Chomsky's response to Richard Herrnstein's views on intelligence and IQ. Originally appeared in Ramparts July 1972.
"IN THE TEN MONTHS SINCE DR. RICHARD HERRNSTEIN'S article "I.Q." first appeared in the Atlantic, it has become the focus of an intriguing controversy, predictably intense but surprisingly sustained.
The new terrain of American politics (O'Brien, Jim)
Retreat from the social wage human services in the 1980's (Withorn, Ann)
Economic crisis and conservative economic policies US capitalism in the 1980's (Campen, Jim)
Billboards of the future (Ewen, Stuart)
The continuing burden of race a review (Marable, Manning)
In an ongoing dispute, Chomsky responds to Zizek claiming that he didn't "know a guy who was so often empirically wrong" as Chomsky, and in particular a claim that Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge.
I've received a number of requests to comment on the post: “Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chomsky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empirically Wrong’” (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/slavoj-zizek-responds-to-noam-chomsky.html).
Check out this interview with Noam Chomsky about the growing housing justice movement, the future of Occupy, and how direct action can play into all of this.
As a commentator, educator, public intellectual, and one of the best-known anarchist voices in the U.S., Noam Chomsky has become a defining perspective as social movements develop. His analysis of the shift in global capitalism, and our own role in its flux, has seen a recharge of importance as we entered the “new normal” of the post-2008 economy.
As the US election approaches, Noam Chomsky examines how similar the two candidates are on the biggest issues, and points out that only mass action, not voting, can change things.
With the quadrennial presidential election extravaganza reaching its peak, it's useful to ask how the political campaigns are dealing with the most crucial issues we face. The simple answer is: badly, or not at all. If so, some important questions arise: why, and what can we do about it?
Noam Chomsky's political writings are extremely useful for any understanding of the crimes of US imperialism. But his scientific work, whose political implications Chomsky denies, have been coming under increasing criticism from the left.
Recently an academic Marxist author managed to get an interesting critique of Chomsky into The Times Literary Supplement. It raises some interesting concerns.
HOW NOAM CHOMSKY'S WORLD WORKS by David Hawkes
This book is a collection of essays by and interviews on anarchism. The bulk of the items have been published elsewhere but some are presented here for the first time.
Now it is important to remember that Chomsky himself does not consider himself an anarchist theoretician (i.e. someone who creates theories about anarchism) but rather an intellectual who is an anarchist and who is prepared to give his views on subjects from an anarchist perspective.
For over fifty years, Noam Chomsky has been exposing the crimes of the United States military across the world. Less well known is the fact that throughout this time, he was working in an electronics laboratory funded primarily by that same military. This article investigates the paradox, arguing that the Pentagon’s institutional support for Chomsky’s scientific work explains the special passion driving his political stance.
Noam Chomsky: Politics or Science?
Today for the nth time in my life I woke up to a headline discussing the latest U.S. threat to bomb Iran. Every time I see a headline like this I am reminded of an interview with Noam Chomsky in which he is asked about the current Iran situation.
Noam Chomsky discusses the future of the Occupy Movement.
This is the transcript of a discussion that took place earlier this year between Noam Chomsky and Occupy supporters Mikal Kamil and Ian Escuela for InterOccupy, an organisation that provides links between supporters of the Occupy movement around the world.