KotiRyhmätKeskusteluLisääAjan henki
Etsi sivustolta
Tämä sivusto käyttää evästeitä palvelujen toimittamiseen, toiminnan parantamiseen, analytiikkaan ja (jos et ole kirjautunut sisään) mainostamiseen. Käyttämällä LibraryThingiä ilmaiset, että olet lukenut ja ymmärtänyt käyttöehdot ja yksityisyydensuojakäytännöt. Sivujen ja palveluiden käytön tulee olla näiden ehtojen ja käytäntöjen mukaista.
Hide this

Tulokset Google Booksista

Pikkukuvaa napsauttamalla pääset Google Booksiin.

On Anarchism – tekijä: Noam Chomsky
Ladataan...

On Anarchism (alkuperäinen julkaisuvuosi 2005; vuoden 2013 painos)

– tekijä: Noam Chomsky (Tekijä), Nathan Schneider (Johdanto)

JäseniäKirja-arvostelujaSuosituimmuussijaKeskimääräinen arvioMaininnat
760721,698 (3.93)11
"Radical linguist, philosopher, and activist Noam Chomsky is one of the world's foremost intellectuals. Known for his brilliant evisceration of American foreign policy, state capitalism, and the mainstream media, he remains a formidable and unapologetic critic of established authority. On Anarchism sheds a much-needed light on the foundations of Chomsky's thought, specifically his constant questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. The book gathers his essays and interviews to provide a short, accessible introduction to his distinctively optimistic brand of anarchism. Chomsky eloquently refutes the notion of anarchism as a fixed idea, suggesting that it is part of a living, evolving tradition, and he disputes the traditional fault lines between anarchism and socialism, emphasizing the power of collective, rather than individualist, action. Including a revealing new interview with Chomsky by well-known writer and blogger Nathan Schneider that assesses Chomsky's writings on anarchism to date, this is a book that is sure to challenge, provoke, and inspire. Profoundly relevant to our times, On Anarchism is a touchstone for political activists and anyone interested in deepening their understanding of anarchism and the man dubbed the "nation's conscience." Incorporating revealing interviews with Chomsky by writer Nathan Schneider that update each in light of today's events, this is a book that is sure to provoke and inspire. Profoundly relevant to our times, Chomsky on Anarchism is a touchstone for activists and anyone interested in politics and the man dubbed "our nation's conscience." "--… (lisätietoja)
Jäsen:Bagel-Witch
Teoksen nimi:On Anarchism
Kirjailijat:Noam Chomsky (Tekijä)
Muut tekijät:Nathan Schneider (Johdanto)
Info:The New Press (2013), Edition: 1st, 128 pages
Kokoelmat:Oma kirjasto
Arvio (tähdet):
Avainsanoja:-

Teoksen tarkat tiedot

On Anarchism (tekijä: Noam Chomsky) (2005)

-
Ladataan...

Kirjaudu LibraryThingiin, niin näet, pidätkö tästä kirjasta vai et.

Ei tämänhetkisiä Keskustelu-viestiketjuja tästä kirjasta.

» Katso myös 11 mainintaa

Näyttää 1-5 (yhteensä 7) (seuraava | näytä kaikki)
A great selection of Noam Chomsky's writings, talks and interviews on anarchism and his political philosophy in general. I've talked to a number of people who have had some difficulty getting into it, which is understandable as it begins with "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship", which is in my opinion one of Chomsky's densest writings that I've read. If you find yourself in a similar position, skip through the first part of Objectivity... or go on to the next chapter, because it's really a great read. Another issue I had was that the author arranges the selections in the book without any context beyond a note at the end of each explaining its source. Some introduction or overview of some or all of the writings would have been awesome, especially something like Objectivity... which just throws you into a discussion about theories of how intellectuals act in American society without any context at all. ( )
  2dgirlsrule | Jul 12, 2020 |
From the book:

WOMAN: It seems to me that as a social system, anarchism makes such bottom-line sense that it was necessary to discredit the word, and take it out of people’s whole vocabulary and thinking—so you just have a reflex of fear when you hear it.

CHOMSKY: Yeah, anarchism has always been regarded as the ultimate evil by people with power. So in Woodrow Wilson’s Red Scare [a 1919 campaign against “subversives” in the U.S.], they were harsh on socialists, but they murdered anarchists—they were really bad news. See, the idea that people could be free is extremely frightening to anybody with power.

That’s why the 1960s have such a bad reputation. I mean, there’s a big literature about the Sixties, and it’s mostly written by intellectuals, because they’re the people who write books, so naturally it has a very bad name—because they hated it. You could see it in the faculty clubs at the time: people were just traumatized by the idea that students were suddenly asking questions and not just copying things down. In fact, when people like Allan Bloom [author of The Closing of the American Mind] write as if the foundations of civilization were collapsing in the Sixties, from their point of view that’s exactly right: they were. Because the foundations of civilization are, “I’m a big professor, and I tell you what to say, and what to think, and you write it down in your notebooks, and you repeat it.”

If you get up and say, “I don’t understand why I should read Plato, I think it’s nonsense,” that’s destroying the foundations of civilization. But maybe it’s a perfectly sensible question—plenty of philosophers have said it, so why isn’t it a sensible question? As with any mass popular movement, there was a lot of crazy stuff going on in the Sixties—but that’s the only thing that makes it into history: the crazy stuff around the periphery. The main things that were going on are out of history—and that’s because they had a kind of libertarian character, and there is nothing more frightening to people with power.

One of the things I like best about Chomsky, is that, regardless of whether you hail or diss him, you're bound to understand what he's talking about. It's always clear-cut, referenced throughout and simple, even when dealing with complex and even advanced matters at times, but if you just re-read that stuff if it feels hard to get, you will get it.

To begin with, he both discusses what anarchism has been, is and is not, which is vital.

The anarchist historian Rudolf Rocker, who presents a systematic conception of the development of anarchist thought towards anarchosyndicalism, along lines that bear comparison to Guérin’s work, puts the matter well when he writes that anarchism is not a fixed, self-enclosed social system but rather a definite trend in the historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and governmental institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a relative, not an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to become broader and to affect wider circles in more manifold ways. For the anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all the powers, capacities, and talents with which nature has endowed him, and turn them to social account. The less this natural development of man is influenced by ecclesiastical or political guardianship, the more efficient and harmonious will human personality become, the more will it become the measure of the intellectual culture of the society in which it has grown.

His thoughts on anarchy are massive, intrinsic and needed. He exudes socialism and anarchism where he discusses matters as far-flung as language, freedom, politics and philosophy of today as well as during the days of Descartes, George Bush and how corporate capitalism has taken over to be the lingua franca state of life for many people.

In his attack on the right of private or bureaucratic control over the means of production, the anarchist takes his stand with those who struggle to bring about “the third and last emancipatory phase of history,” the first having made serfs out of slaves, the second having made wage earners out of serfs, and the third which abolishes the proletariat in a final act of liberation that places control over the economy in the hands of free and voluntary associations of producers (Fourier, 1848).

And he often exemplifies how anarchism lives, not only in the mind, but very closely:

MAN: Then how can we build a social contract which is cooperative in nature, but at the same time recognizes individual humanity? It seems to me that there’s always going to be a very tense polar pull there.

CHOMSKY: Where’s the polar pull—between what and what?

MAN: Between a collective value and an individual value.

CHOMSKY: I guess I don’t see why there has to be any contradiction there at all. It seems to me that a crucial aspect of humanity is being a part of functioning communities—so if we can create social bonds in which people find satisfaction, we’ve done it: there’s no contradiction. Look, you can’t really figure out what problems are going to arise in group situations unless you experiment with them—it’s like physics: you can’t just sit around and think what the world would be like under such and such conditions, you’ve got to experiment and learn how things actually work out. And one of the things I think you learn from the kibbutz experiment is that you can in fact construct quite viable and successful democratic structures—but there are still going to be problems that come along. And one of the problems that people just have to face is the effect of group pressures to conform. I think everybody knows about this from families. Living in a family is a crucial part of human life, you don’t want to give it up. On the other hand, there plainly are problems that go along with it—nobody has to be told that. And a serious problem, which becomes almost pathological when it arises in a close-knit group, is exclusion—and to avoid exclusion often means doing things you wouldn’t want to do if you had your own way. But that’s just a part of living, to be faced with human problems like that. Actually, I’m not a great enthusiast of Marx, but one comment he made seems appropriate here. I’m quoting, so pardon the sexist language, but somewhere or other he said: socialism is an effort to try to solve man’s animal problems, and after having solved the animal problems, then we can face the human problems—but it’s not a part of socialism to solve the human problems; socialism is an effort to get you to the point where you can face the human problems. And I think the kind of thing you’re concerned about is a human problem—and those are going to be there. Humans are very complicated creatures, and have lots of ways of torturing themselves in their inter-personal relations. Everybody knows that, without soap operas.

