Noam Chomksy On Ron Paul

[Rakhmetov]

Chomsky finally clears the air on this intellectual midget Ron Paul and his ideological supporters who support Ayn Rand.


http://www.geekarmy.com/geekblog/politics/transcript-of-noam-chomsky-on-ron-paul/

http://www.dailypaul.com/91533/noam-chomsky-on-ron-paul-supporters-common-ground-can-be-explored

[PhoenixAsh]

Good answers...


from the notes in the first link:



Please read this article in the context of Ron Paul being the lone honest politician at the time to make a break on the Internet.

:laugh:

[graymouser]

Oy. As much as it's good to see a smackdown of Ron Paul, some of what Chomsky says has gotten a bit rotted around the edges.


Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.
Unless Chomsky has a very particular version of "democratic politics" which involves people in the streets fighting for their rights, this is not accurate. The political acts were a concession to the workers who gained them in struggle.

On the whole it seems more "pro-state" than ever, esp. in that Chomsky would rather have the liberal state than a Ron Paul style libertarian minarchy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Old news.

[PhoenixAsh]

@gm

nice spot...:thumbup:

Stupid of me to miss... feel sad now... :-( He truely does seem to support liberal rule. However...he also mentions that he wants an entirely different set of democratic government which teh current concentrationof power does not allow (second link) so maybe he toned down his message to make it easilly digestable for the audience to which the interview caters.

[GPDP]

Oy. As much as it's good to see a smackdown of Ron Paul, some of what Chomsky says has gotten a bit rotted around the edges.


Unless Chomsky has a very particular version of "democratic politics" which involves people in the streets fighting for their rights, this is not accurate. The political acts were a concession to the workers who gained them in struggle.

On the whole it seems more "pro-state" than ever, esp. in that Chomsky would rather have the liberal state than a Ron Paul style libertarian minarchy.

I'd like to say Chomsky is indeed implicitly talking about the struggles of the working class here. He has talked about such struggles before, so I would be surprised if he wasn't referring to those here, and technically workers engaging in class struggle can be construed as being a democratic politics as such.

I think the problem here is Chomsky draping socialist talking points under liberal rhetoric like he tends to do, which as usual tends to confuse the fuck out of us.

[graymouser]

I'd like to say Chomsky is indeed implicitly talking about the struggles of the working class here. He has talked about such struggles before, so I would be surprised if he wasn't referring to those here, and technically workers engaging in class struggle can be construed as being a democratic politics as such.

I think the problem here is Chomsky draping socialist talking points under liberal rhetoric like he tends to do, which as usual tends to confuse the fuck out of us.
Yeah, I'd say it's a real problem. The ambiguity of "democratic politics" gets liberals off the hook as supporters of that politics, and it removes the class struggle from the picture.

[Meridian]

Unless Chomsky has a very particular version of "democratic politics" which involves people in the streets fighting for their rights, this is not accurate. The political acts were a concession to the workers who gained them in struggle.
How is that anything but democratic politics?

[GPDP]

Yeah, Chomsky has become quite adept at coding socialist narratives in liberal clothing to appeal to his mainstream readers. On the one hand, this can be good, since it can serve as a nice introduction or even bridge to radical politics. On the other, it can also stunt "growth" into class politics, if you catch my drift. I remember being very unwilling to let go of Chomskyisms back when I first started myself.

[RadioRaheem84]

Just another example of how Chomsky (and other leftists) couch their language for the mainstream or for people unfamiliar with leftist jargon.

democratic politics = class struggle. Sort of. In this context, I believe it does, considering his audience. People associate class struggle with political activism and populism. Democratic politics probably means people out in the streets demanding political change from the higher ups.

Michael Parenti does the same thing when talking to audiences. He'll talk about the horrors of capitalism but then praise social democracy and Denmark. He'll conflate social democracy with socialism or class struggle in order to get the audience to relate with it better instead of thinking USSR.

Michael Moore when redbaited by right wingers to answer socialism when asked what is the best alternative to capitalism, will simply answer "democracy" or "economic democracy".

David Harvey when red baited by a British journalist to say, "communism" when asked what's the alternative, he simply said "well, whatever the people want".

These guys know not to be so stupid to just talk as if they're in a Leftist conference all together talking about how best to expropriate the means of production. The media would eat them for breakfast.

The best way is to couch the language to fit the paradigm of the day which is usually anti-communist.

[graymouser]

How is that anything but democratic politics?
For the left-liberal audience encountering Chomsky, "democratic politics" easily blends into "Democratic Party politics." I think he allows a distinction to exist in a blurred space between left-liberals who buy his books, vote Democrat and so on, and radicals who buy his books and vote for a 3rd party or abstain. It's good book salesmanship but poor radical politics.

[RadioRaheem84]

For the left-liberal audience encountering Chomsky, "democratic politics" easily blends into "Democratic Party politics." I think he allows a distinction to exist in a blurred space between left-liberals who buy his books, vote Democrat and so on, and radicals who buy his books and vote for a 3rd party or abstain. It's good book salesmanship but poor radical politics.

That too.

I like Chomsky but I see him as more prone to bend to liberalism to keep a popular audience than Zinn or Parenti ever were.

[GPDP]

Just another example of how Chomsky (and other leftists) couch their language for the mainstream or for people unfamiliar with leftist jargon.

democratic politics = class struggle. Sort of. In this context, I believe it does, considering his audience. People associate class struggle with political activism and populism. Democratic politics probably means people out in the streets demanding political change from the higher ups.

Michael Parenti does the same thing when talking to audiences. He'll talk about the horrors of capitalism but then praise social democracy and Denmark. He'll conflate social democracy with socialism or class struggle in order to get the audience to relate with it better instead of thinking USSR.

Michael Moore when redbaited by right wingers to answer socialism when asked what is the best alternative to capitalism, will simply answer "democracy" or "economic democracy".

David Harvey when red baited by a British journalist to say, "communism" when asked what's the alternative, he simply said "well, whatever the people want".

These guys know not to be so stupid to just talk as if they're in a Leftist conference all together talking about how best to expropriate the means of production. The media would eat them for breakfast.

The best way is to couch the language to fit the paradigm of the day which is usually anti-communist.

Indeed, this is all true.

That said, there is something specific to Chomsky which I find makes it harder to take his socialist credentials seriously (not by a whole lot, mind you, just harder) and makes him come across as a liberal. He has his own unique spin on a lot of leftist talking points, and he is quite consistent in his liberal semantics when he brings them up. Even in his books, his rhetoric is basically liberal and rejects most leftist terms in favor of more mainstream-friendly or class-obscurantist words (nowhere near to the extent of, say, Michael Albert, but it's still substantial).

And again, think back to when you were but a liberal, and imagine reading Chomsky for the first time. For my part, I thought was he said made too much goddamn sense, and felt like he pulled the wool over my eyes, without resorting to outdated 19th-century terminology or Marxist jargon. At the time, I was grateful for him introducing me to radical politics - too grateful. I parroted a lot of his lines, even some of his more genuinely liberal positions. I felt like I could be a revolutionary without having to fully let go of my liberalism, and I think he made it too easy because the way he frames many of his points means I can read one of his pieces and then read something by Naomi Klein over at The Nation without switching mindsets too radically.

It may sound like I'm being too hard on Chomsky here, but I do feel like he delayed my growth as a socialist even as I came to identify as one. I don't resent him or discourage people from reading him or anything - I just think he should be taken as a first intro to radical politics, and then read sparingly for his analysis on imperialism. Anything more and you might find find yourself spouting Chomskyisms a la NGNM85.

[RadioRaheem84]

Let's just say, I adored Chomsky when I was younger but now barely read him at all. I can even barely stand to listen to his lectures.

The only times I do are on single issue things like the Palestinian situation.

This makes me think of him or use his information like any leftist would use a liberal source to counter a reactionary argument!

Once I heard Micheal Parenti, David Harvey, John Bellamy Foster, Richard Wolff...people who were not afraid to say that capitalism is irrational, I stopped listening to Chomsky circle jerk his way around his liberal audience.

I wouldn't disown Chomsky as his past work was crucial to radical politics but so far he has been the superstar of radical activism and yet the most watered down of all the activists.

And yes, NGNM85 was the perfect example of Chomskyism run amok.

[~Spectre]

That's some bizarre analysis above. If you read Chomsky, and become NGNM85, the problem isn't with Chomsky, the problem is that you're an idiot.

Chomsky is the best lefty writer out there. I don't see much room for dispute on that.

