While anarchy is often and wrongly seen as always being synonymous with chaos and lawlessness, and Anarchists are sometimes inaccurately perceived as delusional utopians. This book comprehensively discusses the fundamental principles of Anarchist thinking. It places a particular emphasis on Anarcho-Syndicalism and presents Anarchist values as feasible guiding principles for a fairer, freer, and more "human" society.

Drawing on the paragons of liberal thinking such as Rousseau, Von Humboldt, John Stuart Mill, and Adam Smith (yes, even the father-of-capitalism-Adam Smith), Chomsky argues that Anarchism is the system that is most faithful to Western Enlightenment values.

Anarchy is not about completely abolishing authority. It is not about eliminating private property. It is also not about destroying individuality. Instead, it is about living in a society where authority, whether on the local or the familial level, must be justified. The burden of proving the legitimacy of this authority lies with its bearer. It is about maximizing individual freedom, aiming for maximum self-fulfillment, while also having broader responsibilities to the community around you. It is about abolishing any kind of predetermined hierarchy and rebuilding society from the bottom up, with active participation in decision-making in a truly democratic manner.

The book had a profound impact on me. It challenged so many core concepts and structures that seemed to be common sense and, in a way, unassailable. For example: "Why should humans be productive?" and "Is working for money moral?" Although I emerged from reading with more questions than answers, this was definitely an extremely intellectually stimulating read.

No review. I have this sense that I grasped a significant portion of what Chomsky writes about. However, I find myself lacking the prior knowledge necessary to truly situate it. It's rather embarrassing to admit that up until now, my political opinions have largely stemmed from my parents and Buzzfeed. I'm now making an effort to educate myself politically. I'm simply going to pick up books as they are mentioned. From this particular book, I've added Orwell's Homage to Catalonia to my TO READ shelf. Additionally, the works of Wilhelm von Humboldt and Simon Linguet are also TBD (to be determined) and will likely find their way onto that same shelf. I'm eager to expand my understanding and explore different perspectives through these readings. I hope that by delving into these various works, I can develop a more informed and well-rounded political ideology.

I thought it was an interesting book in parts, especially the first few chapters.

They really grabbed my attention and made me eager to learn more.

However, as I delved deeper, I wanted more specifics on how it works or could work in practice.

The theoretical explanations were a bit too general for my liking, and I craved more detailed examples and case studies.

Moreover, I found the language chapter incredibly dry.

The author's writing style in that section seemed rather dull and lacking in enthusiasm.

It made it a bit of a chore to get through, and I felt like I wasn't really absorbing the information as well as I could have.

Overall, while the book had its moments of interest, it also had some areas that could be improved upon.

This resource offers a highly valuable starting point for individuals intrigued by understanding the part played by anarchists in the Spanish Civil War. It presents a diverse range of perceptive suggestions for further exploration. By fusing historical analysis with political theory, it draws attention to a crucial era in the battle against fascism and the pursuit of revolutionary ideals.

The Spanish Civil War (1936 - 1939) was a multifaceted conflict where anarchists, mainly represented by the CNT (National Confederation of Labor) and the FAI (Iberian Anarchist Federation), had a vital role in opposing both fascist forces and the authoritarian inclinations of the Republican government. This book is excellent in directing readers towards fundamental texts and works that explore the anarchist perspective. These include writings by and about key figures such as Buenaventura Durruti, Diego Abad de Santillán, and Francisco Ferrer, along with historical accounts that document the revolutionary enthusiasm, as well as the tragic contradictions and setbacks endured by the anarchist movement.

A particularly remarkable aspect of this collection is the inclusion of Chomsky’s classic essay, The Responsibility of Intellectuals. This essay examines the role of intellectuals during times of political conflict. It serves as a critical reflection on the responsibilities of those who, like the anarchists in Spain, aimed to promote a vision of society based on liberty and equality, while simultaneously challenging the authority of the state and capitalist structures. Chomsky’s argument prompts readers to consider the broader implications of intellectual and activist efforts in confronting oppression, as well as the ethical dilemmas faced by those in positions of power and influence.

Although the book does not go into details regarding the quality or depth of the individual resources it recommends, it effectively points to works that will enable readers to develop a nuanced comprehension of the anarchist movement's role in the Spanish Civil War. The bibliography encompasses both primary sources (e.g., direct writings from anarchist leaders) and secondary sources (historical analyses), which offer essential context to understand the philosophical and political frameworks that guided the actions of these revolutionary forces.

