chomsky - understanding power (2002)

8/12/2019 Chomsky - Understanding Power (2002)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chomsky-understanding-power-2002 1/391

Understanding Power



Understanding Power

The Indispensable Chomsky

Explanatory footnotes available at WWW.

understandingpower.com

Edited by Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel

•

THE NEW PRESS NEW !R"



# $%%$ by Noa& 'ho&s(y) Peter Ro*nds Mitchell) and JohnSchoeffel

+ll rights reser,ed. No -art of this boo( &ay be re-rod*ced) in any for&) witho*twritten -er&ission fro& the -*blisher.

P*blished in the United States by The New Press) New or()$%%$ istrib*ted by W. W. Norton / 'o&-any) 0nc.) New

or(

E1-lanatory footnotes a,ailable atwww.*nderstanding-ower.co&

0S2N 345657849%:4$'0P data a,ailable

The New Press was established in 3;;% as a not4for4-rofit alternati,e to thelarge) co&&ercial -*blishing ho*ses c*rrently do&inating the boo(

-*blishing ind*stry. The New Press o-erates in the -*blic interest ratherthan for -ri,ate gain) and is co&&itted to -*blishing) in inno,ati,e ways)wor(s of ed*cational) c*lt*ral) and co&&*nity ,al*e that are often dee&edins*fficiently -rofitable.

The New Press) 85% West 83st Street) 6th floor) New or() N3%%:6 www.thenew-ress.co&

Printed in 'anada

3; 37 39 36 35 38 3: 3$ 33 3%

http://www.understandingpower.com/


http://www.thenewpress.com/






Contents

Editors< Preface =0+ Note on the E,ents of Se-te&ber II, $%% 0 =0l0

Chapter One Weekend Teach-In: Opening Session 1

The +chie,e&ents of o&estic issidence 0

The U.S. Networ( of Terrorist Mercenary States 8!,erthrowing Third World >o,ern&ents 6>o,ern&ent Secrecy 3%

The Media? +n 0nstit*tional +nalysis 3$ @@ Testing the APro-aganda ModelA 35

4 The Media and Elite !-inion 37

Bilters on Re-orting $8Honest S*bordination :%

ABight it 2etterAC the Media and the Dietna& War :3

Chapter Two Teach-In: Over Coffee 37A'ontainingA the So,iet Union in the 'old War :9!rwell<s World and !*rs 83

'onte&-orary Po,erty 85

Religio*s Banaticis& 5%<The Real+nti4Se&itis&A 53

Ronald Reagan and the B*t*re of e&ocracy 5:Two New Bactors in World +ffairs 57

e&ocracy Under 'a-italis& 6%The E&-ire 68

'hange and the B*t*re 69

Chapter Three Teach-In: Evening

The Military4 0nd*strial

'o&-le1 The Per&anent War

Econo&y

7

9%

9:

v



,i Contents

ibyan and +&erican Terroris& 99

The U.S. and the U.N. 78

2*siness) +-artheid) and Racis& 77

Winning the Dietna& War ;%

A>enocideA? the United States and Pol Pot ;$

Heroes and +nti4Heroes ;:

A+nti 4 0ntellect*alis&A ;5

S-ectator S-orts ;7

Western E*ro-ean +cti,is& and 'anada 3%3

is-elling 0ll*sions 3%:

Chapter !o"r Collo#"y 1 $

The Totalitarian Strain 3%6

+ ith*ania Hy-othetical 3%;

Per-et*ating 2rainwashing UnderBreedo& 00

Jo*rnalis& eMoyne4Style? + Sa&-le ofthe 'ynical +s-ect 335

Rethin(ing Watergate 339

Esca-ing 0ndoctrination 3$%

Understanding the Middle East 'onflict 3$:

The Threat of Peace 3$6

Water and the !cc*-ied Territories 3$;

0&-erial +&bitions and the +rab Threat 3:3

Pros-ects for the Palestinians 3:8

egiti&acy in History 3:5

F*alifications to S-ea( on World +ffairsC + 3:9

Presidential 'a&-aign

Chapter !ive %"ling the &orld 1'

So,iet Ders*s Western Econo&ic

e,elo-&ent 38%

S*--orting Terror 388APeo-le<s e&ocratic Socialist Re-*blicsA 385



Contentsvii

The !rgan Trade 386The Real 'ri&e of '*ba 387

Pana&a and Po-*lar 0n,asions 353

M*sli&s and U.S. Boreign Policy 358Haiti? ist*rbance at an E1-ort Platfor& 355

Te1aco and the S-anish Re,ol*tion 35;

+,erting e&ocracy in 0taly 36%P.R. in So&alia 36:The >*lf War 3652osnia? 0nter,ention F*estions 393

Toying With 0ndia 39$

The !slo +gree&ent and 0&-erialist Re,i,al 398

Chapter Six Comm"nity +cti,ists

isc*ssion 'ircle399

399

The Early Peace Mo,e&ent and a 'hangein the l;9%s 37%

The N*clear BreeGe Mo,e&ent 378+wareness and +ctions 376

eaders and Mo,e&ents 377

e,els of 'hange 37; Non4Diolence 3;:

Transcending 'a-italis& 3;5The "ibb*tG E1-eri&ent

3;6

A+narchis&A and A ibertarianis&A 3;;+rtic*lating Disions $%3AWantA 'reation $%:

issidents? 0gnored or Dilified $%8

Teaching +bo*t Resistance $330solation $3$

Science and H*&an Nat*re $38

'harlatans in the Sciences $39+da& S&ith? Real and Ba(e $$3

The 'o&-*ter and the 'rowbar $$:



viii Contents

Chapter Seven Intellectuals and Social Change (('The eninist 'a-italist 0ntelligentsia $$8Mar1ist ATheoryA and 0ntellect*al Ba(ery $$9

0deological 'ontrol in the Sciences and

H*&anities $:3

The B*nction of the Schools $::

S*btler Methods of 'ontrol $:7'r*der Methods of 'ontrol $8$The Bate of an Honest 0ntellect*al $88

Borging Wor(ing4'lass '*lt*re $87

The Bra*d of Modern Econo&ics $53

The RealMar(et $55

+*to&ation $57+ Re,ol*tionary 'hange in Moral Dal*es $6%

Chapter Eight Popular Struggle ($7isco,ering New Bor&s of !--ression $69

Breedo& of S-eech $67 Negati,e and Positi,e Breedo&s $9$'ybers-ace and +cti,is& $96ABree TradeA +gree&ents $7%

efense e-art&ent B*nding and A'lean MoneyA $78

The Ba,ored State and Ene&y States $76

'anada<s Media $77Sho*ld F*ebec Se-arate fro& 'anadaI $;3

eci-hering A'hinaA $7$

0ndonesia<s "illing Bields? U.S.42ac(ed >enocide $;8in East Ti&or

Mass M*rderers at Har,ard $;7'hanges in 0ndonesia $;;

N*clear Proliferation and North "orea :%3

The Sa&son !-tion :%:

The ot of the Palestinians :%5

P. .!. +&bitions :3%The Nation4State Syste& :3:



Contentsix

Chapter Nine )ovement Organi*ing 31 B

The Mo,ie Manufacturing Consent 3 !Media +cti,is& :$:

Self4 estr*ction of the U.S. eft :$6

Po-*lar Ed*cation ::3

Third4Party Politics :::

2oycotts ::9A+ Pra1isA ::;

The War on Unions ::;

0nner4'ity Schools :8$

efending the Welfare State :88

Pension B*nds and the aw :86'ons-iracy Theories :87The ecision to >et 0n,ol,ed :53AH*&an Nat*re 0s 'orr*-tA :55

isco,ering Morality :56

+bortion :57Moral Dal*es :5;

Chapter Ten T"rning Point2ringing the Third World Ho&eWelfareC the Pea and the Mo*ntain'ri&e 'ontrol and AS*-erfl*o*sA Peo-leDiolence and Re-ression

0nternational 'a-italC the New 0&-erial +geThe Bairy Tale Econo&y

2*ilding 0nternational Unions0nitial Mo,es and the 'o&ing 'risisElite Planning4Sli--ing !*t of Hand

ist*rbed Po-*lations Stirring

The Derge of Bascis&

The B*t*re of History

0nde1

3$3

:6::69:9%:9::99:7$:7::79:;%

:;5:;78%%

8%:



Editors+ Pre a-e

This boo( brings together the wor( of one of the &ost re&ar(able -olit4ical acti,ists and thin(ers of o*r ti&e. The disc*ssions s-an a wide array ofto-ics4fro& the wor(ings of the &odern &edia) to globaliGation) the ed*4cation syste&) en,iron&ental crises) the &ilitary4ind*strial co&-le1) ac4ti,ist strategies) and beyond4and -resent a re,ol*tionary -ers-ecti,e fore,al*ating the world) and for *nderstanding -ower.

What disting*ishes Noa& 'ho&s(y<s -olitical thin(ing is not anyoneno,el insight or single o,erarching idea. 0n fact) 'ho&s(y<s -olitical stanceis rooted in conce-ts that ha,e been *nderstood for cent*ries. Rather)'ho&s(y<s great contrib*tion is his &astery of a h*ge wealth of fact*al in4for&ation) and his *ncanny s(ill at *n&as(ing) in case after case) the wor(4

ings and dece-tions of -owerf*l instit*tions in today<s world. His &ethodin,ol,es teaching thro*gh e1a&-les4not in the abstract4as a &eans ofhel-ing -eo-le to learn how to thin( critically for the&sel,es.

The o-ening cha-ter introd*ces two the&es that *nderlie nearly e,eryas-ect of the boo(? the -rogress of acti,is& in changing the world) and therole of the &edia in sta,ing off that acti,is& and in sha-ing the way wethin(. The boo( follows a ro*ghly chronological order) and begins withfo*r disc*ssions that too( -lace in 3;7; and 3;;%4the dawn of the -ost4'old War era. These first cha-ters lay a fo*ndation for 'ho&s(y<s s*bse4

*ent analysis. The re&aining cha-ters e1-lore &ore recent de,elo-&entsin U.S. foreign -olicy) international econo&ics) the do&estic social and -o4litical en,iron&ent) as well as acti,ist strategies and -roble&s. The boo(and its acco&-anying footnotes bring 'ho&s(y<s analysis right *- to the

-resent day.The internet has enabled *s to -lace e1tensi,e doc*&entation in o*r

footnotes) which a--ear at the boo(<s website. These ,ast online notes gowell beyond &ere citation to so*rces? they incl*de co&&entary on the te1t)e1cer-ts fro& go,ern&ent doc*&ents) significant *otations fro& news-a4

-er articles and scholarshi-) and other i&-ortant infor&ation. !*r goal wasto &a(e accessible &*ch of the e,idence s*--orting each of 'ho&s(y<sfact*al assertions. The notes also add additional de-th for those interestedin a gi,en to-ic.

The co&-lete footnotes4which are longer than the te1t itself4can beeasily downloaded fro& the boo(<s website) www.*nderstanding-ower.co&

xi





xii Editors" #reface

Kthey can also be accessed thro*gh www.thenew-ress.co&L. 0nfor&ationabo*t obtaining a bo*nd -rinto*t of the notes is a,ailable on the website) or

by writing *s in care of the -*blisher.The boo( was -*t together as follows. We transcribed ta-es of doGens of

*estion4and4answer sessions) edited the& for readability) then reorganiGedand co&bined the& to eli&inate re-etition and -resent the analysis in acoherent -rogression of to-ics and ideas. !*r ai& was to co&-ile ano,er,iew of 'ho&s(y<s -olitical tho*ght that co&bines the rigor and doc*4&entation of his scholarly boo(s with the accessibility of the inter,iew for4&at. +lways we re&ained faithf*l to 'ho&s(y<s own lang*age andanswers4and he re,iewed the te1t4b*t it was necessary to &a(e s*-erficialalterations for str*ct*ral and stylistic reasons.

Most of the &aterial is fro& se&inar4style disc*ssions with gro*-s ofacti,ists) or fro& *estion -eriods after -*blic tal(s) held between 3;7;and 3;;;. So&e of the answers in cha-ters 6) 9) 7 and ; are ta(en fro&con,ersations between 'ho&s(y and Michael +lbert. F*estioners areidentified as AManA or AWo&anA beca*se fre *ently this de,ice re,ealswhen the sa&e -erson is -*rs*ing a line of *estioning) or whetherso&ebody else has ta(en o,er.

We ha,e -ersonally chec(ed and ,erified the so*rces cited in the foot4notes) e1ce-t for certain foreign lang*age &aterials. Most of the so*rces arethose 'ho&s(y relied *-on when &a(ing his co&&ents in the te1t) b*tso&e are not. E&ily Mitchell<s assistance in retrie,ing rea&s of this &ate4rial in the final &onths of o*r wor( on this -ro ect was in,al*able. We di4rect readers to footnote 69 of cha-ter 3 for disc*ssion of one co&&on&is*nderstanding regarding the footnotes? that the fre *ent citation to ar4ticles fro& the &ainstrea& &edia is at odds with the APro-aganda ModelAof the &edia) which 'ho&s(y o*tlines in cha-ter 3.

We want to than( o*r -arents4E&ily and >eorge Mitchell and Ron andJone Schoeffel4whose s*--ort &ade the boo( -ossible.

4The Editors

http://www.thenewpress.com./





.ote on the Events o September 11, ( 1

+s this boo( was going to -rint) hi ac(ed air-lanes hit the World Trade r

and Pentagon) (illing tho*sands and -otentially triggering &a orre-erc*ssions in U.S. society and in the world. The U.S. &edia de,otedh*ge rage to the attac(s and their after&ath. 2*t) o,erwhel&ingly) the&edia o&itted a critical) acc*rate disc*ssion of the conte1t in which theyocc*rred.

When President 2*sh and U.S. officials anno*nced that A+&erica wastargeted for attac( beca*se we<re the brightest beacon for freedo& and o-4

-ort*nity in the world)A the &ainstrea& &edia in the U.S. &ostly echoed ?refrains. + lead analysis in the $ew %or& 'imes stated that the -er-etratorshad acted o*t of Ahatred for the ,al*es cherished in the West as freedo&)tolerance) -ros-erity) religio*s -l*ralis& and *ni,ersal s*ffrage.A >laringly&issing fro& the U.S. &edia<s co,erage was a f*ll and realistic acco*nt ofU.S. foreign -olicy and its effects aro*nd the world. 0t was hard C%find

anything b*t a -assing &ention of the i&&ense sla*ghter of 0ra ici,ilians d*ring the >*lf War) the de,astation of 0ra <s -o-*lation by U.S.4instigated sanctions thro*gho*t the -ast decade) the U.S<s cr*cial role ins*--orting 0srael<s :54year occ*-ation of Palestinian territories) its s*--ortfor br*tal dictatorshi-s thro*gho*t the Middle East that re-ress the local

-o-*lations) and on and on. Si&ilarly absent was any s*ggestion that U.S.foreign -olicy sho*ld in f*nda&ental ways be changed.

This boo( was co&-iled before the e,ents of Se-te&ber 33)$%%3. 2*tanswers to &any of the &ost i&-ortant *estions -resented by those attac(swill be fo*nd here. Why does the &edia -ro,ide s*ch a li&ited and*ncritical -ers-ecti,e) and s*ch inacc*rate analysisI What is the basis ofU.S. foreign -olicy and why does it engender s*ch wides-read hatred of theU.S.I What can ordinary citiGens do to change these sit*ationsI

+s 'ho&s(y noted right after the attac(s) AThe -eo-le in the ad,ancedco*ntries now face a choice? we can e1-ress *stified horror) or we can see(to *nderstand what &ay ha,e led to the cri&es. 0f we ref*se to do the latter)we will be contrib*ting to the li(elihood that &*ch worse lies ahead.A Bro&o*r frightening) c*rrent ,antage -oint) the disc*ssions collected in this boo(see& &ore *rgent than e,er. We ho-e that the boo( will -ro,ide a starting

-oint for *nderstanding) and will contrib*te to the critical debates4andchanges4that &*st now occ*r.

xiii

$



Tea-h/In0 Over Co ee

(ased primarily on discussions at Rowe)

Massachusetts) *pril 35436) 3;7;.

Containing the Soviet 2nion in the Cold &ar

W+M*$, -r. Choms&y) it seems the terms of political discoursethemselves are a tool for propagandi ing the population. /ow is languageused to prevent us from understanding and to disempower us0

Well) the ter&inology we *se is hea,ily ideologically laden) always. Pic(yo*r ter&? if it<s a ter& that has any significance whatsoe,er4li(e) not AandAor AorA4it ty-ically has two &eanings) a dictionary &eaning and a &eaningthat<s *sed for ideological warfare. So) Aterroris&A is only what other -eo-ledo. What<s called A'o&&*nis&A is s*--osed to be Athe far leftA? in &y,iew) it<s the far right) basically indisting*ishable fro& fascis&. These g*ysthat e,erybody calls Aconser,ati,e)A any conser,ati,e wo*ld t*rn o,er intheir gra,e at the sight of the&4they<re e1tre&e statists) they<re notAconser,ati,eA in any traditional &eaning of the word. AS-ecial interestsA&eans labor) wo&en) blac(s) the -oor) the elderly) the yo*ng4in otherwords) the general -o-*lation. There<s only one sector of the -o-*lation thatdoesn"t e,er get &entioned as a As-ecial interest)A and that<s cor-orations)and b*siness in general4beca*se they<re the 1national interest.A !r ta(eAdefenseA? 0 ha,e ne,er heard of a state that ad&its it<s carrying o*t anaggressi,e act) they<re always engaged in Adefense)A no &atter what they<redoing4&aybe A-ree&-ti,e defenseA or so&ething.

!r loo( at the &a or the&e of &odern +&erican history) Acontain&entA 4as in) Athe United States is containing So,iet e1-ansionis&.A Unless yo*acce-t that fra&ewor( of disc*ssion when tal(ing abo*t international affairsin the &odern -eriod) yo* are *st not a -art of acce-ted disco*rse here?e,erybody has to begin by ass*&ing that for the last half cent*ry the UnitedStates has been AcontainingA the So,iet Union.

:9



3! 2nderstanding #ower

Well) the rhetoric of Acontain&entA begs all *estions4once yo*<,e ac4ce-ted the rhetoric of Acontain&ent)A it really doesn<t &atter what yo* say)yo*<,e already gi,en *- e,erything. 2eca*se the f*nda&ental *estion is) isit tr*eI Has the United States been AcontainingA the So,iet UnionI Well)yo* (now) on the s*rface it loo(s a little odd. 0 &ean) &aybe yo* thin( theSo,iet Union is the worst -lace in history) b*t they<re conser,ati,ewhate,er rotten things they<,e done) they<,e been inside the So,iet Unionand right aro*nd its borders) in Eastern E*ro-e and +fghanistan and so on.They ne,er do anything anywhere else. They don<t ha,e troo-s stationedanywhere else. They don<t ha,e inter,ention forces -ositioned all o,er theworld li(e we do. 3 So what does it &ean to say we<re AcontainingA the&I

We<,e been tal(ing abo*t the &edia and d*&-ing on the&) so why nott*rn to scholarshi-I i-lo&atic history<s a big field) -eo-le win big -riGes)get fancy -rofessorshi-s. Well) if yo* loo( at di-lo&atic history) it too is inthe fra&ewor( of Acontain&ent)A e,en the so4called dissidents. 0 &ean)everybody has to acce-t the -re&ise of Acontain&ent)A or yo* si&-ly willnot ha,e an o--ort*nity to -roceed in these fields. +nd in the footnotes ofthe -rofessional literat*re on contain&ent) often there are so&e re,ealingthings said.

Bor e1a&-le) one of the &a or scholarly boo(s on the 'old War is calledStrategies of Containment) by John ewis >addis4it<s the fore&ost schol4arly st*dy by the to- di-lo&atic historian) so it<s worth ta(ing a loo( at.Well) in disc*ssing this great the&e) Astrategies of contain&ent)A >addis

begins by tal(ing abo*t the ter&inology. He says at the beginning? it<s tr*ethat the ter& Acontain&entA begs so&e *estions) yes it -res*--oses so&ethings) b*t ne,ertheless) des-ite the *estion of whether it<s fact*ally acc*4rate) it still is -ro-er to ado-t it as the fra&ewor( for disc*ssion. +nd thereason why it<s -ro-er is beca*se it was the perception of +&erican leadersthat they were ta(ing a defensi,e -osition against the So,iet Union4so)>addis concl*des) since that was the -erce-tion of +&erican leaders) andsince we<re st*dying +&erican history) it<s fair to contin*e in that fra&e4wor(. $

Well) *st s*--ose so&e di-lo&atic historian tried that with the NaGis.

S*--ose so&ebody were to write a boo( abo*t >er&an history and say)AWell) loo() Hitler and his ad,isors certainly perceived their -osition asdefensi,eA4which is absol*tely tr*e? >er&any was *nder Aattac(A by theJews) re&e&ber. >o bac( and loo( at the NaGi literat*re) they had to defendthe&sel,es against this ,ir*s) this bacill*s that was eating away at the coreof &odern ci,iliGation4and yo*<,e got to defend yo*rself) after all. +nd theywere *nder Aattac(A by the 'Gechs) and by the Poles) and by E*ro-eanencircle&ent. That<s not a o(e. 0n fact) they had a better arg*&ent therethan we do with the So,iet Union4they were encircled) and Acontained)A andthey had this enor&o*s Dersailles debt st*c( on the& for no reason afterWorld War 0. !(ay) so s*--ose so&ebody wrote a boo( saying? A oo() the

NaGi leadershi- perceived the&sel,es as ta(ing a defen4



Chapter 'wo 3

si,e stance against e1ternal and internal aggressionC it<s tr*e it begs so&e*estions) b*t we<ll -roceed that way4now we<ll tal( abo*t how they de4

fended the&sel,es against the Jews by b*ilding +*schwitG) and how theydefended the&sel,es against the 'Gechs by in,ading 'Gechoslo,a(ia) howthey defended the&sel,es against the Poles) and so on.A 0f anybody tried todo that) yo* wo*ldn<t e,en bother to la*gh4b*t abo*t the United States)that<s the only thing yo* can say? it<s not *st that it<s acceptable) it<s thatanything else is unacceptable.

+nd when yo* -*rs*e the &atter f*rther) it beco&es e,en &ore interest4ing. So for e1a&-le) in this sa&e boo( >addis -oints o*t4again) in sort of afootnote) an aside he doesn<t elaborate on4that it<s a stri(ing fact that whenyo* loo( o,er the +&erican di-lo&atic record since World War 00) all ofo*r decisions abo*t how to contain the So,iet Union) li(e the ar&s b*ild4*-s) the shifts to detente) all those things) reflected largely do&estic eco4no&ic considerations. Then he sort of dro-s the -oint. : Well) what does that&eanI What does >addis &ean by thatI There he<s beginning to enter intothe real& of tr*th. See) the tr*th of the &atter) and it<s ,ery well s*--orted

by declassified doc*&ents and other e,idence) is that &ilitary s-ending iso*r &ethod of ind*strial &anage&ent4it<s o*r way of (ee-ing the econo&y

-rofitable for b*siness. So *st ta(e a loo( at the &a or declassifieddoc*&ents on &ilitary s-ending) they<re -retty fran( abo*t it. Bor e1a&-le)

N.S.'. 67 National Sec*rity 'o*ncil Me&orand*& 67O is the &a or 'oldWar doc*&ent) as e,erybody agrees) and one of the things it says ,eryclearly is that witho*t &ilitary s-ending) there<s going to be an econo&icdecline both in the United States and world4wide4so conse *ently it callsfor a ,ast increase in &ilitary s-ending in the U.S.) in addition to brea(ing*- the So,iet Union. 8

o* ha,e to re&e&ber the conte1t in which these decisions were being&ade) after all. This was right after the Marshall Plan had failed) right afterthe -ost4war aid -rogra&s had failed. There still had been no s*ccess as yetin reconstr*cting either the Ja-anese or Western E*ro-ean econo&ies and+&erican b*siness needed the&C +&erican &an*fact*rers needed thosee1-ort &ar(ets des-erately. See) the Marshall Plan was designed largely asan e1-ort4-ro&otion o-eration for +&erican b*siness) not as the noblest

effort in history and so on. 2*t it had failed? we hadn<t reb*ilt the ind*strial -owers we needed as allies and reconstr*cted the &ar(ets we needed fore1-orts. +nd at that -oint) &ilitary s-ending was considered the one thingthat co*ld really do it) it was seen as the engine that co*ld dri,e econo&icgrowth after the warti&e boo& ended) and -re,ent the U.S. fro& sli--ing

bac( into a de-ression. s +nd it wor(ed? &ilitary s-ending was a bigsti&*l*s to the U.S. econo&y) and it led to the reb*ilding of Ja-anese in4d*stry) and the reb*ilding of E*ro-ean ind*stry4and in fact) it has contin*edto be o*r &ode of ind*strial &anage&ent right *- to the -resent. So in thatlittle co&&ent >addis was getting near the &ain story? he was saying) -ost4war +&erican decisions on rear&a&ent and detente ha,e been (eyed



45 2nderstanding #ower

to do&estic econo&ic considerations4b*t then he dro-s it) and we go bac(to tal(ing abo*t Acontain&entA again.

+nd if yo* loo( still closer at the scholarshi- on Acontain&ent)A it<s e,en&ore intrig*ing. Bor e1a&-le) in another boo( >addis disc*sses the+&erican &ilitary inter,ention in the So,iet Union right after the 2olshe,i(Re,ol*tion4when we tried to o,erthrow the new 2olshe,i( go,ern&ent byforce4and he says that was defensi,e and that was contain&ent? o*r in,a4sion of the R*ssian land &ass. +nd re&e&ber) 0<& not tal(ing abo*t so&e

right4wing historianC this is the &a or) &ost res-ected) liberal di-lo&atichistorian) the dean of the field? he says the &ilitary inter,ention by 3:Western nations in the So,iet Union in 3;37 was a Adefensi,eA act. +ndwhy was it defensi,eI Well) there<s a sense in which he<s right. He says itwas Adefensi,eA beca*se the 2olshe,i(s had declared a challenge to thee1isting order thro*gho*t the West) they had offered a challenge to Westernca-italis& and nat*rally we had to defend o*rsel,es. +nd the only way weco*ld defend o*rsel,es was by sending troo-s to R*ssia) so that<s aAdefensi,eA in,asion) that<sA defense.A 6

+nd if yo* loo( at that history in &ore detail) yo*<ll find the -oint is e,en&ore re,ealing. So for e1a&-le) right after the 2olshe,i( Re,ol*tion)+&erican Secretary of State Robert ansing warned President Wilson thatthe 2olshe,i(s are Aiss*ing an a--eal to the -roletariat of all nations) to the

illiterate and &entally deficient) who by their ,ery n*&bers are s*--osed tota(e control of all go,ern&ents.A +nd since they<re iss*ing an a--eal to the&ass of the -o-*lation in other co*ntries to ta(e control of their own af4fairs) and since that &ass of the -o-*lation are the A&entally deficientA andthe AilliterateA4yo* (now) all these -oor slobs o*t there who ha,e to be (e-tin their -lace) for their own good4that<s an attac( on *s) and therefore weha,e to defend o*rsel,es.I +nd what Wilson act*ally did was to Adefendo*rsel,esA in the two ob,io*s ways? first by in,ading R*ssia to try to

-re,ent that challenge fro& being iss*ed) and second by initiating the RedScare at ho&e a 3;3; ca&-aign of U.S. go,ern&ent re-ression and

-ro-aganda against A'o&&*nistsAO to cr*sh the threat that anyone here&ight answer the a--eal. Those were both a -art of the sa&e inter,ention)the sa&e Adefensi,eA inter,ention.

+nd it<s the sa&e right *- *ntil today. Why do we ha,e to get rid of theSandinistas in Nicarag*aI 0n reality it<s not beca*se anybody really thin(sthat they<re a 'o&&*nist -ower abo*t to con *er the He&is-here4it<s

beca*se they were carrying o*t social -rogra&s that were beginning to s*c4ceed) and which wo*ld ha,e a--ealed to other -eo-le in atin +&erica whowant the sa&e things. 0n 3;7% the World 2an( esti&ated that it wo*ld ta(e

Nicarag*a ten years *st to get bac( to the econo&ic le,el it had in 3;99) beca*se of the ,ast destr*ction inflicted at the end of the So&oGa reign thefo*r4decade Nicarag*an fa&ily dictatorshi- o*sted by the Sandinistare,ol*tion in J*ly 3;9;O. 2*t ne,ertheless) *nder the Sandinista go,ern&ent

Nicarag*a was in fact beginning econo&ic de,elo-&ent? it was



Chapter 'wo 4

establishing health -rogra&s) and social -rogra&s) and things were startingto i&-ro,e for the general -o-*lation there. 7 Well) that set off the alar&

bells in New or( and Washington) li(e it always does) and we had to sto-it4beca*se it was iss*ing an a--eal to the Ailliterate and &entally deficientAin other des-erate co*ntries) li(e Hond*ras and >*ate&ala) to do the sa&ething. That<s what U.S. -lanners call the Ado&ino theory)A or the Athreat of agood e1a&-le)A and -retty soon the whole U.S.4do&inated syste& starts tofall a-art. ;

Or!ell"s World and O"rs

Well) all of that is within the rhetoric of AcontainingA 'o&&*nis& andwe co*ld easily go on. 2*t there<s one word. o* loo( at any other ter& of

-olitical disco*rse) and yo*<re going to find the sa&e thing? the ter&s of -olitical disco*rse are designed so as to -re,ent tho*ght. !ne of the &ainones is this notion of Adefense.A So loo( at the di-lo&atic record of anyco*ntry yo* want4NaGi >er&any) the So,iet Union) ibya) -ic( yo*r fa4,orite horror4story4yo*<ll find that e,erything they e,er did was Adefen4si,eAC 0<& s*re if we had records fro& >enghis "han we wo*ld find thatwhat he was doing was Adefensi,eA too. +nd here in the United States yo*

cannot challenge that4no &atter how abs*rd it gets.i(e) we can be AdefendingA So*th Dietna&. 0 ha,e ne,er seen in the&edia) never in thirty years that 0 ha,e been loo(ing caref*lly) one -hrasee,en s*ggesting that we were not defending So*th Dietna&. Now) weweren<t? we were attac&ing So*th Dietna&. We were attac(ing So*th Diet4na& as clearly as any aggression in history. 2*t try to find one -hrase any4where in any +&erican news-a-er) o*tside of real &arginal -*blications)

*st stating that ele&entary fact. 0t<s *nstatable. 3% 0t<s *nstatable in the scholarly literat*re. >addis again) when he tal(s

abo*t the battle of ienbien-h*) where the Brench &ade their last stand to(ee- colonial control o,er 0ndochina) he describes it as a defensi,e str*ggle.33 Mc>eorge 2*ndy) in his boo( on the history of the &ilitary syste&) tal(sabo*t how the United States toyed with the idea of *sing n*clear wea-ons

in 3;58 to hel- the Brench &aintain their -osition at ienbien-h*) and hesays? we were thin(ing abo*t it to assist the Brench in their AdefenseA of0ndochina. 3$ He doesn<t say defense against whom) yo* (now) beca*se thatwo*ld be too idiotic4li(e) was it defense against the R*ssians or so&ethingI

No. They were defending 0ndochina against the 6ndochinese. 3 2*t no&atter how abs*rd it is) yo* cannot *estion that in the United States. 0&ean) these are e1tre&es of ideological fanaticis&4in other co*ntries) yo*co*ld at least raise these (inds of *estions. So&e of yo* are o*rnalists? trytal(ing abo*t the +&erican Aattac(A on So*th Dietna&. o*r editors willthin( yo* ca&e fro& Mars or so&ething) there was no s*ch e,ent in history.!f co*rse) there was in real history.



Chapter 'wo 43

controlling are the Sal,adoran and >*ate&alan &ilitaries4b*t yo*<ll ne,erfind that in an +&erican news-a-er.

!r *st ta(e this -hrase A-eace -rocess)A which we hear all the ti&e. The -hrase A-eace -rocessA has a dictionary &eaning) it &eans A-rocess leadingto -eace. A 2*t that<s not the way it<s *sed in the &edia. The ter& A-eace

-rocessA is *sed in the &edia to refer to whate,er the United States ha--ensto be doing at the &o&ent4and again) that is witho*t e1ce-tion. So it t*rnso*t that the United States is always s*--orting the -eace -rocess) bydefinition. J*st try to find a -hrase in the U.S. &edia so&ewhere) anywhere)saying that the United States is o--osing the -eace -rocess? yo* can<t do it.

+ct*ally) a few &onths ago 0 said this at a tal( in Seattle) and so&eonefro& the a*dience wrote &e a letter abo*t a wee( or so later saying he wasinterested) so he<d done a little research -ro ect on it. He too( the $ew %or&'imes co&-*ter database fro& 3;7% Kwhen it beginsL *- to the -resent) and

-*lled o*t e,ery article that had the wordsA -eace -rocessA in it. There wereli(e nine h*ndred articles or so&ething) and he chec(ed thro*gh each ofthe& to see if there was any case in which the United States was o--osingthe -eace -rocess. +nd there wasn<t) it was 3%% -ercent. Well) yo* (now)e,en the &ost a*g*st co*ntry in history) let<s say by accident so&eti&e)&ight not be s*--orting the -eace -rocess. 2*t in the case of the UnitedStates) that *st can<t ha--en. +nd this is a -artic*larly stri(ing ill*stration)

beca*se d*ring the 3;7%s the United States was the &ain factor in bloc(ingtwo &a or international -eace -rocesses) one in 'entral +&erica and one inthe Middle East. 07 2*t *st try to find that si&-le) ob,io*s fact statedanywhere in the &ainstrea& &edia. o* can<t. +nd yo* can<t beca*se it<s alogical contradiction4yo* don<t e,en ha,e to do any gr*bby wor( with thedata and the doc*&ents to -ro,e it) it<s *st -ro,en by the &eaning of thewords the&sel,es. 0t<s li(e finding a &arried bachelor or so&ething4yo*don<t ha,e to do any research to show there aren<t any. o* can<t ha,e theUnited States o--osing the -eace -rocess) beca*se the -eace -rocess iswhat the United States is doing) by definition. +nd if anybody is o--osingthe United States) then they"re o--osing the -eace -rocess. That<s the way itwor(s) and it<s ,ery con,enient) yo* get nice concl*sions.

M*$, Can 6 throw in another one0 When you have a country which youcan"t even pretend is a democracy8there"s no constitution) no parliament)there"s an absolute monarch8you use the word 1moderate. 1

eah) A&oderateA is a word that &eans Afollows U.S. ordersA4as o--osedto what<s calledA radical)A which &eansA doesn<t follow U.S. orders.AARadicalA has nothing to do with left or rightC yo* can be an *ltra4right4winger) b*t yo*<re a AradicalA if yo* don<t follow U.S. orders.

M*$, 6 have yet to see a single reference to Morocco"s 9ing /assan as an1absolute monarch.1 /e has the worst human rights record in the *rab




world) torture widespread) he invaded Western Sahara) disobeyed theWorld Court) one of the nastiest characters anywhere86 have never seen anarticle that didn"t refer to him as a 1moderate.1

That<s right) beca*se we ha,e U.S. airbases in Morocco) and we get -lenty of &inerals fro& there) and so on. !r *st ta(e Sa*di +rabia4Sa*di+rabia is e,en described as A&oderateA now. $% 0n fact) e,en 6ra: is so&e4ti&es described as A&o,ing towards &oderationA? 0ra is -robably the worstterror4state in the world4death ca&-s) biological warfare) anything yo* li(e.$3

M*$, /ow about Suharto ;6ndonesian dictator<8he"s called a 1moderate1too.

S*harto) yeah4that<s the &ost e1tre&e case 0<,e e,er seen) in fact) 0<&glad yo* &ention it. This is a really astonishing one) act*ally. Bor e1a&-le)there was an article in the Christian Science Monitor a co*-le years agoabo*t the great b*siness o--ort*nities in 0ndonesia) and it said? after the0ndonesian go,ern&ent sto--ed a 'o&&*nist re,olt in 3;65) the West was,ery eager to do b*siness with 0ndonesia<s Anew &oderate leader) S*harto.A$$ Well) who<s 0ndonesia<s Anew &oderate leader) S*hartoAI S*harto is theg*y who) no do*bt with the bac(ing of the United States) carried o*t a&ilitary co*- in 3;65 after which the 0ndonesian ar&y sla*ghtered abo*t5%%)%%% -eo-le within fo*r &onths. Nobody (nows the e1act n*&bers40&ean) they ga,e 5%%)%%%) -ic( yo*r n*&berC it was &ostly landless

-easants. $: Well) that was ,ery &*ch welco&ed in the West) the +&erican &edia

*st lo,ed it. Bor instance) Ja&es Reston) the $ew %or& 'imes"s liberalcol*&nist) had a col*&n 0 re&e&ber called) A+ >lea& of ight in +sia A4things are really loo(ing *-. 2.S. $ews and World Report had a storycalled) AHo-e Where There !nce Was None.A $8 These were the (inds ofheadlines that were r*nning thro*gho*t the U.S. -ress4and the reason was)S*harto had wi-ed o*t the only &ass4based -olitical -arty in 0ndonesia) the'o&&*nist Party) which had abo*t fo*rteen &illion &e&bers at the ti&e.

The 'imes had an editorial saying basically? it<s all great st*ff) b*t theUnited States is right not to beco&e too o-enly in,ol,ed) beca*se it doesn<tloo( too good to wi-e o*t 5%%)%%% -eo-le4b*t it<s going the right way) let<s&a(e s*re it (ee-s going the right way. This was right at the ti&e of the&assacre. $5 Well) that<s 0ndonesia<s Anew &oderate leader)A S*harto. This is

-robably the &ost e1tre&e case 0<,e e,er seen? this g*y is one of the biggest&ass &*rderers since +dolf Hitler.



Chapter 'wo 4=

'onte&-orary Po,erty

W+M*$, $oam) 6 want to change gears for a moment if we could.%ou"ve said that you were politically aware as a young &id in the 35s86"mwondering) do you have any impressions of the differences between thattime and today) in terms of general outloo& and attitudes0 /ow would youcompare the two periods0

Well) the Thirties were an e1citing ti&e4it was dee- econo&ic de-res4

sion) e,erybody was o*t of a ob) b*t the f*nny thing abo*t it was) it washo-ef*l. 0t<s ,ery different today. When yo* go into the sl*&s today) it<snothing li(e what it was? it<s desolate) there is no ho-e. +nybody who<s &yage or &ore will re&e&ber) there was a sense of ho-ef*lness bac( then?&aybe there was no food) b*t there were -ossibilities) there were things thatco*ld be done. o* ta(e a wal( thro*gh East Harle& today) there wasnothing li(e that at the de-ths of the e-ression4this sense that there<snothing yo* can do) it<s ho-eless) yo*r grand&other has to stay *- at nightto (ee- yo* fro& being eaten by a rat. That (ind of thing didn<t e1ist at thede-ths of the e-ressionC 0 don<t e,en thin( it e1isted o*t in r*ral areas."ids didn<t co&e into school witho*t foodC teachers didn<t ha,e to worrythat when they wal(ed o*t into the hall) they &ight get (illed by so&e g*yhigh on dr*gs4it wasn<t that bad.

There<s really so&ething *alitati,ely different abo*t conte&-orary -o,erty) 0 thin(. So&e of yo* &*st share these e1-eriences. 0 &ean) 0 was a(id bac( then) so &aybe &y -ers-ecti,e was different. 2*t 0 re&e&berwhen 0 wo*ld go into the a-art&ent of &y co*sins4yo* (now) bro(enfa&ily) no ob) twenty -eo-le li,ing in a tiny a-art&ent4so&ehow it washo-ef*l. 0t was intellect*ally ali,e) it was e1citing) it was *st ,ery differentfro& today so&ehow.

W+M*$, o you attribute that to the raised political consciousness ofthat era as compared to now0

0t<s -ossible? there was a lot of *nion organiGing bac( then) and thestr*ggles were ,ery br*tal. 0 re&e&ber it well. i(e) one of &y earliestchildhood &e&ories is of ta(ing a trolley car with &y &other and seeingthe -olice wade into a stri(e of wo&en -ic(ets o*tside a Philadel-hia te1tile&ill) and beating the& *-4that<s a searing &e&ory. +nd the -o,erty wase1tre&e? 0 re&e&ber rag4-ic(ers co&ing to the door begging for &oney)lots of things li(e that. So it was not -retty by any &eans. 2*t it was alsonot ho-eless. So&ehow that<s a tre&endo*s difference? the sl*&s are nowho-eless) there<s nothing to do e1ce-t -rey on one another.

0n fact) a lot of life is ho-eless today) e,en for &iddle4class (ids. 0 &ean)for the first ti&e in 0 thin( h*&an history) &iddle4class (ids now ass*&ethey are not going to li,e as well as their -arents4that<s really so&ething



4> 2nderstanding #ower

new) that<s ne,er ha--ened before. $6 My (ids) for e1a&-le) ass*&e that theyare -robably not going to li,e the way that we li,e. Thin( abo*t it) that<sne,er ha--ened before in history. +nd they<re -robably right) e1ce-taccidentally4li(e) so&e of the& &ay) b*t on a,erage they won<t.

M*$, o you have an explanation of what"s happened to the cities0

0 don<t entirely *nderstand it) to tell yo* the tr*th. $9 o* co*ld see it be4ginning in the late 3;8%s4New or( 'ity) for e1a&-le) started to beco&e ahostile -lace aro*nd then. 0 &ean) as a (id when 0 wo*ld go to New or() 0wo*ld thin( nothing of wal(ing thro*gh 'entral Par( alone at night) orwal(ing along Ri,erside ri,e by the ri,er alone at night4the (inds ofthings yo* wo*ldn<t do now witho*t a -latoon of Marines aro*nd yo*) yo*

*st too( for granted bac( thenC yo* didn<t e,en gi,e it a second tho*ght.o* ne,er tho*ght twice abo*t ta(ing a wal( thro*gh Harle&) let<s say what

the hec() yo* (nowI 2*t that all began to change after the Second WorldWar) and it changed thro*gho*t the whole United States? cities *st beca&ehostile.

0 &ean) New or( always had the reputation of being hostile) li(e therewere always o(es abo*t the g*y lying in the street and e,erybody wal(ingo,er hi&. 2*t yo* *st didn<t feel that yo* were ta(ing yo*r life into yo*r

hands and that -eo-le there were going to (ill yo*) the sense yo* get whenyo* wal( thro*gh a lot of the city today. +nd also) yo* didn<t ha,e the sa&esense of s*-er4wealth right ne1t to grinding -o,erty4li(e today yo* see

-eo-le sitting at a fancy resta*rant drin(ing wine) and so&e ho&eless -er4son lying on the street right in front of the&. There wasn<t *ite that (ind ofthing either.

W+M*$, 6s the change maybe related to the internationali ation of theeconomy) and the broadening of the super8rich class here0

Maybe. 0 really don<t (now) to tell yo* the tr*th) and 0 don<t want to -re4tend that 0 (now. 2*t &y feeling is) it<s beyond *st econo&ics. 0 &ean)there were radical differences in wealth at that ti&e) and -eo-le in the sl*&s

were e1tre&ely -oor4it<s *st that they weren<t desolate.

W+M*$, 6t wasn"t such a consumer culture at the time.

eah) certainly not to the e1tent that it is now4li(e) e,erybody didn<tha,e a tele,ision set where they were seeing so&e i&-ossible life in front oftheir eyes all the ti&e. +ltho*gh yo* had so&ething li(e it) don<t forget? inthose days the &o,ies were what tele,ision is todayC yo*<d go to the &o,iesfor a di&e) and that<s where yo*<d get yo*r fantasy world. +nd the &o,ieswere all glitter) all *--er4class fa(e glitter. 2*t it *st didn<t ha,e the sa&e



Chapter 'wo 4?

de,astating effect) 0 don<t (now why. There<s so&ething really ho-elessabo*t conte&-orary life that<s new) 0 thin(.

M*$, 'he bomb had a lot to do with it.

Maybe4b*t does that really acco*nt for what ha--ens in the sl*&sIoo() 0 &ean) 0 ne,er see &*ch of it. 0n the late 3;6%s) 0 was with a &ainly

white gro*-) RES0ST a national draft4resistance &o,e&entO) b*t we hadgood contacts with the 2lac( Panthers) and with the& 0 did get into sl*&areas. 0n general) tho*gh) 0 don<t tend to see the sl*&s ,ery &*ch. 2*t fro&the few ti&es 0<,e wal(ed aro*nd -oor areas of Harle& and other -laces li(ethat since then) 0 *st can<t recall anything re&otely li(e it in the 3;:%s) e,enin the -oorest -arts of 2rowns,ille a low4inco&e section of 2roo(lynO.+lso) older friends of &ine who<,e been teachers in New or( since the3;$%s tell &e they thin( it<s totally different today as well4(ids were -oor inthe Thirties) b*t they weren<t rat4bitten.

W+M*$, @or myself) as a radical who does a lot of political wor& in mycommunity) the despair is unbelievable8what we have to fight against at thelowest rung is Aust incredible) 6 can really understand Aust giving up. -on"t

you have some explanation of how we"ve come to this point0

Well) 0 thin( if yo* loo( o,er +&erican history) yo* can -oint to at leasta few factors behind it. This is an i&&igrant society) and before the e4

-ression ,irt*ally e,ery wa,e of i&&igrants who ca&e here was &ore orless absorbed) at least the ones who wanted to stay4a lot of the& didn<t)re&e&berC in fact) the rate of ret*rn was rather high d*ring the -ea( -eriodsof i&&igration. $7 2*t for the i&&igrants who did stay) the United Statesreally was a land of o--ort*nity. So) &y father co*ld co&e fro& R*ssia andwor( in a sweatsho-) and &anage finally to get to college) and then see hisson beco&e a -rofessor4that st*ff was real. +nd it was real beca*se therewas a lot of &an*al labor aro*nd which co*ld absorb the wa,es ofi&&igrants? -eo-le co*ld wor( in sweatsho-s for si1teen ho*rs a day and&a(e eno*gh to li,e on) then acc*&*late a little e1cess) and things wo*ldgrad*ally start to get better. 2*t in the 3;:%s) there was a big brea( in thissyste&4the e-ression ended those o--ort*nities. +nd the United States has

basically ne,er gotten o*t of the e-ression.See) the -ost4World War 00 econo&ic boo& has been a different sort of

econo&ic growth fro& anything that e,er ha--ened before. Bor one thing)it<s been basically state4f*nded and -ri&arily centered in high technology

based ind*stries) which are tied to the &ilitary syste&. +nd that (ind ofecono&ic growth *st does not allow for absorbing new wa,es of i&&i4grants. 0t allowed for it briefly d*ring the Second World War) when therewas a labor shortage and -eo-le co*ld co&e off the far&s in the So*th andwor( in the war ind*stries. 2*t that ended. +nd since then) the obs ha,e




&ostly been in high4tech or in the ser,ice sector4which is rotten) yo* don<tgo anywhere. So there *st aren<t the sa&e -ossibilities for -eo-le to &o,e*-? if yo* can get into high4tech ind*stry) yo* -robably were there already)and if yo*<re wor(ing at swee-ing the streets or so&ething) that<s whereyo*<re going to stay.

Now) &aybe that sit*ation wo*ld ha,e been li,able if there hadn<t been anew wa,e of i&&igration) b*t there was. There was a h*ge wa,e of i&4&igration. 0t ha--ened to ha,e been internal i&&igration this ti&e) b*tfro& the -oint of ,iew of the society it was li(e a foreign wa,e? it ca&efro& ra-id &echaniGation of agric*lt*re in the So*th) which dro,e the blac(

-o-*lation) the for&er sla,es) off the land. Then on to- of that) there<s also been a &a or infl*1 of His-anic i&&igration. So yo* had these two bigwa,es of i&&igration co&ing *- to the Northern cities) and nothing forthe& to do? they co*ldn<t do what &y father did) beca*se there wasn<t thesa&e (ind of &an*al labor going on which co*ld occ*-y &illions &orewor(ers. So what in fact ha--ened is these two h*ge wa,es of i&&igrantswere *st herded into concentration ca&-s) which we ha--en to callAcities.A +nd the ,ast &a ority of the& are ne,er going to get o*t4 *st be4ca*se there<s nothing for the& to do. The econo&y si&-ly is not growingC 0&ean) the >ross National Prod*ct goes *-) b*t it goes *- in a way whichdoes not constit*te econo&ic growth for a -oor *rban -o-*lation.

+nd with the decline of the traditional &an*fact*ring ind*stries in recentyears) it<s getting worse) not better. +s ca-ital beco&es &ore fl*id and it beco&es easier for cor-orations to &o,e -rod*ction to the Third World)why sho*ld they -ay higher wages in etroit when they can -ay lowerwages in Northern Me1ico or the Phili--inesI +nd the res*lt is) there<s e,en&ore -ress*re on the -oorer -art of the -o-*lation here. +nd what<s in ef4fect ha--ened is they<,e been closed off into inner4city sl*&s4where then allsorts of other -ress*res begin to attac( the&? dr*gs) gentrification) -olicere-ression) c*tbac(s in li&ited welfare -rogra&s) and so on. +nd all ofthese things contrib*te to creating a ,ery a*thentic sense of ho-elessness)and also to real anti4social beha,ior? cri&e. +nd the cri&e is &ostly -oor

-eo-le -reying on one another) the statistics show that ,ery clearly beca*sethe rich are loc(ed away behind their barricades. $;

o* can see it ,ery clearly when yo* dri,e thro*gh New or( now? thedifferences in wealth are li(e San Sal,ador. 0 &ean) 0 was gi,ing a tal(there a little while ago) and as yo* wal( aro*nd it<s (ind of dra&atic? thereare these castles) and there are g*ards at the gate) and a li&o*sine dri,es *-and the -eo-le go insideC inside 0 g*ess it<s ,ery elegant and bea*tif*l. 2*tit<s li(e li,ing in a fe*dal syste&) with a lot of wild barbarians o*tside4e1ce-t if yo*<re rich) yo* don<t e,er see the&) yo* *st &o,e between yo*rcastle and yo*r li&o*sine. +nd if yo*<re -oor) yo*<,e got no castle to

-rotect yo*.

M*$, %ou mentioned drugs having an impact on the problem86"m won8dering whether you agree with the theory that drugs were maybe intro8



Chapter 'wo 4

duced to the ghettos intentionally) to try to demorali e people there and&eep them from coming together to organi e to change things0

0t<s a good *estion4acti,ists who wor( in the ghettos and sl*&s ha,e been charging that for years. 0 &ean) a lot of -eo-le ha,e -ointed o*t that *st at the ti&e when yo* started to get serio*s organiGing in the *rban ghet4tos in the 3;6%s) all of a s*dden there was this h*ge flow of dr*gs which ab4sol*tely de,astated the inner4city co&&*nities. +nd the co&&*nities *stco*ldn<t defend the&sel,es against it? the -arents co*ldn<t do it) thech*rches co*ldn<t do it) yo*<,e got g*ys hanging aro*nd on street cornersgi,ing ten4year4olds free dr*gs) and in a co*-le of &onths the neighbor4hood<s gone. +nd the ti&ing) in fact) was abo*t when serio*s -olitical or4ganiGing was beginning to ta(e -lace. 2eyond that) 0 don<t (now? &aybe itwas -lanned) &aybe it *st ha--ened. :% 2*t 0 thin( yo* can &a(e a goodcase that the way the cri&inal *stice syste& has been set *- e,er since thendoes ha,e a lot to do with social control.

So *st ta(e a loo( at the different -rosec*tion rates and sentencing r*lesfor ghetto dr*gs li(e crac( and s*b*rban dr*gs li(e cocaine) or for dr*n(dri,ers and dr*g *sers) or *st between blac(s and whites in general4thestatistics are clear? this is a war on the -oor and &inorities. :3 !r as( yo*rselfa si&-le *estion? how co&e &ari *ana is illegal b*t tobacco legalI 0t can<t

be beca*se of the health i&-act) beca*se that<s e1actly the other wayaro*nd4there has ne,er been a fatality fro& &ari *ana *se a&ong 6% &illionre-orted *sers in the United States) whereas tobacco (ills h*ndreds oftho*sands of -eo-le e,ery year. :$ My strong s*s-icion) tho*gh 0 don<t (nowhow to -ro,e it) is that the reason is that &ari *ana<s a weed) yo* can growit in yo*r bac(yard) so there<s nobody who wo*ld &a(e any &oney off it ifit were legal. Tobacco re *ires e1tensi,e ca-ital in-*ts and technology) andit can be &ono-oliGed) so there are -eo-le who can &a(e a ton of &oneyoff it. 0 don<t really see any other difference between the two of the&)fran(ly44e1ce-t that tobacco<s far &ore lethal and far &ore addicti,e.

2*t it<s certainly tr*e that a lot of inner4city co&&*nities ha,e *st beende,astated by dr*gs. +nd yo* can see why -eo-le wo*ld want the&4they dogi,e yo* a sense of te&-orary relief fro& an intolerable e1istence) whate,er

else they &ight do. Pl*s 0<& *st con,inced that by now a lot of the dr*gst*ff is aro*nd &ainly beca*se -eo-le can &a(e &oney off it4so 0 don<treally thin( there<s &* ?h ho-e for dealing with the -roble& witho*t so&efor& of decri&inaliGation to re&o,e that incenti,e. 0t<s not a -retty sol*tion)

b*t it<s -robably -art of the sol*tion) 0 s*s-ect. +nd of co*rse) de4cri&inaliGation doesn<t ha,e to &ean no reg*lation4li(e) in England o,erthe years) they<,e tried to reg*late alcohol thro*gh ta1 -olicies and so on) toenco*rage *se of &ore benign -rod*cts li(e beer rather than &ore dan4gero*s ones) and so&ething li(e that co*ld be loo(ed into here. 2*t ob,i4o*sly so&ething sho*ld be tried) 0 thin(.



=5 2nderstanding #ower

%eligio"s !anati-ism

W+M*$, @undamentalist religion has really ta&en off in the last decade)maybe as an outlet for some of this despair. o you have any thoughtsabout the significance of that development in the 2.S0

0t<s -retty a&aGing what<s ha--ened) act*ally. There ha,e been a lot ofcross4c*lt*ral st*dies of what social scientists call Areligio*s fanaticis&A not

-eo-le who *st belie,e in >od or go to ch*rch) b*t they<re really (ind of

fanatic abo*t it) it<s the (ind of fanatic religio*s co&&it&ent that -er&eatesyo*r whole life. +nd what these st*dies de&onstrate is that this is a ty-icalcharacteristic of -re4ind*strial societies4in fact) it correlates ,ery closelywith ind*strialiGation? as ind*strialiGation goes *-) this (ind of religio*sfanaticis& goes down. Well) there are two co*ntries that are basically offthe c*r,e. !ne of the& is 'anada) which has &ore f*nda&entalist co&4&it&ent than yo* wo*ld e1-ect gi,en its le,el of ind*strialiGation. Theother is the United States4which is totally off the chart? we<re li(e a shat4tered -easant society. 0 &ean) the last st*dy 0 saw of it was done in aro*nd3;7%) and the United States was at the le,el of 2angladesh) it was ,eryclose to 0ran. :: Eighty -ercent of +&ericans literally belie,e in religio*s&iracles. Half the -o-*lation thin(s the world was created a co*-letho*sand years ago and that fossils were -*t here to &islead -eo-le or

so&ething4half the -o-*lation. o* *st don<t find things li(e that in otherind*strial societies. :8

Well) a lot of -olitical scientists and others ha,e tried to fig*re o*t whythis aberration e1ists. 0t<s one of the &any res-ects in which the UnitedStates is *n*s*al) so yo* want to see if it<s related to so&e of the others andthere are others. Bor instance) the United States has an *n*s*ally wea(labor &o,e&ent) it has an *n*s*ally narrow -olitical syste&. Thin(? there isno other ind*strialiGed Western co*ntry that doesn<t ha,e a labor4based

-olitical -arty) and we ha,en<t had one here since the Po-*list Party in the37;%s. So we ha,e a ,ery de-oliticiGed -o-*lation) and that co*ld be oneca*se of this -heno&enon? if social and -olitical life don<t offer yo* o--or4t*nities to for& co&&*nities and associate yo*rself with things that are&eaningf*l to yo*) -eo-le loo( for other ways to do it) and religion<s an ob4

,io*s one. 0t<s stri(ingly the case in the blac( co&&*nities) act*ally) wherethe blac( ch*rches ha,e been the real organiGing center which holds life to4gether? 0 &ean) there<s terrible o--ression) a lot of fa&ilies are falling a-art)

b*t the ch*rch is there) it brings -eo-le together and they can get togetherand do things in that conte1t. +nd the sa&e is tr*e in &any white co&&*4nities as well.

Now) 0 don<t thin( yo* can draw too &any swee-ing concl*sions fro&religion itself4it<s (ind of li(e technology) it de-ends what yo* *se it for.

i(e) e,en a&ong the f*nda&entalists) yo*<,e got So o*rners a -olitically -rogressi,e religio*s gro*-O) and yo* ha,e Jerry Balwell a right4wingtele,angelistO. 2*t it certainly does carry with it the -otential of aligningwith other



Chapter 'wo =

for&s of fanaticis&4and that<s a big danger in the United States) beca*se it<sa ,ery significant &o,e&ent here. 0n fact) by now *st abo*t e,ery &a or

-olitical fig*re in the co*ntry has to associate hi&self with it in so&e way.0n the 3;7% election) for e1a&-le) all of the three candidates i.e. 'arter)Reagan) and inde-endent candidate John +ndersonO ad,ertised the&sel,esas 2orn +gain 'hristians. 0n the 3;78 election) one of the candidates ad,er4tised hi&self as a 2orn +gain 'hristian) and the other was a Methodist &in4ister or so&ething. :5 0n the 3;77 election) *(a(is was sec*lar) which is*n*s*al) b*t 2*sh said he was religio*s.

+ct*ally) 2*sh) technically s-ea(ing) is not really President4beca*se heref*sed to ta(e the !ath of !ffice. 0 don<t (now how &any of yo* noticedthis) b*t the wording of the !ath of !ffice is written in the 'onstit*tion) soyo* can<t fool aro*nd with it4and 2*sh ref*sed to read it. The !ath of !f4fice says so&ething abo*t) A0 -ro&ise to do this) that) and the other thing)Aand 2*sh added the words) Aso hel- &e >od.A Well) that<s illegal? he<s notPresident) if anybody cares. :6

*77, *ll rightB %eahB

Ha--yI eah) let<s i&-each hi&.0 &ean) it wasn<t beca*se 2*sh is religio*s42*sh (nows where the near4

est ch*rch is ... beca*se he has to show *- there e,ery once in a while. !rta(e Reagan? what does it &ean to say he was a 2orn +gain 'hristianI 0t&eans so&ebody told hi& he<s a 2orn +gain 'hristian. 0n 2*sh<s case)tho*gh) 0 -res*&e he<s totally sec*lar) he *st (nows that by now yo*<,e gotto &a(e a nod to this h*ge f*nda&entalist constit*ency4and since yo*<re notgoing to offer the& anything they really want) yo* offer the& sy&bolicthings) li(e saying Aso hel- &e >odA or so&ething li(e that.

2*t the -oint is) if things e,er really co&e to a cr*nch in the UnitedStates) this &assi,e -art of the -o-*lation40 thin( it<s so&ething li(e a thirdof the ad*lt -o-*lation by now4co*ld be the basis for so&e (ind of a fascist&o,e&ent) readily. Bor e1a&-le) if the co*ntry sin(s dee-ly into arecession) a de-oliticiGed -o-*lation co*ld ,ery easily be &obiliGed intothin(ing it<s so&ebody else<s fa*lt? AWhy are o*r li,es colla-singI There

ha,e to be bad g*ys o*t there doing so&ething for things to be going so badlyA4and the bad g*ys can be Jews) or ho&ose1*als) or blac(s) or'o&&*nists) whate,er yo* -ic(. 0f yo* can whi- -eo-le into irrationalfrenGies li(e that) they can be e1tre&ely dangero*s? that<s what 3;:%sBascis& ca&e fro&) and so&ething li(e that co*ld ,ery easily ha--en here.

A'he %eal +nti4Se&itis&A

M*$, o you &now about the connections between the Republican #artyand the neo8$a is which were revealed a few months ago8and could youtal& a bit about what might be the significance of that in this context0



= 2nderstanding #ower

That was sort of an interesting -heno&enonC it<s hard to (now e1actlyhow serio*sly to ta(e it) b*t it<s certainly ,ery real. 0 don<t (now how &anyof yo* followed what ha--ened with the NaGis in the 2*sh ca&-aignaro*nd last +*g*st4do yo* (now abo*t that st*ffI

There<s this -art of the 2*sh ca&-aign called the AEthnic !*treach'o&&ittee)A which tries to organiGe ethnic &inoritiesC ob,io*sly thatdoesn<t &ean blac(s or His-anics) it &eans U(rainians) Poles) that sort of

b*siness. +nd it t*rned o*t that it was being r*n by a b*nch of East E*ro4 -ean NaGis) U(rainian NaGis) hysterical anti4Se&ites) Ro&anians who ca&eo*t of the 0ron >*ard) and so on. Well) finally this got e1-osedC so&e of the

-eo-le were resh*ffled) so&e were -*t into other -ositions in the Re4 -*blican Party4b*t it all *st -assed o,er ,ery *ietly. The e&ocrats ne,ere,en raised the iss*e d*ring the election ca&-aign. :9

o* &ight as() whyI How co&e the e&ocrats ne,er e,en raised theiss*eI Well) 0 thin( there was a ,ery good reason for that? 0 thin( the JewishorganiGations li(e the +nti4 efa&ation eag*e basically called the& off.The -oint is) these organiGations don<t *lti&ately care abo*t anti4Se&itis&)what they care abo*t is o--osition to the -olicies of 0srael4in fact) o--osi4tion to their own haw(ish version of the -olicies of 0srael. They<re 0sraeligo,ern&ent lobbies) essentially) and they *nderstood that these NaGis in the2*sh ca&-aign were *ite -ro40srael) so what do they careI The $ew Re8

public) which is sort of an organ for these gro*-s) had a ,ery interesting ed4itorial on it. 0t was abo*t anti4Se&itis&) and it referred to the fact that thisco&&ittee was being r*n by anti4Se&ites) Holoca*st deniers) NaGis and soon) and then it said? yes) that<s all tr*e) b*t this is *st Aanti *e and ane&icAanti4Se&itis&. NaGis& is *st Aanti *e and ane&icA anti4Se&itis&) notterribly i&-ortant) we sho*ldn<t get too *-set abo*t it. +nd then it said? thereal anti4Se&itis& that we o*ght to be worried abo*t is in the e&ocraticParty) which is filled with AJew4hatersA4that was the -hrase they *sed. +nd

-art of the -roof is) the e&ocrats were act*ally willing to debate aresol*tion calling for Palestinian self4deter&ination at their National'on,ention) so therefore they<re AJew4hatersA and that<s the ArealA anti4Se&itis& in +&erica. KThat was in fact the title of a boo( by the irector ofthe +. . .) Nathan Perl&*tter.L:7 Well) the e&ocrats got the &essage

that they weren<t going to win any -oints with this) so they ne,er raised a -ee- abo*t it.0ncidentally) this is only one of the things that ha--ened at that ti&e4

there<s another story which got e,en less -*blicity) and is e,en &ore re,eal4ing. The e-art&ent of Ed*cation has a -rogra& of grants that it dis-ensesto f*nd -ro ects initiated by local school syste&s) and for the last fo*r orfi,e years the school board in 2roo(line) Massach*setts) has been trying toget f*nding for a -ro ect on the Holoca*st which always gets ,ery fa,orablyre,iewed) b*t is always t*rned down. +gain in 3;774also right before theelection4the federal re,iewing co&&ittee had to deal with their -ro-osal.+s *s*al it got ,ery fa,orable re,iews) b*t instead of *st t*rning it down)



Chapter Two 5:

this ti&e the go,ern&ent si&-ly eli&inated the entire -rogra& category*nder which it was being s*b&itted. Well) at that -oint so&e infor&ation

began to s*rface as to why the -ro ect (e-t getting t*rned down4and itt*rned o*t that it was being ref*sed e,ery year beca*se of letters the e4

-art&ent was getting fro& -eo-le li(e Phyllis Schlafly a right4wing ac4ti,istO attac(ing it for being *nfair beca*se it didn<t gi,e ade *ate s-ace to

NaGis and "* "l*1 "lan &e&bers. 2esides) they said) it<s (ind of brain4washing children) and t*rning the& against things li(e the Holoca*st) it<s

*st &ore of this neo4liberal ta&-ering with -eo-le<s tho*ghts. Parts ofthese letters act*ally got -*blished in the Washington #ost and the (ostonDlobe. 3

Well) yo*<d ha,e tho*ght there<d be an *-roar. + -rogra& on the Holo4ca*st gets t*rned down by the go,ern&ent) by the Reagan ad&inistration)

beca*se it doesn<t gi,e eno*gh s-ace to NaGis and "lan &e&bersI Not a -ee-) not a -ee-. +nd the -oint is) Phyllis Schlafly and that whole gang areade *ately -ro40srael4and therefore it doesn<t &atter what they thin(. Theycan be in fa,or of the "lan) they can be in fa,or of the NaGis) they can sayyo* sho*ldn<t be allowed to teach the Holoca*st) it doesn<t &atter) as long asthey re&ain s*fficiently s*--orti,e of haw(ish 0sraeli -olicies. +s long asthey &eet that *alification) it<s fine) they can say whate,er they want.

$onald %eagan and the %uture of 3emo-ra-y

W+M*$, %ou mentioned Reagan86"ve heard you say his administrationwas the first time the 2nited States didn"t really have a #resident. Would

you enlarge on that) and tell us what your thoughts are on the future of that&ind of government0

0 thin( it has a big f*t*re) &yself4in fact) 0 thin( the Reagan ad&inis4tration was sort of a -ee( into the f*t*re. 0t<s a ,ery nat*ral &o,e. 0&agineyo*rself wor(ing in so&e -*blic relations office where yo*r ob is to hel-cor-orations &a(e s*re that the annoying -*blic does not get in the way of

-olicy4&a(ing. Here<s a brilliant tho*ght that nobody e,er had before) so faras 0 (now? let<s &a(e elections co&-letely sy&bolic acti,ities. The -o-4*lation can (ee- ,oting) we<ll gi,e the& all the b*siness) they<ll ha,e elec4toral ca&-aigns) all the hoo-la) two candidates) eight candidates4b*t the

-eo-le they<re ,oting for will then *st be e1-ected to read off atele-ro&-ter and they won<t be e1-ected to (now anything e1ce-t whatso&ebody tells the&) and &aybe not e,en that.

0 &ean) when yo* read off a tele-ro&-ter40<,e done it act*ally4it<s a ,eryodd e1-erience? it<s li(e the words go into yo*r eyes and o*t yo*r &o*th)and they don<t -ass thro*gh yo*r &ind in between. +nd when Reagan doesit) they ha,e it set *- so there are two or three of the& aro*nd) so




his head can (ee- &o,ing and it a--ears as tho*gh he<s loo(ing aro*nd atthe a*dience) b*t really he<s *st switching fro& one tele-ro&-ter toanother. Well) if yo* can get -eo-le to ,ote for so&ething li(e that) yo*<,e

basically done it4yo*<,e re&o,ed the& fro& decision4&a(ing. 0t won<twor( *nless yo* ha,e an obedient &edia which will fall o,er the&sel,eswith what a wonderf*l) charis&atic fig*re he is4yo* (now) Athe &ost

-o-*lar President in history)A Ahe<s creating a re,ol*tion)A Athe &osta&aGing thing since ice crea&)A and Ahow can we criticiGe hi&) e,erybodylo,es hi&IA +nd yo* ha,e to -retend that nobody<s la*ghing) and so on.2*t if yo* can do that) then yo*<d ha,e gone a ,ery long way towards &ar4ginaliGing the -*blic. +nd 0 thin( we -robably got there in the 3;7%s -rettyclose to there) anyway.

0n all of the boo(s that ha,e co&e o*t by -eo-le in the Reagan ad&inis4tration) it<s been e1tre&ely diffic*lt to hide the fact that Reagan didn<t ha,ethe foggiest idea what was going on. 8% Whene,er he wasn<t -ro-erly -ro4gra&&ed) the things that wo*ld co&e o*t of his &o*th were (ind of li(e 4they weren<t lies really) they were (ind of li(e the babbling of a child. 0f achild babbles) it<s not lies) it<s *st sort of on so&e other -lane. To be able tolie) yo* ha,e to ha,e a certain degree of co&-etence) yo* ha,e to (nowwhat tr*th is. +nd there didn<t see& to be any indication that that was thecase here. So in fact) all of the f*ss in the 0ran4contra hearings abo*t Adid

Reagan (now or didn<t he (nowA abo*t the National Sec*rity 'o*ncil<s il4legal dealings with 0ran and the Nicarag*an contrasO) or Adid he re&e&beror didn<t he re&e&berIA 0 -ersonally regarded as a co,er4*-. What<s thedifferenceI He didn<t (now if nobody told hi&) and he didn<t re&e&ber ifhe forgot. +nd who caresI He wasn<t s*--osed to (now. Reagan<s wholecareer was reading lines written for hi& by rich fol(. Birst it was as as-o(es&an for >eneral Electric) then it was for so&ebody else) and he *stcontin*ed to the White Ho*se? he read the lines written for hi& by the richfol() he did it for eight years) they -aid hi& nicely) he a--arently en oyed it)he see&s to ha,e been *ite cheerf*l there) had a good ti&e. He co*ld slee-late. +nd they li(ed it) the -ay&asters tho*ght it was fine) they bo*ght anice ho&e for hi&) -*t hi& o*t to -ast*re.

0t<s ,ery stri(ing how he disa--eared. Bor eight years) the -*blic rela4

tions ind*stry and the &edia had been clai&ing that this g*y re,ol*tioniGed+&erica4yo* (now) the AReagan Re,ol*tion)A this fantastic charis&aticfig*re that e,erybody lo,ed) he *st changed o*r li,es. !(ay) then he fin4ished his ob) they told hi& to go ho&e4that<s the end. No re-orter wo*lde,en dream of going o*t to see Reagan after that to as( hi& his o-inion onanything4beca*se e,erybody (nows he has no o-inion on anything. +ndthey (new it all along. 0n the !li,er North trial) for e1a&-le) st*ff ca&e o*tabo*t Reagan telling40 don<t li(e to *se the word Alie)A beca*se) as 0 say)yo* ha,e to ha,e a co&-etence to lie4b*t Reagan -rod*cing false state4&ents to 'ongress) let<s -*t it that way. The -ress didn<t e,en care? o(ay) soReagan lied to 'ongress) let<s go on to the ne1t thing. The -oint is) his ob



Chapter 'wo==

was done) so therefore he beca&e irrele,ant. S*re) they<ll trot hi& o*t at thene1t Re-*blican 'on,ention so e,erybody can a--la*d) b*t that<s it.

0n a way it was li(e royalty. 0 &ean) the i&-erial fa&ily in England -laysa real role in de-oliticiGing the -lace) and Reagan re&inded &e a bit of that.83 Bor instance) e,ery session of Parlia&ent in England o-ens with theF*een reading a &essage written by the r*ling -olitical -arty) and e,ery4

body -retends to ta(e it serio*sly. 2*t in another -art of yo*r brain) yo*don<t as() A id the F*een belie,e what she was sayingIA or) A id she *n4derstand what she was sayingIA or AWill she re&e&ber what she was say4ingIA or) A id she lie to the Parlia&entIA Those are *st not rele,ant

*estions4beca*se the F*een<s ob is to be royalty) and to be re,ered) and to be ad&ired) and to be the &odel wo&an that e,erybody<s s*--osed to beli(e. 0t<s (ind of li(e -laying a ga&e in the -olitical syste&) e,en tho*gh

-eo-le there do in fact ta(e it serio*sly in a sense4li(e they care if thePrincess iana is ha,ing a s-at with So&ething4!r4!ther) they thin( abo*tit) and they tal( abo*t it) and so on. 2*t of co*rse) at so&e other le,el oftheir intelligence) they (now that it has nothing to do with life.

Well) the 2ritish ha,e it sort of instit*tionaliGed) and yo* don<t ,ote forF*een. 2*t s*--ose yo* co*ld get to the -oint where elections in Englandwere not for Pri&e Minister and Parlia&ent) b*t instead -eo-le ,oted forF*een) and then things ran the way they do now) e1ce-t the Pri&e Ministeris *st a--ointed by the ban(s and the cor-orations. +nd in the electionca&-aign yo*<d as() AWho<s got the nicest hairdoIA yo*<d as() AWho cansay things nicerIA AWho<s got the best s&ileIA Well) then yo*<d ha,e gone along way towards the desired goal of &aintaining the for&al f*nctioning ofthe syste&) b*t eli&inating the s*bstance fro& it. +nd that<s -retty &*chwhat we had with Reagan) 0 thin(.

Now) 0 don<t (now whether Reagan was contri,ed for that -*r-ose orwhether it *st wor(ed o*t that way) b*t once ha,ing seen it in o-eration) 0e1-ect that -eo-le will learn fro& it. +nd in fact) 0 thin( yo* co*ld seesigns of it in the 3;77 election as well. 0 &ean) e,erybody4the &edia ande,eryone else4agreed that there were no real iss*es in the ca&-aign? theonly iss*e was whether *(a(is was going to fig*re o*t a way of d*c(ingall the sli&e that was being thrown at hi&. That<s abo*t the only thinganybody was ,oting abo*t) did he d*c( or didn<t he d*c(I That<s li(esaying) A on<t bother ,oting.A

M*$, (ut doesn"t it ma&e any difference who wins0 6 mean) suppose they gave us +llie $orth as #resident0

eah) loo() 0 don<t want to say that it &a(es no difference. The fig*rewho<s there &a(es some difference4b*t the less difference it &a(es) the&ore yo*<,e &arginaliGed the -*blic.

W+M*$, o you vote0



=> 2nderstanding #ower

o 60Well) differentially. 0 &ean) 0 al&ost always ,ote for lower4le,elcandidates) li(e school co&&ittee re-resentati,es and things li(e that

beca*se there it &a(es a difference) in fact. 2*t as yo* get &ore and &orere&ote fro& -o-*lar control) it &a(es less and less of a difference. Whenyo* get to the Ho*se of Re-resentati,es4well) it<s sort of acade&ic in &ycase) beca*se 0 li,e in one of these single4&e&ber districts where the sa&eg*y always wins) so it doesn<t really &atter whether yo* ,ote or not. Whenyo* get to Senator) it begins to beco&e -retty sy&bolic anyway. +t thele,el of President) half the ti&e 0 don<t e,en bother40 thin( those are *s*ally,ery s*btle *dg&ents. 0 &ean) it<s a diffic*lt *dg&ent to try to fig*re o*twhether Ni1on or H*&-hrey is going to end the Dietna& War sooner in3;67O) that<s an e1tre&ely s*btle *dg&ent to &a(eC 0 act*ally didn<t ,ote onthat one) beca*se 0 fig*red Ni1on -robably wo*ld. 0 did ,ote againstReagan) beca*se 0 tho*ght the g*ys around Reagan were e1tre&ely danger4o*s4Reagan hi&self was irrele,ant) b*t the -eo-le in his ad&inistrationwere real (illers and tort*rers) and they were *st &a(ing -eo-le s*ffer too&*ch) so 0 tho*ght that &ight &a(e a difference. 2*t these are *s*ally not,ery easy *dg&ents to &a(e) in &y o-inion.

W+M*$, What do you thin& stopped the impeachment drive against Rea8 gan after the 6ran8contra scandal0

0t wo*ld *st e&barrass the hell o*t of e,erybody40 &ean) nobody in -ower wants that &*ch disr*-tion for so&ething li(e that. oo() why don<tthey bring e,ery +&erican President to trial for war cri&esI There arethings on which there is a co&-lete consens*s in the elite c*lt*re? theUnited States is permitted to carry o*t war cri&es) it<s permitted to attac(other co*ntries) it<s permitted to ignore international law. !n those thingsthere<s a co&-lete consens*s) so why sho*ld they i&-each the President fordoing e,erything he<s s*--osed to doI

0n fact) yo* can as( all (inds of *estions li(e that. Bor instance) at theti&e of the N*re&berg trials of NaGi war cri&inals after World War 00O)there was a lot of ,ery -o&-o*s rhetoric on the -art of the Western -rose4c*tors abo*t how this was not *st going to be A,ictor<s *sticeA? it<s not *stthat we won the war and they lost) we<re establishing -rinci-les which are

going to a--ly to us too. Well) by the -rinci-les of the N*re&berg trials)e,ery single +&erican President since then wo*ld ha,e been hanged. Hasanyone e,er been bro*ght to trialI Has this -oint e,en been raisedI 0t<s nota diffic*lt -oint to de&onstrate. 8$

+ct*ally) the N*re&berg trials are worth thin(ing abo*t. The NaGis wereso&ething *ni *e) granted. 2*t if yo* ta(e a loo( at the N*re&berg trials)they were ,ery cynical. The o-erational criterion for what co*nted as a warcri&e at N*re&berg was a criminal act that the West didn"t do, in otherwords) it was considered a legiti&ate defense if yo* co*ld show that the+&ericans and the 2ritish did the sa&e thing. That<s act*ally tr*e. So



Chapter 'wo =?

-art of the defense of the >er&an s*b&arine co&&ander +d&iral oenitGwas to call an +&erican s*b&arine co&&ander) +d&iral Ni&itG) to testifythat the +&ericans did the sa&e thing4that<s a defense. 2o&bing of *rbanareas was not considered a war cri&e at N*re&bergC reason is) the West did&ore of it than the >er&ans. +nd this is all stated straight o*t4li(e if yo*read the boo( by Telford Taylor) the +&erican -rosec*tor at the trials) thisis the way he describes itC he<s ,ery -ositi,e abo*t the whole thing. 8: 0f theWest had done it) it wasn<t a cri&eC it was only a cri&e if the >er&ans haddone it and we hadn<t. 0 &ean) it<s tr*e there were -lenty of s*ch things) b*tstill there<s so&ething -retty cynical abo*t it.

0n fact) e,en worse than the N*re&berg trials were the To(yo trials ofJa-anese war cri&inalsO? by the standards of the To(yo trials) not *st e,ery+&erican President) b*t everyone wo*ld be hanged at To(yo) those whofailed to ta(e affir&ati,e ste-s to -re,ent war cri&es or to dissociate the&4sel,es fro& the go,ern&ent were e1ec*tedO. >eneral a&ashita was an e14tre&e case? he was hanged beca*se d*ring the +&erican con *est of thePhili--ines) troo-s that were technically *nder his co&&and) altho*gh hehad already lost all contact with the&) carried o*t cri&es4therefore he washanged. +s( yo*rself who<s going to s*r,i,e that one. Here<s a g*y whowas hanged beca*se troo-s he had no contact with whatsoe,er) b*t whichtheoretically in so&e order of battle had to do with his *nits) co&&itted

atrocities. 0f those sa&e -rinci-les a--ly to *s) who<s going to s*r,i,eI +ndthat was *st one case) 0 thin( we (illed abo*t a tho*sand -eo-le in theTo(yo trials4they were really grotes *e. 88

W+M*$, ust going bac& to elections for a second8would you say the"!4 elections were the same as <77?no substance0

Well) in the 3;78 elections there was still an iss*e. 0n the 3;78 elections)the Re-*blicans were the -arty of "eynesian growth the econo&ist "eynesad,ocated go,ern&ent sti&*lation of the econo&yO4they said) A et<s *st(ee- s-ending and s-ending and s-ending) bigger and bigger deficits) andso&ehow that will lead to growthA4whereas the e&ocrats were the -artyof fiscal conser,atis&? they had this sad4loo(ing son of a &inister

MondaleO saying) ANo) no goodC we can<t (ee- s-ending) we<re going to getin tro*ble) we<,e got to watch the &oney s*--ly.A!(ay) for anybody who gets a&*sed at these things) the Re-*blicans and

the e&ocrats had shifted their traditional -ositions 37% degreesC his4torically) the -emocrats ha,e been the -arty of "eynesian growth) and the

Republicans ha,e been the -arty of fiscal conser,atis&. 2*t they shifted to4tally4and what<s interesting is) nobody e,en noticed this) 0 ne,er e,en saw asingle co&&ent on it in the -ress. Well) that tells yo* so&ething? what ittells yo* is) there are different sectors of the b*siness co&&*nity in theco*ntry) and they so&eti&es ha,e slightly different tactical *dg&entsabo*t the way to deal with c*rrent -roble&s. +nd when they differ on



=! 2nderstanding #ower

so&ething) it<ll co&e *- in the electionC when they don<t differ on anything)there won<t be any iss*es.

Two &e! %actors in &orld 'ffairs

M*$, To move to a more general level) #rofessor86"m interested whether you thin& that there are any developments over the past few decades thatare new on the international scene) which people should be aware of as weanaly e things that are ta&ing place in the world0

Well) in &y ,iew) there are at least two really &a or things that are co&4ing along that are new? one is a shift in the international econo&y. 85 +nd theother is the threat to the en,iron&ent4which *st can<t be ignored &*chlonger) beca*se if facing it is delayed too &*ch longer there isn<t going to

be a lot &ore to h*&an history.0<ll start with the en,iron&ent. The reality is that *nder ca-italist condi4

tions4&eaning &a1i&iGation of short4ter& gain4yo*<re *lti&ately going todestroy the en,iron&ent? the only *estion is when. Now) for a long ti&e)it<s been -ossible to -retend that the en,iron&ent is an infinite so*rce andan infinite sin(. Neither is tr*e ob,io*sly) and we<re now sort of a-4

-roaching the -oint where yo* can<t (ee- -laying the ga&e too &*chlonger. 0t &ay not be ,ery far off. Well) dealing with that -roble& is goingto re *ire large4scale social changes of an al&ost *ni&aginable (ind. Borone thing) it<s going to certainly re *ire large4scale social -lanning) and that&eans -artici-atory social -lanning if it<s going to be at all &eaningf*l. 0t<salso going to re *ire a general recognition a&ong h*&an beings that anecono&ic syste& dri,en by greed is going to self4destr*ct4it<s only a *es4tion of ti&e before yo* &a(e the -lanet *nli,able) by destroying the oGonelayer or so&e other way. 86 +nd that &eans h*ge socio4-sychologicalchanges ha,e to ta(e -lace if the h*&an s-ecies is going to s*r,i,e ,ery&*ch longer. So that<s a big factor.

F*ite a-art fro& that) there ha,e been &a or changes in the internationalecono&y. The world has basically been &o,ing into three &a or econo&ic

bloc(sC the United States is no longer the sole econo&ic -ower li(e it wasafter World War 00. There<s a Ja-an4based syste&) which in,ol,es Ja-anand the co*ntries aro*nd its -eri-hery) li(e Singa-ore and Taiwan) the oldJa-anese e&-ire. There<s E*ro-e) which has been consolidating into theE*ro-ean 'o&&on Mar(et4and that co*ld be a -owerf*l econo&ic *nitC ifE*ro-e gets its act together) it<ll o*tweigh the United States? it<s got a largerecono&y) a bigger -o-*lation) a &ore ed*cated -o-*lation) and they<,e gottheir traditional colonial interests) which are in fact being reconstr*cted.Meanwhile the United States has been b*ilding *- its own co*nter4bloc( in

North +&erica thro*gh so4called Afree tradeA agree&ents) which are t*rning'anada into (ind of an econo&ic colony and ba4



Chapter 'wo =

sically absorbing Northern Me1ico into the United States as a chea-4laborarea. The three regions are ro*ghly co&-arable by &ost &eas*res) with the+sian region still far ahead in ca-ital reser,es.

No one *nderstands *ite how this sit*ation will be affected by the fi4nancial liberaliGation that has been so har&f*l to the global econo&y sincethe &id43;9%s. +nd there are also other intrig*ing iss*es. Bor e1a&-le) theE*ro-ean -owers) es-ecially >er&any) are atte&-ting to reconstr*ct thetraditional colonial relations between 'entral E*ro-e and Eastern E*ro-ethat e1isted before the 'old War4'entral E*ro-e has the ind*stry andtechnology and in,est&ent ca-ital) and Eastern E*ro-e and R*ssia -ro,idethe& with chea- &an-ower and reso*rces. Meanwhile Ja-an is doing -re4cisely the sa&e thing with R*ssia on the +sian side) trying to constr*ctcolonial relations with Siberia? Ja-an has -lenty of e1tra ca-ital) and Siberiahas -lenty of reso*rces that the R*ssians can<t e1-loit -ro-erly beca*se theydon<t ha,e the ca-ital or the technology) so it<s li(e a nat*ral co&bination.+nd if these efforts wor() then we<re going to ha,e the two &a or ene&iesof the United States) Ja-an and E*ro-e) integrating with the So,iet Union) it

beco&ing (ind of a se&i4colonial area related to the&. +nd that realiGes theworst night&ares of +&erican -lanners.

See) there is an +&erican geo-olitical tradition which treats the UnitedStates as an island -ower off the &ainland of E*ro-eC it<s a bigger ,ersionof 2ritish geo-olitics) which treats England as an island -ower off the&ainland of E*ro-e. 0 &ean) 2ritain thro*gho*t its whole &odern historyhas tried to -re,ent E*ro-e fro& beco&ing *nified4that was the &ain the&eof 2ritish history) -re,ent E*ro-e fro& being *nified) beca*se we<re *stthis island -ower off of E*ro-e) and if they e,er get *nified we<re intro*ble. +nd the United States has the sa&e attit*de towards E*rasia? we<,egot to -re,ent the& fro& beco&ing *nified) beca*se if they are) we beco&ea real second4class -ower4we<ll still ha,e o*r little syste& aro*nd here) b*tit<ll beco&e (ind of second4class. 89 2y Athe United States)A 0 &ean -owerf*linterests in the United States) U.S.4based ca-ital.

W+M*$, 'hen do you thin& it"s possible that the 2.S. may not be consid8ered a superpower someday0

Well) yo* (now) des-ite the relative decline in U.S.4based -ower) it<sstill -owerf*l witho*t historical -recedent.

W+M*$, 6 &now it is militarily.

No) e,en econo&ically. oo() it<s a real scandal of the +&erican eco4no&ic syste& that the general econo&ic le,el here is so low. 0 &ean) byworld standards) in ter&s of) say) infant &ortality or lifes-an) or &ost other&eas*res li(e that) -eo-le are not terribly well4off here4the United States iswell down the list. 0 thin( we<re twentieth of twenty ind*strial -owers in



>5 2nderstanding #ower

infant &ortality) for e1a&-le. We<re at abo*t the le,el of '*ba) which is a -oor Third World co*ntry) in ter&s of health standards. 87 Those are ab4sol*te scandals4the general -o-*lation of the United States o*ght to be

better off than that of any other co*ntry in the world by *st a h*ge &argin. No other ind*strial -ower has anything li(e o*r reso*rces. We<,e got an ed4*cated -o-*lation) li(e basic literacy is relati,ely high. We ha,e a co&-ar4ati,ely *nifor& -o-*lation? -eo-le s-ea( English all o,er the -lace4yo*can<t find that in too &any areas of the world. We<,e got enor&o*s &ilitary

-ower. We ha,e no ene&ies anywhere nearby. Dery few -owers in historyha,e e,er had that sit*ation. So these are *st inco&-arable ad,antages) ando*r econo&ic syste& has not t*rned the& to the benefit of the -o-*lationhere) -artic*larly4b*t they<re there) and they<re going to stay there.

Now ta(e Ja-an? Ja-anese cor-orations and in,estors can collect a lot ofca-ital) b*t they<re ne,er going to get their own reso*rces4they don<t ha,etheir own energy reso*rces) they don<t ha,e their own raw &aterials) theydon<t ha,e agric*lt*ral reso*rces. +nd we do? that &a(es a big difference.0n fact) +&erican -lanners bac( in the late 3;8%s were ,ery well aware ofthis difference when they sort of organiGed the -ost4war world4so whilethey hel-ed Ja-an to reind*strialiGe) they also insisted on controlling its en4ergy reso*rces? the Ja-anese were not allowed to de,elo- their own -etro4che&ical ind*stry) or to obtain their own inde-endent access to -etrole*&

reso*rces. +nd the reason for that is e1-lained in now4declassified U.S. in4ternal doc*&ents? as >eorge "ennan State e-art&ent official and di-lo4&atO) who was one of the &a or -lanners of the -ost4war world) -ointed o*t)if we control Ja-an<s energy reso*rces) we will ha,e ,eto -ower o,er Ja-an4if they e,er get o*t of line) we<ll *st cho(e off their energy s*--ly. 8; Now)whether or not that -lan wo*ld still wor( yo* don<t (now) beca*se theworld is changing in *n-redictable ways. 2*t for the &o&ent) the UnitedStates is still o,erwhel&ingly -owerf*l in world affairs4that<s why we canget away with so &*ch.

3emo-ra-y 2nder Capitalism

M*$, %ou mentioned that we"re going to need participatory social plan8ning to save the environment. 6"m wondering) doesn"t decentrali ation of

power also somehow conflict with trying to save the environment8B mean)that can"t be done without some sort of central agreement) don"t you thin&0

Well) first of all) agreements don<t re *ire centraliGed a*thority) certain&inds of agree&ents do. !ne<s ass*&-tion) at least) is that decentraliGationof -ower will lead to decisions that reflect the interests of the entire -o-*la4tion. The idea is that -olicies flowing fro& any (ind of decision4&a(ing a-4

-arat*s are going to tend to reflect the interests of the -eo-le in,ol,ed in&a(ing the decisions4which certainly see&s -la*sible. So if a decision is



Chapter 'wo>

&ade by so&e centraliGed a*thority) it is going to re-resent the interests ofthe -artic*lar gro*- which is in -ower. 2*t if -ower is act*ally rooted inlarge -arts of the -o-*lation4if -eo-le can act*ally -artici-ate in social

-lanning4then they will -res*&ably do so in ter&s of their own interests)and yo* can e1-ect the decisions to reflect those interests. Well) the interestof the general -o-*lation is to -reser,e h*&an lifeC the interest of cor-ora4tions is to &a(e -rofits4those are f*nda&entally different interests.

M*$, 6n an industrial society) though) one might argue that people need tohave Aobs.

S*re) b*t ha,ing obs doesn<t re *ire destroying the en,iron&ent which&a(es life -ossible. 0 &ean) if yo* ha,e -artici-atory social -lanning) and

-eo-le are trying to wor( things o*t in ter&s of their own interests) they aregoing to want to balance o--ort*nities to wor( with *ality of wor() withty-e of energy a,ailable) with conditions of -ersonal interaction) with theneed to &a(e s*re yo*r children s*r,i,e) and so on and so forth. 2*t thoseare all considerations that si&-ly don<t arise for cor-orate e1ec*ti,es) they

*st are not a -art of the agenda. 0n fact) if the '.E.!. of >eneral Electricstarted &a(ing decisions on that basis) he<d be thrown o*t of his ob in threeseconds) or &aybe there<d be a cor-orate ta(eo,er or so&ething beca*sethose things are not a -art of his ob. His ob is to raise -rofit and &ar(etshare) not to &a(e s*re that the en,iron&ent s*r,i,es) or that his wor(erslead decent li,es. +nd those goals are si&-ly in conflict.

M*$, Dive us an example of what exactly you mean by social planning.

Well) right now we ha,e to &a(e big decisions abo*t how to -rod*ce en4ergy) for one thing4beca*se if we contin*e to -rod*ce energy by co&b*s4tion) the h*&an race isn<t going to s*r,i,e ,ery &*ch longer. 5% +lright)that decision re *ires social -lanning? it<s not so&ething that yo* can *stdecide on yo*rself. i(e) yo* can decide to -*t a solar4energy so&ething4or4other on yo*r own ho*se) b*t that doesn<t really hel-. This is the (ind ofdecision where it only wor(s if it<s done on a &ass scale.

M*$, 0 thought you might have been referring to population control.

eah) -o-*lation control is another iss*e where it doesn<t &atter if youdo it) e,erybody has to do it. 0t<s li(e traffic? 0 &ean) yo* can<t &a(e dri,inga car s*r,i,able by dri,ing well yo*rselfC there has to be (ind of a socialcontract in,ol,ed) otherwise it won<t wor(. i(e) if there was no social con4tract in,ol,ed in dri,ing4e,erybody was *st dri,ing li(e a lethal wea-on)going as fast as they can and forgetting all the traffic lights and e,erythingelse4yo* co*ldn<t &a(e that sit*ation safe *st by dri,ing well yo*rself? itdoesn<t &a(e &*ch difference if yo* set o*t to dri,e safely if e,erybodyelse



> 2nderstanding #ower

is dri,ing lethal4wea-on) rightI The tro*ble is) that<s the way that ca-italis&wor(s. The nat*re of the syste& is that it<s s*--osed to be dri,en by greedCno one<s s*--osed to be concerned for anybody else) nobody<s s*--osed toworry abo*t the co&&on good4those are not things that are s*--osed to&oti,ate yo*) that<s the -rinci-le of the syste&. The theory is that -ri,ate,ices lead to -*blic benefits4that<s what they teach yo* in econo&icsde-art&ents. 0t<s all total b*llshit) of co*rse) b*t that<s what they teach yo*.+nd as long as the syste& wor(s that way) yeah) it<s going to self4destr*ct.

What<s &ore) ca-italists ha,e long *nderstood this. So &ost go,ern&entreg*latory syste&s ha,e in fact been strongly lobbied for by the ind*striesthe&sel,es? ind*stries want to be reg*lated) beca*se they (now that ifthey<re not) they<re going to destroy the&sel,es in the *nbridled co&-eti4tion. 53

M*$, 'hen what &ind of mechanism for social planning do you thin& wouldwor&0 +bviously you"re not too sanguine about our current form of

government.

Well) there<s nothing wrong with the form86 &ean) there are some thingswrong with the for&4b*t what<s really wrong is that the substance is&issing. oo() as long as yo* ha,e -ri,ate control o,er the econo&y) itdoesn<t &a(e any difference what for&s yo* ha,e) beca*se they can<t doanything. o* co*ld ha,e -olitical -arties where e,erybody gets togetherand -artici-ates) and you &a(e the -rogra&s) &a(e things as -artici-atoryas yo* li(e4and it wo*ld still ha,e only the &ost &arginal effect on -olicy.+nd the reason is) -ower lies elsewhere.

So s*--ose all of *s here con,inced e,erybody in the co*ntry to ,ote for*s for President) we got ;7 -ercent of the ,ote and both Ho*ses of 'on4gress) and then we started to instit*te ,ery badly needed social refor&s that&ost of the -o-*lation wants. Si&-ly as( yo*rself) what wo*ld ha--enIWell) if yo*r i&agination doesn<t tell yo*) ta(e a loo( at real cases. Thereare -laces in the world that ha,e a broader range of -olitical -arties than wedo) li(e atin +&erican co*ntries) for e1a&-le) which in this res-ect are&*ch &ore de&ocratic than we are. Well) when -o-*lar refor& candidatesin atin +&erica get elected and begin to introd*ce refor&s) two thingsty-ically ha--en. !ne is) there<s a &ilitary co*- s*--orted by the UnitedStates. 2*t s*--ose that doesn<t ha--en. What yo* get is ca-ital stri(e 4in,est&ent ca-ital flows o*t of the co*ntry) there<s a lowering of in,est4&ent) and the econo&y grinds to a halt.

That<s the -roble& that Nicarag*a has faced in the 3;7%s4and which itcannot o,erco&e) in &y ,iew) it<s *st a ho-eless -roble&. See) the Sandin4istas ha,e tried to r*n a &i1ed econo&y? they<,e tried to carry o*t social

-rogra&s to benefit the -o-*lation) b*t they<,e also had to a--eal to the b*siness co&&*nity to -re,ent ca-ital flight fro& destroying the -lace. So



Chapter 'wo >3

&ost -*blic f*nds) to the e1tent there are any) go as a bribe to the wealthy)to try to (ee- the& in,esting in the co*ntry. The only -roble& is) thewealthy wo*ld -refer not to in,est *nless they ha,e -olitical -ower? they<drather see the society destroyed. So the wealthy ta(e the bribes) and theysend the& to Swiss ban(s and to Mia&i ban(s4beca*se fro& their -er4s-ecti,e) the Sandinista go,ern&ent *st has the wrong -riorities. 0 &ean)these g*ys hate de&ocracy *st as &*ch as 'ongress hates de&ocracy? theywant the -olitical syste& to be in the hands of wealthy elites) and when it isagain) then they<ll call it Ade&ocracyA and they<ll res*&e in,esting) and theecono&y will finally start to f*nction again.

Well) the sa&e thing wo*ld ha--en here if we e,er had a -o-*lar refor&candidate who act*ally achie,ed so&e for&al le,el of -ower? there wo*ld

be disin,est&ent) ca-ital stri(e) a grinding down of the econo&y. +nd thereason is *ite si&-le. 0n o*r society) real -ower does not ha--en to lie inthe -olitical syste&) it lies in the -ri,ate econo&y? that<s where the deci4sions are &ade abo*t what<s -rod*ced) how &*ch is -rod*ced) what<scons*&ed) where in,est&ent ta(es -lace) who has obs) who controls thereso*rces) and so on and so forth. +nd as long as that re&ains the case)changes inside the -olitical syste& can &a(e some difference40 don<t wantto say it<s Gero4b*t the differences are going to be ,ery slight.

