This book is not about anarchism; rather, it is about Chomskyism. Throughout the entirety of the book, Chomsky never takes the trouble to define what he means by "anarchy." He doesn't bother to inform the reader about his perception of anarchy. Instead, he refers to "human nature" and conveniently avoids explanation by repeatedly saying "you know?"

From Chomsky's perspective, anarchy seems to closely align with anarcho-syndicalism, which is simply a decentralized form of democracy that concentrates power in the hands of a few union bosses.

His failure to give credit to other researchers for their seminal works is shockingly unacademic. He ignores the achievements of entire academic disciplines and attempts to claim credit for their efforts by modifying the terms used to describe classes of phenomena. As a result, others are "Chomskyized" through this form of piracy.

His research into the attributes, origins, and legitimacy of the state is extremely incompetent, leading to incorrect conclusions. His work is filled with biases stemming from his Yiddish/American urban background. He has cultivated an elitist status by associating himself with high-profile and controversial institutions and figures, notably MIT and B.F. Skinner.

Chomsky has spent much of his career reinventing himself while maintaining that he is a "linguist." All of his linguistic efforts focus on STRUCTURAL linguistics, completely ignoring historical linguistics and cognitive science. He can approach some topics with rationality, common sense, and the confidence of a great vocabulary, especially in the case of state-supported terrorism. However, his research into the source of authority and state authoritarianism reflects a head-in-the-sand attitude that would be unfathomable to almost any historically informed person.

Much of the interviews and other materials included in this book have no relevance whatsoever to the title and topic presented on the cover. Some of the material rambles pointlessly, suggesting that Mr. Chomsky was paid according to the word count or compensated gratuitously for simply showing up for an interview.

Mr. Chomsky has a bush in his yard that he must manicure with a rug beater, and grass doesn't grow around it. The first 150 or so pages of this book are a complete waste of paper and ink, outdated, and skewed beyond relevance. The following 75 or so pages more or less adequately describe the state and the relationships of people and persons to the state and state-like institutions.

Any serious scholar interested in such topics would be much better served by studying a course in social anthropology than by reading anything that the prevaricating Mr. Chomsky has to say.

Lol. I guess I had one of those coffee induced frenzies. During that state, I went on a bulk ordering spree of anarchism 101s. I ordered works by Bakunin, Proudhon, and, apparently, this one by Chomsky (2013). By the time the shipment arrived, I couldn't even recall that I had ever ordered these books. Anyhow,

You may have your own thoughts about Chomsky and his rather shallow 'left-wing' 'communism' critique. Some might view it as being about red bureaucracy and tyranny. However, given the ongoing structural crisis of liberal democracy and capitalism, thinking about old and new ideas of radical democracy, participatory economics, libertarian socialism, etc. to overcome capitalism without simply replacing one elite with another is of utmost relevance. This is not about some anarchist or socialist utopia. Instead, it's about looking into concrete ideas and practices for organizing society and economy in a truly democratic manner. It's more like an activist's rant than a structured political theory. But in times when few people even want to or are able to think beyond today's version of capitalism and democracy that benefits only the 1 per cent, it's a pleasant enough read. It's always a good time to reflect on private property, wage labour, and freedom.

Downside: I am kind of fed up with these kinds of money-making books though. They recycle a few essays, interviews, and thoughts into something sellable (think Zizek!). They often lack much original insight.

Well, we know what they think. What they think is very straightforward. They believe that working people should have more say in what goes on, while unions should have less say. And both of these assumptions seem reasonable based on the information available to them. People make judgments based on the information they have. The information they have is that unions are a weapon against working people. Did you see "On the Waterfront," a famous film years ago? It's sort of a model that the media has been presenting like a battering ram for fifty years. The idea is that unions are the enemy of the workers and the simple worker has to rise up and overthrow the union. You can understand why the entertainment industry, which is just a huge corporate system, would try to prevent the idea of unions. And to some extent, they've succeeded. So people honestly believe that working people have to liberate themselves from unions, and that's one of the ways in which working people will have more say in what goes on.

However, there's a factual error here. It's not that we don't know what people believe. They believe a false fact, namely that unions are the enemy of the working people. Sometimes it's true incidentally, like any propaganda. The craziest propaganda is always based on some elements of truth. And there are elements of truth here too. Unions have been enemies of workers, but they are also probably the most democratic form of organization that exists in our highly undemocratic society. There can be and often have been associations within which workers can free themselves and extend the sphere of social justice. But the media are not going to tell you that. So the answer to the dilemma is to get people to understand what unions are or could be, to learn working class history. Nobody knows working class history, nobody studies it. In fact, just take a look at the media all over the world. There are business sections, but have you ever seen a labor section? I don't know a single newspaper that has a labor section. Every single one has a business section. There's a business press, but is there a labor press? If you look here, I don't know, but in the United States, try to find a reporter who's assigned to the labor movement. There are maybe two working in the whole country. That means the whole population doesn't get covered. What gets covered is the business world, and it's a reflection of power. Unless people are able to unravel that system of propaganda, they're not going to be able to liberate themselves. So that's part of the job, to overcome these differences.

It's the same with welfare. Overwhelmingly, the population thinks that the government, meaning the organized public, has a responsibility to provide people with minimal standards of living, health, and so on. On the other hand, they're opposed to welfare, which does exactly that. The reason is the image of welfare that has been created. The image is of a rich, black mother having children over and over again so that we'll pay for them, riding in a Cadillac to the welfare office to pick up her check. That's what people think welfare is, so you can understand why they're opposed to welfare. Why should I work to pay for her? So they're opposed to welfare. On the other hand, they say, "Well, there's that poor woman over there who can't take care of her child. She should have support." It's not a contradiction, it's just a false assumption built in by heavy indoctrination. And the answer is to unravel the indoctrination. It's like saying that Brazil has to pay its debt. That's indoctrination. Who has to pay the debt? The people who took the money and sent it back to New York to make more money? They're the ones who should pay the debt, if anybody should. That's not Brazil. You have to talk about these things so people can understand them. They're not very hard, you don't have to talk about them in post-modern rhetoric. You can talk about them in very simple words because they're very simple points and people easily understand. The only people who don't understand them are intellectuals. And of course, they have a vested interest in not understanding them. If they understand them, then their own powers are lost. So they're not going to understand them, they're going to cloud them in mysteries.

I think that's quite true. And in fact, the people who understand this the best are those who are carrying out the control and domination in the more free societies, like the U.S. and England, where popular struggles have won a lot of freedoms over the years and the state has limited capacity to coerce. It is very striking that it's precisely in those societies that elite groups - the business world, state managers, and so on - recognized early on that they are going to have to develop massive methods of control of attitude and opinion, because you cannot control people by force anymore and therefore you have to modify their consciousness so that they don't perceive that they are living under conditions of alienation, oppression, subordination, and so on. In fact, that's what probably a couple million dollars are spent on each year in the U.S., very self-consciously, from the framing of television advertisements for two-year-olds to what you are taught in graduate school economics programs. It's designed to create a consciousness of subordination and it's also intended specifically and pretty consciously to suppress normal human emotions. Normal human emotions are sympathy and solidarity, not just for people but for stranded dolphins. It's just a normal reaction for people. If you go back to the classical political economists, people like Adam Smith, this was just taken for granted as the core of human nature and society. One of the main contributions of advertising and education is to drive that out of your mind. And it's very conscious. In fact, it's conscious in social policy right in front of our eyes today. Take the effort to destroy Social Security. Well, what's the point of that? There's a lot of scam about financial problems, which is all total nonsense. And, of course, they want Wall Street to make a killing. Underlying it all is something much deeper. Social Security is based on a human emotion and it's a natural human emotion which has to be driven out of people's minds, namely the emotion that you care about other people. You care. It's a social and community responsibility to care whether a disabled widow across town has enough food to eat, or whether a kid across the street can go to school. You have to get that out of people's heads. You have to make them say, "Look, you are a personal, rational wealth maximizer. If that disabled widow didn't prepare for her own future, it's her problem not your problem. It's not your fault she doesn't have enough to eat so why should you care?"

So for example, one of the founders of classical liberalism, Wilhelm von Humboldt (who incidentally is very admired by so-called "conservatives" today, because they don't read him), pointed out that if a worker produces a beautiful object on command, you may "admire what the worker does, but you will despise what he is".

This statement by Humboldt, as quoted by Chomsky in "On Anarchism", highlights an important aspect of the relationship between work and human dignity.

With a clear summary of his Anarchist beliefs, mixed with some surprisingly amusing interviews, an interesting and critical look at the liberal reporting on the Spanish Civil War and a distinct overview of human nature, Chomsky manages to give you a dose of well formulated and decent logical thinking.

His work not only challenges traditional views but also encourages readers to think deeply about the nature of society, power, and freedom.

By presenting a diverse range of ideas and perspectives, Chomsky invites us to question the status quo and consider alternative ways of organizing our lives.

Whether you agree or disagree with his views, there is no denying the importance of engaging with his work and the ideas it presents.

I really enjoyed this as a person who is NOT a Chomsky admirer.

I usually agree with a lot of what Chomsky says, though I don't see a lot of argument.

It's important to point out that Chomsky is an intelligent and informed dissenter. His professional specialty lies in linguistics, but he is not a political philosopher.

So, really, you will not find anything here that you won't find in classical anarchist thought, which is already a century old!

It's a travesty that the good old Locke-Rousseau-Kant political philosophy has died out. Nobody does it anymore.

We should perhaps look back and revive the wisdom and insights of these great thinkers. Their ideas could offer valuable perspectives on the complex political and social issues we face today.

Instead of relying solely on the ideas of contemporary figures like Chomsky, we should explore the rich tapestry of political philosophy that has come before us.

This would allow us to have a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the world around us.

This book is a remarkable compilation that consists of essays and interviews of Chomsky, spanning from the 1960's all the way to the early 2000's.

The writings within this volume comprehensively cover a wide range of Chomsky's profound thoughts and ideas. It delves into his perspectives on anarchism, exploring the principles and ideals that underlie this philosophical stance.

Likewise, it examines his views on socialism, shedding light on his understanding of how society could be organized in a more equitable and just manner.

Moreover, the book also touches upon libertarianism, presenting Chomsky's take on individual freedoms and the role of the state.

Overall, this collection offers a fascinating and in-depth exploration of Chomsky's intellectual journey and his contributions to various political and social theories. It is truly a great read for anyone interested in understanding the complex and thought-provoking ideas of one of the most influential thinkers of our time.

This book didn't entirely meet my expectations, yet it presented a captivating exploration of anarchism through the perspective of Noam Chomsky's thought.

The structure is somewhat uneven. The first chapter was originally a foreword that Chomsky penned for another book on anarchism. The second and fourth chapters are interviews, one more theoretical and the other biographical. The third chapter delves deeply into the Spanish Civil War. The fifth and final chapter examines the relationship between language and power.

For me, the first and second chapters held the core arguments I was looking for. Here, Chomsky distills what he considers the fundamental principles of anarchism. Namely, that all power must be justified, and much of the power exercised today is unjustified. This opposition to illegitimate authority is coupled with a vision of self-management based on decentralized institutions like participatory democracy.

The ideals of anarchism stand in sharp contrast to how much of contemporary society is currently organized. Private corporations and companies often operate without democratic structures, while representative democracies worldwide are becoming increasingly detached from their citizens and succumbing to populist tendencies. Recognizing this reality, Chomsky adopts a pragmatist stance towards more reformist ideas, such as the welfare state, arguing that any ideas that advance the central principles of anarchism, like freedom, equality, and justice, are conducive to more revolutionary change.

Personally, and perhaps in the spirit of David Graeber, the values of anarchism, such as mutual aid, cooperation, and communal solidarity, come much more naturally to us humans, reflecting those we practice towards friends, family, and community. In contrast, the values underpinning capitalism, such as possessive individualism, competition, and materialism, can seem alienating and counterproductive to our deeper social instincts. This disconnect, to me, emphasizes how crucial it is for us to understand our own values and to cultivate the clarity, agency, and courage to act in accordance with them.

The original article is not provided, so I can't rewrite and expand it specifically. However, I can give you a general example of how to expand an article to about 300 words.

Let's assume the original article is: "The importance of exercise cannot be overstated. It helps keep our bodies healthy and strong."

Expanded version:

The importance of exercise truly cannot be overstated.

Exercise is not just a simple activity; it is a crucial element for maintaining a healthy and strong body.

Regular physical activity offers numerous benefits. It helps to improve cardiovascular health,增强心肺功能, by increasing blood circulation and strengthening the heart muscle.

Moreover, exercise plays a vital role in building and maintaining muscle mass, which is essential for overall physical strength and mobility.

It also helps to boost the immune system, making our bodies more resilient to diseases and infections.

In addition, exercise has a positive impact on mental health, reducing stress, anxiety, and depression.

It can improve our mood and give us a sense of well-being.

Therefore, it is essential that we make exercise a regular part of our lives to enjoy these many benefits and maintain a healthy and active lifestyle.

In this collection of articles, interviews and essays, one can discover an accessible introduction to Anarchism. It presents Anarchism not only as an intellectual and social phenomenon but also as a practical attempt to organize societies without undemocratic hierarchies.

We learn that Anarchism is the radical doubt and critique of power, domination, oppression, and every social hierarchy that subordinates some people to others.

As long as such hierarchies cannot justify themselves in terms of necessity and justice, they should be dismantled, thereby returning power and ownership of what people produce to their own hands. The alternatives are wage-slavery and subjugation to domination, where one is not free to define one's own labor and social organization.

The most practical chapter in the book demonstrates how this functioned for a time in Catatonia, showing how the people there owned their own means of production and the results of their productions.

Regrettably, Anarchism has come to signify chaos and egotistical resistance to any form of hierarchy (such as entrepreneurs solely pursuing their self-interest), when in fact Anarchism represents the highly social idea that people should democratically organize themselves in a way that everyone has ownership over their own lives.

In the words of Choamsky himself: "anarchism is a type of 'voluntary socialism' and is synonymous with 'libertarian socialism'. This is not found in capitalist societies where labor is subjected to coercion and is not permitted to own the means of production nor have any effective control of productive activity."

In an era where there is such an abundance of wealth that we could be more free with a fairer distribution, the message of Choamsky appears to me to be relevant in this day.

Digging deep into anarchism is an exploration that offers profound insights.

What I truly loved about this book is the extensive references and footnotes that Chomsky provides. They give me a wealth of material to ponder and explore further in my studies of anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism. For instance, it introduced me to the works of Bakunin, Rocker, Orwell, and many others.

I'm now following up this read with Orwell's classic Homage to Catalonia.

Besides the excellent essay on Anarchism, there is also an extensive refutation of some of the claims made by Jackson in his award-winning work on the Spanish Civil War. This not only exposes the flaws in Jackson's arguments but also lays bare the many liberal biases he was operating on.

After these, there was a short interview with Harry Kreisler which delved into Chomsky's early influences and how his worldview was shaped.

At the very end, there was an illuminating essay called Language and Freedom. In this, Chomsky connected the two strands of Western Enlightenment thought - the concept of freedom (that freedom is the fundamental postulate of human existence) and the concept of language (that the creative, infinitely-varied use of the language faculty distinguishes us from animals) - through the works of Rousseau, Humboldt (one of Chomsky's favorite thinkers), Descartes, Kant, and others. It was a truly enlightening and uplifting read! I'm really looking forward to reading more Chomsky books in the future and continuing this journey of discovery.

I think you are an anarchist and you don't know it yet. Not in the classic way but in a Chomsky way. You should read this.

After delving into this collection, I can firmly state that the above statement is not merely one of the shrewdest and most precise observations about me, but it is also highly flattering. The "Chomsky way" stems from an in-depth understanding of numerous fields of study and is expounded upon in his essays and interviews in the most comprehensible manner. I am acquainted with most of the topics and the academic approach to presenting them. However, I am certain that almost anyone would have no difficulty in grasping the essence. Whether one agrees or not is a different matter entirely. Personally, I do concur, and although he manages to explain himself far better than I ever could, his opinion mirrors mine with such precision that it is almost eerie. The opinions are quite frequently reiterated towards the end, but I suppose it is inevitable given that this is not an organic essay.

I could invest hours in typing and quoting, but I believe that if someone is intrigued by an illuminating perspective on how our world functions, they should simply peruse the entire work.

It's really hard to rate this one. In a certain sense, I would almost give anything written by him 4 - 5 stars. However, this book is a jumble of collected writings from other places, much of which I had already come across in one form or another. It did enhance my understanding of Anarchism to a small extent, but his talk 'On Government' is perhaps better. What would have been truly great is if this book had included some up-to-date content. Although, to be fair, he doesn't really become irrelevant.

The collection seems a bit disjointed as it is a compilation. It lacks the cohesion that a single, unified work might have. Still, it does offer some valuable insights into the author's thoughts and ideas. It's just that for those who are already familiar with his other works, there might not be a whole lot that is entirely new.

Overall, it's a decent read, but it doesn't quite reach the level of excellence that some of his other works do. It's a bit of a mixed bag, and while it has its merits, it also has its flaws.