the anti-Chomskÿng ☭

or “That’s Enough of Noam Chomsky”

something that should have been said louder and long ago by wiser, more learned, and better scholars than me

The Fall of Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky the Linguist

Put as simply as possible, [Chomsky] argues that the ability to speak and understand a language cannot be explained in purely empirical terms. (1979)

Noam Chomsky the Great Debater

The proper way to oppose the war is to politely ask the Pentagon to only use your research and work for defensive military projects, who will no doubt comply with those wishes once expressed.

Noam Chomsky the anti-Vietnam War advocate

Chomsky is one of the stronger lines of defense for liberalism. His sole role is to divert people from radicalism and revolution towards reform and compromise with the Western colonial enterprise. He is a wealthy white man and has an active stake in maintaining his place within the exploiter/oppressor American nation. This is why he landed a job at MIT and defended it during the time when it was actively collaborating with the military in the genocidal/colonial Vietnam War. While actual radical activists were engaging in direct action through protesting the school and calling for the school to either shut down or stop its research that contributed to the genocidal American war machine, Chomsky rejected both and claimed that they should instead push for MIT to create “systems of a purely defensive and deterrent character”. — robinson_cedric

Noam Chomsky the defender of the worst revolution

It is indisputable that the United States bombings made the Cambodian tragedy possible, but what reasonable person, let alone intellectual can doubt that Cambodia between 1975 and 1978 suffered,a regime of terror’, with mass killings, brutal forced labour, systemic elimination of cultural life, the abolition of the family, the extraction of confessions, and torture and atrocities of all kinds. Many reliable observers, journalists and relief-workers concur in reporting these things, as do refugee reports, which have been repeatedly checked for consistency.

Of course, [for Chomsky] many [of these] deaths resulted from starvation and disease, and from Chomsky’s favourite cause, “peasant revenge,” but the mass graves surrounding purpose-built villages tell their own story… What then are we to think of Chomsky’s suggestions that the deaths in Cambodia were attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease [etc. — as opposed to being a result of deliberate Khmer Rouge actions.]

-Steven Lukes

Marxist-Leninist Vietnamese heroes saving Cambodia from Pol Pot. Source: Vietnam News Agency

“Chomsky’s well known views helped lull many people throughout the world into the idle illusion that the horror stories about me Khmer Rouge were either planted by the CIA, fabricated by journalists or both. That is a sorry role. [You are] absolutely right to criticize him.“

— William Shawcross (who, himself, is rather shit)

Noam Chomsky the CIA Asset

[John M. Deutch] has more honesty and integrity than anyone I’ve ever met in academic life, or any other life… If somebody’s got to be running the C.I.A., I’m glad it’s him.”

-Noam Chomsky

The New York Times has repeatedly labelled Noam Chomsky ”the most important intellectual alive.” That should really be a warning sign. This means that the corporate media would like you to share that same sentiment about Noam Chomsky — yet obviously not because of his (declining) credentials as a linguist, but neither can his (at best, mixed) political takes support the enormous mass of this statement. The claim rests overwhelmingly upon ideology.

Noam Chomsky the totally groundbreaking and original author

This meme has been around long enough that I have no idea of the original source.

If you click on and read only one of the hyperlinks in this entire essay, click on this one, (or this one) because Michael Parenti is the antidote to Chomsky’s poison.

Noam Chomsky the exceptional American Patriot

So, yes, the United States is a very free country, in fact it’s the freest country in the world. I don’t think freedom of speech, for example, is protected anywhere in the world as much as it is here.

-Noam Chomsky, ignoring that the United States ranks 45th in Press Freedom

Chomsky’s casual and callous dismissal of both Palestine and the American First Nations says a lot about the man: decolonization is not even up for discussion, just eat shit, obey your oppressors, and hope for the best!

Noam Chomsky the unreliable bad friend

“I’m starting to think that Noam Chomsky might be a little bit shit.” — Hugo Chavez is probably too dead to say it out loud, but even he is probably coming around to that conclusion after Chomsky’s ruthless betrayal.

Noam Chomsky the worse-than-absent defender of democratic socialism

Chomsky seems to be deliberately blind to the level of cooperation and trust between these two. “We’re here to tell President Evo Morales that he can count on us. Whoever picks a fight with Bolivia, picks a fight with Venezuela.” — Nicolás Maduro in 2013
“We categorically condemn the consummate coup d’etat against our brother president [Morales]. The social and political movements of the world declare ourselves in mobilization to demand the preservation of the life of the original Bolivian peoples [who are] victims of racism.” — Maduro

“Chomsky has enormous respect for those who have failed at revolution, and enormous contempt for those who have succeeded.“ — Stephen Gowans

Noam Chomsky the democracy enthusiast

Comrade LegsGini offering a clear and brief accounting of the situation in Syria, involving the tensions between Syrian Army (SAA) and the military arm of the Rojavans (the SDF and YPG).
And before you start on “but the YPG fought ISIS!” please remember that the single biggest ISIS-smasher of the war were the ever-unappreciated Russians, backing Bashir al-Assad.

Noam Chomsky the leftmost Neocon

Famous “anti-imperialist” Chomsky, arguing for continued American intervention in the Middle East, because we all know than the United States spends trillions deploying its troops for purely altruistic reasons.

No issue of “anti-imperialism” arises if the US leaves a small contingent in Rojava with the mission of deterring further Turkish aggression and providing mostly air support for the Kurdish-led struggle against the Islamic state. It is a serious failure of the anti-imperialist left not to have joined in the meager efforts to warn against the likely Trump betrayal and not to have organized in advance to prevent it.

-Noam Chomsky

Washington’s … attack on Syrian forces was not the first. “American troops carried out strikes against forces loyal to President Bashar Assad of Syria several times in 2017,” reported the New York Times. In other words, the United States has invaded Syria, is occupying nearly a third of its territory, and has carried out attacks on the Syrian military, and this aggression is supposed to be understood as a defensive response to Syrian provocations . . .

I leave the last word to the Syrian government, whose voice is hardly ever heard above the din of Western war propaganda. The invasion and occupation of eastern Syria is “a blatant interference, a flagrant violation of [the] UN Charter’s principles…an unjustified aggression on the sovereignty and independence of Syria.” None of this is controversial. For his part, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has pointed out incontestably that foreign troops in Syria “without our invitation or consultation or permission…are invaders.” It is time the US invasion and occupation of Syria — illegal, anti-democratic, plunderous, and a project of recolonization was recognized, opposed, and ended. There is far more to Washington’s long war on Syria than Al Qaeda, the White Helmets and the Kurds. As significant as these forces are, the threat they pose to the Syrian center of opposition to foreign tyranny has been surpassed by a more formidable challenge — the war’s escalation into a US military and diplomatic occupation accompanied by direct US military confrontation with the Syrian Arab Army and its allies.

-Stephen Gowans

Noam Chomsky the Unlikely Ally

Alexa, play This Is America again.
Chomsky’s Liberal notion of free speech is a proven ineffective method for combating fascism. In no small part because the liberal assumes we are in a state of misunderstanding, argument and disagreement with fascism, rather than in a state of conflict against it. The communist position on speech is quite different.

Noam Chomsky the not-all-bad

Noam Chomsky the anti-Marxist

Chomsky’s claim here is shattered and proven false by the Communist Manifesto, alone.

Well, I guess one thing that’s unattractive to me about “Marxism” is the very idea that there is such a thing. It’s a rather striking fact that you don’t find things like “Marxism” in the sciences — like, there isn’t any part of physics which is “Einsteinianism,” let’s say, or “Planckianism” or something like that. It doesn’t make any sense — because people aren’t gods: they just discover things, and they make mistakes, and their graduate students tell them why they’re wrong, and then they go on and do things better the next time. But there are no gods around. I mean, scientists do use the terms “Newtonianism” and “Darwinism,” but nobody thinks of those as doctrines that you’ve got to somehow be loyal to, and figure out what the Master thought, and what he would have said in this new circumstance and so on. That sort of thing is just completely alien to rational existence, it only shows up in irrational domains.

So Marxism, Freudianism: anyone of these things I think is an irrational cult. They’re theology, so they’re whatever you think of theology; I don’t think much of it. In fact, in my view that’s exactly the right analogy: notions like Marxism and Freudianism belong to the history of organized religion.

-Noam Chomsky, proving that he really understands Marxism good.

Noam Chomsky, the “philosopher,” conceding that he has no idea what actual philosophers are talking about. Marx does not use ‘dialectics’ often or frequently, but he does use it.
Noam Chomsky, suggesting that the Marxist categorization of proletariat be abandoned or rewritten. I wonder whose interests are most served by such a suggestion?

If this essay isn’t nearly long enough for you, here, enjoy this archived Michael Parenti vs Noam Chomsky book.

Noam Chomsky the anti-Leninist

This is the most damaging video to the Western Left in all of youtube history. Except for this one.

If you are in need a quick detailed breakdown of specific points where Chomsky is either misleading or outright lying, kc_socialist has an excellent short written response, explaining the first several minutes of the video. And for a a more comprehensive historical materialist breakdown, see IanBurke’s brilliant, fulfilling answer below.

Here (and in this popular video) we see Chomsky making an analysis of Lenin that is completely devoid of historical materialism. Now, Chomsky makes multiple errors of historical fact here**, but I want to focus on his method of analysis specifically, which is from a more idealistic perspective.

First, he focuses singly on Lenin as a mastermind controlling events and people. He is, probably unconsciously, following the great man theory (or hero-mob if you prefer) — acting as though a few “great people” and their ideas make history. So, instead of material factors ( economic factors, supplies, industrial development, as well as military invasion, etc) affecting things we just have Lenin’s will dictating how things turns out. In this way of viewing things history is just some “great” good guys/ideas and bad guys/ideas duking it out and making decisions a complete vacuum — using the “ignorant masses” as a tool for their good/bad idea.

So, he is completely divorcing the Bolsheviks (represented by “great man” Lenin alone here) from the actual conditions they were in. He leads you to believe that Lenin, in complete contrast to what he’d devoted all his life and time to, just didn’t care about building socialism and giving power to the workers, but instead wanted personal political power (an absurd notion). He makes no mention of the [material] conditions of Russia — which was economically destroyed, just coming out of a world war, facing famine, and facing foreign invasion on all sides as well as a bloody bourgeois reaction — affecting their policies.

He also criticizes Russia for not living up to Lenin’s “State and Revolution” — a book about how Marx and Engels viewed the state and the transition to socialism/communism in fully industrialized western nations. This is a similar error that many right-wing historians and talking heads make — they often try to compare Cuba, the USSR, etc with the U.S. as though they should be the same in spite of the massive differences in their material conditions. It’s like going on and on about a how terrible a person is at basketball compared to the professionals without mentioning that they’re a high school kid who may well show great talent compared to all people their age.

Another useful scaled down analogy might be to compare the condemnation of revolutionary terror to Che Guevara's execution of a fellow soldier that he writes about having “no remorse” for. This is brought up a lot to show that Che was a heartless monster with blood lust, but it is rarely mentioned that the soldier he killed was in the pay of their enemy and giving away their position causing many of them to die from air raids. Regardless of how we might view Che as a person we can see here the difference context and knowledge of material conditions makes. I am of course dragging complex massive events down to the personal level here myself, but just to make a point as I hope you see.

This works for examining the behavior of “enemies” too — we could claim that capitalists are all individually bad people trying to take advantage of everyone, but is this really useful or true? No, they are a product of capitalism just like the worker is — they typically have an ideology that makes what they do seem moral and natural and are in fact compelled to do so — a capitalist that exploits their workers less loses a competitive edge. It would be a similar mistake to say that a worker sells their labor completely voluntarily when in fact they are compelled to do so by the threat of starvation/homelessness. Capitalist apologists might claim if a person doesn’t like their job they can “move away” or “get another one” things any worker knows are easily said but very difficult to do.

Basically analyzing things from a historical materialist perspective attempts to understand events from how they relate to the material conditions — most basically the forces of production, which influences everything else, whereas non-hist/mat analyses tend to focus on “great individuals” or ideas as the moving forces of history, tends to have some “universal” morality to criticize these individuals with, and disregard (where convenient for whatever their ideological narrative is) the actual conditions of the historical event instead preferring to examine these people as single entities acting in a vacuum.

** For instance his interpretation of Lenin’s views of state capitalism and socialism in Russian is not a very accurate summary at all (Lenin wrote extensively on these matters) and he doesn’t seem to know that though State and Revolution was written in 1917 it wasn’t published until the Bolsheviks, with popular support, had already taken power in 1918 — making his claim that it was published to aid them in taking power make little sense

-IanBurke / StarTrackFan

Noam Chomsky the anti-Communist

Are you sick of Chomsky Hot Takes yet? It’s almost over, stay strong.

Noam Chomsky the ever unrevolutionary Philosopher King

No one knows what it’s like, To be the bad man, To be the sad man…

Noam Chomsky the unremarkable and disposable twitter liberal

How much more of this can you take? Really.



Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, (good in philosophy, but deeds are hard, yo) Freelance Philosopher. Dialectical Materialism enjoyer. Marxism’s top salesperson. any/any

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Dash the Internet Marxist

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, (good in philosophy, but deeds are hard, yo) Freelance Philosopher. Dialectical Materialism enjoyer. Marxism’s top salesperson. any/any