[GPDP]

That's some bizarre analysis above. If you read Chomsky, and become NGNM85, the problem isn't with Chomsky, the problem is that you're an idiot.

Chomsky is the best lefty writer out there. I don't see much room for dispute on that.

I may have gone a bit too overboard in blaming Chomsky for NGNM85's shit politics, but I do find his analysis is presented in TOO liberal a fashion. It may not be so bad for lectures and such like Parenti et al, but his books are full of liberal-speak.

[graymouser]

That's some bizarre analysis above. If you read Chomsky, and become NGNM85, the problem isn't with Chomsky, the problem is that you're an idiot.

Chomsky is the best lefty writer out there. I don't see much room for dispute on that.
Chomsky is a good writer, perhaps, and his books play a very important role in disabusing people of key illusions about the American state, its foreign policy and its economy. But the further you get the deeper his problems become - and Chomsky is not a good guiding star for someone with a bit of theory under their belt. There are something like a dozen books by Chomsky on my shelf (I have a big shelf) but he isn't the most important person there.

Aside from the fact that he often uses sloppy formations, which lend themselves to be interpreted favorably by the reader, Chomsky's neglect of theory is a harmful thing. If you don't arm yourself with Marxist theory you are going to wind up making damn fool decisions and not understanding why they don't work. And in some of Chomsky's writing there are all kinds of excuses for avoiding theory and not being rigorous in your thought.

For the inevitable question of "who's a better leftist writer," I'd have to say the question has some problems. It's not that there is a single writer who covers all issues equally well, but that there are many writers who are each better than Chomsky in their own fields. People should read Chomsky on questions like foreign policy, where he is really strong, and not as much on his attempts at broader issues, where he is really weak.

[Ocean Seal]

Something that bothered me was that at the end of the interview where Chomsky had already answered all the questions the interviewer stated

I really can’t find differences between your positions and his.
Which just seemed absolutely silly beyond belief. I don't even understand why the interviewer would actually say that not even minding that all it takes is reading a few sentences off wikipedia to understand the difference between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism.

[~Spectre]

Chomsky is a good writer, perhaps, and his books play a very important role in disabusing people of key illusions about the American state, its foreign policy and its economy. But the further you get the deeper his problems become - and Chomsky is not a good guiding star for someone with a bit of theory under their belt. There are something like a dozen books by Chomsky on my shelf (I have a big shelf) but he isn't the most important person there.

Aside from the fact that he often uses sloppy formations, which lend themselves to be interpreted favorably by the reader, Chomsky's neglect of theory is a harmful thing. If you don't arm yourself with Marxist theory you are going to wind up making damn fool decisions and not understanding why they don't work. And in some of Chomsky's writing there are all kinds of excuses for avoiding theory and not being rigorous in your thought.

For the inevitable question of "who's a better leftist writer," I'd have to say the question has some problems. It's not that there is a single writer who covers all issues equally well, but that there are many writers who are each better than Chomsky in their own fields. People should read Chomsky on questions like foreign policy, where he is really strong, and not as much on his attempts at broader issues, where he is really weak.


So for instance, you'd rather a "marxist" writer who can parrot to you that "the ideas of the bourgeoisie become the ideas of society!" instead of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_th e_Mass_Media

?

[L.A.P.]

I don't mind the fact that Noam Chomsky has a liberal rhetoric during speeches, lectures, and debates because he honestly has really mastered the art of rhetoric by appealing to the audience's emotions while still being incredibly informative. However, when he sits down and writes a book I think that should be the point where he writes in a straight leftist mindset. I think this would be even better to bringing people to the radical left because his liberal fans would hear his sugarcoated lectures but once they read the books they would truly get what he's all about. Just an idea.

[graymouser]

So for instance, you'd rather a "marxist" writer who can parrot to you that "the ideas of the bourgeoisie become the ideas of society!" instead of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_th e_Mass_Media

?
There are over two linear feet of Chomsky's writings on my bookshelf, including Manufacturing Consent, Necessary Illusions and Propaganda and the Public Mind. The only people better represented than Chomsky in my collection are Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and James P. Cannon. And I'll give you his media criticism as another area where he's good. But to me, the fact that Understanding Power for instance or Chomsky on Anarchism are such crap, and his better stuff is peppered with moments that are just awful, means that leftists need to be critical of him as a writer. The quote I picked out from that interview struck me as an important example of Chomsky's weaknesses.

