Toggle Content Toggle Content

Donate

 0%

Social Bookmarking


Poll

Hugo Chavez is:




Results :: Polls

Votes: 78
Comments: 3

Search on This Topic: Noam Chomsky

[ Go to Home | Select a New Topic ]

Noam Chomsky Interview: “Direct participation in creativity”

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 (20:09:07)
by Eric French
Source: Amauta

Noam Chomsky: "A lot of the people involved in the media are very serious, honest people, and they will tell you, and I think they are right, that they are not being forced to write anything… What they don’t tell you, and are maybe unaware of, is that they are allowed to write freely because their beliefs conform to the … standard doctrinal system, and then, yes, they are allowed to write freely and are not coerced. People who don’t accept that doctrinal system, they may try to survive in the media, but they are unlikely to…

The whole intellectual culture has a filtering system, start[ing] as a child in school. You’re expected to accept certain beliefs, styles, behavioral patterns and so on. If you don’t accept them, you are called maybe a behavioral problem, or something, and you’re weeded out. Something like that goes on all the way through universities and graduate schools. There is an implicit system of filtering…which creates a strong tendency to impose conformism. Now, it’s a tendency, so you do have exceptions, and sometimes the exceptions are quite striking. Take, say, this university [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], in the 1960s, in the period of 60s activism, the university was about a hundred percent funded by the Pentagon. It was also, probably the main academic center of antiwar resistance [during the war in Vietnam]….

The tendencies are quite strong, and the rewards for conformity are quite high, and the punishments for nonconformity can be significant. It’s not like we send you to a torture chamber,…[but] it can affect advancement, it can affect even employment, it can affect the way you’re treated, you know, disparegeament, dismissal, slander, denunciations."

Classical Composer Honors Noam Chomsky with Original Music

Thursday, November 19, 2009 (15:29:14)

Noam Chomsky will be honored at an MIT concert, to be held on January 22, 2010, at Kresge Auditorium. The Los Angeles-based composer Edward Manukyan will be present with the famous linguist and philosopher, to hear performances of chamber music - some of which were dedicated to Prof. Chomsky - and songs on Chomsky's words.

The event is part of a series of concerts in which the composer honors some of the world's leading intellectuals and scientists with musical dedications. Similar concerts will follow in New York and Texas, honoring the Nobel-laureate biologist James Watson and physicist Steven Weinberg later next year.

The concert will also feature speeches about Chomsky and his contribution to science and world ideas, by noted scientists from MIT and Harvard.

More about the concert is available from: www.EdwardManukyan.com

Tickets are on sale at: sao.mit.edu/tickets/20...al-tribute

Chomsky: Understanding the Crisis - Markets, the State and Hypocrisy

Sunday, March 01, 2009 (22:15:38)
Source: Z Net

February 10, 2009 -- Noam Chomsky is a noted linguist, author, and foreign policy expert. Sameer Dossani interviewed him about the global economic crisis and its roots.

SAMEER DOSSANI: In any first year economics class, we are taught that markets have their ups and downs, so the current recession is perhaps nothing out of the ordinary. But this particular downturn is interesting for two reasons: First, market deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s made the boom periods artificially high, so the bust period will be deeper than it would otherwise. Secondly, despite an economy that's boomed since 1980, the majority of working class U.S. residents have seen their incomes stagnate — while the rich have done well most of the country hasn't moved forward at all. Given the situation, my guess is that economic planners are likely to go back to some form of Keynesianism, perhaps not unlike the Bretton Woods system that was in place from 1948-1971. What are your thoughts?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well I basically agree with your picture. In my view, the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s is probably the major international event since 1945, much more significant in its implications than the collapse of the Soviet Union.

From roughly 1950 until the early 1970s there was a period of unprecedented economic growth and egalitarian economic growth. So the lowest quintile did as well — in fact they even did a little bit better — than the highest quintile. It was also a period of some limited but real form of benefits for the population. And in fact social indicators, measurements of the health of society, they very closely tracked growth. As growth went up social indicators went up, as you'd expect. Many economists called it the golden age of modern capitalism — they should call it state capitalism because government spending was a major engine of growth and development.

In the mid 1970s that changed. Bretton Woods restrictions on finance were dismantled, finance was freed, speculation boomed, huge amounts of capital started going into speculation against currencies and other paper manipulations, and the entire economy became financialized. The power of the economy shifted to the financial institutions, away from manufacturing. And since then, the majority of the population has had a very tough time; in fact it may be a unique period in American history. There's no other period where real wages — wages adjusted for inflation — have more or less stagnated for so long for a majority of the population and where living standards have stagnated or declined. If you look at social indicators, they track growth pretty closely until 1975, and at that point they started to decline, so much so that now we're pretty much back to the level of 1960. There was growth, but it was highly inegalitarian — it went into a very small number of pockets. There have been brief periods in which this shifted, so during the tech bubble, which was a bubble in the late Clinton years, wages improved and unemployment went down, but these are slight deviations in a steady tendency of stagnation and decline for the majority of the population.

Financial crises have increased during this period, as predicted by a number of international economists. Once financial markets were freed up, there was expected to be an increase in financial crises, and that's happened. This crisis happens to be exploding in the rich countries, so people are talking about it, but it's been happening regularly around the world — some of them very serious — and not only are they increasing in frequency but they're getting deeper. And it's been predicted and discussed and there are good reasons for it. [Click Read more]

Chomsky: "If I were in a swing state, I'd vote for Obama..."

Thursday, October 30, 2008 (17:58:25)
Peter Jaworski: Do you support a political party, or any particular individuals running for office?

Noam Chomsky: If I were in a swing state, I'd vote for Obama, reluctantly and without illusions, only because I think that McCain-Palin and the constituency they represent are extremely dangerous -- in fact, there's a proto-fascist character, a term I don't use lightly.

...snip...

Noam Chomsky: If you think Sarah Palin is a frightening phenomenon, you should listen to talk radio, as I often do while driving. It was taken over years ago by a very well-funded ultra-right. And it reaches tens of millions of frightened people, who are true believers, judging by the phone calls.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today ranting with extreme confidence about how the financial crisis was created by Bill Ayers and Acorn (Obama's secret connection) and the rich liberal Democrats who run Wall Street (and of course the media, the government, industry,...), and are trying to destroy the lives of us ordinary folk. They're cheering the meltdown they orchestrated because they want people to suffer and they want to destroy capitalism and introduce Cuban-style Communism. Democrats are happy to raise income taxes because they are so rich they live on unearned income.

The way Ayers, Acorn, Obama, and the rest engineered the crisis was by intimidating banks so that they gave subprime mortgages to illegal immigrants, shiftless blacks and hispanics, etc., and it's left for us hard-working god-fearing white working folk to pick up the burden. And on and on.

I'm old enough to barely remember Nazi speeches. Very similar. The US, and the world, is lucky that no charismatic figure has arisen here. McCarthy was too much of a thug. Reagan a clown. W. Bush couldn't walk across the street without falling into a manhole. Someday one will appear, and we all could be in bad trouble.


He is also asked his opinion of Dennis Kucinich, you can read the rest here:

westernstandard.blogs....ky-if.html

Related: Video: Chomsky: In swing states vote Obama without illusions

Noam Chomsky: Why is Iraq Missing From 2008 Presidential Race?

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 (14:28:42)
Source: Democracy Now!

In a major address, Noam Chomsky says there has been little change in the conventional debate over a U.S. invasion abroad: from Vietnam to Iraq, the two main political parties and political pundits differ only on the tactics of U.S. goals, which are assumed to be legitimate. On the other hand, public opposition to war has also remained consistent, Chomsky says, but whether Iraqi or American, ignored.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will face off tonight in their final debate before the crucial primaries in Ohio and Texas next week. Over the past few days, the two Democratic candidates have traded barbs over trade, foreign and domestic policies as the rhetoric from both campaigns heats up. Since the presidential race began well over a year ago, Iraq has been one of many topics of debate. However, the war has not been the central issue of the campaign as it was in the midterm elections in 2006 and there are still more than 160,000 US troops deployed in Iraq.

Why is this the case? That was the subject of a recent talk by Noam Chomsky. A professor of linguistics at MIT for over half a century, Chomsky is the author of dozens of books on US foreign policy. His most recent is called "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy" We spend the rest of the hour with Noam Chomsky. He recently spoke before a packed audience in Arlington, Massachussetts at an event sponsored by Bikes Not Bombs.

Noam Chomsky, Professor of linguistics at MIT for over half a century, Chomsky is the author of dozens of books on US foreign policy. His most recent is called "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy."

Video:




Audio: (segement begins around 20:05)



From Democracy Now!

Where's the Iraqi voice? by Noam Chomsky

Wednesday, February 13, 2008 (22:50:58)
1 February 2008

THE US occupying army in Iraq (euphemistically called the Multi-National Force-Iraq) carries out extensive studies of popular attitudes. Its December 2007 report of a study of focus groups was uncharacteristically upbeat.

The report concluded that the survey "provides very strong evidence" to refute the common view that "national reconciliation is neither anticipated nor possible". On the contrary, the survey found that a sense of "optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups ... and far more commonalities than differences are found among these seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis."

This discovery of "shared beliefs" among Iraqis throughout the country is "good news, according to a military analysis of the results", Karen deYoung reports in The Washington Post.

The "shared beliefs" were identified in the report. To quote deYoung, "Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of 'occupying forces' as the key to national reconciliation."

So, according to Iraqis, there is hope of national reconciliation if the invaders, responsible for the internal violence, withdraw and leave Iraq to Iraqis.

The report did not mention other good news: Iraqis appear to accept the highest values of Americans, as established at the Nuremberg Tribunal -- specifically, that aggression -- "invasion by its armed forces" by one state "of the territory of another state" -- is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole". The chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, forcefully insisted that the Tribunal would be mere farce if we do not apply its principles to ourselves...

Read more

Conversations with History: Activism, Anarchism, and Power, with Noam Chomsky

Monday, January 21, 2008 (13:05:29)


This interview is part of the Institute's "Conversations with History" series, and uses Internet technology to share with the public Berkeley's distinction as a global forum for ideas.

Welcome to a Conversation with History. I'm Harry Kreisler of the Institute of International Studies. Our guest today is Noam Chomsky.


Audio:


Transcripts:

    1. Background - Family influences, his uncle and the New York newsstand, Zionism, Orwell, the Spanish Civil War, dread of fascism and palpable sense of anti-Semitism, commentary by a ten-year-old.

    2. Anarchism and Power - Distinctiveness of U.S view, 19th century workers' movements and culture, defining legitimate power, burden of proof, even for the powerless.

    3. Thinking about Power - Scientific inquiry and political questions, the centrality of human freedom, media control of the debate, "concision," manufacturing consent, the power to frame the issues.

    4. The U.S. Role in the World - the case of Iraq, the cases of Serbia and Turkey, the case of Indonesia, two kinds of intellectuals, the case of Kosovo.

    5. Activism - Joining together, changing consciousness, the real heroes, elementary moral principles, courage, the hard work.

Conversations with History: Activism, Anarchism and Power, with Noam Chomsky

Chomsky's Ron Paul Comments *CONFIRMED*

Saturday, December 08, 2007 (10:16:07)
Some Ron Paul supporters have been saying that these comments attributed to Chomsky are fake or a hoax. I think znet is generally regarded as reputable source in this respect, but Chomsky seems to have enough problems with misrepresentation, so I wanted to be absolutely sure. I e-mailed Prof. Chomsky to see if he could officially confirm whether the comments are authentic:

Hello Prof. Chomsky,
Some comments regarding Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul that have been attributed to you are circulating the internet. They are posted on numerous websites, but no one seems to be able to find an official source. I've included them at the bottom of this e-mail. Can you confirm if these are you're statements? I thought they were, but some Ron Paul supporters are saying it's a fake or a hoax. Is it OK if I post your response to this on my website, AnarchismToday.org? Thanks for your time.

Response:

Write an awful lot of letters, maybe 6-7 hours a day (usually night), so can't be sure, but it looks like a response of mine to questions raised on a Znet forum. Original is presumably there, but I suspect it is the same. I don't know how Znet deals with re-posting, but I'd personally have no objections.

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul

Sunday, December 02, 2007 (04:21:21)
* Update: I E-mailed Prof. Chomsky for confirmation. Z magazine is an official source, but some Ron Paul supporters are calling the forum comments a hoax or a fake. View Prof. Chomsky's response here.

From the znet sustainers forum:

Questioner: Hello Mr. Chomsky. I'm assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I'm also assuming you have a general idea about his positions. Here my summary of Mr. Paul's positions:
- He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).

Noam Chomsky: Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.

