I'm not anti-theoretical, and neither is Chomsky. He says this:
"Theory" would
>be a sort of truism. Maybe "smart ideas." Somebody could have smart ideas
>and say, Why don't you look at class struggle? It's interesting. Or, Why
>don't you look at economic factors lying behind the Constitution? Pick
>your topic. Those are interesting smart ideas. But you can say them in
>monosyllables. And it's rare outside the natural sciences to find things
>that can't be said in monosyllables. There are interesting, simple ideas
That's not saying "have no social theory." That's saying "don't get too over-heated with social theory." Marxism is a theory, as is historical/cultural materialism in general. I don't believe a body can properly explain the world without knowing these theories. Chomsky would agree with this, IMHO. These theories, however, are, indeed, just smart ideas that somebody worked really hard to figure out and bequeath to us. Historical materialism says "don't disconnect ideas from the social and environmental conditions in which they operate." Marxism says "if there are ruling classes, they will be socially dominant, so you'd better explain that."
None of the simplicity above denies the importance of having some theories. Nor does it tell you it's easy to explain how the world works.
As to Chapter One of Capital, I find it to be another pretty good example of using clear language to get people interested in looking behind the scene of supposedly "obvious" realities.