Changes

Chomsky has stated that his "personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism" and he has praised libertarian socialism.

Chomsky has stated that his "personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism" and he has praised libertarian socialism.

His opponents accuse him of expressing admiration for governmental systems such as the Soviet Union, Chinese and Cambodian governments which are characterized by central control, xenophobia, and rejection of free expression, though he has openly expressed opposition to the Soviet Union and other regimes characterized by authoritarianism, arguing that they are not legitimate forms of socialism.<ref>http://chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm</ref> He also counters that he is merely pointing out the West's own crimes and not condoning authoritarian governments that the West opposes. His stated justification for this is that criticism of other authoritarian governments will do nothing except give the United States ammunition against other countries, while being able to freely ignore their own crimes, whereas criticism of his own country may bring about what he considers to be positive reform. Chomsky identifies himself as a "libertarian socialist" who is opposed to both neoliberalism and authoritarianism.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19446</ref> Despite being very far to the left, even Chomsky has his limits, in particular how far things should go if the Proletariat were to take over in a Communist revolution, which was best demonstrated during a blind debate with French post-structuralist philosopher [[Michel Foucault]], where the latter's answers in relation to what should happen if the Proletariat were to take over shocked even him, as well as admitting after the debate that he "felt like [Chomsky] was talking to someone who didn’t inhabit the same moral universe." Specifically, the responses in question were "When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the proletariat will exert towards the classes over which it has just triumphed, a violent, dictatorial and even bloody power. I can’t see what objection one could make to this",<ref>https://stream.org/foucault-intellectuals-venerate-sado-masochistic-suicidal-drug-addict/</ref> as well as replying to Chomsky's insistence that the proletariat "must act as sensitive and responsible human beings" that such ideas as responsibility, sensitivity, justice, and law were merely “tokens of ideology” that completely lacked legitimacy as well as stating “The proletariat doesn’t wage war against the ruling class because it considers such a war to be just,” he argued. “The proletariat makes war with the ruling class because … it wants to take power.”<ref>http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-perversions-of-M--Foucault-4714</ref>

His opponents accuse him of expressing admiration for governmental systems such as the Soviet Union, Chinese and Cambodian governments which are characterized by central control, xenophobia, and rejection of free expression, though he has openly expressed opposition to the Soviet Union and other regimes characterized by authoritarianism, arguing that they are not legitimate forms of socialism.<ref>http://chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm</ref> He also counters that he is merely pointing out the West's own crimes and not condoning authoritarian governments that the West opposes. His stated justification for this is that criticism of other authoritarian governments will do nothing except give the United States ammunition against other countries, while being able to freely ignore their own crimes, whereas criticism of his own country may bring about what he considers to be positive reform. Chomsky identifies himself as a "libertarian socialist" who is opposed to both neoliberalism and authoritarianism.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19446</ref>

 

Despite being very far to the left, even Chomsky had his limits, in particular regarding how far things should go if the Proletariat were to take over in a Communist revolution, which was best demonstrated during a 1971 blind debate with French post-structuralist philosopher [[Michel Foucault]], where the latter's answers in relation to what should happen if the Proletariat were to take over shocked even him, as well as admitting after the debate that he "felt like [Chomsky] was talking to someone who didn’t inhabit the same moral universe." Specifically, the responses in question were "When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the proletariat will exert towards the classes over which it has just triumphed, a violent, dictatorial and even bloody power. I can’t see what objection one could make to this",<ref>https://stream.org/foucault-intellectuals-venerate-sado-masochistic-suicidal-drug-addict/</ref> as well as replying to Chomsky's insistence that the proletariat "must act as sensitive and responsible human beings" that such ideas as responsibility, sensitivity, justice, and law were merely “tokens of ideology” that completely lacked legitimacy as well as stating “The proletariat doesn’t wage war against the ruling class because it considers such a war to be just,” he argued. “The proletariat makes war with the ruling class because … it wants to take power.”<ref>http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-perversions-of-M--Foucault-4714</ref>

=== Anti-Semitism ===

=== Anti-Semitism ===