First off, it's notable that while Chomsky is wildly famous and highly regarded in the field of linguistics – indeed, he's been called "arguably the most important intellectual alive" – his political writings are often, surprisingly, overlooked or even marginalized within academic circles, particularly in social and political science departments. You might wonder why this is, given how much he's written over more than thirty years on political issues. One suggestion is a bit of intellectual snobbery, a feeling that since he's a linguist, he shouldn't venture into "their field". Chomsky himself has noted this argument being used against him. However, this seems a bit paradoxical, especially considering the sheer volume of his political work, which is anything but a passing interest. He dives deep into research and publications, showing a real dedication to the subject. The sources suggest another reason for this marginalization might be the _form_ of his political writing. It often takes the shape of political journalism, commenting on current events, analyzing American foreign policy, comparing proclaimed policy goals with actual outcomes, and scrutinizing how information is presented to the public – what's hidden, distorted, or misrepresented. This style, focusing intensely on intricate details of power struggles and precarious existences, has an _intended atheoretical quality_. Chomsky wants us to focus on the specifics, to feel the "reality" of the experiences he describes, and to see ourselves connected to those events. He worries that standing back to focus only on the abstract form or structure of political events can lead to "arcane discussion" and a "muted and distorted picture which very few can properly see or understand". This brings us to a really interesting point about Chomsky's view on political theory and science. He often claims that he's _not_ doing theory or science in his social and political analysis. He says most of what he has to say is pretty self-evident, even joking that his political theory could fit on the back of a postage stamp. His main reason for this seemingly humble (or perhaps provocative?) claim is his belief that any ideas about how society should be organized rely on assumptions about human nature. And, in his view, we know very little that can be scientifically proven about human nature. He's open to the idea that we might _never_ gain a deep, scientifically verifiable understanding of human nature, possibly due to inherent limits in the human mind. Given this uncertainty, he feels it's more intellectually honest _not_ to claim his work is theory or science. Despite his reluctance to use the terms "theory" or "science" for his social and political work, the sources suggest his approach does have a clear methodology and framework. He consistently compares stated intentions (like policy objectives) with actual outcomes or consequences. It's a bit like the input-output comparison he uses in linguistics, where he studies how a child gets complex language knowledge (output) from limited data (input). By comparing political rhetoric (input) with what actually happens (output), he tries to reveal underlying intentions and the workings of institutions. He believes this rational analysis, based on available evidence and meticulously documented facts, allows him to make conjectures that consistently help explain events, forming a framework for understanding. So, while he might call it "re-describing reality" or exposing hidden things, it looks a lot like a coherent theoretical approach to others. Now, let's talk about human nature, which is absolutely central to his thinking, even if our scientific understanding is limited. While he's careful not to make definitive scientific claims about it, his work, particularly in linguistics, leads him to certain tentative conclusions or "hopes". He suggests human nature has essential characteristics, including a "creative urge," a need to control one's work, a desire for freedom from authority, an "instinct for liberty and creativity," and a need to work productively and cooperatively. This contrasts sharply with views that see human nature as simply plastic or entirely shaped by the environment. For Chomsky, while the social environment is incredibly important and can either facilitate or hinder the development of these innate capacities, it doesn't mean human nature is infinitely malleable. He believes humans are capable of independent thought and of recognizing deceit, though it takes effort. This perspective on human nature directly informs his vision of the "good society". He identifies as a libertarian socialist. For some, combining "libertarian" (emphasizing freedom) and "socialist" (often associated with state control or equality) seems contradictory. However, Chomsky argues that these values are not only consistent but actually interdependent. True liberty, he contends, is impossible without a degree of material equality, because a lack of resources means compulsion and constrained freedom. Similarly, achieving equality through coercive state control undermines liberty and introduces a different kind of inequality (in decision-making). Therefore, he believes the ideal society would maximize both freedom and equality, allowing humans to flourish and fully develop their creative potential. This involves things like abolishing private property that grants coercive power, avoiding centralized state control over resources, defending freedom of expression, and organizing production through "free association". His vision emphasizes self-management and workers' councils, even in complex industrial societies. This stance distinguishes him from parts of the classic liberal