[GPDP]

Something that bothered me was that at the end of the interview where Chomsky had already answered all the questions the interviewer stated

Which just seemed absolutely silly beyond belief. I don't even understand why the interviewer would actually say that not even minding that all it takes is reading a few sentences off wikipedia to understand the difference between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism.

I haven't watched the interview, but I would wager the kind of person who would say that with a straight face is either ignorant of heterodox politics outside the mainstream liberal narrative to the point that to them they might as well be speaking Martian, or is one of those smug know-it-all liberals who considers the far-right and far-left as being essentially alike and equally inadequate to the happy center.

[RadioRaheem84]

or is one of those smug know-it-all liberals who considers the far-right and far-left as being essentially alike and equally inadequate to the happy center.

Sort of. But at the same time I've heard him "support" the USSR in the sense of defaming Cold War myths. For instance, he would admit that while the USSR was brutal, it would still be a paradise to a third world peasant.

He also swatted down anti-Maoist rhetoric by referring to the Indian famines that happened around the same time, and also alluding to the notion that China has never had a famine since, yet India continued to have them.

But yes he does get snippy almost to the point of being intellectually dishonest when honing his anti-ML credentials to his liberal crowd.

He does bring out the twin totalitarian speak in some of his lectures.

Which is why probably a lot of right libertarians out there think he is one of them.

Chomsky was THE MAN in the 60 and 70s and early 80s. His books from that era were relentless on the LIBERAL establishment. He literally hated them and most of his audience were not college kids but academics who understood the significant difference between leftist and liberal.

Today though most of his crowd consists of liberals and soc dems who are not versed in theory, reject it, and subscribe to the twin totalitarian mantra.

[RadioRaheem84]

That's some bizarre analysis above. If you read Chomsky, and become NGNM85, the problem isn't with Chomsky, the problem is that you're an idiot.

Chomsky is the best lefty writer out there. I don't see much room for dispute on that.

Chomsky, the best lefty writer out there?

Surely, you jest? Over Parenti, Zinn, Bellamy Foster, McChesney, David Harvey?

Heck, Brendan McCooney the internet sensation, is by far a more well versed leftist than Chomsky.

[Rusty Shackleford]

it took Chomsky this long to attack Ron Paul?




Chomsky, the best lefty writer out there?

Surely, you jest? Over Parenti, Zinn, Bellamy Foster, McChesney, David Harvey?

Heck, Brendan McCooney the internet sensation, is by far a more well versed leftist than Chomsky.
truth

[Apoi_Viitor]

On the whole it seems more "pro-state" than ever, esp. in that Chomsky would rather have the liberal state than a Ron Paul style libertarian minarchy.

And.....?

[CAleftist]

Chomsky, like the late Howard Zinn, is trying to criticize the capitalist establishment as much as possible without giving too much "Red meat" to the hyper-alert noses of the Red-Baiting dogs.

I admire Chomsky for just getting as much stuff out there as he has, and being as read as he is. Just wish he was more courageous more often.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yeah but the bad thing is that then people will believe that you can be anti-establishment and promote social change without being radical.

[Robocommie]

If you read Chomsky, and become NGNM85, the problem isn't with Chomsky, the problem is that you're an idiot.

Oh God, I'm so glad he's gone.

[graymouser]

And.....?
And nothing, it was simply an observation on what Chomsky's overall political vector appears to be. Along with his overwrought half-hearted way of endorsing Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008, Chomsky seems to be much less strong on the question of the liberal state than he was in the past.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think that maybe he felt he could be more openly radical in the 60s and 70s, and because he mostly talked in front of academics and other radical students.

I mean he would literally say, capitalism is bullshit, we need Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Today though it's "the US has the broadest free speech rights, blah", "liberal candidates are OK to vote for when looking at the alternative", "totalitarian, totalitarian, totalitarian".

Heck, Chris Hedges is giving more of a bashing to the liberal establishment these days.

[~Spectre]

Chomsky, the best lefty writer out there?

Surely, you jest? Over Parenti, Zinn, Bellamy Foster, McChesney, David Harvey?

Heck, Brendan McCooney the internet sensation, is by far a more well versed leftist than Chomsky.

1) I'm talking about living people.

