On Anarchism

by Noam Chomsky

Radical linguist, philosopher, and activist Noam Chomsky is widely recognized as one of the foremost intellectuals in contemporary America. Known for his denunciation of U.S. foreign policy, state capitalism, and the mainstream media, he is a fearless critic of established authority, a stance that is informed by his libertarian anarchism.

Chomsky on Anarchism brings together a timely collection of key interviews and articles from across Chomsky's career, providing an invaluable introduction to the brand of anarchism that underpins Chomsky’s political philosophy. Discussing its roots in the influence of his family, Chomsky is here found eloquently refuting the notion of anarchism as a fixed idea but rather as a living, evolving tradition. He disputes, too, the traditional fault lines between anarchism and socialism, emphasizing the power of collective, rather than individualist, action.

Incorporating revealing interviews with Chomsky by writer Nathan Schneider that update each in light of today’s events, this is a book that is sure to provoke and inspire. Profoundly relevant to our times, Chomsky on Anarchism is a touchstone for activists and anyone interested in politics and the man dubbed "our nation’s conscience."

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History, Theory, Economics, Essays

170 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

About the author

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Reviews

[BlackOxford · Rating 4 out of 5]

There Is No Benign Power

If you think anarchism means approval of chaos, think again. Anarchism is merely the rejection of the idea that there is an entirely legitimate source for power (Greek = without origin). Whether ascribed ultimately to having its source in God, the gods, The People or genetic legacy, power will always and everywhere be abused by those who wield it. Therefore anarchism's central principle is that power must be continuously questioned and challenged to prove that it is not acting in its own interests.

Noam Chomsky has spent his life getting under the skin of powerful people - academics, politicians, corporate executives, civil servants, in short, The Establishment. Many don't like him as a consequence and do their best to make him out to be yesterday's news.

But Chomsky's profound message is more important today than ever: Never, never trust power, regardless of who holds it or of the political or economic system in which it is exercised; always call it to account by whatever means is available.

On Anarchism is a sort of thoughtful handbook to help you on your way.

[Natalie · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an introduction to anarchist theory for someone who knows only the conceptual framework, this was very helpful. And also very frustrating.

The vast majority of people have no idea what anarchism is. (Chaos and bombs, right?) This is unfortunate. Anarchism is so beautiful and liberating, and really, truly founded in common sense.

The basic premise which Chomsky reiterates many times is that humans should be completely free, to the greatest extent possible. Any structure, relationship, or institution that limits that freedom must be challenged and questioned, and that authority holds the burden of proof to justify its existence. Chomsky acknowledges that there are instances when authority, which automatically reduces freedom, is justified. For example, if a child is running into a street, and a parent yells "Stop!", the parent limits the child's freedom, but in a very justified way.

What Chomsky argues, and I tend to agree, is that in the vast majority of cases, authority is not justifiable. It limits freedom unnecessarily, and so should be eroded.

Each piece in this collection was interesting in its own way, but the two I enjoyed the most were "Language and Freedom" and "Containing the Threat of Democracy." I also appreciate his demarcation between goals (achievable things we can work for now) and visions (the ideal society that we would love to see but which is currently impossible given the present social structures).

What I liked about Chomsky's writing is that it's very accessible and easy to understand. He does this consciously--he opines that highfalutin intellectual jargon is usually just a means of mystifying very simple concepts so that only a privileged few can take part in the discourse (boy is that ever true!). He's very good at reducing concepts to their core.

However, he is very short on specifics, and when it comes to anarchism, a theory that I find so attractive, yet am very new to and know little about, I want some specifics. The shortcomings of anarchism seem so obvious and non-trivial that I need someone to really walk me through it.

I definitely recommend this for anyone who is new to anarchism and wants to learn more about it, or anyone interested in intellectual attacks on imperialism, corporate tyranny, government coercion, etc.

[Nikos Tsentemeidis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ξεκαθαρίζει πολλά πράγματα μέσα από συνεντεύξεις του. Σίγουρα ο αναρχισμός δεν είναι κάτι συγκεκριμένο. Γενικά πολύ ενδιαφέρον

[Chris_P · Rating 4 out of 5]

Let's be honest here people! Noam Chomsky is the only person alive who speaks publicly about the real (dare I say only) truths about the world order that is and the one that should be. And he does that for the sake of education. He doesn't sell conspiracy theories nor cheap ideologies. You won't find any patronizing propaganda shit here. That's why he doesn't get any publicity. Because he can't be used against his own theories.

This particular book is a great way for one to be introduced not only to the basic principles of anarchism, but also to those of living harmonically in society. It does a great job in making you turn your head away from the shadows on the wall and towards the real deal. I call this enlightenment.

[Benjamin Eskola · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a collection of a few articles and book introductions, transcripts of speeches, and interviews. The problem is that this format ends up being pretty repetitive. The introductions in particular, and some of the articles, tend to cover mostly the same ground, and I can't help but feeling that a synthesis of them into a new article would be much more valuable than reading several slightly different articles.

The high point was “Containing the Threat of Democracy”, which was one of the longer articles and covered a bit more ground than others did. Unfortunately it's also one in which Chomsky's politics conflict with my own; specifically, his un-nuanced defence of freedom of speech, whereby if you do not defend hate speech and abuse (he mentions specifically the right of the KKK to march around with signs like “burn the n*****” and “send the Jews back to Israel”), you are a fascist or a Stalinist. Sorry, Noam, but it's not that simple, and there should be room for the recognition that unrestricted free speech can itself limit the freedom of others.

(I’ve turned off comments because six years after reading this I’m still getting comments from liberals trying to explain why I’m wrong. Sorry, but liberal defences of the KKK’s freedom of speech all seem to boil down to a tacit admission that it would only take the right argument in favour of lynching to change their mind, and I have no interest in hearing from people whose 'principles' are so easily swayed.)

[Samuel Brase · Rating 2 out of 5]

In a lot of ways, this book feels like a remix. Virtually all of the material is either from ~1970 or ~2002. But the commentaries appear next to each other in a timeless, unending stream of anarchist thought and analysis. I like this aspect a lot actually, I think it shows both certainty on Chomsky's part and thoughtfulness on the side of the editors (and probably Chomsky himself) in terms of selecting the material.

At the end of the day, one has to ask: Who's the audience? At $16 for 140 neatly curated Chomsky pages... I doubt anarcho-curious people are choking down that price for such little content. So presumably it's jokers like me, who already know they'll like what's inside? At which point, I have to feel I'm being taken for a ride. A Chomsky Greatest Hits.

If you've read any other Chomsky, you can skip this. If you want to start reading Chomsky, there are better entry points.

[Pink · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not a book, but a rather disjointed collection of essays and other pieces. I agree with all of Chomsky's ideas, but it was very dry to read. I didn't like how this was put together at all.

[Wick Welker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anarchism is pure and decentralized democracy.

This brief and meandering read is not a bad intro in the philosophy of anarchism. To be clear, Chomsky explains that anarchism is not chaos but is in fact the truest form of socialistic democracy where all power is decentralized and any power structure must continually justify its existence or be dismantled. Indeed, anarchism is actually libertarianism. The Ayn Rand/neoliberal brand of libertarianism is a capitalist distortion where power is indeed decentralized away from government authority and funneled to corporate plutocrats. Americans often conflate these two disparate forms of libertarianism.

Capitalism, in practice, is actually extremely authoritarian because it inevitably involves collusion with government power and militarization. Free markets are not real but a neoliberal fantasy sold to the public to support a failing power structure and target political enemies. The right seeks to subvert the federal government, atomize all power into the states where it can capture control and privatize everything. Adam Smith was actually quite liberal, as Chomsky points out is often ignored, and Smith would have abhorred the rent seeking of labor and the enslavement of humanity. When a person has the choice between renting their labor or starving, that is not choice and that is not freedom.

Socialism, just like neoliberalism, can be awful if it's under the tight fist of state control, like communism. Communism is state-capitalism and a socialized economy where technocrats are pulling the levers. This also does not work. And so anarchism seeks to dismantle any of this tyrannical power structures and spread the power out over the labor class. I suppose I could sum up anarchism with a single scenario: a person goes to their job and uses their labor in an industry in which they, and everyone of their co-employees, have partial ownership.

I still don't really know what anarchism is supposed to look like in reality and I don't think Chomsky does either. He mentions that it is a theory and must be socially tested like any other scientific theory before it can be refined. As I finished this book, I became even more convinced that wholesale belief in any one philosophy, be it anarchism or "free" markets, is fundamentally flawed. To be an ideologue is to tear down the current structure and start fresh . This seems terribly counterproductive, destructive and with no guarantee that something good would come out of the ashes. Can't we just lift ourselves up from our current situation? Let's work with what we have and where we're at.

[Ian "Marvin" Graye · Rating 3 out of 5]

Preface

Chomsky's essay is a revised version of the introduction to Daniel Guérin's Anarchism ("Anarchism: From Theory to Practice").

However, it quotes liberally from Rudolf Rocker’s Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice, which I read and reviewed immediately before deciding to read some Chomsky:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

By its nature, the essay is secondary to the work it prefaced. It doesn’t purport to contain much original analysis, and therefore I didn’t find it particularly useful in trying to define and understand Chomsky’s own ideas.

It did, however, help me to contextualize some of the responses I had in reading Rocker’s book.

Anarchism as a Form of Socialism

I was surprised to learn from Rocker that Anarchism, at least the version known as "Anarcho-Syndicalism", is a form of Socialism, to which Chomsky adds Marxism.

My preconceptions were based on readings of Marx and Lenin, who had attacked Anarchists as counter-productive to their revolutionary goals.

However, Chomsky confirms that Anarcho-Syndicalism is a "left-wing critique of Bolshevism", which effectively argues that Bolshevism didn’t pursue genuine Socialist goals enough :

"The anti-Bolshevik, left-wing labor movement opposed the Leninists because they did not go far enough in exploiting the Russian upheavals for strictly proletarian ends.

"They became prisoners of their environment and used the international radical movement to satisfy specifically Russian needs, which soon became synonymous with the needs of the Bolshevik Party-State.

"The 'bourgeois' aspects of the Russian Revolution were now discovered in Bolshevism itself: Leninism was adjudged a part of international social-democracy, differing from the latter only on tactical issues."

What Lenin failed to do was to abolish the State.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Anarchists like Bakunin opposed the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the "red bureaucracy".

Authority is the enemy of freedom. In the context of Russia, it didn’t matter whether bureaucratic authority was red or white.

Fernand Pelloutier asks:

"Must even the transitory state to which we have to submit necessarily and fatally be a collectivist jail?

"Can't it consist in a free organization limited exclusively by the needs of production and consumption, all political institutions having disappeared?"

Chomsky confirms that –

"The question of conquest or destruction of state power is what Bakunin regarded as the primary issue dividing him from Marx.

"In one form or another, the problem has arisen repeatedly in the century since, dividing 'libertarian' from 'authoritarian' socialists."

Anarcho-Marxism

Chomsky seems to be protective of the intellectual legacy of Marxism itself.

Marxism as the principal manifestation of Socialism can be either "Libertarian" or "Authoritarian".

Bolshevism in practice was a form of Authoritarian Socialism.

Chomsky denies that it was true to the form of Marxism he advocates.

He states that it is "perverse to regard Bolshevism as 'Marxism in practice' ", even though only paragraphs beforehand he quotes Engels disagreeing with Bakunin’s criticism of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat:

"The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organization of the state....

"But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries, and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris commune."

Marx, Engels and Lenin all believed that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was necessary to protect the gains achieved by a Revolution.

However, Bakunin correctly predicted that a Stalin would come along and be reluctant to let go of the reins of power.

Alienation of Labor

Chomsky quotes Humboldt’s "Limits of State Action" and compares it to Marx:

"Humboldt's vision of a society in which social fetters are replaced by social bonds and labor is freely undertaken suggests the early Marx, with his discussion of the ‘alienation of labor when work is external to the worker...not part of his nature...[so that] he does not fulfill himself in his work but denies himself...[and is] physically exhausted and mentally debased,’ alienated labor that ‘casts some of the workers back into a barbarous kind of work and turns others into machines,’ thus depriving man of his ‘species character’ of ‘free conscious activity’ and ‘productive life.’

"Similarly, Marx conceives of ‘a new type of human being who needs his fellow men....

"[The workers' association becomes] the real constructive effort to create the social texture of future human relations.’ "

Free Associations

This Marxist analysis remains at the foundation of Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Private ownership of the means of production must be ended in favour of some form of public ownership other than by the State or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Chomsky’s analysis paints a more complete picture of what the alternative might be than I have previously read.

He quotes Rocker:

"What we put in place of the government is industrial organization."

And Diego Abad de Santillan:

"Our federal council of economy is not a political power but an economic and administrative regulating power.

"It receives its orientation from below and operates in accordance with the resolutions of the regional and national assemblies. It is a liaison corps and nothing else...

"...in facing the problem of social transformation, the Revolution cannot consider the state as a medium, but must depend on the organization of producers.

"Either the Revolution gives social wealth to the producers in which case the producers organize themselves for due collective distribution and the State has nothing to do; or the Revolution does not give social wealth to the producers, in which case the Revolution has been a lie and the State would continue."

True Democracy

Chomsky argues that "radical Marxism merges with anarchist currents".

When he attempts to define "Revolutionary Socialism", he quotes the left-wing Marxist Anton Pannekoek:

"Socialism will be fundamentally an industrial system; its constituencies will be of an industrial character.

"Thus those carrying on the social activities and industries of society will be directly represented in the local and central councils of social administration.

"In this way the powers of such delegates will flow upwards from those carrying on the work and conversant with the needs of the community.

"When the central administrative industrial committee meets it will represent every phase of social activity. Hence the capitalist political or geographical state will be replaced by the industrial administrative committee of Socialism.

"The transition from the one social system to the other will be the social revolution.

"The political State throughout history has meant the government of men by ruling classes; the Republic of Socialism will be the government of industry administered on behalf of the whole community.

"The former meant the economic and political subjection of the many; the latter will mean the economic freedom of all - it will be, therefore, a true democracy."

Form and Substance

Earlier, Chomsky mentions that "many commentators dismiss Anarchism as utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society."

Whether or not this is true (and obviously Chomsky disagrees), his analysis in this essay contributes some form to the discussion.

A picture emerges of what might substitute for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat after a successful Revolution.

I question whether we will ever live to see this vision realised.

First, it requires a Revolution and the abolition of Private Property (at least with regard to the means of production).

Then it needs to be able to withstand the inevitable Counter-Revolution by those who want their Property back, without the aid of the State or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


SOUNDTRACK:

Tracy Chapman - "Talkin' 'bout a Revolution" [Live at the 1988 Nelson Mandela 70th Birthday Tribute Concert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGmHpn...

Beautiful, just beautiful. Every time she says "like a whisper", I get a thrill up my spine.

Tracy Chapman - "Talkin' 'bout a Revolution" [Live at an Amnesty International concert in 1988]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0TdGG...

Tracy Chapman - "Talkin' 'bout a Revolution" [Live on Later With Jools Holland show in 2002]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ctZwb...

"Don't you know you better run, run, run..."

Tracy Chapman - "Fast Car"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Orv_F2...

"You've got a fast car,
I want a ticket to anywhere
Maybe we can make a deal
Maybe together we can get somewhere
Any place is better
Starting from zero
We've got nothing to lose
Maybe we'll make something."

[Theo Logos · Rating 4 out of 5]

”The basic principle that I would like to see communicated to people is the idea that every form of authority and domination and hierarchy, every authoritarian structure has to prove that it’s justified. It has no prior justification. The burden of proof for any exercise of authority is always on the person exercising it, invariably. And when you look, most of the time, these authority structures have no justification.”

On Anarchism is a collection of Chomsky’s writings and interviews on the subject. Its excellent introduction by Nathan Schneider sets the stage. Schneider speaks of the “anarcho-curious” young, and of “anarchist amnesia.” He states that:
”Anarchy is the political blank slate of the 21st century.”
By which he means that a generation disillusioned with the the present Oligarchy, but also with the tired alternatives of state socialism or capitalist liberalism are drawn to anarchy as an open ended alternative. But “anarchist amnesia,” purposely cultivated by by the state and its institutions, threatens to kill off this revived interest in its infancy. Writing about the young anarchist in the Occupy movement, Schneider says:

”They were astonished by the systematic violence used to eliminate the Occupy encampments because they hadn’t heard about how the Spanish anarchists and the Paris Commune were crushed with military force as well. Amnesia constrains ambition and inoculates against patience.”

As previously stated, this book is a collection of Chomsky’s previously published writings/interviews on anarchy. Both Notes on Anarchism, and Excerpts from Understanding Power address common concepts and questions about anarchism. Part II of Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship is a brief history of the popular Anarchist revolution in Spain; how not only the Fascists, but also the Soviets and the Western powers all worked to destroy it, and how later historians misrepresent it in histories of The Spanish Civil War. (This section is long, dense and dry, unlike the earlier chapters.) In Interview with Harry Kreisler, from Political Awakenings, the question/answer format brings out more interesting material, as well as revisiting some themes from earlier chapters. Finally, in Language and Freedom, Chomsky riffs on ideas of Rousseau.

On Anarchism is an uneven collection. The introduction and the first two chapters, as well as Chomsky’s interview are excellent as an introduction to Anarchism for people unfamiliar with, but interested in it. The chapters on the revolution in Spain and on Rousseau’s thoughts, on the other hand, are far more dense, and geared toward those already familiar with anarchist theory.

Woman: ”There’s a separate meaning of the word anarchy different from the one you often talk about, namely chaos.”
Chomsky: ”Yeah, it’s a bum rap, basically. It’s like referring to Soviet style bureaucracy as socialism, or any other term of discourse that’s been given a second meaning for the purpose of ideological warfare. I mean, chaos is a meaning of the word, but it’s not a meaning that has any relevance to social thought. Anarchy as a social philosophy has never meant chaos. In fact, anarchists have typically believed in a highly organized society, just one that’s organized democratically from below.”

[G · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good book on anarchism. Noam Chomsky achieved his goal, as he always does. I think that Chomsky finds politics harder to explain than linguistics, which seems strange but is completely reasonable. Some predictions derived from his theory of natural languages can be experimentally tested. By the opposite, nothing derived from specific points of view on politics or history can be empirically tested. Hence, any statement about anarchism is just an opinion. In my opinion as common reader, Chomsky has successfully restricted the meaning of anarchism in this book. That is, anarchism shall be seen as an active apology of freedom. A direct corollary might be the opposition to any form of oppression. However, I think that such view is an intuition, not the consequence of reasoned evaluations of theories and flat facts. It remains quite clear that anarchism is not an apology of violence or chaos. Anarchy is rather a reduction of violence and a very organized model of society. This book includes essays and interviews translated into Spanish. The edition by Malpaso is a beautiful hardcover that includes an e-book. A very enjoyable reading.

[Baal Of · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chomsky writes for people who are already steeped in his kind of rhetoric. He refers constantly to other historians and philosophers, with lengthy quotes and expositions. He speaks in broad generalities, that sound nice in principle, but I have no way of gauging whether anything he says has any practical relevance once once the messiness of reality grabs hold. After reading this book, I have no real fucking clue exactly what anarchism is or isn't except that it might be libertarian socialism, but not the American brand of libertarian, obviously, you dolt. Fucking hell, what a slog, and such a small portion.

Update:
After attending the book club meeting about this book, I now have a better perspective, and a bit more understanding of what Chomsky was on about. The key is when Chomsky defines anarchism as the position that any claim in which one entity places itself in authority above an individual (or other entity) must be justified. Any exercise of power that deprives someone of autonomy is assumed by default to be illegitimate, and the burden of proof is on the claimant of the power. Importantly this applies not just to government (as American libertarians would claim) but also to business, specifically for business owners or presidents, etc. when exercising control over workers. It is possible that I'm an anarchist. I must think on this. I've upped the rating to 3 stars, but it does not get higher because Chomsky is still a terrible bore when it comes to history, and the largest chapter was a tedious slog.

[Anurag Vaishnav · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is important to note that this book is a compilation of a series of interviews and essays by Noam on Anarchism. To those who have been following Noam's work, it may seem what's new in this since most of Noam's thoughts on Anarchy as a political philosophy date back to the 1970s and they haven't exactly changed.

Yet, this makes a great short read as it clarifies Noam's position on whether the goals of Anarchism stand opposed to the goals of democratic socialism or welfare state, which too, Noam has been vocal about since the last decade. In the light of recent developments where the legitimacy of the welfare state has come into question, Noam explains how his notion of Anarchy has the same goal as a welfare state: ensuring that every child has a right to eat and every person a right to healthcare.

[Matthew Lowery · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is not an 'original' work but instead a small collection of various essays and interviews from Chomsky's career that I think intend to provide just a basic overview of Anarchism and Chomsky's thought. Approached from this perspective, this is a great read. The interviews were very digestible and contained good questions that probed Chomsky's early life, inspirations, and posed challenges to him that he responded well to. Chomsky writes at length in one section about scholarship and bias in regards to historical work on the Spanish civil war and the Anarchist movement there, though it does tend to drag and go on a bit too long.

The section I found most interesting was the last, entitled 'Language and Freedom.' Of course it's interesting to hear about where the two areas cross over, but to me what I found most enlightening and educating about this book and chapter was how Chomsky integrates thought from some of the most important Enlightenment thinkers. When you look at what Rousseau and Kant wrote it is quite obvious that the modern 'Anarchist' movement is merely picking up where they left off. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but it seems to me that the two aforementioned philosophers were almost certainly massive influences on the early anarchist movement. Rousseau in particular developed much of the intellectual groundwork on which later anarchist thinkers could build and begin to offer critiques of authority and structures of power. A good introduction to Chomsky's work, but if the chapter on the Spanish civil war starts to bore you, you can pretty safely just move on to the next chapter.

[Adriana Scarpin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Em honra dos 90 anos de Noam Chomsky (07/12/1928)

Quanto mais eu conheço o Chomsky, mais o considero o maior intelectual vivo e mais acho inadmissível que todo mundo não concorde com ele – pelo menos em questões políticas já que quanto à linguística nem sou tão fã assim.
Vamos pegar o exemplo das últimas eleições no Brasil em que a maioria dos ditos anarquistas não votou/anulou o voto porque o Estado é malvadão independente de quem o comande, aí com esse pensamento atroz faz-se eleger um fascista obviamente ignorante em detrimento de um professor culto e humanista. Você acha que sento isentão nessas condições fez bem ao povo ou ao seu ego enorme? É por isso que esses pseudo anarquistas isentões que só pensam nos próprios slogans defasados deveriam realmente escutar a sabedoria de Chomsky, sou tão anarquista quanto ele e concordo plenamente com o diálogo que ele mantem com os Estados que visam o bem estar social – é óbvio que não conscientizaremos a população de um dia para o outro dos benefícios da autogestão e a derrubada do Estado, nós não estamos conseguindo nem que deixem de serem neofascistas, por isso acho criminoso da parte desses anarquistas burgueses pagarem de isentões frente ao fascismo, ceis precisam mais de Chomsky nas suas vidas. Todo mundo precisa.

[Pavle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ključna knjižica za svaki ’Ja ne verujem u državu’ starter pack. Neironično piti kafu i čitati ovo na VERANDI je nešto što svako treba u nekom trenutku doživeti jer donosi sasvim adekvatan nivo samoprezira sa sobom.

U suštini, ovo je zbirka odlomaka iz nekih drugih dela Čomskog, na temu anarhizma i izvornog libertarijanizma. Ti odlomci variraju po kvalitetu: deo o Španskom gradjanskom ratu je anarhistička istoriografija prvog stepena; dva intervjua zanimljiv su prikaz Čomskog kao govornika (i na neki način propovednika); poslednji deo na temu ’Jezik i sloboda’ mogao bi komotno da se preimenuje samo u ’Sloboda’ jer Čomski tu vezu praktično nijednom u tih dvadesetak stranica nije istražio. Prijalo mi je kao uvodnik u neko drugo, obimnije i ozbiljnije čitanje. Moj stav o anarhizmu ostao je manje više isti – pokret u uskoj vezi sa privilegovanim intelektualizmom i (nažalost) daleko od stvarnosti. Voleo bih da se Čomski više bavio zašto je baš tako, zašto je baš ovako ispalo, a manje antikapitalističkim onanisanjem.

4-

[Heba · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب سلس ويصلح كمقدمة لهذا الفكر. الجزء الخاص بالحرب الأهلية الإسبانية بحاجة إلى وجود خلفية عنها لدى القارئ.

[Lone Wong · Rating 3 out of 5]

Anarchy - a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Synonyms: lawlessness, an absence of government, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, riot, rebellion, mutiny, disorder, disorganization, misrule, chaos, tumult, turmoil, mayhem, pandemonium.

This is what the internet interprets the notion of Anarchism when I trying to grasp the exact terminology of Anarchism. It seems the modern people perception about Anarchism is somehow misleading and distorted due to the massive political propaganda or what's in the book put it this way:

Chomsky refers to right-wing libertarianism as "an aberration" nearly unique to this country, a theory of "a world built on hatred" that would self-destruct in three seconds."Yet the vitality of this once- or twice-removed cousin of anarchism becomes evident with every election cycle when libertarian candidate Ron Paul squeezes his way into the Republican debates thanks to his impressively youthful "army" fighting for this "rEVOLution". This is anarchism with corporate funding and misplaced nostalgia, its solidarity cleaved off by the willful protagonists in Ayn Rand's novels.

In this book, Noam Chomsky, an anarcho-syndicalist or a libertarian-socialist offers a vital overview of the meanings of anarchism in a whole new perspective and the foundations of his thought and political view. He tries to refute the notion of anarchism as a fixed idea and disputing the traditional fault lines between anarchism and socialism. I will only excerpt a few writing of Noam Chomsky about the notion of anarchism at here to better express my understanding of Anarchism without conflicting myself with the tendencies to encompass all of the political ideology and general theory.

The classical liberal ideals, he argues, were wrecked on the realities of capitalist economic forms. Anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist in that it "opposes the exploitation of man by man." But anarchism also opposes "the dominion of man over man." It insists that "socialism will be free or it will not be at all. In its recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification for the existence of anarchism." From this point of view, anarchism may be regarded as the libertarian wing of socialism.

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

WOMAN: "Professor Chomsky, on a slightly different topic, there's a separate meaning of the word "anarchy" different from the one you often talk about-namely, "chaos."

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, it's a bum crap, basically – it's like referring to Soviet-style bureaucracy as "socialism," or any other term of discourse that's been given a second meaning for the purpose of ideology warfare. I mean, "chaos" is a meaning of the word, but it's not meaning that has any relevance to social thought. Anarchy as a social philosophy has never meant "chaos"–in fact, anarchists have typically believed in a highly organized society, just one that's organized democratically from below.

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

MAN: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

NOAM CHOMSKY: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, libertarian has a special meaning in the United States. The US is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist–because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.

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

QUESTION: These experiences we've described, you were saying they led you into linguistics, but also led you into your view of politics and of the world. You're a libertarian anarchist, and when one hears that, because of the way issues are framed in this country (U.S.A), there are many misperceptions. Help us understand what that means.

NOAM CHOMSKY: The US is sort of out of the world on this topic. Here, the term "libertarian" means the opposite of what it always meant in history. Libertarian throughout modern European history meant socialist anarchist. It meant the anti-state element of the Workers' Movement and the Socialist Movement. Here it means ultra–conversative, Ayn Rand or Cato Institute or something like that.

In Europe, it meant, and always meant to me, an antistate branch of socialism, which meant to me, an antistate branch of socialism, which meant highly organized society, nothing to do with chaos, but based on democracy all the way through. That means democratic control of communities, of workplaces, of federal structures, built on systems of voluntary association, spreading internationally. That's traditional anarchism.

This book comes in handy for me as an introduction to Noam Chomsky's political view and a touchstone for political dissident like me who likes to question the authority. It's essential for everyone who is curious about Chomsky's thought and wanna explore more on the aspect of the historical development of socialism thoughts and anarchism. I personally found it intriguing by reading the chapter of "Language and Freedom" that broaden my perspective on the philosophical human nature existence.

[Evelyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chomsky on Anarchism is a collection of essays and interviews in which Chomsky discusses the broadness and complexity of anarchism and anarchist issues. He mainly refers to anarcho-syndicalism and there are some good parts where he goes over the role that anarchism played in the Spanish Civil War (though to the experienced reader, this has since been well noted by others). I found his comments on Rousseau's Discourse of Equality interesting, as well as Chapter 4 (The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism).

All in all, an insightful collection, though I feel the overall structure and composition of the book is a little strange as the reader has to wade through an incredibly dry first chapter to get to the good bits. The book itself definitely progressed significantly for me as the chapters went on and whilst I know all of the material has been published elsewhere, it's nice to have all of these thoughts in one place.

[Paulla Ferreira Pinto · Rating 5 out of 5]

Um bom início para uma longa caminhada.

[Logan Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chomsky has always been an author beyond praise. His works are as informing and surprising as they are interesting. He is one of the few intellectuals that blends information and entertainment together seamlessly, without seeming full of himself or like a comedian.

This small compilation includes an essay on modern anarchism, 2 excerpts from interviews, 2 other essays related to anarchism, and an extensive bibliography. The version I read also had a introduction by Nathan Schneider, which was insightful. While the titular essay takes the spotlight, the other areas are equally informative and entertaining, and supplement "On Anarchism" nicely. It was a nice surprise to see someone both state their beliefs and then showcase themselves defending and discussing them.

Noam Chomsky's anarchist future is not 7 billion people in a mosh pit; it is a world of greater understanding and self-reliance. He doesn't shy away form socialist overtones and Marxist ideologies; instead, he embraces and tweaks them so that they would work in the real world. It defies the stereotype and questions the norm.

[Anna Pardo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Puc recordar perfectament aquell dia d'escola ja fa molts anys en que ens van parlar per primera vegada de l'anarquisme, i com jo vaig pensar "i qui pot no voler això?". Com més anys passen més creus me'n faig, i més m'esgarrifa veure el món tan horrible en tants aspectes que tenim.

Per això és interessant llegir a algú com Chomsky, tot un optimista pel que fa a canviar l'ordre social, i que en aquest llibre ens sembra moltes llavors de pensament i acció. Interesantíssim el capítol sobre la Guerra Civil Espanyola, que indefectiblement em porta a treure de la pila Homenatge a Catalunya, i a veure una vegada més com es manipula el discurs de la Història.

[Seth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Noam's a comforting writer with his clear argumentation and judicious use of the word "like", as always.

Analysis of how capitalism is actually the opposite of freedom and "libertarianism" as perceived by liberal philosophers and economists was very compelling, as was Noam's mythbusting about the Spanish Civil War: although that section morphs into critical analysis of the work of Gabriel Jackson, not exactly top-of-mind for the book's main subject.

Probably better places to read the compiled sections (like, in the books they're from).

[L.A Margarita]

It is difficult to rate a book on a political ideology or philosophy, because one's own personal beliefs influence it. But this book was exactly what I was looking for: some understanding of anarchism, to go deeper than the surface where the common prejudices that anarchism is chaos lies.
It is a very informative book that includes interviews which makes it even more interesting.
I will definitely read more of Chomsky's work in the future.

[Alicja · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have to come back to this one after I learn more about the Spanish Revolution, because I couldn’t really grasp Chomsky’s thoughts on that without the historical background. So for now 3 stars- but it’s good.

[Oliver Clarke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hard going at times, but some fascinating insights

[kat · Rating 4 out of 5]

l’últim capítol es fa suuper llarg però crec q tothom l’hauria de llegir. 3.5

[Roysten Smit]

''Indeed, many commentators dismiss anarchism as utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incomptabile with the realities of a complex society. One might, however, argue rather differently: that at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival of economic development, but that now contribute to - rather than alleviate - material and cultural deficit.''

It's true, anarchism gets a bad rap because of its supposed utopianism and naivety. And of course, there would undeniably be a myriad of problems to face were society to implement its ideals, as we have seen from the past. But it's baffling to me that it's not considered at least equally wishful thinking to believe that capitalism could somehow save us from impending climate catastrophe, or even sustain its own ideals of a truly free market and mutual benefit. Alas, that probably comes down to the fact that, as Chomsky explains, the burden of proof for an argument against the status quo is always substantially heavier than for an argument in favor of the power structures we already hold to be self-evident.

As an aspiring historian, I particularly liked Part II of 'Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship'. Here, Chomsky deals with Gabriel Jackson's (mis)interpretation of the Spanish Revolution, brilliantly unveiling the (to anarchists all-too-familiar) betrayal by Communist forces in the process. In fact, Chomsky's assertion that the failure of the Spanish Revolution's collectives was not the result of incompetence or a clash between idealism and the complex reality of society, but rather repression by the bourgeois-Communist alliance of the Popular Front government, becomes even more convincing when looking at concurrent events taking place in the Soviet Union itself, where the kolkhozes (collective farms) were seen as subordinate to the ideal of sovkhozes (state farms) and collective ownership of the means of production thwarted by the state's machine tractor stations (MTS). The Communist response to anarchism in Spain also shouldn't come as a surprise to those familiar with the brutal repression of the Makhnovists in southern and eastern Ukraine by the Bolsheviks in the early 1920s.
Chomsky ascribes Jackson's interpretation of the Spanish Revolution to an elitist bourgeois-liberal bias in scholarship, though, as he himself makes clear, that’s only half of the story. To understand fully the bias in scholarship — and history in particular — against spontaneous actions such as those of the Spanish anarchists, we have to take into account the Marxist side of the equation too. I don’t think Chomsky, given his emphasis on historical objectivity, would consider himself a proponent of Hayden White’s philosophy of history, yet I believe White's observations in his 'The Politics of Historical Interpretation: Discipline and De-Sublimation' are quite relevant in this respect:

''And precisely insofar as historical reflection is disciplined to understand history in such a way that it can forgive everything or at best to practice a kind of ''disinterested interest" of the sort that Kant imagined to inform every properly aesthetic perception, it is removed from any connection with a visionary politics and consigned to a service that will always be anti-utopian in nature. Indeed, this is as true of a Marxist view of the way things are or have been in the past as it is of the bourgeois historian's concern with the study of the past "for itself alone.''...Marxism is anti-utopian insofar as it shares with its bourgeois counterpart the conviction that history is not a sublime spectacle but a comprehensible proces.''

[Zarbakht Arif · Rating 4 out of 5]

contemplating on becoming anarchist...

Humboldt:
"Man never regards what he possesses as so much his own, as what he does. The labourer who tends a garden is perhaps in a true sense, its owner, then the listless voluptuary who enjoys its fruits. In view of this consideration, it seems as if all peasants and craftsmen might be elevated to artists, that is, men who love their labour for its own sake , improve it by their own plastic genius and inventive skills, and thereby cultivate their intellect, ennoble their character, and exalt and refine their pleasure. Freedom is undoubtedly the indispensable condition for this, without which even the pursuits most congenial to individual human nature can never succeed in producing such salutary influences. Whatever does not spring from a man's free choice , or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very being, but remains alien to his true nature; he doesn't perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness."

[Josh Laws · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed 4 of the 5 essays in this collection. The 3rd essay on the Spanish Civil War seemed to be unfocused and not as relevant to the central theme of the book. Or maybe I just didn't get it (likely). Definitely a challenging read but not unapproachably so. Anarchism is a fascinating political philosophy and I enjoyed learning more about it.