much a supporter of the views of Karl Popper, both in the philosophy of science and in politics. Popper is not necessarily regarded as being on the right. He could possibly be described as a reformist socialist.
[ Karl Popper  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper]

I think that Szasz was opposed to state provision of any kind of medicine - not
just state-backed and state-provided psychiatry. I personally am not opposed to the
collective provision of health care, as we have here in the U.K. Medical care is
undoubtedly a human right. But, like Szasz, I am in favour of the full separation
 of psychiatry and the state. I do not regard psychiatry as being a legitimate part
 of medicine.

Szasz was in favour of full legalization of drugs and full legalization of prostitution.
Neither position is regarded as "right-wing"!

Going in the other direction, as far as I am aware, Chomsky has so far been totally
silent about the work of Szasz.

Chomsky has of course written on psychology, and has been deeply critical of
behaviourism, in particular the thinking of Skinner. Unsurprisingly, Szasz also was against behaviourism.

It is perfectly possible to attempt some kind of "marriage" of the philosophical,

social and political views of Chomsky with those of Szasz - and it is something

that I attempt to achieve. I think they have a great deal in common.

Both thinkers share independence, controversy, thoroughness, indefatigability and courage.

Both thinkers have radically challenged the prevailing consensus views in their own particular spheres.

But what the two thinkers undoubtedly most share in common is a deep commitment to and belief in human freedom. And an unswerving opposition to oppression and all forms of slavery.

------------------------