In terms of critical thinking, this collection encourages readers to transcend conventional understandings of the Spanish Civil War and engage with anarchism in its most radical and theoretical form. It challenges the dominant narrative that often marginalizes or distorts the contributions of anarchists, stimulating a deeper reflection on the limitations of state power, the intricacies of revolutionary movements, and the potential for a radically different future.

UPDATE: I re-read this book on Monday, February 3, 2014. I don't think my views of the book have changed much since I wrote the review I did below on January 16, 2010.

Actually, though, I should say that as for the remark about some of the language being hyperbolic I don't see it that way much anymore. Perhaps it's a matter of me getting older.

ORIGINAL REVIEW (January 16, 2010)

Noam Chomsky didn't write this book, but it is a collection of interviews conducted with him, chapter excerpts from his books, and essays he has presented at conferences, all related to anarchism. Chomsky admits in an essay that anarchism has a "broad back," meaning different things to different people. He defines it as the conviction that the burden of proof is on authority and it should be dismantled if that burden isn't met. Interestingly, this loose definition could appeal to many. If this conviction is the essence of anarchism, more people are anarchists than they think. One could even be "conservative" and be an anarchist. Political philosopher Michael Oakeshott writes about being conservative. Incidentally, Chomsky identifies as a conservative.

The essays in this collection are largely critical in a positive sense. Chomsky writes about the bias in some so-called neutral scholarship, especially in political science and history, towards liberal democracies. This has led to mainstream scholarship dismissing or not understanding popular democratic movements. He suggests language's malleability shows the human drive to be creative and interact with others. He tries to tease out anarchism as a historical movement towards a more communal life, likely in the form of anarcho-syndicalism. Another essay focuses on liberal democracies suppressing popular movements in other countries when they threaten U.S. or European interests. In one of the latter essays, I get the impression his vision of anarchism is tempered by practical social concerns. For example, he criticizes anarchists for not wanting to immediately undercut state power as it would increase private business power. He says some measures for practical human concerns may mean a temporary increase in state power.

This is a very interesting and thought-provoking book. The criticisms I have involve the hyperbolic language. For example, I'm not sure if he really thinks working for a wage is "wage slavery" or if it's just a way of putting it. Another matter is that while he shows the wage system makes people dependent, he admits people can be happy doing their work regardless of wages. So, it seems the wage system itself isn't unjust, but rather unjust situations are when government allows too much wealth concentration and too many people to be poor or starve through no fault of their own. In that case, a government's implementation of social programs or taxation to control wealth concentration could be a decent remedy. But what do I know?

In this collection of essays introduced by Nathan Schneider, Noam Chomsky delves into the topic of Anarchism.

Chomsky presents Anarchism as a vast and intricate web of beliefs that have experienced fluctuations in popularity over the years. These beliefs are typically of the left-wing variety, considering that the author of some of the earliest anarchist literature was a classical libertarian. They uphold a strong conviction in individual rights independent of any economic system.

He also addresses numerous fallacies and concerns related to this subject, discussing aspects such as bureaucracy and democracy and their potential integration into an anarchist society. Among all the essays in this book, the one titled "Language and Freedom" captivated my interest the most.

The analyses of language and the mind, as presented through excerpts from the writings of philosophers like Descartes and Rousseau, were truly fascinating. I also admired the way Chomsky ultimately connected these writings with anarchist thought and the commodification of human life.

Overall, I believe this book has clarified many of my previous questions regarding anarchist thought and has also exposed me to new perspectives that I had not previously considered, such as how leftist aesthetics are often appropriated into mainstream trends and then discarded.

While it doesn't have any obvious flaws, it also didn't completely blow my mind, so I rate it 4/5 stars.

A great collection of Noam Chomsky's works, including his writings, talks, and interviews on anarchism and his overall political philosophy, is presented here. I have interacted with several individuals who faced challenges in delving into it. This is quite understandable as it commences with "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship", which, in my view, is one of the most complex pieces of writing by Chomsky that I have come across. If you find yourself in a similar situation, it might be advisable to skip through the initial part of "Objectivity" or proceed to the next chapter, as the rest of the content is truly a great read.

Another aspect that I noticed was that the author arranges the selections in the book with minimal context. There is just a note at the end of each piece explaining its source. Some form of introduction or overview of some or all of the writings would have been highly beneficial. This is especially true for works like "Objectivity", which plunges you directly into a discussion about the theories regarding how intellectuals behave in American society without providing any background context whatsoever.

I recognize that this book does not purport to be for those who are unfamiliar with anarchism. However, I was at least anticipating a more sequential progression from beginning to end.

Each chapter was more akin to a self-contained essay and did not interact significantly with what followed.

