Noam Chomsky - Noam vs. Michel Foucault (Eng. subs)

That is a valid point. However, I interpret his idea of power as such that every action, may it be verbal and/or physical, is an expression of power. Power doesn't vanish, nor it is being produced. Power, according to Foucault, flows. But institutions can bottle up power so that it becomes domination. The goal is to discover those "exploitations" of power.

Is there not a problem though that when describing power as "everywhere" it actually tells us very little. One thing that Foucault did not do (by his own admittance) was actually define what power is. This is where his work on power needed development.

Read the Critique series by Kant. It's exactly what you are looking for.

Foucault doesn't see all institutions as forms of "oppression". In fact, power is neutral and productive according to Foucault. So you might have misunderstood him.

i think foucault's best work was his studies on sewage

Brilliant :) Although I must admit that the facials on the guy at 1.28 distracted me for a while. I wish I could make my eyebrows do that!

Well, that's the way it is with the French language.  It's quite easy to make long, elaborate sentences completely devoid of meaning.

Uh-huh, two great minds. A self-proclaimed anarchist who takes money from the government, and an egotist who thinks he's a genius because he proposed studying the causes of crime.

Noam Chomsky does not speak truth to power. He is a mouthpiece for power. He teaches at MIT, which receives $10 billion a year from the Pentagon.