Masters of Mankind: Essays and Lectures, 1969-2013

I didn't find Noam Chomsky as lucid as the hype around him would suggest. It seems that his big gripe is that so-called Democracies are actually Republics. That doesn't make them evil. It makes them Republics. In order to persuade, he has to show that Democracies are likely to be better than Republics by some measurable standard other than they are more Democratic.For the uninitiated, a Republic such as the Roman Republic and the American Republic are not Democracies, nor are they representative Democracies. A very common mis-understanding is that Republic = representative Democracy. It is not. A Republic is a hybrid government with representative Democracy only being one of three elements. The tripartite government with checks and balances and disproportionate representation are derived from the analyses of the Roman Republic by Polybius, 2nd century author. He showed that the Republic was a combination of three simpler, traditional forms of government: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. In the Roman Republic this was the Consuls, Senate and tribunes+plebiscite. In the Original American Republic this was the presidency, the Senate and the House. The original Senate was not elected, but appointed and did not represent the people, but the states as states. In our current Republic, the House and Senate are now both Democratic and the aristocratic element is represented by the primary process in which only candidates approved by rich people get to run for office including the president.Is a Republic a better or worse form of government than a representative Democracy? I don't know. Apparently neither does Chomsky, but before I start criticizing a Republic for not being a Democracy I would like to know and clearly articulate the answer to that question.

Another set of concise, informative, frightening lectures of Chomsky. A companion volumn to his "Profit Over People" and just as enlightening and unsettling. It is impossible to conclude a preference between the two books. Now that I have both I would find it difficult to do without both. They may cover much of the same ground but provide each their own insights from different points of view. Perhaps there is newer information in this book than "Profit Over People" but while time has passed importance of issues has not.

Noam Chomsky is truly a national treasure. During the course of his prolific career, he has continually had the courage to speak the truth. What is most remarkable about his lectures and essays is the quality of the research, which validates the points he so eloquently makes. The incomparable depth of his knowledge makes everything Professor Chomsky speaks and writes about well worthy of our attention.

Masters of mankind provides keen insight into the workings and the motivations of leaders and opinion makers in the political and corporate spheres and the effects of their decisions on our body polity including social and economic consequences. The arguments are presented in a highly nuanced intellectual framework without obfuscation or rabid ideological demagoguery.

I am a Chomskian. I love him and all his work - whether on theoretical linguistics or on politics. I now have twenty different books of his and I still can't have enough of them. Long live Noam Chomsky. I wish him a very long and healthy life. May God bless you.

if you're looking at this book, you already have an idea of the complexity of his mind, and his ability to bring orbiting concepts together in a coherent manner. This collection of essays is no different.

liked the read

Chomsky could never have been President in this country. He has always been untouchable thru money or power. His integrity remains intact. Writing of his or about him herein are powerful.

This is a remarkable book....certainly provides strong alternative perspectives...which can only be good I feel....why not give it a go....

This man has changed many of my ideas of how the world works; this is a good if worrying read

the eternal chomsky

I like it

Der Leipziger Philosoph Georg Meggle hat den emeritierten Linguistik-Professor und politischen Aktivisten Noam Chomsky als den Voltaire unserer Tage bezeichnet. Damit ist über Chomskys Intellektualität und Integrität, seinen Sinn für Gerechtigkeit und die sich daraus zwangsläufig ergebenden Frontlinien zwischen ihm und dem politischen und journalistischen Establishment eigentlich schon alles gesagt.Die unfreundliche bis feindselige Haltung der Mehrzahl der deutschen Journalisten gegenüber Chomsky sollte nachdenklichen Deutschen schon Motivation genug sein, sich mit seinen Schriften auseinanderzusetzen. Diese Positionierung der deutschen Presse war auch Norman Finkelstein nicht entgangen und veranlaßte ihn zu dem Artikel «Chomsky at 80: The Shame and Cowardice of Germany's "quality press"». Damit waren in erster Linie FAZ, WELT, SZ und TAZ gemeint. Aber auch im Jahre 2014 war es kaum besser, als der Deutschlandfunk Chomsky als Verkünder "platter Verschwörungsthesen" und starren Gesinnungsethiker, der von der Aura des Antiamerikanismus lebe, zu diskreditieren versuchte. Die Mainstream-Presse hat den Vorteil der Überzahl. Kurioserweise zieht sie ihre Legitimation aus dem Umstand ihres hohen Marktanteils und aus ihrer verständnisvollen Einsicht in die Staatsräson. Man lese ergänzend zum vierten Beitrag in diesem Band "CONSENT WITHOUT CONSENT" Chomskys Klassiker  Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda (Open Media Series)  und von Glenn Greenwald das medienkritische Kapitel "THE FOURTH ESTATE" in  No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State , der selbstverständlich zu den Journalisten gehört, die Chomsky wohlgesonnen sind.Wenn auf die Tagespresse so wenig Verlaß ist, sind Bücher wie dieses um so wichtiger für die Demokratie. In ihm wird nicht nur für eine friedliche Konfliktlösung appelliert und es werden nicht nur kriegerische Interventionen, Terrorbombardements gegen die Zivilbevölkerung in humanitärer Emphase verurteilt, sondern es wird argumentiert auf der Basis von Fakten. In Chomskys kritischem Kommentar zum bekannten Werk des Moralphilosophen Michael Walzer  Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations  (dem zweiten Beitrag im Buch) heißt es zum Schluß "Consensus is no criterion of truth and justice". Wie wahr, aber für die Massenmedien der politischen Mitte muß das wie eine Provokation klingen. Mit seinem Bekenntnis zur Wahrheitsliebe wird Chomsky intellektueller Außenseiter in Deutschland bleiben und die Aufklärung wird weiterhin aus Amerika kommen. Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda (Open Media Series)No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance StateJust and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations