Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by ryansloan
Who Rules the World? by Noam Chomsky
3.0
Content-wise, I'd say this is the Chomsky you'd expect. His thesis is basically this: US power has declined since WW2, in spite of many focused efforts to maintain and expand that power. These efforts were generally framed as necessary to keep the US (or the world at large) safe. Many of the actions taken in the name of safety were at best foolish, short-sighted and inconsistent with the image we project; and at worst they were violently imperialistic. Claims that these steps were taken for safety are dubious because all the while we have failed to take meaningful steps to mitigate many of the existential threats (nuclear proliferation, climate change) and instead focused on an agenda of advancing immediate interests and influence.
At least, that's my interpretation of it, YMMV.
Whether you agree with some, all, or none of Chomsky's views, he's worth reading because he provides a very different framing of events than you are likely to find in most American media. He is an intellectual giant, and his works are always well-researched (the endnotes here are a treasure trove!)
I have two primary criticisms of this book:
1) As a holistic argument, I feel it lacked some much-needed rhetorical structure. I felt as though I understood the overall "point" only because it was Chomsky, and his point of view is pretty well understood. I think a book as dense as this could use some steps to establish a framework of points or ideas (one example, based on a recurring theme: "US Alliances That Have Hampered National Judgement") and then framed the discussion around those points (for example, in one of the bits about nuclear proliferation treaties: "thus, by failing to set consistent expectations between Israel and Iran, the US has allowed one of its alliance to undermine any moves toward nuclear non-proliferation in the region").
2) This is somewhat related to point 1, but it really reads like a series of 23 essays rather than a book. There is a significant amount of repetition between chapters. In fact, some bits (like the story of the elections in Palestine in which the people voted "the wrong way") were repeated nearly word-for-word between chapters. This makes it a slog at times.
At least, that's my interpretation of it, YMMV.
Whether you agree with some, all, or none of Chomsky's views, he's worth reading because he provides a very different framing of events than you are likely to find in most American media. He is an intellectual giant, and his works are always well-researched (the endnotes here are a treasure trove!)
I have two primary criticisms of this book:
1) As a holistic argument, I feel it lacked some much-needed rhetorical structure. I felt as though I understood the overall "point" only because it was Chomsky, and his point of view is pretty well understood. I think a book as dense as this could use some steps to establish a framework of points or ideas (one example, based on a recurring theme: "US Alliances That Have Hampered National Judgement") and then framed the discussion around those points (for example, in one of the bits about nuclear proliferation treaties: "thus, by failing to set consistent expectations between Israel and Iran, the US has allowed one of its alliance to undermine any moves toward nuclear non-proliferation in the region").
2) This is somewhat related to point 1, but it really reads like a series of 23 essays rather than a book. There is a significant amount of repetition between chapters. In fact, some bits (like the story of the elections in Palestine in which the people voted "the wrong way") were repeated nearly word-for-word between chapters. This makes it a slog at times.