On Anarchism

A useful collection of Chomsky's thoughts on anarchism. Some takeaways:

• Anarchism helps solve the 'animal' problems but not necessarily the 'human' problems
• All anarchists are socialist but not all socialists are anarchist
• It's important to have a desired political system in mind but not all actions must contribute to bringing this about in the short term
• It is the responsibility of power to justify itself

I love you, Chomsky, but this book is basically a random assortment of writings, some of which is amazing, but it's mostly disjointed.

Why so much focus on the Spanish Civil War–oh.

I have no idea whom this book (collection of essays, to be more accurate) is aimed at. The liberals and leftists who might be swayed over to anarchism? Something for the centrist or conservative to ponder over? For the politically-inclined language theorist? Or all of the above?
Keeping aside the stream-of-consciousness narrative (this is a common feature of all Chomsky texts, but it is most apparent here) made it a vaguely illuminating read. As an idealist at heart - Chomsky raises a valid point in saying that anarchism is the belief of questioning those in authority as to how they got their power in the first place - if they can't prove that there is a reason for their existence, then they should be dismantled. More strikingly, it doesn't simply apply to businesses - but also for the government.
To most, this all sounds very romantic, not in the ‘this will take a lot of time to be achieved' way but in the ‘unicorns will fart rainbows before this ever happens' way. To assuage these concerns, Chomsky assures the reader that this is possible - it was seen before in large swathes of Spain in the Spanish civil war, during 1936. Revolutionary Catalonia didn't implode - the then-government crushed the spontaneous revolution with the help of Russia.
So there you have it. A primer to anarchism as a viable philosophy? It sounds like fun reading!
But that is sadly not the case. The book is sometimes too nuanced, name-dropping terms that the reader is expected to know. Then, on the other hand, there are some very simplistic interviews, all saying more or less the same thing - the book feels to drag even with its short length. But the simplicity of Chomsky's arguments is so magnificent that when you're reading it, all of this will not strike you.
This book is probably not the best first read if you're looking to get familiar with anarchism as a philosophy, but as someone looking to read up more on the topic, it's not exactly a bad read. I would recommend it solely because it's a breeze to go through, and it raises some hard questions.