Avram Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky
Full name Avram Noam Chomsky
Born 7 December 1928 (1928-12-07) (age 81)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Era 20th / 21st-century philosophy
Region Western Philosophy
School Linguistics, Analytic
Main interests Linguistics · Psychology
Philosophy of language
Philosophy of mind
Politics · Ethics
Notable ideas Generative grammar, universal grammar, transformational grammar, government and binding, X-bar theory, Chomsky hierarchy, context-free grammar, principles and parameters, Minimalist program, language acquisition device, poverty of the stimulus, Chomsky–Schützenberger theorem, Chomsky Normal Form, propaganda model[1]
Influenced by[show]
Pāṇini, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Dewey, Mikhail Bakunin, Karl Marx, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Adam Smith, Zellig Harris, Immanuel Kant, René Descartes, George Orwell, C. West Churchman, Alan Turing.
Influenced[show]
Niall McLaren, Colin McGinn, Edward Said, Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker, Peter Ludlow, Tanya Reinhart, Morris Halle, Gilbert Harman, Jerry Fodor, Howard Lasnik, Robert Fisk, Neil Smith, Ray Jackendoff, Norbert Hornstein, Jean Bricmont, Marc Hauser, Norman Finkelstein, Robert Lees, Bill Hicks, Mark Baker, Julian Boyd, Ray C. Dougherty, Derek Bickerton, Amy Goodman, Michael Albert.

Avram Noam Chomsky (pronounced /ˌnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/, Hebrew: חומסקי נועם אַבְרָהָם; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[2][3] cognitive scientist, and political activist. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[4] Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as one of the fathers of modern linguistics.[5][6][7] Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident and an anarchist.[8]

In the 1950s, Chomsky began developing his theory of generative grammar, which has undergone numerous revisions and has had a profound influence on linguistics. His approach to the study of language emphasizes "an innate set of linguistic principles shared by all humans" known as universal grammar, "the initial state of the language learner," and discovering an "account for linguistic variation via the most general possible mechanisms."[9] He elaborated on these ideas in 1957's Syntactic Structures, which then laid the groundwork for the concept of transformational grammar. He also established the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power. In 1959, Chomsky published a widely influential review of B. F. Skinner's theoretical book Verbal Behavior. In this review and other writings, Chomsky broadly and aggressively challenged the behaviorist approaches to studies of behavior and language dominant at the time, and contributed to the cognitive revolution in psychology. His naturalistic[10] approach to the study of language has influenced the philosophy of language and mind.[9]

Beginning with his opposition to the Vietnam War, first articulated in his 1967 essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" and later extended in his American Power and the New Mandarins (1969), Chomsky established himself as a prominent critic of U.S. foreign and domestic policy. He has since become an outspoken political commentator and a dedicated activist; he is a self-declared anarcho-syndicalist[11] and a libertarian socialist, principles he believes are grounded in the philosophy of classical liberalism and the Age of Enlightenment.[12] His social criticism has also included an analysis of the mass media; his Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), co-written with Edward S. Herman, articulated the propaganda model theory for examining the media.

According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–92 period, and was the eighth most-cited source.[13][14][15] He is also considered a prominent cultural figure.[16] At the same time, his status as a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy has made him controversial.[17]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Life and career
* 2 Contributions to linguistics
o 2.1 Generative grammar
o 2.2 Chomsky hierarchy
* 3 Contributions to psychology
* 4 Approach to science
* 5 Debates
* 6 Political views
* 7 Influence in other fields
* 8 Academic achievements, awards and honors
* 9 Criticism
* 10 Bibliography
* 11 Filmography
* 12 See also
* 13 References
* 14 External links

[edit] Life and career
The Ray and Maria Stata Center at MIT, in which Chomsky holds his office in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.

Chomsky was born on the morning of December 7, 1928 to Jewish parents in the affluent East Oak Lane neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of noted professor of Hebrew at Gratz College and IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) member William Chomsky (1896–1977), a native of Ukraine. His mother, Elsie Chomsky (née Simonofsky), a native of what is present-day Belarus, grew up in the United States and, unlike her husband, spoke "ordinary New York English." Their first language was Yiddish,[18] but Chomsky said it was "taboo" in his family to speak it.[18] Although his mother was part of the the radical activism in the 30s, Chomsky was largely influenced by his uncle. Having never passed 4th grade, he owned a newsstand that acted as an "intellectual center [where] professors of this and that arguing all night" [19] Chomsky was also influenced by being a part of a Hebrew-based, Zionist organization as well as hanging around anarchist bookstores.[20]

He describes his family as living in a sort of "Jewish ghetto," split into a "Yiddish side" and "Hebrew side," with his family aligning with the latter and bringing him up "immersed in Hebrew culture and literature." Chomsky also describes tensions he personally experienced with Irish Catholics and German Catholics and anti-semitism in the mid-1930s. He recalls German-American "Beer parties" celebrating the fall of Paris to the Nazis.[21] In a discussion of the irony of his staying in the 1980s in a Jesuit House in Central America, Chomsky explained that during his childhood, "We were the only Jewish family around. I grew up with a visceral fear of Catholics. They're the people who beat you up on your way to school. So I knew when they came out of that building down the street, which was the Jesuit school, they were raving anti-Semites. So childhood memories took a long time to overcome."[22]

Chomsky remembers the first article he wrote was at age 10 while a student at Oak Lane Country Day School about the threat of the spread of fascism, following the fall of Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War. From the age of 12 or 13, he identified more fully with anarchist politics.[23]

A graduate of Central High School of Philadelphia, Chomsky began studying philosophy and linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania in 1945, taking classes with philosophers such as C. West Churchman and Nelson Goodman and linguist Zellig Harris. Harris's teaching included his discovery of transformations as a mathematical analysis of language structure (mappings from one subset to another in the set of sentences). Chomsky referred to the morphophonemic rules in his 1951 Master's Thesis, The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew, as transformations in the sense of Carnap's 1938 notion of rules of transformation (vs. rules of formation), and subsequently reinterpreted the notion of grammatical transformations in a very different way from Harris, as operations on the productions of a context-free grammar (derived from Post production systems). Harris's political views were instrumental in shaping those of Chomsky.[24] Chomsky earned a BA in 1949 and an MA in 1951.

In 1949, he married linguist Carol Schatz. They remained married for 59 years until her death from cancer in December 2008.[25] The couple had two daughters, Aviva (b. 1957) and Diane (b. 1960), and a son, Harry (b. 1967). With his wife Carol, Chomsky spent time in 1953 living in HaZore'a, a kibbutz in Israel. Asked in an interview whether the stay was "a disappointment" Chomsky replied, "No, I loved it," however he "couldn't stand the ideological atmosphere" and "fervent nationalism" in the early 1950s at the kibbutz, with Stalin being defended by many of the left-leaning kibbutz members who chose to paint a rosy image of future possibilities and contemporary realities in the USSR.[26] Chomsky notes seeing many positive elements in the commune-like living of the kibbutz, in which parents and children lived in rooms of separate houses together, and when asked whether there were "lessons that we have learned from the history of the kibbutz," responded,[27][28] that in "some respects, the Kibbutzim came closer to the anarchist ideal than any other attempt that lasted for more than a very brief moment before destruction, or that was on anything like a similar scale. In these respects, I think they were extremely attractive and successful; apart from personal accident, I probably would have lived there myself – for how long, it's hard to guess".

Chomsky received his PhD in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955. He conducted part of his doctoral research during four years at Harvard University as a Harvard Junior Fellow. In his doctoral thesis, he began to develop some of his linguistic ideas, elaborating on them in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures, his best-known work in linguistics.

Chomsky joined the staff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1955 and in 1961 was appointed full professor in the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics (now the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy). From 1966 to 1976 he held the Ferrari P. Ward Professorship of Modern Languages and Linguistics, and in 1976 he was appointed Institute Professor. As of 2010, Chomsky has taught at MIT continuously for 55 years.

In February 1967, Chomsky became one of the leading opponents of the Vietnam War with the publication of his essay, "The Responsibility of Intellectuals",[29] in The New York Review of Books. This was followed by his 1969 book, American Power and the New Mandarins, a collection of essays that established him at the forefront of American dissent. His far-reaching criticisms of U.S. foreign policy and the legitimacy of U.S. power have made him a controversial figure: largely shunned by the mainstream media in the United States,[30][31][32][33] he is frequently sought out for his views by publications and news outlets internationally. In 1977 he delivered the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden, The Netherlands, under the title: Intellectuals and the State.

Chomsky has received death threats because of his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy.[34] He was also on a list of planned targets created by Theodore Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber; during the period that Kaczynski was at large, Chomsky had all of his mail checked for explosives.[34] He states that he often receives undercover police protection, in particular while on the MIT campus, although he does not agree with the police protection.[34]

Chomsky resides in Lexington, Massachusetts and travels often, giving lectures on politics.
[edit] Contributions to linguistics
The remainder of this article (content appearing below) may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can, and move or remove this notice if appropriate. (April 2010)

Chomskyan linguistics, beginning with his Syntactic Structures, a distillation of his Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955, 75), challenges structural linguistics and introduces transformational grammar. This approach takes utterances (sequences of words) to have a syntax characterized by a formal grammar; in particular, a context-free grammar extended with transformational rules.

Perhaps his most influential and time-tested contribution to the field, is the claim that modeling knowledge of language using a formal grammar accounts for the "productivity" of language. In other words, a formal grammar of a language can explain the ability of a hearer-speaker to produce and interpret an infinite number of utterances, including novel ones, with a limited set of grammatical rules and a finite set of terms. He has always acknowledged his debt to Pāṇini for his modern notion of an explicit generative grammar although it is also related to Rationalist ideas of a priori knowledge.

It is a popular misconception that Chomsky proved that language is entirely innate and discovered a "universal grammar" (UG). In fact, Chomsky simply observed that while a human baby and a kitten are both capable of inductive reasoning, if they are exposed to the exact same linguistic data, the human child will always acquire the ability to understand and produce language, while the kitten will never acquire either ability. Chomsky labeled whatever the relevant capacity the human has which the cat lacks the "language acquisition device" (LAD) and suggested that one of the tasks for linguistics should be to figure out what the LAD is and what constraints it puts on the range of possible human languages. The universal features that would result from these constraints are often termed "universal grammar" or UG.[35]

The Principles and Parameters approach (P&P)—developed in his Pisa 1979 Lectures, later published as Lectures on Government and Binding (LGB)—make strong claims regarding universal grammar: that the grammatical principles underlying languages are innate and fixed, and the differences among the world's languages can be characterized in terms of parameter settings in the brain (such as the pro-drop parameter, which indicates whether an explicit subject is always required, as in English, or can be optionally dropped, as in Spanish), which are often likened to switches. (Hence the term principles and parameters, often given to this approach.) In this view, a child learning a language need only acquire the necessary lexical items (words, grammatical morphemes, and idioms), and determine the appropriate parameter settings, which can be done based on a few key examples.

Proponents of this view argue that the pace at which children learn languages is inexplicably rapid, unless children have an innate ability to learn languages. The similar steps followed by children all across the world when learning languages, and the fact that children make certain characteristic errors as they learn their first language, whereas other seemingly logical kinds of errors never occur (and, according to Chomsky, should be attested if a purely general, rather than language-specific, learning mechanism were being employed), are also pointed to as motivation for innateness.

More recently, in his Minimalist Program (1995), while retaining the core concept of "principles and parameters," Chomsky attempts a major overhaul of the linguistic machinery involved in the LGB model, stripping from it all but the barest necessary elements, while advocating a general approach to the architecture of the human language faculty that emphasizes principles of economy and optimal design, reverting to a derivational approach to generation, in contrast with the largely representational approach of classic P&P.

Chomsky's ideas have had a strong influence on researchers investigating the acquisition of language in children, though researchers who work in this area such as Elizabeth Bates[36] and Michael Tomasello[37] today do not support Chomsky's theories, instead advocating emergentist or connectionist theories reducing language to an instance of general processing mechanisms in the brain.

His best-known work in phonology is The Sound Pattern of English (1968), written with Morris Halle (and often known as simply SPE). This work has had a great significance for the development in the field. While phonological theory has since moved beyond "SPE phonology" in many important respects, the SPE system is considered the precursor of some of the most influential phonological theories today, including autosegmental phonology, lexical phonology and optimality theory. Chomsky no longer publishes on phonology.
[edit] Generative grammar

The Chomskyan approach towards syntax, often termed generative grammar, studies grammar as a body of knowledge possessed by language users. Since the 1960s, Chomsky has maintained that much of this knowledge is innate, implying that children need only learn certain parochial features of their native languages.[38] The innate body of linguistic knowledge is often termed Universal Grammar. From Chomsky's perspective, the strongest evidence for the existence of Universal Grammar is simply the fact that children successfully acquire their native languages in so little time. Furthermore, he argues that there is an enormous gap between the linguistic stimuli to which children are exposed and the rich linguistic knowledge they attain (the "poverty of the stimulus" argument). The knowledge of Universal Grammar would serve to bridge that gap.

Chomsky's theories are popular, particularly in the United States, but they have never been free from controversy. Criticism has come from a number of different directions. Chomskyan linguists rely heavily on the intuitions of native speakers regarding which sentences of their languages are well-formed. This practice has been criticized both on general methodological grounds, and because it has (some argue) led to an overemphasis on the study of English. As of now, hundreds of different languages have received at least some attention in the generative grammar literature,[39][40][41][42][43] but some critics nonetheless perceive this overemphasis, and a tendency to base claims about Universal Grammar on an overly small sample of languages. Some psychologists and psycholinguists,[who?] though sympathetic to Chomsky's overall program, have argued that Chomskyan linguists pay insufficient attention to experimental data from language processing, with the consequence that their theories are not psychologically plausible. Other critics (see language learning) have questioned whether it is necessary to posit Universal Grammar to explain child language acquisition, arguing that domain-general learning mechanisms are sufficient.

Today there are many different branches of generative grammar; one can view grammatical frameworks such as head-driven phrase structure grammar, lexical functional grammar and combinatory categorial grammar as broadly Chomskyan and generative in orientation, but with significant differences in execution.

Cultural anthropologist and linguist Daniel Everett of Illinois State University has proposed that the language of the Pirahã people of the northwestern rainforest of Brazil resists Chomsky's theories of generative grammar. Everett asserts that the Pirahã language does not have any evidence of recursion, one of the properties that makes generative grammar possible. If true, this would also seem to contradict Chomsky's hypothesis that recursion is the defining feature of the human mind.[44] However, Everett's claims have themselves been criticized. David Pesetsky of MIT, Andrew Nevins of Harvard, and Cilene Rodrigues of the Universidade Estadual de Campinas in Brazil have argued in a joint paper that all of Everett's major claims contain serious deficiencies.[45] Chomsky himself has commented that "The reports are interesting, but do not bear on the work of mine (along with many others). No one has proposed that languages must have subordinate clauses, number words, etc. Many structures of our language (and presumably that of the Piraha) are rarely if ever used in ordinary speech because of extrinsic constraints."[46] The dispute continues.[47]
[edit] Chomsky hierarchy
Main article: Chomsky hierarchy

Chomsky is famous for investigating various kinds of formal languages and whether or not they might be capable of capturing key properties of human language. His Chomsky hierarchy partitions formal grammars into classes, or groups, with increasing expressive power, i.e., each successive class can generate a broader set of formal languages than the one before. Interestingly, Chomsky argues that modeling some aspects of human language requires a more complex formal grammar (as measured by the Chomsky hierarchy) than modeling others. For example, while a regular language is powerful enough to model English morphology, it is not powerful enough to model English syntax. In addition to being relevant in linguistics, the Chomsky hierarchy has also become important in computer science (especially in compiler construction and automata theory).[48]
[show]
v • d • e
Automata theory: formal languages and formal grammars
Chomsky hierarchy
Type-0
—
Type-1
—
—
Type-2
—
—
Type-3
—

Grammars
Unrestricted
(no common name)
Context-sensitive
Indexed
Tree-adjoining etc.
Context-free
Deterministic context-free
(no common name)
Regular
—

Languages
Recursively enumerable
Recursive
Context-sensitive
Indexed
(Mildly context-sensitive)
Context-free
Deterministic context-free
Visibly pushdown
Regular
Star-free

Minimal automaton
Turing machine
Decider
Linear-bounded
Nested stack
Embedded pushdown
Nondeterministic pushdown
Deterministic pushdown
Visibly pushdown
Finite
Counter-free (with aperiodic finite monoid)
Each category of languages is a proper subset of the category directly above it. - Any automaton and any grammar in each category has an equivalent automaton or grammar in the category directly above it.
[edit] Contributions to psychology

Chomsky's work in linguistics has had profound implications for modern psychology.[49] For Chomsky, linguistics is a branch of cognitive psychology; genuine insights in linguistics imply concomitant understandings of aspects of mental processing and human nature. His theory of a universal grammar was seen by many as a direct challenge to the established behaviorist theories of the time and had major consequences for understanding how children learn language and what, exactly, the ability to use language is.

In 1959, Chomsky published an influential critique of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, a book in which Skinner offered a theoretical account of language in functional, behavioral terms. "Verbal behavior" he defined as learned behavior that has characteristic consequences delivered through the learned behavior of others. This makes for a view of communicative behaviors much larger than that usually addressed by linguists. Skinner's approach focused on the circumstances in which language was used; for example, asking for water was functionally a different response than labeling something as water, responding to someone asking for water, etc. These functionally different kinds of responses, which required in turn separate explanations, sharply contrasted both with traditional notions of language and Chomsky's psycholinguistic approach. Chomsky thought that a functionalist explanation restricting itself to questions of communicative performance ignored important questions. (Chomsky—Language and Mind, 1968). He focused on questions concerning the operation and development of innate structures for syntax capable of creatively organizing, cohering, adapting and combining words and phrases into intelligible utterances.

In the review Chomsky emphasized that the scientific application of behavioral principles from animal research is severely lacking in explanatory adequacy and is furthermore particularly superficial as an account of human verbal behavior because a theory restricting itself to external conditions, to "what is learned", cannot adequately account for generative grammar. Chomsky raised the examples of rapid language acquisition of children, including their quickly developing ability to form grammatical sentences, and the universally creative language use of competent native speakers to highlight the ways in which Skinner's view exemplified under-determination of theory by evidence. He argued that to understand human verbal behavior such as the creative aspects of language use and language development, one must first postulate a genetic linguistic endowment. The assumption that important aspects of language are the product of universal innate ability runs counter to Skinner's radical behaviorism.

Chomsky's 1959 review has drawn fire from a number of critics, the most famous criticism being that of Kenneth MacCorquodale's 1970 paper On Chomsky’s Review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, volume 13, pages 83–99). MacCorquodale's argument was updated and expanded in important respects by Nathan Stemmer in a 1990 paper, Skinner's Verbal Behavior, Chomsky's review, and mentalism (Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, volume 54, pages 307–319). These and similar critiques have raised certain points not generally acknowledged outside of behavioral psychology, such as the claim that Chomsky did not possess an adequate understanding of either behavioral psychology in general, or the differences between Skinner's behaviorism and other varieties; consequently, it is argued that he made several serious errors. On account of these perceived problems, the critics maintain that the review failed to demonstrate what it has often been cited as doing. As such, it is averred that those most influenced by Chomsky's paper probably either already substantially agreed with Chomsky or never actually read it. The review has been further critiqued for misrepresenting the work of Skinner and others, including by quoting out of context.[50] Chomsky has maintained that the review was directed at the way Skinner's variant of behavioral psychology "was being used in Quinean empiricism and naturalization of philosophy".[51]

It has been claimed that Chomsky's critique of Skinner's methodology and basic assumptions paved the way for the "cognitive revolution", the shift in American psychology between the 1950s through the 1970s from being primarily behavioral to being primarily cognitive. In his 1966 Cartesian Linguistics and subsequent works, Chomsky laid out an explanation of human language faculties that has become the model for investigation in some areas of psychology. Much of the present conception of how the mind works draws directly from ideas that found their first persuasive author of modern times in Chomsky.

There are three key ideas. First is that the mind is "cognitive", or that the mind actually contains mental states, beliefs, doubts, and so on. Second, he argued that most of the important properties of language and mind are innate. The acquisition and development of a language is a result of the unfolding of innate propensities triggered by the experiential input of the external environment. The link between human innate aptitude to language and heredity has been at the core of the debate opposing Noam Chomsky to Jean Piaget at the Abbaye de Royaumont in 1975 (Language and Learning. The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, Harvard University Press, 1980). Although links between the genetic setup of humans and aptitude to language have been suggested at that time and in later discussions, we are still far from understanding the genetic bases of human language. Work derived from the model of selective stabilization of synapses set up by Jean-Pierre Changeux, Philippe Courrège and Antoine Danchin,[52] and more recently developed experimentally and theoretically by Jacques Mehler and Stanislas Dehaene in particular in the domain of numerical cognition lend support to the Chomskyan "nativism". It does not, however, provide clues about the type of rules that would organize neuronal connections to permit language competence. Subsequent psychologists have extended this general "nativist" thesis beyond language. Lastly, Chomsky made the concept of "modularity" a critical feature of the mind's cognitive architecture. The mind is composed of an array of interacting, specialized subsystems with limited flows of inter-communication. This model contrasts sharply with the old idea that any piece of information in the mind could be accessed by any other cognitive process (optical illusions, for example, cannot be "turned off" even when they are known to be illusions).
[edit] Approach to science
This article contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Please help improve the article by removing excessive quotations or transferring them to Wikiquote. Help is available. (April 2010)

Chomsky sees science as a straightforward search for explanation, and rejects the views of it as a catalog of facts or mechanical explanations. In this light, the majority of his contributions to science have been frameworks and hypotheses, rather than "discoveries."[53]

As such, he considers the post-structuralist and postmodern criticisms of science to be nonsensical:

I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of; those condemned here as "science", "rationality," "logic," and so on. I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed.[54]

Although Chomsky believes that a scientific background is important to teach proper reasoning, he holds that science in general is "inadequate" to understand complicated problems like human affairs:

Science talks about very simple things, and asks hard questions about them. As soon as things become too complex, science can’t deal with them... But it’s a complicated matter: Science studies what’s at the edge of understanding, and what’s at the edge of understanding is usually fairly simple. And it rarely reaches human affairs. Human affairs are way too complicated.[55]

[edit] Debates

Chomsky has been known to vigorously defend and debate his views and opinions, in philosophy, linguistics, and politics.[2] He has had notable debates with such varied intellectuals as Jean Piaget,[56] Michel Foucault,[57] William F. Buckley, Jr.,[58] Christopher Hitchens,[59][60][61][62][63][64] Richard Perle,[65] Hilary Putnam,[66] WVO Quine,[67] and Alan Dershowitz,[68] to name a very few. In response to his speaking style being criticized as boring, Chomsky said that "I'm a boring speaker and I like it that way…. I doubt that people are attracted to whatever the persona is…. People are interested in the issues, and they're interested in the issues because they are important."[69] "We don't want to be swayed by superficial eloquence, by emotion and so on."[70]
[edit] Political views
Main article: Noam Chomsky's political views
Chomsky at the World Social Forum (Porto Alegre) in 2003.
Part of the Politics series on
Anarchism
"Circle-A" anarchy symbol
Schools of thought[show]
Buddhist · Christian · Collectivist
Communist · Egoist · Feminist
Green · Individualist · Infoanarchism
Insurrectionary · Leftist · Mutualist
Nihilist · Pacifist · Philosophical
Platformist · Post-anarchist
Post-colonial · Post-left · Primitivist · Social
Syndicalist · Vegan
Without adjectives · Zen
Theory · practice[show]
Anarchy · Black bloc
Class struggle · Communes
Consensus democracy
Decentralization · Deep ecology
Direct action · Direct democracy
Dual power · Especifismo
Expropriative anarchism · Horizontalidad · Illegalism
Individualism · Individual reclamation
Isocracy · Law
Participatory politics
Permanent Autonomous Zone
Polycentric law
Prefigurative politics
Propaganda of the deed
Refusal of work · Rewilding
Social ecology
Social insertion · Spontaneous order
People[show]
William Godwin · Josiah Warren
Max Stirner · Johann Most
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Mikhail Bakunin
Henry David Thoreau · Leo Tolstoy
Peter Kropotkin · Benjamin Tucker
Errico Malatesta · Emma Goldman
Nestor Makhno · Alexander Berkman
Buenaventura Durruti · Émile Armand
Murray Rothbard · Murray Bookchin · John Zerzan
Issues[show]
Anarcho-capitalism · Animal rights
Capitalism · Criticisms · Islam
LGBT rights
Lifestylism · Marxism · Nationalism
Orthodox Judaism · Religion
Sex/love · Violence
History[show]
1999 WTO Conference protest
1919 United States anarchist bombings
Amakasu Incident
Anarchist Catalonia
Anarchist Exclusion Act
Anarchy in Somalia
Australian Anarchist Centenary
Barcelona May Days
Biennio rosso
Carnival Against Capitalism
Escuela Moderna · Hague Congress
Haymarket affair
High Treason Incident
Congress of Amsterdam
Kate Sharpley Library
Kronstadt rebellion
Labadie Collection · LIP
Manifesto of the Sixteen
May 1968 · May Day
Paris Commune
Provo · Red inverted triangle
Free Territory of Ukraine
Spanish Revolution
Third Russian Revolution
Tragic Week · Trial of the thirty
Culture[show]
Anarchist Bookfair · Anarcho-punk · Arts
Black anarchism · Culture jamming
DIY culture · Freeganism
Independent Media Center
Infoshop · The Internationale
Jewish anarchism · Land and liberty
Lifestylism · Popular education
Property is theft!
Radical cheerleading
Radical environmentalism
Squatting · Symbolism
Terminology · A las barricadas
Economics[show]
Collectivism
Communism · Co-operatives
Counter-economics
Free school · Free store
Gift economy
Market abolitionism · Mutual aid
Mutualism · Participatory economics
Planned Economy
Really Really Free Market
· Syndicalism
Wage slavery
Workers' self-management
By region[show]
Africa · Australia · Austria-Hungary · Brazil
Canada · China · Cuba · Ecuador · England
France · Greece · India · Iceland · Ireland
Israel · Italy · Japan · Korea
Mexico · Poland · Russia · Spain
Sweden · Turkey · Ukraine
United States · Vietnam
Lists[show]
Anarcho-punk bands · Books
Communities · Fictional characters
Jewish anarchists · Musicians
Organizations · Periodicals · Poets
Russian anarchists
Related topics[show]
Anti-capitalism · Anti-consumerism · Anti-corporatism
Anti-fascism · Anti-globalization · Antimilitarism
Anti-statism · Anti-war · Autarchism
Autonomism · Labour movement
Left communism · Libertarianism
Libertarian perspectives on revolution
Libertarian socialism
Situationist International

BlackFlagSymbol.svg Anarchism Portal
Politics portal
v • d • e

Chomsky has stated that his "personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism"[12] and he has praised libertarian socialism.[71] He is a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism[11] and a member of the Industrial Workers of the World international union.[72] He published a book on anarchism titled Chomsky on Anarchism, published by the anarchist book collective AK Press in 2006.

Chomsky has engaged in political activism all of his adult life and expressed opinions on politics and world events, which are widely cited, publicized, and discussed. Chomsky has in turn argued that his views are those the powerful do not want to hear, and for this reason he is considered an American political dissident.

Chomsky asserts that power, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate, that the burden of proof is on those in authority to demonstrate why their elevated position is justified. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled, and authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified. An example given by Chomsky of a legitimate authority is that exerted by an adult to prevent a young child from wandering into traffic.[73] He contends that there isn't much difference between slavery, and renting one's self to an owner, or "wage slavery." He feels that it is an attack on personal integrity that destroys and undermines individual freedom. He holds workers should own and control their own workplace, a view held (as he notes) by the Lowell Mill Girls.[74]

Chomsky has strongly criticized the foreign policy of the United States. Specifically, he claims double standards in a foreign policy preaching democracy and freedom for all, while promoting, supporting and allying itself with non-democratic and repressive organizations and states such as Chile under Augusto Pinochet, and argues that this results in massive human rights violations. He often argues that America's intervention in foreign nations, including the secret aid given to the Contras in Nicaragua, an event of which he has been very critical, fits any standard description of terrorism.[75]

He has argued that the mass media in the United States largely serve as a propaganda arm and "bought priesthood"[76] of the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, with the three parties all largely intertwined through common interests. In a famous reference to Walter Lippmann, Chomsky along with his coauthor, Edward S. Herman, has written that the American media manufactures consent among the public. Chomsky has condemned the 2010 supreme court ruling revoking the limits on campaign finance, calling it "corporate takeover of democracy."[77]

Chomsky opposes the U.S. global "war on drugs", claiming its language to be misleading, and referring to it as "the war on certain drugs." He favors drug policy reform, in education and prevention rather than military or police action as a means of reducing drug use.[78] In an interview in 1999, Chomsky argued that, whereas crops such as tobacco receive no mention in governmental exposition, other non-profitable crops, such as marijuana, are specifically targeted because of the effect achieved by persecuting the poor:[79] He has stated:

U.S. domestic drug policy does not carry out its stated goals, and policymakers are well aware of that. If it isn't about reducing substance abuse, what is it about? It is reasonably clear, both from current actions and the historical record, that substances tend to be criminalized when they are associated with the so-called dangerous classes, that the criminalization of certain substances is a technique of social control.[80]

Chomsky is critical of the American state capitalist system and big business, he describes himself as a socialist who sympathizes with anarcho-syndicalism, but is strongly critical of Leninist branches of socialism. He also believes that socialist values exemplify the rational and morally consistent extension of original unreconstructed classical liberal and radical humanist ideas to an industrial context. Specifically he believes that society should be highly organized and based on democratic control of communities and work places. He believes that the radical humanist ideas of his two major influences, Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, were "rooted in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and retain their revolutionary character."[81]

Chomsky has stated that he believes the United States remains the "greatest country in the world",[82] a comment that he later clarified by saying, "Evaluating countries is senseless and I would never put things in those terms, but that some of America's advances, particularly in the area of free speech, that have been achieved by centuries of popular struggle, are to be admired."[83] He has also said "In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations. The United States comes closer to classlessness in terms of interpersonal relations than virtually any society."[84]

Chomsky objects to the criticism that anarchism is inconsistent with support for government welfare, stating in part:

One can, of course, take the position that we don't care about the problems people face today, and want to think about a possible tomorrow. OK, but then don't pretend to have any interest in human beings and their fate, and stay in the seminar room and intellectual coffee house with other privileged people. Or one can take a much more humane position: I want to work, today, to build a better society for tomorrow – the classical anarchist position, quite different from the slogans in the question. That's exactly right, and it leads directly to support for the people facing problems today: for enforcement of health and safety regulation, provision of national health insurance, support systems for people who need them, etc. That is not a sufficient condition for organizing for a different and better future, but it is a necessary condition. Anything else will receive the well-merited contempt of people who do not have the luxury to disregard the circumstances in which they live, and try to survive.[85]

Chomsky at an anti-war rally in Vancouver, in 2004.

Chomsky holds views that can be summarized as anti-war but not strictly pacifist. He prominently opposed the Vietnam War and most other wars in his lifetime. He expressed these views through a variety of protest methods, such as tax resistance and peace walks. He published a number of articles about the war in Vietnam, including "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". However, he maintains that U.S. involvement in World War II to defeat the Axis powers was probably justified, with the caveat that a preferable outcome would have been to end or prevent the war through earlier diplomacy. In particular, he believes that the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "among the most unspeakable crimes in history".[86]

Chomsky has made major criticisms of Israel, supporters of Israel, and the United States support of Israel, and Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people, arguing that "supporters of Israel are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction", and that "Israel's very clear choice of expansion over security may well lead to that consequence."[87] Chomsky disagreed with the founding of Israel as a Jewish state, saying, "I don't think a Jewish or Christian or Islamic state is a proper concept. I would object to the United States as a Christian state."[88] Chomsky hesitated before publishing work critical of Israeli policies while his parents were alive, because he "knew it would hurt them" he says, "mostly because of their friends, who reacted hysterically to views like those expressed in my work."[89] On May 16, 2010, Israeli authorities detained Chomsky and ultimately refused his entry to the West Bank via Jordan.[90] A spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister indicated that the refusal of entry was simply due to a border guard who "overstepped his authority" and a second attempt to enter would likely be allowed.[91] Chomsky disagreed, saying that the Interior Ministry official who interviewed him was taking instructions from his superiors.[91] Chomsky maintained that, based on the several hours of interviewing, he was denied entry because of the things he says and because he was visiting a university in West Bank but no Israeli universities.[91]

Chomsky has a broad view of free-speech rights, especially in the mass media; he opposes censorship and refuses to take legal action against those who may have libeled him. He prefers to counter libels through open letters in newspapers. One notable example of this approach is his response to an article by Emma Brockes in The Guardian.[92][93][94]

Chomsky has frequently stated that there is no connection between his work in linguistics and his political views, and is generally critical of the idea that competent discussion of political topics requires expert knowledge in academic fields. In a 1969 interview, he said regarding the connection between his politics and his work in linguistics:

I still feel myself that there is a kind of tenuous connection. I would not want to overstate it but I think it means something to me at least. I think that anyone's political ideas or their ideas of social organization must be rooted ultimately in some concept of human nature and human needs.[95]

[edit] Influence in other fields
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)

Chomskyan models have been used as a theoretical basis in several other fields. The Chomsky hierarchy is often taught in fundamental computer science courses as it confers insight into the various types of formal languages. This hierarchy can also be discussed in mathematical terms[96] and has generated interest among mathematicians, particularly combinatorialists. Some arguments in evolutionary psychology are derived from his research results.[97]

The 1984 Nobel Prize laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Niels K. Jerne, used Chomsky's generative model to explain the human immune system, equating "components of a generative grammar … with various features of protein structures". The title of Jerne's Stockholm Nobel lecture was "The Generative Grammar of the Immune System".

Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who was the subject of a study in animal language acquisition at Columbia University, was named after Chomsky in reference to his view of language acquisition as a uniquely human ability.

Famous computer scientist Donald Knuth admits to reading Syntactic Structures during his honeymoon and being greatly influenced by it. "…I must admit to taking a copy of Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures along with me on my honeymoon in 1961 … Here was a marvelous thing: a mathematical theory of language in which I could use a computer programmer's intuition!".

Another focus of Chomsky's political work has been an analysis of mainstream mass media (especially in the United States), its structures and constraints, and its perceived role in supporting big business and government interests.

Edward S. Herman and Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988) explores this topic in depth, presenting their "propaganda model" of the news media with numerous detailed case studies demonstrating it. According to this propaganda model, more democratic societies like the U.S. use subtle, non-violent means of control, unlike totalitarian systems, where physical force can readily be used to coerce the general population. In an often-quoted remark, Chomsky states that "propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." (Media Control)

The model attempts to explain this perceived systemic bias of the mass media in terms of structural economic causes rather than a conspiracy of people. It argues the bias derives from five "filters" that all published news must "pass through," which combine to systematically distort news coverage.

In explaining the first filter, ownership, he notes that most major media outlets are owned by large corporations. The second, funding, notes that the outlets derive the majority of their funding from advertising, not readers. Thus, since they are profit-oriented businesses selling a product—readers and audiences—to other businesses (advertisers), the model expects them to publish news that reflects the desires and values of those businesses. In addition, the news media are dependent on government institutions and major businesses with strong biases as sources (the third filter) for much of their information. Flak, the fourth filter, refers to the various pressure groups that attack the media for supposed bias. Norms, the fifth filter, refer to the common conceptions shared by those in the profession of journalism. (Note: in the original text, published in 1988, the fifth filter was "anticommunism". However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been broadened to allow for shifts in public opinion.) The model describes how the media form a decentralized and non-conspiratorial but nonetheless very powerful propaganda system, that is able to mobilize an élite consensus, frame public debate within élite perspectives and at the same time give the appearance of democratic consent.

Chomsky and Herman test their model empirically by picking "paired examples"—pairs of events that were objectively similar except for the alignment of domestic élite interests. They use a number of such examples to attempt to show that in cases where an "official enemy" does something (like murder of a religious official), the press investigates thoroughly and devotes a great amount of coverage to the matter, thus victims of "enemy" states are considered "worthy". But when the domestic government or an ally does the same thing (or worse), the press downplays the story, thus victims of US or US client states are considered "unworthy."

They also test their model against the case that is often held up as the best example of a free and aggressively independent press, the media coverage of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. Even in this case, they argue that the press was behaving subserviently to élite interests.
[edit] Academic achievements, awards and honors

In the spring of 1969, he delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford University; in January 1970, the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at University of Cambridge; in 1972, the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi; in 1977, the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden; in 1988 the Massey Lectures at the University of Toronto, titled "Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies"; in 1997, The Davie Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom in Cape Town,[98] and many others.[99]

Chomsky has received many honorary degrees from universities around the world, including from the following:

* University of London
* University of Chicago
* Loyola University of Chicago
* Swarthmore College
* University of Delhi
* Bard College
* University of Massachusetts
* University of Pennsylvania
* Georgetown University
* Amherst College
* University of Cambridge



* University of Buenos Aires
* McGill University
* Universitat Rovira i Virgili
* Columbia University
* Villanova University
* University of Connecticut
* University of Maine
* Scuola Normale Superiore
* University of Western Ontario
* University of Toronto
* Harvard University



* Universidad de Chile
* University of Bologna
* Universidad de la Frontera
* University of Calcutta
* Universidad Nacional de Colombia
* Vrije Universiteit Brussel
* Santo Domingo Institute of Technology
* Uppsala University
* University of Athens
* University of Cyprus
* Central Connecticut State University
* National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)

He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. In addition, he is a member of other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the 1999 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others.[100] He is twice winner of The Orwell Award, granted by The National Council of Teachers of English for "Distinguished Contributions to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language" (in 1987 and 1989).[101]

He is a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Department of Social Sciences.[102]

Chomsky is a member of the Faculty Advisory Board of MIT Harvard Research Journal.[citation needed]

In 2005, Chomsky received an honorary fellowship from the Literary and Historical Society.[citation needed]

In 2007, Chomsky received The Uppsala University (Sweden) Honorary Doctor's degree in commemoration of Carolus Linnaeus.[103]

In February 2008, he received the President's Medal from the Literary and Debating Society of the National University of Ireland, Galway.[citation needed]

In 2010, Chomsky received the Erich Fromm Prize in Stuttgart, Germany.[104]

Chomsky has an Erdős number of four.

Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect. He reacted, saying "I don't pay a lot of attention to polls".[105] In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted seventh in the list of "Heroes of our time".[106]

Actor Viggo Mortensen with avant-garde guitarist Buckethead dedicated their 2006 album, called Pandemoniumfromamerica to Chomsky.

On January 22, 2010, a special honorary concert for Chomsky was given at Kresge Auditorium at MIT.[107] [108] The concert, attended by Chomsky and dozens of his family and friends, featured music composed by Edward Manukyan and speeches by Chomsky's colleagues, including David Pesetsky of MIT and Gennaro Chierchia, head of the linguistics department at Harvard University.
[edit] Criticism
Main article: Criticism of Noam Chomsky

Much Chomsky criticism revolves around his political views. His status as an intellectual figure within the left wing of American politics has resulted in much criticism from the left and the right.
[edit] Bibliography
Main article: Bibliography of Noam Chomsky
[edit] Filmography

* Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, Director: Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick (1992)
* Last Party 2000, Director: Rebecca Chaiklin and Donovan Leitch (2001)
* Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky in Our Times, Director: John Junkerman (2002)
* Distorted Morality—America's War On Terror?, Director: John Junkerman (2003)
* Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause (TV), Director: Will Pascoe (2003)
* The Corporation, Directors: Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott; Writer: Joel Bakan (2003)
* Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land, Directors: Sut Jhally and Bathsheba Ratzkoff (2004)
* On Power, Dissent and Racism: A discussion with Noam Chomsky, Journalist: Nicolas Rossier; Producers: Eli Choukri, Baraka Productions (2004)
* Lake of Fire, Director: Tony Kaye (2006)
* American Feud: A History of Conservatives and Liberals, Director: Richard Hall (2008)
* In the Time We've Got, Director: Christopher Ives (2008)
* Chomsky & Cie Director: Olivier Azam (out in 2008)
* An Inconvenient Tax, Director: Christopher P. Marshall (out in 2009)
* The Money Fix, Director: Alan Rosenblith (2009)

[edit] See also

* American philosophy
* Axiom of categoricity
* Chomsky hierarchy
* Chomsky normal form
* Chomskybot
* Chomsky–Schützenberger theorem
* Colorless green ideas sleep furiously
* English studies
* Important publications in computability
* Intellectual worker
* Language acquisition
* Nim Chimpsky
* Politics of Noam Chomsky
* Propaganda model
* List of American philosophers

[edit] References

1. ^ Kanan Makiya, Fouad Moughrabi, Adel Safty, Rex Brynen, "Letters to the Editor" in Journal of Palestine Studies, Journal of Palestine Studies via JSTOR (Vol. 23, No. 4, Summer, 1994, pp. 196–200), accessed December 4, 2007. Relevant quotation: "On page 146 of my book, I clearly adopt the propaganda model developed by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman..."
2. ^ a b "Noam Chomsky", by Zoltán Gendler Szabó, in Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, 1860–1960, ed. Ernest Lepore (2004). "Chomsky's intellectual life had been divided between his work in linguistics and his political activism, philosophy coming as a distant third. Nonetheless, his influence among analytic philosophers has been enormous because of three factors. First, Chomsky contributed substantially to a major methodological shift in the human sciences, turning away from the prevailing empiricism of the middle of the twentieth century: behaviorism in psychology, structuralism in linguistics and positivism in philosophy. Second, his groundbreaking books on syntax (Chomsky (1957, 1965)) laid a conceptual foundation for a new, cognitivist approach to linguistics and provided philosophers with a new framework for thinking about human language and the mind. And finally, he has persistently defended his views against all takers, engaging in important debates with many of the major figures in analytic philosophy..."
3. ^ The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1999), "Chomsky, Noam," Cambridge University Press, pg. 138. "Chomsky, Noam (born 1928), preeminent American linguist, philosopher, and political activist...Many of Chomsky's most significant contributions to philosophy, such as his influential rejection of behaviorism...stem from his elaborations and defenses of the above consequences..."
4. ^ MIT Faculty website
5. ^ Clark, Neil (2003-07-14). "Great thinkers of our time – Noam Chomsky". New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/200307140016. Retrieved 2008-08-02. "Regarded as the father of modern linguistics, founder of the field of transformational-generative grammar, which relies heavily on logic and philosophy."
6. ^ Fox, Margalit (1998-12-05). "A Changed Noam Chomsky Simplifies". New York Times. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20B1FFA3A5F0C768CDDAB0994D0494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fChomsky%2c%20Noam. Retrieved 2008-08-02. "… Noam Chomsky, father of modern linguistics and the field's most influential practitioner; …"
7. ^ Thomas Tymoczko, Jim Henle, James M. Henle, Sweet Reason: A Field Guide to Modern Logic, Birkhäuser, 2000, p. 101.
8. ^ Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Anarchism (2005), AK Press, pg. 5
9. ^ a b The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1999), "Chomsky, Noam," Cambridge University Press, pg. 138
10. ^ "Language & Communication: the problem of naturalizing semantics", Language & Communication, April 2000
11. ^ a b Chomsky wrote the preface to an edition of Rudolf Rocker's book Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice. In it Chomsky wrote: "I felt at once, and still feel, that Rocker was pointing the way to a much better world, one that is within our grasp, one that may well be the only alternative to the 'universal catastrophe' towards which 'we are driving on under full sail'…" Book Citation: Rudolph Rocker. Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice. AK Press. p. ii. 2004.
12. ^ a b Chomsky (1996), pp. 71.
13. ^ "Chomsky is Citation Champ". MIT News Office. 1992-04-15. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1992/citation-0415.html. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
14. ^ Hughes, Samuel (July/August 2001). "Speech!". The Pennsylvania Gazette. http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/200107--.htm. Retrieved 2007-09-03. "According to a recent survey by the Institute for Scientific Information, only Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, and Freud are cited more often in academic journals than Chomsky, who edges out Hegel and Cicero."
15. ^ Robinson, Paul (1979-02-25). "The Chomsky Problem". The New York Times. "Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual."
16. ^ Matt Dellinger, "Sounds and Sites: Noam Chomsky," The New Yorker, Link, 3-31-03, accessed 1-26-09
17. ^ "The Accidental Bestseller, Publishers Weekly, 5-5-03, accessed 10-11-08. "Chomsky's controversial political works...became mainstream bestsellers."
18. ^ a b "The Life and Times of Noam Chomsky, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Amy Goodman". www.chomsky.info. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20041126.htm. Retrieved 2008-12-21.
19. ^ http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Chomsky/chomsky-con1.html
20. ^ http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Chomsky/chomsky-con1.html
21. ^ [1]
22. ^ "The Chomsky Tapes: Conversations with Michael Albert". Z magazine. November 2001. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Chomsky_Tapes_MAlbert.html.
23. ^ Kreisler (2002), "Chapter 1: Background". http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Chomsky/chomsky-con1.html. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
24. ^ Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent – Google Book Search. books.google.co.uk. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GhwvCoZBFoYC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=chomsky+%22zellig+harris%22&source=web&ots=8hek6p86Fg&sig=SMBMAJ4rqkWT1MFySavr_K8TFE8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA47,M1. Retrieved 2008-12-21.
25. ^ Marquard, Bryan (2008-12-20). "Carol Chomsky; at 78; Harvard language professor was wife of MIT linguist". Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2008/12/20/carol_chomsky_at_78_harvard_language_professor_was_wife_of_mit_linguist/. Retrieved 2008-12-20.
26. ^ Noam Chomsky interviewed by Shira Hadad
27. ^ Eight Question on Kibbutzim: Answers from Noam Chomsky Questions from Nikos Raptis
28. ^ Kibbutzim as a Climate for Learning
29. ^ Chomsky, Noam (1967-02-23). "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". The New York Review of Books 8 (3). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/12172. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
30. ^ Turan, Kenneth (2003-01-24). "Power and Terror— Movie review". Los Angeles Times. http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-turan24jan24,0,1640744.story. Retrieved 2007-09-04. "[Chomsky] "is so lucid" [and his] "point of view is so rarely heard."
31. ^ Wall, Richard (2004-08-17). "Who's Afraid of Noam Chomsky?". LewRockwell.com. http://www.lewrockwell.com/wall/wall26.html. Retrieved 2007-09-03. "[Chomsky] has historically been distrusted and shunned by the US mainstream media."
32. ^ Flint, Anthony (1995-11-19). "Divided Legacy". The Boston Globe. http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19951119.htm. Retrieved 2007-09-04. "Ask this intellectual radical why he is shunned by the mainstream, and he'll say that established powers have never been able to handle his brand of dissent."
33. ^ Barsky (1997), "Chapter 4". http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/4/17.html. Retrieved 2007-09-04. Barsky quotes an excerpt of Edward Herman examining why "one of America's most well-known intellectuals and dissidents would be thus ignored and even ostracized by the mainstream press." For example, "Chomsky has never had an Op Ed column in the Washington Post, and his lone opinion piece in the New York Times was not an original contribution but rather excerpts from testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
34. ^ a b c Stroumboulopoulos, George (2006-03-13). "Noam Chomsky on The Hour". CBC. http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=991. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
35. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/books/architecture01.htm
36. ^ Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
37. ^ Tomasello, M (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01764-1.
38. ^ Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.
39. ^ Huang, Cheng-Teh James (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. MIT PhD dissertation. Available online [2].
40. ^ Matthews, G.H. (1965). Hidatsa Syntax. Mouton.
41. ^ Platero, Paul Randolph (1978). Missing noun phrases in Navajo. MIT PhD dissertation. Available online [3].
42. ^ Schütze, Carson T. (1993). Towards a Minimalist Account of Quirky Case and Licensing in Icelandic. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19. Available online [4]
43. ^ Bhatt, Rajesh (1997). Matching Effects and the Syntax-Morphology Interface: Evidence from Hindi Correlatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 31. Available online [5].
44. ^ The New Yorker, John Colapinto. April 16, 2007. p. 119.
45. ^ http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000411
46. ^ The Independent interview with Kevin Rodgers. August 28, 2006.
47. ^ Ray, Robin H. (2007-04-23). "Linguists doubt exception to universal grammar". MIT News. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/pesetsky-ling.html. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
48. ^ Martin, Davis,. Computability, complexity, and languages: Fundamentals of theoretical computer science. Boston: Academic, Harcourt, Brace, 1994: 327. Print.
49. ^ The Cognitive Science Millennium Project
50. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774611/pdf/anvb-23-01-29.pdf
51. ^ Barsky (1997), "Chapter 3". http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/3/2.html. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
52. ^ Changeux, Jean-Pierre; Courrége, Philippe; Danchin, Antoine (October 1973) (PDF). A Theory of the Epigenesis of Neuronal Networks by Selective Stabilization of Synapses. PNAS. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=4517949. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
53. ^ Chomsky, Noam (2009). ""Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden?"". Journal of Philosophy 106 (4): 167–200. ISSN 0022-362X.
54. ^ Chomsky, Noam (November 22, 2002). Chomsky on Democracy & Education. Routledge. pp. 93. ISBN 0415926319. http://books.google.com/books?id=Y5Ouy4XoXPsC.
55. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20060301.htm
56. ^ Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, ed., Language and Learning: The Debate Between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, Routledge, 1975.
57. ^ The Chomsky–Foucault Debate: On Human Nature, WW Norton, 2006
58. ^ William F. Buckley vs. Noam Chomsky, YouTube
59. ^ Noam Chomsky "A Quick Reaction", Counterpunch September 12, 2001
60. ^ Christopher Hitchens, "Against Rationalization: Minority Report", The Nation, September 24, 2001
61. ^ Christopher Hitchens, "Of Sin, the Left & Islamic Fascism", The Nation, 2001
62. ^ Noam Chomsky, "Reply to Hitchens", The Nation, 2001
63. ^ Christopher Hitchens, "A Rejoinder to Noam Chomsky", The Nation, 2001
64. ^ Noam Chomsky, "Reply to Hitchens' 'Rejoinder'", The Nation, 2001
65. ^ Chomsky vs. Perle, YouTube
66. ^ Hilary Putnam, "Externalism: Its Motivation and Its Critics", Harvard University, 2007.
67. ^ KU Leuven, "An Epistemological Reading of the Debate between Quine and Chomsky", October 2003.
68. ^ "Noam Chomsky v. Alan Dershowitz: A Debate on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", Democracy Now!, 23 December 2005.
69. ^ Chomsky Rebel
70. ^ Chomsky, Noam. "False, False, False, and False: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Ray Suarez", January 20, 1999 Chomsky.info
71. ^ Chomsky, Noam, "Notes on Anarchism" [6] … "Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment."
72. ^ Industrial Workers of the World IWW Member Biographies
73. ^ Anarchism 101 with Noam Chomsky
74. ^ Conversation with Noam Chomsky, p. 2 of 5
75. ^ An Evening With Noam Chomsky
76. ^ Chomsky on Democracy & Education
77. ^ http://chomsky.info/articles/20100124.htm
78. ^ Chomsky, Noam (1993). "What Uncle Sam Really Wants". ZMag. http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-3-2.html. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
79. ^ Noam Chomsky et al.. (1999). Noam Chomsky on Drugs. [TV]. ROX.
80. ^ Chomsky, Noam (2002-02-08). "DRCNet Interview: Noam Chomsky". DRCNet. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/223/noamchomsky.shtml. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
81. ^ Chomsky (1996), p. 77.
82. ^ "Interview with Noam Chomsky, Bill Bennett", May 30, 2002 American Morning with Paula Zahn CNN
83. ^ Adams, Tim (2003-10-30). "Noam Chomsky: Thorn in America's Side". The Observer. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1094708,00.html. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
84. ^ Chomsky, Noam. 2003. Chomsky on Democracy & Education. Routledge. p. 399
85. ^ http://www.zmag.org/chomsky_repliesana.htm 'Answers by Noam Chomsky' to questions about anarchism
86. ^ An Exchange on "The Responsibility of Intellectuals", Noam Chomsky debates with Fryar Calhoun, E. B. Murray, and Arthur Dorfman
87. ^ On the Future of Israel and Palestine
88. ^ Solomon, Deborah (November 2, 2003). "Questions for Noam Chomsky: The Professorial Provocateur". The New York Times Magazine (The New York Times). http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/magazine/way-we-live-now-11-02-03-questions-for-noam-chomsky-professorial-provocateur.html.
89. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=I-cDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false
90. ^ "Israel bars Noam Chomsky from West Bank". The Gazette. Agence France-Presse (Canwest Publishing Inc). May 16, 2010. http://www.montrealgazette.com/Israel+bars+Noam+Chomsky+from+West+Bank/3035253/story.html.
91. ^ a b c "Israel Roiled After Chomsky Barred From West Bank". The New York Times. may 17, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world/middleeast/18chomsky.html?partner=rss&emc=rss.
92. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20051031.htm
93. ^ http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20051113.htm
94. ^ Free speech in a Democracy, by Noam Chomsky (Daily Camera)
95. ^ New Left Review, 57, Sept. – Oct. 1969, p. 21
96. ^ Sakharov, Alex (2003-05-12). "Grammar". MathWorld. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Grammar.html. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
97. ^ "Lecture 6: Evolutionary Psychology, Problem Solving, and 'Machiavellian' Intelligence". School of Psychology. Massey University. 1996. http://evolution.massey.ac.nz/lecture6/lect600.htm. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
98. ^ Van Zyl Slabbert to present TB Davie Memorial Lecture
99. ^ The Current Crisis in the Middle East: About the Lecture. MIT World.
100. ^ Noam Chomsky, MIT Linguistics Program
101. ^ Past Recipients of the NCTE Orwell Award
102. ^ Department of Social Sciences. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
103. ^ "Uppsala University’s Honorary Doctorates in Commemoration of Linnaeus". Uppsala University. 2007-02-13. http://info.uu.se/press.nsf/pm/uppsala.universitys.id0AC.html. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
104. ^ "The 2010 Erich Fromm Prize to Noam Chomsky". International Erich Fromm Society. 2010-01-16. http://www.erich-fromm.de/biophil/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=190:the-2010-erich-fromm-prize-to-noam-chomsky&catid=54:latest-news. Retrieved 2010-04-05.
105. ^ "Chomsky named top intellectual: British poll". Breitbart.com. 2005-10-18. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/18/051018152652.77esbn1j.html. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
106. ^ Cowley, Jason (2006-05-22). "Heroes of Our Time". New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/200605220016. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
107. ^ http://www.edwardmanukyan.com/concerts/chomsky_tribute.html Noam Chomsky Honorary Concert
108. ^ Weininger, David (2010-1-21). "Chomsky Tribute". Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2010/01/22/fours_a_charm_for_parker_quartet/. Retrieved 2010-03-16.

* Barsky, Robert F. (1997). Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-1550222821. http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/welcome.html.

* Chomsky, Noam (1996). Perspectives on Power. Montréal: Black Rose. ISBN 978-1551640488.

* Kreisler, Harry (2002-03-22). "Activism, Anarchism, and Power: Conversation with Noam Chomsky". Conversations with History. Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley. http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Chomsky/chomsky-con1.html. Retrieved 2007-09-03.

[edit] External links

Find more about Noam Chomsky on Wikipedia's sister projects:
Search Wiktionary Definitions from Wiktionary
Search Wikiquote Quotations from Wikiquote
Search Wikisource Source texts from Wikisource
Search Commons Images and media from Commons
Search Wikinews News stories from Wikinews

* chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website
* Noam Chomsky at MIT
* Noam Chomsky's page on Academia.edu
* Works by or about Noam Chomsky in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
* Noam Chomsky at the Mathematics Genealogy Project
* Noam Chomsky at the Internet Movie Database
* Noam Chomsky at Zmag
* Talks by Noam Chomsky at A-Infos Radio Project
* Interview about Human Rights by scholars (English with French subtitles) – 2009
* Chomsky media files at the Internet Archive
* Articles and videos featuring Noam Chomsky at AnarchismToday.org
* The Political Economy of the Mass Media Part 1

[show]

Links to related articles
[show]
v • d • e
Noam Chomsky
Political views · Bibliography · Criticism · Chomsky hierarchy · "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
Select
bibliography
Linguistics

Syntactic Structures (1957) · Current issues in linguistic theory (1964) · Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965) · Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (1966) · The Sound Pattern of English (1968) · Conditions on Transformations (1973) · The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1975) · Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures (1981) · Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use (1986) · The Minimalist Program (1995) · New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind (2000)
Politics

The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967) · American Power and the New Mandarins (1969) · The Soviet Union Versus Socialism (1986) · Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media * (1988) · Necessary Illusions (1989) · Deterring Democracy (1992) · Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (2003) · Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship (2003) · Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (2006)
Interviews

Class Warfare (1996) · Imperial Ambitions (2005)
Filmography
Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992) · Last Party 2000 (2001) · Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky in Our Times (2002) · Distorted Morality – America's War On Terror? (2003) · Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause (2003) (TV) · Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land (2004)
Related articles
Carol Chomsky(1930-2008) · Aviva Chomsky(1957-)
* with Edward S. Herman
[show]
v • d • e
Social and political philosophy
Related articles

Philosophy of economics · Philosophy of education · Philosophy of history · Jurisprudence · Philosophy of social science · Philosophy of love · Philosophy of sex
Social concepts

Society · War · Law · Justice · Peace · Rights · Revolution · Civil disobedience · Democracy · Social contract · more...
Social theories

Anarchism · Authoritarianism · Liberalism · Libertarianism · National liberalism · Socialism · Utilitarianism · Conflict theory · Consensus theory
Philosophers

Plato · Augustine of Hippo · Marsilius of Padua · Niccolò Machiavelli · Hugo Grotius · Montesquieu · Auguste Comte · Bernard Bosanquet · Herbert Spencer · Nicolas Malebranche · Émile Durkheim · George Santayana · Josiah Royce · Confucius · Thomas Hobbes · Gottfried Leibniz · David Hume · Immanuel Kant · Jean-Jacques Rousseau · John Locke · Adam Smith · Jeremy Bentham · John Stuart Mill · Henry David Thoreau · Karl Marx · Mohandas Gandhi · Giovanni Gentile · Jacques Maritain · Isaiah Berlin · Ayn Rand · Michel Foucault · John Rawls · Karl Popper · Jürgen Habermas · Robert Nozick · Noam Chomsky · Alain Badiou · Slavoj Žižek
Portal · Category · Task Force · Discussion · Changes
[show]
v • d • e
Philosophy of language
Related articles:
Analytic philosophy • Language • Philosophy of information • Philosophical logic • Linguistics • Pragmatics • Rhetoric • Semantics • Formal semantics • General semantics • Semiotics
Concepts in language

Ambiguity • Linguistic relativity • Meaning • Language • Truthbearer • Proposition • Use–mention distinction • Concept • Categories • Set • Class • Intension • Logical form • Metalanguage • Mental representation • Principle of compositionality • Property • Sign • Sense and reference • Speech act • Symbol • Entity • Sentence • Statement • more...
Theories of language

Causal theory of reference • Contrast theory of meaning • Contrastivism • Conventionalism • Cratylism • Deconstruction • Descriptivist theory of names • Direct reference theory • Dramatism • Expressivism • Linguistic determinism • Logical atomism • Logical positivism • Mediated reference theory • Nominalism • Non-cognitivism • Phallogocentrism • Quietism • Relevance theory • Semantic externalism • Semantic holism • Structuralism • Supposition theory • Symbiosism • Theological noncognitivism • Theory of descriptions • Verification theory
Philosophers of language

Plato (Cratylus) • Confucius • Xun Zi • Aristotle • Stoics • Pyrrhonists • Scholasticism • Thomas Hobbes • Gottfried Leibniz • Johann Herder • Wilhelm von Humboldt • Fritz Mauthner • Paul Ricoeur • Ferdinand de Saussure • Gottlob Frege • Franz Boas • Paul Tillich • Edward Sapir • Leonard Bloomfield • Zhuangzi • Henri Bergson • Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations • Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) • Bertrand Russell • Rudolf Carnap • Jacques Derrida (Of Grammatology • Limited Inc) • Benjamin Lee Whorf • Gustav Bergmann • J. L. Austin • Noam Chomsky • Hans-Georg Gadamer • Saul Kripke • Alfred Jules Ayer • Donald Davidson • Paul Grice • Gilbert Ryle • P. F. Strawson
Portal · Category · Task Force · Discussion · Changes
Persondata
NAME Chomsky, Avram Noam
ALTERNATIVE NAMES Chomsky, Noam
SHORT DESCRIPTION linguist, psychologist, and activist
DATE OF BIRTH December 7, 1928
PLACE OF BIRTH East Oak Lane, Philadelphia, United States
DATE OF DEATH living
PLACE OF DEATH

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky"
Categories: 1928 births | Living people | 20th-century philosophers | Ashkenazi Jews | American academics | American activists | American anarchists | American anti-Iraq War activists | American anti-Vietnam War activists | American dissidents | American linguists | American media critics | American political writers | American socialists | American libertarians | Libertarian socialists | Analytic philosophers | Anarchist academics | American people of Belarusian descent | Belarusian-American Jews | Cognitive scientists | Computer pioneers | Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada | G7 Welcoming Committee Records | Generative linguistics | Guggenheim Fellows | Industrial Workers of the World members | Jewish American social scientists | Jewish American writers | Jewish anarchists | Jewish anti-Zionism | Jewish writers | Developmental psycholinguists | Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty | Massey Lecturers | Members of the Democratic Socialists of America | Members of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts | Noam Chomsky | Lecturers | Personae non gratae | Propaganda theorists | Phonologists | People from Lexington, Massachusetts | People from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Philosophers of mind | Rationalists | Syntacticians | University of Pennsylvania alumni | Writers from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Anarcho-syndicalists | Consciousness researchers and theorists | American Jews of Ukrainian descent | American philosophers | Drug policy reform activists | Jewish peace activists

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky at an antiwar rally in Vancouver, 2004

Noam Chomsky is a widely known intellectual, political activist, and critic of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Noam Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist, a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism and is considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of American politics.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Political views
o 1.1 Chomsky on terrorism
o 1.2 Criticism of United States government
o 1.3 Criticism of United States democracy
o 1.4 Views on globalization
o 1.5 Views on socialism and communism
o 1.6 Views on anarchism
o 1.7 Views on the welfare state
o 1.8 Mass media analysis
o 1.9 Chomsky and the Middle East
o 1.10 Views on anti-Semitism
o 1.11 Views on the Cuban embargo
o 1.12 Criticism of intellectual communities
o 1.13 Views on the Sri Lanka conflict
* 2 Chomsky's influence as a political activist
o 2.1 Opposition to the Vietnam War
o 2.2 East Timor activism
o 2.3 Chomsky and his publishers against the Turkish Courts
o 2.4 Marginalization in the mainstream media
o 2.5 Views on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
o 2.6 Worldwide audience
* 3 Bibliography
* 4 See also
* 5 References
* 6 External links

[edit] Political views

Chomsky is one of the best-known figures of the left although he doesn't agree with the usage of the term. He has described himself as a "fellow traveller" to the anarchist tradition, and refers to himself as a libertarian socialist, a political philosophy he summarizes as challenging all forms of authority and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified for which the burden of proof is solely upon those who attempt to exert power. He identifies with the labor-oriented anarcho-syndicalist current of anarchism in particular cases, and is a member of the Industrial Workers of the World. He believes that libertarian socialist values exemplify the rational and morally consistent extension of original unreconstructed classical liberal and radical humanist ideas to an industrial context.[1]

Chomsky has further defined himself as having held Zionist beliefs, although he notes that his definition of Zionism would be considered by most as anti-Zionism these days, the result of what he perceives to have been a shift (since the 1940s) in the meaning of Zionism (Chomsky Reader).

Chomsky is considered "one of the most influential left-wing critics of American foreign policy" by the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers.[2]
[edit] Chomsky on terrorism

In response to US declarations of a "War on Terrorism" in 1981 and the redeclaration in 2001, Chomsky has argued that the major sources of international terrorism are the world's major powers, led by the United States. He uses a definition of terrorism from a US army manual, which defines it as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."[3] In relation to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan he stated:

"Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism." (9-11, p. 76)

On the efficacy of terrorism:

"One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn't fail. It works. Violence usually works. That's world history. Secondly, it's a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it's primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn't count as terror. Now that's close to universal. I can't think of a historical exception; even the worst mass murderers view the world that way. So take the Nazis. They weren't carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They were protecting the local population from the terrorisms of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter terror".[citation needed]

As regards support for condemnation of terrorism, Chomsky opines that terrorism (and violence/authority in general) is generally bad and can only be justified in those cases where it is clear that greater terrorism (or violence, or abuse of authority) is thus avoided. In a debate on the legitimacy of political violence in 1967, Chomsky argued that the "terror" of the Vietnam National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) was not justified, but that terror could in theory be justified under certain circumstances:

"I don't accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this— and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified. But, as I said before, I don't think it was the use of terror that led to the successes that were achieved".[4]

Chomsky believes that acts he considers terrorism carried out by the US government do not pass this test, and condemnation of US policy is one of the main thrusts of his writings which he has explained is because he lives in the United States, and thus holds a responsibility for his country's actions.[citation needed]

He has also criticized stay-behind operations such as Gladio, NATO's secret paramilitary anticommunist organizations during the Cold War.[citation needed]
[edit] Criticism of United States government

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."
— Noam Chomsky (around 1990) [5]

Chomsky has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the United States government, and criticism of the foreign policy of the United States has formed the basis of much of his political writing. Chomsky gives reasons for directing his activist efforts to the state of which he is a citizen. He believes that his work can have more impact when directed at his own government, and that he holds a responsibility as a member of a particular country of origin to work to stop that country from committing crimes. He expresses this idea often with a comparison of other countries holding that every country has flexibility to address crimes by unfavored countries, but is always unwilling to deal with their own.

He also contends that the United States, as the world's remaining superpower, acts in the same offensive ways as all superpowers. One of the key things superpowers do, Chomsky argues, is try to organize the world according to the interests of their establishment, using military and economic means. Chomsky has repeatedly emphasized that the overall framework of US foreign policy can be explained by the domestic dominance of US business interests and a drive to secure the state capitalist system. Those interests set the political agenda and the economic goals that aim primarily at US economic dominance.[citation needed]

His conclusion is that a consistent part of the United States' foreign policy is based on stemming the "threat of a good example."[citation needed] This 'threat' refers to the possibility that a country could successfully develop outside the US-managed global system, thus presenting a model for other countries, including countries in which the United States has strong economic interests. This, Chomsky says, has prompted the United States to repeatedly intervene to quell "independent development, regardless of ideology" in regions of the world where it has little economic or safety interests. In one of his works, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chomsky argues that this particular explanation accounts in part for the United States' interventions in Guatemala, Laos, Nicaragua, and Grenada, countries that pose no military threat to the US and have economic resources that are not important to the US establishment.[citation needed]

Chomsky claims that the US government's Cold War policies were not primarily shaped by anti-Soviet paranoia, but rather toward preserving the United States' ideological and economic dominance in the world. In his book Deterring Democracy he argues that the conventional understanding of the Cold War as a confrontation of two superpowers is an 'ideological construct.'[citation needed] He insists that to truly understand the Cold War one must examine the underlying motives of the major powers. Those underlying motives can only be discovered by analyzing the domestic politics, especially the goals of the domestic elites in each country:

"Putting second order complexities to the side, for the USSR the Cold War has been primarily a war against its satellites, and for the U.S. a war against the Third World. For each, it has served to entrench a particular system of domestic privilege and coercion. The policies pursued within the Cold War framework have been unattractive to the general population, which accepts them only under duress. Throughout history, the standard device to mobilize a reluctant population has been the fear of an evil enemy, dedicated to its destruction. The superpower conflict served the purpose admirably, both for internal needs, as we see in the fevered rhetoric of top planning documents such as NSC 68, and in public propaganda. The Cold War had a functional utility for the superpowers, one reason why it persisted." [6]

Chomsky describes the US economic system as being primarily a state-capitalist system, in which public funds are used to research and develop pioneering technology (the computer, the internet, radar, the jet plane etc.) largely in the form of defense spending, and once developed and mature these technologies are turned over to the corporate sector where civilian uses are developed for private control and profit.[7]

Chomsky often expresses his admiration for the civil liberties enjoyed by US citizens. According to Chomsky, other Western democracies such as France and Canada are less liberal in their defense of controversial speech than the US. However, he does not credit the American government for these freedoms but rather mass social movements in the United States that fought for them. The movements he most often credits are the abolitionist movement, the movements for workers rights and trade union organization, and the fight for African-American civil rights. Chomsky is often sharply critical of other governments who suppress free speech, most controversially in the Faurisson affair but also of the suppression of free speech in Turkey.[specify]

At the fifth annual Edward W. Said Memorial Lecture hosted by the Heyman Center for the Humanities in December 2009, Chomsky began his speech on “The Unipolar Moment and the Culture of Imperialism” by applauding Edward Said for calling attention to America’s "culture of imperialism".

When America in November 2009 just celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Chomsky said this commemoration ignored a forgotten human rights violation that occurred only one week after that event. On November 16, 1989, the U.S.-armed Atlacatl Battalion in El Salvador assassinated six leading Latin American Jesuit priests, he explained. He contrasted America’s "self-congratulation" of the Berlin Wall destruction with the "resounding silence" that surrounds the assassination of these priests: the U.S. sacrifices democratic principles for its own self-interest, and without any self-criticism it tends to "focus a laser light on the crimes of enemies, but crucially we make sure to never look at ourselves." [8]
[edit] Criticism of United States democracy

Chomsky maintains that a nation is only democratic to the degree that government policy reflects informed public opinion. He notes that the US does have formal democratic structures, but they are dysfunctional. He argues that presidential elections are funded by concentrations of private power and orchestrated by the public relations industry, focusing discussion primarily on the qualities and the image of a candidate rather than on issues.[9] Chomsky makes reference to several studies of public opinion by pollsters such as Gallup and Zogby and by academic sources such as the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland (PIPA). Quoting polls taken near the 2004 election, Chomsky points out that only a small minority of voters said they voted because of the candidate’s "agendas/ideas/platforms/goals."[9] Furthermore, studies show that the majority of Americans have a stance on domestic issues such as guaranteed health care that is not represented by either major party.[10] Chomsky has compared U.S. elections to elections in countries such as Spain, Bolivia, and Brazil, where he claims people are far better informed on important issues.[11] In the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections, Chomsky has advised, “if it's a swing state, keep the worst guys out. If it's another state, do what you feel like.”[11]
[edit] Views on globalization

Chomsky made early efforts to critically analyze globalization. He summarized the process with the phrase "old wine, new bottles," maintaining that the motive of the élites is the same as always: they seek to isolate the general population from important decision-making processes, the difference being that the centers of power are now transnational corporations and supranational banks. Chomsky argues that transnational corporate power is "developing its own governing institutions" reflective of their global reach.[12]

According to Chomsky, a primary ploy has been the co-opting of the global economic institutions established at the end of World War II, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which have increasingly adhered to the "Washington Consensus", requiring developing countries to adhere to limits on spending and make structural adjustments that often involve cutbacks in social and welfare programs. IMF aid and loans are normally contingent upon such reforms. Chomsky claims that the construction of global institutions and agreements such as the World Trade Organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment constitute new ways of securing élite privileges while undermining democracy.[13] Chomsky believes that these austere and neoliberal measures ensure that poorer countries merely fulfill a service role by providing cheap labor, raw materials and investment opportunities for the developed world. Additionally, this means that corporations can threaten to relocate to poorer countries, and Chomsky sees this as a powerful weapon to keep workers in richer countries in line.

Chomsky takes issue with the terms used in discourse on globalization, beginning with the term "globalization" itself, which he maintains refers to a corporate-sponsored economic integration rather than being a general term for things becoming international. He dislikes the term anti-globalization being used to describe what he regards as a movement for globalization of social and environmental justice. Chomsky understands what is popularly called "free trade" as a "mixture of liberalization and protection designed by the principal architects of policy in the service of their interests, which happen to be whatever they are in any particular period."[12] In his writings, Chomsky has drawn attention to globalization resistance movements. He described Zapatista defiance of NAFTA in his essay "The Zapatista Uprising." He also criticized the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, and reported on the activist efforts that led to its defeat. Chomsky's voice was an important part of the critics who provided the theoretical backbone for the disparate groups who united for the demonstrations against the World Trade Organization in Seattle in November 1999.[14]
[edit] Views on socialism and communism

Chomsky is deeply critical of what he calls the "corporate state capitalism" that he believes is practiced by the United States and other western states. He supports many of Mikhail Bakunin's anarchist (or libertarian socialist) ideas. Chomsky has identified Bakunin's comments regarding the totalitarian state as predictions for the brutal Soviet police state that would come in essays like The Soviet Union Versus Socialism. He has also defined Soviet communism as "fake socialism," particularly because any socialism worthy of the name requires authentic democratic control of production and resources as well as public ownership. He has said that contrary to what many in America claim, the collapse of the Soviet Union should be regarded as "a small victory for socialism," not capitalism.[15] Chomsky was also impressed with socialism as practiced in Vietnam. In a speech given in Hanoi on April 13, 1970, and broadcast by Radio Hanoi the next day, Chomsky spoke of his "admiration for the people of Vietnam who have been able to defend themselves against the ferocious attack, and at the same time take great strides forward toward the socialist society." Chomsky praised the North Vietnamese for their efforts in building material prosperity, social justice, and cultural progress. He also went on to discuss and support the political writing of Le Duan.[16]

In his 1973 book For Reasons of State, Chomsky argues that instead of a capitalist system in which people are "wage slaves" or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, a society could function with no paid labor. He argues that a nation's populace should be free to pursue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both "rewarding in itself" and "socially useful." Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no state or other authoritarian institutions. Work that was fundamentally distasteful to all, if any existed, would be distributed equally among everyone.

Though Chomsky was critical of the Soviet Union's approach to implementing socialism, he was less critical of communist movements in Asia, noting what he considered to be grassroots elements within both Chinese and Vietnamese communism. In December 1967, during a forum in New York, Chomsky responded to criticisms of the Chinese revolution as follows, "I don't feel that they deserve a blanket condemnation at all. There are many things to object to in any society. But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable." Chomsky continued: "There are even better examples than China. But I do think that China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step."[4] He said of Vietnam: "Although there appears to be a high degree of democratic participation at the village and regional levels, still major planning is highly centralized in the hands of the state authorities."[17] In the context of remarks on the topic of peak oil in April 2005, Chomsky stated "China is probably the most polluted country in the world - you can't see. It's kind of a totalitarian state, so they kind of force it on people, but the level of pollution is awful..."[18]
[edit] Views on anarchism
Part of the Politics series on
Anarchism
"Circle-A" anarchy symbol
Schools of thought[show]
Buddhist · Christian · Collectivist
Communist · Egoist · Feminist
Green · Individualist · Infoanarchism
Insurrectionary · Leftist · Mutualist
Nihilist · Pacifist · Philosophical
Platformist · Post-anarchist
Post-colonial · Post-left · Primitivist · Social
Syndicalist · Vegan
Without adjectives · Zen
Theory · practice[show]
Anarchy · Black bloc
Class struggle · Communes
Consensus democracy
Decentralization · Deep ecology
Direct action · Direct democracy
Dual power · Especifismo
Expropriative anarchism · Horizontalidad · Illegalism
Individualism · Individual reclamation
Isocracy · Law
Participatory politics
Permanent Autonomous Zone
Polycentric law
Prefigurative politics
Propaganda of the deed
Refusal of work · Rewilding
Social ecology
Social insertion · Spontaneous order
People[show]
William Godwin · Josiah Warren
Max Stirner · Johann Most
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Mikhail Bakunin
Henry David Thoreau · Leo Tolstoy
Peter Kropotkin · Benjamin Tucker
Errico Malatesta · Emma Goldman
Nestor Makhno · Alexander Berkman
Buenaventura Durruti · Émile Armand
Murray Rothbard · Murray Bookchin · John Zerzan
Issues[show]
Anarcho-capitalism · Animal rights
Capitalism · Criticisms · Islam
LGBT rights
Lifestylism · Marxism · Nationalism
Orthodox Judaism · Religion
Sex/love · Violence
History[show]
1999 WTO Conference protest
1919 United States anarchist bombings
Amakasu Incident
Anarchist Catalonia
Anarchist Exclusion Act
Anarchy in Somalia
Australian Anarchist Centenary
Barcelona May Days
Biennio rosso
Carnival Against Capitalism
Escuela Moderna · Hague Congress
Haymarket affair
High Treason Incident
Congress of Amsterdam
Kate Sharpley Library
Kronstadt rebellion
Labadie Collection · LIP
Manifesto of the Sixteen
May 1968 · May Day
Paris Commune
Provo · Red inverted triangle
Free Territory of Ukraine
Spanish Revolution
Third Russian Revolution
Tragic Week · Trial of the thirty
Culture[show]
Anarchist Bookfair · Anarcho-punk · Arts
Black anarchism · Culture jamming
DIY culture · Freeganism
Independent Media Center
Infoshop · The Internationale
Jewish anarchism · Land and liberty
Lifestylism · Popular education
Property is theft!
Radical cheerleading
Radical environmentalism
Squatting · Symbolism
Terminology · A las barricadas
Economics[show]
Collectivism
Communism · Co-operatives
Counter-economics
Free school · Free store
Gift economy
Market abolitionism · Mutual aid
Mutualism · Participatory economics
Planned Economy
Really Really Free Market
· Syndicalism
Wage slavery
Workers' self-management
By region[show]
Africa · Australia · Austria-Hungary · Brazil
Canada · China · Cuba · Ecuador · England
France · Greece · India · Iceland · Ireland
Israel · Italy · Japan · Korea
Mexico · Poland · Russia · Spain
Sweden · Turkey · Ukraine
United States · Vietnam
Lists[show]
Anarcho-punk bands · Books
Communities · Fictional characters
Jewish anarchists · Musicians
Organizations · Periodicals · Poets
Russian anarchists
Related topics[show]
Anti-capitalism · Anti-consumerism · Anti-corporatism
Anti-fascism · Anti-globalization · Antimilitarism
Anti-statism · Anti-war · Autarchism
Autonomism · Labour movement
Left communism · Libertarianism
Libertarian perspectives on revolution
Libertarian socialism
Situationist International

BlackFlagSymbol.svg Anarchism Portal
Politics portal
v • d • e

In practice Chomsky has tended to emphasize the philosophical tendency of anarchism to criticize all forms of illegitimate authority. He has been reticent about theorizing an anarchist society in detail, although he has outlined its likely value systems and institutional framework in broad terms. According to Chomsky, the variety of anarchism which he favors is

"... a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist, in the tradition of, say, Bakunin and Kropotkin and others. They had in mind a highly organized form of society, but a society that was organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities. And generally, they meant by that the workplace and the neighborhood, and from those two basic units there could derive through federal arrangements a highly integrated kind of social organization which might be national or even international in scope. And these decisions could be made over a substantial range, but by delegates who are always part of the organic community from which they come, to which they return, and in which, in fact, they live."

On the question of the government of political and economic institutions, Chomsky has consistently emphasized the importance of grassroots democratic forms. Accordingly current Anglo-American institutions of representative democracy "would be criticized by an anarchist of this school on two grounds. First of all because there is a monopoly of power centralized in the state, and secondly -- and critically -- because the representative democracy is limited to the political sphere and in no serious way encroaches on the economic sphere." [19]
[edit] Views on the welfare state

Chomsky is scathing in his opposition to the view that anarchism is inconsistent with support for 'welfare state' measures, stating in part that

One can, of course, take the position that we don't care about the problems people face today, and want to think about a possible tomorrow. OK, but then don't pretend to have any interest in human beings and their fate, and stay in the seminar room and intellectual coffee house with other privileged people. Or one can take a much more humane position: I want to work, today, to build a better society for tomorrow -- the classical anarchist position, quite different from the slogans in the question. That's exactly right, and it leads directly to support for the people facing problems today: for enforcement of health and safety regulation, provision of national health insurance, support systems for people who need them, etc. That is not a sufficient condition for organizing for a different and better future, but it is a necessary condition. Anything else will receive the well-merited contempt of people who do not have the luxury to disregard the circumstances in which they live, and try to survive.[20]

[edit] Mass media analysis

Another focus of Chomsky's political work has been an analysis of mainstream mass media (especially in the United States), which he accuses of maintaining constraints on dialogue so as to promote the interests of corporations and the government.

Edward S. Herman and Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media explores this topic in depth, presenting their "propaganda model" of the news media with several detailed case studies in support of it. According to this propaganda model, more democratic societies like the U.S. use subtle, non-violent means of control, unlike totalitarian systems, where physical force can readily be used to coerce the general population. In an often-quoted remark, Chomsky states that "propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state" (Media Control).

The model attempts to explain such a systemic bias in terms of structural economic causes rather than a conspiracy of people. It argues the bias derives from five "filters" that all published news must pass through which combine to systematically distort news coverage.

1. The first filter, ownership, notes that most major media outlets are owned by large corporations.
2. The second, funding, notes that the outlets derive the majority of their funding from advertising, not readers. Thus, since they are profit-oriented businesses selling a product — readers and audiences — to other businesses (advertisers), the model would expect them to publish news which would reflect the desires and values of those businesses.
3. In addition, the news media are dependent on government institutions and major businesses with strong biases as sources (the third filter) for much of their information.
4. Flak, the fourth filter, refers to the various pressure groups which go after the media for supposed bias and so on when they go out of line.
5. Norms, the fifth filter, refer to the common conceptions shared by those in the profession of journalism.[21]

The model therefore attempts to describe how the media form a decentralized and non-conspiratorial but nonetheless very powerful propaganda system that is able to mobilize an "élite" consensus, frame public debate within "élite" perspectives and at the same time give the appearance of democratic consent.

Chomsky and Herman test their model empirically by picking "paired examples" — pairs of events that were objectively similar except in relation to certain interests. For example, they attempt to show that in cases where an "official enemy" does something (like murder a religious official), the press investigates thoroughly and devotes a great amount of coverage to the matter, but when the domestic government or an ally does the same thing (or worse), the press downplays the story. They also test their model against the case that is often held up as the best example of a free and aggressively independent press, the media coverage of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. Even in this case, they argue that the press was behaving subserviently to "élite" interests.
[edit] Chomsky and the Middle East

Chomsky "grew up... in the Jewish-Zionist cultural tradition" (Peck, p. 11). His father was one of the foremost scholars of the Hebrew language and taught at a religious school. Chomsky has also had a long fascination with and involvement in Zionist politics. As he described:

"I was deeply interested in... Zionist affairs and activities — or what was then called 'Zionist,' though the same ideas and concerns are now called 'anti-Zionist.' I was interested in socialist, binationalist options for Palestine, and in the kibbutzim and the whole cooperative labor system that had developed in the Jewish settlement there (the Yishuv)...The vague ideas I had at the time [1947] were to go to Palestine, perhaps to a kibbutz, to try to become involved in efforts at Arab-Jewish cooperation within a socialist framework, opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state (a position that was considered well within the mainstream of Zionism)." (Peck, p. 7)

He is highly critical of the policies of Israel towards the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. His book The Fateful Triangle is considered one of the premier texts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among those who oppose Israel's policies in regard to the Palestinians as well as American support for the state of Israel. He has also accused Israel of "guiding state terrorism" for selling weapons to apartheid South Africa and Latin American countries that he characterizes as U.S. puppet states, e.g. Guatemala in the 1980s, as well as U.S.-backed paramilitaries (or, according to Chomsky, terrorists) such as the Nicaraguan Contras. (What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chapter 2.4) Chomsky characterizes Israel as a "mercenary state," "an Israeli Sparta," and a militarized dependency within a U.S. system of hegemony. He has also fiercely criticized sectors of the American Jewish community for their role in obtaining U.S. support, stating that "they should more properly be called 'supporters of the moral degeneration and ultimate destruction of Israel'" (Fateful Triangle, p. 4). He says of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL):

"The leading official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities.... The logic is straightforward: Anti-Semitism is opposition to the interests of Israel (as the ADL sees them).... The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming 'one of the main pillars' of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on. These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement".[22]

See also Middle East Politics, a speech given at Columbia University in 1999

In a 2004 interview with Jennifer Bleyer published The Ugly Planet, issue two[23][24][25] and in Heeb magazine,[26] Chomsky stated:

"It ends up that about 90% of the land [in Israel] is reserved for people of Jewish race, religion and origin. If 90% of the land in the United States were reserved for people of white, Christian race, religion and origin, I’d be opposed. So would the ADL. We should accept universal values."

[edit] Views on anti-Semitism

In a 2004 interview with Jennifer Bleyer published in Ugly Planet, issue two[23][24][25] and in Heeb Magazine,[26] Chomsky engaged in the following exchange:

Q: Let's return to anti-Semitism for a moment. You've written that you don't perceive anti-Semitism as a problem anymore, at least in this country, since its institutional applications and casual manifestations have basically disappeared. Do you still believe that?

I grew up with anti-Semitism in the United States. We were the only Jewish family in a mostly Irish- and German-Catholic neighborhood, which was very anti-Semitic and pretty pro-Nazi. For a young boy in the streets, you got to know what that meant. When my father was first able to get a secondhand car in the late 30s, we drove to the local mountains and passed hotels that said "restricted" meaning "no Jews". That was just part of life. When I got to Harvard in the 1950s, the anti-Semitism was so thick you could cut it with a knife. In fact, one of the reasons MIT is a great university is that people like Norbert Wiener couldn't get jobs at Harvard-it was too anti-Semitic-so they came to the engineering school down the street. That was anti-Semitism. Now, it's a very marginal issue. There is still racism, but its anti-Arab racism which is extreme. Distinguished Harvard professors write that Palestinians are people who bleed and breed their misery in order to drive the Jews into the sea, and that's considered acceptable. If some distinguished Harvard professor were to write that Jews are people who bleed and breed and advertise their misery in order to drive Palestinians into the desert, the cry of outrage would be enormous. When Jewish intellectuals who are regarded as humanist leaders say that Israel ought to settle the underpopulated Galilee-meaning too many Arabs, not enough Jews-that's considered wonderful. Violent anti-Arab racism is so prevalent that we don't even notice it. That's what we should be worried about. It's in the cinema, advertising, everywhere. On the other hand, anti-Semitism is there, but very marginal.

[edit] Views on the Cuban embargo

"The conduct of international affairs resembles the Mafia. The Godfather does not tolerate defiance, even from some small storekeeper."
— Noam Chomsky [27]

In February 2009, Chomsky described the publicly stated U.S. goal of bringing "democracy to the Cuban people" as "unusually vulgar propaganda". In Chomsky's view, the U.S. embargo of Cuba has actually achieved its stated purpose. The goal of the embargo according to Chomsky has been to implement "intensive U.S. terror operations" and "harsh economic warfare" in order to cause to "rising discomfort among hungry Cubans" in the hope that out of desperation they would overthrow the regime.[27] In lieu of this goal, Chomsky believes that "U.S. policy has achieved its actual goals" in causing "bitter suffering among Cubans, impeding economic development, and undermining moves towards more internal democracy." In Chomsky's view, the real "threat of Cuba" is that successful independent development on the island might stimulate others who suffer from similar problems to follow the same course, thus causing the "system of U.S. domination" to unravel.[27]
[edit] Criticism of intellectual communities

Chomsky has at times been outspokenly critical of scholars and other public intellectuals; while his views sometimes place him at odds with individuals on particular points, he has also denounced intellectual sub-communities for what he sees as systemic failings. Chomsky sees two broad problems with academic intellectuals generally:

1. They largely function as a distinct class, and so distinguish themselves by using language inaccessible to people outside the academy, with more or less deliberately exclusionary effects. In Chomsky's view there is little reason to believe that academics are more inclined to engage in profound thought than other members of society and that the designation "intellectual" obscures the truth of the intellectual division of labour: "These are funny words actually, I mean being an 'intellectual' has almost nothing to do with working with your mind; these are two different things. My suspicion is that plenty of people in the crafts, auto mechanics and so on, probably do as much or more intellectual work as people in the universities. There are plenty of areas in academia where what's called 'scholarly' work is just clerical work, and I don't think clerical work's more challenging than fixing an automobile engine—in fact, I think the opposite.... So if by 'intellectual' you mean people who are using their minds, then it's all over society" (Understanding Power, p. 96).
2. The corollary of this argument is that the privileges enjoyed by intellectuals make them more ideologised and obedient than the rest of society: "If by 'intellectual' you mean people who are a special class who are in the business of imposing thoughts, and framing ideas for people in power, and telling everyone what they should believe, and so on, well, yeah, that's different. These people are called 'intellectuals'—but they're really more a kind of secular priesthood, whose task is to uphold the doctrinal truths of the society. And the population should be anti-intellectual in that respect, I think that's a healthy reaction" (ibid, p. 96; this statement continues the previous quotation).

Chomsky is elsewhere asked what "theoretical" tools he feels can be produced to provide a strong intellectual basis for challenging hegemonic power, and he replies: "if there is a body of theory, well tested and verified, that applies to the conduct of foreign affairs or the resolution of domestic or international conflict, its existence has been kept a well-guarded secret," despite much "pseudo-scientific posturing." Chomsky's general preference is, therefore, to use plain language in speaking with a non-elite audience.

The American Intellectual climate is the focus of "The Responsibility of Intellectuals," the essay which established Chomsky as one of the leading political philosophers in the second half of the twentieth century. Chomsky's extensive criticisms of a new type of post-WW2 intellectual he saw arising in the United States were the focus of his book American Power and the New Mandarins. There he described what he saw as the betrayal of the duties of an intellectual to challenge received opinion. The "new Mandarins," who he saw as responsible in part for the Vietnam War, were apologists for United States as an imperial power; he wrote that their ideology demonstrated

"the mentality of the colonial civil servant, persuaded of the benevolence of the mother country and the correctness of its vision of world order, and convinced that he understands the true interests of the backward peoples whose welfare he is to administer."

Chomsky has shown cynicism towards the credibility of postmodernism and poststructuralism. In particular he has criticised the Parisian intellectual community; the following disclaimer may be taken as indicative: "I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my opinion — and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that I don't think it merits the time to do so" (ibid). Chomsky's lack of interest arises from what he sees as a combination of difficult language and limited intellectual or "real world" value, especially in Parisian academe: "Sometimes it gets kind of comical, say in post-modern discourse. Especially around Paris, it has become a comic strip, I mean it's all gibberish ... they try to decode it and see what is the actual meaning behind it, things that you could explain to an eight-year old child. There's nothing there." (Chomsky on Anarchism, pg. 216). This is exacerbated, in his view, by the attention paid to academics by the French press: "in France if you're part of the intellectual elite and you cough, there's a front-page story in Le Monde. That's one of the reasons why French intellectual culture is so farcical — it's like Hollywood" (Understanding Power, pg. 96).

Chomsky made a 1971 appearance on Dutch television with Michel Foucault, the full text of which can be found in Foucault and his Interlocutors, Arnold Davidson (ed.), 1997 (ISBN 0-226-13714-7). Of Foucault, Chomsky wrote that:

... with enough effort, one can extract from his writings some interesting insights and observations, peeling away the framework of obfuscation that is required for respectability in the strange world of intellectuals, which takes on extreme forms in the weird culture of postwar Paris. Foucault is unusual among Paris intellectuals in that at least something is left when one peels this away.[28]

[edit] Views on the Sri Lanka conflict

Chomsky supports the Tamils right to self determination in Tamil Eelam, their homeland in the North and East of Sri Lanka. In a February 2009 interview, he said of the Tamil Eelam struggle: "Parts of Europe, for example, are moving towards more federal arrangements. In Spain, for example, Catalonia by now has a high degree of autonomy within the Spanish state. The Basque Country also has a high degree of autonomy. In England, Wales and Scotland in the United Kingdom are moving towards a form of autonomy and self-determination and I think there are similar developments throughout Europe. Though they're mixed with a lot of pros and cons, but by and large I think it is a generally healthy development. I mean, the people have different interests, different cultural backgrounds, different concerns, and there should be special arrangements to allow them to pursue their special interests and concerns in harmony with others."[29]

In a September 2009 submitted Sri Lankan Crisis Statement, Chomsky was one of several signatories calling for full access to internment camps holding Tamils, the respect of international law concerning prisoners of war and media freedom, the condemnation of discrimination against Tamils by the state since independence from Britain, and to urge the international community to support and facilitate a political solution that addresses the self-determination aspirations of Tamils and protection of the human rights of all Sri Lankans.[30] A major offensive against the Tamils in the Vanni region of their homeland in 2009 resulted in the deaths of at least 20,000 Tamil civilians in 5 months, amid widespread concerns war crimes were committed against the Tamil population.[31] At a United Nations forum on R2P, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine established by the UN in 2005, Chomsky said:

..."What happened in Sri Lanka was a major Rwanda-like atrocity, in a different scale, where the West didn't care. There was plenty of early warning. This [conflict] has been going on for years and decades. Plenty of things could have been done [to prevent it]. But there was not enough interest."[32]

Chomsky was responding to a question that referred to Jan Egeland, former head of the UN's Humanitarian Affairs' earlier statement that R2P was a failure in Sri Lanka.[32]
[edit] Chomsky's influence as a political activist
[edit] Opposition to the Vietnam War

Chomsky became one of the most prominent opponents of the Vietnam War in February 1967, with the publication of his essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" [33] in the New York Review of Books.

Allen J. Matusow, "The Vietnam War, the Liberals, and the Overthrow of LBJ" (1984):[34]

"By 1967 the radicals were obsessed by the war and frustrated by their impotence to affect its course. The government was unmoved by protest, the people were uninformed and apathetic, and American technology was tearing Vietnam apart. What, then, was their responsibility? Noam Chomsky explored this problem in February 1967 in the New York Review, which had become the favorite journal of the radicals. By virtue of their training and leisure, intellectuals had a greater responsibility than ordinary citizens for the actions of the state, Chomsky said. It was their special responsibility "to speak the truth and expose lies" ... [Chomsky] concluded by quoting an essay written twenty years before by Dwight Macdonald, an essay that implied that in time of crisis exposing lies might not be enough. "Only those who are willing to resist authority themselves when it conflicts too intolerably with their personal moral code", Macdonald had written, "only they have the right to condemn". Chomsky's article was immediately recognized as an important intellectual event. Along with the radical students, radical intellectuals were moving "from protest to resistance."

A contemporary reaction from Raziel Abielson, Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at New York University:[35]

"... Chomsky's morally impassioned and powerfully argued denunciation of American aggression in Vietnam and throughout the world is the most moving political document I have read since the death of Leon Trotsky. It is inspiring to see a brilliant scientist risk his prestige, his access to lucrative government grants, and his reputation for Olympian objectivity by taking a clearcut, no-holds-barred, adversary position on the burning moral-political issue of the day...."

Chomsky also participated in "resistance" activities, which he described in subsequent essays and letters published in the New York Review of Books: withholding half of his income tax [36], taking part in the 1967 march on the Pentagon, and spending a night in jail.[37] In the spring of 1972, Chomsky testified on the origins of the war before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by J. William Fulbright.

Chomsky's view of the war is different from orthodox anti-war opinion which holds the war as a tragic mistake. He argues that the war was a success from the US point of view. According to Chomsky's view the main aim of US policy was the destruction of the nationalist movements in the Vietnamese peasantry. In particular he argues that US attacks were not a defense of South Vietnam against the North but began directly in the early 1960s (covert US intervention from the 1950s) and at that time were mostly aimed at South Vietnam. He agrees with the view of orthodox historians that the US government was concerned about the possibility of a "domino effect" in South-East Asia. At this point Chomsky diverts from orthodox opinion - he holds that the US government was not so concerned with the spread of state Communism and authoritarianism but rather of nationalist movements that would not be sufficiently subservient to US economic interests.
[edit] East Timor activism

In 1975, the Indonesian army, under the command of President Suharto invaded East Timor, occupying it until 1999, which resulted in between 80,000 and 200,000 East Timorese deaths[38], (A detailed statistical report prepared for the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor cited a lower range of 102,800 conflict-related deaths in the period 1974–1999, namely, approximately 18,600 killings and 84,200 'excess' deaths from hunger and illness.[39]) a death toll which is considered “proportionately comparable” to the Cambodian genocide.[40]

Chomsky argued that decisive military, financial and diplomatic support was provided to Suharto’s regime by successive U.S. administrations; beginning with Gerald Ford who, with Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State, provided a ‘green light’ to the brutal invasion. Prior to the invasion, the U.S. had supplied the Indonesian army with 90% of its arms, and “by 1977 Indonesia found itself short of weapons, an indication of the scale of its attack. The Carter Administration accelerated the arms flow. Britain joined in as atrocities peaked in 1978, while France announced that it would sell arms to Indonesia and protect it from any public "embarrassment". Others, too, sought to gain what profit they could from the slaughter and torture of Timorese.”[41] This humanitarian catastrophe went virtually unnoticed by the international community.[42]

Noam Chomsky attempted to raise consciousness about the crisis at a very early stage.[43] In November 1978 and October 1979, Chomsky delivered statements to the Fourth Committee of the U.N. General Assembly about the East Timor tragedy and the lack of media coverage.[44]

In 1999, when it became clear that the majority of Timorese people were poised to vote in favour of their national independence in U.N. sponsored elections Indonesian armed forces and paramilitary groups reacted by attempting to terrorize the population. At this time Chomsky chose to remind Americans of the three principal reasons why he felt they should care about East Timor:

"First, since the Indonesian invasion of December 1975, East Timor has been the site of some of the worst atrocities of the modern era -- atrocities which are mounting again right now. Second, the US government has played a decisive role in escalating these atrocities and can easily act to mitigate or terminate them. It is not necessary to bomb Jakarta or impose economic sanctions. Throughout, it would have sufficed for Washington to withdraw support and to inform its Indonesian client that the game was over. That remains true as the situation reaches a crucial turning point -- the third reason."[45]

Weeks later, following the independence vote, the Indonesian military drove "hundreds of thousands from their homes and destroying most of the country. For the first time the atrocities were well publicized in the United States."[46]

Australian historian Clinton Fernandes, writes that “When Indonesia invaded East Timor with US support in 1975, Chomsky joined other activists in a tireless campaign of international solidarity. His speeches and publications on this topic were prodigious and widely read, but his financial support is less well known. When the US media were refusing to interview Timorese refugees, claiming that they had no access to them, Chomsky personally paid for the airfares of several refugees, bringing them from Lisbon to the US, where he tried to get them into the editorial offices of The New York Times and other outlets. Most of his financial commitment to such causes has – because of his own reticence – gone unnoticed. A Timorese activist says, “we learnt that the Chomsky factor and East Timor were a deadly combination” and “proved to be too powerful for those who tried to defeat us”.[47]

Standing before The UN Independent Special Commission of Inquiry for Timor-Leste whose major report was released in 2006 [48], Arnold Kohen a U.S activist vitally important to the raising of western consciousness of the catastrophe since 1975, testified that,

"Chomsky’s words on this matter had a real influence, sometimes indirect, and history should record it, because it was of vital importance in helping alter the state of widespread ignorance about East Timor that then existed in the United States and elsewhere."[49]

When José Ramos-Horta and Bishop Carlos Belo of East Timor were honored with the Nobel Peace Prize, Chomsky responded "That was great, a wonderful thing. I ran into José Ramos-Horta in Sao Paolo. I haven’t seen his official speech yet, but certainly he was saying in public that the prize should have been given to Xanana Gusmao, who is the leader of the resistance to Indonesian aggression. He’s in an Indonesian jail. But the recognition of the struggle is a very important thing, or will be an important thing if we can turn it into something."[50]
[edit] Chomsky and his publishers against the Turkish Courts

In 2002 the Turkish state indicted a Turkish publisher, Fatih Tas, for distributing a collection of Chomsky’s essays under the title ‘American Intervention.’ The state charged that the book “promoted separatism” violating Article 8 of the Turkish Anti-Terror Law.[51] One essay in the book was a reprint of a speech that Chomsky had made in Toledo, Ohio containing material claiming that the Turkish state had brutally repressed its Kurdish population. Prosecutors cited the following passages as particularly offensive:

”In 1984, the Turkish government launched a major war in the Southeast against the Kurdish population. And that continued. In fact it's still continuing.

If we look at US military aid to Turkey-which is usually a pretty good index of policy-Turkey was of course a strategic ally so it always had a fairly high level of military aid. But the aid shot up in 1984, at the time that the counterinsurgency war began. This had nothing to do with Cold War, transparently. It was because of the counterinsurgency war. The aid remained high, peaking through the 1990s as the atrocities increased. The peak year was 1997. In fact in the single year 1997, US military aid to Turkey was greater than in the entire period of 1950 to 1983 when there were allegedly Cold War issues. The end result was pretty awesome: tens of thousands of people killed, two to three million refugees, massive ethnic cleansing with some 3500 villages destroyed-about seven times Kosovo under NATO bombing, and there's nobody bombing in this case, except for the Turkish air forces using planes that Clinton sent to them with the certain knowledge that that's how they would be used.”[52]

At the request of Turkish activists, Chomsky petitioned the Turkish courts to name him as a co-defendant. He testified at the court trial in Istanbul in 2002. Fatih Tas was acquitted. After the trial The BBC reported Tas as saying, “If Chomsky hadn't been here we wouldn't have expected such a verdict.”[53]

While Chomsky was in Turkey for the trial he traveled to the southern city of Diyarbakir, the unofficial capital of the Kurdish population in Turkey, where he delivered a controversial speech, urging the Kurds to form an autonomous, self-governing community.[54] Police handed recorded cassettes and translations of the speech over to Turkish courts for investigation a few days later.[55]

In June 2006, Turkish publisher Tas was again prosecuted, along with two editors and a translator, for publishing a Turkish translation of Manufacturing Consent, authored by Chomsky and Ed Herman. The defendants were accused “under articles 216 and 301 of the Turkish Penal Code for "publicly denigrating Turkishness, the Republic and the Parliament" and "inciting hatred and enmity among the people".[56] The courts disallowed the authors from testifying on behalf of the defendants. In December 2006, the four defendants were acquitted by Turkish courts. Tas still has several cases pending for the publishing of other books.

In 2003, in the New Humanist, Chomsky wrote about repression of free speech in Turkey and “the courage and dedication of the leading artists, writers, academics, journalists, publishers and others who carry on the daily struggle for freedom of speech and human rights, not just with statements but also with regular acts of civil disobedience. Some have spent a good part of their lives in Turkish prisons because of their insistence on recording the true history of the miserably oppressed Kurdish population.”[57]
[edit] Marginalization in the mainstream media

Chomsky has rarely appeared in popular media outlets in the United States such as CNN, Time Magazine, Foreign Policy and others, however his recorded lectures are regularly replayed by NPR stations in the United States that carry the broadcasts of Alternative Radio, a syndicator of progressive lectures. Critics of Chomsky have argued his mainstream media coverage is adequate, and not unusual considering the fact that academics in general often receive low priority in the American media.

When CNN presenter Jeff Greenfield was asked why Chomsky was never on his show, he claimed that Chomsky might "be one of the leading intellectuals who can't talk on television. […] If you['ve] got a 22-minute show, and a guy takes five minutes to warm up, […] he's out".[58] Greenfield described this need to "say things between two commercials" as the media's requirement for "concision". Chomsky has elaborated on this, saying that "the beauty of [concision] is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts". If you repeat conventional thoughts, you require zero evidence, like saying Osama Bin Laden is a bad guy, no evidence is required. However, if you say something that is true, although not a conventional truth, like the United States attacked South Vietnam, people are going to rightfully want evidence, and a whole lot of it as they should. The format of the shows do not allow this type of evidence which is one of the reasons concision is critical. He's continued that if the media were better propagandists they would let dissidents on more because the time restraint would stop them properly explaining their radical views and they 'would sound like they were from Neptune.'" For this reason, Chomsky rejects many offers to appear on TV, preferring the written medium.

Since his book 9-11 became a bestseller in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Chomsky has attracted more attention from the mainstream American media. For example, The New York Times published an article in May 2002 describing the popularity of 9-11[59]. In January 2004, the Times published a highly critical review of Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival by Samantha Power[60], and in February, the Times published an op-ed by Chomsky himself, criticizing the Israeli West Bank Barrier for taking Palestinian land.[61]
[edit] Views on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Chomsky has dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories, stating that there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the United States Government was responsible for the attacks.

"I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel."

[edit] Worldwide audience
Chomsky in 2003.

Despite his marginalization in the mainstream US media, Chomsky is one of the most globally famous figures of the left, especially among academics and university students, and frequently travels across the United States, Europe, and the Third World. He has a very large following of supporters worldwide as well as a dense speaking schedule, drawing large crowds wherever he goes. He is often booked up to two years in advance. He was one of the main speakers at the 2002 World Social Forum. He is interviewed at length in alternative media[62]. Many of his books are bestsellers, including 9-11.[59]

The 1992 film Manufacturing Consent, was shown widely on college campuses and broadcast on PBS. It is the highest grossing Canadian made documentary film in history.[63] Chomsky's popularity has become a cultural phenomenon. Bono of U2 called Chomsky a "rebel without a pause, the Elvis of academia". Rage Against the Machine took copies of his books on tour with the band. Pearl Jam ran a small pirate radio on one of their tours, playing Chomsky talks mixed along with their music. R.E.M. asked Chomsky to go on tour with them and open their concerts with a lecture (he declined). Radiohead has recommended Chomsky's works on their various websites and Thom Yorke in particular is an admirer. Chomsky lectures have been featured on the B-sides of records from Chumbawamba and other groups.[64] Many anti-globalization and anti-war activists regard Chomsky as an inspiration.

Chomsky is widely read outside the US. 9-11 was published in 26 countries and translated into 23 languages;[65] it was a bestseller in at least five countries, including Canada and Japan[59]. Chomsky's views are often given coverage on public broadcasting networks around the world—in marked contrast to his rare appearances in the US media. In the UK, for example, he appears periodically on the BBC.[66]

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is known to be an admirer of Chomsky's books. He held up Chomsky's book Hegemony or Survival during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2006.
[edit] Bibliography
Main article: Bibliography of Noam Chomsky
[edit] See also

Find more about Noam Chomsky on Wikipedia's sister projects:
Search Wiktionary Definitions from Wiktionary
Search Wikibooks Textbooks from Wikibooks
Search Wikiquote Quotations from Wikiquote
Search Wikisource Source texts from Wikisource
Search Commons Images and media from Commons
Search Wikinews News stories from Wikinews
Search Wikiversity Learning resources from Wikiversity

* Operation Gladio
* Military Keynesianism

[edit] References

1. ^ Chomsky, Noam, Perspectives on Power,"Goals and Visions",p.77
2. ^ Noam Chomsky, by Zoltán Gendler Szabó, Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, 1860–1960
3. ^ US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction_ (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.
4. ^ a b The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?, Noam Chomsky debates with Hannah Arendt, Susan Sontag, et al.
5. ^ If the Nuremberg Laws were Applied... by Noam Chomsky, speech delivered from 1990
6. ^ Deterring Democracy: Chapter 1 [7/20]
7. ^ Z Magazine February 1993, "The Pentagon System" http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/PentagonSystem_Chom.html
8. ^ Claire Luchette "Chomsky speaks on U.S. imperialism - Noam Chomsky delivered the Edward W. Said Memorial Lecture to a packed crowd on Thursday" The Columbia Spectator', December 4, 2009
9. ^ a b The Disconnect in US Democracy, by Noam Chomsky
10. ^ Elections Run by Same Guys Who Sell Toothpaste, by Noam Chomsky (Talk delivered at the International Relations Center)
11. ^ a b On the State of the Nation, Iraq and the Election, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Amy Goodman
12. ^ a b Old Wine, New Bottles
13. ^ Notes of NAFTA: The Masters of Man
14. ^ Z Interview
15. ^ Soviet Union Versus Socialism
16. ^ -Pacific Daily Report of the U.S. government's Foreign Broadcast Information Service, April 16, 1970, pages K2-K3
17. ^ A Special Supplement: In North Vietnam - The New York Review of Books
18. ^ Chomsky on Peak Oil | EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse
19. ^ "The Relevance of Anarcho-syndicalism", Noam Chomsky interviewed by Peter Jay, The Jay Interview, July 25, 1976.
20. ^ http://www.zmag.org/chomsky_repliesana.htm 'Answers by Noam Chomsky' to questions about anarchism
21. ^ In the original text, published in 1988, the fifth filter was "anticommunism". However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been broadened to allow for shifts in public opinion.
22. ^ Necessary Illusions: Appendix V [20/33]
23. ^ a b Ugly Planet
24. ^ a b publish.nyc.indymedia.org | Noam Chomsky Interview
25. ^ a b North Texas Indy Media Center
26. ^ a b Heeb: The Guilt Issue: Weapons of Mass Delusion
27. ^ a b c Noam Chomsky on the Cuban Embargo and "Democracy Promotion" by Noam Chomsky, February 23, 2009
28. ^ quoted in http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/5/8.html Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent
29. ^ What Noam Chomsky says about Lankan conflict & Obama
30. ^ Australians for Tamil Justice
31. ^ UN chief knew Tamil civilian toll had reached 20,000
32. ^ a b Chomsky: Sri Lanka, a Rwanda-like major atrocity the West didn't care
33. ^ A Special Supplement: The Responsibility of Intellectuals - The New York Review of Books
34. ^ http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/readings/Matusow_VietnamWar.pdf
35. ^ The Responsibility of Intellectuals - The New York Review of Books
36. ^ What Shall the Responsible Intellectual Do?, Noam Chomsky debates with George Steiner
37. ^ On Resistance, by Noam Chomsky
38. ^ Benetech Human Rights Data Analysis Group (9 February 2006). "The Profile of Human Rights Violations in Timor-Leste, 1974–1999". A Report to the Commission on Reception, Truth and Reconciliation of Timor-Leste. Human Rights Data Analysis Group (HRDAG). http://www.hrdag.org/resources/timor_chapter_graphs/timor_chapter_page_02.shtml.
39. ^ Benetech Human Rights Data Analysis Group (9 February 2006). "The Profile of Human Rights Violations in Timor-Leste, 1974–1999". A Report to the Commission on Reception, Truth and Reconciliation of Timor-Leste. Human Rights Data Analysis Group (HRDAG). http://www.hrdag.org/resources/timor_chapter_graphs/timor_chapter_page_02.shtml.
40. ^ http://www.yale.edu/gsp/publications/KiernanRevised1.pdf
41. ^ An Island Lies Bleeding, by Noam Chomsky
42. ^ Michael Gordon Jackson; International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Vol. 1, 2001
43. ^ Karol Soltan of the University of Maryland, includes Chomsky among “the few isolated voices in the West” who provided help to the Timorese cause. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/nevins1106.htm
44. ^ Chomsky, Noam. Radical Priorities, ed. C.P. Otero. pp.84
45. ^ Why Americans Should Care about East Timor, by Noam Chomsky
46. ^ Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, 54
47. ^ overland home page
48. ^ http://www.ohchr.org/english/docs/ColReport-English.pdf
49. ^ see page 102 of http://www.etan.org/etanpdf/2006/CAVR/07.1_Self_Determination.pdf
50. ^ Part III of an interview with Noam Chomsky
51. ^ Turkey: Courts Must Safeguard Free Speech (Human Rights Watch, 13-2-2002)
52. ^ Prospects for Peace in the Middle East, by Noam Chomsky (Talk delivered at the University of Toledo)
53. ^ BBC News | EUROPE | Chomsky publisher cleared in Turkey
54. ^ ZNet | Foreign Policy | CHOMSKY'S DÃ?YARBAKIR SPEECH
55. ^ Bulten
56. ^ http://www.bianet.org/2006/11/01_eng/news86760.htm
57. ^ The People in Gravest Danger, by Noam Chomsky
58. ^ "He may be one of the leading intellectuals who can't talk on television. You know, that's a standard that's very important to us. If you've got a 22 minute show, and a guy takes five minutes to warm up -- now I don't know whether Chomsky does or not — he's out. One of the reasons why Nightline has the "usual suspects" is that one of the things you have to do when you book a show is know that the person can make the point within the framework of television. And if people don't like that, they should understand that it's about as sensible to book somebody who will take eight minutes to give an answer as it is to book somebody who doesn't speak English." http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter9.htm
59. ^ a b c Surprise Bestseller Blames the U.S
60. ^ ’Hegemony or Survival’: The Everything Explainer
61. ^ A Wall as a Weapon, by Noam Chomsky
62. ^ chomsky.info : Interviews
63. ^ Montreal Mirror : Where Are They Now? : Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick
64. ^ The Indy - Bloomington-Normal Independent Media Center
65. ^ 9-11
66. ^ BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | Noam Chomsky

[edit] External links

* Noam Chomsky homepage
* Noam Chomsky at MIT
* Noam Chomsky's page on Academia.edu
* Noam Chomsky at the Internet Movie Database
* Noam Chomsky at Zmag
* Talks by Noam Chomsky at A-Infos Radio Project
* Chomsky media files at the Internet Archive
* Articles and videos featuring Noam Chomsky at AnarchismToday.org
* The Political Economy of the Mass Media Part 1 Part 2 (March 15, 1989) lecture
* OneBigTorrent.org (formerly "Chomsky Torrents") Lots of links to Chomsky-related media
* Chomsky on Obama’s Foreign Policy, His Own History of Activism, and the Importance of Speaking Out - video by Democracy Now!

[hide]
v • d • e
Noam Chomsky
Political views · Bibliography · Criticism · Chomsky hierarchy · "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
Select
bibliography
Linguistics

Syntactic Structures (1957) · Current issues in linguistic theory (1964) · Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965) · Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (1966) · The Sound Pattern of English (1968) · Conditions on Transformations (1973) · The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1975) · Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures (1981) · Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use (1986) · The Minimalist Program (1995) · New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind (2000)
Politics

The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967) · American Power and the New Mandarins (1969) · The Soviet Union Versus Socialism (1986) · Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media * (1988) · Necessary Illusions (1989) · Deterring Democracy (1992) · Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (2003) · Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship (2003) · Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (2006)
Interviews

Class Warfare (1996) · Imperial Ambitions (2005)
Filmography
Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992) · Last Party 2000 (2001) · Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky in Our Times (2002) · Distorted Morality – America's War On Terror? (2003) · Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause (2003) (TV) · Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land (2004)
Related articles
Carol Chomsky(1930-2008) · Aviva Chomsky(1957-)