17 ms·

Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

80 points by zw123456 13y ago

chj 13y ago
The book in discussion: "On Anarchism provides the reasoning behind Noam Chomsky's fearless lifelong questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. In these essays, Chomsky redeems one of the most maligned ideologies, anarchism, and places it at the foundation of his political thinking. Chomsky's anarchism is distinctly optimistic and egalitarian. Moreover, it is a living, evolving tradition that is situated in a historical lineage; Chomsky's anarchism emphasizes the power of collective, rather than individualist, action. The collection includes a revealing new introduction by journalist Nathan Schneider, who documented the Occupy movement for Harper's and The Nation, and who places Chomsky's ideas in the contemporary political moment. On Anarchism will be essential reading for a new generation of activists who are at the forefront of a resurgence of interest in anarchism—and for anyone who struggles with what can be done to create a more just world." http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Noam-Chomsky-ebook/dp/B00E25LZZI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387168819&sr=8-1&keywords=on+anarchism# http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Noam-Chomsky-ebook/dp/B00E25...
- nailer 13y ago
  (Confession: I'm on a lunch break, and have not sat through the hour plus documentary - so pardon me if it already addresses this point) In democracy (imperfect as it may be) we get to elect people who choose laws and thus authorize violence only in mandated situations. Without rules - including law - is all violence permitted? Edit: from the book review: "Chomsky's anarchism emphasizes the power of collective, rather than individualist, action." So people come together as collectives, which represent them? Would these collectives presumably agree on some standards? And enforce them? Isn't that democracy?
  - lukifer 13y ago
    A common misconception about anarchism is that it means an absence of rules and laws. Instead, the various flavors of anarchism propose models for distributed, bottom-up authority and decision-making. Statism : 90s Microsoft :: Anarchism : Web Standards
    - klez 13y ago
      > Statism : 90s Microsoft :: Anarchism : Web Standards Maybe I'm nitpicking, but Web Standards are mandated by the W3C, which I don't see as an anarchistic organization, but more as an extended oligarchy. To participate, an organization (from what I found, individuals cannot join) needs at least 1950.00 EUR per year.[1] [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees I'm not criticizing W3C per se, just the fact that it's being compared to an anarchist way of doing things.
      - lukifer 13y ago
        Hm, I didn't know that. Nonetheless, I feel the analogy stands somewhat; decisions are at least partially made via participatory consensus rather than from one entity by fiat. There's also the WHATWG, which is much more democratic, and which has been very influential in the ongoing standards process. Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be ICANN vs. NameCoin; however in that case, the anarchist solution is far less proven. ;)
      - swashboon 13y ago
        Web Standards are only useful becasue people agree on them and utilize them. There is no mechanism for enforcement or ordering, just the majority rule essentially.
  - Avshalom 13y ago
    it depends on your definition of anarchism. it isn't necessarily lawlessness as much as a lack of hierarchical power structures. radical flatness.
    - nailer 13y ago
      I like flatter power structures too. But I think this is better summed up as 'direct representation' or 'direct democracy' rather than 'anarchism' - regardless of the benefit of these ideas, too many people who believe in violence and seizing of others property loudly proclaim themselves 'anarchists' for anyone with more reasonable views to be able to 'claim back' the term.
      - klez 13y ago
        > too many people who believe in violence and seizing of others property loudly proclaim themselves 'anarchists' Just like people committing computer fraud call themselves hackers. The fact that fraudsters (and media, as is the case with both 'hacker' and 'anarchist') use the term wrongly doesn't diminish the original and correct meaning that dates back to the 19th century.
        nailer 13y ago
        I think the analogy's spot on, but that it /does/ diminish the original meaning. Eg, I don't call myself a 'hacker' around people who aren't geeks because I know it will be misinterpreted, and additionally people who think that definition is a good thing will want to associate with me.
        peterwwillis 13y ago
        This gets round to the comment I wanted to make about the whole topic: Anarchism is a word that closes people's minds and should not be used to try to promote some better system of organization or community. Can you imagine people trying to encourage community and a family unit by trying to bring back Skinhead culture? Try as you might to explain its positive, non-racial origins, people just associate it with neo-naziism. And though I acknowledge Anarchism can be a productive form of collective organizing, if I see somebody with a torn jacket with a circled A patch on it, I think that person's a jackass.
  - DominikR 13y ago
    It is a common misconception to label Anarchy as a society without any rules or social norms. That would be Anomie. (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie) Edit: > So people come together as collectives, which represent them? Would these collectives presumably agree on some standards? And enforce them? Isn't that democracy? Yes, but in the US you have a representative democracy where you vote for some party which then makes changes or introduces new laws without asking you or anybody else. In an anarchy you would not only be asked to vote on rules, you could actively take part on the creation of new rules.
    - c_magg 13y ago
      You cannot make blanked claims such as this. There are dozens of different types of anarchy ranging from socialistic anarchism to free market anarchism. Voting may or may not be part of the anarchist experience.
javert 13y ago
Anarchism is pure nonsense. There is literally no such thing as "no government." In a "state of nature," every government is size 1---you. You are responsible for retaliatory and initiatory force, and every interaction is foreign diplomacy with a gun behind it. From there, things can (and will) evolve so that there are larger governments, but you cannot get "no government."
- agilebyte 13y ago
  In Introduction to Anarchism, the author suggests that the future direction in anarchism could be to support local governments and having power on a local, rather than national level. http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192804774 http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp...
  - javert 13y ago
    Well, that would be highly devolved government, not anarchism, no? Shouldn't Chomsky avoid such confusing langauge? I'm no better off serving a local collective than a national collective.
    - agilebyte 13y ago
      The idea is that he does not speak for all anarchists, just like the idea in the book I read doesn't either.
      - javert 13y ago
        I'm not sure I get your point. He doesn't need to speak for all anarchists. He just needs to speak clearly. If he advocated "collectivism fully devolved to the local level" (which I think is what he advocates, right?) it would be much more clear, and he would not be peddling a contradiction. "Anarchism" contradicts with the thing I just described, which is still a government and/or power structure.
        13y ago
anoncowherd 13y ago
Meet Noam Chomsky - Academic Gatekeeper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk&list=PLN6xa7kD9dZ_6_GzGjZGlKKElb6ceOq0p&feature=player_detailpage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk&list=PLN6xa7kD9dZ...
- DominikR 13y ago
  So someone who calls for overthrowing the US government and replacing Capitalism with Anarcho-Syndicalism is now a gatekeeper?
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    Feel free to argue against the points presented in the video. Capitalism is such a messed-up term these days. To me it means free, voluntary exchanges and agreements/contracts between people, but most people have been propagandized to view it as "evil capitalist pigs exploiting and oppressing the poor". But capitalism cannot be replaced, it's what people do when they're allowed to, after all. It's about people pursuing their personal gain through commerce and investments etc, and you know self-interest is not going anywhere, regardless of what societal system happens to be in place.
    - kokey 13y ago
      When a philosophy graduate is unhappy that collective, voluntary trade on the market doesn't benefit his 'trade', he will see it as evil, repressive capitalism. While, in an anarchist, decentralised, collective society there will be people who will no be able to realise their dreams and ambitions and they too will resent this repression imposed on them by the evil collective.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        A "decentralized collective society" seems contradictory. I can't tell what you mean.
    - lukifer 13y ago
boolean 13y ago
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB9rp_SAp2U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB9rp_SAp2U
- rglover 13y ago
  Thanks :)
ethana 13y ago
I find it completely ironic that anarchism itself cannot even escape the left-right paradigm. Going down lower Manhattan on a weekdays, you can find heated arguments between an anarcho-communist vs another anarcho-capitalist. But I also find the term anarcho-communism to be an oxymoron.
- collyw 13y ago
  anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism.
  - mike_esspe 13y ago
    If you treat the word anarchism as "stateless society", then anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. If you treat the word anarchism as "anarcho-communism", then you are right. Even from historical perspective, individual anarchism is almost as old, as communitarian.
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      Thanks. Anarchists need to come together to champion the real political spectrum we all care about; authoritarianism versus libertarianism. I think many anarchists get caught up in high level theory when really, the best thing we could do would be to organize and communicate towards common goals.
    - rmchugh 13y ago
      if you think etymology is more important than the historical tradition, then anarchism might as well be anarcho-capitalism, Stirnerism, Zen Buddhism or whatever else you can imagine. If you want to define anarchism as a political tradition, than it cannot be anything other than a libertarian current within the greater workers' movement that reached its peak together with syndicalism in the early part of the 20th century. http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/black-flame-the-revolutionary-class-politics-of-anarchism-and-syndicalism-%E2%80%94-book-excerpt/ http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/black-flame-the-r...
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
sirsar 13y ago
Most of this discussion is centered around the definition of anarchism. It seems difficult to debate undefined ideas.
- jaekwon 13y ago
  He starts out by saying that Anarchism is a truism. That is, we by default live in Anarchism and cannot escape it. Then perhaps the discussion is really about what the world should be like in the future. If the discussion brings together Anarcho-* of all sorts to dismantle the current regime, it would be time well spent. In the very least he helps us disassemble the (often conflicting) definitions so that we can better understand the origins and biases, thereby allowing us to reason more clearly about our reality. But yeah, I get your point.

80 points by zw123456 13y ago

chj 13y ago

The book in discussion: "On Anarchism provides the reasoning behind Noam Chomsky's fearless lifelong questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. In these essays, Chomsky redeems one of the most maligned ideologies, anarchism, and places it at the foundation of his political thinking. Chomsky's anarchism is distinctly optimistic and egalitarian. Moreover, it is a living, evolving tradition that is situated in a historical lineage; Chomsky's anarchism emphasizes the power of collective, rather than individualist, action. The collection includes a revealing new introduction by journalist Nathan Schneider, who documented the Occupy movement for Harper's and The Nation, and who places Chomsky's ideas in the contemporary political moment. On Anarchism will be essential reading for a new generation of activists who are at the forefront of a resurgence of interest in anarchism—and for anyone who struggles with what can be done to create a more just world." http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Noam-Chomsky-ebook/dp/B00E25LZZI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387168819&sr=8-1&keywords=on+anarchism# http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Noam-Chomsky-ebook/dp/B00E25...

nailer 13y ago
(Confession: I'm on a lunch break, and have not sat through the hour plus documentary - so pardon me if it already addresses this point) In democracy (imperfect as it may be) we get to elect people who choose laws and thus authorize violence only in mandated situations. Without rules - including law - is all violence permitted? Edit: from the book review: "Chomsky's anarchism emphasizes the power of collective, rather than individualist, action." So people come together as collectives, which represent them? Would these collectives presumably agree on some standards? And enforce them? Isn't that democracy?
- lukifer 13y ago
  A common misconception about anarchism is that it means an absence of rules and laws. Instead, the various flavors of anarchism propose models for distributed, bottom-up authority and decision-making. Statism : 90s Microsoft :: Anarchism : Web Standards
  - klez 13y ago
    > Statism : 90s Microsoft :: Anarchism : Web Standards Maybe I'm nitpicking, but Web Standards are mandated by the W3C, which I don't see as an anarchistic organization, but more as an extended oligarchy. To participate, an organization (from what I found, individuals cannot join) needs at least 1950.00 EUR per year.[1] [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees I'm not criticizing W3C per se, just the fact that it's being compared to an anarchist way of doing things.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      Hm, I didn't know that. Nonetheless, I feel the analogy stands somewhat; decisions are at least partially made via participatory consensus rather than from one entity by fiat. There's also the WHATWG, which is much more democratic, and which has been very influential in the ongoing standards process. Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be ICANN vs. NameCoin; however in that case, the anarchist solution is far less proven. ;)
    - swashboon 13y ago
      Web Standards are only useful becasue people agree on them and utilize them. There is no mechanism for enforcement or ordering, just the majority rule essentially.
- Avshalom 13y ago
  it depends on your definition of anarchism. it isn't necessarily lawlessness as much as a lack of hierarchical power structures. radical flatness.
  - nailer 13y ago
    I like flatter power structures too. But I think this is better summed up as 'direct representation' or 'direct democracy' rather than 'anarchism' - regardless of the benefit of these ideas, too many people who believe in violence and seizing of others property loudly proclaim themselves 'anarchists' for anyone with more reasonable views to be able to 'claim back' the term.
    - klez 13y ago
      > too many people who believe in violence and seizing of others property loudly proclaim themselves 'anarchists' Just like people committing computer fraud call themselves hackers. The fact that fraudsters (and media, as is the case with both 'hacker' and 'anarchist') use the term wrongly doesn't diminish the original and correct meaning that dates back to the 19th century.
      - nailer 13y ago
        I think the analogy's spot on, but that it /does/ diminish the original meaning. Eg, I don't call myself a 'hacker' around people who aren't geeks because I know it will be misinterpreted, and additionally people who think that definition is a good thing will want to associate with me.
        peterwwillis 13y ago
        This gets round to the comment I wanted to make about the whole topic: Anarchism is a word that closes people's minds and should not be used to try to promote some better system of organization or community. Can you imagine people trying to encourage community and a family unit by trying to bring back Skinhead culture? Try as you might to explain its positive, non-racial origins, people just associate it with neo-naziism. And though I acknowledge Anarchism can be a productive form of collective organizing, if I see somebody with a torn jacket with a circled A patch on it, I think that person's a jackass.
- DominikR 13y ago
  It is a common misconception to label Anarchy as a society without any rules or social norms. That would be Anomie. (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie) Edit: > So people come together as collectives, which represent them? Would these collectives presumably agree on some standards? And enforce them? Isn't that democracy? Yes, but in the US you have a representative democracy where you vote for some party which then makes changes or introduces new laws without asking you or anybody else. In an anarchy you would not only be asked to vote on rules, you could actively take part on the creation of new rules.
  - c_magg 13y ago
    You cannot make blanked claims such as this. There are dozens of different types of anarchy ranging from socialistic anarchism to free market anarchism. Voting may or may not be part of the anarchist experience.

javert 13y ago

Anarchism is pure nonsense. There is literally no such thing as "no government." In a "state of nature," every government is size 1---you. You are responsible for retaliatory and initiatory force, and every interaction is foreign diplomacy with a gun behind it. From there, things can (and will) evolve so that there are larger governments, but you cannot get "no government."

agilebyte 13y ago
In Introduction to Anarchism, the author suggests that the future direction in anarchism could be to support local governments and having power on a local, rather than national level. http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192804774 http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp...
- javert 13y ago
  Well, that would be highly devolved government, not anarchism, no? Shouldn't Chomsky avoid such confusing langauge? I'm no better off serving a local collective than a national collective.
  - agilebyte 13y ago
    The idea is that he does not speak for all anarchists, just like the idea in the book I read doesn't either.
    - javert 13y ago
      I'm not sure I get your point. He doesn't need to speak for all anarchists. He just needs to speak clearly. If he advocated "collectivism fully devolved to the local level" (which I think is what he advocates, right?) it would be much more clear, and he would not be peddling a contradiction. "Anarchism" contradicts with the thing I just described, which is still a government and/or power structure.
      - 13y ago

anoncowherd 13y ago

Meet Noam Chomsky - Academic Gatekeeper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk&list=PLN6xa7kD9dZ_6_GzGjZGlKKElb6ceOq0p&feature=player_detailpage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk&list=PLN6xa7kD9dZ...

DominikR 13y ago
So someone who calls for overthrowing the US government and replacing Capitalism with Anarcho-Syndicalism is now a gatekeeper?
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  Feel free to argue against the points presented in the video. Capitalism is such a messed-up term these days. To me it means free, voluntary exchanges and agreements/contracts between people, but most people have been propagandized to view it as "evil capitalist pigs exploiting and oppressing the poor". But capitalism cannot be replaced, it's what people do when they're allowed to, after all. It's about people pursuing their personal gain through commerce and investments etc, and you know self-interest is not going anywhere, regardless of what societal system happens to be in place.
  - kokey 13y ago
    When a philosophy graduate is unhappy that collective, voluntary trade on the market doesn't benefit his 'trade', he will see it as evil, repressive capitalism. While, in an anarchist, decentralised, collective society there will be people who will no be able to realise their dreams and ambitions and they too will resent this repression imposed on them by the evil collective.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      A "decentralized collective society" seems contradictory. I can't tell what you mean.
  - lukifer 13y ago

boolean 13y ago

Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB9rp_SAp2U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB9rp_SAp2U

rglover 13y ago
Thanks :)

ethana 13y ago

I find it completely ironic that anarchism itself cannot even escape the left-right paradigm. Going down lower Manhattan on a weekdays, you can find heated arguments between an anarcho-communist vs another anarcho-capitalist. But I also find the term anarcho-communism to be an oxymoron.

collyw 13y ago
anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism.
- mike_esspe 13y ago
  If you treat the word anarchism as "stateless society", then anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. If you treat the word anarchism as "anarcho-communism", then you are right. Even from historical perspective, individual anarchism is almost as old, as communitarian.
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    Thanks. Anarchists need to come together to champion the real political spectrum we all care about; authoritarianism versus libertarianism. I think many anarchists get caught up in high level theory when really, the best thing we could do would be to organize and communicate towards common goals.
  - rmchugh 13y ago
    if you think etymology is more important than the historical tradition, then anarchism might as well be anarcho-capitalism, Stirnerism, Zen Buddhism or whatever else you can imagine. If you want to define anarchism as a political tradition, than it cannot be anything other than a libertarian current within the greater workers' movement that reached its peak together with syndicalism in the early part of the 20th century. http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/black-flame-the-revolutionary-class-politics-of-anarchism-and-syndicalism-%E2%80%94-book-excerpt/ http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/black-flame-the-r...
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago

sirsar 13y ago

Most of this discussion is centered around the definition of anarchism. It seems difficult to debate undefined ideas.

jaekwon 13y ago
He starts out by saying that Anarchism is a truism. That is, we by default live in Anarchism and cannot escape it. Then perhaps the discussion is really about what the world should be like in the future. If the discussion brings together Anarcho-* of all sorts to dismantle the current regime, it would be time well spent. In the very least he helps us disassemble the (often conflicting) definitions so that we can better understand the origins and biases, thereby allowing us to reason more clearly about our reality. But yeah, I get your point.