It is of great significance to note that this book is a compilation of a series of interviews and essays by Noam on Anarchism.

For those who have been closely following Noam's work, it might seem that there is not much new in this. After all, most of Noam's thoughts on Anarchy as a political philosophy can be traced back to the 1970s and have not undergone significant changes.

However, this book makes for a great short read as it clarifies Noam's position on whether the goals of Anarchism are in opposition to the goals of democratic socialism or the welfare state. Noam has been vocal about these topics for the past decade.

In light of recent developments where the legitimacy of the welfare state has been called into question, Noam explains how his concept of Anarchy shares the same goal as a welfare state: ensuring that every child has the right to eat and every person has the right to healthcare.

This connection between Anarchism and the welfare state is an important aspect that this book brings to light, providing readers with a new perspective on Noam's ideas and their relevance in the current context.

Anarchism is often misunderstood. It is not chaos but a pure and decentralized form of democracy. As Chomsky explains, it is the truest form of socialistic democracy where power is decentralized, and any power structure must justify its existence or be dismantled. In fact, anarchism is libertarianism, but it's important to note that the Ayn Rand/neoliberal brand of libertarianism is a capitalist distortion where power is decentralized from the government to corporate plutocrats. Americans often mix up these two different forms of libertarianism.

Capitalism, in practice, is extremely authoritarian as it inevitably colludes with government power and militarization. Free markets are a neoliberal fantasy used to support a failing power structure and target political enemies. The right aims to subvert the federal government, atomize power into the states for control, and privatize everything. Adam Smith, contrary to popular belief, was quite liberal, and he would have detested the rent-seeking of labor and the enslavement of humanity. When a person has no choice but to rent their labor or starve, that is not true choice or freedom.

Socialism, like neoliberalism, can be bad if under tight state control, like communism which is state-capitalism with technocrats pulling the levers. Anarchism, on the other hand, seeks to tear down tyrannical power structures and spread power among the labor class. I could sum it up with a scenario where a person goes to work and uses their labor in an industry where they and their co-employees have partial ownership.

However, I still don't know what anarchism would look like in reality, and I don't think Chomsky does either. He admits it's a theory that needs to be socially tested like a scientific theory before refinement. As I finished the book, I became more convinced that wholesale belief in any one philosophy, whether anarchism or "free" markets, is fundamentally flawed. Being an ideologue means tearing down the current structure and starting fresh, which seems counterproductive and destructive with no guarantee of a better outcome. Instead, let's work with what we have and where we're at.

Let's be honest here, people!

Noam Chomsky is truly the only person alive who has the courage and the wisdom to speak publicly about the real (and dare I say the only) truths regarding the world order that exists and the one that should ideally be. He does this not for personal gain or to promote some baseless conspiracy theories or cheap ideologies. There is no trace of patronizing propaganda in his words. That is precisely why he doesn't receive the kind of publicity that others might. Because his theories are so profound and unassailable that they cannot be twisted or used against him.

This particular book serves as an excellent introduction, not only to the fundamental principles of anarchism but also to the idea of living in harmony within society. It does a remarkable job of making the reader shift their focus away from the false illusions and towards the real essence of things. I like to call this process enlightenment. It opens up a whole new world of understanding and challenges our preconceived notions, forcing us to think deeply and critically about the world we live in.

This is not an 'original' work. Instead, it is a small collection of various essays and interviews from Chomsky's career.

I think it intends 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.

I first became acquainted with Chomsky through the concept of Universal Grammar. I delved into his work during my graduate school days. However, it has taken me over a decade to view Chomsky as a political actor. While it is evident that he is highly intelligent and well-versed in his field, what truly undermines the credibility of his ideas for me is his assertion that postmodernism is insignificant.

He claims that he has never met anyone who could explain to him what Derrida was discussing within five minutes. I don't believe most people can achieve this, not even those who are fond of Derrida. This is because I think most individuals often lack clarity and become muddled with details. (In simple terms, Derrida opposes metaphysics. He critiques totalizing systems of meaning, of which metaphysics is just one, albeit the most common type. He also cites how, through différance, meaning is unstable and therefore incapable of being totalizing.)

Chomsky then contends that quantum mechanics and linguistics are highly technical and thus cannot be explained in five minutes either. He professes not to understand postmodernism/post-structuralism but fails to consider that it might also be technical. He does state that he would never attempt to explain linguistics in five minutes. However, I believe linguistics can indeed be explained within that time frame. It's not overly difficult, especially when it comes to Universal Grammar. One won't get into the intricate details, and people won't become experts, but it can be accomplished.

Similarly, quantum mechanics can also be explained in five minutes. It is not a theory per se but rather a set of mathematical conditions that describe the movements of sub-atomic particles in various models (such as Noether's theorem). In general, these models are constructed using statistics, where the super-position is simply a model of all possible positions. The confusion in quantum mechanics arises because scientists assume their models are transparent and thus mistake the results of their application as being exclusive properties of the objects they are studying. For instance, the wave-particle duality is a distraction as quantum scientists often don't consider how different measurement apparatuses present results differently due to the distinct conditions they set for satisfaction, thereby arriving at different arrangements.

Nevertheless, Chomsky contradicts himself within just a few pages regarding something that is philosophically straightforward. This leads me to believe that, despite having some profound truth to them, his political ideas are also suspect. Overall, I think this serves as a rather good introduction to Anarchy and Chomsky.

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. It provides a good starting point for understanding anarchist ideas and their implications. But it also leaves the reader with many questions that need further exploration. Overall, it's a thought-provoking and engaging read that I would highly recommend.

In honor of Noam Chomsky's 90th birthday (07/12/1928).

The more I get to know Chomsky, the more I consider him the greatest living intellectual and the more I find it unacceptable that not everyone agrees with him - at least on political issues since when it comes to linguistics I'm not such a fan.

Let's take the example of the last elections in Brazil where the majority of so-called anarchists didn't vote/annulled their vote because the state is evil regardless of who commands it. With this atrocious thought, an obviously ignorant fascist is elected instead of an educated and humanist professor. Do you think that in these conditions, sitting out is good for the people or for their huge ego? That's why these pseudo-anarchists who are sitting out and only thinking about their own outdated slogans should really listen to Chomsky's wisdom. I'm as anarchist as he is and fully agree with the dialogue he maintains with states that aim for social well-being. Obviously, we won't raise the awareness of the population overnight about the benefits of self-governance and the overthrow of the state. We can't even get them to stop being neo-fascists. That's why I think it's criminal on the part of these bourgeois anarchists to sit out in the face of fascism. They need Chomsky more in their lives. Everyone does.

He clarifies many things through his interviews.

Certainly, anarchism is not something specific. Generally, it is very interesting.

Anarchism is a complex and often misunderstood ideology. It encompasses a wide range of ideas and perspectives, which can make it difficult to define precisely.

Some anarchists advocate for the complete abolition of the state and all forms of authority, while others believe in more limited forms of governance.

Despite its differences, anarchism shares a common goal of creating a more just and equal society.

It challenges the traditional power structures and encourages individuals to take control of their own lives and communities.

Overall, anarchism is a thought-provoking and controversial ideology that continues to inspire debate and discussion.

'On Anarchism' is an extraordinary compilation that presents a plethora of extremely powerful and deeply thought-provoking ideas. Some of these ideas are borrowed from and credited to the great thinkers of the past, such as Rousseau, while others are the original contributions of Chomsky himself.

In 'Notes on Anarchism', he meticulously spells out the fundamental tenets of anarchist philosophy. In the process, he incisively dissects both the Capitalist and the Soviet-style Socialist economies, revealing that they can be equally perilous to society.

'Excerpts from Understanding Power' is a fascinating study in human behavior. It provides compelling evidence of the intense pressures to conform to the norm and the insidious ways in which dissident opinions are silenced in the mainstream media.

'Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship', the lengthiest chapter in the book, is perhaps the most captivating one as well. It delves into the Spanish Civil War, juxtaposing two radically different accounts of the same events. The mainstream liberal account of Gabriel Jackson, marred by a certain elitism, is contrasted with those of Orwell and Borkenau, who witnessed the upheaval firsthand. The disparities in the information passed on to future generations are enormous, to the extent that facts are distorted and the popular leaders of the masses, who were engaged in a dual battle against the Communist-dominated Republican Government and Franco's rebels, are antagonized. It is a vivid retelling of a major historical event that was brutally suppressed because it posed a genuine threat to all existing structures of power and hierarchy. The account offers a comprehensive historical, economic, and political study of human society, and provides some damning insights into the lengths we are capable of going to preserve the old world order.

The final chapter, 'Language and Freedom', sees Chomsky return to his familiar territory of linguistics. He offers yet another perspective on human behavior, exploring what freedom means in the context of the industrial and developing world. He also harks back to classic liberal ideas like those of Rousseau to understand and explain the consequences of "predatory capitalism".

If there ever was a book that could serve as a springboard for further exploration and understanding, then this is undoubtedly it. Not only does it introduce you to Chomsky's ideas, but it also showcases his writing style, which is both elegant and uncompromisingly comprehensive. Call me biased, as I am indeed in Chomsky's favor, but this book has undoubtedly made me hold him in even higher regard.

I have to come back to this one after I learn more about the Spanish Revolution.

This is because I couldn't really grasp Chomsky's thoughts on that without the historical background.

It is clear that a deeper understanding of the Spanish Revolution is essential to fully appreciate and understand Chomsky's perspective.

Currently, I can only give it 3 stars.

However, I must admit that it is still a good work.

It has piqued my interest and motivated me to learn more about this important historical event.

I look forward to revisiting this work and having a more comprehensive understanding of Chomsky's ideas once I have gained more knowledge about the Spanish Revolution.

I believe that this will enhance my appreciation of the work and allow me to give it a more accurate rating.

The last chapter is super long but I think everyone should read it.

It might seem a bit intimidating at first glance due to its length. However, within those many pages lies a wealth of valuable information and engaging content.

By taking the time to read through it, one can gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter and perhaps even discover new perspectives or ideas.

Although it may require some patience and dedication, the rewards of reading this long chapter are well worth it.

So, don't be deterred by its length and give it a chance. You might be surprised at what you find. 3.5

Nathan Schneider's introduction had an immediate impact on me, causing me to reevaluate working examples of mutual aid.

Chomsky's section on ‘defending the welfare state’ also left a particular impression. It made me think about the idea of abolishing state powers in the very distant future to prevent the transfer of the power we have in a deeply flawed system to corporations.

One of Schneider's early points about the collective amnesia of the anarchist legacy is something I perhaps need to explore more deeply. I found that the chapter about the Spanish anarchist tradition didn't quite lodge firmly in my mind. However, I'm hopeful that I can learn more about it and other anarchist movements through various forms of media, in addition to studying Marxist-Leninist socialist state structures.

The book was generally easy to read and understand, although I may need to review my philosophy knowledge and re-read the last chapter. Overall, it has provided me with much food for thought and has broadened my perspective on different political and social ideas.