tradition, which historically focused on freedom from state power but didn't extend this critique to the constraints imposed by private property relations. It also sets him apart from certain forms of socialism that rely heavily on state control. In the context of philosophical debates about the good society, like the one between liberals (who might prioritize individual freedom) and communitarians (who might emphasize the community's role in shaping individuals and values), Chomsky's view of human nature as inherently creative and social, requiring both freedom and cooperation, offers a way to potentially bridge this divide. He argues that communal arrangements and cooperation aren't opposed to individual freedom but can actually enhance it by allowing individuals to develop their unique talents, which benefit the community, and vice versa. Chomsky is a sharp critic of existing social and political structures, especially the state under capitalism. He sees the state not as a neutral arbiter or representative of the general interest, but primarily as an instrument serving the interests of the powerful elites. Its main function is control, particularly over the general population, while elites might be subject to guidance or influence. He argues the state is deeply and proactively involved in maintaining the capitalist economy, both nationally and internationally, often through forceful means. He uses strong language, sometimes controversially comparing the "autocratic governance" of the economy under capitalism to fascism if it were in the political sphere, or describing US-backed regimes as sharing characteristics with historical fascism like opposition to Enlightenment ideals and violent repression, challenging narrow definitions of terms like "fascism" or "democracy". His analysis of the state often emphasizes the intentional actions ("agency") of elites in manipulating the system for their benefit. While he acknowledges structural factors and even conflicts within the ruling class, he argues these conflicts are often contained within limits that don't threaten the overall system of private accumulation and can even reinforce the _illusion_ of democratic debate and choice. He is sceptical that democratic institutions in capitalist societies offer meaningful channels for popular participation or challenges to elite power. He refers to methods used to control the population, including military force, judicial action, and especially subtle control through the media – which he calls "fraud" or "propaganda". Speaking of media, it's another major focus of his political analysis, particularly the "propaganda model" he developed with Edward Herman. This model tries to explain how mass media function in capitalist democracies. While interpretations vary, some see this model as overly focused on the deliberate actions of elites (instrumentalism) and not enough on broader structural forces or audience effects. However, the sources argue that Chomsky's analysis incorporates both structural factors (like media operating as businesses serving elite interests) and agency (elites intentionally shaping information). The media, for Chomsky, plays a crucial role in obscuring the state's actions and the true nature of power relations. Their failure to highlight discrepancies between official rhetoric and reality, in his view, demonstrates their function within the business-friendly structure. Finally, let's touch on his view of intellectual responsibility. Chomsky believes intellectuals, including academics and journalists, have a moral obligation to "speak the truth and to expose lies," especially concerning state power. He chooses to focus his critique heavily on the actions of the US state because he finds them horrifying and believes it's possible for him, from within that society, to do something to mitigate the harm. So, to sum up (though we've tried to go into some good detail!), Chomsky's political thought, despite his own disclaimers, offers a coherent and powerful critique of state capitalism, deeply informed by a view of human nature as inherently creative and in need of freedom and cooperation. He uses a consistent methodology of comparing rhetoric and reality, exposing the mechanisms of control, particularly through the state and media. His vision of a libertarian socialist society where freedom and equality are intertwined, necessary for human flourishing, challenges conventional political categories and debates. Now, after exploring these ideas, you might be left with some intriguing questions to ponder! For example: - How does Chomsky's view of human nature, rooted partly in his linguistics work, specifically inform his ideas on economic organization like free association and self-management? - Given his emphasis on the state acting in elite interests and the media as propaganda, what are the potential pathways for social and political change in Chomsky's view? We saw a hint about research and activism working together, but how does that connect to overcoming entrenched state power? - If, as he suggests, a "capital-logic" might operate more freely and unpredictably at the international level _because_ there's no international state, what are the implications for global governance or attempts at international cooperation? - How might his argument that conflicts within the ruling class can reinforce the _illusion_ of freedom and debate apply to contemporary political discourse? These are just a few threads to pull on from the rich tapestry of ideas the sources present! It's clear that Chomsky's work provides a distinctive lens through which to view the world, prompting us to look beyond official narratives and question the fundamental structures of power.