Chomsky- Foucault Debate

A worthwhile read overall, but several caveats must occur. First, it was not much of a debate and it was not that much about human nature either (the book is called "On Human Nature" while the transcript I read on Chomsky's website had the more appropriate title "Human Nature: Justice versus Power.")
The “debate” was in two parts, the first philosophical and the second political. In the first half, Chomsky put forth a definition of human nature while Foucault tended to question the notion of what human nature is and could be (as one would expect him to I guess). The conversation focused on the construct more so than the concept (related of course) of human nature and as such this first half was really more a discussion of philosophy and history of science and, for me, mostly superfluous (perhaps this would have been more interesting in 1971, as Chomsky seems quite insightful for that time).
The second half was much better, but perhaps that is because I am a Chomsky fan and he dominates the discussion (not in tone, but in length of content). I thought they had an interesting discussion about justice and the (il)legality of an action, which Chomsky used the timely (the debate was in 1971) Vietnam war for illustrative purposes.
There was an actual point of disagreement regarding a proletariat revolutionary war and, depending on the outcome, if it would be just. Foucault said they just want power, while Chomsky said it would only be just if they used their power to achieve better things for everyone (I tend to agree).
I did not find it as illuminating as others obviously have and if I had to choose a winner, which does not make sense to me because it was far more of a discussion, I would pick Chomsky because he clearly articulated his views and more fully addressed questions asked of him.

There several exchanges which I found amusing or interesting. I have listed some below with my comments in parenthesis if appropriate.

(Moderator, to Foucault)
ELDERS:
But what does this theory of knowledge mean for your theme of the death of man or the end of the period of the nineteenth-twentieth centuries?
FOUCAULT:
But this doesn't have any relation to what we are talking about.
ELDERS:
I don't know, because I was trying to apply what you have said to your anthropological notion. You have already refused to speak about your own creativity and freedom, haven't you? Well, I'm wondering what are the psychological reasons for this.
FOUCAULT:
[Protesting.] Well, you can wonder about it, but I can't help that.
ELDERS:
Ah, well.
FOUCAULT:
I am not wondering about it.

(I thought Foucault had a great response here, despite not really answering the question from a meta-analytical perspective.)
ELDERS:
Well, let's move over now to the second part of the discussion, to politics. First of all I would like to ask Mr. Foucault why he is so interested in politics, because he told me that in fact he likes politics much more than philosophy.
FOUCAULT:
I've never concerned myself, in any case, with philosophy. But that is not a problem. [He laughs.) Your question is: why am I so interested in politics? But if I were to answer you very simply, I would say this: why shouldn't I be interested? That is to say, what blindness, what deafness, what density of ideology would have to weigh me down to prevent me from being interested in what is probably the most crucial subject to our existence, that is to say the society in which we live, the economic relations within which it functions, and the system of power which defines the regular forms and the regular permissions and prohibitions of our conduct. The essence of our life consists, after all, of the political functioning of the society in which we find ourselves.
So I can't answer the question of why I should be interested; I could only answer it by asking why shouldn't I be interested?
ELDERS:
You are obliged to be interested, isn't that so?
FOUCAULT:
Yes, at least, there isn't anything odd here which is worth question or answer. Not to be interested in politics, that's what constitutes a problem. So instead of asking me, you should ask someone who is not interested in politics and then your question would be well-founded, and you would have the right to say "Why, damn it, are you not interested?" [They laugh and the audience laughs.]

(I thought the following statement was a good brief description of Chomsky’s concept of anarcho-syndicalism)
CHOMSKY:
Now a federated, decentralised system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organisation for an advanced technological society, in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it by a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature, will in fact be able to realise itself in whatever way it will.

(I thought it quite odd that Foucault did not have some concept of an ideal considering what he concerns himself with; Chomsky’s view, that we should have one even though it is necessarily limited, is one with which I agree.)
FOUCAULT:
That is to say that I admit to not being able to define, nor for even stronger reasons to propose, an ideal social model for the functioning of our scientific or technological society.

CHOMSKY:
Our concept of human nature is certainly limited; it's partially socially conditioned, constrained by our own character defects and the limitations of the intellectual culture in which we exist. Yet at the same time it is of critical importance that we know what impossible goals we're trying to achieve, if we hope to achieve some of the possible goals. And that means that we have to be bold enough to speculate and create social theories on the basis of partial knowledge, while remaining very open to the strong possibility, and in fact overwhelming probability, that at least in some respects we're very far off the mark.

CHOMSKY:
I've never seen a child who didn't want to build something out of blocks, or learn something new, or try the next task. And the only reason why adults aren't like that is, I suppose, that they have been sent to school and other oppressive institutions, which have driven that out of them.
(“Only?” Really? Perhaps it is just the lack of novelty. Surely we have all really enjoyed some new experience but when the event occurs and reoccurs, rarely is the level of delight the same.)

(Finally, I just liked how Chomsky phrased different types of (often highly valued) employment in our society.)
CHOMSKY:
For example, the people who are involved in the management of exploitation, or the people who are involved in the creation of artificial consumption, or the people who are involved in the creation of mechanisms of destruction and oppression, or the people who are simply not given any place in a stagnating industrial economy. Lots of people are excluded from the possibility of productive labour.