Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky

Noam Chomsky is an amazing author. He picks away the dogma and doctines that Americans view the world through and offers a startling new way to look at the world. It's a world controlled by the elites. At first his ideas are hard to believe, then he might be a little right, and then he's dead on. His analysis is coherent, well documented, and extremely intriguing. In Understanding Power he touches on foreign policy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the ideological control and propaganda, intellectualism, popular dissent, communism, economics, welfare, and utopia. The breadth of this book and his knowledge is startling. This is not a book to read to learn about a particular topic, but to learn a new way to see the world.

His underlying goal and message in his writings is to teach this. To question for yourself what you read and hear.

This is a great book for students to read who are studying American History or Political Science. I frequently mentioned this book in papers I've written at school.

If I were judging this book on bravery, accessability and scope, it would get an easy 5 stars. I liked the edited-interviews format very much.

Many things he says are dead-on accurate and represent the best of free speech, particularly in how he dissects the motivations of the power brokers. Having said that, I think he's more a polemicist and dilettante than a serious intellect. He leaves out all kinds of facts and counterweights and seems to have a superficial understanding of many issues, e.g. he mischaracterized the Cuban Missile Crisis, leaving out Soviet fears that Kennedy was not in control of his Army and incorrectly claims that Cubans, rather than Russian generals, were in control of mobile-launched nukes in Cuba.

...but at least he's out there speaking his mind. A rare quality these days.

This is a very articulate reflection on US capital and state policy which raises questions few if any people have answered in the popular western media.
Chomsky has an amazing mind, and that is an understatement; in his ability to quickly connect real and often disparate facts to explain complex ideas--that tie the systems of power. With a respectably high scientific experience and method he has created a formidable legal, philosophical and concientious case against the structure of capitalism in our country and laid out a daunting and unexposed history that every student or citizen should be aware of.
The book is easy to read. It is transcribed from his lectures over the years and is stuffed with accurate and easily accessible citations that allow one to make one's own decision over their legitamacy. Chomsky's writing is translucent and a voice that is far too unrecognized...
That I am the first person to review this book scares me. There are reasons why wars are fought and planes go crashing into buildings--and in many ways it has nothing to do with the interests of democracy or freedom or "violent" religions.

Many people are eager for a true alternative to the usual gang of talking heads (or shouting heads), pundits, etc, for commentary and analysis of political and social life. Noam Chomsky continues to offer such an alternative. However, people often find Chomsky's several dozen books on international affairs difficult to read; books of interviews with Chomsky tend to be much more popular than his own writings. The reason is simple: in the informal setting of an interview or the (often lengthy) question and answer periods that follow his talks Chomsky retains his remarkable ability to bring many topics together into a coherent response. He does this by drawing upon the same wealth of source material cited in his books, but the answers given in the casual setting flesh out Chomsky's keen sense of humor, his dedication to social justice and make for easier and even more interesting reading.
Carlos Otero realized this, about 15 years ago, and published "Language and Politics," an excellent book flawed only by the lack of an index or footnotes. Mitchell and Schoeffel, with "Understanding Power," have improved on Otero's book by providing an index and the much-requested and -needed footnotes. Everything in "Understanding Power" is well documented. So well documented that the notes are longer than the book itself! To handle this the editors have set up a web site especially for this book, where notes may be down-loaded (or read on-line) in either HTML or PDF format.
This book, almost all of which is in print for the first time, is at once a very accessible introduction to Chomsky's political thought as well as an excellent addition to the library of the most serious Chomsky critic or enthusiast.

