Rating: 
Summary: Good Systematic Chomsky
Review: I am not a Chomsky disciple, by any means. I've found some of his writings very tough going. He's definitely not a story-teller. You won't get lofty narratives with a lot of trendy catch-phrases like "the end of history," or "the coming anarchy," or anything like that. What you do get is a devotion to texts and sources, an obsession with mining the actual documents that make up political policy. Is everything he writes about absolutely correct all of the time? Of course not. But you can bet that his assertions always rest on some credible source. Critics are always lambasting him for his twisting of the facts. But if you examine his sources closely, they are predominently either official (declassified government documents) or highly reliable ones (corroborrated eyewitness accounts or human rights reports). And you can be sure that his critics' ideas of what is "true" are based on much shakier ground, like corporate media pap or PR-industry crafted government press releases.I found this book to be easier going than some of his other works. It is a systematic treatment of the alarming imperial trends of recent American foreign policy. And far from a simple Marxist denunciation of America as bad, it is a thorough examination of the gulf that has emerged between the actions of the American power elite and the understanding of regular citizens as to what is being done in their name. A main question that emerges is, "how many times do Americans need to learn of their own government's crimes after the fact (through classified documents released decades after events occur) before they will learn to distrust the propaganda that they hear in real time?" Chomsky's disentanglings of the past help us cut through the garbage that is spewed by our current leaders to justify the imperial and greedy desires of the power/policy elite.
Rating: 
Summary: Responding to the critics
Review: I understand that this isn't supposed to be a discussion board or opinion forum, but still I feel compelled to answer some of the negative comments below. I apologize to Amazon in advance for abusing the medium. It seems the commonest criticism of Chomsky, apart from calling him bad names, is that he ignores what good the US can claim, like civil liberties and a high standard of living, while also ignoring the evils of others. But remember the subject here: US foreign policy. Domestic policy is emphatically distinct from the international arena. Ancient Athenian citizens, for example, enjoyed unprecedented political rights, but this did not preclude them from denying those rights to conquered subjects. Thus, while Chomsky has had good things to say about US domestic achievements--even, *gasp*, that America is 'the greatest country in the world'--such discussion is inappropriate to a foreign policy critique. Furthermore, contrary to uninformed opinion, Chomsky does not claim that US foreign policy is categorically committed to evil; rather he subscribes to the uncontroversial thesis that the US, like all states, pursues its self-interest; and that this self-interest, like any state's, will primarily reflect the interests of those who wield most wealth and power. (If this isn't common sense, I don't know what is.) Sometimes the pursuit of self-interest results in good--like, arguably, the Marshall Plan, or the defeat of the Nazis--and oftentimes in bad. As to why Chomsky doesn't direct more of his fire at criminals like prominent Communist leaders--well, why should he? The subject of the book, again, is *US* foreign policy. Suppose a Soviet dissident decided to write a piece critical of the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan--should he be obliged to criticize US involvement in Vietnam, or reach back to condemn Japanese atrocities in Manchuria...for 'fairness' and 'objectivity'? The idea is ludicrous on its face. There's another good reason Chomsky's criticism is mostly reserved for US foreign policy; namely that, as a US citizen, he and the rest of us share responsibility for actions taken in our name. What good is it to recite the familiar litany of crimes committed by Pol Pot, Stalin, and the rest? Their crimes are not our responsibility--we could never vote them out--and everyone already knows about them as it is. It has been alleged that Chomsky is an apologist or sympathizer for authoritarian regimes (as if that would automatically invalidate his arguments, anyway). I see no good reason to believe so. Yes, he has toured Cuba--just as he's toured Turkey, Israel, Brazil, and a thousand places besides. He frequently contributes to human rights organizations that regularly document and expose abuses by all authoritarian regimes, and he signs tons of petitions too. I've lately seen one circulating that condemns Castro's jailing of librarians. The last charges worth addressing are that Chomsky's too black-and-white, lacking nuance, and that he doesn't offer a prescription for change. The first charge would certainly be true, if Chomsky were writing a history text. But he's not--he writes arguments, which necessarily omit unimportant information. (Incidentally, judging by his interviews, the man is clearly well-versed in the subtleties of geopolitics.) It is the job of the reader to educate himself: if you want a rounder picture of the topics Chomsky touches on, read other books to supplement him. As for the second charge...come on, the guy's not the Savior. If you want change, that's up to you. mhkarr@yahoo.com
Rating: 
Summary: Provocative but He Failed to Convince Me
Review: ...a provocative read, somewhat scholarly but accessable. The issue that I have with this book, however, is that - for me, his thesis doesn't quite pass the sniff test. He makes a strong case, but ultimately didn't convince me of his assertions at a gut level, rather than specifics I can poke holes in.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book! It is as it IS
Review: Very good book...shows what our country is REALLY doing!
Destroying everyone to gain more power!
And to hell with democracy...atleast that's what Bush is doing!
Rating:
Summary: Shocking and Important.
Review: Depending on which side of the political fence you're on, Noam Chomsky can either represent the lone voice of truth shining forth from the depths of corruption and power, or a ranting, liberal lunatic, who sees conspiracies in every corner, monolithic 'thought police', manufacturing illusion unknowingly on the masses, and those pulling the levers, residing comfortably behind computer screens at the New York Times. Since his magnum opus, 'Manufacturing Consent', the far right has dismissed him entirely, calling this erudite work the scribblings of a madman. Despite this book's labyrinthine and somewhat dense arguments, his evidence is compelling. In our education system, for example, in certain history classes, we teach the workings of propaganda, particularly those efforts made by governments to round up more enlistments for the military to fight in WWI. For the most part, students find these examples laughable, but then are astonished, when comparing such propaganda with present day attempts by various governments around the world. A student asks, "Do they really think they can fool us with this stuff?" The response is "Yes, and they do it all the time and, more often than not, it works." Controlling public opinion has been on political agendas since the beginnings of civilization, the point, however, is whether we are able to recognize it for what it is and form our opinions accordingly. ~Hegemony or Survival~ is Chomsky's first major work in years, and he pulls no punches as it is a controversial and shocking text as to what it reveals. But what is so shocking? The premise of the book is a simple one. That is, since the end of WW II, the United States government has been ruthlessly pursuing world dominance, and it is known as "the grand imperial strategy". To comprehend this strategy, we need to understand the ideology underpinning it various policies. Chomsky suggests that it was formed based on a particular political view - Wilsonian Idealism - and that is, the "men of best quality" must rule over "the giddy multitude of beasts", the masses, in order to "...safeguard a system of elite-decision-making and public ratification - "polyarchy", in the terminology of political science - not "democracy". (p.5) Contrary to democratic ideals, the "dumb herd" (you and me) must be controlled, using coercion as a tool to "tame the beast", so that the goals of the state can be furthered and accomplished. This privileged elite, currently key players in the Bush II administration, "knows best", ignoring and lying to the public, breaking international law, committing acts of terrorism in the name of freedom and democracy on a grand scale, betraying alliances, switching sides when it suits them, all in the name of economic, military and political hegemony, risking the very survival of the planet itself. This, of course, may sound alarmist, if not bordering on treason, but the evidence Chomsky provides, in a few important cases, is beyond dispute. Therefore I submit that no matter what side of the political fence you're on, read this book, research the validity of his sources before dismissing it entirely, and then make up your mind.
Rating: 
Summary: Worthless Diatribe
Review: This guy is paranoid. According to Chomsky, the United States has done nothing worthwhile in its entire history, except the founding fathers were alright. The book is repetitive. It is 237 pages long and should be a 25 page essay. It is purely wacky opinion, stating facts without basis or appropriate footnotes. In the Cuban missle crisis, the Soviets were right. The United States is a racist country seeking to take over the world, comparable to the Nazis. For a linguist he is careless with words. My only question after finishing the book: Is there anything Chomsky doesn't know?
Rating:
Summary: Should have been more careful with his "facts"
Review: The book is OK. However, blatant mistakes have been made with so-called "facts". One prime example is to talk about the alleged armenian genocide by the ottoman empire. If you use so-called "facts" to make your case without validating if they are actually "facts", your case becomes moot and you lose your reader's respect.
Rating: 
Summary: Two stars as a prime example of what NOT to do
Review: The themes here are cartoonishly simple: USA=SATAN, to be judged only by its worst failures. Everyone else=Good, to be judged by their own cynical rhetorical "ideals", not their vile results. Anyone other than the US obviously caught doing plain evil was forced into it by the US.
The last straw for this piece of fiction was when I traced some of the sourcing for some claims back through to their ultimate origin, another publication by Chomsky himself, it having no legitimate basis at all. In other words, he just makes it up!
Rating:
Summary: Erudite Review Of Current U.S. Foreign Policy
Review: This latest book by the prolific MIT dissident will no doubt be familar territory for those individual who have read previous books by Chomsky and keep up with his steady stream of recent interviews and speechs. The most positive aspect of Hegemony Or Survival is that the author is now reaching a larger audience than ever before. The underlying thesis of this book is made clear by its title. The United States is a rapacious global empire which threatens human survival, especially with regard to the Bush administration's nuclear weapons and militarization of space policies. The U.S. is an inheritor of the legacies of the former European empires. The title of the book does not pose a question, but rather is a rather a statement which the reader either believes or disbelieves on the basis of the case the author makes. The power of the U.S. government and U.S. based multinationals is not only rapacious, but unpredecented in world history. Never before has a global power dominated the entire planet the way the U.S. has since the end of World War II, especially after the collapse of the former Soviet Union and whatever deterent effect it had U.S. global hegemony. Chomsky glumly open his book by citing biologist Ernst Mayr. Mayr considers the posibility of finding life elsewhere in the universe to be quite low and notes that the average life span of a species has been about 100,000, or the amount of time the human species has existed. One is likely to learn of the history of imperialism they didn't know about before they heard or read Chomsky. How many people learn in school of the deliberate descruction of the Iroquois nation during the early years of the U.S. nation? Or of the annexation of Iroquois land and the "compensation" the Iroquois nation was forced to pay their conquerors after they were militarily defeated? Chomsky points out that this kind of behaviour by the U.S. in its early history is part of a long history of imperial powers passing on the costs of invasion and occupation to the victims of military agression: "Half a century before France's punishment of Haiti for its successful defiance, George Washington set forth in 1779 on the conquest of the advanced Iroquois civilization. His goal was to 'extirpate them from the Country,' he wrote to Lafayette on the Fourth of July, and to expand American boundaries westward toward the Mississippi; conquest of Canada was barred by British force. The 'Town Destroyer,' as Washington was known to the indigenous populatio, completed his mission sucessfully. The Iroquois were then informed that they would have to provide compensation for their trecherous resistance to their liberators. Another Clinton, then governor of New York, informed the defeated tribes that 'considering our Losses, the Debts we have incurred, and our former Friendship, it is reasonable that You make to Us a Cession of you Lands as will aid Us in repairing and discharging the same.' Having little choice, the Iroquois ceded their territory, only to discover that New York State proceeded at one to violate its solemn treaties and the prohibition of the Articles of Confederation and to take most of the rest through threats, deception, and guile. A young American solider later wrote home that 'I really feel guilty as I applied the torch to huts that were Homes of Content until we ravagers came spreading desolation everywhere,' but perhaps in a good cause: 'Our mission here is ostensibly to destroy but may it not transpire that we pillagers are carelessly sowing the seeds of Empire?'" There is one startly ommisssion from Chomsky's overview of current developments in U.S. foreign policy. That would be the lack of any mention of the failed U.S. backed coup against the democratically elected governmnet of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela roughly a year before the invasion of Iraq. It would have made this book a more refreshing read if the author had provided a thorough review of the situation in Venezuala, rather than rehashing what he has been saying regarding Cuba and Nigaragua for decades. The thwarting of the 2002 coup in Venezuala was a hopeful developement that could be a foreshadowing of things to come. Just the fact that a U.S. backed coup in Latin America did not suceed like it would have back in the '60s and '70s is wonderful development in and of itself for the people's of the global South. Hegemony Or Survival is not just about forecasting the potential doom of human species. It is also about the hopeful prospects represented by the unprecedented global demonstrations against invasion of Iraq before it even happened, including within the United States. While it took years for any visible opposition to the U.S. led invasion of South Vietnam, and eventual attack on all of Indochina, to take root in the '60s, today large demonstrations can be mobilized before a large military action can even take place. It is this "Second Superpower," the superpower of global public opinion against U.S. hegemony, Chomsky places hope in for the future of humanity and the planet. This latest published work by Chomsky will no doubt earn the further emnity and jeering from defenders of the Empire, who have made Chomsky bashing into a favorite past among the most ardent exponents of the Empire, which is fine. I just wish they would come up with arguments against his arguments. Hegemony Or Survival contains twenty-seven pages of footnotes using radical fringe sources such as the Financial Times, Forreign Affairs and the New York Times. If there is one thing Chomsky excells at better than anything else, it is using the words of people in power against them. Discerning and discovering what leaders are also not telling us is Chomky's forte and he has done once again in Hegemony or Survival.
Rating:
Summary: Idols of the Knave
Review: A knave is defined as "an unprincipled, crafty fellow". Unfortunately, Mr. Chomsky's formidable intellect has been wasted on knavery, rather than honest, moral judgment. In comparison to his other leftist rants, this book is the most apocalyptic. He begins with a warning about the catastrophic path America has taken. He doubts whether the human species will even survive unless George W. Bush is defeated in 2004 and we commit ourselves to the installation of the socialist utopia which he and his band of fellow travelers have outlined for us. In his more maudlin, hand wringing moments he wails about the People's Republic of Amerika, which has allowed him, and other comfortable academics, to slander its history and comfort its enemies for nearly half a century. But despite his humanistic rhetoric, Mr. Chomsky's actions and selective silence speak far louder than all of his convoluted analyses. On October 27, 2003, Mr. Chomsky was in Cuba to attend a "social science" conference on (you guessed it) why America is responsible for most of the misery in the world. At the conference, he introduced the Cuban edition of this book. While Mr. Chomsky's work is available to the Cuban public, George Orwell's Animal Farm and the U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights are banned. Mr. Chomsky also toured Castro's fabulous island prison, which is furnished with all the totalitarian amenities any deluded intellectual could ask for: show trials, incarcerated dissidents, religious persecution, physical and moral deprivation... The timing of his visit could not have been more perfect. A few months before his arrival, Castro arrested and jailed 78 "enemies of the revolution". The persecuted dissidents included independent librarians and journalists who had the audacity to demand the same freedoms of expression and association that Mr. Chomsky enjoys in the evil empire. Several of the dissidents received prison sentences of up to 26 years. Mr. Chomsky has condemned the treatment of Arab detainees in Guantanamo, yet he has said nothing about the thousands of political prisoners in Cuba, many of whom were tortured and mistreated solely because of their political dissent. The Chomsky-ites do not seem to be bothered by this double standard. "After all," they would say, "what else can poor, embattled Fidel Castro do with the Evil Empire right next door?" The Cuban regime is compelled to violate human rights, otherwise the worker's paradise might be overrun by democratic capitalism, thus squelching Chomsky's hopes for a socialist America. It is amazing that despite the well known crimes of Fidel Castro, as well as the other socialist nightmares that murdered tens of millions of their own people, America remains the focus of scorn and hatred for most leftist intellectuals and dupes, like Mr. Chomsky, continue making pilgrimages to failed socialist experiments without uttering a single word of criticism about their totalitarian hosts. Instead of wasting your money on this twisted interpretation of American foreign policy, I suggest you read Mona Charen's Useful Idiots. Ms. Charen's very readable account of the love affair between the Left and totalitarianism will help you to deconstruct the Chomsky mystique.
|
