Now I appreciate this question does not have a specific question, but I think it would be interesting to have a disscussion on the opinions of Noam Chomsky here.

It can however have some general themes.

What do you think of him as a critique of American Foriegn Policy?

What do you think of his belief in Anarcho-Syndicalism?

Does he fulfill an important role, both in Academia and the Public Eye?

I am sure we will have some contrasting opinions, which will then lead into a healthy debate, which is why, despite its vaguess, I plead for the admins to keep this one open.

So, in short: What do you think Chomsky, in general?

Um, Noam Chomsky is normally about the last thing I think of.

I mean, you can't really escape the man: reviews of his books and quotes from him are all around and hard to avoid, even on this site sometimes, so I'm familiar with his views to that degree, but he isn't someone I've been much interested in reading.

So, I'm hardly the best person to analyze Chomsky, but I have encountered enough snippets of his work to have formed an opinion, and I've read a little about his academic pursuits which I respect a lot more than his politics.

I'll start by answering the questions you posed, because they're as good a place to start as any:

His critique of American foreign policy I have no use for at all. I've seen nothing from him on that topic that agreed with what I believe about how our foreign policy works or should work.

Specifically (from Wikipedia):


From all that I've read of and about Chomsky on foreign policy, I'd have to say I agree with all those unnamed critics.

Anarcho-Syndicalism is cool with me. I don't want to live in such a society myself, since I strongly prefer Anarcho-Capitalism if we must have anarchy... but I don't trust the various forms of anarchy as anything more than interesting hypotheses to be empirically tested. I'd be perfectly happy to give Chomsky a small country somewhere to test his theory, and I'd like one to test mine, which is not Anarchism at all, but Minarchism.

Academically his work has been important in linguistics, psychology and the philospphy of science, so I do consider him a scholar deserving of his celebrity though I don't agree with much at all of his political views.

So, overall my view of Chomsky is much like my view of the late Carl Sagan: For his academic work, he is wonderful, but I'll skip his political stuff -- nothing there of value for me.

So are you accusing his highly critical stance on the US of being untrue?

I think that would be a fair summation, yes. As I said, I am no Chomsky expert, but from what I have read of his works on the subject, well, he is a gifted writer and his reasoning is excellent, but he argues from premises that I don't buy for a second.

I cant believe no one has any further opinions of Chomsky??

I know some of your read his work, Quarkhead even wrote it.

What are your favorite Works??

I have read a majority of Chomsky's published works, and a great deal of his archive at Z Magazine. Noam Chomsky is one of the most brilliant men alive. Those who believe he argues from a false premise are rarely speaking from experience - no offense, Iz, but there is a history of people pulling Chomsky quotes badly out of context to try and paint his foundation as being "anything America does is wrong."

On the contrary, Mr. Chomsky enjoys where he lives and grew up. Indeed, if you read him enough, he answers the question fairly regularly - he is an American citizen, he lives here, so he concentrates on criticism of the US.

Not only are there very few people with Chomsky's grasp of logic, there are few people who research and footnote everything to the extent Chomsky does.

Like Howard Zinn, Chomsky speaks mainly to power in this country - that is, he has no concern as to what party a person may be a member of. One of his more interesting works is The New Military Humanism, a sharp critique of Clinton's action in Bosnia.

The winning shot for Chomsky is that he is SO thoroughly reasearched - every fact he mentioned is backed up and footnoted. Even cooler, if you are a donating member of the Znet forums, you can actually engage Chomsky - kind of. You can submit questions to him, and though he takes a while, he will always post a reply.

I was considering signing up to that - seems pretty cool. I'd love to ask him questions!

I am currently reading World Orders: Old & New, very interesting so far.

But my greatest interest is hearing him speak. It is verbal debate I myself come alive in, and I find it the most interesting to listen to. I have literally hundreads of clips on my PC.

What I find most interesting about Noam Chomsky is the way he came to politics. Chomsky started out as a linguist, specializing in semiotics, and his works on structuralism - deconstruction and meaning - remain some of the primary sources in his field. His interest in language, how it evolves, and how it can be manipulated, lead him to an interest in journalism and, in focussing on how language is used to manipulate and bias seemingly objective reporting, political journalism in particular. This, in turn, lead to his interest in politics and American policy and - at core - helped form and develop many of his political positions.

In other words, his political positions were developed by a purely rational, analytical approach. While I agree with most of his analysis, I can't say I'm in 100% accord with his opinions regarding that analysis. Nevertheless, he has been very influential in my political education - especially his earlier works on policy and the media, like The Political Economy of Human Rights.

If one actually reads his works rather than the reactions published by his relatively lightweight and hysterical critics (most of whom clearly haven't read his works either), his reasoning, based on meticulous research and analysis, is always sound and his conclusions convincing, almost without exception. I think his is one of the most brilliant and disciplined minds of the twentieth century.

I have just began to read his stuff, thanks AD!! I like any author, conservative or liberal, repub or dem, that thouroughly researches, annotates and footnotes thier conclusions/comments from a reputable source. Right now, the libs/dems etc seem to have a lock on that area- AKA Chomsky and Al Franken.

I think that there are a great deal of legitimate complaints/observation by the conservatives, I don't see too many mainstream books that are just diatribes or soliliques by demagogues. Any good counterpoint authors to Chomsky?

There is a wealth of laughable neo-con literarure availiable, just do a search on Amazon..

For similar reading however, I would recommend

Edward Said: For Middle East Politics, esp Palestine/Israel

George Monboit: Environmentalist and Anti Captialist - always interesting(www.monboit.com - has loads of his articles online)

Naomi Klein - Captive State, taking about the effects and possibilties of Advertising and Corporate power. A wealth of interesting stats amongst other things.

Now wait just a cottonpickin' minute, Paul...

He asked for counterpoint reading, not ditto reading. "Laughable neo-con" stuff would hardly be a good counterpoint, now would it?

Try F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (that is not about the US Constitution but about what constitutes liberty) and Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.

I can't at this momentt think of anything similar on American history or foreign policy, but I'll post it later when/if I do.

Well, I guess Im just sort of going alont with Wertz and Quarkhead, but I ADORE Chomsky. Ive only read about five of his books, but each on is incredibly enlightening, even the stuff written ten years ago. I read the book Chomsky on Miseducation, and havent recovered. The man is brilliant, and as everyone else h as pointed out, incredibly thorough, so there is no question in your mind as to why he thinks the way he does.

I was only referring to works that work try to argue for Neo-con foreign policy. The works you have picked out seem to be libertarian works - why does this country Chomsky?

I would really recommend one of his earlier books - published in 1969 entitles:

American Power and the New Mandarins

Its an attack on so called objectivity. Excellent Book, so insightful, and still rings true today 35 years later.....

Quote from a Chomsky interview:


NC: I don't foresee anything. What I'm saying is that as long as people, ordinary people, are able to free themselves from the doctrinal controls imposed on them by their self-appointed betters and mentors, as long as they're able to do this, they'll continue to be able to struggle for peace and justice and freedom and limitations on violence, and constraints on power, as they've been doing for hundreds of years. And I don't see any end to that. Where it'll end up in the long run, I'd tell you where I'd like it to, but I wouldn't even dream about that.

To be honest much of Chomsky is quite Keynesian in nature. Those who like Chomsky should read Galbraith's "The Affluent Society". The problem with Keynesians, and most of the left, is they wish to constrain power by giving more of it to the most powerful force of all...government. They have no idea where there actions are going to take us in the long run. Of course Keynes was correct about where we will all be in the long run.

You are completely wrong, completely.

You think Chomsky wants to give the government more power - have you not read any of his works, listened to literally any of his interviews, or audio works?

If is a anarchist, a libertarain communist - whatever you want to call it.

He is thus opposed to authority, that is coercive and opressive in nature, of all forms.

How on earth can he be Keynesian is he is anti-captialist?

I think you ought to go and do some research, I have never seen someone misinterpret out Of Chomskys Mouth??

What on earth are you basing these comments on?

My experience with Chomsky is largely second hand. A good friend of mine is a devotee of his and he would agree with your assertion that what most anti-Chomsky people rail against is not his ideas overall, but sections of his writing that his people often pull out of context to use to justify their own ideas.

I'll have to read some more of his works and get back to you. What I do question is the idea that just becuase it is well researched, it must be true. Hard to argue or refute, certainly but from what I do know, I would bet Chomsky would be the first person to critcize someone for taking his writing as gospel. Chomsky cautions his readers to look for a wide range of sources for information and beware agendas. I bet if you spoke to him he would include all of his own works in that idea too.

I agree entirely, facts can be chosen and ignored to paint the picture you want. The famous historian Eric Hobsbawm once said,



Facts mean nothing, they can be selective. Certain facts are better and useful than others. Saying that, I am not accusing Chomsky of lying, but like when you read anything, you should think about it. I am a big fan, but I would question him on mutliple points.

To find out more check these two great sties below:

The Archive (lots of his writings...)

Official Website

Straight from Chomsky's Mouth:

[The IMF and World Bank have played various roles since they were founded but let's take the last 30 years, the period of so called neo-liberalism. This new era began in the early 1970's after Richard Nixon dismissed the Bretton Woods system, established by Keynes and White right after the Second World War.

Breton Woods was based on the principle that countries could control capital flow, so you could prevent capital flight. That's what Britain did after the war to allow recovery. Also currencies were fixed within a pretty narrow band, so there was very little speculation against currency.

Those were the fundamental principles, which were eliminated in the early 1970's, first by the Nixon's US, then Britain, Switzerland and other major countries. It was perfectly well understood what this would mean.

Keynes pointed out 70 years ago that if you have financial liberalization and free flow of capital, it will undermine the possibility of democracy for a very simple reason: it creates what economists call a virtual senate.

He refers to Keynes quite a bit, and unlike when he refers to neo-classicists, usually positive.

All you have to do is read Keynes, read Galbraith and read Chomsky and you find a great deal in common. Chomsky's dreams are certainly different but when it comes to practical applications in the real world there ain't a great deal of difference.

A bit more on Chomsky on Keynes:

Reply from NC,
My own view, which I've discussed a fair amount in print, is that there were also no capitalist societies in anything like a useful sense of the word pre-1930; rather, a number of varieties of state capitalist societies. In the modern world, from Britain, to the US, to the other "developed" societies, state intervention has played a major role from the outset. There are flirtations with markets, but for temporary advantage, for the most part.

I think people are very wise not to "trust" Keynesian theories, or any others. Rather, they should evaluate them. If they do, I think they will discover that the international economy is only "dimly understood" (as Harvard's Jeffrey Sachs observed recently), and that we should approach its properties "with humility" (to borrow from the Bank for International Settlements -- sometimes called "the central bank of central bankers," the ultimate in "respectability"). Particularly with regard to financial markets, a dominant force in the contemporary world, understanding is very thin, and models change very fast. An illuminating recent study is Robert Blecker's "Taming Global Finance." On such crucial matters as the factors in economic growth, have a look, say, at the recent comments of Robert Solow, who won a Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on this topic, in the current issue of "Challenge," a good economics journal -- one of several assessments of the state of the art by leading economists. His conclusion, reasonable to my knowledge, is that little is understood. On Keynesian views vs. current orthodoxies with regard to financial markets and their behavior, there are (in my view) outstanding papers by David Felix, who argues (pretty persuasively I think) that they Keynesian assumptions are much better supported by the empirical data of the last quarter-century of financial liberalization. (end of quote)

I think Chomsky is a bit more rational than most of his followers. Once again read Keynes, read Galbraith, read Chomsky and see how much they have in common. Especially when it comes to the short run. You know, before we are all dead.

A bit more. From Chomsky's "Assaulting Solidarity-Private Education"



Sounds to me like Chomsky is supporting government run education, government pensions and government run health care. Where is the anarchist here? Sounds like another big government liberal to me.