It has nothing to do with "emotional sectarianism", it has to do with what being an anarchist is about, if you want to say that someone who says that there is nothing inherently wrong with government is an anarchist then you and I have a strong disagreement on what it means to be an anarchist. I find it ridiculous how you people always get all up in arms about bullshit like this, someone is accusing Chomsky, the man who calls for a more just US foreign policy, "more democratization", is a cheerleader for the UN, and other international organizations (although even a support for organizations in general seems a bit contradicting to me considering how organization leads to hierarchy), and as I previously said, he has met with Chavez and given his support for Chavez as well as other leftist politicians, why would an anarchist give support to anyone in a position of power?
I must wonder as to whether you would say that I was exercising my own emotional sectarianism by deciding who is and who isn't an anarchist if someone said that George Bush was an anarchist and I said he wasn't. I wonder if you claim that Marx is not an anarchist, because then you would have to be saying he isn't one of us, which is something you would be against by your own thoughts.

I, too, don't agree with alot of what Chomsky says, but I agree with the last two posters. Here's an appropriate Noam quote:

"No one owns the term "anarchism." It is used for a wide range of different currents of thought and action, varying widely. There are many self-styled anarchists who insist, often with great passion, that theirs is the only right way, and that others do not merit the term (and maybe are criminals of one or another sort). A look at the contemporary anarchist literature, particularly in the West and in intellectual circles (they may not like the term), will quickly show that a large part of it is denunciation of others for their deviations, rather as in the Marxist-Leninist sectarian literature. The ratio of such material to constructive work is depressingly high.

Personally, I have no confidence in my own views about the "right way," and am unimpressed with the confident pronouncements of others, including good friends. I feel that far too little is understood to be able to say very much with any confidence. We can try to formulate our long-term visions, our goals, our ideals; and we can (and should) dedicate ourselves to working on issues of human significance. But the gap between the two is often considerable, and I rarely see any way to bridge it except at a very vague and general level. These qualities of mine (perhaps defects, perhaps not) will show up in the (very brief) responses I will make to your questions."

" Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman supported the Soviet Union before they saw the conditions there for themselves. So I guess next you'll be telling us that they weren't anarchist either, your majesty?"
I guess you're going to tell me they are? You have the right to define who is an anarchist, but I don't have the right to define who isn't an anarchist, is that how it is? Anyone who claims to be an anarchist and lends support to any form of domination and hierarchy isn't much of an anarchist in my eyes, maybe I've got my ideas all backwards and you can vote and lend support to Hillary Clinton or Obama and then continue to support them while claiming that you're an anarchist, but you and I both know that's bullshit so don't give me any shit.

Yeah, and his ideas never go far enough, and are more political than radical.

By all means, believe what you want you want to about Chomsky and his ideas on anarchy and everything else. I won't stop you, but I may argue against your opinions. You know what they say about opinions... that includes me, you and Chomsky.

Yes, I do take advantage of computers and a whole host of other things that may be contrary to my conception of what anarchy means. I'm not a purist by any means. I also use money which I'm fairly certain everyone who posts here does as well, but does this mean that we support the capitalist system that uses it and the government that tenders it? Quite obviously it does, but what real choice is there in the matter? Firstly, we must live and this is the condition we find ourselves in. We do the best with what we have.

Part of the appeal of anarchy, to me at least, is the absence of a formalized code of what it is and how to regulate/achieve it. To this end, Chomsky does not seem to share this view on multiple issues and it is on these grounds that I have problems terming him an actual "anarchist." Some may like his critiques and find his thoughts helpful in seeing through the banality of everyday life, though.

Anarchists fighting with other anarchists is the reason that nothing gets done?! Define getting something done. If you're talking about maintaining infoshops, micropower radio, zines, conferences, and any number of other networking projects, then you're 100% wrong. These things continue despite anarchists fighting with each other. And what's wrong with fighting?

I recognize Chomsky as a supporter of dominating relationships and systems, of an individual which upholds authority every chance he gets only to once in awhile come out and say that he is an anarchist. I recognize him as a supporter of technology which is something which is inherently oppressive and dominating, I recognize him as a supporter of the progress, technology and industrialism which are destroying the natural world. I see him as an apologist for those in power and a supporter of anyone who is in power so long as they are "democratic" (one can look at his essays regarding the Chilean coup in 1973 in which he sympathizes with Allende). I see Chomsky as nothing more than a liberal professor who's critique of capitalism and hierarchy are lacking at best. He certainly doesn't stand against suffering and ecological destruction, he contends that mass society and civilization are good things despite the alienation, suffering, environmental destruction (and don't anyone even question me on this, deforestation, deadspots in the oceans, hundreds of species going extinct a day, global warming, etc, those aren't just select environmental problems that come out of no where, they come because of civilization), oppression, domination, inequality, class systems, slavery, and many other problems that come out of it. He's a huge supporter of industrialism but can't even defend his own viewpoints in a debate with John Zerzan. Fuck Chomsky, he's just another left-wing ideological idiot, and he's only a deterrent to anarchy.