uhm Clive, I now lean towards your original death sentence re Chomsky.
Having disproven Chomsky's first claim, I set out to verify the 2nd one which had impressed me so much.
The other mind boggling Chomsky claim was, that for the problem in a democracy, when the majority is poor they will seize the property of the rich, the solution Aristotle came up with was the welfare state.
But ever since James Madison, Chomsky claims, the actual practiced solution was/is "reduce democracy".
Aristotle really did say what Noam says he did. "And first, to prevent stealing from necessity, let every one be supplied with a moderate subsistence, which may make the addition of his own industry necessary; second to prevent stealing to procure the luxuries of life, temperance be enjoined; and thirdly, let those who wish for pleasure in itself seek for it only in philosophy, all others want the assistance of men.” [ Aristotle. “Politics: A Treatise on Government.” Chapter VII]
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6762
James Madison did say something a little bit like what Chomsky puts in his mouth. Madison suggests to have a Senate as "Upper House", consisting of landowners who should not be elected but have something like a lifelong mandate.
Madison: "The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp
So yeah. The unelected body of the Senate is in factual result a reduction of a "total democracy".
But - Chomsky does not attempt to show the insinuated continuation and further application right through into our days of the, let's call it "Madison rule".
He only states his claim - then the movie shows an old bleached document, the name James Madison (4th president and member of the discussion group for the constitution) is mentioned.. which probably triggers some weird emotion like US-patriotism? ... and because it's an "old" source it must be true that it pertains until today... ... I don't know. The movie again goes into polemic tools. And that doesn't make it more credible.
Anyway. Noam doesn't show us 'a string of pearls' of proof that this "Madison rule" was truly incorporated into a still practiced conspiracy of the rich against the poor majority.
Chomsky is a revered intellectual with huge knowledge background. So ... he must tell the truth, aye?
But he doesn't. He twists the facts. And not only that... he twists the facts in favour of a conspiracy theory ... he then can't or won't sustain.
How enlightening this morning has been... bummer. Life was easier while I believed I could rely on Noam to explain the world to me.