On Anarchism

This is my third time reading him. I have read last year "who rules the world?", and before it I couldn't finish Hegemony or Survival. Not used to his ideas yet, but I found this short one really helpful ! There's some credit to give to Nathan Schneider for the light hearted introduction, that I spent a week almost just to read : it was very comprehensive of what was awaiting but not revealing the depth of thought to which Chomsky would go to not just explain but dissect anarchism. I kept in my mind his most basic and traditional definition of anarchism, that is : "...democratic control of communities, of workplaces, of federal structures, built on systems of voluntary association, spreading internationally..." But what distinguishes Chomsky probably from other anarchists if I'm not mistaken is the fact that he is not against working through the current system, which is not exactly pro-socialism. He depicts this clearly during one of the interviews transcripted in this book. What's more is that in order to give a whole perspective on what anarchism meant, and how it could be seen as a successful vision for society, he detailed the Spanish revolution to illustrate the anarchist experience in Barcelona and Valencia... Something that always fascinated Orwell. What I probably like most in his books is the clarity and extent of details to which he goes to track historical facts, or just explain logically his point. This he says is mandatory for him to be not just understood but to answer his unpopular opinions aka, if he says Kadhafi is a terrorist he doesn't need evidence, however accusing George Bush of the same thing he is expected to demonstrate why he would say that ? Not going to lie I missed the philosophical strolls I took down existential lane and miss that time and courage I had to grab a copy of De l'esprit des lois and followed Montesquieu in his long demonstration, and this just served this yearning right. I almost forgot about Fourier and his valuable input in urban planning theories : flexing urban/rural layouts for buildings called phalanstère to serve his idea of a society, his utopia. I gotta admit that I have a deep respect for anyone who'd had the epiphany of a utopia, carried on believing in it and theorizing about it scientifically - those visionaries are goals. Proudhon too ... Which probably says more that enough on Françoise Choay, she had a delight in lavishly describing their era as l'urbanisme progressiste , and gotta admit that Le Corbusier's Chartes d'Athènes seemed like a pamphlet, some sort of commercial next to their rich traités ... But let's not judge the man, let's give him some credit for trying ! "Nobody's smart enough to design a society, you've got to experiment." In any case, the other important notion that was extensively discussed to my delight was freedom and authority. Long story short : authority according to anarchists had to be legitimate meaning justified if not, it shouldn't even be there, while freedom is your raison d'être as a human being, you should enjoy your total freedom to do whatever you think you want to explore, instead of living in under a wage slavery ... In short, the man is not a radical he just wants you to think for yourself and imagine how it is to be free ... And honestly I closed the book with more questions than answers, so I'll just forget about him for a while now ! The bonus was his talk on Language and Freedom, one hell of link he established there !

The book itself is a composite of multiple sections from interviews and other Chomsky books. I think this disconnected nature would in most cases make something like this hard to follow. However Chomsky is a very good communicator, and that shines through in this book quite well. His ability to take concepts and tie them to familiar events that people experience, and in telling stories from his own past helps to cement the philosophical foundations he builds. Unlike many other writers on this topic I do feel like he gives clear and decisive argumentation with historical and contemporary examples to bolster his case quite well. Overall I think this book gives a fantastic overview of the anarchist philosophy and political history across several countries.

Interesting! Okay 2 takeaways: 1. Anarchy does not have the same meaning in the rest of the world as it does in the USA. Apparently it’s much more like an extreme democracy where people have collective decisions, but there’s also this layer of no money. You don’t own anything, nobody else does either. You are free. 2. Just because there’s no current example of this form of social order doesn’t mean it can’t exist. There was no semblance of democracy 500 years ago and look where we are now.