Entelektüellerin Sorumluluğu

by Noam Chomsky, Nuri Ersoy (Translator)

BGST Yayınları'ndan Mayıs ayında çıkan Entelektüellerin Sorumluluğu adlı kitap, Znet web sitesinin (www.zmag.org) koordinatörü Michael Albert'ın, çağımızın en önemli muhalif entelektüellerinden Noam Chomsky ile 1993 yılında yaptığı uzun bir söyleşiden oluşuyor. Söyleşi, görece eski bir tarihte yapılmış olmasına rağmen hala güncelliğini koruyor ve bizi entelektüellerin sorumluluğu üzerine düşünmeye davet ediyor.

Chomsky entelektüelleri düşünmeye, kavramaya ve bunları diğer insanlara aktarmaya ayırabilecek vakitleri olan insanlar olarak tanımlıyor. Ancak entelektüel olarak adlandırılabilecek insanların çoğunun tekdüze işlerle uğraştıklarını ve bunu yaparken de görevlerini yerine getirdiklerini söylüyor. Bu noktada görev ile ahlaki sorumluluk arasında bir ayrım

"[Entelektüellerin] görevleri, yani toplumsal kurumların bu insanlara zaman ve olanak sağlamasının nedeni, bu olanakları kullanarak iktidara ve otoriteye destek sağlamaları ve doktriner yönetimi hayata geçirmeleridir. Diğer insanların dünyayı mevcut otorite ve ayrıcalıkları destekleyecek şekilde kavramalarını sağlamak için çalışabilirler. Onların görevi budur. Eğer görevlerini yerine getirmeyi bırakırlarsa kendilerini entelektüel işlere adama fırsatını kaybederler. Diğer yandan, ahlaki sorumlulukları tamamen farklıdır ve aslında bunun tam tersidir. Ahlaki sorumlulukları, hakikati anlamaya çalışmak, dünyaya ilişkin bir kavrayışa ulaşmak için başkalarıyla birlikte çalışmak, bunu diğer insanlara aktarmaya çalışmak ve onların da kavramasına yardım etmek ve yapıcı eylem için zemin oluşturmaktır. Onların sorumluluğu da işte bunlardır. Ancak burada bir çatışma söz konusudur elbette. Eğer sorumluluklarınızı yerine getirirseniz, entelektüel faaliyetleri sürdürmek için sahip olduğunuz ayrıcalıkları kaybedebilirsiniz."

Öte yandan Chomsky, kendilerini sol entelektüeller olarak adlandıran birçok kişinin, kitlesel halk hareketlerinin sırtında iktidara yükselmeye çalışan ve sonunda iktidarı ele geçirdiklerinde ise halkı itaat etmeye zorlayan zorbalar olduğunu söylüyor. Gerçekte böylesi bir "sol" konumdan diğer uca geçmek çok kolay olacaktı "Kızıl bürokrasinin bir parçası olacak bir Leninist olarak işe başlarsınız. İktidarın yolunun bu olmadığını görürsünüz ve çok hızlı bir şekilde sağcı bir ideolog oluverirsiniz. Hayatınızı, aydınlığı henüz görememiş ve iktidarın gerçek yoluna dönmemiş eski yoldaşlarınızın günahlarını gün ışığına çıkarmaya adarsınız."

Peki etik bir entelektüel duruş nasıl olmalıdır? Halk hareketlerine entelektüel etkinlikleri ile katkıda bulunabilecek ve hareketin bir parçası olabilecek insanlar vardır. "Bunlar yıldız değildir. Lider de değildir. Yalnızca, bildikleri yoldan katkıda bulunmaktadırlar." Bunlar, "barış ve özgürlük için, insan hakları için, toplumsal değişim için, gerek kişisel yaşamda gerekse kurumlarda otorite yapılarının tasfiyesi için mücadele eden insanlardır."

Entelektüelleri bir yana bırakırsak, 60'ların aktivizmi neyi sağlamıştır? Chomsky, halkın genelinde ahlaki değerlerde ve kültürel düzeyde neredeyse devrimci bir dönüşüm meydana geldiğini ve bunun büyük bir ilerleme olduğunu iddia ediyor. Ancak bu hiç bir kurumsal biçim almamıştır. Üniversiteler ve medya gibi ideolojik kurumlar güç yapılarının çıkarlarına hizmet ederek görevlerini yerine getiren entelektüellerle doludur ve çok sıkı bir denetim altındadır. Diğer yandan halkın geneli son derece muhalif olmuş, 60'lı yıllarda insanların uğrunda mücadele ettiği değerlerin birçoğunu benimsemiştir.

Bu durum, en çarpıcı biçimde, 11 Eylül olaylarından sonra esen savaş rüzgârlarına karşı geniş halk kitlelerinin ve entelektüellerin tepkilerinde görülebilir. Henüz savaş başlamamışken bile milyonlar savaş karşıtı bir aktivizm içinde sokaklara dökülmüşken, özellikle Batı düşünce dünyası birkaç istisna dışında "İslami terörizm" ve "teröre karşı savaş" propagandasına kendisini kaptırdı ve düşünce dünyasında halk kitlelerinin aktivizmi ile aynı düzeyde bir hareketlilik gözlenmedi.

Savaşın ardında yatan nedenleri, ABD'nin gerçek siyasi güdülerini ve bu gelişmelere karşı nasıl tavır alınması gerektiğini Chomsky ve Znet çevresinde yer alan entelektüeller, ABD ve dünya kamuoyuna anlatamaya çalışarak gerçek bir entelektüel sorumluluk üstlendiler ve entelektüel sorumluluğun ne olması gerektiğine ilişkin somut bir örnek oluşturdular.

Kitabı oluşturan söyleşide daha adil bir toplum için mücadele edenlerin sıkça karşısına çıkan bir çok konu ele alınıyor ve bu alanlarda bir bakış geliştirmek için temel ipuçları tartışılıyor. Söyleşi tarzı okuyucuda zaman zaman ele alınan her konunun çok daha etraflıca tartışılması gerektiği duygusu uyandırıyor, ama bu durum düşünmeyi ve fikir üretmeyi kışkırtıyor. Aklımızdaki sorulara hazır cevaplar bulmak her zaman rahat bir iştir; ama bu konularda düşünmenin, bir bakış ve kavrayış geliştirmenin, bunları tartışmaya açmanın ve sonuçta bir uzlaşmaya ya da ortak paydaya varmanın entelektüel ve aktivist bir etiğin temel öğesi olması gere...

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History, Essays, Theory, Political Science

98 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2006

About the author

Avram 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.

Reviews

[The Conspiracy is Capitalism · Rating 3 out of 5]

I basically read Chomsky in reverse, and in hindsight this approach worked out well.

The Suboptimal:
--This 1967 essay brought Chomsky to national attention during America’s war on Vietnam; given the importance of the topic, I am disappointed with how much of a meandering read this is today (even in a condensed essay format!)…
--In fact, judging from the top 3 Chomsky works I recommend, I would suggest that Chomsky’s lectures are more impactful (concise) than his actual writings:
1) Chomsky 101, edited volume of his lectures/Q&As, accessible and concise: Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
2) Lecture on the role of propaganda in liberal (capitalist) “democracies”: Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies
3) Written mostly by Ed Herman, going over useful case studies in media propaganda: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

What is the optimal use of Chomsky?
--Accessible intro for Western liberals fence-sitting on American/Western imperialism.
--This is trickier: as an introductory engagement with Americans so damaged by Cold War’s Red Scare that any mention of “socialism” and “Marxism” (and, god forbid, “communism”) would have them frothing at the mouth and babbling “1,000,000,000,000 zillion deaths in Stalinist GULAGS and FAMINES”. Chomsky's "anarchism" makes him more palatable. On the other hand, his one-liners like "USSR was a dungeon" just perpetuates Red Scare's omissions of historical context. I currently much prefer:
-Michael Parenti:
-https://youtu.be/O8k0yO-deoA?t=27
-https://youtu.be/05tz0V9IBi0
-Vijay Prashad:
-intro: Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism
-dive: The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jKcs...
-https://youtu.be/M-frUMXKcEw

The Good:
1) The premise of this book is a useful thought-experiment to challenge the cultural aspect of American imperialism: American exceptionalism. Chomsky builds on Dwight Macdonald’s question of war guilt (using WWII fascism and Allies atrocities on civilians as an example), emphasizing that intellectuals have a greater responsibility with their privileged access to information and influence.
--Unfortunately, the essay then drifts off into specific examples. This may be useful for someone already convinced, but from surveying negative reviews I can conclude that jumping from example-to-example without big picture summaries is easily dismissed. The Chomsky recommendations above provide better overarching structures.

2) Chomsky criticizes the rise of “scholar-experts” on politics replacing “free-floating intellectuals” from other disciplines, and the resulting expectation that other disciplines should stay apolitical. Furthermore, these political experts are technocrats who claim they have constructed “value-free” solutions.

3) Acknowledgement that imperialist capital encirclement of poorer countries “guarantees totalitarianism”. This is an important start in recognizing the immense power dynamics in the global (capitalist) division of labor, between the Western imperialist core and the peripheries. This opens the doors to further debates regarding the context, framing, and theories of social change for the various social struggles and their power structures, as well as the relationship between critique and solidarity on the Left. (As a simplification: between Marxists and anarchists, Western and global south, urban and rural and indigenous, etc. etc.). A modern American Left anti-imperialism framing debate is between Chomsky and Michael Parenti. Currently, I gravitate towards global south communist Vijay Prashad.

[Timothy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a good article but the content was not what I was expecting at all. The thesis of course is that intellectuals (meaning people who are well informed and in a position where their opinions hold some weight in the public eye e.g. professors) have a responsibility to speak up when they see injustice occurring and to use their privilege and status to help inform those who otherwise might not have access to criticisms of the status quo.
Most of the article was just criticisms of specific intellectuals for their failure to do this and things of that nature. The context in which there people were being criticised (during American involvement in the Vietnam war) is something that I know almost nothing about so I didn't find those very interesting.
I was hoping for more of an abstract "this is the power that intellectuals have. This is how they can use it. This is why some fail to do so." type of deal, but it was still good writing and some interesting points that transcend the historical context.

[Els Book Hunters]

En parlem en aquest vídeo a Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQ2JS0...

[Randall Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ever thought something fishy about Bin Laden being killed, elderly, unarmed, and alone and then dumped in the ocean, oops… no trial and no autopsy? Noam says, “Abraham Lincoln …condemned the call for assassination as ‘international outlawry’, ‘an outrage’ in 1863”. Fast forward to the “international outlawry” of Bin Laden’s extra-judicial murder and nobody in the press raises any concern. Noam found that US analysts find their biggest problem is how “with considerable armed force but little political power, [to] contain an adversary who has enormous political force but only modest military power.” Noam finds the real “damage” caused by the Japanese was the closing of the business door to China. That directly led to financing of the Pacific War just as the later Communist Closing of China to US business led to further war hysteria. In this reprint of an old piece, Noam explains why intellectuals must take the side of the people, and not power. Noam explains the WWI attacks of Woodrow Wilson on Bourne, Debs, and Veblen. He explains the extraordinary importance of Vatican II. He shows you that in “The Cambridge History of the Cold War” you read that “from 1960 to the Soviet collapse of 1990, the numbers of political prisoners, torture victims, and executions of nonviolent political dissenters in Latin America vastly exceeded those in the Soviet Union and its East European satellites.” Herein you will learn the strange tale of Yale University’s own Professor David Rowe, who published his “testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs” wherein he showed how to create mass starvation/genocide in China by denying wheat, while callously ignoring the human element because of the political outcome. Rowe is still a professor at Yale - what a great role model to any future sociopathic Kissinger or Cheney advanced enough to take his class!

[Marco Pavan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A magisterial essay, very profound and easy to read. I couldn't put the book down until i was done...

[T · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chomsky once said something to the effect of, “You may not see it, but when I’m writing I’m driven by a lot of anger.” In this sarcastic and aggressive attack on state-sanctioned intellectuals, Chomsky reasserts the importance of geeks accepting their responsibility and using their privilege to call out nonsense and strengthen democracy. Chomsky’s slim volume is the New Left’s J’accuse!

[C. Çevik · Rating 4 out of 5]

"ABD mahvolmuş bir köylü toplumudur."

[S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

As short as it is, many of what Chomsky has been debating constitutes his main thought. He always digs in the news, and does his homework fighting for the underdog and in this case it was clearly about the 6 jesuit priests killed in Chile.
The historical study of the same stances was a major part of the book, and that's another thing he always delights the reader with.
So expect intellectuals from both camps to have been tracked down along the way of history...
And the last specificity of his works is the context on which he grounds all the final conclusions : he goes back to put it all in perspective and in a scene : in America.

The bottom line of this essay is :

"Intellectuals are typically privileged—merely an observation about usage of the term. Privilege yields opportunity, and opportunity confers responsibilities. An individual then has choices."

So whenever you read Chomsky you get lessons in History, Economy, Policy, Philosophy and Geography... This was a great cocktail!

[Will Ejzak · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the first thing I've read by Noam Chomsky, but he seems like the sort of political and intellectual hero I've been looking for. Chomsky rips American foreign policy to shreds, particularly our earnest support of genocidal regimes in Latin America in the '70s and '80s, which is monstrous and chilling. (And which, unlike Vietnam, seems to go largely unrecognized in mainstream historical narratives. For ignoramuses like me, a lot of this is new information.) Best of all, these essays open the door to further Chomsky reading--the guy's been writing books for most of his seventy year career, so there's a lifetime's worth of political writing to explore here.

[Karol Ujueta Rojas · Rating 4 out of 5]

My favorite quote from this "The long tradition of naiveté and self-righteousness that disfigures our intellectual history, however, must serve as a warning to the third world, if such a warning is needed, as to how our protestations of sincerity and benign intent are to be interpreted".
Good essay about the responsibility that people with information and knowledge face when acting as "journalists".

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chomsky comienza hablando sobre lo que dijo Dwight McDonald sobre la responsabilidad del pueblo alemán y el pueblo japonés por las atrocidades cometidas por sus gobiernos durante la segunda guerra mundial. Chomsky dirige la responsabilidad no hacia los pueblos sino hacia los intelectuales de los países, y sobre todo a su país EEUU por las atrocidades que cometía en ese momento en Vietnam. Señalaba que también los intelectuales tenían incluso una responsabilidad más profunda que los pueblos, dada su posición en la sociedad, su instrucción y la libertad de expresión en los países occidentales que les permiten la búsqueda de la verdad. "La responsabilidad de los intelectuales consiste en decir la verdad y revelar el engaño."
Chomsky habla sobre los intelectuales que callan y los que justifican usos abusivos del poder o hasta acciones armadas como la de Vietnam o la de Bahía de Cochinos.
Se denuncia el imperialismo anglo en Irán, y el que un intelectual lo incluyera en el llamado "mundo libre" por someterse a las potencias occidentales. Y también que muchos justificaran como motivos puros e incuestionables las acciones imperialistas de EEUU en el mundo.

EEUU no tiene que demostrar que es amenazado, basta que diga que se "siente amenazado" para justificar acciones en su política exterior. La agresividad norteamericana debe ser analizada en sus causas y motivos, y los intelectuales deben poner en tela de juicio los fines que persigue.
Chomsky toca mucho el tema de Vietnam y como lo abordan otros intelectuales, algunos de manera vacía sin proponer nada, otros justificándolo.
La responsabilidad de los intelectuales está en insistir en la verdad y también de ver los sucesos en su perspectiva histórica.
Habla sobre que la historia muestra que poco le importa a EEUU los regímenes que hay en los países del mundo siempre y cuando estos estén abiertos a la penetración económica y control político de EEUU, que si es necesario llegar a un genocidio para llegar a eso en Vietnam pues muchos dan su aprobación.
Y recuerda como antes Inglaterra dijo cuando recién entraba a la India que su intención no era quedarse, que el imperialismo era incompatible con los deseos de Inglaterra, que también cuando tomaron Egipto dijeron no tenían intención de quedarse. Y como el Japón imperial dijo lo mismo cuando penetraba en Manchuria.
Por último hay intelectuales que dicen que los vietnamitas desean bienes de consumo como lo prueban las importaciones de la ayuda estadounidense y no quieren maquinaria ni construcción de caminos en su país, que eso es el libre mercado, ya que en su libertad solo consumen lo que EEUU les da. Y claro que cuando se habla de los vietnamitas no se habla de los pobres del campo que no forman parte de la elite, esos excluídos son vistos como bestias de carga sin importancia. Y esta clase de actitudes son las que justifican la carnicería que se da en Vietnam.
Y recordando un pasaje sobre un burócrata alemán que trabajó en un campo de concentración que los soviéticos iban a ahorcar, que aterrorizado ante la muerte dijo "¿Qué he hecho yo?". También podríamos preguntarnos "¿Qué he hecho yo?" cuando leamos las noticias diarias de las atrocidades de Vietnam.

Hay además en el libro un par de cartas, una de George Steiner dirigiéndose a Chomsky sobre este ensayo y otra carta donde Chomsky responde a George Steiner .
Y como epílogo un pequeño ensayo titulado "Sobre la resistencia" en que Chomsky habla sobre la protesta que hubo frente al Pentágono en 1967 por parte de muchos universitarios y otros activistas donde él también participó para protestar contra la guerra de Vietnam y sobre como la pasó en la prisión cuando fue arrestado por esta protesta. Además de otras reflexiones sobre la resistencia y la discrepancia. Y se reflexiona sobre las posibles consecuencias de una retirada o una victoria en Vietnam, que en ambos casos podría sacar lo peor de EEUU.

[Daniel Lomax · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although comparatively unfocused, Chomsky's essay is reminiscent of Bertrand Russell's Outline of Intellectual Rubbish, in that its key theme is the nonsense which "intellectuals" and "experts" regularly propound. However, Chomsky's piece pertains specifically to the spheres of policy-making and social and political science, and is more serious; and it goes a step further than Russell by offering an explanation, in terms of class interest, for what he perceives to be the vacuity and pseudo-intellectualism of those professions.

This work has been widely interpreted as a case that intellectuals should take responsibility, although (if we didn't know anything else of his career) it could as easily be read as a prescription for intellectuals to quiet down a bit. It might just as well have been titled The Irresponsibility of Intellectuals, and it's not clear to me whether Chomsky endorses Dwight Macdonald's ideas, for which this essay is named.

The early Chomsky was a polemical force with which to be reckoned, and some good early criticism of the Vietnam War is provided, as well as broader points about whether policy should be analysed in terms of its makers' intentions, and whether analysts resort sufficiently to empirical evidence. It constitutes the most damning critique of Realpolitik I know of (but see also Realpolitik in the Gulf by Christopher Hitchens). To give you a sample of the sharpness Chomsky's essay employs, I conclude with this excerpt:

...one of Kahn’s basic assumptions is that

an all-out surprise attack in which all resources are devoted to counter-value targets would be so irrational that, barring an incredible lack of sophistication or actual insanity among Soviet decision makers, such an attack is highly unlikely.

A simple argument proves the opposite. Premise 1: American decision-makers think along the lines outlined by Herman Kahn. Premise 2: Kahn thinks it would be better for everyone to be red than for everyone to be dead. Premise 3: if the Americans were to respond to an all-out countervalue attack, then everyone would be dead. Conclusion: the Americans will not respond to an all-out countervalue attack, and therefore it should be launched without delay. Of course, one can carry the argument a step further. Fact: the Russians have not carried out an all-out countervalue attack. It follows that they are not rational. If they are not rational, there is no point in “strategic thinking.” Therefore,….

Of course this is all nonsense, but nonsense that differs from Kahn’s only in the respect that the argument is of slightly greater complexity than anything to be discovered in his work.

QED, right?

[Chester Hart · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have to admit that some of this went over my head. Some of the references from certain people in the Vietnam war and references to people in American politics from another era that I have no idea who they are.

I did agree with some of the principals and there were some quotable moments and some head scratching moments that left their mark.

Like "Privilege yields opportunity and opportunity confers responsibility."

The other sticking point was about intellectuals that serve the state are seen as responsible while those who pursue what they see as their moral prerogative as persecuted and discredited. The opposite is true for enemies of the government. The dissenters in somewhere like Soviet Russia are seen as the hero while the ones that served the government immoral.

The point is made much clearer in the book, with examples of how dissenting voices in our current democracy are shunned while those who go along with the agenda are given additional advantages, extra funding etc.

One of the things that I think is difficult now is discovering what the actual truth is in this world full of mis and dis information, mass marketing and conspiracy theories. It's easy to feel powerless against everything that is going on but hard to work out exactly what is, and even harder to work out what to do about it.

[Bryce Cai · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chomsky is most well-known, I think, in two fields. His presence in linguistics is undeniable - his "Syntactic Structures" and other works are the foundations of modern linguistics.

The other field, as most are aware, and where he is more prominent to the general public, is in the political/economic/society sphere, and if there can be said to be a book that established him in that area, i.e. his "Syntactic Structures" of this area, it is this one. Chomsky's most famous works, I would say, include "Manufacturing Consent" and "The Fateful Triangle", but I consider this his magnum opus.

The book (essay, really) is very short - I finished it in a few hours. Actually understanding it, however, requires much more time, as is the case with all of his books. It seems that Chomsky derives some of his inspiration (standing on the shoulders of giants) from Orwell, and this book seems to be so. The parallels certainly seem to be present - the willful complicity of people like Syme - an intellectual, no doubt, in producing lies - Chomsky references the idea of Doublethink frequently in many of his works.

The R of I is written in response to the Vietnam War, but it includes extensive historical examples, such as the Dreyfus Affair. The book refers to the actions and subservience of the intellectual class - technocrats and experts, to justify even the most atrocious of crimes, whereas opposition came from unlikely sources - on moral grounds, from "mathematicians, chemists, and psychologists". I note that this is the case not only in the US, but also within the Soviet Union. Like all of Chomsky's books, it is filled with sources and information for historical parallels. To anyone seeking to understand the current state of affairs in the US (everyone), I fully recommend this book.

A final note:
From Wikipedia:
The topic was inspired by articles of Dwight Macdonald published after the Second World War who "asks the question: To what extent were the German or Japanese people responsible for the atrocities committed by their governments? And, quite properly, ... turns the question back to us: To what extent are the British or American people responsible for the vicious terror bombings of civilians, perfected as a technique of warfare by the Western democracies and reaching their culmination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, surely among the most unspeakable crimes in history."

In this sense, Chomsky refers not merely to the Responsibility of Intellectuals with this book, but to the general public as well.

[Francesca Calarco · Rating 2 out of 5]

After admiring Noam Chomsky's social critiques as he's communicated in interviews, I was excited to finally read one of his printed works. Overall, there were both good and bad elements in The Responsibility of Intellectuals, but I mostly found it to be disappointing.

Writing this review in 2018, current events has had me looking back to the Nixon years and Vietnam. Partly why I was interested in this book was that it included Chomsky's essay from that period, and in the second half touches upon the War in Iraq. I found the second half of the book to be much stronger than the first, especially when it came to (younger) Chomsky's criticisms of foreign powers in Asia. For someone who is so good at the self reflection of his own country, his one dimensional characterizations of Asian countries left much to be desired.

What the book does do well though, is emphasize the importance of truth-telling, even if it means critiquing what is popular. Chomsky clearly defines who he means by "intellectuals" as individuals who should utilize their privilege to tell the truth as a moral imperative. He expands, "It seems to be close to a historical universal that conformist intellectuals, the one who support official aims and ignore or rationalize official crimes, are honored and privileged in their own societies, and the value-oriented punished in one or another way" (122).

This is definitely true, though I do wish he would expand on HOW intellectuals could utilize privilege to critique the powerful. Not every country has a First Amendment. While I wholeheartedly agree with the central thesis of this volume, I would have liked to have seen the surrounding argument better developed. Otherwise, it just read like someone in a (secure) porcelain tower preaching to others in their own porcelain towers.

It also probably does not help that I read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine this year, which touches upon many of the themes introduced in The Responsibility of Intellectuals, but is much better researched and argued. Overall, I didn't really like this one (sorry Chomsky), but read it for yourself and decide.

[Jacob Harris · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first part of this book contains an essay written by Chomsky in 1967 with an additional essay reflecting on the modern relevance of the initial work, post 9/11 reflections particularly. He argues essentially that it is the responsibility of intellectuals, those privileged in society to have the means of education and influence, to “speak the truth and to expose lies.” Particularly, here, he is referring to the US state propaganda machine and it’s apologists regarding the US’s history and continual guilt of war crimes and human rights violation.

In sum, it is the responsibility of the privileged intellectuals in society to challenge the unquestionable authority to and assumed morality of US imperialism. The US is not, by default, a moral authority; rather it is more often an amoral force that needs its intentions and actions interrogated and, ultimately, to be held accountable for its international terrorism. It is the responsibility, at least, of the privileged intellectuals in society to facilitate this.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent short read. This book is split into two parts. Part one is Chomsky's original essay published in 1967 which focuses on the Vietnam war. He spends a good amount of time talking about specific public intellectuals of that time period, many of which I have never head of. This section was a bit dry for me.

I enjoyed part two the most. This section was originally written in 2011 and appears in his book "Who Rules the World". Here, Chomsky explains the two types of intellectuals and gives many examples dating back to biblical times. He also comments on more current events such as 9/11 and the assassination of Bin Laden. This part also contains a classic Chomsky summary of intervention into Central and South American countries, although a much more detailed talk on this subject can be found in other books such as "Understanding Power" and "How the World works".

[Brian Mikołajczyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chomsky argues that throughout the modern era intellectuals have either used their power to prop up horrible policies and acts (Kennedy-Reagan in Latin America, Reagan's anti Nelson Mandela policy, Kissinger in Vietnam, Soviets in Eastern Bloc, Obama's extrajudicial assassination of bin Laden, etc.) whereas those who are actually fighting for what it right, "dissenters" are left to die for their views.
He argues "...the responsibility of intellectuals, there does not seem to me to be much to say beyond some simple truths. Intellectuals are typically privileged—merely an observation about usage of the term. Privilege yields opportunity, and opportunity confers responsibilities. An individual then has choices."

A great read.

[Sulav Rayamajhi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short and concise. You've got to be acquainted with american history to get it fully. Nevertheless the messages were loud and clear. You cannot miss it. Chomsky differentiates between conformist intellectual and value-oriented intellectuals and draws a distinction about how state treats them this was simple, intelligible and important one. To quote something from book
'It is a great thing to be able to see what is right under your nose and to have the simple honesty to tell it as it is.'
'If it is the responsibility of intellectual to insist upon the truth, it is also his duty to see events in their historical perspective.'

[MOL · Rating 4 out of 5]

Similarly to Paine's Common Sense, I have been meaning to read this essay for a long time, as both Paine and Chomsky seem to be healthy rational thinkers not necessarily following the mainstream views.

Yet again, in the end I have found that the idea of this essay was more interesting to me than the text itself. While I did like the exposition of US governments hypocrisy during the Vietnam war, it was not anything that I have not heard yet (although I do understand that Chomsky is one of the reasons why these ideas are as widespread today). I also did not care as much for the discussion related to Chmoksy's views related to changes to the Welfare State.

[Roger Green · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a little collection largely made up of two essays by Chomsky on the responsibility of intellectuals. One from the late 1960s on Vietnam and one more recently. It echoes well with the anniversary of the "Beyond Vietnam" speech written by Vincent Harding and delivered by Martin Luther King Jr. 50 years ago. Chomsky is still able to cut through the ideological veneer of conformist intellectualisms.

[Анна · Rating 4 out of 5]

Young Chomsky is best Chomsky.
Apex employment of sarcasm in the overarching effort to highlight the absurdities embedded in imperialist apologia proper.

[Taya Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everyone should read this essay, regardless of education or “intellectual” status. Written in 1967, Chomsky’s thesis is mainly contextualized by the Vietnam War and the dominant ideologies of intellectuals and those involved in politics at the time. He references and expands on articles by Dwight McDonald in the 1940s that question how much blame can be placed on the people, especially “intellectuals,” for the actions of their governments. He highlights examples where people with an “expert” status in a specific field have abused their power to commit or condone injustices. Nearly 60 years later, Chomsky’s essay is still quite applicable to modern issues.


Some quotes:

“There is no body of theory or significant body of relevant information, beyond the comprehension of the layman, which makes policy immune from criticism. To the extent that "expert knowledge" is applied to world affairs, it is surely appropriate-for a person of any integrity, quite necessary-to question its quality and the goals it serves. These facts seem too obvious to require extended discussion.”

“Intellectuals in the West, he argues, have lost interest in converting ideas into social levers for the radical transformation of society. Now that we have achieved the pluralistic society of the Welfare State, they see no further need for a radical transformation of society; we may tinker with our way of life here and there, but it would be wrong to try to modify it in any significant way. With this consensus of intellectuals, ideology is dead.”

“It is easy for an American intellectual to deliver homilies on the virtues of freedom and liberty, but if he is really concerned about, say, Chinese totalitarianism or the burdens imposed on the Chinese peasantry in forced industrialization, then he should face a task that is infinitely more important and challenging-the task of creating, in the United States, the intellectual and moral climate, as well as the social and economic conditions, that would permit this country to participate in modernization and development in a way commensurate with its material wealth and technical capacity.”

[Jochemfmelis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Een bijzonder duister essay. Soms wat onbegrijpelijk door de zeer tijdsgebonden opmerkingen en quotes, maar over het algemeen verhelderend en interessant. De analyse dat anti-establishment denkers over het algemeen verguisd worden en de establishment denkers opgehemeld, zodat de status-quo in stand wordt gehouden, er geen echte kritiek kan klinken en de acties van regeringen gerechtvaardigd worden was iets waar ik nooit echt bij stil had gestaan.

Hoe veel je van dit soort teksten ook leert, vrolijker word je er niet van. Het is steeds moeilijk met een optimistische blik naar de wereld te kijken. De belofte van progressie is een leugen.

[Isabel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Questo saggio è un lungo articolo contro l'imperialismo americano e gli "intellettuali" che lo sostengono/ lo hanno sostenuto. In poche parole Chomsky dice che gli intellettuali si dividono in due categorie: quelli che si prendono la responsabilità di seguire la loro etica e quelli che seguono il potere dominante (la politica). Un taglio sul velo di Arianna per mostraci tutto il lerciume dell'America (anche con Obama sì).

[sophia · Rating 3 out of 5]

lol okay

Idk why I thought “Noam Chomsky” was going be so revolutionary but the idea that people with knowledge and power need to keep their governments accountable seems so obvious as to be… unremarkable?

Obvi I’m missing heaps of context bec I’m not intimately (and as impressively) familiar with the topic but I also didn’t think Noam was trying/or able if I’m being nicer to make it particularly accessible which felt ironic

Disappointing bec I thought was gonna be an exploration of what that responsibility is rather than an assertion that that responsibility exists

[Maggie Cox · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very dense and difficult for my burnt out brain to focus on but very good and powerful

I like how the essay starts and ends with presenting and answering the question “what is the responsibility of intellectuals” with regard to the responsibility of Germans during WW2 or Americans during the bombing of Japan

[Helen · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is well-documented by footnotes. I read half and found it too hard to understand.

[Indran · Rating 4 out of 5]

The level of detail here often went over my head, as my knowledge about the Vietnam War is low. However, a fundamental point is that US academia bears the mark of shame of having many apologists for (and even architects of) the most despicable of US foreign policies. These apologists apply their 'scholarly caution' in a selective way aimed not at truth-seeking, but rather at dismissing anti-war activists as uncritical, irrational, or naive.

Chomsky identifies not only "a growing lack of concern for truth" among academics in the US, but also "a real or feigned naiveté about American actions that reaches startling proportions". He also targets the 'pious rhetoric' about the supposed benevolence of US foreign policy, showing (with direct quotes) that policymakers are in fact willing to murder hundreds of thousands to extend the nation's power and influence. Rather than limiting himself to a broad, vague critique, Chomsky importantly singles out particular scholars, lambasting their "expert" input on the Vietnam War and drawing attention to their increasingly cozy relationships with Washington.

Here are a few quotes that caught my attention:
"[...]the power of the government’s propaganda apparatus is such that the citizen who does not undertake a research project on the subject can hardly hope to confront government pronouncements with fact."

"No one would be disturbed by an analysis of the political behavior of the Russians, French, or Tanzanians questioning their motives and interpreting their actions by the long-range interests concealed behind their official rhetoric. But it is an article of faith that American motives are pure, and not subject to analysis"

"Nothing is said about those people in Asian cultures to whom our 'conception of the proper relation of the individual to the state' may not be the uniquely important value, people who might, for example, be concerned with preserving the “dignity of the individual” against concentrations of foreign or domestic capital, or against semi-feudal structures (such as Trujillo-type dictatorships) introduced or kept in power by American arms."

"A striking feature of the recent debate on Southeast Asian policy has been the distinction that is commonly drawn between 'responsible criticism,' on the one hand, and 'sentimental,' or 'emotional,' or 'hysterical' criticism, on the other. There is much to be learned from a careful study of the terms in which this distinction is drawn. The 'hysterical critics' are to be identified, apparently, by their irrational refusal to accept one fundamental political axiom, namely that the United States has the right to extend its power and control without limit, insofar as is feasible."

"Is the purity of American motives a matter that is beyond discussion, or that is irrelevant to discussion?"

"[...]the fundamental political axiom that the United States, with its traditional concern for the rights of the weak and downtrodden, and with its unique insight into the proper mode of development for backward countries, must have the courage and the persistence to impose its will by force until such time as other nations are prepared to accept these truths—or simply, to abandon hope."

"The aggressiveness of liberal imperialism is not that of Nazi Germany, though the distinction may seem academic to a Vietnamese peasant who is being gassed or incinerated."

"Recent history shows that it makes little difference to us what form of government a country has so long as it remains an 'open society,' in our peculiar sense of this term—that is, a society that remains open to American economic penetration or political control."

"In fact, few imperialist powers have had explicit territorial ambitions. Thus in 1784, the British Parliament announced: 'To pursue schemes of conquest and extension of dominion in India are measures repugnant to the wish, honor, and policy of this nation.' Shortly after this, the conquest of India was in full swing."

[shelby · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chomsky argues that there are two types of intellectuals one can choose to be. He calls them by many names, though they are consistently characterized as those who support their state and do not challenge their leaders or question their morality, these will be praised in their society and do not value truth, but rather praise, and then those who commit themselves to truth and speak of histories and realities that do not make their state look well or that make their state and leaders culpable in international and national crimes. These will be “honorable dissidents”, though they may never receive the title by those within their own state.

Chomsky believes intellectuals have duties to the world, not in service to their own state. The responsibility of intellectuals refers to “...their moral responsibility as decent human beings in a position to use their privilege and status to advance the cause of freedom, justice, mercy, and peace — and to speak out not simply about the abuses of our enemies but, far more significantly, about the crimes in which we are implicated and can ameliorate or terminate if we choose...” (115). The responsibly of intellectuals, in short, is to “speak the truth and to expose lies” (17), placing truths in their historical perspective. But why? Why are intellectuals in particular bound to this demand?

“Intellectuals are typically privileged— merely an observation about usage of the term. Privilege yields opportunity, and opportunity confers responsibilities. An individual then has choices” (123). One can choose to use ones status to advance the state or the truth but never both.

Chomsky’s call to action can be answered by all people. I will end on his addition to Dwight Macdonald’s writing on the responsibility of intellectuals: “Macdonald quotes an interview with a death-camp paymaster who burst into tears when told that the Russians would hang him. ‘Why should they? What have I done?’ he asked. Macdonald concludes: ‘Only those who are willing to resist authority themselves when it conflicts too intolerably with their personal moral code, only they have the right to condemn the death-camp paymaster.’ The question ‘What have I done?’ Is one that we may well ask ourselves, as we read each day of fresh atrocities in Vietnam—as we create, or mouth, or tolerate the deceptions that will be used to justify the next defense of freedom” (81).

We have to look inward, look to our books, and look for the truth as we continue facing and shaping the national dialogue about Palestine, Yemen, Venezuela, and the other places the US is complicit in creating human suffering. “What have I done” is a question for ourselves. This book brings us to the next question: “What can I do?”