It was difficult and revealing, depressing (Chomsky had already had a complete picture of what was going to happen in Gaza for a long time, and sadly it happened), heavy and definitely necessary, at least for me, who is still learning about these topics.

It poses the most important problems, without counting the more recent events, in a rather general and easy-to-understand way, but which is still difficult to digest.

This article delves into the complex issues surrounding Gaza. It presents a comprehensive view that is both eye-opening and disheartening. The author's insights offer a valuable perspective on the long-standing problems in the region.

Despite being presented in a general manner, the content is not simplistic. It requires careful consideration and reflection. As I continue to learn about these topics, I find this article to be an essential resource.

It forces me to confront the harsh realities and think about possible solutions. While it may be difficult to come to terms with the information presented, it is necessary for a deeper understanding of the situation.

At the end of Nathan Robinson's "Why You Should Be a Socialist", this book is recommended as a great way to understand leftist thinking. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

I listened to the entire book, despite its fragmented nature that allows one to skip around to topics at will. Listening at 1.45 speed, the Q and A format truly resembled a real discussion. There wasn't a single moment when I could have been listening and wasn't fully engaged.

The theme that truly energizes me in literature like this is the idea of big changes being brought about through the hard work of thousands of nameless and faceless activists. The reason to live one's life in this way is simple and can be best summed up in the words of Debs: "while there is a lower class, I am in it". We are all human beings. This is our planet and our existence. We have a responsibility to take control of the decisions that have an impact on it.

Look, you don't need to read this book. Here's how Chomsky works:

First, he identifies an authority. Then, he questions whether it is necessary. If he deems it not necessary, he dismantles it.

So, how does he identify an authority? He watches for events like when someone gets fired, put in prison, or forced to resign. He also looks at what people aren't allowed to say or do and what happens when they push something too far.

Now, I have a certain partiality to this algorithm. However, it's not at all clear that it's a good idea. This is for the same reasons that it's not obvious that eradicating an unnecessary animal is a good idea.

Moreover, the book is decidedly useless when it comes to understanding power. Saying "Because they're evil" is not real analysis. And I wasn't at all impressed with Chomsky's scholarship, unlike many other reviewers. Chomsky hardly draws any connections between his own narrative and work in other disciplines. He claims that economists are brainwashed, so why should we listen to them? How convenient.

If you're on the left and simply want to hear someone agree with you, then sure, read this book. Or if you're interested in the history of activism, you can read it as that's essentially what Chomsky is, a historian specializing in activism. Otherwise, I'd recommend just watching the movie *Manufacturing Consent*.

This year, on December 7th, Noam Chomsky celebrated his 92nd birthday. He is said to be the most cited living scholar in the world. Many consider him to be “the most important intellectual alive”. He is an Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, working on linguistics, analytic philosophy, cognitive science, and politics. Chomsky has written over 150 books, given countless public speeches, and has appeared in over 160 movies, TV series, and documentaries. However, his greatest claim to fame is perhaps as a renowned critic of American foreign policy, capitalism, and the mainstream media.

I read his book “Understanding Power”, which was published in 2001 and is a collection of his speeches given in various talk shows. The most astonishing thing was that in this book, he said that his schedule for public speaking and talk shows was booked for the next two years. From this, I could understand why this person, who lives in America, has taken on the role of criticizing the president of a powerful country like America.

Anyway, at the beginning of the book, Chomsky criticized American aggression in the name of democracy and the mainstream media for keeping the people of the American continent ignorant (in his opinion). He said that usually, in any country, nation, or tribe, a mercenary individual or group is hired for an unholy purpose, but we are so wealthy that we use a mercenary state (he was referring to Israel) for such tasks. A female reporter asked Chomsky where the idealistic obstacle lies in front of the media in revealing the truth. In response, he said that he once asked the editor of the Boston Globe why they presented the Israel/Palestine conflict so badly. The editor laughed and said that they did it because they had no Arab advertisers.
According to Chomsky, the two most important things that people should think about in the current international context are: one, the transformation of the international economy, and two, the threat to the environment. The way capitalism works is a self-destruction method. The nature of this system is driven by greed; there is nothing to worry about for anyone. The idea of capitalism is “Maximizing short-term profit without concern for the long-term effect”, where each entity is a lethal weapon. Therefore, it is impossible to save the environment through capitalism. The only way to save the environment is through integrated social planning.
He was asked what the purpose of this arms race is. He said that one should remember that the primary enemy of a country is its own people. If politics spreads within one’s own country, it will turn into a massacre, and the most effective way to keep the people subdued is through international conflict, through which the people will be scared and forced to give up their rights. This arms race plays an important role in properly running a country’s economy. Due to this unequal competition, it is possible to provide contracts in the high-tech industry. For example, if a politician says that from next year, you will have to pay more taxes so that we can give a contract to IBM for a fifth-generation computer and to NASA for a Mars mission. No citizen of the country will agree with this. But if you bring in the international threat here, the citizens of the country will be forced to accept it.
I am a supporter of the “Free Market”, but Chomsky has changed my perception of this Free Market. In his opinion, it is a weapon against the common people of America, because it is a device against social spending, and it is a weapon against the poor people of other countries, because we can tell other countries “you have to follow the laws we give you”, and whenever they start to follow it, we start to plunder them. Chomsky gave the example of Dhaka — when Robert Clive came to Dhaka, he compared Dhaka to “the Manchester of India” because at that time, Dhaka was rich in wealth and people were prosperous. There was jute cultivation in Dhaka, there was the modern industry of that time, and there were resources — such as cotton. In terms of productivity, Dhaka was equivalent to England at that time. But if you look at Dhaka now, you will see “the Manchester of India, is the capital of Bangladesh — the absolute symbol of disaster”. According to Chomsky, those who have been inspired by the West are now each a ruin, and those who have not been inspired by the West are today’s leading economies.
The most important part of this book is his discussion on the dark side of the world academia, including America. The current school system has been structured in such a way that children do not think independently and become slaves of a system. Because if you analyze the school system, you will see that if a child gets a C grade in a subject, it is not a matter of headache for the authority. But if that child comes to school three minutes late, he will be disciplined in the principal’s office.
Chomsky described an incident to show how independent thinking is suppressed in academia. In 1984, a book called From Time Immemorial written by a person named Joan Peters was published. The essence of this book was that the Palestinians were not the original inhabitants of Palestine or Israel, but they were immigrants. The book became very popular in America at that time: it received positive reviews everywhere from the Washington Post to the New York Times. That is, everyone’s moral acceptance was that if the Israelis wanted, they could drive the Palestinians out of their country. But the problem was raised by Norman Finkelstein, a graduate student at Princeton. He read the book and, while looking for references, found that the whole book was nothing but a fraud. He wrote an article on this and started submitting it to journals. Although the leading journals did not respond to his article submission and did not even say they would, an anti-war journal in Illinois published his article. This was a fatal mistake in his life. After the publication of this article, the professors in his department not only did not schedule a meeting with him but also stopped talking to him. Finkelstein had to quit his program and even had to change his department.
After reading this book, no one will declare war against the West or I myself have not been so emotional. However, the way facts and information are presented in this book, from freedom of speech, automation, abortion, free trade, international war, economics to politics, and from the past to the future of the world in just 416 pages, is extraordinary. To truly understand power, you should read this book.

One cannot provide a comprehensive review of this book as it is an extensive compilation of lectures, talks, and Q&A sessions gathered between 1980 and 1995. It encapsulates Chomsky's perspectives on a wide range of matters such as US foreign policy, the media's role in policy-making and opinion-shaping, democracy, capitalism, socialism, racism, and other controversial subjects. Instead, I will quote some passages that I found particularly interesting.

For instance, regarding government secrecy and its connection to the birth of the royal institution in Greek history, Chomsky states that the idea behind royalty was that there was a distinct species of individuals beyond the norm, whom the people were not meant to understand.

He also criticizes the notion that one needs special qualifications to express opinions on certain subjects, arguing that it is a technique to make the population feel ignorant and stay out of decision-making.

Another important point is that authority should be justified and earned. Every form of authority, domination, and hierarchy must prove its legitimacy, and often, these structures lack justification in the interests of those lower in the hierarchy, serving only to preserve power and domination.

Chomsky also discusses the concept of manufacturing consent to protect the elites from the general population in a democratic system. He highlights how, in the 20th century, there was a major current of American thought suggesting that since the state had lost the power to coerce, elites needed more effective propaganda to control the public mind.

The book also touches on the fake capitalism and the permanent war economy. Chomsky describes how, during the Great Depression in the 1930s, every rich country independently found a way out through state spending or what's called "Keynesian stimulation."

Furthermore, Chomsky explores the idea of heroes and anti-heroes, arguing that real agents of change often fall out of history and are not recognized in the culture, while those who claim leadership when a popular movement arises are the ones the culture sets up as "heroes."

He also mentions the unpublished introduction to Animal Farm due to censorship in England, as well as the importance of freedom of speech and the proper criterion for punishing speech, which should be based on contribution to a crime rather than clear and present danger.

Finally, Chomsky discusses the Algerian involvement in the Somalia crisis, highlighting the work of a U.N. negotiator, Mohammed Sahnoun, who was bringing groups together and had the respect of all sides in the conflict.

I have nothing more to add to the countless reviews already written by those who are more knowledgeable than I am. This book is truly enlightening, and the person behind it is simply amazing. I can't help but wish that I had read this when I was a teenager. If only that had been the case, my life would be taking a completely different path at this moment. It makes me wonder how different things could have been if I had been exposed to these ideas and perspectives earlier. Maybe I would have made different choices, pursued different dreams, and ended up in a completely different place. But, as they say, hindsight is 20/20. All I can do now is be grateful for having discovered this book and use the wisdom and inspiration it contains to make positive changes in my life going forward.

Sjajan Čomski. He opens his eyes to the world. He is one of the smartest people today, and I agree with his views. And it is even better to read him when activism is relevant, as it is relevant in our country these weeks.

Despite the massiveness of some gatherings, many people tell me "it's not worth it, what can be achieved?" In fact, a lot, and this is one of the things that Čomski explains through this collection of lectures. Activism is hard - it starts with a few people in your living room and it can last for years. But when the right time comes, things speed up extremely. The abolition of slavery. The feminist movement. The rights of blacks in America. The war in Vietnam. Stopping the genocide supported by the US in East Timor... In the end, the rivers of the Old Mountains and Rio Tinto.

At his lectures, people complain that we have become too passive. This was written in the 90s, but it is very relevant. Čomski compares the US in the 60s and 80s, and what was achieved with such passive pressures. Activists seem to be fewer, but a lot has been done - the government can no longer directly kill millions as in Vietnam, it has to work under the radar, with smaller operations in Nicaragua, short wars in Iraq and Guatemala, bombing Yugoslavia instead of landing troops. How many dead would there be without such public pressures?

Čomski also brings conspiracy theories (a phrase for which he says it has become a "dirty word"), but on another level. There is no story about little green men and (not) landing on the Moon, and those theories are often not completely hidden. By reading government documents, one can come to the truth - one just has to know where and what to read and understand what "pressure on governments that act against the national interest", "support for American capital" or "cooperation with the secret services of states" means (Israel, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, which Čomski calls "hired states that do the dirty work for the US that it can no longer do itself - precisely because of the pressures of activists"). Such a conspiracy theory can be, for example, the information that during the missile crisis in Cuba in 1962, the US carried out a series of terrorist attacks against Cuba, that they massively sank fishing boats but also blew up a factory in Cuba, killing 400 workers.

If read correctly, then it is clear to you what "containment operation against Soviet Union" or "defensive operations in 1918" means, which were actually sending an army to the newly created USSR. Defensive operations on the territory of a foreign country? This is just one of such operations in the American 20th century.

And as a linguist, Čomski is also dedicated to words and phrases. He examined the American mainstream media in the 60s and nowhere was it mentioned that the US carried out an invasion of Vietnam. Americans always defend themselves or "support democracy". The peace process - that is what the US always supports, at any cost, even at the cost of war. The New York Times, which is considered the leader of free speech in the US, described the US as the leader of the peace process in all (literally, 100%) articles from 1980 to 2000.

There is also a story about capitalism, a system that "works on greed". It's not about caring for others or for society - it's a system in which we all have to work together to make the rich stay happy. If they are not happy, they will withdraw their investments, invest elsewhere and we are all in trouble. And as long as private capital has such an influence on decision-making and politics, so it will remain.

As an anarchist, Čomski advocates the complete abolition of the influence of the state. In fact, for the abolition of the state and institutions as such. I'm sorry he didn't dedicate more to this idea here. What does it even mean to abolish the state? Where are the laws, the police, who protects the weaker? Who enforces the laws? Čomski admits this and then presents a rather strange contradiction, where he, as an anarchist, advocates strengthening state institutions, which would be some kind of intermediate phase in taking power away from corporations. After that - anarchy. But what is that final phase that he sees for society?

He also explains the desire of power for the depoliticization of the public. Power (according to him - corporations) tries to make people lose interest in politics. Power wants to invest in armaments (which according to him is not so bad for starting the economy), not in social projects. If you invest in schools, roads, hospitals, then people get involved in the political process. They will start to be interested, to research, because this is something that has an impact on their lives. Why isn't the school built in their neighborhood? And the interest of the public is not good for any power - it is better for people to remain passive, to keep the power "up there". It is better to invest in something that people are not interested in (e.g. in a new aircraft carrier), even if it is necessary to constantly create new enemies because of that. And financing the military industry is directly financing corporations, nothing else.

But what can we do, considering that those up there will do everything to stay in power and for the system to remain unchanged? Should we just sit and withdraw? These are the people who also talked about feudalism and slavery, says Čomski. We should not be isolated, each for himself, we should unite and then everything is possible. (In the middle of the 90s, he also announced the internet - which is on the one hand excellent for communication among activists, but which will completely hypnotize people and take away their will to be active in person, and without that there is no activism). Maybe it's not time yet for true free socialism or for anarchism, but it wasn't the right time for the abolition of slavery for a long time either.

Finally - I like him both in defense and in attack on the states that represented "socialism" in the 20th century. First, he asks why the wealth of the Soviet Union is compared to Western Europe, and then based on that conclude that that type of state organization was not successful? One should look at the states that were similar to the USSR in 1913, and then see how they developed until 1990. One should compare Bulgaria and Guatemala, the USSR and Brazil, not the USSR and Great Britain. If we take such comparisons, it will be shown that the results are not so bad at all.

On the other hand, he has no sympathy at all for that wrong form of socialism and communism. Lenin and Stalin did everything that is against socialism. After the October Revolution, they dissolved the soviets, abolished the factory councils established in the February Revolution. They introduced state capitalism. We say that "socialism has not succeeded and that it should not be returned", while thinking of socialist states such as the Soviet Union or those that have the word socialism in their name. Why don't we say "democracy has not succeeded" when we have states such as the German Democratic Republic or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Čomski claims that in those states with "socialism" in the name there was approximately as much socialism as there is democracy in these others.

This is a really insightful book that encompasses a wide variety of topics.

I have a great admiration for Chomsky as he is extremely frank and honest. Moreover, since this is a compilation of talks and lectures, it is very easy to read.

The format also makes it convenient to read in parts. Although the latest content in the book dates back to 1999, a significant number of the ideas presented are still highly relevant in today's context.

It's remarkable how the concepts discussed in the book have stood the test of time and continue to offer valuable perspectives.

Whether you're a scholar, a student, or simply someone interested in gaining a deeper understanding of various issues, this book is definitely worth a read.

It provides a wealth of knowledge and encourages critical thinking, making it a valuable addition to any bookshelf.

The book begins with a review of the role of the media, which are by no means objective from the moment they respond to the economic interests of their owners and advertisers.

Also, the sources of information that editors draw from are questioned because, for example, the opinion of an "authorized anonymous source" has more value than that of people who give testimony but are not in line with the editorial stance of the medium.

To accuse a police officer, a video with all the details is needed, while a citizen is given far fewer guarantees.

This shows the imbalance and subjectivity that exists within the media landscape. It is essential to be aware of these biases and to seek out multiple sources of information to form a more accurate understanding of the world around us.

By critically analyzing the media and its role, we can better navigate the information age and make more informed decisions.

I just have to be a bit cheesy and say it - this book is truly breathtaking. It is utterly far-reaching, with an incredibly dense amount of information, and the concepts are crystal clear. It has a humbling effect, it can make you angry, and at the same time, it is highly inspiring. I really haven't come across something this sprawlingly informative since "Behave", or perhaps "Gödel Escher Bach". This is one of those pivot-point situations. I'm sorry to be so corny, but I'm just not the same person after finishing this book. It has opened my eyes to a whole new world of knowledge and ideas. It has made me think differently about many things. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a truly engaging and thought-provoking read.

I have only read a few chapters of this book, specifically the ones that piqued my interest.

However, I must say that it is still worth reading.

I made a bit of a mistake by starting with this particular work to approach Chomsky, as it is a collection of interviews. This means that it presumes the reader already has a basic understanding of Chomsky's viewpoints. I do have some knowledge, but unfortunately, it is not sufficient.

Nevertheless, this book reveals that there exists a third America, one that lies beyond the boundaries of Republicans and Democrats and transcends common stereotypes. In my opinion, this is quite reassuring. It shows that there are other perspectives and possibilities that we may not have considered before. It encourages us to look beyond the traditional political divide and explore new ideas and ways of thinking. Overall, despite my initial misstep, I am glad I picked up this book and look forward to delving deeper into Chomsky's thoughts and ideas.

This book is truly a remarkable feat of editing. It skillfully condenses various aspects of Chomsky's talks that span across decades and provides references at a separate website, understandingpower.com. Here are some of the most thought-provoking quotes:

"You should not expect an institution to say, 'Help me destroy myself,' that's not the way institutions function. And if anybody inside the institution tried to do that, they wouldn't be inside it much longer." This highlights the self-preserving nature of institutions.

"If you're getting accepted in elite circles, chances are very strong that you're doing something wrong - I mean, for very simple reasons. Why should they have any respect for people who are trying to undermine their power? It doesn't make any sense." It makes us question the motives behind acceptance in such circles.

"Part of the whole technique of disempowering people is to make sure that the real agents of change fall out of history, and are never recognized in the culture for what they are. So it's necessary to distort history and make it look as if Great Men did everything - that's part of how you teach people they can't do anything, they're helpless, they just have to wait for some Great Man to come along and do it for them." This reveals the hidden mechanisms of power and control.

These quotes offer deep insights into the complex nature of society, power, and human behavior. They challenge us to think critically and question the status quo. By understanding these ideas, we can become more informed and empowered individuals, capable of making positive changes in the world.