I really enjoyed 4 out of the 5 essays in this collection.

The 3rd essay, which was about the Spanish Civil War, seemed a bit unfocused to me. It didn't seem to be as closely related to the central theme of the book as the other essays.

Maybe I just didn't understand it properly, which is quite likely.

This book is definitely a challenging read, but it's not so difficult that it's unapproachable.

Anarchism is a really fascinating political philosophy, and I got a lot of enjoyment from learning more about it through these essays.

Overall, I would recommend this collection to anyone who is interested in anarchism or political philosophy in general.

A good start is of great significance for a long journey.

It is like a bright guiding star that leads us in the right direction at the very beginning.

When we embark on a long path, whether it is a physical journey or a spiritual exploration, a positive and confident start can give us the necessary momentum and courage.

It sets the tone for the entire adventure and determines our initial mindset.

With a good start, we are more likely to overcome the difficulties and challenges that lie ahead, and move forward steadily towards our goals.

It is the foundation upon which we build our success and achievements.

So, always remember to make a good start, for it is the key to a fulfilling and rewarding long walk.

The two - speculation and action - must progress, as best they can, looking forward to the day when theoretical inquiry will provide a firm guide to the unending, often grim, but never hopeless struggle for freedom and social justice.

This book presented challenges in certain aspects. Specifically, when it came to the terminology that I was not familiar with, like the classical (now warped) notion of libertarianism. Also, in relation to the historical events of the Spanish Civil War.

However, this book was extremely eloquent and deeply intelligent. It was infused with humility and an honourable regard for fairness. As a result, it was entirely worth the read. Indeed, I find myself feeling quite uplifted and enhanced by it. I particularly appreciate the importance that the author places on the popularization of movements.

This is a brief summation of my sentiments throughout. I feel hope, inspiration, and motivation towards playing my part in the human struggle for freedom. One which, Chomsky never fails to assert, can only be completed in communion with our fellow human beings.

The book not only made me think deeply about various concepts but also reaffirmed my belief in the power of collective action and the pursuit of justice. It serves as a reminder that we all have a role to play in making the world a better place.

I look forward to further exploring these ideas and continuing my journey towards a greater understanding of freedom and social justice.

Chomsky on Anarchism is a remarkable compilation of essays and interviews. In it, Chomsky delves deep into the vast and intricate realm of anarchism and anarchist issues. He predominantly focuses on anarcho-syndicalism. There are indeed some excellent segments where he examines the role that anarchism played during the Spanish Civil War. Although this aspect has been well-documented by others for the experienced reader, it still holds great value. I found his remarks on Rousseau's Discourse of Equality to be fascinating. Additionally, Chapter 4, titled "The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism," is also quite engaging.

All in all, it is an extremely insightful collection. However, I do feel that the overall structure and composition of the book are a bit peculiar. The reader has to struggle through an incredibly dry first chapter to reach the more interesting parts. Nevertheless, as the chapters progress, the book becomes increasingly engaging for me. While I am aware that all of this material has been published elsewhere, it is truly convenient to have all of these thoughts gathered in one place. It allows for a more comprehensive and in-depth exploration of Chomsky's ideas on anarchism.

It is extremely challenging to assign a rating to a book that delves into a political ideology or philosophy. This is mainly because one's own personal beliefs and perspectives have a significant impact on the evaluation.

However, this particular book turned out to be precisely what I had been seeking. It provided me with some valuable insights into anarchism, allowing me to explore beyond the superficial layer where the common prejudices that anarchism equates to chaos prevail.

This book is truly a treasure trove of information. What makes it even more engaging is the inclusion of interviews. These interviews add a real-life dimension to the theoretical discussions, making the whole reading experience much more interesting and relatable.

After reading this book, I have made up my mind that I will definitely explore more of Chomsky's work in the future. I am eager to gain a deeper understanding of his ideas and perspectives on various political and social issues.

I believe that his works will continue to inspire and challenge me, helping me to develop a more informed and critical view of the world around me.

Hard going at times, but some fascinating insights. Life can often present challenges that make the journey seem arduous. There are moments when we feel like giving up, when the path ahead appears too difficult to traverse. However, it is precisely during these hard times that we have the opportunity to gain some truly fascinating insights.

These insights can come in many forms. They might be a new perspective on a problem, a deeper understanding of ourselves or others, or a realization about the true meaning and purpose of our actions. They can be the result of careful reflection, of learning from our mistakes, or of simply persevering through the tough times.

Although the going may be hard at times, we should not lose sight of the fact that these challenges are also opportunities for growth and discovery. By facing them head-on and remaining open to the insights that they offer, we can emerge stronger, wiser, and more fulfilled. So, let us embrace the hard times and look forward to the fascinating insights that await us.

A very good book on anarchism.

Noam Chomsky, as he always does, achieved his goal. I think that Chomsky finds politics harder to explain than linguistics. This may seem strange, but it is completely reasonable. Some predictions derived from his theory of natural languages can be experimentally tested. On the contrary, 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 a 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 a 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. It is a very enjoyable reading.

Overall, this book provides valuable insights into the complex and often misunderstood concept of anarchism. It challenges readers to think critically about freedom, oppression, and the role of government in society. Whether you are a student of political science, a social activist, or simply a curious reader, this book is definitely worth checking out.

A very interesting and enlightening book about anarchism and in a sense about democracy. It made me think and learn something as I was reading it. Chomsky didn't disappoint me this time either.

The book delves deep into the concepts of anarchism, exploring its various aspects and how it relates to different political and social systems. It presents a unique perspective that challenges the traditional notions of governance and power.

Chomsky's writing is engaging and thought-provoking. He uses clear and concise language to explain complex ideas, making it accessible to a wide range of readers.

Overall, this is a book that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in politics, philosophy, or social issues. It offers valuable insights and encourages readers to think critically about the world around them.

Chomsky writes for an audience that is already well-versed in his style of rhetoric.

He frequently refers to other historians and philosophers, providing lengthy quotes and detailed expositions.

He speaks in broad generalizations that sound appealing in theory, but I struggle to determine if any of his statements have practical significance in the complex reality.

After reading this book, I still lack a clear understanding of what anarchism truly is or isn't, aside from the fact that it might be libertarian socialism, but not the American variety of libertarianism, of course.

Damn it, what a tiresome read, 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 comprehension of what Chomsky was discussing.

The key lies in Chomsky's definition of anarchism as the stance that any claim where one entity positions itself in a position of authority above an individual (or other entity) must be justified.

Any exercise of power that deprives someone of autonomy is presumed to be illegitimate by default, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant of the power.

Significantly, this applies not only to government (as American libertarians might argue) but also to business, particularly for business owners or presidents, etc. when exerting control over workers.

It's possible that I'm an anarchist. I need to think about this. I've increased the rating to 3 stars, but it doesn't go higher because Chomsky is still dreadfully dull when it comes to history, and the largest chapter was a tiresome slog.

Chomsky's essay, a revised introduction to Guérin's Anarchism, quotes liberally from Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism. By nature, it's secondary, lacking much original analysis. However, it helps contextualize responses to Rocker's book. Anarchism, specifically Anarcho-Syndicalism, is a form of Socialism, contrary to preconceptions based on Marx and Lenin's views. Chomsky confirms it's a left-wing critique of Bolshevism, arguing it didn't pursue genuine Socialist goals enough. Anarchists opposed the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, seeing authority as the enemy of freedom. Chomsky seems protective of Marxism, distinguishing between Libertarian and Authoritarian forms. Bolshevism was Authoritarian, but Chomsky denies it was true to his advocated Marxism. The Marxist analysis of alienation of labor is fundamental to Anarcho-Syndicalism. Chomsky's analysis presents a more complete picture of an alternative to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, quoting Rocker and Santillan. He argues radical Marxism merges with anarchist currents and quotes Pannekoek to define Revolutionary Socialism. Earlier, he mentions that many dismiss Anarchism as utopian. His analysis contributes some form to the discussion, but whether this vision will be realized is questionable as it requires a Revolution, abolition of Private Property, and the ability to withstand a Counter-Revolution without the aid of the State or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

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."

So how best to introduce this book?

This is not really a book.

The introduction by Nathan Schneider is a demistifier, a general greeting of "do not be afraid, gentle traveler, we will not ask you to go raid the local police office." It is also not badly written and carries an interesting idea.

The first chapter of the book, "Notes on Anarchism," is quite interesting. Here enters Chomsky to explain what Anarchism is to him. He places his anarchism as a sibling if not a twin to libertarianism, and he distinguishes it from socialism, or state socialism rather. He introduces the thoughts of several thinkers, socialists and not, on the matter at hand. He does answer a lot of what anarchism is to him here and he replies to some of the most common objections as well.

The second chapter is excerpts from some sort of interview or lecture, in it Chomsky replies to some comments and questions relating to the subject matter.

The third chapter seems to be an article in reply to an account of the civil war in Spain with which Chomsky disagrees. Arguably relevant because of the anarchist element in the said war.

The fourth chapter is an interview with Chomsky about some of his ideas and experiences.

The fifth chapter is an essay on freedom and language.

For all intents and purposes, this is a bad book. And I am saying that based on the standards of this very book, based on the objectives I imagine it sets for itself. This book taught me little about anarchism, would teach little to people who know nothing about anarchism, and does little to counter the opponents of anarchism. In short, this is not a serious book "on Anarchism." I would argue that it should be named "some thoughts relating to Anarchism" or something of the sort.

However, I do not say I principally disagree with Chomsky on his ideas regarding Anarchism. To Chomsky, anarchism is mostly the questioning of illegitimate authority. It is not chaos, and it is not the senseless abolition of the state. To him it is in a sense being a true classical liberal or a libertarian socialist. He opposes capitalism and wage slavery but also any authoritarian version of the state. His aim is maximum individual liberty. He is in that sense as much an opponent of Marxist-Leninists as he is an opponent of neoliberals.

His view opens itself up to various objections which he doesn't even acknowledge. To add to that, the objections he does acknowledge he mostly replies to half-heartedly with a wave of hand. I would say that this is what I found most disappointing in this book, but then again, this is not really a book in that sense. This is not a serious book about anarchism with strong anarchist arguments. In a sense this is a form of "pop politics" book with which people can entertain themselves about anarchism or an entry point to delve deeper, but no more.

I exaggerate somewhat, but this was a disappointing read, better replaced by a YouTube video.

Funnily enough, my favorite chapters of the book are the one about the Spanish Civil War, an event of which I know little and have always wanted to read on, and the chapter on language and freedom which was cohesive, enlightening and entertaining to the end.

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. This means that a generation disillusioned with the present Oligarchy, and also with the tired alternatives of state socialism or capitalist liberalism, are drawn to anarchy as an open-ended alternative. However, “anarchist amnesia,” purposely cultivated by the state and its institutions, threatens to kill off this revived interest in its infancy. Schneider writes about the young anarchist in the Occupy movement, saying that 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. 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. A woman points out that there’s a separate meaning of the word anarchy different from the one Chomsky often talks about, namely chaos. Chomsky responds that 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. He says that 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.