I am from Brazil, he is not formally taught at schools, but I heard many geography and history teachers mention or cite him.
The first time, I saw his opinions re USA's/NATO's intervention in ex-Yugoslavia. It just seemed like conspiracy theories, especially when I googled and found his apologetics for the Khmer Rouge (before they were found to be massmurding crazies).
The second time, I got a link to a Chomsky interview. I got shocked -- Chomsky claimed that he didn't talk about the Sudan atrocities, because he couldn't influence much. WTF?! If the most famous academic US-critic, beloved by dictators, publicly condemned the Darfur handling etc by Sudan's government as 1000 times worse than what he complained about Israel, it would have an effect...
I wrote Chomsky off as another effect of the US right/left being equally crazy. Here in Europe we mostly get the left crazies, so he is big. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe. It seems to me Chomsky argues by (correctly) noting that governments lie a lot -- then he comes with really weird explanations to what really happens.
2. I discussed an interview with Chomsky, where he himself discussed why he didn't criticize X. I noted his motivation was just not rational/true/etc. So your Venezuelan claims about an example are doubly irrelevant.
Despite being atheist/agnostic, he takes this principle straight from the Bible: "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:4-5
(Chomsky is probably bigger outside USA. E.g. the Milosevic regime was a big fan.)
I don't really care why an analysis have very different standards for different countries/companies/etc, that just isn't a quality sign... It doesn't seem more serious if the double standards are motivated by "Hey, I'm a self-hater..."
Also, Chomsky has always been severely critical of authoritarian and violent regimes across the world; the reason he has focused disproportionally on American regimes is due to the moral principle I referenced above.
1. I point out that Chomsky's motivation for not engaging in Sudan's problems (no influence) are just not serious; his involvement would have very probably made a big difference and potentially saved many lives.
2. You claim that Chomsky think it is more important to complain about USA. (+)
3. I answer that I don't really care why someone has double standards for different groups/countries/religions/etc.
4. You play linguistic games with half of a term I use ("self-hater").
5. I say bye bye.
(+) Not relevant anyway, except as a form of explanation of why, not an argument Chomsky's position was serious.
For example, the CIA helps traffic opium/heroin across the world. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_South...