Anarchism is a complex and often misunderstood ideology, and finding reliable sources of information on it can be a challenge. However, this particular source stands out as one of the finest.

It offers a comprehensive and in-depth exploration of anarchist theory, history, and practice. The author presents a well-researched and thought-provoking analysis that is both accessible to beginners and engaging for those with a more advanced knowledge of the subject.

What makes this source truly essential is its ability to present anarchism in a balanced and objective light. It does not shy away from the criticisms and challenges that anarchism has faced over the years, but rather confronts them head-on and offers valuable insights into how anarchists have responded.

In conclusion, I would highly recommend this source to anyone interested in learning more about anarchism. It is a must-read for anyone who wants to gain a deeper understanding of this important and influential ideology.

**Anarchism and Chomsky's Insights**

Anarchism has long been a concept that elicits strong reactions. As a social system, it makes intuitive sense, yet those in power have sought to discredit it. Chomsky points out that in Woodrow Wilson's Red Scare, while socialists faced harsh treatment, anarchists were even more brutally targeted. The idea of people being free is terrifying to those with authority.

The 1960s, a time of great social upheaval, also had a bad reputation among intellectuals. The fact that students were asking questions and not blindly following was seen as a threat to the "foundations of civilization." But perhaps these questions were perfectly sensible, and the traditional view of civilization was in need of reevaluation.

Chomsky's thoughts on anarchy are extensive and essential. He not only defines what anarchism is and isn't but also shows how it relates to various aspects of life, such as language, freedom, politics, and philosophy. He often exemplifies how anarchism lives not just in theory but in practice, as seen in the kibbutz experiment. While there are challenges and problems in group situations, such as the pressure to conform, these are part of the human experience that we must face.

The chapter on language and freedom takes an interesting linguistic approach to anarchy, while the chapter on Spain and anarcho-syndicalism is equally engaging. Overall, Chomsky's work is highly recommendable, even for those not particularly interested in politics. It challenges our thinking in a positive way and forces us to consider alternative perspectives on society and human nature.

The original article seems to be rather brief. Here is an expanded version:

The rating of 4.8/5 is truly remarkable. It indicates a high level of satisfaction and quality. This score implies that the product or service in question has met and exceeded the expectations of a large number of customers.

Such a rating is not easily achieved. It requires consistent excellence in various aspects, such as performance, reliability, and customer service. The providers must have put in a great deal of effort to ensure that every detail is taken care of.

Customers who have given this rating are likely to be highly impressed and may even become loyal advocates. They will recommend the product or service to others, further enhancing its reputation.

In conclusion, a 4.8/5 rating is a significant achievement that reflects the hard work and dedication of the providers. It sets a high standard for others in the industry and gives customers confidence in choosing this particular option.

The interviews that I had were truly great. They provided me with a wealth of information and perspectives that I found extremely valuable.

As a result, I have decided that I will be coming back again to the chapter that explains the Spanish Civil War. This is because I feel that I need to conduct further studies about it in order to fully understand its significance and implications.

I believe that by delving deeper into this topic, I will be able to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the historical context and the events that led up to the war.

In addition, I hope to learn more about the different factions involved and their respective motives and goals. This will help me to better analyze and evaluate the various sources of information that I have gathered during my interviews.

Overall, I am excited about the opportunity to further explore the Spanish Civil War and look forward to sharing my newfound knowledge and insights with others.

The core of the anarchist tradition, as I understand it, is that power is always illegitimate unless it proves itself to be legitimate.

So the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some authoritarian hierarchical relation is legitimate. If they can't prove it, then it should be dismantled.

Can you ever prove it? Well, it's a heavy burden of proof to bear, but I think sometimes you can bear it.

For example, if I'm walking down the street with my five-year-old niece, and she starts to run into the street, and I grab her arm and pull her back, that's an exercise of power and authority. But I can give a justification for it. It's obvious that I'm doing it to protect her from potential danger.

And maybe there are other cases where you can justify the exercise of power. But the question that always should be asked uppermost in our mind is, "Why should I accept it?"

It's the responsibility of those who exercise power to show that somehow it's legitimate. It's not the responsibility of anyone else to show that it's illegitimate.

If it's a relation of authority among human beings which places some above others, it's illegitimate by assumption. Unless you can give a strong argument to show that it's right, you've lost.

A quick and reasonably accessible read, I am truly happy to have had this book as my introduction to both anarchism and Noam Chomsky.

On a substantive level, Chomsky’s anarchism amounts to a celebration of liberal principles such as justification, accountability, freedom and participation. However, it is coupled with a healthy suspicion of the institutions established in the name of these principles: businesses, bureaucracies, prisons, armies, and so on.

Chomsky’s elaboration and exploration of this idea and its implications feature engaging discussions of the welfare state, the Spanish civil war, workplace democracy, and academia. These discussions are themselves well worth the purchase price of the book. Particularly enlightening was the final essay that linked his political thinking to his work in linguistics.

The collected entries come in a variety of formats – literature review, interview, meditative essay, historiography. Each of these formats permits a different level of understanding of an inherently slippery subject.

While I still remain unconvinced of the value of articulating an ideology of anarchism as distinct from left liberalism in general, the book has indeed delivered on the promise of making me stop and reconsider some basic ideas and assumptions.

Overall, it provides good food for thought.

This outstanding anthology of Chomsky's anarchist thought is truly remarkable.

It serves as an excellent introduction to modern anarcho-socialism, also known as libertarian socialism.

Chomsky's ideas are presented in a comprehensive and accessible manner, allowing readers to gain a deep understanding of this important political ideology.

The anthology covers a wide range of topics, including the nature of power, the role of the state, and the possibilities for social change.

By exploring Chomsky's anarchist thought, readers can gain valuable insights into the potential for a more just and equal society.

Overall, this anthology is a must-read for anyone interested in modern political theory and social change.

A really interesting insight into some of Chomsky's core ideas is presented here.

Most of his other writing often seems to be far more critical than constructive.

However, this offers an opportunity to better understand the ideological foundations of his socialist libertarianism.

It is fascinating to explore how anarchist principles can be applied in contemporary criticisms.

Chomsky's ideas have had a significant impact on various fields, and delving deeper into his socialist libertarianism and the application of anarchist principles can provide valuable perspectives.

By understanding these aspects, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of his overall body of work and its relevance in today's society.

This exploration also allows us to engage in a more informed discussion about the potential implications and applications of his ideas in different contexts.

Overall, this provides a unique and interesting perspective on Chomsky's thought and its significance in contemporary intellectual discourse.

I have a profound liking for this book. It seems to me that there isn't much I can add as I wholeheartedly concur with the ideas presented regarding government, power, human nature, and the appropriate structuring of society. One particular standout was the brief section featuring an interview. Chomsky directly addresses the kinds of questions that surface when elucidating leftist and anarchist ideas to those who are acting in good faith. Witnessing him answer these questions so directly and eloquently was extremely beneficial. I feel as if I've acquired some tools that will assist me in explaining these ideas when conversing with friends and family, which might just be my favorite aspect of this book.

Most individuals uphold anarchist values, especially when it comes to freedom and imposing the burden of proof on those asserting authority. It's merely when the labels of "anarchist" or "socialist" are attached to those ideas that people shy away. However, the whole essence is that these are ideas that the majority of people hold and cherish, yet they struggle to envision a society where those sentiments are more authentically implemented. I've found it incredibly exasperating in my own academic journey when I encounter self-identified progressives who will point out how the root of social injustices is systemic, only to throw up their hands in defeat. On multiple occasions, I've engaged in conversations about systemic oppression, only for a colleague to say "everything is centered around money and it's糟糕" before abandoning any further progress. They come right up to the verge of having a conversation about a better, fairer way of life, only to make a dismissive joke about communism and flee. Back to the cold, familiar embrace of their unpaid internship, mountains of debt, and multiple low-paying jobs.

Something that I grapple with conceptualizing is general strikes in our contemporary society. I do concur that a widespread, general strike is likely our most effective means of effecting broad change and exercising our power as workers. However, where I struggle is in implementing 20th-century concepts of that into today's society. This is because those books were written in a manufacturing-based economy, while America has transitioned to a more service-based economy. Which implies that some of socialism's most potent aphorisms don't resonate as strongly as they once did. The image of a factory worker toiling all day to make loaves of bread so he can afford to buy a slice doesn't have the same impact on, for instance, someone who works in a nursing home or a summer camp. Certainly, the underlying idea of the value of workers' labor being appropriate still holds true. But it's easier to persuade someone to go on strike when it's bread or cars that won't be produced, rather than when people are deprived of a service they rely on. In a sense, people have become even more alienated from the products of their labor. Because instead of having a product that is then sold for a profit by someone who didn't make it, the fruits of one's labor have increasingly become fees for service. I suppose the solution, then, would have to be that those who are missing out on a service would also have to support service workers going on strike. As the service workers will be happier and more productive under more equitable conditions, a victory for some of us is a victory for all of us.

I don't want to distort things here. If it becomes necessary for service workers to go on strike to safeguard their rights, that is not the fault of the service workers. They didn't cause the problem - they're merely attempting to protect their rights. The root of the problem lies with the service workers' bosses. Of course, it's easy for that to be obscured because the workers are the ones directly interacting with the people who will no longer have that service during the strike. And those who receive that service have likely never interacted with the bosses who necessitated the strike in the first place. Ingeniously, the elite have distanced themselves from a service-based economy to the extent that service workers and service receivers would be led to fight among themselves, rather than uniting in solidarity against the people who perpetuate and benefit from the problem.

Anyway, as much as I appreciate the ideas presented, I have to rate this book 4 stars. My only exposure to Chomsky is through this book and the documentary Manufacturing Consent. And something I noticed in both of those sources is a tendency to digress. When Chomsky is speaking, he has excellent clarity of voice and expresses himself well. But in an edited format, the powerful theses tend to become more obscured. Take, for example, the chapter on liberal scholarship. While it seemed that this would have been a prime opportunity to discuss the material conditions that incentivize the media to misrepresent the truth, it was instead more of an individual breakdown of one author's portrayal of one historical period in one country. While that could be useful, I was more interested in a systemic analysis. So I did end up skimming the latter half of that chapter. There are some remarkable insights and ideas in this book. I just wish they were a bit more prominent.

But overall, I do have a great fondness for this book. Anything that can prompt me to think this deeply and bring forth some of the ideas I discussed in this review is something I value.

Maybe 4 and a half.

This is a good book that provides a great introduction to Noam's views.

I truly had no prior knowledge about theoretical anarchism, but this book explained his understanding in a clear and accessible way, without relying on overly theoretical terms.

The way he presents anarchism as a future solution rather than a system to be implemented suddenly makes a great deal of sense.

Definitely, I have learned a significant amount from this book. It has answered many of my questions and helped to organize some of my ideas.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about Noam's views or anarchism in general.

Nice, hard-hitting intro to the subject of Anarchism. It truly grabs your attention and makes you realize that anarchism is not what the common perception might lead you to believe. One of the most fascinating moments in the book for me was the author's clever utilization of Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt. He presents a (somewhat disappointingly) brief yet thought-provoking argument about how their philosophies have been distorted and misinterpreted by modern conservatives. It's quite eye-opening. I also found it extremely interesting that American Libertarianism can actually be traced back to Social Anarchism. This historical connection sheds a new light on the subject. In light of this, a right-wing libertarian might be compelled to seriously consider how their brand of Libertarianism has deviated so far from the traditional Libertarian values.

Here's a Humboldt quote that Chomsky used and really resonated with me: "...man never regards what he possesses as so much his own, as what he does; and the labourer who tends a garden is perhaps in a truer sense its owner than the listless voluptuary who enjoys its fruits...In view of this consideration, it seems as if all peasants and craftsmen might be elevated into artists; that is, men who love their labour for its own sake, improve it by their own plastic genius and inventive skill, and thereby cultivate their intellect, ennoble their character, and exalt and refine their pleasures. And so humanity would be ennobled by the very things which now, though beautiful in themselves, so often serve to degrade it...But, still, freedom is undoubtedly the indispensable condition, without which even the pursuits most congenial to individual human nature, can never succeed in producing such salutary influences. Whatever does no spring from a man's free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very being, but remains alien to his true nature; he does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely mechanical exactness...We may admire what he does, but we despise what he is." This quote really makes you think about the importance of freedom and the true meaning of ownership and labor.

A truly remarkable introduction to a philosophy that has unfortunately been frequently misconstrued by those it confronts. On Anarchism is a compilation consisting of interviews, speeches, and essays. In it, Noam Chomsky gathers the arguments in favor of anarchism and meticulously dissects the arguments against it. His tone, though dry, is engaging and gets straight to the point, lacking the radical left rhetoric that often causes more harm than good.

Chomsky guides us through the chronicles of anarchist history. He starts with Bakunin's prediction that state socialism would result in a totalitarian'red bureaucracy' and then moves on to the astonishing success of anarchist Catalonia. After that, he delves into how language molds our relationship with political systems. While this makes it an excellent introductory read, it is not revolutionary in any sense. Chomsky has presented his points in other places and offers few new perspectives here. Its success, therefore, stems from its compilation of the most crucial arguments into a concise paperback that can be easily referenced.

Not only is this a must-read for aspiring anarchists, but it should also be read by everyone. As we observe the ascent of surveillance capitalism, we need to remind ourselves of the unofficial 'creed' of anarchism. That is, authority is not self-justifying, and any authority that cannot justify its existence should be torn down.