Real Anarchism

I have always liked the writings of anarchists but couldn't imagine such a thing working. I've also enjoyed Noam Chomsky's work over the years and didn't know that he calls himself an anarchist.

This little jewel of an interview of Mr. Chomsky by Michael S. Wilson is enlightening.

www.alternet.org...

MS Wilson:

You are, among many other things, a self-described anarchist — an anarcho-syndicalist, specifically.  Most people think of anarchists as disenfranchised punks throwing rocks at store windows, or masked men tossing ball-shaped bombs at fat industrialists.  Is this an accurate view?  What is anarchy to you?

N Chomsky:

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.

….

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.

MS Wilson:

… what you would say anarchy and syndicalism have to offer, things that others ideas — say, for example, state-run socialism — have failed to offer?  Why should we choose anarchy, as opposed to, say, libertarianism?

N Chomsky

Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England —

permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power:  so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes.

…

Yes, and so well that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.  Anarchism is quite different from that.

He goes on to talk about many other topics in this milieu while noting pragmatic anarchist solutions to our current dilemma Wilson – FDR – Kennedy liberals. Socialism. It’s really an interesting and informative read. He even talks about Bernays and his book “Propaganda”.

NChomsky:

…
In fact so advanced, that power systems — state and private — began to recognize that things were getting to a point where they can’t control the population by force as easily as before, so they are going to have to turn to other means of control.  And the other means of control are control of beliefs and attitudes.  And out of that grew the public relations industry, which in those days described itself honestly as an industry of propaganda.

He ends with…

There is state repression now.  But it doesn’t begin to compare with, say, Cointelpro in the 1960s.  People that don’t know about that ought to read and think to find out. 

Oh so much good stuff.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Always been an anarchist at heart, and no doubt always will.

Unfortunately I'm also a bit of a realist and recognise there's one big glaring fault with it - human beings.

And so I know that unless there's some sort of significant major step change in human behaviour it'll never work.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: FyreByrd

Always been an anarchist at heart, and no doubt always will.

Unfortunately I'm also a bit of a realist and recognise there's one big glaring fault with it - human beings.

And so I know that unless there's some sort of significant major step change in human behaviour it'll never work.

I was in the same boat but Noam Chomsky makes arguments for ways to move in that direction.

a reply to: Freeborn

Therein lies the problem. We can't all be anarchists....for long anyway because, humans.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Ask yourself why humans keep organizing in groups in the first place?

You think the current people in charge chose this?

You didn't, they didn't.. Because you didn't choose you feel like it's been put on you, but by who??

your brother from another mother thousands of years ago lived in a tribe.. Rules were made to overcome base animal urge.


Anyway anarchy in it's true form would just lead to roving gangs in the short term.. Things like "the internet" or "cell phones" would cease to operate. eventually after things get bad enough people will start forming local governments..

Same damn #, just now you're hundreds of years in the past.

congrats!

but there is no reset button that will get what you want. You have to use your current character, and all the bad directions humanity has gone down, to progress forward through this crazy game.

I do understand the sentiment, and I am always trying to imagine how to organize without hierarchy, though my thought experiments usually fall short.. Obviously the order of operations here is to invent the non ordered society inside the ordered society first, and then kill off the order now that you have another system in place capable of meeting basic human needs. otherwise.. It's like john lennon said about blowing up the establishment.. One day YOU will be the establishment, so it's not worth knoicking it down, the buildings and phones and property.. Instead you have to change humanity.

Anyone who doesn't get that YOU are your enemy will always have enemies inside the gates.. It's your own humanity.. point the finger at what a president? whatever dudes.. That's meaningless.. the enemy is in your heart. That's first order of the day.. anarchy works better if no one is selfish.. Wanting anarchy is selfish.

Isn't that what social media has become?

For the good and the bad.

It's been the ways of such like MiRC, reddit, youtube comments, various forums still flap unfettered

From my studies, anarchy is just governing ones own self and actions. It would work quite well because I believe there are more good than bad people and society would not put up with any riff raff. Anarchy does not mean no laws or no rules. It just means we govern ourselves, not someone else, "government".

The other thing to consider is who the vast mass of people at the bottom will usually end up being.

Here's a hint -- they usually aren't the best and brightest a society will have to offer. Sure there will always be some unrecognized diamonds in the rough, but for the most part, the people at the bottom that you claim should be organizing it all, are going to be the vast masses of the mediocre.

They aren't going to be recreating the ceiling of the SIstine Chapel or reinventing the wheel.

You're lucky if they know all the Kardashian sisters.

The ones at the top like Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson are the exceptions to the rule, but they would be the ones being told to shut up and take a seat with no real say in anything in your vision of a well-run society.

But, hey, who really needs to innovate so long as we're all kept mired in mediocrity, right?

originally posted by: Freeborn


Unfortunately I'm also a bit of a realist and recognise there's one big glaring fault with it - human beings.

And so I know that unless there's some sort of significant major step change in human behaviour it'll never work.

That's the lie those in power tell for centuries. The ordinary masses kill, lie, betray, exploit, ... in total far less than the "Top Dogs".

a reply to: Freeborn

Yeah slc punk tought use that.

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: FyreByrd

Ask yourself why humans keep organizing in groups in the first place?

You think the current people in charge chose this?

You didn't, they didn't.. Because you didn't choose you feel like it's been put on you, but by who??

your brother from another mother thousands of years ago lived in a tribe.. Rules were made to overcome base animal urge.


Anyway anarchy in it's true form would just lead to roving gangs in the short term.. Things like "the internet" or "cell phones" would cease to operate. eventually after things get bad enough people will start forming local governments..

Same damn #, just now you're hundreds of years in the past.

congrats!

but there is no reset button that will get what you want. You have to use your current character, and all the bad directions humanity has gone down, to progress forward through this crazy game.

I do understand the sentiment, and I am always trying to imagine how to organize without hierarchy, though my thought experiments usually fall short.. Obviously the order of operations here is to invent the non ordered society inside the ordered society first, and then kill off the order now that you have another system in place capable of meeting basic human needs. otherwise.. It's like john lennon said about blowing up the establishment.. One day YOU will be the establishment, so it's not worth knoicking it down, the buildings and phones and property.. Instead you have to change humanity.

Anyone who doesn't get that YOU are your enemy will always have enemies inside the gates.. It's your own humanity.. point the finger at what a president? whatever dudes.. That's meaningless.. the enemy is in your heart. That's first order of the day.. anarchy works better if no one is selfish.. Wanting anarchy is selfish.

I can't follow your ramblings - I would like to see critique of the interview or some discussion on the direction Chomsky proposes and not just run of the mill negative ramblings.

As I said just above.... if Noam Chomsky is on a correct path ... we all could be anarchists.

Read the article.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The other thing to consider is who the vast mass of people at the bottom will usually end up being.

Here's a hint -- they usually aren't the best and brightest a society will have to offer. Sure there will always be some unrecognized diamonds in the rough, but for the most part, the people at the bottom that you claim should be organizing it all, are going to be the vast masses of the mediocre.

They aren't going to be recreating the ceiling of the SIstine Chapel or reinventing the wheel.

You're lucky if they know all the Kardashian sisters.

The ones at the top like Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson are the exceptions to the rule, but they would be the ones being told to shut up and take a seat with no real say in anything in your vision of a well-run society.

But, hey, who really needs to innovate so long as we're all kept mired in mediocrity, right?

I think that's rather the point - leading from the ground up and avoiding at all costs top down, to use Chomsky's word, tyranny.

All I hear - is democracy can't work, socialism can't work, captilalism can't work, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Oh yee of little imagination.

Read the article, there are some proposals to consider.

Nobody (including 'the fried cheetco' - heard this one on the radio today) is going to magically fix the world.

A common thread, I hope, across political ideologies, would be to stabilize society and the economy so that there is time for evolution (bad word - I know) into a new system.

If you always - "Yeah - Butting" and have nothing to offer, I wonder why you even comment.

If you have concerns, question or other ideas to offer no matter how illformed - then it's worth the effort.

originally posted by: CosmicAwakening
From my studies, anarchy is just governing ones own self and actions. It would work quite well because I believe there are more good than bad people and society would not put up with any riff raff. Anarchy does not mean no laws or no rules. It just means we govern ourselves, not someone else, "government".

What studies - in particular - would those be?

Freedom of the individual, free of the chains of centralized control, and the very fact that the idea of Anarchism still exists is proof that it hasn't failed. The teachings of Bakunin should be a priority in education globally

a reply to: FyreByrd

It is nonsense to allow every individual to destroy every authority. Anarchy leads to Idiocracy.

a reply to: toms54

Anarchy actually leads to civilisation, it's what our ancestors had for thousands of years. That Thing thing worked out quite well for a very long time and people had more freedom than in todays direct democracies.
Idiocracy, on the other hand, has a system of control and a hierarchy with presidential morons in place. Which is why it looks like reality-tv to me. And we're far away from having an anarchy to strive forward in.

Kinda funny though. Instead of said justifications for authority we see overstatements with a tendency to get at straight anomy, it's always the same with threads like this. That's where we are, the TINA mindset prevails.

Well. God shave the Queen! He wont mind to do so for a few more centuries then, I guess.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: FyreByrd

Always been an anarchist at heart, and no doubt always will.

Unfortunately I'm also a bit of a realist and recognise there's one big glaring fault with it - human beings.

And so I know that unless there's some sort of significant major step change in human behaviour it'll never work.

I agree, I do not believe anarchy would ever work as long as humans are in the equation. Sure, there are plenty of good people in the world who could make this work, but unfortunately I also know there are people who are only "good" because they'll get in trouble with the law if they're not. These are the types that will even push the boundaries of the laws to see how much they can actually get away with.

Unfortunately, I believe humans need structure and the rule of law to thrive. Without it, certain types will prevent any progress as a civilization.

It's brave to talk about anarchism the way you have, it's a difficult concept to articulate and most people have their own ingrained ideas of what it is, or would be.

It's still a very taboo topic, I put it with a number of other ideas that I keep to myself when in public.

a reply to: Necrobile

That, or the only ones stalling actual progress are the people who don't follow Chomsky's lead on this (after they had to admit that they're incapable to debunk a single one of his claims, of course).
I know, I know. You love your precious opinions, and so do I. They keep us warm and fuzzy inside, and this Idiocracy is a really cold to place to exist in.