Chomsky Reassessed?

When Reasoned Discussion Becomes Forbidden

Photo credit: Andrea Womack

One of the late acts of Noam Chomsky’s incredible life was to become one of thirty initial co-signers of a document titled “Twenty Theses for Liberation.” Noam didn’t agree with every word, nor did any of its co-signers, not even those who contributed, as Noam did, to its actual words. All the co-signers, including Noam, did agree, however, on the aim. Propel an ongoing conversation to continually update the broadly shared vision and strategy. Work to unify a growing left. Win a new world.

That document (still available at 4liberation.org) accrued three hundred signers, including ten organizations: Diem25, Academy of Democratic Modernity, Meta Center for Post Capitalist Civilization, Cooperation Jackson, Collaboration for Change, Srsly Wrong, Organizaciija Z’s Participatorno Druzbo, Real Utopia, Demokraisk Omstållning, and ZNetwork.The document highlights gender, race, class, authority, ecology, and internationalism. It does not elevate anyone above the rest. It urges mutual aid, collective support, listening, empathy, patient collective self-correction, and outreach. So did Noam lie when he signed it?

As I signed it, I wondered, what if everyone who has learned from Noam and who has appreciated his efforts over the decades decided to give the Twenty Theses a close read? What if lots, and then lots more, decided to sign it and to bring it to still greater attention? Perhaps that could help put movements on a path to change Noam’s epitaph, which he not long ago said he would like to be “He Tried,” to instead be “He Helped.” And to change all of ours as well, when our time comes, to “We Helped” by way of going from 300 signers to 3,000 and then to tens and hundreds of thousands and more, all committed to developing and enacting a shared vision and strategy. All working to unite diverse movements to undertake intersecting, mutually supportive campaigns. All seeking to win a new world that each helps all to win. Did Noam lie when he signed that? And in his lifetime of literally countless words and deeds, did he lie tens of thousands of times?

I also thought to myself back when Noam signed on, perhaps such actions could give meaning to the famous advisoryfrom Mother Jones, “don’t mourn, organize.” Can we celebrate Chomsky’s life, celebrate all our lives, but also and more importantly apply and expand his and our wisdom? Can we enlarge upon his and our commitment in the days, weeks, months, and years to come? If we don’t take that particular document’s implicit path, I am confident that Noam would suggest that we should take some other shared path to reach the same revolutionary end, to reach a truly new world.

But now, some people—I know not how many, I know not who—are, I have been told, taking a different path, at least regarding Noam. They say that Noam isn’t worth our attention, much less our praise and emulation. Noam, they say, is just another elite male misogynist perpetrator of the system that he only pretended to hate. Is such a conclusion warranted? Or is there something about so easily concluding that that is itself disturbing?

Am I exaggerating? I am no social media maven, quite the opposite, but I don’t think I am exaggerating. People have expressed horror. Anger. Disgust. How could he? Why did he? And have concluded I feel so deceived. So sullied. I have no further respect or time for him. Everything short of incinerating books. And so on.

I think that if Noam could—supposing that he would reply at all—he would say, if that’s your conclusion about me, so be it, but please don’t let it deter you from travelling a good and needed activist organizing path. Pushed, I think he might add, I hope your new opinion won’t lead you to dismiss things I have written that might prove helpful to you in your journey.

I think if Noam could communicate—which he cannot and has been unable to do since he suffered a devastating stroke in June 2023—he would say something like that, and he would then add that we should get on with fighting reaction and seeking another world. And while I would understand and even appreciate if he was able to and did express something like that, I would have to disagree with his choice just a bit.

Of course, Trump, Clinton, and many others named in the various Epstein documents are horribly compromised criminal fellow travellers, though of course they would be criminal even if they were not so named, and indeed even if they had managed to avoid Epstein entirely, or even if they had ridiculed and dismissed Epstein. Epstein was a sex trafficker, a woman defiler, and a rapist thug. He was like Trump in his misogyny, in addition to being a billionaire or a near-billionaire exploiter, also like Trump. Was Clinton another of the same ilk? Albeit less rich? I don’t know, but I suppose it could be the case given what we do know. Victims of vile misogyny on Epstein’s scale, or really on any scale at all, deserve respect and aid. Perpetrators of vile misogyny deserve abhorrence. More to the point, however, the institutions that produce, sustain, and indeed reward vile misogyny deserve replacement.

And then there is Noam Chomsky. How do we decide about him? Surely it would be better had he never met Epstein. But he did. So what does he deserve? To be reviled and cancelled? Maybe you have experienced Noam. Or before casting judgment, maybe you have investigated to discover what you weren’t earlier, even yet alive to experience. In either case, you would see a life that spanned almost a century. During that life, on one side, let’s call it side one, you would see social contributions which exceed those of almost anyone else you can think of. You would see that is, massive attention to addressing injustice to the point of occupying so much of his time that there was barely any left for anything else. On the other side, call it side two, what do we actually have to weigh against all that? A couple of pictures and some letters. One can, I am aware, if one wants to, extrapolate with no real reason or evidence from the pictures and the letters to a hypothesis that Chomsky condoned or at least didn’t give a damn about Epstein’s vile crimes, or about Bannon’s, for that matter. And if you then somehow concluded that your hypothesis was the truth, I suppose you might write as some people have written about him. And, indeed, mainstream media are certainly trying to fuel just that outcome, albeit more delicately. It is in their interest. He has been their enemy. And he can’t fight back. I understand their inclination.

But so too, I am told, are some people who liked and learned from and even hugely admired Noam Chomsky now dismissing him. Perhaps some of them feel secure in concluding thusly because they know that many men, and indeed even many men who don’t and who would never engage in Epstein-like behavior, nonetheless do feel that for someone else to engage in such vile behavior toward women doesn’t matter much. If that is true for many men, and it is, why not for Noam, a sincere critic may think? But certainly that conclusion does not hold for all men. For example, not for you, dear reader. So, why would some progressives, some leftists, and even some who have been greatly influenced by or were even openly indebted to Noam up to moments ago, now come to such a disparaging conclusion about him? Why would they become outraged at him and more?

I wonder, with side one of the scale easily accessible, easily available, how does anyone see remotely enough “evidence” on side two to come to such a conclusion? Posts about this are remarkably redundant. There is so little bad we can say about Noam, even twisting and misstating from decades and decades of his dissident actions, from hundreds of his speeches and interviews, from thousands of his articles, and from a dozen of his books. We find barely anything to rail at, much less to impute personal failings from, so to pile on, of course, one has to repeat. He supported the butcher Pol Pot. He supported the hateful holocaust denier Faurisson. And now he supported the child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. But there is a problem with the repetitions. Each of those claims is seriously false. I admit, one can cherry-pick some comments, or perhaps even some actions, not to mention some pictures, and spin them so they appear consistent with the above claims. Social media nurtures and excels at doing that.

Okay, you may say, maybe he still is who I earlier thought he was, but not if there is no other explanation for why he would go on a jet with Epstein, or would stand seemingly laughing next to Bannon. Guilty until proven innocent! What’s left without another explanation? A critic announces that Noam liked these barbarians. Or even, he was fascism’s fellow traveller.

Well, I actually know Noam quite well, and have done so for over half a century. And yes, I can think of other explanations than that he is just another male of the worst sort. A male who abetted, ignored, or even was unmoved by the plight of women at the hands of these types of maniacs, indeed, at the hands of far less maniacal folks, all within the rubric and tentacles of patriarchal institutions and culture that exists, still, all around everyone. Guilty until proven innocent.

So, here is another explanation. Noam routinely related to all sorts of stuff and people that most of us would never go near. If you asked him directly or in a letter, even seriously tone deaf or antagonistic or hostile questions, you got a serious, careful, civil answer, often running to a few pages. He wrote dozens and then more dozens of such letters. Eachweek. You may have gotten one. And then after replies, he would answer again. Not exactly elitist.

But, more, Noam would burrow into piles and piles of reportage of violent and disgusting evil to the point that I used to wonder how he could immerse so far in it, over and over, and not be undone by the proximity. How could he not become immobilized, cynical, despondent? The disgusting gore, inhumanity and immorality he would research and dissect were enormous. To do so was not fun. It was not fulfilling. It did not expand his horizons. So why persist? Noam’s answer: If we are to counter the lies and violence, and especially if we are to do better, such reporting is needed. The task needs doing, and it turns out that I am able to do it. So I do.

Sounds impressive. Perhaps even exemplary. But you may still wonder, why would Noam actually want to talk to Bannon, for example, if in his proximity? Or to Epstein? Explanation one: he admired Bannon and Epstein and wanted to aid them, or he even just enjoyed being around such people. Explanation two: He was curious, and given the chance, he wanted to learn things useful to his work of dismantling lies and violence. When face-to-face, even with the Devil, Noam would be civil. It was his way. So I admit that I find it hard to fathom why explanation one beats out explanation two, given the existence of Noam’s history. I get why mainstream media would joyously rush toward the disparaging explanation, though remarkably, they are lagging well behind some leftists. But I don’t get why anyone who wants to win a new world and who knows anything of Noam would rush there as well. Is this just the left’s self-defeating circular firing squad dynamic at work? Is it cancel culture on steroids? You did or said something different from what I think I would have done or said. You are therefore guilty. To contest the claim. To offer contrary information? Also guilty.

If someone interviews a thug on a podcast, interviews even a well-dressed, affable Devil such as Henry Kissinger or Bill Clinton, should we deduce that the interviewer supports the thug despite the fact that he has always demonstrably done the opposite? Should we jump to the disparaging conclusion, even if we don’t know anything about the interviewer, much less if we know the interviewer has given his all to fighting all kinds of injustice and immorality? In the latter case, shouldn’t we feel even a nudge toward thinking the interviewer supports the thug? And what about people whom we think, for whatever reason, may be perpetrators? Aren’t they innocent until proven guilty? Or are they guilty by definition?

I apologize for this, but it brings us to what I think may actually deserve some discussion, unlike what is, I have been told, actually being discussed. On the one hand, the crimes of Epstein and his actual cohorts in decrepit behavior, like Trump, and also the actual abettors of it—for example, JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Mellon, and Barclays that kept supporting Epstein to benefit from his actions even after knowing details of those actions—all deserve critical attention. The well-being and desires of their victims deserve supportive attention. But I wonder, what about the speed and sometimes the outraged, indignant passion with which a subset of folks have rushed to judgment about Noam? Or about anyone else, for that matter? Doesn’t that deserve some careful and introspective attention?

Do you remember all the noise around the country that was directed at Noam (and at others, too) when he said he would hold his nose and vote for the lesser evil, Clinton, against Trump if Massachusetts were a swing state? Suddenly, people whose views on the U.S. political system owed greatly, and in some cases even immeasurably to him, decided that he was now a sell-out liberal and perhaps he even was that all along. The idea that there might be a good reason for his approach other than a fabricated reason that they could disparage was, for a time, unthinkable. He disagreed with us. He must have sold out. It is a familiar approach.

So about all this, and about so much more involving interpersonal and inter-group judgements that we all know of—for me, at least, a question arises. Why do some of us so often quickly assume the worst interpretation of others based on meager information and even against massive evidence that supports the opposite interpretation? And why do we then decide that our quick rush to assume the worst unearthed truth with a capital T? And why do we next act as though anyone who thinks otherwise must be some kind of idiot or traitor? No evidence is needed. No logical reason is necessary. Reasoned discussion even becomes forbidden.

The upshot is that when people ask me what’s with Noam? How could he pal around with Epstein and Bannon? Why isn’t he saying anything to explain his choices? How could he fool us for so long? I have been disinclined to grace the questions with a response since to do so might be taken to mean that to ask the questions, much less to rush to judgment about the situation, is wise, radical, and warranted.

But now, some of what I take to be relevant answers. Noam has always hated injustice, hypocrisy, and lying. But he hasn’t very often drifted into hating the perpetrators. Just the system. There were, however, some exceptions. And in every case, his personal hostility would go toward so-called “intellectuals,” academics, and elites. He raged at the “cultured” elites. They aroused his hate. Ironic, isn’t it? Seventy years of that, and suddenly, people claim he is palling around with them.

Knowing him before, during, and after each claimed horrible deviation, I am confident that Noam’s hate for sexism, misogyny, racism, exploitation and fascism didn’t lose even a tiny fraction of its passion and clarity due to his “time spent with” Epstein and/or Bannon. Just like his understanding of the American political system didn’t somehow disappear when he said we should vote for the lesser evil in swing states. And just like his compassion for victims of Pol Pot didn’t decline when he considered the Western manipulative, hypocritical take on Cambodia’s history. And just like his compassion for victims of Nazism didn’t diminish when he defended Faurisson’s free speech. And of course, Chomsky isn’t saying anything now, because he can’t. And as to fooling us, what can I say? He never fooled me. I don’t know about you. He never believed in fooling anyone about anything. Anyone, and especially intellectuals and elites trying to foolpeople with arcane terminology or fancy posturing, and even with blatant lies, was another thing Noam hated. More, he absolutely hated and avoided like the plague, perhaps at times even a bit too much, using his high place in people’s estimates, and his considerable clout and platform to benefit himself, or even to benefit friends and others. He shunned employing anything other than facts and reasoning, certainly never reputation or position. He was severely self-conscious about abusing his stature. He was even severely careful giving advice, lest anyone accept it uncritically. Finally, Noam did what most others in universities feared to do, over and over. And yes, when he was older and “established,” you might quite reasonably point out that his national and international stature made being fired or jailed unlikely. But when he was younger, during the Vietnam War, he expected to be jailed for a long time, and he prepared his family for what he thought was coming. But he didn’t temper his voice an iota.

That is the Noam I know, so when I hear about some people’s current concerns. When I see some of the aggressive, disparaging content. I am sad at the confused feelings of betrayal and violation they convey, at the self- and socially-destructive cancelling they seem to propose, at the personal reflexiveness of it all, and thus at the losses for those who proclaim the dismissive conclusions or who uncritically take them as gospel. And I feel the approach engenders all that ought to be addressed. When I am then told that I should not say a word about it because if I do, I will be savaged, perhaps even shunned as an apologist for misogyny, perhaps even by some friends, I wonder—would that really happen? Isn’t that kind of behavior a possibility we should not succumb to? Isn’t it an approach we ought to challenge?

I haven’t had many live “heroes.” But when I was a kid, Willie Mays, the Say Hey Kid, was one. Later, Muhammad Ali was another. Something about them, beyond their skill, though I was certainly awed by that, hooked me. Would I look upon them with some bias? I knew I shouldn’t, but I probably did. But of course, our heroes are not Gods. Of course, they can be wrong and can even do wrong.

Later, I admit, Noam too became a “hero” to me. We’re not supposed to have any, yet I have had some. But Noam was not at a distance. He was a hero as a friend, as a partner in various pursuits, and as a long-time mentor. And Noam was a hero to me, not for his undeniably incredible mind, though I was certainly awed by that. Rather, it was for his integrity, his honesty, his choices. His persistence. And I had another live “hero” too. Bob Dylan. There was the magic and meaning of his words and voice, how they moved and influenced me. From a distance, how they awed me. But it wasn’t just his words. It was also the militant pursuit of his own way, even at high personal cost. Even when his way sometimes diverged from ways I appreciated. I don’t know, but I don’t think Willie Mays ever got dismissed. Ali certainly did. Politics. So did Dylan. Politics. And of course, Noam too. Politics. Does politics have a special proclivity for causing such dismissive dynamics? Perhaps that is worth thinking about.

Of course, I take for granted that none of my heroes were or are saints. How can anyone be a saint, living in the world we all inhabit? But one of them did answer his critics.

The song, “Positively Fourth Street,” refers to Greenwich Village, where Folk lovers decided that they no longer loved Bob Dylan when he went electric. Loved him one day. Hated him the next. They called him a traitor. They felt abandoned. Sold out. Jilted. Thus the passion. They called him Judas. Sound familiar?

I will pull just a little from Dylan’s sonic reply. I highly recommend listening to the whole thing. The music and voice fit and amplify the words. So Dylan replied to his detractors…with this last verse…

I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
You’d know what a drag it is to see you

Noam would never say such a thing. Would he think it? I don’t know. Would he be justified in thinking it? You decide.