Noam Chomsky


Propaganda And Control of The Public Mind

Contents: 1 - A Real War 2 - Controlling The Public Mind 3 - Propaganda 4 - The Public Relations Industry 5 - Conscious Manipulation 6 - Labor Under Attack 7 - The Fate Of Democracy 8 - The Minority Of Opulent 9 - Regimentation 10 - Hysteria Among The Masters 11 - Americanism 12 - Mohawk Valley Formula 13 - Marginalization 14 - CIA Intervention 15 - Free Trade 16 - Welfare For The Rich 17 - Delusion 18 - Indoctrination 19 - Labor Struggles 20 - Authoritarian Structures 21 - Demonizing Labor 22 - Selling Free Enterprise 23 - Conspiracy Theories 24 - The Crisis Of Democracy 25 - Cuba And The U S 26 - Solutions 27 - Reshaping The Legal System 28 - Private Tyrannies 29 - Role Of The Media 30 - Poor People Pay 31 - The Country Is Flooded With Money 32 - Privatization 33 - Business Run Society 34 - Enlightenment Principles 35 - The Cold War 36 - Islam As The Enemy

1 - A Real War It should be understood to be what it is - a real war. And it's not a new war, it’s an old war. Furthermore, it’s a class-conscious war, everywhere, but, specifically in the United States, where there happens to be a very free country, but which happens to have a highly class-conscious business-class, and always has. And it's very free and open, so you’ve got a lot of information about it. They talk, you have the records, and they have long seen themselves as fighting a bitter class war, except that they don’t allow anybody else to know about it. Occasionally someone else gets the news. Rather famous case, which I'm sure you know, was Doug Fraser about 20 years ago, 1978, I think, when he pulled out a labor-management council and condemned business leaders for… words were roughly like this… for "having decided to fight a one-sided class war against working people", the poor, the unemployed, minorities, even members of the middle class, and for ''having torn up the fragile social compact that had been achieved during periods of growth and prosperity''. In fact these have been achieved primarily through rather militant struggle, very militant struggle, under harsh conditions, back in the 1930s. Now, the only thing wrong with this statement is that it was way too late. In fact, that war, that he's talking about, was initiated as soon as the ''fragile social compact'' was established, back in the 1930s, and very openly. You don’t have to go to the secret records to find out about it, nor did you have to be at the wrong end of the clubs when the strikes were broken up in the late 30s to know about it, - it was completely public. The reason it's not well known is because neither the educational system nor scholarship, like Harvard, and so on, pay any attention to it, it's not a topic that's studied.

2 - Controlling The Public Mind So, there's no doubt that one of the major issues of the 20th-century history, surely in the United States, is corporate propaganda. That's a huge industry, in fact, it extends over the, obviously, the commercial media, but also the whole range of the systems that reach the public: the entertainment industry, television, a good bit of what appears in schools, a lot of what appears in the newspapers, and so on. Huge amount of that comes straight out of the public relations industry, which was established in this country early in the century, and developed in the 20s and on. It has become an enormous industry: its now spreading over the rest of the world, but its primarily here, and it's goal from the beginning, perfectly openly and consciously, was to "control the public mind", as they put it. And the reason was that the public mind was seen as the greatest threat to corporations - that's from early in the century. Business power is strong, but it’s a very free country by comparative standards, and its hard to call on state violence, not impossible, but hard to call upon state violence to crush people's efforts to achieve freedom, and the rights, and justice. So, therefore, it was recognized early on that it's gonna be necessary to control people's minds. I should say that's not a new insight either – you can read it in David Hume, and the Enlightenment authors already recognized what might be called the earliest stirrings of democratic revolutions in England in the 17th-century. There already was a concern that they will not gonna be able to control people by force, and we therefore have to control them by the means of controlling what they think, what they feel, their attitudes or attitudes toward one another, - all sorts of mechanisms of control are gonna have to be devised, which will replace the efficient use of force and violence, that was available for much greater extent, earlier on, and which has, fortunately, been declining, although not uniformly, but declining through the years, particularly here, leading to the need for other methods of control.

3 - Propaganda You don't have to move very far from the Cambridge elite to learn about it. The major leading figure of

in a Constitutional convention. that the danger is going to become much more severe overtime as more and more people are marginalized and dispossessed. that the people are starting to fume that property ought to be more equitably distributed – that's a danger. for what nowadays we call 'agrarian reform' (it was mostly an agricultural society. and we have to protect our own society against that kind of 'injustice' by ensuring the rights of property prevail. they didn’t. pretty soon you would find people calling for redistribution of property and for a tax on property rights. and the power must reside in the hands of the . this is wa-a-ay at the left liberal end in American politics. in a free society. He recognized the problem of what he was already concerned in the 1780s. He used England as his model. Hitler. England was a model for democracy for everyone in those days. Now. which is what the government is all about. who wrote the standard manual of the public relations industry back in the 1920s. He said people would start to call for agrarian reform – obviously. I'm not talking about the right wing here. who died recently. who are ''the more capable set of men''. the Roosevelt-Kennedy liberal. First of all. Prior to the WW2 the term ''propaganda'' was used quite openly and freely for controlling the public mind. he was a smart guy. and he opens by pointing out that the ''conscious manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is the central feature of a democratic society''. therefore. he said. And he said ''we have the means to carry this out''.The Public Relations Industry This manual is for the rising public relations industry. and this is the origins of our society). which was virtually unanimous and virtually no disagreement about this. The constitutional system as he designed it was supposed to put power in the hands of the wealthy. around 1780s. they describe what they're doing as ''propaganda''. of what he called ''the symptoms of a leveling spirit''. wealth and so on. if those people get to vote – we're gonna be in trouble. which. I should mention that terminology changed during the WW2. which is very much worth reading. that this was going to be a serious problem if the democratic system were established. the way he set it up. ''we have the means to regiment people's minds as efficiently. so he would use the term 'agrarian reform' which is basically the same thing…). the one person that might have disagreed – Jefferson . and that is a view back at the origins of the American society. he and the other framers. It got bad connotation strings during the WW2 because. roughly the way it is. back in say 20s and the 30s. as armies regiment their bodies''. James Madison. and ''secretly yearn for a more more equal distribution of life's blessings''. that the. fortunately. or maybe just "Propaganda". And he pointed out in the debates on the Constitutional convention (something which everybody ought to read in the third grade. But. 5 . It was founded on the principle that was stated very explicitly by the leading framer. its the ''essence'' of democracy. so the term was dropped. Edward Bernays. but also it's a way to maintain power structures and authority structures.the public relations industry is a highly regarded Cambridge liberal. designed a constitutional system which was intended to prevent that danger. and that sort of things. as he put it. Remember. you know. he pointed out that in England if they had the right to vote. Madison recognized. as it is later pointed out. the primary responsibility of the government is ''to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority''. and we must do this. that's the essential feature of democracy. if the people have the right to vote. The system.was not part of any of this stuff. 4 .Conscious Manipulation And he. His book is called "On propaganda". 'cos its gonna be very hard to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. he said. and the other terms are used. that's intolerable. But if you read literature in the social sciences and the public relations industry and so on. Its worth remembering something else that they usually don't teach you very much about in school.

7 . he ends up by saying. working people had to ''privatize'' their lives and aspirations as a sort of workout survival strategies for themselves. that they were going to be. 6 . their minds. and very consciously. The reason was that Madison was precapitalist. the labor movement destroyed. because the modes of cooperation. called "The fall of the House of labor" . If it looks as if labor is under attack now. schools and so on and so forth. they were very was a highly undemocratic country. and that includes Adam Smith. While this was around 1780s. to prevent the dangers that Madison was worrying about. there is sort of understanding that they have to say that. and repression and. state violence. straight propaganda. Which is true . with the general population fragmented. Wilson's 'Red Scare'. the media. in a ''most undemocratic America''. and the need to resort to these other measures of actualization. whole thing wiped out. was failing.The Fate Of Democracy I should just comment. Carnegie. and that just raised the danger. and they're going to devote themselves to the welfare of everyone else. ''enlightened statesmen'' and ''benevolent philosophers''. and that includes the private power. it's recognized that huge resources must go into the ''manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses''. dispersed. they're just gonna be benevolent philosophers. Madison was. almost 200 years earlier: that more and more people would ''secretly sigh for a better access to life's blessings'' and might do something about it.Labor Under Attack The 20s was an important period in this regard. but the way I read them. not with others. where we started from. you know ''the more capable set of men''. as Montgomery points out at the end of his book. factionalized. the ''more capable set of men''.that has declined. like the power of. so over time more and more people did get the right to vote. the power of the state to coerce by violence.that's increased. We have to regiment them. as well as the army regiments their bodies. he was already very upset about the fate of this democratic experiment which. which show you how it works. using a combination of modes of violence. if they had a functioning democracy. And he very quickly discovered that it wasn’t true. . who would devote themselves to the welfare of all – that's a very precapitalist conception – that once you give power to the hands of the rich. There's been a big strike wave during the end of the WW1. which therefore could permit it.a very important book on history of the labor movement . but I suppose that nobody believes this. say. except the people who read these… watch these movies. remember: in the 20s it had been smashed. Labor had been virtually destroyed. It’s a lot like what corporate executives tell you now. because there was no modern industrial capitalism around for them to have an opinion about. You can't say they're anticapitalist. in fairness to James Madison. to hire workers and so on. and all great figures of the Enlightenment. 'cos these remarks are not quite correct. instilling hatred or marginalizing people. straight propaganda and so on. He condemned what he called the ''daring . one can read them in many different ways. and common struggle had been eliminated. They have been mostly precapitalist and very anticapitalist in the conception. He believed that when he put power in the hands of the wealthy class of men. So by the time we get to the 1920s. smashed. just like Adam Smith. the leading labor leader in jail and so ends in the 1920s 'cos that's when the House of labor had fallen. and its a matter of interpretation: when one reads texts. he thought. In those days Madison really believed it. . propaganda. by approximately 1790. with a lot of violence in that case. entertainment. and coersion. as he put it. Certainly. its been a pretty stable system and as the franchise has increased. in conflict and so on and so forth.wealthy. and those methods are advertising. and I think you can demonstrate this. The major American labor historian David Montgomery has a book which you probably should know. and we have the methods for it. increasingly. Within a few years. and they did it. Furthermore.

they are not going to understand the need to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. is in fact one in which private power is the ''tool and tyrant of government''. he says that we ''must not succumb to Democratic dogmatism about people being the best judges of their own interests''. particularly among liberals. is bribed by its largesses. Harold Lasswell . . overwhelms it by its combinations. say. used that power. you know. So we gotta keep them out of the public arena somehow. and there was a militant working-class . ensure that they're under control.they overwhelm government with their power and combinations. he said. Bernays. with all changes that have taken place since 1792. And he thought that was deplorable and so on. 8 . that it is necessary to control people's minds. They're not. like in the public arena. I mean. and the entry on propaganda is written by a very distinguished political scientist. The dedication with which this task has been pursued is pretty awesome. liberal political scientist. but pretty close to quote. as you know. 9 . who are in there. of course. and certainly not in a political arena – they're to be outside somewhere. overwhelmingly significant idea.depravity of the time'': the business leaders who have now been given power. because. and make sure that it's just us. If you come to take a picture just right after the fall of a House of labor in the 1920s. The Encyclopedia of the social's worth reading. There's a good deal of stability to all this. a few years later. not the interest of the general of the founders of modern liberal science of communications.Regimentation So for their benefit we have to regiment their minds the way the army regiments their bodies. by actually using their theoretical right to vote to interfere where they don’t belong. you know. and they're just serving self-interest. including the commitment to the principle that the primary goal of the government is to protect the minority of the opulent from majority (Read yesterday's budget proposal carefully and you'll get a good example of how that commitment plays itself out).that's a pretty good description of 1997. these are paraphrases. you know. to become the ''tools and tyrants of government''. and it sort of looked like that. the smart guys. Well. We are the best judges of their interest. they have to be kept out of the political arena. .a kind of like some of the stuff you read today. and the increasingly significant idea. and its improper to let him have that choice. but that's because he began to perceive the way the system he had designed was actually functioning. 1933. but it is a perfect description of today.they are gonna do all kinds of things which will mess the world up in all sorts of horrible ways. you know.that was a time when there was a great sort of awe about the 'end of history' and the 'utopia of the Masters' being achieved. and everybody else is at their feet . And the same is true about the masses – they are to be controlled. when American labor was really smashed. rhetoric. us good guys have won. Take a look at a. . And we must therefore ensure that those idiots out there don't get into trouble. the smart guys. Its kind of like you don't let your 3-year old run across the street. They have to be controlled at the workplace.The Minority Of the Opulent That description. What's called the industrial capitalist system today. the whole thing collapsed. is kind of nice – some people don’t use fancy rhetoric like that today. and they have all these strange 'leveling impulses'. as Montgomery and others have pointed out. he might want to run across the street. pretty much looked that way. . and it's all over. make it very clear that they don't participate in workplace management. So he says. and they are bribed by its largesses. .there is an entry on propaganda ('propaganda' was a usable term then). say. like. people were privatized and tried to accommodate individually to a ''most undemocratic America''. its for their good. because they are too much of a danger. .

built with the new techniques. we are in harmony. but to some extent. like in the Soviet Union: 'anti-Sovietism' was considered the gravest of all crimes. one can't believe how American workers were treated. that Fraser referred to. and it wasn’t any gift: it was won by struggle. because they are really important in that they give the real framework of the Society in my view). meaning the labor laws and limited social system. They started right away . its called "The Mohawk Valley Formula" was designed by public relations hot-shots around '37-'37 at the time of the steel strikes. because the old way doesn’t work anymore. to have a new. the honest workman going off every morning with his lunchboxes. But in totalitarian societies it is used. And we're all in harmony. But try. There was still the use of force. 'Americanism' and 'anti-Americanism' and 'un-Americanism' and so on – these are concepts which go along with . The main idea was to mobilize the community against the strikers and the union activists. as far as I know. If you read the right-wing British press over the. it's kind of a term you only find in totalitarian societies. 'harmony' was the big word. The scientific methods of strikebreaking were in fact drawn from the public relations ideas of the time. scientific methods of strikebreaking. loyal wife making the meals and taking care of the kids. as well as some other popular activism.Americanism The basic idea is to present a picture of the world that looks like this. 'cos it's just poured out ever since then. So you read the business press by 1936 or 37 (again. It's an unusual term. so there was a shift to more propaganda. but it was understood that its not gonna work the way it did. say. 11 .they were talking about the ''hazard facing industrialists'' in the ''rising political power of the masses''. and there HAD to be an accommodation. and that caused hysteria among the masters. what they called. so ludicrous the idea. Anyhow. these are things which in a really free society everybody would study in elementary school. or our way of life will be gone''. even in much more brutal societies. The main idea.Hysteria Among The Masters By the 1930s the US was sort of brought into the more or less mainstream industrial society on these matters. early part of this century. 10 . That's 'us'. we do it the scientific way. and so on and so forth. And there was. There was this fragile social compact. There's 'us'. and how we must ''do something to save the late 30s there was a big antilabor campaign. In fact American workers back in the 1930s began to get the rights that have been standard long before. say. posing a book on 'anti-Italianism'. and as far as I know the United States is the only free society that has such a concept. who were getting out of line: sitdown strikes and all sorts of things.'anti-Brasilian'. and see what happens in the streets of Rome and Milan – people will go by laughing. its 'Americanism'… You might take a look at that word 'Americanism'. indeed. the hard-working executive who's toiling day and night in the interests of his workers and the community. we are all together. the friendly banker who was running around looking for people to lend money to.struggle. to a limited extent in fact. that was indeed established. and informal system. The idea of 'Italianism' or 'Norway-ism' or something like that is just the object of ridicule in the societies that have at least some residue of a democratic culture inside people's heads. The same was true of visitors from Australia and so on. and there's not a lot of time to do it. . the big happy family in the community. there had to be some sort of accommodation to these unwashed masses. and the Brazilian generals had some concept like that . We don’t just come in with clubs and shoot people and smash their heads. to present a picture which is by now so standard you can hardly turn on the tube without seeing it.

and we're the ones who have to make the decisions for them. So it's easy for propagandists. trying to destroy all those wonderful things we have. listen to orders.'harmony'. remember. that were trying to disrupt our harmonious lives. and this is one of them. So it's quite interesting to see what happened right there. pretty easy to get people hate the guy next door because he looks a little different for one thing or another. you don't want people to know the 'wrong' kind of thing. United States is off the chart . These are very natural techniques of social control. like those union organizers. But one factor is that it was certainly consciously fomented by business leaders and it goes way back to the 19th century. A lot of religion gets thrown in. and certainly out of anything having to do with control of the economic system. And then. You just don't want people to know things that might be harmful to them.these are untouchable topics. pour in this propaganda about 'harmony' and so on the way I described it. If you can't control people by force . Huge campaigns go on to instigate divisions among people. because the Mohawk Valley was the model later used for strikebreaking and destruction of the labor movement in the post-war period. whether its the source or not. and we gotta band together and kick them out. Another part is simply to induce hatred. the United States is extremely fundamentalist country.Marginalization There's an enormous amount of money and effort that goes into this. probably 'un-American'. probably communists. take over the media. always. hatred and fear among people. and comparative statistics shows that usually religious fundamentalism declines as industrialization goes out – its pretty close correlation. Another technique of trying to create the marginalization of people is that they were removing people from the actual social and political struggle that might make their lives better and to keep them from working with one another by providing all sorts of ways. and getting rid of those outsiders and all that kind of stuff. there are those 'bad guys' out there. Rockefeller's favorite evangelist. And I still don’t know about any literature on this topic . And you can almost say that anything that's important. when they were supporting John D. And its used.most places are pretty uniform. probably more fundamentalist than Iran. flood it with propaganda. its certainly used. its not a conspiracy. who said that ''people ought to have more enlightened ideas than labor agitation'' – one of his famous ranks with devastated peasant societies.Mohawk Valley Formula Going back to the Mohawk Valley formula. where they don't belong. you have to control their attitudes. if you look comparatively. the churches. This is a very diverse society. and that makes sense. And then. its just common sense if you have a certain degree of power and authority and privilege. everything else. remember. So it's a diverse society. because they are really like children. the have to control their minds. And it sort of makes sense: you don’t want people to know about it. and. do what they tell you and shut up – that's the more enlightened ideas. in order to defend our 'way of life'. That's got to be in the hands of private tyrannies – that's unquestionable. that is going to matter for people's lives is got to be sort of off the agenda. When you have Europe . where it's unthinkable that they should have a role. 13 . and more enlightened ideas are to go to church. and its not the only thing by any means. There's a lot of other reasons why the United States is so unusual in this respect. the myriad of techniques to find a fashion to keep the hated masses out of the public arena. And its a really interesting case. the idea was to move into a community where the strike was going on. . 12 . anarchists. Why is it so I don’t know – it’s a complicated question.

if the Communists. they were trying to separate Italy from the Western alliance. they were appaled to discover the northern Italy had been already liberated by the resistance. And they say: but if this doesn't work. not our problem. By 1948. they were keeping ''useless workers''.by withholding food (Italy was starving). and the first major CIA operation among others. and a huge effort went into trying to ensure that that wouldt happen. something you would learn in a free society is the thing about the National Security Council's Main planning outfit. in fact American-British armies. they held off the Germans and liberated most of the place. Our problem was to restore the traditional structure. come to power through a legal vote. say. They had to be prevented. which meant traditional hierarchies. by controlling the power and government and using them against the working public? . withholding food.CIA Intervention Where the United States has acted internationally. back in 1947. And its not just the Third World countries. by all sorts of threats and manipulation . as they call them. actually it meant restoring fascist structures and fascist collaborators and so on.Free Trade Q. and the system was functioning. Again. 15 . That's how seriously they took it. NSC 1. but from the origin of the CIA in 1947 up to at least the mid-70s Italy seems to have been targeted more than any other country in an effort to undermine Italian democracy.they didn’t actually say that. and there were plenty of others besides communists. and in fact it goes up into the present. And they took it really seriously. so can't say after that. through a legal election. than the United States is going to declare a national emergency and is gonna support the military activities inside Italy to overthrow the democratically elected government. when the first election took place. military intervention. and our big effort was made to do that. or by direct intervention. it looked as if labor-based forces would probably win. they were protecting workers. 1947.: . and Im quoting a U. its true that they were collaborationists. which have established a functioning society with very strong labor control. . but they were defending working-class interests and people supported them. by restoring the police to fascist control. like.they can get released maybe 35 years later. but it amounts to it – in which there would be a big role for the organized working-class of Italy. which produces top level planning documents. The resistance was mostly labor and peasant based. and that's of course intolerable. Italy was regarded as sort of a semi-Third World’s the same way.How is it that the wealthy can put a wall in front of the eyes of the American worker. and it was taken very seriously.14 . So we have them now from the late 40s. but among the most important ones. what were called. so you have to look back at them. and when the American army. And it was not entirely successful. furthermore.S. But that is their problem. which was recognized as Italy's major problem. when they 'liberated' Italy in 1943-44. because they're supporting working-class interests. . And. When you look at the trail of intervention – its almost always the same. They were mass working class party. They had instituted workers' management in factories. you read it in the records extensively: because they were had a very strong labor movement. . and the first one. they were focusing on unemployment. which are among not the only important ones. It says we're going to try all these measures to ensure that Italy doesn't have a free democratic government . Italy was the target of the major CIA activity since its origins. and violence. either by coersion. They also knew exactly why the Communists were powerful. The internal record runs dry around the mid-70s. and throwing out arbitrarily and dismissing owners and bosses.-British document terminology here. is devoted to Italy. .pretty big operation.

right after Arlington. One is between integrationists and "anti-integrationists": the people who want more globalization. and he happens to be holding the national championship in bringing federal subsidies to his rich constituent. which is the home of the space center. The way the system is designed. fighting in this harsh world? Ridiculous. . and then handed over to private power when it works. is two. so of course they get a lot of federal subsidies.they get more federal subsidies than anybody. district.Well. They sell commercial planes. And the biggest employer in the Cobb County is Locheed. what they call 'free trade'. and Newt Gingrich reaction to that question is… "Great!". So those are the two ways people break up. so the breakdown isn't ''fox's and dogs'' anymore. Unveiled. Cobb County is just an extreme example of it. who had an article there four days ago in which he says that the Cold war is over. to industry. like the Pentagon and so on. Virginia. along with the biggest nationalisation in American history: takeover of the Continental illinois Bank and so on. technology is developed under the guise of the military. And he is in favor of being all out on your own. which is a part of the federal government. he's the biggest welfare freak in this country! That's literally true. alongside a huge increase in public subsidies to private power. computers and the Internet.they fit into two of those boxes. completely. which is a publicly subsidized private profit corporation. but that is just what everyone knows. a guy named Thomas Friedman. testable with what Gingrich's position is. For example on the question of whether Gingrich is an integrationist. The way our economy works. so that's another part of the federal government. 16 . What they call ''corporate welfare'' is attached to a different category. among suburban counties in the United States. That’s one break. some new breakdown.Delusion . which isn't free trade. take our times as an example. This isn't quite different. we have to find something new. he says. Couple of days ago I put myself through the pain of reading the New York Times every day for some masochistic reason which I won't try to explain. Two of them he sort of dismisses as lunatics – the Zapatistas and Ross Perot . if there is any. The other two boxes are sort of sane people . To be precise. That's all radically anti-integrationist. The new breakdown. 'cause I've studied it) and you find that it's based on massive public subsidy and privatizational profit.Clinton and Gingrich [laughter].take just about any dynamic sector you know (which I know. That's like giving a special shot in the arm for some particular corporation. Cobb County ranks third in federal subsidies. Notice this is not what's called ''corporate welfare''. except that he wants the welfare to go to very rich people. Gingrich is put in the corner that says ''integrationist'' and ''everybody for themselves''. Well. And it goes for everything: airplanes. .that's testable. And that gives you the four possible types of people. Public pays the costs and takes the risks. sort of the the main thinker.this is the way in which our economy works. Florida. They got their chief correspondent. we can ask how he reacted when the Reagan administration instituted the greatest wave of protectionism since the 1930s that's just straight protectionism. Gingrich's district is number one . private systems make their profits. But if you move outside of the federal government itself. 17 . They use military technology.Welfare For The Rich What about the safety net story? Gingrich's in favor of people being out there on their own. And Cobb County is the center of that. . and people who want to slow it down. rugged entrepreneurs and so on. Cobb County. And the other is between people who are in favor of a safety net and those who think that everybody should be on their own and do what he can. And Brevard County. You can check that too – he represents the county. Georgia. like in favor of the free trade.

