Via Abolition Media

News that renowned American linguist, anarchist and author Noam Chomsky is hospitalized in Brazil following a massive stroke he suffered last year was met with an avalanche of accolades and well wishes from members of the international left on Wednesday.

Valeria Chomsky told The Associated Press that her 95-year-old husband—a laureate professor at the University of Arizona and professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)—is currently in a São Paulo hospital. She took him there on an ambulance jet with two nurses after he was able to travel from the United States following his June 2023 stroke.

Chomsky told Folha de São Paulo that although her husband has difficulty speaking and the right side of his body is numb from the stroke, he follows the news and “when he sees images of the war in Gaza, he raises his left arm in a gesture of lament and anger.” She said his condition has improved significantly, and he is seeing a neurologist, speech therapist, and pulmonologist daily.

However, people close to Chomsky say he is unlikely to return to public life.

“Noam is the most influential U.S. intellectual ever. Period,” Rutgers School of Communications Professor Andrew Kennis—whose book Digital Age Resistance contains a foreword co-authored by Chomsky—told Common Dreams.

“He has been the largest influence on my life in any way, personal or professional” Kennis added. “As for movements, no other thinker helped positively shape and mold anti-imperialsm analysis and criticism of the U.S. bullying the world on behalf of Wall Street and Silicon Valley better and more effectively than him.”

“His work has defined the terms of countless debates and he’s been a tireless advocate for—and guide on the path to—a better future.”

U.S. journalist and political analyst Anand Giridharadas hailed Chomsky—whom he interviewed in 2020—as a “lion of the left.”

“It would be difficult to overestimate the impact Chomsky’s work has had,” Giridharadas wrote for The.Ink Wednsday. “Beyond the total transformation of his academic field (he’s widely acknowledged as the father of modern linguistics and the main force behind the cognitive turn in the sciences), his political impact has been immeasurable.”

“As a writer, activist, analyst, and critic of power, and likely the most visible left public intellectual of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, his work has defined the terms of countless debates and he’s been a tireless advocate for—and guide on the path to—a better future,” he added.

Of the more than 100 books published by Chomsky—who was once voted the world’s top public intellectual in an international poll—four are specifically about Israel and Palestine. He has been conspicuously absent from the debate over Israel’s current assault on Gaza, which is the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case.

Current Affairs founder and editor Nathan Robinson—who is the co-author of Chomsky’s forthcoming book, The Myth of American Idealism: How U.S. Foreign Policy Endangers the World—said earlier this week on social media that “Chomsky has been unbelievably kind over the years I’ve known him.”

“He treats everyone as an equal. Doesn’t care who you are,” he continued. “He would give as much of his time to a high school student as some celebrity or New York Times reporter. And devoted himself to attacking cruelty and injustice.”

Chomsky has been renowned as one of the most public anarchist voices in the world. His opinions have often run counter most anarchist opinion, but his contributions are immeasurable.

Comments

anon (not verified) Sat, 06/15/2024 - 14:26

I always liked that he'd respond to emails about political things from pretty much whoever, but the more I learn the less patience I have for his liberalism. He's a Zionist - he's called for a 2-state "solution" on Israel's pre-1967 borders for decades, openly—& reliably turns out to discipline people into voting Democrat every 4 years.

I don't really care to talk about how much good stuff he's done despite that because, as the entire article demonstrates, there's already several metric shit-tons of people who've done so & will keep doing so, especially after he dies & is basically canonized.

HamasWatch.org (not verified) Sat, 06/15/2024 - 17:21

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"He's a Zionist - he's called for a 2-state "solution" on Israel's pre-1967 borders for decades...."

Yea, well, as much as Dubya was a romantic social-democrat, lol

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/17/2024 - 07:28

In reply to by anon (not verified)

soon enough the US extreme left is going to realize that hamas also literally advocates for a 2 state solution and this whole conundrum is gonna be a bit weird for people

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/18/2024 - 05:00

In reply to by anon (not verified)

But yes, you're right. Hamas accepted 2-state proposals in the 2010s along with other changes (like finally removing quotes from Protocols from their charter...)

It's PIJ & some (all?) of the leftist factions that still officially insist on the river to the sea. Along with many unaffiliated people

anon (not verified) Sat, 06/15/2024 - 19:02

He details his involvement in non-state Zionism pre-Israel here.

https://chomsky.info/20111107/

In practice, the Zionist left wasn't any less colonial than the mainstream. Kibbutzim remained hostile occupations & tools of displacement, whatever opinions their residents expressed. Here's a book that explores this on detail.

https://annas-archive.org/search?index=&page=1&q=Colonizing+Palestine+L…

Of course, that's what was happening long before Anews commenters like me were even born. What about the 21st century? He says he's largely stuck to his position since shortly after the Nakba:

https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/42599

"after 1948 my feeling was that even though it had been a real mistake, after that the rules of the game had changed. The November 1947 United Nations partition resolution was treated as a tragedy in the circles I was in. But now there was a Jewish state, a country, too. And once the state became a part of the international system I saw no alternative—and see no alternative—to just saying that it has the rights of any state in the international system. No more, no less, though often it has demanded more."

His position has basically been that he's prefer a binational society, usually discussed as the "one state solution", but he sees it as increasingly impossible with the only realistic alternatives being two states (preferable) or the continued expansion of "Greater Israel" (not preferable). While advocacy of binationalism is popular with anti-Zionists (& the official position of groups like the PFLP), Palestinian binationalists are usually quite clear about understanding Israeli society (not just the state) as fundamentally colonial. Chomsky consistently avoids this in his "realism".

"I don't know of any other sensible way that has been proposed to move towards a binational, or one-state, solution other than accepting the world as it is and then taking the next step, which has been pretty clear for thirty years. There's an overwhelming international consensus behind the two-state settlement essentially along the internationally recognized borders. I think it's a rotten solution but I think it's a stage towards a better solution, and I don't know of any other approach.

Actually, I think “one state” is the wrong notion. I think the better notion is a binational state, because there are two separate cultures, different languages, different traditions, which should be able to live in cooperation and harmony."

The gulf between "accepting the world as it is" & insisting on, for example, the right of return, which means that at least some Israelis will have to stop literally occupying Palestinian homes & villages, one way or another, is enormous.

Anyway, those unconvinced that these positions amount to cover for Zionism should be clear that publicly backing genocidal Democrats every 4 years sure does.

anon (not verified) Thu, 06/20/2024 - 11:12

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Let me just say I don’t really regard myself as an anarchist thinker. I’m a derivative fellow traveller, let’s say. Anarchist thinkers have constantly referred to the American experience and to the ideal of Jeffersonian democracy very very favourably. You know, Jefferson’s concept that the best government is the government which governs least or Thoreau’s addition to that, that the best government is the one that doesn’t govern at all, is one that’s often repeated by anarchist thinkers through modern times.

However, the ideal of Jeffersonian democracy, putting aside the fact that it was a slave society, developed in an essentially pre-capitalist system, that is in a society in which there was no monopolistic control, there were no significant centers of private power. In fact it’s striking to go back and read today some of the classic libertarian texts. If one reads, say, Wilhelm von Humboldt’s critique of the State of 1792, a significant classic libertarian text that certainly inspired Mill, one finds that he doesn’t speak at all of the need to resist private concentration of power: rather he speaks of the need to resist the encroachment of coercive State power. And that is what one finds also in the early American tradition. But the reason is that that was the only kind of power there was."

https://archive.org/details/radicalprioritie0000unse/page/247/mode/1up?…
https://archive.org/details/radicalprioritie0000chom/page/247/mode/1up?…
https://archive.org/details/radicalprioritie0000chom_c1j5/page/213/mode…

anon (not verified) Sun, 07/28/2024 - 03:28

In reply to by anon (not verified)

https://archive.org/details/radicalprioritie0000unse/page/248

"So which of these two views is correct? I mean, is it necessary that anarchist concepts belong to the pre-industrial phase of human society, or is anarchism the rational mode of organization for a highly advanced industrial society? Well, I myself believe the latter, that is, I think that industrialization and the advance of technology raise possibilities for self-management over a broad scale that simply didn’t exist in an earlier period. And that in fact this is precisely the rational mode for an advanced and complex industrial society, one in which workers can very well become masters of their own immediate affairs, that is, in direction and control of the shop, but also can be in a position to make the major substantive decisions concerning the structure of the economy, concerning social institutions, concerning planning regionally and beyond. At present, institutions do not permit them to have control over the requisite information, and the relevant training to understand these matters. A good deal could be automated. Much of the necessary work that is required to keep a decent level of social life going can be consigned to machines — at least in principle — which means humans can be free to undertake the kind of creative work which may not have been possible, objectively, in the early stages of the industrial revolution."

anon (not verified) Sun, 06/16/2024 - 07:45

Chomsky, bought and paid for. Simple. Like all well-known media types, he was put there.

anon (not verified) Sun, 06/16/2024 - 08:19

Why does this man deserves an article, on an anarchist site, in 2024? Just because the author calls him an anarchist? Why aren't we having Right-wing "anarchist" Youtubers while we're at it?

I'll repeat the most salient points from Chumpsky's long list of good reasons to avoid him:

- defended notorious Holocaust-deniers in the'90s, and remained unapologetic about it;

- very close relations with Jeffrey Epstein... that's "none of our business";

- MIT contracts with the defense industry, all the while doing his generic anti-imperialist, anti-militarist postuing;

- Generative Grammar theory of linguistics wasn't only proven wrong, but is such a retrograde, deterministic theory theory that Nazis would have much liked.

- repeated support for the Democrat Party, as stated elsewhere

anon (not verified) Sun, 06/16/2024 - 09:06

In reply to by anon (not verified)

> Why does this man deserves an article, on an anarchist site, in 2024?

For exactly these kinds of comments/conversations? To challenge what kind of anarchists he is (I wouldn't call him such but plenty of people do)? Obv anews shouldn't waste time doing this for every single "anarchist" but ol' noam is a household name. When he dies the narratives will be spun like silk so at least us grumpy anews trolls will have our say

anon (not verified) Sun, 06/16/2024 - 09:23

In reply to by anon (not verified)

He was a "household name" by mistake. Because those promoting him didn't read enough (or at all) into his pompuous false critique.

Also interesting how you degrade any of his critics as "grumpy trolls". As if the Professor hasn't been one for decades, in the first place.

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/17/2024 - 20:47

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Oh my bad.. can't believe I'm reading such a stupid argument.

"You exposed this guy's bullshit, yeeeaaaaa? But how many books have YOU published and how many Followers you got, HUUUH? Sho us yo dick for the measuring contest!"

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/17/2024 - 14:00

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Picks on Chomsky for his imperfections asking "why is this posted here," when people are getting articles in the feed about shitting on playgrounds.

It's relevant whether you like it or not. A lot of people got into or were helped along the anarchy path because of Chomsky. Including myself, and i am not a leftist.

Which is obviously ironic cause I'm sure whose ever angry posting about this has helped around zero people down that path. Even imperfectly.

Chomsky went the way a lot of people from more conservative generations went. For someone who speaks like a grand knower of all things, this should not surprise you.

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/17/2024 - 20:55

In reply to by anon (not verified)

He even fucking denied it himself.

What inherently-anarchistic ideas has he ever brought? I can't recall any theory or even position he had that was anarchist. Let's discuss that, instead of auto-assuming he's anarchist because some librarian said so.

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 06/17/2024 - 14:13

In reply to by anon (not verified)

critique is the easy part, the what-do is much trickier

and chomsky wasn't even that good at critique except when talking about the big bads like US military hegemony and its rationalizations. put another way, the kinds of topics where pointing out that something is bad, or the establishment is lying, shouldn't be new information to a radical. we all had to start somewhere but COME ON ...

nobody's even brought up the epstein plane yet...

anarcho (not verified) Tue, 06/18/2024 - 01:51

Most of these comments are pathetic. The reference to MIT is particularly poor -- "person has job" shock. While I am well aware of the limitations of certain aspects of Chomsky's politics, he has introduced more people to anarchist ideas than anyone commenting here has. His critiques of Western Imperialism remain important. There is a reason why he is hated in right-wing circles and it will be a sad day when he is no longer here.

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/18/2024 - 03:46

In reply to by anarcho (not verified)

It's just one or two people who seethe with resentment on this site and post on just about every active thread.

Couple that with actual paid trolls and it's hard to discern what's really out there in the ether.

lumpy (not verified) Tue, 06/18/2024 - 12:42

In reply to by anon (not verified)

what's really out there ... is a whole bunch of extremely embarrassing stop-think

like, this argument that person is floating? "Chomsky radicalizes a lot of normies"?

I remember when that arguement was worth anything, it was BEFORE the epstein thing.

like ... catch tf up. you're just stuck in an emotional place from many years ago. absorb new information. do better.

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/18/2024 - 14:06

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Nobody cares about Epstein. A lot of famous jews likely had contact with the guy. It seems pretty self explanatory. I for one don't care either way cause the point which you clearly missed is, this article is worth posting because of his history.

No anarchists are sharing his old conservative lib shit. It's not about getting with the times. It's about discerning even a small amount of a timeline.

You burn yourself on a stove and quit cooking too?

lumpy (not verified) Tue, 06/18/2024 - 16:06

In reply to by anon (not verified)

your takes are trash

do you even want to examine whether you're handwaving dismissively at a the mossad thing or the human trafficking thing? either way, the guy's legacy is in ruins and we're not afraid of ruins around here. "the lion of the left", that's fukin rich

i remember a quote from the man himself, about how he always felt uncomfortable and like a fraud when people idolized him instead of the real activists who would tirelessly organize his speaking engagements and otherwise be doing the real shit.

this was from his own mouth, back when his brain worked better

anon (not verified) Sun, 06/23/2024 - 21:31

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Nobody cares about Epstein. A lot of famous jews likely had contact with the guy. It seems pretty self explanatory."

Well I do, and some others are... The difference between Chumpsky and other Epstein celeb acquaintances is the former was not only unapologetic about it but had apparently something to hide. Of course there were tons of people who dealt with Epstein one way or another, doesn't mean they went to his island. Even Bill Gates somewhat came clean about it without denial, tho the guy has always been way better at PR. Nowhere he went as low as saying "me and Epstein is none of your business".

SirEinzige Sun, 06/23/2024 - 19:58

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

But the Epstein affair is likely a nothingburger. I will provocatively predict that in 25 years or so when this whole anti-sex hysteria dies down the Epstein affair will be seen as part of the whole sex trafficking nonsense narrative(albeit not as dumb as the more Qtarded conspiracies). There probably were indiscretions but the people who fag out over age gaps and what are essentially historical young adult females will be seen as products of their time if we ever make it to another socially radical age like the 1970s. They will be the new early 20th century mindsets.

The Daniel Everett affair(which I might talk about in another post) is an actual issue with Chomsky because it involves his Brazilia onlyfans essentially using the state against a linguistic opponent.

Tristram (not verified) Sun, 06/23/2024 - 21:39

In reply to by SirEinzige

Chom(p)sky is an embarrassing figure, if he was a real anarch he would tell his Brahzillian buddies to stfu, but no, his whole being is built upon his absurd Universal Grammar,,,,that whole premise is embarrassing, he has never lived with a non-European in any of his 89 years, which I have when I sought repose from the decrepit Western moral dictatorships and their democratic mentally scurvinous slaves!

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/18/2024 - 04:52

Anyone read these who can speak to whether or not they're any good?
https://www.activedistributionshop.org/product/chomsky-oracle-of-the-st…

"The essays collected in this booklet are posts and articles from The Rancid Honeytrap and the Anarchist Library, which, as of the time of this printing, can be found here: ohtarzie.wordpress.com and theanarchistlibrary.org respectively, lastly we‘ve added an article from Libcom, reacting to one of Chomsky‘s more recent quotes about the radical left."

anon (not verified) Thu, 06/20/2024 - 10:39

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Decoding Chomsky: Science and Revolutionary Politics is a 2016 book by the anthropologist Chris Knight on Noam Chomsky's approach to politics and science. Knight admires Chomsky's politics, but argues that his linguistic theories were influenced in damaging ways by his immersion since the early 1950s in an intellectual culture heavily dominated by US military priorities, an immersion deepened when Chomsky secured employment in a Pentagon-funded electronics laboratory in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoding_Chomsky

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
(
i
4
t
Z
t
W
c
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.