Chomsky's typology with respect to people and power seems correct: there are those who validate the power structure and are respected during their lifetimes, and those who do not conform to the status quo and are reviled and marginalized. The latter may find respect decades or centuries later. 

He adds that there are three sides to any revolution: the powerful of one side, the powerful of the other side and the powerless people. I contend that there are at least four sides (if not many more) to any revolution because, at the very least, nonhuman species (or their human representatives) have an altogether different point of view. Turmoil and war certainly impact them as much, if not more, than any humans involved in the conflict; yet most people—including Chomksy--do not give their interests any weight whatsoever.

Chomsky claims that some indefinable quality called human nature exists, yet with the advent of genetic alterations and trans-species "creations," what would be the "nature" of a being who is comprised both of human genes and genes from another species? Marginal cases, such as these, must be examined in order to comply with rigorous philosophical inquiry, and to determine whether a theory is indeed true. He thinks that any postmodernist would agree that "human nature" exists; this is patently false as I am myself a postmodern.

Chomsky doesn't identify this component of human nature. Psychological hedonism seems to be the mechanism that describes human behavior, but this cannot be held as an exclusively human trait because it likewise holds for other living beings. Therefore, psychological hedonism cannot be touted as the crux of "human nature."

Chomsky advances the theory that a common morality exists among cultures, insinuating that this provides some sort of "natural" link between all human beings. He refers to the similarity of the people in the Amazon to people in the U.S. Yet isn't it plausible that with the advent of communication technology, particular "moral" beliefs have become dominant and spread throughout the world. Due to the influence of the west and the human predisposition towards conformity, there would be a high degree of "moral" correlation between cultures. A few headhunter societies exist today. Opinions about right and wrong were much more varied between the cultures of the past, before the world was so "small" and connected. Globalization has changed things drastically.

On this subject of morality, Chomksy mentions how even mass murderers of the past talked about doing things for the benefit of people; this is always the goal and thus shows moral similarity. Charles Manson claims his actions were done for the benefit of nonhuman species; his desire was to eliminate one third of humans because they are destroying animals and the environment. The Unabomber Ted Kaczynski was an anti-technology environmentalist  who may have acted on the benefit of those other than humans—at least, this is what his Manifesto indicates. Both have been severely marginalized and called insane—confirming Chomsky's notion about those who work outside the status quo. Simply standing up for indigent humans is not an anti-status quo stance; otherwise respected and powerful politicians would not hold this view. Many do.

Chomksy then goes on to talk about all of the direct action work that is taking place: all in the name of human liberation. He fails to mention that there are those working for nonhuman liberation.

His criticisms against the status quo are much less powerful because he himself seems to have bought into the status quo. He fails to mention the truly powerless of our world: nonhuman beings. He concentrates only on the human species.

 Back to Chomsky Article

Top of Page