is that you first convince yourself that what you're saying is true. or "disruptive". usually. ultimately.Indoctrination Well. And the reason is that the sciences simply require this kind of independence. one way or another. and your mother comes and yells at you. I wanted the toy. I needed it more than he did". There is selection for obedience from the very first moment. when people talk like this: "Nobody's telling me what to write! I write anything I feel like!". . I'm sure you know it. whatever ability it takes.Labor Struggles . Everyone of us lies to people all the time. You don’t say "well.". you know. without doubt. he has taken a toy of mine. how does that work? It starts from childhood. It's like if you're an 8-year-old kid and you steal a toy from your brother. which is top-down. or make the microphones and so on. 19 . because you just encourage people to be challenging. I can tell you. but I learned not to say anything. I ended up going to fancy college. And they got into trouble. they're going to go off and do the wrong thing. you are sufficiently disciplined and passive. Which is actually true. People like Thomas Friedman and everyone else in the business know that you're not supposed to write about these things. in fact people who write about it are probably more deeply propagandized even than the people you are talking to. So when you look at people. so I took it 'cause im stronger than him". . It's extremely hard to lie – I think we all know this from personal experience.they wouldn't even be in a position to write anything they feel like. And they're going to be cut off. Because I know that that's the way I get ahead. unless people are challenging all time and questioning. 18 . and the way I did it was – I know exactly how I did it – by shutting up. like this place. it starts in kindergarten. these are glaringly obvious facts. What you say is "it really wasn't his. say studying physics at MIT. "do the next stupid assignment". I mean. say. I'm not claiming he thinks about it. its just like in graduate school. ok? If people haven't had that experience they must be some other species. And if you got this. So you'll read the. well I'm guessing . or any other school experience that I know about. I don't know. how come people could be so deluded? Well. You can detect between the lines when the person who's writing the recommendation is telling you ''keep away from this person – they're going to cause you trouble''. I didn't say "hey. and he had it. There are people who don't.something or other. what are you saying?" (well. Just think about. and obedient. I don’t want to exaggerate… In the scienses it is somewhat different. which I did most of the time. Some of my own kids just didn't. you sort of make it through up to the higher echelons. I know some like that. But in most areas you don't: you want them to be passive.. Because they are just too independent. but at least when I think about my own school experience. and I'll do this and that. or something like that. there was a selection for obedience. liberal columnist in the New York Times very angrily. They way we do it. to say "ok. And the people who don’t accept this are weeded out. in front of the class). You dont even make it into those circles unless you are already so deeply overwhelmed by doctrine and propaganda that you can't even think in other terms. and anyway. It's hard to lie to people. besides. I think.maybe I'm wrong. and. I read applications. who are. You cannot be a good propagandist unless it's in your bones. If the people with real power weren't sure that they are going to say the right things. so it was RIGHT for me to take it. But that kind of experience goes all the way up to being a hot-shot journalist at the New York Times. saying. sometimes I did. and to sit there to fit some kind of niche inside a managerial system. and supportive. They are called "behavior problems". how often do you read about this? These are not some subtle facts. and people who are independent are 'pain in the neck' – they disrupt the system. its entirely different. stick drugs into them . unless we are some kind of crazy angel. like in most graduate schools. Like if I thought that the high school teacher was a horses ass. to do this kind of thing. Which means. on television.Now. actually.

and they keep popping up again. namely the tyranny of the hierarchic industrial system''. and this is. But I think if you look back you'll probably. the values that we fought for in the American Revolution are being taken away from us. recognize that that happened. and people like that. Its mostly young women from the farms.R. they were trying to drill this into people's heads in 1850. they are crushed. They regarded industrial capitalism as just another form of slavery. and then they go on from those successes. around 1924. but nothing that would bring them together to work for some cause. It's about the labor movement in Eastern Massachusetts. that's one of the reasons its constantly repressed. We're being forced into another kind of tyranny. And when you watch television. the family life. they're putting out billions of dollars a year to control the public mind – youre thinking about it when you're doing it.they are subject to a lot of pressure. . with no Marx.Authoritarian Structures Structures that are based on authority and dominance will. by guy named Norman Ware (*The Industrial Worker. Not always successfully . And what they complained about was that their culture was being taken away from them. .are sort of geared to supporting that kind of passivity. That's the picture of life that's presented. that the whole history of the labor movement is a struggle against the "new spirit of the age". very consciously. around 1850s and 60s. to struggle against the ''new spirit of the age''. as labor movement does. very well written. read Classics. Well. what they called ''factory girls''. and what was to be beaten out of the people's heads. try to block such tendencies. . I mean.the world is a lot better than it was a hundred years an artisan in Boston. The "new spirit of the age" is gaining wealth forgetting all but self . say. and they were resisting. which are just fascinating. .It seems to me that an awful lot of the whole system of kinda thought control. you known. all sorts of things. and over time it gets better. from the very beginning. industry. and I mean education. like it was in my experience. or 50 years ago for that matter. It's mostly quotes from the labor press. even without thinking about it. but they leave the residue. and then they're beaten back. like 18-year-old kid comes in from the farm and she's working in the're just part of it. when was the last time you saw a sitcom about that? And in fact what you get is this stuff that flows out of the P. to the way that human beings are. And in fact I think.I urge you to. it's all just working people from their own experience. like in these manuals of the public relations industry. they think about it very hard. day after day after day. And they also opposed. if you havent read it . is the first modern book on labor history that I know of. at least it looks like that to me. television. or as an artisan in Boston.the same thing that is drilled in everyone's heads everyday today: "You got to gain wealth forgetting about everybody else". Things like people's personal problems or something like that. They took for granted. Its very eloquent. 20 . They have successes. And institutions that break out of it. It takes a long time to drive normal human sentiments out of people's heads. They said: ''Look. or in that case mostly consciously. because it's degrading. he had extra money and would hire a boy to read to him. no foreign radicals – none of that stuff. But most of the time you don't think about. normally. . some sitcom. you know. The labor movement ALWAYS broke out this. 1840-1860: The Reaction of American Industrial Society to the Advance of the Industrial Revolution). that those who work in the mills have to own them. what they called. one of the most interesting books I know. Well. it was like 1850. Actually. but you are. its picture was ALWAYS different. And other independent efforts are also constantly repressed. very literate actually. it was just reprinted so its easy to get. as the labor movement always has. you don't think ''well I'm been exposed to Mohawk Valley". Like when you don’t think about the fact that when you go through school you're being trained for obedience and passivity. These struggles tend to get repressed. At the beginnings of the labor movement it was farmers bitterly opposing the degrading and oppressive modes of industrial capitalist organization that were being forced on them. no Socialism. which we don’t want. Sometimes they think about it. "the new spirit of the age".

We have to fight and quickly win. and glossing over of the crimes of the corporate rulers. They were talking about ''developing antidotes for the poisons of the capitalist press''. on this major theme of modern history just appeared in University of Illinois press. thought that there ought to be popular control over industry in some fashion – you know. I mean here it's conscious. It was kinda put on hold during the WW2.they are involved in a conspiracy against the public. she quotes a lot of them. The leaders of the public relations industry. A major element in the huge public relations propaganda after the WW2 was strictly demonizing labor. the first study that I've ever heard of. the commercial media. that the government will do a better job than private power . at a huge scale. to be beaten out of their heads by force. who run the society''. instantly. what they call ''the everlasting battle for the minds of men'' and ''indoctrinate people with the capitalist story''. 23 . you know. who were ''demonizing labor at every opportunity. and awful lot of people in the United States too. which were reaching maybe 20 or 30 million people. Sports leagues were taken over. just labor newspapers. the churches were taken over. like maybe half. but it took off immediately after the Second World war. but the material in it is pretty revealing. There was an enormous support for social programs.and on and on like that. And it's still going on. Its the next part of the story that I was going to get to. but not supposed to read him. ''the rising political power of the masses''. in the United States. 22 . for example about a third of the material in the American schools. so fully that they can repeat it on every opportunity. That terrified the daylights out of the business community. Remark this somewhere: that if you find two businessmen talking to each other . Adam Smith – you're supposed to worship him.things like that.Conspiracy Theories Now. we have three to five years to save their… our way of life''. and FAST. was coming straight out of the corporate propaganda offices. as late as the 1950s.Demonizing Labor Another aspect of it is demonizing labor. It's kind of a political book. indeed. this ''hazard facing industrialists''.Selling Free Enterprise The good book on this one too. And the labor movement knew that. something to that. And they weren't kidding around. the universities were attacked. this is so exotic in the United States. there were still about the 800 labor newspapers. . Fones-Wolf. I'm not talking about anything radical. and there's nothing wrong for them in this. . And that's what she's talking about: selling free enterprise. And there is. but it's my personal feeling that you'll find more passivity and obedience in the elite centers than you do in the streets or in a state college. that part of it is conscious. by the early 50s. like the left-wing press. medical programs and so on. that led to the Mohawk Valley formula and so on. elementary schools. the conservative American labor movement. they said "look. who had the ideas about workers' management. though the exact fashion was never describe but somehow. Especially if you've been through elite educational system. There was a fairly substantial labor press even then. I mean. It's like I havent measured this.21 . It was just like the Italian workers. then you're really deeply indoctrinated. and trying to undermine our achievements. not commercial media but pretty substantial. and its worth reading too. most of the participants of it are conscious. there was a cross-the-board major effort to try to win the ''everlasting battle for the minds of men''. And that had to be beaten out of the people's heads. Remember that the United States came out of the second world war pretty social-democratic. like most of the world. And they are interesting to read too. book called ''Selling free enterprise'' by a woman named Elizabeth A.

here's what we gonna do…". Shortly after he got one of my favorite titles. Well. All this fermenting went on in the 60s. And. you know that that's the crisis of democracy. If you were unfortunate enough to have gone to this Davos conference the other day. But that's the image that would be perfect – if we had that. because at that point they were concerned. and this is almost quote. and blacks. For example the Financial Times of London.You can read descriptions of this. incidentally. the guy who wrote the US part of it. they really do things. before the crisis of democracy. I think he's the kind of like a 'New Deal' Democrat or something. was drawn from this group. in the business press. is what he called the ''de facto world government in a new imperial age'' and the ''de facto world government'' is a ''set of shadowy institutions''. Truman ''had been able to run the country with the help of a few Wall Street lawyers and financiers". But the others are more or less the same. drew people crazy. 24 . but its usually extremely boring. just as as did the working-class struggle in the 30s. for example the G-7 (you know. this is the first getting together after the 60s. This is the commission that was put together by David Rockefeller around 1973. and all these 'scum'. that's supposed to be democracy. He said. described the 'good old days'. That. I think that's kind of a metaphor. which basically serve the interests of transnational capital and financial institutions. The ''crisis of democracy'' is the fact that normally passive and marginalized parts of the population. real smooth). when things get scary. That's roughly the complexion. but don’t know what they're doing). including Carter himself. you know. under leadership. If you look at the composition. And they were concerned about. . and old people. what they called. there would be no crisis of democracy. the seven big rich countries meeting. under there (he sort of knows that they're there. were suddenly trying to get into the public arena to do something about their interests. He's now a university professor or something. so boring. trying to get into the public arena – yeah. It's interesting to read what they said. take the Trilateral Commission. the World Bank. So. I do a lot of reading of this truff. that after couple of years I stopped subscribing – it was so predictable and boring.what now would be the World Trade Organization. But when you have women.they are getting together and running the ''de facto world government''. like they get together somewhere and say "ok. say. that's that alleged conspiracy. But if you're ''smart'' enough to make it to Harvard. It's very much in line with the stuff that I was talking about before. in the 'good old days'. "Trilateral" means United States. then the GATT council. Europe and Japan. So here you have a gathering of elites. on liberal side. like the Trilateral Commission was one of them. a couple of years ago they had an article by the economics correspondent of the BBC over establishment stuff. He gave his ideal. is a professor at Harvard. and farmers. something like the Carter Democrat. when women and minorities and all kinds of people that were supposed to be kept in their place. So these are elite elements. it wasn't just Truman and a bunch of the Wall Street lawyers and financiers. Besides you can read this in Foreign Affairs and there's a business page for everyone any day.The Crisis Of Democracy But yes. of course its exaggerated. In 1975 their first publication was very interesting. and they publish regular documents. and sometimes. And he wrote the American side of this trilateral thing. he was called ''professor of the science of government'' – always liked that one. And he said. In fact the whole Carter demonstration. There is one publication which really IS interesting and worth reading. I'm sure you would have been bored out of your mind. Now. Exactly the . the overwhelming majority. he said that Truman. the American reporteur. again. they do get together. and young people. in which he said something like this. and we're gotta stop it. its roughly speaking. . I went there and I've seen the dosuments. and I urge you to read it. So. I don’t mean to suggest he is different. and this is the one that people refer to when they talk about this secret nexus of the rulers and so on. They do get together. the ''crisis of democracy''. if you haven't done it at school. that's the problem. if you believe the stuff they teach in the civics classes. are suddenly trying to get into the public arena to press their demands. But having read things like that. which is like the most important business newspaper in the world. just their executives. that what's evolving. in fact. the IMF. mostly liberal. "The Crisis of Democracy". in all three of these countries. Remember.

because its interesting. like Thomas Jefferson and so on. has been trying to do since the 1775. so you can find out about it. Well. Franklin Roosevelt was famous for the 'good neighbor policy': we don't intervene anymore in the affairs of our neighbors. of more or less independent ideas. just as in the 1960s there was a Soviet dictator. so you can read it. and Cubans say they didn't know about it. the United States intervened in Cuba. He said that it will ''drop into our hands like a ripe fruit.that's an interpretation. there was a little problem . Mainly because of their power . I guess it was. March 1960 up until today. suggested that we just be patient. Back in the 1820s the 'nice guys'. Why is the US virtually alone in its hostility toward Cuba? What explains US policy? Let me. but now declassified. In 1959 Castro comes along. You take a close look. I think if you look you'll find that what happened is that the intervention in Cuba was primarily an effort to make sure that its liberation from Spain didn’t mean liberation. a moderate SocialDemocrat. So…. when Cuba made the mistake of trying to elect a sort of. in a way. And John Quincy Adams. That's March 1960. in a vital place. By late 1959 US planes were already bombing Cuba from Florida-bases. he's anti-Communist. the United States were getting more powerful. by the laws of political gravitation''. There was a British tyrannt. no was smashed down. Within a couple months it was decided that Castro is too much of a scare: there was no Russians to speak of. There's nothing I'm going to say that's the least controversial. So. saw Cuba as the next place to pick up. They've already stolen Florida from its inhabitants. claiming from Spanish but actually from its inhabitants. and you couldn't get there because the British are in the way. In March 1960 the Eisenhower administration made a formal decision. They prevented the United States from conquering Canada couple of times. and the British were the hated enemy in those days. For example. sure. So. By the end of the century that has happened.S.they were preventing the United States from expanding. that you would read on the front pages of newspapers if there was any commitment to trying to tell important and uncontroversial truth. Yeah. But in this case this is public. no Communists. it was happening. things will shift around and we'll be able to take it over.the British fleet. When Cuba tried any 'funny' ideas about moving towards independence . Well. take a look at the 1934. and during something that is so ludicrously mistitled as the Spanish-American war. Remember: no Cold war.Cuba And The U S Q: . 25 . don’t take my word for it. Try that if. and may finally achieve it in the so-called 'free trade' agreement. which the U. Meaning. But most of the stuff is fairly boring. but it's worth reading. who were planning to take over the hemisphere.Most countries of the world have normal bilateral relations with Cuba. So Cuba was sitting right there. bought up by the American agribusiness and so on. primarily to prevent it from liberating itself from Spain. . they made a formal decision to overthrow the Cuban government and take it over. By the end of the century the British were sort of being pushed out of the game. And this is not a new policy issue – since early 1920 it hasn't changed much. The State Department claimed that they didn’t know about it. And in fact Cuba was quickly turned into an American plantation. up till now it was secret. and their eyes were now kinda moving toward the West.problem that Madison worried about. report some truisms to you. . There was a little bit of toying with question of whether we can maintain the new Cuba in our system or not. Let me just run through the history. again. you somehow have to marginalize them. as president – a-a! that's going too far. I guess. with all kind of restrictions on its options. Cuba was the first foreign policy problem for the United States. say. so you want to make sure. by the time we get stronger and the British get weaker. From that point on. but also on Cuba – that was the next prize. just independent Cuba. Cuban planes bombed the United States. jailing the members of the Communist Party – there was no question of the Russians or the Communists or that kind of stuff. in fact. – out! So it continues up to 1959. its like the literature of social science. I mean you gotta work a little bit to find it.

was a pretense that we gotta do it because of the Russians. than Cuba is to the United States. To judge how much of a Russian threat it was. Mexicans die laughing''. so that the missiles were still there. and this is incidentally one tiny footnote to a long history of terrorism. Yeah. but if he announces in public in Mexico that Cuba is a threat. just do a little check and find out how much information you can find about this. before when it had sort of theoretically been solved. 40 million Mexicans will die laughing. but somebody did. This is discussed as if…. even if it's owned by the Russians. The idea that Cuba could be a threat. Just to give you one small example. suppose Cuba blew up a factory in the United States and foreign people were killed – you think it might make it to the newspapers? In fact we'd probably… we'd nuke them. one of them. that before the end of the Cold War Russia had been carrying out massive terrorism against Denmark and strangling the country. . Have that happened? No. For those of you who want to know about why people believe what they do. but he says it's alleged and apparently takes this seriously. don’t know about that. the Mexican ambassador actually told him he would like to do it. so maybe it was on its own. And the only issue debated in the United States. And it continued under the pretext of a Russian threat as long as the Russians were around. which he is writing sort of partially from the inside. In an intellectually free country everybody would laugh at that. Which. This is it. ok.all sorts of things. but when it was still not over. But what happened when Russians disappeared? So. somewhere at the peak of the missile crisis. If Russians have said that you wouldn’t laugh. well. when Kennedy once tried to get the Mexican ambassador to join in some anti-Cuban action back in the early 60s. or alert. he doesn't verify it. . Meanwhile the economic striangulation is going on. Denmark is an advanced industrial country. I'm gonna save you the trouble. That's the interesting part. it would be a sign of their lunacy. no more Russians… What happened to Cuba? If the story of the last 30 years. let's imagine it could do that. and we're properly indoctrinated. and this one comes from an absolutely impeccable source Raymond Garhouse. was true.Cuba has been subjected to extensive international terrorism. shooting down fishing boats. Denmark was wa-a-ay more of a threat to Russia. Because Cuba is a tentacle of the Russian 'monster'. we drew the noose tighter. It's not trivial stuff. according to him. economic strangulation without an end. who was a very conservative and respected historian right inside the CIA and intelligence apparatus. Berlin wall falls. and this was right at the peak of the missile crisis. At the peak of the missile crisis one of these terrorist teams that Kennedy sent to Cuba to smash the place up. With this history out in the open . because it said that Denmark was a threat. I mean. I've repeated it probably 20 times in books that nobody would dream of looking at and reviewing them and so on. And that's basically true.that's a real achievement. which apparently was acting out of control – at this time there is no evidence that Kennedy ordered it to do this. as you can easily demonstrate by looking at what we do around the world. but we say that all the time and that's okay because that's ''us''. okay. November 1989. All of a sudden it wasn't because the Russians were a threat. permanently.. There is this little item in there. for a long time. foreign workers were killed. In fact. You know. when Cuba had its fingers on the missiles. it is a member of a hostile military alliance. Take a look at his books and reflections on the missile crisis. And if you take a look at the educated classes. it was because we love democracy so much. Anyhow. And then it goes on to poisoning crops and livestock. I doubt that the totalitarian state can achieve anything like that. it's as if… I cannot think of a counterpart… suppose. that we hear from Arthur Schlesinger and everyone. up until now it's. say. and partly as a historian. bear in mind that the formal decision to overthrow the government was taken in March 1960. so one of them blew up a petrochemical plant in Cuba. when there was no Russians. it is not ''40 million Amer. trying to strangle us. blowing up airplanes. we should have welcomed Cuba with open arms. well armed. ''we love democracy so much''. But this is 'us'. they skip a beat: from one day to the next it's defending ourselves against the Russian threat to loving democracy. no more tentacles of the Russians. but that's one little item. who now writes historical stuff. And then the only question is: what's the best way to achieve democracy? And this is discussed as if it was serious.

Because the next thing that will get into their heads is ''what do we need the bosses for?''. and since we love democracy so much. I think this whole stuff is totally illegitimate. we don't need these guys.that's like a question of definition.000 of its activists have been murdered. Or take the issue after issue. in fact. but it's a lot better than it was 30 years ago. there's a lot of problems. remember. in fact 'the best democracy in the hemisphere'. And this goes wa-a-ay back to something much earlier. If they can force it back there. And that's not a joke – people got scared. when workers could do nothing more than try to pursue individual survival strategies. And that.Going back to your comments about the media. And you gotta make sure that THAT doesn't happen. . as long as it follows orders. we'll run it ourselves''. you know. I guess you could call it a revolution. But. How the workers' rights got established more or less in the 1930s. which was allowed to function in 1985. 26 . like the way Affirmative Action is being used. say. There's plenty of problems about women's rights. Were you worrying about it 30 years ago? It wasn't there. is an indication of the grip of the doctrinal system. the solutions that have worked all through history. the "fall of the House of labor''. there was certainly a threat. do you see any solutions short of revolution? Sure… I mean. It can't possibly be serious. well. we think it's fine. But I don't see why it shouldn't just wasn't a problem 30 years ago – there were NO rights. or 100 years ago. which is really powerful. yes. It even has an independent political party. mostly by security and paramilitary forces. So maybe if Cubans were apt for democracy like that. establishment of the automobile industry. . including every presidential candidate. know. There was a threat. I agree with those mill hands in Massachusetts. because that's really trouble. if there are steps toward that happening. And it's not . let alone 50 years ago. think that they've got a pretty rotten life – look at their problems. right through history – that's the way it worked. It's discussed as if it could conceivably be serious. if it is run by some brutal murderer. its not a rural country. And you. it's not in the Constitution. We will even call it a 'democracy'. that people who work at the mills ought to own them. there was an accommodation. people who consider themselves more or less 'progressive'. What you do is try to keep making things better. Is it a revolution or not . The only question is how to make sure that Cuba will go back into the box in which it was supposed to be put in 1820. . Like when working people took over General Motors. there ought to be a hundred million Americans who 'die laughing' over this. Well. and the fact that they're NOT. So if you think it's bad for labor now.fine.Reshaping The Legal System Q: . and the fact that its critical to mobilize the masses. So.over time the struggle takes off from the higher level than before.which it ought to be. if they don't know these things. it would be fine. then it's a conscious decision not to know. They will get as smart to say ''look. And. it's out there. I think myself. Since that time about 3.Solutions Q: . the tactic. and in this case primarily among the more educated sectors. Nowadays.With this battle for the minds of men. Why should corporations have any rights at all? I mean. Or take. whatever that term is supposed to mean. you know. women's rights. … You see. Well. 27 . Like we call Mexico a 'democracy'. generalized. how about the 1920s? You know. Or we call Columbia a 'democracy'. it's got to be a democracy. in ''the most undemocratic America''. So like nowadays you're worried about how to defend some sort of medical system. I mean. by one or other means. that was the period of mass industrialization. and grand public relations ploy. It takes work not to know these things. Like you don't have to really explore. and most of the mayors.

200 years ago we could establish a corporation that would build a bridge across the Charles River or something. and they're supposed to be there for some public good. It's changed a bit over the years. and pretty recently. . but it wasn't 60 years ago. Also where do they get their rights? Well. So by such a mechanism public funds did end up in big deep private pockets. by playing one state against one another. it's sort of taxpayers pay for it. He wrote books about the big businesses system power. to like 1860. the major step probably. where they always were. Read a mainstream American political economist like Robert Brady. 29 . It's kind of like when Alabama gets the investment from Germany. back in early 1940s. over to New Jersey simply by giving them a lot of 'gifts'. but not when you got private tyrannies around. involved in all kind of strategic interactions with one another. and has a couple of books called "Transformation of American Law". which are also the root of Bolshevism and Fascism. Well. of course New York had to accommodate. and that's why you have so many things called like "Standard Oil" of New Jersey. even middle sized business. the best book is by Harvard professor Morton Horowitz who is at the law school. By now these are huge tyrannies. I guess it was true maybe 200 years ago. It was a lot cheaper for the… power because the taxpayers of New Jersey have paid them. Corporate rights were achieved mostly through courts and lawyers. to move across the river. throughout history that's been the main theme of the legal system: how to modify it so that illegitimate tyrannical authority is given more and more power. nevertheless interesting to read. I guess. That's why you got all this new philosophy about Federalism.that's the new federalism. In fact. things like that.Role Of The Media . undermining democratic principles. Not that Federalism would be bad. every corporation has a state Charter. Delaware was another case. back in the early part of this century. is how the legal system was reshaped to accommodate to the needs of private power. It's trickier to do it at the federal level. but it makes the killing. And I should mention that that comparison may sound exotic now. It's not engraved in the stone or anything like that. And that's exactly what they did. One of them goes. There's pretty good literature on that. The point of getting power down to the states is so that any business. the state of New Jersey figured it could make a killing by getting the big corporations to move from New York. Well. because these guys were moving across the river. important political economist. That's not the reason they should exist. kind of Hegelian ideas. Main decisions are early in this century. But the main theme of these two big volumes. That's what the corporation was supposed to be. . and which they are. and corporations gradually got rights. And the big step. in which he points out that obvious things are basically totalitarian in structure. bigger than states. Always. So New Jersey gave corporations all sorts of 'gifts'. and I think he's right. And the media is just a part of it. through courts and lawyers. maybe around 1905 or something. in violation of any conceivable market principle and so on.because they moved across the river and got incorporated there. you know. and the other from the 1860s and 1960. If you're interested. was the transfer of rights to private tyrannies. that are totally illegitimate. 28 . this developed out of the ideas. as he points out. And. I think. Like. early in this century.even by the legislation. and that sort of thing. Those rights can be taken away very simply and without a revolution. I don’t think it is. which is what corporations are. about the rights of 'organic entities' over individuals. can make sure that the money goes into their pockets. essentially. not in the pockets of poor people.Private Tyrannies This establishment of private corporate power is a dramatic example that back early in this century.

and what nice people we are. remember. These systems could also be used to liberate the people. The idea of giving rich people social benefits so their kids can go to school… Well. . you guys pay for it. meanwhile shaping care so that it mostly benefits the rich and harms everybody else. 30 . That's why I think the stuff that's going on in telecommnunications now should really get a lot more attention than it does. because in this case it's also handing over access to the things that they need to control the public mind. educational management organizations. okay. There is a new way to enrich ourselves at the public expense''. It was discussed as a business issue. After all. he is… he has made no secrets about what he is. Well. you know. which will do wonders for the educational system. and it's very likely. they're distributing brochures to their rich customers.a last big government monopoly. these things occur to people. that's worse than the oligopoly that is run stealing computers. It's bad enough when it's the guys who are making shoes and cars etc. telling them "look. I think those are probably the new plans that will be coming along and I would be very cautious about the Clinton's proposals. with their heads screwed on. And right now. most media analysts. these things you know. it's certainly not been reported. It takes real indoctrination. and as usual being handed over to a private power. because we're just benefactors and so've heard about the Telecommnunications Act. I forget the last figures. Big investment firms.Poor People Pay The details haven't come out yet.000. the poor people are paying.It's particularly harmful for democracy when media systems are in the hands of private tyrannies. people up to the level of 80. built at public expense. but I think the median income in the United States is something like around 30. because here we're talking about a new mode of information and communication and so on. as always. Go through it. we've taken over the health system.that's much worse. like HMOs do for health care. it's not that there's no reporting . It's not put this way. about the same effect. and that's what it is. He is. namely they will be able to take more and more money away from the system and put it in private power. but when its control over the doctrinal system and information .it's all put in terms of ''efficiency''. and always has been. The only thing that was discussed was whether to give it to six corporations or 12. and we're gonna make everything better. being handed over to private power. who's paying? Well. And in fact most of the reporting was on the business pages. Well. now that it's profitable. and we're now thinking about the welfare system.000 thousand dollars a year. And now we're getting to the educational system . my translation. and not as a public interest issue. but from the reporting that I've heard the actual proposals that are to come along. I'm really careful to see to what extent they're lending themselves. much better for everyone. are going to be granting benefits of one kind or another to people of income levels kinda like mine. a . But it's not supposed to be a question of public interest whether major systems of information and interchange are handed over as 'gifts' to Rupert Murdoch – that's not supposed to be an issue of public interest. that it's gonna end up in the hands of the half a dozen megacorporations. are now circulating a brochure (those of you who are wealthy enough must be receiving it). But I think you're right: this is worse than the handing over of decision-making power to private tyrannies. but it wasn't discussed as a public interest issue. Lehman Brothers in this case. we're right in the middle of it. internationally. that's an effective indoctrination when these ideas. Yeah. we've taken over the criminal system. The way we'll do it is by setting up EMO's. . see and often even report. I think. This is a big legislative achievement of last Congress. I mean. built at the public expense. Telecommnunications Act of 1996: reported in the business pages. So I'm not so sure it's such a great stuff when you look at it. it could be either this way or that way.not their words. The same with other things. There is this huge system.

he's the moderate Republican. the first couple of years. 31 . the main problem: teachers are way underpaid. The part of the reason why it is efficient is that you don't count the costs. Of course. by the economists' measure: you throw out the union workers and you get the tickets for half the price. and by some measure. It cannot find adjectives exuberant enough to describe dazzling stupendous profit. so let's throw them out. but as far as Clinton was concerned . you know they'd prefer the Gingrich guys.and you don’t measure that. read the business press. it'd be very clear. His record in Arkanzas is like that.that's their choice. not just editorials. But it's been clear to the business press. Yeah.they were perfectly happy with him. in classroom. Fine. And I don't think you can say that he's deceived anyone. And if there is an accident. ''what are we gonna do with all those funds?''. I mean policy difference. which just imposes costs on the public. about how Clinton is 'the best president the business has ever had'. all this privatization you're hearing about. He is a 'business' candidate. country is just flooded with money – again. and work constructively – all of this kind of stuff. and instead there will be a little better education.I'd be very suspicious. What's missing is the resources. There's plenty of money around to improve educational system. his influence in the national government was like that.The Country Is Flooded With Money Exactly what kind of education program would be crafted out of that .natural enthusiasm and creativity ought to be allowed. because they don't like the small business aspect of the Gingrich people: there's a delicate balance there between holding off the crazies and making sure that the really rich people get everything. and . it's been clear in his policies. because of all of his populist rhetoric. he's never pretended to be anything else. 32 . That's not that we don’t' have money. So suppose the government privatizes the MTA or the public transportation system. actually with some ambiguity I should say. and so on so forth. And that is. And the business press is very well aware of this. you start getting editorials in the Wall Street Journal and articles. so maybe they won't have such dazzling and stupendous profits next year. There's plenty of problems with the educational system. but the main problem is that way too few resources go into it.m. You and I know how to make it more efficient. it is just people getting killed. and so on. 'cos they never had any training. except kids . At first they were a little nervous. they quote the Ford company executive saying "we're getting along with him much better than we did with Bush and Reagan''. in a manner very clear. That's not any secret – he said it. not not enough educational materials. If you look at his positions all the way along. I've never heard about how people should be educated. with the Democratic leadership council. the country is just FLOODED with money.m. and we know exactly where it has to come from. like you don't make a lot of money at 11 p.Privatization Remember. they're undereducated. Just take a look at the Wall Street Journal editorials. it's now like… if you define the difference between Dole and Clinton – I'd like to know what it was. They're both moderate Republicans. is supposed to be very efficient. so whatever the Democratic Party may have been. And you cut off the so-called 'unprofitable bus routes'. and on and on. suppose somebody is stuck somewhere at 11 p. we don’t have no budget crisis or anything like that. too many kids in school. suppose you privatize the system. if people don't wanna see it . Well. in fact. which you can sort of debate. by some ludicrous measure it probably is efficient. or their reporting throughout the whole Clinton years. But pretty soon.moderate Republican candidate of the business community. I think. What I'm worried about is that the system is moving towards a kind of privatization. There's no brilliant ideas about this side. . So there's been a problem there. so let's provide the resources. within a few months. But it all is getting very narrowly concentrated. his main influence on the Democratic Party was to move it over to the Republican side. they're not getting enough respect. And I think it's worth of very careful look.

if you think about the stakes you should not be surprized. You're not supposed to care whether the kid down the street goes to school. and you're not just struggling against somebody who calls it a 'right to work' pack. . In ways like that you can make the system more efficient. and it's going to be hard defiling it. because this is also standard academic thought too. simply by transferring the cost over the public. Oh. of having all this stuff dumped unto you. The scale of the efforts to win the battle for men's minds is enormous. something of that order. and that's what the privatization of the educational system will be. and the dedication.. and we don't measure the cost. which you don't measure .then your kid can go to school. The last figures I saw: about one out of six dollars in the whole economy is spent on marketing. . as I say. that's like a $1 trillion a year in 1992. Because if you work together. but of course there is just huge cost transferred over to the public.. It's not just gaining wealth for gaining wealth itself.I was curious about your remarks about mill hands and Lowell. I thought I knew something about this stuff. yes. this was well understood by mill hands and Lowell 150 years ain't producing any public goods. But everybody else is supposed to be on their own. Essentially. and maybe the best idea for them was to run the farm on their own… . you might DO something that matters. This should be very familiar to people in the labor movement.'re part of big 'socialist' structures called 'corporations'. Although. with strategic alliances and plenty of support from the state.Business Run Society Also it's doing something else. But marketing is a form of manipulation and deceit. most of it is tax-free. so when you've got those stakes you are going to work at it hard.we all know this. It's an effort to create artificial wants. but we should care not only that my kid can go to school. You shouldn't work together – that's 'bad'. 33 . So just be out on your own. It's going after exactly that moral conception that underlies the labor movement from its origins. So. and the books in the schools and everything else. it's entrepreneurial values. and doing all of the things they're talking about in the public relations literature.I'm not making it up – you can read it there. If you're rich . This is the main propaganda against the labor movement all the time. There has been a very powerful effort to drive any of that out of the people's heads.the whole history of the labor movement tells you that. the frenzied dedication to winning this everlasting battle – it's pretty impressive. And if you can get a voucher . we work together for us. but that the kid down the street can go to school too. yeah. if you've got that much of a commitment to ontrolling minds and manipulating desires and so on.forget about everything else. and movie industry. . Those are not small figures. 34 . And. . of course . and then you're allowed to have all these feelings that. I mean right to work laws and everything else. And. to control the way people look and think about things. and the social science literature.let him hire a limousine or something. unless you're rich. namely: ''We're in it together''.wants to get home. of course. it looks nice and efficient on some economists' paper. That's what makes organizing tough: you have to break through a lot of psychic resistance .Enlightenment Principles Q: .that's what's been driven out of people's heads. which means the way our system works you pay for the privilege of being propagandized. It's a big battle. You're only supposed to care about yourself. A lot of that marketing is straight propaganda. It's extremely inefficient use of funds. the rich guys. but when I read Elizabeth Fones-Wolf book I was pretty shocked: just to see the scale of the efforts. This is a very much a business-run society. well. you're struggling against five hours a day of television.

Enlightenment thought. there's always some thread of truth to it . its content. I wouldn't try to convince anybody of this. was the fundamental Cold War document. or WHY it's done. That's why it is such a privilege to be in a science department. with a very few exceptions. we may admire what he does but. is being done at somebody else's orders. we despise what he is. If you think about it: why should you work on command? I mean if you work on command – you're some kind of a slave. you know. leading heroes of the Enlightenment. meaning for wages. but despise what he is. Jefferson and those guys. Because his labor. when the enemy is at our throats. which in the first chapter has a lot of extensive quotes from NSC 68. I have a book called "Deterring democracy''. but it wasn’t very real. you know. and there was some marginal element of truth here too. but that's why we have democratic structures . I'm gonna work on that topic. Alexis de Tocqueville says ''under wage labor. Because he is not a free human being. because I frankly just don't believe that everyone doesn’t know it. It's kind of interesting. I think maybe I'm of the nice things about being in the sciences in the fancy University is you really do have workers' control.… . the sort of core idea is that people have the right to control their own work. I think people know that if you work under external control you may admire what the person does. even the most vulgar propaganda of the Stalinist Russia. I mean you gotta sell it to funders. If you haven't read it yet you should read NSC 68. but the degree of workers' control at the elite level is quite substantial.The Cold War Q: . layers of distortion and delusion. It's quite fascinating to's like the Cuba case. the sort of central part of your life. yes. and are still obvious. 35 . as far as I can see goes back to the Enlightenment. everybody agrees. and it sort of lays out the basic picture the Cold War. So. Dean . Enormously privileged existence. If I were to define this. Forget the money: if they pay you a 1/10 the amount of money it would still be a much better existence than working on command. as I'm in a fancy University and a science department. And it was understood.What about the idea that the Cold War served certain theological and political purposes for the US. The principle. That if a person. it goes right into the working-class movements and Lowell and Lawrence. element of truth. That goes all the way through classical Liberal thought. It was written by the real hot-shots.because people control things together. I'm not talking about Adam Smith. I think it's natural. or anything else.. Everybody recognizes that it is a major just couldn't have propaganda that has no. even just marginal. but nobody quotes it. Well. One of the ways of controlling. undermining or destroying of the labor movement was weeding out the activist elements. on the principle that they're somehow not loyal enough to the state at this time. you can't have every individual controlling every single thing. I wouldn’t try to convince anybody of this. the art advances. but it seems to me that if you sort of cut away. and I don't think that these Enlightenment ideas are hard to grasp. Up to a very large extent we control what we do. I think people DO know that. Why not work because it's coming out of your needs and interests? It's cheap for me to say. and this and that.these things were considered pretty obvious 200 years ago. and I can DO that . and you are not controlling the way it's done. If you go back to the classical Enlightenment thought. for one thing because you can see why diplomatic historians don't quote it. Take the labor movement. Well. .Let's just talk about the principle. and now the US is seeking a new paradigm? There's something true about the fact that the Cold War paradigm was extremely useful as a way of controlling people. or how it's used. I don’t wanna work on this topic. so if a person does beautiful work under external command. It's April 1950. this has been a very terrific hammer to use over people's heads. I should say. here I'll quote a standard formula back in the 18th century. like any propaganda. the artisan declines''. which was.

The picture they tell us is kind like a fairytale: on one hand there is absolute evil . mostly manufactured. And that's true – it was. Sometimes there was some truth to it. In fact. yes. you know. and when you find and put together the evidence. if we don’t have that around anymore? If you look through the 80s.its not that long. and it's laid out. poor paying again. One of our weaknesses is that we're too tolerant. didn’t matter how crazy it was. or Hispanic narcotraffickers or something or other that we have to defend ourselves against. because it's just like a matter of definition. The proposals were involved in a real war. a parody of a fairytale. 36 . you know. That means transferring public funds to private industry. It was true about the international economy too.that's the other side. Then comes the proposals. we have to have 'just suppression'. very obviously you'd see that this stuff is to lose its efficacy. slave for the benefit of this and that. But they do make some points. Don't take my word for it – read it! I conceive that I might have picked up the most dramatic examples. which was a big issue then. and that's a weakness. and it is portrayed in the picture of an exaggerated fairytale. it was a tremendous weapon of thought control.Acherson. Anything you wanted to block. and too open. you find it completely undermines whatever thesis they have. so you don’t even have to give evidence. and it's essential property of our nature that we do this sort of thing. In a war you've got to have things like 'just suppression'. some big thing that you can use to control people. sometimes not. at the time: very heavily reliant on military spending to revitalize it. but read the whole thing if you feel like . And Huntington's idea was 'clash of . Or. there's no evidence given. say. it's a real war. Foreign enemies are much better and so here's where the 'science of government' comes in. From then until the game started to go away. On the other side there is utter perfection – that's us. There's all sorts of effort to manufacture enemies for people to hate. It's kind like a fairytale that you'd be embarrassed to read to your grandchildren: there's this total absolute evil. everybody is looking around for some paradigm. So. You know. we had to fight it like a war. You know. domestic crime. we're like super angels. It reads like a bunch of raving lunatics. but also that it would be an ideological weapon – it would be a weapon to control people. They say it's an essential nature of the Kremlin that it acts this way. and control of dissent. in 1989. And in fact right through the 80s there was almost desperate search for something else: international terrorism. state funding. And they know all that. because how we are going to beat people over their head now. what you've got to do is just yell 'Cold War'. make sure that everybody is obedient and so on. because everybody knew that the economic system is not gonna function without a tremendous amount of public funding. doesn’t have crime levels very different from other industrial countries. let's get back to this 'clash of civilizations' thing. My view – it sounds like a bunch of raving lunatics. So you look at stuff.Islam As The Enemy Now. no Cold War. like I've done in the same book. You didn’t have to be a big genius to figure out that Soviet Union was in trouble. And the way to do it is what they also call 'military Keynesianism'. so if anybody is going to look for it its gonna be a hard time finding. to prevent this monstrous thing from destroying everything and allowing our perfection magnificence to win. which is planning to destroy the whole world and everything that ever existed and so on. and too free – they say that. we have to have suppression of dissent among us. So. There is never any evidence given. the Kremlin. there is evidence scattered around. you need a new paradigm.S. because it's part of it's nature. I've been saying that they will have to go to something else. So. sort of by implication of black driving around in Cadillacs – that sort of thing. very carefully scattered around. Paul Mitzy and all those smart guys. so that was crucial. U. The only thing we ever do is work. which is why nobody ever cites it. otherwise – how are you going to control everybody? Ok. But there's a different perception of crime: a concept of 'welfare queens'. I was writing since the early 1980's. or crazed Arabs.

which is not so magnificent – is D. is that true?". So they're okay – that's not a 'clash of civilizations' there. your pocket. Is D. you got all these ethnic group's killing each other. . And I don’t mean to say total farce. nonstate fundamentalism? Well. So. by far one of the worst are the guys that are tearing Afghanistan into pieces. . So. Actually I wrote about them at the time. And. Well. maybe this'll work.those within the former Soviet system. 'clash of civilizations'. The most fundamentalist Islamic state in the world is our big ally Saudi Arabia. as usual. the first thing that should come to mind is "wait a minute. but goes to London and New York. and the idea is that the reason why the world is disorderly is because. So. Just take a look at the breakdown of the European empires: every single one was like that. Are we trying to undermine Saudi Arabia? Of course not . In fact just about every one you pick goes way back. That's state fundamentalism.they're sitting on our oil. take a look. In most of the big conflicts that are going on around the world we're going right to the Cold War. Like. Now. the factual basis is very thin. Whenever you hear anything being said very confidently. like for example.C. we're wonderful people. through the 1980s. from the United States and Saudi Arabia. is it true? I mean. Where they get their power from? Well. They got $6 billion. There must be a new paradigm. where is this 'clash of civilizations' between Islam and the West? I don’t see it. which can then be turned into a device of controlling people . wages are about half the level of China. first of all. So.that part is true. I mean Indonesia is an Islamic state. there's a few problems with that. now they're tearing Afghanistan apart – but that's not what we do. including Yugoslavia. 'cause it wasn't 'interesting'. trying to undermine Indonesia? There's a lot of rotten things in Indonesia. you know there's Islam and Sintoists and other things. the war in Chechnya. and write books about and so on so forth. What about individual. the big bad guy now is Islam. its always a good thing to start by asking about the fact. doing anything about that? I think this is all farce. Nobody was talking about it. Tajikistan. Like Burundi in Rwanda: there were huge massacres going on in the early 70s. now that the Cold War's gone. most of them were worse.civilizations'. say. Well. In fact they are our 'clients' – that's a family of dictatorship that we keep in power because they make sure that the money from oil doesn't go to the people of the region. But that's standard: anytime a tyrannical system breaks down you have all sorts of conflict internal to this. or if it doesn't we'll try something else. there are some that are new. something that people can build their careers on. Where you find more crazy Islamic fundamentals if not among them – I don’t know. what about the principle. but they were there. Azerbaijan and Armenia. Now. is it true that there's more ethnic conflict now than it was 20 years ago? Well. or so it's claimed. How does that feel? Saudi Arabia is not fundamentalist enough for some of the people in it. but it's pretty extreme. what's called the old Communist system.C.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful