What do you think?
Rate this book
American Empire Project
Power Systems: Conversations with David Barsamian on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire
'Power Systems' is a searing collection of new insights from the mind of Noam Chomsky, the world's most prolific public intellectual and author of the best-selling 'Failed States', 'Hopes and Prospects' and 'Occupy'. In this new collection of conversations, conducted from 2010 to 2012, Chomsky explores the most immediate and urgent concerns: the future of democracy in the Arab world, the implications of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the 'class war' fought by U.S. business interests against working people and the poor, the breakdown of mainstream political institutions and the rise of the far right.
211 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2012
186 people are currently reading
5811 people want to read
About the author
Noam Chomsky
975 books17.3k 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 262 reviews
March 4, 2017
I like Chomsky, but I'm no fanboy.
This is the second book of Chomsky-Barsamian conversations I've read. The first was How the World Works, which I read back in 2014 when I was very, very ignorant about global politics. The content shocked me and made me realise how little I knew.
I came to this collection with more knowledge and was therefore able to be more critical.
Firstly: the positives. The conversational format makes the book very easy to read - I've ended up buying two more Chomsky-Barsamian books for quick, light reading. Chomsky is very knowledgeable: I did learn a lot, and some of his insights made me stop reading, look around for a bit, and think 'Shit, the guy's got a point.' Given how easy it is to read, I would recommend picking it up cheap and blitzing through it. The book is very short and won't take you very long - my edition is 224 pages, only 179 of which is the conversational content, the rest is the notes and index - and it's worthwhile reading to gain some knowledge and understanding.
Now for the negatives.
The conversational format - the book consists of edited interview transcripts - means that Chomsky sometimes goes off on an boring tangent or doesn't answer the question well. A lot of topics are discussed, but none in much depth.
Chomsky has a tendency to state things without proper explanation or citation. To me, the most glaring example was on page 77:
There is no explanation as to why an American NHS would eliminate the budget deficit, nor is there any citation for this claim: there are 17 pages of citations, but nothing to back this up.
When I bought How the World Works back in 2014, a friend of mine told me (I'm paraphrasing): 'Chomsky's political output is very different to his empirical linguistic work. He knows an awful lot, but doesn't have much understanding of how it all fits together.' Nearly 3 years later I understand this statement.
Chomsky is extremely knowledgeable about the crimes and injustices committed by America and its allies, but he doesn't synthesize this knowledge into a complex understanding of the world: everything comes down to a simplistic Good&Evil narrative. America is an Evil Empire oppressing the world. Perhaps the human mind is too limited to process so much information into a complex global narrative: we all love a compelling Good vs Evil story, possibly a hangover from the old tribal way of life, We the Good Tribe versus Them the Baddies. This worldview can get a bit tiring and repetitive - it is almost the equal opposite of the mainstream American Good&Evil narrative: American the Good Guys spreading the joys of democracy and capitalism around the world. Both narratives are too simplistic. The world is a very complex place.
I came to this book having recently watched a lot of John Pilger documentaries: I highly recommend them; most can be watched for free on Pilger's website. Like Chomsky, Pilger is of the anti-imperialist Left, who oppose Western economic and military imperialism. Like Chomsky, Pilger's view is Manichean: the Evil Western Powers vs The World's Suffering Poor. It is a narrow view, but a very important narrow view because it highlights the crimes of the West and its allies, which should be more well known, better reported, and better understood.
I expect Chomsky and Pilger's Manichean worldview is strengthened by how relatively little-known Western crimes are: their frustration over people being ignorant, and being kept ignorant by a complicit media, feeds back into their outrage about imperialist crimes, making America and its allies seem even more evil. The Internet makes information about these crimes more readily available, but they are still little known. Chomsky and Pilger are both veteran dissidents from before the Internet; they've been outraged about American crimes for a long time.
Conversational Chomsky is worth reading for easy knowledge and insight, despite his flaws and the hit&miss conversational format. I haven't read technical Chomsky yet, though I will probably give Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media a go. The documentaries of John Pilger, who has a very similar worldview to Chomsky, are certainly worth watching.
This is the second book of Chomsky-Barsamian conversations I've read. The first was How the World Works, which I read back in 2014 when I was very, very ignorant about global politics. The content shocked me and made me realise how little I knew.
I came to this collection with more knowledge and was therefore able to be more critical.
Firstly: the positives. The conversational format makes the book very easy to read - I've ended up buying two more Chomsky-Barsamian books for quick, light reading. Chomsky is very knowledgeable: I did learn a lot, and some of his insights made me stop reading, look around for a bit, and think 'Shit, the guy's got a point.' Given how easy it is to read, I would recommend picking it up cheap and blitzing through it. The book is very short and won't take you very long - my edition is 224 pages, only 179 of which is the conversational content, the rest is the notes and index - and it's worthwhile reading to gain some knowledge and understanding.
Now for the negatives.
The conversational format - the book consists of edited interview transcripts - means that Chomsky sometimes goes off on an boring tangent or doesn't answer the question well. A lot of topics are discussed, but none in much depth.
Chomsky has a tendency to state things without proper explanation or citation. To me, the most glaring example was on page 77:
A national health care system would, incidentally, eliminate the deficit, among other things - not that the deficit is all that important.
There is no explanation as to why an American NHS would eliminate the budget deficit, nor is there any citation for this claim: there are 17 pages of citations, but nothing to back this up.
When I bought How the World Works back in 2014, a friend of mine told me (I'm paraphrasing): 'Chomsky's political output is very different to his empirical linguistic work. He knows an awful lot, but doesn't have much understanding of how it all fits together.' Nearly 3 years later I understand this statement.
Chomsky is extremely knowledgeable about the crimes and injustices committed by America and its allies, but he doesn't synthesize this knowledge into a complex understanding of the world: everything comes down to a simplistic Good&Evil narrative. America is an Evil Empire oppressing the world. Perhaps the human mind is too limited to process so much information into a complex global narrative: we all love a compelling Good vs Evil story, possibly a hangover from the old tribal way of life, We the Good Tribe versus Them the Baddies. This worldview can get a bit tiring and repetitive - it is almost the equal opposite of the mainstream American Good&Evil narrative: American the Good Guys spreading the joys of democracy and capitalism around the world. Both narratives are too simplistic. The world is a very complex place.
I came to this book having recently watched a lot of John Pilger documentaries: I highly recommend them; most can be watched for free on Pilger's website. Like Chomsky, Pilger is of the anti-imperialist Left, who oppose Western economic and military imperialism. Like Chomsky, Pilger's view is Manichean: the Evil Western Powers vs The World's Suffering Poor. It is a narrow view, but a very important narrow view because it highlights the crimes of the West and its allies, which should be more well known, better reported, and better understood.
I expect Chomsky and Pilger's Manichean worldview is strengthened by how relatively little-known Western crimes are: their frustration over people being ignorant, and being kept ignorant by a complicit media, feeds back into their outrage about imperialist crimes, making America and its allies seem even more evil. The Internet makes information about these crimes more readily available, but they are still little known. Chomsky and Pilger are both veteran dissidents from before the Internet; they've been outraged about American crimes for a long time.
Conversational Chomsky is worth reading for easy knowledge and insight, despite his flaws and the hit&miss conversational format. I haven't read technical Chomsky yet, though I will probably give Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media a go. The documentaries of John Pilger, who has a very similar worldview to Chomsky, are certainly worth watching.
November 14, 2015
This book introduces readers to Chomsky's witty analysis of the latest events unfolding around the world. Chomsky is a brilliant scholar and analyst, and this book is very convenient intro for someone reading him for the first time.
June 26, 2020
Chomsky is king.
April 30, 2024
"Power Systems" de Chomsky ofrece una colección de ensayos perspicaces que examinan críticamente el funcionamiento del poder en la sociedad contemporánea. Chomsky, conocido por su análisis incisivo y su perspectiva anarquista, proporciona una mirada penetrante a las estructuras de poder que moldean nuestras vidas.
Una de las fortalezas de este libro es la profundidad de su análisis y la claridad de su exposición. Chomsky desentraña de manera efectiva las complejidades de temas como la política exterior de Estados Unidos, la concentración del poder corporativo y la manipulación mediática, ofreciendo una visión que desafía las narrativas convencionales.
Además, "Power Systems" destaca por su capacidad para despertar el pensamiento crítico en el lector y estimular el debate sobre cuestiones fundamentales de justicia social y democracia. Los ensayos de Chomsky invitan a reflexionar sobre el papel del individuo en la sociedad y a considerar formas de resistencia y cambio frente a las estructuras de poder establecidas.
Sin embargo, a pesar de sus méritos, el libro puede resultar denso y abrumador para algunos lectores debido a la complejidad de los temas tratados y la abundancia de información presentada. La extensión de los ensayos y la profundidad de su análisis pueden hacer que la lectura sea difícil de digerir en ocasiones, lo que limita su accesibilidad para un público más amplio. Muchos conceptos se mencionan sin proveer ningún contexto más allá del que se asume que el lector ya tiene.
Otro aspecto a considerar es la naturaleza a menudo pesimista de los monólogos de Chomsky, que pueden dejar al lector con una sensación de desesperanza o impotencia frente a las fuerzas del poder establecido. Aunque es importante reconocer y confrontar las injusticias del mundo, un enfoque exclusivamente crítico puede llevar a una sensación de desmoralización en lugar de inspirar la acción y el cambio, sobre todo cuando no se profundiza en las acciones que se pueden tomar para erradicar tales injusticias. Por ejemplo, en ocasiones Chomsky simplemente alardea sobre movimientos como el de "Occupy" sin realmente abordar los aspectos prácticos que fueron necesarios para su éxito e impacto.
En resumen, "Power Systems" es una obra que ofrece un análisis profundo y provocador de las estructuras de poder en la sociedad contemporánea. Aunque su densidad y su tono pesimista pueden limitar su accesibilidad y su capacidad para inspirar la acción, sigue siendo una lectura valiosa para aquellos interesados en comprender y cuestionar las fuerzas que dan forma al mundo en que vivimos. Por lo tanto, merece una reseña de tres estrellas.
Una de las fortalezas de este libro es la profundidad de su análisis y la claridad de su exposición. Chomsky desentraña de manera efectiva las complejidades de temas como la política exterior de Estados Unidos, la concentración del poder corporativo y la manipulación mediática, ofreciendo una visión que desafía las narrativas convencionales.
Además, "Power Systems" destaca por su capacidad para despertar el pensamiento crítico en el lector y estimular el debate sobre cuestiones fundamentales de justicia social y democracia. Los ensayos de Chomsky invitan a reflexionar sobre el papel del individuo en la sociedad y a considerar formas de resistencia y cambio frente a las estructuras de poder establecidas.
Sin embargo, a pesar de sus méritos, el libro puede resultar denso y abrumador para algunos lectores debido a la complejidad de los temas tratados y la abundancia de información presentada. La extensión de los ensayos y la profundidad de su análisis pueden hacer que la lectura sea difícil de digerir en ocasiones, lo que limita su accesibilidad para un público más amplio. Muchos conceptos se mencionan sin proveer ningún contexto más allá del que se asume que el lector ya tiene.
Otro aspecto a considerar es la naturaleza a menudo pesimista de los monólogos de Chomsky, que pueden dejar al lector con una sensación de desesperanza o impotencia frente a las fuerzas del poder establecido. Aunque es importante reconocer y confrontar las injusticias del mundo, un enfoque exclusivamente crítico puede llevar a una sensación de desmoralización en lugar de inspirar la acción y el cambio, sobre todo cuando no se profundiza en las acciones que se pueden tomar para erradicar tales injusticias. Por ejemplo, en ocasiones Chomsky simplemente alardea sobre movimientos como el de "Occupy" sin realmente abordar los aspectos prácticos que fueron necesarios para su éxito e impacto.
En resumen, "Power Systems" es una obra que ofrece un análisis profundo y provocador de las estructuras de poder en la sociedad contemporánea. Aunque su densidad y su tono pesimista pueden limitar su accesibilidad y su capacidad para inspirar la acción, sigue siendo una lectura valiosa para aquellos interesados en comprender y cuestionar las fuerzas que dan forma al mundo en que vivimos. Por lo tanto, merece una reseña de tres estrellas.
September 15, 2019
Nothing new on the Western front for this collections of interviews between David Barsamian and Noam Chomsky, there's not much readers/listeners/viewers of Chomsky will find new, aside from a few references to his literary tastes, elaborations on his views on language and a few insights into the situation of Turkey for me, for example. Otherwise, the themes of American imperialism, colonialism, crony capitalism, American war crimes, the role of corporation and the financialization of society and the role of media will be familiar to many.
A lot of the information is already pretty dated, although Chomsky does a pretty good analysis of the web of international relations and how they are tied together and looking at it today, his points are still mostly valid.
A good start for readers getting into Chomsky, although How the World Works would be a better one. Also, it's good to bear in mind this is Chomsky being interviewed, so more or less ''chill'' Chomsky that's hanging back and giving his takes on various issues. For getting into the deep end it's probably far better to consult his magnum opus, ''Manufacturing Consent'', where he does proper research and the book follows a narrative that is more cohesive than a collection of interviews and rapid fire answers.
A lot of the information is already pretty dated, although Chomsky does a pretty good analysis of the web of international relations and how they are tied together and looking at it today, his points are still mostly valid.
A good start for readers getting into Chomsky, although How the World Works would be a better one. Also, it's good to bear in mind this is Chomsky being interviewed, so more or less ''chill'' Chomsky that's hanging back and giving his takes on various issues. For getting into the deep end it's probably far better to consult his magnum opus, ''Manufacturing Consent'', where he does proper research and the book follows a narrative that is more cohesive than a collection of interviews and rapid fire answers.
February 16, 2014
Now in his mid-80s, Noam Chomsky shows no signs of slowing down. I always get a mental recharging when I read this guy!
May 24, 2020
বব মার্লের Redemption গানে একটা কথা আছে " Emancipate yourself from mental slavery "
চমস্কি মনে করেন, মানসিক দাসত্ব থেকে মুক্ত হওয়া সহজ কর্ম নয়। কেননা যখন রাষ্ট্র দেখে নাগরিকদের প্রোপাগাণ্ডার মাধ্যমে নিয়ন্ত্রণ করা যাচ্ছে না কিংবা তাঁরা নিজেদের অধিকার সম্পর্কে অধিকতর সচেতন হয়ে উঠছে, তখন রাষ্ট্র আগ্রাসী রূপ নেয়। বিভিন্ন পন্থায় দমন করে সচেতনচিত্তের মানুষদের, নিয়ন্ত্রণ নেয় মনস্তত্ত্বের। ঠিক কেন রাষ্ট্র সবসময় নিজের ভূখণ্ডের পাশাপাশি অন্য দেশের জনতার ওপর একাধিপত্য কায়েম করতে চায় তার উত্তর দিয়েছেন চমস্কি। Criminal State তথা অপরাধী রাষ্ট্রগুলোই জনতাকে ক্ষমতার অংশ মনে করে না। বরং ক্ষমতার অধীনস্থ জ্ঞান করে।
চমস্কির সাক্ষাৎকার সবচেয়ে জমজমাট হয় ডেভিড বার্সামিয়ানের সঙ্গে। এই বার্সামিয়ান সাব আসর জমাতে পটু। এবারেও তার ব্যত্যয় হয়নি।
ভিয়েতনাম যুদ্ধ ছিল একেবারেই খামোখা। ভিয়েতনামের মতো পুঁচকে দেশের সাথে শান্তি চুক্তি করতে হবে তা মানা যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের পক্ষে সম্মানের প্রশ্ন ছিল। স্রেফ প্রেস্টিজ ইস্যুর জন্য এরা ভিয়েতনামে হামলা করে।
আবার ভাববেন না সবসময় ইউ.এস প্রেস্টিজ সচেতন৷ 'গণতন্ত্রের ফেরিওয়ালা' এই দেশটি পিতা জর্জ ওয়াশিংটন একে এম্পায়ার তথা সাম্রাজ্য হিসেবে উল্লেখ করে গেছেন। অর্থাৎ জন্ম থেকেই দেশটির সাম্রাজিক উচ্চাভিলাষ ছিল। এই গণতন্ত্রের ফেরিওয়ালাদের কিছু মক্কেল রাষ্ট্র আছে। মজার বিষয় হলো এই রাষ্ট্রগুলির হর্তাকর্তারা বেশিরভাগ সময় হয় একনায়করা। যেমন, জিয়াউল হক, মবুতু, দুভেলিয়র, সুহার্তো ইত্যাদি। আরও আগ্রহোদ্দীপক হলো যখনই যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের স্বার্থ রক্ষায় ব্যর্থ হয় এইসব ডিক্টেটররা, তখনই গণতন্ত্র রপ্তানির কাজ শুরু করে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র এবং তার মিত্ররা।
ও��ামা বিন লাদেন টুইন টাওয়ারে হামলা করেছিল এর কোনো সুস্পষ্ট প্রমাণ নেই। তালিবানরা তো যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের মিত্র ছিল। তবু কেন ইঙ্গ-মার্কিন শক্তি হামলা করলো আফগানিস্তান? দুইটি কারণে আফগানিস্তান দখলে রাখা অত্যাবশ্যক ছিল। এক. ভৌগলিক কারণে আফগানিস্তান খুব গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। দুই. ট্রান্স-আফগান গ্যাসের পাইপলাইন বসাতে আফগানিস্তানের বিকল্প নেই।
যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের একনিষ্ঠ ভক্ত এবং সেবক ছিলেন সাদ্দাম হোসেন। কিন্তু এই ভক্তটি বখে যায়। তাকে শায়েস্তা করতে এবং সম্ভবত বিশ্বের দ্বিতীয় বৃহত্তম তেলক্ষেত্র লুট করতেই ইরাকে হামলা করা হয়।
আজকে এরদোগান সাব মুসলিম বিশ্বের বড়া নেতা। হিস্টরিক্যাল আ্যমনেশিয়া তথা ঐতিহাসিক স্মৃতিবিভ্রমের শিকার জনতাকে চমস্কি স্মরণ করিয়ে দিয়েছেন অসভ্য রাষ্ট্র ইসরাইলের সাথে তুরস্কের দোস্তি পঞ্চাশের দশক থেকে। বন্ধু ইসরাইল তুরস্কের আর্মেনিয় নিধনের বিরুদ্ধে কোনো ব্যবস্থা নেওয়ার তীব্র বিরোধিতা করে দোস্ত তুরস্কের পাশে ছিল।
দ্বিতীয় মহাযুদ্ধের পর বিশ্বমোড়ল ইউএসের উত্থান। আজ আগের সুদিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের নেই। নয়া ক্ষমতাকাঠামো তৈরি হচ্ছে। তবু যুক্তরাষ্ট্র তার শয়তানি কার্যক্রম সীমিত করেনি বলেই মনে করেন আমাদের কালের নায়ক নোয়াম চমস্কি।
চমস্কি মানেই চিন্তারাজ্যে নতুন নতুন দ্বার উন্মোচন। তাই তাঁর সাক্ষাৎকারগ্রন্থ নিয়ে আলাদা করে বলবার নেই। অবশ্যই পড়া যায়।
চমস্কি মনে করেন, মানসিক দাসত্ব থেকে মুক্ত হওয়া সহজ কর্ম নয়। কেননা যখন রাষ্ট্র দেখে নাগরিকদের প্রোপাগাণ্ডার মাধ্যমে নিয়ন্ত্রণ করা যাচ্ছে না কিংবা তাঁরা নিজেদের অধিকার সম্পর্কে অধিকতর সচেতন হয়ে উঠছে, তখন রাষ্ট্র আগ্রাসী রূপ নেয়। বিভিন্ন পন্থায় দমন করে সচেতনচিত্তের মানুষদের, নিয়ন্ত্রণ নেয় মনস্তত্ত্বের। ঠিক কেন রাষ্ট্র সবসময় নিজের ভূখণ্ডের পাশাপাশি অন্য দেশের জনতার ওপর একাধিপত্য কায়েম করতে চায় তার উত্তর দিয়েছেন চমস্কি। Criminal State তথা অপরাধী রাষ্ট্রগুলোই জনতাকে ক্ষমতার অংশ মনে করে না। বরং ক্ষমতার অধীনস্থ জ্ঞান করে।
চমস্কির সাক্ষাৎকার সবচেয়ে জমজমাট হয় ডেভিড বার্সামিয়ানের সঙ্গে। এই বার্সামিয়ান সাব আসর জমাতে পটু। এবারেও তার ব্যত্যয় হয়নি।
ভিয়েতনাম যুদ্ধ ছিল একেবারেই খামোখা। ভিয়েতনামের মতো পুঁচকে দেশের সাথে শান্তি চুক্তি করতে হবে তা মানা যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের পক্ষে সম্মানের প্রশ্ন ছিল। স্রেফ প্রেস্টিজ ইস্যুর জন্য এরা ভিয়েতনামে হামলা করে।
আবার ভাববেন না সবসময় ইউ.এস প্রেস্টিজ সচেতন৷ 'গণতন্ত্রের ফেরিওয়ালা' এই দেশটি পিতা জর্জ ওয়াশিংটন একে এম্পায়ার তথা সাম্রাজ্য হিসেবে উল্লেখ করে গেছেন। অর্থাৎ জন্ম থেকেই দেশটির সাম্রাজিক উচ্চাভিলাষ ছিল। এই গণতন্ত্রের ফেরিওয়ালাদের কিছু মক্কেল রাষ্ট্র আছে। মজার বিষয় হলো এই রাষ্ট্রগুলির হর্তাকর্তারা বেশিরভাগ সময় হয় একনায়করা। যেমন, জিয়াউল হক, মবুতু, দুভেলিয়র, সুহার্তো ইত্যাদি। আরও আগ্রহোদ্দীপক হলো যখনই যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের স্বার্থ রক্ষায় ব্যর্থ হয় এইসব ডিক্টেটররা, তখনই গণতন্ত্র রপ্তানির কাজ শুরু করে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র এবং তার মিত্ররা।
ও��ামা বিন লাদেন টুইন টাওয়ারে হামলা করেছিল এর কোনো সুস্পষ্ট প্রমাণ নেই। তালিবানরা তো যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের মিত্র ছিল। তবু কেন ইঙ্গ-মার্কিন শক্তি হামলা করলো আফগানিস্তান? দুইটি কারণে আফগানিস্তান দখলে রাখা অত্যাবশ্যক ছিল। এক. ভৌগলিক কারণে আফগানিস্তান খুব গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। দুই. ট্রান্স-আফগান গ্যাসের পাইপলাইন বসাতে আফগানিস্তানের বিকল্প নেই।
যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের একনিষ্ঠ ভক্ত এবং সেবক ছিলেন সাদ্দাম হোসেন। কিন্তু এই ভক্তটি বখে যায়। তাকে শায়েস্তা করতে এবং সম্ভবত বিশ্বের দ্বিতীয় বৃহত্তম তেলক্ষেত্র লুট করতেই ইরাকে হামলা করা হয়।
আজকে এরদোগান সাব মুসলিম বিশ্বের বড়া নেতা। হিস্টরিক্যাল আ্যমনেশিয়া তথা ঐতিহাসিক স্মৃতিবিভ্রমের শিকার জনতাকে চমস্কি স্মরণ করিয়ে দিয়েছেন অসভ্য রাষ্ট্র ইসরাইলের সাথে তুরস্কের দোস্তি পঞ্চাশের দশক থেকে। বন্ধু ইসরাইল তুরস্কের আর্মেনিয় নিধনের বিরুদ্ধে কোনো ব্যবস্থা নেওয়ার তীব্র বিরোধিতা করে দোস্ত তুরস্কের পাশে ছিল।
দ্বিতীয় মহাযুদ্ধের পর বিশ্বমোড়ল ইউএসের উত্থান। আজ আগের সুদিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের নেই। নয়া ক্ষমতাকাঠামো তৈরি হচ্ছে। তবু যুক্তরাষ্ট্র তার শয়তানি কার্যক্রম সীমিত করেনি বলেই মনে করেন আমাদের কালের নায়ক নোয়াম চমস্কি।
চমস্কি মানেই চিন্তারাজ্যে নতুন নতুন দ্বার উন্মোচন। তাই তাঁর সাক্ষাৎকারগ্রন্থ নিয়ে আলাদা করে বলবার নেই। অবশ্যই পড়া যায়।
February 1, 2013
What can I say? It's a collection of interviews with one of the most influential dissidents of our times. The topics covered in this book are broad: Arab Uprisings, U.S. foreign policy, climate change, the neoliberal attack on society at-large and on public schools specifically, etc.. Chomsky also yields questions about his specialty - linguistics.
