World-renowned intellectual Noam Chomsky has been pushing change in language, politics and culture for decades. The controversial expert on modern language explains why "the smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
Bio
Larry Bensky
Larry Bensky is a literary and political journalist with more than forty years experience in both print and broadcast media, as well as a teacher and long-time political activist. He is well known for his work with Pacifica Radio station KPFA-FM in Berkeley, California, and for the many nationally-broadcast hearings he anchored for the Pacifica network.
A native of New York City, Bensky graduated from Stuyvesant High School in 1954 and, with departmental honors, from Yale University, where he was managing editor of the Yale Daily News. He is married and has one daughter.
Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky, a professor of linguistics and philosophy at MIT, is the author of numerous books on U.S. foreign policy, including American Power and the New Mandarins, Political Economy of Human Rights (two volumes, written with Edward Herman), Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, and Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World. His most recent books are Failed States and Perilous Power.
(born Dec. 7, 1928, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.) U.S. linguist, philosopher, and political activist. He received a Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955, the same year he joined the faculty at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Chomsky takes the proper object of study for linguistics to be the mentally represented grammars that constitute the native speaker's knowledge of his language and the biologically innate language faculty, or “universal grammar,” that enables the developmentally normal language learner, as a child, to construct a grammar of the language to which he is exposed. For Chomsky, the ultimate goal of linguistic science is to develop a theory of universal grammar that provides a descriptively adequate grammar for any natural language given only the kind of “primary linguistic data” available in the social environments of children. This imperative has motivated the gradual refinement of Chomskyan linguistic theory from the early transformational grammar of the 1950s and '60s to the Minimalist Program of the 1990s and beyond. A self-described libertarian socialist, Chomsky has written numerous books and lectured widely on what he considers the antidemocratic character of American capitalism and its pernicious influence on the country's politics and foreign policy, mass media, and academic and intellectual culture. See alsogenerative grammar.
Scaif & Coors & an assortment of Skull & Bones very rich business men are orchestrating all this tea bag junk behind the scenes. These people are all brainwashed & don't even know it. The top 10% of the wealthy control 90% of the riches of the country, & they want to keep it that way. Wake up, before your kids have no health care, no food, no clothing & are living in a global warmed desert in cardboard boxes on the dump of the rich people. The rich want Mexico - where a few rich rule, & everyone else scratches. The progressives want Canada - where everybody has a fairly decent life, with health care.
The "RealSkeptic" said:
"Mr. Chomksy, if you are listening, my disagreement with you is about the differences that exist between us as related to our ideas. It is nothing personal. Socialists like you have come and gone and time has proven that society abhors a state that controls every thought and action and states structured in such a manner fall never to be seen or heard from again."
I guess you forgot to turn on that skepticism when you were listening to Glen Beck's propaganda. To me you sound like a typical right-wing sheep who calls everybody outside your flock a communist.
RealSkeptic, did you listen to anything Chomsky said? He specifically announced to being against the "State" and has often offered by far the sharpest critiques of U.S. foreign and domestic policy. In no way is he for some totalitarian communist state, in fact he constantly derides state power and attributes succeses in individual freedoms rather to mass movements 70's style rather than the U.S. goverment. Calling Chomsky a liberal is totally misunderstanding the point; he isn't a part of the political spectrum, especially that of the United States where right-wing jingoist is coined as a "conservative" and those leaning towards some sort of moderation being termed "liberals." Both words twisted totally out of context - Chomsky represents rather a true form of libertatianism, and again not in the American sense of the word. Heck, Chomsky even puts the quasi-fascist propagandists like Limbaugh on the same level as the "liberals." And indeed, did you see any of the events referenced in the news media - for example the IAEA condemnation of Israel, I myself at least had to look that one up online from some small time paper. Consider before you condemn.
Thank you for clarifying Chomsky's philosophy. The corporate sponsored message also prefers to keep our political discussions directed within the simple framework of the American Two Party system. This way alternatives such as libertarian-socialism, or any other alternative political philosophy, is not discussed and is vilified. Like him or not, his political views are valid and in fairness to reason they should get a fair airing. But he is never invited to do so.
I have always wondered why the self described 'right wing' does not understand or appreciate Chomsky. He advocates social democracy, limited government power, reduced corporate influence and a non-interventionist foreign policy. All true conservative ideals. Possibly a knee jerk reaction to his title of intellectual.
I think Chomsky would agree with your skepticism regarding highly centralised states. He ultimately is an advocate of libertarian socialism - as opposed to state socialism. That is, direct democracy in the workplace and communities as practised during the Spanish Revolution, and attempted on many occasions by working people.
For American audiences, who are most likely to familiar with "libertarian" in a rightwing context and who are not familiar with working class history it is probably too much for Chomsky to explain his full politics, especially in one talk.
But, in summary, the word "libertarian" in Europe is most commonly understood as referring to the socialist-anarchist movement that emerged from the divergence in the early socialist movement between the Marxists who advocated taking state power and the anarchists, principally Bakunin, who were proponents of direct democracy. The latter is the intellectual heritage from which Chomsky springs. Hence his support for the idea that ordinary working people are capable of running society in a fair and just manner. It is very different from state socialism; if it wasn't there wouldn't be that massive split in the Socialist movement for 150 years.
Which brings me to my main points of contradictions. Firstly Noam Chomsky constantly references the internet: ie look it up on the internet he says many times. But mainly why does be sadly proclaim that decent "real" reporting is dead when clearly the current state of affairs - ie Corporate controlled politics, finance.......... ad infinitum came into being DESPITE this former glory of free reporting. The current state of affairs didnt pop up in the last month, year decade. What did this highly intelligent man with all the answers do to help stop this happening?
The print media is about funding investigative journalism, i.e. Reporters on the ground. These are not replaceable with people on line. You cannot expect bloggers to follow leads halfway around the globe, or spend weeks sorting through files upon files to prove or disprove hunches. The stories which are dumbed down or omitted are still investigated by the mainstream media and most often it's that investigation which provides the seed for even the best bloggers to latch on to and expand.
"I am quite intelligent and I take pride in the fact that I am well informed."
After reading your comment, I can safely say that you're neither intelligent nor well informed. The mere fact that you refer to Chomsky as a "liberal" is prima facie evidence that you're neither.
Nothing you've written about Chomsky is even remotely correct.
Are you mistaking Chomsky for some sort of liberal Democrat? If so, you're way off the mark. Chomsky gives the same critical eye to Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and John Kennedy, he gives to Reagan and the Bushes. What Chomsky says about the moron faction of conservatism is spot on. He isn't "blaming" right-wing whackos for "the way the country is," what Chomsky is doing with his comments is exposing right-wing whacko assumptions, the source of those assumptions, and the implications of such proto-fascist propaganda.
I dont often bother to log and comment - I watch most Fora And Ted talks. Firstly may I say this is one of the more interesting of the Fora talks.
I must however question some contradictions posed by Noam Chomsky. His nostalgia for the "old" media, because those were apparently people on the "ground" reporting etc etc. Then there is the Pfft noises coming whenever the internet is mentioned.
Whilst I agree a lot of what is on the www has to be taken with a grain of salt, my own opinion is that it can be trusted more than the current corp owned media feed bags. Why dont people buy newspapers anymore? Is it because they are failing? Slimming content and so on? No its largely because they cannot be trusted. They only report the filtered content which the owner directly influences. And speaking personally I dont give a toss what Murdoch wants me to think.
Which brings me to my main points of contradictions. Firstly Noam Chomsky constantly references the internet: ie look it up on the internet he says many times. But mainly why does be sadly proclaim that decent "real" reporting is dead when clearly the current state of affairs - ie Corporate controlled politics, finance.......... ad infinitum came into being DESPITE this former glory of free reporting. The current state of affairs didnt pop up in the last month, year decade. What did this highly intelligent man with all the answers do to help stop this happening?
member. 
