What do you think?
Rate this book
On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures
One of Noam Chomsky's most accessible books, On Power and Ideology is a product of his 1986 visit to Managua, Nicaragua, for a lecture series at Unversidad Centroamericana. Delivered at the height of U.S. involvement in the Nicaraguan civil war, this succinct series of lectures lays out the parameters of Noam Chomsky's foreign policy analysis.
The book consists of five lectures on U.S. international and security policy. The first two lectures examine the persistent and largely homogenous features of U.S. foreign policy, and overall framework of order. The third discusses Central America and its foreign policy pattern. The fourth looks at U.S. national security and the arms race. And the fifth examines U.S. domestic policy.
These five talks, conveyed directly to the people bearing the brunt of devastating U.S. foreign policy, make historic and exciting reading.
The book consists of five lectures on U.S. international and security policy. The first two lectures examine the persistent and largely homogenous features of U.S. foreign policy, and overall framework of order. The third discusses Central America and its foreign policy pattern. The fourth looks at U.S. national security and the arms race. And the fifth examines U.S. domestic policy.
These five talks, conveyed directly to the people bearing the brunt of devastating U.S. foreign policy, make historic and exciting reading.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
41 people are currently reading
1247 people want to read
About the author
Noam Chomsky
977 books17.4k followersAvram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
December 13, 2025
Chomsky's easy explanation of power and the ideology that necessarily accompanies it. A more accurate title would be how the US uses the state, the military, the economy, and ideology to maintain their power. One of his most succinct works.
December 12, 2017
Benjamin Franklin defined “the father of the nation” as the man who “removed Natives to give his own people room.” De Tocqueville was impressed with how America’s nastiest violence didn’t stick to them morally. He said, it was impossible to destroy people with “more respect for the laws of humanity”. Of Washington’s merciless attack on the Iroquois in 1799, Noam writes, “Rarely have hypocrisy and moral cowardice been so explicit, and admired with such reverence for centuries.” Only in the 1960’s did this formerly secret part of our history come to light, leading Noam to see Leftist historical revisionism as another reason the 60’s mainstream counterculture had to be stopped by the elite (Trilateral Commission, etc.). “The primary concern of U.S. foreign policy is to guarantee the freedom to rob and exploit. Elsewhere I (meaning Noam) have referred to this as ‘the Fifth Freedom’, one that was not enunciated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.” In the third world, the victim of the Fifth Freedom is usually the indigenous. National Security does not mean security of the People, it means security of the securing of the Fifth Freedom. “Successful independent development in a poor country subjected to U.S. control might inspire others facing similar problems to pursue the same course, so that the whole system of imperial domination will erode.” The American press continues to never mention the huge American security risk of “false alarms that could be perceived as Nuclear attacks in the range of 43 to 255 per year.” In just one case, Stanislav Petrov’s refusal of orders stopped a global nuclear war from being triggered.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson said the plan was to take both North and South America in time, and that the Spanish in Latin America were acting merely as placeholders for us. Simon Bolivar soon after referred to the U.S. as “destined to plague and torment the continent in the name of freedom.” Then Noam reveals an odious Woodrow Wilson private quote before he became President about how we will do what we want “even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process.” Wilson was soon to invade both Mexico and Hispaniola to begin their “outrage”. Then this book includes the most important paragraph from the 1948 George Kennan Planning Study (which every American should read), about how we should be an unapologetic empire and ignore all empathetic urgings about the victims. This chilling document was top secret for good reason. “The idea that the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people” was considered by planners such as George Kennan (actually considered a dove) to be communism. And communists are traitors. The job of the US in Latin America became “to eliminate the danger of independent political developments.” US planners have long known know the best way to stop nationalism is through “domestic military forces” – in other Noam books, he refers to this as the switch from external to internal security – a turn against one’s own population. The late 40’s planners had written that it would take 15 or 20 years for Russia just to get over “its war time losses” – naturally to keep the Cold War afloat, such info was kept from the American people. Noam brilliantly points out that from the US elite vantage point in post-war Europe, “the threat in Europe was Democratic politics” (Greece, and Italy) The threat was not Soviet aggression but any form of national capitalism plotting its own course. “They may spread the virus of independence, freedom and concern for human welfare, infecting regions beyond.” The US began a post-war “program, worldwide in scope, to destroy the anti-fascist resistance and popular organizations associated with it”. For example, US forces moved through Italy restoring fascists to power “while dispersing the resistance, which had fought courageously against six Nazi divisions.” Noam mentions the death toll of 30-40,000 peasant South Koreans on Cheju Island, due to US interference and Thailand’s U.S. sponsored candidate, Songkram who brought child slavery, and massive corruption.
