To be honest, I find myself in a situation where each new Chomsky book I read seems to follow a similar pattern as the previous one. There is a sense of a recurring narrative. In this particular book, the premise is straightforward: the world faces a choice between accepting American hegemony or the survival of the planet. Chomsky contends that the continued dominance of the US will ultimately lead to the downfall of civilization.

The problem lies in the fact that after presenting this premise in the introduction, Chomsky doesn't really delve into the details of how this might occur until the very end of the book. Instead, he spends a significant portion of the text discussing various major US military interventions and their negative impacts on the affected countries and local populations. The only exception is the discussion on the Cuban missile crisis, which indeed came perilously close to resulting in Armageddon. It is only in the last chapter that he addresses issues such as advancements in chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons, space warfare, and other global threats like global warming. I had expected the book to place more emphasis on these crucial threats.

Another issue with Chomsky's books is that they often feel more like a collection of stitched-together articles or opinion pieces rather than a well-structured book. The narrative jumps around, from events in East Timor and Kosovo in the 1990s to the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th century, then back to fascist regimes in the 20th century, and then to the modern day, and so on. There is a constant back and forth, and the book would have benefited from a more chronological ordering.

That being said, the information presented in the book is highly relevant. Although Chomsky is quite subjective in his views, he touches on matters of such great importance that they cannot be ignored.

The book brings to light the devastating effects of numerous US interventions. For example, in Kosovo, the bombing of Serbia preceded the civilian ethnic cleansing, and Chomsky believes that the bombing itself may have prompted the Serbs to move into Kosovo. In Nicaragua, the US funded the right-wing Contra paramilitaries against the left-wing Sandinista government, resulting in numerous massacres and accusations of drug trafficking. In Panama, the US initially supported the warlord and drug trafficker Manuel Noriega and then later invaded the country and removed him from power. In Indonesia/East Timor, several US interventions led to the deaths of countless Indonesian peasants, and the US also supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which caused the deaths of tens of thousands of East Timorese. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the US was repeatedly warned by its allies and experts that the invasions would lead to more terrorist attacks and more jihadis taking up arms.

Other interventions include those in Columbia, Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, and many more. A whole chapter is dedicated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the US influence on the state of Israel, which is becoming increasingly aggressive and hawkish.

Perhaps the most powerful takeaways from the book are that the misguided US interventions have alienated even the most ardent US supporters around the world. Instead of making the world a better place, these interventions have made it a more dangerous one. People may not always agree with Chomsky, but his dissenting opinion is sorely needed.

Normally, I would rate this book 3 stars due to the known issues with Chomsky's style and the fact that many of the themes have already been covered in other books I've read. However, this is one of his most well-known works, and perhaps I should have read it first. The content is indeed likely the most comprehensive among all his books, and as such, it deserves 4 stars in recognition of this.

Chomsky's work is typically regarded as highly reliable.

This particular piece became extremely well-known when Chavez brought it to the forefront and recommended it.

Chomsky's ideas and analyses have long been influential in various fields. His works are often studied and debated for their depth and incisiveness.

When Chavez, a prominent figure, endorsed this particular work, it gained even more traction and attention.

It not only reached a wider audience but also sparked further discussions and interpretations.

The combination of Chomsky's reputation and Chavez's recommendation made this piece a significant and memorable one.

It continues to be a topic of interest and study, as people explore the ideas and concepts presented within it.

Overall, it is a prime example of how the power of recommendation and the influence of respected individuals can have a profound impact on the dissemination and perception of a particular work.

This is one of those books that's truly going to leave me in a vaguely angry mood for the next month.

It's just astonishing how it manages to evoke such a strong reaction within me.

I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is about this book that has me so riled up. Maybe it's the way the story unfolds, or perhaps it's the actions and decisions of the characters.

Whatever the reason, I find myself constantly frustrated and annoyed as I make my way through the pages.

Jesus, this book has really got under my skin and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I'm sure that for the next month, every time I think about this book, that vague sense of anger will resurface.

It's going to be a long month.

My focus for re-reading this Bush-era (junior, the painter) critique of American’s foreign policy is to assess its accessibility. However, a side-tracked foray into reading some negative reviews turned into a useful exercise.

The Criticisms:
Let’s review the common negative reactions. First, some label it as “cynical”, “alienating”, and “radical”. The curious activist faces a dilemma between being accessible to build mass movements and being principled. Chomsky dives in without complex verbiage but doesn't do much hand-holding. The irony is that the corporate interests driving US military actions are absurdly cynical towards world public opinion. During times when certain unjust practices were naturalized, simply questioning the status quo was seen as “cynical”. There is a status quo bias where every trait of the status quo is associated with the current fruits of society. Second, there are claims of “un-nuanced” bias against “valid self-interest”, being “one-dimensional”, inconsiderate of “context”/“scale”, and using “unfamiliar” sources. Chomsky compares US military actions with the rest of the world’s, showing the US as an outlier in terrorism/aggression and the Western media's bias. But the reaction is that he is being “one-sided”. However, Chomsky does provide illustrative comparisons, and the point of the book is to expose the ignored side of terrorism.

Suggestions:
For those looking for easier places to start, “Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky” shows that Chomsky is actually positive towards American public opinion and its impact. “Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies” has a useful Q&A section. For a more fiery look at the foreign policy of the 1%, there are works by Michael Parenti and Vijay Prashad. For details on the existential threat of nuclear proliferation, there are relevant books. For details on the science and economics of climate change, there are also specific titles. And for accessible global economics, there are several recommended books.

The Questionable:
After promoting Chomsky, there are a few concerns worth considering. One is how to support the global Left from within the empire. Similar to George Orwell, Chomsky's descriptions of real-world communism have been a concern to global Leftists. His casual quips about the USSR and other assertions of global south communist violence are questionable when his audience lacks global perspectives/historical context. For global Leftist positions, there is a playlist featuring Vijay Prashad, Michael Parenti, Utsa/Prabhat Patnaik, etc. Another concern is the “vote-for-the-lesser-evil” electoral recommendation, which some may find defeatist. But Chomsky's point is that elections alone are not revolutionary, and we need to build external power to pressure political parties.

This book presents two intertwined arguments. Firstly, it contends that the U.S. is striving to dominate the world. Secondly, it posits that there exists a global double standard, with one set of rules for the U.S. and another for the rest of the world. In particular, the commonly accepted definition of terrorism seemingly exempts the U.S., even when it engages in precisely the same types of atrocities for the exact same reasons. The evidence presented in this book is rather damning.

However, it was a laborious read. It's not that the writing is poor, and I surely don't believe that politics should be entertaining and sensational (as that's how individuals like Trump gain popularity). Perhaps it's because I'm so fatigued with politics nowadays, but I think it has more to do with Chomsky's fundamental philosophy. If one looks beyond all the heaps of sophisticated data and anecdotes he presents, it essentially boils down to something very simplistic: "there are good guys and bad guys in the world. The good guys had better win or we're doomed."

For the majority of the book, and most of his other works, he mostly just implies this, but towards the end, he spells it out quite clearly. I'll include in [square brackets] my own translation:

One can discern two trajectories in current history: one aiming toward hegemony, acting rationally within a lunatic doctrinal framework as it threatens survival [bad guys!!!]; the other dedicated to the belief that "another world is possible," in the words that animate the World Social Forum, challenging the reigning ideological system and seeking to create constructive alternatives of thought, action, and institution. [Awww, sweet, caring, loving good guys, fighting the good fight. Give them a hug.] Which trajectory will dominate, no one can foretell. The pattern is familiar throughout history; a crucial difference today is that the stakes are far higher. [The good guys had better win, or we're all doomed!]

The aspect that bothers me about this isn't merely its simplicity, but rather that it's a highly effective appeal to emotion that tyranny has always utilized to mobilize people for large-scale violence. And, no, I'm not making the same error by stating that this makes him a "bad guy" and those who don't agree are good guys. I think Chomsky makes some extremely significant points. I just believe that he and his philosophy have blind spots. And perhaps some of the awfulness he perceives as malicious acts of the elite, powerful few hell-bent on global dominance are also just blind spots.

Few contemporary intellectuals divide opinion quite like Chomsky. To his defenders, he presents an unassailable case that US history is ruled by an underlying imperialistic goal that is self-serving, hypocritical, and essentially malicious. They believe that he has uncovered the true nature of the US's actions in the world. To his detractors, however, his argument often simplifies to the idea that US capitalism is to blame for the world's problems, and that violent resistance to its spread is inevitable, thus also being the fault of capitalism. They claim that his views are one-sided and lack nuance.

