It's available in almost all countries covered by Netflix (except one territory, I wonder which one):
http://unogs.com/video/?v=80083790

Instead of the usual character assassinations, I'll just go back to the original question.

Yes, I have read Chomsky, quite a lot in fact. He brings many interesting viewpoints, and of course heaps and heaps of facts, which is easy to delve into oneself because of the academic nature of his books with a plethora of sources. It's a bit amazing that he and his work isn't even more well known, but in fairness it's kind of hard to reach the big masses when practically every media outlet you can think of refuses to publish his work (with some exceptions of course). Speeches and books (from tiny publishers, usually) are his means of communications, and by now also the internet.

Recently I've read less Chomsky and more Johan Galtung, and his work is also interesting reading. If you like Chomsky, then I would suggest to look up some of Galtung's as well. He sells many books via Transcend, and has a weekly blog there.

What I can say to people not familiar with their work, is to read it yourself, preferably with an open mind, because most of it you will not have seen in the typical channels, and then check out sources and research a bit if you are interested in the topics they cover.

Chomsky is like Nader and Tarpley and so many others in that he's very good at identifying the disease, but his ideas for a cure are nearly always worse than the disease.

Governments and corporations are working together to fuck over free humanity and we must do everything we can to stop them! Solution? Yes, bring in lots more government and corporations to work together to solve this dire problem!

F it. Vote Misanthrope 2016.

That pretty much sums up my main complaints about him. It is his whole "let's add more government and more public-private partnerships" that led to a Monsanto executive getting put into food safety at the FDA, a big telecom executive getting put in a high seat of power at the FCC, and more mining interests buddying up with politicians to use the Bureau of Land Management to chase ranchers, farmers, and homesteaders from their lands.

Also Chomsky tends to be an Islamist-sympathizer and overall he deserves to get tossed out of helicopter over the ocean.

That's not his solution at all. He wants more democratic control over decision making, and he most certainly wouldn't want even more power to corporations. I've no idea how it's possible to draw that conclusion from reading Chomsky's work, assuming you guys have even done that.

I would agree he is stronger on identifying the issues rather than on proposals for a cure, however. But then he's not really proposing too much either, so that is natural. He wants people themselves to take more action, know more, become part of the decision making. That's a solution in itself, but certainly not something easy to achieve over night, nor would it be easy given the unequal distribution of power and hatred of democracy among people with (lots of) power.

Can only re-emphasise that people interested in Chomsky should read his work themselves, with an open mind.

Given Chomsky thinks corporations shouldn't even exist - as he sees them as a private form of tyranny - I think it's clear you've not read much if any of his work which makes your presence in the thread a promotion of knee-jerk ignorance.

This is just complete nonsense as well. I would believe you listen to Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh before I could ever imagine you doing the work of picking up a book to read anything Chomsky has ever written. Further your fascist streak is showing when you openly advocate killing someone simply because you disagree with their position - positions you seem in complete ignorance of.

You would think after chastising you twice for making generic opaque statements you might not make more but here you are again doing the same thing. The constant thread to each of these posts besides their unsupported generic labeling and dismissal of Chomsky is their dishonesty at a real engagement with the subject matter.

As I said before if you're going to pollute the thread with your condescending judgements have something substantive to say - not the pretense of such.

I have mixed feelings. He does spend a lot of time showing how systems of power and oppression work but that's a necessary understanding to have for activists on the ground making reform efforts. To say he doesn't propose solutions is misleading, he proposes certain types of solutions (conceptual) over nuts and bolts policy although even that is not entirely true as policies he is critical of he advocates for their removal (citizens united, patriot act, etc). In outlining conceptual solutions let's just say the idea of a more democratic workplace, a particular implementation of that idea is going to vary depending on context. This is where the critics are obviously disingenuous in their criticism. By definition part of the idea for a democratic workplace requires allowance for how the workers themselves want it to run.

Someone you might want to check out as well is Chris Hedges, particularly his book The Death of the Liberal Class.

There is still serious issue with that like the fact that democracy is basically rule of the active voting majority and the troubles with people are...
1) They are more competent when it comes to personal and local matters but not necessarily national especially big countries like the US
2) People are heavily divided into communities, ethnicities, cultures, and upbringings which makes it harder for people to agree on things and to come together under one "umbrella"
3) Many people are not properly informed on certain matters and follow certain narratives based upon a series of assumptions

Then there is the fact that the active voting majority is not always right. Under "democracy," we would have to excuse gangrape because the majority of the people involved thought it was good.
The jokes on you. I don't normally listen to radio although I have read some transcripts of Rush Limbaugh's comments especially when he made fun of the transgender movement by "identifying" as skinny and I refuse to take Alex Jones seriously since he comes across as a conspiracy hustler.

As for killing Chomsky, the reason I wish for him to become shark food has nothing to do with simple disagreement but the fact that he poisons people's minds. There are people who act as if he is some kind of prophet and will vote and act in ways that will cause quite a bit of harm to a widespread of arguably innocent people and future generations to make his vision reality. Among such actions include electing worse politicians into office who will then use the state to attack anyone that comes across as "right wing" as well as finish off entrepreneurial capitalism with high taxes that will crush anyone who does not get corporate tax protections.

Also, funny how Chomsky believes corporations should not exist since it would mean that labor unions and incorporated charities would not exist. Labor union are technically corporations and are registered as non-profit corporations in the United States and charities are often incorporated in order to limit liabilities for donors and employees in case someone does something crooked with donations. Many people often forget that the word corporation does not have to mean "business" corporations like Microsoft, Apple, or Boeing.

'Confirm the allegation that he follows Limbaugh?' Who gives a fuck if he or anyone 'follows' Limbaugh. Are we in court now? Has the prosecution produced the appropriate radio or television video evidence of this 'criminal conspiracy' alleged to have taken place between the defendant and the subject in question? Get the feck outta here with that shit. You could tell me that Jesus talks to you via RF signals in your microwave oven. Doesn't affect shit unless you ask to come over and cook dinner using my microwave. I'm not ready for my pizza rolls to offer me pepperoni salvation. But ultimately, who gives a rat's wet ass? Is this 'incorrect speech'? You're goddamn right it is. Thank God (Microwave Jesus)

And yeah, I read Chomsky. (in Hans Gruber voice) I read the article in Forbes.

At least we got to the bottom of one thing. The two people heavily criticising Chomsky lately in this thread, has not actually read the man's work (or extremely little of it). Can't say I'm surprised. It shone through in your posts.
Agree that he offers more on the conceptual or longterm, and like I tried to incorporate in my post above, I think that is because he wants people to get active themselves, in a more direct form of democracy. Chomsky isn't supposed to be some Godlike figure shouting out solutions. He wants people to become more empowered themselves. He does plenty of things on a practical level as well, but most of that doesn't come out in his books and speeches, as those are more about identifying the issues, spreading knowledge, and some hope for change.

Shocking as it might be, as one of the people that posted most in this thread in its previous incarnation I can say I don't see much to object in Chomsky's intentions when it comes to high minded concepts such as democratic empowerment - anarcho capitalism and anarchic communism share a lot in regards to individualism after all... All my vitriol is reserved to his methodological issues in his more political minded works and particularly to the fact that I attribute his methodological issues to conscious partisanship and anti-americanism / anti-capitalism.

Put another way, he does indeed spend a lot of time showing how systems of power and oppression work - it's just his bias is obvious on what kind of holders of power he is against, and which kind of holders of power he remains silent on. And please spare me the usual retort about him being a US citizen and therefore it being his patriotic duty to criticize his own country. That is precisely my point: that he not only is hugely privileged to be in such a position where a lot of the world's population does not have the same political luxury, but that his criticism is very much lacking in objectivity - it is factual (in excess even) but so partial to be IMO intentionally misleading.

Ergo, he is not an academic scholar, he is rather a partisan activist.