That being stated, I discovered that I feel more inquisitive about the details of anarchism, even if I do not comprehend more. And perhaps this was Chomsky's intention. Specifically, I am looking forward to learning more about how closely the Spanish Civil War is linked to anarchist thought.

Chomsky's straightforward explanation of anarchism is as follows: the onus of proof for legitimacy lies on the institution of power, not on those upon whom the power is being exerted. In other words, a government should be required to explain why they are dictating what I can and cannot do and prove its legitimacy. I should not have to approach them after an unexplained and unrequested exercise of power and explain why what they did was incorrect.

I've always held a strong stance against being a fanatical follower or being overly awestruck. However, if I were to select a role model, it could very well be Noam Chomsky.

I hope to eventually provide a more in-depth and refined review of this particular collection. For the time being, I can simply state that you get what you anticipate. It's Chomsky, presenting his thoughts in his characteristic calm and analytic style to anyone who is willing to listen.

The collection does have a tendency to become somewhat repetitive as certain points are restated multiple times. Nevertheless, I particularly relished the first two pieces, especially Chomsky's meticulous dissection of the Spanish revolution. On the other hand, I can understand that many casual readers might be deterred by its general academic approach, which makes extensive use of citations and various sources to emphasize the central claims. When one is only interested in Chomsky's perspective and not the underlying foundation, this can seem burdensome.

Nonetheless, Chomsky unfailingly emphasizes that "it’s very natural for intellectuals to try to make simple things look difficult".

One merely needs to recall principles like Occam's Razor or consider Einstein's pursuit of simplicity in scientific theory - as stated in the quote "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" - to be reassured that when someone hides behind the complexity of a matter, at best, they haven't grasped it, or, even worse, they are deliberately attempting to mislead others. Keeping these simple truths in mind will indeed be of great value when evaluating the opinions and necessities put forward by experts and intellectuals in various fields.

Chomsky serves as a living example of breaking down the seemingly complex into very simple terms that are easily comprehensible to anyone who cares to listen.

Noam Chomsky is a renowned figure, and this is a nice and short collection of his interviews. In these interviews, he addresses questions related to his beliefs on liberty and economics. He also defends Anarchism.

After delving deeper into Anarchism through both fiction and nonfiction works, I am beginning to grasp its values and concepts for social organization. The book has its merits, especially in its introduction. Here, Anarchism is compared to other concepts like libertarianism and socialism, which provides valuable insights.

However, one should not be misled by the rating. As it is a collection of interviews, it may not receive a rating higher than 3 stars. Nevertheless, it still offers interesting perspectives and is worth considering for those interested in Chomsky's ideas and the study of Anarchism.

I think the guy is really cute.

However, he was going on and on about the Spanish Civil War. It seemed like he just couldn't stop talking about it.

In fact, I kind of had the impression that he might be overly obsessed with it, almost to the point where I thought he might jerk off to it.

But still, despite his excessive chatter about this particular topic, there was something about his cuteness that made me not completely write him off.

Maybe I could try to get to know him better and see if there are other aspects of his personality that I might find even more appealing.

After all, everyone has their quirks and interests, and just because he was a bit too passionate about the Spanish Civil War didn't necessarily mean he wasn't a great person overall.

I guess only time will tell if I can look beyond this one trait and develop a deeper connection with him.

Having read half of Daniel Guerin's No Gods, No Masters last summer and planning to read the other half this summer, Chomsky offers crucial insights into anarchist theory in a post-industrial society like ours. My previous reading on anarchist thought was mainly limited to the 19th-century Russian anarcho-syndicalists Kropotkin and Bakunin. Chomsky's essays, especially the more recent ones towards the end of the book, inspire practical ways to bring anarchist thought into the 21st century.

As I flip through my marked-up copy of the book, I'm trying to decide which of the heavily underlined passages would best convey the flavor of the book in a review. To begin with, Chomsky's quote by Rudolf Rocker in Preface to Antologija Anarhizma (1986) neatly summarizes the basic premise of anarchist thought:

"Democracy with its motto of equality of all citizens before the law and Liberalism with its right of man over his own person both were wrecked on the realities of capitalist economy," Rocker correctly observed. Those who are forced to rent themselves to the owners of capital to survive are deprived of one of the most fundamental rights: the right to productive, creative, and fulfilling work under one's own control, in solidarity with others.

For Chomsky, predatory capitalism is no longer a suitable system to meet human needs that must be addressed collectively. Language and Freedom.