2) Even including Zinn, yes Chomsky's significantly better than that list. A large part of the arguments against Chomsky are pure fabrication.


To paraphrase the late great Rosa, when shooting down someone's criticism of Michael Moore, I honestly think a lot of the "marxist" hate against Chomsky is nothing more than jealousy. It angers people that someone who doesn't label himself a marxist gets the lion's share of the attention.

Fucking do the work people. Over 100 books on almost every subject imaginable, as well as an intensive speaking schedule, well into his old age.

That to me always trumps the writers that periodically find new ways to either plagiarize or distort things that Karl Marx already established in the 1800s.

[RadioRaheem84]

A bit much spectre. David Harvey has used Marxist Analysis to give us a better picture of issues effecting us today and has improved on Marx's accumulation theories.

Chomsky parrots the Monthly Review school on issues of economics. I was shocked when I began reading Baran, Sweezy, and Magdoff that many leftists (including Parenti) take their notes on economics from these men. Chomsky himself notes that he is not a political scientist but was just proving that anyone could go out and read and formulate ideas about society. He is just reiterating the hard work of other theorists.

John Bellamy Foster and his contribution to the Monopoly Capital theory is great and runs more in depth than anything Chomsky could ever contribute about the economy.

No one is totally dissing your man Chomsky, so you do not have to act like we all are.

So he has 100 books and an intensive speaking schedule? We're talking about quality not quantity. David Harvey would run laps around Chomsky.

I mean are we seriously even having this debate? Chomsky over David Harvey. I better stop now before I pass out laughing.

[~Spectre]

So he has 100 books and an intensive speaking schedule? We're talking about quality not quantity. David Harvey would run laps around Chomsky.

.


Putting aside a lot of the silly smokescreens in your post, herein we go back to what I was referring to before.

You like Harvey better because he devoted time to Marx's capital.

So in one corner we have your guy:
Rephrased Karl Marx
Critiqued Neoliberalism

versus:

Politics

Some of the books are available for viewing online.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Noam_Chomsky#cite_note-0)


(1967) The Responsibility of Intellectuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Responsibility_of_Intellectuals)
(1969) Perspectives on Vietnam [microform].
(1969) American Power and the New Mandarins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Power_and_the_New_Mandarins) New York: Pantheon. ISBN 978-0140211269 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780140211269)
(1971) At War with Asia. New York: Pantheon. ISBN 978-0006326540 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780006326540)
(1970) Two Essays on Cambodia. ISBN 978-0950030067 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780950030067)
(1971) Chomsky: Selected Readings' ISBN 978-0194370462 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780194370462)
(1972) Problems of Knowledge and Freedom: The Russell Lectures. New York: Pantheon. ISBN 978-0394718156 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780394718156)
(1972) The Pentagon Papers. Senator Gravel ed. vol. V. Critical Essays. Boston: Beacon Press; includes index to vol. I-IV of the Papers. With Howard Zinn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn).
(1973) For Reasons of State. New York: Pantheon. ISBN 978-0002112420 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780002112420)
(1973) Counter-Revolutionary Violence - Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Revolutionary_Violence_-_Bloodbaths_in_Fact_%26_Propaganda) (with Edward S. Herman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_S._Herman)). Andover, MA: Warner Modular. Module no. # 57.
(1974) Peace in the Middle East? Reflections on Justice and Nationhood. New York: Pantheon. ISBN 978-0394712482 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780394712482)
(1976) Intellectuals and the State. ISBN 978-9029396714 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9789029396714)
(1978) Human Rights and American Foreign Policy. ISBN 978-0851242019 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780851242019)
(1979) Language and Responsibility. New York: Pantheon. ISBN 978-0855275358 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780855275358)
(1979) The Political Economy of Human Rights, Volume I: The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (with Edward Herman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Herman)) ISBN 0851242480 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0851242480) ISBN 0-89608-090-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0896080900)
(1979) The Political Economy of Human Rights, Volume II: After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology (with Edward Herman) ISBN 0851242723 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0851242723) ISBN 978-0896081000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780896081000)
(1982, 2003) Radical Priorities. Montréal: Black Rose, ISBN 0-919619-50-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0919619503); Stirling, Scotland: AK Press. Otero, C.P.
(1982) Superpowers in Collision: The Cold War Now (with Jonathan Steele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Steele) and John Gittings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gittings)). ISBN 978-0140224320 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780140224320)
(1982) Towards a New Cold War: Essays on the Current Crisis and How We Got There. New York: Pantheon. ISBN 978-0394518732 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780394518732)
(1983, 1999) The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fateful_Triangle:_The_United_States,_Israel,_a nd_the_Palestinians). Boston: South End Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_End_Press). ISBN 978-0896086012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780896086012), ISBN 978-0896081871 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780896081871)
(1985) Turning the Tide : U.S. intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 978-0896082663 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780896082663)
(1986) Pirates and Emperors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_and_Emperors): International Terrorism and the Real World. New York: Claremont Research and Publications. ISBN 0685177548 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0685177548)
(1986) The Race to Destruction: Its Rational Basis. ISBN 978-0851245171 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780851245171)
(1987) The Chomsky Reader. Peck, James (ed.). ISBN 0394751736 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0394751736) ISBN 978-0394751733 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780394751733)
(1987) On Power and Ideology: Managua Lectures. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 978-0896082892 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780896082892)
(1987) Turning the Tide: the U.S. and Latin America. ISBN 978-0896082670 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780896082670)
(1988) The Culture of Terrorism. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 978-0896083349 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780896083349)
(1988) Language and Politics. Montréal: Black Rose. ISBN 978-0921689348 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780921689348)
(1988, 2002) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_th e_Mass_Media). New York: Pantheon.(with Edward Herman) ISBN 0375-71449-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0375714499).
(1989) Necessary Illusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_Illusions). Boston: South End Press. ISBN 978-0896083660 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780896083660)
(1991) Terrorizing the Neighborhood: American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era. Stirling, Scotland: AK Press. ISBN 978-0962709128 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780962709128)
(1992) What Uncle Sam Really Wants. Berkeley: Odonian Press. ISBN 1-878825-01-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1878825011).
(1992) Chronicles of Dissent. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. ISBN 0-921586-24-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0921586248).
(1992) Deterring Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterring_Democracy). New York: Hill and Wang. ISBN 0374-52349-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0374523495).
(1993) Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
(1993, 2003) The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many. Berkeley: Odonian Press. * 2003 edition by Pluto Press. ISBN 1-878825-03-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1878825038).
(1993) Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and U.S. Political Culture. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 978-0896084582 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780896084582).
(1993) World Order and Its Rules: Variations on Some Themes. West Belfast Economic for Mentation. ISBN 978-0952188827 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780952188827)
(1993) Year 501: The Conquest Continues. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 1-895431-62-X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/189543162X), ISBN 1-895431-63-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1895431638).
(1994) Keeping the Rabble in Line: Interviews with David Barsamian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barsamian). Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. ISBN 1-56751-032-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1567510329).
(1994) Secrets, Lies, and Democracy. Berkley: Odonian Press. ISBN 1-878825-04-6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1878825046).
(1994) World Orders, Old and New. New York: Columbia University Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University_Press).
(1996) Class Warfare: Interviews with David Barsamian. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. ISBN 1-56751-092-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1567510922).
(1996,1997) Powers and Prospects: Reflections on Human Nature and the Social Order, Boston: South End Press, ISBN 0-89608-535-X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/089608535X) /Perspectives on Power: Reflections on Human Nature and the Social Order, Montréal: Black Rose Press, ISBN 1-55164-048-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1551640481).
(1997) Class Warfare: Interviewed by David Barsamian. Vancouver: New Star Books. (collects the Common Courage books, "Keeping the Rabble in Line" and "Class Warfare")
(1997) The Cold War and the University. Co-authored with Ira Katznelson, Richard C. Lewontin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Lewontin), David Montgomery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Montgomery), Laura Nader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Nader), Richard Ohmann, Ray Siever, Immanuel Wallerstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Wallerstein), Howard Zinn. ISBN 1-56584-005-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1565840054).
(1997, 2002). Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 1583225366 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1583225366). ISBN 1-58322-536-6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1583225366).
(1998) The Common Good.
(1999) The Umbrella of US Power: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Contradictions of US Policy. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 978-1888363852 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781888363852)
(1999) Latin America: From Colonization to Globalization. Ocean Press. ASIN B000LCC67M
(1999) Acts of Aggression: Policing "Rogue" States (with Edward W. Said (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_W._Said))
(1999) The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo. Common Courage Press
(1999) Profit over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_over_People:_Neoliberalism_and_Global_Order ). Seven Stories Press. ISBN 978-1888363821 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781888363821)
(2000) Chomsky on Mis-Education (edited by Donaldo Macedo). Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0742501294 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780742501294)
(2000) A New Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo, East Timor and the Standards of the West. Verso Books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verso_Books). ISBN 1-85984-380-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1859843808)-02
(2000) Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs. Cambridge: South End Press.
(2001) Propaganda and the Public Mind. South End Press. ISBN 978-0896086340 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780896086340)
(2001) 9-11. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 1-58322-489-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1583224890)
(2002, 2003). Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky. Mitchell, Peter and John Schoeffel (ed.). Vintage. ISBN 0-09-946606-6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0099466066).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Noam_Chomsky#cite_note-1)
(2002) Chomsky on Democracy and Education (edited by C.P. Otero). Routledge. ISBN 978-0415926324 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780415926324)
(2002) Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism and the Real World. Pluto Press. ISBN 0-7453-1980-7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0745319807)
(2003) Power and Terror: Post-9/11 Talks and Interviews. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 978-1583225905 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781583225905).
(2003) Middle East Illusions: Including Peace in the Middle East? Reflections on Justice and Nationhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Illusions:_Including_Peace_in_the_Midd le_East%3F_Reflections_on_Justice_and_Nationhood). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 0-7425-2977-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0742529770)
(2003) Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony_or_Survival). Metropolitan Books. (Part of the American Empire Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire_Project)).
(2003) Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_and_Liberal_Scholarship). The New Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Press). ISBN 978-1565848580 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781565848580).
(2003) "Deep Concerns" (Znet article (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3293))
(2004) Getting Haiti Right This Time: The US and the Coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Haiti_Right_This_Time:_The_US_and_the_Coup ) (with Amy Goodman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Goodman) and Paul Farmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Farmer)). Common Courage Press. ISBN 1-56751-318-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1567513182)
(2005) Chomsky on Anarchism (ed Barry Pateman). AK Press. ISBN 1-904859-20-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1904859208)
(2005) Government in the Future. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 1-58322-685-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1583226850). Government in the future. Seven Stories Press. 2005. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 1583226850 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1583226850). Text of the lecture given at the Poetry Center, New York, February 16, 1970.
(2005) Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Ambitions). Metropolitan Books. (Part of the American Empire Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire_Project)). ISBN 0-8050-7967-X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/080507967X)
(2005) A Hated Political Enemy: Allen Bell interviews Noam Chomsky (with Allen Bell). Victoria, BC: Flask. ISBN 978-0973685305 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780973685305)
(2006) Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_States:_The_Abuse_of_Power_and_the_Assault_ on_Democracy). Metropolitan Books. ISBN 0-8050-7912-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0805079122). ISBN 0241143233 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0241143233)
(2006) Perilous Power. The Middle East and US Foreign Policy. Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice (with Gilbert Achcar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Achcar)) ISBN 1594513120 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1594513120)
(2007) Interventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interventions). City Lights Publishers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Lights_Publishers). City Lights. ISBN 0-87286-483-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0872864839). ISBN 9780872864832 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780872864832)
(2007) What We Say Goes: Conversations on US Power in a Changing World. ISBN 0805086714 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0805086714)
(2007) Inside Lebanon: Journey to A Shattered Land with Noam and Carol Chomsky (with A. J. Kfoury, et al.). New York: Monthly Review Press. ISBN 978-1583671535 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781583671535)
(2008) The Essential Chomsky. Vintage. ISBN 978-1595581891 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781595581891)
(2010) Hopes and Prospects. Haymarket Books. ISBN 978-1931859967 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781931859967)
(2010) New World of Indigenous Resistance. City Lights Publishers. ISBN 978-0872865334 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780872865334).
(2010) Making the Future: The Unipolar Imperial Moment. City Lights Publishers. ISBN 978-0872865372 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780872865372).
(2010) Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel's War Against the Palestinians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_in_Crisis:_Reflections_on_Israel%27s_War_Agai nst_the_Palestinians) (with Ilan Pappé (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Papp%C3%A9)). Hamish Hamilton. ISBN 978-0241145067 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780241145067)