I found myself knowing the basics of most of what he speaks of in this book but he illuminates a lot of stuff, adds important and necessary commentary and insights, gives clairty and gives lots of recommendations if one wants to further educate themselves on what he's speaking of. For example, when asked about tuition increases, Chomsky notes that Benjamin Ginsberg's book - "The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters" is a great source for more on this topic. "Power Systems" is fresh, and Chomsky once-again proves why he is loved by many, and feared by others.
It's a quick read - the pages fly by - and by the end of it, I felt invigorated and inspired to keep on, keepin' on.
Read. This. Book.
I found myself knowing the basics of most of what he speaks of in this book but he illuminates a lot of stuff, adds important and necessary commentary and insights, gives clairty and gives lots of recommendations if one wants to further educate themselves on what he's speaking of. For example, when asked about tuition increases, Chomsky notes that Benjamin Ginsberg's book - "The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters" is a great source for more on this topic. "Power Systems" is fresh, and Chomsky once-again proves why he is loved by many, and feared by others.
It's a quick read - the pages fly by - and by the end of it, I felt invigorated and inspired to keep on, keepin' on.
Read. This. Book.
June 4, 2014
Good collection of interviews from 2010-2012 by long-time Chomsky interrogator David Barsamian. Includes a lengthy discussion of his linguistics work and his thoughts on social media and ebooks.
Here are some quotes I liked:
Contrary to a lot of mythology, Kennedy was one of the hawks in the administration to the very last minute.
I think talk about American decline should be taken with a grain of salt.
Indian forces attacking the tribal areas are apparently using Israeli technology.
Small countries hire individual terrorists like Carlos the Jackal. The United States hires terrorist states. It’s much more efficient. You can do a much more murderous and brutal job. Israel is one. Taiwan is another. Britain has also played that role.
If you go back to the nineteenth century, the indigenous population of the United States resisted... India is now in the stage the United States was in during the nineteenth century.
No, there is no real Left now. If you are just counting heads, there are probably more people involved than in the 1960s, but they are atomized, committed to different special interests—gay rights, environmental rights, this, that. They don’t coalesce into a movement that can really do things.
What’s lacking is the consciousness that began to arise in the 1930s—we’ll take it over and run it ourselves. The things that really put the fear of God into manufacturers and the government in the 1930s were the sit-down strikes. A sit-down strike is just one step short of saying, “Look, instead of sitting down, we’ll run this place. We don’t need owners and managers.” That’s huge. That could be done in Detroit and in other places that are being closed down.
The major propaganda systems that we face now, mostly growing out of the huge public relations industry, were developed quite consciously about a century ago in the freest countries in the world, in Britain and the United States, because of a very clear and articulated recognition that people had gained so many rights that it was hard to suppress them by force. So you had to try to control their attitudes and beliefs or divert them somehow. As the economist Paul Nystrom argued, you have to try to fabricate consumers and create wants so people will be trapped. It’s a common method.
Private power doesn’t like public education, for many reasons. One is the principle on which it’s based, which is threatening to power. Public education is based on a principle of solidarity. So, for example, I had my children fifty years ago. Nevertheless, I feel and I’m supposed to feel that I should pay taxes so that the kids across the street can go to school. That’s counter to the doctrine that you should just look after yourself and let everyone else fall by the wayside, a basic principle of business rule. Public education is a threat to that belief system because it builds up a sense of solidarity, community, mutual support.
But public education and Social Security are residues of a dangerous conception that we’re all in this together and we have to work together to create a better life and a better future. If you’re trying to maximize profit or maximize consumption, then working together is the wrong idea. It has to be beaten out of people’s heads.
If we’re talking about feasible objectives in the short term, it’s kind of meaningless to talk about socialism. There isn’t a popular base for it. There isn’t an understanding of it.
The most recent financial crisis, apart from what it has done to the general population, has been absolutely devastating for the African American population. Their net worth is now one twentieth that of whites. It’s the lowest it’s been since statistics were first taken.
In Egypt or Tunisia you follow the traditional game plan. It’s as old as the hills. If there is a dictator you support who’s losing control, support him until the end. If this becomes impossible, because maybe the army or the business community turns against him, shelve him, send him off somewhere, issue dramatic proclamations about your love of democracy, and then try to restore the old regime to the extent it’s possible.
There are enormous propaganda efforts to try to denigrate it [the Occupy movement] and undermine the movement, to say it’s the politics of envy. Why don’t you shower and get a job? And this has its effect, undoubtedly.
Unless the labor movement is revitalized and becomes a core part of the movement, I don’t think it’s going to get very far. Revitalizing the labor movement may seem like a real long shot, if you take a look at the country today, but conditions now are actually no worse than they were in the 1930s. Remember that by the 1920s the American labor movement, which had been militant and successful, had been virtually crushed... But the labor movement was resurrected.
Sectarianism is very serious. The core of U.S. popular activism in the 1960s was the civil rights movement. But by the mid-1960s it had basically shattered.
[I]f a multinational corporation is shutting down an efficient manufacturing installation because it doesn’t make enough profit for them and they would rather shift it to China, the workforce and community could decide that they want to take it over, purchase it, direct it, and keep it running. In fact, that’s something proposed in standard works of business economics, which point out that there is no law of economics or capitalism that says firms have to act in the interest of shareholders, not stakeholders. The stakeholder is anybody their actions have an impact on: the workforce, the community, others. The Occupy movement could at least be as imaginative as a standard business economics text. If they pursue that, it could lead to quite far-reaching changes.
[T]he basis of a corporation is limited liability, meaning as a participant in a corporation you’re not personally liable if it, say, murders tens of thousands of people at Bhopal.
Also, these institutions are directed to maximize shareholder rights at the expense of stakeholder rights by law. Why should we accept that? It’s not an economic principle, certainly.
[W]e’ve never had capitalism, so it can’t end.
[I]t’s the governed who have the power. And the rulers have to find ways to keep them from using their power. Force has its limits, so they have to use persuasion. They have to somehow find ways to convince people to accept authority. If they aren’t able to do that, the whole thing is going to collapse.
If you can trap people into not noticing, let alone questioning, crucial doctrines, they’re enslaved. They’ll essentially follow orders as if there was a gun pointed at them.
Anyone who has taken care of children knows it’s work, hard work.
The driving force behind these changes is people who claim that they are fighting for “family values.” The people who call themselves conservatives say, “We have to maintain family values by preventing women from having a choice as to whether they will have children, and then by not giving them any support when they have to take care of their children. That’s how we preserve family values.” The internal contradictions are amazing.
Actually, there is a third set of scientists, who almost never make it into print, and it’s much larger than the fringe of [climate change] denialists: people who say that the consensus is much too conservative, that the risks are much higher.
[Social media] reminds me of a close friend of mine as a kid who had a little booklet in which he wrote the names of all his friends. He used to boast that he had two hundred friends, which meant he had no friends, because you don’t have two hundred friends. And I suspect that it’s similar to that. If you have a whole bunch of friends on Facebook or whatever, it almost has to be pretty superficial. If that’s your outlet to the world, there’s something really missing in your life.
You’re walking down the street, a thought comes to you, you tweet it. If you thought for two minutes, or if you had made the slight effort involved in looking up the topic, you wouldn’t have sent it.
If you have a free education that engenders creativity and independence, the way of looking at the world that we were talking about before, people are going to come for your throat because they won’t want to be governed. So yes, let’s have a mass education system, but of a particular kind, one that inculcates obedience, subordination, acceptance of authority, acceptance of doctrine. One that doesn’t raise too many questions.
This was described nicely by one of the great modern physicists, Victor Weisskopf, who died some years ago. When students would ask him what his course would cover, he would say, “It doesn’t matter what we cover. It matters what you discover.”
Students are burdened by huge debts. The laws have been changed so there’s no way out—no bankruptcy, no escape. So you’re trapped for life. That’s quite a technique of indoctrination and control. There’s no economic basis for rising tuition costs. In the 1950s, our society was much poorer, but education was essentially free.
When people talk about the government in the United States, they’re talking about some alien force. Hatred of democracy is so deeply embedded in the doctrinal system that you don’t think of the government as your instrument. It’s some alien instrument. It’s taken a lot of work to make people hate democracy that much. In a democratic society, to the extent that it’s a democratic society, the government is you. It’s your decisions. But the government here is depicted as something that’s attacking us, not our instrument to do what we decide.
April 15, the day when you pay your taxes, gives you a good index of how democracy is functioning. If democracy were functioning effectively, April 15 would be a day of celebration. That’s a day on which we get together to contribute to implementing the policies that we’ve decided on. That’s what April 15 ought to be. Here it’s a day of mourning. This alien force is coming to steal your hard-earned money from you. That indicates an extreme contempt for democracy. And it’s natural that a business-run society and doctrinal system should try to inculcate that belief.
Every night when I come home and start to answer the day’s hundreds of e-mails, a fair number are from young people saying, “I don’t like the way the world is going. In fact, I can’t stand it. What should I do?” By now I receive so many that I’m almost compelled to resort to form responses. And what I point out is that you’re well on the way to answering the question yourself, because you recognize there’s a problem. There is no general answer for everybody. There is no right answer for every person, in all circumstances. It depends on who you are, what your concerns are, what your options are, how much you want to devote yourself to it, what your talents are. But you’re probably pretty privileged. Otherwise you wouldn’t be writing me a letter on the Internet. That means you have a lot of opportunities—much more than your counterparts in other countries, or even here a generation ago. So there is a legacy that you can use. It’s not going to be easy—it never is. But you can make a difference. You just have to find your own way.
Here are some quotes I liked:
Contrary to a lot of mythology, Kennedy was one of the hawks in the administration to the very last minute.
I think talk about American decline should be taken with a grain of salt.
Indian forces attacking the tribal areas are apparently using Israeli technology.
Small countries hire individual terrorists like Carlos the Jackal. The United States hires terrorist states. It’s much more efficient. You can do a much more murderous and brutal job. Israel is one. Taiwan is another. Britain has also played that role.
If you go back to the nineteenth century, the indigenous population of the United States resisted... India is now in the stage the United States was in during the nineteenth century.
No, there is no real Left now. If you are just counting heads, there are probably more people involved than in the 1960s, but they are atomized, committed to different special interests—gay rights, environmental rights, this, that. They don’t coalesce into a movement that can really do things.
What’s lacking is the consciousness that began to arise in the 1930s—we’ll take it over and run it ourselves. The things that really put the fear of God into manufacturers and the government in the 1930s were the sit-down strikes. A sit-down strike is just one step short of saying, “Look, instead of sitting down, we’ll run this place. We don’t need owners and managers.” That’s huge. That could be done in Detroit and in other places that are being closed down.
The major propaganda systems that we face now, mostly growing out of the huge public relations industry, were developed quite consciously about a century ago in the freest countries in the world, in Britain and the United States, because of a very clear and articulated recognition that people had gained so many rights that it was hard to suppress them by force. So you had to try to control their attitudes and beliefs or divert them somehow. As the economist Paul Nystrom argued, you have to try to fabricate consumers and create wants so people will be trapped. It’s a common method.
Private power doesn’t like public education, for many reasons. One is the principle on which it’s based, which is threatening to power. Public education is based on a principle of solidarity. So, for example, I had my children fifty years ago. Nevertheless, I feel and I’m supposed to feel that I should pay taxes so that the kids across the street can go to school. That’s counter to the doctrine that you should just look after yourself and let everyone else fall by the wayside, a basic principle of business rule. Public education is a threat to that belief system because it builds up a sense of solidarity, community, mutual support.
But public education and Social Security are residues of a dangerous conception that we’re all in this together and we have to work together to create a better life and a better future. If you’re trying to maximize profit or maximize consumption, then working together is the wrong idea. It has to be beaten out of people’s heads.
If we’re talking about feasible objectives in the short term, it’s kind of meaningless to talk about socialism. There isn’t a popular base for it. There isn’t an understanding of it.
The most recent financial crisis, apart from what it has done to the general population, has been absolutely devastating for the African American population. Their net worth is now one twentieth that of whites. It’s the lowest it’s been since statistics were first taken.
In Egypt or Tunisia you follow the traditional game plan. It’s as old as the hills. If there is a dictator you support who’s losing control, support him until the end. If this becomes impossible, because maybe the army or the business community turns against him, shelve him, send him off somewhere, issue dramatic proclamations about your love of democracy, and then try to restore the old regime to the extent it’s possible.
There are enormous propaganda efforts to try to denigrate it [the Occupy movement] and undermine the movement, to say it’s the politics of envy. Why don’t you shower and get a job? And this has its effect, undoubtedly.
Unless the labor movement is revitalized and becomes a core part of the movement, I don’t think it’s going to get very far. Revitalizing the labor movement may seem like a real long shot, if you take a look at the country today, but conditions now are actually no worse than they were in the 1930s. Remember that by the 1920s the American labor movement, which had been militant and successful, had been virtually crushed... But the labor movement was resurrected.
Sectarianism is very serious. The core of U.S. popular activism in the 1960s was the civil rights movement. But by the mid-1960s it had basically shattered.
[I]f a multinational corporation is shutting down an efficient manufacturing installation because it doesn’t make enough profit for them and they would rather shift it to China, the workforce and community could decide that they want to take it over, purchase it, direct it, and keep it running. In fact, that’s something proposed in standard works of business economics, which point out that there is no law of economics or capitalism that says firms have to act in the interest of shareholders, not stakeholders. The stakeholder is anybody their actions have an impact on: the workforce, the community, others. The Occupy movement could at least be as imaginative as a standard business economics text. If they pursue that, it could lead to quite far-reaching changes.
[T]he basis of a corporation is limited liability, meaning as a participant in a corporation you’re not personally liable if it, say, murders tens of thousands of people at Bhopal.
Also, these institutions are directed to maximize shareholder rights at the expense of stakeholder rights by law. Why should we accept that? It’s not an economic principle, certainly.
[W]e’ve never had capitalism, so it can’t end.
[I]t’s the governed who have the power. And the rulers have to find ways to keep them from using their power. Force has its limits, so they have to use persuasion. They have to somehow find ways to convince people to accept authority. If they aren’t able to do that, the whole thing is going to collapse.
If you can trap people into not noticing, let alone questioning, crucial doctrines, they’re enslaved. They’ll essentially follow orders as if there was a gun pointed at them.
Anyone who has taken care of children knows it’s work, hard work.
The driving force behind these changes is people who claim that they are fighting for “family values.” The people who call themselves conservatives say, “We have to maintain family values by preventing women from having a choice as to whether they will have children, and then by not giving them any support when they have to take care of their children. That’s how we preserve family values.” The internal contradictions are amazing.
Actually, there is a third set of scientists, who almost never make it into print, and it’s much larger than the fringe of [climate change] denialists: people who say that the consensus is much too conservative, that the risks are much higher.
[Social media] reminds me of a close friend of mine as a kid who had a little booklet in which he wrote the names of all his friends. He used to boast that he had two hundred friends, which meant he had no friends, because you don’t have two hundred friends. And I suspect that it’s similar to that. If you have a whole bunch of friends on Facebook or whatever, it almost has to be pretty superficial. If that’s your outlet to the world, there’s something really missing in your life.
You’re walking down the street, a thought comes to you, you tweet it. If you thought for two minutes, or if you had made the slight effort involved in looking up the topic, you wouldn’t have sent it.
If you have a free education that engenders creativity and independence, the way of looking at the world that we were talking about before, people are going to come for your throat because they won’t want to be governed. So yes, let’s have a mass education system, but of a particular kind, one that inculcates obedience, subordination, acceptance of authority, acceptance of doctrine. One that doesn’t raise too many questions.
This was described nicely by one of the great modern physicists, Victor Weisskopf, who died some years ago. When students would ask him what his course would cover, he would say, “It doesn’t matter what we cover. It matters what you discover.”
Students are burdened by huge debts. The laws have been changed so there’s no way out—no bankruptcy, no escape. So you’re trapped for life. That’s quite a technique of indoctrination and control. There’s no economic basis for rising tuition costs. In the 1950s, our society was much poorer, but education was essentially free.
When people talk about the government in the United States, they’re talking about some alien force. Hatred of democracy is so deeply embedded in the doctrinal system that you don’t think of the government as your instrument. It’s some alien instrument. It’s taken a lot of work to make people hate democracy that much. In a democratic society, to the extent that it’s a democratic society, the government is you. It’s your decisions. But the government here is depicted as something that’s attacking us, not our instrument to do what we decide.
April 15, the day when you pay your taxes, gives you a good index of how democracy is functioning. If democracy were functioning effectively, April 15 would be a day of celebration. That’s a day on which we get together to contribute to implementing the policies that we’ve decided on. That’s what April 15 ought to be. Here it’s a day of mourning. This alien force is coming to steal your hard-earned money from you. That indicates an extreme contempt for democracy. And it’s natural that a business-run society and doctrinal system should try to inculcate that belief.
Every night when I come home and start to answer the day’s hundreds of e-mails, a fair number are from young people saying, “I don’t like the way the world is going. In fact, I can’t stand it. What should I do?” By now I receive so many that I’m almost compelled to resort to form responses. And what I point out is that you’re well on the way to answering the question yourself, because you recognize there’s a problem. There is no general answer for everybody. There is no right answer for every person, in all circumstances. It depends on who you are, what your concerns are, what your options are, how much you want to devote yourself to it, what your talents are. But you’re probably pretty privileged. Otherwise you wouldn’t be writing me a letter on the Internet. That means you have a lot of opportunities—much more than your counterparts in other countries, or even here a generation ago. So there is a legacy that you can use. It’s not going to be easy—it never is. But you can make a difference. You just have to find your own way.
October 11, 2023
Very insightful book about a large array of contemporary global events discussed by the legendary Noam Chomsky and occasionally some linguistic theory sprinkeled in. Thoroughly enjoyed the interview-style format that this book is written in.
December 11, 2021
A must read!! Just wanted to highlight Chomsky’s every idea in this book.
The book captures the interviews between Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian from 2010 to 2012. They talk about a number of urgent social, political and economic issues starting from Western imperialism to mass public education and the state of mental slavery we live in.
Chomsky does such a great job explaining complex ideas in a simple way that is accessible to everyone. He meticulously describes how the governments work under the hood and how they are controlling the masses.
One idea that made me think a lot was the part where Chomsky talks about public education. He states that ethics of public education is solidarity since you care about whether the kids you don’t know have an opportunity to go to school, which makes so much sense. A well-functioning public education can create this feeling of communities and, hence, can potentially be danger to the power system of the country.
During reading the book I was constantly thinking how much we would benefit as a society and how much more power we would have if we could form more and more communities rather than becoming more and more alienated from each other
The book captures the interviews between Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian from 2010 to 2012. They talk about a number of urgent social, political and economic issues starting from Western imperialism to mass public education and the state of mental slavery we live in.
Chomsky does such a great job explaining complex ideas in a simple way that is accessible to everyone. He meticulously describes how the governments work under the hood and how they are controlling the masses.
One idea that made me think a lot was the part where Chomsky talks about public education. He states that ethics of public education is solidarity since you care about whether the kids you don’t know have an opportunity to go to school, which makes so much sense. A well-functioning public education can create this feeling of communities and, hence, can potentially be danger to the power system of the country.
During reading the book I was constantly thinking how much we would benefit as a society and how much more power we would have if we could form more and more communities rather than becoming more and more alienated from each other
Read
July 18, 2020Tryin to learn more stuff and stuff.
May 1, 2018
This was my first introduction to Noam Chomsky, and it was through a number of interviews over a given period of time aggregated to this work.
I certainly agree with Mr. Chomsky on the loss of community in today's hyper-connected world where some peoples' only social interaction is with other personas who he or she do not know over an app. This is destroying social interaction and is in part to blame for today's political polarity.
I also agree with his assertions on the responsibility of empire of the US, no matter how much "freedom" is touted. He is quite unrelenting, and understandably so, on how US foreign policy has brought about some of the instability we are now seeing as it further ferments.
His technical analysis of linguistics, his forte, and separate from "languistics" is very thought-provoking and at times hard for me to still understand, but I certainly appreciate his vigor and an entire lifetime to better understand the art of communication through language structures.
That said, I have significant problems with his historical inaccuracies, mainly his assertion that somehow the Taliban would have been defeated by local Afghans anyway had the US not invaded in 2001. This is patently false (the Northern Alliance was the last vestige of resistance to the Taliban (at the time had recently assassinated its leader with an Al Qaeda operative) across the country and the Taliban held all main population centers in the country) and the fact that he used that argument to peddle the theory that the US invaded for oil rights (and pipelines) from Iraq to Afghanistan are simply amazing.
At some points he argues that the business elite control the strings of the US government and sinisterly move the government in many ways contrary to the interests of the common working man (eerily similar to the class warfare between the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat in Marxism that is necessary for revolution...he was heavily influenced by Anarchism in his early years...he even utilized the term "reactionaries" a few times) runs at odds when he dismisses the thought that there is no "government conspiracy" or "evil government forces" when it comes to Progressive subjects such as Universal Healthcare, Free Education, and a more Progressive Public School curriculum.
Finally, he almost completely dismisses the concrete fact that much of US foreign policy was at times in attempts to counter (at the time) Soviet influences and aggressions during their now-termed "thousand fires" campaign to consume US resources to numerous uprisings across the world in order to exhaust its resources, weakening the US against the Soviet Union), while also not acknowledging the complexities that led to the conflicts in Vietnam and Korea and dismissing them simply as US Imperialism.
Overall this book made me grimace, but did have pockets of thoughtful dialogue. I suggest this book only to better understand many of the trite drivel that comes from social media circles and uninformed talking points that sometimes circulate news OP/EDs, as he is a major influencer in this realm.
I certainly agree with Mr. Chomsky on the loss of community in today's hyper-connected world where some peoples' only social interaction is with other personas who he or she do not know over an app. This is destroying social interaction and is in part to blame for today's political polarity.
I also agree with his assertions on the responsibility of empire of the US, no matter how much "freedom" is touted. He is quite unrelenting, and understandably so, on how US foreign policy has brought about some of the instability we are now seeing as it further ferments.
His technical analysis of linguistics, his forte, and separate from "languistics" is very thought-provoking and at times hard for me to still understand, but I certainly appreciate his vigor and an entire lifetime to better understand the art of communication through language structures.
That said, I have significant problems with his historical inaccuracies, mainly his assertion that somehow the Taliban would have been defeated by local Afghans anyway had the US not invaded in 2001. This is patently false (the Northern Alliance was the last vestige of resistance to the Taliban (at the time had recently assassinated its leader with an Al Qaeda operative) across the country and the Taliban held all main population centers in the country) and the fact that he used that argument to peddle the theory that the US invaded for oil rights (and pipelines) from Iraq to Afghanistan are simply amazing.
At some points he argues that the business elite control the strings of the US government and sinisterly move the government in many ways contrary to the interests of the common working man (eerily similar to the class warfare between the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat in Marxism that is necessary for revolution...he was heavily influenced by Anarchism in his early years...he even utilized the term "reactionaries" a few times) runs at odds when he dismisses the thought that there is no "government conspiracy" or "evil government forces" when it comes to Progressive subjects such as Universal Healthcare, Free Education, and a more Progressive Public School curriculum.
Finally, he almost completely dismisses the concrete fact that much of US foreign policy was at times in attempts to counter (at the time) Soviet influences and aggressions during their now-termed "thousand fires" campaign to consume US resources to numerous uprisings across the world in order to exhaust its resources, weakening the US against the Soviet Union), while also not acknowledging the complexities that led to the conflicts in Vietnam and Korea and dismissing them simply as US Imperialism.
Overall this book made me grimace, but did have pockets of thoughtful dialogue. I suggest this book only to better understand many of the trite drivel that comes from social media circles and uninformed talking points that sometimes circulate news OP/EDs, as he is a major influencer in this realm.
July 24, 2015
2 things about this Q & A book: david barsamian is the questioner, he knows chomsky work well and is very good at pulling along the narrative ; some material is very time sensitive, and as some issues have 'come to pass' reading this now is perhaps an exercise in history rather than futureisms, but also, this fight is not over yet ; and okay a #3: chomsky is a brilliant thinker and communicator and clearly sets out facts and outcomes, so a bit blast-from-the-past feeling, but still valid: rich and conservative vs poor and hopefully progressive.
read if needed to clarify ones stances on 'arab spring', occupy, usa politics, the capitalism of death and destruction, rich v poor.
don't read if youre not interested in the above.
read if needed to clarify ones stances on 'arab spring', occupy, usa politics, the capitalism of death and destruction, rich v poor.
don't read if youre not interested in the above.
January 1, 2018
A Genova si dice che il mugugno non si paga.
Noam Chomsky, con questo saggio/intervista, dal mugugno riesce pure a ricavarci qualche soldino.
La prima parte sembra scritta da un pensionato seduto su di una panchina davanti ad un cantiere edile: i presidenti del suo paese sono tutti incapaci, soprattutto i dem, da Wilson A Roosevelt, da Truman a Kennedy, sino a Clinton ed Obama.
Un po' meglio se la cavano i repubblicani.
Ancora meglio, i sovietici ed i vari dittatorucoli, da Gheddafi a Saddam.
Bah...
Da vero profano in materia, intuisco un rialzo del livello quando si passa a trattaare di linguistica-comunicazione.
Tuttavia, lo spazio dedicato all'argomento è ristretto ed alla fine resta solo lo stimolo ad approfondire con letture più specifiche.
Noam Chomsky, con questo saggio/intervista, dal mugugno riesce pure a ricavarci qualche soldino.
La prima parte sembra scritta da un pensionato seduto su di una panchina davanti ad un cantiere edile: i presidenti del suo paese sono tutti incapaci, soprattutto i dem, da Wilson A Roosevelt, da Truman a Kennedy, sino a Clinton ed Obama.
Un po' meglio se la cavano i repubblicani.
Ancora meglio, i sovietici ed i vari dittatorucoli, da Gheddafi a Saddam.
Bah...
Da vero profano in materia, intuisco un rialzo del livello quando si passa a trattaare di linguistica-comunicazione.
Tuttavia, lo spazio dedicato all'argomento è ristretto ed alla fine resta solo lo stimolo ad approfondire con letture più specifiche.
November 30, 2025
My second book by Noam Chomsky.
His analysis of current affairs is insightful. I annotated the book heavily. There was much to learn for me.
Some of many things I learnt:
1) Big corporation/business-led states are not fond of
a) public schools
b) social security.
2) In November 2010, Obama favored the wealthiest of the rich and put federal workers at a tax disadvantage. (Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, signed by Barack Obama in December 2010). Moreover, he backed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 (p.63).
3) Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco (supported heavily by France and the U.S.), similar to how Palestine is occupied by Israel. It is considered the last colony in Africa.
Current development: In October 2025, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that backs Morocco’s sovereignty claim and its autonomy plan for Western Sahara. The German representative of the Sahrawi independence movement, Frente Polisario, criticizes the UN’s plans for Western Sahara.
“The ongoing Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara is one of the most egregious yet most underchallenged affronts to the most basic tenet of international law - the prohibition of wars of conquest – in existence today.” (S: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7...)
4) "The atomization is a technique of control and marginalization." p.67
Power wants us to stay apart, so it can rule us better. As David Hume put it: "Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion."
5) Nelson Mandela was on the American terrorist list.
6) American hypocrisy is unreal. Do not get me started on that topic... The book is full of real life examples.
7) Read diversely, do not just follow one news cast. "Television drums certain fixed boundaries of thought into your head, which certainly dulls the mind. (...) A decent propaganda system does not annouce its principles or intentions." p.102
8) Make schools a place of discovery again, not just info dumping for a test. "If you can learn to discover, then it doesn't matter what the subject matter is. You will use that talent elsewehre." p.149
His analysis of current affairs is insightful. I annotated the book heavily. There was much to learn for me.
Some of many things I learnt:
1) Big corporation/business-led states are not fond of
a) public schools
b) social security.
2) In November 2010, Obama favored the wealthiest of the rich and put federal workers at a tax disadvantage. (Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, signed by Barack Obama in December 2010). Moreover, he backed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 (p.63).
3) Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco (supported heavily by France and the U.S.), similar to how Palestine is occupied by Israel. It is considered the last colony in Africa.
Current development: In October 2025, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that backs Morocco’s sovereignty claim and its autonomy plan for Western Sahara. The German representative of the Sahrawi independence movement, Frente Polisario, criticizes the UN’s plans for Western Sahara.
“The ongoing Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara is one of the most egregious yet most underchallenged affronts to the most basic tenet of international law - the prohibition of wars of conquest – in existence today.” (S: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7...)
4) "The atomization is a technique of control and marginalization." p.67
Power wants us to stay apart, so it can rule us better. As David Hume put it: "Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion."
5) Nelson Mandela was on the American terrorist list.
6) American hypocrisy is unreal. Do not get me started on that topic... The book is full of real life examples.
7) Read diversely, do not just follow one news cast. "Television drums certain fixed boundaries of thought into your head, which certainly dulls the mind. (...) A decent propaganda system does not annouce its principles or intentions." p.102
8) Make schools a place of discovery again, not just info dumping for a test. "If you can learn to discover, then it doesn't matter what the subject matter is. You will use that talent elsewehre." p.149
June 13, 2021
"Take a dangerous radical, like say Adam Smith, who people worship but don't read..."
I "Dr. Roy decried what she called weekend protesters. You go to a march or a demonstration and then back to the usual routine on Monday and she said that it was necessary that there be risks taken; that protest should have consequences." A "I'm not sure I agree with her that the risks are important. of course serious demonstrations if you do right, do have risk, say you get arrested or so on. But the real thing missing, I think, is continuity. The going home is the problem."
"Historical amnesia is a dangerous phenomenon not only because it undermines moral and intellectual integrity but also because it lays the groundwork for crimes that still lie ahead."
"Any good capitalist democracy needs to keep the rabble in line. To make sure that they are atoms of consumption, obedient tools of production, isolated from one another, lacking any concept of a decent human life. They are to be spectators in a political system run by elites, blaming each other and themselves for what’s wrong."
I "Dr. Roy decried what she called weekend protesters. You go to a march or a demonstration and then back to the usual routine on Monday and she said that it was necessary that there be risks taken; that protest should have consequences." A "I'm not sure I agree with her that the risks are important. of course serious demonstrations if you do right, do have risk, say you get arrested or so on. But the real thing missing, I think, is continuity. The going home is the problem."
"Historical amnesia is a dangerous phenomenon not only because it undermines moral and intellectual integrity but also because it lays the groundwork for crimes that still lie ahead."
"Any good capitalist democracy needs to keep the rabble in line. To make sure that they are atoms of consumption, obedient tools of production, isolated from one another, lacking any concept of a decent human life. They are to be spectators in a political system run by elites, blaming each other and themselves for what’s wrong."
October 26, 2020
Kā var savākt informāciju no visām malām un tik saprotami un skaidri salikt to kopā vienā bildē? Iespaidīgi. Must read.
August 30, 2024
How does this guy know all this shit
July 10, 2019
A collection of Noam Chomsky interviews (as interviewed by David Barsamian) between 2010-2012. With the usual critiques of US foreign policy and imperialism, the capitalist system, weak labour movements, tensions in our democratic system. Barsamian brings out Chomsky's insights on the Occupy movement, the Arab Springs, austerity as a resposne to the Eurozone crisis, growing Latin American independence, mobile device and social media culture.
Also with an interesting chapter about the education system and private charter schools; as well as a chapter about the study of universal grammar - the genetic basis of the human ability to grasp language (Chomsky being called "the father of modern linguistics"); also mentioning the "universal genome" hypothesis - whereby lifeforms and genomes since the Cambrian explosion represent modifications and permutations of a single underlying pattern.
Also with an interesting chapter about the education system and private charter schools; as well as a chapter about the study of universal grammar - the genetic basis of the human ability to grasp language (Chomsky being called "the father of modern linguistics"); also mentioning the "universal genome" hypothesis - whereby lifeforms and genomes since the Cambrian explosion represent modifications and permutations of a single underlying pattern.
December 14, 2021
A great introduction to Chomsky and the topics he covers most frequently - U.S. domestic and foreign policies, the intellectual culture, and the biological basis of language acquisition. This book consists of a series of interviews, so it might be more digestable than his monographs to someone with little background.
Whether one agrees with Chomsky or not in whatever issue he is discussing, his reasoning and arguments are always great food for thought, and that's the best thing we can ask for in a book.
Whether one agrees with Chomsky or not in whatever issue he is discussing, his reasoning and arguments are always great food for thought, and that's the best thing we can ask for in a book.
January 24, 2025
I enjoyed the structure of the book it was a conversation yet it still had chapters and it did mention interesting ideas. The main one being that even back in 2012 when the book was written America was being compared to nazi germany which is kinda scary.
I did think that one of the chapters on the language recognition and how we learn languages was quite odd and it didn’t really fit with the rest of the book. Also there were some parts which I don’t particularly agree with but still an interesting read.
I did think that one of the chapters on the language recognition and how we learn languages was quite odd and it didn’t really fit with the rest of the book. Also there were some parts which I don’t particularly agree with but still an interesting read.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 30, 2019
Noam Chomsky is undoubtedly one of the greatest political thinkers of our time. This book attests to his vast knowledge of the past and current political climates.
It is this great understanding of the underlying power structures that enables him to analyze the current ongoing and be unfazed by so. He believes, and rightly so, that once we understand the way power has been operating, we can predict their future actions.
A great read for people interested in political and power discourse.
It is this great understanding of the underlying power structures that enables him to analyze the current ongoing and be unfazed by so. He believes, and rightly so, that once we understand the way power has been operating, we can predict their future actions.
A great read for people interested in political and power discourse.
June 21, 2022
Chomsky is clearly very well informed and provides good analysis on modern events i.e Arab Spring etc. I liked this interview book because it was a lot easier to read (read a lot of it on the bus) + David Barsamian is a talented interviewer. The chapters on education, propaganda and linguistics were interesting too + I enjoyed his analysis of Bakunin's ideas surrounding the state - would defo have to read more about that though.
Read
April 29, 2024it took me three months but i swear it's a surprisingly easy read. i mean when someone mentions the surname chomsky, i hear an echo in my head calling me stupid. and i am. but if you're at least vaguely familiar with some international current events, especially in the middle east, you can follow. i mean i did with the help of google.
very lovely material to stir up (even more) hatred for the american empire and everything it stands for. the perfect gift for your southeast asian relatives as its kinda the "why is america the root of all evil for dummies"
very lovely material to stir up (even more) hatred for the american empire and everything it stands for. the perfect gift for your southeast asian relatives as its kinda the "why is america the root of all evil for dummies"
October 4, 2021
This book is a recollection of interview given by Chomsky and turn into a book. Always interesting to read his opinion and the way he understands and analyzes situations. It brings perspective and help to think.
September 13, 2023
Chomsky è sempre brillante. Libro che merita di essere letto anche a distanza di anni perché riassume bene i tratti principali del pensiero di Chomsky in materia politica, linguistica e sociale - ottimo anche per neofiti che vogliono scoprire il personaggio.
December 25, 2024
A quick and informative read written in interview/conversational style. Chomsky is very knowledgeable and talks about topics such as economics, linguistics, climate, and education from a systems perspective.
March 8, 2018
It is a lovely simple book which is basically interviews with Naom Chomsky. If you read Naom Chomsky books you already know what is in this one.
January 6, 2019
honestly a little more repetitive than i expected. you can really get a feel for where conversations w ppl were taking him most often from 2010-2012 based on the anecdotes he keeps circling back to.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 262 reviews