Name: On Anarchism
ISBN: 9780241969601

On Anarchism

"Radical linguist, philosopher, and activist Noam Chomsky is one of the world's foremost intellectuals. Known for his brilliant evisceration of American foreign policy, state capitalism, and the mainstream media, he remains a formidable and unapologetic critic of established authority. On Anarchism sheds a much-needed light on the foundations of Chomsky's thought, specifically his constant questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. The book gathers his essays and interviews to provide a short, accessible introduction to his distinctively optimistic brand of anarchism. Chomsky eloquently refutes the notion of anarchism as a fixed idea, suggesting that it is part of a living, evolving tradition, and he disputes the traditional fault lines between anarchism and socialism, emphasizing the power of collective, rather than individualist, action. Including a revealing new interview with Chomsky by well-known writer and blogger Nathan Schneider that assesses Chomsky's writings on anarchism to date, this is a book that is sure to challenge, provoke, and inspire. Profoundly relevant to our times, On Anarchism is a touchstone for political activists and anyone interested in deepening their understanding of anarchism and the man dubbed the "nation's conscience." Incorporating revealing interviews with Chomsky by writer Nathan Schneider that update each in light of today's events, this is a book that is sure to provoke and inspire.

What Hacker News says

mplanchardMar 2025

You’re wrong, which is why you’re being downvoted. A decent intro to the topic on the anarchist side is Chomsky’s On Anarchism

thread

sascha_slAug 2020

If you were making that argument about "abolish", I'd agree, but defund? I guess you'd need to know the massive funding increases the police has gotten over the past 20 years. Even abolish acknowledges there needs to be some form of community policing, it's just that the current model is militaristic, has little accountability, incentivizes the wrong things (arrest quotas) and (re-)hires the wrong people.

I don't think anarchy is what you think it is. It wrongfully has picked up the entire Mad Max vibe. Any Chomsky talk on anarchism or the book of the same name ("On Anarchism") are a bit more nuanced introductions. Anarchism and police are "natural enemies" because anarchists believe the power police hold right now is unproportionate and unjustifiable. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24025920

thread

TaylorAlexanderMar 2019

Well, I’ve definitely found Chomsky’s work helpful as a libertarian socialist critique of the state. His book “On Anarchism” helped lay out to me how collectivist movements of the past have often failed by direct violent repression from the state.

I’ve not read Karl Marx but I’ve learned from others that his critique of capitalism is worthwhile and relevant today and has been since it was written.

At one time I found Richard Wolff helpful, including his book “Democracy at Work” about worker run collectives. His lectures may be of value but lately I find him hard to listen to because of how kind of smarmy he gets.

This interview with Murray Bookchin from 1986 was pretty informative: https://youtu.be/kBP_BMOblzc

Otherwise the subject of interest is called “anarchism” or “libertarian socialism” or “communism”. It all falls under the broader umbrella of “socialism”, which is the intentional organization of society to produce a certain quality of life for all people. All of those terms have been heavily loaded by history and it’s propaganda, so you have to search carefully. Pundits of all persuasions will make broad claims about these social sciences, but know this: socialism and the other ideas laid out have a rich and complex history that absolutely must be researched. Ignore anyone who says the soviets were socialist and they were horrible so socialism is horrible. There is a history of socialist movements going back over 150 years that includes many writers and activists including those who were murdered by the soviets or the nazis precisely because they wanted power in the hands of the people, not the state.

When you look this up, also study imperialism, feminism, the black panthers and black liberation moments, lgbtq movements, and liberation movements in other countries. If you’re white and/or otherwise privileged (as I am) know that the experience of less privileged people are so different from yours that they absolutely cannot be excluded from the development of a utopia.

For more information see here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/

thread

nickysielickiMar 2015

<actual-advice>

I have no good answers for you. If the atrocities above bother you, you can do your part and opt out from the sides of society that requires you to be a part of it.

We just need a cultural shift to stop being such consumers. Stop buying a new phone every year, your current one can easily suit you for the next 10 years. Don't buy a new laptop. Start being cognizant of the influences brand names have on you and try to resist them where possible. Most importantly, we need to strengthen unions and support our local coops.

Start being aware of where the money you spend ultimately ends up.

</actual-advice>

<shill> I'm a libertarian, and I use that in the non-US definition of the word, which is to say I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. Unfortunately anarchism is widely regarded as unrealistic, but if it weren't for the Soviets mucking around in Spain in the 30's, it might be a very different story.

What is anarchism? Here's how Noam Chomsky, (the same Chomsky you know from your compilers / CS theory course) describes it:

""" Well, 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.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a particular variety of anarchism which was concerned primarily, though not solely, but primarily with control over work, over the work place, over production. It took for granted that working people ought to control their own work, its conditions, [that] they ought to control the enterprises in which they work, along with communities, so they should be associated with one another in free associations, and … democracy of that kind should be the foundational elements of a more general free society. And then, you know, ideas are worked out about how exactly that should manifest itself, but I think that is the core of anarcho-syndicalist thinking. I mean it’s not at all the general image that you described — people running around the streets, you know, breaking store windows — but [anarcho-syndicalism] is a conception of a very organized society, but organized from below by direct participation at every level, with as little control and domination as is feasible, maybe none. """

One big misconception is that anarchism means that there should be no laws, and that murderers should be allowed to wander the streets. What a lot of people don't know is that anarchism, just like communism, was also a victim of the propaganda machine that we now call the red scare.

I think that a lot of people in tech, who can directly see how open source killed proprietary software, are the people who are most open to the idea this shift can happen.

Anyway, that's just my $0.02.

If you made it this far into my comment, give this a read: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-an...

And also read On Anarchism by Chomsky, it's fantastic. </shill>

thread

asveikauJan 2026

I'm not citing Chomsky with a claim that he's unassailable, just that it's a very old complaint. I also think he was right about a bunch of stuff, and wrong on others.

As for what he suggested, this is reminding me that I never read his work On anarchism. I heard him speak favorably about the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War. I also found that topic very interesting when I was getting a Spanish minor many years ago at college. I am sure many HN commenters will disagree that it's something to emulate.

thread

klezJul 2016

Not in order

1 - Snow Crash (Neal Stephenson)

2 - The Trial (Franz Kafka)

3 - Beyond the door (Philip K Dick - short story)

4 - The eyes have it (Philip K Dick - short story)

5 - Seven brief lessons on Physics (Carlo Rovelli)

6 - I have no mouth, and I must scream (Herlan Ellison - short story)

7 - The art of simplicity (Dominique Loreau)

8 - On anarchism (Noam Chomsky)

9 - The difference engine (William Gibson, Bruce Sterling)