What is Anarchy?

Hasbinbad · #1 05-30-2013, 01:24 PM

Tl;dr: Chomsky sticks it to the man, maaaan!

Some people have asked this question in general and I have shied from it. They ask it of me and I give my best answer at the time. It's generally not ever the same. I haven't ever heard someone describe anarchy to me properly, but it is a feeling that I've always had, and one I've always felt righteous about. I've always had sort of "my own idea" about it, and queerly, that seems to be the view of nearly everyone within these circles as well. Life imitating art? And though our individual definitions may differ, we always seem to know that we are righteous or not, simply by virtue of how we discuss things, the very standpoint from which we approach any given issue. I am strongly opposed to the idea of the kind of anarchy proposed by its detractors, the lawless, agreementless, disintegrative, mad-max-esque, might-makes-right cartoon version of anarchy. But I haven't seen the feeling that I and seemingly many others have felt, put to words, until now. I should say I have seen and felt these things, but never so succinctly - usually the definition is most strongly known when you're done reading a book or experiencing "people power." Here for the first time known to me is anarchy defined not as a system but a collection of behaviors and thought patterns. Like, it totally blew my mind. Enjoy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky

Anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times.

This quote is excerpted from an interview first published 4/14/13: http://www.modernsuccess.org/noam-ch...ess-interview/

His critique on modern libertarianism in the same interview is also very useful but outside the scope of the OP. I just wanted to share this here since there is very legitimate debate about what exactly anarchy is, even within anti-statist circles, much less the larger world.

Hitchens · #2 05-30-2013, 01:27 PM

Hasbinbad · #3 05-30-2013, 01:31 PM

Green Jello confirmed best band ever.

Ephirith · #4 05-30-2013, 03:38 PM

Interesting read, and I like the vast majority of what he has to say. I feel a lot differently about anarchy now, I think. I still believe what he's after is an inferior system. Every system is a trade-off, and I think he overstates the benefits of personal freedom, and understates the benefits of authority, and the ease with which it can be justified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky

And in it he described, correctly, the goal of the industry. He said our goal is to insure that the “intelligent minority” — and of course anyone who writes about these things is part of that intelligent minority by definition, by stipulation, so we, the intelligent minority, are the only people capable of running things, and there’s that great population out there, the “unwashed masses,” who, if they’re left alone will just get into trouble: so we have to, as he put it, “engineer their consent,” figure out ways to insure they consent to our rule and domination. And that’s the goal of the PR industry. And it works in many ways.

I've been just as guilty of this as your standard issue libertarian randroids, but I don't see how even an idealistic, highly organized anarcho-syndicate is a better way to handle the legions of ignorant rednecks, of which Chomsky does not deny the existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky

And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.

This is the only part of the entire thing that I think is just very weak, every clause of it-- it's logically irresponsible. I don't think more freedom is always preferable to authority, even illegitimate authority, just for the sake of itself. It speaks to a world Chomsky believes in very strongly, but also one he's very immersed in and possibly maybe a little honeymoon about.

I think it's funny how many people hate Noam Chomsky because of the way he criticizes their crooked fucking ways, particularly Israel, American Evangelicals, and just people with a high net worth and any degree of power in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chomsky on Christianity

You can ﬁnd things in the traditional religions
which are very benign and decent and wonderful and so on, but I mean,
the Bible is probably the most genocidal book in the literary canon.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Daldolma · #5 05-30-2013, 05:18 PM

chomsky is the harrison of intellectuals. linguistics is his pastrami

quido · #6 05-30-2013, 05:22 PM

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hasbinbad · #7 05-30-2013, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Chomsky has relevancy, but it is extremely limited and his fans tend to extend it far beyond where it should be.

That's funny because if you google "most important intellectual alive," google would like to disagree with you.

blameFALCON · #8 05-30-2013, 06:53 PM

think the way i think or ill kill u

Hasbinbad · #9 05-30-2013, 06:53 PM

You're not obligated to agree with anything, I simply stated the disagreement between you the individual person and the larger community of people who give a shit.

dhoushi · #10 05-30-2013, 07:01 PM

During my coursework I came across an explanation that I thought summed it up rather nicely. Anarchists consider the government nothing more then an illusion created by powerful people, and therefore illegitimate. Rights are not real, and can be taken away at any point by the government, and laws are only applicable to those who are unconnected to the powerful people. This implies anarchy is the real system in place, and Anarchists only which to lift the veil from those unaware of it.