Talk:Political positions of Noam Chomsky/Archive 1

old comment
There has been some dicsussion on Chomsky politics on the main talk page that is not copied here. -- Pinktulip 06:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Political contemporaries?
What the heck is this list? It's obviously not about political contemporaries, or it would include Ronald Reagan, David Duke and others. I suppose it's about people that (1) lived contemporaneously and (2) shared some of Chomsky's political views (though (2) is weak enough to include Reagan and Duke too!).

I think this list should be removed, but at least it should be explained. Phiwum 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted 68.112.241.88 (→Criticism of United States government)
Had to remove an inserted paragraph entirely, it would need to be radically reworded to warrant re-inclusion. Unfortunately it carried POV. Apologies to the writer.

--Zleitzen 01:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky and Socialism
Apologies for removing your insertions, Lao Wai. But I will try to explain why;

You have re-inserted the below points which I do not believe are accurate depictions of the Politics of Noam Chomsky.


 * In December 1967, during the Cultural Revolution, 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

The inclusion of the insertion (and even the quote itself) is misleading and doesn’t accurately reflect the context of what was a lengthy debate. The quote is cherry-picked and implies POV.
 * Chomsky expressed stronger criticisms of the People's Republic of China in particular after it abandoned Communism for a socialist market system.

This would need to be based on a comprehensive study of Chomsky’s writings, a study which you have not provided.


 * Not at all. If you think they need to be removed I won't complain.  How though aren't they accurate?  I can see where I first put the CR reference could have been misinterpreted.  But Chinese Communism changed a lot between 1949 and 1979.  You can't just say "Chinese Communism".  I know what Chomsky said and clearly he is talking about the CR.  It should be made clear he is not talking about this essentialist concept "Chinese Communism".  It does not cherry pick, it provide context.  Actually the second one does not need a comprehensive study of his writings although I am happy to provide one.  It is a simple statement of fact - between 1967 and 2001 he started to criticise China.  Again you cannot insist on this monolithic absurdity "Chinese Communism", you need to contextualise. Lao Wai 14:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Chinese Communism" was not my term, it appears to have been left over from a previous edit (I agreed with your more accurate description and kept it in). By cherry pick I mean that the quote is taken from a lengthy debate on The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act where Chomsky is illustrating intellectual alternatives to Dr. Arendt's "rather absolutist view". He goes on to admit that "a blanket statement on this is not possible". Therefore there is a different context surrounding the quote that changes the quotes meaning.--Zleitzen 15:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I still don't see what is wrong with pointing out the period in which he was talking. And the longer quote woudl be worse because he is discussing State terrorism.  What they are not talking about is the nature of Chinese Communism and so his views are probably heart-felt. Lao Wai 15:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. We're discussing issues with 2 inserts here, Lao Wai.
 * 1 - The Cultural Revolution & quote attributed to Chomsky. I believe that to use that quote in isolation and without the context of the debate misrepresents the Politics of Noam Chomsky creating a POV issue. Therefore the quote should not be on this page in its present form because it is potentially misleading.
 * 2 - The implication that Chomsky expressed stronger criticisms of the People's Republic of China in particular after it abandoned Communism for a socialist market system although maybe true is misleading. One could also write that Margaret Thatcher expressed stronger criticisms of the People's Republic of China "in particular after it abandoned Communism for a socialist market system". That would also be true, but also misleading and uninformative. It implies that both Chomsky and Thatcher expressed criticisms of the abandonment of communism rather than criticisms of the PRC. --Zleitzen 15:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The quote was not mine and all I am doing is putting it in context. How does it misrepresent Chomsky? Are you saying he was not in favor of the bottom-up democratic socialism he saw in China in 1967?  How does it mislead?
 * 2. I do not see this mislead either. If Thatcher did so express criticism I do not see it would be wrong to say so except of course it is more likely she expressed increasing support for the CCP as it abandoned Communism for a social market system.  It is neither misleading in Chomsky's case or uninformative.  Clearly there was a point at which Chomsky supported the PRC and then there was a point at which he did not.  That period covers, roughly, the return of capitalism in China.  Chomsky never consistently criticised the PRC.  Something happened.  What?  Lao Wai 15:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your arguments and your willingness to compromise earlier, Lao Wai, but I've passed this disagreement to outside parties. Although the issue may seem minor I believe this page demands precise language and accurate depictions to avoid potential misinterpretation. I'll clarify my position for mediation.

1- To state that Chomsky found certain things admirable in China during the era of the Cultural Revolution is true but misleading. In the same sense that stating Winston Churchill found certain things admirable in USA during the era of racial segregation is true but misleading, leading on to point 2. 2- The quote (defended, though not edited by Lao Wai) is taken too far out of it's original context and is therefore misleading. Chomsky is illustating a particular point during a debate on Violence and Revolution. He compares the Chinese revolution with the violent Soviet revolution, finding positives to prove his point within that particular debate. In some senses playing devil's advocate. To take such a statement outside of this debate is to change it's meaning.

3- The article now states; Chomsky expressed stronger criticisms of the People's Republic of China in particular after it abandoned Communism for a socialist market system. The wording implies that Chomsky supported Chinese Communism and lamented the transition to socialism. See Thatcher example above. --Zleitzen 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Which is why I changed it to "During the Cultural Revolution Chomsky found..." Which is simply true in that the period he was commenting on was the period of the CR.  As opposed to the suggested implication that he approved of the CR itself.  And not misleading.  The policies and events he approved of were taking place during the CR.  In particular the effort at democratic participation.  I am not sure it would be unfair to say that of Churchill.  If he approved of racism and mentioned the US in the context of racism, what would be wrong with that?


 * 2. I am unconvinced he was playing devil's advocate. He is expressing a clear preference.  He says clearly that he approves of State-terrorism if it means that the peasants of Vietnam are not as badly off as the peasants of the Philippines.  It is also consistent with his entire out-put of works.


 * 3. I think that would be a fair and reasonable conclusion to draw, but I shall not draw it. I will just point out, again, that this comment does not appear in a vacuum.  It needs to be placed in a context.  I may have the wrong context, but I am happy to listen to alternatives?  As he got older?  It is clear that his views have changed.  We cannot essentialise his opinions.  We need to show change and development over time.  What do you think caused him to change his mind? Lao Wai 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Chomsky's stance is not as clear as it needs to be. Merely supplying conclusions like, "one finds many things that are really quite admirable" & ".....a new society in which very interesting and positive things....," is well and good but what are the premises of these conclusions.  That is, what are "many things"?  "Very interesting and positive things"?


 * I haven't had time to dig into this article AND all the sources, but I think we need to be careful with content like, "Chomsky expressed stronger criticisms of the People's Republic of China in particular after it abandoned Communism for a socialist market system".


 * The current language implies that:


 * "Abandonment of Communism for a socialist market system" was related by Chomsky, to a charge of "totalitarian regime" and statements regarding "starvation", etc..


 * Later, problematically, the content doesn't say anything about a socialist market system, instead, appearing to culminate in a conclusion that "elite dominated capitalist democracy" is responsible for the starvation. Economic systems and governmental systems, though related, are not the same thing.  Socialist market systems are not specifically mentioned.


 * What's more, the Chomsky argument cited as criticism of the PRC, seems to really be an examination of "selective vision" and an indictment of the "democratic capitalist experiment". Ugh.  Very sloppy.  This content more appropriately belongs under a category regarding Chomsky's view on capitalism, not the PRC.


 * There's a lot of work here.... I'll start picking away at it.


 * (Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Antelope, have reinserted the line about State Capitalism which despite it's title does have some relevance here. --Zleitzen 11:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, Antelope that the section that cites Chomsky's essay "Selective vision" (ironic title given it's use here) is misrepresented and is a poor guide to Chomsky's political views. In the essay Chomsky himself states
 * I am not expressing my judgments; rather those that follow from the principles that are employed to establish preferred truths -- or that would follow, if doctrinal filters could be removed

I would urge Lao Wai to re-read the article in full and discuss these matters in that context. Likewise, with the "cultural revolution" comment I recommend a re-reading of the full debate here to establish if the comment and accompanying quote (my points 2 and 3) are still representative. (Is Lao Wai aware of the old 'made the trains run on time.' debating tool ?)

Medcabal
Hello all --

Zleitzen requested some help in resolving a dispute here from medcab. It seems that the dispute is between this user and Lao Wai. Lao, are you willing to work with me here to resolve the dispute? Let me know, and I will read the current discussion. Let me just suggest that both Zleitzen and Lao read the "tips" after my signature, but it seems that everyone has been very civil, which is great. Lao, once I hear from you, we can get going.

Sdedeo (tips) 22:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that both Zeitzen and Lao have made edits to the article, and to the talk page, without response here -- that's fine. Also, I've noticed that a bunch of other people have become involved in the debate which is great. What I'm going to do is mark the mediation request as inactive and take the page off my watchlist. Best of luck to everyone. If you need help in the future, please contact me on the talk page; as far as I can see here, things are going well and I'm confident you guys can sort things out.

Sdedeo (tips) 23:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again -- Lao dropped me a note. Zeitzen, Lao and others, do you want to start a mediation? Or do you want to continue working together? Please post here if you want a mediation but things actually seem to be progressing well. Sdedeo (tips) 09:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Categorization of "State Capitalism"
"Chomsky is deeply critical of what he calls the "corporate state capitalism" that he believes is practiced by the United States and some western states. "

I'll admit that I might have been a little extreme..... ;)  However, there still is a minor issue with the previous content, or rather, it's placement.  There is no section regarding his view of capitalism.  Instead we have one sentence that refers to this view, in a section regarding his view of other systems, namely Communism and Socialism.

The content surely belongs in this article, but it would be *more* appropriate in a section on capitalism.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Except with Chomsky you have to be prepared to accept that he uses words in different ways to most people. So "corporate State Capitalism" might refer to the Soviet Union for instance.  Are you sure that he is using the term as most people would understand it? Lao Wai 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * All we can really do is take him at his word and accurately present his conclusions and their premises as they are presented (i.e., not interpreted by us, just shown). If he is using a term in a way that most people would not understand it to be used, that will be apparent.


 * I have never seen him use the phrase "corporate state capitalism" to refer to the way a (totalitarian) communist state has approached the implementation of communism. I have not seen anything like that yet but for the sake of curiosity, can you find an example?  A link will suffice.


 * In any case, approaching his work from the assumption that he twists words around, comes dangerously close to bias, you understand, yes? It might seem to some that you have decided what you are seeing in his work before you actually analyze it, which can result in Confirmation bias or perhaps even Disconfirmation bias.  I recommend caution.


 * (Antelope In Search Of Truth 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

I don't think there is a big problem with having the "corporate State Capitalism" quote there, it illuminates Chomsky's position somewhat. Lao Wai is correct to note that Chomsky uses particular definitions which may differ from common assumptions. See Chomsky quote here
 * To begin with, I think terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" have been so evacuated of any substantive meaning that I don't even like to use them. There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence. To the extent there ever was, it had disappeared by the 1920s or '30s. Every industrial society is one form or another of state capitalism. But we'll use the term "capitalism," since that is more or less its present meaning.

Back in 1970 Chomsky defined and compared 4 types of Government in advanced industrial society; State Capitalism, State Socialism (both of which he described as regressive) Classical Liberalism and his preferred Libertarian Socialism.--Zleitzen 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Lao Wai is correct to note that Chomsky uses particular definitions which may differ from common assumptions."


 * Right..... but in those cases, he usually seems to explain the way he is viewing such terms ahead of time, as he did in this quote.  Often I suspect that people get away with picking a "quote" from the man that while true, is bereft of the explanation.  Which of course, leaves him sounding like a loon or like he is contradicting himself, when he might not be.


 * But I feel I am preaching to the converted for the most part now.... ;)


 * (Antelope In Search Of Truth 01:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Criticism of PRC vs. Views on Communism
Regarding the following deleted passage: "Chomsky expressed stronger criticisms of the People's Republic of China in particular after it abandoned Soviet-style Communism for a blend of socialism and a market system" And: "ignoring the Communist nature of the Chinese government, has claimed these deaths can be attributed to elite dominated capitalist democracy."

Simply put, whether unintentional or not, the quotes taken from the source in question are misleading as they were being represented.

It makes it sound like he is presented some sort of claim that represents critcism against the PRC for (or related to) abandoning Soviet-style communism (or "fake" communism as he calls it) for a blend of socialism and a market system.

This claim is followed by some premises: "Chomsky referred to China's "totalitarian regime", a description of starvation during the Great Leap Forward as an atrocity, and a comparison made between India & China involving their economic systems.

None of this supports the previously stated supposed claim against the PRC. In fact, not only does the content chosen not support this, but the comparison is inaccurately depicted. He says that China's totalitarian brand of communism could rightly be indicted for the starvation, but then says if we are going to "apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers to the full story," then we would be concluding also that the democratic capitalist experiment" was responsible for the starvation of India.

Of course, he also says that, "In both cases, the outcomes (starvations) have to do with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems". So the way all of this was presented was incredibly inaccurate.

I would agree that a sub-section within the section for his views of Socialism and Communism" could house *some* of this content, but "totalitarian communism" is not the same as "communism". Which makes it at least a slightly different sub-section, titled something like, "totalitarian communism".

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC))


 * I do not see what is wrong with that first phrase. I think it is clear from his works that China moved from a system that he liked (during the CR) to one that he does not.  Now some reason needs to be given for that.  If not the fact that China moved towards a Socialist Market system, what?  How is it incredibly inaccurate?  There is a subtle distortion of Sen's works.  Sen argues that a lack of democracy - in a colonial regime or in a Communist country - can lead to famine.  Chomsky may want to turn that into a lack of socialism, but that is not what Sen says.  The bottom line remains that Chomsky's views on China, and other Asian communists, changed over time.  We need to be able to show how they changed.  In 1967 he did not think China, or Vietnam, were suffering from some form of totalitarian communism, but benefiting from communism.  By 2000 he had changed his mind.  How do we reflect that in this article?  To call the section "totalitarian communism", as if there was any other sort, is to privilege a particular interpretation of Chomsky's views.  How about "Communism as practiced"?  Lao Wai 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear that Chomsky's position has changed at all. Chomsky's relatively rare comments on socialism / communism are usually viewed through the prism of criticisms of American state capitalism and criticisms of established historical paradigms. As they are in the two links sourced here from 1967 and 2000. Chomsky isn't so much making statements in support of socialism or communism, he is reflecting criticisms of these systems back towards the perpertrators.

ie. a critic says "communism is bad" Chomsky replies "I don't believe that absolutist position, I don't feel that it deserves a blanket condemnation, there are some elements are admirable". Another critic says "communism creates atrocities" Chomsky replies "well so does capitalism and / or colonialism". etc. The key quote to note here is


 * I am not expressing my judgments; rather those that follow from the principles that are employed to establish preferred truths -- or that would follow, if doctrinal filters could be removed

In other words, he is speculating on alternatives to the Dominant Ideological View rather than proposing concrete opinions himself. This is Chomsky's typical and consistent approach throughout his work. This is also the element of Chomsky's work that lends itself most to misinterpretation, which I believe has happened here on this page by Lao Wai. Chomsky is an Anarcho-Syndicalist / Libertarian Socialist, it would take a radical study of his work to conclude that he was ever a communist supporter or a Maoist. Until then I believe to infer this in "politics of Noam Chomsky" is misleading. --Zleitzen 11:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You think Chomsky's comments of socialism/communism are rare? Why?  I agree that his main issue is American society and so he uses any weapon to hand to bash Americans.  But it is simply not true to say that a man who has given most of his life to the struggle is not supporting socialism.  This is where his heart lies.  The fact that he may be debating with people who do not support socialism may make it look as if he is just responding to their words but a. he is still praising socialism and b. he has chosen that debate for a reason.  Chomsky is consistently careful not to get tied down with specifics I will agree.  But of course the position he takes is uniquely his and so much reflect his views.  These days Chomsky calls himself that, but in reality there is, and never has been any, expansion of centralised state control that Chomsky does not support.  He is manifestly not an anarchist in any meaningful sense of the word.  Nor a libertarian.  He seems to come from the Trotskite left to me and as such in favor of central authority and condemns Stalin for betraying the Revolution.  But I could be wrong.  I do not think it would take a second to realise that while he is not a Maoist (strongly influenced by Anarchim as Mao was) he clearly was a Communist supporter at least in the shallow sense of supporting pretty much every Communist regime that came along, at least for a while, post-Stalin.  However that is my opinion and I would prefer to let his words speak for him. Lao Wai 11:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your interprations are yours I'm afraid, Lao Wai. "He seems to come from the Trotskite left to me", "he clearly was a Communist supporter", "he uses any weapon to hand to bash Americans", "he is in favor of central authority and condemns Stalin for betraying the Revolution" etc. Each of these assessments is a broad subjective interpretation that would require a detailed, radical and serious study to justify. Until then, your additions (which imply the above) are POV and simply not applicable here. If you want Chomsky's words to speak for themselves how about these cherry picked quotes by Chomsky;


 * "Lenin and Trotsky proceeded to create the basic proto-fascist structures converted by Stalin into one of the horrors of the modern age"
 * "I think what are called communist revolutions are authoritarian -- are revolutions of development that introduce structures which are politically authoritarian" 1973--Zleitzen 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course my interpretations are mine and are clearly labeled as such. I am not interested in a detailed study but of course it would be a trivial task to show that Chomsky is neither an anarchist or a libertarian. My additions are not POV because they do not contain any of my opinions. If you put a date on those quotes I am all for them going in. It sounds a little more interesting than I gave him credit for, however it is odd that he so consistently supported Communism regimes - you know - for some opposed to authoritarianism. So where are we up to now? I still think that it is important to show the development of C's thought. Woudl you mind telling me which group you went and consulted off-line? Lao Wai 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again I appreciate your willingness to work with this Lao Wai, but again I see very little to suggest from his writing that he so consistently supported Communism regimes beyond a handful of cherry picked quotes taken out of context. It may worth noting that Chomsky has been attacked many times by Maoists, by Marxists , by Communists (for his alleged vehement anti-communism) and by Leninist-Trotskyites . None of these groups would consider Chomsky a fellow traveller and I believe it would be misleading to suggest that he was. Btw not sure what you mean by "Would you mind telling me which group you went and consulted off-line?" --Zleitzen 17:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Meaning of Sen's work vs. Chomsky's point

 * "There is a subtle distortion of Sen's works. Sen argues that a lack of democracy - in a colonial regime or in a Communist country - can lead to famine. "


 * I would point out from that Chomsky source (mind you I'm paraphrasing, go read it please)[]:


 * ''He observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates......He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year.....India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame....


 * In both cases, he points out, the outcomes are equated with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems.... but he goes on:


 * "suppose we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers to the full story....We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist "experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the "colossal, wholly failed...experiment" of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone."


 * Whatever Sen was arguing, Chomsky is pointing out that Sen's own observations, if used to indict/accuse communism of "bad things", also indict/accuse capitalism of "bad things".


 * (Antelope In Search Of Truth 02:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Chomsky was not expressing a "blanket endorsement" of China in 1967

 * Regarding the following: In 1967 he did not think China, or Vietnam, were suffering from some form of totalitarian communism, but benefiting from communism. By 2000 he had changed his mind.  How do we reflect that in this article?  To call the section "totalitarian communism", as if there was any other sort, is to privilege a particular interpretation of Chomsky's views.  


 * You did not read all of his statement then. Right before his statement in 1967, he said this: "....(regarding) the character of the new societies that have emerged. I don't feel that they deserve a blanket condemnation at all. There are many things to object to in any society. But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable. "


 * I don't understand how you get a one-sided endorsement from that, given how he starts? He plainly says, there are things in any society you can object to, but a blanket condemnation is not warranted.


 * If we look at what he explicitly says, not what people interprets him to have meant, he makes it clear that "totalitarian communism" is what was practiced in China and Russia, not communism.


 * Furthermore, if you look at the definition of "totalitarian" vs "communism", the two are not the same.


 * In any case, if all this that I have read is accurate, there is no "change of mind" to reflect, although I am open to an argument if you want to try to make your case again.


 * (Antelope In Search Of Truth 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Edits by 24.168.90.199
User 24.168.90.199 removed the section Worldwide audience and replaced it with a different new piece. This piece titled Media Coverage aimed to site "considerable evidence against the alleged marginalization of Chomsky". However the section only mentions a quote from The Village Voice a quote from Chicago Tribune and a New York Times Book Review as evidence of mainstream US media sources. The remaining evidence was from either British media, alternative media, was actually Chomsky's own work or from non relevant sources (rock bands etc). Have reinstated the previous Worldwide audience which contained proper sources. --Zleitzen 04:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Public Speaking
There is no public postin of Chomsky's upcoming talks. Does anyone know of any he is giving in the year 2006 on the east coast? Thanks. Poisonouslizzie 16:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky as a Linguist
I'm surprised that there is no mention of Chomsky's contribution to Linguistics and Cognitive Science. I'm not an expert on this topic, so I'd have to leave it to someone else. I don't know what the solution to this is - the page would expand to unmanagable length because Chompsky has published so much and is such an important figure. As a starter, may I suggest a link to the Universal Grammar page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar).


 * This page is really about his politics. The main Noam Chomsky page deals with his more scientific contributions. Bibigon 22:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbering of Filters
Please notice that there is an error in the numbering of the five filters of the propaganda model, under the heading "Mass media analysis". PJ 09:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Views on anarchism
Someone added a lump of quotation (which I've renamed "Views on anarchism") for purposes of their own. I've given it a cleanup tag - could the Chomsky editors here decide how best to handle this. I assume a few paragraphs could be inserted summarizing his views on anarchism (there is already some info in the introduction), whether or not the quotation is kept as part of it. Thanks. - David Oberst 19:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is the phrase 'sympahiser' used in regards to anarcho-syndicalism? He IS an anarcho-syndicalist, not a symphathiser. Symphathyser implies he just finds it 'interesting', as opposed to an advocate. Can we edit it to advocate? User:Green01 3:58, Sunday 20 August 2006 (UTC).


 * It should be recognized that Chomsky's intellectual efforts have resided primarily within the domain of cognitive linguistics and political science, two fields that are very much unrelated to the work of Derrida, Lacan, Althusser, and the post-structuralist school as a whole. The two primary factors behind Chomsky's impatience with, and distance from post-modernity are two-fold:


 * 1. French post-modernity (especially in Derrida and Foucault's case, generally rejects the rationalist principles of the enlightenment era, which Chomsky cites as a major methodological and intellectual foundation for his work in cognitive science.
 * 2. The post-modern and post-structuralist intellectuals in France generally rely on the work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, whose work Chomsky rejects out of hand within the field of cognitive-based linguistics.

The above is not NPOV, IMHO. It's a particular interpretation. One could have a long philosophical argument about whether it makes sense. I think it doesn't, but I'm going to withstand the urge to argue for it, because all I meant to say is that this is not encyclopedic and I'm going to cut it.

Criticism of United States Democracy
Hey everyone, this is a summary of my very first edit. I have removed

Unlike many anarchists, Chomsky does not totally object to electoral politics; his stance on U.S. elections is that citizens should vote for their local Democrat where this will keep the Republicans out, and support more radical candidates such as the Greens in areas where there is no risk of letting the Republicans win (he officially endorsed Green candidate Paul Lachelier).

from underneath the heading ‘Political Views.’ I have added the heading ‘Criticism of United States Democracy.’ Feel free to edit, I imagine I will need to work on encyclopedic style.

I have removed one sentence: "Within this framework, Chomsky asserts that the basis for a democratic society in the United States has disappeared." and the corresponding footnote (which appears later in this section anyway). The statement is incorrect - read the article (footnote #2); what he says, is that the disappearance of the basis for a democractic society is something we should be concerned about. He has said many times, for example in the preface and afterword of Failes States (pages 2, 263) something like my replacement sentence. MJM72 07:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Politics of Noam Chomsky
Stumbled upon (and removed) an obvious bit of POV lifted from a CAMERA On Campus article by Zachary Hughes. There must be a way to convey Prof. Chomsky's views without the distorted phrasing. I haven't got the time, anyone else?

80.244.73.182 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)N00b

Political contemporaries?
What is the meaning and purpose of this list? Is this supposed to link Chomsky's ideas with those of others? I doubt that this could really be meaningful if it somehow has both Jello Biafra and Paul Farmer on it. The only thing the three of these people have in common is that they are leftist figures, who are critical of extant political systems. This list could be expanded to include thousands of people. I'm getting rid of it. If someone really thinks it's both meaningful and useful, they can put it back. -Dwinetsk 22:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Describing why someone is notable is not the same as violating NPOV
The current introduction to this article states uncontroversial facts about why Chomsky is notable and neither praises Chomsky nor praises his politics. Therefore it is unnecessary and a violation of WP:NPOV to add text like "His writings have been criticized" to attempt to "neutralize" the text. Organ123 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this discussion has already taken place, or is currently taking place, at Talk:Noam_Chomsky. Organ123 16:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See section below. The lead section should also describe criticisms.Ultramarine 16:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of lead section
From Lead section: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."Ultramarine 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has already taken place, or is still taking place, at Talk:Noam_Chomsky. Editor arguing against neutrality of lead section did not receive support in that forum on that topic, and perhaps should not recreate the same issue on a related sub-page. Organ123 16:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? The issue is not resolved. I asked you to propose an alternative text in order to follow the above policy, which you have not done yet. I ask the same here.Ultramarine 16:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not participate in this discussion on two forums at the same time. I request that other editors visit Talk:Noam_Chomsky. I am opposed to inserted neutrality tag for reasons stated above and at Talk:Noam_Chomsky. Organ123 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason stated above but I am happy to continue the discussion in either place. What is your proposed alternative text in order to follow the above policy?Ultramarine 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Radio Hanoi Speech
Interestingly enough, Chomsky denied making this speech at first, but then admitted to making it during an exchange with Sydney Hook (The Political Fantasies of Noam Chomsky) in the January-February edition of The Humanist magazine (“The Knight of the Double Standard”)

“Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society", by Paul Hollander also quotes this speech and referenced the FBIS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky and Hezbollah
The section on Chomsky and Hezbollah is nothing short of a disturbing propaganda campaign and suffers from laughable POV bias.


 * You sir are a name-caller. Make your points, but don't throw around names. Refrain from hyperbole please. This is not a "propaganda campaign." That's an insult to all the true propaganda campaigns the world has suffered. Keep it civil. This is hardly an inquisition.


 * 151.199.47.84 (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It starts with an attack (unrelated to the topic in question) on Hezbollah (to clearly identify their ideology as evil) and then attempts to connect Chomsky's view's to Hezbollah's.


 * The previous story on Hizbullah provides context for what comes next. Surely Chomsky, in his great wisdom, knew these very recent preceding historical events, knew this context. It is important for the reader to know that this was the context in which Chomsky was visiting. If you find fault with these events, go talk to Israel and Hizbullah. Or add content of your own. Especially if you think more context of a more pro-Hizbullah nature is warranted by the facts. More information is good. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.


 * 151.199.47.84 (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It cites the New York Times and other obscure sources rather than mainstream Lebanese sources and includes demonstrably false claims (such as the claim that most Lebanese want Hezbollah to disarm, which can be shown to be false using various poll data).


 * Where, pray tell, does the neutral narrator make this claim about the Lebanese? The claim is made by a Lebanese writer in a Lebanese newspaper. If you want to challenge this claim, add a quotation from another source. More information equals better. And the New York Times is hardly an obscure source. Nor is Michael Young at the Daily Star. You trust the Hezbollah web site over the New York Times? Wow.


 * 151.199.47.84 (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The section further goes on to make another attack on Hezbollah that is completely unrelated to the topic. The authors should note that anyone who wants to get information about Hezbollah should go to the Hezbollah page. Posting only unfavorable information about Hezbollah in a section that does not warrant it is simply POV.