- He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)

Noam Chomsky: "Dismantling of big government" sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded? like what we're now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

Chomsky vs The Washington Post on "Interventions"

Thursday, October 04, 2007 (17:01:20)
Source: Noam Chomsky's Official Website

The letter to the Washington Post that follows was written as an experiment, to see just how low the editors would sink in their efforts to block a book containing evidence and analysis that they do not want to reach the public. The letter is a response to a crude and vulgar diatribe, in the form of a review of my collection Interventions. In response, I wrote a point-by-point refutation of each charge, a straightforward matter, as the editors doubtless understand. The letter was sent to the Post immediately, altogether four times, with a request for acknowledgment of receipt. Unpublished, no acknowledgment of receipt. Two weeks after the review appeared, Sept. 16, the Post did publish two letters responding to it. The letters were critical of the review, but acceptable by the standards of the editors, because they left the lies and slanders standing -- the authors could have had no way to refute them without a research project.

I think it is fair to take the editors' silence to demonstrate that they know precisely what they are doing, and are too cowardly even to acknowledge receipt.

-- Noam Chomsky

Click below to read the letter.

Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future

Friday, September 28, 2007 (22:35:55)
Source: struggle.ws

Noam Chomsky is widely known for his critique of U.S foreign policy, and for his work as a linguist. Less well known is his ongoing support for libertarian socialist objectives. In a special interview done for Red and Black Revolution, Chomsky gives his views on anarchism and marxism, and the prospects for socialism now. The interview was conducted in May 1995 by Kevin Doyle.

RBR: First off, Noam, for quite a time now you've been an advocate for the anarchist idea. Many people are familiar with the introduction you wrote in 1970 to Daniel Guerin's Anarchism, but more recently, for instance in the film Manufacturing Consent, you took the opportunity to highlight again the potential of anarchism and the anarchist idea. What is it that attracts you to anarchism?

CHOMSKY: I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way.

Beyond such generalities, we begin to look at cases, which is where the questions of human interest and concern arise.

RBR: It's true to say that your ideas and critique are now more widely known than ever before. It should also be said that your views are widely respected. How do you think your support for anarchism is received in this context? In particular, I'm interested in the response you receive from people who are getting interested in politics for the first time and who may, perhaps, have come across your views. Are such people surprised by your support for anarchism? Are they interested?

CHOMSKY: The general intellectual culture, as you know, associates 'anarchism' with chaos, violence, bombs, disruption, and so on. So people are often surprised when I speak positively of anarchism and identify myself with leading traditions within it. But my impression is that among the general public, the basic ideas seem reasonable when the clouds are cleared away. Of course, when we turn to specific matters - say, the nature of families, or how an economy would work in a society that is more free and just - questions and controversy arise. But that is as it should be. Physics can't really explain how water flows from the tap in your sink. When we turn to vastly more complex questions of human significance, understanding is very thin, and there is plenty of room for disagreement, experimentation, both intellectual and real-life exploration of possibilities, to help us learn more.

RBR: Perhaps, more than any other idea, anarchism has suffered from the problem of misrepresentation. Anarchism can mean many things to many people. Do you often find yourself having to explain what it is that you mean by anarchism? Does the misrepresentation of anarchism bother you?

CHOMSKY: All misrepresentation is a nuisance. Much of it can be traced back to structures of power that have an interest in preventing understanding, for pretty obvious reasons. It's well to recall David Hume's Principles of Government. He expressed surprise that people ever submitted to their rulers. He concluded that since Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. 'Tis therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. Hume was very astute - and incidentally, hardly a libertarian by the standards of the day. He surely underestimates the efficacy of force, but his observation seems to me basically correct, and important, particularly in the more free societies, where the art of controlling opinion is therefore far more refined. Misrepresentation and other forms of befuddlement are a natural concomitant.

So does misrepresentation bother me? Sure, but so does rotten weather. It will exist as long as concentrations of power engender a kind of commissar class to defend them. Since they are usually not very bright, or are bright enough to know that they'd better avoid the arena of fact and argument, they'll turn to misrepresentation, vilification, and other devices that are available to those who know that they'll be protected by the various means available to the powerful. We should understand why all this occurs, and unravel it as best we can. That's part of the project of liberation - of ourselves and others, or more reasonably, of people working together to achieve these aims.

Sounds simple-minded, and it is. But I have yet to find much commentary on human life and society that is not simple-minded, when absurdity and self-serving posturing are cleared away.

Read More...

This interview and similar ones are available as a collection in the book, "Noam Chomsky on Anarchism"

Media Control, by Noam Chomsky

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 (05:51:40)
Noam Chomsky
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 17, 1991
Excerpted from the Alternative Press Review, Fall 1993

...Let me begin by counter-posing two different conceptions of democracy. One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free....

An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy, but it's important to understand that it is the prevailing conception....

----snip----

Spectator Democracy

...Walter Lippman, who was the dean of American journalists, a major foreign and domestic policy critic and also a major theorist of liberal democracy...argued that what he called a "revolution in the art of democracy," could be used to "manufacture consent," that is, to bring about agreement on the part of the public for things that they didn't want by the new techniques of propaganda....

...He argued that in a properly-functioning democracy there are classes of citizens. There is first of all the class of citizens who have to take some active role in running general affairs. That's the specialized class. They are the people who analyze, execute, make decisions, and run things in the political, economic, and ideological systems. That's a small percentage of the population... Those others, who are out of the small group, the big majority of the population, they are what Lippman called "the bewildered herd." We have to protect ourselves from the trampling and rage of the bewildered herd...

...So we need something to tame the bewildered herd, and that something is this new revolution in the art of democracy: the "manufacture of consent." The media, the schools, and popular culture have to be divided. For the political class and the decision makers have to give them some tolerable sense of reality, although they also have to instill the proper beliefs. Just remember, there is an unstated premise here. The unstated premise -- and even the responsible men have to disguise this from themselves -- has to do with the question of how they get into the position where they have the authority to make decisions. The way they do that, of course, is by serving people with real power. The people with real power are the ones who own the society, which is a pretty narrow group. If the specialized class can come along and say, I can serve your interests, then they'll be part of the executive group. You've got to keep that quiet. That means they have to have instilled in them the beliefs and doctrines that will serve the interests of private power. Unless they can master that skill, they're not part of the specialized class. They have to be deeply indoctrinated in the values and interests of private power and the state-corporate nexus that represents it. If they can get through that, then they can be part of the specialized class. The rest of the bewildered herd just have to be basically distracted. Turn their attention to something else....

...In what is nowadays called a totalitarian state, then a military state, it's easy. You just hold a bludgeon over their heads, and if they get out of line you smash them over the head. But as society has become more free and democratic, you lose that capacity. Therefore you have to turn to the techniques of propaganda. The logic is clear. Propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state....

Read more at Z magazine.

Noam Chomsky Interview: Democracy's Invisible Line

Monday, August 20, 2007 (04:50:59)
Democracy's invisible line

The US writer Noam Chomsky talks about the mechanisms behind modern communication, an essential instrument of government in democratic countries, as important to our governments as propaganda is to a dictatorship.

He also touches on the subject of anarchism, here is a snippet. -personman

DM: Critics tend to lump you together with the anarchists and libertarian socialists. What would be the role of the state in a real democracy?

NC: We are living here and now, not in some imaginary universe. And here and now there are tyrannical organizations, big corporations. They are the closest thing to a totalitarian institution. They are, to all intents and purposes, quite unaccountable to the general public or society as a whole. They behave like predators, preying on other smaller companies. People have only one means of defending themselves and that is the state. Nor is it a very effective shield because it is often closely linked to the predators. But there is a far from negligible difference. General Electric is accountable to no one, whereas the state must occasionally explain its actions to the public.

Once democracy has been enlarged far enough for citizens to control the means of production and trade, and they take part in the overall running and management of the environment in which they live, then the state will gradually be able to disappear. It will be replaced by voluntary associations at our place of work and where we live.

DM: Isn't it the case that all forms of autonomous organization based on anarchist principles have ultimately collapsed?

NC: There are no set anarchist principles, no libertarian creed to which we must all swear allegiance. Anarchism, at least as I understand it, is a movement that tries to identify organizations exerting authority and domination, to ask them to justify their actions and, if they are unable to do so, as often happens, to try to supersede them.

Far from collapsing, anarchism and libertarian thought are flourishing. They have given rise to real progress in many fields. Forms of oppression and injustice that were once barely recognized, less still disputed, are no longer allowed. That in itself is a success, a step forward for all humankind, certainly not a failure.

Read more...

On Pirates and Emperors, with Noam Chomsky

Sunday, July 08, 2007 (15:16:30)
Pirates and emperors - really the same thing. Here is a short, "School House Rock-esque" introduction to the idea.



This video has an introduction to Noam Chomsky's life and career, followed by an interview on his book, "Pirates and Emperors".

Noam Chomsky on Anarchism

Friday, July 06, 2007 (18:41:51)
Noam Chomsky talks about anarchism to Barry Pateman of the Emma Goldman Archives. In a relaxed and personal exchange, Professor Chomsky discusses the anarchist principles that have guided him since he was a teenager.

Chomsky as the Rest of the World Knows Him

Thursday, June 07, 2007 (16:38:00)
Chomsky As the Rest of the World Knows Him

By Sonali Kolhatkar, Uprising Radio. Posted June 7, 2007.


Noam Chomsky speaks about the status of democracy in Iraq, U.S. imperialism over Latin America, and the media's shallow coverage of foreign affairs -- all topics explored in his latest book, Interventions.

Since 2002, the New York Times Syndicate has been distributing op-eds written by the pre-eminent foreign policy critic and scholar of our time, Noam Chomsky. The New York Times Syndicate is part of the same company as the New York Times newspaper, and while readers around the world have had a chance to regularly read Chomsky's articles, the New York Times newspaper has never published a single one. Only a few regional newspapers in the US have picked up the Op-eds, such as the Register Guard, the Dayton Daily News, and the Knoxville Voice. Internationally, the Op-eds have appeared in the mainstream British press including the International Herald Tribune, the Guardian, and the Independent. Now, City Lights Books has just published a complete collection of these 1000 word Op-eds in a single book called Interventions.

On June 1st, 2007, Noam Chomsky spoke with radio host Sonali Kolhatkar about his new book:

Kolhatkar: In your April 2004 op-ed entitled "Iraq: The Roots of Resistance," you describe the false pretext of democracy that the Bush administration used to justify its war and then in March 2005 you lauded the real success of the Iraqi elections in that the US had actually allowed them to take place. Now a few years later what is the status of real democracy in Iraq?

Chomsky: The elections of January 2005 were, as I probably wrote there in my view, a real triumph of non-violent resistance. The US was trying in every possible way to prevent elections and finally had to give in just because it could not face a mass, popular non-violent resistance, which was far more effective than the insurgency. So it allowed the elections to take place but immediately moved to subvert them. And that's the situation we're in. I mean, you can't really have a functioning democracy under military occupation. You can have some elements of it but not much. Military occupation is too harsh. I mean, it's hard enough to find a functioning democratic system in a country that deprived of Democratic elections. Paris system, for example, of military occupation, their system has extremely serious flaws and in Iraq, it's far harsher. The elections as they took place finally were, as many observers, have pointed out it was kind of a census more than an election. It was sectarian voting and the conflicts are by now so extreme that the political system is kind of a shadow.

Kolhatkar: So, when you talk about the elections themselves not necessarily being that meaningful, what about the aspirations of Iraqis and how do we here in the United States, who are against the war in Iraq, count on the democratic aspirations of the Iraqis? Increasingly, it seems as though Iraqis do not have much space to exercise their democratic rights.

Chomsky: They do not have space under a military occupation. I mean, if the United States was occupied by Iran, would we be able to run a democratic society? I mean, it's not a matter of counting on Iraqis. We have responsibilities to them and the responsibilities are clear.

The responsibilities are to, first of all, pay enormous reparations, not just for the war but for the murderous, sanctioned regime that preceded it and fatuous support for Saddam Hussein during the '80s. We have plenty of obligations in that regard. We have an obligation to hold the guilty here accountable for crimes, crime of aggression being the main one. And we have a responsibility to pay attention to the victims and it's not a secret what they want.

More at uprisingradio.org. Audio

If you are interested in learning more, consider purchasing Noam Chomsky's new book, "Interventions" from our Amazon store, and helping to support the site.

Manufacturing Consent

Sunday, May 27, 2007 (09:50:25)
Manufacturing Consent is a Canadian documentary about the American intellectual Noam Chomsky, and the book he co-authored that takes a ground-breaking look at the role of the media in shaping people's perceptions.



Buy the book from our amazon store.