Noam Chomsky Books
Showing 1-50 of 200

by (shelved 35 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.41 — 9,491 ratings — published 2002

by (shelved 32 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.98 — 14,001 ratings — published 2003

by (shelved 30 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.84 — 11,361 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 27 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.05 — 12,126 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 27 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.03 — 7,257 ratings — published 1998

by (shelved 27 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.24 — 23,553 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 23 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.02 — 8,582 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 22 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.98 — 5,794 ratings — published 2006

by (shelved 18 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.27 — 12,255 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 15 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.17 — 1,773 ratings — published 2017

by (shelved 15 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.21 — 3,841 ratings — published 2017

by (shelved 15 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.13 — 5,162 ratings — published 2011

by (shelved 15 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.21 — 1,167 ratings — published 1982

by (shelved 14 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.99 — 2,281 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 13 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.74 — 4,139 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 12 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.06 — 1,267 ratings — published 1998

by (shelved 12 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.02 — 1,367 ratings — published 2007

by (shelved 11 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.12 — 2,601 ratings — published 2012

by (shelved 11 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.87 — 1,141 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 10 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.71 — 1,963 ratings — published 2017

by (shelved 9 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.86 — 1,042 ratings — published 2003

by (shelved 9 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.02 — 1,541 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 9 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.04 — 1,738 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 9 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.15 — 2,140 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 9 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.05 — 895 ratings — published 1991

by (shelved 9 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.02 — 2,608 ratings — published 1991

by (shelved 8 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.96 — 604 ratings — published 1986

by (shelved 8 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.65 — 1,557 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 8 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.89 — 886 ratings — published

by (shelved 8 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.84 — 1,309 ratings — published 1968

by (shelved 8 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.82 — 662 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 8 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.09 — 1,631 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 8 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.15 — 740 ratings — published 1992

by (shelved 7 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.34 — 1,640 ratings — published 2020

by (shelved 7 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.83 — 1,081 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 7 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.12 — 461 ratings — published 1967

by (shelved 7 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.13 — 1,551 ratings — published 1989

by (shelved 7 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.98 — 489 ratings — published 2006

by (shelved 6 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.86 — 1,586 ratings — published 2020

by (shelved 6 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.59 — 2,244 ratings — published 2012

by (shelved 6 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.70 — 307 ratings — published 1972

by (shelved 6 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.87 — 229 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 6 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.81 — 359 ratings — published 1996

by (shelved 6 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.87 — 732 ratings — published 1970

by (shelved 6 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.02 — 368 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 6 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.97 — 1,104 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 5 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.80 — 647 ratings — published 2021

by (shelved 5 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.77 — 557 ratings — published 2019

by (shelved 5 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 3.62 — 252 ratings — published 2018

by (shelved 5 times as noam-chomsky)
avg rating 4.00 — 118 ratings — published 2000

“The government has a great need to restore its credibility, to make people forget its history and rewrite it. The intelligentsia have to a remarkable degree undertaken this task. It is also necessary to establish the "lessons" that have to be drawn from the war, to ensure that these are conceived on the narrowest grounds, in terms of such socially neutral categories as "stupidity" or "error" or "ignorance" or perhaps "cost."
Why? Because soon it will be necessary to justify other confrontations, perhaps other U.S. interventions in the world, other Vietnams.
But this time, these will have to be successful intervention, which don't slip out of control. Chile, for example. It is even possible for the press to criticize successful interventions - the Dominican Republic, Chile, etc. - as long as these criticisms don't exceed "civilized limits," that is to say, as long as they don't serve to arouse popular movements capable of hindering these enterprises, and are not accompanied by any rational analysis of the motives of U.S. imperialism, something which is complete anathema, intolerable to liberal ideology.
How is the liberal press proceeding with regard to Vietnam, that sector which supported the "doves"? By stressing the "stupidity" of the U.S. intervention; that's a politically neutral term. It would have been sufficient to find an "intelligent" policy. The war was thus a tragic error in which good intentions were transmuted into bad policies, because of a generation of incompetent and arrogant officials. The war's savagery is also denounced, but that too, is used as a neutral category...Presumably the goals were legitimate - it would have been all right to do the same thing, but more humanely...
The "responsible" doves were opposed to the war - on a pragmatic basis. Now it is necessary to reconstruct the system of beliefs according to which the United States is the benefactor of humanity, historically committed to freedom, self-determination, and human rights. With regard to this doctrine, the "responsible" doves share the same presuppositions as the hawks. They do not question the right of the United States to intervene in other countries. Their criticism is actually very convenient for the state, which is quite willing to be chided for its errors, as long as the fundamental right of forceful intervention is not brought into question.
...
The resources of imperialist ideology are quite vast. It tolerates - indeed, encourages - a variety of forms of opposition, such as those I have just illustrated. It is permissible to criticize the lapses of the intellectuals and of government advisers, and even to accuse them of an abstract desire for "domination," again a socially neutral category not linked in any way to concrete social and economic structures. But to relate that abstract "desire for domination" to the employment of force by the United States government in order to preserve a certain system of world order, specifically, to ensure that the countries of the world remain open insofar as possible to exploitation by U.S.-based corporations - that is extremely impolite, that is to argue in an unacceptable way.”
― The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature
Why? Because soon it will be necessary to justify other confrontations, perhaps other U.S. interventions in the world, other Vietnams.
But this time, these will have to be successful intervention, which don't slip out of control. Chile, for example. It is even possible for the press to criticize successful interventions - the Dominican Republic, Chile, etc. - as long as these criticisms don't exceed "civilized limits," that is to say, as long as they don't serve to arouse popular movements capable of hindering these enterprises, and are not accompanied by any rational analysis of the motives of U.S. imperialism, something which is complete anathema, intolerable to liberal ideology.
How is the liberal press proceeding with regard to Vietnam, that sector which supported the "doves"? By stressing the "stupidity" of the U.S. intervention; that's a politically neutral term. It would have been sufficient to find an "intelligent" policy. The war was thus a tragic error in which good intentions were transmuted into bad policies, because of a generation of incompetent and arrogant officials. The war's savagery is also denounced, but that too, is used as a neutral category...Presumably the goals were legitimate - it would have been all right to do the same thing, but more humanely...
The "responsible" doves were opposed to the war - on a pragmatic basis. Now it is necessary to reconstruct the system of beliefs according to which the United States is the benefactor of humanity, historically committed to freedom, self-determination, and human rights. With regard to this doctrine, the "responsible" doves share the same presuppositions as the hawks. They do not question the right of the United States to intervene in other countries. Their criticism is actually very convenient for the state, which is quite willing to be chided for its errors, as long as the fundamental right of forceful intervention is not brought into question.
...
The resources of imperialist ideology are quite vast. It tolerates - indeed, encourages - a variety of forms of opposition, such as those I have just illustrated. It is permissible to criticize the lapses of the intellectuals and of government advisers, and even to accuse them of an abstract desire for "domination," again a socially neutral category not linked in any way to concrete social and economic structures. But to relate that abstract "desire for domination" to the employment of force by the United States government in order to preserve a certain system of world order, specifically, to ensure that the countries of the world remain open insofar as possible to exploitation by U.S.-based corporations - that is extremely impolite, that is to argue in an unacceptable way.”
― The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature

“When Loughner himself speaks and we find out his real influences are Spiderman, 'Gnome Chomsky,' Taylor Swift, and Dr. Bronner, then what?”
―
―