Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

booktv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 145 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#21

Post by nailer »

jheriko wrote: post #9
javert wrote: post #3

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."

That is a most accurate observation, but what does it add to the discussion? You have some implicit assumptions about anarchy there... why would there be guns? We aren't all americans you know... Also, I don't understand the negativity, did you notice the sprawl of civilisation around you? That came from anarchy... its proven to work in some sense.

> You have some implicit assumptions about anarchy there... why would there be guns?

I'm not the OP but it seemed clear to me.

Right now governments conflict with each other using guns (and missiles, and drones, etc), if/when diplomacy fails.

If the law is the law of the individual, then each individual would be obligated to have his own 'defence department' if/when diplomacy fails.

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#22

Post by lukifer »

nailer wrote: post #20
chj wrote: post #2

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…

(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, rathe…

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

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#23

Post by Avshalom »

nailer wrote: post #20
chj wrote: post #2

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…

(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, rathe…

it depends on your definition of anarchism. it isn't necessarily lawlessness as much as a lack of hierarchical power structures. radical flatness.

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#24

Post by seabee »

tokenizer wrote: post #14
ethana wrote: post #11

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.

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 p…

> authoritarianism (up?) is worse than libertarianism (down?)

Hence the 'political compass'[0] although even that is a gross simplification of political opinions and realities.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#25

Post by nailer »

Avshalom wrote: post #23
nailer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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, rathe…

it depends on your definition of anarchism. it isn't necessarily lawlessness as much as a lack of hierarchical power structures. radical flatness.

I like flatter power structures too. But I think this is better summed up as 'direct representation' or 'direct democracy' rather than 'anarchism' - regardless of the benefit of these ideas, too many people who believe in violence and seizing of others property loudly proclaim themselves 'anarchists' for anyone with more reasonable views to be able to 'claim back' the term.

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#26

Post by ravingraven »

ethana wrote: post #11

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.

Allow me to disagree. Therms and ideologies do not only describe what someone works towards but also how he does so. In the case of anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism both are very different. A striking difference is how each one of those ideologies views open markets. Quoting from the wikipedia article on anarcho-communism:

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#27

Post by klez »

nailer wrote: post #25
Avshalom wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it depends on your definition of anarchism. it isn't necessarily lawlessness as much as a lack of hierarchical power structures. radical flatness.

I like flatter power structures too. But I think this is better summed up as 'direct representation' or 'direct democracy' rather than 'anarchism' - regardless of the benefit of these ideas, too many people who believe in violence and seizing of others property loudly proclaim themselves 'anarchists' for anyone with more reasonable views to be able to 'claim back' the term.

> too many people who believe in violence and seizing of others property loudly proclaim themselves 'anarchists'

Just like people committing computer fraud call themselves hackers.

The fact that fraudsters (and media, as is the case with both 'hacker' and 'anarchist') use the term wrongly doesn't diminish the original and correct meaning that dates back to the 19th century.

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#28

Post by anoncowherd »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #19
anoncowherd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

>> 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

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#29

Post by nailer »

klez wrote: post #27
nailer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like flatter power structures too. But I think this is better summed up as 'direct representation' or 'direct democracy' rather than 'anarchism' - regardless of the benefit of these ideas, too many people who believe in violence and seizing of others property loudly proclaim themselves 'anarchists' for anyone with more reasonable views to be able to 'claim back' the term.

> too many people who believe in violence and seizing of others property loudly proclaim themselves 'anarchists' Just like people committing computer fraud call themselves hackers. The fact that fraudsters (and media, as is the case with both 'hacker' and 'anarchist') use the term wrongly doesn't diminish the original and correct meaning that dates back to the 19th century.

I think the analogy's spot on, but that it /does/ diminish the original meaning.

Eg, I don't call myself a 'hacker' around people who aren't geeks because I know it will be misinterpreted, and additionally people who think that definition is a good thing will want to associate with me.

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#30

Post by klez »

lukifer wrote: post #22
nailer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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, rathe…

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

> 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

I'm not criticizing W3C per se, just the fact that it's being compared to an anarchist way of doing things.

Post reply on HN