(2013) Noam Chomsky "What is Anarchism?" Q&A 

that's your concern (I assume) you listened to this?

@@j7db I did, and for any alumni who used to walk past Kresge multiple times every day, it would have been a much more significant thing than Chomsky just being Chomsky, but I see the Wong Auditorium is a new building separate from Kresge (but built in the same style). Disregard my comment.

@@kewkabe Sorry for being a passive aggressive (or whatever I was acting like): was having a tough day.

I thought it was the Wight Auditorium?? Trivial details really do impact the message. I fully agree. 😃 😀 😄

@@j7db I like your comment. Appropriate.. Nitpicking is what gave Christianity a black eye.

organizers need advanced yogic capacities (exceptional psychology through training)

I think there is an exception to the idea of non violence which is that if the US gears up for major war then we should fight without hope of victory simply to force the tentacles of the state to retract

Keeping secrets is something states have the privilege to worry about. There is something to the fact that they only hand out so many keys and try to pretend they don't put nanobots in our pills so if you keep a secret from most people it might stay out of the courts so keep secrets that make you look bad, not as if you could actually keep them from the FBI/CIA, they'll disseminate strategies top down that incorporate the secrets regardless. Between chilling effects and reducing the likelihood of lots of people sharing and building better solutions by working together from the basic idea to finished strategies instead of coming up with entire cohesive strategies before allowing new inputs and ideas. You can probably keep it from the cops but that's probably the level where they just start sharing everything with everybody and then pretending they know nothing while they lock you up "without evidence"

it might help to get video at good angles and find a way to incite aggression and coercion w/o being aggressive or ridiculous

The gov forces anyone doing any type of thing besides a proprietorship to read a few hundred pages of propaganda, hand some out, have it signed, send it in and leave maps and suggestions to FIND OUT MORE AT governmentbrainwashing.org

nope

Samuel Trajano Fu*k you TWICE, in the day and at night. This old's man Humengous BRAIN is higher than the combination of the tiny brains of yourself and your family, relatives, neighbors, teachers, classmates, bosses, co-workers, friends and more. He very old. You are younger and will be, if you are lucky, OLD and UGLY...

You can look up The Anarchist Faq for an overview. Otherwise check out Libcom org for texts to read. Dejaque, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman etc.

Yes, books with rants about the problems of the current system. Just what I was looking for. I'm not looking to become a scholar on it, I just want the cliffnotes, which literally every other system I've come across has no problem providing, but anarchists are a special breed. I actually have since had a conversation with someone that explained most of it to me (well roughly one sentence in fifty was helpful), but it was enough to understand the basic idea. I suppose there are two questions you might answer if you feel so inclined. How is a democracy that uses force to determine how other people use their things not a government or if it is, what makes it anarchism? Is the land owned by everyone in the world, or just people of a certain small, local group? I have so many more questions, but getting anarchists to explain their system is nearly impossible so I take it bits and pieces sifting it from the angry slurs and tirades that it surrounds. In essence I have become a turd miner, but would rather not mine entire books.

Keegan Idler Anarchists are not against government, but certain types of government. Social, political and economic structures that are illegitimate. Illegitimate structures are structures that are coercive, based on top down principels, based on the alienation from work/products, community etc. These structures should be dismantled and if necessary rebuild on the a bottom-up principle. Anarchism proposes that communities and individuals are self-governing, and based on horizontal bottom-up direct democracy. This means that a company should be run by the people who work there, A community should be run by the people who live there etc.. This is why we proprose mutual aid and free association. We do not oppose the use of force if it serves to dismantle coercive relations or illegitimate structures. Many branches of anarchism are against private property and instead propose possesion. This correlates with the idea of workplaces, communities etc. being self-governing and directly controlled. Possesion ensures that a person does not hold any power over communities that he/she is not a part of. Did you watch the lecture "What is anarchism?" and not just the Q&A video (This one). Other than that The anarchist FAQ and the anarchist literature propose solutions and not just critical analyzes of the current system. Sure for any misspellings. English is not my native language.

First off, I appreciate the answer. It is refreshingly direct. However, it is extremely loose in it's use of terms. For example, you say that anarchists support legitimate government, and claim coercion makes something illegitimate, but all government is based on coercion. It is always 'Do as I say or else!'; unless the only punishment is to ostracized by the group. In which case, this isn't democracy. I can already choose not to interact with people; no voting required. As far as it being top down rather than bottom up, it could easily be argued that our system is built on bottom up structures. We simply opted for representative democracy rather than direct democracy because direct democracy is inefficient. So how is the USA (or any other democracy) not anarchy aside from the fact that we allow private property--but even that is something we chose through democratic means and could abolish through democratic means i.e. bottom up. It seems that the definition of anarchy from the point of view of the anarchist then becomes 'bottom up unless the majority disagree with me, in which case my rules need to be forced on everyone'. When I say anarchism, I mean the variety that Noam Chompsky is advocating, so that would be the anti-private property kind, but if a community can be run by the people that live there, then they could split up control of resources to individuals who could then trade their control of land. So private property can come from left anarchy and therefore be legitimate.

We don't work with "Do as i say or else". Our government is de-centralized and the federation, we work from individual to local group to the federation, has no power in of itself. All decision or initiative starts at the individual level, then it's brought to the local group, where it is discussed. The federation has no leadership, the local group has no leadership. No one makes decision that has an effect on others without the decision has been discussed at the local group level. And things that are agreed upon by one group does not imply to other groups unless they to decide it themselves. A representative democracy by virtue is not bottom up. As soon as you give a select group power to make decisions against popular demand and impose this on all, then it is by definition top-down. So the difference is the distribution of power and the manner in which you impose rules.The way anarchists organize means that any wrong decision can be dismatled immediatly. And anarchists do not see to force consent onto people. We do believe that "the goal does not justify the means". Therefore an anarchist will not use state power to enforce rules on to others by means of force. We will instead show by doing. We start at the individual and co-operate by means of mutual aid and free association. Yes, they could split up the land, but then it will no longer be communal land, and then no longer abide by anarchist principles. And then the association with anarchism halts. If the community decides to go against anarchist principles it is their choice, but it is no longer anarchism. But if anarchist principles of possesion and communal use are abided by, then no one can sell the land. One can only gain access to usage if one is involved in the production or maintanence of said land.

Oh he has many times. No need to wonder.

Strange you did not find these discussions...

You have no idea. Feel sorry for you.

Kurt Read Jordan Peterson: Garble garble garble...

Hahaha... Thanks for the laugh!

they are the obstacles for doing the work, not the "job creators", as long as people have unfulfilled needs, work is needed, with or without them. Give away half of your work and they will KINDLY let you use the means of production, that other workers just like you, have created.

🙄