And that's just the shit he does in his sparetime.


Whenever any Marxist attempted to transmute the theory of Marx into a universal master-key and ignore all other spheres of learning, Vladimir Ilyich (Lenin) would rebuke him with the expressive phrase: “Komchvanstvo” (“Communist swagger”).

[graymouser]

1) I'm talking about living people.

2) Even including Zinn, yes Chomsky's significantly better than that list. A large part of the arguments against Chomsky are pure fabrication.


To paraphrase the late great Rosa, when shooting down someone's criticism of Michael Moore, I honestly think a lot of the "marxist" hate against Chomsky is nothing more than jealousy. It angers people that someone who doesn't label himself a marxist gets the lion's share of the attention.

Fucking do the work people. Over 100 books on almost every subject imaginable, as well as an intensive speaking schedule, well into his old age.

That to me always trumps the writers that periodically find new ways to either plagiarize or distort things that Karl Marx already established in the 1800s.
Dude, get over it. Marxists read Chomsky - hell, some of his recent writings (Hopes & Prospects, Gaza in Crisis) were put out by Haymarket Books, the publishing arm of the ISO. When we gripe about his shortcomings it's because we know that he is one of the few leftist writers who is widely available (for instance in most chain bookstores) and it's frustrating that he has the weaknesses he does.

When you read somebody who can make the trenchant critiques of foreign policy that Chomsky can, and he bashes Lenin or bashes really studying theory in what's really a "light-minded" fashion, you know he is being irresponsible. There are chunks of Understanding Power that basically consist of Chomsky going on about why he doesn't get deeper into economics or theory, and dismissing its importance. It's a serious problem and people who get into the left through someone like Chomsky need to understand what is wrong as much as what is right with his work.

[RadioRaheem84]

All those books and he still has a weak class analysis?

[Dimmu]

Actually Chomsky does a lot more good for the leftist politics then some other more "radical" leftists..

I mean most people never become radical from nothing, you usually go through different stages until you reach the stage of radicalism.

Chomsky uses "liberal" phrases because they do not "scare off" the majority of the people who read hes books or listen to hes lectures.. Instead these people will start taking more interest in anarchism or marxism.

Hell i do the same thing when i debate with liberal friends who i know are leaning left..

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, it's better to do that than just spout off Marxist jargon to people who haven't the faintest clue about Marxism or radical politics. I agree. Which is why Chomsky is an invaluable asset to the class struggle.

But would you recommend him as someone to stick with to further their radical analysis. I doubt it as you would then recommend other people after going through Chomsky's radicalism 101.

[Dimmu]

But would you recommend him as someone to stick with to further their radical analysis. I doubt it as you would then recommend other people after going through Chomsky's radicalism 101.

No.. While Chomsky is a good critique of the capitalistic system, he is pretty lousy if you want to read about marxism and anarchism.

[Jose Gracchus]

This is about over half on the ball, but a good helping extra of just butthurt Leninists. He has some specializations, and some weaknesses. I think his politics has been pretty soft domestically in the last decade, but certainly not making many other leftists look much better by comparison. I think he gets a lot of crap for not talking in Marx-speak, endorsing any sects or sectarian positions, and telling some inconvenient truths about the Soviet bloc and the kind of politics its followers have practiced there and elsewhere. I do think he could use from a bit less worryingly liberal rhetoric and devices, but its no less sloppy than the faux left radical garbage you hear out of various groups of anti-imperialist class-collaborationists.

[GPDP]

telling some inconvenient truths about the Soviet bloc

While he indeed has pointed out some of the deficiencies of the Soviet bloc, and I am fully in agreement that it was not the greatest place to live and did not resemble socialism, some of the stuff he says about the bloc is straight-up stupid.

Chomsky subscribes to the whole "totalitarian" bullshit narrative, and while he does go on to point out how the Western media's propaganda is even more effective than the blunt Soviet propaganda of old, he still talks about how the USSR was totalitarian, goes on to quote Bakunin on how Marxism inherently leads to totalitarianism, the US is the freest country on earth, etc. This is the shit you'd hear from someone over at Freedom Works or the Heritage Foundation, not from a supposed radical.

And need I mention how he said the fall of the USSR was a great victory for socialism? Yeah, so millions lost their livelihoods to gangster capitalist restoration and the nations involved are all still reeling from it, and many a triumphant shout was heard from CEO boardrooms across the West, but at least they're not mucking up the good name of libertarian socialism anymore!