Is Chomsky an Anarchist?

[gulbirk]

Can I just ask you anarchist people who say that anarcho capitalists arent really anarchists something. Why are they not anarchists? Isnt anarchism just a no-state system?

[megaminxmaster]

@gulbirk anarchism is so much more than anti statism: it is anti hierarchical. this means that anarchism is anti state as well as anti capitalist, as well as being against all other hierarchies. "anarcho" capitalists want a society in which the state is none existent yet capitalism thrives, this is impossible (unless of course the people of a certain community want capitalism). why? because the state provides protection to capitalists: property, wealth, etc.

[bozolazic]

Nobody 2012!

[ButherLi55ett]

I don't think it matters if Noam is an anarchist or not, whether I am or whether the uploader of this video is. The point is to make some criticisms of Noam, sadly he does tend to be put on a pedestal. He soemtimes says some dodgy things like America is the greatest country on earth, his voting and views on bourgeois elections and parliament, his tendency to moralise over questions, his defence of left of capital regimes and softness on national liberation movements ect

[dubified89]

If Chomsky had his way back in Spain in the 30's everyone would have been disarmed, so there never could have been an anarchist revolution of any sort. So Chomsky is not only not an anarchist but is actually anti-anarchist. He's even said he's not opposed to military draft.

[marsCubed]

The deep problem with anarchy is;

First recognize that anarchism is a good society.

It is how we get there.

Anarchy is naive in thinking that it will be easy.

it posits individual direct action and separate community outside of the existing system.

However the status-quo will wipe it out with force of arms.

Thus we need to organize & keep together, keep the anarchist ideal central.

but be able to defend gains and fight back in a united way.

When we win then it will be time for anarchy.

[wvprogressive1933]

Buddhagem, when did you meet his Noamness?

[k9a2g6]

A very good video,according to Znet,Chomsy 's blog,point's out that Michael Albert's theory on Democracy , "Participatory Democracy" should be embraced by the people of the United States

[cyber9sockpuppet]

Chomsky stands for protectionist policies, and is totally anti-free market.

[cyber9sockpuppet]

Noam Chomsky is more of a socialist if anything. you twist his concepts to make him an anarchist.

[Pikestance]

@cyber9sockpuppet If you mean Chmsky believes in state control of the economy then you are absolutely incorrect. He self- described himself as a Libertarian Socialist (better describes a collectivist anarchist as opposed to a individual anarchist). I agree with the creator of the video. It isn't important what you label him, however he is NOT a 'fan' of the state. BTW if you stuck in the archaic political left- right dictonomy, than I can see why you are confused by Chmoky's position.

[KentAllard]

the rightwing insistence on owning a word is a little sad

[anarc0sindicalista]

Of course.

Salud, cheer and IWW/IWA

[IndividualAutonomy]

I shall stay tuned.

[yohaneuano4]

All true socialists are anarchists and all true anarchists are socialists. There is no hybridity between these two, and Chomsky is a 'libertarian socialist'; libertarianism of course being a more popular concept in America.

[kviapunx]

Theres some quote, i cant remember by whom that went, all anarchists are socialists but all socialists arent necessarily anarchists.....The only real dispute i suppose is whether or not one believes the state is a valid representation of "the people" which i dont,just thought i;d let you know cuz what you wrote was close to that.

[RevolutionarySpectre]

I don't like to go around telling people who is and is not an anarchist, however I think there is a legitimate case that Chomsky doesn't fit into that historical movement.

The principle distinction between anarchists and marxists at the first international was the question of the state and work within the state. On this issue Chomsky is far closer to the Marxists than the Anarchists (although he's not a Marxist).

[RevolutionarySpectre]

He has previously identified as an anarcho-syndicalist, however again a principle distinction between them and the other socialists was a rejection of political work in favour or an industrial focus, this doesn't really align with the views he has expressed on the state.

Your argument appears to be that Chomsky is an anarchist simply by virtue of advocating a certain way of organising society. But surely that's communist society, nothing about it inherently links it to the anarchist tradition.

[SuperWillHatch]

I agree with you on Chomsky, RevolutionarySpectre.

[7jerryv7]

I think you did a good job analyzing Chomsky's ideas. I think it is important to understand how he defines these terms and what his thoughts are. IMO, labels are not as important as understanding his ideas.

[yeahwotevaman]

variablast is wilfully ignorant on this issue.

[Realizalize]

i like the fact that chomsky can stay out of

hysteria...all the time, and tthat the thinking

has no goal that stops it to think on.

[DonVoghano]

I'd say Chomksy is on the moderate spectrum of anarchism, advocating step by step social-democratic reforms to push existing institutions to their democratic limit and then creating new, more democratic institutions as society matures.

[samsonlovesyou]

I don't think this is true. In fact, I seem to recall Buddhagem interviewing Chomsky where he disparages reformist movements. Perhaps someone else will remember which video it was and post accordingly.

But to strengthen my case; if you you know the things Chomsky knows - how the state operates, how the media operates - how 'could' you expect to remove something you consider "a violent institution" of class dominance, owned and manipulated by ruling elites VIA that very institution?

[DonVoghano]

Hem I could be wrong, anyway I got this impression from the Chomsky material i saw.

When asked in various interviews he approached reformists by saying "Is anyone opposed to making life better?" He also says that states are in a limited way somewhat accountable to the people, which is why the elite seed anti govt propaganda. When criticizing reforms usually he refers to neo-liberal reforms and structural adjustments, and in those cases he says you should shudder when u hear the word reform...

[samsonlovesyou]

Yeah, but in particular, when he says ""Is anyone opposed to making life better?", that's not the same as 'being' a reformist in terms of implementing anarchism. It's recognising that worker struggle (and a LOT of it [note the bloody labour history in the UK and US]) can alleviate some of the suffering, as can the mere 'threat' of revolution.

But ultimately, he'll recognise that you can't 'remove' the state 'via' the state.

Hopefully Buddhagem will comment since he interviewed Chomsky himself.

[NamelessCommenter]

Actually Don is correct. Chomsky has often spoken of pushing the state to its limits. Also I seem to recall a video by mr1001nights quoting Chomsky as saying that all true revolutionaries are also reformists, but I can't find the quote so maybe it was someone else. I did find the following however...

[NamelessCommenter]

1. "It is far from clear that the alternatives are sensibly to be posed as 'reform or revolution.' There is also the possibility of working towards what Andre Gorz calls 'structural reform': namely, 'a decentralization of the decision-making power, a restriction on the powers of State or Capital, an extension of popular power, that is to say, a victory of democracy over the dictatorship of profit'. As Gorz argues, such reforms may have a potentially revolutionary content."

[NamelessCommenter]

2. "It is impossible to predict whether an attempt to extend democratic decision-making will, if it ever develops on a mass scale, face such repressive force that it leads to a revolutionary confrontation, or whether it will be able to proceed peaceably. The goal of a movement for social change should be to introduce meaningful structural reforms, in this sense, avoiding unnecessary confrontations but remaining committed to the defense of democratic values against repression, if it arises."

[yrrmom]

"A sensible revolutionary will try to push reform to the limits..." - Chomsky in a buddhagem vid titled "Noam Chomsky on Reform". The whole vid is worth watching in this connection.

/watch?v=b_1YopuZiXw

[samsonlovesyou]

I think this is the one I was talking about.

I think it may support a mix of the two sides highlighted above. The important word for me is "limits". He sees sense in reform (as all reasonable revolutionaries do), but notes that there are limits to it - hence I doubt that he thinks we can attain an "anarchist" society (which is my key argument) via reform - that takes revolution.

I'm going to rewatch that, though. It was a good video. Thanks for finding it.

[Ticonio]

Socialism works but only with very good educated individuals, otherwise IT'S A NIGHTMARE!!!

[Propagandhi900]

Libertarian Socialism is anarchy. Chomsky uses Libertarians original  meaning of the elimination of state with compelte liberty.

[ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER]

He is but he probably just hopes for libertarian socialism

[PersianPaladin]

Chomsky is a Left Libertarian.

[bjarczyk]

"Anarcho" capitalists aren't anarchists, and right-wing capitalists are not "libertarian."

[MentalEclipse]

@bjarczyk

I'm wouldn't say "all" ancaps aren't anarchists. Though the ancap movement is full of fake anarchists, there are many modern individualist anarchists who've used the term "capitalism" in a positive light based on a different definition than that typically used by anarchists. We all come from different backgrounds, and I don't think it' fair to claim that everyone identifying as ancap is inherently a fake anarchist.

[bjarczyk]

Individualistic anarchism has it's place.

Anarcho-capitalists are just businessmen, not anarchists. They deserve contempt for calling themselves anarchists.

[Pikestance]

@bjarczyk I don't get your objection. They do not believe in a state. I do not understand why people do this,... purposely misrepresent political ideologies for their own agenda. It took me a week to correct a persons' propaganda opinion that Libertarianism (Anarchism) is nothing moe than a conservative that likes to smoke pot among other misconceptions.

[bjarczyk]

@Pikestance Ha either way "anarcho" capitalists don't fight for shit. They have no movement and I could care less about it.

They sit around making youtube video just like leninists stand around handing out newspapers.

[Pikestance]

@bjarczyk You cared enough to misrepresent their beliefs. Everyone makes youtube videos- Some good, some bad.

[bjarczyk]

@Pikestance I didn't misrepresent their views. They're not anarchists.

[Pikestance]

@bjarczyk Why do people do this to themselves? Anarchism is a political ideology that advocates a staeless society. Anarchism have many interpretatations or philosophies. You do not have to agree with one or all of them, but it doesn't change the fact that they advocate a stateless society.

[SteinbergRothschild]

@bjarczyk It's funny because the exact opposite is true.

Look like someone took the wrong lessons from 1984.

[JiffyNo0b]

@bjarczyk True. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical.

[PolemicalCommentary]

He's a libertarian socialist, certainly. He never has actually specified whether or not he is an anarchist.

[Cefuroxx]

no he has called himself an anarchist

[PolemicalCommentary]

Well then I guess he is.

[snarfeater]

he is an anarchist but he hates the word

[buddhagem]

Is it ironic for a linguist to hate a word? Or is it just weird?

[00maharum00ma]

@buddhagem

I actually think it's totally appropriate. A linguist would want to be careful about what words he uses.

[FreeTheWorker]

@buddhagem I think it's because the word Anarchism carries such a stigma because it's used as a euphemism for lawlessness and chaos.