Actually, I was only commenting on the claim that he didn't receive criticism for his 'principles', when he clearly did. I did not pass any other judgment.
> Noam Chomsky is deeply principled. If someone opposes the US he’ll support them, whether they’re the Khmer Rouge or the Serbs in the Yugoslav Civil War.
Think of Chomsky what you want, but this is a tragically misguided interpretation of his stance. He doesn't want the U.S. meddling in other countries, as the U.S. does not really do it for humanitarian reasons, but for geopolitical and resource exploitative reasons, (I mean just the existence of the term 'colliteral damage', or 'double tap' and the fact that drone strikes kill over 90% civilians should tell you enough). The notion that the U.S. cares about human rights, while being allied with Egypt, KSA etc. shows this clearly.
The U.S. has melted down over stupid Russian Facebook memes, calling it 'meddling', while actively supporting an illegal coup in Venezuela in the same breath.
His point is also that he criticizes the U.S because he's a CITIZEN, while he's not a citizen of all of the other places. So he puts an emphasis on where he lives, because there he has the biggest chance of innacting some change, as opposed to somewhere where he has no say whatsoever. I mean that'll be easy to do, because you don't really threaten anyone in power, but it also means you're doing little more than posturing.
As for my personal belief, I am actually not against markets or whatever. They serve a useful purpose for games, books, smartphones etc. But I do believe that they also serve a catastrophically unethical purpose when applied to healthcare for example, so that put's me squarely in a social democratic camp, but that doesn't really change the fact that MF has seen one extreme, so he went the exact opposite extreme.
And extremes, including free market ones, cannot be innacted peacefully, as has been demonstrated every time his vision was innacted, most notably by the Chicago Boys.