This is a revealing little volume published for the “anarcho-curious.” As I read the introduction by Nathan Schneider, I realized I am part of this circle of readers. We are trying to figure out how much or how little we have gained from the 300-year period of state capitalism and what the future direction should be. “Anarchism” in Chomsky’s various formulations is an interesting path for envisioning a long-term future based on mutual aid, fairness, and suspicion of both capitalist and state forces. In 2020, I often thought, as Chomsky says, that the biggest problem with American conservative thought was its lack of distrust in capitalists. Trust should be within an ethical framework that values humanity, nature, dignity, respect, life, and getting people out of poverty.

Schneider says Chomsky is valuable because he is a bridge to earlier progressive thinkers like Orwell, and to the labor movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as the Spanish anarchosyndicalist movements. We all live in a state of “amnesia,” constantly reinventing our approach to state capitalism and making the same mistakes. The opening essay, “Notes on Anarchism,” is valuable as Chomsky recommends what to read and think about. Anarchism is a form of socialism that sets freedom as the central purpose. Chomsky’s principle that every form of authority has to prove its justification appeals to me on multiple levels.

Some of the best material is from interviews. Chomsky joked about not being invited on national TV for lacking “concision.” In his written essays, he does tend to overuse long quotes. But in interviews, he is warm, clear, and insightful. I especially admired his answer to a woman in the audience about defending welfare programs. He said that while anarchists envision dismantling state power, right now we must defend and strengthen certain elements of state authority. This idea of being patient and building on the history of political institutions while working towards more meaningful participation applies to more than just the welfare state. We can also see the need for major development projects in impoverished regions of the world.
Chomsky’s opinion that we solve practical problems first while envisioning new ways of being free in the future is connected to his reflections on language as a model of freedom within structure. Overall, this volume is worth reading. It invites us to be optimistic and practical, and to re-think and refine our sense of freedom. Whether or not we call ourselves “anarchists,” we can benefit from this exploration.

This is an interesting group of essays.

However, it suffered from a somewhat disjointed structure. Despite this, getting through it all was a breeze nonetheless.

The essays presented a variety of perspectives and ideas, which made it engaging to read.

Nevertheless, the lack of a coherent structure sometimes made it difficult to follow the flow of the arguments.

Perhaps with some reorganization and better transitions, the essays could have been even more effective.

Overall, it was an enjoyable read, but there is definitely room for improvement in terms of structure.

Nonetheless, the interesting content and diverse viewpoints make it worth exploring further.

Agradable lectura, which delves into the limits of freedom and the influence of power and the State. It also vividly describes, as an experience, the critical and violent repressive actions of the communist party towards the anarchist movement during the Spanish Civil War. It shows how the Western countries, supposedly defenders of freedom, were more concerned about the triumph of the Spanish social revolution - of freedom - than that of Franco's fascists.

This account provides a unique perspective on a complex and often overlooked aspect of history. It makes us question the true nature of freedom and the role that different political forces play in shaping it. By examining the actions of the communist party and the attitudes of the Western countries, we can gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and contradictions that exist in the pursuit of freedom.

Overall, this article offers a thought-provoking and engaging exploration of freedom, power, and the State, and is well worth reading for anyone interested in history and politics.

2.8 ⭐️

In my particular edition of the book, it contains "On Anarchism" along with 5 interview excerpts. I would highly recommend reading this book as an excellent introduction to anarchism and the influential figure of Chomsky. It provides a valuable starting point for those who are interested in exploring these topics. However, it is important to note that in the end, it is just that - an introduction. While it offers a good overview, I firmly believe that there are other books available that are more ideologically profound and can offer a deeper understanding of anarchism. These other works can help to further expand one's knowledge and perspective on this complex and fascinating ideology.

This is my third encounter with his works. Last year, I delved into "who rules the world?" and prior to that, I struggled to finish "Hegemony or Survival". I'm still not fully accustomed to his ideas, but I've found this concise piece truly beneficial.

Nathan Schneider deserves some credit for the light-hearted introduction that took me almost a week to read. It comprehensively previewed what was in store without revealing the profound depth of thought that Chomsky would explore to not only explain but also dissect anarchism.

I've retained in my mind his most fundamental and traditional definition of anarchism: "...democratic control of communities, of workplaces, of federal structures, built on systems of voluntary association, spreading internationally..."

If I'm not mistaken, what perhaps sets Chomsky apart from other anarchists is his stance on working within the current system, which isn't exactly pro-socialism. He makes this clear in one of the interviews transcribed in this book.

Moreover, to provide a comprehensive perspective on what anarchism means and how it could be a successful vision for society, he detailed the Spanish revolution to illustrate the anarchist experience in Barcelona and Valencia... Something that always intrigued Orwell.

What I likely appreciate most about his books is the clarity and the extent of details he provides to trace historical facts or logically explain his points. He claims that this is essential for him to not only be understood but also to answer his unpopular opinions. For example, if he labels Kadhafi as a terrorist, he doesn't feel the need for evidence, but when accusing George Bush of the same, he is expected to demonstrate why.

I won't lie; I miss the philosophical meanderings along the existential path and the time and courage I had to pick up a copy of "De l'esprit des lois" and follow Montesquieu's lengthy demonstrations. This book has just satisfied that longing. I almost forgot about Fourier and his valuable contributions to urban planning theories, such as flexing urban/rural layouts for buildings called phalanstère to serve his vision of a society, his utopia.

I must admit that I have a deep respect for anyone who has the epiphany of a utopia, persists in believing in it, and theorizes about it scientifically. Those visionaries are my goals. Proudhon too... Which perhaps says more than enough about Françoise Choay. She delightfully described their era as "l'urbanisme progressiste", and I have to admit that "Le Corbusier's Chartes d'Athènes" seemed like a pamphlet, almost a commercial, next to their rich treaties. But let's not judge the man too harshly; let's give him some credit for trying.

"Nobody's smart enough to design a society, you've got to experiment."

In any case, another important notion that was extensively discussed to my delight was freedom and authority. In a nutshell, according to anarchists, authority must be legitimate, meaning justified. If not, it shouldn't exist at all. Meanwhile, freedom is the very essence of being human. You should enjoy total freedom to explore whatever you think you want, rather than living under wage slavery.

In short, the man is not a radical. He simply wants you to think for yourself and imagine what it means to be free.

And honestly, I closed the book with more questions than answers, so I'll just put him out of my mind for a while now.

The bonus was his talk on Language and Freedom, where he established one heck of a connection!

I'd read a few books by Noam Chomsky, who has increasingly become one of my favorite writers and thinkers over the years. He is truly one of the brightest minds of our time. Besides his numerous volumes of persuasive and influential political commentary, he is also a legendary linguist.

However, I still didn't know what he actually believed. I think one reason for this mystery is that he is short on opinions and long on facts, which I admire. I read this book, a collection of his writings and talks about anarchism, because I wanted to hear his opinions and his visions for the kind of government he wants, since I know he's not a big fan of ours.

The book delivered, but it did so in true Chomsky style - short on opinions and long on facts, which made it frustrating. He seems to randomly inject long monologues on world history. Sometimes I had trouble seeing why these monologues supported his opinions.

Thankfully, the book improved as it went along. The mystery was solved in Goals and Visions. By then, he'd said in no uncertain terms that the ideal society is anarchistic, specifically anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian socialism, and that illegitimate power structures should be dismantled. However, his short-term goal is to actually strengthen government in ways that "impede the dedicated efforts to roll back the progress that has been achieved in extending democracy and human rights." These dedicated efforts are corporations, what he calls "private tyrannies." He acknowledges that his visions and goals contradict each other.

Although I do understand better what Chomsky stands for, I feel more lost than ever about anarchism. It's not simply a chaotic lack of government, but a general distrust of authority and power. What would anarchy look like? How would it work? How would we get there? These questions still perplex me, so I've added some books to my list that I hope will help me answer them.

Another slap in the face for anyone who thinks they know about any political ideation and principles that our states are founded upon.

It is truly remarkable how often we assume we have a comprehensive understanding of the political concepts and ideals that form the basis of our states. However, as Chomsky's teachings so often remind us, we are frequently proven wrong.

Chomsky's insights offer a great teaching session, challenging our preconceived notions and forcing us to reevaluate our understanding. His work delves deep into the complex web of political ideation, uncovering hidden truths and exposing the flaws in our assumptions.

By listening to Chomsky and engaging with his ideas, we can gain a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the political landscape. This, in turn, can help us to make more informed decisions and take more effective action in the pursuit of a just and democratic society.

So, the next time you think you know all there is to know about political ideation and principles, remember Chomsky's teachings and be prepared to have your assumptions challenged.

This book is a compilation of several of Chomsky's key writings and speeches, which captures the essence of his anarchist thought.

To Chomsky, anarchism is a political theory that regards all systems of power and authority as inherently illegitimate. The onus of proving the legitimacy of power lies solely with those who claim it. Although Chomsky's vision of an anarchist state is skeptical of any centralized form of authority, it is not lawless or chaotic. Instead, in an anarchist state, people engage in creative enterprises through free association, rather than being dictated by a higher authority or necessity. Labor is no longer just "wage slavery" but something that one undertakes out of passion and free will. Freedom in all aspects - political, economic, social, ideological, etc. - is the cornerstone of an anarchist state or society.

However, Chomsky is fully cognizant of the challenges his vision presents. He identifies and addresses the major issue with anarchism - its viability. Has there ever been an anarchist society or state in history? Is it merely an unattainable fantasy or something that can work in our complex world? For Chomsky, an anarchist state is very much possible. In fact, he believes it is a goal worth striving for. He compares his vision of anarchism to that of popular democracy in the 17th century. Back then, there were no democratic states. Nowhere was the government formed by mass popular participation. But that didn't prevent democracy from taking over the world in the following centuries. Chomsky holds similar views about anarchism. It may not exist now, but like democracy, it is in harmony with human nature and is likely to prevail in societies in the future. At this point, Chomsky calls for a more extensive study of human nature, especially language - another of his areas of interest - to provide support for his anarchist vision. He believes the evidence is there. Chomsky thinks that prototypes of anarchist societies have already emerged in modern history - in revolutionary Spain, in Israeli Kibbutzims, and in the Paris Commune, demonstrating the human need for and viability of anarchism.

Perhaps, due to it being a compilation, the book can sometimes seem disjointed when reading. The subject matter of each chapter changes significantly, and they often have little in common. But somehow, all the chapters connect back to Chomsky's original conception and public approval of anarchism as a viable political philosophy.

This book serves as an excellent means to explore the essence of anarchism, precisely my intention when selecting it.

It endeavors to demystify anarchism by linking you to past thinkers in the domain and revealing the existence of historical anarchist movements. You will come to understand that anarchism involves the rejection of hierarchy, imposing the burden of justification on those desiring to exercise power over others. You will learn that liberty is the guiding principle of anarchism. You will discover that, according to Chomsky's understanding, anarchism is essentially libertarian socialism, and without socialism, one will merely encounter the tyranny of capitalism witnessed in America and, to some extent, in the UK today.

Consequently, the means of production should be publicly owned and should benefit everyone, rather than primarily private individuals who possess the property. However, the way we organize this should bear in mind that central tenet: no hierarchy unless it can be justified. And the entire system should be deeply infused with democracy, where free individuals have a voice.

All of this makes anarchism appear less absurd than the connotation it has acquired. And it is overall quite enlightening.

So why only three stars? Well, it is just a bit dull in certain parts. Especially the lengthy chapter regarding the Spanish civil war. I am aware that it is important. I know it provides real context to the theory and ideals. And a better person than me would be able to engage with vigor and eagerness. But, goodness, it was dull.

This was quite good but far too short.

It seemed to touch on some interesting points, yet it left the reader craving for more depth and elaboration.

To truly enhance one's understanding and gain a more comprehensive perspective, it is advisable to go read some Bakunin.

Bakunin's works are known for their profound insights and radical ideas.

By delving into his writings, one can explore different aspects of anarchism, social theory, and the critique of power structures.

His ideas have had a significant impact on various fields and continue to be relevant today.

Reading Bakunin will not only expand your knowledge but also challenge your existing beliefs and encourage you to think critically.

So, take the time to explore his works and you'll surely be better off.

You'll gain a newfound appreciation for the complexity of social and political issues and be better equipped to engage in meaningful discussions and make informed decisions.

This is the first book of this author that I've read. Believe me, the only reason I'm giving it 4 stars instead of 5 is that the middle portion of the book involves a rather long description of the Spanish social revolution to make his point in support of libertarian socialism.

Every sentence in the book rings true, especially in relation to the societal framework in which we are currently living. To many readers, it might seem like an extremely anti-capitalistic and pro-socialist book. However, time and again, the author has clarified that as a society, we need to pick the good aspects from both ideologies and arrive at a hybrid model. Whoever believes that one of the two ideologies is pure evil and the other is pure gold, this is the book for you to regain your equilibrium.

There must be many, and I myself once belonged to this group, who would say that we are not taking sides between socialism and capitalism. But what people forget to realize is that the national models based on both ideologies have their own forms of propaganda. Socialistic countries tried to do this by withholding information, while capitalistic countries tried to bombard their populations with ideas they wanted them to believe in through repetition. The best way to illustrate this is through the interview question the author was asked:

Interviewer: What's your basis for the claim that capitalistic societies operate based on their own version of propaganda?

Author: If I say that some dictator in the Middle East, like Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi, is evil or not working in the interests of his own people, nobody expects me to highlight the UNGA and UNSC conventions that the dictator must have violated. However, if I say that George W Bush is evil or favoring terrorist organizations, suddenly there will be all kinds of silent expectations, which roughly translate to: "Why would you say that? Or where's your proof? Or how dare you?" These silent expectations are something that only an individual can evaluate, and that too only about themselves. If there were people who would honestly conduct and accept the results of this introspection, they would understand why I say what I say.

This book presents an interesting balance as it alternates between Chomsky's rather dense writings and his eloquent interviews.

It leans more towards theory than application, although it delves into Revolutionary Catalonia with perhaps an excessive amount of detail.

What I managed to glean from it were some valuable reminders and thoughts on anarchism. Chomsky defines anarchism as libertarian (not the American version) socialism, in contrast to authoritarian socialism (communism).

Some key takeaways for me include the fact that we often compare the reality of socialism to the ideal form of capitalism. Additionally, anarchist thought has a long and mainstream history, as seen in labour unions, for example. However, the liberal tradition excludes this from history and makes it seem like a crazy, modern idea.

Chomsky rails against centrism by expounding on why idealism is a necessary tool for progress. It is always beneficial to remember that the world did not begin 20 years ago and that alternative ideas for societal order are both valid and attainable, given time.

Overall, this book offers a thought-provoking exploration of anarchism and its place in society.