 * You say it is "simply POV". You say it is unwarranted. That's because you find it unpalatable and inconvenient. But without context, facts are meaningless. If you think more facts are relevant, please add them. But in a lot peoples' opinions, Chomsky's visit with Hizbullah was an extremely telling moment in his life, a very, very significant event. It goes to his fundamental moral consistency, and some have called hypocrisy. It deserves all the context that can be provided.

The attacks then continue with the author making another false assertion. During the 2006 Lebanon-Israel war, the Israeli ambassador to the UN had cited Hezbollah firing of rockets in civilian populations as Israel's justified use of its heavy-handed (some would call terrorist) response. Chomsky has criticized this position due to the confirmed fact that Hezbollah began launching missiles in populated areas only after Israel began bombing Lebanese civilian centres.


 * That is *not* what Chomsky says. That's why I quoted him specifically. There is a popular charge that Hizbullah's first rockets came after Israel's attack. That is simply false. You can't make a fact true simply be wanting it to be true. The first rockets, though few in number, came down on northern Israel *before* Israel's response. And Chomsky should have known that. If he were making a distinction between details about where the first rockets landed, then he was perfectly free to make that distinction. Instead, he erred on the side of supporting Hizbullah. That's his right. But it deserves mentioning in an article about the story.


 * 151.199.47.84 (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The author then makes another false claim by stipulating that the Israeli ambassador was talking about the use of any rockets (something that is rather common in the ongoing and often weekly tit-for-tat between Israel and Hezbollah. This is again demonstrably false when one looks at the ambassador's actual comments at the UN, which he specifically mentions the use of missiles "against population centres".  Any use of missiles against deserted areas as a decoy is simply not a part of Chomsky's analysis and hence should not be attributed to him.


 * Chomsky said those words. The firing of rockets is not the throwing of stones. If he wanted to make these distinctions, Chomsky should have been clear. But today there is widespread belief these days that Hizbullah only started firing rockets because of Israel's attack. That is incorrect.


 * 151.199.47.84 (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made a some changes which I think makes the section less POV. I have removed all unrelated material (such as the behavior of Hezbllah and false claims.


 * If you dispute the assertions, add more context. More sunshine, less covering up. All you will end up doing is starting a deletion war.


 * 151.199.47.84 (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have clearly left the areas that make an impression that at times Chomsky is favourable to Hezbollah and at times Hezbollah are also favorable towards Chomsky. If any writer feels the need to again add Hezbollah's military history to this article then I strongly suggest they also add Hezbollah's social work, given that this is likely a greater cause of Chomsky's alleged support for the group, given his well-known distaste for religious fundamentalism, war, and social hierarchical structure, all of which are present in Hezbollah.


 * Now it is *you* who are making non-neutral POV claims. How do you know what was on Chomsky's mind? The whole *reason* why this event is interesting is because many critics have argued that it was hypocritical of Chomsky to support Hizbullah so vehemently, despite its nature as a fundamentalist religious movement. You can't say what is more "likely" for Chomsky to have believed. That's your opinion. If Chomsky would like to come and add his two cents, then he is more that qualified to do so. If you want to add material on Hizbullah's social work and other possible reasons for Chomsky's visit, please do. More sunshine.


 * Moreover, the whole *point* of telling this story is to examine Chomsky's moral consistency. You cannot invoke his supposed moral consistency as a counter-argument. His moral consistency is the very fact at issue here.


 * 151.199.47.84 (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

99.231.253.21 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone came and erased the statement that Hezbollah fired rockets before Israel's response. I have undone the revision, and included a citation to a NYT/IHT article by Greg Myre and Steven Erlanger that clearly explains the Hezbollah attack and its shelling of Northern Israel before Israel had responded. Indeed, the Wiki entry on Hezbollah itself describes how the war started thusly:

"The 2006 Lebanon War was a 34-day military conflict in Lebanon and northern Israel. The principal parties were Hezbollah paramilitary forces and the Israeli military. The conflict started on July 12, 2006, and continued until a United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect on August 14, 2006. Hezbollah was responsible for thousands of Katyusha rocket attacks against Israeli civilian towns and cities in northern Israel,[92] in which Hezbollah said those attacks were retaliation for Israel's killing of civilians and targeting the Lebanese infrastructure. [111] The conflict began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence, killing three, injuring two, and seizing two Israeli soldiers.[112] According to The Guardian, 'In the fighting 1,200 Lebanese and 158 Israelis were killed. Of the dead almost 1,000 Lebanese and 41 Israelis were civilians.'[113]"

I knew while reading the breaking reports on the moments leading up to the Israeli-Hezbollah war back in 2006 that, within a few weeks, articles and commentators would start leaving out key details of how it began. The trigger wasn't just the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, or even the killing of several others. Hezbollah also started firing Katyusha rockets on northern Israeli cities even before Israel's military had even begun any kind of response. The Hezbollah rockets started before any Israeli retaliation. And yet I knew that people would try to eliminate this vital detail as soon as it was possible. And I was right. But it's a fact, and people have to live with it, just as Israel's supporters have to live with Israel's heinous and widespread use of cluster bombs toward the end of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.243.208 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel and Land Use
Somebody erased a statement about the illegality of land-ownership by Jews in several Middle-Eastern countries, saying that it was synthesis. Yet the previous statement makes an analogous claim about land in Israel off limits to Palestinians. Can someone please explain the difference to me? Why is one legitimate and the other not? 151.199.47.84 (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position:
 * Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. ... Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. (footnote in original omitted)
 * You would like to combine true statements about land use in Israel and land use in Arab states to advance a position ("For means of comparison ..."). That is synthesis, and it is considered original research. Without a reliable source that makes the connection between the two in connection with Chomsky's views on the Middle East (the subject of that section), the presentation of the facts side-by-side remains synthesis. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. It would be safer merely to take the claim that Chomsky does criticize Israeli policy regarding Palestinian land, which you have left in the article and thus you regard as okay, and simply add that he is not on record as criticizing the land policy of Arab countries, including those that do not permit Jews to own land. Those are both facts, and the reader can conclude whatever he or she wishes from them. This is better than simply stating the policy of many Arab countries toward Jews owning land and basically accusing Chomsky of being unfair, since that would be a synthesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Technetium25 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Does a reliable source say that Chomsky does not criticize the land policies of Arab states? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I simply haven't ever seen him say it. For all I know, he has secretly criticized their policies somewhere. I will check before making any further edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Technetium25 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I can't tell you how comforting it is to know that someone who openly states that "for all he knows" an individual may have secretly criticized a policy "elsewhere" is in charge of editing an encyclopaedia article on that individual. Keep up the good work, Technetium25. And in future, if you're ever not sure about facts or stuff, please feel free to publish it on Wikipedia first and then wait till someone corrects you to think about whether it's true. Wow. Mardiste (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent Additions; Criticism page on Chomsky is locked
Prof. Chomsky's visit with Hezbollah is certainly a matter of his politics, although it might well be true that some of the other recent additions might fit better in the "Criticism of Noam Chomsky" page. That page, however, is locked.

Also, despite comments to the contrary, none of these additions are "smears". A smear is a lie, not an inconvenient statement of fact. And an encyclopedia entry on a prominent individual should be a centralized resource containing comprehensive information, both the good stuff as well as the bad.

If people find misstatements of fact, twisting of facts, or missing facts, then by all means please correct them. These should not be part of an encyclopedia entry. If wordings can be changed to make them more even-handed and neutral, then please make them. Polemical statements that are not merely statements of fact should indeed be modified or removed.

I have no interest in promoting any idea, agenda, or country, especially considering that I strongly disapprove of the behaviors and actions of *all* of the countries involved in these events. My interest is in the principle that information about important events in a prominent individual's life should go in an encyclopedia entry on that person. Some of these additions might be viewed as negative, but if I or anyone else finds additional positive contributions to make as well, then we should please do so. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Technetium25 19:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chomsky linking arms Vietnam demo (fair-use).jpg
Image:Chomsky linking arms Vietnam demo (fair-use).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky and Marx
The claim that Chomsky supports and admires Marx is inaccurate. In fact, he has referred to Marxism as dogma, and has been consistently anti-marxist. See: http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj74/arnove.htm CABlankenship (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Careful... My understanding, from having read much of his work, is that Chomsky respects Karl Marx and his analysis (not without reasonable criticisms), but has little time for much of Marxism, which he has referred to as a religion. Marx and Marxism shouldn't be equated. Pinkville (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A tamil tiger propaganda website as source
why is a tamil tiger propaganda website used here as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.85.56 (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky as an opponent of Kosovo Decolonization
This section must clearly fail WP:NPOV. It is full of subjective language and includes citations to dubious 'news blog' type sites. Most particularly "glypx.com", which, by way of a whois search, appears to belong to an individual at Avtech Corporation, a US areospace company. Seems odd, not least because the site reads like a 'hate' and propaganda site and text is directly cut and pasted into this wikipedia section. More balance is certainly needed. 2writer (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On BLP related articles, do not hesitate to remove poorly sourced information. No matter who the subject matter -- Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hitchens, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh -- I always zap it! Dynablaster (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine that you delted it, but this article should definately have some information about is views regarding the war in Kosova. He has written about this in several of his books, and that should suffice as sources.152.94.59.5 (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User "2writer" is completely oblivious or purposely malicious regarding Balkan Witness - balkanwitness.glypx.com which is not "dubious 'news blog' type sites" - we simply do not value websits by design and/or appearance - but nothing less is expected from person whose national affiliation stands in the way of his objectivity. So, it must be pointed out that Balkan Witness - balkanwitness.glypx.com happens to be a legitimate website which is maintained by Roger Lippman, famous and still very active human rights activist (also at the time leading anti-Vietnam war activist, "Seattle Seven", etc), and his brother Peter Lippman. Both of them are legitimate sources and their website is widely used as a reference source in various wikipwdia articles on Yugoslavia and Balkan wars, but more importantly in countless studies, reports and books on the issue. Website hosts writings, studies, reports and articles written by numerous established and well known experts, journalists, reporters, professors, activists, officials, etc, etc !!! Unfortunately "2writer" had already done significant damage to this particular part of the article, and soon after that he "retired" from wikipedia ! --Santasa99 (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like to me like a site that would meet our reliability guidelines. If you disagree, I suggest that you raise this at the reliable sources noticeboard, before citing it. But in any case, your personal attack on another editor, and remarks about their national identity, are completely out of place here, and I recommend that you redact that part of your comment. RolandR (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbian war crimes apologia
Where is at least one paragraph on his stance on Serbian aggression in Bosnia and war crimes committed by Karadzic, Mladic, Milosevic & Co.? Same for Kosovo !? It's probably suits editor's adoration for "greatest intellectual" to have only those points which praise him, but you strangely omitting some of the worst controversies surrounding Chomsky and his bots - which is genocide denial and apologia for Serbian atrocities !--Santasa99 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Where also is a paragraph about how he supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge while it was going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.166.233 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"If the Nuremburg Laws were applied..."
Apparently no one is willing to note that Chomsky clearly doesn't know that the Nuremburg Laws were the antisemitic laws adopted by the Third Reich, not the laws applied in the Nuremburg trials. Evidence of non-neutrality in the article? 97.91.251.145 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the source cited, you will see that Chomsky starts his speech by saying "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg." So he clearly does know what he is speaking about. Evidence of not looking at the source before coming to vent your own prejudice on the talk page? RolandR (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor corrections
where it is spelled "sao paolo" it should be "São Paulo" the brazilian city. i would correct it but apparently the page is locked. --Lordjeremias (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC) apparently it become unlocked? so i could edit. edit done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordjeremias (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence: "According to this propaganda model, more democratic societies like the U.S. use subtle, non-violent means of control, unlike totalitarian systems, where physical force can readily be used to coerce the general population." Put simply, this sentence has way too many commas that are unneeded and just make it more difficult to understand. I would fix it if I could, because I think it's poorly written. 207.246.23.208 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albert Einstein's political views which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Political positions of Noam Chomsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070109162046/http://www.ohchr.org:80/english/docs/ColReport-English.pdf to http://www.ohchr.org/english/docs/ColReport-English.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070707165037/http://www.bianet.org:80/2006/11/01_eng/news86760.htm to http://www.bianet.org/2006/11/01_eng/news86760.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100225211947/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/books/review/04POWERT.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/books/review/04POWERT.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Chomsky's alleged "denial" of the Cambodian genocide
"The record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome", but questioned their scale, which may have been inflated "by a factor of 100"

-->I am unable to find this quote in the original book indicated as source. In fact, this is a modification / association and re-writing of several sentences which lead to a completely distorted original meaning...

I confess that I'm not particularly well-informed about this controversy, but I'm slightly concerned about the suggestion that Chomsky and Herman "denied" the Cambodian genocide under the Khmer Rouge. Chomsky expands on his position on Cambodia in this interview: Here Chomsky claims that the point of his writings on Cambodia was "don't lie about our crimes denying them [in East Timor], and don't lie about their [Khmer Rouge] crimes exaggerating them." Whether or not Chomsky was right that the Khmer Rouge's crimes were exaggerated at the time, I think it's unfair to imply that this is equivalent to denying there was any kind of genocide at all in Cambodia. Also in that interview, Chomsky describes the removal of the Khmer Rouge as a result of Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia as a "positive consequence", which would hardly be consistent with supporting or excusing the Khmer Rouge or their actions. Chomsky also expands helpfully on his position on Cambodia here: I defy anyone to find a "denial" of the Cambodian genocide in that article. It seems to me that he is merely weighing up the differences in media reaction to the Khmer Rouge's atrocities and those in East Timor - again, regardless of what you think of his opinions on this matter, I think that suggesting he is "denying" the Cambodian genocide seems a little slimy and dishonest. I apologise if I've missed something obvious, or if I've upset anyone personally in my discussion of this subject (I realise it's a very sensitive topic), but I just think that if there's any inaccuracy or anti-Chomsky bias in that section it needs to be exposed and corrected. Injustice99 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The title of the section is "Doubting the Cambodian genocide" not "denying" the Cambodian genocide. Based on Chomsky's writings in the late 1970s he was certainly a doubter.  This section of the article does not say he was a "denier,"  His more recent writings you cited can be attribted to his latter-day revisionism -- plus an effort to deflect examination of his views on the Khmer Rouge by throwing up a smoke-screen and changing the subject to Timor and US bombing of Cambodia.  I won't deny that both those events were also horrific.


 * Chomsky's theory back in the 1970s was that the U.S. was leading a massive propaganda campaign to besmirch the Khmer Rouge. That campaign was based on unreliable reports by anti-KR refugees (Chomsky apparently believed that the offical pronouncements of the Khmer Rouge were more reliable).  Chomsky said that the atrocities committed by the KR had been inflated by 100 times.  In fact, the atrocities comitted by the KR and reported by other careful and expert authors were not inflated, and Chomsky was clearly wrong. Nor was there a massive propaganda campaign against the Khmer Rouge.  Quite the opposite, Cambodia was not in the world news much during the KR period.


 * Chomsky's argument was clever. He didn't claim any expertise on Cambodia, but he wrote favorably about pro-Khmer Rouge books and authors and unfavorably about authors and books who claimed that the Khmer Rouge were genocidal. That, in my book, is doubting the Cambodian genocide -- which became so increasingly obvious that many of the early deniers and doubters about Cambodian genocide recanted their views.  Chomsky never did to my knowlege.

Smallchief (talk 04:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The title of the section is "Doubting the Cambodian genocide" not "denying" the Cambodian genocide."


 * Indeed it is. So why does it link to an article entitled Cambodian genocide denial if, as you concede, "doubting" the genocide in the 1970s based on the information available at the time is emphatically not the same as denying the genocide ever took place to this day? (Yes, yes, I know there's a section on Chomsky in that article, but I would question his inclusion in it for that very same reason)


 * "This section of the article does not say he was a "denier,"..."


 * No, not outright it doesn't, but I think it pretty strongly implies it for the reasons I mentioned.


 * "His more recent writings you cited can be attribted [sic] to his latter-day revisionism -- plus an effort to deflect examination of his views on the Khmer Rouge by throwing up a smoke-screen and changing the subject to Timor and US bombing of Cambodia."


 * The phrase "can be attributed" seems dangerously close to a personal opinion given in order to avoid having to use the evidence I've presented. It "can" also "be attributed" to that being his central thesis on Cambodia from the start, as he himself claims it is, but that would be POV as well, and I thought we were meant to strive for neutrality here. Shouldn't we perhaps include Chomsky's responses to critics on this subject in detail, rather than the unsatisfactorily insubstantial "Chomsky continued to insist that his analysis of Cambodia was without error based on the information available to him at the time"? As for the "smoke-screen", this "can be attributed" (see what I mean?) to a simple desire for fairness in reporting, as with the claim "don't lie about our crimes denying them [in East Timor], and don't lie about their [Khmer Rouge] crimes exaggerating them", which, Chomsky claims, was the main point of his argument. Whether or not you agree with him seems irrelevant if you're unwilling to include Chomsky's later views on the subject in the article.


 * Perhaps you think I am biased myself, but Chomsky is a highly contentious figure who ruffles a lot of feathers across the political spectrum and as such any articles discussing his political views need to be carefully monitored in case of bias - there are plenty of right-wingers, for example, with an axe to grind against the guy who will happily take his past views on sensitive subjects like this out of context in order to smear him. Maybe I'm misguided, but I just want to be totally sure that's not what's happening. Best wishes. Injustice99 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, this subsection looks a little shady as if trying to paint Chomsky as Cambodian genocide denier. That is why the link to the denial article. A better heading might be "Allegations of doubting Cambodian genocide"? Or something?Sohebbasharat (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with this section. It looks like it's been written by people who have not actually read the books being discussed but rather articles about those books. For example, the term "bucolic idyll" not only isn't Chomsky's, it isn't Hidebrand-Porter's either. Someone who was reading a 2010 Andrew Anthony opinion piece in the Sunday Guardian seems to have written this. Those words are from the Andrew Anthony critique of the Hildebrand-Porter book, not from the book itself. They should certainly not be in quotes. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/10/malcolm-caldwell-pol-pot-murder Chomsky responded to that essay here, and pointed out many problems: http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20100117.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.228.120 (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems some people sincerely believe(or at least appear to be sincere) that what Chomsky wrote or said in the 1990s(or even later), for instance, should be treated as the primary evidence of his prior views on the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide, rather than what he wrote in the 1970s, when overwhelming evidence of genocide, perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge, was reaching the West. Claiming he merely "doubted" that genocide occurred is ridiculous and ludicrously biased. Chomsky did in fact DENY the crimes of the Khmer Rouge rose to the level of genocide and he maintained that position long after most Khmer-Rouge-supporting left-wing intellectuals(and everyone else) conceded genocide had occurred; his actions constitute denial. When his position became untenable, he started writing apologia for the Khmer Rouge. By claiming they were merely "asking questions", Chomsky and his colleague Edward Herman were adapting the well-worn tactics of Holocaust deniers(9/11 Truthers have also borrowed this language). The evidence of Chomsky's real views was, and still is, unambiguous, and there is a reason it damaged his "reputation". Chomsky's writings on Cambodia went well beyond his extremely well-documented vicious smear campaign of Cambodian refugees or a supposed discussion of the media treatment of the Khmer Rouge vis-a-vis East Timor and into the realm of barely-veiled admiration for the mass-murdering Khmer Rouge, as Cambodian scholar Sophal Ear has pointed out, and no amount of decades-after-the-fact whitewashing, or disingenuous parsing of semantics, changes that fact. Chomsky continued to severely minimize the scope of the atrocities long after it became clear he was wrong; again, this is denial. His denial wasn't confined to the 1970s, thus the excuse that he didn't have enough evidence simply doesn't work. Moreover, he didn't just minimize, for ideological reasons, the crimes of the Khmer Rouge, he actively attacked those who presented evidence contrary to his denialist position; he didn't merely adopt a wait-and-see attitude toward the Khmer Rouge and the evidence of the crimes they committed. His denials and casting of aspersions upon those who, informed by evidence rather than ideology, took the opposite position on the issue even brought him into open conflict with several writers at The Nation, a magazine with its own sordid history of minimizing, and apologizing for, the crimes of the Khmer Rouge. It seems, as the above comments make clear, that many of Chomsky's supporters are almost allergic to the truth on this issue and thus shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the entry. And the notion Chomsky's denial that the Khmer Rouge's crimes took place is somehow an invention of disgruntled "right wingers" with an "axe to grind" is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Other defenses of Chomsky are equally ludicrous. If someone, for well over a decade, denied that the Nazis perpetrated a genocide, for example, he would rightly be referred to as a Holocaust DENIER. If he changed his views at a later date such a description would still be valid, when discussing the time period in which he denied the Holocaust. The fact he changed his mind at a much later date would not erase his past history of Holocaust DENIAL. This is obvious. The same exact standard applies to Chomsky. The fact that Chomsky denied that the Khmer Rouge committed genocide is a well-documented fact and no amount of bullshit uttered by his defenders changes this. That he changed his views years later doesn't retroactively alter the fact he very clearly denied a genocide had occurred in Cambodia. Yet this is precisely the farcical strategy being employed by those claiming it is wrong to claim Chomsky is a genocide denier. One whitewasher has even gone so far to claim that it is only "alleged" that Chomsky "doubted" a genocide occurred. Alleged my ass. It's an indisputable fact, and such a defense is akin to "alleg[ing]" the Earth is round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.235.222 (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"I defy anyone to find a 'denial' of the Cambodian genocide in that article". Are Chomsky's defenders seriously resorting to using Chomsky's own nakedly revisionist CYA statements, made decades later, as a reason why Chomsky's well-documented denial of the Cambodian genocide shouldn't be called what it was? You have got to be kidding me. Is the quote about the 100 fold exaggeration of the atrocities another statement we are supposed to believe exonerates Chomsky of the charge that he denied a genocide occurred in Cambodia? Yeah, I don't think it works that way in a real encyclopedia. Those statements at Chomsky's website have about as much exculpatory value as OJ's promise to "find the real killers". I would like to note that a common tactic of Holocaust deniers is to claim the Nazis killed only 600,000 Jews, rather than 6 million. Chomsky adopted that tactic. It is hilarious that those responsible for editing this entry honestly believe what Chomsky said years later is supposed to be used as a prime source when detailing what he said in the 1970s and '80s. Of course he changed his tune years later. His genocide denial did enormous damage to his "reputation", such as it was. "Whether or not you agree with him seems irrelevant if you're unwilling to include Chomsky's later views on the subject in the article". Instead of getting hilariously indignant that another commenter pointed out how ridiculous it is to use Chomsky's later statements as "evidence" he never denied a genocide occurred, perhaps one should rely on what CHOMSKY SAID AND WROTE WHEN THE KHMER ROUGE WAS IN POWER. Given that all the contemporaneous evidence conclusively demonstrates that Chomsky DENIED a genocide occurred, my question answers itself, when one considers the whitewash job that is this entry. The bias goes beyond adding Chomsky's supposed "response to his critics". Rather we are seeing an editor pretend that a defense made years later can somehow be used in place of what he actually said at the time the genocide was occurring. That anyone believes such a tactic is legitimate is absolutely amazing. It's every bit as ridiculous as claiming George Wallace NEVER supported segregation because he disavowed it later in life. I would like to add that Wallace's repudiation of his former beliefs was far more vehement(and sincere)than Chomsky's disavowal of his former position(which included slandering refugees who escaped Cambodia)that no genocide occurred in Cambodia. 72.49.235.222 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I invite everyone to read the discussion of Chomsky and Herman here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial and compare it to the nonsense in this entry and, particularly, on this talk page. That Chomsky was a genocide DENIER and an active defender of the Khmer Rouge is beyond doubt. True to form for Chomsky, the real villain of the story was the United States, and he did everything he could, including slandering refugees who had risked their lives fleeing a murderous tyranny, to make sure the gaze never shifted from the United States and onto a regime that perpertrated, in proportion to the population, the worst genocide in human history. This entry's handling of the genocide issue, and the comments on this page defending Chomsky, are an embarrassment.72.49.235.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Political positions of Noam Chomsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212095512/http://www.zmag.org/zspace/noamchomsky to http://www.zmag.org/zspace/noamchomsky

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Political positions of Noam Chomsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210052635/http://www.chomsky.info/list.htm to http://www.chomsky.info/list.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/july00barsamian.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215142620/http://zmag.org/chomsky_repliesana.htm to http://www.zmag.org/chomsky_repliesana.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226033528/http://www.heebmagazine.com/articles/view/54 to http://www.heebmagazine.com/articles/view/54
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060104202047/http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/5/8.html to http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/5/8.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325020602/http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Thread-Steven-Woods?page=3 to http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Thread-Steven-Woods?page=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120122012256/http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~sophal/canon.pdf to http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~sophal/canon.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65eZ8hHJe?url=http://www.hrdag.org/resources/timor_chapter_graphs/timor_chapter_page_02.shtml to http://www.hrdag.org/resources/timor_chapter_graphs/timor_chapter_page_02.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430083248/http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/nevins1106.htm to http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/nevins1106.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923193416/http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter9.htm to http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter9.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050725074732/http://www.theconversation.org/chomsky911.html to http://www.theconversation.org/chomsky911.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115150943/http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/102005/watn8.html to http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/102005/watn8.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207170237/http://www.sevenstories.com/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=58322100546790 to http://www.sevenstories.com/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=58322100546790
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430205959/http://mit.academia.edu/NoamChomsky to http://mit.academia.edu/NoamChomsky/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131175520/http://anarchismtoday.org/News/topic%3D12.html to http://anarchismtoday.org/News/topic%3D12.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412095029/http://anarchismtoday.org/DF_Multimedia/categoryby%3D17.html to http://anarchismtoday.org/DF_Multimedia/categoryby%3D17.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Times times
See. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A95:40E0:E428:DCBE:F1BA:E4E3 (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Political positions of Noam Chomsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20020328110834/http://www.zmag.org/CHOMSKY/dd/dd-c01-s07.html to http://www.zmag.org/CHOMSKY/dd/dd-c01-s07.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20010916112914/http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9302-uva.html to http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9302-uva.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20020918110938/http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/9303-nation-nafta.html to http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/9303-nation-nafta.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20020918110940/http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/86-soviet-socialism.html to http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/86-soviet-socialism.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20000308023847/http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c10-s20.html to http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c10-s20.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419024705/http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=1348&topic=warandpeace&results_offset=390 to http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=1348&topic=warandpeace&results_offset=390
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316001616/http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/readings/Matusow_VietnamWar.pdf to http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/readings/Matusow_VietnamWar.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130416061343/http://www.zcommunications.org/propaganda-system-number-one-by-edward-herman to http://www.zcommunications.org/propaganda-system-number-one-by-edward-herman
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20020913135047/http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/june97barsamian.htm to http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/june97barsamian.htm
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20020913201616/http://www.zmag.org/content/foreignpolicy/chomsky_march26.cfm to http://www.zmag.org/content/ForeignPolicy/chomsky_march26.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Criticism of Noam Chomsky
There is a draft article at Draft:Criticism of Noam Chomsky that people here might wish to comment on. Mortee (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request March 2018
In the "on MIT, defense research, and student protests", the Mike Albert link is to the wrong person. The correct link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Albert --Xdavidliu (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --NSH001 (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

New Subsection: "Views on The People's Republic of China
Hey, I've been noticing that Noam Chomsky along with some other prominent names have been providing more criticism of The People's Republic of China, in particular China's illegal policies towards Ugyrs, Marxist students, and labor unions. 2600:6C40:7100:3DDD:C98F:319F:9CD5:1328 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, just need someone to do the research then write that section in. Yug (talk)  🐲 22:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2023
In the second to last line of the first paragraph in the "Views on socialism and communism" section, I believe that a word has been misspelled. Instead of "carried out by specially renumerated workers" it should be "remunerated". 夜島退魔師 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)