# Noam Chomsky **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 11, 2011, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613 "2011-07-11T11:44:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MattProle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ed8c4c/32.png) [@MattProle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MattProle)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/1 "2011-07-11T11:44:44Z")
I’ve spent some of my weekends listening to lectures of this prominent political commentator, Professor Noam Chomsky. He makes some strong claims, and appears to be extremely critical of American activity in foreign affairs. He also has some extravagant views on the hierarchy of power in the US, feeling that America is exceedingly pro-business at the expense of the middle class. At least these are my generalized interpretations of what Noam Chomsky stands for. While these accusations resonate with me to some degree, I must say I feel skeptical of some of his claims. Looking for criticisms of Noam via Google, I find a Conservapedia article that does plenty to critique him, but to the extent that it appears laughably biased. Does anyone know of any particular claims of Noam Chomsky that have been shown to be incorrect? The man seems to have respect for the facts, but his claims seem just too contrary to be trusted at face value. Any other comments regarding bias / objectivity are also welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Zanthor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e19b73/32.png) [@Zanthor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zanthor)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/2 "2011-07-11T12:55:29Z")
Whenever i mention Noam Chomsky here in Australia, i automatically get branded as ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ posts deleted on local forums for same reason, He denigrates the West, therefore is automatically cast down, ( but not out, not quite yet ) The People who disparage him, ( and John Pilger, Assange etc, do not want to hear any alternative viewpoint than the approved one. of this much, at least, i am certain… the wars we wage are NOT about control of Oil, not about the West building ever increasing numbers of US bases encircling both China and Russia. no, no way, the wars we wage, are for THEIR benefit, right? its Democracy, imposed… ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/3 "2011-07-11T14:52:04Z")
Here’s a previous thread about Chomsky: > **[Is Noam Chomsky all he's cracked up to be?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=577903)** > > I’ve been watchin a few videos of him on Youtube, and most of what he says makes sense, if I ignore the Anarchistic tendencies he has, but I wanted a more general opinion on his works, I mean, he begun as a linguistics professor, and somehow became... It’s mostly about Chomsky’s linguistic theories. I make my point about Chomsky’s debating tactics in it. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/4 "2011-07-11T15:11:30Z")
For a long time he claimed the Cambodian Holocaust was a hoax, going so far as to publish an article in The Nation claiming this but eventually denied ever saying such a thing. He also was caught manufacturing quotes which he falsely attributed to Harry Truman though, luckily for him, the Truman family didn’t sue him for libel. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/5 "2011-07-11T15:21:33Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > He also was caught manufacturing quotes which he falsely attributed to Harry Truman though, luckily for him, the Truman family didn’t sue him for libel. Not sure when this occurred, but there isn’t to the best of my knowledge a cause of action for libel for the family of a dead person - if the libel occurs when the person is alive, the suit can sometimes continue after their death, but if the person is already dead, I don’t believe it is libel. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/6 "2011-07-11T15:35:50Z")
> [@MattProle](#): > > Does anyone know of any particular claims of Noam Chomsky that have been shown to be incorrect? The man seems to have respect for the facts, but his claims seem just too contrary to be trusted at face value. There’s another Chomsky thread about the exact same topic [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=591746) and my comments on it in this post [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13333388&postcount=14) - that I had to do a double take on, you started that thread as well. ---
**Author:** ![MattProle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ed8c4c/32.png) [@MattProle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MattProle)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/7 "2011-07-11T15:40:48Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > There’s another Chomsky thread about the exact same topic [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=591746) and my comments on it in this post [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13333388&postcount=14) - that I had to do a double take on, you started that thread as well. Yeah, sorry about that. I was surprised how quickly the thread died considering the weight of the guy. I am hoping my rephrasing the OP will get more conversation going about this topic. Thanks for your answer though. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/8 "2011-07-11T15:42:43Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Not sure when this occurred, but there isn’t to the best of my knowledge a cause of action for libel for the family of a dead person - if the libel occurs when the person is alive, the suit can sometimes continue after their death, but if the person is already dead, I don’t believe it is libel. Arthur Schlessinger caught him in a lie for his book\* American Power and the New Mandarins\*. It was hugely embarrassing and the publishing company was forced to issue new, edited copies. Chomsky pleaded that he was merely sloppy and intellectually irresponsible rather than being deliberately malicious, but most didn’t believe him. As to the libel aspect, I though that the estate of a dead person could sue for libel. Thanks for the correction if I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/9 "2011-07-11T15:45:06Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > For a long time he claimed the Cambodian Holocaust was a hoax, going so far as to publish an article in The Nation claiming this but eventually denied ever saying such a thing. Really? Do you have more details about this. Christopher Hitchens wrote a long article that dealt with this and other issues and it seems as with most criticisms of Chomsky in my opionion that if you actually look at the details the claims seem to be weaker than originally stated. [http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm](http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm) > [@](#): > > Here is the story, as far as I can trace it, of Chomsky’s effort to “minimize” or “deny” the harvest of the Khmer Rouge. It will be seen that the phony “credibility” of the charge against him derives from his lack of gullibility about the American mass killings in Indochina (routinely euphemized or concealed by large sections of the domestic intelligentsia). From this arises the idea that Chomsky might have said such things; was the sort of person who could decline to criticize “the other side”; was a well-known political extremist. Couple this with the slothful ease of the accusation, the reluctance of certain authors to prove they are not unpatriotic dupes, and you have a scapegoat in the making. Dr. Arbuthnot was right. Nobody would believe that Chomsky advocated a massacre. But they might be brought to believe that he excused or overlooked one. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/10 "2011-07-11T15:46:11Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > As to the libel aspect, I though that the estate of a dead person could sue for libel. Thanks for the correction if I’m wrong. I’m not a libel lawyer, but from memory from law school, I think the suit has to be started when the person is alive. I honestly don’t know if you could shoehorn another claim in - let’s say you were the heir who owned the rights to Elvis’s musical catalog, and a false and malicious article reduced the value of that holding, I don’t know if you would have any cause of action, but I am pretty damn certain it wouldn’t be for libel. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/11 "2011-07-11T16:38:39Z")
> [@yojimbo](#): > > Really? Do you have more details about this. > > Christopher Hitchens wrote a long article that dealt with this and other issues and it seems as with most criticisms of Chomsky in my opionion that if you actually look at the details the claims seem to be weaker than originally stated. > > [chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website](http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm) Christopher Hitchens, while a wonderful writer is a polemicist and anyone who accepts his opinion as fact is being very foolish. Here is the actual article Chomsky published in The Nation where he specifically claims that the Cambodian refugees are liars and that the Khmer Rouge most likely only killed a few thousand people and should be compared to the Free French fighting against the Nazis. [http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm](http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm) In fact, Chomsky’s article is almost exactly like various articles by David Irving and others who’ve claimed that while Hitler was a bad guy, only a few hundred thousand Jews were killed and that the Allies and the Jews had spread the lies to cover up allied war crimes and justify the founding of Israel. If you wish to argue that Chomsky didn’t engage in Holocaust denial then you’d have to say the same for Irving. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/12 "2011-07-11T17:00:21Z")
You might be interested in this [Q&A](http://www.thecommentfactory.com/johann-hari-on-chomsky-hitchens-iraq-and-anarchism-3160/) with Johann Hari about Chomsky. Hari is inclined to be sympathetic to Chomsky’s views but outlines several criticisms. Here is another long pro and con [analysis](http://www.russilwvong.com/future/chomsky.html) of Chomsky. Paul Bogdanor’s [archive](http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html) of Chomsky criticism is extensive. It’s polemical and not meant to be objective, but similar repository’s of material supportive of Chomsky can be found out there as well. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/13 "2011-07-11T17:18:29Z")
Chomsky is as accurate as any other conspiracy theorist. He forms a conclusion first and then looks for evidence to support it. If the evidence for his conclusion isn’t strong enough, he’ll make up some more. From what I’ve seen this applies to both his linguistic and his political work. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/14 "2011-07-11T18:24:02Z")
> [@MattProle](#): > > Yeah, sorry about that. No worries, I just had that feeling of deja vu all over again. > [@yojimbo](#): > > Really? Do you have more details about this. One of my favorite parts from _Distortions at Fourth Hand_ is this: > [@](#): > > Expert analyses of the sort just cited read quite differently from the confident conclusions of the mass media. Here we read the “Most foreign experts on Cambodia and its refugees believe at least 1.2 million persons have been killed or have died as a result of the Communist regime since April 17, 1975” (UPI, Boston Globe, April 17, 1977). **No source is given, but it is interesting that a 1.2 million estimate is attributed by Ponchaud to the American Embassy (Presumably Bangkok), a completely worthless source**, as the historical record amply demonstrates. while earlier in the piece they wrote this: > [@](#): > > Even if the photographs had been authentic, we might ask why people should be pulling plows in Cambodia. The reason is clear, if unmentioned. **The savage American assault on Cambodia did not spare the animal population. Hildebrand and Porter, in their Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, cite a Cambodian Government report of April 1976 that several hundred thousand draft animals were killed in the rural areas.** Notice what Chomsky and Herman just did there? Info coming from the US government is “completely worthless,” yet information coming from the Cambodian Government in April 1976, i.e. the Khmer Rouge is taken at face value. The whole article skewers Ponchaud’s book and Lacouture’s review of it, “Ponchaud’s far more substantial work has an anti-Communist bias and message, but it has attained stardom only via the extreme anti-Khmer Rouge distortions added to it in the article in the New York Review of Books,” and dismiss it as distortions at fourth hand. While Hildebrand and Porter are praised, they “present a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources,” this careful documentation being provided by the Khmer Rouge themselves. As a background Lacouture was a leftist and had been pro-Khmer Rouge along with Chomsky, but was horrified with what happened when the Khmer Rouge took power and took to speaking out against them. One had to be drinking a lot of the Flavor Aid to think genocide wasn’t going on in Cambodia by 1977, but Chomsky had no problem swallowing it. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/15 "2011-07-12T02:09:57Z")
Chomsky’s overall thrust is pretty banal: all societies are run by powerful interests and the only way to maintain and expand common freedom is via popular struggle. And he really likes to hammer on moral premises, like if it’s bad when someone else does it then it’s bad when we do it too. Or we should recognize that the media’s job is to earn money, not to neutrally educate its audience. And so on. He gets in a lot of trouble because he moralizes to his audience too much (I think he thinks the newer generations haven’t been very engaged) and gets too emotional and stretches/breaks the facts to make his case. Also, check out [this](http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Example.html) short article. It’s a nice sounding theory, I suppose…until you realize the “good example” is totalitarian communism. That’s just stupid. Especially since he opposes communism as another top down system of control. There was also an instance where he said something so weird about trade that I made a thread about it and no one else knew what he was talking about either. He said something to the effect that 30-40% of all international trade isn’t trade at all, just the shuffling of material within international companies. I don’t know if that’s true or not, I don’t even know if it really matters or what point he was even trying to make…but he’ll bust something like that out every once in awhile that makes you go huh? On the other hand he has his moments: > [@](#): > > 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 - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. > [@](#): > > Watergate is a very clear example of what happens to servants when they forget their role and go after the people who own the place: they are very quickly put back into their box, and somebody else takes over. You couldn’t ask for a better illustration of it than that – and it’s even more dramatic because this is the great exposure that’s supposed to demonstrate what a free and critical press we have. What Watergate really shows is what a submissive and obedient press we have, as the comparisons to COINTELPRO and Cambodia illustrate very clearly. > [@](#): > > Stability means we run it. There are countries that are very stable. Cuba is stable, but that’s not called stability. > [@](#): > > If Libya wants to carry out terrorist acts, they hire Carlos the Jackal or something. The United States hires terrorist states. > [@](#): > > The dominant propaganda systems have appropriated the term “globalization” to refer to the specific version of international economic integration that they favor, which privileges the rights of investors and lenders, those of people being incidental. In accord with this usage, those who favor a different form of international integration, which privileges the rights of human beings, become “anti-globalist.” ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/16 "2011-07-12T02:33:23Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > And he really likes to hammer on moral premises, like if it’s bad when someone else does it then it’s bad when we do it too. Or we should recognize that the media’s job is to earn money, not to neutrally educate its audience. :dubious: Are you suggesting the opposite is more likely? I.e. it’s bad when someone else does it and it’s NOT bad when we do it. Or, we should recognize that the media’s job is NOT to earn money, but to neutrally educate its audience. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/17 "2011-07-12T02:37:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > From what I’ve seen this applies to both his linguistic and his political work. I’d agree wholeheartedly about the latter (especially with your note that Chomsky behaves exactly as many CT’ists do wrt politics) but I don’t quite follow the former. From what I’m aware of, Chomsky did most of his work on linguistics while the field was still in its infancy. To be sure, there had been work done in the 19th century by folks like Whitehead, but we hadn’t really gotten into the nitty gritty of cognitive linguistics much by the 20th century. Chomsky, essentially, created an over-reaching theoretical framework to account for the fact that virtually every toddler on the planet is a ‘linguistic genius’, and while he made some mistakes, I’m not aware of any particularly sloppy thinking of anything he invented out of whole cloth. Can you please elaborate or link a post where it was discussed on the Dope? ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/18 "2011-07-12T03:07:08Z")
Here’s an old thread in which we discuss the quality of Chomsky’s arguments in linguistics: > **[Objections to Noam Chomsky's Linguistics](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=333620)** > > Inspired by the sub-discussion in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=333451. The impression I had of Noam Chomsky was that, while his politics are very controversial, especially given that he has very strong opinions,... Chomsky screwed up the state of argumentation in linguistics in the mid-1960’s through the mid-1970’s so badly that it’s hard to even begin to explain what a mess he made. I would recommend the books _The Linguistics Wars_ by Randy Allen Harris and _Ideology and Linguistic Theory_ by Geoffrey J. Huck and John A. Goldsmith for a detailed analysis of how bad things got. It’s not surprising that many people who were around then still resent the generally worthless quality of his linguistic argumentation. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/19 "2011-07-12T03:29:33Z")
[Noam Chomsky’s political views.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky%27s_political_views) (😕 “Libertarian socialism”?) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613/20 "2011-07-12T04:35:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 “Libertarian socialism”? Yes, hard to imagine a less workable idea. It seems to boil down to a system where everyone does what they’re told but nobody tells anyone what to do. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noam-chomsky/588613.md?page=2)