In a lot of ways, this book gives the impression of being a remix. Virtually all of the material it contains is sourced from either around 1970 or around 2002. However, the commentaries are presented side by side in a timeless and unending flow of anarchist thought and analysis. I actually quite like this aspect. I believe it demonstrates both Chomsky's certainty and the thoughtfulness of the editors (and perhaps Chomsky himself) in the selection of the material.

At the end of the day, one has to pose the question: Who is the intended audience? With a price tag of $16 for just 140 neatly curated pages of Chomsky's work... I highly doubt that those who are simply curious about anarchism would be willing to pay such a price for so little content. So, presumably, it is people like me, who already know that they will enjoy what is inside. At this point, I can't help but feel that I'm being taken for a ride. It's like a Chomsky Greatest Hits compilation.

If you have already read any other works by Chomsky, you can probably skip this one. If you are looking to start reading Chomsky, there are better entry points available.

This text presents a rather interesting situation.

It describes something as a "goldmine of extremely well articulated ideas." This implies that there is a wealth of excellent and clearly expressed concepts within it.

However, it also mentions that it is "mostly way too dry to read." This means that despite the quality of the ideas, the presentation or style of the text is lacking in the ability to engage the reader.

Perhaps the language used is overly technical or formal, making it difficult for the average person to get through.

It could be that the author focused so much on presenting the ideas accurately that they neglected to make the reading experience more enjoyable.

As a result, while the content may be valuable, it may not reach as wide an audience as it could if it were more accessible and engaging.

Overall, this text highlights the importance of not only having great ideas but also presenting them in a way that is interesting and easy to understand.

Cheers, Noam!

I guess I'm into anarchism now. Anarchism is a political philosophy that challenges the traditional notions of authority and government. It advocates for a society without a centralized state, where individuals are free to make their own decisions and govern themselves.

Embracing anarchism means questioning the existing power structures and seeking alternative ways of organizing society. It encourages us to think about how we can live in a more just and equal world, without the need for a hierarchical system.

While anarchism may seem radical to some, it has a long and rich history. Many great thinkers and activists have been inspired by anarchist ideals and have worked towards creating a more libertarian society.

So, here's to exploring the world of anarchism and seeing where this newfound interest takes me!

This is a compilation consisting of several articles, book introductions, speech transcripts, and interviews.

The issue at hand is that this format often leads to a fair amount of repetition. Particularly, the introductions and some of the articles tend to cover largely the same territory. I can't help but think that synthesizing them into a new article would be far more valuable than reading several slightly different ones.

The highlight was "Containing the Threat of Democracy", which was one of the lengthier articles and delved into more aspects than the others. Regrettably, it's also an article where Chomsky's politics clash with my own. Specifically, his unqualified defense of freedom of speech, where if you don't defend hate speech and abuse (he specifically mentions the right of the KKK to march with signs like "burn the n*****" and "send the Jews back to Israel"), you're labeled a fascist or a Stalinist. Sorry, Noam, but it's not that straightforward, and there should be room for the understanding that unrestricted free speech can, in itself, limit the freedom of others.

(I've disabled comments because six years after reading this, I'm still receiving comments from liberals attempting to explain why I'm wrong. Sorry, but liberal defenses 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 favor of lynching to change their minds, and I have no interest in hearing from people whose 'principles' are so easily influenced.)

My favorite piece: "Anarchism and Libertarianism"

Anarchism and libertarianism are two concepts that have intrigued and inspired many. Anarchism advocates for a society without a centralized government, where individuals are free to govern themselves and make decisions based on their own will. Libertarianism, on the other hand, emphasizes individual liberty and minimal government interference in various aspects of life, such as the economy and personal freedoms.

Both anarchism and libertarianism share the common goal of maximizing individual freedom and minimizing the power and control of the state. They believe that individuals are capable of self-governance and that a society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual respect can function effectively without the need for a coercive government. However, there are also some differences between the two. Anarchism tends to be more radical in its approach, advocating for the complete abolition of the state, while libertarianism may support a limited form of government that enforces property rights and contracts.

Overall, the ideas of anarchism and libertarianism offer an alternative perspective on society and governance, challenging the traditional view that a strong central government is necessary for social order and progress. Whether one fully subscribes to these ideas or not, they are certainly worthy of study and consideration as we strive to create a more just and free society.

Noam is indeed a comforting writer. His clear argumentation and judicious use of the word "like" are as impressive as always.

The analysis of how capitalism is actually the opposite of freedom and "libertarianism" as perceived by liberal philosophers and economists is extremely compelling. Additionally, Noam's mythbusting about the Spanish Civil War is also remarkable. However, it should be noted that that section morphs into a critical analysis of the work of Gabriel Jackson, which is not exactly the top priority for the book's main subject.

Perhaps there are better places to read the compiled sections, such as in the books they originally came from. This way, readers can gain a more in-depth understanding of the specific topics and the context in which they were written.

Overall, Noam's work offers valuable insights and challenges our traditional understandings, but it also requires careful consideration and further exploration.

