I can still remember very clearly that school day many years ago when we were first told about anarchism, and how I thought "and who could not want this?". The more years pass, the more convinced I become, and the more it shocks me to see the world so horrible in so many aspects that we have.

That's why it's interesting to read someone like Chomsky, a real optimist when it comes to changing the social order, and who in this book seems to us often of thought and action. Extremely interesting is the chapter on the Spanish Civil War, which inevitably leads me to take out from the pile "Homage to Catalonia", and to see once again how the discourse of History is manipulated.

Chomsky's ideas and his analysis of various social and political issues offer a fresh perspective. His belief in the possibility of a better world through collective action and resistance is inspiring. Reading his works makes me think about the power we have as individuals to make a difference and to challenge the existing systems that are often unjust and oppressive.

Moreover, the example of the Spanish Civil War shows how history can be rewritten and distorted to serve the interests of certain groups. It is important for us to be critical thinkers and to question the official narratives in order to get a more accurate understanding of the past and to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

I have not completed this book, yet I am done with it.

How can a book of such brevity be such a tiresome read? I'm giving up. It mainly focuses on the Spanish Civil War, which is at least relevant. However, I have the feeling that if one doesn't already possess some hazy background knowledge, this is not an ideal means to learn about it. Additionally, it's not really a great way to understand anarchism either. I truly have no idea for whom this book is intended at all.

Perhaps the author assumed a certain level of prior knowledge from the readers. Or maybe the subject matter was just too complex to be effectively presented in such a concise format. Whatever the reason, it has left me disappointed and frustrated.

I had hoped to gain some valuable insights into both the Spanish Civil War and anarchism, but unfortunately, this book has failed to deliver on that front. I will now have to look elsewhere for more comprehensive and engaging resources on these topics.

My knowledge regarding the Spanish civil war is rather limited, which inevitably means that some details will escape my understanding. However, this is entirely my own shortcoming.

I have come across more comprehensive and detailed versions of Chomsky's remarks in other places, and these are precisely what I have been seeking.

The Spanish civil war was a complex and significant event in history, and my lack of in-depth knowledge prevents me from fully grasping its nuances.

Nevertheless, I am eager to learn more and expand my understanding through further study and exploration.

Chomsky's remarks offer valuable insights and perspectives that can help me gain a better understanding of this historical period.

I hope to continue my research and uncover more of the hidden details and stories behind the Spanish civil war.

Left me with a sense of longing. The text was rather concise, and a couple of the essays were somewhat difficult for me to fully comprehend. Nevertheless, I managed to highlight a significant amount. Here are some samples:

"At every stage of history, our focus must be on dismantling those forms of authority and oppression that have endured from an era when they might have been justifiable in terms of the need for security, survival, or economic development. However, they now contribute to rather than alleviate material and cultural deficiencies."

"It would be challenging to find a practical model of an ideal. True, but in the eighteenth century, it would have been equally difficult to find a working model of a political democracy - yet that didn't prove its impossibility. By the nineteenth century, it indeed existed. Unless one believes that human history has come to an end, stating 'it's not around' is not a valid argument. Go back two hundred years, and it was hard to envision the abolition of slavery."

"Solving human problems is not the essence of socialism; rather, socialism is an attempt to bring you to a point where you can confront human problems."

"I hold a rather conservative stance towards social change: since we are dealing with complex systems that are not well understood by anyone, the sensible approach, I believe, is to make changes and then observe the consequences - and if they are effective, make further modifications. This is actually true across the board."

"The core of the anarchist tradition, as I perceive it, is that power is always illegitimate unless it can prove its legitimacy."

Chom is an incredibly smart individual.

He has a remarkable ability to understand complex concepts with ease.

His intelligence is not only limited to academic knowledge but also extends to practical problem-solving.

Chom can quickly analyze a situation and come up with effective solutions.

He is constantly seeking new challenges to expand his intellectual boundaries.

Whether it's learning a new language, mastering a new skill, or delving into a new field of study, Chom approaches every task with enthusiasm and determination.

His sharp mind and quick wit make him a valuable asset in any team or situation.

People around him are always impressed by his intelligence and the way he uses it to achieve his goals.

Chom's smartness is truly an inspiration to those who know him.

So, I don't feel in a position

—and even if I felt I was, I wouldn't say it—to know what the long-term results are going to look like in any kind of detail:

those are things that will have to be discovered, in my view. Instead, the basic principle 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.

For instance, when you stop your five-year-old kid from trying to cross the street, that's an authoritarian situation: it's got to be justified. Well, in that case, I think you can give a justification.

But 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: they have no moral justification, they have no justification in the interests of the person lower in the hierarchy, or in the interests of other people, or the environment, or the future, or the society, or anything else—they're just there in order to preserve certain structures of power and domination, and the people at the top.

So I think that whenever you find situations of power, these questions should be asked—and the person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can't justify it, it's illegitimate and should be dismantled.

To tell you the truth, I don't really understand anarchism as being much more than that. As far as I can see, it's just the point of view that says that people have the right to be free, and if there are constraints on that freedom then you've got to justify them. Sometimes you can—but of course, anarchism or anything else doesn't give you the answers about when that is. You just have to look at the specific cases.

This perspective emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and questioning the status quo. We should not blindly accept authority but rather demand justifications for its existence and actions. By doing so, we can ensure that power is not abused and that the rights and freedoms of individuals are protected.

Noam Chomsky provides a nice short introduction to anarchist thought. However, it seems that some prior knowledge of anarchism and other ideologies is presupposed.

The first part of the book initially struck me as a little incoherent. It didn't feel like an ideal way to commence.

Nevertheless, the part about objectivity and liberal scholarship was a pleasant surprise. Here, the author examines the Spanish revolution of 1936 and how it has been portrayed by scholars.

Chomsky writes in a relatively accessible manner and presents his arguments clearly. Overall, it's a decent little book that offers valuable insights into anarchist thought, despite its minor flaws in the beginning. It serves as a useful starting point for those interested in exploring this particular ideological perspective.

Book is a truly remarkable compilation of articles and interviews.

It delves into a wide range of issues, commencing with the definition of anarchism and an in-depth explanation of the true nature of this concept.

The book also undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the links between anarchism, libertarianism, and socialism, uncovering and dispelling some common fixed cliches.

Moreover, it offers profound insights into the Kibbutz experiment, engages in discussions about the welfare state, and, of course, features a significant portion dedicated to the discussion of the Spanish Revolution, exploring its meaning and legacy.

Consequently, for anyone desiring to gain a better understanding and orientation in political ideologies, this book is indeed a precious 'godsend', providing a wealth of knowledge and thought-provoking perspectives.

Enjoyable read on some of Chomsky's thoughts. I particularly relished the chapters that were based on prior interviews of Chomsky as it addressed a few of my inquiries.

Indeed, Chomsky posits that every form of authority, domination, and hierarchy, every authoritarian structure, must demonstrate its justifiability as it has no inherent prior justification. For example, when one halts a five-year-old child from attempting to cross the street, that represents an authoritarian situation that requires justification. In that case, I believe a justification can be provided. However, the onus of proof for any exercise of authority always lies with the person exerting it - invariably. And when one examines, most of the time, these authority structures lack justification. They possess no moral justification, no justification in the interests of the individual lower in the hierarchy, or in the interests of others, or the environment, or for the future, or society, or anything else. They merely exist to preserve certain structures of power and domination, and the individuals at the top.

One remarkable achievement of the 18th century was the establishment of the concepts and, to some extent, even the fundamental forms of political democracy. This included safeguarding the rights of individuals against authoritarian rule.

However, it remains an unaccomplished objective to extend democracy beyond the limited sphere where it partially operates to encompass all aspects of social and economic life. This would involve genuine control by producers over production and investment, as well as the eradication of hierarchical and dominant structures within the state system, the private economy, and much of social life.

The record of anarchist ideas, and even more so, the inspiring struggles of those who have strived to free themselves from oppression and domination, must be cherished and preserved. This is not to freeze thought and conception in a new mold but rather as a foundation for understanding social reality and dedicated work to transform it. There is no justification for assuming that history has reached its conclusion or that the current structures of authority and domination are immutable.

- Noam Chomsky (On Anarchism, 151-152).

I would caution potential readers before purchasing this book. It is largely a compilation of essays that have already been published in Chomsky's works. More precisely, "On Anarchism" contains sections and/or essays from "For Reasons of State," "Towards A New Cold War," and also "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship."

In 2022, I regarded myself as a libertarian. Drawn in by the ideals of human freedom and an adolescent allure towards the anti-establishment spirit, I perused articles on the non-aggression principle and zealously defended capitalism on reddit and twitter.

Fast-forward a few years, and the real world delivered a rather harsh awakening regarding that thing capitalists so frequently proclaim as the failure of socialism - human nature. The truth is that capitalism rewards the very worst aspects of human nature, as I was increasingly coming to realize.

Contrary to my idealistic thoughts, a system that exploits the worst of human nature does not result in a more prosperous society - it simply cannot. Rewarding selfishness gives rise to more selfishness. And I had been deceived by the concept of a meritocracy, the idea that America, and capitalism more generally, was a meritocracy, or that a free society is feasible when capital governs our lives and political systems.

Now, I don't even believe that meritocracy is an ideal worth aspiring to at all (because why should unchangeable ability ensure some people a better life than others?), but that's beside the point. The point I'm attempting to make in all this rambling is that over the years, I've left the right-wing libertarian scene and discovered an area of political philosophy that more closely aligns with my values - libertarian socialism, or anarchism.

I came across this book filled with incisive insights that seemed to express every conclusion I'd reached on my own, and through my previous reading of books like Orwell's Homage to Catalonia (which Chomsky mentions several times in this essay collection). It's far from a comprehensive introduction to the ideas of left-wing libertarianism, but it's valuable for anyone interested in contemplating a system that maximizes freedom without falling into the snares of state tyranny or capitalist manipulation.

I was perhaps most intrigued by the invocation of classical liberal thinkers, whom I'd previously only associated with the right wing. It was indeed the ideas of classical liberalism and the freedoms they advocated that had formerly attracted me to the right wing. But the argument Chomsky presents is that classical liberalism is hampered by capitalism due to the way capitalist systems lead to an imbalance of power, between the haves and have-nots, and the way it pushes people towards wage-slavery rather than a true realization of freedom and humanity.

I also found the argument for why anarchists should still support government interventions in our current society, such as those advocated by democratic socialists and even proponents of market capitalism with safety nets - because in the short-term it benefits the vulnerable members of society, even if the long-term goal shouldn't be centralized control or a planned economy like the one that failed so spectacularly in the USSR.

It's still challenging to envision a world different from the one we have now, but I'm certainly interested in continuing to learn about the ways in which we might shape it.

'Chomsky on Anarchism' by Noam Chomsky is an engaging collection that encompasses a variety of interviews and essays. It delves into numerous topics, all of which are intertwined with social conditions, change, and the future of human societies. Comprising eleven chapters, including five essays, five interviews, and one introduction to a book, it offers more insights than initially anticipated. It contains several surprises that have enlightened me about the thoughts of a man I have extensively read and heard about in recent years. Much of the content was familiar to me, such as his quotations of Rousseau and Dewey, and the essay 'Containing the Threat of Democracy'. I had long been acquainted with these ideas, having first heard them in speeches that attracted me to this professor. Now, reading them in print was a different experience. However, there were still plenty of novel ideas.

Perhaps the most valuable message I, as an anarchist, gleaned from the book is the importance of constantly being vigilant about the existing conditions and, based on that, determining the appropriate course of action. I was initially puzzled when reading that Chomsky asserts that anarchists' long-term goals should involve maintaining and even strengthening the state sector as a means of undermining the corporate sector, which wields significant control. This seemed contradictory to my understanding of the anarchist principle, which was to abolish the state sector and distinguish the anarchist tradition from socialism. However, upon further contemplation, the reasoning becomes rather straightforward, and Chomsky himself elaborates on this statement in the next chapter.

As Dewey pointed out, and Chomsky is known to quote, "government is the shadow perpetuated by big business". With this in mind, one realizes that the state sector is a means of power directly connected, albeit perhaps not too influentially, to the corporate sector. The former requires the latter for protection and thus has no intention of eliminating it. If the state sector were to further diminish or completely withdraw from public life and influence, it would undoubtedly lead to the rise of complete power and autonomy of the public sector, leaving the business sector to thrive without any accountability, essentially resulting in totalitarianism.

The lesson is clear: do not adhere blindly to dogma but be flexible and open to taking appropriate actions based on each specific set of circumstances. Although it may seem contrary to anarchist principles, eliminating the state at this time would severely undermine the ability of any movement to achieve freedom in a meaningful way. Strengthening the state sector by anarchists with the right ideals can be a means of weakening the authority of corporate influence, which hopefully will be a step towards liberation from both.