What do you think?
Rate this book
The Essential Chomsky
One of the world's most prominent public intellectuals, Noam Chomsky has, in more than fifty years of writing on politics, philosophy, and language, revolutionized modern linguistics and established himself as one of the most original and wide-ranging political and social critics of our time. The Essential Chomsky brings together selections from his most important writings since 1959-from his groundbreaking critique of B.F. Skinner to his bestselling works Hegermony or Survival and Failed States-concerning subjects ranging from critiques of corporate media and U.S. interventionism to intellectual freedom and the political economy of human rights. With a foreword by Anthony Arnove, The Essential Chomsky is an unprecedented, comprehensive overview of Chomsky's thought.
515 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2008
1569 people are currently reading
7291 people want to read
About the author
Noam Chomsky
976 books17.4k followersAvram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews
August 18, 2016
“Language, in its essential properties and the manner of its use, provides the basic criterion for determining that another organism is a being with human mind and the human capacity for free thought and self-expression, and with the essential human need for freedom from the external constrains of repressive authority.”
A comprehensive jamboree of Chomsky’s political, social and psychological critiques under an intellectually challenging umbrella encompassing fundamentals of ‘language and freedom’ and the unvarying ratifications of imperial hubris negotiating predatory utopianism through narrow domains of democratic illusions , strategic nationalism and camouflaged anarchism.
Having been a Chomsky reader for several years now, debating his anti-war propagandas and social prominence of the Human Rights movements , the constructive stimuli of human nature and his staunch capitalism v/s globalisation dogmas ; Chomsky's solidified affirmation of “hegemony is a higher value than survival” holds considerable weightage to worldwide political economical doctrinal systems. Chomsky’s ruthless yet conscientious criticism and scrutiny extends in an overwhelming evidentiary investigation of methodical monographs of national and international policies beyond the universal constitution of human language and cerebral responsibilities of political pundits and leaders promulgating miscalculated “groupthink” exercises and dilemmas of individualistic interpretable analogies of hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
“In every society there will emerge a caste of propagandists who labor to disguise the obvious, to conceal the actual workings of power, and to spin a web of mythical goals and purposed, utterly benign, that allegedly guide national policy........ Sometimes the ideals miscarry, because of error or bad leadership or the complexities and ironies of history. But a horror, any atrocity will be explained away as unfortunate or sometimes tragic, deviation from the national purpose.........”
A comprehensive jamboree of Chomsky’s political, social and psychological critiques under an intellectually challenging umbrella encompassing fundamentals of ‘language and freedom’ and the unvarying ratifications of imperial hubris negotiating predatory utopianism through narrow domains of democratic illusions , strategic nationalism and camouflaged anarchism.
Having been a Chomsky reader for several years now, debating his anti-war propagandas and social prominence of the Human Rights movements , the constructive stimuli of human nature and his staunch capitalism v/s globalisation dogmas ; Chomsky's solidified affirmation of “hegemony is a higher value than survival” holds considerable weightage to worldwide political economical doctrinal systems. Chomsky’s ruthless yet conscientious criticism and scrutiny extends in an overwhelming evidentiary investigation of methodical monographs of national and international policies beyond the universal constitution of human language and cerebral responsibilities of political pundits and leaders promulgating miscalculated “groupthink” exercises and dilemmas of individualistic interpretable analogies of hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
“In every society there will emerge a caste of propagandists who labor to disguise the obvious, to conceal the actual workings of power, and to spin a web of mythical goals and purposed, utterly benign, that allegedly guide national policy........ Sometimes the ideals miscarry, because of error or bad leadership or the complexities and ironies of history. But a horror, any atrocity will be explained away as unfortunate or sometimes tragic, deviation from the national purpose.........”
May 9, 2019
Actually, I’d start elsewhere:
--If I were to prioritize Chomsky’s political influences and offer recommendations:
1) American foreign policy:
-Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky: superb editing; the most accessible intro. I'd say it's also more "hopeful" with its thoughts on activism and world public opinion, which might assist those who are allergic to reality and prefer bliss over anything "cynical".
-Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance
2) Corporate media:
-Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies
-Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media: mostly written by Edward S. Herman it seems; useful case-comparison format.
The Essentials of The Essential Chomsky:
--If you do decide to tackle this volume, you still will not be disappointed by the classics collected on foreign policy/corporate propaganda. Vintage Chomsky: elementary logic (comparisons, sequence-of-events, etc.) to dismantle imperial foreign policy…
--Covers Chomsky on Indochina, Latin America, Israel/Middle East, and finishing with War on Terror (Bush Junior-era): “Imperial Grand Strategy” (preventative, not pre-emptive, war) and “Afterword to Failed States".
--"The Rule of Force in International Affairs" stands out by showing:
1) How limited the legality of the Nuremberg principles are at seeking justice, i.e. if the Allies did it, then it is not a crime, rather than actually prosecuting both sides for crimes against civilians.
2) How America's war on Vietnam fails even the Nuremberg principles.
--On corporate propaganda: several nice chapters tearing apart Liberal media/intellectuals (i.e. the nuances of Western censorship): “Foreign Policy and the Intelligentsia”, “The Responsibility of Intellectuals”, and “Watergate: A Skeptical View”.
--On Marxism/Leninism: a fundamental critique by communists of anarchists like Chomsky is that their tactics are utopian and cannot survive reactionary violence. Chomsky acknowledges this on occasion, like when he comments bitterly that only violent guerrillas in Vietnam can withstand the imperial onslaughts. ...The debate really falls on USSR; I've only heard Chomsky briefly mention the dismantling of worker co-ops under Lenin, and I have not read him analyze this and USSR to the depth that he analyzes American foreign policy (in any of his popular works; I believe he has written articles on this). I commend him for saying he focuses on American policy because, as an American, that is what he can (and should) influence. However, I'm sure communists want to open up this debate given how frequently and casually he throws out jabs about USSR being a dungeon, etc. Much of this is missing in this volume.
--On language: given my prioritization, you can see I’m less interested in Chomsky’s work on language. This volume contains 25 chapters, 6 of which are relating to language. I think this is a fair representation of Chomsky’s scholarship, but for my interests this is 5 chapters too many. Apart from the cautious connections to “human nature”, and demonstration of logic/scientific methodologies, I dozed off here.
--If I were to prioritize Chomsky’s political influences and offer recommendations:
1) American foreign policy:
-Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky: superb editing; the most accessible intro. I'd say it's also more "hopeful" with its thoughts on activism and world public opinion, which might assist those who are allergic to reality and prefer bliss over anything "cynical".
-Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance
2) Corporate media:
-Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies
-Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media: mostly written by Edward S. Herman it seems; useful case-comparison format.
The Essentials of The Essential Chomsky:
--If you do decide to tackle this volume, you still will not be disappointed by the classics collected on foreign policy/corporate propaganda. Vintage Chomsky: elementary logic (comparisons, sequence-of-events, etc.) to dismantle imperial foreign policy…
--Covers Chomsky on Indochina, Latin America, Israel/Middle East, and finishing with War on Terror (Bush Junior-era): “Imperial Grand Strategy” (preventative, not pre-emptive, war) and “Afterword to Failed States".
--"The Rule of Force in International Affairs" stands out by showing:
1) How limited the legality of the Nuremberg principles are at seeking justice, i.e. if the Allies did it, then it is not a crime, rather than actually prosecuting both sides for crimes against civilians.
2) How America's war on Vietnam fails even the Nuremberg principles.
--On corporate propaganda: several nice chapters tearing apart Liberal media/intellectuals (i.e. the nuances of Western censorship): “Foreign Policy and the Intelligentsia”, “The Responsibility of Intellectuals”, and “Watergate: A Skeptical View”.
--On Marxism/Leninism: a fundamental critique by communists of anarchists like Chomsky is that their tactics are utopian and cannot survive reactionary violence. Chomsky acknowledges this on occasion, like when he comments bitterly that only violent guerrillas in Vietnam can withstand the imperial onslaughts. ...The debate really falls on USSR; I've only heard Chomsky briefly mention the dismantling of worker co-ops under Lenin, and I have not read him analyze this and USSR to the depth that he analyzes American foreign policy (in any of his popular works; I believe he has written articles on this). I commend him for saying he focuses on American policy because, as an American, that is what he can (and should) influence. However, I'm sure communists want to open up this debate given how frequently and casually he throws out jabs about USSR being a dungeon, etc. Much of this is missing in this volume.
--On language: given my prioritization, you can see I’m less interested in Chomsky’s work on language. This volume contains 25 chapters, 6 of which are relating to language. I think this is a fair representation of Chomsky’s scholarship, but for my interests this is 5 chapters too many. Apart from the cautious connections to “human nature”, and demonstration of logic/scientific methodologies, I dozed off here.
December 3, 2010
Noam Chomsky is known for two things - his studies in linguistics and his stand on the workings of political power, specifically that of the United States in world affairs, but also in domestic affairs.
This book is a collection of his writings in both capacities over the years, starting in 1959 and ending in 2006.
Whatever the topic, he writes well. I was pleasantly surprised to find I could follow all but one of the articles on language. He proposes that humans have a mental organ for language. Though it doesn't stand out physically as organs such as the liver or the stomach do, it nonetheless is a specialized aspect of the brain that allows us as small children to pick up rapidly whatever particular language we hear spoken. He is the first to admit that knowledge of this function of the brain is not far along yet but the little that can be said about it is remarkable. He mentions the fact that a small child can become fluent in a language long before it can even begin to understand mathematics because of the possession of a universal grammar that will immediately adapt to any specific language.
Questions related to this are - how could such an inbuilt capacity for language evolve? Is spoken language like a virus which, though it has no physical form like a true virus, infects us? He also discusses the "mind-body" problem, that is, are the mind and body two distinct things with one physical and the other spiritual as was once thought, or different manifestations of the body? This gets into Newton's discoveries that ended the purely physical world of material contact (because it introduced the gravitational force). These fascinating thoughts prompted me to look for more of his thoughts on language. In other words, this book is a teaser.
On politics, Chomsky is a relentless critic of what I would call nationalistic nonsense - comforting lies that we are told and that our leaders tell themselves about our benevolence that disguise the real motivation for dominating the world. Chomsky asserts that the United States is no exception to the rule of empire that has long been established - that we as a nation are as careless and dismissive of the values we hold when it comes to our relations with other countries and the treatment of foreign peoples as any other world power in history.
What makes his argument so powerful is his careful recitation of facts. Far from expecting the reader to take him at his word, he provides the quotes, the documented incidents and the history of events that substantiate what he has to say. It's hard to disagree with him when he provides a quote from a president or politician that directly supports his thesis. I was continually amazed at his detail knowledge, not only of obscure publications but of moments in history that many of us would never go back to, as he does, for discovery of the origin of an idea.
In this book you will get a good idea of what drove disastrous American adventures from Vietnam to Iraq with some meaty material (news to me) on U.S. involvement in the slaughter conducted in East Timor by Indonesia. Along the way is quite a bit of material about the U.S. throwing its weight around in Central America. Chomsky makes a good case that we live in a world of platitudes, self-righteousness and hypocrisy that sacrifices countless lives abroad and the lives of our own soldiers in moves to secure the obedience and participation of the nations of the world in our own grand scheme. We have absolutely no reason for self satisfaction. It was foolish to believe that the elimination of the USSR would bring a more peaceful world. Power will have its way.
To Chomsky, the role of the intellectual is to do as he is doing - be vigilant and exacting in presenting the reality of what the nation does, in spite of the opprobrium it must bring. Intellectuals are the guardians of the truth, contradicting the inevitable spin given to us by our leaders. As he is the first to point out, intellectuals are more commonly fawning servants of the state if not forceful advocates of force, wielding power and justifying the exercise of it rather than respecting laws or rights. Think of the neo-cons in the Bush administration and you get the picture.
This book is a good read. There are no really long articles, but you have to pay attention to details because they come thick and fast. No dozing or multi-tasking allowed if you want to get anything from Professor Noam Chomsky.
This book is a collection of his writings in both capacities over the years, starting in 1959 and ending in 2006.
Whatever the topic, he writes well. I was pleasantly surprised to find I could follow all but one of the articles on language. He proposes that humans have a mental organ for language. Though it doesn't stand out physically as organs such as the liver or the stomach do, it nonetheless is a specialized aspect of the brain that allows us as small children to pick up rapidly whatever particular language we hear spoken. He is the first to admit that knowledge of this function of the brain is not far along yet but the little that can be said about it is remarkable. He mentions the fact that a small child can become fluent in a language long before it can even begin to understand mathematics because of the possession of a universal grammar that will immediately adapt to any specific language.
Questions related to this are - how could such an inbuilt capacity for language evolve? Is spoken language like a virus which, though it has no physical form like a true virus, infects us? He also discusses the "mind-body" problem, that is, are the mind and body two distinct things with one physical and the other spiritual as was once thought, or different manifestations of the body? This gets into Newton's discoveries that ended the purely physical world of material contact (because it introduced the gravitational force). These fascinating thoughts prompted me to look for more of his thoughts on language. In other words, this book is a teaser.
On politics, Chomsky is a relentless critic of what I would call nationalistic nonsense - comforting lies that we are told and that our leaders tell themselves about our benevolence that disguise the real motivation for dominating the world. Chomsky asserts that the United States is no exception to the rule of empire that has long been established - that we as a nation are as careless and dismissive of the values we hold when it comes to our relations with other countries and the treatment of foreign peoples as any other world power in history.
What makes his argument so powerful is his careful recitation of facts. Far from expecting the reader to take him at his word, he provides the quotes, the documented incidents and the history of events that substantiate what he has to say. It's hard to disagree with him when he provides a quote from a president or politician that directly supports his thesis. I was continually amazed at his detail knowledge, not only of obscure publications but of moments in history that many of us would never go back to, as he does, for discovery of the origin of an idea.
In this book you will get a good idea of what drove disastrous American adventures from Vietnam to Iraq with some meaty material (news to me) on U.S. involvement in the slaughter conducted in East Timor by Indonesia. Along the way is quite a bit of material about the U.S. throwing its weight around in Central America. Chomsky makes a good case that we live in a world of platitudes, self-righteousness and hypocrisy that sacrifices countless lives abroad and the lives of our own soldiers in moves to secure the obedience and participation of the nations of the world in our own grand scheme. We have absolutely no reason for self satisfaction. It was foolish to believe that the elimination of the USSR would bring a more peaceful world. Power will have its way.
To Chomsky, the role of the intellectual is to do as he is doing - be vigilant and exacting in presenting the reality of what the nation does, in spite of the opprobrium it must bring. Intellectuals are the guardians of the truth, contradicting the inevitable spin given to us by our leaders. As he is the first to point out, intellectuals are more commonly fawning servants of the state if not forceful advocates of force, wielding power and justifying the exercise of it rather than respecting laws or rights. Think of the neo-cons in the Bush administration and you get the picture.
This book is a good read. There are no really long articles, but you have to pay attention to details because they come thick and fast. No dozing or multi-tasking allowed if you want to get anything from Professor Noam Chomsky.
July 13, 2018
“Another conservative suggestion is that facts, logic, and elementary principles should matter.
...
Though is natural for doctrinal systems to seek to induce pessimism , hopelessness, and despair, reality is different. There has been substantial progress in the unending quest for justice and freedom in recent years, leaving a legacy that can be carried forward from a higher plane than before... As always in the past, the task requires dedicate day-by-day engagement to create-in part re-create- the basis for a function democratic culture in which the public play some role in determining the policies, ...”
É sempre com um aperto na garganta que se lê o que Chomsky escreve por se encontrar na abordagem que faz das questões uma lucidez e clareza de análise que dificilmente permitem sustentar conclusões diversas daquelas a que chega.
É, assim, necessário, essencial mesmo para quem pretenda não desesperar, tentar contextualizar os acontecimentos numa perspectiva histórica de modo a não perder de vista que, pese embora continue a ser muito mal frequentado e constituir mesmo um sítio funesto, este mundo até já foi pior.
E nesta perspectiva histórica procurar encontrar consolo e ânimo para nos engajarmos na construção de uma sociedade democrática funcional apesar de, ou se calhar por causa de, todas as desilusões e profundas decepções pessoais com o sistema vigente que eventualmente possamos ter vivido.
...
Though is natural for doctrinal systems to seek to induce pessimism , hopelessness, and despair, reality is different. There has been substantial progress in the unending quest for justice and freedom in recent years, leaving a legacy that can be carried forward from a higher plane than before... As always in the past, the task requires dedicate day-by-day engagement to create-in part re-create- the basis for a function democratic culture in which the public play some role in determining the policies, ...”
É sempre com um aperto na garganta que se lê o que Chomsky escreve por se encontrar na abordagem que faz das questões uma lucidez e clareza de análise que dificilmente permitem sustentar conclusões diversas daquelas a que chega.
É, assim, necessário, essencial mesmo para quem pretenda não desesperar, tentar contextualizar os acontecimentos numa perspectiva histórica de modo a não perder de vista que, pese embora continue a ser muito mal frequentado e constituir mesmo um sítio funesto, este mundo até já foi pior.
E nesta perspectiva histórica procurar encontrar consolo e ânimo para nos engajarmos na construção de uma sociedade democrática funcional apesar de, ou se calhar por causa de, todas as desilusões e profundas decepções pessoais com o sistema vigente que eventualmente possamos ter vivido.
October 15, 2016
I wish this author Noam Chomsky had a podcast or a syndicated column or some way that I could read his writing in real time. I have heard about him for a long time but frankly I have been scared off by hearing that he is pretty intellectual and from what I had heard I thought he would be a little over my head. And went it comes to his topic of linguistics he is a little bit beyond me since this is a topic that I have had no experience with. I need to read something a little more basic than what was included in this book. But when it comes to writing about US foreign-policy I am pretty sure that I have never read anybody who is as spot on as I think he is. But this book ends in the early 21st-century and misses the last 10 years.
I get his foreign-policy and it is by and large what I think about US foreign-policy. The US is the bully and the war criminal. There are very few good things about US foreign-policy according to me or Chomsky. I went to hand in hand with him through the Vietnam years. I know a lot about that. But it was fascinating to read his observations about how the US government was planning in 1944 how they would divide up the world after World War II ended.
The lead up to the Iraq war is also very familiar to me and emphasizes how the US basically said to the UN that the US was going to war regardless of what the UN did. The concept of a preventive war as US policy is covered in detail.
This is not an easy book to read. What I was familiar with was of course a lot easier for me to read than what was new to me. Clearly Chomsky does not take the US party line. Kosovo is covered as is Central America. The politics of how good guys become bad guys become good guys is shown over and over.
There are a lot of Chomsky books out there and I have read in other reviews that this is one of the best ones for an overview of his years but I will have to keep looking for something that is more current. The US keeps mucking around in world politics.
Added later: For those of you who are as out of touch as I am let me just say that Noah has a Twitter and Facebook connection! These sites will probably keep us fans in touch with his most up-to-date material through Internet links.
I get his foreign-policy and it is by and large what I think about US foreign-policy. The US is the bully and the war criminal. There are very few good things about US foreign-policy according to me or Chomsky. I went to hand in hand with him through the Vietnam years. I know a lot about that. But it was fascinating to read his observations about how the US government was planning in 1944 how they would divide up the world after World War II ended.
The lead up to the Iraq war is also very familiar to me and emphasizes how the US basically said to the UN that the US was going to war regardless of what the UN did. The concept of a preventive war as US policy is covered in detail.
This is not an easy book to read. What I was familiar with was of course a lot easier for me to read than what was new to me. Clearly Chomsky does not take the US party line. Kosovo is covered as is Central America. The politics of how good guys become bad guys become good guys is shown over and over.
There are a lot of Chomsky books out there and I have read in other reviews that this is one of the best ones for an overview of his years but I will have to keep looking for something that is more current. The US keeps mucking around in world politics.
Added later: For those of you who are as out of touch as I am let me just say that Noah has a Twitter and Facebook connection! These sites will probably keep us fans in touch with his most up-to-date material through Internet links.
September 26, 2022
america bad, linguistics cool
September 20, 2013
"The general population doesn't know what's happening, and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know."
- Noam Chomsky
Perhaps governments are more competent than we might believe. Especially in the first world, governments do their utmost to maintain for the nation state they are responsible for a position of dominance and advantage that in turn allows its citizenry the comforts and securities that they enjoy. But where morally abhorrent actions are required to this end, part of the government's duty, silently relegated to it and thereafter always danced around in criticism of it, is to keep from the public what they do not wish to hear, letting their conceits about moral superiority flourish in the darkness beyond the terrible glare of facts and history.
The ahistorical line taken by Western thought after being confronted by the philosophies of Hegel and Marx (themselves in the broadest sense following Rousseau) seems to me to result directly from an attempt to cling on to some moral ground. Having exploited the rest of the world under colonialism and similar oppressive practices in order to gain the advantages they now enjoy, and thus having actively barred others' approach to modernity, it's difficult for the West to speak from a position of moral superiority even when they're arguing on behalf of something they truly believe in- the problem is not merely an ad hominem fallacy but one of hypocrisy. This becomes a quandary as the state requires that superiority at the level of the citizen to maintain cohesion and morale, to defend its position that is more fragile than the common populace understands. The solution it espouses? Simply to deny history. -To mould coming generations of the citizenry under a myth of natural superiority based on ingrained values (aided by the startling irony and doublespeak in lines like '... all men are created equal' from slave-owners) and recent glories attained under morally and materially favourable conditions, making matters like colonialism and slavery seem incidental and quaint- easy to use as targets in righteous denunciations and to bolster the idea that change for the better is possible, but assured to have been historically rather impotent, with only the murkiest lines of descent other than to do with general social attitudes wending their way to the status quo at present. The most amusing side-effect of this enterprise of necessary delusion in service of maintaining power and position on the global stage is the increased celebration of ignorance to not an insignificant extent.
Moral relativism then is not the problem, but whether the intolerance of those who have the luxury of their 'exceptional' position thanks to an immoral past (and likely immoral dealings in the present, usually contained in a web of obscurantism and ignorance- the persecution of whistleblowers who expose the game being if anything testament to this) is justified. Perhaps there do flourish objectively superior moral standards in the West (as I believe is the case in many things, though not all), but it's hardly fair for those whose forebears have salted the other's fields to sit among the blossoms populating their own and complain that they have no such pleasant view because the other is inferior at working their fields. Is this not in fact just another way the leaders of the West exercise power and further quash attempts by the rest of the world to improve, by demanding the cart before the horse with appeal to the comfort-facilitated moral righteousness of its populace? That moral itch calling for interference on some specific matter is duly scratched by public assent because of the extant sense of nonconformity by other nations to the enlightened Western ideal. It may in fact be an enlightened ideal, but let us not forget how it came to be. Bearing this in mind is not to remain silent as slaves of historical sins but to be aware of one's own influence (usually very much in the present) before broaching interference.
The minimal standard of enforcement that we are ethically bound to see carried out is to ensure that no first aggression goes undefended or at the least without being called to answer for itself, but as matters stand this is only likely to happen if a wealthy nation has material interests that happen to align with what the transgressor has to offer. Much else passes beneath the gaze of the watchers, who sometimes try to project pride and ego as more acceptable, even noble vices in an effort to mask the overriding vice that is greed that determines their quaintly selective actions. The image of honourable intentions is kept immaculate in this manner through 'blunder' after 'blunder' in order to soothe the mistrust brewing within the borders of opulence. This lie of naive but fair idealism as bound to sometimes fail but always positing only the right thing to do allows all manner of crimes to go not only unpunished but unacknowledged for what they are, for the foundation to stand unquestioned. But worse is the freedom allowed by the deceit to enact policy doctrines that allow preemptive defence without any concession allowed to voices of sense. What this deceit covers is of course the ruthless, materially-driven pragmatism beneath the idealistic bluster. There does not need to be sinister guidance in this state of affairs, no villains to run the system this way whom we might detect, late but not too late, and rout. Instead, this is the default function of the system given too much trust in natural incentives. Indeed idealistic individuals may become politicians and believe all that they say, but so long as they do not question the basis of the system, which must not be done, they are merely cogs in its continued monstrous function- and once the indoctrination has proceeded to the point that the purpose of the monstrosity is forgotten by those very actors at the top who derive power by it and it is accepted as background, we become its puppet.
There are more constraints on us and our power structures then than we might easily realise, but Chomsky is such a writer who questions whether this is indeed the optimal scenario. Must morality be sacrificed to ease through one stable status quo to another? Chomsky very surely believes not. In the eloquent but scathing (and sometimes plainly sarcastic) critiques of Western, and especially American, foreign policy, media and state-forwarded capitalist interests that he offers (better founded than his critics might allege; their discontent usually staying clear of countering evidence brought forward by Chomsky and more concerned with his credentials- that is, one assumes, beyond being an exceptionally intelligent and competent citizen who is genuinely concerned; others of a remotely similar mould should be concerned by these very objections), the point may become lost, but Chomsky is very much forward-thinking and optimistic that the populace can and would want to do right if they can uncover the choice beyond the political detritus. (Some contrast may be drawn with Foucault- see the status updates associated with this review.)
I come to find that this optimism rests in part upon the political model Chomsky advocates, that of anarcho-syndicalism, which I am not sold on, but this does not blunt any of his criticism.
Though Chomsky may well be the most important political writer since Orwell, he first gained eminence in his own field of linguistics (there are a few insightful essays in the present collection that relate politics and language) and for being instrumental in toppling the behaviourist model in psychology (and a host of interrelated disciplines), thus ushering in what has been called the 'cognitive revolution'. A highlight in this regard included here is Chomsky's 'Review of Verbal Behavior, by B F Skinner'.
I've since found the text at-
http://bendyglu.domainepublic.net/arc...
- Noam Chomsky
Perhaps governments are more competent than we might believe. Especially in the first world, governments do their utmost to maintain for the nation state they are responsible for a position of dominance and advantage that in turn allows its citizenry the comforts and securities that they enjoy. But where morally abhorrent actions are required to this end, part of the government's duty, silently relegated to it and thereafter always danced around in criticism of it, is to keep from the public what they do not wish to hear, letting their conceits about moral superiority flourish in the darkness beyond the terrible glare of facts and history.
The ahistorical line taken by Western thought after being confronted by the philosophies of Hegel and Marx (themselves in the broadest sense following Rousseau) seems to me to result directly from an attempt to cling on to some moral ground. Having exploited the rest of the world under colonialism and similar oppressive practices in order to gain the advantages they now enjoy, and thus having actively barred others' approach to modernity, it's difficult for the West to speak from a position of moral superiority even when they're arguing on behalf of something they truly believe in- the problem is not merely an ad hominem fallacy but one of hypocrisy. This becomes a quandary as the state requires that superiority at the level of the citizen to maintain cohesion and morale, to defend its position that is more fragile than the common populace understands. The solution it espouses? Simply to deny history. -To mould coming generations of the citizenry under a myth of natural superiority based on ingrained values (aided by the startling irony and doublespeak in lines like '... all men are created equal' from slave-owners) and recent glories attained under morally and materially favourable conditions, making matters like colonialism and slavery seem incidental and quaint- easy to use as targets in righteous denunciations and to bolster the idea that change for the better is possible, but assured to have been historically rather impotent, with only the murkiest lines of descent other than to do with general social attitudes wending their way to the status quo at present. The most amusing side-effect of this enterprise of necessary delusion in service of maintaining power and position on the global stage is the increased celebration of ignorance to not an insignificant extent.
Moral relativism then is not the problem, but whether the intolerance of those who have the luxury of their 'exceptional' position thanks to an immoral past (and likely immoral dealings in the present, usually contained in a web of obscurantism and ignorance- the persecution of whistleblowers who expose the game being if anything testament to this) is justified. Perhaps there do flourish objectively superior moral standards in the West (as I believe is the case in many things, though not all), but it's hardly fair for those whose forebears have salted the other's fields to sit among the blossoms populating their own and complain that they have no such pleasant view because the other is inferior at working their fields. Is this not in fact just another way the leaders of the West exercise power and further quash attempts by the rest of the world to improve, by demanding the cart before the horse with appeal to the comfort-facilitated moral righteousness of its populace? That moral itch calling for interference on some specific matter is duly scratched by public assent because of the extant sense of nonconformity by other nations to the enlightened Western ideal. It may in fact be an enlightened ideal, but let us not forget how it came to be. Bearing this in mind is not to remain silent as slaves of historical sins but to be aware of one's own influence (usually very much in the present) before broaching interference.
The minimal standard of enforcement that we are ethically bound to see carried out is to ensure that no first aggression goes undefended or at the least without being called to answer for itself, but as matters stand this is only likely to happen if a wealthy nation has material interests that happen to align with what the transgressor has to offer. Much else passes beneath the gaze of the watchers, who sometimes try to project pride and ego as more acceptable, even noble vices in an effort to mask the overriding vice that is greed that determines their quaintly selective actions. The image of honourable intentions is kept immaculate in this manner through 'blunder' after 'blunder' in order to soothe the mistrust brewing within the borders of opulence. This lie of naive but fair idealism as bound to sometimes fail but always positing only the right thing to do allows all manner of crimes to go not only unpunished but unacknowledged for what they are, for the foundation to stand unquestioned. But worse is the freedom allowed by the deceit to enact policy doctrines that allow preemptive defence without any concession allowed to voices of sense. What this deceit covers is of course the ruthless, materially-driven pragmatism beneath the idealistic bluster. There does not need to be sinister guidance in this state of affairs, no villains to run the system this way whom we might detect, late but not too late, and rout. Instead, this is the default function of the system given too much trust in natural incentives. Indeed idealistic individuals may become politicians and believe all that they say, but so long as they do not question the basis of the system, which must not be done, they are merely cogs in its continued monstrous function- and once the indoctrination has proceeded to the point that the purpose of the monstrosity is forgotten by those very actors at the top who derive power by it and it is accepted as background, we become its puppet.
There are more constraints on us and our power structures then than we might easily realise, but Chomsky is such a writer who questions whether this is indeed the optimal scenario. Must morality be sacrificed to ease through one stable status quo to another? Chomsky very surely believes not. In the eloquent but scathing (and sometimes plainly sarcastic) critiques of Western, and especially American, foreign policy, media and state-forwarded capitalist interests that he offers (better founded than his critics might allege; their discontent usually staying clear of countering evidence brought forward by Chomsky and more concerned with his credentials- that is, one assumes, beyond being an exceptionally intelligent and competent citizen who is genuinely concerned; others of a remotely similar mould should be concerned by these very objections), the point may become lost, but Chomsky is very much forward-thinking and optimistic that the populace can and would want to do right if they can uncover the choice beyond the political detritus. (Some contrast may be drawn with Foucault- see the status updates associated with this review.)
I come to find that this optimism rests in part upon the political model Chomsky advocates, that of anarcho-syndicalism, which I am not sold on, but this does not blunt any of his criticism.
Though Chomsky may well be the most important political writer since Orwell, he first gained eminence in his own field of linguistics (there are a few insightful essays in the present collection that relate politics and language) and for being instrumental in toppling the behaviourist model in psychology (and a host of interrelated disciplines), thus ushering in what has been called the 'cognitive revolution'. A highlight in this regard included here is Chomsky's 'Review of Verbal Behavior, by B F Skinner'.
I've since found the text at-
http://bendyglu.domainepublic.net/arc...
September 30, 2014
Noam Chomsky—Infuriating and Necessary:
"Regardless of how one wrestles with Chomsky, one does always wrestle, leaving the bout much smarter and stronger."
I refuse to debate geo-politics with people who have not had this wrestle with Noam Chomsky.
-- Such a bout ends in an entirely different manner.
Link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...
September 22, 2009
“The Essential Noam Chomsky” is a 413-page powerhouse of a book, a gripping, consciousness-raising tour of the landscape of the mind of Chomsky, Institute Professor of linguistics at MIT, whose most publicly well-known works expose the hegemonic thrust of United States foreign and domestic policy and all its attendant infrastructure of propaganda and unchallenged assumptions constructed by government and corporate officials, media personnel and so-called experts in academia.
To read this book is to admire Chomsky’s prodigious mind and moral outrage at what he boils down to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of current and former leaders in government and business who make this primary assertion – assertion, mind you, not argument which would entail providing evidence and addressing counter-arguments: what they do is aggression, what we do upholds freedom.
I chose to read this book because, as its title suggests, it delivers a comprehensive overview of Chomsky’s thought from as early as the 1950s to the present. It’s a lot to grapple with, and I’ve read and re-read passages, and taken extra time to understand the levels from which Chomsky is operating. What does it mean to live and think in the United States? In the world? What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to use language? Is language a function of the brain? Is it naturally selected a la Darwin? If we agree with elementary moral truisms – such as, if an action is right for us, it is right for others; and if wrong for others, it is wrong for us – then how is it possible that we’ve allowed the people we calls our leaders to kill (and plunder and coerce, etc.) on such a mass scale with virtually no repercussions or accountability?
These are all questions that Chomsky addresses in one way or another, and reading this book is like taking a front-row seat in his classroom – except without paying the tuition to get in the door.
Reading this book also is like waking up from a bad nightmare and realizing there’s another way to think and live. Over the decades, Chomsky has written about everything from anarchy and Watergate to language and the human brain to the Vietnam War and 9/11 to the origins of the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.
It’s all here in “The Essential Noam Chomsky.” I dare say it would be fairly impossible for many Americans to deny the truth of what Chomsky has written over the decades. His evidence is so compelling and his thinking is so clear that I believe it would actually take a strong act of denial on one’s part to not change one’s mind. Survey America’s public life, however, and you understand how it’s possible for someone like Chomsky to be swimming against the tide: it seems to me that in so many corners, belief triumphs over evidence, forceful opinions trump stark facts and incivility spreads like cancer. Anyone not aware of this may simply turn on a TV or consider the vice presidential nomination of Sarah Palin or consider the seeming ease with which people are led to hate, to blindly accept assertions, to wrap their arms around jingoism and deny their own racism: case in point, the current debate surrounding the nation’s empirically – and undoubtedly – broken system of providing health care to its citizens.
I’ll pause here and just say this: I’m working on my own position in all of this; I was born in this country, watched too much corporate TV and was led to believe in something that should never be treated as a truism: that if you just work hard, things will work out right. Does anyone believe that last line, in light of Wall Street plunging what journalist Matt Taibbi has called a “blood funnel” into anything that walks, talks or smells like money?
Back to “The Essential Noam Chomsky.” As I read it, I often wondered how many Americans have, in fact, been exposed to what Chomsky has to say. I do know that two of his most recent books, “Hegemony or Survival,” which I have read, and “Failed States” have been bestsellers. My hope is that those books have prompted many Americans to be, at the very least, skeptical of what they’re sold in the form of various assertions by their leaders, official histories proffered by self-serving “experts” and pundits, corporate advertising and the public relations machine that is corporate-controlled media. I want to believe this is the case, but then I consider that the most-watched cable news program in the country is the right-wing propaganda channel called Fox News, and I disabuse myself of any notion that the country might move away, en masse, from ideology and toward critical thinking. Moreover, Chomsky would never “fit” into the medium that unfortunately dominates (according to various public surveys) our national dialogue: television news and, loosely speaking here, analysis. Concision and hyperbole and performance are the orders of the day when it comes to having your mug split-screened so you can yell a few more times than the other guy on “Hardball.”
Nevertheless, to plunge into Chomsky’s thoughts about some of the worst periods in American history (the Vietnam War, Reagan’s brutal atrocities in Latin America, Kennedy’s pronouncements about the need to visit terror upon Cuba, etc.) is to really have your eyes opened to what’s going on now. The upshot seems to be this: We’ve been doing this (state-planned and corporate-backed terrorism/war/coercion) for quite some time, and those you might think would rise up against it (our intellectuals, experts, people who ostensibly should know better, etc.) have actually supported it, writing columns or academic papers or essays that suggest a war like Vietnam was a mere “mistake,” for example, not because it was morally reprehensible and led to the wholesale destruction of human beings but because we simply didn’t fight it correctly. Should we have dumped more napalm on the tops of women and children’s heads? Talk about missing the fucking point.
My mind is still climbing the ladder Chomsky has constructed to get us to a moral and reasonable and humanistic way of thinking and living, so I’m not even sure where to start in terms of distilling the essence of “The Essential Chomsky.” Even suggesting Chomsky is arguing we should live a certain way doesn’t do him justice since he would probably be offended at the idea that he’s telling anyone to do anything. To read him is to get the distinct feeling that Chomsky doesn’t have much use for what passes for intellectual or moral leadership these days. What he is really arguing for is to enable people to determine their own lives, free of state or corporate control, free of so much of the fast-paced, commercialized bullshit we call a public dialogue.
That is my very rough paraphrasing of Chomsky’s philosophy, which, for accuracy’s sake, is actually formally known as libertarian socialism. Here is what it means, according to Wikipedia (which also cites Chomsky as a prominent libertarian socialist):
Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism,[1:][2:] and sometimes left libertarianism[3:][4:]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production.[5:]
This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,[6:] so that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”[7:]
These days, my feelings center very much on what has happened to America’s power centers, or institutions of power: Wall Street, the federal government, the military-industrial complex, etc. Suffice it to say, I’m deeply dismayed and, no matter how personal some media may wish to paint the problem (Bernie Madoff), the problem lies with U.S. institutions that own power, wield it as they wish and, even though they remain at the root of the problem, continue to benefit from the socializing of the costs of the flaws of capitalism. Meanwhile, the horror spreads: poor people become poorer, middle-class people hang on (or don’t), homes foreclose, communities shrivel and propaganda channels, including Fox News and CNN, keep interviewing the same people who started the problem who now reassure us by telling us that what we’re really experiencing is a recovery, not the brutal financial, psychological and environmental beating of our recent lives.
I voted for Barack Obama. But I don’t have much cause for what he called hope during the campaign as I consider just how powerful America’s institutions have remained and how democracy has not grown in a time when it should have: To wit, if the population must prop up banks, then they should own, at the very least, as much of the capital as they put in. That would include the right to say no when a banker wants another $2.5 million monthly bonus for correctly pressing a button on his or her Bloomberg terminal.
I will return to “The Essential Noam Chomsky” to glean more knowledge from it. It’s that good and helpful. I will also purchase more of Chomsky’s books. High on my list is “Manufacturing Consent.” But I will also struggle with something: Given the overwhelming power held by entrenched institutions, how does one go about changing things? Do you focus on your family? Do you try to help your neighborhood? City? Do you run for office? Or do you throw back another beer and delve into another discussion?
My sense is that you do what you can do given practical limitations. And I suppose for many Americans survival is high on the to-do list right now. In any case, you most definitely try to make things better. You most definitely do not give up. And as you try to make things better and run into so many roadblock, I suppose you have to kind of enjoy the struggle (at least if you’re not always just scraping by or living paycheck to paycheck, etc.) if you have any hope of holding onto your sanity and maybe even having a little fun now and again.
Trust me, I haven’t unlocked the secrets to this. If anything, I’ve thought it over too much, hesitated when I should have acted. In its own way, “The Essential Chomsky” has drained more of the hesitation in my soul. I’m grateful for it.
I want to leave you with some pearls, muscular paragraphs, if you will, that I found in “The Essential Chomsky.” I hope they strike you the way they struck me: truthfully.
--“What remains of democracy is to be construed as the right to choose among commodities. Business leaders have long explained the need to impose on the population a ‘philosophy of futility’ and ‘lack of purpose in life,’ to ‘concentrate human attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable consumption.’ Deluged by such propaganda from infancy, people may then accept their meaningless and subordinate lives and forget ridiculous ideas about managing their own affairs. They may abandon their fate to the wizards, and in the political realm, to the self-described ‘intelligent minorities’ who serve and administer power.”
--“Since intellectuals are the ones who write history, we should be cautious about the alleged ‘lessons of history’ in this regard; it would not be surprising to discover that the version of history presented is self-serving, and indeed it is. Thus the standard image is that the intellectuals are fiercely independent, honest, defenders of the highest values, opponents of arbitrary rule and authority, and so on. The actual record reveals a different story. Quite typically, intellectuals have been ideological and social managers, serving power or seeking to assume power themselves by taking control of popular movements of which they declare themselves to be the leaders. For people committed to control and manipulation is is quite useful to believe that human beings have no intrinsic moral and intellectual nature, that they are simply objects to be shaped by state and private managers and ideologues – who, of course, perceive what is good and right.”
--“Organisms are not arrayed along a spectrum, with some ‘more intelligent’ than others, simply capable of solving more complex problems. Rather, they differ in the array of problems that they are capable of addressing and solving. A certain species of wasp, or a pigeon, is designed to find its way home; a human is not designed in the same way and cannot perform similar tasks readily or at all. It is not that a wasp or pigeon is ‘more intelligent’ than a human; rather, it is different in its biologically determined capacities.”
--“If a man acts in a purely mechanical way, reacting to external demands or instruction rather than in ways determined by his own interests and energies and power, ‘we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is.’” On such conceptions Humboldt grounds his ideas concerning the role of the state, which tends to ‘make man an instrument to serve its arbitrary ends, overlooking his individual purposes.’ His doctrine is classical liberal, strongly opposed to all but the most minimal forms of state intervention in personal or social life. Writing in the 1790s, Humboldt had no conception of the forms that industrial capitalism would take. Hence he is not overly concerned with the dangers of private power.”
To read this book is to admire Chomsky’s prodigious mind and moral outrage at what he boils down to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of current and former leaders in government and business who make this primary assertion – assertion, mind you, not argument which would entail providing evidence and addressing counter-arguments: what they do is aggression, what we do upholds freedom.
I chose to read this book because, as its title suggests, it delivers a comprehensive overview of Chomsky’s thought from as early as the 1950s to the present. It’s a lot to grapple with, and I’ve read and re-read passages, and taken extra time to understand the levels from which Chomsky is operating. What does it mean to live and think in the United States? In the world? What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to use language? Is language a function of the brain? Is it naturally selected a la Darwin? If we agree with elementary moral truisms – such as, if an action is right for us, it is right for others; and if wrong for others, it is wrong for us – then how is it possible that we’ve allowed the people we calls our leaders to kill (and plunder and coerce, etc.) on such a mass scale with virtually no repercussions or accountability?
These are all questions that Chomsky addresses in one way or another, and reading this book is like taking a front-row seat in his classroom – except without paying the tuition to get in the door.
Reading this book also is like waking up from a bad nightmare and realizing there’s another way to think and live. Over the decades, Chomsky has written about everything from anarchy and Watergate to language and the human brain to the Vietnam War and 9/11 to the origins of the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.
It’s all here in “The Essential Noam Chomsky.” I dare say it would be fairly impossible for many Americans to deny the truth of what Chomsky has written over the decades. His evidence is so compelling and his thinking is so clear that I believe it would actually take a strong act of denial on one’s part to not change one’s mind. Survey America’s public life, however, and you understand how it’s possible for someone like Chomsky to be swimming against the tide: it seems to me that in so many corners, belief triumphs over evidence, forceful opinions trump stark facts and incivility spreads like cancer. Anyone not aware of this may simply turn on a TV or consider the vice presidential nomination of Sarah Palin or consider the seeming ease with which people are led to hate, to blindly accept assertions, to wrap their arms around jingoism and deny their own racism: case in point, the current debate surrounding the nation’s empirically – and undoubtedly – broken system of providing health care to its citizens.
I’ll pause here and just say this: I’m working on my own position in all of this; I was born in this country, watched too much corporate TV and was led to believe in something that should never be treated as a truism: that if you just work hard, things will work out right. Does anyone believe that last line, in light of Wall Street plunging what journalist Matt Taibbi has called a “blood funnel” into anything that walks, talks or smells like money?
Back to “The Essential Noam Chomsky.” As I read it, I often wondered how many Americans have, in fact, been exposed to what Chomsky has to say. I do know that two of his most recent books, “Hegemony or Survival,” which I have read, and “Failed States” have been bestsellers. My hope is that those books have prompted many Americans to be, at the very least, skeptical of what they’re sold in the form of various assertions by their leaders, official histories proffered by self-serving “experts” and pundits, corporate advertising and the public relations machine that is corporate-controlled media. I want to believe this is the case, but then I consider that the most-watched cable news program in the country is the right-wing propaganda channel called Fox News, and I disabuse myself of any notion that the country might move away, en masse, from ideology and toward critical thinking. Moreover, Chomsky would never “fit” into the medium that unfortunately dominates (according to various public surveys) our national dialogue: television news and, loosely speaking here, analysis. Concision and hyperbole and performance are the orders of the day when it comes to having your mug split-screened so you can yell a few more times than the other guy on “Hardball.”
Nevertheless, to plunge into Chomsky’s thoughts about some of the worst periods in American history (the Vietnam War, Reagan’s brutal atrocities in Latin America, Kennedy’s pronouncements about the need to visit terror upon Cuba, etc.) is to really have your eyes opened to what’s going on now. The upshot seems to be this: We’ve been doing this (state-planned and corporate-backed terrorism/war/coercion) for quite some time, and those you might think would rise up against it (our intellectuals, experts, people who ostensibly should know better, etc.) have actually supported it, writing columns or academic papers or essays that suggest a war like Vietnam was a mere “mistake,” for example, not because it was morally reprehensible and led to the wholesale destruction of human beings but because we simply didn’t fight it correctly. Should we have dumped more napalm on the tops of women and children’s heads? Talk about missing the fucking point.
My mind is still climbing the ladder Chomsky has constructed to get us to a moral and reasonable and humanistic way of thinking and living, so I’m not even sure where to start in terms of distilling the essence of “The Essential Chomsky.” Even suggesting Chomsky is arguing we should live a certain way doesn’t do him justice since he would probably be offended at the idea that he’s telling anyone to do anything. To read him is to get the distinct feeling that Chomsky doesn’t have much use for what passes for intellectual or moral leadership these days. What he is really arguing for is to enable people to determine their own lives, free of state or corporate control, free of so much of the fast-paced, commercialized bullshit we call a public dialogue.
That is my very rough paraphrasing of Chomsky’s philosophy, which, for accuracy’s sake, is actually formally known as libertarian socialism. Here is what it means, according to Wikipedia (which also cites Chomsky as a prominent libertarian socialist):
Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism,[1:][2:] and sometimes left libertarianism[3:][4:]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production.[5:]
This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,[6:] so that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”[7:]
These days, my feelings center very much on what has happened to America’s power centers, or institutions of power: Wall Street, the federal government, the military-industrial complex, etc. Suffice it to say, I’m deeply dismayed and, no matter how personal some media may wish to paint the problem (Bernie Madoff), the problem lies with U.S. institutions that own power, wield it as they wish and, even though they remain at the root of the problem, continue to benefit from the socializing of the costs of the flaws of capitalism. Meanwhile, the horror spreads: poor people become poorer, middle-class people hang on (or don’t), homes foreclose, communities shrivel and propaganda channels, including Fox News and CNN, keep interviewing the same people who started the problem who now reassure us by telling us that what we’re really experiencing is a recovery, not the brutal financial, psychological and environmental beating of our recent lives.
I voted for Barack Obama. But I don’t have much cause for what he called hope during the campaign as I consider just how powerful America’s institutions have remained and how democracy has not grown in a time when it should have: To wit, if the population must prop up banks, then they should own, at the very least, as much of the capital as they put in. That would include the right to say no when a banker wants another $2.5 million monthly bonus for correctly pressing a button on his or her Bloomberg terminal.
I will return to “The Essential Noam Chomsky” to glean more knowledge from it. It’s that good and helpful. I will also purchase more of Chomsky’s books. High on my list is “Manufacturing Consent.” But I will also struggle with something: Given the overwhelming power held by entrenched institutions, how does one go about changing things? Do you focus on your family? Do you try to help your neighborhood? City? Do you run for office? Or do you throw back another beer and delve into another discussion?
My sense is that you do what you can do given practical limitations. And I suppose for many Americans survival is high on the to-do list right now. In any case, you most definitely try to make things better. You most definitely do not give up. And as you try to make things better and run into so many roadblock, I suppose you have to kind of enjoy the struggle (at least if you’re not always just scraping by or living paycheck to paycheck, etc.) if you have any hope of holding onto your sanity and maybe even having a little fun now and again.
Trust me, I haven’t unlocked the secrets to this. If anything, I’ve thought it over too much, hesitated when I should have acted. In its own way, “The Essential Chomsky” has drained more of the hesitation in my soul. I’m grateful for it.
I want to leave you with some pearls, muscular paragraphs, if you will, that I found in “The Essential Chomsky.” I hope they strike you the way they struck me: truthfully.
--“What remains of democracy is to be construed as the right to choose among commodities. Business leaders have long explained the need to impose on the population a ‘philosophy of futility’ and ‘lack of purpose in life,’ to ‘concentrate human attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable consumption.’ Deluged by such propaganda from infancy, people may then accept their meaningless and subordinate lives and forget ridiculous ideas about managing their own affairs. They may abandon their fate to the wizards, and in the political realm, to the self-described ‘intelligent minorities’ who serve and administer power.”
--“Since intellectuals are the ones who write history, we should be cautious about the alleged ‘lessons of history’ in this regard; it would not be surprising to discover that the version of history presented is self-serving, and indeed it is. Thus the standard image is that the intellectuals are fiercely independent, honest, defenders of the highest values, opponents of arbitrary rule and authority, and so on. The actual record reveals a different story. Quite typically, intellectuals have been ideological and social managers, serving power or seeking to assume power themselves by taking control of popular movements of which they declare themselves to be the leaders. For people committed to control and manipulation is is quite useful to believe that human beings have no intrinsic moral and intellectual nature, that they are simply objects to be shaped by state and private managers and ideologues – who, of course, perceive what is good and right.”
--“Organisms are not arrayed along a spectrum, with some ‘more intelligent’ than others, simply capable of solving more complex problems. Rather, they differ in the array of problems that they are capable of addressing and solving. A certain species of wasp, or a pigeon, is designed to find its way home; a human is not designed in the same way and cannot perform similar tasks readily or at all. It is not that a wasp or pigeon is ‘more intelligent’ than a human; rather, it is different in its biologically determined capacities.”
--“If a man acts in a purely mechanical way, reacting to external demands or instruction rather than in ways determined by his own interests and energies and power, ‘we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is.’” On such conceptions Humboldt grounds his ideas concerning the role of the state, which tends to ‘make man an instrument to serve its arbitrary ends, overlooking his individual purposes.’ His doctrine is classical liberal, strongly opposed to all but the most minimal forms of state intervention in personal or social life. Writing in the 1790s, Humboldt had no conception of the forms that industrial capitalism would take. Hence he is not overly concerned with the dangers of private power.”
May 6, 2025
This book is about Noam Chomsky's work on politics and language in regards to the USA mainly. Whilst I agree that the USA is at nearly majoirty of the time the aggressor and I do not agree with American politics, half of this book felt like waffle to me.
However, one idea that has struck with me is the idea that the USA is a totalitarian or at least authoritarian society presented as free. Whilst other nations like China or North Korea freely present themselves as dictatorships, the USA could be considered more intelligent in one regard as they have disguised the masses that they are the land of freedom, yet time and time again have oppressed individuals both domestically and those affected by foreign policy.
However, one idea that has struck with me is the idea that the USA is a totalitarian or at least authoritarian society presented as free. Whilst other nations like China or North Korea freely present themselves as dictatorships, the USA could be considered more intelligent in one regard as they have disguised the masses that they are the land of freedom, yet time and time again have oppressed individuals both domestically and those affected by foreign policy.
November 17, 2024
I liked this, but Chomsky is a bit tough because he's mostly talking educated guesses. His speculation is supported with solid arguement, but he raised more questions than answers for me. A lot of this is a rehash of historical media, but it's how he builds his arguements. Moreover, I was told that Chomsky was a liberal, and that is probably so, but Chomsky is strongly critical of liberals and their actions. A lot of this book talked about the negative effects of liberalism.
December 11, 2014
I opted for this collection of Chomsky's writings over Understanding Power, also published by The New Press, for two reasons: firstly, because it is more recent, and secondly, because it includes some of Chomsky's writings on linguistics in addition to his political commentaries. I worried at first that this might have been a brash decision on my part, not having studied linguistics in any capacity and hoping to understand articles on the topic by a man considered by many to be the preeminent voice in the field. However, my concerns were mostly unfounded; the linguistics articles are decipherable even by the layman - thanks, perhaps, to our inborn language ability which is not entirely the product of conscious learning or various forms of external stimuli - or perhaps because they are intended to be transparent. His critique of Skinner's Verbal Behavior is the most difficult for the novice, simply because the language and the conversation are the most academic.
Reading Chomsky's other linguistics pieces, particularly the one titled, "The View Beyond: Prospects for the Study of the Mind", helped me, as I had hoped, to bridge the gap between Chomsky's linguistic and political writings. One passage in particular struck me, in which Chomsky writes, in discussing the impact of environment on one's inborn abilities and its implications for learning:
"What the student learns passively will be quickly forgotten. What students discover for themselves when their natural curiosity and creative impulses are aroused not only will be remembered but will be the basis for further exploration and inquiry and perhaps significant intellectual contributions. A truly democratic community is one in which the general public has the opportunity for meaningful and constructive participation in the formation of social policy: in their own immediate community, in the workplace, and in the society at large. A society that excludes large areas of crucial decision making from public control, or a system of governance that merely grants the general public the opportunity to ratify decisions taken by the elite groups that dominate the private society and the state, hardly merits the term 'democracy.'" [p. 233-234]
This expresses the nature of Chomsky's dual interests in linguistics and politics. He applies his findings on the innate language abilities of every person to his libertarian political views: just as the external environment must be made conducive for a child to develop competent intellectual faculties, the political environment must be constituted in a way that allows for every citizen to take an active role in governance, with a conscious interest in his and his society's needs. Taking governance out of the hands of the broad body of the people and putting it in the hands of a small elite serves in effect to infantilize the populace. It shouldn't be so surprising that Chomsky writes so much about politics, nor should he be derided for doing so, as some do; after all, it was Orwell's lifelong project to explore the relationship between politics and language.
I also particularly enjoyed his early essay, "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". With the debacle in Vietnam ongoing and not yet even at its climax, Chomsky takes to task the "best and the brightest" of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and their apologists in academia; the court intellectuals who lubricate the machinery of power by euphemizing its actions through the usage of opaque academic jargon. Chomsky's underlying purpose here seems to be to combat the efforts of academic elites to "esotericize" political matters, essentially taking them out of the reach of a public discourse in which all of society can take part.
As someone who has studied academic political science, this certainly resonates with me. Much of the scholarship in the field is replete with euphemistic jargon for what I feel are very basic principles that most people understand intuitively. Most issues in international relations, for instance, as complicated as they may appear on the surface, boil down to basic ethical questions of right and wrong, understandable by everyone, and are subsequently muddied by the fundamental human drives of fear, envy, greed, altruism, fellow-feeling, and so on - your "average" American citizen can understand these things just as well as your ivy league academic. It was a noble thing for Chomsky to try and keep the moral questions of politics accessible to the masses.
Reading Chomsky's other linguistics pieces, particularly the one titled, "The View Beyond: Prospects for the Study of the Mind", helped me, as I had hoped, to bridge the gap between Chomsky's linguistic and political writings. One passage in particular struck me, in which Chomsky writes, in discussing the impact of environment on one's inborn abilities and its implications for learning:
"What the student learns passively will be quickly forgotten. What students discover for themselves when their natural curiosity and creative impulses are aroused not only will be remembered but will be the basis for further exploration and inquiry and perhaps significant intellectual contributions. A truly democratic community is one in which the general public has the opportunity for meaningful and constructive participation in the formation of social policy: in their own immediate community, in the workplace, and in the society at large. A society that excludes large areas of crucial decision making from public control, or a system of governance that merely grants the general public the opportunity to ratify decisions taken by the elite groups that dominate the private society and the state, hardly merits the term 'democracy.'" [p. 233-234]
This expresses the nature of Chomsky's dual interests in linguistics and politics. He applies his findings on the innate language abilities of every person to his libertarian political views: just as the external environment must be made conducive for a child to develop competent intellectual faculties, the political environment must be constituted in a way that allows for every citizen to take an active role in governance, with a conscious interest in his and his society's needs. Taking governance out of the hands of the broad body of the people and putting it in the hands of a small elite serves in effect to infantilize the populace. It shouldn't be so surprising that Chomsky writes so much about politics, nor should he be derided for doing so, as some do; after all, it was Orwell's lifelong project to explore the relationship between politics and language.
I also particularly enjoyed his early essay, "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". With the debacle in Vietnam ongoing and not yet even at its climax, Chomsky takes to task the "best and the brightest" of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and their apologists in academia; the court intellectuals who lubricate the machinery of power by euphemizing its actions through the usage of opaque academic jargon. Chomsky's underlying purpose here seems to be to combat the efforts of academic elites to "esotericize" political matters, essentially taking them out of the reach of a public discourse in which all of society can take part.
As someone who has studied academic political science, this certainly resonates with me. Much of the scholarship in the field is replete with euphemistic jargon for what I feel are very basic principles that most people understand intuitively. Most issues in international relations, for instance, as complicated as they may appear on the surface, boil down to basic ethical questions of right and wrong, understandable by everyone, and are subsequently muddied by the fundamental human drives of fear, envy, greed, altruism, fellow-feeling, and so on - your "average" American citizen can understand these things just as well as your ivy league academic. It was a noble thing for Chomsky to try and keep the moral questions of politics accessible to the masses.
January 2, 2014
SOME CHOICE CHOMSKY
"The Essential Chomsky" is not the first anthology of Chomskys writings, but certainly is an excellent selection from his 40 odd years of writing primarily on American Foreign Policy. Included are his seminal early essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" which is a crucial piece of writing in which Chomsky essentially lays out the rational for his own political writings as well as implicitly chastising those who enjoy a privileged life in Academia and either turn their backs on the world, or worse still become "servants of power". The essay is still pertinent though no doubt Academia is not as privileged, especially outside those sectors which are well funded and commercially orientated, as it was when the essay was written in the late 1960's.
The essays cover a variety of subjects including The War in Vietnam, Watergate, East Timor, The Middle East and the attacks of 9/11 in a cogent manner. One minor gripe I had regarding the book is the number of essays (about 15% of the books total size) that are rooted in his academic area of expertise which is Linguistics. I dont think there is a good case for mixing the two together, the number of people who are able to deal with the complexities of research level Linguistics must be fairly minimal. Personally I found myself lost more than once and only able to extricate myself by skipping to the next essay. Having said that a couple of them were interesting and comprehensible. Perhaps it would have been better to have two collections, one for Politics and another for Linguistics.
That aside, I would thoroughly recommend this for anyone who is interested in the politics of the Modern World in general, and the particular role of the United States plays at the global level. The writing is sharp, principled and spiced with Chomskys underrated but tart sense of humour. Excellent stuff.
"The Essential Chomsky" is not the first anthology of Chomskys writings, but certainly is an excellent selection from his 40 odd years of writing primarily on American Foreign Policy. Included are his seminal early essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" which is a crucial piece of writing in which Chomsky essentially lays out the rational for his own political writings as well as implicitly chastising those who enjoy a privileged life in Academia and either turn their backs on the world, or worse still become "servants of power". The essay is still pertinent though no doubt Academia is not as privileged, especially outside those sectors which are well funded and commercially orientated, as it was when the essay was written in the late 1960's.
The essays cover a variety of subjects including The War in Vietnam, Watergate, East Timor, The Middle East and the attacks of 9/11 in a cogent manner. One minor gripe I had regarding the book is the number of essays (about 15% of the books total size) that are rooted in his academic area of expertise which is Linguistics. I dont think there is a good case for mixing the two together, the number of people who are able to deal with the complexities of research level Linguistics must be fairly minimal. Personally I found myself lost more than once and only able to extricate myself by skipping to the next essay. Having said that a couple of them were interesting and comprehensible. Perhaps it would have been better to have two collections, one for Politics and another for Linguistics.
That aside, I would thoroughly recommend this for anyone who is interested in the politics of the Modern World in general, and the particular role of the United States plays at the global level. The writing is sharp, principled and spiced with Chomskys underrated but tart sense of humour. Excellent stuff.
July 26, 2021
One of my linguistics professors had studied with Chomsky, so I was doused with his theories on language many years ago. I only recently came across his views on American politics and was amazed how equally strongly worded and on the spot he still sounds after all these years. At a certain point in time he was deemed a no go antisemitic pariah; especially here in Germany with its past you were not supposed to like his works on the US American interference in the Middle East. Trying to use a neutral perspective, I can't really see why his general criticism on the American self concept of world police is such a bad position. I'm glad I came across this collection of essays covering both sides of Chomsky, even though it does not cover his views on more recent developments. Which I still have books about on my shelves.
September 7, 2011
Very interesting to read this immediately after The Pale King and its elevator conversation (section 19 perhaps?). Chomsky's vitriol at the government for our Vietnam involvement was almost surely appropriate, but did criticism like Chomsky's mark our society's abandonment of the greater good, as DFW's character suggests while trapped in the elevator? Did the disgust triggered by Vietnam lead us to concern ourselves only with the self? Was it the first step towards our behavioral takeover by corporations?
August 22, 2015
Noam Chomsky's intelligence is difficult to comprehend, but his writing and message are clear, powerful, and persuasive. This is the first Chomsky I've read, and I would recommend it to anybody seeking an atmospheric look at some of Chomsky's biggest themes. This is a greatest hits compilation that any fan of Chomsky will enjoy.
December 23, 2015
As difficult to get through as these essays are they made me ask a lot of important questions about the world, western society and my own personal stake in both. I feel like the time and crippling concentration required was definitely worth it. I hope to revisit this work further down the road and perhaps see things a bit more clearly.
November 11, 2024
Famed scholar Noam Chomsky has made groundbreaking contributions to linguistics and offered penetrating critiques of political systems.
In 1955, the professorial staff at Massachusetts Institute of Technology invited Chomsky to join their ranks. Now a professor emeritus, he worked in the school’s Department of Linguistics & Philosophy for half a century before retiring from active teaching in 2005.
During his career as a professor, Chomsky introduced transformational grammar to the linguistics field. His theory asserts that languages are innate and that the differences we see are only due to parameters developed over time in our brains, helping to explain why children are able to learn different languages more easily than adults.
Chomsky’s ideas have never been relegated to language alone. Weaving between the world of academia and popular culture, Chomsky has also gained a reputation for his often radical political views, which he describes as “libertarian socialist,” some of which have been seen as controversial and highly open to debate.
In 1979, Chomsky signed a petition in support of the free-speech rights of Robert Faurisson, a French lecturer who denied the existence of the gas chambers used in Nazi concentration camps. As a result, Chomsky found himself in the middle of a heated controversy. He asserted that his views are “diametrically opposed” to Faurisson’s conclusions and his intent was to support Faurisson’s civil liberties, not his Holocaust denial. The incident haunted Chomsky for decades, however, and his reputation in France, in particular, was damaged for some time afterward.
Chomsky also sparked controversy with 9-11: Was There an Alternative?, his 2002 collection of essays which analyzes the September 11 attacks on the United States, the impact of American foreign policy, and media control. In the book, Chomsky denounces the “horrifying atrocities” of the attacks but is critical of the United States’ use of power, calling it “a leading terrorist state.” The book became a bestseller, denounced by conservative critics as a distortion of American history while praised by supporters as offering an honest analysis of events leading to 9-11 that weren’t being reported by the mainstream media.
Despite his often controversial viewpoints, Chomsky remains a highly respected and sought-after thinker who has continued to author new books, contribute to a wide variety of journals, and remain active on the lecture circuit.
One of his most famous contributions to linguistics is what his contemporaries have called the Chomsky Hierarchy, a division of grammar into groups, moving up or down in their expressive abilities. These ideas have had huge ramifications in fields such as modern psychology and philosophy, both answering and raising questions about human nature and how we process information.
In 1955, the professorial staff at Massachusetts Institute of Technology invited Chomsky to join their ranks. Now a professor emeritus, he worked in the school’s Department of Linguistics & Philosophy for half a century before retiring from active teaching in 2005.
During his career as a professor, Chomsky introduced transformational grammar to the linguistics field. His theory asserts that languages are innate and that the differences we see are only due to parameters developed over time in our brains, helping to explain why children are able to learn different languages more easily than adults.
Chomsky’s ideas have never been relegated to language alone. Weaving between the world of academia and popular culture, Chomsky has also gained a reputation for his often radical political views, which he describes as “libertarian socialist,” some of which have been seen as controversial and highly open to debate.
In 1979, Chomsky signed a petition in support of the free-speech rights of Robert Faurisson, a French lecturer who denied the existence of the gas chambers used in Nazi concentration camps. As a result, Chomsky found himself in the middle of a heated controversy. He asserted that his views are “diametrically opposed” to Faurisson’s conclusions and his intent was to support Faurisson’s civil liberties, not his Holocaust denial. The incident haunted Chomsky for decades, however, and his reputation in France, in particular, was damaged for some time afterward.
Chomsky also sparked controversy with 9-11: Was There an Alternative?, his 2002 collection of essays which analyzes the September 11 attacks on the United States, the impact of American foreign policy, and media control. In the book, Chomsky denounces the “horrifying atrocities” of the attacks but is critical of the United States’ use of power, calling it “a leading terrorist state.” The book became a bestseller, denounced by conservative critics as a distortion of American history while praised by supporters as offering an honest analysis of events leading to 9-11 that weren’t being reported by the mainstream media.
Despite his often controversial viewpoints, Chomsky remains a highly respected and sought-after thinker who has continued to author new books, contribute to a wide variety of journals, and remain active on the lecture circuit.
One of his most famous contributions to linguistics is what his contemporaries have called the Chomsky Hierarchy, a division of grammar into groups, moving up or down in their expressive abilities. These ideas have had huge ramifications in fields such as modern psychology and philosophy, both answering and raising questions about human nature and how we process information.
April 16, 2020
"And now I can't sleep from years of apathy, all because I read a little Noam Chomsky."
NOFX's blisteringly satirical and insanely catchy song, Franco Un-American, is actually where I first heard Noam Chomsky's name. At 12 (glued to the Kerrang! music channel) the political message went a bit over my head, although I liked the bit about whales. Watching it back now, I'm not sure how it went over my head, as the music video is as subtle as a brick!
Since then, I've seen him referenced everywhere, and my boyfriend describes him as "the don of international politics", so I thought it was about time I read a little Noam Chomsky for myself.
This is an essay collection on topics ranging from behavioural linguistics to 9/11, and it really threw me in at the deep end with the first topic: A Review of B.F. Skinner's book, Verbal Behavior. Ah, good! A discussion of a book I have not read, by an author I do not know, on a topic I do not understand. It's a reflection of Chomsky's clear, concise style that by the end of it I was going: "Yeah that view of verbal behaviour is reductive and flawed!! What was B. F. Skinner thinking?!"
It's a running theme that no matter what the topic is, Chomsky discusses it in a way that's accessible, but no less intellectual for it. You can tell that this man is dazzlingly intelligent; it's refreshing that he doesn't waste time trying to prove it. I'm finding it quite hard to summarise this, because the topics are so wide ranging, but in general Chomsky is critical of American power, and stresses the importance of academics and experts in holding governments and organisations to account. Compassionate and intelligent politics, philosophy and sociology - just wonderful.
NOFX's blisteringly satirical and insanely catchy song, Franco Un-American, is actually where I first heard Noam Chomsky's name. At 12 (glued to the Kerrang! music channel) the political message went a bit over my head, although I liked the bit about whales. Watching it back now, I'm not sure how it went over my head, as the music video is as subtle as a brick!
Since then, I've seen him referenced everywhere, and my boyfriend describes him as "the don of international politics", so I thought it was about time I read a little Noam Chomsky for myself.
This is an essay collection on topics ranging from behavioural linguistics to 9/11, and it really threw me in at the deep end with the first topic: A Review of B.F. Skinner's book, Verbal Behavior. Ah, good! A discussion of a book I have not read, by an author I do not know, on a topic I do not understand. It's a reflection of Chomsky's clear, concise style that by the end of it I was going: "Yeah that view of verbal behaviour is reductive and flawed!! What was B. F. Skinner thinking?!"
It's a running theme that no matter what the topic is, Chomsky discusses it in a way that's accessible, but no less intellectual for it. You can tell that this man is dazzlingly intelligent; it's refreshing that he doesn't waste time trying to prove it. I'm finding it quite hard to summarise this, because the topics are so wide ranging, but in general Chomsky is critical of American power, and stresses the importance of academics and experts in holding governments and organisations to account. Compassionate and intelligent politics, philosophy and sociology - just wonderful.
September 20, 2025
Aprendí demasiado sobre la política internacional de USA. Chomsky lee algunos eventos con gran exactitud. El análisis de Israel y Gaza no puede estar más acertado. Gracias a él entendí el escándalo Irán contra y otras políticas reprobables de USA.
Estoy de acuerdo en el análisis que hace sobre la importancia que tiene resolver la economía mundial antes de acercarnos a cualquier otro problema. Cualquier problema es periférico. Así como la incompatibilidad del capitalismo con poder resolver la crisis ambiental.
El análisis sobre las asociaciones civiles es esperanzador y motivante. El mundo necesita que nos organicemos localmente, cara a cara. Democracia real.
Por otro lado en ocasiones miente deliberadamente con tal de probar un punto y dejar mal parado al capitalismo o a USA. (Camboya, leyes sobre la libertad de expresión, Adam Smith).
Chomsky es crítico solamente por querer burlarse o provocar. Cualquier acción, por mínima que sea, en apoyo a USA es imperdonable para Chomsky. Por ejemplo, llama a Lester Pearson un criminal de guerra por no oponerse a Vietnam (decisión que probablemente hizo atado de manos). Y se siente un gran disruptor mientras que Pearson fue mediador entre Egipto e Israel en la Crisis del Suez a través de la ONU, evitando que la guerra escalara. Además que extendió el estado de bienestar en Canadá.
Estoy de acuerdo en el análisis que hace sobre la importancia que tiene resolver la economía mundial antes de acercarnos a cualquier otro problema. Cualquier problema es periférico. Así como la incompatibilidad del capitalismo con poder resolver la crisis ambiental.
El análisis sobre las asociaciones civiles es esperanzador y motivante. El mundo necesita que nos organicemos localmente, cara a cara. Democracia real.
Por otro lado en ocasiones miente deliberadamente con tal de probar un punto y dejar mal parado al capitalismo o a USA. (Camboya, leyes sobre la libertad de expresión, Adam Smith).
Chomsky es crítico solamente por querer burlarse o provocar. Cualquier acción, por mínima que sea, en apoyo a USA es imperdonable para Chomsky. Por ejemplo, llama a Lester Pearson un criminal de guerra por no oponerse a Vietnam (decisión que probablemente hizo atado de manos). Y se siente un gran disruptor mientras que Pearson fue mediador entre Egipto e Israel en la Crisis del Suez a través de la ONU, evitando que la guerra escalara. Además que extendió el estado de bienestar en Canadá.
July 14, 2023
I’ve wanted to read more Chomsky for a long time. I’d never read any of his linguistics; it was mostly his critique of American foreign policy that I’ve encountered before. This collection gives you a good sample of his varied writings. I found the linguistics quite hard to follow, at times: it’s definitely for a specialist academic audience. I’m not sure how much I learned or fully comprehended, to be honest. The other essays are highly critical of American imperialism and violence - particularly the Vietnam War, support for Israel, and the war in Iraq. It’s pretty damning stuff - although not without optimism because he does argue that the world could be ruled differently. It’s still shocking how much the USA (and the colonial powers that came before it) have fucked up the world with their violence and power games. The audiobook narration by Kevin Stillwell is fairly vanilla but does a good job portraying Chomsky’s tone of voice.
May 27, 2019
I certainly failed to understand and remember everything in this collected essays, but Chomsky's comments and critical reading of the phenomena around American society in his time awakened the need to think and think again of where we are going. This is important especially now that Philippine society experiences something unique and quite unprecedented.
More interesting for me as a future teacher of epistemology would be his treatment of language and the mind.
More interesting for me as a future teacher of epistemology would be his treatment of language and the mind.
April 24, 2023
A brilliant linguist, humanist, and political commentator, Noam has sadly been marginalized in the era of neoliberalism and the recent surge of ethic nationalism.
Like some, I struggle with the essays on language, maybe giving myself a low pass. His views on our world and the playing out of global politics and economics resonated.
Like some, I struggle with the essays on language, maybe giving myself a low pass. His views on our world and the playing out of global politics and economics resonated.
January 13, 2018
excerpts from several of Chomsky's works. A good book but the order of the excerpts didn't make sense to me - a lot of switching back and forth between politics and linguistics rather than grouping like with like. Overall worth the read, though.
July 3, 2017
This book is a collection of Chomsky's writings on a variety of topics such as his critique of Skinner, linguistics, the role of media in dynamics of power and of course politics. I personally enjoyed the chapters related to global politics mainly situated in the second half of the book.
June 25, 2019
Chomsky vuelve a dejarme sin palabras y con una lucha interna sobre mis privilegios, sobre mi situación ante el mundo y la información, como futura internacionalista.
October 16, 2010
“The Essential Chomsky” is a collection of 25 pieces of writing from Noam Chomsky from the first piece, a critical review of “Verbal Behavior” by B. F. Skinner published in 1959 in the journal “Language” to Chomsky’s afterword from “Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy” from 2006. Chomsky is best known in two areas, one being his career as a linguist, and the other for his outspoken liberal views in which he holds the United States and the West to the same standard which others hold the rest of the world, and there are examples of both contained in this collection edited by Anthony Arnove, who has also written on current affairs.
Arnove makes a good choice in starting with Chomsky’s review of “Verbal Behavior”; because Chomsky’s skillful dissecting of Skinner’s work clearly demonstrates the way Chomsky’s mind works as well as the thoroughness with which he examines every subject. It also is a good choice because one avoids any political bias when reading it. With his political pieces, of course such emotional attachments to one’s position exist, and so it would be much more difficult to set a baseline with one of those pieces.
When looking at the political pieces, Chomsky uses the same logic and thorough examination tactics that he used in his review, and that he also brings to the other writings on linguistics, with varying levels of effectiveness. For example, his brief look at the war crimes committed by the Allies in World War II fails to work for me in some of key areas: he seems to ignore the fact that there are issues with almost all tactics used in war, and the inherent immorality of war; he fails to deal with the reality that
Germany and Japan were both trying to develop nuclear weapons and so there was a need to end the war before they were successful; he fails to deal with the reality that Japan was teaching their “civilians” to fight against the invaders, which then calls into question whether or not they would be considered “civilians” or “enemy combatants”.
That being said, I believe he is right to discuss these issues, because tactics like firebombing, and using nuclear weapons should never go unquestioned, and while one may be able to justify some events, other events may be questionable. Dresden in particular is one event which has caused great debate over the years, and undoubtedly still will for some time to come.
Chomsky’s more thorough look at Vietnam and events since then is far more devastating to the perception of the U.S. and the West than the discussion of World War II. Chomsky meticulously looks at the statements made by our leaders as to why we were involved in these conflicts, and systematically eliminates those which can be shown to be false, leaving behind a rather unappealing reality of what has motivated the U.S. government over the years. Of course, one has to read these sections carefully as well, but here Chomsky offers alternative behaviors which may have had a significant impact on the situation in the world today.
The linguistic sections are also quite good, but many of them are fairly advanced and in some cases require re-reading to fully comprehend the discussion. “Language and the Brain”, for example, is a wonderful look at what is perhaps the most amazing function of the brain, i.e. the capacity to take a grammar and to utilize it unlimited ways to communicate with others. Even if you don’t like Chomsky’s very liberal views on politics, it is articles like this that make reading this book worthwhile.
Whether you are interested in his works on Linguistics, or those of a political nature, Chomsky is fairly consistent in providing a dispassionate discussion of the subject. Of course, his political views might irritate or even infuriate the reader at times, but he never relies on personal attacks or other cheap tactics and instead he stays focused on the subject under discussion. I have always enjoyed reading Chomsky, because he often challenges my views, and forces me to rethink my positions to make sure they have a solid rational foundation and are not built on emotion or personal biases.
This is a very good book, but of course as it provides a little bit on a large variety of subjects, it doesn’t have the depth on any particular subject. Still, it does give the reader an indication of where to go for more with regards to the pieces provided, and then also includes a good bibliography of Chomsky’s works.
Arnove makes a good choice in starting with Chomsky’s review of “Verbal Behavior”; because Chomsky’s skillful dissecting of Skinner’s work clearly demonstrates the way Chomsky’s mind works as well as the thoroughness with which he examines every subject. It also is a good choice because one avoids any political bias when reading it. With his political pieces, of course such emotional attachments to one’s position exist, and so it would be much more difficult to set a baseline with one of those pieces.
When looking at the political pieces, Chomsky uses the same logic and thorough examination tactics that he used in his review, and that he also brings to the other writings on linguistics, with varying levels of effectiveness. For example, his brief look at the war crimes committed by the Allies in World War II fails to work for me in some of key areas: he seems to ignore the fact that there are issues with almost all tactics used in war, and the inherent immorality of war; he fails to deal with the reality that
Germany and Japan were both trying to develop nuclear weapons and so there was a need to end the war before they were successful; he fails to deal with the reality that Japan was teaching their “civilians” to fight against the invaders, which then calls into question whether or not they would be considered “civilians” or “enemy combatants”.
That being said, I believe he is right to discuss these issues, because tactics like firebombing, and using nuclear weapons should never go unquestioned, and while one may be able to justify some events, other events may be questionable. Dresden in particular is one event which has caused great debate over the years, and undoubtedly still will for some time to come.
Chomsky’s more thorough look at Vietnam and events since then is far more devastating to the perception of the U.S. and the West than the discussion of World War II. Chomsky meticulously looks at the statements made by our leaders as to why we were involved in these conflicts, and systematically eliminates those which can be shown to be false, leaving behind a rather unappealing reality of what has motivated the U.S. government over the years. Of course, one has to read these sections carefully as well, but here Chomsky offers alternative behaviors which may have had a significant impact on the situation in the world today.
The linguistic sections are also quite good, but many of them are fairly advanced and in some cases require re-reading to fully comprehend the discussion. “Language and the Brain”, for example, is a wonderful look at what is perhaps the most amazing function of the brain, i.e. the capacity to take a grammar and to utilize it unlimited ways to communicate with others. Even if you don’t like Chomsky’s very liberal views on politics, it is articles like this that make reading this book worthwhile.
Whether you are interested in his works on Linguistics, or those of a political nature, Chomsky is fairly consistent in providing a dispassionate discussion of the subject. Of course, his political views might irritate or even infuriate the reader at times, but he never relies on personal attacks or other cheap tactics and instead he stays focused on the subject under discussion. I have always enjoyed reading Chomsky, because he often challenges my views, and forces me to rethink my positions to make sure they have a solid rational foundation and are not built on emotion or personal biases.
This is a very good book, but of course as it provides a little bit on a large variety of subjects, it doesn’t have the depth on any particular subject. Still, it does give the reader an indication of where to go for more with regards to the pieces provided, and then also includes a good bibliography of Chomsky’s works.
January 11, 2025
In approximately encountered order, here are the major Chomsky topics that appear in this book.
Skinner's animal abuse doesn't apply to human language.
Americans should keep their noses out of other countries' business.
Human language is discrete and infinite.
Chomsky, Mandela, and Solzhenytsin don't think NATO should have bombed Kosovo.
No one ever talks about the negative impacts of NAFTA on Mexico.
The mind is of the brain.
My favorite out of context Chomsky quote is,
"We are lucky that we are incapable of becoming birds, because this follows from the fact that we are capable of becoming humans."
In context, he's talking about how in the womb, arms develop not wings, because we're humans not birds. Likewise, some amount of language capability is innate in humans from birth. It's a perfectly reasonable point, but it's just too funny out of context.
Skinner's animal abuse doesn't apply to human language.
Americans should keep their noses out of other countries' business.
Human language is discrete and infinite.
Chomsky, Mandela, and Solzhenytsin don't think NATO should have bombed Kosovo.
No one ever talks about the negative impacts of NAFTA on Mexico.
The mind is of the brain.
My favorite out of context Chomsky quote is,
"We are lucky that we are incapable of becoming birds, because this follows from the fact that we are capable of becoming humans."
In context, he's talking about how in the womb, arms develop not wings, because we're humans not birds. Likewise, some amount of language capability is innate in humans from birth. It's a perfectly reasonable point, but it's just too funny out of context.
December 23, 2018
I see no reason why this collection even exists.
First, the content. The lectures on linguistics are worthless as standalones. The essays on politics are unbelievably similar to each other and quickly become unbearably boring. Defying double standards is a noble pursuit, but you don't need 20 essays to explain a simple thought.
Second, the format. The order of the essays makes no sense. Audiobook "bonuses": no table of contents (even no names of the chapters), no translation of french quotes.
The first book in my life, where I regularly had to skip the whole chapters.
First, the content. The lectures on linguistics are worthless as standalones. The essays on politics are unbelievably similar to each other and quickly become unbearably boring. Defying double standards is a noble pursuit, but you don't need 20 essays to explain a simple thought.
Second, the format. The order of the essays makes no sense. Audiobook "bonuses": no table of contents (even no names of the chapters), no translation of french quotes.
The first book in my life, where I regularly had to skip the whole chapters.
February 16, 2013
Am glad I read this as I feel I have developed real insight into world events that I didn't have before. It was hard at times, due to seething anger at US foreign policy with the turning of each page, but I'll definitely be reading more Chomsky.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews