Yeah no I think I've engaged this entire time I just haven't given you a precise definition that you're happy with. It makes sense to me, and plenty of other people. I would say that yes, any group that momentarily overthrows the current authority to be somewhat anarchic. That's just how it seems to me. You don't have to agree, that's fine. Everyone has a different definition of seeking personal liberty, even if it's on their way to oppression or fascism or democracy. Dismantling an authority is being an anarchist.

I feel like you're just wanting to talk AT me at this point, but I'll respond one last time here. I don't see how questioning whether a power relationship is justified or not ISN'T a defining feature of anarchism, but yes everyone sort of does that, but anarchism is still a reaction to that question, making it an essential component. You HAVE to ask that to get there. Sure maybe Chomsky's too broad here, but I don't see how its nonsensical. Anarchists would be the reactionaries to an authority they deem unjustified, and I think it's honestly as simple as that.

I don't see how it's incoherent at all. As far as I'm aware he simply states that anarchism is personal freedom (or liberalism) brought to an extreme, or "natural" end, which, if I'm interpreting correctly, seems pretty coherent, even if I don't agree.

Also I wasn't saying I find Hitler enlightened lol he was my example of a perspective worth knowing and understanding so that we don't fall into pitfalls like xenophobia and nationalism. He's a teacher of what would be harmful to society and our fellow man. This perspective is important so its not repeated.

I guess I'm just playing devils advocate. I appreciate lots of viewpoints, even ones I don't necessarily agree or identify with, like Chomsky's. I still find his insights useful as a way to view something like anarchy from a lense I wouldn't normally approach on my own. Chomsky's views are as useful to me as Hitler's; sometimes enlightened, sometimes cautionary ways NOT to think lol

Just because one definition of an idea differs from another it doesn't make the whole idea of defining that thing worthless. I think they're saying that anarchism is the most basic human form, which is maybe not true, but this is philosophy lol And the thing is, political or not, ALL systems have a power dynamic, even anarchism. You HAVE to have power over those that would assert themselves over others. It's a paradox, but its like the paradox of tolerance. In order for anything to work you need at least a base level of authority over others.

Dude you are buggin. Chomsky is controversial for sure, but raises a valid idea here. Authority has to have a purpose, a service to the people, or it's just authority for the sake of itself/ the authoritarians. There are lots of ways to interpret the justification of authority by the millions that fall on all political spectrums. Everyone who participates in a society justifies authority somehow, or at best ignores it and carries on with their lives. The talk here is about a reaction to authority that humanity seems to always fall back on, the dismantlement of it and fall/ growth(?) to anarchy.