Noam Chomsky

y in Sudan, which killed one person?

But it’s when you look at the extraordinary moral force of Chomsky’s writings that you start to get an understanding of why he’s so influential. There is surely a whiff of the cult here. This may seem far-fetched – Chomsky doesn’t appear to be after followers in the same way as, say, Marx was. He’s no patriarch: more Woody Allen than Moses. He’s the picture of modesty, just simply presenting the facts. And I don’t want to push this too far: I’m not arguing that Chomsky actually runs a cult. But there’s a continuum between on the one hand the normal exchange of information in a free society with people talking, arguing, writing articles and books, up through more charismatic individuals with a point to get across, through movements, religions, cults. And Chomsky is somewhere along that continuum. His attitude to who those who disagree with him, is, by and large, one of contempt. The only reason they can’t see the simple truth of what he’s saying is that they are, in one way or another, morally deficient. Normally this moral deficiency takes the form of selling out to the establishment. People want to get on in their career but they see which way the wind blows – if they write the truth they don’t last long, don’t get promotion, don’t win those Pulitzer prizes – so they write what the establishment wants to hear. So there they are, hypocrites, tossing and turning in their beds raddled with guilt, while outside – can you hear it? – there’s a still small voice, the voice they’re trying to marginalise, the voice which sick, violent, mainstream America doesn’t want you to hear, the voice of Noam Chomsky, telling the plain unadorned truth. Have you got the moral character to respond to that voice? Not many do (oh it’s a cruel, shallow world) but for those chosen few they can look around them, in the street, on the tube, in the office, and think to themselves “The fools! The blind stupid fools! They think they’re the good ones, threatened by terrorists, but it’s the other way around! We’re the real terrorists! And those pathetic cries of Democracy and Freedom – they’re just advertising slogans to dupe you.”

This, I think, is verging on cult territory. The Chomskian world is almost exactly a reverse of the way most of us view things, but only a few, those with special moral vision, can see it. For Chomsky, one of whose favourite terms is “Orwellian”, we already live in the world of Big Brother. But to spell this out is immediately to see how fatuous it is, and what an insult it is to everything that Orwell stood for. To pretend that we in the West are living in an Orwellian state is simply grotesque while Kim Jong Il still rules in North Korea.

But you can’t ignore it: that small insistent voice goes on and on. Just the plain and simple truth, which anyone, if they’re not corrupted by the wicked world, can understand. In the past few years the US and its allies have bombed and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s true. Go back a bit and they were blasting away at the Serbians. Can you deny it? And they’ve been doing it for decades. Go back sixty years and they were storming across the Pacific leaving a trail of destruction in their wake, bombing and killing, then virtually flattening Tokyo before dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and setting up a pro-western government to rule over a devastated country. At the same time in Western Europe they killed hundreds of thousands with targeted bombing on German cities before advancing across Germany, deposing the legitimate elected government and setting up a puppet government in Bonn. That’s how it was, but that’s not the story you’ll read about in the mainstream press.

Comments

  1. Eve Garrard Avatar
    Eve Garrard

    Thanks for this really interesting analysis. Your proposal that the common feature between Chomsky’s linguistics and his politics is the slide from methodology to ontology sounds very convincing.

  2. Joe Baxter Avatar
    Joe Baxter

    I’m not a member of the Chomsky cult, if such a thing exists, however, I was stopped short by the following statement, which you put in direct quotes –
    “I’m only going to deal with US crimes” becomes “the only real crimes are US crimes”
    Is this actually a direct quote from Chomsky? I would really like to know.

  3. Mick Hartley Avatar
    Mick Hartley

    Joe,
    No, sorry, they’re not direct quotes from Chomsky, rather my precis of the slide in his approach. If you think the quotation marks implied that these were direct quotes, (and put like that, it does seem a fair assumption) then I’m sorry, that wasn’t my intention.

