NY Times: Book Reveiw on Noam Chomsky's Book Hegemony or Survival

[La_Serpiente]

'Hegemony or Survival': The Everything Explainer

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have been heard to exclaim -- with varying degrees of shame, bewilderment and indignation -- ''Why do they hate us?'' The response tends to fall between two extremes. Bush administration officials say, in essence, they hate us for who we are. As President Bush has put it, ''They hate progress, and freedom, and choice, and culture, and music, and laughter, and women, and Christians, and Jews and all Muslims who reject their distorted doctrines.'' At the opposite end stands the M.I.T. professor Noam Chomsky. ''Why do they hate us?'' Chomsky asks in ''Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance.'' ''Because of you and your associates, Mr. Bush, and what you have done.''

Revered and reviled, Noam Chomsky is a global phenomenon. Indeed, if book sales are any standard to go by, he may be the most widely read American voice on foreign policy on the planet today. With the United States increasingly suspect around the world -- a recent Gallup poll found that 55 percent of citizens in Britain thought the United States ''posed a threat to peace,'' while a June BBC survey found that 60 percent of Indonesians, 71 percent of Jordanians and even 25 percent of Canadians viewed the United States as a greater threat than Al Qaeda -- the appetite for Chomsky's polemics is only increasing. It is but one testament to America's diminished standing that his most recent book, ''9-11,'' a slight collection of interviews (largely conducted via e-mail), was published in 26 countries and translated into 23 languages, finding its way onto best-seller lists in the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan and New Zealand. And at home, as mainstream dissent dissipated in the wake of 9/11, a new generation of disgruntled critics has turned to Chomsky for guidance.

more...

'Hegemony or Survival': The Everything Explainer

Free Registration Required

[FDRrocks]

1. Good review....

I do dislike Chomsky's love of sourcing his previous works, but you can source it elsewhere as well, or trace his meandering trail. Lexus-Nexus is yummy! He does exaggerate in some instances... and no more than many people do. Nothing is gospel. Her summary of his view of America in general is very accurate, althought she doesn't seem to understand his political views. She points out that Chomsky thinks "America" can do no right. He thinks that of all government, essentially.

I don't agree with the conclusion that "Chomsky is wrong to think that individuals within the American government are not thinking seriously about the costs of alliances with repressive regimes"; He knows they think seriously about these alliances... and it is seldom for the benefit of any of the common man on either side.

Even handed, if misunderstanding of the man himself in certain places.

[jpgray]

3. Misunderstanding on purpose, I think

The not-so-subtle "America can do no right" and "Chomsky is wrong to think that are not thniking seriously about the costs of alliances with repressive regimes" are good ways to keep folks from looking into the book. :)

[FDRrocks]

5. True n/t

[morgan2]

2. mixed review

Seems to agree with his main point, but then denies that people making decisions in Washington have other motives than what is best for the masses.

[jpgray]

4. Which is silly

Our press is a national disgrace.

[gandalf]

6. OT question: Old Chomsky thread in 2003?

Some months ago, there was a discussion of Chomsky here. I seem to remember that some said that while Chomsky has been very critical toward the government, he does not doubt the official 9/11-version.

Anybody remember this thread? I did not find it.

I think perhaps there were some hints of financial ties between him and more conservative sources; perhaps there was mentioned the same for "The Nation" (they, also, do not fundamentally question the official 9/11 story).

[FDRrocks]

7. The 9/11 thing was from his 3 hour profile on CSPAN 2

Got it on tape, he does not disagree with the official version. I do not really either. I just think Condoleeza is incompetant.

As for the other thing, I actively participated in that thread and didn't see any mention of that at all. I would be extreme surprised by any links he has to conservative institutions, politically.

[gandalf]

8. Do you still have the thread bookmarked? n/t

[FDRrocks]

9. Nien, sorry /nt

[el_gato]

10. NYT is a propaganda rag for elitists

so I wouldn't expect them to question the motives of their masters
and I certainly would not expect a fair review of Chomsky's work.