This is a rather unconventional book that compiles Noam Chomsky's opinions on just about everything, using transcripts from public discussions he gave over many years in many different places. Thus the book is kind of a hodgepodge that jumps around from topic to topic in a stream-of-consciousness kind of way, despite the editors' attempts to group the topics into chapters. All of Chomsky's opinions on the structure of power in the worlds of economics and politics are in fact responses to questions from anonymous seminar participants, identified here as "Man" or "Woman." Unfortunately I suspect that many of these questions were planted to facilitate speechifying from Chomsky on selected topics. Meanwhile, it is hard to believe that all of Chomsky's comments in this book are merely recorded from live discussions that he gave - the sheer density and complexity of what he's saying suggest a lot of fleshing out by the editors. So approach this book's structure with skepticism.
As for Chomsky's opinions themselves, his knowledge of the working of corporate capitalism and economic forces, as related to a huge variety of specific topics, is simply mind-boggling. This is truly a learned man. His insights into the true workings of the capitalist economy for regular people (that is, 99.9% of the population) are extremely enlightening. However, on the political side, Chomsky is dangerously close to paranoid conspiracy theorist territory. He describes himself as either a democratic socialist, or more frequently as an anarchist. His anarchic vision is not of free-for-all chaos however, but a form of government in which there are no politicians and power is really shared by all people equally. He can admit the logistical difficulties of such a utopia, but this anarchist vision results in Chomsky disagreeing with ALL political philosophies. At various points in this book he says that the New Deal was a fascist endeavor, communists and fascists are exactly the same, and that big business is fascist in economics and communist in politics. Basically, both of those extremes are equally far away from Chomsky's desired anarchy. Unfortunately, Chomsky's political diatribes, while certainly compelling and revealing, make him come across as an anti-everything know-it-all. That makes parts of this book extremely tiresome and repetitive.

I thouroughly enjoyed reading this great book. A true insight into a different perspective on everyday news events. Noam discusses possible uses and devices of media and governments to control its populace and the governments and populace of other countries.

Understanding Power is with out doubt the clearest look at what is the reality of or social and political system. Chomsky is uncompromising in his examination of the realities behind US fostered, purported and factually-corrected "truths." This volume is mandatory reading for anyone interested in forming a conclusion that is honest with supportable fact driven premise. Well done.

Deke

Covers many a topics from censorship in the academia to the usual American imperialism. Read it then do some research of your own to fully understand the issues because the book, quite frankly, leaves out a lot
Yes, Chomsky is one of the most important intellectuals of our time, a world wonder indeed, and yeah he's a linguistics prof.

I began reading this book because it happened to be around. I had read some Chomsky before but I could never get into him, he seemed kind of a crank. Understanding Power, is without question, the indispensable Chomsky. Nothing is left unturned, even a bit of the personal that help put everything into perspective. If what you see around you in the media, politics, and economics make you mad and you can't understand why things are the why they are, you need to read this book. You will understand, and you will be motivated to do something.

This is a great introduction to the thinking of a great man. It is fun, easy to read, and totally eye-opening. The format is revolutionary (i.e., putting the footnotes online and letting them exceed the length of the text to give overwhelming proof to every controversial statement). The style of the book is great, because it mixes humor with utterly serious political analysis.
The importance of the ideas cannot be overstated, particularly during these times of "Bush-hero" and "top gun". Anyone who cares about the world and is tired of the cheerleader media should do themselves a favor and read this book.

This is a great collection of Chomsky material in a conversational style. Although I'm sure all readers of Chomsky will enjoy this, I would especially recommend it to someone just being introtuced to his work. It is a very informative read, and because of it's format, you don't have to read from cover to cover.

Chomsky should be read by everyone as he does have an excellent grasp of the evils of our system. His major flaw in general is that he doesn't usually present events in the whole of their context so further research into any topic he discusses should take place prior to taking his information out on the street for debate. Keep a flexible mind and you will learn a great deal.

Required reading.
It is pretty much a given that Chomsky's ideas are compelling, whether you agee or not. The extraordinary value-add in this book is the editing job. It is obvious and gigantic. The authors have organized Chomsky's talks into logically flowing, highly documented, and parallel-structured snippets of one to three pages each - and there are a couple of hundred of them. Most of them open with an audience question, and a quick retort by Chomsky. This is followed by a key word: Look, Actually, or See, after which Chomsky goes into huge depth and detail, never straying from the focus. Again, the editing is what makes it all compelling, useful, and evenly paced. The amount of work that went into tearing apart years of talks, conversations and lectures, and then organizing them in complementary sections, making them fit a format that allows the reader to breeze through (well relatively breeze through) the densely packed insights of Noam Chomsky deserves some sort of award.
The footnotes are the most useful and detailed I have ever seen. They are a monumental standalone work in and of themselves. I only wish THEY were indexed like the book is - after all, there are 449 pages of them, compared to 401 pages in the book.
While Chomsky comes off as extraordinarily insightful, there are weaknesses - holes you could really exploit if you ever had the privilege of arguing with him. His knowledge of financial markets and foreign currency exchange, hedge funds and such is not only superficial, but sometimes just plain wrong. Sometimes he generalizes immense conclusions from a few superficial and specifically chosen facts that ignore the complexity of the situation. This kind of inductive reasoning befits the ranting fundamentalists (of all stripes) he belittles, and is surprising from someone as "fair" as Noam Chomsky. He also completely misunderstands the power of celebrity and familiarity, missing and even denying his own leverage. In other words, he is human after all!
Perhaps then, there is actually less here than meets the eye? I don't think so. I think this book is so well edited, it actually allows the reader to surgically inspect the workings of this fine mind, to put things in frames of reference and perspective, and even to claim the occasional victory over Noam Chomsky in the safety of one's own home and without a half hour rebuttal.
If you're up for the wild ride to places in your own back yard, Undertanding Power is very highly recommended.

