4 ms·

The book in discussion: "On Anarchism provides the reasoning behind Noam Chomsky's fearless lifelong questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. In thes

by 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.

by chj 13y ago

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.