Noam Chomsky: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:11, 22 June 2005

Revision as of 09:28, 22 June 2005

Line 7:

}}

{{NPOVnpov}}

'''Avram Noam Chomsky''' (born [[December 7]], [[1928]]) is an [[Institute Professor]] [[Emeritus]] of [[linguistics]] at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] and creator of the [[Chomsky hierarchy]], a classification of [[formal language]]s. His works in [[generative grammar|generative linguistics]] contributed significantly to the decline of [[behaviorism]] and led to the advancement of the [[cognitive science]]s. Outside of his linguistic work, Chomsky is also widely known for his political activism and his [[critic]]ism of the [[Foreign relations of the United States|foreign policy]] of the [[Government of the United States|United States]] and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a [[libertarian socialism|libertarian socialist]] and a sympathizer of [[anarcho-syndicalism]].

Line 170:

In his [[1973]] book ''For Reasons of State'', Chomsky argues that instead of a capitalist system in which people are "[[wage slavery|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 government institutions. Work that was fundamentally distasteful to all, if any existed, would be distributed equally among everyone.

Though highly critical of the [[Soviet Union]] during the 1960s and 1970s, Chomsky was more positive in his assessment of Communist movements in Asia, at least at the grassroots level. In a 1968 essay, "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship," Chomsky praised the grassroots aspects of the Chinese and Vietnam communist revolutions, noting "certain similar features" with the [[Anarchism in Spain|Spanish anarchist movement]] of the 1930s (which he greatly admires), while at the same time cautioning that "the scale of the Chinese Revolution is so great and reports in depth are so fragmentary that it would no doubt be foolhardy to attempt a general evaluation." In December 1967, while participating in a forum in New York, he said that in China "one finds many things that are really quite admirable", and that "China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting and 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." [http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm] Similarly, inhe aobserved speechof givenVietnam: in"Although Hanoithere onappears [[Aprilto 13]],be [[1970]],a andhigh broadcast by Radio Hanoi the next day, Chomsky spokedegree of hisdemocratic "admirationparticipation forat the peoplevillage ofand Vietnamregional wholevels, have[…] beenstill ablemajor toplanning defendis themselveshighly againstcentralized the ferocious attack, and atin the samehands time take great strides forward towardof the socialiststate societyauthorities." [http://www.no-treasonnybooks.com/Starrarticles/3.html10869]

In later years, however, Chomsky expressed criticisms of the Chinese Communist state that were consistent with his anarchist perspectives. In a 2000 essay, "Millennial Visions and Selective Vision," [http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2000-01/10chomsky.htm] Chomsky referred to China's "totalitarian regime" and described the starvation of 25–40 million people during the 1958–1961 famines caused by the [[Great Leap Forward]] — not widely known until after Mao's death — as a "terrible atrocity." He has, however, drawn an analogy between the Chinese famine and deaths resulting from malnutrition in [[India]], claiming that "[[democratic capitalism]]" is directly responsible for the latter. [http://www.fullcontext.com/archives/000100.html]

<!--

''Note: This section requires more coverage of Chomsky's earliest and most widely influential work, that on the Vietnam War including his classic ''American Power and the New Mandarins''. The present material is heavily weighted to post-1980 writings.''-->

Line 242:

:The ''New York Review of Books'' was one soapbox for Chomsky &mdash; but only until 1972 or so. Chomsky says that's because the magazine's editorial policy abruptly shifted to the right around then. But he couldn't seem to find a home with other publications, either. He went from huddling with newspaper editors and bouncing ideas off them to being virtually banned. The ''New Republic'' wouldn't have him, in part because of his unrelenting criticism of Israel. The ''Nation''? Occasionally. But for the most part, mainstream outlets shunned him. Today, his articles on social and political developments are confined to lesser-known journals such as the magazine ''Z''.

More succinctlydismissively, Paul Berman wrote in ''Terror and Liberalism'' (2003): "In the United States, the principal newspapers and magazines have tended to ignore Chomsky's political writings for many years now, because of his reputation as a crank." [http://www.demosophia.com/2003/09/paul_berman_on_.html]

When [[CNN]] presenter [[Jeff Greenfield]] was asked why Chomsky was never on his show<!--[[Nightline]]-->, he explained that Chomsky might "be of the leading intellectuals who can't talk on television. [&hellip;]<!--You know, that's a standard that's very important for us.--> If you['ve] got a 22-minute show, and a guy takes five minutes to warm up, [&hellip;]<!--(now, I don't know whether Chomsky does or not)--> he's out." Greenfield described this need to "say things between two commericals" 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", and 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 Chomsky's ''9-11'' became a bestseller in the aftermath of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], Chomsky has been getting more coverage from the mainstream American media. For example, the ''New York Times'' published an article in May 2002 describing the popularity of ''9-11'' [http://www.theconversation.org/chomsky911.html]. In January 2004, the ''Times'' published a review of Chomsky's ''Hegemony or Survival'' by [[Samantha Power]] [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/books/review/04POWERT.html], and in February, the ''Times'' published an op-ed by Chomsky himself, criticizing the [[Israeli West Bank Barrier]] for taking Palestinian land [http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20040223.htm].

Line 322:

In the 1992 film "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media", Professor Chomsky defends himself explaining that he took up defense of Faurisson when he was taken to court, explaining: "I do not think the state ought to have the right to determine historical truth and to punish people who deviate from it. I'm not willing to give the state that right..." A student, interrupting, asks: "Do you deny that gas chambers existed?" Chomsky replies: "Of course not, but I'm saying that if you believe in freedom of speech then you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like, I mean Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked, right, so was Stalin. If you're in favour of freedom of speech that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech." In the same film, debating with [[Yossi Olmert]], a professor from Tel Aviv University, on a show "Speaking Out" in 1985, Chomsky asks Olmert "...what percentage of the world press believes that Faurisson actually has anything to say", or that is he viewed by the press "to be anything other than a lunatic?" Olmert answered that "... this is something that can only be interpreted as a case against Israel." Chomsky finishes a lecture citing some of his earliest work: "Even to enter into the arena of debate on the question of whether the Nazis carried out such atrocities is already to lose one's humanity, I don't think you ought to discuss the issue if you want to know my opinion, but if anybody wants to refute Faurisson there is certainly no difficulty in doing so."

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, Michael Achbar and Peter Wintonick, Videocassette. Necessary Illusions Productions Inc co-produced with the National Film Board of Canada, 1992.

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, Michael Achbar and Peter Wintonick, Videocassette. Necessary Illusions Productions Inc co-produced with the National Film Board of Canada, 1992.

===Anti-Americanism===