Noam Chomsky (2013) "What is Anarchism?" 

"Anarchism is a tendency in human development that seeks to identify structures of hierarchy and domination, authority, and others that constrain human development - and then it seeks to subject them to a very reasonable challenge: Justify yourself. Demonstrate that you're legitimate - maybe in some special circumstances or conceivably in principal. And if you can't meet that challenge - which is the usual case - the structure should be dismantled. And as Nathan rightly adds, not just dismantled but reconstructed from below."

_Workers should be the masters of their own industrial fate. Not tools rented by employers, not directed by state authorities._

19:27" - "educational practice should be designed to encourage creativity, exploration, independence, cooperative work. Exactly the opposite of what is happening today"

Anarchy is the most human way to live, I feel it and every time I think about is more and more reasonable. Good explanation mr. Chomsky.

It's heartbreaking that the term freedom has become nothing more than a matter of perspective to so many people.

It's interesting that almost all the comments arguing against Chomsky's views of anarchism itself are made as if those people haven't listened to the talk. The most basic issues Chomsky discusses even at the beginning already dismiss them.

4:15 the most brilliant definition of anarchism I've ever heard. That is exactly it!

I am enjoying listening to Chomsky breathe in every few seconds thanks to that microphone.

It is highly probable that I will have to cry the day when this beautiful being leaves our plane of existence. I am grateful to have lived in a period that has had a brilliant mind like Chomsky being a beacon for humanity.

Chomsky is for me the most influential intellectual ever. And Anarchism one of the most important subjects for me to reflect about.

I look at the comments and wonder how many people actually listened to and considered Chomsky's speech.

Simply, stunningly brilliant, as usual. That man's brain is a treasure.

Thank YOU so much for alerting me. Just favorited and play listed. Best for the weekend, Lisa

I look up to this man so much

Thankyou for posting this- a great talk.

Anarchists were right about problem of marxism. I hope contents like this get highlighted by the media so more people are educated about anarchism.

Noam Chomsky a great mind, a great human being Progressive thinkers need read, hear and try to understand this great man...

When i drove 18 wheeler flat bed in 48 States and Canada, occasionally ran into empolyee owned small business companys. What a joy to witness.

thanks so much hope all pass it around

viva l anarchia sempre grande Noam

Brilliant... again... again!

thanks for uploading this

Noam Chomsky is certainly the conscience of the world. As he is advancing in age, is there any of the moralists out there who will take over from where he will have left? I often wonder. But be that it may, I have enormous respect for this great academic and intellectual.

loved the Ken Burns sound track at the end!!! such a great song

It is always inspiring how, despite his justifiably brutal criticisms of modern societal systems, Noam Chomsky often seems surprisingly optimistic at the prospect of replacing them with freer and more democratic systems. Quite encouraging, indeed. "... Changing industry from a feudalistic to a democratic social order - one that's based on workers' control, community control, respects the dignity of the producer as a genuine person - not a tool in the hands of others - in accordance with a libertarian tradition that has deep roots; and like Marx's old mole, is always burrowing quite close to the surface, and ready to spring forth."

"Anarchism", or egalitarianism as it is referred to more properly in the anthropological literature, is the original political/social philosophy of humankind. State level civilizations eroded this with the imposition of centralized authority using military force, and we have lived with it ever since. And it was spread around the world by state level societies and colonialists by conquering and destroying egalitarian societies around the world.

great compression

my ideas about anarchism are freedom from all constraint and helping your fellow people in loving ways

What a wonderful talk, so concise, so addressing social problems at their deepest (i.e., most radical) roots. As always, Thank You Professor Chomsky, and thank you Leigha Cohen and the Boston Review.

Smart man right there

Loved it. Also, instrumental piece in closing credits? Any ideas?

This is great! I'm going to download the transcript. Bookmarking my spot 28:05

You (Rudolf) Rock(er) for putting this up! The Q&A, too. I have always felt like we ought to at least try anarchism/libertarian socialism/radical democracy before we kill ourselves off. I mean, why not? We've tried everything else. Let's commit suicide by majority vote, as it were, if that's all we can handle. I bet we can handle more, though. Let's find out.

