Two points:
1. This reply exhibits exactly the habit Chomsky attacks: Truth/theoretical power requires "sophistication."
2. What the heck are you even saying? What is it that Chomsky doesn't understand, that you do? You disagree with him about what social theory is and how it works. I would be shocked, however, if you could out-debate Noam Chomsky on any area touching upon this issue. Chomsky is pretty close to being a philosophical naturalist, to the extent that means "looking at reality is not super-complicated" or "reality tells us a great deal." Are you accusing Chomsky of being a naive empiricist?