Noam Chomsky, Who Rules the World? (2016) — a book review

27 June 2016

A too loosely framed — sometimes mildly incoherent — even lazy presentation

On the positive side, Professor Noam Chomsky is a treasure to American social conscience. His critiques of unregulated capitalism and militaristic America helpfully go against our deluded grain.

On the negative, Who Rules the World is not a cogent presentation of his thinking.

Stylistically irritating?

Professor Chomsky, in my experience, does his most persuasive reasoning when confronted with interviewers who (a) keep him on intellectual point and (b) encourage him to produce the historical evidence that supports his conclusions.

Otherwise, it seems as if the depth and breadth of his knowledge causes him to meander almost randomly. Like a flitting butterfly sipping nectar.

I can see why politically conservative, disciplined thinkers find the man irritating. Not only do they object to his conclusions, they find his method of reaching them insubstantial.

For example — asking too much of readers

Chomsky’s abbreviated style does not provide readers with enough historical detail.

He frequently names a country or region and expects us to recognize what event and which specifics he is addressing.

He apparently trusts (a) that we will completely remember what he seems to be referring to and (b) that we will also extract those points that he wants to address.

This is challenging enough for people Professor Chomsky’s age. Young people, who were not even alive when most of these things happened, will flounder.

Chomsky also too selectively picks favorable crumbs that support his points. He often leaves out competing swaths of detail that arguably tend the other way. Politically conservative readers may decide that he is overly biased.

Making my criticisms in (arguably unfair) satirical fashion

Pretend this is Chomsky’s writing:

Remember Central America? That proved that President Reagan was a tool of the neoliberal establishment. And think of his treatment of Nelson Mandela. And South Africa.

Did I tell you about Cuba?

Pigs, missiles and all that. And Vietnam. Don’t forget Vietnam. Can’t have the virus of leftist nationalism spreading.

Here’s a quote from Mr. YYY proving what I just said. I will ignore what Mr. XXX and Ms. RRR had to say about the same thing. (Unless, of course, I discover later on in this essay that one of the latter’s arguments proves what a rat-faced fink he was.)

My gosh, wasn’t the near nuke-melt showdown over Cuba a near thing? And almost no one found out that the Kennedy Brothers started it all. How’s that for contrarian truth-telling?

Let me here (somewhat randomly) throw in the American Government’s rejection of Stalin’s offer to give us East Germany in return for keeping NATO away from Soviet borders. We escalated American armaments instead.

Terrible, just terrible. So dangerous to world survival.

Then there are those Zionists continually stealing land from Palestinians. And all the “mowing the lawn” operations that Israel conducts. Gargantuan violations of the principles that Israel was founded upon.

Tsch, tsch, tsch.

Of course, the U.S. supports this badness as a matter of national policy.

Oh my, oh my.

And don’t get me started on nukes and climate change. We’re all (maybe) gonna die.

A brief series of extracts from the book

The following quotes come from the chapter entitled, “Is America Over?”

These selections probably make more sense here — in highly edited form — than they do in Chomsky's full text:

Some significant anniversaries are solemnly commemorated — Japan’s attack on . . . Pearl Harbor, for example. Others are ignored . . . .

[But] There was no commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s decision to launch the most destructive and murderous act of aggression of the post-World War II period: the invasion of South Vietnam, and later all of Indochina, leaving millions dead and four countries devastated . . . .

By 1977, President Carter aroused little notice when he explained that we owe Vietnam “no debt” because the destruction was mutual.”

There are important lessons in all this for today . . . .

One lesson is that to understand what is happening we should attend not only to critical events of the real world, often dismissed from history, but also to what leaders and elite opinion believe, however tinged with fantasy.

Another lesson is that alongside the flights of fancy concocted to terrify and mobilize the public . . . there is also geostrategic planning based on principles that are rational and stable over long periods because they are rooted in stable institutions . . . .

The Iraq war is an instructive case.

Let us keep to the most prestigious of the establishment journals, Foreign Affairs.

[Chomsky here wanders into a zig-zag review of comparative geopolitical power around the world.]

American decline is real, although the apocalyptic version of it reflects the familiar ruling-class perception that anything short of total control amounts to total disaster.

But the problems China faces are serious.

Demography is only one of many serious problems ahead. And for India, the problems are even more severe.

George Kennan . . . . observed that the central policy goal of the United States should be to maintain the “position of disparity” that separated our enormous wealth from the poverty of others.

The most important victory of the Indochina wars was in 1965, when a U.S.-backed military coup in Indonesia led by General Suharto carried out massive crimes that were compared by the CIA to those of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

It is understandable that Palestinian rights should be marginalized in U.S. policy and discourse. Palestinians have no wealth or power.

This stroboscopic reasoning goes on repetitively throughout the book

The essays in Who Rules the World frequently return to a subject or event previously spoken to. But without acknowledging the existence of the earlier essay. And (again) without providing full-enough historical context.

Merits

Chomsky provides enticing scraps of little-known evidence that support his conclusions. These are usually properly cited (sourced) in a footnote.

Not recommended — except to Noam Chomsky fans

Who Rules the World? is too casually assembled an effort. Its loose style probably does not justify much attention from the majority of readers.

Although I agree with the spirit and conclusions of Professor Chomsky’s long-standing critique of American economic and foreign policy, I do not think that Who Rules the World very capably argues his views.

This collection of poorly linked, rambling essays mainly supports other people’s characterization of Chomsky as a scatter-brained lefty.

In Chomsky’s defense, the Establishment’s self-serving oppression of humanity occurs daily. Even motivated opponents find it impossible to delineate all of its transgressions. Perhaps Professor Chomsky did the impatient best that one can do at the elderly end of life.

Since I belong to this older group, I am not criticizing the Professor’s inferred state of mind. I share it. Which is why I will keep my copy of Who Rules the World. The book serves as a handy source of abbreviated references to armed Plutocracy’s many wrongs.

For a much more coherent, better argued book that addresses many of the same issues, consider Andrew Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History (2016).

PeteFree.com

Noam Chomsky, Who Rules the World? (2016) — a book review