Chomsky's definition of anarchism is quite unusual: it also includes left Marxism. I think there are two key differences between anarchism and left Marxism: - Anarchists are against any hierarchy or only for a very flat hierarchy. Left Marxists are for hierarchy, but not in a representative system but in a council system. They are also workers' control of production, but in contrast to anarchists they think it is not enough if each company is controlled by it's workers but they think that the whole economy must be planned by a democratic elected instance. History showed that flat hierarchies don't work, in the Spanish Civil War the CNT didn't want to take power but entered a popular front government with the bourgeoisie instead and in the Russian Civil War, the Anarchist fighters around Makhno didn't recognize the power of the Soviet and basically became scoundrels, which they where not only called by Trotsky, but also by the anarchist Kropotkin. - Anarchists think that the state can be abolished immediately and replaced by what Marx called "a higher phase of communist society". Marxists understand that there have to be steps in between, because the consciousness of the masses can't make leaps that are too big. He called these steps "dictatorship of the proletariat" and a "lower phase of communist society". Lenin's concept was basically the same, except that he called the "higher phase of communist society" "communism" and the "lower phase of communist society" "socialism".

Beautiful lecture.

Does anyone looked up or knows the passage in Adam Smiths "Wealth of Nations"? I would like to know which chapter it is. Thank you for any hints.

i have so much respect for this man

Solidarity with all poor, oppressed and working people of the world #AnInjuryToOneIsAnInjuryToAll Non violent mass NON-PARTICIPATION in all area's.

Awesome 👍

DAVID GRAEBER was a founding member of the Institute for Experimental Arts He did a lecture with the title: How social and economic structure influences the Art World in the Financial Consequences - International MultiMedia Poetry Festival organized by the Institute for Experimental Arts supported by LSE Department of Anthropology. Influential anthropologist David Graeber, known for his 2011 volume Debt: The First 5000 Years speaks about the correlation between the cultural sphere and society. The intellectuals and the artists create an imaginary way to criticize the economic system in any era. Art can overcome hegemonic frameworks and acknowledge other possible worlds, offer us the opportunity to understand better the marginalized social entities. Social exclusion is the process in which individuals or people are systematically blocked from (or denied full access to) various rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available to members of a different group, and which are fundamental to social integration and observance of human rights within that particular group (e.g., housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement, democratic participation, and due process). As the economic crises go deeper in time more people face the effects of exclusion. Art and social sciences can give voice to the voiceless. Especially young social aware poets can give us a clear view of the real social effect of the financial consequences. - David Graeber You can watch the Lecture here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WCF-8OQj0RE.html

Tis to work, and have such pay 
As just keeps life from day to day
 In your limbs, as in a cell
 For the tyrants' use to dwell Tis to be a slave in Soul, 
 And to bold no strong control. 
 Over your own wills, but be 
 All that others make of ye.

the most educated person of our time, he is like the father of humanity

" Educational practice should be designed to encourage creativity, exploration, independence, cooperative work, exactly the opposite of what's happening today."

Is there any transcript of this somewhere please?

3 years ago: oh wow, yeah that does seem to make sense - that those who work should also be those who own the production. Sounds cool, though I can't imagine it working in practice really. Now: The destruction of capitalism is inherent and another world is possible *starts singing the internationale*

I speed him up to 1.25 speed and it's easier to listen without falling asleep...

Does anyone know the author (or work) Chomsky references at 21:35? Norman Weir? I’ve heard him invoke the name before, but I can’t seem to find anything on him.

Problems with this lecture: 1. Liberalism is juxtaposed with anarchism, for evidence of this look into international political theory. 2. At about 9:20 Chomsky argues that Anarchism is aimed at liberty from large oppressive systems, in favor of smaller systems. Such smaller systems would still be considered government, albeit local, and thus not anarchy in the truest sense of the word. 3. At about 11:30, the American version of Libertarianism is arguably the most prominent as it is in the most powerful and richest nation in the world. 4. at about 14:45 Chomsky begins to discuss the objective of governments, to which he is mistaken, our government is not intended to support the oppressive nature of private greed, but to protect the people from its goal of subjugating the masses. 5. At around 30 minutes Chomsky begins to argue that "responsible leaders" are similar to nobility, but forgets that anyone in our nation is capable of being one of those "responsible leaders." 6. Very early on, Chomsky abandons his focus on Anarchism, in favor of Democracy.

no god, no master

Actually I don't see how the anarchic social order is achievable under condition of confrontation (e.g. with other aggressive societies which is the case).

Very Nice

Brilliant!

Vive la commune! Go Catalonia!

Anarchism, Libertarianism, Communism (in its true sense), "Classical Liberalism" and Democracy are all different forms of Liberalism, different streams branching out from the same fountain. Liberalism has dominated the Western world so completely that it can become invisible, and friction between different branches of Liberalism can seem like war between diametrically opposed ideologies rather than a mere factional disagreement. It also leads to confusion and terror when we encounter a culture which genuinely has never embraced Liberalism, such as Iraq. Here is an example of how close the different streams of Liberalism are: the magnificent words of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence can be used as quite a good translation of the lyrics of "L'Internationale": All people are created equal With rights to life and liberty The State must be the People's servant That they might be safe and free And if the State should shirk its duty The People then must stand Their right's to alter or abolish it And remake it by their hand! And so I ask all Liberals, whether they are conservative Liberals like George H. W. Bush, moderate Liberals like President Obama or progressive Liberals like Bernie Sanford or Dr. Chomsky, not to lose sight of the fact that we are all travelling along the great arc of history together, seeking to ensure that it does indeed bend towards justice.

This has been such an inspirimg speech. - Thank you

Where can I get a soft copy of this speech

@Tuenis Dokter: Stalinism is not feasible. That is why minimal Maoism is the best system.

So what happens when 2 different people do exactly the same job but 1 has better salesmanship skills than the other. Equal work still better pay for the better salesman. This is a flaw in anarchism, not everybody has equally good skills exploiting their fullest potential, on top of having unequal skills to start out with. Never even mind narrow focus specialization of higher science and engineering, the bigger public works, all back to medieval times along with anything truly ambitious. This while the world needs to unlock unlimited fusion power desperately, we need it to clean up the mess of the industrial revolution and solve future water and food problems. We need Manhattan scale science and engineering to survive and get off this rock.

of course, changes will take many decades and that is for this sense not easy but neither that tough it is just a matter of time.

Does anyone know what New York Times editorials he is referencing when talking about wage slavery?

I'd like to listen to this guy more, but it's so hard to pay attention to him when it sounds like he's completely uninterested in what he's talking about.

The anarchists during the Spanish Civil War killed nuns and destroyed churches in their zeal for "individual freedom" Sorry, that's not so noble, actually- and not so different from any other zealots, convinced they are right and those who disagree are not just wrong, but evil. We can do better, people.

Is there any movements or any parties seeking to implement anarchism into our government? If so I’d love to join and help in any way I can, and if not, I’ll start one myself

i just like that there is still an idea of complete freedom

anarchism is the final destination for people addicted to lost causes

Anarchism is as much (if not more) about conclusions than about motives or methods. Chomsky would have us believe that what makes and motivates an anarchist movement is a grounded sense of skepticism of government. I think we should admit that it's the conclusion that government is almost never justifiable that defines the anarchist--not just the motivating principle that a government structure shouldn't exist if it can't be justified. I think I understand his point about anarchists invoking, for example, state power to stop the ravages of privatization. But many skeptics of government would align themselves the same way with the state, as these anarchists do, without coming to the conclusion that these very same state powers shouldn't exist in the long run. So we have degrees and kinds of skepticism, but it's the anarchist's conclusion that makes them an anarchist, not the nature of their skepticism. Short of advocating for the long-term dismantling of these structures, no skeptic of government is an anarchist. His definition not only casts the net too wide, it gets pretty close to painting a picture of anarchists as the critical thinkers within society by definition. I think it's a way of avoiding a big problem with anarchism: It purports to be a solution merely by being in opposition--by being critical. By defining it by motive and not conclusion, Chomsky can tout the intellectual basis for being skeptical of government without justifying the ultimate conclusion that government is truly unjustifiable. Once we accept that anarchism is the conclusion, not just the motive, we can look beyond the theoretical basis for anarchy at a wide array of additional motives for these beliefs, including the simple and pedantic fact that it's just so much easier to be opposed to something than offer a viable alternative. We might in doing so discover that anarchists are often no better at thinking critically about what aspects of government are justifiable than non-anarchists. That's been my experience.