There's nothing extremely radical or complicated about this idea. But most things in life can be simply expressed. And that's one of the appealing aspects of this collection of essays. Its accessibility is intentional. In Anarchism, Intellectuals and the State, Chomsky, the linguist, clearly lays out the first obstacle to productive discussions on topics like political theory:

One of the things that intellectuals do is make them inaccessible, for various reasons, including those of domination and personal privilege. It's very natural for intellectuals to try to make simple things look difficult. It's like when the medieval church was creating mysteries to maintain importance... But these are the ways in which contemporary intellectuals, including those on the Left, create great careers for themselves, power for themselves, marginalize people, intimidate people, and so on. In the United States, for example, and indeed much of the Third World, lots of young radical activists are simply intimidated by the incomprehensible gibberish that comes out of left-wing intellectual movements - often radical feminists or this or that - which is just impossible to understand. It makes people feel like they're not going to do anything because, unless I somehow understand the latest version of post-modern this and that, I can't go out in the streets and organize people, because I'm not bright enough. It may not be intended this way, but the effect is a technique of marginalization and control and self-interest. Because the people themselves become prestigious and travel around and live in high circles and so forth.

This is a common complaint, but it's not an anti-intellectual rant. There's no derision of intellectualism. It's simply frustration with insincere communication about ideas. Shortly afterwards, Chomsky talks about his ability as a linguist professor to have conversations in plain terms about his study, as well as his colleagues who teach physics. In comparison, he questions whether those specializing in Derrida could do so without obfuscation. The entire idea behind the "project of liberation" must start within ourselves and in our discourse first. First, we have to feel empowered to speak about the ideas we want to see in action.

Chomsky also draws on lessons from the women's movement as an example for developing anarchist values. Interview with Barry Pateman. Just as the early feminists used consciousness-raising groups to expose the oppressive elements in their lives that might not have been clearly perceived, the same tactic can apply to all regarding oppression by the State. An effort to understand the extent of our limited freedoms must cut through the indoctrination that has turned us into "passive consumer(s), a person who pushes a button every couple of years and is taught that that is democracy."

However, his idealism is tempered by common sense. Chomsky rejects radical steps fueled by slogans that work against the ultimate goal of anarchism:

[T:]he state is an illegitimate institution. But it does not follow from that that you should not support the state. Sometimes there is a more illegitimate institution that will take over if you do not support this illegitimate institution...anarchists can't seem to understand that they are to support that. So they join with the ultra-right in saying "Yes, we've got to minimize the state," meaning put more power into the hands of private tyrannies which are completely unaccountable to the public and purely totalitarian... In fact, protecting the state sector today is a step towards abolishing the state because it maintains a public arena in which people can participate, and organize, and affect policy, and so on, though in limited ways. If that's removed, we'd go back to a [...:]dictatorship or say a private dictatorship, but that's hardly a step towards liberation. Anarchism, Intellectuals and the State (1996).

The anarchist does not require the complete dissolution of authority, simply that "any structure of hierarchy and authority carries a heavy burden of justification...". Goals and Visions (1996). Though at times it seems we tend to believe otherwise, the existing power structures are not immutable nor something that arises out of nature.

However, that doesn't mean Chomsky has created a doctrine upon which society should be formed. When opponents of anarchist values demand an alternative to the current structure, they are disappointed. In recent history, the Leninist model of socialism has been touted as the alternative to capitalism. Such propaganda ignores Bakunin's warning of the "red bureaucracy" that would be "the most vile and terrible lie our century created." Preface to Antologija Anarhizma(1986). Such socialism is not the pre-determined end result of collective action.

Yet many will still discount anarchist values because if there is no outline or blueprint upon which these values are enforced, any anarchist vision is presumed to fail. However, in some ways, that's like asking a medieval serf to explain in detail representation in a constitutional democracy. Such detail is lacking because of our collective inexperience with collective governance. Chomsky believes that attempting this kind of grand overhaul is not the most effective way to implement anarchist values:

we should be cautious in trying to sketch out the nature of the future society in too much detail. It's not that it can't be done. It can be done in interesting and different ways - and it has been done - but I think the real question is to what extent is it important to do it and to what extent is it important to just try and experiment and chip away at existing structures? Interview with Barry Pateman.

Ultimately, although there is a large gap between "what we grasp with any confidence and understanding" and "what we must establish to ground the choice of action", we do know some things. Chomsky believes we have an instinct for freedom. An instinct that has a rich tradition. And although "science takes its halting steps towards establishing truths about human nature, and philosophy seeks to establish the connection [...:] between human nature and rights deriving from it", we cannot hold social theory and action in abeyance. Chomsky helps articulate, in a fragmented form, many of the values rooted within us that simply need to be defined. The real question is whether we are willing to embrace those ideas.