There Is No Benign Power

If you assume that anarchism implies an endorsement of chaos, it's time to think differently. Anarchism is simply the repudiation of the concept that there exists a completely legitimate origin for power (Greek = without origin). Whether power is ultimately attributed to having its source in God, the gods, The People, or genetic inheritance, it will inevitably and ubiquitously be misused by those who possess it. Consequently, the core principle of anarchism is that power must be constantly interrogated and challenged to demonstrate that it is not operating in its own self-interests.

Noam Chomsky has dedicated his life to provoking the powerful - academics, politicians, corporate executives, civil servants, in essence, The Establishment. As a result, many individuals do not favor him and attempt their utmost to relegate him to the status of yesterday's news.

Nevertheless, Chomsky's profound message holds greater significance today than ever before: Never, under any circumstances, trust power, regardless of who wields it or the political or economic system within which it is exercised; always hold it accountable through any available means.

"On Anarchism" serves as a kind of reflective handbook to assist you on your journey.

Noam Chomsky has always been an author worthy of the highest praise.

His works are not only highly informative and surprisingly engaging but also extremely interesting. He is among the rare intellectuals who can seamlessly blend information and entertainment, without coming across as overly self-important or like a mere comedian.

This small compilation contains an essay on modern anarchism, two excerpts from interviews, two other essays related to anarchism, and an extensive bibliography. The version I read also had an introduction by Nathan Schneider, which was very insightful. While the titular essay takes center stage, the other sections are equally informative and entertaining, nicely supplementing "On Anarchism." It was a pleasant surprise to see someone not only state their beliefs but also showcase themselves defending and discussing them.

Noam Chomsky's vision of an anarchist future is not a chaotic world with 7 billion people in a mosh pit. Instead, it is a world of greater understanding and self-reliance. He does not shy away from socialist overtones and Marxist ideologies. On the contrary, he embraces and modifies them to make them work in the real world. This defies the stereotype and challenges the norm.

Anarchy is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. The internet defines it as a state of disorder due to the absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems, with synonyms like lawlessness, chaos, and turmoil. However, this perception is far from accurate, especially when it comes to the concept of Anarchism.

  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 one tries to grasp the exact terminology. It seems that the modern people's perception about Anarchism is somehow misleading and distorted due to massive political propaganda or what's in the book. For example, Chomsky refers to right-wing libertarianism as "an aberration" nearly unique to the US, a theory of "a world built on hatred" that would self-destruct in three seconds.

  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 from 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 disputes the traditional fault lines between anarchism and socialism. Here are a few excerpts of his writing about the notion of anarchism to better express the understanding of Anarchism without conflicting 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 is very useful as an introduction to Noam Chomsky's political view and a touchstone for political dissidents like me who like to question authority. It is essential for everyone who is curious about Chomsky's thought and wants to explore more on the aspect of the historical development of socialism thoughts and anarchism. I personally found the chapter of "Language and Freedom" quite intriguing, as it broadened my perspective on the philosophical human nature existence.

It is not a proper book, but rather a rather disjointed collection of essays and other pieces. I find myself in complete agreement with all of Chomsky's ideas. However, the reading experience was extremely dry. The way this collection is put together is something that I didn't like at all. The lack of a cohesive structure makes it difficult to follow and engage with the content. Each piece seems to stand alone without a clear connection to the others. It feels more like a random assortment of thoughts and writings rather than a unified whole. As a result, it is hard to fully appreciate and understand the depth and significance of Chomsky's ideas. Despite my agreement with his views, the presentation of this material leaves much to be desired.

The book is smooth and serves as an introduction to this idea.

The part regarding the Spanish Civil War requires the reader to have some background knowledge about it.

This conflict was a significant event in Spanish history, with profound political, social, and cultural implications.

It pitted different factions against each other, resulting in a great deal of destruction and loss of life.

Understanding the context and causes of the Spanish Civil War is essential for a more comprehensive understanding of the book and the ideas it presents.

By providing this background information, the author helps the reader to better appreciate the significance of the events and themes discussed in the text.

Overall, the book offers a valuable exploration of an important topic, and the inclusion of the Spanish Civil War as a central element adds depth and complexity to the narrative.

The Key Book for Every 'I Don't Believe in the State' Starter Pack. Non-ironically drinking coffee and reading this on the VERANDA is something that everyone should experience at some point because it brings a quite adequate level of self-loathing.

In essence, this is a collection of excerpts from some other works of Chomsky, on the topics of anarchism and original libertarianism. These excerpts vary in quality: the part on the Spanish Civil War is first-rate anarchist historiography; the two interviews are interesting portrayals of Chomsky as a speaker (and in a way a preacher); the last part on the topic of 'Language and Freedom' could easily be renamed just 'Freedom' because Chomsky hardly explores that connection in those twenty or so pages. It seemed to me like an introduction to some other, more comprehensive and serious reading. My stance on anarchism remained more or less the same - a movement closely associated with privileged intellectualism and (unfortunately) far from reality. I would have liked Chomsky to deal more with why it is exactly like that, why it turned out this way, and less with anti-capitalist masturbation.

4-