
Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video] - zw123456
http://booktv.org/Watch/15167/quotOn+Anarchismquot.aspx
======
chj
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/B00E25...](http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Noam-Chomsky-
ebook/dp/B00E25LZZI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387168819&sr=8-1&keywords=on+anarchism#)

~~~
nailer
(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
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
> 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
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. ;)

------
boolean
Youtube link:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB9rp_SAp2U](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB9rp_SAp2U)

~~~
rglover
Thanks :)

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

~~~
DominikR
So someone who calls for overthrowing the US government and replacing
Capitalism with Anarcho-Syndicalism is now a gatekeeper?

~~~
anoncowherd
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.

~~~
lukifer
The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are
highly unequal, and in extreme cases, difficult to distinguish from choices
made under duress (starvation vs. sweatshop, expensive medication vs. death,
etc)

On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still
rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat
subject to public jurisdiction. The idea that land, or mineral rights, or
intellectual property belongs exclusively to either (a) an individual, (b) a
corporation, (c) a state, or (d) everybody, are all legal fictions and
voluntary illusions. Other than perhaps the clothes on one's back, property is
not a natural right (in the sense of natural law). We made it up. For better
or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private
capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining
private ownership.

I can accept the argument that interfering with the quasi-evolutionary
capitalist engine does more harm than good, and that capitalism is the worst
system, except for all the others. But given the history of unearned legacy
wealth, systemic ethnic and national oppression, and the state's role in
maintaining disproportionate advantages for those with capital, calling the
trades that occur between haves and have-nots "voluntary" seems a little
disingenuous.

~~~
anoncowherd
>> The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are
highly unequal

If an exchange is genuinely voluntary, it leaves both parties better off by
definition. You value whatever you're giving up lower than what you're getting
in exchange, because otherwise you just wouldn't go through the trade.

>> On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still
rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat
subject to public jurisdiction

Everyone naturally has the right to defend his property, through whatever
means necessary. Not only that, but we all intuitively agree on what property
is. An apple in your hand is automatically assumed to be your property, and so
is the apartment you live in, or the factory everyone has always known you to
own and run. If you see a car on the street, you don't assume it's no one's
property even if there's no one in it.

>> For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship
between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose
of maintaining private ownership.

I can't tell what that's supposed to mean. But again, your property is your
property, and _you_ have the right to defend it regardless of whether a State
exists.

>> capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others

Capitalism is not a "system". It's not something that's _imposed_ on anyone,
but instead, it's just all the things people do in their pursuit of personal
gain - exchanges, commerce, investments, and contracts etc. If you see
problems with "Capitalism", they're actually problems with _Crony_
-Capitalism, and caused by the State. Those evil corporations buy political
power, and then use it to prevent competition, to rape nature, pass their
losses on to _us_ , and so on. All the nasty stuff.

~~~
jaekwon
We should also be careful to distinguish an exchange in a positive-currency,
vs one in a debt-currency, which by definition is a trade of indebtedness. Can
you really have a "voluntary" exchange of indebtedness?

No, no, no. We do not agree intuitively on what property is. What about a
factory that you built with your own hands that becomes a utility for a
community? At some point, your private property and private creations become
integral to a community, and that's where things become muddy.

I want to add, lastly, that if we have a true competition of non-debt
currency, we may have part of a solution. I have some thoughts written on my
blog post, but it's not well thought out and perhaps somebody can build upon
it.

[http://jaekwon.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-supernova-
theory...](http://jaekwon.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-supernova-theory-of-
deflationary-currency/)

~~~
lukifer
I agree with your core thesis about the role of alt-coins in a deflationary
spiral. There's one thing I haven't drunk the kool-aid on, though, and I'd
like you to tell me if you see a hole in my logic: I don't see how a
deflationary spiral is a problem at all.

It's true that if a currency appreciates in value, buyers are disincentivized
to spend. However, sellers also have the same knowledge, that the currency
will gain value over time. Wouldn't that incentivize them to lower their
prices in order to acquire the currency-as-investment, until the two meet in
the middle? (Many of the merchants who accept BitCoin offer a BTC discount for
this very reason.)

One practical way that we see this happen is in technology, where goods
rapidly decrease in value. While a dollar might lose 5% of its value over the
course of a year, that's nothing compared to buying a new computer. And so the
onus is on computer makers to offer a compelling enough value and price to
convince the user to upgrade, as opposed to living with an old machine, or
waiting for a better one. At any given point in time, to buy a computer is
micro-economically foolish, and yet transactions still manage to take place,
because buyers and sellers eventually meet in the middle.

The trick to this, of course, is that this model only works if the currency
deflates at a stable rate. BitCoin still has yet to establish itself in this
regard; time will tell.

~~~
jaekwon
Good point on technology.

I also doubt that the deflationary spiral is a big issue as it's made out to
be. To prove it, I assumed that it is a big issue, and then proved that it
isn't -- proof by contradiction.

I think ultimately it all depends on how well a currency is designed or
managed. An inflationary currency could outcompete an autonomous
cryptocurrency in theory if it could introduce price stability as well as
manage the macro economy. In practice this seems like an exercise in futility.
Time will tell what happens with the current QE practices.

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

~~~
jaekwon
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.

------
ethana
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.

~~~
tokenizer
Well it's not that they are binded by the left-right paradigm, it's just that
they've already agreed that authoritarianism (up?) is worse than
libertarianism (down?), and then proceed to debate the finer points of
collectivism versus individualism (right and left).

Much better than ignoring the up and down completely like neo-liberal and neo-
conservative politics. From the mainstream, we see plenty of disheartening
policies that both left and right anarchists would agree on.

That said, the problem I think about it what you've mentioned. How do we
convince collectivist thinkers that taxes are the use of force? How do we
convince individualists that _some_ services need to be established by the
collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? Our problems are
what you've mentioned. Too much left-right and not enough up and down talk.
This opens us all up to authoritarian centrists who believe that title to be
impossible because of the golden mean...

~~~
anoncowherd
>> How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established
by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)?

We don't, because you're talking about _imposing_ some "services" on other
people, which _always_ happens through coercion. We should both be aware that
coercion is bad, mm'kay?

"But who will build the roads?!" is like asking an anti-slavery activist "but
who will pick the cotton?!" \- the correct answer is: "who fucking cares?
Slavery is immoral and needs to stop."

Punishing people for attempting to keep their property (ie. taxation) is
immoral too. It's plain to see, for everyone who allows himself to.

~~~
sanoli
So you're saying public education is immoral, and public health care is
immoral. Maybe for the taxpayer it is. I doubt it seems immoral for the child
of some poor parents. Or for someone seriously ill who can't afford to go to
the private doctor, no matter if they chose not to plan for the future and be
financially sound.

~~~
goshakkk
Yes, public education & health care are immoral because they are funded
through means of coercion. Helping the poor is a noble end, but even noble
ends can't justify violent means.

It does not matter how fair theft seems to the recipient of the services that
are funded in such a way, it's still theft.

It is cool that you care about the unfortunate ones though. You are not alone
in that — most people do, too. If we go from the assumption that democracies
really represent the opinion of the majority, it can be seen that a lot of
people _do_ care.

So, if the majority of people really want to help the poor, they would still
help ( _voluntarily_ this time) without a coercive apparatus, right?

 _(Obviously, private charities will be better at helping the poor, and
private schools and medicine are doing a better job that the government does,
but my reply focuses mainly on the moral side of things.)_

~~~
tokenizer
This is the main issue between left and right minded anarchists IMO. I've felt
like both sides have been right at different times in my life.

That said, you are right. Taxes of any kind, if forced, is theft. If liberal
minded individuals can't offer me a voluntary way to function from within
society, than they'll be considered authoritarians to me. The only solution I
can think of is a type of confederacy of anarchist collectives, where all
collectives agree on basic freedoms (freedom to travel, freedom to leave,
completely fair representation, etc) where some are bastions of socialism, and
the other bastions of individualism.

The only problem I have as a right leaning anarchist with anarcho-capitalism,
is wage labour. While I agree that the contract may be voluntary, the
conditions leading to it may not have been, and we see exploitation in our
current system regarding this, with some people becoming indentured servants.

~~~
goshakkk
> The only solution I can think of is a type of confederacy of anarchist
> collectives, where all collectives agree on basic freedoms (freedom to
> travel, freedom to leave, completely fair representation, etc) where some
> are bastions of socialism, and the other bastions of individualism.

Voluntarily-entered socialist bastions can indeed exist in an anarcho-
capitalist system. As there is no state and hence nothing particularly
limiting, they can aspire any kind of community — including a socialist one.
As long as participation in this kind of community is voluntary, there is
nothing wrong with it. Members of socialist communities may vary well subject
themselves to community's rules and socialist dispute resolution providers in
their internal matters.

~~~
tokenizer
Agreed. But it doesn't look like our brothers/sisters in arms would afford us
the same luxuries does it?

To me it sounds like THEY want the monopoly on force to be governed by a
majority or consensus, which would then impose taxes, threaten opposition with
force, and centralize power.... Sounds like a government to me...

I truly don't think anarcho-capitalism is an abomination. I've come to this
stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things.
Thoughts?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral
way of doing things.

Deontology <: morality. That is, deontological moral codes are a strict subset
of all moral codes people actually find compelling.

~~~
tokenizer
Could you explain what you mean?

What I meant was that while I believe equality and guaranteed access to basic
needs as the goal of humanity and necessary for future growth at some point, I
also believe that it's impossible to achieve these goals through institutions
and governments.

My moral change from being a left leaning anarchists to a right leaning
anarchist was because I was swayed by Stefan Molyneux's Philosophical
arguments for Individualist Anarchy. The only sticking point I still have is
the question of wage labour, which I am opposed to. But then it's hard to
imagine a society where you can't work for a wage...

I think there's a saying about how cows in the slaughterhouse can't truly
argue about what's outside. They both have no experience.

~~~
anoncowherd
>> I was swayed by Stefan Molyneux's Philosophical arguments for Individualist
Anarchy. The only sticking point I still have is the question of wage labour,
which I am opposed to

Good job so far. Next, you need more knowledge of economics:
[http://mises.org](http://mises.org) and you'll get around to reaching full
sanity :p

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Except that Austrian "Economics" takes an ideologically anti-empirical stance,
so it can't actually be called part of any reputable _science_ of economics.

------
javert
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."

~~~
anoncowherd
Your profile looks like you're an objectivist. But as others pointed out, you
can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand.

As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized
power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea?

~~~
ryanbrunner
There's a large body of literature that attempts to justify centralization of
power. Social contract theory, to name one. You may not agree with it, but the
possibility of a justifiable centralization of power can at least be argued.

~~~
anoncowherd
>> There's a large body of literature that attempts to justify centralization
of power

 _Of course_ there is. We've lived under centralized power for hundreds or
thousands of years, after all. Why would The Powers That Be suddenly cease
wanting to Be?

But centralized power cannot be _justified_ , it can only be rationalized. If
you think about the idea of the social contract for a moment, you should
realize that it's not a contract at all, but merely a shackle for our minds,
to keep us from finding a way out of the maze of our brainwashing.

For starters, _you were never even asked_ , you never had a chance _not_ to
participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either. You're either
inside a country, or you're freezing to death in Antarctica. It's not much of
a choice, but a _voluntary_ choice is necessary for any contract to be
binding.

Read this:
[http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm](http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm)

~~~
icebraining
Sounds much like the system of property.

~~~
anoncowherd
What does?

~~~
icebraining
_" For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to
participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either."_

~~~
anoncowherd
That may be, but _people_ are not property. Or, well.. _should not_ be.

~~~
icebraining
You do realize that the system of property doesn't apply to actual objects? My
house doesn't become green if I write so in the deed. The system of property
is a set of obligations imposed on _people_ , not things. Much like the social
contract.

~~~
anoncowherd
Hm. Yeah, I guess that's a good point. The idea of property can be thought of
as "obligations between people", but it's not the same as the idea of the
social contract. For starters, it's between individual people, not some
collective entity and a given individual, and second, it involves no force as
long as no one _aggresses_ against anyone.

Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to
everyone's favour - quite the opposite of "the social contract", and imposes
no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's
property. If "aggress" sounds out of place, let's say "interfere with
someone's (exclusive) control of their property". There's lots of room for
pointless bickering in moral issues, etc.

There are various sensible ways to view the concept of property. One is Murray
Rothbard's idea of something becoming your property by "mixing your labour"
with it. For example, if you build a house, or plow a corn field, they're your
property.

~~~
goshakkk
All good, but even though Rothbard mentions it, this theory of property is
actually Lockean, not Rothbardian. [1]

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property)

~~~
anoncowherd
Alright. Keep up the good work, fellow sane person :p