Before reading Understanding Power, I knew of Noam Chomsky only by his (formidable) reputation as a linguist and author of Manufacturing Consent, which I had not, at the time, read. In truth, I was prompted to buy Understanding Power - said to be a good collection of his works, having read, and been perplexed by, Chomsky's effusive praise of a less-than-convincing book about the nastiness of corporations ("The Corporation", by Joel Bakan.) I was curious as to how such a respected, academic, intelligent commentator could come to be praising such a bone-headed book.

Well, I am curious no more.

This is a nicely edited, packaged edition, which benefits from the fact that it seems to contain mostly transcripts of Socratic-style "teach-ins" (love-ins, more like) that Chomsky has conducted over the last few years. It's conversational and very easy to read: far from being weighed down by the carefully premeditated prose of a stuffy academic, Understanding Power positively zings with invective, humour, and oratory. Parts of it are funny (not always intentionally so), parts fascinating, Chomsky's command of the "received" facts of recent political history (and his self-declared "true" ones) is consistently impressive.

Not only does this book give you a very clear exposition of Chomsky's perspective, it is very entertaining as it does it. Credit, therefore, to the editors who have presumably sifted through weeks of audio tape, and have cleaned up and contextualised to add to the reading pleasure. They've also compiled footnotes of greater length than the text, which are available for spods online.

While his facts maybe impeccably marshalled, many of the conclusions at which Chomsky arrives - particular in the field of economics - are obviously baloney (it is basically conspiracy and paranoia writ on a scale even James Ellroy would baulk at) but it's maddeningly difficult to nail down exactly why. But this evening, in a taxi on the way home from my wage-slavery (ahem), on page 216, I nailed it: Chomsky's richest polemic is almost all unfalsifiable. There are no conceivable facts you could present to Chomsky that would lead him to say, "You know what? You're right! I've got this all completely wrong!" Arguing against Noam Chomsky would be like arguing against a born-again Christian. Facts are construed to fit the theory, and not the other way around.

That quality - falsifiability - is what distinguishes valid argument from dogma. The fact that something is capable of being proven false is what gives it explanatory traction in the world. If a statement is true for all possible circumstances, it's either circular, tautological or it bears no relation to the world we live in.

So when the stooges in his audience meekly suggest that his proposal for how to really manage an economy (namely: everyone pulls together and works towards the common good, no-one fights, no-one wants more than their fair share, everyone co-operates - utterly brilliant, isn't it?) has been tried in a few places, and it fell apart pretty quickly, Chomsky's retort is 'but that wasn't REALLY socialism! That was actually disguised CAPITALISM!' hence - objection is defined away, as opposed to being defended.

Nonetheless, there are still some glaring facts which Chomsky can't explain away: The most obvious is that if the media and corporate elites are so indoctrinated, so suppressive of "dissident" views like Chomsky's, then how can Chomsky himself have been such a roaring success? A search within the store on "Noam Chomsky" lists 536 books (ten times as many as for "Rush Limbaugh", five times as many as for "P J O'Rourke", and only 8 fewer than for "George Bush"!). Chomsky is a global superstar, an arch propagandist, a fantastic brand, and though he commends his disciples not to take his word for it, legions of them (most notably the slurpers who sit cross-legged at his feet in the pages of this book) simply do. No-one subjects his patter to sustained criticism - possibly because it is no more fun than arguing with a born-again Christian. I suspect what sticks in Chomsky's craw more than anything else isn't that he's suppressed by his political opponents - he simply isn't - it's that he's happily tolerated and, for the most part, ignored.

And it's not really hard to see why. On one hand, Chomsky has little enough faith in the intellectual integrity of his common man to blame the prevalence of consumerism and capitalism on his brainwashing by the media and the corporate elite, but enough faith in it to suppose that some sort of anarcho-syndicalist communal form of existence for humankind is even remotely viable. He may well be right in his first assessment (but if they're happy, so what, actually?); the second is ludicrous. But it's the only solution he can come up with - such is the poverty of his constructive analysis. It is one thing to criticise, quite another to propose a constructive alternative - and I'm afraid consensual, non coercive, state-free social planning (if by that you don't mean naked capitalism, and trust me, Chomsky doesn't) just ain't it.

Lest you think I'm exaggerating about Chomsky's skills as a propagandist, check out this little piece of disinformation: The dust jacket of Understanding Power quotes the New York Times as describing Chomsky as "arguably the most important intellectual alive". Well, if you read the book, you'll know that Chomsky is no fan of the New York Times, so I was surprised by this quote - surprised enough to Google on it to see if I could find the original. And I did: properly contextualised, it reads "...Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual. On the one hand there is a large body of revolutionary and highly technical linguistic scholarship, much of it too difficult for anyone but the professional linguist or philosopher; on the other, an equally substantial body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple-minded".

Haha, Professor Chomsky: Caught red-handed! *Now* who is "manufacturing consent"?

At the end of the day, the most withering criticism of Noam Chomsky's political outlook comes not from the New York Times, but from the much-beloved satire on the anarcho-syndicalist peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail quoted in the title of this review.

I must say, I tend to side with King Arthur's ultimate view, as he trudges away, bored and frustrated with totally pointless conversation.

Python Afficionados will know what I mean.

Olly Buxton

*******
Clarification: When reading the book I had assumed that Chomsky was some sort of cognitive relativist. I've since spent quite a lot of time reading around Chomsky, and it turns out that he's anything but: The linguistic "nativism" championed by Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker is perhaps the last bastion of intellectual support for moral and cognitive objectivism, and this world view is apparent (ironically) in Chomsky's political writing. My fault: I guess I just couldn't credit that anyone still seriously advanced this perspective, especially from the Left.

For when Chomsky says "seemingly unobjectionable state of affairs X is actually a malicious conspiracy Y", his criticism relies on the *falsehood* of explanation X and the *truth* of explanation Y. Cognitive relativism is no friend of Chomsky's at all: On the contrary, it undermines his position by saying that explanations X and Y are alternative descriptions of the same state of affairs, and *in the absence of data which are inconsistent with one or other explanation* ones subscription to one or the other is almost certainly a matter of historical contingency, and (*in the absence of contrary data*) there is no means of adjudicating between those explanations.

Chomsky's explanations tend to rely on "hidden hands" (conspiracies between capitalists, government agencies and so forth) which are characterised by nothing so much as their lack of evidence - indeed, this very lack of evidence of conspiracy is often the "clincher" by which Chomsky claims the conspiracy must exist.

Olly Buxton

An excellent critical reader that speaks to a wide range of issues.

Academia - check.

Ideological manipulation - check.

Institutional interlocks - check.

Corporate, govermental and ideological intersects -- check check.

A book that should be read by all, really.

This book is 25% brilliance, and 75% sheer lunacy.
Readers should take Chomsky's discussion of the corporate media apparatus at face value. Understanding Power discusses at length the fact that the media is driven by what sells newspapers and ad space, rather than actually informing the public. In addition, some of Chomsky's discussion about "Big Brother" operations of the FBI (e.g. COINTELPRO) reinforce Jefferson's brilliant maxim: "the government that governs least, governs best."
On the other hand, Chomsky's thesis, which lays the blame for virtually every conceivable global problem at the doorstep of the White House, is tired, careworn and simplistic. His discussion of U.S. foreign and domestic policy during the Cold War is out of context and one-sided. While focusing on CIA wrongdoing in Southeast Asia and FBI abuses at home, Chomsky omits the fact that the U.S. was embroiled in a life or death struggle with a superpower dictatorship: the Soviet Union. In addition, the terroristic acts and espionage of such groups as the Black Panthers, the Communist Party of the USA, and the Viet Cong are conveniently swept under the rug in Chomsky's analysis.
If you want to learn more about Big Brother, then this book should work for you. When reading about U.S. foreign policy, however, a grain of salt won't do -- you'll need a whole shaker!

There is no question of Chomsky's academic credentials in the field of linguistics. But I doubt he would be as highly regarded if he argued in as sloppy a manner as he does in places in this book. I should point out that I came to this book because he is a highly regarded and widely quoted thinker, with supposedly a rigorous contrarian view of things that I thought might be worth considering. I have little prior experience with his writings.
With an academic, details are important, but some of his arguments don't bear scrutiny. A case in point is his discussion of the media in Canada, wherein he describes going on Morningside with Peter Gzowsky. He uses this experience to describe how the Canadian media is just as unwilling to hear contrary points of view about Canada as the American media is to hear contrary points of view about the US. While this might be true (despite all the airtime for his lectures and interviews that he recalls being given, unlike the 'States), his argument is sloppy. He notes that in the interview with Gzowski he accused Lester Pearson of being a "war criminal", and that he started running through Pearson's "involvement in criminal activity - he was a major criminal, really extreme", though he does not related the details here. Gzowski apparently got upset. Chomsky thereupon derides Growski as being like all the rest, despite the fact that Chomsky opened his commentary by with a statement designed to create confrontation, calling the Lester B. Pearson airport the "War Criminal Airport".
Chomsky then goes on to note that the switchboard lit up ... with people angry with Growski for the way he was treating his guest (the late Peter Gzowski was much-loved figure on Canadian radio, it should be noted). Pearson is a highly regarded Canadian Prime Minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Chomsky seems perplexed by this reaction, which should have told him, a seasoned intellectual, that he didn't understand it.
What the incident should have told him was something about the standards Canadians expect from their broadcasters, and that in fact they won't put up with their media behaving in that fashion. Gzowski's behaviour was uncharacteristic of the media in Canada in general and himself in particular, which was why it elicited thousands of calls chastising Gzowski from all over the country. Therefore Chomsky's contention that the Canadian media is like the US media is exactly wrong, based on that example.
I'm also unimpressed by him repeating such a serious contention about Pearson in this book without evidence noted in the book so that the claims can be evaluated. He doesn't try to explain what those alleged criminal activities are, or how Pearson was a "major criminal, really extreme". What, like Hitler? Charles Manson? What do you mean, and where's the proof, Professor Chomsky? The vague footnotes on associated website say that "Pearson's allowing Canada to use its status as an allegedly "impartial" international mediator to assist the U.S. in its Indochina policies before and during the Vietnam War". How is an biased mediator (allegedly) a major, extreme criminal? (Assuming that's what you were referring to). What law was broken by Pearson personally? Chomsky also conveniently forgets to mention how Pearson blocked UN Security council support for the US regarding Vietnam, creating a huge rift between the US and Canada. In fact, Pearson and Johnson hated each other, but this is not mentioned, either. Thus Chomsky's account is a distortion.
Instead of receiving a substantial - and substantiated - argument I expected, I had the feeling of listening to someone spoutting off with commentary in a pub, and it's worth exactly as much to me. I'll look at the rest of the book, but these two issues - Chomsky's misinterpretation and serious, slanderous allegations - already cast a long shadow over what he has to say.

Simply read "Understanding Power" if you have any doubt that Chomsky is fake opposition. In this book he exhaustively examines the wide variety of corporate, political, and media power centers in America yet somehow never mentions the banking industry. There is no mention of the most profitable company in the world, Citigroup. This MIT genius has to at least have some idea that "money is power" and therefore in his book examining all the major power centers it is absolutely impossible that he would not mention the industry that has a monopoly on creating every single dollar in the world.

My guess is that he serves a very useful role to the financial elites by exposing just enough real political and corporate corruption to keep the public satisfied that our media is sufficiently vigilant while keeping us distracted from the core source of power and corruption which is the creation of fiat money.

I cannot understand for the life of me why anyone would read such rubbish? Chomsky warps the definitions of things to comfortably conform into his theories which lie far off the beaten path. He is controversial, which sells! I would be interested in reading his earlier books on linguistics (which is where he first made a name for himself) but I feel he has compromised his professional legitimacy with radical outbursts such as this pathetic book.
"Understanding Power" exemplifies a far left position that is very critical of any organized structure, popular trends, popular ideologies, or anything that is essentially not anarchy! After reading it I shifted to a very moderate view of everything seeing the rediculousness and futility of extremes.
I would recomend this book to the paranoid, to anarchists, and to anyone who is utterly unsatisfied with their lives or the world around them.

I reccomend this book as a study in hypocracy.
Chumpsky sets himself up as a cool defender of the people when he si in reality a tax-paid government bureaucrat without a brain in his non-creative head.
He's a simple communist who thinks those who are successful in america don't produce anything.
Reality shows differently.
it's amazing how this guys writings stink like a dead headgehog under the flooboards though as wave after wave of leftist college student chew on his fattening literary fare.
Basically this guy is responsible for lowering iq points of million of college students a year.

Understanding Power is, without question, the most comprehensive and compelling presentation of Noam Chomsky's ideas. Reading this book will change the way you see the world. If you are interested in Chomsky, it is likely that you are a noble person who genuinely cares for others and yearns for a better world. Beware, reader, and make sure you choose the right vehicle for your hope. While his intentions are for a peaceful, safe, and healthy world, Chomsky's political writings systematically assume conscious malevolence without evidence, ignore context, and romanticize Third World struggles, regardless of their goals.

Let's briefly examine some of his convictions on a pressing topic: the War on Terror. Following the September 11th attacks, Chomsky immediately presented them as our fault: the result of U.S. Middle East policy, and equally evil U.S. Cold War efforts (training Mujahadeen to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan). His presumption here is that if the United States changes its behavior, that terrorist attacks will then cease. Islamic terrorists, in fact, want a pan-world government under Talibanesque repressive sharia law, a vision that mandates the overthrow of all free nations beginning with ours. These facts are easily learned by reading about the historical development of Islamic radicalism, which is rooted in reinterpretations of the Qur'an's dictates for action, NOT in wishes to live peacefully in a U.S.-free Middle East. These facts, however, do not enter into the Chomskyan world-view, which romanticizes Third World underdogs as brave and legitimized no matter what they stand for.

The linguist also described the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan as a conscious "silent genocide," predicting wrongly that millions would be severed from food supplies. As is typical, Chomsky here focused solely on the negative aspects of the situation, those for which the U.S. deserved his bitter recrimination. For a man who lives prosperously in America and is supposedly the voice of the downtrodden, Chomsky certainly did not put himself into the shoes of the Afghan women. For them, whose existence was akin to slavery, the liberation was a cause for great joy. Actual sentiments were fully antithetical to Chomsky's condemnatory remarks to his villainous U.S. government, which he and he alone believed was consciously bent on killing as many innocent Afghans as possible. Omitting what is significant (the liberation of people living under tyranny, in this case) to emphasize his often ludicrous misperceptions about American motives and motivations is a constant in Chomsky's writings. His Cold War depictions are even more stunning, as Understanding Power's abundant examples attest.

In the case that you are already entrenched in his manner of thinking, at least admit that Noam Chomsky MIGHT be wrong, and see if his positions hold up under review: read Chomsky's articulate, sane critics. If he is perfect, then you have nothing but gain to acheive from this exercise; it will only serve to strengthen your ability to effectively argue and implement Chomsky's ideas in the world. After clear-eyed reassessment of his political writings, if you STILL think he's on-point, then all the best to you. If, however, you reevaluate his "wisdom," you will have saved yourself from much needless confusion and despair.

Were Chomsky's views simply false, there would not be need for this posting. They become perilous, however, in their blind, wholesale demonization of the United States. Chomsky's own fear and anger about the state of our world are projected, with great urgency: anger at and fear of U.S. "elites" is the Chomsky program. The result is often flat-out hatred. What would Chomsky do were he President? We do not know; he avoids that inconvenient question by telling us that were he to run (which he admits he would never do), the first thing he would do is tell us not to vote for him. Furthermore, why does Professor Chomsky not include himself in the "elites" so prominent in his analyses? Does he not pay taxes, and drive a BMW, and teach at a cushy, prestigious university? The questions may seem too simplistic, but they point to a core issue: if Chomsky cannot look into the mirror regarding his own status and societal position, then how much more impaired must his assessments be of things outside of himself? On paper, it is unclear exactly what Chomsky IS calling for, and putting aside the constant onslaught of judgment-filled writings and audio programs, neither does his life provide us an example of what he conceives to be right-action. Those who want an idea of who believes IN Chomsky, however, need look no further than Hugo Chavez, who recently proclaimed allegiance and military support to his "brother" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, for anyone who needs reminding, daily denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel and the United States. Is it a coincidence that those who love Chomsky also embrace a world-view rooted in blame, anger, and vilification?

