18 ms·

The impact of Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" on Noam Chomsky's path to anarchism

92 points by anarbadalov 2y ago

lowkey 2y ago
I love much of Chomsky’s writing as he opened my eyes in powerful ways, especially wrt media bias. I would however hesitate to call him an anarchist after hearing his comments about the unvaccinated during Covid.
- swayvil 2y ago
  The brighter the light the darker the surrounding darkness. And Chomsky's light is so very bright.
  - artninja1988 2y ago
    Does he glow in the dark?
    - swayvil 2y ago
      I meant that when you focus on one thing you ignore another. Great focus tends to create great blind spots.
- rgrieselhuber 2y ago
  Chomsky, as did everyone during COVID, revealed his true colors and he certainly did not live up to his own rhetoric over the years.
- tomjakubowski 2y ago
  Don't be vague, what about his comments on Covid vaccines was statist? As far as I know, he only called for social shunning of the unvaccinated, not state action. In fact, in this interview, he declares opposition to a vaccine mandate, and doesn't even call for social shunning - he instead suggests that the unvaccinated should take it upon themselves to self-isolate. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for-unvaccinated-to-be-isolated-from-society-b2182947.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for...
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Is there much of a difference? If all stores ban the unvaccinated for example? Is that “shunning” in line with the underlying principles? Even though I am vaccinated, I personally reject calls for medical discrimination and violations of bodily autonomy. I think it is one thing for individuals to make choices and decide who they want to invite to their house. But I think it is another thing entirely for public or private employers or other places to ban people on such traits. Whether it is forced by the government or not, doesn’t make a difference to me. But I will also note that the line can be very blurry to begin with. For example, many cities have public transportation that is operated by private entities.
    - beepbooptheory 2y ago
      Surely whether its forced by the government or not does make the difference here? Isn't that like the whole problem? Otherwise wouldnt this all essentially be complaining about a "No Shirt No Service" policy at a McDonald's?
      - zdragnar 2y ago
        From an anarchist perspective, there isn't a practical difference; both are hierarchical power structures that coerce behavior.
        mercutio2 2y ago
        Uh, what? If you are an anarchist, and you truly feel that McDonald's hierarchy is just as problematic as governments coercing behavior, OK, you do you. But if you're not an anarchist, and you're arguing anarchists think this way... that is not the way any of my anarchist friends think about the problems of corporate hegemony vs. government coercion. They are against both, but consider them vastly different problems, in scope as well as kind. Juxtaposing them and saying there's no difference... is not what any anarchists I know would do.
        2y ago
- pessimizer 2y ago
  It's my opinion that his old age, combined with the fact that he was always surrounded by optimistic young people, activists, and extremely wealthy people who respected his critiques of power, started distorting his views on contemporary issues. I don't think that it reflects badly on him, being out of touch is a proof of his extreme success; it's inevitable that your success forms its own bubble. Specifically, I don't think he considered the degree to which people in power would lie about what they knew about the actual characteristics of the disease to such an extent, which means that he had fallen out of touch with his own work. edit: Covid being as weak as it was was just luck. The next disease could be almost the same, let's say like MERS with a possible 35% fatality rate, but with a long asymptomatic incubation time during which people are at their most infectious. If that happens, we'll still have to grapple with the questions that Chomsky dared to give answers to.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
baxtr 2y ago
Help me out. I have never understood the logic of anarchy. So everybody for themselves, ok. But what if two form a group and start oppressing the one who thought he is free. Group formation seems to be natural way humans organize up to a state level.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Anarchism means no unearned hierarchy, it doesn't mean no cooperation. It means no kings, it doesn't mean no leaders. Everybody for themselves would be a demand that a king would make. Normal people cooperate.
  - Analemma_ 2y ago
    In decades of being on the internet, I have yet to meet two anarchists who use the same definition of "anarchism". Certainly I know plenty of people who would excoriate you for saying it "means no unearned hierarchy". It's impossible to philosophically engage with anarchism, because every anarchist rewrites its definition on-the-fly to win whatever argument they happen to be in at that moment.
    - teddyh 2y ago
      In decades of also being on the internet, I have also yet to meet two people who use the same definition of "democracy".
      - ein0p 2y ago
        Especially now when there’s often talk of criminalizing political speech and protest to, ostensibly, “protect _our_ democracy”. Who’s democracy it is is never explicitly stated, but I think it’s not mine.
        teddyh 2y ago
        There was always talk like that, but from only one side, so you probably did not hear it or take it seriously then. Now, however, it has shifted to come from the other side as well. I mused at length about this here some months ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38119795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38119795>
AndrewKemendo 2y ago
Genuine question for this audience. Given a general recognition of the philosophical grounding of Chomsky and the broader social anarchist philosophers (Henry George comes up frequently)… Why is there not more directed advocacy or support for leadership that present anarchist political perspectives? My observation is that in a large percentage of cases, people have such a strong reaction to the word, “anarchist” that they can’t actually evaluate it the way that political philosophers define it And so there is no linguistic term that is not triggering, which also reflects the broader philosophical tradition of individual agent based Interactions that are disintermediated from other power structures.
- pixl97 2y ago
  >leadership that present anarchist You might see the conflict here in the wording... A successful meme is one that causes itself to be propagated. For example most religions have a tenant of "have kids, teach those kids your religion" and "convert others to your religion". Leadership in a group that says get rid of leadership is never going to be as successful as a group that attempts to acquire more power. Or to say different, it's success measure would be in destroying itself.
  - anamexis 2y ago
    I think you're responding exactly in a way GP is talking about, namely "that they can’t actually evaluate it the way that political philosophers define it." Anarchism does not mean that there are no leaders or leadership.
    - AndyNemmity 2y ago
      Anarchism means there is no unjustified authority.
      - pixl97 2y ago
        >unjustified authority That is a tautology. Who provides the justification and who gave them that authority. The king? The nobles? The learned? The majority? The masses? The individual? The problem with power is it is self justifying. If you have power you can justify anything, and if you do not, you exist at the mercy of those that do. One would think the most rational behavior would be to give those power that want it least (such as anarchists), but human psychology shows that significant portions of humanity want hierarchies and will gladly give their power to put a dictator/king into power.
josefritzishere 2y ago
I've read all of George Orwell's novels. Homage Catalonia is good, but Down and Out in Paris and London is better; possibly his best. Everyone knows Animal Farm and 1984. Chomsky is one of the great minds of the last century, surely even he would tell you he read a lot more than Homage Catalonia to shape his Anarchism.
- mikhailfranco 2y ago
  I think 1984 and Animal Farm have to be at the top of the list, in that order. I agree Down and Out in Paris and London follows close behind, and the best of his essays come next. I think Homage to Catalonia is not a great book, but valuable for the autobiographical insight about Orwell, and how it informed him to write those other, better works. I would also add that Coming Up For Air is delightful and underrated. Try the audio book. Any middle-aged man can appreciate the quiet understated honesty.
akamaka 2y ago
> Orwell maintains that revolution is the only way to remove from power the oppressive business-based ruling class of the type that has dominated the West since World War II. This line from the article seems to misrepresent Orwell. Perhaps it’s been too long since I’ve read Homage to Catalonia, but I’m pretty sure he arrived in Spain without any grand ideas of being part of a revolution, and quite simply wanted to fight against fascists. He makes it clear in his book that he initially had little understanding of the differences in ideology among the various left-wing groups, and chose to join the anarchists rather arbitrarily.
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  It's been too long since I've read Homage to Catalonia as well, and I agree with your understanding. However, he did have quite complex views after learning more.
  - panarky 2y ago
    The one thing that is constant from the beginning of the book until the end is Orwell's antifascism. He believed it was essential to kill fascists, and that he had a duty to personally kill as many as he could. At the beginning, he didn't really care whether he killed fascists under an anarchist flag or a socialist flag. By the end, he was disillusioned with the unwillingness of the free world to support the underequipped antifascist forces. And he discovered to his dismay how Soviet authoritarians undermined the antifascist cause in their own drive to seize power. It doesn't seem that he ever figured out the best way to fight fascism and authoritarianism and totalitarianism, but it's pretty clear that he still thought it was important to destroy them, and he saw up close how Spanish anarchism by itself wasn't very effective at doing that.
    - AndyNemmity 2y ago
      Sure, but he labeled himself a Libertarian Socialist afterwards, which was what I was referring to. And I would argue he did figure out the best way, he wrote books about it.
kyletns 2y ago
https://files.libcom.org/files/Homage%20to%20Catalonia%20-%20George%20Orwell.pdf https://files.libcom.org/files/Homage%20to%20Catalonia%20-%2...
spacecadet 2y ago
My man.
- spacecadet 2y ago
  Or not LOL, some real capitalist pigs on hacker news. Why you hanging out with hackers?!
mef 2y ago
for what it's worth, Chomsky is specifically an advocate of Anarcho-Syndicalism: Anarcho-syndicalism is a political philosophy and anarchist school of thought that views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and thus control influence in broader society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  I disagree. Anarcho-Syndicalism is a type of Anarchism that would be reasonable. There are other types that are also reasonable, and Chomsky is just as much for them. The specifics of how workers in a capitalist society gain control of the economy, and replace it with democracy, are dependent on the culture, and what is possible. Anarcho-Syndicalism is the greatest achievement in Anarchism in Spain though, so perhaps it is the most reasonable of the solutions, I'm only indicating Syndicalism is a possible way, amongst possible ways.
rasz 2y ago
Chomsky is only pro anarchism when it comes to the West. He is perfectly fine with communist/post communist regimes rampaging around unabated and uncriticized. I would call his stance as "West bad, West always bad and at fault for everything!!1".
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  This is incorrect, and a common meme that people use to paint his thoughts as simple, when the reality is far more complex and nuanced, and has nothing to do specifically with the West. He talks about the West because as a citizen of a country in the West, he has more culpability and responsibility for it's actions. As well the United States is the largest military and power, and in all cases, the largest Authority is always the one with the most crimes. It's as true for the US, as well as all of history.
  - downut 2y ago
    I've read most of his books and pretty much bought into a lot of his analysis around "manufacturing consent", corporate power, etc, 35 years ago. I still think it's largely correct . However, I also waded into the Khmer Rouge business and his words are uncomfortably close to justifying Pol Pot. Complex as that situation was there's really not any excuse for what the Khmer Rouge did. You can also read his actual words on Ukraine/Russia (easy to find) and see the same tendency there. At the same time, his analysis on the US and ME wars is more accurate, IMHO. This seems to be a pit some otherwise excellent minds fall into: one side bad implies opposing sides are somehow good.
    - AndyNemmity 2y ago
      That's not true. "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury and so on and so forth." - Noam Chomsky
      - downut 2y ago
Synaesthesia 2y ago
Chomsky's first article, which he wrote when he was 10 was about the Spanish Civil War, he was reporting that Texaco the oil company was supplying the nationalists with oil, despite their being an official embargo, and the US government knew about it.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  The pretense (official embargo, etc.) is gone these days, and the US openly supports repressive regimes and war criminal leaders as long as the money can keep flowing. Things changed a lot since the predicted "End of History" and I struggle to understand what exactly led us here...
  - glial 2y ago
    > as long as the money can keep flowing I think you answered your own question there. But then, this was true before history ended too. I strongly recommend "How to Hide an Empire" by Daniel Immerwahr - it's an easy and fascinating read.
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      Thanks for the recommendation. I'm sure it was true. I'm surprised by how they don't bother to pretend anymore
altruios 2y ago
I think the cry 'down with the hierarchy' is morally correct, and replacing a hierarchy with nothing is foolish. Structure does not need to have any hierarchy. We should think less in terms of pyramids (only a few at the top)... maybe consider the humble circle instead where those insulated from change affect less of it.
- lukan 2y ago
  So you have a equal circle of many people. And the need for fast action, like it often can happen in real life. Well, let's just say I have been part of many circles - but fast action was never the result of them, unless the circle was really, really small. And even if there is no need for fast action - debating everything with everyone all the time for every decision - is somewhat timeconsuming and draining.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    This is the first question posed by and to serious anarchists, and so one of the most frequently and thoroughly answered. There's value in thinking it through yourself but I suggest comparing solutions afterwards.
    - lukan 2y ago
      So ... will you give an answer with your own words and if possible, your own experience how this works out in reality, if it is seemingly so easy? Like I said, I not just casually read and thought about it, for 5 minutes from the comfort of my couch. I took part in such circles (also in catalonia for example). And those are my findings.
      - giraffe_lady 2y ago
        I won't here, no.
asveikau 2y ago
The Spanish civil war is a fascinating topic and I can't do justice to it in the small space of an HN comment. Many Americans were sympathetic to the republic against fascism. It's not surprising that Chomsky could have that as such a foundational piece of his left wing politics.
- cladopa 2y ago
  As a Spaniard myself it is shocking how many people believe the propaganda of being "Republic" vs fascism. If you consider Franco fascist because they were supported by Hitler, you should consider the other side communist for being supported by Stalin. Because that is exactly what the "Republic" wanted in Spain, the dictatorship of the proletarian.
  - asveikau 2y ago
    As I said there is too much to summarize here. The Republicans, communists, and anarchists were very divided within themselves and their "goodness" varied a lot from person to person, group to group. Certainly that coalition was flawed. These are all commonly cited as reasons for their failure. There are some positive things to take from them however. And I find it rather unambiguous that Franco was bad for Spain.
  - orwin 2y ago
    Franco was semi-fascist (like Stalin btw) (Trotsky called that Cesarism in 1928) because he instated a very hierarchical society based on a cult of the nation, and a full press censorship along with historiography censorship. He lacked a fascist founding mythos (which makes him differ from complete fascism) : while he wanted his nation to be great again (reconstruction myth), he designated no real internal ennemis once syndicalism was banned, and no true external ennemi. Also, the Spanish republic didn't 'want' a dictatorship of the proletariat at all (they used strike breakers forces once their scabs didn't work ffs), they had to accept it to keep the production going under the threat of Carlists and Francists, but they were pretty much on the side of the bourgeoisie until the civil war.
  - mejutoco 2y ago
mrangle 2y ago
>When Chomsky was in his teens he read Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” “which,” he told me in 1995, “struck me as amusing but pretty obvious” What a massive tool. Animal Farm was so obvious to Noam Chomsky that he forwent writing it, and he's going to make sure that you know. This type of grifter personality would also be the one that lies about his stated political models, assuming that their essential nature is "pretty obvious" to Chomsky. The end result being his contribution to division and chaos.

92 points by anarbadalov 2y ago

I love much of Chomsky’s writing as he opened my eyes in powerful ways, especially wrt media bias. I would however hesitate to call him an anarchist after hearing his comments about the unvaccinated during Covid.

swayvil 2y ago
The brighter the light the darker the surrounding darkness. And Chomsky's light is so very bright.
- artninja1988 2y ago
  Does he glow in the dark?
  - swayvil 2y ago
    I meant that when you focus on one thing you ignore another. Great focus tends to create great blind spots.
rgrieselhuber 2y ago
Chomsky, as did everyone during COVID, revealed his true colors and he certainly did not live up to his own rhetoric over the years.
tomjakubowski 2y ago
Don't be vague, what about his comments on Covid vaccines was statist? As far as I know, he only called for social shunning of the unvaccinated, not state action. In fact, in this interview, he declares opposition to a vaccine mandate, and doesn't even call for social shunning - he instead suggests that the unvaccinated should take it upon themselves to self-isolate. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for-unvaccinated-to-be-isolated-from-society-b2182947.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for...
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Is there much of a difference? If all stores ban the unvaccinated for example? Is that “shunning” in line with the underlying principles? Even though I am vaccinated, I personally reject calls for medical discrimination and violations of bodily autonomy. I think it is one thing for individuals to make choices and decide who they want to invite to their house. But I think it is another thing entirely for public or private employers or other places to ban people on such traits. Whether it is forced by the government or not, doesn’t make a difference to me. But I will also note that the line can be very blurry to begin with. For example, many cities have public transportation that is operated by private entities.
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago
    Surely whether its forced by the government or not does make the difference here? Isn't that like the whole problem? Otherwise wouldnt this all essentially be complaining about a "No Shirt No Service" policy at a McDonald's?
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      From an anarchist perspective, there isn't a practical difference; both are hierarchical power structures that coerce behavior.
      - mercutio2 2y ago
        Uh, what? If you are an anarchist, and you truly feel that McDonald's hierarchy is just as problematic as governments coercing behavior, OK, you do you. But if you're not an anarchist, and you're arguing anarchists think this way... that is not the way any of my anarchist friends think about the problems of corporate hegemony vs. government coercion. They are against both, but consider them vastly different problems, in scope as well as kind. Juxtaposing them and saying there's no difference... is not what any anarchists I know would do.
        2y ago
pessimizer 2y ago
It's my opinion that his old age, combined with the fact that he was always surrounded by optimistic young people, activists, and extremely wealthy people who respected his critiques of power, started distorting his views on contemporary issues. I don't think that it reflects badly on him, being out of touch is a proof of his extreme success; it's inevitable that your success forms its own bubble. Specifically, I don't think he considered the degree to which people in power would lie about what they knew about the actual characteristics of the disease to such an extent, which means that he had fallen out of touch with his own work. edit: Covid being as weak as it was was just luck. The next disease could be almost the same, let's say like MERS with a possible 35% fatality rate, but with a long asymptomatic incubation time during which people are at their most infectious. If that happens, we'll still have to grapple with the questions that Chomsky dared to give answers to.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

baxtr 2y ago

Help me out. I have never understood the logic of anarchy. So everybody for themselves, ok. But what if two form a group and start oppressing the one who thought he is free. Group formation seems to be natural way humans organize up to a state level.

pessimizer 2y ago
Anarchism means no unearned hierarchy, it doesn't mean no cooperation. It means no kings, it doesn't mean no leaders. Everybody for themselves would be a demand that a king would make. Normal people cooperate.
- Analemma_ 2y ago
  In decades of being on the internet, I have yet to meet two anarchists who use the same definition of "anarchism". Certainly I know plenty of people who would excoriate you for saying it "means no unearned hierarchy". It's impossible to philosophically engage with anarchism, because every anarchist rewrites its definition on-the-fly to win whatever argument they happen to be in at that moment.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    In decades of also being on the internet, I have also yet to meet two people who use the same definition of "democracy".
    - ein0p 2y ago
      Especially now when there’s often talk of criminalizing political speech and protest to, ostensibly, “protect _our_ democracy”. Who’s democracy it is is never explicitly stated, but I think it’s not mine.
      - teddyh 2y ago
        There was always talk like that, but from only one side, so you probably did not hear it or take it seriously then. Now, however, it has shifted to come from the other side as well. I mused at length about this here some months ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38119795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38119795>

AndrewKemendo 2y ago

Genuine question for this audience. Given a general recognition of the philosophical grounding of Chomsky and the broader social anarchist philosophers (Henry George comes up frequently)… Why is there not more directed advocacy or support for leadership that present anarchist political perspectives? My observation is that in a large percentage of cases, people have such a strong reaction to the word, “anarchist” that they can’t actually evaluate it the way that political philosophers define it And so there is no linguistic term that is not triggering, which also reflects the broader philosophical tradition of individual agent based Interactions that are disintermediated from other power structures.

pixl97 2y ago
>leadership that present anarchist You might see the conflict here in the wording... A successful meme is one that causes itself to be propagated. For example most religions have a tenant of "have kids, teach those kids your religion" and "convert others to your religion". Leadership in a group that says get rid of leadership is never going to be as successful as a group that attempts to acquire more power. Or to say different, it's success measure would be in destroying itself.
- anamexis 2y ago
  I think you're responding exactly in a way GP is talking about, namely "that they can’t actually evaluate it the way that political philosophers define it." Anarchism does not mean that there are no leaders or leadership.
  - AndyNemmity 2y ago
    Anarchism means there is no unjustified authority.
    - pixl97 2y ago
      >unjustified authority That is a tautology. Who provides the justification and who gave them that authority. The king? The nobles? The learned? The majority? The masses? The individual? The problem with power is it is self justifying. If you have power you can justify anything, and if you do not, you exist at the mercy of those that do. One would think the most rational behavior would be to give those power that want it least (such as anarchists), but human psychology shows that significant portions of humanity want hierarchies and will gladly give their power to put a dictator/king into power.

josefritzishere 2y ago

I've read all of George Orwell's novels. Homage Catalonia is good, but Down and Out in Paris and London is better; possibly his best. Everyone knows Animal Farm and 1984. Chomsky is one of the great minds of the last century, surely even he would tell you he read a lot more than Homage Catalonia to shape his Anarchism.

mikhailfranco 2y ago
I think 1984 and Animal Farm have to be at the top of the list, in that order. I agree Down and Out in Paris and London follows close behind, and the best of his essays come next. I think Homage to Catalonia is not a great book, but valuable for the autobiographical insight about Orwell, and how it informed him to write those other, better works. I would also add that Coming Up For Air is delightful and underrated. Try the audio book. Any middle-aged man can appreciate the quiet understated honesty.

akamaka 2y ago

> Orwell maintains that revolution is the only way to remove from power the oppressive business-based ruling class of the type that has dominated the West since World War II. This line from the article seems to misrepresent Orwell. Perhaps it’s been too long since I’ve read Homage to Catalonia, but I’m pretty sure he arrived in Spain without any grand ideas of being part of a revolution, and quite simply wanted to fight against fascists. He makes it clear in his book that he initially had little understanding of the differences in ideology among the various left-wing groups, and chose to join the anarchists rather arbitrarily.

AndyNemmity 2y ago
It's been too long since I've read Homage to Catalonia as well, and I agree with your understanding. However, he did have quite complex views after learning more.
- panarky 2y ago
  The one thing that is constant from the beginning of the book until the end is Orwell's antifascism. He believed it was essential to kill fascists, and that he had a duty to personally kill as many as he could. At the beginning, he didn't really care whether he killed fascists under an anarchist flag or a socialist flag. By the end, he was disillusioned with the unwillingness of the free world to support the underequipped antifascist forces. And he discovered to his dismay how Soviet authoritarians undermined the antifascist cause in their own drive to seize power. It doesn't seem that he ever figured out the best way to fight fascism and authoritarianism and totalitarianism, but it's pretty clear that he still thought it was important to destroy them, and he saw up close how Spanish anarchism by itself wasn't very effective at doing that.
  - AndyNemmity 2y ago
    Sure, but he labeled himself a Libertarian Socialist afterwards, which was what I was referring to. And I would argue he did figure out the best way, he wrote books about it.

kyletns 2y ago

https://files.libcom.org/files/Homage%20to%20Catalonia%20-%20George%20Orwell.pdf https://files.libcom.org/files/Homage%20to%20Catalonia%20-%2...

spacecadet 2y ago

My man.

spacecadet 2y ago
Or not LOL, some real capitalist pigs on hacker news. Why you hanging out with hackers?!

mef 2y ago

for what it's worth, Chomsky is specifically an advocate of Anarcho-Syndicalism: Anarcho-syndicalism is a political philosophy and anarchist school of thought that views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and thus control influence in broader society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

AndyNemmity 2y ago
I disagree. Anarcho-Syndicalism is a type of Anarchism that would be reasonable. There are other types that are also reasonable, and Chomsky is just as much for them. The specifics of how workers in a capitalist society gain control of the economy, and replace it with democracy, are dependent on the culture, and what is possible. Anarcho-Syndicalism is the greatest achievement in Anarchism in Spain though, so perhaps it is the most reasonable of the solutions, I'm only indicating Syndicalism is a possible way, amongst possible ways.

rasz 2y ago

Chomsky is only pro anarchism when it comes to the West. He is perfectly fine with communist/post communist regimes rampaging around unabated and uncriticized. I would call his stance as "West bad, West always bad and at fault for everything!!1".

AndyNemmity 2y ago
This is incorrect, and a common meme that people use to paint his thoughts as simple, when the reality is far more complex and nuanced, and has nothing to do specifically with the West. He talks about the West because as a citizen of a country in the West, he has more culpability and responsibility for it's actions. As well the United States is the largest military and power, and in all cases, the largest Authority is always the one with the most crimes. It's as true for the US, as well as all of history.
- downut 2y ago
  I've read most of his books and pretty much bought into a lot of his analysis around "manufacturing consent", corporate power, etc, 35 years ago. I still think it's largely correct . However, I also waded into the Khmer Rouge business and his words are uncomfortably close to justifying Pol Pot. Complex as that situation was there's really not any excuse for what the Khmer Rouge did. You can also read his actual words on Ukraine/Russia (easy to find) and see the same tendency there. At the same time, his analysis on the US and ME wars is more accurate, IMHO. This seems to be a pit some otherwise excellent minds fall into: one side bad implies opposing sides are somehow good.
  - AndyNemmity 2y ago
    That's not true. "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury and so on and so forth." - Noam Chomsky
    - downut 2y ago

Synaesthesia 2y ago

Chomsky's first article, which he wrote when he was 10 was about the Spanish Civil War, he was reporting that Texaco the oil company was supplying the nationalists with oil, despite their being an official embargo, and the US government knew about it.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
The pretense (official embargo, etc.) is gone these days, and the US openly supports repressive regimes and war criminal leaders as long as the money can keep flowing. Things changed a lot since the predicted "End of History" and I struggle to understand what exactly led us here...
- glial 2y ago
  > as long as the money can keep flowing I think you answered your own question there. But then, this was true before history ended too. I strongly recommend "How to Hide an Empire" by Daniel Immerwahr - it's an easy and fascinating read.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Thanks for the recommendation. I'm sure it was true. I'm surprised by how they don't bother to pretend anymore

altruios 2y ago

I think the cry 'down with the hierarchy' is morally correct, and replacing a hierarchy with nothing is foolish. Structure does not need to have any hierarchy. We should think less in terms of pyramids (only a few at the top)... maybe consider the humble circle instead where those insulated from change affect less of it.

lukan 2y ago
So you have a equal circle of many people. And the need for fast action, like it often can happen in real life. Well, let's just say I have been part of many circles - but fast action was never the result of them, unless the circle was really, really small. And even if there is no need for fast action - debating everything with everyone all the time for every decision - is somewhat timeconsuming and draining.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  This is the first question posed by and to serious anarchists, and so one of the most frequently and thoroughly answered. There's value in thinking it through yourself but I suggest comparing solutions afterwards.
  - lukan 2y ago
    So ... will you give an answer with your own words and if possible, your own experience how this works out in reality, if it is seemingly so easy? Like I said, I not just casually read and thought about it, for 5 minutes from the comfort of my couch. I took part in such circles (also in catalonia for example). And those are my findings.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      I won't here, no.

asveikau 2y ago

The Spanish civil war is a fascinating topic and I can't do justice to it in the small space of an HN comment. Many Americans were sympathetic to the republic against fascism. It's not surprising that Chomsky could have that as such a foundational piece of his left wing politics.

cladopa 2y ago
As a Spaniard myself it is shocking how many people believe the propaganda of being "Republic" vs fascism. If you consider Franco fascist because they were supported by Hitler, you should consider the other side communist for being supported by Stalin. Because that is exactly what the "Republic" wanted in Spain, the dictatorship of the proletarian.
- asveikau 2y ago
  As I said there is too much to summarize here. The Republicans, communists, and anarchists were very divided within themselves and their "goodness" varied a lot from person to person, group to group. Certainly that coalition was flawed. These are all commonly cited as reasons for their failure. There are some positive things to take from them however. And I find it rather unambiguous that Franco was bad for Spain.
- orwin 2y ago
  Franco was semi-fascist (like Stalin btw) (Trotsky called that Cesarism in 1928) because he instated a very hierarchical society based on a cult of the nation, and a full press censorship along with historiography censorship. He lacked a fascist founding mythos (which makes him differ from complete fascism) : while he wanted his nation to be great again (reconstruction myth), he designated no real internal ennemis once syndicalism was banned, and no true external ennemi. Also, the Spanish republic didn't 'want' a dictatorship of the proletariat at all (they used strike breakers forces once their scabs didn't work ffs), they had to accept it to keep the production going under the threat of Carlists and Francists, but they were pretty much on the side of the bourgeoisie until the civil war.
- mejutoco 2y ago

mrangle 2y ago

>When Chomsky was in his teens he read Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” “which,” he told me in 1995, “struck me as amusing but pretty obvious” What a massive tool. Animal Farm was so obvious to Noam Chomsky that he forwent writing it, and he's going to make sure that you know. This type of grifter personality would also be the one that lies about his stated political models, assuming that their essential nature is "pretty obvious" to Chomsky. The end result being his contribution to division and chaos.