Scan barcode
arsonchyk's review against another edition
4.0
I don't agree with all the takes of Noam, especially his modern ones on the Ukrainian-russian war, which is kind of hurtful because he is ignoring his Ukrainian heritage, because of (in my opinion) blindness provoked by American exceptionalism, but that is simply my opinion on him as a person, not the book.
However, speaking of the book, a lot of takes were mildly specisist. Especially in the latest part of the book.
Still, including all that I found the book educational and worth reading.
However, speaking of the book, a lot of takes were mildly specisist. Especially in the latest part of the book.
Still, including all that I found the book educational and worth reading.
anna_pardo's review against another edition
3.0
Puc recordar perfectament aquell dia d'escola ja fa molts anys en que ens van parlar per primera vegada de l'anarquisme, i com jo vaig pensar "i qui pot no voler això?". Com més anys passen més creus me'n faig, i més m'esgarrifa veure el món tan horrible en tants aspectes que tenim.
Per això és interessant llegir a algú com Chomsky, tot un optimista pel que fa a canviar l'ordre social, i que en aquest llibre ens sembra moltes llavors de pensament i acció. Interesantíssim el capítol sobre la Guerra Civil Espanyola, que indefectiblement em porta a treure de la pila Homenatge a Catalunya, i a veure una vegada més com es manipula el discurs de la Història.
Per això és interessant llegir a algú com Chomsky, tot un optimista pel que fa a canviar l'ordre social, i que en aquest llibre ens sembra moltes llavors de pensament i acció. Interesantíssim el capítol sobre la Guerra Civil Espanyola, que indefectiblement em porta a treure de la pila Homenatge a Catalunya, i a veure una vegada més com es manipula el discurs de la Història.
andipants's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting collection of writings about the essential tenets of anarchism. If you have no idea what anarchism is (or if you think it involves unrestrained chaos and/or violence), this would be a good place to start. While occasionally repetitive (this is a collection of multiple separate pieces, not a single, unified work), this book is good at driving home what anarchism philosophically is and digging into its roots in Enlightenment libertarian philosophy.
My biggest frustration is that it's much lighter on specifics, namely, how any of this would look in practice. The longest chapter is spent digging into conflicts between anarchist groups and Soviet-backed communists during the Spanish Civil War, but even that is more focused on how the opposition crushed the anarchist collectives, rather than what they looked like and what kind of example they might set for modern anarchists looking to build upon their philosophical foundations. Chomsky preemptively dismisses some of this criticism by arguing that anarchism must be flexible and will look different in different times and places; in the "Excerpts from Understanding Power" chapter (which takes the form of an interview), he comments, "I don't think you can lay it out in detail — nobody's smart enough to design a society; you've got to experiment. But reasonable principles on which to build such a society are quite clear" (p 22). In the "Language and Freedom" essay, he also emphasizes the idea that even if the inauguration of a more free society is messy or even violent, that does not mean it is bad or should not be allowed; he quotes Kant saying, "one cannot arrive at the maturity for freedom without having already acquired it" (p 125).
While I understand the need for flexibility to meet varied situations, I would argue that some kind of concrete plan or set of actionable goals is necessary to actually inspire change. Lofty ideals are important to have as a lodestar, but they don't, on their own, create an impetus for change. I would quote Justine in the Contrapoints video "The Left": "If you have purely theoretical political beliefs, you're never accountable for the way things are going." Perhaps this should be down to more local organizers to hash out; I'd buy that as a starting point. But more concrete examples and suggestions would still be awfully useful for that process.
My biggest frustration is that it's much lighter on specifics, namely, how any of this would look in practice. The longest chapter is spent digging into conflicts between anarchist groups and Soviet-backed communists during the Spanish Civil War, but even that is more focused on how the opposition crushed the anarchist collectives, rather than what they looked like and what kind of example they might set for modern anarchists looking to build upon their philosophical foundations. Chomsky preemptively dismisses some of this criticism by arguing that anarchism must be flexible and will look different in different times and places; in the "Excerpts from Understanding Power" chapter (which takes the form of an interview), he comments, "I don't think you can lay it out in detail — nobody's smart enough to design a society; you've got to experiment. But reasonable principles on which to build such a society are quite clear" (p 22). In the "Language and Freedom" essay, he also emphasizes the idea that even if the inauguration of a more free society is messy or even violent, that does not mean it is bad or should not be allowed; he quotes Kant saying, "one cannot arrive at the maturity for freedom without having already acquired it" (p 125).
While I understand the need for flexibility to meet varied situations, I would argue that some kind of concrete plan or set of actionable goals is necessary to actually inspire change. Lofty ideals are important to have as a lodestar, but they don't, on their own, create an impetus for change. I would quote Justine in the Contrapoints video "The Left": "If you have purely theoretical political beliefs, you're never accountable for the way things are going." Perhaps this should be down to more local organizers to hash out; I'd buy that as a starting point. But more concrete examples and suggestions would still be awfully useful for that process.
gjermis's review against another edition
3.0
God bok å lese om du vil få mer forståelse for hva anarkisme som politisk ideologi faktisk innebærer.
Henger ikke veldig godt sammen som bok, og har litt ujevne kapitler. Det lange kapittelet om den spanske borgerkrigen er nok mest interessant om du har litt innblikk i temaet fra før.
Boka er imidlertid verdt å lese for Chomskys innsikt og sylskarpe kommentarer.
Henger ikke veldig godt sammen som bok, og har litt ujevne kapitler. Det lange kapittelet om den spanske borgerkrigen er nok mest interessant om du har litt innblikk i temaet fra før.
Boka er imidlertid verdt å lese for Chomskys innsikt og sylskarpe kommentarer.
jada's review against another edition
3.0
half of this book went over my head, I need to reread when I grow more brain cells