Confession time! One of my early influences when I first started "figuring things out" was Noam Chomsky. Chomsky, like the recently departed Gore Vidal, is great on foreign policy and criticizing the American empire overseas, but not exactly Murray Rothbard when it comes to understanding liberty or economics. Chomsky in the past has described himself as a "libertarian socialist" or "left-libertarian", a concept which has eluded me. Liberty is a fairly straightforward concept - how there can be some form of liberty that is "left" or "socialist" I've never understood.In a recent interview Chomsky even went as far as to proclaim himself an "anarchist", and then went on to describe what is "wrong" with libertarians. If that last sentence is confusing to you, don't worry, you're not alone. Here's Chomsky, in response to the question "what is anarchy to you?":

Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics.  Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy.

Ok, not so bad so far. I suppose anarchy does show up in "different forms in different circumstances", and it's quite possible that most people that describe themselves as anarchists are "skeptical of domination, authority and hierarchy."  Chomsky waxes philosophical a bit more before describing what he calls "anarcho-syndicalism" (emphasis mine):

Anarcho-syndicalism is a particular variety of anarchism which was concerned primarily, though not solely, but primarily with control over work, over the work place, over production.  It took for granted that working people ought to control their own work, its conditions, [that] they ought to control the enterprises in which they work, along with communities, so they should be associated with one another in free associations, and … democracy of that kind should be the foundational elements of a more general free society.

Again, I'm not sure how there can be a "variety" of anarchism. Anarchism, as I've described before, simply means "without rulers" i.e. without coercive government. The only thing an anarchist should be concerned with is whether associations are voluntary, or involuntary. As he typically does, Chomsky seems to mix libertarian rhetoric with socialist concepts.  Describing how workers should "control the enterprises in which they work" seems to suggest some public or socialist ownership over the means of production, a clearly anti-liberty concept.He then blends this together with the ideas of "free associations", certainly a proper libertarian ideal. But what Chomsky misses is that he can stop right there. Free associations are all that is needed for a free society to function. When people are allowed to interact freely - i.e. the "free market" - they are able to use the price signals created by supply and demand to determine how to properly allocate resources. He then associates his idea of "anarchism" with "democracy" i.e. majority rule -  a concept that is the opposite of freedom!Chomsky goes on to describe the problem of "private power"(emphasis still mine):

Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power:  so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes.  The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society.  Actually that has been believed in the past.  Adam Smith for example, one of his main arguments for markets was the claim that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets would lead to perfect equality.  Well, we don’t have to talk about that!

What Chomsky is probably trying to describe here is "fascism", where private corporations use the power of the State in order to dominate the market and rig the system for themselves. In a free market, the only way "power" (profit) can be achieved is by providing the best services to customers at the best prices. There is nothing "magic" or "concentrated" about private ownership of production; it is the alternative of socialism that concentrates power in the hands of the State.Chomsky continues the confusion (and I continue the emphasis):

Yes, and so well that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.  Anarchism is quite different from that.  It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny.

At this point it's hard to tell what Chomsky really even believes in. The "kind" of libertarianism he seems to be upset with is unclear. Either what he is describing is fascism in the United States, which has nothing to do with libertarianism, or he is simply opposed to private ownership of production. This latter position would of course make him a communist or socialist, not an anarchist as he seems to believe he is.Chomsky is correct when he says that anarchism calls for "an elimination of all kinds of tyranny". Now that would be my kind of anarchism. Yet he seems to himself advocate for a certain "kind" of tyranny in the form of socialism or communism.Noam Chomsky is certainly an interesting guy and good on many issues. But he is very confused when it comes to the ideas of liberty, and it's a shame that such a seemingly intelligent man doesn't grasp even the most basic concepts of liberty.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!