20:30 garel perewitz? anyone know exactly who this is? intrigued.

This video does not allow embedding? Really? Why???

The variety of experiences and problems a single person has is incomparably more complex than any system can capture. Nevertheless, the well-being of each individual is and remains the central motive of every civilization.

traducido al castellano??? quién puede cargarlo!!! gracias

Who is the Perovich guy he mentioned who does work on Workers Co-operatives?

What's Wong with the auditorium? ;)

"Archon" is the Greek word for "ruler". A ruler is an implement for drawing straight lines, and the role of ruler in society was to establish norms for weights and measures throughout society. An anarchist is one who wishes to use their own weights and measures, or perhaps in a metaphorical sense, the desire to diverge from straight lines. To draw freehand.

what on earth is that beautiful music at the end?

I am 20 years old. Is anyone else my age watching this? The revolution only dies when it dies within our hearts.

Let us all help to speed the day when this wonderful earth and its rich resources are held in common for the benefit of all humanity.Abolish the wages System.

Congratulations real explained 🙂

please add subtitles 😭😭😭

I wish we had the courage to live like anarchists.

No master! No oppression and No power above human being!

" D. Day's, Catholic Workers movement ... " -- any followups, on what this means? Who they are, and what they represent?

I have two questions (and please do not suppose it is meant as an attack, but a constructive inquiry). I really like Chomsky's view and definition of anarchism but I cannot help but think: 1. How is a society meant to define what is a legitimate or illegitimate exercise of authority? Also, are these subjective or objective? Either way we run into trouble: if they are subjective, we have the problem of practice. If they are objective we have theoretical/philosophical troubles. 2. How is a society meant to decide and agree upon these as well? Would there be a standard procedure for such matters? If yes, what would it look like? If not, then we again have issues in practice. Solving these issues is of utmost importance for this theory's practical validity, given that Chomsky's anarchism is collective rather than individualistic. These two problems are crucial for making this theory practice, which should be the end goal of any political philosophy. I also believe that an additional problem is that the average human being is not advanced enough intellectually and spiritually for this type (or any type actually) of anarchism to actually work on a large scale... Please engage! I would be very happy if we were to find a way for this type of anarchism to be valid and functional in practice.

I was not able to sleep after listening to this...I slept peacefully

Imagine a more subdued but equally visibly passionate 'Tyler Durden' like figure giving this talk. So many of Chomsky's ideas are fascinating while his stage presence of soporific.

Is there a great difference between anarchism and socialism?

i want to hear the Q&A

Wow! What a soul!

omg the background noise fading in and out is so frustrating. Makes me feel like I can't breath O_o

I been an anarchist for about 3 years now

Could anyone translate in french please ?

Thank you for your contribution.

The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..

interesting ideas...and very human also

When I worked in health care in El Salvador back in the mid 1990s I was struck by some of the collectively organized communities in Chalatenango--they practiced a radical democracy where every member of the town had a voice in matters affecting the whole. They functioned beautifully well--in one case they had created a day care and a clinic, they had electricity powered by a generator, the people were bright and smiling, filled with hope, contrasted to unorganized communities where people seemed devastated and crushed. I never forgot that experience and Chomsky's description of Anarchism fits what I saw perfectly.

Chomsky mentions "Nathan." Can we view the presentation made by Nathan?

This is a genuine question,I'm not trying to be flip or sarcastic. Did he define anywhere how we determine wether or not a structure is legitimate?

panarchism or motley anarchism is the only way to practically apply anarchist principles on a societal level. though anarchy is already practiced upon an individual level.

Offtopic: yesterday in our local newspaper Novi List there was an article which stated that former Slovene PM Janez Janša was released from prison due to his status as a politician and his membership in the parliament. I almost thought it was a sick April Fools joke... Turned out to be bloody real story.

Never heard of this man lol where has he been all my life?

Ask Jeff Monson