  4. Combustible Boy Avatar

    It’s no exaggeration, by the way, to say that Chomsky tends to see people who disagree with him as morally deficient, since he often argues his case in terms of what he calls “moral truisms” (just search in Google for Chomsky and “moral truisms” sometime), seemingly blind to the way many people see the concept of a truism as a question-begging logical short-circuit…

  5. Ellen1910 Avatar
    Ellen1910

    Years before Alterman wrote his best seller there was Chomsky and Herman’s The Myth of the Liberal Media. Yes; Alterman makes an effort to control his polemical tendencies, and Chomsky lets his run free. But is Chomsky so wrong?
    Is it enough to point out a red herring, to knock down a strawman as Alterman does? Is it not necessary to go further — to argue that the NYT and WaPo are myth makers, that they are the expression of the superstructure of a conservative society, that they promote anomie and marginalize the impulse to community all to the principal benefit of the upper class? And this, Chomsky does.
    Yes; le style c’est l’homme. And here, Chomsky (he doesn’t suffer opponents lightly) doesn’t help his cause. But to call him a leader of a cult seems, at least to me, overdone.

  6. Jurjen Avatar

    Chomsky may not be a cult leader (I don’t think he is, and I don’t that’s what Mick is alleging), but he undeniably has a cult following.
    That said, I can’t help but feel that the characterisation of “the liberal media” is a bit of a “No True Scotsman” fallacy; a deliberate obfuscation of the distinction between “the media, who are liberal” and “the media who are liberal.” That comma makes all the difference. From what I understand of Chomsky, however, he commits the same fallacy only going the other way.
    Interesting analysis, Mick, and quite compelling.

  7. Ellen1910 Avatar
    Ellen1910

    On our side of the pond “the liberal media” is not an obfuscation (and I do understand if not take Jurjen’s point) but rather, a term of art.
    The New York Times and the Washington Post are, among elite political discussants, held to be liberal if not left-leaning papers [I don’t believe I’m wrong in thinking that the overwhelming majority of liberals think the Times is centrist and the Washington Post is right of center]. The rest of the media is, of course, below the salt (is that how you say it?).
    With no liberal media the fulcrum of our discourse is right of right of center.

  8. Steve Avatar
    Steve

    Mark,
    Let me suggest that you have not laid a single substantive charge against Chomsky’s writings on US foreign policy.
    For all that are intersted, check out this amazing debate between Chomsky and Richard Perle in 1988. The debate is ferocious, as they each go after the other with great vigour. By the end of the debate Chomsky has factually destroyed the dreamlike vision of US foreign policy that Perle articulated. The crowd gives Chomsky repeated ovations while occasionally booing Perle. Makes for great listening. Here’s the link:
    http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=8409

  9. Roger Cohen Avatar
    Roger Cohen

    Mick,
    I must concur with Steve. Your comments on Chomsky are essentially rambling impressions. You reference nothing that Chomsky has actually said or written, and much of what you write here are rehashed, warmed over charges that are made against Chomsky routinely. I am not Chomsky “cultist” and I find, like you, his seemingly singular emphasis on US crimes and atrocities problematic. But if you are going to take on Chomsky, I’d advise you do so in a scholarly and better-researched fashion. This, of course, require doing some homework, and hard work, both of which are sorely lacking in the blogosphere.

  10. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    Roger (and Steve),
    Sorry, but I wasn’t trying for a definitive point-by-point rebuttal of Chomsky. His arguments, many of them, are perfectly fine as far as they go. What I’m saying is, by totally ignoring the context (the cold war, the fight against terrorism, etc.), his charges lose a great deal of their force. It’s like describing a boxing match by concentrating on only one boxer. It’s not wrong, but as a description of what’s going on it’s useless.

  11. Roger Cohen Avatar
    Roger Cohen

    Useless? All but Chomsky’s most virulent detractors concede that his critiques raise important questions. And Chomsky remains one of the world’s foremost social critics, respected by fellow intellectuals but also by less educated people around the globe. Useless? I guess one of the beauties of a blog is you can say just about anything. I’d recommend you get out some more, and I mean out of the country, where in parts of the world, Chomsky is regarded not only as a great thinker, but a hero. And I do not mean a “cult” hero.