Having read over 40 books by Noam, this may be my favorite. This book is so densely packed with goodies that every American should read and know. Normally, I can distill any Goodreads book in one page of bullet points but this time it took me only to page 35! To continue this book review to the end would mean posting something five times this length, so I have cut it here. I used to think if Americans read one book it should be Howard Zinn’s People’s History. Now, I’d say read this book first because this book will tell you (get the new Haymarket reissue with the white cover) page for page, more truth about American History and Foreign Policy than any other single book I’ve read.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson said the plan was to take both North and South America in time, and that the Spanish in Latin America were acting merely as placeholders for us. Simon Bolivar soon after referred to the U.S. as “destined to plague and torment the continent in the name of freedom.” Then Noam reveals an odious Woodrow Wilson private quote before he became President about how we will do what we want “even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process.” Wilson was soon to invade both Mexico and Hispaniola to begin their “outrage”. Then this book includes the most important paragraph from the 1948 George Kennan Planning Study (which every American should read), about how we should be an unapologetic empire and ignore all empathetic urgings about the victims. This chilling document was top secret for good reason. “The idea that the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people” was considered by planners such as George Kennan (actually considered a dove) to be communism. And communists are traitors. The job of the US in Latin America became “to eliminate the danger of independent political developments.” US planners have long known know the best way to stop nationalism is through “domestic military forces” – in other Noam books, he refers to this as the switch from external to internal security – a turn against one’s own population. The late 40’s planners had written that it would take 15 or 20 years for Russia just to get over “its war time losses” – naturally to keep the Cold War afloat, such info was kept from the American people. Noam brilliantly points out that from the US elite vantage point in post-war Europe, “the threat in Europe was Democratic politics” (Greece, and Italy) The threat was not Soviet aggression but any form of national capitalism plotting its own course. “They may spread the virus of independence, freedom and concern for human welfare, infecting regions beyond.” The US began a post-war “program, worldwide in scope, to destroy the anti-fascist resistance and popular organizations associated with it”. For example, US forces moved through Italy restoring fascists to power “while dispersing the resistance, which had fought courageously against six Nazi divisions.” Noam mentions the death toll of 30-40,000 peasant South Koreans on Cheju Island, due to US interference and Thailand’s U.S. sponsored candidate, Songkram who brought child slavery, and massive corruption.
Having read over 40 books by Noam, this may be my favorite. This book is so densely packed with goodies that every American should read and know. Normally, I can distill any Goodreads book in one page of bullet points but this time it took me only to page 35! To continue this book review to the end would mean posting something five times this length, so I have cut it here. I used to think if Americans read one book it should be Howard Zinn’s People’s History. Now, I’d say read this book first because this book will tell you (get the new Haymarket reissue with the white cover) page for page, more truth about American History and Foreign Policy than any other single book I’ve read.
January 29, 2021
I like Noam... I like him a lot. At some point I should read something by him that isn’t almost forty years old though. Still a worthwhile and engaging read. Some weird typos in the edition I have (the “United stares”?)
February 22, 2020
The greatest gate to understand global politics would be throughout Chomsky analysis.
July 27, 2021
Klasyczna myśl polityczna Chomskiego o ogłupiałym stadzie i jego pasterzach. W każdym systemie politycznym lud musi znać swoje miejsce, tak aby elity mogły żyć bez lęku że stratuje je ogłupiałe stado. Despotyczna władza może uciekać się do przemocy. Gdy jednak państwo nie ma dość siły by stosować przymus bezpośredni i terror, musi dopilnować by głos ludu zawsze mówił to, czego życzy sobie władza. Chomsky nie widzi większych różnic co do ostatecznych celów pomiędzy największymi tyraniami w dziejach a strategią współczesnych państw neoliberalnych, czyli "naszych" pseudo demokracji. Ludzkie masy to dla władzy bezrozumne mrowie i bestie w ludzkiej skórze, które dla ich własnego dobra należy utrzymywać w ryzach i z dala od spraw publicznych, podobnie gdy ktoś wbrew woli obłąkańca ratuje mu życie. A nawet konsekwentnie zlikwidować dla ich własnego dobra (George Washington), jak np. 10 mln Indian. Interesujące jest to, że każda była i obecna władza rozumie ten właśnie aspekt i np. podczas wojny domowej w Hiszpanii zarówno faszyści na kontrolowanych przez siebie terenach, jak i sami liberalni demokraci po stronie republikańskiej tłumili oddzielnie rewolucję likwidując organy władzy robotniczej, co dopiero walnie przyczyniło się do zwycięstwa faszystów. Państwo to tylko jedno z ogniw łańcucha władzy. Pozostałe to leżące w rękach prywatnych wąskich elit rządzących korporacje, ich inwestycje, produkcja, finanse, warunki pracy. Odmowa dostosowania się do takiej struktury dominacji jest iluzoryczna i nasza rzeczywista wolność wyboru jest wąsko ograniczona. Współczesny idealny obywatel ma "zapieprzać za miskę ryżu", a po pracy w zaciszu domowym oglądać kretynizmy w TV, oddać się religii i nie interesować się sprawami publicznymi. Trudno się z Chomskim nie zgodzić w tej materii, choćby obserwując obecnie na własnym polskim podwórku praktyczną realizację tej orwellowsko – huxley'owskiej dystopii.
Na końcu obecnego wydania zamieszczono interesujące 50-stronicowe polemiczne posłowie autorstwa Zbigniewa Macieja Kowalewskiego. Chomsky walnie i praktycznie przyczynił się do zakończenia wojny w Wietnamie. Zdobył autorytet w oparciu o swoje teorie o (Dukaj) języku I i II rodzaju i języku zewnętrznym E i wewnętrznym język-I według nomenklatury Chomskiego, lecz swoich teorii bronił chyba czasami wbrew faktom. "Słownictwo, które wydaje się być wytworem nowoczesnego społeczeństwa, nie jest zmiennym wytworem historii i kultury, lecz jest naturalnie dane, gdyż przyroda wyposażyła nas we wrodzony zasób pojęć, terminów i być może słów". Później Chomsky podtrzymywał swoje tezy, pomimo słusznej krytyki, że aby ewolucja mogła dać nam wrodzony zasób takich terminów jak gaźnik, potencjał kwantowy i Internet, musiałaby być zdolna do antycypacji wszelkich nieprzewidzianych okoliczności jakie wystąpią w przyszłych środowiskach fizycznych i kulturowych.
Jako anarchista i propagator autentycznie oddolnych rewolucji z uporem godnym lepszej sprawy Chomsky do chwili obecnej (np. wypowiedzi z 2010 o kilkuset –sic! ofiarach) z uporem broni słusznej polityki Czerwonych Khmerów i likwidacji elit przez Pol-Pota, który de facto zlikwidował ¼ narodu i do 1.5 mln obywateli. No cóż, widocznie taka już jest natura ludzka. Wielcy pisarze wypuszczają na stare lata niewiarygodne pasztety (Eduardo Mendoza, trylogia jezusowa Coetzee'iego, etc). Czy wreszcie casus samego Einsteina, którego autorytet i awersja do mechaniki kwantowej wstrzymał rozwój nauki na długie lata. A Chomsky ma już blisko 100 lat... Tym niemniej jego wnioski dotyczące mechanizmów i intencji rządzących pozostają jakże aktualne
Na końcu obecnego wydania zamieszczono interesujące 50-stronicowe polemiczne posłowie autorstwa Zbigniewa Macieja Kowalewskiego. Chomsky walnie i praktycznie przyczynił się do zakończenia wojny w Wietnamie. Zdobył autorytet w oparciu o swoje teorie o (Dukaj) języku I i II rodzaju i języku zewnętrznym E i wewnętrznym język-I według nomenklatury Chomskiego, lecz swoich teorii bronił chyba czasami wbrew faktom. "Słownictwo, które wydaje się być wytworem nowoczesnego społeczeństwa, nie jest zmiennym wytworem historii i kultury, lecz jest naturalnie dane, gdyż przyroda wyposażyła nas we wrodzony zasób pojęć, terminów i być może słów". Później Chomsky podtrzymywał swoje tezy, pomimo słusznej krytyki, że aby ewolucja mogła dać nam wrodzony zasób takich terminów jak gaźnik, potencjał kwantowy i Internet, musiałaby być zdolna do antycypacji wszelkich nieprzewidzianych okoliczności jakie wystąpią w przyszłych środowiskach fizycznych i kulturowych.
Jako anarchista i propagator autentycznie oddolnych rewolucji z uporem godnym lepszej sprawy Chomsky do chwili obecnej (np. wypowiedzi z 2010 o kilkuset –sic! ofiarach) z uporem broni słusznej polityki Czerwonych Khmerów i likwidacji elit przez Pol-Pota, który de facto zlikwidował ¼ narodu i do 1.5 mln obywateli. No cóż, widocznie taka już jest natura ludzka. Wielcy pisarze wypuszczają na stare lata niewiarygodne pasztety (Eduardo Mendoza, trylogia jezusowa Coetzee'iego, etc). Czy wreszcie casus samego Einsteina, którego autorytet i awersja do mechaniki kwantowej wstrzymał rozwój nauki na długie lata. A Chomsky ma już blisko 100 lat... Tym niemniej jego wnioski dotyczące mechanizmów i intencji rządzących pozostają jakże aktualne
April 1, 2020
Succinct, clear, incisive. Essential & still-relevant analysis of the real goal of United States foreign policy (aka expanding/maintaining empire). I need to look up more of Chomsky's recent analysis, because as I was reading this I couldn't help but think, repeatedly--buddy, just wait till we get to the 21st century.... (oh noam we're really in it now)
June 11, 2007
This book helped me to understand what U.S. foreign policy truly is. Our leaders would have us think the world is upset with us for any number of silly reasons, but this book elucidates the 5th freedom and what we are actually DOING in the rest of the world. I wish it were required reading.
Read
March 4, 2011يجب ان يُقرأ هذا الكتاب لنفهم المحرك الاساسي لسياسات امريكا
بما اننا قررنا بناء مصر بأيدينا
بما اننا قررنا بناء مصر بأيدينا
Want to read
August 27, 2023F1436.8 U6 C48 1987 Memorial Library
March 3, 2013
This book contains the transcripts of 5 lectures given at the Universidad Centroamerica (UCA) in Managua, Nicaragua in early 1986. The lectures outline Chomsky's views on U.S. foreign policy with a specific focus on Latin America and the then-ongoing contra war that the U.S. was waging against the Sandinista government.
In Chomsky's view, U.S. foreign policy is guided by the need to secure U.S. interests (primarily corporate business interests) rather than by the ideals of human rights and democracy that are typically the stated goals. This leads to consistent U.S. support for right-wing factions in other countries, even murderous ones, and to oppose left-wing movements, even peaceful democratically elected ones. Paraphrasing JFK, the U.S. prefers to support democracies, but will support "a Trujillo" (right-wing dictator) if that is what is needed to prevent "a Castro."
Chomsky marshalls an impressive level of evidence for his hypothesis -- skillfully deploying internal U.S. documents and letting the sordid history of U.S. 20th century involvement in Latin America speak for itself. It's hard to disagree with this thesis after learning the history of the Contra War in Nicaragua, or the civil war in El Salvador, or the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, or numerous other examples.
Having read a lot of Chomsky in my time (I took a fantastic class on him in college), my main gripe with him is his rhetorical style. One could quibble with his analysis and the way he bulldozes over wrinkles and complications, but his role as a counter-narrator is important and vital. More problematic is how he revels in making statements that are shockingly counter to mainstream U.S. political discourse, but then characterizing those statements as "obvious" and not deserving much in the way of supporting argumentation. More often than not this comes off as anti-pedagogical, and I can only imagine fuels his marginalization. If you're not already on board with his analysis he doesn't exactly lead you by the hand. Probably since he's been railing against the mainstream consensus for so many decades now it might be hard to muster the effort anymore. Over time he tends to repeat himself as well, such that one can almost predict what phrase he is going to use in advance.
Still, Chomsky is essential reading for understanding U.S. foreign policy, even if you don't necessarily buy into every facet of his analysis. At this point in my life I'm more interested in writers and thinkers who can communicate outside the choir, so I am always wishing that Chomsky would engage more with the mainstream and rather than simply dismissing that position. Still this volume of lectures is actually a pretty good, and brief, introduction to his thinking.
(In one of the Q&As included here there is an interesting moment as Chomsky smacks down the suggestion from a questioner that the USSR -- at that moment a Nicaraguan ally -- is better than the US. As hard as he is on the US, he brooks no suggestion that the Soviet Union was anything other than a brutal and repressive dictatorship.)
[First read this for a class in college, back in early 1997. Re-reading it now because... Managua!]
In Chomsky's view, U.S. foreign policy is guided by the need to secure U.S. interests (primarily corporate business interests) rather than by the ideals of human rights and democracy that are typically the stated goals. This leads to consistent U.S. support for right-wing factions in other countries, even murderous ones, and to oppose left-wing movements, even peaceful democratically elected ones. Paraphrasing JFK, the U.S. prefers to support democracies, but will support "a Trujillo" (right-wing dictator) if that is what is needed to prevent "a Castro."
Chomsky marshalls an impressive level of evidence for his hypothesis -- skillfully deploying internal U.S. documents and letting the sordid history of U.S. 20th century involvement in Latin America speak for itself. It's hard to disagree with this thesis after learning the history of the Contra War in Nicaragua, or the civil war in El Salvador, or the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, or numerous other examples.
Having read a lot of Chomsky in my time (I took a fantastic class on him in college), my main gripe with him is his rhetorical style. One could quibble with his analysis and the way he bulldozes over wrinkles and complications, but his role as a counter-narrator is important and vital. More problematic is how he revels in making statements that are shockingly counter to mainstream U.S. political discourse, but then characterizing those statements as "obvious" and not deserving much in the way of supporting argumentation. More often than not this comes off as anti-pedagogical, and I can only imagine fuels his marginalization. If you're not already on board with his analysis he doesn't exactly lead you by the hand. Probably since he's been railing against the mainstream consensus for so many decades now it might be hard to muster the effort anymore. Over time he tends to repeat himself as well, such that one can almost predict what phrase he is going to use in advance.
Still, Chomsky is essential reading for understanding U.S. foreign policy, even if you don't necessarily buy into every facet of his analysis. At this point in my life I'm more interested in writers and thinkers who can communicate outside the choir, so I am always wishing that Chomsky would engage more with the mainstream and rather than simply dismissing that position. Still this volume of lectures is actually a pretty good, and brief, introduction to his thinking.
(In one of the Q&As included here there is an interesting moment as Chomsky smacks down the suggestion from a questioner that the USSR -- at that moment a Nicaraguan ally -- is better than the US. As hard as he is on the US, he brooks no suggestion that the Soviet Union was anything other than a brutal and repressive dictatorship.)
[First read this for a class in college, back in early 1997. Re-reading it now because... Managua!]
August 25, 2016
I have been fascinated with the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua ever since learning about it from the Clash and reading Stephen Kinzer's book Blood of Brothers. Can I admit that I really enjoyed the book and saw the Sandinista revolution with mixed feelings? Sure I can. Then, I happened to Google the author and Noam Chomsky (because I couldn't calm the doubting beast) and found out that Chomsky has been very critical of Kinzer's reporting, saying "[The polls] show that all of the opposition parties in Nicaragua combined had the support of only 9 percent of the population, but they have 100 percent of Stephen Kinzer."
...and my interest was peaked once again.
This is where the Managua Lectures come in.
I have grown fond of Chomsky's interview books where his ideas are laid out a little more concisely, but these lectures might strike the perfect balance between short Q and A and his protracted single topic books. Conducted in Managua in 1986, these lectures focus on the US involvement in foreign affairs and Nicaragua in particular. Consistent over the years, Chomsky argues that the US is essentially only interested in protecting its freedom to rob and exploit. In doing so they protect their own interest (and those of the wealthy and privileged) at any cost, even if it means going as far as supporting fascism throughout the world. Any criticism is quickly brushed aside, or accused of being unpatriotic or unchristian. Funny how things haven't changed much. As far as Nicaragua is concerned, they had made substantial progress in the social sector and improving the conditions of its citizens. Unable to accept that progress can happen independently of US involvement, a massive military campaign was launched to undermine the Nicaraguan government diverting their already low resources into fighting the Contras. As is often the case, Chomsky doesn't pull any punches and delivers his points clearly in a pattern that's easy to follow.
It's hard to find writings by Chomsky that aren't essential. This book is no different.
...and my interest was peaked once again.
This is where the Managua Lectures come in.
I have grown fond of Chomsky's interview books where his ideas are laid out a little more concisely, but these lectures might strike the perfect balance between short Q and A and his protracted single topic books. Conducted in Managua in 1986, these lectures focus on the US involvement in foreign affairs and Nicaragua in particular. Consistent over the years, Chomsky argues that the US is essentially only interested in protecting its freedom to rob and exploit. In doing so they protect their own interest (and those of the wealthy and privileged) at any cost, even if it means going as far as supporting fascism throughout the world. Any criticism is quickly brushed aside, or accused of being unpatriotic or unchristian. Funny how things haven't changed much. As far as Nicaragua is concerned, they had made substantial progress in the social sector and improving the conditions of its citizens. Unable to accept that progress can happen independently of US involvement, a massive military campaign was launched to undermine the Nicaraguan government diverting their already low resources into fighting the Contras. As is often the case, Chomsky doesn't pull any punches and delivers his points clearly in a pattern that's easy to follow.
It's hard to find writings by Chomsky that aren't essential. This book is no different.
February 12, 2019
As clear and unfussy an introduction to Chomsky's approach to global politics as you're likely to encounter. In this series of five lectures Chomsky cuts US foreign policy down to its core ideologic essence. Chomsky with almost casual efficiency draws a through-line that connects the plight of Sandanista Nicaragua to the long, troubling history of US' global exploits, the story of the contras being but the nearest and most recent token of American intervention/subversion. It helps that high-level policy planners have their own history of being very honest, at least in their private memoranda, about where US interests lie and as to what ends US foreign policy is meant to achieve. The lectures also delve into the failings of the media to accurately report on US foreign endeavors, arguing that the these failings are institutionally ingrained. It's not a fun read but, as far as these things go, it is a light read without being any the less persuasive. Chomsky's laser-like focus, breadth of knowledge and deep abiding skepticism concerning State-provided rationale have always made his writings worth reading.
May 5, 2021
In this book, Chomsky attempts to show the inner logic that drives U.S. foreign policy. This includes the contradictory nature between its stated goals and actions, the role western intellectuals play in accepting (and promoting) atrocious acts of state violence, and the ideological framework behind it.
Chomsky is quite persuasive in his writing which is still relevant today. Although it was originally presented within the Cold War Era, the fundamental principles that Chomsky presents are still used post-Soviet Union.
This was presented in the midst of attempted “stabilization” of Latin American countries (the reason for it being presented in Managua) and therefore an elementary understanding of the Nicaraguan Revolution may be helpful when reading this book. Chomsky quotes meticulously throughout the book, with all sources given, allowing for easy exploration into the topic discussed on hand.
My 5 stars do not imply perfection but do imply a strong recommendation to anyone interested in US foreign policy.
Chomsky is quite persuasive in his writing which is still relevant today. Although it was originally presented within the Cold War Era, the fundamental principles that Chomsky presents are still used post-Soviet Union.
This was presented in the midst of attempted “stabilization” of Latin American countries (the reason for it being presented in Managua) and therefore an elementary understanding of the Nicaraguan Revolution may be helpful when reading this book. Chomsky quotes meticulously throughout the book, with all sources given, allowing for easy exploration into the topic discussed on hand.
My 5 stars do not imply perfection but do imply a strong recommendation to anyone interested in US foreign policy.
April 28, 2021
Chomsky's book covers a lot of Cold War politics particularly US attitudes towards Central America states. Chomsky does make a convincing case that US involvement in Central America over the past 100 years has been primarily motivated by economic interests, which results in a de facto neo-colonial situation. I expect that Chomsky’s critique of US foreign policy would stand up to close scrutiny, on the other hand, Chomsky’s socialist blinkers would insure he would NOT make any serious critique of communist regimes behaviour. Oddly enough, Chomsky confirms the grass-roots perception that Washington is ruled by “The Swamp/Deep State”, a political elite that runs things behind a smoke-screen of democratic institutions. In this regard, Chomsky observes:
I think it is reasonable to see this as fulfillment of Aldous Huxley’s “prophecy”...
Leaving politics and going on to media/journalism concerns, Chomsky provides a convincing portrayal of mainstream media groupthink and pointing out it’s subservience to dominant elite concerns (and worldview)
But mainstream media groupthink was noted years ago by someone with little in common with Chomsky, that is the Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Regarding the role played by Western media, Solzhenitsyn had this to say.
To a large degree, the U.S. is a one-party state, where the ruling party has two factions that compete for control of the government. U.S. political history is, to a significant extent, a history of conflict among those in a position to make investment decisions; where few major issues divide them, there is a period of political harmony, and where such issues do arise, there is political conflict over them. The general public is afforded an opportunity to ratify elite decisions, but the option of participating in making them is limited. very largely, to privileged elites. Much of the public is aware of in marginalization and of the essential irrelevance of the political system to its concerns. (pp. 153)
I think it is reasonable to see this as fulfillment of Aldous Huxley’s “prophecy”...
Under the relentless thrust of accelerating overpopulation and increasing overorganization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms — elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest — will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial — but democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit."
(A. Huxley Brave New World Revisited (1958/2007: 393-394)
Leaving politics and going on to media/journalism concerns, Chomsky provides a convincing portrayal of mainstream media groupthink and pointing out it’s subservience to dominant elite concerns (and worldview)
The media represent the same interests that control the state and private economy, and it is therefore not very surprising to discover that they generally act to confine public discussion and understanding to the needs of the powerful and privileged. The media are, in the first place, major corporations. Their primary market is business (advertisers), and like other corporations, they must bend to the needs of the community of investors. In the unlikely event that they might seek to pursue an independent path, they would quickly he called to account, and could not survive. Their top management (editors, etc.) is drawn from the ranks of wealthy professionals who tend naturally to share the perceptions of the privileged and powerful, and who have achieved their position, and maintain it, by having demonstrated their efficiency in the task of serving the needs of dominant elites. Furthermore, by virtue of their associations, class status, aspirations, and so on, they tend to share the perceptions and commitments of those who hold effective power. Thus
it is only to he expected that the framework of interpretation, selection of what counts as "news," permitted opinion, etc., will fall well within the range that conforms to the needs of the nexus of state-private power that controls the economy and the political system. (p. 163)
But mainstream media groupthink was noted years ago by someone with little in common with Chomsky, that is the Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Regarding the role played by Western media, Solzhenitsyn had this to say.
Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within Western countries, exceeding that of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Yet one would like to ask: According to what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the Communist East, a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has voted Western journalists into their positions of power, for how long a time, and with what prerogatives? There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the totalitarian East with its rigorously unified press: One discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole (the spirit of the time), generally accepted patterns of judgment, and maybe common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Unrestrained freedom exists for the press, but not for readership, because newspapers mostly transmit in a forceful and emphatic way those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and that general trend.
(Solzhenitsyn - A World Split Apart. Commencement Address Delivered at Harvard University. June 8, 1978)
June 6, 2009
The most concise collection of lectures outlining conclusions Chomsky has arrived at concerning the US role in the world. This volume is more towards the broad principled discussion rather than the exacted, precise argumentative structure that defines his other books. This is the best book for people just starting to read Noam Chomsky.
June 4, 2019
Did not age at all
Written several decades ago nothing explained here really aged. Easy to read and understand. It would be interesting to add a contemporary chapter here on democratic socialism. It is a little depressing to think there seems to be more popular interest in mid 1980s as to US involvement in aiding and supporting dictators than in 2019.
Written several decades ago nothing explained here really aged. Easy to read and understand. It would be interesting to add a contemporary chapter here on democratic socialism. It is a little depressing to think there seems to be more popular interest in mid 1980s as to US involvement in aiding and supporting dictators than in 2019.
June 7, 2023
A review and analysis I wish I had encountered and read prior to finishing college and entering the world of american business. I’d say this is a must read for any person born and/or living in the US.
January 18, 2016
The costs are social costs while the benefits are private benefits
June 16, 2019
Very clear and accessible, still quite relevant 30+ years later, but it will make you depressed.
August 27, 2023
3 to 3.5 stars. Noam Chomsky's message consistently deserves 5 stars. His delivery however, often deserves low marks. This is the case with "On Power and Ideology". I had to put the book down half way through and come back later to complete it. The pontification, sarcasm, and repetition were a bit much at times. The message I get from Chomsky is a familiar one; 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' It's an extremely important message and it certainly applies to the powers that be in the U.S.A. Chomsky has a deservedly devoted following. But he is an acquired taste.
October 10, 2020
"One of the most effective devices is to encourage debate, but within a system of unspoken presuppositions that incorporate the basic principles of the doctrinal systems. These principles are therefore removed from inspection; they become the framework for thinkable thought, not objects of rational consideration. The more the debate rages within permissible bounds, the more effectively the unquestioned premises are instilled as sacred Truths."
July 18, 2020
It is very accessible and still relevant (though first published in 1986). It helps to understand US domestic and foreign policy in a bigger context. These lectures show to what extent the U.S state is committed to serving private power and how does its ideological institution seek to limiting popular understanding of social reality.
April 26, 2021
Daje perspektywę na dzisiejszy świat w kontekście zachodniej historii, ale nieco trąci teoriami spiskowymi. Do tego Chomsky momentami zdaje się dostosowywać "fakty" na potrzeby narracji.
April 30, 2021
This book is very good
May 10, 2021
Disconcerting to say the least
December 26, 2021
imo not chomskys best or most useful.
June 3, 2022
Dla Chomsky'ego daję 5 gwiazdek, ale część Kowalewskiego obniża moją ocenę.
July 12, 2024
¿Rest in peace?
Read
November 1, 2025Noam Chomsky is so smart
December 30, 2020
Brilliant, as always!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews