Noam Chomsky - Anarchism I

sure anything let's think that anarchism is bothering mayhem what is what is it that attracts anarchism has nothing to do with bomb throwing mayhem its anarchism is a point of view which I first once covers a lot of things political rhetoric is not the clearest it's not a model of clarity an anarchism has covered quite a lot of ground but the mainstream of it has just been the basic principle which I think comes straight out of classical liberalism and the Enlightenment that any form of authority and domination hasn't has a burden of proof to bear it has to demonstrate that it's legitimate no matter what it is whether it's inside a family or on the global economy if it's if it is a form of authority and domination and coercion it has to show that it's legitimate if it can demonstrate its that's a heavy burden to bear if it shows that it's legitimate okay if not it ought to be dismantled that's anarchism that's the it's the task of those who have the authority to demonstrate that so for example if I'm taking a walk with my granddaughter and okay and she suppose I'm taking a walk with my granddaughter and she runs it runs out into the street okay and I grab her and pull her back well that's authority and it's my task to demonstrate that it's legitimate and I think in this case if anybody challenged me I could make an argument thing that's legitimate Authority but the burden of proof is always on those who exercise it that's true if it's men and parents and children owners and people they rent the state and people who serve it the IMF and people who follow us orders wherever it is so there's no general definition of what legitimate Authority is it's the task of those who exercise authority to demonstrate their legitimacy they're the ones of the burden of proof and if they can't meet that burden by explaining why what they do is legitimate then they have no right to exercise the authority and whatever institution any institution within which they exercise it is illegitimate unless they show otherwise I and the anarchists are just people who believe that and try to do something about it well I don't I don't mean that every minute of the day everybody has to be saying look this is my other to demand Authority but they have to be prepared to meet the challenge so if it's like a Dem expose it's a formally democratic state well in principle that challenge is met by interchange among the population which recognizes the authority of the of actions in the public arena through constant interaction debate struggle and so on in theory that's what happens if it is a democratic state to the extent that that doesn't happen it's not a democratic state and it is illegitimate when you move to other systems of authority like say private corporations or fascist states or other forms of totalitarianism there's no question of legitimacy because they have none so but it's the possibility of the other people in the institution whatever that institution might be to question you know it's not their responsibilities their responsibility to meet the challenge it's the responsibility of people to make the challenge so it's the responsibility of say women to challenge a framework in which they are supposed to wash the dishes and put the children to sleep and that sort of thing and it's the responsibility of men in a patriot traditional patriarchy family to answer that challenge I mean it would be nice if you could if the challenge could be raised by those in positions of authority that's pretty rare I mean usually when you're in a position of authority you kind of internalize the values that say it's right and just and the reason is because I think because most people are sort of decent human beings and it's very hard to tell yours to look in the mirror and say I'm a bastard so usually what you do is look in the mirror and say I'm a nice guy and I do these things because it's right and just for the bitumen and that's pretty standard you know I mean everybody knows that from their own experience we don't have to go into it that's what people are like and therefore the responsibility of raising the challenge is typically in the hands of those who recognize that they have a subordinate status it's very hard to recognize that I mean people live you know first millennia you know without recognizing that they are being subordinated and insistent of power I'm an extra of women for example it's into per slaves you know I mean most slave societies we're accepted by the slaves as legitimate and in fact necessary and a large part and the same is true of for example people have jobs today in our society almost without exception they consider it legitimate for them to be in a position where they have to rent themselves in order to survive it's not certainly not obvious you know and in fact if you go back a century ago it was not any considered not obvious it was considered outlandish by working people I'm not talking about Marxist or socialist or anybody like that that's a mill hands and Lowell Massachusetts who never heard of socialism who regarded it as a form of slavery and we're complaining that the they had not fought the civil war to replace chattel slavery by wage slavery and that therefore those who work in the mills are owned because that's the Republican rights that we want in the American Revolution and so on and so forth so you know it's not obvious but by now I think enough indoctrination and propaganda and so on has taken place so people do regard that form of subordination through external authority as legitimate whether they should is another question but the fact is they do just as for most of history women have accepted a subordinate role as correct and proper and so on and slaves did and people living in say feudal societies in a feudal society people had a place you know some kind of rule and quite typically the societies were stable because people regarded those structures as legitimate the same is true of religious structures and the I mean throughout human life there's a whole variety of systems of authority and oppression and domination and so on which are usually accepted as legitimate by the people subordinated to when they don't you have struggles and revolutions and sometimes changes sometimes brutality and so on that's as far as I understand that anarchists are just people to take this seriously

  1. Anarchy got nothing to do with liberalism. Pathetic. Huge lie. This guy got no idea or he sold himself for a very cheap price.

  2. Unbelievably for me, someone who likes order, is beginning to think that anarchism is the only way that is truly fair and the way forward. This is based on the fact that governments can no longer be trusted to look after the people, can no longer be trusted not to allow their own biases and self interests infiltrate their policies and can no longer be relied upon to use consistency and reason.

  3. Anarchy will never be an option because we can't elect it and the people who control us will never give up that control willingly. But apart from that it wouldn't work anyway because in any group there are always people who have strong dominant personalities and they will become the decision makers and therefore leaders while the more introverted people will stay in the background happily following. So anarchy will become what it replaces.

  4. Anarchism is no ruler. Could mean nobody is a ruler (chaos), or all rule equally. Chaos creates a ruler so forget that. So anarchy only means all rule equally. Who are "all"? Can only mean all those anarchists in a group. Those who won't help ruling should join a tyranny as anarchists cannot rule sheep. Anarchy does not mix with tyranny. Anarchy requires equality of rule so creates socialism. Capitalism is child of tyranny. Socialism is child of anarchy. There are only two political choices: Anarchy or Tyranny. The world is very confused but it's simple: Become equal rulers!

  5. Who judges whether the burden of proof has been met? Doesn’t that just boil down to who is better at rhetoric? What if there are financial incentives?

  6. Am I the only person who wasn't won over by these 7 minutes of anarchist theory?
    Here's my biggest concern, and I'd love to hear an answer from anyone who has one:
    Any authority with an obligation to justify itself doesn't need to do so through discourse – it already has the authority to justify itself. Do anarchists really expect the authority to realize it's unjustified and, presumably, to dissolve itself, just because someone made a really good argument?

    Despite what some might think, justification, like justice, are not the limitations that a society puts on its authority – they are the products of authority. Their conditions are defined by the institutions with the power to influence the category. Three hundred years ago (and well into the future), Europeans generally agreed that their authority over the rest of the world was justified. When the rest of the world challenged that, European authority simply refuted those challenges for reasons it considered justified. Political and ethical discourse in Europe remained subject to the principles of justice the authority had already established. Furthermore, that authority did everything it could (through Christian conversion and other mythologies) to extends its control to the discourse of the colonized peoples.

    With this in mind, how could we expect even a modern authority to relinquish its power over discourse in a system where discourse is the primary means of resisting that authority? It would be like expecting Belgium to hand all of its guns and cannons over to the Congolese with a polite request to use the weapons only when Belgium "crosses the line."

    PS: Not here to fight with anyone, I'd genuinely like to know what the anarchist solution would be. Or maybe there is another model of anarchism that avoids this issue?

  7. Whole my life I have this same oppinion but until latley I didn't realise that this is the (true) anarchist viewpoint (not some violent antifa loonies).

  8. Why not simply improve upon that which exists and make it better then simply destroying or abolishing it? I guess it depends on whether it can be improved, but why not simply look to improve and make it better then simply reject it?

  9. Anarchism means, literally, "no king" hence, no ruling class, no authority. Just free and voluntary association.

  10. It's an ever evolving and perpetual state of schizophrenia where the owned will fight for their right to be owned and in the modern US' case fight for the right of the owner to own them. We have the most sophisticated slave system in human history. Sit in a car you don't own, to get to a job you hate in order to earn a living where credit and debt controls you and after 60 years of work you still don't own your own property unless you were fortunate or had a major break.

  11. I think when most people ask Chomsky questions they really want this answer and don't know how to ask the right questions.

  12. The reality winner of china ontinent, according to VOA and online screenshots that could not be independently verified by AFP.

    "Listen to what I say, is it wrong?" Sun asked the security detail in the recording.

    "People are poor. Let's not throw our money in Africa," he said, telling the intruders that "throwing money like this is of no good to our country and society" before the line went dead.

    – 'Real tyranny' –

    Sun, who is one of China's oldest activists, is kept under regular surveillance.

  13. Babbling nonsense. Magically invoking that all citizens are always kind and cooperative can be used to defend absolutely any form of government. Fascism is great so long as the führer is perfectly wise and benevolent.

  14. My fear is that it is impossible to truly justify or disprove legitimacy, or worse that power itself is the only thing that confers legitimacy. In other words, might is right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *