Rating: 
Summary: Can't Play Well With Others
Review: This is a rather unconventional book that compiles Noam Chomsky's opinions on just about everything, using transcripts from public discussions he gave over many years in many different places. Thus the book is kind of a hodgepodge that jumps around from topic to topic in a stream-of-consciousness kind of way, despite the editors' attempts to group the topics into chapters. All of Chomsky's opinions on the structure of power in the worlds of economics and politics are in fact responses to questions from anonymous seminar participants, identified here as "Man" or "Woman." Unfortunately I suspect that many of these questions were planted to facilitate speechifying from Chomsky on selected topics. Meanwhile, it is hard to believe that all of Chomsky's comments in this book are merely recorded from live discussions that he gave - the sheer density and complexity of what he's saying suggest a lot of fleshing out by the editors. So approach this book's structure with skepticism.As for Chomsky's opinions themselves, his knowledge of the working of corporate capitalism and economic forces, as related to a huge variety of specific topics, is simply mind-boggling. This is truly a learned man. His insights into the true workings of the capitalist economy for regular people (that is, 99.9% of the population) are extremely enlightening. However, on the political side, Chomsky is dangerously close to paranoid conspiracy theorist territory. He describes himself as either a democratic socialist, or more frequently as an anarchist. His anarchic vision is not of free-for-all chaos however, but a form of government in which there are no politicians and power is really shared by all people equally. He can admit the logistical difficulties of such a utopia, but this anarchist vision results in Chomsky disagreeing with ALL political philosophies. At various points in this book he says that the New Deal was a fascist endeavor, communists and fascists are exactly the same, and that big business is fascist in economics and communist in politics. Basically, both of those extremes are equally far away from Chomsky's desired anarchy. Unfortunately, Chomsky's political diatribes, while certainly compelling and revealing, make him come across as an anti-everything know-it-all. That makes parts of this book extremely tiresome and repetitive.
Rating: 
Summary: No better demonstration of how editing can make or break you
Review: Required reading. It is pretty much a given that Chomsky's ideas are compelling, whether you agee or not. The extraordinary value-add in this book is the editing job. It is obvious and gigantic. The authors have organized Chomsky's talks into logically flowing, highly documented, and parallel-structured snippets of one to three pages each - and there are a couple of hundred of them. Most of them open with an audience question, and a quick retort by Chomsky. This is followed by a key word: Look, Actually, or See, after which Chomsky goes into huge depth and detail, never straying from the focus. Again, the editing is what makes it all compelling, useful, and evenly paced. The amount of work that went into tearing apart years of talks, conversations and lectures, and then organizing them in complementary sections, making them fit a format that allows the reader to breeze through (well relatively breeze through) the densely packed insights of Noam Chomsky deserves some sort of award. The footnotes are the most useful and detailed I have ever seen. They are a monumental standalone work in and of themselves. I only wish THEY were indexed like the book is - after all, there are 449 pages of them, compared to 401 pages in the book. While Chomsky comes off as extraordinarily insightful, there are weaknesses - holes you could really exploit if you ever had the privilege of arguing with him. His knowledge of financial markets and foreign currency exchange, hedge funds and such is not only superficial, but sometimes just plain wrong. Sometimes he generalizes immense conclusions from a few superficial and specifically chosen facts that ignore the complexity of the situation. This kind of inductive reasoning befits the ranting fundamentalists (of all stripes) he belittles, and is surprising from someone as "fair" as Noam Chomsky. He also completely misunderstands the power of celebrity and familiarity, missing and even denying his own leverage. In other words, he is human after all! Perhaps then, there is actually less here than meets the eye? I don't think so. I think this book is so well edited, it actually allows the reader to surgically inspect the workings of this fine mind, to put things in frames of reference and perspective, and even to claim the occasional victory over Noam Chomsky in the safety of one's own home and without a half hour rebuttal. If you're up for the wild ride to places in your own back yard, Undertanding Power is very highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Enlightening
Review: I thouroughly enjoyed reading this great book. A true insight into a different perspective on everyday news events. Noam discusses possible uses and devices of media and governments to control its populace and the governments and populace of other countries.
Rating:
Summary: A befitting title: this book is indispensable.
Review: The ten chapters of this book compile question and response material taken from talks Chomsky delivered throughout the 1990s. The chapters are conveniently marked where the topic shifts, so that if you want to look up Chomsky's views on a particular issue, you easily can. Everything in this book is still extremely relavent. Even if you think you've heard it all before and have read a lot of other Chomsky books, it is still inspiring to read Chomsky and this book is perfect to have around as a refresher. It is also the perfect introduction for those who are beginning to have an interest in progressive politics. All of the classic wit, wisdom, logic, (incredible memory skills) and integrity of Noam Chomsky come shining through in this collection. (For those who have only heard the name of Chomsky slandered and ridiculed, I encourage you to read through some of this book and ask yourself, why is it that nobody ever really addresses Chomsky's arguments, but will profusely attack him with ad hominem denunciations?) Of all the Chomsky books I have read, this one is the most definitive.
Rating:
Summary: Truly Indispensable: The Very BEST of Chomsky
Review: What can I say to convince people to buy this book? I wish I could give it 6 stars. Many are turned off by Chomsky's books, not because of what he says, but how he says it. People are intimidated by his "dense" language and barrage of facts. I've even heard his political books described as "too scientific". This is precisely why his interviews are so popular - they're informal discussions that bring out his incredibly vast knowledge in language that even a highschool student can understand. Anybody who has attended a Chomsky lectures knows that the liveliest part of the whole event is the question and answer session, where the interaction brings out often heated discussions and very brilliant insights. Understanding Power is a collection of informal discussions from the 80's and 90's that captures the very best of these insights. Chomsky covers a formidably wide range of issues. Some of the most enjoyable discussions include the following topics (taken from the TOC): The U.S. Network of Terrorist Mercenary States, Overthrowing Third World Governments, Government Secrecy, The Media: An Institutional Analysis, Testing the "Propaganda Model", The Media and Elite Opinion, "Containing the Soviet Union in the Cold War", Orwell's World and Ours, "The Real Anti-Semitism", Ronald Reagan and the Future of Democracy [HILARIOUS!!], The Permanent War Economy, Heroes and Anti-Heroes, "Anti-Intellectualism", Spectator Sports, The Totalitarian Strain, Escaping Indoctrination, Transcending Capitalism, The Kibbutz Experiment, "Anarchism" and "Libertarianism", "Want" Creation, Science and Human Nature, Charlatans and Science [EXCELLENT], Adam Smith: Real and Fake, Marxist "Theory" and Intellectual Fakery, Ideological Control in the Sciences and Humanities [EXCELLENT], Mass Murderers at Harvard, Self-Destruction of the U.S. Left, Conspiracy Theories, Moral Values, Popular Education, and The Future of History. However, the book itself is only *half* of the entire work. There are over 500 pages of footnotes documenting in broad scope and unrelenting detail each and every point that Chomsky discusses. The entire collection of footnotes is *longer* than the book itself. Furthermore, it's FREE, available on the internet at the book's website. That's half the book for free. The editors have done a phenomenal job in collecting so many references. There is literally a lifetime's worth of references for future reading - consider it a liberal education. Readers will be left with their jaws on the ground when they discover how thoroughly Chomsky has researched the issues. Every pretentious comment you heard but never believed is documented here, in full. Furthermore, the website offers an invaluable guide to Chomsky's books, breaking down the many and diverse topics he writes about and providing exact references. This collection is incomparably better than anything David Barsamian has ever put out and that can be said entirely without exaggeration. Understanding Power will leave you with the feeling of a child sitting before a wise teacher. As The Nation remarked, "[n]ot to have read Chomsky is to court genuine ignorance".
