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

31–40 of 145 posts

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

#31

Post by anoncowherd »

DominikR wrote: post #17
anoncowherd wrote: post #8

Meet Noam Chomsky - Academic Gatekeeper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk&list=PLN6xa7kD9dZ...

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

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.

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

#32

Post by anoncowherd »

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…

>> 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.

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

#33

Post by aluhut »

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.

If humanity could understand Anarchism, it would allow all those guys to live in their own utopias.

But well..it seems it is easier to fight about stuff that is so far away from the main and basic points that it all seems like just another invention of the financial system to control through endless diversity. "Controlled Chaos". I would love to hear R.A.Wilson on this.

The "anarchist anarchists" I know concentrate on education, patience and gathering&storage of information. Many of them decided that it needs to get a lot worse before relevant masses of people become so desperate that they will accept such a different way to think.

They belive in a "true anarchist revolution" because it would not devour its own children but allow them to play their games as long as they like and let them stop or leave when they have enough.

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

#34

Post by DominikR »

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 is a common misconception to label Anarchy as a society without any rules or social norms.

That would be Anomie. (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie)

Edit:

> So people come together as collectives, which represent them? Would these collectives presumably agree on some standards? And enforce them? Isn't that democracy?

Yes, but in the US you have a representative democracy where you vote for some party which then makes changes or introduces new laws without asking you or anybody else.

In an anarchy you would not only be asked to vote on rules, you could actively take part on the creation of new rules.

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

#35

Post by kokey »

anoncowherd wrote: post #31
DominikR wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 pursui…

When a philosophy graduate is unhappy that collective, voluntary trade on the market doesn't benefit his 'trade', he will see it as evil, repressive capitalism. While, in an anarchist, decentralised, collective society there will be people who will no be able to realise their dreams and ambitions and they too will resent this repression imposed on them by the evil collective.

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

#36

Post by sanoli »

anoncowherd wrote: post #32
tokenizer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> 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 cott…

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.

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

#37

Post by anoncowherd »

sanoli wrote: post #36
anoncowherd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 cott…

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.

You're overlooking a couple of important things here:

    1) Public education is shit anyway, 
       and mostly just meant to 
       indoctrinate us into the Cult of Statism.
    2) Private schools would do a vastly better job, 
       for a small fraction of the price.
I'm sure you agree on public schools being bad quality, to put it mildly. You might not agree on the indoctrination aspect, but hey, if we want to change things for the better, we can always write to our representatives and of course, vote! Vote the bums out! All hail The Land Of The Free!

As for private schools doing a better job, you probably know how competition works. You get better stuff for lower prices.

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

#38

Post by c_magg »

DominikR wrote: post #34
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 is a common misconception to label Anarchy as a society without any rules or social norms. That would be Anomie. (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie ) Edit: > So people come together as collectives, which represent them? Would these collectives presumably agree on some standards? And enforce them? Isn't that democracy? Yes, but in the US you have a representative democracy where you vote for some party whic…

You cannot make blanked claims such as this. There are dozens of different types of anarchy ranging from socialistic anarchism to free market anarchism. Voting may or may not be part of the anarchist experience.

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

#39

Post by lukifer »

klez wrote: post #30
lukifer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bein…

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. ;)

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

#40

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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.

Anarchists are not confused. "Anarcho"-capitalists are just not anarchists. Anarchism is anti-property, anti-capitalist, and anti-state. If your proposal is to replace the rule of the state with a purified rule of property and capital, you are not an anarchist.
Post reply on HN