In truth, I have not been completely persuaded by Chomsky's argument. While I recognize the importance of his work and the need to question the status quo, I also believe that the reality is more complex than he presents. US foreign policy and motivation are not simply black and white, but rather a combination of various factors that can be both benign and malevolent. I wish he would admit to this ambiguity more often and present a more balanced view.

Nevertheless, in "Hegemony or Survival," Chomsky effectively challenges many of the commonly accepted truths of recent years. He questions the idea that the humanitarian crisis in Iraq during the sanctions regime was solely Saddam's fault, and argues that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, while the Afghanistan military campaign may not have been as justified as many believe. He also challenges the notion that "9-11 changed everything" and that New Europe supported Washington's decision to invade Iraq.

One major annoyance, however, is Chomsky's convoluted writing style. As a professor of linguistics, one would expect him to be able to express himself clearly and concisely. However, his writing often suffers from the "5 words when 1 will do" syndrome, making it difficult to follow at times. Additionally, his decision to include direct quotes in almost every other sentence, while admirable from a sourcing perspective, can disrupt the flow of the text and make it even more difficult to read. I do not object to academic or challenging prose in general, but there is a limit to how dense and impenetrable it can be before it starts to lose its effectiveness.

People rarely approach Chomsky expecting balance, and this book is no exception. His fans will undoubtedly appreciate his views and may even find them inspiring, while his critics will likely dismiss the book as being too one-sided. Either way, he remains an important voice in the debate over US foreign policy and a valuable counterweight to the mainstream news. Despite its flaws, "Hegemony or Survival" is worth reading for anyone interested in understanding the complex issues surrounding US power and influence in the world.

Absolutely terrifying.

Chomsky's argument is that American hegemony is more important than the survival of the planet. This is a truly alarming statement that makes one stop and think about the implications.

Among the best Chomsky books I've ever read, this one stands out. It is easy to grasp and follow along, even though it is more than 10 years old and still completely relevant.

Perhaps it's because I've been reading more about American imperialism, such as the works of Andrew Bacevich and Michael Parenti, but I feel like I got a lot more out of this particular book than from Chomsky's others.

What's amazing to me is how deep Chomsky is able to get just by applying the simple idea that we should apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to everyone else on earth. It's not a complicated notion, but its implications are profound.

I think that the issue of hegemony versus valid self-interest is an extremely complex one.

Depending on your political biases, Chomsky can indeed be a good starting point. "Hegemony or Survival", similar to most of Chomsky's books on foreign policy issues, offers a decent window into what he has written regarding those matters.

As a mildly idealistic pragmatist, I do appreciate the critique of hegemony. However, I didn't feel that the analysis and factual assertions were sufficient to enhance my understanding. I was let down by a writer who was supposed to be an icon of sorts.

This is a feeling I commonly experience as I learn more about a group or individual who promotes any kind of agenda or issue. The analysis and facts often become one-dimensional and dissatisfying as a means of understanding.

Chomsky's work, like other similar works and initiatives, should be regarded not as a meticulous analysis but rather as an attempt to draw attention to an issue (and perhaps to influence or encourage those who don't have a penchant for more complexity). It has validity in that sense.

But if you already recognize the issue and are seeking understanding rather than a pat on the back or quotes to impress your like-minded friends, you'll be disappointed. I suppose there's some value in maintaining appearances.

And unfortunately, such works and initiatives can turn into a waste of time for a reader like me. Or, even worse, they can provide an incentive to express displeasure and alienation.

Chomsky makes me feel a great deal less solitary!

In a world充斥着愚笨之人，他清晰的思维让人安心，因为这表明并非所有美国人都是被洗脑、只会重复那些威胁地球的傲慢且荒谬观点的人。

随着阿尔登/拜登/约翰逊式的虚假信息在西方政治舞台上泛滥，真相本身也被所谓的“自由”媒体抛弃，诺姆的话语让我们能够抵达一个真正的真理之岛，在那里理智依然存在。

这本书照亮了美国电影业的宣称和腐败政客的胡言乱语之外的真实。它应该在学校和精神病院分发，以治愈统治西方并让我们所有人都抓狂到需要药物治疗的难以置信的胡言乱语！

You cannot easily disregard the conclusions drawn from this book.

There is no such thing as a responsible superpower, regardless of the ideology. While the British empire was more blatant and unrestrained by the need to be politically correct, the USA has engaged in doublespeak while implementing its noble agenda of spreading freedom and democracy worldwide, all the while safeguarding its “strategic interests”.

Those memes about oil, democracy, and American obsession make you laugh. However, you just didn't know how profound that obsession is. The extensive list of illegal, immoral, and brutal acts that the US has committed in pursuit of its interests across numerous countries undermines its claim to have the moral high ground in conducting the ‘war against terror’. Aggression by other nations against the US is labeled as an ‘act of terror’, while the US's actions in return are deemed as ‘self-defense’, ‘expanding the frontiers of democracy’, or ‘minor casualties in securing its interests’, and so on.

How does the US maintain its hegemony?

First, it selects a narrow short-term interest such as oil or promoting US businesses abroad. Then, it identifies a country with no ability to retaliate. Next, it attaches a false noble agenda to its short-term interest, like eradicating socialism, deposing a brutal dictator (even if that dictator was once supported by the US), or the ever-popular fostering of democracy in the region. After that, it goads the “enemy” into attacking it, and even an “intent to attack” or “threat to US interests” is sufficient. A peace rally, a democratically elected leader in the said country who doesn't prioritize US interests, and if there is no evidence of aggression towards the US – create one (like Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction). Finally, it unleashes its brand of justice on the “enemy” until it installs a compliant puppet leader who puts US interests above those of the country's population.

Disregarding the pleas from the UN and the rest of the world, the US would cause chaos in the rogue nation that had the audacity to oppose its interests, right in that country.

Noam Chomsky’s ‘Hegemony or Survival’ is indeed an insightful book. However, it would have been much better as a 2000-word blog post! The book is extremely repetitive and lacks any further development. The first chapter is the same as the last, and everything in between is just a rehash. It's like an overly long essay by an MBA graduate with a single insight. Chomsky goes around in circles and quotes different people saying the same thing, all leading to the same conclusion. After the first chapter, Chomsky’s sarcasm loses its bite and becomes simply boring. Just as he criticizes the US polity for using excessive repetition to prove its point, Chomsky himself succumbs to the same fallacy. And he blames the US for everything. Even North Korea is portrayed as a victim of US tyranny. Not only does Chomsky not offer any solutions on how the US can reform itself, but his criticism is so repetitive that it turns into a rant. He clearly has a personal vendetta.

After a certain point (and it's already in the first chapter), your attention starts to wander – “OH BOY! WE DISCUSSED THIS IN THE FIRST CHAPTER! MOVE ON!” Even the “new afterword”, written two years after the book's publication, says the exact same things! Arundhati Roy believes that this book is “necessary reading” and “it’s Chomsky at his best”. I dread to think what Chomsky would be like at his worst! This “towering intellect” who repeats himself like a computer code on a loop is not for me.

Noam Chomsky, who has long been renowned as a preeminent far-left writer and thinker, has a book that holds a certain degree of significance, namely “Hegemony or Survival”.

In many respects, his reflective work on the United States' participation in global affairs is even more crucial and instructive in 2013 than it was when the book was first published in 2003.

Chomsky not only presents a terrifying yet comprehensive perspective on the current state of the country but also meticulously details the dark and sordid wars that remain largely unknown to the American public.

Whether it is the killing of six Jesuit Salvadorian intellectuals or the support of Israel's harsh and brutal actions against the Palestinians, Chomsky makes a compelling argument that, in the eyes of many countries, America seems to be a rogue nation that is not truly committed to helping the world.

Writers like Chomsky are of great importance for the protection of free speech.

Not all readers will concur with the viewpoints expressed in this book, but similar to Howard Zinn's “A People's History of the United States”, it gives a voice to the voiceless and the wronged.

This is truly an excellent book.

If you have a desire to delve into the history that lies beneath all the "wars" on terror, you would do well to pick this up.

Starting from Vietnam and progressing to the early days of the Afghanistan war, it provides astonishing insights into all the real evils that are taking place.

Do you ever wonder why so many people outside the United States despise them or at least their policies and policymakers? This book makes it abundantly clear why this is the case.

The United States' war against the world, its support of repressive regimes, and the expansion of its "Empire" have failed to endear it to anyone in the world, not even its allies!

Undoubtedly, this book is a must-have on the shelf to counterbalance the "official" histories that are force-fed to the public. It will make you question everything we are doing.

It offers a different perspective that challenges the mainstream narrative and forces us to think critically about the actions and consequences of the United States in the global arena.

By reading this book, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complex issues surrounding the "wars" on terror and make more informed judgments.

It is a valuable resource for anyone interested in history, politics, and international relations.