Rating:
Summary: Easily the best overview of Chomsky's political thought
Review: I just bought this book and I am immensely pleased with it. I own other Chomsky books -- Manufacturing Consent, Fateful Triangle, and the short interview-based books from Common Courage Press, among others -- and I have to say that this is far and away my favorite of the lot. The more scholarly books, like Manufacturing Consent and The Fateful Triangle, are thick with documentation but rather dry -- this doesn't bother me personally, but it's difficult to introduce them to someone else. On the other hand, the more accessible works, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, for example, come off to the layperson as the radical ravings of a lunatic, and unless the reader already has similar sympathies or suspicions, they are far from persuasive. This is exacerbated by the fact that in these Chomsky offers little in the way of proof, and this is why I shy away from recommending these volumes to Chomsky newcomers; as Chomsky himself would say, he sounds like he's coming from Mars.
Understanding Power is a very welcome addition to the canon in large part because it addresses the aforementioned problems. For one, the questions he responds to aren't the softballs David Barsamian usually pitches him -- his interlocutors occasionally ask the very questions a skeptical or simply curious reader might be thinking to himself -- and his responses reflect this: they're less "crazy" and alien, and more thoughtful, informative, and generally convincing. A second reason Understanding Power deserves heaps of praise is the footnotes. ... The footnotes are incredible, absolutely incredible, and it's easy to see why they aren't included in the book. ... The notes themselves are both broad and deep: everything from the specific NSC documents to the actual popularity of Reagan's policies is referenced, and sources are often extracted from at length (this is unusual for the non-academic works). I was always curious where Chomsky got his figures on American religious fanaticism and now I finally know. Thumbs up to the editors. ... Here is what I gather: Chomsky is often invited to Canada, he feels, because Canadians like to hear America get dumped on. Chomsky got tired of this so, yes, deliberately began a particular interview in a confrontational manner, detailing Pearson's complicity in US war crimes in Indochina (namely, arms sales), who was meanwhile posing as an impartial mediator. The book itself doesn't go into the details, but the footnotes refer to four or five books on the subject. The point of this story was not to present an indictment of Canada or Pearson but to show that, as the other reviewer accurately puts it, "the Canadian media is just as unwilling to hear contrary points of view about Canada as the American media is to hear contrary points of view about the US." Chomsky goes on to note that Canadian universities refuse to pay his plane fare if he criticizes Canadian policies during his lectures. ...-- Chomsky does in fact say "Canada was always denouncing the United States during the Vietnam War for its criminal actions." At any rate, this point, and the one about the apparent good manners of Canadian citizens, is merely incidental. To conclude: this book belongs on your shelf and I recommend it without reservations to absolutely anyone. The originality and breadth of thought contained herein outmatch any other political Chomsky book on the market (the Chomsky Reader included), let alone those by other authors on similar subjects. This is the perfect volume for an introduction to Chomsky's political thought and a worthwhile addition to the library of even those who think they've already read everything Chomsky has to say.
Rating:
Summary: Chomsky's best book ever!!
Review: This is Chomsky at his personal best. He is more funny and animated in this book, because of the intimate nature of the gatherings posted. It is less academic but an amazing look at so many of Chomsky's beliefs and theories in one book. I was surprised there was so much here that seemed like new information. Chomsky is really more biting at these teach ins: You almost wish all of his books had this concept. There is also his use of four letter words, which you seldom see from him. He interacts with other people, and that seems to get interesting answers that Chomsky usually keeps to himself. Need I say it: Chomsky's first, "entertaining" book. It is highly informative and chock full of stuff, but it is also very fun to read. Too bad I finised it. Great book, hopefully more of these teach in tomes coming. Wonderful and searing.
Rating:
Summary: should replace all high-school history books
Review: I first heard about Noam Chomsky when Jello Biafra made a reference to him on one of his spoken-word albums, which led me to pick up "Understanding Power." I must say, this book is a harrowing retrospective of all the rotten things America has done since the early 20th century, and basically what can be done to prevent a future that rests in the hands of all-controlling corporations. It goes without saying that Chomsky's glasses are anything BUT rose-colored, but his points are valid and honest--if you can't deal with what he's saying, the evening news is waiting for you.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Presentation of Chomsky's Ideas
Review: There are a great number of Chomsky's works in print, but this carefully edited book of lectures and discussions is both an excellent introduction and an insightful contribution to the Chomsky corpus. Mitchell and Schoeffel must have worked on this collection for many years, finding and editing exemplary exchanges and discussions, and then providing a set of footnotes ... the depth of which surpasses that found in any of Chomsky's previous political works. That this may be the first time in the history of modern publishing that a book and a web site have been used to such extraordinary effect only adds to the achievement.
Rating: 
Summary: Sloppy arguments at times, where's the proof?
Review: There is no question of Chomsky's academic credentials in the field of linguistics. But I doubt he would be as highly regarded if he argued in as sloppy a manner as he does in places in this book. I should point out that I came to this book because he is a highly regarded and widely quoted thinker, with supposedly a rigorous contrarian view of things that I thought might be worth considering. I have little prior experience with his writings. With an academic, details are important, but some of his arguments don't bear scrutiny. A case in point is his discussion of the media in Canada, wherein he describes going on Morningside with Peter Gzowsky. He uses this experience to describe how the Canadian media is just as unwilling to hear contrary points of view about Canada as the American media is to hear contrary points of view about the US. While this might be true (despite all the airtime for his lectures and interviews that he recalls being given, unlike the 'States), his argument is sloppy. He notes that in the interview with Gzowski he accused Lester Pearson of being a "war criminal", and that he started running through Pearson's "involvement in criminal activity - he was a major criminal, really extreme", though he does not related the details here. Gzowski apparently got upset. Chomsky thereupon derides Growski as being like all the rest, despite the fact that Chomsky opened his commentary by with a statement designed to create confrontation, calling the Lester B. Pearson airport the "War Criminal Airport". Chomsky then goes on to note that the switchboard lit up ... with people angry with Growski for the way he was treating his guest (the late Peter Gzowski was much-loved figure on Canadian radio, it should be noted). Pearson is a highly regarded Canadian Prime Minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Chomsky seems perplexed by this reaction, which should have told him, a seasoned intellectual, that he didn't understand it. What the incident should have told him was something about the standards Canadians expect from their broadcasters, and that in fact they won't put up with their media behaving in that fashion. Gzowski's behaviour was uncharacteristic of the media in Canada in general and himself in particular, which was why it elicited thousands of calls chastising Gzowski from all over the country. Therefore Chomsky's contention that the Canadian media is like the US media is exactly wrong, based on that example. I'm also unimpressed by him repeating such a serious contention about Pearson in this book without evidence noted in the book so that the claims can be evaluated. He doesn't try to explain what those alleged criminal activities are, or how Pearson was a "major criminal, really extreme". What, like Hitler? Charles Manson? What do you mean, and where's the proof, Professor Chomsky? The vague footnotes on associated website say that "Pearson's allowing Canada to use its status as an allegedly "impartial" international mediator to assist the U.S. in its Indochina policies before and during the Vietnam War". How is an biased mediator (allegedly) a major, extreme criminal? (Assuming that's what you were referring to). What law was broken by Pearson personally? Chomsky also conveniently forgets to mention how Pearson blocked UN Security council support for the US regarding Vietnam, creating a huge rift between the US and Canada. In fact, Pearson and Johnson hated each other, but this is not mentioned, either. Thus Chomsky's account is a distortion. Instead of receiving a substantial - and substantiated - argument I expected, I had the feeling of listening to someone spoutting off with commentary in a pub, and it's worth exactly as much to me. I'll look at the rest of the book, but these two issues - Chomsky's misinterpretation and serious, slanderous allegations - already cast a long shadow over what he has to say.
|