The chapter on language and freedom goes into anarchy from a linguistic route, even as it's very human. The chapter on Spain and the anarcho-syndicalistic ideas that grew into action from there is also really interesting.

All in all: very recommendable, even if you're not into politics. It's mind-bending in a good way. ( )
  pivic | Mar 21, 2020 |
On Anarchism is a collection of excerpts from previous interviews. Chomsky needs no introduction as he is well known as a voice of the far left -- articulate and well spoken. He is not the political sound bite of the evening or 24 hour news channel. He is the details and the details that get drowned out of the mainstream media.

As a professor of linguistics Chomsky knows words mean things. He sticks to the proper usage of words rather than the contemporary view. Historically, libertarian does not mean the same thing as it does in the US. It does mean minimal government interference in life, but in a socialist way. Chomsky use libertarianism, socialism, and anarchism. There is not much of the defining the terms as in other more complete works. But, socialism had little to do with the Soviet Union which was not socialist or communist, but totalitarian. The only real difference between right wing dictatorships and left wing dictatorships is ownership. The state is the property owner in left wing dictatorships and foreigners are the owners in right wing dictatorships.

Chomsky champions the worker and the individual. Citing Tocqueville, Chomsky makes the point that many governments (including our own) are based on the right of property over the right of the individual. Remember the Bill of Rights came two years after the Constitution. He makes the stand that the US operates under State Capitalism just as the Soviets were State Socialism. The state becomes the problem in both. The idea of the free market in the US is "baloney" according to Chomsky. America has a planned economy. The state subsidies to agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and technology allow these industries to profit. They do not rely on the market, but on tax dollars. The difference between America, the Asian success stories, and the Soviet Union is the amount of state centralization and bureaucracy. The Soviet system was inefficient, but it did provide a safety net for the people. Compare the standard of living before and after the fall of communism.

In a democracy the power should lie not just formally in the population, but actually in the people. People are losing control of the government. Politicians court corporations and favor their interests. American's themselves seem to be caught up in a trap. They hate taxes, but want roads, schools, and a huge military. What is called a welfare state is the recognition that every child has a right to food, healthcare, and an education. This recognition came with a century of work from labor and socialism.

Adam Smith the champion of the free market believed people should be free. They should be free from authoritarian government and authoritarian institutions. Chomsky argues that Smith was the opposite of a capitalist. He believed that people's character involves sympathy, solidarity, and the right to control their own work.

Chomsky is an idealist and admits that his ideas may not be completely possible today. However, in the eighteenth century political democracy was a dream, yet by the nineteenth century it existed. Chomsky believes that change can happen. He also believes that people need to stand up and call out injustice. In order for change to happen, it will take effort. People today are too distracted by superficial flashes and ignore their own interests. A distracted society will be taken advantage of and find their rights stripped away, usually by their own vote.
( )
  evil_cyclist | Mar 16, 2020 |
Chomsky makes a good case for anarchism. A highlight is the autobigraphical section detailing how he came to be an anarcho-syndicalist.

A significant part of the book is a reinterpretation of the history of the Spanish civil war in which the communists undermined the anarchist's work in estabilishing their economic system and in defending Spain against Franco's facist forces. Chomsky believes that existing liberal histories of the war incorrectly diminish the contributions of the anarchists, and he seems to make a good case for this view. Spain during their civil war is pretty much the only place where anarchism has been put into practice on a large scale, so it remains prominent in the anarchism literature, despite the horrible conditions under which it tried to flourish.

A chapter on language and freedom is less compelling. Chomsky believes that people have an innate language generator within us, making it difficult to reconcile freedom with a supposed biological determinism of thought and speech. Language plays important roles in both facilitating and denying freedom, but these topics are not covered here. ( )
  bkinetic | May 30, 2018 |
A great read, which would justify itself alone for Chomsky's dismantling of the ideas that "socialism" was represented by the USSR, or that "capitalism" as practiced by the US is free of tyranny (and equally interesting is his critique of the Rand-esque style of right-wing libertarianism unique to the US). Chomsky goes into some detail on the history of anarchist movements and his own ideas on libertarian or anti-authoritarian forms of socialism.

Very much worth a read. ( )
1 ääni chaosmogony | Apr 27, 2013 |
Näyttää 1-5 (yhteensä 7) (seuraava | näytä kaikki)
ei arvosteluja | lisää arvostelu
Sinun täytyy kirjautua sisään voidaksesi muokata Yhteistä tietoa
Katso lisäohjeita Common Knowledge -sivuilta (englanniksi).
Kanoninen teoksen nimi
Tiedot englanninkielisestä Yhteisestä tiedosta. Muokkaa kotoistaaksesi se omalle kielellesi.
Alkuteoksen nimi
Teoksen muut nimet
Alkuperäinen julkaisuvuosi
Henkilöt/hahmot
Tiedot englanninkielisestä Yhteisestä tiedosta. Muokkaa kotoistaaksesi se omalle kielellesi.
Tärkeät paikat
Tärkeät tapahtumat
Kirjaan liittyvät elokuvat
Palkinnot ja kunnianosoitukset
Epigrafi (motto tai mietelause kirjan alussa)
Omistuskirjoitus
Ensimmäiset sanat
Sitaatit
Viimeiset sanat
Erotteluhuomautus
Julkaisutoimittajat
Kirjan kehujat
Alkuteoksen kieli
Canonical DDC/MDS

Viittaukset tähän teokseen muissa lähteissä.

Englanninkielinen Wikipedia (1)

"Radical linguist, philosopher, and activist Noam Chomsky is one of the world's foremost intellectuals. Known for his brilliant evisceration of American foreign policy, state capitalism, and the mainstream media, he remains a formidable and unapologetic critic of established authority. On Anarchism sheds a much-needed light on the foundations of Chomsky's thought, specifically his constant questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. The book gathers his essays and interviews to provide a short, accessible introduction to his distinctively optimistic brand of anarchism. Chomsky eloquently refutes the notion of anarchism as a fixed idea, suggesting that it is part of a living, evolving tradition, and he disputes the traditional fault lines between anarchism and socialism, emphasizing the power of collective, rather than individualist, action. Including a revealing new interview with Chomsky by well-known writer and blogger Nathan Schneider that assesses Chomsky's writings on anarchism to date, this is a book that is sure to challenge, provoke, and inspire. Profoundly relevant to our times, On Anarchism is a touchstone for political activists and anyone interested in deepening their understanding of anarchism and the man dubbed the "nation's conscience." Incorporating revealing interviews with Chomsky by writer Nathan Schneider that update each in light of today's events, this is a book that is sure to provoke and inspire. Profoundly relevant to our times, Chomsky on Anarchism is a touchstone for activists and anyone interested in politics and the man dubbed "our nation's conscience." "--

No library descriptions found.

Kirjan kuvailu
Yhteenveto haiku-muodossa

Pikalinkit

Suosituimmat kansikuvat

Arvio (tähdet)

Keskiarvo: (3.93)
0.5
1
1.5
2 4
2.5 3
3 23
3.5 5
4 39
4.5 3
5 29

Oletko sinä tämä henkilö?

Tule LibraryThing-kirjailijaksi.

 

Lisätietoja | Ota yhteyttä | LibraryThing.com | Yksityisyyden suoja / Käyttöehdot | Apua/FAQ | Blogi | Kauppa | APIs | TinyCat | Perintökirjastot | Varhaiset kirja-arvostelijat | Yleistieto | 157,804,781 kirjaa! | Yläpalkki: Aina näkyvissä