  12. Roger Cohen Avatar
    Roger Cohen

    Mick: Allow me to make a larger point here. I found your commentary on Chomsky when a writer at “Full Context” referred to it as a “definitive” critique. You are clearly a thoughtful and intelligent person, but has our understanding of language and our intellectual rigor become so debased that your rambling, unsubstantiated commentary on Chomsky could, with a straight face, be referred to as “definitive”? Your comments are essentially the same remarks that friends have made to me at a bar or at a ballgame when the conversation turned to politics. This is rather like saying, “I was standing at a bar the other night and I overheard this guy offer the definitive critque of Noam Chomsky.” This is laughable, and yet this is the very type of “authority” that a blog confers, I guess. A “definitive” critique of a major intellectual without a single footnote; with nary a quote or reference to any of the subject’s actual work? And then to see the work of such a major intellectual force dismissed by said blogger as “useless”? I am no “fan” of Chomsky, and if I were, that fact would be irrelevant. But if I am going to take on a heavyweight like this professor, I sure would do a good deal of homework — despite the paltry standards of intellectual demanded by blogs.

  13. Steve Avatar
    Steve

    Mick,
    I think you are misreading Chomsky, or perhaps not reading him at all. Chomsky goes to great lengths to show how more often than not, US leaders used the Cold war as a pretext for their aggressive actions. He demonstrates this by citing internal declassified government documents, quoting policy planners at length and by contrasting US actions before the Cold War and after the Cold War with their actions during the Cold War. Chomsky convincingly shows that there is very little difference!
    If you haven’t read Hegemony or Survival yet, you probably should. It’s one of the most important books on foreign policy that has come out recently.

  14. Roger Cohen Avatar
    Roger Cohen

    Chomsky has also written very critically about the Soviet empire, particularly the invasion of Afghanistan. He also at least once called Iraq one of the world’s worst terror states. And has written very critically about the corruption of Palestinian leadership. None of this fits into the cartoon-character Chomsky. To say he limits his attacks to the US is not to have read him enough.

  15. Rajeev Advani Avatar

    Roger Cohen is referring to my posting on http://www.fullcontext.com. Yes, I called your article “definitive” – a bit rash – but I maintain that your article is the single most eloquent piece on the driving forces behind “Chomskyism”. But Roger Cohen wants rigor. To that end a pet project on my website has been the exposure of blatant factual misrepresentations promulgated by Mr. Chomsky. I’ve been tardy in this project, but now feel newly inspired to resume. For what many forget – especially the grudging admirers of Chomsky – is that arguments aside, he is one of the most intellectually dishonest writers alive.

  16. Steve Avatar
    Steve

    much. Chomsky has far more eloquent and substantive critics, although they, also, are unconvincing.
    Why don’t you watch the Chomsky – Perle debate and let us know what you disagree with.

  17. Rajeev Advani Avatar

    Steve – it does not matter to me if Chomsky can defeat Perle in a debate of policy. What matters to me is that Chomsky is a propagandist skilled at bodyguarding his claims with mountains of falsified evidence. I certainly don’t disagree with everything Chomsky has written – I consider myself one of the left – but Chomsky’s full ideology is a desperate one, and Mic’s essay captures that. I did not respond with empty rhetoric – I responded that I would resume a project of documenting Chomsky’s misrepresentations. Much has been documented already, as I’m sure you know, which lends much credibility to my accusation of dishonesty. Try Russil Wvong’s site for an introduction here:
    http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/chomsky.html

  18. Rajeev Advani Avatar

    Not to belabor the point, but in response to Steve and Roger requesting substantive prove of Chomsky’s dishonesty, I’ve posted an essay detailing Chomsky’s deceptions in the handling of the work of Amartya Sen with regard to India.
    http://www.fullcontext.com/archives/000100.html
    This is but one case out of many.

  19. Mick Hartley Avatar
    Mick Hartley

    Thanks for the links Rajeev. I liked your piece on Amartya Sen. Haven’t read the Russil Wvong essay yet, but I will do.

  20. the noticer Avatar
    the noticer

    you wrote: — When Chomsky is asked why, in his political writings, he deals only with the US and its crimes, his response is along the lines of, well, that’s what I do, I write about the US because I’m an American, it’s what interests me. It’s the most powerful country in the world. If you want to read criticism of other countries, you can read it anywhere: the mainstream press is full of it. Well yes, that seems fair enough. But what happens here, as with his Cartesian linguistics, is that a methodological decision, to confine himself to criticism of the US, has hardened into a vision of reality. “I’m only going to deal with US crimes” becomes “the only real crimes are US crimes”. —
    is this your main point? because this is just false as huge numbers of people are perfectly well aware and anybody can easily determine by doing a tiny bit of research. Chomsky has explained his reasons for focusing on the crimes of the USA probably thousands of times in public over the last 35 plus years.. and his reasoning is uncomplicated and clear. he says he does so because it is his basic moral responsibility to focus on the crimes he is partly responsible for, the crimes he can most easily prevent. whether you believe him or not, your account of his continuously stated motivations is just totally false. to put that distortion at the center of your argument is just silly.
    and as for the cult thing – another irony – the real common thread between Chomsky’s linguistics and his politics is that he is sort of a nativist. he believes that all humans have an inherent linguistic potential inside them as well as an inherent anti-authoritarian morality – just like all cheetahs have inherent running potential and birds have inherent flying potential, though all of these potentialites can be crushed by force. his thinking does indeed flow from these basic ideas – but these ideas are: 1) so commonly held that it is silly to attribute them to Chomsky, and 2) are anti-elitist right off the bat – identifying language and morality as traits of the species rather than as accomplishments of the exceptional few. when you say “cult” – it’s hard to understand what that means in the absence of any authoritarian tendency or belief system. maybe your usage of “cult” just refers to an instance of free association that you don’t like, for whatever unstated reasons, political or otherwise.
    of course Chomsky should be questioned and criticized. but people should be clear about their real reasons. i don’t like his stardom for example, because i don’t like stardom in general, and i think his voluntary stardom is inconsistent with his anti-elitist principles. i have even debated Chomsky briefly on a different topic (“primitivism”) in an internet forum though i admit to being very influenced by his work more or less in the same way that other normal readers are.
    i think the most obvious “explanation” for Chomsky’s huge influence is immediately obvious to anyone who checks out his work: the man has simply done huge amounts of meticulous work – more hard work in his chosen areas than almost anybody else – and he makes his political ideas simple and clear. i think anybody who accomplishes these two things in a free society is likely to achieve some recognition and influence, regardless of their politics. even you. obviously almost nobody has the time or the inclination to do as much work as Chomsky has done but he did it and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that it has effects. it’s again ironic that people who search for alternative explanations and theories have so little belief in the intellectual culture they believe they are defending.
    if people are not clear about this they should really check out how much work this guy has really done.
    also: Clinton bombed a medicine factory in Sudan, not Libya.

  21. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    Noticer (?) – yes you’re right – it was Sudan not Libya.

  22. オンラインカジノ Avatar

    I like your site. Hello from Japan.

  23. Adam Cooper Avatar
    Adam Cooper

    Hi Mick
    You’re obviously well-read, to the point of being a little dangerous… in that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, e.g. Skinner was a behaviourist, one of the original, not behaviourist-lite. I know that because I studied psychology for 12 years. Which makes me question the authority with which you speak on the other areas… my bone of contention here rests with your analysis of ‘Chomsky as cult-leader-lite’. You state (I’m paraphrasing – another stock Chomsky phrase) that Chomksy is a bit of a cultist because he treats those who challenge him as if they are morally deficient. You go on to elaborate this with a bunch of prose, while failing to recognise that (from my experience) when people challenge Chomsky they tend to do so without recourse to evidence. A bit like yourself, no less. I see no evidence substantiating the claims you make about Chomsky or anything else in the article. Unlike Chomsky yours is simply a bunch of claims – no quotes, no citations, in short no evidence – just “what you think”. It’s no wonder then, that a man who has spent years researching evidence on issues, is contemptuous of at times very vitriolic attacks on his argument when the challenge comes ‘evidence-lite’.
    best wishes
    Adam

  24. Jake Avatar
    Jake

    You have every right to disagree with Chomsky, and the onyl links I see here have so far been people disagreeing with the conclusions he draws. Have fun, but realize this is in no way a refuation of his work, but only a disagreement.

  25. ArekExcelsior Avatar
    ArekExcelsior

    Yeah, I think this is rather simplistic too. Chomsky doesn’t JUST say “I’m an American, so I focus on America”; he instead says that our primary focus should be on the behavior that we can do something to stop and that we are responsible for. I end up muttering this personal responsbility mantra quite a bit, but it’s important to remember completely. That is, when we focus on how crappy things are in the Sudan, while that is surely appropriate for edification, it’s not totally relevant unless we plan on doing something about it, not nearly as relevant as questioning the pharmaceutical plant bombing or domestic policy here or whatever else. People can disagree with Chomsky, but I’ve read everything in my years as a high school debater, and I can tell you that not only is Chomsky the most consistent and intellectually satisfying critic I’ve read, he also has mountains of evidence that he uses VERY carefully. Case in point: In Heg/Survival, he cites Grossman and Mitchell on space militarization. I ran space mil as a case in the 2001-2002 topic. Grossman and Mitchell not only say what Chomsky says, they say it even more stridently and say even more controversial and terrifying things. Chomsky could have leapt up and down as we did in debate rounds with the infamous “orbiting death stars” quote and the “micro-waved cities of grilled dead people” quote, but he instead was very measured in the analysis he made and stuck only to things he felt he could justify based on some other prima facia plausibility evidence.
    Oh, and Raj, I read your blog on Sen and Chomsky. Thoroughly underwhelming.

  26. wallace Avatar
    wallace

    Eve Garrad asks:
    “I’m only going to deal with US crimes” becomes “the only real crimes are US crimes”
    Is this actually a direct quote from Chomsky?
    No. In fact he says the opposite – hence you can disregard much of Micks argument. What Chomsky says is that the US behaves like any other power. The US at the moment HAPPENS to be the most powerful and so it is the most violent. So when Britain ruled the world they carried out the same atrocities. Same with Belguim. And France. Chomksys issue is with the NATURE of Power and how to rise against it. ( Power and Terror pg 118 ). He says this clearly and simply.
    cheers !
    wallace

  27. Mike Botteley Avatar
    Mike Botteley

    Un unconvincing script that takes Chomsky totally out of context, it is more a discussion of ‘your feeling’; i cant find one decent argument against Chomsky. Please read more carefully and upload a better paper.

  28. dave Avatar
    dave

    i love all this deep thinking on chomsky and the connections between his linguistics and politics, there is only one flaw in it, its complete and utter nonsense, it is so simple to understand why chomsky focuses on american crimes first, because as an american he bears responsibility, and as americans we should first be concerned with stopping our own crimes before we move onto the question of what to do about other peoples crimes, why is this so hard?

  29. T.E.Frazier Avatar
    T.E.Frazier

    e him a star amongst some so-called leftists. Do not be surprised if you are assaulted with lots of bitter attacks if you dare attack “the leader”. Chomsky, for them, is the source of truth. All opposing sources are suspect or downright evil.
    Chomsky is a cult leader who has no direct contact with his own cult. He communicates with them remotely through the “media” he constantly attacks: TV, magazine interviews, websites, books. Chomsky is right, the media is controlling you. He fails to mention that he is, for them, that controlling part.
    I do not claim to be neutral. I am a Radical Behaviorist. But that doesn’t mean that I am wrong.
    Cheers!
    T.E.F
    p.s. It is not slander to call a cult leader a cult leader if they are, in fact, cult leaders. What do you call a cult leader then?

  30. mike3 Avatar
    mike3


    Mick,
    I must concur with Steve. Your comments on Chomsky are essentially rambling impressions. You reference nothing that Chomsky has actually said or written, and much of what you write here are rehashed, warmed over charges that are made against Chomsky routinely. I am not Chomsky “cultist” and I find, like you, his seemingly singular emphasis on US crimes and atrocities problematic. But if you are going to take on Chomsky, I’d advise you do so in a scholarly and better-researched fashion. This, of course, require doing some homework, and hard work, both of which are sorely lacking in the blogosphere.

    Of course if you could explain WHERE and HOW to do this research that would be much better. If not, then you’re not a help.

  31. Courtenay Barnett Avatar

    Good analylsis – but sometimes totally unsustainable, for example:-
    “It helped of course that in the early days of Chomsky’s political writings, in the late sixties, the presentation of the US as a dominant and aggressive power was not a difficult argument to make.”
    Well – when we get to Afghanistan and Iraq – what fundamentally has changed in US foreign policy and actions which Chomsky has consitently focused on?

  32. Courtenay Barnett Avatar

    Then you get right back to the true point:-
    “In the past few years the US and its allies have bombed and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s true. Go back a bit and they were blasting away at the Serbians. Can you deny it? And they’ve been doing it for decades. Go back sixty years and they were storming across the Pacific leaving a trail of destruction in their wake, bombing and killing, then virtually flattening Tokyo before dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and setting up a pro-western government to rule over a devastated country. At the same time in Western Europe they killed hundreds of thousands with targeted bombing on German cities before advancing across Germany, deposing the legitimate elected government and setting up a puppet government in Bonn. That’s how it was, but that’s not the story you’ll read about in the mainstream press.”
    So true – and there is the point – write on Chomsky

  33. Zak Avatar
    Zak

    Really? We’re supposed to take you seriously when you say that the Sudan bombing took one life?? It’s been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands. That’s cold hard facts coming from some the most respected institutions on the planet.

  34. Zak Avatar
    Zak

    He’s never said that the purpose of bombing Kosovo was to advance big business. From what I’ve read, he relates it more to Iraq in ’91, a demonstration of force to those who would think of defying Washington. The entire world understood the fallacy of “evil communism” after the fall of the Soviet Union, you claim otherwise. lol, it would not surprise me if you were American, as you seem to be the only civilization on the planet that has effectively allowed itself to become the state described in Nineteen Eighty-Four, loyally chanting “War is Peace!!”

  35. Nozyalacy Avatar

    Do not know about you all, and I loved it. Someone may say that there is nothing special about fasting is not that these – hundreds, that information is not new, and so on. And I say in response – if you do not wonder why or comment? To me, the post just perfect – I am pleased to not only honored, but also recounted the contents of colleagues.

  36. Sam Avatar
    Sam

    Re: ArekExcelsior:
    Space Militarization with “orbiting death stars” and “micro-waved cities”. Ok let’s dive into this shell we. The two “reliable” sources are Grossman and Mitchel.
    Gordon R. Mitchell in his article (http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/JapanTMD.pdf) for quote “micro-waved cities” relies on SiFi fan and writer David Langford who wrote a futuristic book in 1979(first edition) (http://www.ansible.co.uk/books/w2080.html). For quote on “death stars” he draw on a study group for purpose of educating HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS of which HE was A MEMBER(http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/980731-ds.htm) where he and other guys kicked around futuristic ideas and talked about starwars. The study group was self described as follows “The Study Group conducted its research as part of the NHSI Workshop on U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Russia. Hosted by Northwestern University from July – August, 1998, this workshop was designed to provide a forum for college faculty and high school students to collaboratively research and debate contemporary issues in international relations.”
    Karl Grossman worked for tv and radio and a journalism professor – in NO way associated with Dept of Defense or any Military govt agency. His work includes a couple of conspiracy books – NOT peer reviewed
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Grossman)
    – WOW – and THESE are SERIOUS sources – two guys peddling conspiracy theory based on their own sci-fi writings! – Now what’s the reason to take them seriously, they have no credentials, no education in relevant field, none of their works is peer-reviewed. You might as well use Rush Limbaugh’s books as a reference

  37. Sam Avatar
    Sam

    links above all work – just remove “)” at the end of URL

Leave a Reply to Sam Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *