5 ms·
What's important to add on here is that Chomsky wasn't a revolutionary anarchist. He talked a lot about changes within the existing framework [1] - such as incr
by abdullahkhalids 2y ago
What's important to add on here is that Chomsky wasn't a revolutionary anarchist. He talked a lot about changes within the existing framework [1] - such as increased power of labor - which were consistent with anarchist principles.
In general, it's important to generalize this. Most political philosophies are better understood and judged by the directions they demand existing societies move in rather than the final destination, which might never be achieved.
[1] EDIT: of the society he was living in, or see better comment below.
- AndyNemmity 2y agoI think you're misstating it. Chomsky has always been focused on pragmatic actions within the situation you are in. If that's Spain in the 1920s, he would be a Revolutionary Anarchist. But most of the time he's speaking, it's not about Spain in the 1920s, so the specifics of actions that are pragmatic are different. Similar to what you are saying, and I agree with some of what you're saying, but it would be incorrect to define Chomsky based on the tactics he feels are valid in a given situation.
- abdullahkhalids 2y agoThat's fair. I have edited appropriately.