Good and evil do exist in this world, but Noam Chomsky is not capable of distinguishing between the two. The U.S.A. is not perfect, and never will be. Nevertheless, if we fail to recognize the good that IS here, we may soon lose our nation. Chomsky's writings are little more than a good reminder that appearance is not essence. It is worth noting as well, that Chomsky is an avowed atheist, and believes that life is meaningless. If we bear in mind that evil is in the eye of the beholder, then Chomsky--an American, an Israelite, a millionaire--is instantly unmasked in all of his self-revulsion. Understanding Power should be retitled as "Understanding Blame." Stear clear and take heart, reader; there is hope in this world, and your country is good, but you will discover neither in Avram Noam Chomsky.

Understanding Power is, without question, the most comprehensive and compelling presentation of Noam Chomsky's ideas. Reading this book will change the way you see the world. If you are interested in Chomsky, it is likely that you are a noble person who genuinely cares for others and yearns for a better world. Beware, reader, and make sure you choose the right vehicle for your hope. While his intentions are for a peaceful, safe, and healthy world, Chomsky's political writings systematically assume conscious malevolence without evidence, ignore context, and romanticize Third World struggles, regardless of their goals.

Let's briefly examine some of his convictions on a pressing topic: the War on Terror. Following the September 11th attacks, Chomsky immediately presented them as our fault: the result of U.S. Middle East policy, and equally evil U.S. Cold War efforts (training Mujahadeen to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan). His presumption here is that if the United States changes its behavior, that terrorist attacks will then cease. Islamic terrorists, in fact, want a pan-world government under Talibanesque repressive sharia law, a vision that mandates the overthrow of all free nations beginning with ours. These facts are easily learned by reading about the historical development of Islamic radicalism, which is rooted in reinterpretations of the Qur'an's dictates for action, NOT in wishes to live peacefully in a U.S.-free Middle East. These facts, however, do not enter into the Chomskyan world-view, which romanticizes Third World underdogs as brave and legitimized no matter what they stand for.

The linguist also described the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan as a conscious "silent genocide," predicting wrongly that millions would be severed from food supplies. As is typical, Chomsky here focused solely on the negative aspects of the situation, those for which the U.S. deserved his bitter recrimination. For a man who lives prosperously in America and is supposedly the voice of the downtrodden, Chomsky certainly did not put himself into the shoes of the Afghan women. For them, whose existence was akin to slavery, the liberation was a cause for great joy. Actual sentiments were fully antithetical to Chomsky's condemnatory remarks to his villainous U.S. government, which he and he alone believed was consciously bent on killing as many innocent Afghans as possible. Omitting what is significant (the liberation of people living under tyranny, in this case) to emphasize his often ludicrous misperceptions about American motives and motivations is a constant in Chomsky's writings. His Cold War depictions are even more stunning, as Understanding Power's abundant examples attest.

In the case that you are already entrenched in his manner of thinking, at least admit that Noam Chomsky MIGHT be wrong, and see if his positions hold up under review: read Chomsky's articulate, sane critics (The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a good place to start). If he is perfect, then you have nothing but gain to acheive from this exercise; it will only serve to strengthen your ability to effectively argue and implement Chomsky's ideas in the world. After clear-eyed reassessment of his political writings, if you STILL think he is on-point, then all the best to you. If, however, you reevaluate his "wisdom," you will have saved yourself from much needless confusion and despair.

Were Chomsky's views simply false, there would not be need for this posting. They become perilous, however, in their blind, wholesale demonization of the United States. Chomsky's own fear and anger about the state of our world are projected, with great urgency: anger at and fear of U.S. "elites" is the Chomsky program. The result is often flat-out hatred. What would Chomsky do were he President? We do not know; he avoids that inconvenient question by telling us that were he to run (which he admits he would never do), the first thing he would do is tell us not to vote for him. Furthermore, why does Professor Chomsky not include himself in the "elites" so prominent in his analyses? Does he not pay taxes, and drive a BMW, and teach at a cushy, prestigious university? The questions may seem too simplistic, but they point to a core issue: if Chomsky cannot look into the mirror regarding his own status and societal position, then how much more impaired must his assessments be of things outside of himself? On paper, it is unclear exactly what Chomsky IS calling for, and putting aside the constant onslaught of judgment-filled writings and audio programs, neither does his life provide us an example of what he conceives to be right-action. Those who want an idea of who believes IN Chomsky, however, need look no further than Hugo Chavez, who recently proclaimed allegiance and military support to his "brother" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, for anyone who needs reminding, daily denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel and the United States. Is it a coincidence that those who love Chomsky also embrace a world-view rooted in blame, anger, and vilification?

Good and evil do exist in this world, but Noam Chomsky is not capable of distinguishing between the two. The U.S.A. is not perfect, and never will be. Nevertheless, if we fail to recognize the good that IS here, we may soon lose our nation. Chomsky's writings are little more than a good reminder that appearance is not essence. It is worth noting as well, that Chomsky is an avowed atheist, and believes that life is meaningless. If we bear in mind that evil is in the eye of the beholder, then Chomsky--an American, an Israelite, a millionaire--is instantly unmasked in all of his self-revulsion. Understanding Power should be retitled as "Understanding Blame." Stear clear and take heart, reader; there is hope in this world, and your country is good, but you will discover neither in Avram Noam Chomsky.

A great book!--however Noamie somehow forgets to mention that he is a Stalinist and an eternal apologist for the real forces of injustice and repression in this world.
Never one to be influenced by the facts of whatever issue he is writing about, Noamie will twist all logic and reason until it fits the Party line. God help the mental midgets who find this book anything but laughable.

Chomsky is not for everyone. As a college professor he knows his subject of modern philosophy and is respected among not only his peers but many less educated. His writings are not dry of esoteric. He looks at the topic of power with his life's experience and sets forth his understanding of the subject matter....understanding is a process of shared knowledge.

HEALTH WARNING: READING THIS BOOK WILL CHALLENGE AND CHANGE THE WAY YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORLD AND YOUR POSITION IN IT.

Understanding Power has the usual Chomsky hallmarks of massively sourced research to back an alternative comprehension and argument to the given truth and statement of establishment wisdom.

Using a question and answer format over 10 chapters the book demystifies to use an old sociological term a wide range of topics including the role of the state, the nature of the capitalist economy, USA foreign relations and the organisation of the alienated individual who make up the vast majority of the books audience.

Reading this book it is unsurprising that Chomsky remains the worlds foremost living intellectual in terms of peer recognition and as a student resource. His book explaining the significance of 9/11 reached no.3 on the New York Times best seller list despite lack of reviews by the popular press.

The roots of Chomsky's understanding and scholarship is evident in this work. Yet given the range of materials the book remains accessible and rewards repeat reading. As stated on the back cover not to read Chomsky is to deliberately court ignorance. Help others to see the light - pass it on when you've finished.

This book is full of self contradiction. Reference to the authors unique definition of the key words in this book leave you in a lurch to figure out if he's referring to his own twisted definition of the terms or the definition the rest of the world applies to the same word. The the store review and even the back of the book itself tells us that Chomsky is "an intellectual" - but if you consume HIS interpretation of what that word means, you should get your advice from a car mechanic every time. The verbiage is so personalized that it makes the text read like it could have been written by Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck. Ideological word salad that becomes a gelatinous goo of variable application of the terms and definitions that once all is said and done, this self-aggrandizing diatribe should be place in the category of "theistic text" - it's THAT senseless!
I had to put an end to this lunacy at page 108 where he claims that in circa 1990, everyone in America is joyously unified in most every ideological aspect - while GHW Bush was providing a failed economy, race riots were plaguing Los Angeles and the country was absolutely in the OPPOSITE condition as Chomsky claims here - I freaking experienced this first hand and don't need a "holier than though" zillionaire to tell me that my experiences were misconceived. I threw this book in the trash and any hope to ever respect Chomsky went with it. Avoid at all costs.