Why Noam Chomsky Is Wrong

By: William Thode

Noam Chomsky is a hypocrite. Immediately, the Noam Chomsky disciple, who I shall from now on refer to as Bob*, will scream, “Prove it!” plus, if anonymous, various expletives. The problem with this claim is that Bob assumes that Noam Chomsky is God. In other words, Noam Chomsky is somehow infallible and thus a speaker of completely objective truth. This is obviously inaccurate, as Noam Chomsky is a human, and thus fallible. Being fallible, Noam Chomsky’s ideas include assumptions that cannot be considered part of an objective truth. While his thoughts may be “informed opinions,” it does not change the fact that whatever he says can never be objective truth. This leads Bob to assume there cannot be any objective truth. Bob is partially correct.

Assumptions are the required opinions everyone must have to see the world without society becoming, to paraphrase Jimmy Voltaire, an octopus flailing in lava. Bob will be persistent and ask to prove society exists. Society is any number of people, down to the individual, that form anything from a friendship to a global community. The assumption underlying this is that everyone has what is known as human nature, primarily the self-evident fact that each person seeks his or her own self-interest. Bob asks for proof again. Defining self-interest as a measurable benefit to oneself that results from one’s actions, no one would consciously do anything if it did not benefit them in some way. In essence, I am claiming true conscious altruism cannot exist, something psychology established a long time ago.

With all of that clearly established, let’s get back to Chomsky. Noam Chomsky, in laymen’s terms, hates America. Specifically, he hates our government and even calls it “the leading terrorist state,” which is based on so many assumptions I don’t have the time or space to address. Additionally, he hates the American version of capitalism. That makes him a hypocrite. “Why?” Bob asks, visually frustrated at this point. Ignoring the fact that Noam Chomsky’s “solutions” to fix America would fly in the face of both human nature and basic economics, Noam Chomsky is a success because of America. He is, in essence, a man paid for only his ideas. As a man with no actual power (as in he’s not President,) he never actually has to prove his ideas with application as he lacks the ability to actually enact them directly. Bob then argues that because people are fallible, Noam Chomsky’s “perfect” ideas could never be implemented correctly by anyone else. This is insane. Bob has once again ignored that Noam Chomsky is fallible. That makes his ideas imperfect by definition. Bob then asks for proof, at which point I just walk away in disgust.

Bob, as with all disciples, tends to see only what he wants to see about his adored figure and ignoring most rational evidence to the contrary. This is why Bob likes Noam Chomsky to begin with. Chomsky’s grand design about the “problems” plaguing America just fly in the face of even basic understanding that to like Chomsky is to see only what one wants to see. In other words, Bob is predisposed to believe Chomsky to begin with. Which is my point: to make the arguments Bob is making, he has to make no sense. In other words, Noam Chomsky has become a god in his mind. At that point, science ends and faith begins.

If Bob chooses to continue his life believing in the works of Noam Chomsky, that is his right as an American citizen. Similarly, if you or I wish to disagree with him, that is our right. Ultimately, I cannot judge his motives as I am an avid follower of a few people and concepts as well. If Bob concludes that this somehow doesn’t change anything, he can’t possibly understand why I’m even writing for the Lehigh Patriot to begin with.


  • T D

    This article's content fails to address the expectations created by its title. There is not one sentence about why Chomsky is wrong. The article claims that Chomsky is a hypocrite and that the author's friend blindly follows Chomsky.

    What this piece lacks is any real rebuttal, or even acknowledgement, of Chomsky's arguments.

  • http://www.facebook.com/BigWillieStyles1212 William Thode

    The point I'm trying to establish is that the method of arguing why Chomsky is right is flawed. The title is used to attract attention and is my opinion that would take the time and length not advisable for a college magazine article.

  • Ben

    I don't think he has much respect for economics as a scientific discipline, he's been known to comment on how economics is flexible enough that an economist can come to whatever conclusion he or his paymasters wish for.

    With regards to human nature, it doesn't seem like you have a very strong grip on philosophy, either. If you'd like to know how socialism and anarchism can be possible given a human predisposition to selfishness try reading John Rawls' “A Theory of Justice”. Selfishness can spawn selflessness if there is a sense of reciprocity. Having said that, to say that people are or aren't selfish/selfless, competitive/cooperative or whatever paradigm you'd like, would be a drastic oversimplification. The empirical knowledge of all these things is coming from cognitive science and neuroscience and I doubt any of the conclusions we manage to come to will be so cut and dry.

    Chomsky's works are actually very similar to any work of social science. Of course, he starts with an analytical framework and uses evidence to reinforce his points but his points are typically quite solid when taken in light of historical context, which he frequently does. I recommend you pick up Hopes and Prospects and tear it from cover to cover, checking all citations and building a perspective for yourself, not simply clinging to the one handed to you over the course of your life.

  • Ben

    How has psychology proven that humans are incapable of altruism? How is psychology not prone to the same fallibility that you so generously heap onto Chomsky's work? Have you ever read Chomsky? It so, you already know that what he says doesn't “fly in the face of both human nature and basic economics”. He even uses academic works in economic history to reinforce his interpretations of the motives and consequences of foreign and domestic economic policy…

  • Rockbuilt

    How is making statements like, “Noam Chomsky hates America,” valid when you’re merely taking quotes from him like the one in reference to our government as “the leading terrorist state.” Is it at all possible that statements such as these are true? Or, are we just taking that statement to be automatically false because our government can’t be a leading terrorist state simply because we are predisposed to believe our government is pure, good, and noble? What if the facts say otherwise? What if someone researched enough to find that it was a fact? Would it then be plausible? Or would we continue to reject it based on our automatic assumption that our government does not engage in terrorism? Something to consider at least. Wouldn’t you agree?

  • http://twitter.com/PakFanPajamaMan TAFKA Gary Busey

    If you cared to debate it, sure, but for an article in a college magazine, you’re asking for things nobody in their right mind would be able to write for an article.

  • http://twitter.com/PakFanPajamaMan TAFKA Gary Busey

    This is exactly your problem.  You’re acting just like Bob.

  • http://twitter.com/PakFanPajamaMan TAFKA Gary Busey

    Only so much can be discussed in a college newspaper article.

  • Rickyhayer

    So you admit your incapable of writing a decent article that makes sense

  • the rocketeer

    This article makes a bunch of assumptions. The really astute reader can also see that it’s a magic eye puzzle of a where’s waldo board…

    Fucking dumb…

  • Bob

    Instead of pretending to be a sophisticated young intellectual who knows more than what poor Bob knows without actually stating what is faulty in Chomsky’s claims and logic, grow up and admit that you just hate him. Cut the crab and say, “I hate your guts Chomsky!” That would be more rational and worthy of respect than the pile of self-pleasuring tissue papers you produced. At least, you would have respected your readers by not wasting their time with your false assumptions.

  • widder4
blog comments powered by Disqus