0n fact) if yo* thin( thro*gh the logic of this) yo*<ll see that so long as -ower re&ains -ri,ately concentrated) e,erybody) everybody) has to beco&&itted to one o,erriding goal? and that<s to &a(e s*re that the rich fol(are ha--y4beca*se *nless they are) nobody else is going to get anything. Soif yo*<re a ho&eless -erson slee-ing in the streets of Manhattan) let<s say)yo*r first concern &*st be that the g*ys in the &ansions are ha--y beca*seif they<re ha--y) then they<ll in,est) and the econo&y will wor() and thingswill f*nction) and then &aybe so&ething will tric(le down to yo*so&ewhere along the line. 2*t if they<re not ha--y) e,erything<s going togrind to a halt) and yo*<re not e,en going to get anything tric(ling down. Soif yo*<re a ho&eless -erson in the streets) yo*r first concern is the ha--inessof the wealthy g*ys in the &ansions and the fancy resta*rants. 2asicallythat<s a &eta-hor for the whole society.

i(e) s*--ose Massach*setts were to increase b*siness ta1es. Most ofthe -o-*lation is in fa,or of it) b*t yo* can -redict what wo*ld ha--en.2*siness wo*ld r*n a -*blic relations ca&-aign4which is tr*e) in fact) it<snot lies4saying) A o* raise ta1es on b*siness) yo* soa( the rich) and yo*<llfind that ca-ital is going to flow elsewhere) and yo*<re not going to ha,eany obs) yo*<re not going to ha,e anything.A That<s not the way they<d -*tit e1actly) b*t that<s what it wo*ld a&o*nt to? AUnless yo* &a(e *s ha--yyo*<re not going to ha,e anything) beca*se we own the -laceC yo* li,e here)

b*t we own the -lace.A +nd in fact) that<s basically the &essage that is -re4sented) not in those words of co*rse) whene,er a refor& &eas*re doesco&e along so&ewhere4they ha,e a big -ro-aganda ca&-aign saying) it<sgoing to h*rt obs) it<s going to h*rt in,est&ent) there<s going to be a loss of




b*siness confidence) and so on. That<s *st a co&-licated way of saying)*nless yo* (ee- b*siness ha--y) the -o-*lation isn<t going to ha,eanything.

M*$, What do you thin& about nationali ation of industry as a means ofallowing for this &ind of large8scale social planning0

Well) it wo*ld de-end on how it<s done. 0f nationaliGation of ind*stry -*ts -rod*ction into the hands of a state b*rea*cracy or so&e sort of

eninist4style ,ang*ard -arty) then yo*<d *st ha,e another syste& of e14 -loitation) in &y ,iew. !n the other hand) if nationaliGation of ind*stry was based on act*al -o-*lar control o,er ind*stry4wor(ers< control o,erfactories) co&&*nity control) with the gro*-s &aybe federated together andso on4then that wo*ld be a different story. That wo*ld be a very differentstory) in fact. That wo*ld be e1tending the de&ocratic syste& to econo&ic

-ower) and *nless that ha--ens) -olitical -ower is always going to re&ain a,ery li&ited -heno&enon.

The Empire

W+M*$, 'hen is the basic goal of the 2nited States when it intervenes in

'hird World countries to destroy left8wing governments in order to &eepthem from power0

No) the -ri&ary concern is to -re,ent independence) regardless of theideology. Re&e&ber) we<re the global -ower) so we ha,e to &a(e s*re thatall the ,ario*s -arts of the world contin*e ser,ing their assigned f*nctionsin o*r global syste&. +nd the assigned f*nctions of Third World co*ntriesare to be &ar(ets for +&erican b*siness) so*rces of reso*rces for +&erican

b*siness) to -ro,ide chea- labor for +&erican b*siness) and so on. 0 &ean)there<s no big secret abo*t that4the &edia won<t tell yo* and scholarshi-won<t tell yo*) b*t all yo* ha,e to do is loo( at declassified go,ern&entdoc*&ents and this is all e1-lained ,ery fran(ly and e1-licitly.

The internal doc*&entary record in the United States goes way bac() andit says the sa&e thing o,er and o,er again. Here<s ,irt*ally a *ote? the&ain co&&it&ent of the United States) internationally in the Third World)&*st be to -re,ent the rise of nationalist regi&es which are res-onsi,e to

-ress*res fro& the &asses of the -o-*lation for i&-ro,e&ent in low li,ingstandards and di,ersification of -rod*ctionC the reason is) we ha,e to &ain4tain a cli&ate that is cond*ci,e to in,est&ent) and to ens*re conditionswhich allow for ade *ate re-atriation of -rofits to the West. ang*age li(ethat is re-eated year after year in to-4le,el U.S. -lanning doc*&ents) li(e

National Sec*rity 'o*ncil re-orts on atin +&erica and so on4and that<se1actly what we do aro*nd the world. 5$

So the nationalis& we o--ose doesn<t need to be left8wing8we"re *st as



Chapter 'wo >=

&*ch o--osed to right8wing nationalis&. 0 &ean) when there<s a right4wing&ilitary co*- which see(s to t*rn so&e Third World co*ntry on a co*rse ofinde-endent de,elo-&ent) the United States will also try to destroy thatgo,ern&ent4we o--osed Peron in +rgentina) for e1a&-le. 5: So des-itewhat yo* always hear) U.S. inter,entionis& has nothing to do with resistingthe s-read of A'o&&*nis&)A it<s independence we<,e always been o--osedto e,erywhere4and for *ite a good reason. 0f a co*ntry begins to -ay at4tention to its own -o-*lation) it<s not going to be -aying ade *ate attentionto the o,erriding needs of U.S. in,estors. Well) those are *nacce-table -ri4orities) so that go,ern&ent<s *st going to ha,e to go.

+nd the effects of this co&&it&ent thro*gho*t the Third World aredra&atically clear? it ta(es only a &o&ent<s tho*ght to realiGe that the areasthat ha,e been the &ost *nder U.S. control are so&e of the &ost horribleregions in the world. Bor instance) why is 'entral +&erica s*ch a horror 4cha&berI 0 &ean) if a -easant in >*ate&ala wo(e *- in Poland i.e. *nderSo,iet occ*-ationO) he<d thin( he was in hea,en by co&-arison4and >*a4te&ala<s an area where we<,e had a h*ndred years of infl*ence. Well) thattells yo* so&ething. !r loo( at 2raGil? -otentially an e1tre&ely rich co*ntrywith tre&endo*s reso*rces) e1ce-t it had the c*rse of being -art of theWestern syste& of s*bordination. So in northeast 2raGil) for e1a&-le)which is a rather fertile area with -lenty of rich land) *st it<s all owned by

-lantations) 2raGilian &edical researchers now identify the -o-*lation as anew s-ecies with abo*t 8% -ercent the brain siGe of h*&an beings) a res*ltof generations of -rofo*nd &aln*trition and neglect4and this &ay be *n4re&ediable e1ce-t after generations) beca*se of the lingering effects of &al4n*trition on one<s offs-ring. 58 +lright) that<s a good e1a&-le of the legacyof o*r co&&it&ents) and the sa&e (ind of -attern r*ns thro*gho*t the for4&er Western colonies.

0n fact) if yo* loo( at the co*ntries that ha,e de,elo-ed in the world)there<s a little si&-le fact which sho*ld be ob,io*s to anyone on fi,e &in4*tes< obser,ation) b*t which yo* ne,er find anyone saying in the UnitedStates? the co*ntries that ha,e de,elo-ed econo&ically are those whichwere not coloniGed by the WestC e,ery co*ntry that was coloniGed by theWest is a total wrec(. 0 &ean) Ja-an was the one co*ntry that &anaged to

resist E*ro-ean coloniGation) and it<s the one -art of the traditional ThirdWorld that de,elo-ed. !(ay) E*ro-e con *ered e,erything e1ce-t Ja-an)and Ja-an de,elo-ed. What does that tell yo*I Historians of +frica ha,eact*ally -ointed o*t that if yo* loo( at Ja-an when it began its ind*strial4iGation -rocess in the 379%sO) it was at abo*t the sa&e de,elo-&ental le,elas the +sante (ingdo& in West +frica in ter&s of reso*rces a,ailable) le,elof state for&ation) degree of technological de,elo-&ent) and so on. 55 Well)

*st co&-are those two areas today. 0t<s tr*e there were a n*&ber of differ4ences between the& historically) b*t the cr*cial one is that Ja-an wasn<tcon *ered by the West and the +sante (ingdo& was) by the 2ritish4so nowWest +frica is West +frica econo&ically) and Ja-an is Ja-an.



>> 2nderstanding #ower

Ja-an had its own colonial syste& too) incidentally4b*t its colonies de4,elo-ed) and they de,elo-ed beca*se Ja-an didn<t treat the& the way theWestern -owers treated their colonies. The Ja-anese were ,ery br*tal colo4niGers) they weren<t nice g*ys) b*t they nonetheless de,elo-ed their coloniesecono&icallyC the West *st robbed theirs. So if yo* loo( at the growth rateof Taiwan and "orea d*ring the -eriod of Ja-anese coloniGation) it was a-4

-ro1i&ately the sa&e as Ja-an<s own growth rate thro*gh the early -art ofthis cent*ry4they were getting ind*strialiGed) de,elo-ing infrastr*ct*re)ed*cational le,els were going *-) agric*lt*ral -rod*ction was increasing. 0nfact) by the 3;:%s) Bor&osa Know TaiwanL was one of the co&&ercialcenters of +sia. 56 Well) *st co&-are Taiwan with the Phili--ines) an +&er4ican colony right ne1t door? the Phili--ines is a total bas(et4case) a atin+&erican4style bas(et4case. +gain) that tells yo* so&ething.

With World War 00) the Ja-anese colonial syste& got s&ashed *-. 2*t by the 3;6%s) "orea and Taiwan were again de,elo-ing at their for&ergrowth rate4and that<s beca*se in the -ost4war -eriod) they<,e been able tofollow the Ja-anese &odel of de,elo-&ent? they<re -retty closed off toforeign e1-loitation) *ite egalitarian by international standards) theyde,ote -retty e1tensi,e reso*rces to things li(e ed*cation and health care.!(ay) that<s a s*ccessf*l &odel for de,elo-&ent. 0 &ean) these +sianco*ntries aren<t -rettyC 0 can<t stand the& &yself4they<re e1tre&elya*thoritarian) the role of wo&en yo* can<t e,en tal( abo*t) and so on) sothere are -lenty of *n-leasant things abo*t the&. 2*t they ha,e been able to

-*rs*e econo&ic de,elo-&ent &eas*res that are s*ccessf*l? the statecoordinates ind*strial -olicy) ca-ital e1-ort is strictly constrained) i&-ortle,els are (e-t low. Well) those are e1actly the (inds of -olicies that areimpossible in atin +&erica) beca*se the U.S. insists that thosego,ern&ents (ee- their econo&ies open to international &ar(ets4so ca-italfro& atin +&erica is constantly flowing to the West. +lright) that<s not a

-roble& in So*th "orea? they ha,e the death -enalty for ca-ital e1-ort.Sol,es that diffic*lty -retty fast. 59

2*t the -oint is) the Ja-anese4style de,elo-&ent &odel wor(s4in fact) it<show e,ery co*ntry in the world that<s de,elo-ed has done it? by i&-osinghigh le,els of -rotectionis&) and by e1tricating its econo&y fro& free

&ar(et disci-line. +nd that<s -recisely what the Western -owers ha,e been -re,enting the rest of the Third World fro& doing) right *- to this &o&ent.

W+M*$, 6s there any hope for disbanding *merica"s empire) do youthin&0

Well) it see&s to &e the sit*ation is (ind of li(e what one concl*desfro& loo(ing at the ,ery li(ely -otential of ecological catastro-he? eithercontrol o,er these &atters is left in the hands of e1isting -ower interests andthe rest of the -o-*lation *st abdicates) goes to the beach and ho-es thatso&ehow their children will s*r,i,e4or else -eo-le will beco&e s*fficientlyorga4



Chapter 'wo>?

niGed to brea( down the entire syste& of e1-loitation) and finally start -*t4ting it *nder -artici-atory control. !ne -ossibility will &ean co&-lete dis4asterC the other) yo* can i&agine all (inds of things. Bor e1a&-le) e,en

-rofitability wo*ld no longer be all that i&-ortant4what wo*ld be i&-ortantis li,ing in a decent way.

oo() the general -o-*lation here does not gain ,ery &*ch fro& holdingon to o*r i&-erial syste&4in fact) it &ay gain nothing fro& it. 0f yo* ta(e aloo( at i&-erial syste&s o,er history) it<s not at all clear that they are -rof4itable enter-rises in the final analysis. This has been st*died in the case ofthe 2ritish E&-ire) and while yo* only get (ind of *alitati,e answers) itloo(s as if the 2ritish E&-ire &ay ha,e cost as &*ch to &aintain as the

-rofits that ca&e fro& it. +nd -robably so&ething li(e that is tr*e for theU.S.4do&inated syste& too. So ta(e 'entral +&erica? there are -rofits fro&o*r controlling 'entral +&erica) b*t it<s ,ery do*btf*l that they co&e any4where near the -robably ten billion dollars a year in ta1 &oney that<s re4

*ired to &aintain U.S. do&ination there. 57

W+M*$, 'hose costs are paid by the people) though) while the profits aremade by the rich.

That<s it e1actly4if yo* as() AWhy ha,e an e&-ireIA yo*<,e *st gi,en theanswer. The e&-ire is li(e e,ery other -art of social -olicy? it<s a way forthe -oor to -ayoff the rich in their own society. So if the e&-ire is *st an4other for& of social -olicy by which the -oor are s*bsidiGing the rich) that&eans that *nder de&ocratic social -lanning) there wo*ld be ,ery little in4centi,e for it4let alone the ob,io*s &oral considerations that wo*ld beco&ea factor at that -oint. 0n fact) all (inds of *estions wo*ld *st change)radically.

Change and the !"t"re

M*$, Mr. Choms&y) you present a very powerful view of the problems ofcapitalism) which 6 totally accept. When you start tal&ing about the dissi8

dence of the *merican population and the possibilities for large8scalechange) though) 6"ve got to admit that 6 have a little bit of trouble. 6 don"t

see the same general disillusionment with the system that you describe. 0thin& people maybe see things that are wrong in certain areas) maybe seethat they"re powerless) but on the whole still really seem to buy into it88theythin& Reagan was a hands8off guy) not a figurehead created by the publicrelations industry.

Well) -eo-le aren<t o*t in the streets re,olting) that<s tr*e4yo* can *stloo( o*tside the door and see that. 2*t by any inde1 0 (now) the fact of the&atter is that the -*blic has beco&e dra&atically &ore dissident and s(e-4



>! 2nderstanding #ower

tical. So for e1a&-le) abo*t half the -o-*lation thin(s that the go,ern&entis *st r*n by Aa few big interests loo(ing o*t for the&sel,es.A 5; +s towhether Reagan was a hands4off g*y or a fig*rehead) fran(ly that doesn<t&atter ,ery &*ch. The reality is that -eo-le either (now or can *ic(ly becon,inced that they are not in,ol,ed in -olicy4&a(ing) that -olicy is being&ade by -owerf*l interests which don<t ha,e &*ch to do with the&. Now) 0thin( they so&eti&es &isidentify the -owerf*l interests4for instance) theyincl*de labor *nions as a&ong the&C well) that<s -ro-aganda. 2*t whenthey &ention cor-orations) big &edia) ban(s) in,est&ent fir&s) law fir&sthat cater to their interests) things li(e that) o(ay) then 0 thin( they<re ontarget.

So) yeah) -eo-le aren<t o*t re,olting in the streets) that<s for s*re. 2*t 0thin( there<s -lenty of -otential. 0 &ean) the en,iron&ental &o,e&ent is

big) and re&e&ber) it<s a &o,e&ent of the Se,enties) not the Si1ties. TheThird World solidarity &o,e&ents are &o,e&ents of the Eighties. Theantin*clear &o,e&ent is a &o,e&ent of the Eighties. The fe&inist&o,e&ent is Se,enties and Eighties. +nd it<s way beyond &o,e&ents4thereare all (inds of -eo-le who are *st cynical? they don<t ha,e any faith ininstit*tions) they don<t tr*st anybody) they hate the go,ern&ent) theyass*&e they<re being &ani-*lated and controlled and that so&ething<sgoing on which they don<t (now abo*t. Now) that<s not necessarily a &o,e

to the left, that co*ld be the basis for fascis& too4it<s *st a *estion of what -eo-le do with it. 0 &ean) this (ind of de-oliticiGed) cynical -o-*lationco*ld easily be &obiliGed by Ji&&y Swaggart a tele,angelistO) or it co*ld

be organiGed by en,iron&entalists. Mostly it *st de-ends on who<s willingto do the wor(.

W+M*$, (ut do you actually believe that these positive changes willcome0

0 don<t (now) 0 really ha,en<t the slightest idea. 2*t nobody co*ld e,erha,e -redicted any re,ol*tionary str*ggle4they<re *st not -redictable. 0&ean) yo* co*ldn<t ha,e -redicted in 3995 that there was going to be an+&erican Re,ol*tion) it wo*ld ha,e been i&-ossible to ha,e -redicted it.

2*t there was. o* co*ldn<t ha,e -redicted in 3;58 that there was going to be a 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent. o* co*ldn<t ha,e -redicted in 3;79 thatthere was going to be an *-rising on the West 2an(. 0 don<t thin( at anystage in history it has e,er been -ossible to decide whether to be o-ti&isticor -essi&istic) yo* *st don<t (now4nobody *nderstands how changeha--ens) so how can yo* g*essI

et &e *st ta(e a concrete case. 0n 3;67) M.0.T. the Massach*setts 0n4stit*te of TechnologyO was the deadest -lace in the world4there was no anti4war acti,ity) nothing was going on. +nd this was after the Tet !ffensi,e?Wall Street had t*rned against the war) M.0T. still hadn<t heard abo*t it.Well) a s&all gro*- of st*dents who were in a little collecti,e on ca&-*s



Chapter 'wo >

decided they wo*ld set *- a sanct*ary for a soldier who desertedC that wasthe (ind of thing acti,ists were doing bac( then. There was this wor(ing 4class Marine (id who wanted to desert as an anti4war gest*re) so the ideawas) -eo-le wo*ld stay with hi& *ntil the co-s ca&e) then they<d try to&a(e a -*blic iss*e o*t of it. There was a disc*ssion abo*t this a&ong ten or

fifteen st*dents and two or three fac*lty &e&bers4and 0 ca&e o*t against it) beca*se 0 was totally -essi&isticC 0 tho*ght it co*ldn<t -ossibly wor() 0tho*ght that it wo*ld be a co&-lete fiasco. 2*t they went ahead with it.

Well) it t*rned o*t to be an incredible s*ccess. 0 &ean) within abo*t twodays) the whole of M.0T. was totally sh*t down4there weren<t any classes)nothing was going on) the whole st*dent body was o,er in the St*dent 'en4ter. 0t t*rned into a $84ho*r &i1t*re of se&inars) and yo* (now) this horrible&*sic that -eo-le listen to) all that (ind of st*ff4it was ,ery e1citing. +nd it

*st changed the whole character of the -laceC e,er since then) M.0T. has not been the sa&e. 0 &ean) it<s not that it t*rned into Uto-ia or anything) b*t alot of concern de,elo-ed and a lot of acti,ity started *-) which stillcontin*es) on iss*es which -eo-le didn<t e,en consider before. Well) co*ldyo* ha,e g*essedI 0 &ean) 0 g*essed wrong) they g*essed right. 2*t as far

as 0 can see) it was basically li(e fli--ing a coin.

:



Tea-h/In0 Evening

(ased primarily on discussions at Rowe)

Massachusetts) *pril 35436) 3;7;.

The (ilitar)-Industrial Comple4

W+M*$, What"s been the point of the arms race) -r. Choms&y0

Well) there are a lot of things) it<s ser,ed a n*&ber of cr*cial f*nctions.Re&e&ber) any state) any state) has a -ri&ary ene&y? its own -o-*lation. 0f

-olitics begins to brea( o*t inside yo*r own co*ntry and the -o-*lationstarts getting acti,e) all (inds of horrible things can ha--en4so yo* ha,e to(ee- the -o-*lation *iescent and obedient and -assi,e. +nd internationalconflict is one of the best ways of doing it? if there<s a big ene&y aro*nd)

-eo-le will abandon their rights) beca*se yo*<,e got to s*r,i,e. So the ar&srace is f*nctional in that res-ect4it creates global tension and a &ood of fear.0t<s also f*nctional for controlling the e&-ire? if we want to in,ade So*th

Dietna&) let<s say) we ha,e to be able to &a(e it loo( as if we<re defendingo*rsel,es fro& the R*ssians. 0f we<re not able to do that) it<s going to be a lotharder to in,ade So*th Dietna&. The do&estic -o-*lation *st won<t acce-tit4it<s costly) it<s &orally costly if nothing else) to do these things.

The ar&s race also -lays a cr*cial role in (ee-ing the econo&y goingandthat<s a big -roble&. S*--ose that the ar&s race really did decline? howwo*ld yo* force the ta1-ayers to (ee- s*bsidiGing high4technology ind*stryli(e they<,e been doing for the -ast fifty yearsI 0s so&e -olitician going toget *- and say) A+lright) ne1t year yo*<re going to lower yo*r standard ofli,ing) beca*se yo* ha,e to s*bsidiGe 0.2.M. so that it can -rod*ce fifth4generation co&-*tersAI Nobody<s going to be able to sell that line. 0f any

-olitician e,er started tal(ing that way) -eo-le wo*ld say? A!(ay) we wantto start getting in,ol,ed in social and econo&ic -olicy4&a(ing too.A

0n fact) that danger has been ,ery o-enly disc*ssed in the b*siness litera4

9%



Chapter 'hree?

t*re in the United States for forty or fifty years. 3 2*siness leaders (now -er4fectly well what e,ery econo&ist (nows? that s-ending for ci,ilian

-*r-oses is &aybe e,en more efficient) more -rofitable than s-ending for&ilitary -*r-oses. +nd they also (now that there are any n*&ber of ways toha,e the -o-*lation s*bsidiGe high4technology ind*stry besides thro*gh thePentagon syste&4b*siness (nows that -erfectly well) and it also (nows thereasons against it. They re&ain what they always were.

0f yo* ta(e an econo&ics co*rse) they<ll teach yo*) correctly) that if thego,ern&ent s-ends n dollars to sti&*late the econo&y) it doesn<t really&atter what it<s s-ent on? they can b*ild et -lanes) they can b*ry it in thesand and get -eo-le to dig for it) they can b*ild roads and ho*ses) they cando all sorts of things4in ter&s of sti&*lating the econo&y) the econo&iceffects are not all that different. $ 0n fact) it<s -erfectly li(ely that &ilitarys-ending is act*ally a less efficient sti&*l*s than social s-ending) for all(inds of reasons. 2*t the -roble& is) s-ending for ci,ilian -*r-oses hasnegati,e side effects. Bor one thing) it interferes with &anagerial -reroga4ti,es. The &oney that<s f*nneled thro*gh the Pentagon syste& is *st astraight gift to the cor-orate &anager) it<s li(e saying) A0<ll b*y anything yo*

-rod*ce) and 0<ll -ay for the research and de,elo-&ent) and if yo* can &a(eany -rofits) fine.A Bro& the -oint of ,iew of the cor-orate &anager) that<so-ti&al. 2*t if the go,ern&ent started -rod*cing anything that b*siness&ight be able to sell directly to the co&&ercial &ar(et) then it wo*ld beinterfering with cor-orate -rofit4&a(ing. Prod*ction of waste4of e1-ensi,e)*seless &achinery4is not an interference? nobody else is going to -rod*ce24$ bo&bers) rightI So that<s one -oint.

The other -oint) which is -robably e,en &ore serio*s fro& the -ers-ec4ti,e of -ri,ate -ower) is that social s-ending increases the danger of de&oc4racy4it threatens to increase -o-*lar in,ol,e&ent in decision4&a(ing. Bore1a&-le) if the go,ern&ent gets in,ol,ed) say aro*nd here) in b*ilding hos4

-itals and schools and roads and things li(e that) -eo-le are going to get in4terested in it) and they<ll want to ha,e a say in it4beca*se it affects the&) andis related to their li,es. !n the other hand) if the go,ern&ent says) AWe<regoing to b*ild a Stealth 2o&ber)A nobody has any o-inions. Peo-le care

abo*t where there<s going to be a school or a hos-ital) b*t they don<t careabo*t what (ind of et -lane yo* b*ild4beca*se they don<t ha,e the foggiestidea abo*t that. +nd since one of the &ain -*r-oses of social -olicy is to(ee- the -o-*lation -assi,e) -eo-le with -ower are going to want toeli&inate anything that tends to enco*rage the -o-*lation to get in,ol,ed in

-lanning4beca*se -o-*lar in,ol,e&ent threatens the &ono-oly of -ower by b*siness) and it also sti&*lates -o-*lar organiGations) and &obiliGes -eo-le) and -robably wo*ld lead to redistrib*tion of -rofits) and so on.

M*$, /ow about Aust reducing taxes) instead of sending all this money intothe military8industrial complex0



? 2nderstanding #ower

o* can<t red*ce ta1es &*ch4beca*se what else is going to (ee- theecono&y goingI Re&e&ber) it<s been (nown since the >reat e-ressionthat anything li(e free4&ar(et ca-italis& is a total disaster? it can<t wor(.Therefore e,ery co*ntry in the world that has a s*ccessf*l econo&y isso&ewhere close to fascis&4that is) with &assi,e go,ern&ent inter,entionin the econo&y to coordinate it and -rotect it fro& hostile forces s*ch as too&*ch co&-etition. 0 &ean) there *st is no other way to do it really? if yo*

-*lled that r*g o*t fro& *nder -ri,ate enter-rise) we<d go right bac( into thee-ression again. That<s why e,ery ind*strial econo&y has a &assi,e state

sector4and the way o*r &assi,e state sector wor(s in the United States is&ainly thro*gh the &ilitary syste&.

0 &ean) 0.2.M. isn<t going to -ay the costs of research and de,elo-&ent4why sho*ld theyI They want the ta1-ayer to -ay the&) say by f*nding a

N.+.S.+. -rogra&) or the ne1t &odel of fighter et. +nd if they can<t selle,erything they -rod*ce in the co&&ercial &ar(et) they want the ta1-ayerto b*y it) in the for& of a &issile la*nching syste& or so&ething. 0f thereare so&e -rofits to be &ade) fine) they<ll be ha--y to &a(e the -rofits4b*tthey always want the -*blic s*bsidies to (ee- flowing. +nd that<s e1actlyhow it<s wor(ed in general in the United States for the -ast fifty years.

So for e1a&-le) in the 3;5%s co&-*ters were not &ar(etable) they *stweren<t good eno*gh to sell in the &ar(et4so ta1-ayers -aid 3%% -ercent of

the costs of de,elo-ing the&) thro*gh the &ilitary syste& Kalong with 75 -ercent of research and de,elo-&ent for electronics generally) in factL. 2ythe 3;6%s) co&-*ters began to be &ar(etable4and they were handed o,er tothe -ri,ate cor-orations so they co*ld &a(e the -rofits fro& the&C still)abo*t 5% -ercent of the costs of co&-*ter de,elo-&ent were -aid by the+&erican ta1-ayer in the 3;6%s. : 0n the 3;7%s) there was a big new Afifth 4generationA co&-*ter -ro ect4they were de,elo-ing new fancy software)new ty-es of co&-*ters) and so on4and the de,elo-&ent of all of that wase1tre&ely e1-ensi,e. So therefore it went straight bac( to the ta1-ayer tofoot the bills again4that<s what S. .0. the Strategic efense 0nitiati,eO wasabo*t) AStar Wars.A Star Wars is basically a techni *e for s*bsidiGing high 4technology ind*stry. Nobody belie,es that it<s a defense syste&40 &ean)&aybe Reagan belie,es it) b*t nobody whose head is screwed on belie,es

that Star Wars is a &ilitary syste&. 0t<s si&-ly a way to s*bsidiGe the de,el4o-&ent of the ne1t generation of high technology4fancy software) co&4 -licated co&-*ter syste&s) fifth4generation co&-*ters) lasers) and so on. 8

+nd if anything &ar(etable co&es o*t of all that) o(ay) then the ta1-ayerwill be -*t aside as *s*al) and it<ll go to the cor-orations to &a(e the -rofitsoff it.

0n fact) *st ta(e a loo( at the -arts of the +&erican econo&y that areco&-etiti,e internationally? it<s agric*lt*re) which gets &assi,e state s*bsi4diesC the c*tting edge of high4tech ind*stry) which is -aid for by the Penta4gonC and the -har&ace*tical ind*stry) which is hea,ily s*bsidiGed thro*gh



Chapter 'hree?3

-*blic science f*nding4those are the -arts of the econo&y that f*nctionco&-etiti,ely. +nd the sa&e thing is tr*e of e,ery other co*ntry in theworld? the s*ccessf*l econo&ies are the ones that ha,e a big go,ern&entsector. 0 &ean) ca-italis& is fine for the Third World4we lo,e them to beinefficient. 2*t we<re not going to acce-t it. +nd what<s &ore) this has beentr*e since the beginnings of the ind*strial re,ol*tion? there is not a singleecono&y in history that de,elo-ed witho*t e1tensi,e state inter,ention) li(ehigh -rotectionist tariffs and s*bsidies and so on. 0n fact) all the things we

prevent the Third World fro& doing ha,e been the prere:uisites for de4,elo-&ent e,erywhere else40 thin( that<s witho*t e1ce-tion. So to ret*rn toyo*r *estion) there *st is no way to c*t ta1es ,ery &*ch witho*t the entireecono&y colla-sing.

The Permanent War E-onomy

M*$, 6"m a little surprised to hear you say that the #entagon is so impor8tant to our economy.

There<s hardly an ele&ent of ad,anced4technology ind*stry in the UnitedStates that<s not tied into the Pentagon syste&4which incl*des N.+.S.+.) the

e-art&ent of Energy which -rod*ces n*clear wea-onsO) that wholea--arat*s. 0n fact) that<s basically what the Pentagon<s for) and that<s alsowhy its b*dget always stays -retty &*ch the sa&e. 0 &ean) the Pentagon

b*dget is higher in real ter&s than it was *nder Ni1on4and to the e1tent thatit<s declined in recent years) it<s in fact had the effect of what they callAhar&ing the econo&y.A Bor instance) the Pentagon b*dget started to de4cline in 3;76) and in 3;79 real wages started to fall off for s(illed wor(ers)in other words for the college4ed*cated. 2efore that they<d been decliningfor *ns(illed wor(ers) and they started to go down for the college4ed*cateda year after the Pentagon b*dget began to dro- off a bit. +nd the reason is)college4ed*cated -eo-le are engineers) and s(illed wor(ers) and &anagersand so on) and they<re ,ery de-endent on the whole Pentagon syste& for

obs4so e,en a slight decline in &ilitary s-ending i&&ediately showed *- in

real wage le,els for that sector of the -o-*lation.5

+ct*ally) if yo* loo( bac( at the debates which went on in the late 3;8%swhen the Pentagon syste& was first being set *-) they<re ,ery re,ealing.

o* ha,e to e1a&ine the whole de,elo-&ent against the bac(gro*nd ofwhat had *st ha--ened. There was this h*ge e-ression in the 3;:%s)worldwide) and at that -oint e,eryone *nderstood that ca-italis& was dead.0 &ean) whate,er lingering beliefs -eo-le had had abo*t it) and they weren<t,ery &*ch before) they were gone at that -oint4beca*se the whole ca-italistsyste& had *st gone into a tails-in? there was no way to sa,e it the way itwas going. Well) e,eryone of the rich co*ntries hit *-on &ore or less thesa&e &ethod of getting o*t. They did it inde-endently) b*t they &ore or



?4 2nderstanding #ower

less hit on the sa&e &ethod4na&ely) state s-ending) -*blic s-ending ofso&e (ind) what<s called A"eynesian sti&*lation.A +nd that did finally getco*ntries o*t of the e-ression. 0n the Bascist co*ntries) it wor(ed ,erywell4they got o*t -retty fast. +nd in fact) e,ery co*ntry beca&e sort offascistC again) Afascis&A doesn<t &ean gas cha&bers) it &eans a s-ecial for&of econo&ic arrange&ent with state coordination of *nions and cor-orationsand a big role for big b*siness. +nd this -oint abo*t e,eryone being fascistwas &ade by &ainstrea& Deblenite4ty-e econo&ists i.e. after the+&erican econo&ist DeblenO right at the ti&e) act*ally4they said)e,erybody<s fascist) the only *estion is what for& the fascis& ta(es? itta(es different for&s de-ending on the co*ntry<s c*lt*ral -atterns. 6

Well) in the United States) the for& that fascis& too( at first was the New eal legislati,e -rogra&s enacted in the 3;:%s to co&bat the e4 -ressionO. 2*t the New eal was too s&all) it didn<t really ha,e &*cheffect4in 3;:;) the e-ression was still a--ro1i&ately what it had been in3;:$. Then ca&e the Second World War) and at that -oint we beca&e reallyfascist? we had a totalitarian society basically) with a co&&and econo&y)wage and -rice controls) allocations of &aterials) all done straight fro&Washington. +nd the -eo-le who were r*nning it were &ostly cor-oratee1ec*ti,es) who were called to the ca-ital to direct the econo&y d*ring thewar effort. +nd they got the -oint? this wor(ed. So the U.S. econo&y -ros4

-ered d*ring the war) ind*strial -rod*ction al&ost *adr*-led) and we werefinally o*t of the e-ression. 9 +lright) then the war ended? now what ha--ensI Well) e,erybody e14

-ected that we were going to go right bac( into the e-ression4beca*senothing f*nda&ental had changed) the only thing that had changed was thatwe<d had this big -eriod of go,ern&ent sti&*lation of the econo&y d*ringthe war. So the *estion was) what ha--ens nowI Well) there was -ent4*-cons*&er de&and4a lot of -eo-le had &ade &oney and wanted to b*yrefrigerators and st*ff. 2*t by abo*t 3;89 and <87) that was beginning to tailoff) and it loo(ed li(e we were going to go bac( into another recession. +ndif yo* go bac( and read the econo&ists) -eo-le li(e Pa*l Sa&*elson andothers in the b*siness -ress) at that -oint they were saying that ad,ancedind*stry) high4technology ind*stry) Acannot s*r,i,e in a co&-etiti,e)

*ns*bsidiGed free4enter-rise econo&yA4that<s *st ho-eless.s

They fig*redwe were heading right bac( to the e-ression) b*t now they (new theanswer? go,ern&ent sti&*lation. +nd by then they e,en had a theory for it)"eynesC before that they<d *st done it by instinct.

So at that -oint) there was general agree&ent a&ong b*siness and elite -lanners in the United States that there wo*ld ha,e to be &assi,e go,ern4&ent f*nneling of -*blic f*nds into the econo&y) the only *estion washow to do it. Then ca&e (ind of an interesting ... it wasn<t really a debate)

beca*se it was settled before it was started) b*t the iss*e was at least raised?sho*ld the go,ern&ent -*rs*e &ilitary s-ending or social s-endingI Well) itwas *ic(ly &ade ,ery clear in those disc*ssions that the ro*te that go,4ern&ent s-ending was going to ha,e to ta(e was &ilitary. +nd that was not



Chapter 'hree?=

for reasons of econo&ic efficiency) nothing of the sort4it was *st forstraight -ower reasons) li(e the ones 0 &entioned? &ilitary s-ending doesn<tredistrib*te wealth) it<s not de&ocratiGing) it doesn<t create -o-*lar con4stit*encies or enco*rage -eo-le to get in,ol,ed in decision4&a(ing. ; 0t<s

*st a straight gift to the cor-orate &anager) -eriod. 0t<s a c*shion for&anagerial decisions that says) ANo &atter what yo* do) yo*<,e got ac*shion down thereA 4and it doesn<t ha,e to be a big -ortion of totalre,en*es) li(e &aybe it<s a few -ercent) b*t it<s a ,ery i&-ortant c*shion. 3%

+nd the -*blic is not s*--osed to (now abo*t it. So as the first Secretaryof the +ir Borce) St*art Sy&ington) -*t the &atter ,ery -lainly bac( in3;87) he said? AThe word to *se is not <s*bsidy)< the word to *se is <sec*rity.<A33 0n other words) if yo* want to &a(e s*re that the go,ern&ent canfinance the electronics ind*stry) and the aircraft ind*stry) and co&-*ters)and &etall*rgy) &achine tools) che&icals) and so on and so forth) and yo*don<t want the general -*blic trying to ha,e a say in any of it) yo* ha,e to&aintain a -retense of constant sec*rity threats4and they can be R*ssia)they can be ibya) they can be >renada) '*ba) whate,er<s aro*nd.

Well) that<s what the Pentagon syste& is abo*t? it<s a syste& for ens*ringa -artic*lar for& of do&ination and control. +nd that syste& has wor(edfor the -*r-oses for which it was designed4not to gi,e -eo-le better li,es)

b*t to A&a(e the econo&y healthy)A in the standard sense of the -hrase?na&ely) ens*ring cor-orate -rofits. +nd that it does) ,ery effecti,ely. Soyo* see) the United States has a &a or sta(e in the ar&s race? it<s needed fordo&estic control) for controlling the e&-ire) for (ee-ing the econo&y r*n4ning. +nd it<s going to be ,ery hard to get aro*nd thatC 0 act*ally thin( that<sone of the to*ghest things for a -o-*lar &o,e&ent to change) beca*sechanging the co&&it&ent to the Pentagon syste& will affect the wholeecono&y and the way it<s r*n. 0t<s a lot harder than) say) getting o*t ofDietna&. That was a -eri-heral iss*e for the syste& of -ower. This is acentral iss*e.

0n fact) 0<,e been arg*ing for years with friends of &ine who are ca&4 -aigning for Acon,ersionA of the econo&y fro& &ilitary -rod*ction to so4cial s-ending that they<re basically tal(ing nonsense. 0 &ean) it<s not that

b*siness has to be told Afor this &any et -lanes we co*ld ha,e this &anyschools) isn<t it awf*l to b*ild et -lanesIA o* don<t ha,e to con,ince thehead of >eneral Motors of that? he (new that forty years before anyonestarted tal(ing abo*t Acon,ersion)A that<s why he wanted et -lanes. There isno -oint in e1-laining to -eo-le in -ower that Acon,ersionA wo*ld be betterfor the world. S*re it wo*ld. What do they careI They (new that long ago)that<s why they went in the o--osite direction. oo(? this syste& wasdesigned) with a lot of conscio*s and intelligent tho*ght) for the -artic*lar

-*r-ose that it ser,es. So any (ind of Acon,ersionA will *st ha,e to be -artof a total restr*ct*ring of the society) designed to *nder&ine centraliGedcontrol.

+nd 0 &ean) yo*<re going to need an alternative8it"s not eno*gh *st toc*t off the Pentagon b*dget) that<s *st going to &a(e the econo&y col4



?> 2nderstanding #ower

la-se) beca*se the econo&y is de-endent on it. So&ething else has to ha-4 -en *nless yo* *st want to go bac( to the Stone +ge. So the first thing si&4 -ly has to be creating both a c*lt*re and an instit*tional str*ct*re in which -*blic f*nds can be *sed for social needs) for h*&an needs. That<s the &is4ta(e that a lot of the Acon,ersionA -eo-le &a(e) in &y o-inion? they<re *stidentifying what<s ob,io*s) they<re not foc*sing eno*gh on creating the

basis for an alternati,e.

W+M*$, What is the hope) then) for dismantling the whole military system0

There ha,e to be large4scale instit*tional changes) we need a real de&oc4ratiGation of the society. 0 &ean) if we contin*e to ha,e do&ination of theecono&ic and -olitical syste& by cor-orations) why sho*ld they beha,eany differentlyI 0t<s not that the -eo-le in the cor-orations are bad -eo-le)it<s that the instit*tional necessity of the syste& is to &aintain cor-oratedo&ination and -rofit4&a(ing. 0 &ean) if the 'hair&an of >eneral Motorss*ddenly decided to start -rod*cing the best *ality cars at the chea-est

-rices) he wo*ldn<t be 'hair&an any longer4there<d be a shift on the stoc(&ar(et and they<d throw hi& o*t in fi,e &in*tes. +nd that generaliGes tothe syste& as a whole. There is absol*tely no reason why the -eo-le who

own the econo&y wo*ld want it to be set *- in a way that *nder&ines orwea(ens their control) any &ore than there<s a reason why they wo*ld wantthere to be a -olitical syste& in which the -o-*lation gen*inely -artici4

-ates4why wo*ld theyI They<d be craGy. J*st li(e they<d be craGy if theyo-ened *- the &edia to dissident o-inion4what -ossible -*r-ose wo*ldthere be in thatI !r if they let the *ni,ersities teach honest history) let<s say.0t wo*ld be abs*rd.

Now) that doesn<t &ean that there<s nothing we can do. E,en within thec*rrent str*ct*re of -ower) there<s -lenty of latit*de for -ress*re andchanges and refor&s. 0 &ean) any instit*tion is going to ha,e to res-ond to

-*blic -ress*re4beca*se their interest is to (ee- the -o-*lation &ore or less -assi,e and *iescent) and if the -o-*lation is not -assi,e and *iescent)then they ha,e to res-ond to that. 2*t really dealing with the -roble&s at

their core *lti&ately will re *ire getting to the so*rce of -ower anddissol,ing it4otherwise yo* &ay be able to fi1 things *- aro*nd the edges) b*t yo* won<t really change anything f*nda&entally. So the alternati,e *sthas to be -*tting control o,er these decisions into -o-*lar hands4theresi&-ly is no other way besides dissol,ing and diff*sing -ower de&ocrati4cally) 0 thin(.



Chapter 'hree ??

5ibyan and 6meri-an Terrorism

W+M*$, Switching to current events a bit) Mr. Choms&y81terrorism1 is a phenomenon that really too& off in the media in the !5s. Why do youthin& all of a sudden 7ibya became such a great threat to us0

Well) beca*se fro& the ,ery first &in*te that the Reagan ad&inistrationca&e into office) it i&&ediately selected ibya as a -*nching bag. 3$ +ndthere were ,ery good reasons for that? ibya<s defenseless) Faddafi is sort

of hatef*l and (ind of a th*g4a ,ery s&all4ti&e th*g) 0 &ight say) b*t ne,er4theless a th*g4and he<s also an +rab) and there<s a lot of anti4+rab racis&aro*nd. 3: +nd the Reagan ad&inistration needed to create fear? it had to&obiliGe the -o-*lation to do things they didn<t want to do) li(e s*--ort a&assi,e increase in &ilitary s-ending.

0 &ean) Reagan co*ld tal& abo*t the AE,il E&-ire)A b*t he co*ldn<t getinto any confrontations with the E,il E&-ire4beca*se that<s dangero*sC theSo,iets can fight bac() and they<,e got &issiles and things li(e that. So thetric( was to find so&ebody who<s frightening eno*gh to scare +&ericansinto acce-ting a h*ge &ilitary b*ild4*-) b*t ne,ertheless wea( eno*gh soyo* co*ld beat hi& *- witho*t anyone fighting bac(. +nd the answer wasFaddafi) and international terroris& generally.

0nternational terroris& by +rabs is certainly real. 0 &ean) o,erwhel&4ingly international terroris& co&es o*t of Washington and Mia&i) b*t thereis a relati,ely s&all a&o*nt of it that co&es fro& the +rab world. 38 +nd

-eo-le don<t li(e it4they blow *- -lanes) and it<s scary) and it<s +rabs) it<sweird4loo(ing g*ys who ha,e dar( faces and &*staches. How does it

beco&e a big eno*gh threat that we ha,e to b*ild &ore &issiles and so onIWell) it<s 9remlin8directed international terroris&. 6SThis st*ff was craftedfro& the first &o&ent4and f*rther&ore) it was all *tterly trans-arent rightfro& the ,ery beginning) li(e 0 was writing abo*t it as early as 3;73. 36 The&edia -retend they don<t *nderstand it) scholarshi- -retends it doesn<t*nderstand it) b*t it<s been as -redictable as a bro(en record? they -*t it onin 3;73) and it<s still -laying.

The whole &edia ca&-aign on terroris& started with a series of '.0.+.disinfor&ation releases abo*t ibya. 0n 3;73 the '.0.+. lea(ed a story to the

-ress abo*t U.S. efforts to assassinate Faddafi) in the ho-e that this wo*ldlead Faddafi to so&e (ind of erratic reaction which we co*ld then *se as ane1c*se to bo&b hi&. !(ay) that was e1-osed? the first reference to '.0.+.disinfor&ation abo*t ibya a--eared in $ewswee& in +*g*st 3;73) when

$ewswee& stated that it had been s*b ected to a disinfor&ation ca&-aign bythe go,ern&ent. 39 Since then) there ha,e been abo*t a half4doGen si&ilarcases in which Washington floated so&e l*natic story abo*t ibya and the&edia bo*ght it) then disco,ered later that it was disinfor&ation and

-retended they were all s*r-risedC 0 &ean) at so&e -oint yo*<d thin( theywo*ld begin to as( what<s going on) b*t a--arently not. +nd so&e of



?! 2nderstanding #ower

these cases were co&-letely craGy4there was a story abo*t ibyan hit&enwandering aro*nd Washington) S.W.+.T. tea&s on alert -atrolling theWhite Ho*se) that (ind of thing. 0t was all total &adness. 37

Well) e,eryone of these confrontations with ibya has been ti&ed forso&e do&estic -*r-ose. The big one) the bo&bing of ibya in +-ril 3;76)was ti&ed for the contra aid ,ote in 'ongress4the -oint was to b*ild *- a lotof hysteria beforehand) and it (ind of wor(ed? they ra&&ed thro*gh a bigaid -ac(age a &onth or two later. 3; 0t was all a co&-lete set4*-) totally

-refabricated. Birst) a confrontation was arranged in which ibyan artilleryg*ns fired at a U.S. fighter -lane. o*<ll notice that so&ehow it<s always the2.S. Na,y or the 2.S. +ir Borce that ibya is shooting at4they ne,er shoot at

6talian -lanes) or @rench -lanes) or Spanish -lanes) it<s always +&erican -lanes. Well) what<s the reasonI !ne -ossibility is the ibyans are insane?they go after the -eo-le who are going to wi-e the& o*t. The other -ossi4

bility is that the +&ericans are trying to get shot at) which is of co*rse thetr*th. The reason the ibyans only shoot at +&erican -lanes is beca*se+&erican -lanes are sent o,er there to get shot atC nobody else sends -lanesinto the >*lf of Sidra) beca*se there<s no -oint in doing it) so therefore theydon"t get shot at.

See) ibya says the >*lf of Sidra is a -art of its territorial waters) and theUnited States ref*ses to acce-t that. Well) there<s a way that co*ntries can

resol,e s*ch dis-*tes? yo* ta(e the& to the World 'o*rt and get a r*lingC alaw4abiding state does it that way. +lright) that o-tion was raised in theUnited States) b*t the State e-art&ent said) no) we can<t do it) it<s &*chtoo des-erate a sit*ationC getting a decision fro& the World 'o*rt will ta(etwo years. o* (now) we can<t -*t off for two years whether the U.S. Na,ycan go into the >*lf of Sidra) the United States will colla-se. +ll this st*ffis so l*dicro*s yo* can barely re-eat it. $o

The beginning -hase of the 3;76 confrontation occ*rred when +&erican -lanes -enetrated ibyan territorial air s-ace and finally got shot atha--ily) beca*se they (now they<re ne,er act*ally going to be hit by the ibyan airdefenses. They then flew bac( to the fleet) and the +&erican Na,y bo&beda b*nch of ibyan na,y ,essels and (illed lots of ibyans. That was great) areal ,ictory.

Bollowing that) on +-ril 5th) 3;76) a discothe *e in West 2erlin was bo&bedC two -eo-le were (illed. Rather cr*cially) one of the& was a T*r(4ish wo&an and the other was a blac( +&erican >.0.4the reason was) thiswas a blac( Third World bar) not an insignificant fact. The White Ho*sei&&ediately anno*nced that they had e,idence) interce-ts and so on) thatshowed that this terrorist act was -er-etrated by ibya) tho*gh they ne,er

-resented any of this e,idence. $3 Then nine days later) on +-ril 38th) we bo&bed ibya.

0t was co&-letely ob,io*s that we were going to bo&b the&. 0n fact) 0ha,e a way of &onitoring the +ssociated Press wires on &y -ersonal co&4

-*ter) and there were dis-atches co&ing o*t all day beca*se it was e,ident



Chapter 'hree?

we were going to bo&b the&. So 0 don<t (now if yo*<,e e,er loo(ed at atic(er4ta-e) b*t a story co&es o*t abo*t e,ery &in*te) and all thro*gh theday there were tons of stories co&ing o*t abo*t ibyaC the last one beforethe bo&bing ca&e thro*gh at 6?$7 P.M. 0t was bylined West 2erlin) and itsaid? West >er&an and U.S. &ilitary intelligence say they ha,e no infor&a4tion abo*t any ibyan connection to the disco bo&bing) b*t they s*s-ect a

-ossible ibyan connection. $$ !(ay) half an ho*r later) at -recisely 9 -.M.4rather cr*cial) it was at 9

P.M. precisely8the United States started bo&bing ibya. Why 9 P.M.I 2e4ca*se that<s when the national news started on the three U.S. tele,ision net4wor(s? this was the first bo&bing in history e,er ti&ed for -ri&e4ti&etele,ision) and 0 &ean that literally. 0t was a tric(y o-eration to arrange? yo*had to synchroniGe a si14ho*r flight fro& England so that a s *adron of B4lll bo&bers wo*ld arri,e in ibya -recisely at 9 P.M.) when the threenational networ(s began their newscasts. They had to tra,el all the wayacross the Mediterranean) two -lanes had to t*rn aro*nd and so on) b*t stillthey hit it -recisely at 94that &eans there had to ha,e been e1tre&elycaref*l -lanning? they didn<t want the bo&bing to start at ten after se,en)say) beca*se that wo*ld ha,e lost the effect.

Now) e,ery o*rnalist who isn<t totally insane (new that this was a set*-?0 &ean) how li(ely is it that yo* wo*ld get a bo&bing at 9 P.M. EasternStandard Ti&e) -recisely on the noseI +nd if yo* watched the news thate,ening) so&e of yo* will re&e&ber that the anchor&en) Peter Jenningsand those g*ys) started off by saying? A+lright) we<re going to switch o,erto Tri-oliA4then they switched o,er to Tri-oli) and there was the whole+.2.'. news tea&. What the hell were they doing in Tri-oliI They<re ne,erin Tri-oli. Well) they were in Tri-oli beca*se they (new -erfectly wellthere was going to be a bo&bing) that<s why. 0 &ean) they didn<t (now thee1act &in*te) b*t e,erybody was in -lace in Tri-oli beca*se they (new the

-lace was going to be bo&bed. !f co*rse) they all -retended it was this bigs*r-nse.

So) 9 P.M.) the United States bo&bs Tri-oli and 2enghaGi) (ills -lenty of -eo-le? yo* go to the e1citing e,ents li,e) yo* hear the lo*d noises) the tele4,ision news is -ree&-ted beca*se this is so e1citing. Then they flash bac(to Washington) and the Reagan ad&inistration s-o(es&an) arry S-ea(es)gets on T.D.) and for the ne1t twenty &in*tes they -ree&-t the destr*ctionto gi,e yo* the State e-art&ent line. Meanwhile) the whole Washington

-ress cor-s is *st sitting there) these -*ssycats li(e Sa& onaldson and therest of the&) who wo*ld ne,er as( an e&barrassing *estion in a &illionyears. S-ea(es gets *- and says) AWe (new for certain ten days ago that

ibya was behind the disco bo&bingA4and nobody as(ed the ob,io*s*estion? if yo* (new for certain ten days ago) how co&e yo* didn<t (now

half an ho*r agoI 2arring colossal inco&-etence in the newsroo&s) e,ery o*rnalist there (new what 0 (new4they read the +.P. wires at '.2.S. as&*ch as 0 do) 0 g*ess) so that &eans they (new that *- *ntil a half4ho*r be4



!5 2nderstanding #ower

fore the bo&bing) +&erican and West >er&an intelligence had no infor4&ation abo*t a ibyan connection. 2*t arry S-ea(es gets *- and says)AWe (new for certain ten days agoA4and none of the& e,en batted an eye4lash. $: Nobody as(ed another ob,io*s *estion? how co&e the bo&bing wassched*led for 9 P.M. Eastern Standard Ti&eI How did yo* set it *- so thata si14ho*r flight fro& ondon ha--ened to arri,e in ibya at -recisely theinstant when the tele,ision news started in the U.S.I Nobody as(ed that

*estion. 0n fact) there<s a whole series of *estions which nobody as(ede,eryone in the -ress *st swallowed the abs*rdities. Then Reagan got onand -ontificated for a while. Ne1t day<s news) a h*ndred -ercent4e,erybodysaid) this is terrific) we finally showed these ibyans. Not a note of discord.$8

Now) let &e go on with the -ersonal side of this. Two wee(s later) 0 ha-4 -ened to go to >er&any4where) incidentally) 0 was gi,ing a tal( at a con4ference on terroris&. When 0 got off at the air-ort in Bran(f*rt) the firstthing 0 did was -ic( *- the >er&an news-a-ers) and 0 also -ic(ed *- -erSpiegel) which is (ind of li(e the >er&an $ewswee&. The front co,er of

-er Spiegel was a -ict*re of Reagan loo(ing li(e so&e (ind of &ad&anwith &issiles going o,er his head) and at the botto& was the -hrase? ATerror+gainst Terror. $5 Now) that ha--ens to be an old >esta-o slogan? when the>esta-o went after the anti4NaGi resistance) they called it Aterror against

terror.A +nd 0 ass*&e that e,erybody in >er&any (new that it was a>esta-o slogan40 g*ess that was the -oint) and es-ecially when yo* loo(edat the -ict*re) the associations were -retty ob,io*s? they were saying) AThisis li(e the NaGis.A +nd the whole o*rnal basically was de,oted toe1-loding the theory that ibya had anything to do with the disco bo&bing.They said) there<s no e,idence for this) it<s a total fabrication) Washingtonhas ne,er -ro,ided any e,idence. There were s-ec*lations as to who &ightha,e done it) li(e it &ight ha,e been dr*g4related) so&e -eo-le tho*ght itwas "* "l*1 "lan4related4the "lan is ,ery strong there) co&ing o*t of the+&erican ar&y4b*t there didn<t see& to be any reason why ibya wo*ld

bo&b a >er&an Third World bar. +nd in fact) while 0 was in >er&any) 0didn<t &eet a single -erson who tho*ght that there was any -la*sibilitywhatsoe,er to the ibyan connection.

!(ay) 0 went to the conference on terroris&) and afterwards there was a -ress conference. +t the -ress conference) 0 was as(ed by >er&an re-orterswhat 0 tho*ght abo*t all of this) and 0 told the& the little bit 0 (new. +fter itended) a g*y ca&e *- to &e) a blac( +&erican fro& orchester in2ostonO) and introd*ced hi&self. He was a >.0. who<d been li,ing in>er&any for abo*t twenty4fi,e years4he<d ser,ed there) then decided hedidn<t want to co&e bac() so he stayedC a fair n*&ber of blac( +&ericansha,e done that) act*ally. Now he was wor(ing as a re-orter for Stars andStripes) the +&erican ar&y news-a-er. Well) he told &e that what 0 hadsaid abo*t the bo&bing was -art of the story) b*t that 0 didn<t (now the halfof it4it was &*ch worse than 0 had said. 0 as(ed hi& what he &eant) and hesaid that as a re-orter for Stars and Stripes) he had reg*larly beeninter,iewing the head



Chapter 'hree !

of the h*ndred4-erson West >er&an in,estigating tea& which was st*dyingthe disco bo&bing Manfred >anschowO) a &an who also ha--ened to bethe director of the West 2erlin e *i,alent of the E2.0. the 2erlin Staats4sch*tGO. +nd he said that e,er since the first day he began inter,iewing hi&)this g*y had been telling hi&? AThere<s no ibyan connection) there<s noe,idence for it) we don<t belie,e it.A 0 as(ed hi& if he co*ld get &e so&e4thing on -a-er abo*t this that 0 co*ld -*blish) and he said he wo*ld.

He flew to 2erlin and cond*cted another inter,iew with this g*y) thenca&e bac( to Bran(f*rt where 0 was) and ga,e &e the transcri-t of the in4ter,iew. 0n it) he as(ed the g*y? A o yo* ha,e any new infor&ation abo*t a

ibyan connectionIA +nd the g*y said) A o*<,e been as(ing &e that e,ersince the first day. 0 told yo* then we don<t ha,e any e,idence) we still ha,eno e,idence.A The re-orter (e-t -ressing. He said) A oo() Hel&*t "ohl) the'hancellor of >er&any) now agrees that there<s so&e -la*sibility toReagan<s ibya story.A +nd this g*y said) AWell) -oliticians ha,e to do whatthey ha,e to do) and they<ll say their st*ff) b*t 0<& *st telling yo* what thefacts areC the facts are) there<s no e,idence.A $6 +nd it goes on fro& there.There ne,er was any e,idence. + co*-le &onths later it e,en began to beconceded that there was no e,idence. So &aybe Syrians did it) or &aybe itwas so&e other thing) b*t the idea that there was any credible ibyanconnection *st disa--eared. $9

+ct*ally) on the first anni,ersary of the bo&bing) the 2.2.'. 2ritish2roadcasting 'or-orationO did a retros-ecti,e on the story in which theyre,iewed all the bac(gro*nd and went to E*ro-ean intelligence agencies forassistance? their concl*sion was that all of the E*ro-ean intelligence agen4cies4incl*ding those fro& the &ost conser,ati,e go,ern&ents4say they seeno -la*sibility to the idea that there was a ibyan connection to the disco

bo&bing. $7 The whole thing was a lie. Ne,ertheless) it contin*es to bere-eated in the U.S. -ress. $;

0n fact) the 2.2.'. also -resented so&e f*rther interesting infor&ation. 0fyo* were following all of this at the ti&e) yo*<ll re&e&ber that there was a,ery dra&atic story told in the U.S. &edia after the disco bo&bing abo*thow the United States had -ic(ed *- secret interce-ts that ibya was goingto bo&b so&e target in West 2erlin *st before the bo&bing) so they haddeclared an alert and were r*nning aro*nd to all the -laces U.S. soldiers goin West 2erlin) and they got to the discothe *e *st fifteen &in*tes too late4yo* re&e&ber that storyI:% 0t t*rns o*t it was a total fabrication. The2.2.'. in,estigated it? neither the >er&an intelligence and -olice nor anyWestern e&bassy had e,er heard abo*t it4it was all co&-letely fabricated.

Well) the -oint is) all of this st*ff was (nown to +&erican re-orters. The $ew %or& 'imes had a to-4flight corres-ondent in >er&any) Ja&esMar(ha&) and he was inter,iewing the head of West >er&an intelligencetoo) e1ce-t he was ne,er re-orting any of this. :3 0n fact) none of it was e,erre-orted) the -ress -layed the whole thing as if they were co&-letely blind4they -retended all the way thro*gh that they didn<t *nderstand the b*sinessabo*t the ti&ingC they didn<t &ention the fact that there was no e,4



! 2nderstanding #ower

idence of a ibyan connection to the disco bo&bing right *- to the &o&entof the Tri-oli attac(C and they ha,e yet to infor& -eo-le that West >er4&any itself ne,er saw any e,idence of a connection) and has always re4garded it as a total fabrication. +ll of that is *st *nstatable in the U.S.&edia4and in this conte1t) it<s not ,ery s*r-rising that the +&erican -o-4*lation still belie,es the official line. Well) here<s an e1a&-le of real brain4washing4and it<s *st got to be conscio*s in this case) 0 can<t belie,e that the

-ress is that inco&-etent.

+ct*ally) there<s e,en one &ore -art to the Tri-oli bo&bing story) that 0(now of at least. Re&e&ber the Pentagon<s ,ersion of why we had to bo&bibya the first ti&e? it was that +&erican -lanes had been flying o,er the

>*lf of Sidra to establish o*r right to be there) they were in internationalwaters forty &iles off the ibyan coast) they detected ibyan -lanes -*rs*4ing the&) they disabled the ibyan radar) then in international waters) the

ibyans shot at o*r -lanes4therefore we had to shoot the& down and sin(their na,al boats) and *lti&ately bo&b Tri-oli a few days later and (ill lotsof ibyan ci,ilians. That was the Pentagon<s story. Well) a co*-le days afterthat) a ,ery good) highly res-ected 2ritish corres-ondent) a g*y na&ed

a,id 2l*ndy) went to ibya to in,estigate the story) and he disco,ered thefollowing. 0t t*rns o*t that at the ti&e of the first +&erican attac() therewere a b*nch of 2ritish engineers in ibya who were there &a(ing re-airs

on the ibyan radar syste&s4it was R*ssian radar) b*t the R*ssians co*ldn<tfig*re o*t how to fi1 it) so they had to call in 2ritish engineers to fi1 it. Sothese engineers were there wor(ing on the radar) and by the ti&e of theincident with the +&erican fighter -lanes) the radar was wor(ing -erfectlywell and they were in fact &onitoring the whole e-isode right as ittrans-ired. +nd what they clai& is that the +&erican -lanes were not in in4ternational waters) they had in fact flown directly o,er ibyan gro*nd ter4ritory? they had followed ibyan co&&ercial ets at first so they wo*ldn<t

be -ic(ed *- on radar) then they re,ealed the&sel,es when they were o,eribyan gro*nd territory) and at that -oint they -ic(ed *- gro*nd fire. :$ +nd

the -*r-ose *st had to be to elicit ibyan gro*nd fire. Then when they<d been shot at) they went bac( o*t to sea and bo&bed the boats and shotdown the -lanes and so on.

Well) that has ne,er been re-orted in the United States. +nd that was,ery ca*tio*s non4re-orting4beca*se the $ew %or& 'imes and others *sthad to ha,e been aware of this story) they *st ne,er &entioned any of thisinfor&ation.

M*$, 6 have a student who was on active duty in the Mediterranean at thattime) and he says that the *merican $avy went within a very short physicaldistance of the 7ibyan shoreline8not only within twelve miles) but withinthree miles. /e was right there on the dec& and saw it.

That<s -robably the sa&e storyC that<s interesting.



Chapter 'hree !3

W+M*$, What was the point of it) though0

The i&&ediate -oint was -retty clear? right then the Reagan ad&inistra4tion was trying to create fanaticis& in ti&e for the 'ongressional ,ote onaid to the Nicarag*an contras) which was co&ing *- a few days later. 0nfact) if anyone didn<t *nderstand this) Reagan drew the connection e1-lic4itly in a s-eech he &ade. He said? yo* (now these ibyans) they<re e,entrying to set *- an o*t-ost in o*r He&is-here4na&ely) in Nicarag*a. :: 0n

case anybody didn<t *nderstand ... M*$, 6 understand the operation was a real military fiasco as well.

es) there<s a ,ery good st*dy of that by +ndrew 'oc(b*rn) who<s *itea good &ilitary corres-ondent. :8 + co*-le of the -lanes bro(e down) the

bo&bs were going all o,er the -lace. 0 &ean) they *sed laser4g*ided bo&bs4As&artA bo&bs4and when laser4g*ided bo&bs &iss) it &eans thatso&ething got screwed *- in the control &echanis&) so they can go ten&iles away) they can go anywhere. 0 &ean) no high4technology wor(s for,ery long) certainly not *nder co&-licated conditions) so all of these gadg4ets were screwing *- and the ser,ice&en co*ldn<t fig*re o*t where theywere. The night radar didn<t wor() a -lane was shot down4it goes on and

on. +nd re&e&ber) this was with no ene&y o--osition.0t was the sa&e with the >renada in,asion in 3;7:O) act*ally4that wasalso a &ilitary fiasco. 0 &ean) se,en tho*sand +&erican elite troo-s s*c4ceeded) after three days) in o,erco&ing the resistance of abo*t three doGen'*bans and a few >renadan &ilitary &enC they got 7)%%% Medals of Honorfor it. :5 They &ostly shot the&sel,es) or shot each other. They bo&bed a&ental hos-ital. The air-lanes were on a different radio fre *ency than thegro*nd troo-s. They didn<t (now there were two &edical ca&-*ses. 0n fact)there was an official re-ort abo*t it later by so&e Pentagon g*y Willia&

indO) who *st described it as a total fiasco. :6

M*$, 'hey had to use tourist maps.

They had the wrong &a-s4and this is li(e bo&bing the Rowe 'onference'enter i.e. where 'ho&s(y and the gro*- were &eetingO) abo*t that hard.

M*$, *re these military planners rational0

There<s a (ind of rationality. 2*t re&e&ber) they<re not really e1-ectingto fight a war against anybody who can fight bac(4li(e) they<re not -lanningon fighting the R*ssians or anything li(e that. They<re &ostly doingco*nterins*rgency st*ff against defenseless targets li(e ibya and >renada)so it doesn<t really &atter whether the e *i-&ent wor(s. The to- brass




in the Pentagon) they basically want a lot of high4-owered) hea,ilya*to&ated gadgetry that<s e1-ensi,e) beca*se that<s what &a(es yo* a big

b*rea*cracy and able to r*n a lot of things. 0 &ean) there<s an economic -*r-ose to the Pentagon) li(e 0 was tal(ing abo*t before? it<s a way to getthe -*blic to f*nd the de,elo-&ent of high technology) and so on. 2*t thegenerals also want all this st*ff too4it<s (ind of a -ower -lay. So these gen4erals wo*ld rather ha,e high4tech fancy aircraft than si&-le aircraft which

*st do the ob) beca*se yo*<re &ore -owerf*l if yo* control &ore co&-li4

cated st*ff. The -erce-tion they enco*rage is that e,erything<s gettingfancier and fancier) and &ore and &ore co&-licated) so they need &ore and&ore &oney) and &ore and &ore assistance) and &ore and &ore control44and it doesn<t really &atter ,ery &*ch whether it wor(s -ro-erly or not)that<s (ind of secondary. :9

W+M*$, Dore Fidal refers to us as 1the proud victors of Drenada.1

eah) that<s when Reagan got *- and said) AWe<re standing tall again.A :7

We<re la*ghing4b*t re&e&ber) -eo-le didn<t la*gh at the ti&e. The >renadain,asion was considered a big shot in the ar&? we<re standing tall) they<renot going to -*sh *s aro*nd any&ore) all h*ndred tho*sand of the&. Weo,erca&e their n*t&eg.

'he F.S. and the F.$.

M*$, $oam) do you see any positive role that the 2.$. can play) for in8 stance sending 2.$. peace&eeping forces to places instead of u.s. interven8tion forces0

Well) the U.N. can only -laya -ositi,e role if the great -owers let it -laya -ositi,e role. So where the great -owers &ore or less agree on so&ethingand they *st need a &echanis& to effectQA ) the U .... N. is *sef*l. 2*t ifthe great -owers are o--osed4li(e) say the U Ated States is o--osed toso&ething4o(ay) then it *st doesn<t ha--en.

M*$, What about if the 2.$. didn"t have a Security Council) or didn"t giveveto power to the five permanent Security Council members0 ;'he 2.$. Se8curity Council has 35 seats) 5 of which are permanently assigned to the2.S.) (ritain) @rance) Russia) and China) and for 1substantive1 SecurityCouncil resolutions to go into effect none of the 5 permanent members canhave voted against themG unli&e the Deneral *ssembly) the Security Coun8cil has enforcement powers.<

0t co*ldn<t ha--en4beca*se the great -owers will not allow any inter4ference with their affairs. Ta(e the United States) which has been by far the



Chapter 'hree !=

leader in ,etoing U.N. Sec*rity 'o*ncil resol*tions since the 3;9%s? if wedon<t li(e what the U.N. is doing) the U.N. can go down the t*bes4we *stignore the&) and that ends the &atter. :; o* don<t (id aro*nd with an eight4h*ndred4-o*nd gorilla) yo* (now.

0n fact) it<s *ite interesting to trace the changes in the U.S. attit*de to4wards the U.N. o,er the years. 0n the late 3;8%s) the United States *st ran itco&-letely4international relations of -ower were s*ch that the U.S. *stga,e the orders and e,erybody followed) beca*se the rest of the world was

s&ashed *- and star,ing after the Second World War. +nd at the ti&e)e,erybody here lo,ed the U.N.) beca*se it always went along with *s? e,eryway we told co*ntries to ,ote) they ,oted. +ct*ally) when 0 was a grad*atest*dent aro*nd 3;5%) &a or social scientists) -eo-le li(e Margaret Mead)were trying to e1-lain why the R*ssians were always saying AnoA at theU.N.4beca*se Qere was the United States -*tting thro*gh these resol*tionsand e,erybody was ,oting Ayes)A then the R*ssians wo*ld stand *- and sayAno.A So of co*rse they went to the e1-erts) the social scientists) to fig*re ito*t. +nd what they ca&e *- with was so&ething we *sed to callAdia-erologyAC the concl*sion was) the reason the R*ssians always say AnoAat the U.N. is beca*se they raise their infants with swaddling clothes

bandages wra--ed aro*nd newborn babies to restrain and *iet the&O.iterally4they raise their infants with swaddling clothes in R*ssia) so R*s4

sians end *- ,ery negati,e) and by the ti&e they &a(e it to the U.N. all theywant to do is say AnoA all the ti&e. That was literally -ro-osed) -eo-le too(it serio*sly) there were articles in the o*rnals abo*t it) and so on. 8%

Well) o,er the years) U.S. -ower o,er the U.N. began to dro-4at leastrelati,ely s-ea(ing. + lot of Third World co*ntries entered the U.N.) es-e4cially in the 3;6%s as a res*lt of decoloniGation) so there was a lot &ore in4de-endence4and the U.N. *st got o*t of control) we co*ldn<t order it aro*ndas &*ch any&ore. +nd as that ha--ened) yo* co*ld *st trace the U.S.attit*de towards the U.N. getting &ore and &ore negati,e. Bor instance)they started *sing this -hrase which 0<& s*re yo*<,e heard) Athe tyranny ofthe &a ority.A What<s the tyranny of the &a orityI 0t<s what<s (nown asAde&ocracyA elsewhere) b*t when we ha--en to be in the &inority) it

beco&es Athe tyranny of the &a ority.A +nd starting aro*nd 3;9%) the

United States began ,etoing e,erything that ca&e *-? resol*tions on So*th+frica) on 0srael) on disar&a&ent4yo* -ic( it) the United States was ,etoingit. +nd the So,iet Union was ,oting right along with the &ainstrea&. 83

!(ay) all of a s*dden it t*rns o*t that the U.N. is a total disaster.0<ll ne,er forget one article abo*t this in the $ew %or& 'imes Maga ine)

by their U.N. corres-ondent) Richard 2ernstein. He went thro*gh thiswhole b*siness abo*t how the entire world ,otes against the United Statesall the ti&e. He wasn<t as(ing) AHow do they raise +&erican childrenIAWhat he as(ed was) AWhy is the world o*t of ste-IA iterally? AWhat<s the&atter with the world) it<s all o*t of ste-) it doesn<t *nderstand4what is itwith the worldIA Then he began loo(ing for defects in the world. 0<& not



!> 2nderstanding #ower

e1aggerating) that<s e1actly what it was li(e4and all of this st*ff is donewitho*t any self4conscio*sness) it<s *st said straight. 8$

0t<s the sa&e with the World 'o*rt the -o-*lar na&e for the 0nterna4tional 'o*rt of J*stice) the *dicial organ of the U.N.J. When the World'o*rt iss*ed an e1-licit decision against the United States in J*ne 3;76 or4dering8ordering8the United States to ter&inate what it called A*nlawf*l *seof forceA and illegal econo&ic warfare against Nicarag*a) we *st said tohec( with it) we ignored the&. The wee( after) 'ongress increased U.S. aid

to the contras by another h*ndred &illion dollars.8:

+gain) the co&&entaryacross the board in the U.S.4the $ew %or& 'imes) the Washington #ost) biginternational law e1-erts4was *nani&o*s? the World 'o*rt has discrediteditself by -assing this *dg&ent) so ob,io*sly we don<t ha,e to -ay anyattention to it. 88 0t *st discredits the World 'o*rt to criticiGe the UnitedStates4that<s li(e a tr*is& here. Then right after that) when the U.N.Sec*rity 'o*ncil called on all states to obser,e international law4notreferring to Qhe United States) b*t obli *ely referring to this World 'o*rtdecision ??C4)and it was ,etoed by the United States K33 to 3) with : absten4tionsLC and when the >eneral +sse&bly also -assed the sa&e resol*tion) thefirst ti&e ;8 to : K0srael) El Sal,ador) and the United StatesL) the ne1t ti&e;8 to $ K0srael and the United StatesL4the -ress wo*ldn<t e,en re-ort it. 85

Well) that<s what it &eans to be a great -ower? yo* do whate,er yo* feel

li(e.+nd by now) the United States is -ractically strangling the U.N.4we<re byfar its biggest debtor nation. 0n fact) the U.N. can barely f*nction beca*sethe United States won<t -ay its bills. 86 +nd -arts of the U.N. that we don<tli(e) li(e U.N.E.S.'.!. the United Nations Ed*cational) Scientific) and'*lt*ral !rganiGation44beca*se it<s wor(ing for the Third World we

-ractically -*t the& o*t of b*siness.The United States la*nched a h*ge -ro-aganda ca&-aign against

U.N.E.S.'.!. in the 3;9%s and Eighties4it was f*ll of o*trageo*s lies) to4tally fabricated) b*t ne,ertheless it s*fficed to essentially eli&inate theThird World orientation of U.N.E.S.'.!. and &a(e it sto- doing things itwas doing aro*nd the Third World) li(e i&-ro,ing literacy and health careand so on. 89 2*t that<s *st the reality of what the U.N. is going to face when

it -*rs*es -olicies that are not in the interests of the great -owers4it can *stgo down the drain) the United States won<t -er&it it.

W+M*$, (ut why is it that the press won"t report any of these things0

Well) it<s beca*se the -ress has a ob? its ob is to (ee- -eo-le fro& *n4derstanding the world) and to (ee- the& indoctrinated. Therefore it won<tre-ort things li(e this4and again) that follows -retty logically fro& the na4t*re of the -ress instit*tions the&sel,es. 0n fact) the way that the U.S. -ressco,ers United Nations ,otes gi,es a ,ery good ill*stration of how it wor(s.So for e1a&-le) when the U.N. has a ,ote deno*ncing the ongoing R*ssian



Chapter 'hree !?

in,asion of +fghanistan in No,e&ber 3;79) that they -*t on the front -age.2*t when the U.N. has a ,ote in the sa&e session) in fact within a few days)calling on all states to obser,e international law4this ,ery &*ted resol*tionafter the World 'o*rt decision) it didn<t e,en &ention the United Statesdirectly4then they won<t -*t it on the front -age) in fact they won<t -*t itanywhere. 4!

!r ta(e the s*&&it when the So,iet Union and the United States signedthe 0.N.B. 0nter&ediate4range N*clear BorcesO treaty) in ece&ber 3;79.

Right at that ti&e) there was a tre&endo*s a&o*nt of &edia attention fo4c*sed on ar&s treaties. Well) the line that the U.S. &edia constantly -re4sented was) AReagan the Peace&a(erA4yo* (now) AReagan leading *s to anew age)A ABirst ar&s control treaty to abolish a class of wea-ons sys4te&sO)A and so on. That was the standard -ict*re across the whole +&erican

-ress. !(ay) that ,ery &onth) the U.N. >eneral +sse&bly had -assed aseries of disar&a&ent resol*tions4b*t if yo* want to (now the details ofthe&) yo*<ll ha,e to loo( the& *- in &y boo( $ecessary 6llusions) beca*se Q<it<s abo*t the only -lace yo* can find the& in -rint in the Unite States. The>eneral +sse&bly -assed a resol*tion calling for the banning of allwea-ons in o*ter s-ace) Star Wars4it went thro*gh 358 to 3) the U.S. wasthe 3. They -assed a resol*tion against the de,elo-&ent of new wea-ons of&ass destr*ctionC it was 3:5 to 3. They -assed one calling for a n*clear testfreeGeC it was3:9 to :) the United States -ic(ed *- England and Brance onthat one. +nd so it went.

o yo* thin( any of that &ade the news-a-ers in the United StatesI No) beca*se that<s *st the wrong story. 8; The story is AReagan the Peace&a(er)Anot AThe United States is alone in the world) isolated in the world inatte&-ting to &aintain the ar&s raceA 4that<s not the story. +nd in fact)when the $ew %or& 'imes did its s*&&ary re-ort on what had ha--ened atthe U.N. that year) yo* can bet yo*r life that none of this st*ff was in4cl*ded4there wasn<t one word. 5%

+nd the -oint is) if yo* want to be a Ares-onsibleA o*rnalist) yo* ha,e to*nderstand what<s i&-ortant) and what<s i&-ortant is things that wor( forthe ca*se4U.S. cor-orate -ower) that<s the ca*se. +nd yo* will not stay in

the -ress ,ery long *nless yo*<,e internaliGed and co&e to *nderstand these,al*es ,irt*ally int*iti,ely4beca*se there<s a whole elaborate -rocess offiltering and selection in the instit*tions to eli&inate -eo-le who don"t*nderstand the& and to hel- ad,ance -eo-le who do. That<s how yo* canget co&&entators in the $ew %or& 'imes as(ing *estions li(e AWhat<swrong with the worldIA when the U.S. is standing alone against e,ery otherco*ntry) and not e,en batting an eyelash. +nd of co*rse) it<s also -art of theway the -ro-aganda syste& (ee-s e,eryone else fro& *nderstanding the el4e&entary realities too.



!! 2nderstanding #ower

"siness, 'partheid* and %a-ism

W+M*$, #rofessor Choms&y) one issue where 6"ve noticed that activists get &ind of a good press in the 2nited States8and it seems out of synch withwhat we usually see8is coverage of people protesting South *fricanapartheid Hofficial system of racial segregation and white supremacy) thelegal basis for which was largely repealed in 58 <. 6"m wondering if

you have any ideas why coverage of that might be a bit more positive.

0 thin( yo*<re right? anti4a-artheid &o,e&ents in the United States do geta -retty good -ress4so when so&e &ayor or so&ething de&onstratesagainst So*th +frica) there<s *s*ally (ind of a fa,orable re-ort on it. +nd 0thin( the &ain reason is that Western cor-orations the&sel,es are basicallyanti4a-artheid by this -oint) so that<s going to tend to be reflected in the&edia co,erage.

See) So*th +frica has been going thro*gh an internal econo&ic trans4for&ation) fro& a society based on e1tracti,e ind*stry to one based onind*strial -rod*ction4and that transfor&ation has changed the nat*re ofinternational interests in So*th +frica. +s long as So*th +frica was

-ri&arily a society whose wealth was based on e1tracting dia&onds) gold)*rani*& and so on) what yo* needed were large n*&bers of sla,es)

basically4-eo-le who wo*ld go down into the &ines and wor( for a co*-leyears) then die and be re-laced by others. So yo* needed an illiterate)s*bd*ed -o-*lation of wor(ers) with fa&ilies getting *st eno*gh inco&e to

-rod*ce &ore sla,es) b*t not &*ch &ore than that4then either yo* sentthe& down into the &ines) or yo* t*rned the& into &ercenaries in the ar&yand so on to hel- control the others. That was traditional So*th +frica. 2*tas So*th +frica changes to an ind*strial society) those needs also are begin4ning to change? now yo* don<t need sla,es -ri&arily) what yo* need is adocile) -artially ed*cated wor(force.

So&ething si&ilar ha--ened in the United States d*ring o*r ind*strialre,ol*tion) act*ally. Mass -*blic ed*cation first was introd*ced in theUnited States in the nineteenth cent*ry as a way of training the largely r*ralwor(force here for ind*stry4in fact) the general -o-*lation in the United

States largely was o--osed to -*blic ed*cation) beca*se it &eant ta(ing(ids off the far&s where they belonged and where they wor(ed with theirfa&ilies) and forcing the& into this setting in which they were basically

being trained to beco&e ind*strial wor(ers. 53 That was -art of the wholetransfor&ation of +&erican society in the nineteenth cent*ry) and thattransfor&ation now is ta(ing -lace for the blac( -o-*lation in So*th+frica4which &eans for abo*t 75 -ercent of the -eo-le there. So the whiteSo*th +frican elites) and international in,estors generally) now need awor(force that is trained for ind*stry) not *st sla,es for the &ines. +nd that&eans they need -eo-le who can follow instr*ctions) and read diagra&s)and be &anagers and fore&en) things li(e that4so sla,ery *st is



Chapter 'hree !

not the right syste& for the co*ntry any&ore) they need to &o,e towardsso&ething &ore li(e what we ha,e in the United States. +nd it<s -retty&*ch for that reason that the West has beco&e anti4a-artheid) and that the&edia will therefore tend to gi,e anti4a-artheid &o,e&ents a decent -ress.

0 &ean) *s*ally -olitical de&onstrations get ,ery negati,e re-orting inthe United States) no &atter what they<re for) beca*se they show -eo-lethey can do things) that they don<t *st ha,e to be -assi,e and isolated4andyo*<re not s*--osed to ha,e that lesson) yo*<re s*--osed to thin( that yo*<re

-owerless and can<t do anything. So any (ind of -*blic -rotest ty-icallywon<t be co,ered here) e1ce-t &aybe locally) and *s*ally it will get ,erynegati,e re-ortingC when it<s -rotest against the -olicies of a fa,ored U.S.ally) it always will. 2*t in the case of So*th +frica) the re-orting is *ites*--orti,e? so if -eo-le go into cor-orate shareholder &eetings orso&ething and &a(e a f*ss abo*t disin,est&ent withdrawing in,est&entsfro& So*th +frica to -ress*re its go,ern&entO) generally they<ll get a fa,or4able -ress these days.

!f co*rse) it<s not that what they<re doing is wrong4what they<re doing isright. 2*t they sho*ld *nderstand that the reason they<re getting a rea4sonably fa,orable -ress right now is that) by this -oint) b*siness regardsthe& as its troo-s4cor-orate e1ec*ti,es don<t really want a-artheid in So*th+frica any&ore. 0t<s li(e the reason that b*siness was willing to s*--ort the'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent in the United States? +&erican b*siness had no *sefor So*thern a-artheid) in fact it was bad for b*siness.

See) ca-italis& is not f*nda&entally racist4it can e1-loit racis& for its -*r-oses) b*t racis& isn<t b*ilt into it. 'a-italis& basically wants -eo-le to be interchangeable cogs) and differences a&ong the&) s*ch as on the basisof race) *s*ally are not f*nctional. 0 &ean) they &ay be f*nctional for a -e4riod) li(e if yo* want a s*-er4e1-loited wor(force or so&ething) b*t thosesit*ations are (ind of ano&alo*s. !,er the long ter&) yo* can e1-ect ca-i4talis& to be anti4racist4 *st beca*se it<s anti4h*&an. +nd race is in fact ah*&an characteristic4there<s no reason why it sho*ld be a negative char4acteristic) b*t it is a h*&an characteristic. So therefore identifications basedon race interfere with the basic ideal that -eo-le sho*ld be a,ailable *st ascons*&ers and -rod*cers) interchangeable cogs who will -*rchase all ofthe *n( that<s -rod*ced4that<s their *lti&ate f*nction) and any other

-ro-erties they &ight ha,e are (ind of irrele,ant) and *s*ally a n*isance.So in this res-ect) 0 thin( yo* can e1-ect that anti4a-artheid &o,es will

be reasonably well s*--orted by the &ainstrea& instit*tions in the UnitedStates. +nd o,er the long ter&) 0 s*s-ect that a-artheid in So*th +frica will

brea( down4 *st for f*nctional reasons. !f co*rse) it<s going to be reallyro*gh) beca*se white -ri,ilege in So*th +frica is e1tre&e) and the sit*ationof blac(s is grotes *e. 2*t o,er ti&e) 0 ass*&e that the a-artheid syste&will erode4and 0 thin( we sho*ld -ress ,ery hard to &a(e that ha--en? li(e)one doesn<t t*rn against the 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent beca*se yo* realiGethat b*siness interests are in fa,or of it. That<s (ind of not the -oint.




Winning the +ietna, War

W+M*$, Mr. Choms&y) what"s really going on in Fietnam8is it Aust thehorrible dictatorship it"s portrayed to be) and do you see any prospects atall for social or economic recovery there0

Well) Dietna&<s a -retty tight and a*tocratic -lace4b*t it was ob,io*sthat it was going to be that way. on<t forget) what we did to that co*ntry

-ractically wi-ed it o*t. o* ha,e to bear in &ind what happened there. Nobody here cares) so nobody st*dies it caref*lly) b*t o,er the co*rse ofthe 0ndochina wars the n*&ber of -eo-le (illed was &aybe fo*r &illion or&ore. A0ndochinaA was the Brench colony co&-rising the area of Dietna&)'a&bodia) and aosC the United States attac(ed each of those co*ntries inthe 3;6%s and Se,enties.O Tens of &illions of others were dis-laced fro&their ho&es. arge -arts of the co*ntry were si&-ly destroyed. There arestill tho*sands and tho*sands of deaths e,ery year beca*se of o*r *se ofche&ical wea-ons44children are born with birth defects) and cancers) andt*&ors) defor&ities. 0 &ean) Dietna& s*ffered the (ind of fate there<s noth4ing to co&-are to in E*ro-ean history bac( to the 2lac( Plag*e. 0t<ll be acent*ry before they can reco,er4if then. 5$

0n fact) by abo*t 3;9%) &y own ,iew) and 0 wrote this at the ti&e) wasthat either nothing in the region wo*ld s*r,i,e4which was a -ossibility orelse the only thing that wo*ld s*r,i,e wo*ld be North Dietna&) which is aharsh) orthodo1 Mar1ist4 eninist regi&e. +nd the reason why only NorthDietna& wo*ld ha,e s*r,i,ed is beca*se *nder conditions of tre&endo*s,iolence) the only thing that s*r,i,es is the to*ghest -eo-le. 5:

See) libertarian str*ct*res are not ,ery resilient4they can easily be wi-edo*t by ,iolence) whereas to*gh a*thoritarian str*ct*res can often s*r,i,ethat ,iolenceC in fact) one of the effects of ,iolence is to &agnify the -owerof a*thoritarian gro*-s. Bor e1a&-le) s*--ose we ca&e *nder -hysicalattac( here4s*--ose a b*nch of gangsters ca&e and wanted to (ill *s) andwe had to find a way to s*r,i,e. 0 s*s-ect that what we wo*ld do Kat leastwhat 0 wo*ld doL is to loo( for whoe,er aro*nd here is the to*ghest bastard)and -*t the& in charge4beca*se they<d be the &ost li(ely to hel- *s s*r,i,e.That<s what yo* do if yo* want to s*r,i,e a hostile attac(? yo* s*b ect yo*r4self to -ower and a*thority) and to -eo-le who (now how to fight. That<s infact the result of a hostile attac(? the ones left in co&&and at the end arethe ele&ents who were ca-able of s*r,i,ing) and *s*ally they s*r,i,ed

beca*se they<re ,ery ,iolent. Well) o*r attac( on Dietna& wase1traordinarily ,iolent) and the &ore constr*cti,e National iberation Brontin So*th Dietna& *st co*ldn<t s*r,i,e it) b*t the to*gh a*thoritarian regi&eof the North co*ld4so it too( o,er.

+nd beca*se the -ress*res on the& ha,e ne,er let *- since the war) ifthere e,er were any -ossibilities for reco,ery afterwards) the United Stateshas ens*red that Dietna& co*ld ne,er do anything with the&. 2eca*se U.S.



Chapter 'hree

-olicy since the war has been to &a(e Dietna& s*ffer as &*ch as -ossible)and to (ee- the& isolated fro& the rest of the world? it<s what<s calledAbleeding Dietna&.A58 The 'hinese leadershi- is &*ch &ore fran( abo*t itthan we are4for e1a&-le) eng =iao-ing 'hina<s do&inant -olitical fig*re*ntil the 3;;%sO says straight o*t that the reason for s*--orting Pol Pot in'a&bodia is that he<s Dietna&<s ene&y) and he<ll hel- *s &a(e Dietna&s*ffer as &*ch as -ossible. We<re not *ite as o-en abo*t it) b*t we ta(e

basically the sa&e -osition4and for only slightly different reasons. 'hinawants Dietna& to s*ffer beca*se they<re an ideological co&-etitor) and theydon<t li(e ha,ing an inde-endent state li(e that on their borderC the UnitedStates wants the& to s*ffer beca*se we<re trying to increase the diffic*lty ofecono&ic reconstr*ction in So*theast +sia4so we<ll s*--ort Pol Pot thro*ghallies li(e 'hina and Thailand) in order to AbleedA Dietna& &oreeffecti,ely. 55 Pol Pot was the 'a&bodian "h&er Ro*ge Party leader re4s-onsible for a &ass sla*ghter in that co*ntry in the &id43;9%s.O

0 &ean) re&e&ber what the Dietna& War was fo*ght for) after all. TheDietna& War was fo*ght to -re,ent Dietna& fro& beco&ing a s*ccessf*l&odel of econo&ic and social de,elo-&ent for the Third World. +nd wedon<t want to lose the war) Washington doesn<t want to lose the war. So farwe<,e won? Dietna& is no &odel for de,elo-&ent) it<s a &odel for destr*c4tion. 2*t if the Dietna&ese co*ld e,er -*ll the&sel,es together so&ehow)Dietna& co*ld again beco&e s*ch a &odel4and that<s no good) we alwaysha,e to -re,ent that. 56

The e1tent of the sadis& on this is e1traordinary) in fact. Bor e1a&-le)0ndia tried to send a h*ndred b*ffalo to Dietna&) beca*se the b*ffalo herdsthere had been ,irt*ally wi-ed o*t4Dietna&<s a -easant society) re&e&ber)so b*ffalo &ean tractors) fertiliGer) and so onC the United States threatenedto c*t off ABood for PeaceA aid to 0ndia if they did it. We tried to bloc(Mennonites fro& sending wheat to Dietna&. We<,e effecti,ely c*t off allforeign aid to the& o,er the -ast twenty years) by -ress*ring other co*ntriesnot to gi,e the& anything. 59 +nd the only -*r-ose of all these things has

been to &a(e Dietna& s*ffer as &*ch as -ossible) and to -re,ent the& fro&e,er de,elo-ing4and they<,e *st been *nable to deal with it. Whate,er&in*sc*le ho-es they &ight ha,e had ha,e been eli&inated) beca*sethey<,e &ade error after error in ter&s of econo&ic reconstr*ction. 0 &ean)in the last co*-le years) they<,e tried to fool aro*nd with liberaliGing &ar4(ets to attract foreign in,estors and so on) b*t it<s -retty hard to en,isionany -ositi,e scenario for the&.

oo() to try to deal with econo&ic -roble&s in general is not so si&-le4the United States is doing a rotten ob of it) with all the ad,antages in theworld. +nd to deal with -roble&s of econo&ic reconstr*ction *nderconditions of total de,astation) and lac( of reso*rces) and i&-osed isolationfro& the world4that<s ,ery) ,ery hard. 0 &ean) econo&ic de,elo-&ent in theWest was a ,ery br*tal -rocess) and that was *nder -retty good conditions.Bor e1a&-le) the +&erican colonies in the eighteenth cent*ry were



2nderstanding #ower

ob ecti,ely better off than &ost Third World co*ntries today4that<s in ab8 solute ter&s) not relati,e ter&s) &eaning yo* had to wor( less to feed yo*r4self) things li(e that. 57 +nd econo&ic de,elo-&ent here still was ,ery

br*tal) e,en with those enor&o*s ad,antages. +nd re&e&ber) that was withall of the reso*rces in the world still aro*nd to be robbed4nobody has thatany&ore) they<,e all been robbed already. So there are *st real) *alitati,edifferences in the -roble&s of Third World de,elo-&ent today4and theDietna&ese ha,e -roble&s far beyond that) -roble&s they si&-ly cannoto,erco&e at this -oint) as far as 0 can see.

Editors< Note? !fficial U.S. relations with Dietna& changed in Bebr*ary3;;8) as +&erican b*sinesses -ress*red the go,ern&ent to allow the& to

oin foreign4based cor-orations that were ,iolating the e&bargo and &a(4ing -rofits off Dietna&? 5; O

8eno-ide 0 the 2nited States and Pol Pot

M*$, %ou said that we support #ol #ot in Cambodia through our allies. 6sn"t there a chance that there could be another genocide there if the 9hmer Rouge gets bac& in power0 6"m terrified of that possibility.

eah) it<s dangero*s. What will ha--en there de-ends on whether theWest contin*es to s*--ort the& ...

M*$, (ut we may be heading for another genocide.

Well) loo() the b*siness abo*t AgenocideA yo*<,e got to be a little caref*labo*t. Pol Pot was ob,io*sly a &a or &ass &*rderer) b*t it<s not clear thatPol Pot (illed ,ery &any &ore -eo-le4or e,en more -eo-le4than the 2nitedStates (illed in 'a&bodia in the first half of the 3;9%s. We only tal( abo*tAgenocideA when other -eo-le do the (illing. The U.S. bo&bed andin,aded 'a&bodia beginning in 3;6;) and s*--orted anti4Parlia&entaryright4wing forces in a ci,il war there which lasted *ntil 3;95C Pol Pot r*ledthe co*ntry between 3;95 and <97.O

So there<s a lot of *ncertainty abo*t *st what the scale was of the PolPot &assacre) b*t the best scholarly wor( in e1istence today esti&ates thedeaths in 'a&bodia fro& all ca*ses d*ring the Pol Pot -eriod in the h*n4dreds of tho*sands) &aybe as &*ch as a &illion. 6o Well) *st ta(e a loo( atthe (illing in 'a&bodia that ha--ened in the first half of the decade fro&3;9% to 3;954which is the -eriod that we"re res-onsible for? it was also inthe h*ndreds of tho*sands. 63

B*rther&ore) if yo* really want to be serio*s abo*t it4let<s say a &illion -eo-le died in the Pol Pot years) let<s ta(e a higher n*&ber4it<s worth bear4ing in &ind that when the United States sto--ed its attac(s on inner 'a&4

bodia in 3;95) +&erican and other Western officials -redicted that in the



Chapter 'hree3

after&ath) abo*t a &illion &ore 'a&bodians wo*ld die *st fro& the ef fectsof the +&erican war. 6$ +t the ti&e that the United States withdrew fro&'a&bodia) -eo-le were dying fro& star,ation in the city of Phno& Penhalone4forget the rest of the co*ntry4at the rate of 3%%)%%% a year.6: The lastU.S. +.J. . +gency for 0nternational e,elo-&entO &ission in 'a&bodia

-redicted that there wo*ld ha,e to be two years of sla,e labor andstar,ation before the co*ntry co*ld e,en begin to get &o,ing again. 68 Sowhile the n*&ber of deaths yo* sho*ld attrib*te to the United States d*ringthe Pol Pot -eriod isn<t a si&-le calc*lation to &a(e) ob,io*sly it<s a lot4when yo* wi-e o*t a co*ntry<s agric*lt*ral syste& and dri,e a &illion

-eo-le o*t of their ho&es and into a city as ref*gees) yeah) a lot of -eo-leare going to die. +nd the res-onsibility for their deaths is not with theregi&e that too( o,er afterwards) it<s with the -eo-le who made it that way.

+nd in fact) there<s an e,en &ore s*btle -oint to be &ade4b*t not an in4significant one. That is? why did Pol Pot and the "h&er Ro*ge carry o*ttheir &assacre in the first -laceI Well) there<s -retty good e,idence that the"h&er Ro*ge forces too( -ower -ri&arily beca*se they were the only oneswho were to*gh eno*gh bastards to s*r,i,e the U.S. attac(s. +nd gi,en thedestr*cti,e -sychological effects of the +&erican bo&bings on the -easant

-o-*lation there) so&e sort of ,iolent o*t-o*ring was fairly -redictable andthere was a big ele&ent of *st -lain -easant re,enge in what ha--ened. 65

So the U.S. bo&bings hit a real -ea( of ferocity in aro*nd 3;9:) and that<sthe sa&e -eriod in which the Pol Pot gro*- started gaining -ower. The+&erican bo&bard&ent was certainly a significant factor) -ossibly thecritical factor) in b*ilding *- -easant s*--ort for the "h&er Ro*ge in thefirst -laceC before that) they had been a -retty &arginal ele&ent. !(ay) ifwe were honest abo*t the ter& Agenocide)A we wo*ld di,ide *- the deathsin the Pol Pot -eriod into a &a or -art which is our res-onsibility) which isthe res-onsibility of the United States.

9eroes and +nti4Heroes

M*$, $oam) 6 have to say) 6"m getting a little depressed by all of this neg8ative information8we need it) there"s no :uestion about it) but we also needa certain degree of empowerment. So let me Aust as& you) who are yourheroes0

Well) let &e first *st &a(e a re&ar( abo*t the Ae&-ower&entA -oint)which co&es *- again and again. 0 ne,er (now e1actly how to res-ond toit4beca*se it<s *st the wrong *estion. The -oint is) there are lots of o-4

-ort*nities to do things) and if -eo-le do so&ething with the&) changeswill ha--en. No &atter how yo* loo( at it) it see&s to &e that<s alwayswhat it co&es down to.




M*$, Well) 6 guess 6"m as&ing about your heroes so that you"ll be a littlebit more specific about some of these 1opportunities.1 @or example) who do

you really admire when it comes to activism0

Well) &y heroes are -eo-le who were wor(ing with S.N.'.'. the St*4dent Non,iolent 'oordinating 'o&&ittee) a 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent orga4niGationO in the So*th4-eo-le who day after day faced ,ery harsh conditionsand s*ffered badly) so&e of the& were e,en (illed. They<ll ne,er enter intohistory) b*t 0 (new so&e of the&) 0 saw so&e of the&4they<re heroes. raftresisters d*ring the Dietna& War 0 thin( are heroes. Plenty of -eo-le in theThird World are heroes? if yo* e,er ha,e the chance to go to a -lace where

-eo-le are really str*ggling4li(e the West 2an() Nicarag*a) aos4there<s anawf*l lot of herois&) *st an awf*l lot of herois&. +&ong sort of &iddle4class organiGers) there are three or fo*r -eo-le 0 (now who wo*ld get the

Nobel Peace PriGe if it &eant anything) which of co*rse it doesn<t) in factit<s (ind of an ins*lt to get it4ta(e a loo( at who it goes to. 66 0f yo* loo(aro*nd) there are -eo-le li(e that? if yo* want heroes) yo* can find the&.

o*<re not going to find the& a&ong anybody whose na&e is &entioned inthe news-a-ers4if they<re there) yo* (now -robably they<re not heroes)they<re anti4heroes.

0 &ean) there are -lenty of -eo-le who when so&e -o-*lar &o,e&entgets going are willing to stand *- and say) A0<& yo*r leaderA4the E*geneMc'arthy -heno&enon. E*gene Mc'arthy a contender for the e&ocraticParty Presidential no&ination in 3;67O is a -erfect e1a&-le of it. 0 re4&e&ber John "enneth >albraith +&erican econo&istO once saying)AMc'arthy<s the real hero of the Dietna& War o--osition)A and +&ericanliberalis& always writes abo*t hi& as a great hero. 69 Well) if yo* ta(e aloo( at Mc'arthy<s history) yo* can *nderstand why. *ring the hard yearsof b*ilding *- the anti4war &o,e&ent) nobody e,er heard of E*geneMc'arthy. There were so&e -eo-le in 'ongress in,ol,ed in o--osing thewar) b*t it wasn<t Mc'arthyC in fact) it wasn<t e,en Mc>o,ern) if yo* wantto (now the tr*th4it was Wayne Morse) Ernest >r*ening) >aylord Nelson)&aybe a co*-le of others) b*t certainly not Mc'arthy. 0n fact) yo* ne,ere,en heard of E*gene Mc'arthy *ntil aro*nd the ti&e of the Tet !ffensi,e

in Jan*ary 3;67O. +ro*nd the ti&e of the Tet !ffensi,e) cor-orate +&ericat*rned against the war) there was a h*ge &ass -o-*lar &o,e&ent o*t there)and E*gene Mc'arthy fig*red that he co*ld get so&e -ersonal -ower o*t ofit) so he anno*nced hi&self as A o*r eader.A He didn<t really sayanything4if yo* loo( bac() yo* don<t e,en (now which side he was on) ifyo* read the words4b*t so&ehow he &anaged to -*t across the i&-ressionthat he was this big anti4war leader.

He won the New Ha&-shire -ri&ary in <67 and went to the e&ocratic National 'on,ention. +t the e&ocratic 'on,ention) lots and lots of yo*ng -eo-le showed *- to wor( on his ca&-aign4yo* (now) A'lean for >eneAand so on4and they got battered bloody by the 'hicago -olice in a -oliceriot with anti4war de&onstratorsO. Mc'arthy didn<t bat an eyelash)



he ca&e down to tal( to the&. He didn<t win at the 3;67 'on,ention) so hedisa--eared. He had a lot of -restige at that -oint4totally )4b*t he had a lot of

-restige as the self4elected s-o(es&an of the anti4war &o,e&ent) and if he<dcared e,en &arginally abo*t anything ring) he wo*ld ha,e *sed that*ndeser,ed stat*s to wor( against the war. 2*t he *it? the -ower ga&e waso,er) it was &ore f*n to write -oetry and tal( abo*t baseball) so that<s whathe did. +nd that<s why he<s a liberal hero44beca*se he<s a total fra*d. 0 &ean)yo* co*ldn<t ha,e a &ore clear e1a&-le of a total fra*d.

Those are the (ind of AheroesA that the c*lt*re is going to set *- foryo*44the (ind who show *- when there are -oints to be gotten and -ower to be gotten) and who try to e1-loit -o-*lar &o,e&ents for their own -er4sonal -ower4tri-s) and therefore &arginaliGe the -o-*lar &o,e&ents. Thenif things don<t wor( o*t for the&) they go on and do so&ething else? that<sa Ahero.A !r yo* (now) after yo* get shot) after yo*<re (illed) li(e Martin

*ther "ing) then yo* can beco&e a hero4b*t not while yo*<re ali,e. Re4&e&ber) des-ite all of the &ythology today) Martin *ther "ing wasstrongly o--osed while he was ali,e? the "ennedy ad&inistration really dis4li(ed hi&) they tried to bloc( hi& in e,ery -ossible way. 0 &ean) e,ent*allythe 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent beca&e -owerf*l eno*gh that they had to

pretend that they li(ed hi&) so there was sort of a -eriod of -o-*larity for"ing when he was seen to be foc*sing on e1tre&ely narrow iss*es) li(eracist sheriffs in the So*th and so on. 2*t as soon as he t*rned to broaderiss*es) whether it was the Dietna& War) or -lanning the Poor Peo-le<s 'a&4

-aign a 3;67 enca&-&ent and -rotest &arch on WashingtonO) or otherlings li(e that) he beca&e a total -ariah) and was acti,ely o--osed. 67

0. B. Stone is another case li(e that. 0. B. Stone is a great hero of the -ress444they all tal( abo*t) A2oy) if we only had &ore -eo-le li(e 0GGy StoneA andso on. 2*t if yo* ta(e a loo( at the act*al record) it<s (ind of re,ealingC 0 didit once. U- *ntil 3;93) 0GGy Stone was a total o*tcast) his na&e wasn<t e,en&entioned4and the reason is) he was -*blishing his radical news wee(ly ; .

E Stone"s Wee&ly<. There were a lot of o*rnalists ri--ing it off) b*t this g*ywas a 'o&&*nist) so yo* don<t e,er want to &ention hi&. Then in 3;93) heco*ldn<t contin*e -*tting o*t the Wee&lyany&ore beca*se he and his wifewere getting too old) so they sto--ed -*blishing it4and within a year he wonthe >eorge Pol( +ward) there were fil&s being &ade abo*t hi&) he was

being hailed e,erywhere as the great &a,eric( re-orter who -ro,ed what aterrific -ress we had) Aif only we had &ore -eo-le li(e hi&)A and so on.E,erybody *st -lays along with the farce) e,erybody -lays along.

'nti-Intellectualis,

W+M*$, $oam) 6"ve noticed that in general there"s a strong strain of anti8intellectualism in *merican society.




When yo* say there<s Aanti4intellect*alis&)A what e1actly does that&eanI oes it &ean -eo-le thin( Henry "issinger sho*ldn<t be allowed to

be National Sec*rity +d,isorI

W+M*$, Well) 6 feel there"s a sense in which you"re loo&ed down on if youdeal with ideas. 7i&e) 6"ll go bac& and tell the people 6 wor& with that 6

spent the whole wee&end listening to someone tal& about foreign policy)and they won"t loo& at that in a positive way.

eah) beca*se yo* sho*ld ha,e been o*t &a(ing &oney) or watchings-orts or so&ething. 2*t see) 0 don<t call that Aanti4intellect*al)A that<s *st

being de4-oliticiGed4what<s es-ecially Aintellect*alA abo*t being concernedwith the worldI 0f we had f*nctioning labor *nions) the wor(ing classwo*ld be concerned with the world. 0n fact) they are in &any -laces44Sal,adoran -easants are concerned with the world) they<re not Aintellec4t*als.A

These are f*nny words) act*ally. 0 &ean) the way it<s *sed) being an Ain4tellect*alA has ,irt*ally nothing to do with wor(ing with yo*r &ind? thoseare two different things. My s*s-icion is that -lenty of -eo-le in the crafts)a*to &echanics and so on) -robably do as &*ch or &ore intellect*al wor(as -lenty of -eo-le in *ni,ersities. There are big areas in acade&ia where

what<s called AscholarlyA wor( is *st clerical wor() and 0 don<t thin( cleri4cal wor(<s &ore challenging &entally than fi1ing an a*to&obile engine4infact) 0 thin( the o--osite? 0 can do clerical wor() 0 can ne,er fig*re o*t howto fi1 an a*to&obile engine.

So if by Aintellect*alA yo* &ean -eo-le who are *sing their &inds) thenit<s all o,er the society. 0f by Aintellect*alA yo* &ean -eo-le who are a s-e4cial class who are in the b*siness of i&-osing tho*ghts) and fra&ing ideasfor -eo-le in -ower) and telling e,eryone what they sho*ld belie,e) and soon) well) yeah) that<s different. Those -eo-le are called Aintellect*alsA4b*tthey<re really &ore a (ind of sec*lar -riesthood) whose tas( is to *-hold thedoctrinal tr*ths of the society. +nd the -o-*lation should be anti44intellect*al in that res-ect) 0 thin( that<s a healthy reaction.

0n fact) if yo* co&-are the United States with Brance4or with &ost of

E*ro-e) for that &atter40 thin( one of the healthy things abo*t the UnitedStates is -recisely this? there<s ,ery little res-ect for intellect*als as s*ch.+nd there sho*ldn<t be. What<s there to res-ectI 0 &ean) in Brance if yo*<re

-art of the intellect*al elite and yo* co*gh) there<s a front4-age story in 7e Monde. That<s one of the reasons why Brench intellect*al c*lt*re is so far4cical4it<s li(e Hollywood. o*<re in front of the tele,ision ca&eras all theti&e) and yo*<,e got to (ee- doing so&ething new so they<ll (ee- foc*singon yo* and not on the g*y at the ne1t table) and -eo-le don<t ha,e ideas thatare that good) so they ha,e to co&e *- with craGy st*ff) and the intel4lect*als get all -o&-o*s and self4i&-ortant. So 0 re&e&ber d*ring the Diet4na& War) there<d be these big international ca&-aigns to -rotest the war)



Chapter 'hree ?

and a n*&ber of ti&es 0 was as(ed to co4sign letters with) say) Jean4Pa*lSartre Brench -hiloso-herO. Well) we<d co4sign so&e state&ent) and inBrance it was front4-age newsC here) nobody e,en &entioned it. +nd theBrench tho*ght that was scandalo*sC 0 tho*ght it was terrific4why the hellsho*ld anybody &ention itI What difference does it &a(e if two g*ys whoha--en to ha,e so&e na&e recognition got together and signed a state4&entI Why sho*ld that be of any -artic*lar interest to anybodyI So 0 thin(the +&erican reaction is &*ch healthier in this res-ect.

W+M*$, (ut 6 want to point out that you"ve told us about a number ofboo&s this wee&end which support some of the contentions you"re ma&ing,

you would not &now a lot of these things if you hadn"t read that material.

That<s right4b*t yo* see) that<s a reflection of privilege) not a reflection ofintellect*al life. The fact is that if yo*<re at a *ni,ersity) yo*<re ,ery -ri,i4leged. Bor one thing) contrary to what a lot of -eo-le say) yo* don<t ha,e towor( all that hard. +nd yo* control yo*r own wor(40 &ean) &aybe yo*decide to wor( eighty ho*rs a wee() b*t you decide which eighty ho*rs.That &a(es a tre&endo*s difference? it<s one of the few do&ains where yo*control yo*r own wor(. +nd f*rther&ore) yo* ha,e a lot of reso*rces44yo*<,e got training) yo* (now how to *se a library) yo* see the ads for

boo(s so yo* (now which boo(s are -robably worth reading) yo* (nowthere are declassified doc*&ents beca*se yo* learned that in schoolso&ewhere) and yo* (now how to find the& beca*se yo* (now how to *sea reference library. +nd that collection of s(ills and -ri,ileges gi,es yo*access to a lot of infor&ation. 2*t it has nothing to do with beingAintellect*alA? there are -lenty of -eo-le in the *ni,ersities who ha,e all ofthis st*ff) and *se all of these things) and they do clerical wor(. Which is

-erfectly -ossible4yo* can get the declassified doc*&ents) and yo* canco-y the&) and co&-are the&) and then &a(e a notation abo*t so&efootnote referring to so&ething else. That<s in fact &ost of the scholarshi-in these fields4ta(e a loo( at the &onogra-hs so&eti&e) there<s not atho*ght in -eo-le<s heads. 0 thin( there<s less real intellect*al wor( going onin a lot of *ni,ersity de-art&ents than there is in trying to fig*re o*t what<s

the &atter with &y car) which re *ires so&e creati,ity.

W+M*$, +&ay) let"s accept that the auto mechanic is an intellectual8then 6 thin& on the other side) we also have to accept that those people whodeal with boo&s correctly) and aren"t the clerical wor&ers) are alsointellectuals.

Well) if by Aintellect*alA yo* *st want to refer to -eo-le who *se their&inds) yeah) o(ay. 2*t in that sense) 0 don<t thin( that -eo-le are anti4intellect*al. Bor e1a&-le) if yo* ta(e yo*r car to a really hot4shot &echanicwho<s the only g*y in yo*r town who can e,er fig*re o*t what<s wrong4the




g*ys in the car &an*fact*ring -lace can ne,er do it) b*t this g*y<s *st got areal feel for a*to&obilesC he loo(s at yo*r car) and starts ta(ing it a-art ...

W+M*$, She . ..

!r she) or whate,er4yo* don<t loo( down on that -erson. Nobody loo(sdown on that -erson. o* ad&ire the&.

W+M*$, (ut people do loo& down on people who read boo&s.

2*t loo() this g*y &ay ha,e read boo(s4&aybe he read the &an*al.Those &an*als are not so easy to readC in fact) they<re harder to read than&ost scholarly boo(s) 0 thin(.

2*t 0<& not trying to disagree) 0 *st thin( that we sho*ld loo( at thething a little differently. There<s intellect*al wor&)which -lenty of -eo-ledoC then there<s what<s called Aintellect*al life)1 which is a s-ecial craftwhich doesn<t -artic*larly re *ire tho*ght4in fact) yo*<re -robably better offif yo* don<t thin( too &*ch4and that"s what<s called being a res-ectedintellect*al. +nd -eo-le are right to loo( down on that) beca*se there<snothing ,ery s-ecial abo*t it. 0t<s *st a not ,ery interesting craft) not ,erywell done *s*ally.

0n &y own ,iew) it<s wrong if a society has these (inds of differentia4tions. My own early bac(gro*nd was in a (ind of Jewish wor(ing4class en4,iron&ent) where the -eo-le were not for&ally ed*cated and they werewor(ers4li(e so&ebody co*ld be a sho-4boy) or a sea&stress or so&ethingli(e that4b*t they were ,ery literate? 0 wo*ld call the& intellect*als. Theyweren<t Aintellect*alsA in the sense that -eo-le *s*ally tal( abo*t) b*t theywere ,ery well4read) they tho*ght abo*t things) they arg*ed abo*t things440don<t see any reason why that can<t be what yo* do when yo*<re a sea&4stress.

Spe-tator Sports

W+M*$, Could you tal& a bit more about the role that sports play inthe society in de8politici ing people8it seems to me it"s more significantthan people usually assume.

That<s an interesting one) act*ally40 don<t (now all that &*ch abo*t it -ersonally) b*t *st loo(ing at the -heno&enon fro& the o*tside) it<s ob,i4o*s that -rofessional s-orts) and non4-artici-ation s-orts generally) -layah*ge role. 0 &ean) there<s no do*bt they ta(e *- *st a tre&endo*s a&o*ntof attention.

0n fact) 0 ha,e the habit when 0<& dri,ing of t*rning on these radio call4in -rogra&s) and it<s stri(ing when yo* listen to the ones abo*t s-orts. They



Chapter 'hree

ha,e these gro*-s of s-orts re-orters) or so&e (ind of e1-erts on a -anel) and -eo-le call in and ha,e disc*ssions with the&. Birst of all) the a*dienceob,io*sly is de,oting an enor&o*s a&o*nt of ti&e to it all. 2*t the &orestri(ing fact is) the callers ha,e a tre&endo*s a&o*nt of e1-ertise) they ha,edetailed (nowledge of all (inds of things) they carryon these e1tre&ely co&-le1disc*ssions. +nd stri(ingly) they<re not at all in awe of the e1-erts4which is alittle *n*s*al. See) in &ost -arts of the society) yo*<re enco*raged to defer toe1-erts? we all do it &ore than we sho*ld. 2*t in this area) -eo-le don<t see& todo it4they<re *ite ha--y to ha,e an arg*&ent with the coach of the 2oston'eltics) and tell hi& what he sho*ld ha,e done) and enter into big debates withhi& and so on. So the fact is that in this do&ain) -eo-le so&ehow feel *iteconfident) and they (now a lot44there<s ob,io*sly a great deal of intelligencegoing into it.

+ct*ally) it re&inds &e in so&e ways of things that yo* find in non4literate or non4technological c*lt*res4what are called A-ri&iti,eA c*lt*res4where for e1a&-le) yo* get e1tre&ely elaborate (inshi- syste&s. So&eanthro-ologists belie,e these syste&s ha,e to do with incest taboos and soon) b*t that<s (ind of *nli(ely) beca*se they<re *st elaborated way beyondany f*nctional *tility. +nd when yo* loo( at the str*ct*re of the&) theysee& li(e a (ind of &athe&atics. 0t<s as tho*gh -eo-le want to wor( o*t&athe&atical -roble&s) and if they don<t ha,e calc*l*s and arith&etic) they

wor( the& o*t with other str*ct*res. +nd one of the str*ct*res e,erybodyhas is relationshi-s of (inshi-4so yo* wor( o*t yo*r elaborate str*ct*resaro*nd that) and yo* de,elo- e1-erts) and theories) and so on. !r anotherthing yo* so&eti&es find in non4literate c*lt*res is de,elo-&ents of the&ost e1traordinary ling*istic syste&s? often there<s tre&endo*s so-histica4tion abo*t lang*age) and -eo-le -lay all sorts of ga&es with lang*age. Sothere are -*berty rites where -eo-le who go thro*gh the sa&e initiation -e4riod de,elo- their own lang*age that<s *s*ally so&e &odification of the ac4t*al lang*age) b*t with *ite co&-le1 &ental o-erations differentiating it4then that<s theirs for the rest of their li,es) and not other -eo-le<s. +nd whatall these things loo( li(e is that -eo-le *st want to *se their intelligenceso&ehow) and if yo* don<t ha,e a lot of technology and so on) yo* do otherthings.

Well) in o*r society) we ha,e things that yo* &ight *se yo*r intelligence Qon) li(e -olitics) b*t -eo-le really can<t get in,ol,ed in the& in a ,ery serio*sway44so what they do is they -*t their &inds into other things) s*ch as s-orts.

o*<re trained to be obedientC yo* don<t ha,e an interesting obC there<s no wor(aro*nd for yo* that<s creati,eC in the c*lt*ral en,iron&ent yo*<re a -assi,eobser,er of *s*ally -retty tawdry st*ffC -olitical and social life are o*t of yo*rrange) they<re in the hands of the rich fol(. So what<s leftI Well) one thing that<sleft is s-orts44so yo* -*t a lot of the intelligence and the tho*ght and the self4confidence into that. +nd 0 s*--ose that<s also one of the basic f*nctions itser,es in the society in general? it occ*-ies the -o-*lation) and (ee-s the& fro&trying to get in,ol,ed with things that re4




ally &atter. 0n fact) 0 -res*&e that<s -art of the reason why s-ectator s-ortsare s*--orted to the degree they are by the do&inant instit*tions.

+nd s-ectator s-orts also ha,e other *sef*l f*nctions too. Bor one thing)they<re a great way to b*ild *- cha*,inis&4yo* start by de,elo-ing thesetotally irrational loyalties early in life) and they translate ,ery nicely toother areas. 0 &ean) 0 re&e&ber ,ery well in high school ha,ing a s*dden(ind of Erlebnis) yo* (now) a s*dden insight) and as(ing &yself) why do 0care if &y high school football tea& winsI 0 don<t (now anybody on thetea&. They don<t (now &e. 0 wo*ldn<t (now what to say to the& if 0 &etthe&. Why do 0 careI Why do 0 get all e1cited if the football tea& wins andall downcast if it losesI +nd it<s tr*e) yo* do? yo*<re ta*ght fro& childhoodthat yo*<,e got to worry abo*t the Philadel-hia Phillies) where 0 was. 0nfact) there<s a--arently a -sychological -heno&enon of lac( of self4confidence or so&ething which affected boys of a--ro1i&ately &y age whogrew *- in Philadel-hia) beca*se e,ery s-orts tea& was always in last

-lace) and it<s (ind of a blow to yo*r ego when that ha--ens) -eo-le arealways lording it o,er yo*.

2*t the -oint is) this sense of irrational loyalty to so&e sort of &eaning4less co&&*nity is training for s*bordination to -ower) and for cha*,inis&.+nd of co*rse) yo*<re loo(ing at gladiators) yo*<re loo(ing at g*ys who cando things yo* co*ldn<t -ossibly do4li(e) yo* co*ldn<t -ole4,a*lt se,enteenfeet) or do all these craGy things these -eo-le do. 2*t it<s a &odel that yo*<res*--osed to try to e&*late. +nd they<re gladiators fighting for yo*r ca*se)so yo*<,e got to cheer the& on) and yo*<,e got to be ha--y when the o-4

-osing *arterbac( gets carted off the field a total wrec( and so on. +ll ofthis st*ff b*ilds *- e1tre&ely anti4social as-ects of h*&an -sychology. 0&ean) they<re thereC there<s no do*bt that they<re there. 2*t they<re e&-ha4siGed) and e1aggerated) and bro*ght o*t by s-ectator s-orts? irrationalco&-etition) irrational loyalty to -ower syste&s) -assi,e ac *iescence to

*ite awf*l ,al*es) really. 0n fact) it<s hard to i&agine anything that con4trib*tes &ore f*nda&entally to a*thoritarian attit*des than this does) inaddition to the fact that it *st engages a lot of intelligence and (ee-s -eo-leaway fro& other things.

So if yo* loo( at the whole -heno&enon) it see&s to &e that it -lays*ite a s*bstantial social role. 0 don<t thin( it<s the only thing that has this

(ind of effect. Soa- o-eras) for e1a&-le) do it in another do&ain4they teach -eo-le other (inds of -assi,ity and abs*rdity. +s a &atter of fact) if yo*really want to do a serio*s &edia criti *e right across the board) these arethe ty-es of things which occ*-y &ost of the &edia) after all4&ost of it isn<tsha-ing the news abo*t El Sal,ador for -olitically artic*late -eo-le) it<sdi,erting the general -o-*lation fro& things that really &atter. So this isone res-ect in which the wor( that Ed Her&an and 0 ha,e done on the&edia is really defecti,e4we don<t tal( abo*t it &*ch. 2*t this st*ff is a&a or -art of the whole indoctrination and -ro-aganda syste&) and it<sworth e1a&ining &ore closely. There are -eo-le who<,e written abo*t it)



Chapter 'hree5

Neil Post&an and others40 *st don<t feel eno*gh ac *aintance with it to say&ore. 6;

Western E*ro-ean +cti,is& and Canada

M*$, #rofessor Choms&y) 6"m wondering whether there are any lessonsabout activism that you thin& we should learn from Western Europe8they

seem to be very far ahead of us in terms of political organi ing and strategies.

No) 0 don<t agree4we<re always loo(ing for a sa,ior so&ewhere) and thereisn<t any. 0 &ean) there are a lot of things that ha,e de,elo-ed in the UnitedStates which ha,e not de,elo-ed in Western E*ro-e) and the -o-*lar&o,e&ents here are &*ch healthier in &any res-ects than the E*ro-eanones4theirs are ,ery ideology4ridden? they<,e got Ate1ts)A and Atheories)Aand all (inds of st*ff that we don<t ha,e) which we<re l*c(y we don<t ha,e.There<s really been a lot of ,ery s*ccessf*l organiGing here o,er the years.

M*$, (ut there are mass demonstrations there.

eah) b*t we<,e had &ass de&onstrations too4we *st had one inWashington a co*-le days ago in s*--ort of abortion rightsO. We (nowhow to do that st*ffC it<s not ,ery hard. 0 &ean) there are no big secretsabo*t any of this? there are ,ery few lessons to trans&it) so far as 0 (now.

oo() -eo-le ha,e been in,ol,ed in ,ery s*ccessf*l organiGing in theUnited States? the 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent) the anti4war &o,e&ent) theecological &o,e&ent) the fe&inist &o,e&ent) all of these things ha,e been,ery s*ccessf*l de,elo-&ents.

M*$, What about all the West European social8welfare policies) though0

0t<s tr*e) they ha,e a lot of social4welfare -rogra&s we don<t ha,e4b*tthat<s tr*e of 'anada too) yo* don<t e,en ha,e to go all the way to E*ro-e.Bor instance) they ha,e a f*nctioning -*blic health ins*rance -rogra& in'anada) which we don<t ha,e here in the United States. 2*t see) that has todo with the e1tre&e -ower of -ri,ate ca-ital here) and with the fact that theca-italist class in the United States is e1traordinarily class4conscio*s) whilethe wor(ing class is ,ery diff*se and wea(. So the res*lt is) we don<t ha,e alot of things that by now are -retty &*ch ta(en for granted in e,ery otherind*strial co*ntry? we ha,e &ore ho&eless and less health.

Now) yo* can loo( at the s-ecific historical -artic*larities in the UnitedStates that ha,e &ade it that way4and that<s worth doing4b*t really it<s not a

big secret how to go abo*t getting those (inds of -rogra&s. +nd if




yo* want to *nderstand what a reasonably rational national health care -rogra& wo*ld loo( li(e) yo* don<t ha,e to go ,ery far. There<s a goodstart) at least) right across the border.

M*$, Why does Canada have programs li&e that) though0

Well) there yo* ha,e to loo( at the history? yo* ha,e to as() how has thehistory of 'anada been different fro& the history of the United StatesI +ndthere ha,e been a lot of differences. Bor instance) one difference had to dowith the +&erican Re,ol*tion4in the +&erican Re,ol*tion) a large n*&berof -eo-le fled to 'anada) lots in fact. +nd a lot of the& fled beca*se theydidn<t li(e the doctrinaire) (ind of fanatic en,iron&ent that too( holdin the colonies. The -ercentage of colonists who fled in the +&erican

Re,ol*tion was act*ally abo*t 8 -ercent) it was -robably higher than the -er4centage of Dietna&ese who fled Dietna& after the Dietna& War. +ndre&e&ber) they were fleeing fro& one of the richest -laces in the world4these were boat4-eo-le who fled in terror fro& 2oston Harbor in the &iddleof winter to No,a Scotia) where they died in the snow trying to get awayfro& all of these craGies here. The n*&bers are s*--osed to ha,e been inthe neighborhood of &aybe a h*ndred tho*sand o*t of a total -o-*lation ofabo*t two and a half &illion4so it was a s*bstantial -art of the -o-*lation.+nd a&ong the& were -eo-le fro& gro*-s who (new they were going toget it in the nec( if the colonists won4blac(s and Nati,e +&ericans) fore1a&-le. 9% +nd they were right? in the case of the Nati,e +&ericans) it wasgenocideC in the case of blac(s) it was sla,ery.

+nd act*ally) that wasn<t the only big &igration to 'anada which con4trib*ted to so&e of the differences4there was also another &a or one aro*ndthe t*rn of the cent*ry) co&ing o*t of the +&erican Midwest after thePo-*list &o,e&ent colla-sed the Po-*lists were a -olitical &o,e&ent thatfor&ed o*t of agrarian -rotest in the 377%s and bro(e a-art after 37;6O. ThePo-*lists were the last gas- of large4scale -o-*lar de&ocratic -olitics in theUnited States) and they were &ainly centered in the Midwest4radical"ansas far&ers and that sort of thing. +nd when they were finally defeated

and the Po-*list Party dissol,ed) a lot of the& *st left. 0 don<t (now then*&bers in this case) b*t a fair n*&ber of the& went to 'anada) and in factthey beca&e -art of the basis for the 'anadian social4de&ocratic &o,e&entwhich de,elo-ed after that) and was res-onsible for -*shing thro*gh a lot ofthe social4welfare -rogra&s in 'anada. 93

+-art fro& that) there are a lot of other things that ha,e &ade 'anadadifferent. Bor instance) the United States has always been a &*ch &ore ad4,anced ca-italist co*ntry) by far44cor-orations in the &odern sense were an+&erican in,ention) and e,er since the beginning of the ind*strial re,o4l*tion) cor-orate +&erica has always been &*ch &ore -owerf*l than its'anadian co*nter-art. This was a &*ch richer co*ntryC we (e-t trying toin,ade 'anadaC 'anada<s &*ch &ore s-arsely settled and &*ch less -o-*4



Chapter 'hree53

lo*s than the United StatesC it was -art of the 2ritish E&-ireC they ha,e theBrench4English s-lit) with F*ebec thereC and so on. So there are a lot ofhistorical and other differences between the two of the&) and 0 thin( it<s agood *estion to loo( into in &ore detail. 2*t the fact is) there are ad,an4tages and disad,antages to the two co*ntries. + lot of things ha,e been wonin the United States that are good) and are a &odel for other -laces4and asfar as organiGing is concerned) it<s the (ind of thing yo* can do relati,elyfreely here) free of the fear of ,ery &*ch direct state re-ression. So thereare things yo* can learn e,erywhere? yo* can learn things fro& Nicarag*a)yo* can learn things fro& Dietna&) yo* can learn things fro& WesternE*ro-e) and yo* can learn things fro& 'anada. 2*t if yo* want to goso&ewhere for sal,ation) yo*<re not going to find it.

ispelling Ill"sions

W+M*$, $oam) in general) how would you say ordinary people should go about trying to dispel their illusions about the world8what"s the best wayto start0

Well) yo* don<t sit in yo*r roo& so&ewhere and dis-el ill*sions4,eryfew -eo-le are ca-able of doing that. 0 &ean) so&e -eo-le are ca-able ofdoing it) b*t &ost aren<t. Us*ally yo* find o*t what yo* thin( by interactionwith -eo-le) otherwise yo* don<t (now what yo* thin(4yo* *st hearso&ething) and &aybe yo* acce-t it) or yo* don<t -ay any attention to it) orso&ething li(e that. o* learn abo*t things beca*se yo*<re interested in theto-ic) and when it<s the social world) yo*r interest in it often in,ol,es oughtto in,ol,e) at least4trying to change it) it<s in that conte1t that yo* learn.+nd yo* learn by trying o*t ideas) and hearing reactions to the&) andhearing what other -eo-le ha,e to say abo*t the to-ic) and for&*lating

-rogra&s) and trying to -*rs*e the&) and seeing where they brea( down)and getting so&e e1-erience) and so on and so forth.

So dis-elling the ill*sions is *st a -art of organiGing and acting. 0t<s notso&ething that yo* do in a se&inar) or in yo*r li,ing roo&4not that yo*can"t do it there) b*t it<s *st a different (ind of acti,ity. i(e) if yo* ha,eso&e ill*sions abo*t classical >reece) let<s say) then yo* can -robably do itin the library) to so&e e1tent at least. 2*t if yo*<re trying to dis-el ill*sionsabo*t a li,e) ongoing social -rocess that<s changing all the ti&e) and thatyo* only get to see little -ieces of4that<s really not the way to do it. o* doit thro*gh interactions with other -eo-le) and by f*nctioning in so&e (indof co&&*nity of concern) and of co&&it&ent) and of acti,is&.

M*$, 6f 6 were to hold a meeting in my community and invite someone to spea& about the &inds of things we"ve been discussing this wee&end) though) 6"d probably get a very small turnout.



Chapter 'hree 5=

+nd also) don<t forget) a lot of the destr*ction that yo* see in the worldha--ens beca*se -eo-le are constantly organiGing) and ad,ancing) and

-rogressing) and ta(ing things o,er) and str*ggling against their o--ression.0 &ean) the fact that all of these atrocities ha,e been going on in 'entral+&erica in the 3;7%s is a sign of progress) yo* (now. U- *ntil aro*nd the

late 3;9%s) nobody here e,en co&&ented on 'entral +&erica. WhyI2eca*se it was all *nder control) it was pure atrocities) nobody was fighting

bac(4so therefore no one here e,en -aid attention to it. 0t only beca&e aniss*e in the 3;7%s beca*se there was a great deal of ,ery s*ccessf*l organiG4ing there? they did o,erthrow the So&oGa regi&e in Nicarag*a) there wereh*ge -easant *nions being for&ed for the first ti&e in El Sal,ador and >*a4te&ala) there was *st a lot of e1tre&ely effecti,e organiGing ta(ing -lace.So then the death s *ads ca&e) and the U.S. trainers ca&e) and -eo-le li(eyo* and &e had to -ay o*r ta1es to ha,e those -eo-le &*rdered. 2*t theystill ha,e not yet eradicated it. es-ite all the terror in >*ate&ala4yo* co*lde,en call it so&ething li(e genocide4the wor(ing4class *nions arereconstit*ting) they<re still there. +nd cr*cially) in the 3;7%s that acti,is&ind*ced a solidarity &o,e&ent in the United States which has interacted

,ery constr*cti,ely with the -eo-le there? that<s an e1tre&ely i&-ortantchange) a dra&atic change. So when we tal( abo*t what go,ern&ents are *-to) of co*rse e,erything loo(s blea(. 2*t loo( aro*nd4there are all (inds ofother things ha--ening) and that<s what you do.

8



Collo#"y

(ased primarily on discussions at @ort Collins)

Colorado) *pril 3 %) 5.

The Totalitarian Strain

M*$, 'here"s been a plethora of boo&s recently by dissidents criti:uing themedia8yours and Ed /erman"s) and (en (agdi&ian"s) Michael #arenti"s)

Mar& /ertsgaard"s8but as 6 heard *lexander Coc&burn say a couple daysago) 16t"s still one nation under 'imeIWarner1, there"s all of this literaturethat"s available) but there really hasn"t been much of a dent in the

structure.B

Where wo*ld there be a dentI S*--ose yo* had a tho*sand boo(s? wo*ldthat change the fact that Ti&e and Warner 'o&&*nications can for& aconglo&erateI +ll of this literat*re is not tied *- with any for&44 any for&) 0&ean) not fi,e -eo-le4of social organiGation that is trying to *nder&ine thecor-orate str*ct*re of the &edia. This wor( all is *st an effort to ed*cate

-eo-le so they<re better able to -rotect the&sel,es fro& the -ro-agandasyste&. +nd there 0 thin( there has been an effect? a lot of -eo-le areatt*ned to -ro-aganda in a way they weren<t before. 2*t none of this can beconcei,ed of as an atte&-t to change the cor-orate str*ct*re directly4thereisn<t e,en a proposal abo*t that in anyone of these boo(s. Ta(e 2en2agdi(ian<s boo() or the first cha-ter of Ed<s and &y boo(? they don<ts*ggest how we &ight change cor-orate ca-italis&) that<s a co&-letelydifferent to-ic. They *st say) as long as yo* ha,e cor-orate ca-italis&)here<s what the &edia are going to loo( li(e.

W+M*$, *re you going to do an article on what happened in Central *merica recently8the $icaraguan elections ;of 5) in which the Sandin8ista #arty lost to the 2.S.8supported candidate) Fioleta Chamorro<0

0 a&4not on the elections the&sel,es) on the 2.S. reaction to the elec4tions. $ Nicarag*a<s for them to write abo*t) 0 write abo*t the United States.

5>



Chapter @our 5?

2*t the reaction of the &edia here was -retty astonishing. The &ost re4&ar(able feat*re was the *nani&ity. 0 &ean) there was an absol*tely *nani4&o*s reaction across the entire &ainstrea& s-ectr*&) fro& +nthony ewisand Mary Mc>rory o,er to >eorge Will and whate,er other right4wing l*4natic there is. 0n fact) abo*t the only difference between the so4calledAliberalsA and Aconser,ati,esA was that the liberals -ointed to the fact thatthe Nicarag*an -eo-le essentially ,oted with a g*n to their heads and thensaid) AThe election was free and fair) *ncoerced) a &iracle of de&ocracy)A

whereas the conser,ati,es didn<t bother saying the -eo-le ,oted with a g*nto their heads) they *st said it was a &iracle of de&ocracy. : So&e of it was co&ical. Bor instance) the $ew %or& 'imes had a col*&n

by a,id Shi-ler) a liberal o*rnalist) which said) yeah) the e&bargo<s(illing the&) the contras are (illing the&) they (now we<re going tocontin*e the e&bargo *nless they ,ote for o*r candidate. Headline?ADictory Bor U.S. Bair Play.A 8 The (oston Dlobe) which is a ,ery liberalnews-a-er4it<s the o*ter li&it in the &ainstrea&4had a headline? ARallyingto 'ha&orro.A The the&e was) o(ay) now all the -eo-le who lo,e

Nicarag*ans) li(e we<,e all done all these years) &*st rally to 'ha&orro. 5

Well) say it was 3;68) after >oldwater lost the Presidential race here two toone44can yo* i&agine anybody saying) A!(ay) now e,ery >oldwater ,oter&*st <rally to Johnson< AI That<s straight o*t of Stalinist R*ssia. o* don<t

Arally to the leaderA in a de&ocracy4yo* do whate,er yo* feel li(e doing.2*t the idea that yo*<,e got to rally behind der @uhrer is *ite acce-table inthe +&erican liberal

-ress. .0n fact) it<s interesting that the &edia the&sel,es e,en recogniGed the

*nani&ity. So for e1a&-le) the $ew %or& 'imes had an article by Elaine .Sciolino s*r,eying the U.S. reaction) and the headline was) A+&ericansUnited in Joy) 2*t i,ided !,er Policy.A 6 +nd the di,ision o,er -olicyt*rns o*t to be the *estion? who gets credit for ha,ing achie,ed this &ag4nificent res*ltI See) that<s where yo* get a liberal conser,ati,e s-lit? Adid 0

the contras hel- or h*rtIA 0s it better to do it the way it<s done in El Sal4,ador44lea,e wo&en hanging fro& trees with their s(in flayed off and

bleeding to death) lea,e tho*sands of cor-ses beheaded by the roadside sothat e,erybody else will get the -oint4or sho*ld yo* do what Senator +lan'ranston s*ggested in 3;76) to -ic( a do,e? let the& Afester in their own

*ices)A thro*gh econo&ic strang*lation and other &eansI 9 Well) the factis) the right wing wins on that one? the contras ob,io*sly hel-ed. 2*t theidea that e,eryone was AUnited in JoyA o,er the res*lt) that was considered

-erfectly legiti&ate. 0n other words) we<re straight totalitarians? e,eryone is*nited) we all &arch on co&&and) there isn<t one word of dissidence toler4ated. Phrases li(e AUnited in JoyA are the (inds of things yo* &ight see inthe North "orean -ress) &aybe. 2*t it<s interesting) +&erican elites pridethe&sel,es on being dedicated totalitarians) they thin( that<s the way weought to be44we ought to be the worst totalitarian c*lt*re in the world) in whiche,eryone agrees.




oo() anyone can see) a ten4year4old co*ld see) that an election carriedo*t *nder conditions where a &onstro*s s*-er-ower is saying) ADote foro*r candidate or star,e to death)A is ob,io*sly not free. 0 &ean) if so&e*ni&aginable s*-er-ower were to threaten *s) saying) AWe<re going to re4d*ce yo* to the le,el of Ethio-ia *nless yo* ,ote for o*r candidate)A andthen -eo-le here ,oted for their candidate) yo*<d ha,e to be so&e (ind ofcraGy NaGi or so&ething to say that it was a free election. 2*t in the UnitedStates) everyone says it4we<re all AUnited in Joy.A That<s an interesting factabo*t the United States) act*ally4what it shows is how dee-ly totalitarianthe c*lt*re really is. 0n fact) it wo*ld be ,ery hard to &i&ic this e,en in awell4r*n totalitarian state) b*t here it -asses witho*t anybody e,en noticingit) beca*se it<s all so dee-ly ingrained. 0n any co*ntry that had e,en a mem8ory of what de&ocracy &eans) if yo* saw that e,eryone was AUnited inJoy)A the article wo*ld say) AThere<s so&ething really wrong with thisco*ntry.A Nobody can be AUnited in JoyA o,er anything. Pic( the to-ic) it

*st can<t be that -eo-le are AUnited in JoyA abo*t it4*nless it<s +lbania)then yeah) s*re) yo*<,e got the g*ns -ointed at yo*) yo*<re AUnited in Joy.A2*t in the United States) nobody e,en sees that there<s anything odd abo*tit.

W+M*$, 'here was a brea&through) though8the Wall Street Jo*rnal on its front page ran an article written by a man from The Nation ;a left8leaningmaga ine < saying that we ought to be ashamed of what happened in

$icaragua.

That wasn<t on the front -age) that was on the !-4Ed -age4and that was+le1 'oc(b*rn) who<s the Wall Street ournal"s once4a4&onth gest*re toAso&e other ,oice.A S*re) 0 &ean) when 0 say the *nity was a h*ndred

-ercent) 0 (now of -recisely two e1ce-tions in the &ainstrea& -ress in theUnited States. !b,io*sly 0 ha,en<t read everything in the &ainstrea& -ress)

b*t 0<,e loo(ed at *ite a lot) and 0<,e been in to*ch with -eo-le all aro*ndthe co*ntry who<,e been loo(ing) and 0 fo*nd only two e1ce-tions? one was+le1 'oc(b*rn in the Wall Street ournal) and the other was an editor 0(now at the (oston Dlobe) Randol-h Ryan) who &anaged to -*t so&ethingabo*t this in an editorial. 7 So the two of the& were able to say what anyeight4year4old wo*ld see right off4and as far as 0 (now) that<s it for the+&erican -ress.

+s a &atter of fact) it was the sa&e in the co,erage before the elections.0) and -robably yo*) and a lot of other -eo-le were following the &edia,ery closely *st to see if there wo*ld be one phrase) *st a -hrase)anywhere in the &ainstrea& &edia) that said that a Sandinista Party ,ictory&ight be the best thing for Nicarag*a40 ha,en<t fo*nd a -hrase. 0 &ean)e,en o*rnalists who believe it co*ldn<t say it. Now) ob,io*sly the iss*e iscontentio*s4it was contentio*s in Nicarag*a4b*t here it<s not) here yo* ha,eto ha,e 3%% -ercent *nani&ity.



Chapter @our 5

B*rther&ore) it was also ass*&ed a*to&atically) across the board) that'ha&orro was the de&ocratic candidate4and nobody e,er ga,e yo* areason why she was the de&ocratic candidate. 0 &ean) what are her de&o4cratic credentialsI That<s not anything yo* e,en ha,e to arg*e in the UnitedStates? Washington says she<s the de&ocratic candidate) and +&erican

b*siness says she<s the de&ocratic candidate) so that settles it4for +&ericanintellect*als) there are no f*rther *estions to as(. +nd the interesting thingis) again) nobody e,en sees that there<s anything odd abo*t this. i(e)nobody writes an !-4Ed saying) A0sn<t it strangeI J*st beca*se Washingtonand the b*siness co&&*nity tell *s she<s the de&ocratic candidate) doesthat &ean that we ha,e to re-eat it and not loo( for so&e reason) find o*twhat her de&ocratic credentials areIA 0t wo*ldn<t occ*r to anybody? the in4tellect*al co&&*nity in the United States is so disci-lined they si&-lydon<t as( those *estions.

+ 5ith"ania 9ypotheti-al

M*$, -r. Choms&y) 6 Aust want to as& a :uestion on this topic, -aniel +r8tega ;$icaraguan #resident) Sandinista #arty< was in power for how long)a decade0

es.

M*$, *nd yet he lost the election.

Why A+nd yetAI

M*$, Well) he had control of that country for ten years.

What does it &ean) AHe had control of itAI

M*$, /e controlled the press.

He did not. 0n fact) Nicarag*a is the only co*ntry 0 (now of in historythat allowed a &a or o--osition -ress ;7a #rensa< to o-erate while it was

being attac(ed4a -ress which was calling for the o,erthrow of the go,ern4&ent by ,iolence) which was identifying with the foreign4r*n &ercenaryar&y attac(ing the co*ntry) and which was f*nded) -artly o-enly and -artlyco,ertly Ktho*gh e,erybody (newL) by the foreign -ower attac(ing theco*ntry i.e. the U.S.O. That<s ne,er ha--ened before in history4the UnitedStates wo*ld ne,er tolerate anything li(e that for one second. B*rther&ore)and *ite a-art fro& that) large -arts of Nicarag*a were flooded) and in factdo&inated) by U.S. -ro-aganda. Re&e&ber) there are large areas of

Nicarag*a where what -eo-le (now is what they hear o,er the



. 2nderstanding #ower

radio) and the United States ran &a or radio and tele,ision stations in Hon4d*ras and 'osta Rica which do&inated the infor&ation flow in large sec4tors of the Nicarag*an co*ntryside. ;

0n fact) the le,el of freedo& of the -ress in Nicarag*a in the last tenyears *st bro(e new libertarian standards? there<s ne,er been anything e,enre&otely co&-arable to it in history. Try to find a case.

M*$, (ut given ten years in power) it seemed rather remar&able that +r8tega wasn"t able to hold on to that mandate.

ReallyI Well let &e as( yo* how re&ar(able it is. S*--ose the So,ietUnion were to -lay the ga&e the way we do. ith*ania *st declared inde4

-endence) right in March 3;;%OI et<s s*--ose that the So,iet Union wereca-able of doing what we did in Nicarag*a. So? it wo*ld organiGe a terror4ist ar&y to attac( ith*aniaC it wo*ld train it to attac( Asoft targets)A ci,il4ian targetsC it wo*ld try to (ill large n*&bers of health wor(ers) teachers)far&ers) and so on. 0! Meanwhile) it wo*ld i&-ose an e&bargo4s*--ose itwere able to do this4and bloc( trade) bloc( e1-ort and i&-ort) it wo*ld

-ress*re international instit*tions to sto- -ro,iding any assistance. 33 !fco*rse) to &a(e the analogy acc*rate) we<d ha,e to ass*&e that ith*ania

begins at a le,el &*ch lower than what it act*ally is.!(ay) now s*--ose that after ten years of this) ith*ania has been re4

d*ced to the le,el of Ethio-ia) alrightI +nd s*--ose that then there<s anelection) and Moscow says? A oo() we<re going to contin*e this) all of it)*nless yo* ,ote for the 'o&&*nist Party.A +nd now s*--ose that the

ith*anians do ,ote for the 'o&&*nist Party. Wo*ld yo* find that re&ar(4ableI

M*$, 6 don"t thin& $icaragua was reduced to the level of Ethiopia.

!h yeah) they were. They were red*ced to the le,el of4well) &aybeHaiti. 3$ 2*t *st answer &y *estion? wo*ld yo* find that re&ar(ableI

M*$, 2nder those circumstances) 6 guess 6 wouldn"t.

!(ay) b*t then why do yo* find it re&ar(able when it ha--ened in Nicarag*aI

M*$, Well) 6 don"t have access to all the facts you do.

o* ha,e e,ery fact 0 told yo*4e,ery fact 0 told yo*) yo* (new. E,eryfact 0 told yo* yo* can find on the front -ages of the $ew %or& 'imes. 0t<s

*st that when yo* hear the White Ho*se anno*nce) AWe<re going to con4tin*e with the e&bargo *nless 'ha&orro wins)A yo* ha,e to be able tothin( eno*gh so yo* concl*de) well) these -eo-le are ,oting with a g*n to



# 2nderstanding #ower

rate) in fact. !ne of the reasons why the res*lts are si&ilar) he said) is be4ca*se the -ress is owned by wealthy &en who ha,e strong interests in notha,ing certain things said. The other) which he said is e *ally -ertinent) isthat if yo*<re a well4ed*cated -erson in England4yo* went to the right -re-schools) then to !1ford) and now yo*<re a bigshot so&ewhere4yo* ha,esi&-ly learned that there are certain things that it is not -ro-er to say. 38

+nd that<s a large -art of ed*cation) in fact? *st internaliGing the *nder4standing that there are certain things it is not -ro-er to say) and it is not

-ro-er to thin(. +nd if yo* don<t learn that) ty-ically yo*<ll be weeded o*tof the instit*tions so&ewhere along the line. Well) those two factors are,ery i&-ortant ones) and there are others) b*t they go a long way towardse1-laining the *nifor&ity of ideology in the intellect*al c*lt*re here. 35

Now) of co*rse) it<s not a h*ndred -ercent4so yo*<ll get a few -eo-le fil4tering thro*gh who will do things differently. i(e 0 say) in this AUnited inJoyA b*siness) 0 was able to find two -eo-le in the United States who werenot AUnited in Joy)A and were able to say so in the &ainstrea& -ress. 2*t ifthe syste& is really wor(ing well) it<s not going to do things which *nder4&ine itself. 0n fact) it<s a bit li(e as(ing) AHow co&e #ravda *nder Stalindidn<t ha,e o*rnalists deno*ncing the >*lags So,iet -enal labor ca&-sOIAWhy notI Well) it wo*ld ha,e been dysf*nctional to the syste&. 0 s*s-ectit<s not that the o*rnalists in #ravda were lying86 &ean) that was a different

syste&) they *sed the threat of force to silence dissidents) which we don<t*se &*ch here. 2*t e,en in the So,iet Union) chances are ,ery strong thatif yo* act*ally bothered to loo() yo*<d find that &ost of the o*rnalistsact*ally belie,ed the things they wrote. +nd that<s beca*se -eo-le whodidn"t belie,e that (ind of thing wo*ld ne,er ha,e &ade it onto #ravda inthe first -lace. 0t<s ,ery hard to li,e with cogniti,e dissonance? only a realcynic can belie,e one thing and say another. So whether it<s a totalitariansyste& or a free syste&) the -eo-le who are &ost *sef*l to the syste& of

-ower are the ones who act*ally belie,e what they say) and they<re the oneswho will ty-ically &a(e it thro*gh.

So ta(e To& Wic(er at the $ew %or& 'imes, when yo* tal( to hi& abo*tthis (ind of st*ff) he gets ,ery irate and says) ANobody tells me what towrite.A +nd that<s -erfectly tr*e) nobody tells him what to write4b*t if he

didn<t already &nowwhat to write) he wo*ldn<t be a col*&nist for the $ew%or& 'imes. i(e) nobody tells +le1 'oc(b*rn what to write) and thereforehe<snot a col*&nist for the $ew %or& 'imes) beca*se he thin(s differentthings. o* thin( the wrong tho*ghts) yo*<re not in the syste&.

Now) it<s interesting that the Wall Street ournal allows this oneo-ening) +le1 'oc(b*rn. 0 &ean) the o-ening is so &in*sc*le that it<s note,en worth disc*ssing4b*t it so ha--ens that once a &onth) there is one&ainstrea& o*rnal in the United States which allows a real dissident towrite a free and o-en col*&n. So that &eans) li(e) .%%%3 -ercent of theco,erage is free and inde-endent. +nd it<s in the Wall Street ournal) whichdoesn<t care? for



Chapter @our 3

their a*dience the $ew %or& 'imes is 'o&&*nist) so here<s a g*y who<se,en &ore 'o&&*nist.

+nd the res*lt of all of this is that it<s a ,ery effecti,e syste& of ideologi4cal control4&*ch &ore effecti,e than So,iet totalitarianis& e,er was. 0nfact) if yo* loo( at the entire range of &edia in the So,iet Union that -eo-lewere act*ally e1-osed to) they had &*ch &ore dissidence in the 3;7%s thanwe do) o,ertly) and -eo-le were in fact reading a &*ch broader range of

-ress) listening to foreign broadcasts) and so on4which is -retty &*ch *n4heard of in the U.S. 36 !r *st to gi,e one other e1a&-le) d*ring the So,ietin,asion of +fghanistan) there was e,en a newscaster Dladi&ir anche,Owho &ade broadcasts o,er Moscow radio for fi,e s*ccessi,e nights bac( in3;7:) deno*ncing the R*ssian in,asion of +fghanistan4he act*ally called itan Ain,asionA4and calling on the +fghans to resist) before he was finallyta(en off the air. 39 That<s unimaginable in the United States. 0 &ean) canyo* i&agine an Rather or anybody else getting on the radio and deno*nc4ing the U.S. Ain,asionA of So*th Dietna&) and calling on the Dietna&ese toresistI That<s inconcei,able. The United States co*ldn<t have that a&o*nt ofintellect*al freedo&.

M*$, Well) 6 don"t &now if that"s 1intellectual freedom)1 for a Aournalist to say that.

S*re it is. 0t<s intellect*al freedo& when a o*rnalist can *nderstand that$ $ 8C that<s what !rwell was writing abo*t in 3;78. E,erybody herea--la*ds that boo() b*t nobody is willing to thin( abo*t what it &eans.What Winston S&ith the &ain characterO was saying is) if we can still *n4derstand that $ $ 8) they ha,en<t ta(en e,erything away. !(ayI Well) inthe United States) -eo-le can<t e,en *nderstand that $ $ 8.

M*$, Couldn"t an editorialist say it) though) even if a reporter can"t0

Ha,e any of the& done it) in thirty yearsI

M*$, 6 don"t &now.

Well) 0<ll tell yo*) nobody hasC 0<,e chec(ed) act*ally.37

W+M*$, %ou ma&e it sound so uniform) though8li&e there"s only one ortwo people in the entire 2.S. media who aren"t dishonest or blindly serving

power.

Well) that<s really not &y -oint? ob,io*sly in any co&-le1 instit*tion)there are going to be a fair n*&ber of -eo-le who want to do their wor(with integrity) and are good at it) and don<t *st end *- ser,ing -ower4thesesyste&s aren<t totally &onolithic) after all. + lot of -eo-le go into

o*rnalis&




with a real co&&it&ent to -rofessional integrity4they li(e the field) andthey want to do it honestly. +nd so&e of the& contin*e to do an ad&irable

ob of it4in fact) so&e of the& e,en &anage to do it at o*rnals li(e the $ew%or& 'imes.

0n fact) to a large degree 0 thin( yo* can tell when the $ew %or& 'imes"seditors want a story co,ered acc*rately *st by loo(ing at who they send tothe -lace. Bor instance) when they send John "ifner) that &eans they wantthe story told4beca*se he<s an honest o*rnalist) and he<s going to tell thestory. 0 &ean) 0 don<t (now hi& -ersonally) b*t yo* can *st tell fro& hiswor( that he<s a o*rnalist of real integrity) and he<s going to dig) he<s goingto find o*t the tr*th) and he<s going to write abo*t it4and the editors &*st(now that. So 0 don<t (now anything abo*t how they assign stories at the'imes) b*t 0<& willing to &a(e a bet that when there<s a story the 'imes"seditors want told) they<ll send "ifner) and when his ob is done they<ll -rob4ably send hi& bac( to the AMetroA des( or so&ething.

!n the other hand) &ost of the -eo-le at the 'imes who &a(e it to becorres-ondent or editor or whate,er tend to be either ,ery obedient or ,erycynical. The obedient ones ha,e ada-ted4they<,e internaliGed the ,al*es and

belie,e what they<re saying) otherwise they -robably wo*ldn<t ha,e &ade itthat far. 2*t there are also so&e -lain cynics. Ja&es eMoyne at the 'imesis a -erfect e1a&-le? Ja&es eMoyne is an absol*te croo() he<s one of the&ost dishonest o*rnalists 0<,e e,er seen. The dishonesty of his re-orting isso e1tre&e) in fact) that it can<t Aust be indoctrination in his case. +ct*ally)

eMoyne<s ten*re as a corres-ondent in 'entral +&erica ended *- with ane1-os*re so bad that e,en the 'imes had to -*blish an ad&ission abo*t it.

id yo* follow thatI0n 3;77 eMoyne had written a story which tal(ed abo*t two -eo-le in

El Sal,ador who he clai&ed were tort*red by left4wing g*errillas trying to*nder&ine the electionsC it was one -art of a whole effort in the +&erican

-ress at the ti&e to &aintain s*--ort for the U.S. client regi&e in El Sal4,ador des-ite its atrocities. 3; Well) a freelance o*rnalist in 'entral +&er4ica) 'hris Norton) saw eMoyne<s article and was s*r-rised by it) beca*sethe atrocities eMoyne described were s*--osed to ha,e ta(en -lace in anarea of the co*ntry re-orters co*ldn<t get to) beca*se it was *nder &ilitaryocc*-ation. Norton wanted to fig*re o*t *st how eMoyne (new abo*tthese -eo-le being tort*red) so he went *- as close to that region as heco*ld) and he tal(ed to the &ayor) and to the -riest) and to -eo-le in theco&&*nity4and he disco,ered that one of the alleged ,icti&s didn<t e1ist)and the other was -erfectly fine. He then went bac( to San Sal,ador and didso&e &ore chec(ing4and he disco,ered that eMoyne had si&-ly ta(en thestory straight fro& a San Sal,adoran news-a-er) where it had been at4trib*ted to an ar&y officer. 0t was in fact *st straight ar&y disinfor&ationof a standard sort) which eMoyne then re-orted in the $ew %or& 'imes asif he (new so&ething abo*t it. Then the State e-art&ent -ic(ed it *- fro&the $ew %or& 'imes and distrib*ted it to 'ongress to show that the Sal4,adoran g*errillas were *nder&ining the election.



Chapter @our =

Well) Norton *nco,ered this) then another freelance o*rnalist) Mar('oo-er) -ic(ed *- Norton<s story and -*blished so&ething abo*t it in the

7.*. Wee&ly) an alternati,e wee(ly in os +ngeles. The -iece thena--eared in the Bairness and +cc*racy in Re-orting o*rnal) ExtraB8

@.*.6.R. is a ,ery good &edia analysis gro*- in New or(. Still noreaction fro& the 'imes. Binally) +le1 'oc(b*rn got ahold of it) and&entioned it in his col*&n in 'he $ation. o Well) by that ti&e word wassort of getting aro*nd abo*t this) so the 'imes fig*red they had to react) andthey -*blished a correction40 thin( it<s the longest correction they<,e e,er

-*blished) it<s se,eral -aragra-hs long. 0t said) o*r *s*al high standardswere not &et in this case) one thing or another li(e that. $3

Well) that<s (ind of an e1tre&e e1a&-le4b*t it<s by no &eans the onlycase li(e that. 0n fact) *st let &e &ention one other one) which was e,en&ore i&-ortant4here eMoyne really -lied his trade.

Jo*rnalis& eMoyne4Style?+ Sa&-le of the 'ynical *spect

+s yo* (now) for years it was necessary for the U.S. go,ern&ent to&aintain the -retense that the contras in Nicarag*a were a g*errilla force)not a U.S. -ro1y ar&y. Now) it<s -erfectly ob,io*s that they were not a

g*errilla force4there are no g*errillas in history that ha,e had anythingre&otely li(e the degree of s*--ort we ga,e the contras? there are nog*errillas in history that had three s*--ly flights a day bringing the& foodand s*--lies and wea-ons) and who co&-lained that they didn<t ha,eeno*gh air-lanes) and that they needed &ore helico-ters. 0 &ean) the wholething was co&-letely ridic*lo*s? these g*ys had ar&a&ents that so&e *nitsof the +&erican ar&y didn<t ha,e) they had co&-*ter centers) they hadco&&*nications e *i-&ent. +nd they needed all of that) beca*se

Nicarag*a was *nder constant s*r,eillance by high4-erfor&ance +&ericanreconnaissance aircraft to deter&ine where Sandinista troo-s were beingde-loyed) and the contras had to ha,e so&e way of recei,ing thatinfor&ation. $$

2*t the -oint is) it was necessary for the -ro-aganda syste& to -retend

that the contras were li(e the B.M. .N. in El Sal,ador4 *st a reg*lar in4digeno*s g*errilla force o--osing the go,ern&ent. +nd -art of the &ethodfor clai&ing that these two forces were e *i,alent was to say that theB.M. .N. g*errillas also had o*tside s*--ort fro& a foreign go,ern&ent44inother words) fro& the go,ern&ent of Nicarag*a4and that was the onlyreason they co*ld s*r,i,e. Well) it<s conceivable that the B.M. .N. was get4ting o*tside s*--ort) b*t if so) it wo*ld ha,e been so&e (ind of a &iracle444

beca*se it was *ndetectable. 0 &ean) it<s not that the United States is a -ri&iti,e) stone4age society? there are technological &eans aro*nd to dis4co,er e,idence of s*ch things) b*t they ne,er were able to detect any s*-4

-ort co&ing fro& Nicarag*a at all.+ccording to the State e-art&ent -ro-aganda) the &ain ar&s flow




fro& Nicarag*a to the B.M. .N. was across the >*lf of Bonseca. $: Well)a,id MacMichael) who was the '.0.+. analyst in charge of analyGing this

&aterial in the early 3;7%s and then *it the +gency) testified at the World'o*rt and -ointed o*t what this &eant. He described the sit*ation? the >*lfof Bonseca is thirty (ilo&eters wideC it<s co&-letely -atrolled by the *.s.

Na,yC there<s an island in the &iddle of it which had a s*-er4so-histicatedU.S. radar syste& that co*ld -ic( *- boats *- and down the Pacific 'oastCthere were U.S. Na,y S.E.+. . tea&s r*nning all aro*nd the -lace4yet theyne,er e,en -ic(ed *- a canoe. So if Nicarag*a were sending ar&s acrossthe >*lf of Bonseca) they had to ha,e had so&e s*-er4so-histicated&ethods. $8 0 &ean) the $icaraguans had no -roble& whatsoe,er detectingthe U.S. ar&s flow to the contras4they told re-orters e1actly where it wasco&ing fro&C it was *nre-orted in the United States) beca*se the re-orterschose not to re-ort it) b*t the Nicarag*ans had no -roble& detecting it. $5

+nyway) that was the -ro-aganda line that had to be &aintained in the+&erican -ress) that was the official story. Now we co&e bac( to Ja&es

eMoyne.The United States go,ern&ent o--osed the 'entral +&erican -eace ac4

cords that were signed in 3;79 Es *i-*las 00) the so4called A+rias -lanAO)so it was therefore necessary to de&olish the&. +nd one of the ways of de4&olishing the& was to increase aid to the contras. The -ress co&&itted it4

self with great -assion to hel-ing this effort alongC eMoyne was right *-front. Right after the accords were signed) eMoyne -*blished an article inwhich he wrote? there is Aa&-le e,idenceA that the Sal,adoran g*errillas are

being s*--lied with ar&s by Nicarag*a in ,iolation of the -eace accords)and witho*t that s*--ort the g*errillas co*ldn<t s*r,i,e. $6 +lright) that hadalways been the necessary story) b*t *st then it was es-ecially i&-ortant todri,e it ho&e4beca*se right then the United States was tri-ling its s*--lyflights to the contras in res-onse to the accords) and of co*rse in ,iolationof the accords. $9 So the -ress wo*ldn<t re-ort that we were escalating o*rs*--ort for the contras) b*t they (e-t re-orting that the Nicarag*ans wereillegally ar&ing the B.M. .N. in El Sal,ador4and now Ja&es eMoyne saysthat there is Aa&-le e,idenceA of it.

Well) when that story a--eared) B.+.0.R. wrote a letter to the $ew %or&

'imes) as(ing the& to -lease ha,e Ja&es eMoyne enlighten their readersabo*t the Aa&-le e,idenceA of this ar&s flow to the B.M. .N.4since theWorld 'o*rt co*ldn<t find it) and no inde-endent in,estigator<s been able tofind it) and the g*ys who wor(ed on it in the '.0.+. didn<t (now abo*t it?co*ld they -lease do thatI Well) the 'imes didn<t -*blish their letter) b*tB.+.0.R. did get a -ersonal res-onse bac( fro& the Boreign Editor) Jose-h

ely,eld) who said) yes) &aybe eMoyne<s re-ort was a bit i&-recise thisti&e) it didn<t &eet his *s*al high standards) and so on. $7

Then followed a -eriod in which the 'imes had -lenty of ti&e to correctthe Ai&-recisionA4b*t instead article after article a--eared by eMoyne)>eorge Dols(y) Ste,en Engelberg and others) re-eating e1actly the sa&e



Chapter @our ?

falsehood? that there was a&-le e,idence of an ar&s flow fro& Nicarag*a.$; 2*t B.+.0.R. *st (e-t after the&) and finally they got another letter bac(fro& ely,eld) the Boreign Editor4this was aro*nd March now) their firstletter was in +*g*st. ely,eld said he had recently assigned eMoyne todo a &a or story on the ar&s flow to the B.M. .N.) to really nail the thingdown once and for all) and that they sho*ld wait for that story. !(ay) theywaited. Nothing ha--ened. Si1 &onths later) they fig*red nothing was

going to ha--en) so they -*blished this interchange of letters with ely,eld

in the B.+.0.R. newsletter) and said? we don<t see the story) what<s going onI:% Two &onths after that) a story did finally a--ear in the 'imes86 thin( it

was eMoyne<s last story before he left the 'imes) or whate,er he did) too(a lea,e or so&ething. This is now fifteen &onths after his original storyabo*t the Aa&-le e,idence)A nine &onths after he was assigned to do thefollow4*-. +nd if yo* ta(e a loo( at the article the 'imes finally -*blished)yo*<ll disco,er that the Aa&-le e,idenceA had t*rned into no e,idence.

eMoyne said? well) there really is no direct e,idence of any s*--ly ofar&s fro& Nicarag*aC so&e -eo-le say this) so&e -eo-le say that) b*tthere<s nothing concrete) there<s nothing to -oint to. So that<s the end of thestory? it t*rns o*t the Aa&-le e,idenceA is no e,idence. :3

Now) that<s no o(e4this is fabrication in the ser,ice of the state that has

led to tens of tho*sands of -eo-le being (illed) beca*se &aintaining this -retense o,er the years has been one of the ways in which the U.S. go,ern4&ent has s*--orted the terror in El Sal,ador and e1tended the war against

Nicarag*a. 0t<s not a s&all -oint. This is serio*s lying) ,ery serio*s. +nd it<s *st one of tho*sands of cases de&onstrating that the &edia in the UnitedStates ser,e the interests of state4cor-orate -ower) they are organs of -ro-4aganda) as in fact one wo*ld e1-ect the& to be. :$

%ethinking &atergate

M*$, (ut how do you explain Watergate) then0 'hose reporters weren"tvery sympathetic to power8they toppled a #resident.

+nd *st as( yo*rself why he was to--led4he was to--led beca*se hehad &ade a ,ery bad &ista(e? he had antagoniGed -eo-le with -ower.

See) one of the serio*s ill*sions we li,e *nder in the United States)which is a &a or -art of the whole syste& of indoctrination) is the idea thatthe government is the -ower4and the go,ern&ent<s not the -ower) the go,4ern&ent is one seg&ent of -ower. Real -ower is in the hands of the -eo-lewho own the societyC the state4&anagers are *s*ally *st ser,ants. +ndWatergate is act*ally a -erfect ill*stration of the -oint4beca*se right at theti&e of Watergate) history act*ally ran a controlled e1-eri&ent for *s. TheWatergate e1-os*res) it t*rns o*t) ca&e at e1actly the sa&e ti&e as the'!0NTE PR! e1-os*res40 don<t (now if yo* (now what 0 &ean.




M*$, C+6$'E7#R+0

See) yo* -robably don<t4b*t that already &a(es &y -oint) beca*se the'!0NTE PR! e1-os*res were a tho*sand ti&es &ore significant thanWatergate. Re&e&ber what Watergate was) after all? Watergate was a &at4ter of a b*nch of g*ys fro& the Re-*blican National 'o&&ittee brea(inginto a e&ocratic Party office for essentially *n(nown reasons and doingno da&age. !(ay) that<s -etty b*rglary) it<s not a big deal. Well) at the e1act

sa&e ti&e that Watergate was disco,ered) there were e1-os*res in theco*rts and thro*gh the Breedo& of 0nfor&ation +ct of &assi,e B.2.0. o-er4ations to *nder&ine -olitical freedo& in the United States) r*nning thro*ghe,ery ad&inistration bac( to Roose,elt) b*t really -ic(ing *- *nder "en4nedy. 0t was called A'!0NTE PR!A short for A'o*nterintelligence Pro4gra&AO) and it incl*ded a ,ast range of things.

0t incl*ded the straight >esta-o4style assassination of a 2lac( PantherleaderC it incl*ded organiGing race riots in an effort to destroy the blac(&o,e&entsC it incl*ded attac(s on the +&erican 0ndian Mo,e&ent) on thewo&en<s &o,e&ent) yo* na&e it. 0t incl*ded fifteen years of B.2.0. disr*-4tion of the Socialist Wor(ers Party4that &eant reg*lar B.2.0. b*rglaries)stealing &e&bershi- lists and *sing the& to threaten -eo-le) going to b*si4nesses and getting &e&bers fired fro& their obs) and so on. :: Well) that

fact alone4the fact that for fifteen years the B.2.0. had been b*rglariGing andtrying to *nder&ine a legal -olitical -arty4is already ,astly &ore i&-ortantthan the fact that a b*nch of "eystone "o-s bro(e into the e&ocratic

National 'o&&ittee head *arters one ti&e. The Socialist Wor(ers Party isa legal -olitical -arty) after all4the fact that they<re a wea& -olitical -artydoesn<t &ean they ha,e less rights than the e&ocrats. +nd this wasn<t a

b*nch of gangsters) this was the national -olitical -olice? that<s ,eryserio*s. +nd it didn<t ha--en once in the Watergate office co&-le1) it wasgoing on for fifteen years) *nder e,ery ad&inistration. +nd (ee- in &ind)the Socialist Wor(ers Party e-isode is *st so&e tiny footnote to'!0NTE PR!. 0n co&-arison to this) Watergate is a tea -arty.

Well) loo( at the co&-arison in treat&ent40 &ean) yo*<re aware of theco&-arison in treat&ent) that<s why yo* (now abo*t Watergate and yo*don<t (now abo*t '!0NTE PR!. So what does that tell yo*I What it tellsyo* is) -eo-le in -ower will defend the&sel,es. The e&ocratic Party re-4resents abo*t half of cor-orate -ower) and those -eo-le are able to defendthe&sel,esC the Socialist Wor(ers Party re-resents no -ower) the 2lac(Panthers don<t re-resent any -ower) the +&erican 0ndian Mo,e&ent doesn<tre-resent any -ower4so yo* can do anything yo* want to the&.

!r ta(e a loo( at the Ni1on ad&inistration<s fa&o*s AEne&ies ist)Awhich ca&e o*t in the co*rse of Watergate e1-osed in 3;9:) the doc*&entna&ed $%7 +&ericans fro& ,ario*s -rofessions *nder the title A!--onentslist and -olitical ene&ies -ro ectAO. o*<,e heard of that) b*t did yo* hearabo*t the assassination of Bred Ha&-tonI No. Nothing e,er ha--ened toany of the -eo-le who were on the Ene&ies ist) which 0 (now -erfectly



Chapter @our

well) beca*se 0 was on it4and it wasn<t beca*se 6 was on it that it &ade thefront -ages. 2*t the B.2.0. and the 'hicago -olice assassinated a 2lac(Panther leader as he lay in his bed one night d*ring the Ni1onad&inistration on ece&ber 8) 3;6;O. Well) if the -ress had any integrityat all) if the Washington #ost had any integrity) what they wo*ld ha,e saidis) AWatergate is totally insignificant and innoc*o*s) who cares abo*t anyof that in co&-arison with these other things.A 2*t that<s not whatha--ened) ob,io*sly. +nd that *st shows again) ,ery dra&atically) how the

-ress is lined *- with -ower.The real lesson of Ni1on<s fall is that the President sho*ldn<t call Tho&as

Watson 'hair&an of 0.2.M.O and Mc>eorge 2*ndy for&er e&ocraticofficialO bad na&es4that &eans the Re-*blic<s colla-sing. +nd the -ress

-rides itself on ha,ing e1-osed this fact. !n the other hand) if yo* want tosend the B.2.0. to organiGe the assassination of a 2lac( Panther leader)that<s fine by *sC it<s fine by theWashington #ost too.

0ncidentally) 0 thin( there is another reason why a lot of -owerf*l -eo-lewere o*t to get Ni1on at that ti&e4and it had to do with so&ething a lot&ore -rofo*nd than the Ene&ies ist and the Watergate b*rglary. 0 s*s-ectit had to do with the e,ents of the s*&&er of 3;93) when the Ni1on ad4&inistration basically bro(e *- the international econo&ic arrange&ent thathad e1isted for the -re,io*s twenty4fi,e years i.e. the so4called A2retton

WoodsA syste&) established in 3;88 at the United Nations Monetary andBinancial 'onference at 2retton Woods) New Ha&-shireO. See) by 3;93 theDietna& War had already badly wea(ened the United States econo&icallyrelati,e to its ind*strial ri,als) and one of the ways the Ni1on ad4&inistration reacted to that was by si&-ly tearing a-art the 2retton Woodssyste&) which had been set *- to organiGe the world econo&y after WorldWar 00. The 2retton Woods syste& had &ade the United States the world<s

ban(er) basically4it had established the U.S. dollar as a global reser,e c*r4rency fi1ed to gold) and it i&-osed conditions abo*t no i&-ort *otas) andso on. +nd Ni1on *st tore the whole thing to shreds? he went off the goldstandard) he sto--ed the con,ertibility of the dollar) he raised i&-ort d*ties.

No other co*ntry wo*ld ha,e had the -ower to do that) b*t Ni1on did it)and that &ade hi& a lot of -owerf*l ene&ies4beca*se &*ltinational

cor-orations and international ban(s relied on that syste&) and they did notli(e it being bro(en down. So if yo* loo( bac() yo*<ll find that Ni1on was being attac(ed in -laces li(e the Wall Street ournal at the ti&e) and 0s*s-ect that fro& that -oint on there were -lenty of -owerf*l -eo-le o*t toget hi&. Watergate *st offered an o--ort*nity.

0n fact) in this res-ect 0 thin( Ni1on was treated e1tre&ely *nfairly. 0&ean) there were real cri&es of the Ni1on ad&inistration) and he sho*ldha,e been tried4b*t not for any of the Watergate b*siness. Ta(e the bo&b4ing of 'a&bodia) for instance? the bo&bing of 'a&bodia was infinitelyworse than anything that ca&e *- in the Watergate hearings4this thing theycall the Asecret bo&bingA of 'a&bodia) which was AsecretA beca*se the

-ress didn<t tal( abo*t what they (new. :8 The U.S. (illed &aybe a co*4




-0e h*ndred tho*sand -eo-le in 'a&bodia) they de,astated a -easant soci4ety.:5 The bo&bing of 'a&bodia did not e,en a--ear in Ni1on<s +rticlesof 0&-each&ent. 0t was raised in the Senate hearings) b*t only in oneinteresting res-ect4the *estion that was raised was) why hadn<t Ni1oninfor&ed 'ongressI 0t wasn<t) why did yo* carry o*t one of the &ostintense bo&bings in history in densely -o-*lated areas of a -easantco*ntry) (illing &aybe 35%)%%% -eo-leI That ne,er ca&e *-. The only

*estion was) why didn<t yo* tell 'ongressI 0n other words) were -eo-lewith -ower granted their -rerogati,esI +nd once again) notice that what it&eans is) infringing on the rights of -owerf*l -eo-le is *nacce-table?AWe<re -owerf*l) so yo*<,e got to tell *s4then we<ll tell yo*) <Bine) go bo&b'a&bodia.< A 0n fact) that whole thing was a gag4beca*se there was noreason for 'ongress not to ha,e (nown abo*t the bo&bing) *st as therewas no reason for the &edia not to ha,e (nown? it was co&-letely -*blic.

So in ter&s of all the horrifying atrocities the Ni1on go,ern&ent carriedo*t) Watergate isn<t e,en worth la*ghing abo*t. 0t was a tri,iality. Water4gate is a ,ery clear e1a&-le of what ha--ens to ser,ants when they forgettheir role and go after the -eo-le who own the -lace? they are ,ery *ic(ly

-*t bac( into their bo1) and so&ebody else ta(es o,er. o* co*ldn<t as( fora better ill*stration of it than that4and it<s e,en &ore dra&atic beca*se thisis the great e1-os*re that<s s*--osed to de&onstrate what a free and critical

-ress we ha,e. What Watergate really shows is what a s*b&issi,e andobedient -ress we ha,e) as the co&-arisons to '!0NTE PR! and'a&bodia ill*strate ,ery clearly.

Es-aping Indo-trination

< M*$, (ut do you thin& things are ever going to change0 *ren"t we always going to have people entrenched in power) left or right) who want to pre8 serve that power) and will use all of the means at their disposal to do it88and all we can really do is Aust sit bac& and complain about it0

That<s the attit*de .of -eo-le who tho*ght that there was nothing yo* co*lddo abo*t fe*dalis& and sla,ery. +nd there was so&ething yo* co*ld doabo*t fe*dalis& and sla,ery) b*t not by sitting and co&-laining abo*t it.John 2rown didn<t sit and co&-lain abo*t it.

M*$, /e didn"t get very far.

He did. They o,erthrew sla,ery) and the +bolitionists -layed a big rolein that.

2rown<s 375; atte&-t to set off a sla,e re,olt by seiGing a federal ar4&ory in Har-ers Berry) Dirginia) electrified the co*ntry and intensified the+bolitionist &o,e&ent.O



Chapter @our

M*$, So as long as we critici e) try to offer constructive criticism) there"shope of changing the system0

0f the constr*cti,e criticis& leads to the -oint where &ass -o-*lar &o,e4&ents for& that do something to change the syste&) s*re) then there<s ho-e.0 &ean) there wo*ldn<t ha,e been an +&erican Re,ol*tion if -eo-le had

been writing -a&-hlets b*t not doing anything &ore than that.

W+M*$, 'hen what"s the tric& to holding on and not giving up8because it seems li&e a lot of people need it.

The tric( is not to be isolated4if yo*<re isolated) li(e Winston S&ith in3;78) then sooner or later yo*<re going to brea() as he finally bro(e. Thatwas the -oint of !rwell<s story. 0n fact) the whole tradition of -o-*lar con4trol has been e1actly that? to (ee- -eo-le isolated) beca*se if yo* can (ee-the& isolated eno*gh) yo* can get the& to belie,e anything. 2*t when -eo4

-le get together) all sorts of things are -ossible.

M*$, 6t Aust seems so hopeless) though) because you ma&e it sound li&e theentire press organi ation is loc&ing dissidents out.

That<s largely tr*e4b*t li(e 0 say) there<s a lot of fle1ibility -ossible. 0

&ean) it<s tr*e that the ideological barrier in the U.S. &edia is e1tre&e44other co*ntries ha,e &ore o-enings for dissidence in the &ainstrea& thanwe do) e,en tho*gh their econo&ic syste&s are basically the sa&e. 2*t stillthere is *ite a range of -ossibility for o-ening *- the -ress here) e,en as itnow stands? it doesn<t ha,e to be .%%%3 -ercent o-en to dissident -ers-ec4ti,es) it co*ld be .3 -ercent or so&ething. So 0 act*ally thin( there are

-lenty of changes -ossible in the United States) e,en fro& within the insti4t*tions.

Re&e&ber that the &edia ha,e two basic f*nctions. !ne is to indoctri4nate the elites) to &a(e s*re they ha,e the right ideas and (now how toser,e -ower. 0n fact) ty-ically the elites are the most indoctrinated seg&entof a society) beca*se they are the ones who are e1-osed to the &ost -ro-a4ganda and act*ally ta(e -art in the decision4&a(ing -rocess. Bor the& yo*ha,e the $ew %or& 'imes) and the Washington #ost) and the Wall Street

ournal) and so on. 2*t there<s also a &ass &edia) whose &ain f*nction is *st to get rid of the rest of the -o-*lation4to &arginaliGe and eli&inatethe&) so they don<t interfere with decision4&a(ing. +nd the -ress that<s de4signed for that -*r-ose isn<t the $ew %or& 'imes and the Washington #ost)it<s sitco&s on tele,ision) and the $ational En:uirer) and se1 and ,iolence)and babies with three heads) and football) all that (ind of st*ff. 2*t the a-4

-ro1i&ately 75 -ercent of the -o-*lation that is the &ain target of that&edia) they don<t ha,e it in their genes that they<re not interested in the waythe world wor(s. +nd if they can esca-e fro& the effects of the de4ed*ca4



2nderstanding #ower

tion and indoctrination syste&) and the whole class syste& it<s a -art ofit<safter all not Austindoctrination that (ee-s -eo-le fro& getting in,ol,ed in

-olitical life) by any &eans4if they can do that) then yeah) they<re a biga*dience for an alternati,e) and there<s so&e ho-e.

0n fact) there<s a ,ery interesting history abo*t this in England. Bor a longti&e in England) there was a &ass) -o-*lar) daily labor -ress of *ite goodnews-a-ers) with a h*ge readershi-4a &*ch bigger readershi- than all theelite -ress in England co&bined) act*ally. 0t was the -aily /erald and the

$ews Chronicleand the

Sunday Citi en.+nd this was not *st +le1 'oc(4 b*rn once a &onth in the Wall Street ournal) b*t every day there were

news-a-ers gi,ing a -ict*re of the world and e1-ressing a set of ,al*es rad4ically different fro& those of the b*siness co&&*nity. +nd not only didthey ha,e a big circ*lation) b*t their a*dience was also ,ery &*ch in4,ol,ed4for instance) there were s*r,eys showing that -eo-le act*ally readthose news-a-ers &*ch &ore than s*bscribers to things li(e the Duardianand the 7ondon 'imes. 2*t they disa--eared in the 3;6%s) and they disa-4

-eared d*e to &ar(et -ress*res4it didn<t ha,e anything to do with then*&ber of readers they had) it had to do with the a&o*nt of ca-ital theyco*ld attract. 'o*ld yo* get ad,ertisers) co*ld yo* get ca-ital for in,est4&entI 0n short) co*ld yo* a--eal to the b*siness co&&*nity) which ha-4

-ens to hold the real -owerI +nd o,er ti&e) they co*ldn<t. :6

0t<s the sa&e thing here? for instance) in the United States there isn<t e,enany s*ch thing as a Alabor re-orterA any&ore Ke1ce-t in the b*siness -ress)act*allyL4b*t there are -lenty of Ab*siness re-orters.A +nd again) thatdoesn<t reflect people"sinterests? a lot &ore -eo-le are interested in the -rob4le&s of wor(ers than are interested in the bond &ar(et) if yo* co*nt theirn*&bers4b*t if yo* &*lti-ly their n*&bers by their -ower in the society)then yeah) it<s tr*e) the &ar(et for news abo*t &oney and stoc(s is &*chgreater than the &ar(et for news abo*t iss*es which &atter to wor(ing

-eo-le.2*t that<s *st the fact abo*t an inegalitarian syste&? when yo* ha,e a

serio*s dis-ro-ortion of -ower) inde-endent forces are li(ely to colla-se44 *st beca*se they can<t get access to eno*gh ca-ital in the end. i(e inEngland) so&e &edia cor-oration didn<t co&e along and try to offer this

h*ge &ass a*dience another -a-er with a social4de&ocratic line. 2*sinessdoesn<t wor( that way4it<s not trying to ed*cate -eo-le to o,erthrow it) e,enif yo* co*ld &a(e a -rofit off it. 0 &ean) if yo* co*ld con,ince R*-ertM*rdoch that he can &a(e a ton of &oney by -*blishing a news-a-erwhich has a social4de&ocratic or e,en &ore radical line) so&ething callingfor wor(ers< &anage&ent of cor-orations for instance) he wo*ldn<t do it44

beca*se there are so&e things that are &ore i&-ortant than -rofits) li(e&aintaining the entire syste& of -ower.

0n fact) this is also -retty &*ch the sa&e reason why +&erican eliteswant &ilitary s-ending instead of social s-ending? if it t*rned o*t) as isli(ely) that *sing ta1-ayers< &oney for socially *sef*l -*r-oses was e,en



Chapter @our 3

&ore -rofitable than sending it thro*gh the &ilitary syste&) that stillwo*ldn<t change the decision to -refer &ilitary s-ending4beca*se socials-ending is going to interfere with the basic -rerogati,es of -ower) it<s go4ing to organiGe -o-*lar constit*encies) and ha,e all these other negati,eside effects that yo* want to a,oid.

W+M*$, So what you"re saying is) even if there were a maAor culturalchange) with people at the grassroots level actually demanding a much

more open press) there still wouldn"t be the capital to support that press0 No) -eo-le wo*ld ha,e to ta(e control of that ca-ital. 0 &ean) for one

thing) if there really were a &ass of -eo-le de&anding that (ind of -ress)they wo*ld have the ca-ital4not at the le,el of big cor-orations) b*t li(e*nions) say. When *nions are a &ass organiGation) they can acc*&*latestri(e f*nds) e,en tho*gh they can<t co&-ete with &anage&ent and owner4shi- in ter&s of total reso*rces. 2*t for another thing) there<s no law of na4t*re which says that control o,er ca-ital has to be in a few hands4that<s li(esaying that -olitical -ower has to be in a few hands. WhyI There wasn<t alaw that said that the (ing and the nobles had to r*n e,erything) and thereisn<t a law that says that cor-orate owners and &anagers ha,e to r*n e,ery4thing either. These are social arrange&ents. They de,elo-ed historically)

they can be changed historically.

2nderstanding the (iddle /ast Con li-t

M*$, 6f 6 can Aust change the topic a little) #rofessor86"d li&e you to tal& abit about the situation in the Middle East these days. #eople say the #ales8tinians are utili ing the media more than they ever have before to draw at8tention to 6sraeli repression ;i.e. during the #alestinian uprising of the late

!5sJ. 6"m wondering whether you thin& that will have any effect on 6srael"s occupation of the #alestinian territories on the West (an& and theDa a Strip in the future0

;Editors" $ote, 'he following discussion of the 6sraeliI#alestinian con8 flict forms the foundation of Choms&y"s analysis of the so8called 1peace process1 that began in the early 5s) which is discussed in chapters =and 7.

Well) this b*siness abo*t the Palestinians A*sing the &ediaA is &ostlyracist garbage) in &y ,iew. The fact of the &atter is that the 0ntifada is a

big) &ass) -o-*lar re,ol*tion in reaction to the absol*tely br*tal treat&entthe Palestinians ha,e been li,ing *nder4and it<s going on in -laces wherethere are no tele,ision ca&eras) and -laces where there are.

See) there<s a whole racist line which is ,ery co&&on in the United




States. !ne of &y fa,orite ,ersions of it a--eared in the o*rnal Commen8tary) in an article written by so&e -rofessor in 'anada. 0t said? the Pales4tinians are A-eo-le who breed) and bleed) and ad,ertise their &isery.A :9Straight NaGi -ro-aganda. 0 &ean) i&agine if so&ebody said that abo*tJews? AJews are -eo-le who breed) and bleed) and ad,ertise their &isery.A2*t that<s the (ind of thing yo* hear4it<s a -artic*larly ,*lgar ,ersion of it)

b*t the line is? loo() the Palestinians are *st doing it for the ca&eras be4ca*se they<re trying to discredit the Jews.

They do e1actly the sa&e thing when there are no ca&eras.The real -oint is) 0srael is ha,ing a lot of tro*ble -*tting down this -o-4

*lar re,ol*tion. 0 &ean) the re-ression of the Palestinians in the West 2an(is not *alitati,ely different right now fro& what it<s been for the lasttwenty years4it<s *st that it<s escalated in scale since the Palestinians startedfighting bac( in the 0ntifada. So the br*tality yo* see occasionally now ontele,ision has in fact been going on for the last twenty years) and it<s *stthe nat*re of a &ilitary occ*-ation? &ilitary occ*-ations are harsh and

br*tal) there is no other (ind 0srael seiGed the West 2an() >aGa Stri-) and>olan Heights fro& Jordan) Egy-t) and Syria d*ring the Si1 ay War in3;69) and has controlled the& e,er sinceO. There<s been ho&e4destr*ction)collecti,e -*nish&ents) e1-*lsion) -lenty of h*&iliation) censorshi-40&ean) yo*<d ha,e to go bac( to the worst days of the +&erican So*th to

(now what it<s been li(e for the Palestinians in the !cc*-ied Territories.They are not s*--osed to raise their heads4that<s what they say in 0srael)AThey<re raising their heads) we<,e got to do so&ething abo*t it.A +nd that<sthe way the Palestinians ha,e been li,ing. :7

Well) the United States has been *ite ha--y s*--orting that4so long asit wor(ed. 2*t in the last few years) it hasn<t wor(ed. See) -eo-le with

-ower *nderstand e1actly one thing? ,iolence. 0f ,iolence is effecti,e)e,erything<s o(ayC b*t if ,iolence loses its effecti,eness) then they startworrying and ha,e to try so&ething else. So right now yo* can see U.S.

-lanners reassessing their -olicies towards the !cc*-ied Territories) *st asyo* can see the 0sraeli leadershi- reassessing the&4beca*se ,iolence isn<twor(ing as well any&ore. 0n fact) the occ*-ation<s beginning to be ratherhar&f*l for 0srael. So it<s entirely -ossible that there co*ld be so&e tactical

changes co&ing with res-ect to how 0srael goes abo*t controlling theTerritories44b*t none of this has anything to do with A*sing the &edia.A

W+M*$, What do you thin& a solution might be for resolving the conflictin the region) then0

Well) o*tside of the United States) e,erybody wo*ld (now the answer tothat *estion. 0 &ean) for years there<s been a ,ery broad consens*s in theworld o,er the basic fra&ewor( of a sol*tion in the Middle East) with thee1ce-tion of two co*ntries? the United States and 0srael. :; 0t<s going to ha,eto be so&e ,ariety of two4state settle&ent.



Chapter @our =

oo() there are two gro*-s clai&ing the right of national self44deter&ination in the sa&e territoryC they both ha,e a clai&) they<re co&4

-eting clai&s. There are ,ario*s ways in which s*ch co&-eting clai&sco*ld be reconciled4yo* co*ld do it thro*gh a federation) one thing or an4other4b*t gi,en the -resent state of conflict) it<s *st going to ha,e to bedone thro*gh so&e for& of two4state settle&ent. 8% Now) yo* co*ld tal(abo*t the &odalities4sho*ld it be a confederation) how do yo* deal withecono&ic integration) and so on4b*t the -rinci-le<s *ite clear? there has to

be so&e settle&ent that recogniGes the right of self4deter&ination of Jewsin so&ething li(e the state of 0srael) and the right of self4deter&ination ofPalestinians in so&ething li(e a Palestinian state. +nd e,erybody (nowswhere that Palestinian state wo*ld be4in the West 2an( and >aGa Stri-)along ro*ghly the borders that e1isted before the Si1 ay War in 3;69. +nde,erybody (nows who the re-resentati,e of the Palestinians is? it<s thePalestine iberation !rganiGation P. .!.O.

+ll of this has been ob,io*s for years4why hasn<t it ha--enedI Well) ofco*rse 0srael<s o--osed to it. 2*t the &ain reason it hasn<t ha--ened is be4ca*se the United States has bloc(ed it? the United States has been bloc(ingthe -eace -rocess in the Middle East for the last twenty years8we"re theleaders of the re ectionist ca&-) not the +rabs or anybody else. See) theUnited States s*--orts a -olicy which Henry "issinger called Astale&ateACthat was his word for it bac( in 3;9%. 83 +t that ti&e) there was (ind of as-lit in the +&erican go,ern&ent as to whether we sho*ld Aoin the broadinternational consens*s on a -olitical settle&ent) or bloc& a -olitical settle4&ent. +nd in that internal str*ggle) the hard4liners -re,ailedC "issinger wasthe &ain s-o(es&an. The -olicy that won o*t was what he called Astale4&ateA? (ee- things the way they are) &aintain the syste& of 0sraeli o--res4sion. +nd there was a good reason for that) it wasn<t *st o*t of the bl*e?ha,ing an e&battled) &ilitaristic 0srael is an i&-ortant -art of how we r*lethe world.

2asically the United States doesn<t gi,e a da&n abo*t 0srael? if it goesdown the drain) U.S. -lanners don<t care one way or another) there<s no&oral obligation or anything else. 2*t what they do care abo*t is control ofthe enor&o*s oil reso*rces of the Middle East. 0 &ean) a big -art of the wayyo* r*n the -lanet is by controlling Middle East oil) and in the late 3;5%s)the United States began to recogniGe that 0srael wo*ld be a ,ery *sef*l allyin this res-ect. So for e1a&-le) there<s a National Sec*rity 'o*ncil Me&o4rand*& in 3;57 which -oints o*t that the &ain ene&y of the United Statesin the Middle East Kas e,erywhereL is nationalis&) what they call Aradical+rab nationalis&A4which &eans inde-endence) co*ntries -*rs*ing a co*rseother than s*b&ission to the needs of +&erican -ower. Well) that<s alwaysthe ene&y? the -eo-le there don<t always see why the enor&o*s wealth andreso*rces of the region ha,e to be in the control of +&erican and 2ritishin,estors while they star,e) they<,e ne,er really gotten that into their heads4and so&eti&es they try to do so&ething abo*t it. +lright)




that<s *nacce-table to the United States) and one of the things they -ointedo*t is that a *sef*l wea-on against that sort of Aradical +rab nationalis&Awo*ld be a highly &ilitariGed 0srael) which wo*ld then be a reliable basefor U.S. -ower in the region. 8$

Now) that insight was not really acted *-on e1tensi,ely *ntil the Si1 ayWar in 3;69) when) with U.S. s*--ort) 0srael essentially destroyed Nasser

the Egy-tian PresidentL4who was regarded as the &ain +rab nationalistforce in the Middle East4and ,irt*ally all the other +rab ar&ies in the re4

gion too. That won 0srael a lot of -oints) it established the& as what<s calleda Astrategic assetA 4that is) a &ilitary force that can be *sed as an o*tlet forU.S. -ower. 0n fact) at the ti&e) 0srael and 0ran *nder the Shah Kwhich wereallies) tacit alliesL ca&e to be regarded by +&erican -lanners as two -artsof a tri-artite U.S. syste& for controlling the Middle East. This consistedfirst of all of Sa*di +rabia) which is where &ost of the oil is) and then itstwo gendar&es) -re4re,ol*tionary 0ran and 0srael4the A>*ardians of the>*lf)A as they were called) who were s*--osed to -rotect Sa*di +rabiafro& indigeno*s nationalist forces in the area. !f co*rse) when the Shahfell in the 0ranian Re,ol*tion in 3;9;) 0srael<s role beca&e e,en &ore i&4

-ortant to the United States) it was the last A>*ardian.A 8: Meanwhile) 0srael began to -ic( *- secondary f*nctions? it started to

ser,e as a &ercenary state for the United States aro*nd the world. So in the

3;6%s) 0srael started to be *sed as a cond*it for inter,ening in the affairs of blac( +frican co*ntries) *nder a big '.0.+. s*bsidy. +nd in the 3;9%s andEighties) the United States increasingly t*rned to 0srael as (ind of a wea-onagainst other -arts of the Third World40srael wo*ld -ro,ide ar&a&ents andtraining and co&-*ters and all sorts of other things to Third World dic4tatorshi-s at ti&es when it was hard for the U.S. go,ern&ent to gi,e thats*--ort directly. Bor instance) 0srael acted as the &ain U.S. contact with theSo*th +frican &ilitary for years) right thro*gh the e&bargo the U.N. Se4c*rity 'o*ncil i&-osed a &andatory ar&s e&bargo on So*th +frica in3;99 after the U.S. and 2ritain had ,etoed e,en stronger resol*tionsL.88Well) that<s a ,ery *sef*l alliance) and that<s another reason why 0srael getss*ch e1traordinary a&o*nts of U.S. aid. 85

The Threat of Pea-e

2*t notice that this whole syste& only wor(s as long as 0srael re&ainse&battled. So s*--ose there was a real -eace settle&ent in the Middle East)and 0srael was *st integrated into the region as its &ost technologicallyad,anced co*ntry) (ind of li(e SwitGerland or *1e&bo*rg or so&ething.Well) at that -oint its ,al*e to the United States is essentially o,er4we al4ready ha,e *1e&bo*rg) we don<t need another one. 0srael<s ,al*e to theUnited States de-ends on the fact that it is threatened with destr*ction? that&a(es the& co&-letely de-endent on the United States for s*r,i,al) and



Chapter @our ?

therefore e1tre&ely reliable4beca*se if the r*g e,er is -*lled o*t fro&*nder the& in a sit*ation of real conflict) they will get destroyed.

+nd that reasoning has held right *- to the -resent. 0 &ean) it<s easy toshow that the United States has bloc(ed e,ery &o,e towards a -olitical set4tle&ent that has co&e along in the Middle East4often we<,e *st ,etoedthe& at the U.N. Sec*rity 'o*nci3. 86 0n fact) *- *ntil ,ery recently) it<s beeni&-ossible in the United States e,en to tal& abo*t a -olitical settle&ent.The official line in the United States has been) AThe +rabs want to (ill all

the Jews and throw the& into the seaA 4with only two e1ce-tions. !ne is"ing H*ssein of Jordan) who<s a A&oderate)A beca*se he<s on o*r side. +ndthe other was President Sadat of Egy-t) who in 3;99 realiGed the error ofhis ways) so he flew to Jer*sale& and beca&e a &an of -eace4and that<swhy the +rabs (illed hi&) beca*se the +rabs<ll (ill anybody who<s for

-eace Sadat was assassinated in 3;73O. That has been the official line inthe United States) and yo* si&-ly cannot de,iate fro& it in the -ress orscholarshi-.

0t<s total lies fro& beginning to end. Ta(e Sadat? Sadat &ade a -eaceoffer to 0srael in Bebr*ary 3;93) a better offer fro& 0srael<s -oint of ,iewthan the one he later initiated in 3;99 which led to the 'a&- a,id -eacetal(sO. 0t was a f*ll -eace treaty e1actly in accord with U.N. Resol*tion $8$

which had called for a ret*rn to -re4J*ne 3;69 borders in the region with

sec*rity g*arantees) b*t &ade no &ention of Palestinian rights O4the UnitedStates and 0srael t*rned it down) therefore it<s o*t of history. 89 0n Jan*ary3;96) Syria) Jordan and Egy-t -ro-osed a two4state -eace settle&ent at theU.N. Sec*rity 'o*ncil on the basis of U.N. $8$) and the P. .!. s*--ortedthe -ro-osal4it called for territorial g*arantees) the whole b*siness? theUnited States ,etoed it) so it<s o*t of history) it didn<t ha--en. 87 +nd it *stgoes on fro& there? the United States was *nwilling to s*--ort any of these

-eace offers) so they<re o*t of history) they<re down !rwell<s &e&ory hole.8;

0n fact) it<s e,en at the -oint where o*rnals in the United States will not -er&it letters referring to these -ro-osalsC the degree of control on this isstartling) act*ally. Bor e1a&-le) a few years ago >eorge Will wrote a col4*&n in $ewswee& called AMideast Tr*th and Balsehood)A abo*t how -eace

acti,ists are lying abo*t the Middle East) e,erything they say is a lie. +ndin the article) there was one state&ent that had a ,ag*e relation to fact? hesaid that Sadat had ref*sed to deal with 0srael *ntil 3;99. 5% So 0 wrote the&a letter) the (ind of letter yo* write to $ewswee&8you (now) fo*r lines4inwhich 0 said) AWill has one state&ent of fact) it<s falseC Sadat &ade a -eaceoffer in 3;93) and 0srael and the United States t*rned it down.A Well) aco*-le days later 0 got a call fro& a research editor who chec(s facts for the

$ewswee& A ettersA col*&n. She said? AWe<re (ind of interested in yo*rletter) where did yo* get those factsIA So 0 told her) AWell) they<re -*b4lished in $ewswee&) on Bebr*ary 7) 3;93 A4which is tr*e) beca*se it was a

big -ro-osal) it *st ha--ened to go down the &e&ory hole in the United




States beca*se it was the wrong story. 53 So she loo(ed it *- and called &e bac() and said) A eah) yo*<re right) we fo*nd it thereC o(ay) we<ll r*n yo*rletter.A +n ho*r later she called again and said) A>ee) 0<& sorry) b*t wecan<t r*n the letter.A 0 said) AWhat<s the -roble&IA She said) AWell) the edi4tor &entioned it to Will and he<s ha,ing a tantr*&C they decided they can<tr*n it.A Well) o(ay.

2*t the -oint is) in $ewswee& and the $ew %or& 'imes and the Wash8ington #ost and so on) yo* si&-ly cannot state these facts4it<s li(e belief indi,inity or so&ething) the lies ha,e beco&e i&&*table tr*th.

W+M*$, 'hen what happened with the Camp -avid *ccords8why did the2nited States and 6srael agree to deal with Egypt at that point0

Well) if yo* loo( bac( to aro*nd 3;93 or so) yo*<ll find that all the+&erican a&bassadors in the Middle East were warning "issinger thatthere was going to be a war if the United States (e-t bloc(ing e,ery di-lo4&atic o-tion for resol,ing the conflict. 5$ E,en the big oil co&-anies werein fa,or of a -olitical settle&ent) they were telling the White Ho*se? A oo()if yo* bloc( e,ery di-lo&atic o-tion) the +rabs are going to go to war)they<,e got no choice.A 5: 2*t in the White Ho*se they were *st la*ghing)it was all a big o(e4 *st li(e they were la*ghing in 0srael. +nd on -*relyracist gro*nds.

See) intelligence syste&s are ,ery flawed instit*tions? they<re highlyideological) they<re fanatic) they<re racist) and as a res*lt the infor&ationthat co&es thro*gh the& is *s*ally grossly distorted. Well) in this case theintelligence infor&ation was) A+rabs don<t (now how to fight.A The chief of0sraeli &ilitary intelligence) ehosifat Har(abi) his line was) AWar is notthe +rab<s ga&eA4yo* (now) these goo(s don<t (now which end of the g*nto hold) yo* don<t ha,e to worry abo*t the&. +nd the +&erican &ilitary)the '.0.+.) e,eryone ob,io*sly was -rod*cing the sa&e infor&ation? ifSadat &obiliGes an ar&y in the Sinai) yo* (ind of la*gh) AWhat do theseg*ys thin( they<re doingI We<ll lea,e se,en h*ndred &en on the 2ar4 e,

ine and that<ll sto- the&.A 58 So the United States ref*sed to -*rs*e adi-lo&atic settle&ent) and that ref*sal then bro*ght on the 3;9: war4wheres*ddenly it t*rned o*t that war was the +rab<s ga&e? the Egy-tians won a&a or ,ictory in the Sinai) it was *ite a &ilitary o-eration) in fact. +nd it

*st shoc(ed U.S. and 0sraeli intelligence) it really frightened the&4beca*seli(e 0 say) state -lanners *s*ally *nderstand ,iolence) e,en if they can<t *n4derstand anything else. So in the <9: war) it s*ddenly beca&e clear that theass*&-tion that Awar is not the +rab<s ga&eA was false? Egy-t wasn"t a&ilitary bas(et4case.

!(ay) as long as Egy-t was a bas(et4case) the United States had beencontent to let the& be a R*ssian ally4if the R*ssians want to sin( &oneyinto this &orass) that<s fine) we don<t &ind) we *st la*gh at the&. 2*t in the3;9: war) it s*ddenly beca&e clear that Egy-t wasn<t *st a bas(et4case)




all sorts of abor Party doc*&ents. +nd the boo( is al&ost a daily recordof cabinet &eetings in 0srael between 3;69 and <994right in the -eriod whenthey were trying to fig*re o*t *st what to do with the !cc*-ied Territories.59

Well) there<s ,irt*ally no &ention of sec*rity) barely a &ention of it. !nething that does get &entioned a lot is what they call the Ade&ogra-hic

-roble&A4the -roble& of what do yo* do abo*t too &any +rabs in a Jewishstate. !(ay) that<s called the Ade&ogra-hic -roble&A in 0srael) and in fact)

-eo-le here refer to it that way too. 57 The -*r-ose of that ter&) whichso*nds li(e (ind of a ne*tral sociological ter&) is to disg*ise the fact thatit<s a dee-ly racist notion4we wo*ld see that right off if we a--lied it here.

i(e) s*--ose so&e gro*- in New or( 'ity started tal(ing abo*t the Ade4&ogra-hic -roble&A4there are too &any Jews and blac(s. There are too&any Jews and blac(s in New or( 'ity) and we<,e got to do so&ethingabo*t it) beca*se they<re ta(ing o,er4so we<,e got to deal with the Ade&o4gra-hic -roble&.A 0t wo*ldn<t be ,ery hard to decode this. 2*t in 0srael andin this boo( of cabinet records) there<s a lot of tal( abo*t the Ade&ogra-hic

-roble&)A and it<s easy to see what that &eans.+nother thing they tal( abo*t a lot is water4and that<s a ,ery cr*cial

thing) which is not disc*ssed ,ery &*ch in the United States b*t it<s -roba4 bly the &ain reason why 0srael is ne,er going to gi,e *- the West 2an(.

See) this is a ,ery arid region) so water is &ore i&-ortant than oil) and thereare ,ery li&ited water reso*rces in 0srael. 0n fact) a lot of the wars in theMiddle East ha,e been abo*t water4for instance) the wars in,ol,ing 0sraeland Syria ha,e *s*ally been abo*t the headwaters of the Jordan) whichco&e fro& Syria) Jordan) and ebanon. +nd as a &atter of fact) one of the&ain reasons why 0srael is holding on to the so4called ASec*rity oneA itseiGed in so*thern ebanon in the 3;7$ in,asionO is that that area incl*desa &o*ntain) Mo*nt Her&on) which is a big -art of the watershed that bringswater to the region. +ct*ally) the in,asion of ebanon was -robably an at4te&-t) a&ong other things) to get ahold of the itani Ri,er) a little farther tothe north4b*t they were dri,en bac( by Shiite resistance and co*ldn<t holdon to it) so they had to -*ll bac(.

Well) econo&ic facts are classified in 0srael) so yo* can<t be s*re of the

e1act n*&bers) b*t &ost of the st*dies on this) incl*ding so&e +&ericanst*dies) indicate that 0srael is getting abo*t a third of its water fro& theWest 2an(. +nd there really is no alternati,e to that) short of so&e sort oftechnological inno,ation4li(e) &aybe so&eday so&eone will in,ent atechni *e of desalination) so they co*ld *se seawater. 2*t at the &o&ent)there is no other alternati,e? there are no *ndergro*nd water so*rces e1ce-tthe West 2an( so*rces) 0srael didn<t get the itani Ri,er) they ob,io*slyaren<t going to get the Nile4so there *st is no other water so*rce for the&)e1ce-t the West 2an( so*rces.

+nd in fact) one of the occ*-ation -olicies that the +rabs in the West2an( ha,e fo*nd &ost onero*s is that 0srael forbids the& to dig dee- wells.



Chapter @our 3

Well) that<s ,ery hard on +rab agric*lt*re40 &ean) an +rab far&er on theWest 2an( has the sa&e water allot&ent for far&ing that a Jewish city4dweller in Tel +,i, has *st for drin(ing. Thin( abo*t that? the drin(ing44water for a Jewish city resident is the sa&e as the total water for an +rabfar&er) who<s got to do irrigation) and ta(e care of li,estoc() and do e,ery4thing else yo* do on a far&. +nd the +rabs are not allowed to sin( dee-wells) they<re only allowed to sin( shallow wells that yo* do witho*t e *i-4&ent4the dee- wells are Jewish wells) only for Jewish settlers) and they getso&ething li(e twel,e ti&es as &*ch water) or so&e h*ge a&o*nt &orewater. 5;

!(ay) so water<s a big iss*e that co&es *- in the doc*&ents) there<s theAde&ogra-hic -roble&)A there are historical reasons) and so&e other thingstoo4b*t the fact is) there is ,ery little tal( abo*t sec*rity concerns.

I ,perial 6mbitions and the 'ra0 Threat

M*$, Well) 6 don"t &now about these cabinet records8but the fact is thatwhen 6srael was originally conceived in 3;87) it was immediately lungedupon by virtually everybody on its borders, all of the *rab countries imme8diately tried to destroy it) and prevent its very existence. Wouldn"t you saythe 6sraeli people are Austified in remembering that history still) as they setnational policies today0

Well) yo*<re right that that<s the standard line abo*t what ha--ened. 2*tit<s not tr*e. "ee- in &ind the bac(gro*nd facts. 0n No,e&ber 3;89) theU.N. >eneral +sse&bly &ade a reco&&endation for a three4way -artitionof Palestine into a Jewish state) an +rab state) and a s&all internationally4ad&inistered Gone that wo*ld ha,e incl*ded Jer*sale& the area was *nder2ritish i&-erial controlO.6% Now) 0 sho*ld stress that this was a >eneral+sse&bly recommendation) and >eneral +sse&bly reco&&endations ha,eno force? they are only reco&&endations. 0srael insists that they ha,e noforce) 0 sho*ld say40srael is by far the greatest ,iolator of >eneral +sse&blyreco&&endations) beginning in ece&ber 3;87) when 0srael re ected the>eneral +sse&bly call for allowing Palestinian ref*gees the right of ret*rn

they had fled ,iolence that bro(e o*t in Palestine beginning in No,e&ber3;89O. 0n fact) 0srael was acce-ted into the United Nations on condition thatit acce-t that re *ire&ent) and it clai&ed that it wo*ld acce-t it4b*t then iti&&ediately ref*sed to carry thro*gh on that -ro&ise.6l +nd it goes onright *ntil today? 0 don<t (now how &any) b*t -robably h*ndreds of >eneral+sse&bly reco&&endations ha,e been re ected by 0srael.

+nyway) s*ch a reco&&endation was &ade by the >eneral +sse&bly in No,e&ber 3;89) and at that -oint war bro(e o*t in Palestine a&ong thePalestinians and the ionists Jewish nationalistsO. The ionists were by far




the &ore -owerf*l and better organiGed force) and by May 3;87) when thestate of 0srael was for&ally established) abo*t :%%)%%% Palestinians alreadyhad been e1-elled fro& their ho&es or had fled the fighting) and the ion4ists controlled a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish state thathad been -ro-osed by the U.N. 6$ Now) it<s then that 0srael was attac(ed byits neighbors4in May 3;87C it<s then) after the ionists had ta(en control ofthis &*ch larger -art of the region and h*ndreds of tho*sands of ci,ilianshad been forced o*t) not before.

+nd f*rther&ore) there<s ,ery good scholarshi- on this that<s co&e o*t in0srael now which shows) 0 thin( -retty concl*si,ely) that the inter,ention ofthe +rab states was ,ery rel*ctant) and that it was to a large e1tent directednot against 0srael) b*t against "ing +bd*llah of Trans ordan Kwhat<s nowJordanL) who was basically a client r*ler for the 2ritish. +nd the +rab statesin fact did it beca*se they felt that +bd*llah was *st a -awn of 2ritain) andthey had good reason to belie,e that he was assisting the 2ritish inreconstr*cting their i&-erial syste& in the region in ,ario*s ways 2ritainhad arranged to t*rn for&al ad&inistration of Palestine o,er to the United

Nations in May 3;87O. 0t<ll be a h*ndred years before any of this &aterialenters &ainstrea& +&erican scholarshi-) 0 sho*ld say4b*t it<s ,ery goodscholarshi-) and it<s i&-ortant. 6:

So anyway) the area that<s now Jordan was being r*led by a 2ritishclient) and the other +rab states in the region regarded the Jordanian &ili4tary) *ite correctly) as *st a 2ritish ar&y with (ind of a g*y with +rabheadgear leading the&. +nd they were ,ery &*ch concerned abo*t the factKwhich they (new at so&e le,el) e,en if they didn<t (now all of the detailsLthat +bd*llah and the ionists were coo-erating in a -lan to -re,ent the es4tablish&ent of a Palestinian state4which in fact did ha--en) +bd*llah andthe ionists did carry o*t that -lan of -artitioning the area that was to be thePalestinian state between the&. 68 +nd f*rther&ore) +bd*llah also had &*chgreater -lans of his own? he wanted to ta(e o,er Syria) and beco&e the (ingof A>reater Syria.A +nd there was a--arently a -lan in which 0srael wasgoing to attac( Syria) and then +bd*llah was going to &o,e into Syria todefend the Syrians and end *- afterwards holding the whole -ie) by -re4arrange&ent. Well) that -lan ne,er *ite got wor(ed o*t) as history shows4

b*t the other +rab states had wind of it) so then they &o,ed in against 0sraelto try to bloc( +bd*llah<s goals. 65

+nd there were -owerf*l reasons for that) re&e&ber? this was the -eriodof decoloniGation) and the &a or concern of the -eo-le of the region at theti&e was to get the 2ritish o*t4and +bd*llah was *st a -awn of the 2ritish)and they didn<t want to see 2ritish i&-erialis& reestablished. !f co*rse)they didn<t want the state of 0srael aro*nd either) and they o--osed it4b*tthat was -robably a &inor consideration in the attac(C really a &inorconsideration) act*ally. 0n fact) in 3;8; both Syria and Egy-t &ade ,erye1-licit -ro-osals for a -eace treaty with 0srael) and 0srael re ected the&40srael didn<t want s*ch a -eace treaty.66




ebanon on so&e -rete1t as late as the &id43;5%s. 6; So we (now all abo*twhat he wanted) and li(e the rest) it<s ,ery different fro& the stories yo* al4ways hear.

Prospe-ts for the Palestinians

W+M*$, 'hen is there any hope at all for Austice for the hundreds andhundreds of thousands of #alestinians who have been displaced from their

homeland over the years8as well as for those who are still in 6srael and the'erritories0

Well) the ob ecti,e reality is that &ost of the Palestinian ref*gees willne,er go bac( to Palestine4that<s *st a fact of life) *st li(e the +&erican0ndians will ne,er get bac( what they had on the +&erican continent. So inthat res-ect) there<ll ne,er be *stice. +nd there<s *st no way o*t of that? ifthere was e,er any -ros-ect of Palestinians in any large n*&ber going bac(to what was for&erly Palestine) 0srael wo*ld -robably blow *- the world)which they<re ca-able of doing)9V +nd that<s ne,er going to ha--en.

So the only *estion is) what (ind of li&ited for& of *stice can beachie,edI +nd that<s tric(y. 0 &ean) if 0srael can<t s*--ress the 0ntifada at areasonable cost) the United States and 0srael &ight shift fro& their re ec4tionist stance and beco&e willing to acce-t so&e ,ariety of Palestinian self4deter&ination. +nd if that ha--ens) then yo*<ll ha,e to loo( serio*sly atwhat yo* &ean by a Atwo4state settle&entA4and the reality is) it<s not ,eryeasy to en,ision) for so&e of the reasons 0<,e &entioned? there are reso*rce

-roble&s) there are -roble&s of integration of the areas) there are border4setting iss*es. Re&e&ber that the U.N. resol*tion -artitioning Palestine in3;89O did not strictly s-ea(ing call for two states) it called for an econo&icconfederation4and that was *ite realistic. 93 +nybody who<s been there(nows that two states don<t &a(e &*ch sense4beca*se the regions are *sttoo closely integrated) and the borders are too craGy) and when yo* loo(e,en &ore serio*sly yo* see e,en f*rther that it wo*ldn<t wor(. So the onlything that &a(es any sense is so&e sort of confederation. 2*t yo* can

-retty well -redict what will ha--en? there will be two states) e1ce-t onlyone of the states will really e1ist) the other one will *st collect garbage.

0n fact) 0 s*s-ect that<ll be the ne1t -ro-osal) and it<ll all co&e *nder the banner of a Atwo stateA settle&ent4and that<s going to be a lot harder toarg*e abo*t) beca*se then -eo-le will really ha,e to thin( behind the head4lines to see what<s going on. 2*t achie,ing so&e (ind of &eaningf*l federa4tion between the 0sraelis and the Palestinians) with really di,idedso,ereignty4that<s going to be e1tre&ely hard) we *st ha,e to face that.+nd that<s abo*t the only (ind of sol*tion that &a(es any sense) 0 thin(44it<sthe only li&ited for& of *stice 0 can see.



Chapter @our 3=

M*$, 'here"s also the different mentality between the *rabs and ews that figures into it too) don"t you thin&8isn"t that always going to get in the wayof peace0

They<re the sa&e (ind of -eo-le) they ha,e the sa&e (ind of &entality.They bleed when they<re c*t) they &o*rn when their children are (illed. 0<&not aware of any difference between the&.

5egitima-y in 9istoryW+M*$, o you thin& the passage of time can give legitimacy to 6srael)even if maybe it was started out on the wrong sort of basis) displacing theindigenous population in a racist manner and so on0

Well) yeah4the general answer to yo*r *estion *st has to be yes. 0f not)we<d ha,e to go bac( to the days of h*nter4gatherer societies) beca*se all ofhistory has been illegiti&ate.

0 &ean) ta(e a case close to the Palestinians) which we as +&ericanso*ght to thin( abo*t4ta(e the United States. Now) 0 thin( the treat&ent ofthe Palestinians by 0srael has been bad) b*t in co&-arison to the treat&entof the nati,e -o-*lation here by o*r forefathers) it<s been a -aradise.

Here in the United States) we *st co&&itted genocide. Period. P*regenocide. +nd it wasn<t *st in the United States) it was all *- and down theHe&is-here. '*rrent esti&ates are that north of the Rio >rande) there wereabo*t twel,e to fifteen &illion Nati,e +&ericans at the ti&e 'ol*&b*slanded) so&ething li(e that. 2y the ti&e E*ro-eans reached the continental

borders of the United States) there were abo*t $%%)%%%. !(ay? &assgenocide. +cross the whole Western He&is-here) the -o-*lation declinewas -robably on the order of fro& a h*ndred &illion -eo-le to abo*t fi,e&illion. 9$ That<s -retty serio*s st*ff4it was horrifying right fro& the be4ginning in the early se,enteenth cent*ry) then it got worse after the UnitedStates was established) and it *st contin*ed *ntil finally the nati,e -o-*la4tions were basically st*c( away in little encla,es. The history of treaty ,io4lations by the United States is *st grotes *e? treaties with the 0ndiannations by law ha,e a stat*s the sa&e as that of treaties a&ong so,ereignstates) b*t thro*gho*t o*r history nobody e,er -aid the slightest attention tothe&44as soon as yo* wanted &ore land) yo* *st forgot the treaty androbbed itC it<s a ,ery *gly and ,icio*s history. 9: Hitler in fact *sed thetreat&ent of the Nati,e +&ericans as a &odel) e1-licitly44he said) that<swhat we<re going to do with the Jews. 98

0n fact) a boo( ca&e o*t in >er&any recently called) in >er&an) 'he @ive /undred %ear Reich88 act*ally) it<s -art of a big effort that<s beginningto de,elo- aro*nd the world to try to t*rn 3;;$ into a year of &e&ory ofgenocide) instead of a year of celebration of the 5%%th anni,ersary of what<s



Chapter @our 3?

ists) we ha,e to recogniGe that it e1ists) and states ha,e to be gi,enwhate,er rights they are accorded in the international syste&. 2*t theindigeno*s -o-*lations ha,e to be gi,en co&-arable rights too) 0 thin(4atleast. So when 0 deno*nce a-ologetics for 0srael<s o--ression) re&e&ber)it<s not in any -artic*lar criticis& of 0srael. 0n fact) 0 thin( 0srael is *st as*gly a state as e,ery other state. The only difference is that 0srael has afabricated i&age in the United States4it<s regarded as ha,ing so&e *ni *e&oral *ality) and there<s all sorts of i&agery abo*t -*rity of ar&s) andhigh noble intent and so on. 97 0t<s co&-lete &ythology) *st -*re fabrication?0srael<s a co*ntry li(e e,ery other co*ntry) and we sho*ld recogniGe thatand sto- the nonsense. To tal( abo*t legiti&acy is ridic*lo*s4the worddoesn<t a--ly) to their history or anyone else<s.

1ualifications to Speak on &orld *ffairsG +Presidential Campaign

M*$, Mr. Choms&y) 6"m wondering what specific :ualifications you haveto be able to spea& all around the country about world affairs0

None whatsoe,er. 0 &ean) the *alifications that 0 ha,e to s-ea( onworld affairs are e1actly the sa&e ones Henry "issinger has) and Walt Ros4

tow has) or anybody in the Political Science e-art&ent) -rofessional his4torians4none) none that yo* don<t ha,e. The only difference is) 0 don<t pretend to ha,e *alifications) nor do 0 -retend that *alifications areneeded. 0 &ean) if so&ebody were to as( &e to gi,e a tal( on *ant*&

-hysics) 0<d ref*se4beca*se 0 don<t *nderstand eno*gh. 2*t world affairs aretri,ial? there<s nothing in the social sciences or history or whate,er that is

beyond the intellect*al ca-acities of an ordinary fifteen4year4old. o* ha,eto do a little wor() yo* ha,e to do so&e reading) yo* ha,e to be able tothin() b*t there<s nothing dee-4if there are any theories aro*nd that re *ireso&e s-ecial (ind of training to *nderstand) then they<,e been (e-t acaref*lly g*arded secret.

0n fact) 0 thin( the idea that yo*<re s*--osed to ha,e s-ecial *alifica4tions to tal( abo*t world affairs is *st another sca&4it<s (ind of li(e

eninis& -osition that socialist re,ol*tion sho*ld be led by a A,ang*ardA -artyO? it<s *st another techni *e for &a(ing the -o-*lation feel that theydon<t (now anything) and they<d better *st stay o*t of it and let *s s&artg*ys r*n it. 0n order to do that) what yo* -retend is that there<s so&e eso4teric disci-line) and yo*<,e got to ha,e so&e letters after yo*r na&e beforeyo* can say anything abo*t it. The fact is) that<s a o(e.

M*$, (ut don"t you also use that system too) because of your name88recognition and the fact that you"re a famous linguist0 6 mean) would 0 beinvited to go somewhere and give tal&s0



Chapter @our 3

W+M*$, (ut what about Aust to create a forum where more of the popula8tion would hear this different point of view0

Well) if yo* want to *se it (ind of instr*&entally) li(e * its* or so&e4thing4*se the -ro-erties of the syste& against it4o(ay. 2*t 0 don<t really

thin( that &a(es any sense) fran(ly.W+M*$, 'he form of government we have Aust has to be overthrown) in

your view0 'here"s no way of doing it through reform0

0t<s not a rele,ant distinction? if yo* co*ld e,er get to the -oint where arefor&ist candidate had a chance) yo*<d already ha,e won) yo*<d alreadyha,e done the &ain thing. The &ain thing is to de,elo- the (ind of &asss*--ort which wo*ld &a(e a re,ol*tion &eaningf*l. +t that -oint) so&ecroo( will co&e along and say) A0<& yo*r leader) 0<ll do it for yo*.A

M*$, What do you thin& could have that effect) though0 ust li&e $oamChoms&y) say) going and tal&ing to five hundred people here and there0

ust &eep plugging away0

eah) yo* (ee- -l*gging away4that<s the way social change ta(es -lace.That<s the way e,ery social change in history has ta(en -lace? by a lot of

-eo-le) who nobody e,er heard of) doing wor(.

M*$, -id you go through a phase of hopelessness) or ...

eah) e,ery e,ening.

M*$, 6 feel li&e 6"m &ind of stuc& in one.

E,ery e,ening. 0 &ean) loo(? if yo* want to feel ho-eless) there are a lotof things yo* co*ld feel ho-eless abo*t. 0f yo* want to sort of wor( o*t ob4

ecti,ely what<s the chance that the h*&an s-ecies will s*r,i,e for anothercent*ry) -robably not ,ery high. 2*t 0 &ean) what<s the -ointI

M*$, %ou"ve Aust got to wor& at it.

eah) what<s the -ointI Birst of all) those -redictions don<t &ean any4thing4they<re &ore *st a reflection of yo*r &ood or yo*r -ersonality thananything else. +nd if yo* act on that ass*&-tion) then yo*<re g*aranteeingthat that<ll ha--en. 0f yo* act on the ass*&-tion that things can change) well)&aybe they will. !(ay) the only rational choice) gi,en those alternati,es) isto forget the -essi&is&.



5

%"ling the &orld

(ased on discussions in $ew %or&) Massachusetts) Maryland) Colorado)

6llinois) and +ntario in 3;;% and between 3;;: and >.

Soviet :ers"s &estern E-onomi- 3evelopment

W+M*$, 6n a best8case scenario for the future) how do you envision aneconomic system that wor&s0

Well) o*r econo&ic syste& Awor(s)A it *st wor(s in the interests of the&asters) and 0<d li(e to see one that wor(s in the interests of the general

-o-*lation. +nd that will only ha--en when they are the A-rinci-al archi4tectsA of -olicy) to borrow +da& S&ith<s -hrase. 3 0 &ean) as long as -oweris narrowly concentrated) whether in the econo&ic or the -olitical syste&)yo* (now who<s going to benefit fro& the -olicies4yo* don<t ha,e to be ageni*s to fig*re that o*t. That<s why de&ocracy wo*ld be a good thing forthe general -*blic. 2*t of co*rse) achie,ing real de&ocracy will re *ire thatthe whole syste& of cor-orate ca-italis& be co&-letely dis&antled4beca*seit<s radically anti8democratic. +nd that can<t be done by a stro(e of the -en)yo* (now? yo* ha,e to b*ild *- alternati,e -o-*lar instit*tions) which co*ldallow control o,er society<s in,est&ent decisions to be &o,ed into the hands

of wor(ing -eo-le and co&&*nities. That<s a long ob) it re *ires b*ilding*- an entire c*lt*ral and instit*tional basis for the changes) it<s notso&ething that<s *st going to ha--en on its own. There are -eo-le who ha,ewritten abo*t what s*ch a syste& &ight loo( li(e4(ind of a A-artici-atoryecono&y)A it<s so&eti&es called. $ 2*t s*re) that<s the way to go) 0 thin(.

M*$, (ut Mr. Choms&y) we Aust went through a long experience with anti8capitalism li&e the &ind you"re advocating8and it didn"t wor& out very well.

6t was tried) and the experiment failed. Why are you now advocating the same old thing again0

4.



li(e the& or not4what yo* o*ght to as( is) how did societies that were li&eChapter @ive 4

0<& not. !n the contrary40 -res*&e yo*<re tal(ing abo*t the So,ietUnionI

M*$, Exactly.

Well) there are really two -oints that o*ght to be &ade. Birst of all) theSo,iet Union was basically a ca-italist syste&. The first thing that eninand Trots(y did when they too( -ower in !ctober 3;39) re&e&ber) was to

destroy all of the for&s of socialist initiati,e that had de,elo-ed in R*ssiasince the start of the R*ssian Re,ol*tion in Bebr*ary 3;39 the R*ssianTsar was o,erthrown by -o-*lar re,ol*tion in Bebr*ary 3;39C enin<s2olshe,i( Party too( o,er eight &onths later in a &ilitary co*-O. J*st now 0was tal(ing abo*t wor(ers and co&&*nities -artici-ating in decision4&a(ing4the first thing the 2olshe,i(s did was to destroy that) totally. Theydestroyed the factory co*ncils) they *nder&ined the so,iets elected localgo,erning bodiesO) they eli&inated the 'onstit*ent +sse&bly

de&ocratically elected -arlia&ent initially do&inated by a ri,al socialistgro*-) which was to go,ern R*ssia b*t was dis-ersed by 2olshe,i( troo-sin Jan*ary 3;37O. 0n fact) they dis&antled e,ery for& of -o-*larorganiGation in R*ssia and set *- a co&&and econo&y with wages and

-rofits) on sort of a centraliGed state4ca-italist &odel. : So on the one hand)the e1a&-le yo*<re referring to is *st the e1tre&e opposite of what 0 wastal(ing abo*t) not the sa&e.

Secondly co&es another *estion. Whate,er yo* thin( of the So,iet eco4no&ic syste&) did it wor( or did it failI Well) in a c*lt*re with dee-ly total4itarian strains) li(e o*rs) we always as( an idiotic *estion abo*t that? weas() how does R*ssia co&-are econo&ically with Western E*ro-e) or withthe United StatesI +nd the answer is) it loo(s -retty bad. 2*t an eight4year4old wo*ld (now the -roble& with that *estion? these econo&ies ha,en<t

been ali(e for si1 h*ndred years4yo*<d ha,e to go bac( to the -re4'ol*&bian -eriod before East and West E*ro-e were anything &ore or lessali(e econo&ically. Eastern E*ro-e had started beco&ing sort of a ThirdWorld ser,ice4area for Western E*ro-e e,en before the ti&e of 'ol*&b*s)

-ro,iding reso*rces and raw &aterials for the e&erging te1tile and &etalind*stries of the West. +nd for cent*ries) R*ssia re&ained a dee-ly i&-o,4erished Third World co*ntry. 8 0 &ean) there were a few s&all -oc(ets ofde,elo-&ent there and also a rich sector of elites) writers and so on4b*tthat<s li(e e,ery Third World co*ntry? atin +&erican literat*re is so&e ofthe richest in the world) for e1a&-le) e,en tho*gh its -eo-le are so&e of the&ost &iserable in the world. +nd if yo* *st loo( at the So,iet Union<s eco4no&ic de,elo-&ent in the twentieth cent*ry) it<s e1tre&ely re,ealing. Borinstance) the -ro-ortion of Eastern E*ro-ean to Western E*ro-ean inco&ewas declining *ntil aro*nd 3;3:) then it started rising ,ery fast *ntil aro*nd3;5%) when it (ind of le,eled off. Then in the &id40;6%s) as the So,ietecono&y began to stagnate) the -ro-ortion started to decline a bit) then itdeclined a bit &ore into the late 3;7%s. +fter 3;7;) when the So,iet E&4




-ire finally bro(e *-) it went into free4fall4and it is now again a--ro1i4&ately what it was in 3;3:. 5 !(ay) that tells yo* so&ething abo*t whetherthe So,iet econo&ic &odel was s*ccessf*l or not.

Now) s*--ose we as(ed a rational *estion) instead of as(ing an insane*estion li(e Ahow did the So,iet Union co&-are with Western E*ro-eIA 0f

yo* want to e,al*ate alternati,e &odes of econo&ic de,elo-&ent44whetheryo* li(e the& or not4what yo* o*ght to as( is) how did societies that wereli&e Chapter @ive 4

the Soviet 2nion in 5 compare with it in 50 Well) history doesn"toffer precise analogs) but there are good choices. So we could compare

Russia and (ra il) say) or (ulgaria and Duatemala8those are reasonablecompa the So,iet Union in 3;3% co&-are with it in 3;;%I Well) historydoesn<t offer -recise analogs) b*t there are good choices. So we co*ldco&-are R*ssia and 2raGil) say) or 2*lgaria and >*ate&ala4those are rea4sonable co&-arisons. 2raGil) for e1a&-le) o*ght to be a s*-er4rich co*ntry?it has *nbelie,able nat*ral reso*rces) it has no ene&ies) it hasn<t been -rac4tically destroyed three ti&es by in,asions in this cent*ry i.e. the So,ietUnion s*ffered &assi,e losses in both World Wars and the 3;37 Westerninter,ention in its 'i,il WarO. 0n fact) it<s a lot better e *i--ed to de,elo-than the So,iet Union e,er was. !(ay) *st co&-are 2raGil and R*ssia4that<s a sane co&-arison.

Well) there<s a good reason why nobody *nderta(es it) and we only &a(eidiotic co&-arisons4beca*se if yo* co&-are 2raGil and R*ssia) or >*ate4&ala and H*ngary) yo* get the wrong answer. 2raGil) for &aybe 5 or 3%

-ercent of its -o-*lation) is indeed li(e Western E*ro-e4and for aro*nd 7% -ercent of its -o-*lation) it<s (ind of li(e 'entral +frica. 0n fact) for -robably 7% -ercent of the 2raGilian -o-*lation) So,iet R*ssia wo*ld ha,eloo(ed li(e hea,en. 0f a >*ate&alan -easant s*ddenly landed in 2*lgaria)he<d -robably thin( he<d gone to -aradise or so&ething. So therefore wedon<t &a(e those co&-arisons) we only &a(e craGy co&-arisons) whichanybody who thin(s for a second wo*ld see are -re-ostero*s. +nd e,ery4

body here does &a(e the&? all the acade&ics &a(e the&) all the de,elo-4&ent econo&ists &a(e the&) the news-a-er co&&entators &a(e the&. 2*t

*st thin( for a second? if yo* want to (now how s*ccessf*l the So,iet

econo&ic syste& was) co&-are R*ssia in 3;;% with so&e-lace that wasli&eit in 3;3%. 0s that s*ch a brilliant insightI0n fact) the World 2an( ga,e its own analysis of the s*ccess of the

So,iet de,elo-&ent &odel. The World 2an( is not a radical o*tfit) as 0<&s*re yo* realiGe) b*t in 3;;% it described R*ssia and 'hina as Arelati,elys*ccessf*l societies that de,elo-ed by e1tricating the&sel,es fro& theinternational &ar(et)A altho*gh finally they ran into tro*ble and had toret*rn to the fold. 6 2*t Arelati,ely s*ccessf*lA4and as co&-ared withco*ntries they were li(e before their re,ol*tions) very s*ccessf*l.

0n fact) that<s e1actly what the U.S. was worried abo*t in the 'old War inthe first -lace) if yo* want to (now the tr*th4that So,iet econo&ic de4,elo-&ent *st loo(ed too good to -oor Third World co*ntries) it was a&odel they wanted to follow. 0 &ean) in -art the 'old War went on beca*se

it t*rned o*t to be a ,ery good way for the two s*-er-owers to (ee- controlo,er their res-ecti,e e&-ires4each *sing fear of the other to &obiliGe its



Chapter @ive 43

own -o-*lation) and at the sa&e ti&e (ind of tacitly agreeing not to inter4fere with the other<s do&ains. 2*t for the U.S.) the origin of the 'old Warand in fact the stated concern of +&erican -lanners thro*gho*t4was that ah*ge area of the traditional Third World had e1tricated itself fro& e14

-loitation by the West) and was now starting to -*rs*e an inde-endentco*rse. 9 So if yo* read the declassified internal go,ern&ent record4of whichwe ha,e -lenty by now4yo*<ll see that the &ain concern of to- Western

-lanners right into the 3;6%s was that the e1a&-le of So,iet de,elo-&entwas threatening to brea( a-art the whole +&erican world syste&) beca*seR*ssia was in fact doing so well. Bor e1a&-le) g*ys li(e John Boster *lles

+&erican Secretary of StateO and Harold Mac&illan 2ritish Pri&eMinisterO were frightened o*t of their wits by R*ssia<s de,elo-&entals*ccess4and it was s*ccessf*l. 7 0 &ean) notice that R*ssia is not referred toas a AThird WorldA co*ntry today) it<s called a Afailed de,elo-ed co*ntryA orso&ething li(e that4in other words) it did de,elo-) altho*gh *lti&ately itfailed) and now we can go ahead and start reintegrating it bac( into thetraditional Third World again.

+nd in fact) yo* can see that -rocess ta(ing -lace e,er since the So,ietE&-ire dissol,ed4and with the standard effects. The so4called Aecono&icrefor&sA we<,e been instit*ting in the for&er So,iet4bloc co*ntries ha,e

been an absol*te catastro-he for &ost of their -o-*lations4b*t Westernin,estors and a standard Third World elite of s*-er4rich are &a(ing h*gefort*nes) in -art by s(i&&ing off &ost of the AaidA that gets sent there) in,ario*s ways. ; 0n fact) U.N.0.'.E.B. United Nations 0nternational 'hil4dren<s E&ergency B*ndO -*t o*t a st*dy a little while ago esti&ating *st thesi&-le h*&an cost) li(e deaths) of what they call the Aca-italist refor&sA inR*ssia and Poland and the others Kand incidentally) they approved of therefor&sL4and for R*ssia) they calc*lated that there ha,e been abo*t a half4&illion e1tra deaths a year *st as a res*lt of the&. Poland<s a s&allerco*ntry) so it was a s&aller n*&ber) b*t the res*lts were -ro-ortionalthro*gho*t the region. 0n the 'Gech Re-*blic) the -ercentage of the -o-*4lation li,ing in -o,erty has gone fro& 5.9 -ercent in 3;7; to 37.$ -ercent in3;;$C in Poland) the fig*res are so&ething li(e fro& $% -ercent to 8% -er4cent. So if yo* wal( down the streets of Warsaw now) s*re) yo*<ll find a lotof nice st*ff in the sho- windows4b*t that<s the sa&e as in any Third Worldco*ntry? -lenty of wealth) ,ery narrowly concentratedC and -o,erty)star,ation) death) and h*ge ine *ality for the ,ast &a ority. l%

+nd act*ally) that<s the reason the so4called A'o&&*nistA Parties inEastern E*ro-e and R*ssia are getting ,otes these days. 0 &ean) when theydescribe that here) they say) Ait<s nostalgia) they forget how bad it was in theold daysA 4b*t there<s no nostalgia. 33 0 don<t thin( anybody there act*allywants to go bac( to the Stalinist d*ngeon again4it<s not that they<re nostalgicabo*t the past) it<s that they<re a--rehensi,e abo*t the future. They can seewhat<s co&ing ,ery well) na&ely 2raGil and >*ate&ala) and as bad as theirsyste& was) that<s worse. M*ch worse.




S"pporting Terror

So the fact that R*ssia had -*lled itself o*t of the West<s traditionalThird World ser,ice4area and was de,elo-ing on an inde-endent co*rsewas really one of the &a or &oti,ations behind the 'old War. 0 &ean) thestandard line yo* always hear abo*t it is that we were o--osing Stalin<s ter4ror4b*t that<s total b*llshit. Birst of all) we sho*ldn<t e,en be able to repeatthat line witho*t a sense of self4&oc(ery) gi,en o*r record. o we o--oseanybody else<s terrorI o we o--ose 0ndonesia<s terror in East Ti&orI o

we o--ose terror in >*ate&ala and El Sal,adorI o we o--ose what wedid to So*th Dietna&I No) we s*--ort terror all the ti&e4in fact) we -*t itin -ower.

J*st ta(e a loo( at U.S. aid) for instance. There ha,e been a lot of st*diesof it) incl*ding st*dies by -eo-le who write in the &ainstrea&) and whatthey show is that there is in fact a ,ery high correlation between U.S. for4eign aid and h*&an rights ab*ses. Bor e1a&-le) ars Scho*ltG at the Uni4,ersity of North 'arolina4who<s the &a or acade&ic s-ecialist on h*&anrights in atin +&erica and a highly res-ected &ainstrea& scholar4-*b4lished a st*dy on U.S. aid to atin +&erica al&ost fifteen years ago) inwhich he identified an e1tre&ely close correlation between U.S. aid andtort*re? as he -*t it) the &ore a co*ntry tort*res its citiGens and the &oreegregio*s are the ,iolations of h*&an rights) the higher is U.S. aid.

0n fact) it<s tr*e at this ,ery &o&ent. The leading h*&an rights ,iolatorin the Western He&is-here by a good &argin is 'olo&bia) which has *stan atrocio*s record4they ha,e Asocial cleansingA -rogra&s) before e,eryelection &e&bers of the o--osition -arties get &*rdered) labor *nionleaders are &*rdered) st*dents) dissidents are &*rdered) there are deaths *ads all aro*nd. !(ay) &ore than half of U.S. aid to the entireHe&is-here goes to 'olo&bia) and the fig*re<s increasing *nder 'linton. 3:

Well) that<s *st nor&al) and li(e 0 say) si&ilar res*lts ha,e been shownworld4wide. 38 So clai&s abo*t o*r concern for h*&an rights are e1tre&elydiffic*lt to s*--ort? in -recisely the regions of the world where we<,e hadthe &ost control) the &ost hideo*s things yo* can i&agine ha--ensyste&atically44-eo-le ha,e to sell their organs for &oney in order tos*r,i,e) -olice death s *ads lea,e flayed bodies hanging by the roadsideswith their genitals st*ffed in their &o*ths) children are ensla,ed) and worse)those aren<t the worst stories. 35

+s for Stalin) leaders in the West admired hi&) they didn<t gi,e a da&nabo*t his terror. President Tr*&an) for e1a&-le) described Stalin as As&artas hell)A Ahonest)A Awe can get along with hi&)A Ait<ll be a real catastro-he ifhe dies.A He said) what goes on in R*ssia 0 don<t really care abo*t) it<s not&y b*siness) so long as Awe get o*r way 75 -ercent of the ti&e.A 36 We geto*r way 75 -ercent of the ti&e with this nice) s&art) decent) honest g*y) wecan do b*siness with hi& fineC he wants to &*rder 8% &illion -eo-le) whatdo we careI Winston 'h*rchill was the sa&e? the 2ritish doc*&ents are



Chapter @ive 4=

now being declassified) and after the alta 'onference in Bebr*ary 3;85)'h*rchill was -raising Stalin in internal cabinet &eetings as a &an of honorwe can tr*st) who can hel- lead *s forward to a new world) a Acha&-ion of

-eace)A Aill*strio*s)A and so on.39 He was -artic*larly i&-ressed with thefact that Stalin didn<t lift a finger while 2ritish troo-s occ*-ied >reece be4ginning in No,e&ber 3;88O and *nder 'h*rchill<s order treated +thens li(eAa con *ered city where a local rebellion is in -rogress)A carrying o*t a big&assacre to destroy the >ree( anti4NaGi resistance and restore the NaGi col4laborators to -ower. Stalin *st stood there *ietly and let the 2ritish do it)

so 'h*rchill said he<s a really nice g*y.37

None of these g*ys had anything against Stalin<s cri&es. What<s &ore)they had nothing against /itler"s cri&es4all this tal( abo*t Western leaders<

-rinci-led o--osition to atrocities is *st a co&-lete fabrication) totally*nder&ined by a loo( at the doc*&entary record. 3; 0t<s *st that if yo*<,e

been -ro-erly ed*cated) yo* can<t *nderstand facts li(e these? e,en if the in4for&ation is right in front of yo*r eyes) yo* can<t co&-rehend it.

APeo-le<s e&ocratic Socialist Re-*blicsA

Well) let &e *st end with one last -oint to do with yo*r *estion. !ne ofthe iss*es which has de,astated a s*bstantial -ortion of the left in recent

years) and ca*sed enor&o*s tri*&-halis& elsewhere) is the alleged fact thatthere<s been this great battle between socialis& and ca-italis& in the twen4tieth cent*ry) and in the end ca-italis& won and socialis& lost4and thereason we (now that socialis& lost is beca*se the So,iet Union disinte4grated. So yo* ha,e big co,er stories in 'he $ation abo*t AThe End of So4cialis&)A and yo* ha,e socialists who all their li,es considered the&sel,esanti4Stalinist saying) A es) it<s tr*e) socialis& has lost beca*se R*ssiafailed.A$% 0 &ean) e,en to raise *estions abo*t this is so&ething yo*<re nots*--osed to do in o*r c*lt*re) b*t let<s try it. S*--ose yo* as( a si&-le

*estion? na&ely) why do -eo-le li(e the editors at 'he $ation say thatAsocialis&A failed) why don<t they say that Ade&ocracyA failedI4and the

-roof that Ade&ocracyA failed is) loo( what ha--ened to Eastern E*ro-e.+fter all) those co*ntries also called the&sel,es Ade&ocraticA4in fact) they

called the&sel,es APeo-le<s e&ocracies)A real ad,anced for&s of de&oc4racy. So why don<t we concl*de that Ade&ocracyA failed) not *st that Aso4cialis&A failedI Well) 0 ha,en<t seen any articles anywhere saying) A oo()de&ocracy failed) let<s forget abo*t de&ocracy.A +nd it<s ob,io*s why? thefact that they called the&sel,es de&ocratic doesn<t &ean that they werede&ocratic. Pretty ob,io*s) rightI

!(ay) then in what sense did socialis& failI 0 &ean) it<s tr*e that theSo,iet Union and its satellites in Eastern E*ro-e called the&sel,es Asocial4istA 4b*t they also called the&sel,es Ade&ocratic.A Were they socialistIWell) yo* can arg*e abo*t what socialis& is) b*t there are so&e ideas that




are sort of at the core of it) li(e wor(ers< control o,er -rod*ction) eli&ina4tion of wage labor) things li(e that. id those co*ntries ha,e any of thosethingsI They weren<t e,en a thought there. +gain) in the -re42olshe,i( -artof the R*ssian Re,ol*tion) there were socialist initiati,es4b*t they werecr*shed instantly after the 2olshe,i(s too( -ower) li(e within &onths. 0nfact) *st as the &o,es towards de&ocracy in R*ssia were instantly de4stroyed) the &o,es towards socialis& were e *ally instantly destroyed. The2olshe,i( ta(eo,er was a co*-4and that was -erfectly well *nderstood atthe ti&e) in fact. So if yo* loo( in the &ainstrea& of the Mar1ist &o,e4

&ent) enin<s ta(eo,er was regarded as co*nter4re,ol*tionaryC if yo* loo(at inde-endent leftists li(e 2ertrand R*ssell) it was instantly ob,io*s tothe&C to the libertarian left) it was a tr*is&. $3

2*t that tr*is& has been dri,en o*t of -eo-le<s heads o,er the years) as -art of a whole -rolonged effort to discredit the ,ery idea of socialis& byassociating it with So,iet totalitarianis&. +nd ob,io*sly that effort has

been e1tre&ely s*ccessf*l4that<s why -eo-le can tell the&sel,es that so4cialis& failed when they loo( at what ha--ened to the So,iet Union) andnot e,en see the slightest thing odd abo*t it. +nd that<s been a ,ery ,al*able

-ro-aganda tri*&-h for elites in the West4beca*se it<s &ade it ,ery easy to*nderc*t &o,es towards real changes in the social syste& here by saying)AWell) that<s socialis&4and loo( what it leads to.A

!(ay) ho-ef*lly with the fall of the So,iet Union we can at least beginto get -ast that barrier) and start reco,ering an *nderstanding of whatsocialis& co*ld really stand for.

The Organ Trade

W+M*$, %ou mentioned 1social cleansing1 and people in the 'hird World selling their body parts for money. 6 don"t &now if you saw the recent (ar 8bara Walters program . ..

The answer is) ANo by definition.A

W+M*$, Well) 6 have to admit 6 watched it. She had a segment on some

*merican women who were attac&ed by villagers in Duatemala and put in Aail for allegedly stealing babies for the organ trade. 'he gist of the storywas that the Duatemalan people are totally out of their minds for suppos8ing that babies are being ta&en out of the country and used for blac& mar8&et sale of organs. What 6"d li&e to &now is) do you &now of any evidencethat this blac& mar&et trade in children"s organs does in fact exist) and do

you thin& the 2.S. might be playing a role in it0

Well) loo(? s*--ose yo* started a r*&or in 2oston that children fro& the2oston s*b*rbs are being (idna--ed by >*ate&alans and ta(en to >*ate4




Sal,adoran go,ern&ent in charge of children Dictoria de +,ilesO) theAProc*rator for the efense of 'hildren)A she<s called) recently stated thatchildren in El Sal,ador are being (idna--ed for ado-tion) cri&e) and organtrans-lants. Well) 0 don<t (now if that<s tr*e or not) b*t it<s not an a*thorityyo* *st dis&iss. 0n 2raGil too there<s been a lot of testi&ony abo*t thesethings fro& ,ery res-ectable so*rces? ch*rch so*rces) &edicalin,estigators) legal so*rces) and others. $9

Now) it<s interesting? 0 didn<t see the 2arbara Walters -rogra& yo* &en4tioned) b*t 0<,e read the State e-art&ent re-orts on which she -robably

based her st*ff4and they<re ,ery selecti,e in their co,erage. They say) A!h)it<s all nonsense and lies) and it was all started by the 'o&&*nists)A andthey trace it bac( to sort of 'o&&*nist so*rces4which do*btless -ic(ed it*-) b*t they are not the so*rces. The State e-art&ent caref*lly e1cl*dedall the other so*rces) li(e the ch*rch so*rces) the go,ern&ent so*rces) the&ainstrea& legal in,estigators) the h*&an rights gro*-s4they didn<t &en4tion the&) they *st said) A eah) the stories were -ic(ed *- by the R*ssian

-ro-aganda a--arat*s bac( in the bad old days.A 2*t that<s not where itco&es fro&. i(e 0 say) the R*ssians co*ldn<t start these stories in the2oston s*b*rbs4and there<s a reason why they co*ldn<t start the& in the2oston s*b*rbs and so&ebody could start the& in >*ate&ala. +nd the rea4son is) there<s a bac(gro*nd in >*ate&ala against which these things are noti&-la*sible4which is not to say these wo&en are being correctly chargedC*ndo*btedly they<re not) these wo&en are *st wo&en who ha--ened to bein >*ate&ala. 2*t the -oint is) that bac(gro*nd &a(es it easy for -eo-lethere to be frightened) and in that sort of conte1t it<s *ite *nderstandablehow these attac(s can ha,e ha--ened.

The %eal Crime of C"ba

W+M*$, Mr. Choms&y) 6"m wondering) how do you explain ourembargo on Cuba8why is it still going on) and can you tal& a bit about the

policies that have been behind it over the years0

Well) '*ba is a co*ntry the United States has considered that it ownse,er since the 37$%s. 0n fact) one of the earliest -arts of U.S. foreign rela4tions history was the decision by Tho&as Jefferson) John F*incy +da&sand others to try to anne1 '*ba. +t the ti&e the 2ritish na,y was in theway) and they were a real deterrent) so the -lan) in +da&s<s words) was towait *ntil '*ba falls into o*r hands li(e a ri-e fr*it) by the laws of -oliticalgra,itation. $7 Well) finally it did) and the U.S. ran it4with the *s*al effects4all the way *- *ntil 3;5;.

0n Jan*ary 3;5;) '*ba had a -o-*lar nationalist re,ol*tion. We now(now fro& declassified U.S. go,ern&ent doc*&ents that the for&al deci4sion to o,erthrow 'astro was &ade by the +&erican go,ern&ent in March



Chapter @ive 4

3;6%4that<s ,ery i&-ortant) beca*se at that -oint there were no R*ssiansaro*nd) and 'astro was in fact considered anti4'o&&*nist by the U.S.

'astro did not align with the So,iet Union *ntil May 3;63) after the U.S.had se,ered di-lo&atic relations with '*ba in Jan*ary and had s-onsoredan in,asion atte&-t in +-ril.O $; So the reason for deciding to o,erthrowthe 'astro go,ern&ent can<t ha,e had anything to do with '*ba being aR*ssian o*t-ost in the 'old War4'*ba was *st ta(ing an inde-endent -ath)which has always been *nacce-table to -owerf*l interests in the UnitedStates.

Strafing and sabotage o-erations began as early as !ctober 3;5;. Then)soon after his ina*g*ration in 3;63) John B. "ennedy la*nched a terroristca&-aign against the& which is witho*t e,en re&ote co&-arison in thehistory of international terroris& !-eration M!N>!!SEO.:o +nd inBebr*ary 3;6$) we instit*ted the e&bargo4which has had absol*tely dev8astating effects on the '*ban -o-*lation.

Re&e&ber) '*ba<s a tiny co*ntry right in the U.S. s-here of infl*ence44it<s not going to be able to s*r,i,e on its own for ,ery long against a &on4ster. 2*t o,er the years) it was able to s*r,i,e4barely4than(s to So,iets*--ort? the So,iet Union was the one -lace '*ba co*ld t*rn to to try to re4sist the United States) and the So,iets did -ro,ide the& with sort of a &ar4gin for s*r,i,al. +nd we sho*ld be realistic abo*t what ha--ened there?&any i&-ortant and i&-ressi,e things ha,e been achie,ed) b*t it<s also

been -retty tyrannical) so there<s been an *-side and a downside. Howe,er)the co*ntry certainly was s*cceeding in ter&s that are &eaningf*l to other

-o-*lations in the region40 &ean) *st co&-are '*ba with Haiti or theo&inican Re-*blic right ne1t door) or with any other -lace in atin

+&erica which the United States has controlled? the difference is ob,io*s)and that<s e1actly what the United States has always been concerned abo*t.

oo() the real cri&e of '*ba was ne,er the re-ression) which) whate,eryo* thin( abo*t it) doesn<t e,en co&e close to the (ind of re-ression weha,e traditionally s*--orted) and in fact i&-le&ented) in nearby co*ntries?not e,en close. The real cri&e of '*ba was the successes) in ter&s of thingsli(e health care and feeding -eo-le) and the general threat of a Ade&onstra4tion effectA that follows fro& that4that is) the threat that -eo-le in other

co*ntries &ight try to do the sa&e things. That<s what they call a rottena--le that &ight s-oil the barrel) or a ,ir*s that &ight infect the region44andthen o*r whole i&-erial syste& begins to fall a-art. 0 &ean) for thirty years)'*ba has been doing things which are si&-ly intolerable4s*ch as sendingtens of tho*sands of doctors to s*--ort s*ffering -eo-le aro*nd the ThirdWorld) or de,elo-ing biotechnology in a -oor co*ntry with no o-tions) orha,ing health ser,ices ro*ghly at the le,el of the ad,anced co*ntries andway o*t of line with the rest of atin +&erica. :3 These things are nottolerable to +&erican -ower4they<d be intolerable anywhere in the ThirdWorld) and they<re &*lti-ly intolerable in a co*ntry which is e1-ected to bea U.S. colony. That<s '*ba<s real cri&e. :$




0n fact) when the So,iet E&-ire was disintegrating and the s*--osed So4,iet threat in '*ba had e,a-orated beyond the -oint that anyone co*ld

-ossibly ta(e it serio*sly) an interesting e,ent too( -lace) tho*gh nobody inthe *.S. &edia see&ed to notice it. Bor the last thirty years the story had al4ways been) AWe ha,e to defend o*rsel,es against '*ba beca*se it<s an o*t4

-ost of the R*ssians.A !(ay) all of a s*dden the R*ssians weren<t thereany&ore4so what ha--ensI +ll of a s*dden it t*rned o*t that we really had'*ba *nder an e&bargo beca*se of o*r lo,e for de&ocracy and h*&anrights) not beca*se they<re an o*t-ost of 'o&&*nis& abo*t to destroy *s4

now it t*rns o*t that"s why we ha,e to (ee- tort*ring the&4and nobody inthe +&erican -ress e,en *estions this de,elo-&ent. The -ro-agandasyste& didn<t s(i- a beat? chec( bac( and try to find anybody who e,ennoticed this little c*riosity.

Then in 3;;$) a liberal e&ocrat) Robert Torricelli) -*shed a billthro*gh 'ongress called the '*ban e&ocracy +ct) which &ade the e&4

bargo still tighter8it forbids foreign4based US. s*bsidiaries fro& tradingwith '*ba) it allows seiG*re of cargo fro& foreign shi-s that trade with'*ba if they enter *.S. waters) and so on. 0n fact) this -ro-osal by the liberal

e&ocrat Torricelli was so ob,io*sly in conflict with international law that>eorge 2*sh hi&self e,en ,etoed it4*ntil he was o*t4flan(ed fro& the rightd*ring the Presidential ca&-aign by 2ill 'linton) and finally agreed toacce-t it. Well) the so4called A'*ban e&ocracy +ctA was i&&ediately de4

no*nced by 0 thin( e,ery &a or US. ally. +t the UN.) the entire world con4de&ned it) with the e1ce-tion of two co*ntries4the United States and 0sraelCthe $ew %or& 'imes a--arently ne,er disco,ered that fact. The -recedingyear) there had been a U.N. ,ote on the e&bargo in which the United States&anaged to get three ,otes for its side4itself) 0srael) and Ro&ania. 2*tRo&ania a--arently dro--ed off this year.

2*t the U.S. &a(es its own r*les4we don<t care what ha--ens at the UN.)or what international law re *ires. +s o*r UN. a&bassador) Madeleine+lbright) -*t it in a debate? Aif -ossible we will act &*ltilaterally) ifnecessary we will act *nilaterallyA4,iolently) she &eant. :: +nd that<s theway it goes when yo*<re the chief Mafia on? if yo* can get s*--ort fro&others) fine) otherwise yo* *st do it yo*rself4beca*se yo* don<t follow anyr*les. Well) that<s *s) and the '*ba case ill*strates it abo*t as well as yo*

co*ld.The enhanced e&bargo has been *ite effecti,e? abo*t ;% -ercent of the

aid and trade it<s c*t off has been food and &edicine4and that<s had the -redictable conse *ences. 0n fact) there ha,e been se,eral articles inleading &edical o*rnals recently which describe so&e of the effects? thehealth syste&) which was e1tre&ely good) is colla-singC there<s atre&endo*s shortage of &edicinesC &aln*trition is increasingC rare diseasesthat ha,en<t been seen since Ja-anese -rison ca&-s in the Second WorldWar are rea--earingC infant &ortality is going *-C general health conditionsare going down. :8 0n other words) it<s wor(ing fine4we<re Aenhancingde&ocracy.A Maybe



Chapter @ive353

we<ll *lti&ately &a(e the& as well off as Haiti or Nicarag*a) or one ofthese other co*ntries we<,e been ta(ing care of all these years.

0 &ean) -*tting sanctions on a co*ntry in general is a ,ery *estionableo-eration4-artic*larly when those sanctions are not being s*--orted by the

-o-*lation that<s s*--osedly being hel-ed. 2*t this e&bargo is a -artic4*larly br*tal one) a really &a or cri&e in &y o-inion. +nd there<s a lot thatcan be done to sto- it) if eno*gh -eo-le in the United States act*ally get to4gether and start doing so&ething abo*t it. 0n fact) by now e,en sectors ofthe U.S. b*siness co&&*nity are beginning to ha,e second tho*ghts abo*tthe e&bargo4they<re getting a little concerned that they &ight be c*t o*t of

-otentially l*crati,e b*siness o-erations if the other rich co*ntries of theworld sto- obeying o*r r*les and *st begin ,iolating it. :5 So there<s a lot ofroo& for change on this iss*e4it<s certainly so&ething that o*ght to be

-ressed ,ery strongly right now.

Panama and Pop"lar Invasions

W+M*$, $oam) 6"m wondering how you explain the very high popularapproval ratings in the 2nited States for the government"s attac&s onDrenada) 7ibya) #anama and so on. %ou often tal& about the population

becoming more dissident8but in the polls after the #anama invasion) about7% percent of the *merican people said that they supported it. MyCongressman told us the results ofa poll he sent out8! percent of 3)555respondents to the :uestion 1-o you support the #anama invasion01 said

yes) they did support it.

Well) 0 thin( there<s been a--ro,al &ostly beca*se the inter,entions yo*&entioned were all *ic( and s*ccessf*l. 0 &ean) if yo* can do so&ethingwhere yo* ha,e an o,erwhel&ing ad,antage) the other side can<t fight bac()yo* can<t lose) yo*<ll win in a co*-le days and then -eo-le can *st forgetabo*t it) s*re) yo*<ll get a high a--ro,al rating. That<s *st standard

ingois&4b*t 0 do not thin( that (ind of s*--ort can be s*stained for ,erylong the way it co*ld a co*-le decades ago.

The a--ro,al ratings are also high beca*se -eo-le don<t get any infor4&ation abo*t what really happens in these o-erations. Bor instance) 0 don<tthin( anybody here act*ally (nows what ha--ened in Pana&a. +fter thefirst co*-le days of the in,asion) the news co,erage in the U.S. *ststo--ed. So there were big ro*nd4*-s of *nion leaders) the -oliticalo--osition was all ro*nded *- and ailed) and so on and so forth4b*t noneof that st*ff was e,en re-orted in the United States. :6 !r for e1a&-le) whenF*ayle +&erican Dice4PresidentO went down to Pana&a in ece&ber3;7;) if yo* watched the news co,erage on tele,ision all yo* saw wase,erybody cheering4b*t if yo* loo(ed caref*lly) yo*<d ha,e noticed thate,erybody in the crowd was white. 0n fact) the $ew %or& 'imes clai&edthat F*ayle had not




e,en gone to the blac( neighborhood in Pana&a 'ity) El 'horrillo) at all onhis tri-4b*t that was a flat4o*t lie. : I He did go) the &otorcade went thro*ghthere) and there was an acc*rate +ssociated Press re-ort abo*t it by a good

o*rnalist) Rita 2ea&ish. She said that in the ch*rch F*ayle went to whereall the tele,ision crews were) e,erybody was cheering) b*t they were allrich white fol(. She said that as the &otorcade went by in the blac(neighborhood) -eo-le were silent) stolid) loo(ing o*t the windows of whatwas left of their ho&es) no cla--ing) no nothing. :7 !(ay) so that story didn<ta--ear in the $ew %or& 'imes) what a--eared was AWe<re heroes inPana&a.A

!r another thing nobody here (nows is that e,ery year since the U.S. in4,asion4as the Pana&anians the&sel,es call it4Pana&a co&&e&orates itwith a national day of &o*rning. Nobody here (nows that) ob,io*sly) be4ca*se the -ress doesn<t re-ort it. :; 0 &ean) the go,ern&ent >eorge 2*sh in4stalled in Pana&a itself described the co*ntry as Aa co*ntry *nder &ilitaryocc*-ation.A 8% There<s a gro*- of eight atin +&erican de&ocraciescalled the A>ro*- of Eight)A and Pana&a was e1-elled fro& it in March3;;%) beca*se) as they -ointed o*t) a co*ntry *nder &ilitary occ*-ationcannot -ossibly be considered Ade&ocratic.A 83 Well) none of this hasa--eared in the +&erican -ress either.

+nd if yo* *st loo( at how the U.S. &edia -resented the reasons for the

in,asion at the ti&e) it beco&es e,en &ore ob,io*s why -eo-le in theUnited States generally s*--orted it. What were s*--osed to be the reasonsfor in,ading Pana&a and getting rid of NoriegaI

M*$, -rug traffic&ing.

r*g traffic(ingI Noriega was &*ch &ore of a dr*g traffic(er in 3;75than in 3;7;4why didn<t we ha,e to go and in,ade Pana&a and get rid ofhi& in 3;75I 0 &ean) if we act*ally had news-a-ers in the United States)which we don<t) the first thing they wo*ld ha,e as(ed is) AWhy did we ha,eto get rid of Noriega in 3;7;) b*t not in 3;75IA Well) ta(e a loo(? what wasthe difference between 3;7; and 3;75I

M*$, /e was on the C.6.*. payroll in "!=.

eah) he was on the -ayroll4he was our th*g in 3;75) so therefore wedidn<t ha,e to get rid of hi&. 2*t in the inter,ening years he was getting tooinde-endent) too big for his britches? he wasn<t following orders) he wass*--orting the 'ontadora treaty a -lan for -eace in 'entral +&ericaO) andother bad st*ff li(e that. 8$ Well) the United States doesn<t want anything li(ethat in its do&ains) so at that -oint we had to get rid of hi&. 2*t again) noneof this was -resented in the U.S. &edia at the ti&e of these -olls44what was

-resented was? he<s the narco4traffic(er that<s destroying the United States)he<s getting yo*r (id hoo(ed on cocaine. +lright) with that



Chapter @ive =3

(ind of &edia -resentation) it<s not s*r-rising that 7% -ercent of the -o-*4lation wo*ld want *s to in,ade Pana&a and throw hi& in ail. So fran(ly) 0wo*ld inter-ret the -oll res*lts yo* &ention *ite differently.

0n fact) there are still other things which go into e1-laining the&) 0 thin(.Bor e1a&-le) ta(e >eorge Mc>o,ern 3;9$ Presidential candidate whoca&-aigned on an anti4war -latfor&O. >eorge Mc>o,ern did not s*--ortthe in,asion of Pana&a4in fact) abo*t two &onths afterwards he wrote an!-4Ed -iece in the Washington #ost saying he had o--osed it fro& the ,ery&o&ent 2*sh did it. 2*t he also said that he had refrained from saying soatthe time. 43 So if he<d been as(ed abo*t it in a -oll) he -robably wo*ld ha,eanswered that he did s*--ort the in,asion. +nd the reason is) if yo*<re a red4

blooded -atriotic +&erican) then when the go,ern&ent is cond*cting a,iolent act yo*<re s*--osed to rally aro*nd the flag. That<s -art of o*r

brainwashing) yo* (now4to ha,e that conce-t of -atriotis& drilled intoo*r heads. +nd -eo-le really do feel it) e,en -eo-le li(e >eorge Mc>o,ern)so&ebody who s*rely wo*ld ha,e been in the $% -ercent) b*t if he<d been

-olled abo*t it wo*ld ha,e ,oted with the 7% -ercent. We don<t want to beAanti4+&erican)A to *se the standard ter&4which in itself is a -retty startling

-ro-aganda tri*&-h) act*ally. i(e) go to 0taly and try *sing the word Aanti40talianis&)A call so&ebody there Aanti40talianA and *st see what ha--ens4

they<d crac( *- in ridic*le. 2*t here those totalitarian ,al*esreally do &ean so&ething to -eo-le) beca*se there ha,e been ,ery e1tensi,eand syste&atic efforts to control the -o-*lation in ways li(e that) and theyha,e been highly s*ccessf*l. 0 &ean) there<s a h*ge -*blic relations ind*stryin the United States) and it doesn<t s-end billions of dollars a year for noth4ing) yo* (now. 88 So yo* really ha,e to be a little bit &ore caref*l and n*4anced when yo* inter-ret these (inds of -oll res*lts) in &y ,iew.

+nd the fact is) in the 3;7%s and Nineties) U.S. inter,entions in the ThirdWorld ha,e been of *ite a different character than e,er before in the -ast.

irect U.S. &ilitary inter,entions in the last twenty years ha,e been g*ided by a ,ery si&-le -rinci-le) which was not tr*e before in o*r history? ne,erattac( anybody who can fight bac(4and that<s not accidental. So ta(e a loo(at who we attac(ed directly in the 3;7%s. >renada? a h*ndred tho*sand

-eo-le) the n*t&eg ca-ital of the world) defended by 8: '*ban -ara4&ilitaries and a co*-le >renadan &ilitia&en. ibya? it<s totally defenseless)yo* can bo&b the&) yo* can (noc( their shi-s o*t of the water) yo* can doanything yo* want to the&) beca*se there<s no way for the& to react. !rloo( at Pana&a? Pana&a was already *nder U.S. &ilitary occ*-ation at theti&e of the in,asion4literally. 0 &ean) +&erican forces were able to try dryr*ns on their targets a co*-le days before the Ain,asionA to &a(e s*ree,erything wo*ld go s&oothly) and the whole thing was o,er and done within a day or two. 85 Well) as long as yo* can carry o*t an attac( against aco&-letely defenseless target li(e that) s*re) then yo* can get *- and str*taro*nd with &anly -oses and tal( abo*t how bra,e yo* are. 2*t yo* don<te,er attac( anybody who can fight bac( any&ore4if there<s anybody who




can fight bac() yo*<,e got to resort to other &ethods? s*b,ersion) &erce4nary states) things li(e that.

!(ay) that<s *st a &a or shift in U.S. -olicy. 0t<s not a constraint that"ennedy and Johnson labored *nder4when they wanted to attac( so&eco*ntry) they *st attac(ed it) didn<t gi,e it a second tho*ght. Johnson sent$:)%%% U.S. Marines to in,ade and wrec( the o&inican Re-*blic in 3;654where -eo-le did fight bac() incidentally. +nd the two of the& sent a h*gee1-editionary force of o,er half a &illion &en to in,ade Dietna&) whichwent on for years and years witho*t any -o-*lar res-onse here. Well) that<sthe sign of a big change4and 0 thin( the change is that the +&erican

-o-*lation si&-ly won<t tolerate the traditional (ind of inter,ention anylonger) they<ll only acce-t the (ind of in,asion we carried o*t in Pana&a. 86

That<s &y *nderstanding of the -olitical scene) at least.

M*sli&s and 2.S. Boreign Policy

M*$, -r. Choms&y) 0 have a :uestion. Would you agree that in thisattac& on the less powerful people of the world generally) there is also a

secret) vicious war being waged on the Muslim people0 *nd what do youthin& is in store for Muslims in general in the world0

Well) it does ha--en to be the case that -lenty of M*sli&s ha,e been get4ting it in the nec( fro& the United States4b*t that<s not beca*se they<reM*sli&s) it<s beca*se they<re not s*fficiently *nder control. There are -lentyof white 'hristian -eo-le who are also getting it in the nec(. 0n the 3;7%s)the United States fo*ght a ,icio*s war in 'entral +&erica -ri&arily againstthe 'atholic 'h*rch4and that &eans E*ro-ean -riests) not *st -riests fro&indigeno*s origins4beca*se the 'h*rch had started wor(ing for what theycalled Athe -referential o-tion for the -oor)A therefore they had to go. 89 0nfact) when +&ericas Watch a h*&an rights organiGation foc*sed on Northand So*th +&ericaO did their wra-4*- st*dy on the 3;7%s) they -ointed o*tthat it was a decade fra&ed by the &*rder of the +rchbisho- in 3;7% andthe &*rder of si1 Jes*it intellect*als in 3;7;) both in El Sal,ador4yeah) thatwasn<t accidental. 87

See) the 'atholic 'h*rch beca&e the &ain target of the U.S. attac(s in'entral +&erica beca*se there was a radical and ,ery conscio*s change incritically i&-ortant sectors of the 'h*rch Kincl*ding do&inant ele&entsa&ong the atin +&erican bisho-sL who recogniGed that for h*ndreds ofyears it had been a 'h*rch of the rich and the o--ressors) which was tellingthe -oor) AThis is yo*r fate) acce-t it.A +nd so they decided to finally be4co&e a 'h*rch in -art de,oted to the liberation of the -oor4and they i&4&ediately fell *nder attac(.

So yo*<re right) it is tr*e that the U.S. is attac(ing a s*bstantial -art of theworld that ha--ens to be M*sli&) b*t we<re not attac(ing it because



Chapter @ive =

&ated. 0 &ean) -eo-le in Haiti were e1tre&ely ha--y when the co*- leaderswere finally (ic(ed o*t4and boy) if 0<d been li,ing there) 0<d ha,e beenha--y too? at least there weren<t &*rderers in control tort*ring and (illingthe& any&ore. 2*t that<s basically the choice between water4tort*re andelectric4tort*re) really. 0 g*ess water4tort*re<s better) or so -eo-le say. 2*tthe ho-e for Haitian de&ocracy is finished) at least for the &o&ent4it<ll *stgo bac( to being a *.s. e1-ort -latfor& again. Meanwhile) there<ll be &orero*sing s-eeches here abo*t o*r lo,e for de&ocracy and free elections) and

*st how far we<ll go to *-hold o*r de&ocratic ideals aro*nd the world.Maybe in fifty years they<ll e,en disco,er the b*siness abo*t the oil.

Te4a-o and the Spanish %evol"tion

0ncidentally) there<s a little historical footnote here) if yo*<re interested.The oil co&-any that was a*thoriGed by the Treas*ry e-art&ent *nder2*sh and 'linton to shi- oil to the Haitian co*- leaders ha--ened to beTe1aco. +nd -eo-le of abo*t &y age who were att*ned to these sorts ofthings &ight re&e&ber bac( to the 3;:%s) when the Roose,elt ad&inistra4tion was trying to *nder&ine the S-anish Re-*blic at the ti&e of the S-an4ish Re,ol*tion in 3;:6 and <:94yo*<ll re&e&ber that Te1aco also -layed arole.

See) the Western -owers were strongly o--osed to the S-anish Re-*bli4can forces at that -oint d*ring the S-anish 'i,il War4beca*se the Re-*b4lican side was aligned with a -o-*lar re,ol*tion) the anarcho4syndicalistre,ol*tion that was brea(ing o*t in S-ain) and there was a danger that thatre,ol*tion &ight ta(e root and s-read to other co*ntries. +fter the anarcho4syndicalist organiGations were -*t down by force) the Western -owersdidn<t care so &*ch any&ore anarcho4syndicalis& is a sort of non4 eninistor libertarian socialis&O. 2*t while the re,ol*tion was still going on inS-ain and the Re-*blican forces were at war with >eneral Branco and hisBascist ar&y4who were being acti,ely s*--orted by Hitler and M*ssolini)re&e&ber4the Western co*ntries and Stalinist R*ssia all wanted to see theRe-*blican forces *st gotten rid of. +nd one of the ways in which the Roo4se,elt ad&inistration hel-ed to see that they were gotten rid of was thro*ghwhat was called the ANe*trality +ctA4yo* (now) we<re going to be ne*tral)we<re not going to send any s*--ort to either the Re-*blican side or theBascist side) we<re *st going to let the& fight their own war. 63 E1ce-t theANe*trality +ctA was only 5% -ercent a--lied in this case.

o* see) the Bascists were getting all the g*ns they needed fro& >er4&any) b*t they didn<t ha,e eno*gh oil. So therefore the Te1aco !il 'o&4

-any4which ha--ened to be r*n by an o*tright NaGi at the ti&e 'a-tainThor(ild RieberO) so&ething that wasn<t so *n*s*al in those days) act*ally4si&-ly ter&inated its e1isting oil contracts with the S-anish Re-*blic andredirected its tan(ers in &id4ocean to start sending the Bascists the oil




there) it too( a war in which &aybe 36%)%%% -eo-le were (illed and7%%)%%% beca&e ref*gees4the co*ntry still hasn<t reco,ered fro& it.9$ 0n"orea) it &eant (illing 3%%)%%% -eo-le in the late 3;8%s) before what wecall the A"orean WarA e,en started. 9: 2*t in 0taly it was eno*gh *st to carryo*t s*b,ersion4and the United States too( that ,ery serio*sly. So we f*nded*ltra4right Masonic odges and terrorist -ara&ilitary gro*-s in 0taly) theBascist -olice and stri(ebrea(ers were bro*ght bac() we withheld food) we&ade s*re their econo&y co*ldn<t f*nction. 98 0n fact) the first NationalSec*rity 'o*ncil Me&orand*&) N.S.'. 3) is abo*t 0taly and the 0talianelections. +nd what it says is that if the 'o&&*nists co&e to -ower in theelection thro*gh legiti&ate de&ocratic &eans) the United States &*stdeclare a national e&ergency? the Si1th Bleet in the Mediterranean sho*ld

be -*t on alert) the United States sho*ld start s*b,ersi,e acti,ities in 0talyto o,erthrow the 0talian go,ern&ent) and we sho*ld begin contingency

-lanning for direct &ilitary inter,ention4that<s if the resistance wins a legiti4&ate de&ocratic election. 95

+nd this was not ta(en as a o(e) not at all4in fact) there were -eo-le atthe to- le,els of the U.S. go,ern&ent who too( e,en &ore e1tre&e -osi4tions than that. Bor instance) >eorge "ennan again) who<s considered agreat h*&anist) tho*ght that we o*ght to in,ade 0taly e,en before the elec4tion and not allow anything li(e that to ha--en in the first -lace4b*t he was(ind of held down by other -eo-le who said) loo() we can -robably b*y offthe election by the threat of star,ation and e1tensi,e terroris& ands*b,ersion) which in the end t*rned o*t to be correct. 96

+nd these sorts of -olicies were still being followed by the United Statesright into the 3;9%s) when the declassified records dry *-. The end of thedoc*&entation that we ha,e at this -oint is aro*nd 3;954that<s when theHo*se Pi(e 'o&&ittee Re-ort released a lot of infor&ation abo*t U.S. s*b4,ersi,e acti,ities4and who (nows whether it went on after that. 99 Most ofthe literat*re abo*t this is in 0talian) b*t there<s so&e in English4for e1a&4

-le) Ed Her&an and Bran( 2rodhead ha,e a good boo( on the so4calledA-lot to (ill the Po-eA disinfor&ation story) which incl*des an interestingdisc*ssion of so&e of the &ore recent &aterial on 0taly4and there are oth4ers.97 +nd as 0 say) the sa&e sorts of -olicies also were carried o*t in

Brance) >er&any) Ja-an) and so on.+ct*ally) the U.S. also reconstr*cted the Mafia as -art of this whole ef4fort to s-lit the E*ro-ean labor &o,e&ent after the war. 0 &ean) the Mafiahad &ostly been wi-ed o*t by the Bascists4Bascists tend to r*n a -retty tightshi-) they don<t li(e co&-etition. So Hitler and M*ssolini had essentiallywi-ed o*t the Mafia) and as the +&erican liberating ar&ies &o,ed intoSicily and then thro*gh So*thern 0taly and into Brance) they reconstit*ted itas a tool to brea( stri(es. See) the U.S. needed goons to brea( stri(ers<(nees on the waterfront and that (ind of thing) and where are yo* going tofind g*ys li(e thatI Well) the answer was) in the Mafia. So in Brance) the'.0.+.4wor(ing together with the leadershi- of the +&erican



Chapter @ive >3

labor &o,e&ent) incidentally4res*rrected the 'orsican Mafia. +nd theMafia don<t *st do it for f*n) yo* (now40 &ean) &aybe they also en oy it)

b*t they want a -ayoff. +nd as (ind of a *id -ro *o for s&ashing *- theBrench labor &o,e&ent) they were allowed to reconstit*te the heroin trade)which had been red*ced to ,irt*ally Gero *nder the Bascists4that<s the originof the fa&o*s ABrench 'onnection)A the &ain so*rce of the -ost4war heroinrac(et. 9;

+nd there were also co,ert acti,ities in this -eriod in,ol,ing theDatican) the U.S. State e-art&ent) and 2ritish and +&erican intelligenceto sa,e and e&-loy &any of the worst NaGi war cri&inals) and *se the& ine1actly the sa&e sorts of o-erations the NaGis *sed the& for) against the

-o-*lar resistance forces in the West and then in Eastern E*ro-e. Bore1a&-le) the g*y who in,ented the gas cha&bers) Walter Ra*ff) wassecreted off to wor( on co*nterins*rgency in 'hile. The head of NaGiintelligence on the Eastern Bront) Reinhard >ehlen) oined +&ericanintelligence doing the sa&e (ind of wor( for *s in Eastern E*ro-e. TheA2*tcher of yon)A "la*s 2arbie) wor(ed for the +&ericans s-ying on theBrench *ntil finally they had to &o,e hi& o*t thro*gh the Datican4r*nAratlineA to atin +&erica) where then he finished o*t his career. 7% That wasanother -art of the whole -ostwar effort of the United States to destroy the

-ros-ects for inde-endent de&ocracy4and certainly it<s so&ething whichtoo( -lace.

P;%; in So,alia

M*$, #rofessor Choms&y) in light of all this 6"m wondering) do you thin&there has ever been such a thing as a humanitarian intervention by the2.S.0 'a&e what we were supposed to have been doing in Somalia) forexample, that was framed as a humanitarian action here8do you thin& thatwas all image) or was there also some reality to it too0

Well) states are not &oral agentsC they are ,ehicles of -ower) whicho-erate in the interests of the -artic*lar internal -ower str*ct*res of theirsocieties. So anybody who inter,enes in another co*ntry) e1ce-t &aybe

*1e&bo*rg or so&ething) is going to be inter,ening for their own -*r4 -oses4that<s always been tr*e in history. +nd the So&alia o-eration) to ta(ethe case yo* &ention) certainly was not h*&anitarian.

0 &ean) the U.S. waited ,ery caref*lly *ntil the fa&ine there was -retty&*ch o,er and the &a or international aid organiGations) li(e the Red 'rossand Sa,e the 'hildren and so on) were getting abo*t eighty -ercent of theiraid into the co*ntry K*sing So&alis to do &ost of the wor() it t*rns o*tL

before it decided to &o,e in. 73 So if the U.S. go,ern&ent had had anyh*&anitarian feelings with regard to So&alia) it had -lenty of ti&e to showit4in fact) it co*ld ha,e shown it fro& 3;97 thro*gh 3;;%) when the U.S.was the chief s*--orter of Siad 2arre) the So&ali warlord who destroyed



Chapter @ive >=

ers li(e hi&) who were trying to bring together the ,ario*s -arts of So&a4lian ci,il society. 0 &ean) that"s the way yo*<,e got to do it) or else thereisn<t really going to be any lasting -rogress4yo* ha,e to hel- the ci,ilsociety reconstr*ct itself) beca*se they"re the only ones who can *lti&atelysol,e their own -roble&s. +nd Sahno*n and others were doing that) so itwo*ld ha,e been ,ery efficient *st to hel- the& contin*e doing it. 2*t ofco*rse) that was ne,er a tho*ght here? yo* don<t get any P.R. for thePentagon that way.

So yo* can as( whether in the end the So&alis benefited or were har&ed by what we did) and 0<& not certain what the answer is. 2*t whate,erha--ened) they were secondary? they were *st -ro-s for -hotoo--ort*nities. Maybe they were hel-ed by it40 ho-e so4b*t if so it was -*relyincidental.

'he Dulf War

M*$, #robably the maAor 2.S. foreign policy event of recent years was theDulf War. What would you say was the media"s contribution to that0 *s 6remember it) the coverage in the 2nited States was all 1rah8rah1 supportas we bombed 6ra:.

0t<s tr*e there was a lot of that4b*t in &y ,iew) the &*ch &ore significant -eriod for re,iewing the &edia on the >*lf War is not what -eo-le *s*allyconcentrate on) and what the &edia the&sel,es are willing to tal( abo*t?that is) the si1 wee(s of the act*al bo&bing Jan*ary 36 to Bebr*ary $9)3;;3O) when the constraints on re-orting were nat*rally -retty tight andthere was the -redictable -atriotic ingois&. The &ost i&-ortant -eriod was

between +*g*st 3;;% and Jan*ary 3;;34the -eriod when a decision had to be &ade abo*t how to res-ond to Sadda& H*ssein<s in,asion of "*wait on+*g*st $)3;;%O.

The decision to *se ,iolence is always a ,ery serio*s one. 0n af*nctioning de&ocratic society40 don<t &ean one with de&ocratic for&s) b*t0 stress Af*nctioningA4that decision wo*ld only be ta(en after a lot of -*blicdisc*ssion of the iss*es) and consideration of the alternati,es) and weighingof the conse *ences. Then) after a--ro-riate -*blic debate) &aybe adecision wo*ld be &ade to resort to ,iolence. Well) that ne,er ha--ened inthe case of the >*lf War4and it was the fa*lt of the +&erican &edia that itne,er ha--ened.

oo(? the f*nda&ental *estion thro*gho*t the -re4war -eriod waswhether the U.S. wo*ld -*rs*e the -eacef*l &eans that were a,ailable44andwhich are in fact re:uired to be -*rs*ed by international law4for adi-lo&atic settle&ent and negotiated 0ra i withdrawal fro& "*wait) orwhether on the other hand we wo*ld undercut any -ossibility for a di-lo4&atic settle&ent) and &o,e straight to the arena of ,iolence. 79 Well) wedon<t (now whether di-lo&atic &eans act*ally were a,ailable in this case)



Chapter @ive >?

with artillery we<d ne,er drea&t of) all this (ind of st*ff. ;: 0 &ean) this wasa defenseless Third World co*ntry that was so wea( it had been *nable todefeat -ost4re,ol*tionary 0ran in eight years of warfare fro& 3;7% to <77O4and that was with the s*--ort of the United States) the So,iet Union) all ofE*ro-e) the +rab oil co*ntries? not an inconsiderable seg&ent of world

-ower. et with all those allies) 0ra had been *nable to defeat -ost4re,ol*tionary 0ran) which had (illed off its own officers< cor-s and barelyhad an ar&y left? all of a s*dden this was the s*-er-ower that was going tocon *er the worldI o* really had to be a dee-ly brainwashed Western in4tellect*al e,en to loo( at this i&age4a defenseless Third World co*ntrythreatening the two &ost ad,anced &ilitary forces in the world) the UnitedStates and 2ritain4and not co&-letely colla-se in ridic*le. 2*t as yo* re4call) that<s what all of the& were saying4and -eo-le here really belie,ed it.

0n fact) d*ring the >*lf War 0 dro--ed &y sched*led s-ea(ing engage4&ents and acce-ted in,itations to tal( in the &ost reactionary -arts of theco*ntry 0 co*ld find4 *st beca*se 0 was c*rio*s what 0<d see. So 0 went toso&e -lace in >eorgia which is s*rro*nded by &ilitary basesC 0 went to

ehigh) Pennsyl,ania) a ingoist wor(ing4class townC to so&e conser,ati,etowns in Massach*setts) to +--alachia) -laces li(e that. +nd e,erywhere 0went) -eo-le were terrified o*t of their wits. So&eti&es it was -rettya&aGing.

Bor instance) there<s a college in northern 'alifornia called 'hico State)which is where g*ys li(e Reagan and Sh*ltG Reagan<s Secretary of StateOsend their (ids so they won<t be infected by AleftiesA at 2er(eley. The -laceis right in the &iddle of fo*r h*ndred &iles of cornfields) or whate,er it isthey grow o*t there) a &illion &iles fro& nowhere) and when yo* fly in yo*land at an air-ort that<s abo*t half the siGe of a ho*se. Well) when 0 landedthere) a st*dent and a fac*lty &e&ber who were li(e the two local radicalsat the school ca&e o*t to &eet &e. +nd as we were wal(ing to the car) 0 no4ticed we had to go a -retty long distance) beca*se the air-ort was all s*r4ro*nded with yellow -olice ta-e. So 0 as(ed these g*ys) AWhat<s going on)are they reb*ilding the landing stri- or so&ethingIA o* (now what theysaidI ANo) that<s to -rotect the air-ort fro& +rab terrorists.A 0 said) A+rabterrorists in northern 'aliforniaIA 2*t they tho*ght so. +nd when 0 got intothe town) e,erybody was wal(ing aro*nd in ar&y fatig*es and wearing yel4low ribbons) saying A0f Sadda& co&es) we<re going to fight to the death)Aand so on.

+nd in a sense) -eo-le really belie,ed it. 0 sho*ld say) tho*gh) that ine,eryone of these towns 0 went to) the -ro-aganda line was so thin that assoon as yo* started disc*ssing the sit*ation and yo* &ade a few o(es abo*twhat the reality was) the whole thing *st totally colla-sed) and by the endof the tal( yo*<d get a h*ge standing o,ation. Briends of &ine who As-o(earo*nd the co*ntry at the ti&e fo*nd e1actly the sa&e thing) incidentally4+le1ander 'oc(b*rn) for instance. 2*t that was the i&age of 0ra that the&edia -resented right on c*e4and with the hel- of that -ro-4



Chapter @ive ?3

cessf*l. +nd therefore) &*ch as they disli(ed it) U.S. -lanners deter&inedthat they had to s*--ort 0ndia as sort of the de&ocratic alternati,e to 'hina)so then they co*ld say to other co*ntries? the 0ndian way is better than the'hinese way) be ca-italist) ha,e a -arlia&ent and so on. +nd if yo* loo(o,er the history) that a&bi,alence did lead to -olicy conflicts. 3%7

Bor instance) the U.S. ga,e ,ery little aid to 0ndia. 0n fact) so&eti&es itwas absol*tely scandalo*s4li(e) right after 0ndian inde-endence) in aro*nd3;5%) 0ndia had its last &assi,e fa&ine K*nder the 2ritish there werefa&ines all the ti&eL) and while there aren<t ,ery good statistics) -robablyso&ething on the order of &aybe 3: to 35 &illion -eo-le died fro& star,a4tion. Well) we ha,e the U.S. internal records fro& that -eriod) and at firstthere wasn<t e,en any :uestion of gi,ing the& aid40 &ean) we had foodco&ing o*t o*r ears) *st h*ge food s*r-l*ses) b*t there was no aid going to0ndia beca*se we did not li(e Nehr*<s inde-endence and his &o,es towardsnon4align&ent and ne*trality. 2*t then there was a disc*ssion abo*twhether the U.S. sho*ld gi,e 0ndia food aid as a weapon8that is) we gi,ethe& so&e food aid as a way of forcing the& to acce-t U.S. -olicies on ,ar4io*s iss*es. +nd after that) a little bit of aid was tric(led o*t4b*t it was de4layed and conditioned on 0ndia<s acce-ting +&erican -ositions on thingsli(e the "orean War and so on. Nobody (nows e1actly how &any &illionsof -eo-le died beca*se of that. 3%;

2y the 3;6%s *nder "ennedy) the U.S. was shifting towards gi,ing so&eaid to 0ndia to &a(e it sort of a co*nterweight to 'hina) so they<d loo( goodas co&-ared with 'o&&*nist 'hina4b*t again) the aid was with stringsattached. Bor instance) 0ndia badly needed fertiliGers) and they wanted tode,elo- their own fertiliGer ind*stry *sing hydrocarbon reso*rces4whichthey had -lenty of) along with a lot of other energy reso*rces4b*t theyneeded U.S. aid to do it. +nd after a big disc*ssion in the United States)which yo* can read abo*t in the -ages of the $ew %or& 'imes if yo* loo(

bac() a decision was &ade here to hel- the& do it4b*t only if they wo*ld*se Western8based hydrocarbons. So 0ndia was not allowed to de,elo- itsown hydrocarbon reso*rces) instead they had to b*y the& fro& the+&erican oil co&-anies) and in addition they had to allow do&inant U.S.control o,er the fertiliGer and any other ind*stries which de,elo-ed. Well)

0ndia resisted those conditions ,ery strongly4b*t in the end) they had to gi,ein. +nd yo* can read $ew %or& 'imes articles in the 3;6%s recogniGing thissit*ation) and basically saying? well) the 0ndians don<t li(e it) b*t there<snothing they can do abo*t it) beca*se we<,e got the& by the throat4they<ll

*st ha,e to do what we want. 33% Well) alright) that sort of a&bi,alent dyna&ic contin*ed thro*gh the

3;9%s and Eighties. 0n the 3;7%s) 0ndia had a ,ery fast growth rate) b*t italso ado-ted e1tre&ely bad fiscal -olicies which got the& dee-ly into debt4and the debt crisis led the& into acce-ting str*ct*ral ad *st&ent Arefor&s)Aas thro*gho*t the Third World. 0n 0ndia<s case) the refor&s ha,e act*ally

been fairly &oderate) tho*gh they<,e still had the *s*al effects? for



Chapter @ive ?=

0t<s a&aGing in E*ro-e? E*ro-e has beco&e e1traordinarily coloniGedc*lt*rally by the United States) to an e1tent that is al&ost *nbelie,able44E*ro-eans aren<t aware of it a--arently) b*t if yo* go there it<s (ind of li(ea -ale United States at this -oint) yet they still ha,e this feeling of great in4de-endence) so it<s e,en &ore dra&atic. 0 &ean) Western E*ro-ean intellec4t*als li(e to thin( of the&sel,es as ,ery so-histicated and sort of la*ghingabo*t these d*&b +&ericans4b*t they are so brainwashed by the UnitedStates that it<s a o(e. Their -erce-tions of the world and their &is*nder4standings and so on are all filtered thro*gh +&erican tele,ision and &o,iesand news-a-ers) b*t so&ehow by this -oint they *st don<t recogniGe it.+nd one of the iss*es where this is &ost clearly de&onstrated is with re4s-ect to the Middle East. 0 &ean) it<s not ancient history) b*t on the iss*e ofthe right of self4deter&ination for the Palestinians) the E*ro-eans ha,e *stforgotten what they stood for) at least on -a-er) *ntil aro*nd the ti&e of the>*lf War4beca*se anything li(e self4deter&ination is co&-letely out of the!slo +gree&ent. 33:

The long4ter& arrange&ent between 0srael and the Palestinians now will be in ter&s of U.N. $8$ alone. UN. $8$ was a No,e&ber 3;69 United Nations Sec*rity 'o*ncil Resol*tion calling for 0srael to withdraw fro& theterritory it had *st seiGed and for a regional -eace treaty.O Well) the whole

battle all along has been abo*t whether a settle&ent in the Middle East isgoing to be Austin ter&s of UN. $8$) which doesn<t say anything abo*t thePalestinians) or U.N. $8$ -l*s other UN. Resol*tions which also call forPalestinian rights. Well) now it t*rns o*t that the answer is *st $8$4so0srael does whate,er it feels li(e.

Right now there are h*ge constr*ction -ro ects going *- all o,er the !c4c*-ied Territories Kwith) as always) U.S. f*ndingL) and 0srael will *st con4tin*e with its settle&ent -rogra& the idea is to AsettleA Jewish citiGens inthe Palestinian territories) which are not officially -art of the state of 0srael)to solidify 0srael<s clai& to the&O. +nd what they<,e -retty &*ch been doingis creating a large b*lge of Jewish settlers aro*nd this big area they callA>reater Jer*sale&)A in order to brea( the West 2an( into two se-arate

-arts and enclose Jer*sale&4they<re basically brea(ing the West 2an( intotwo cantons) where they<ll then gladly cede a*thority to the local co-s to dothe dirty b*siness of (ee-ing order. 0t wo*ld be li(e as(ing the New or('ity -olice force whether they wo*ld li(e to t*rn Harle& o,er to local &er4cenaries to -atrol) while they hold on to Wall Street) the U--er East Side)Madison +,en*e) and so on4if yo* as(ed the New or( 'ity -olice forcethat) 0<& s*re they<d be delighted. Who wants to -atrol Harle&I

Well) that<s in effect what<s ha--ening in the !cc*-ied Territories rightnow? the idea is) see if yo* can get local &ercenaries) who are still always*nder yo*r whi-) to r*n the -lace for yo*) while yo* contin*e integratingthe area into 0srael. +ct*ally) so&e 0sraeli co&&entators ha,e *sed the ter&Aneocolonialis&A to describe what<s being done with the Territories) andthat<s essentially correct) 0 thin(. 338



Comm"nity 6-tivists

(ased on discussions in (ritish Columbia) Massachusetts) 6llinois)

Maryland) and Wyoming in 3;7; and between 3;;: and 3;;6.

3is-"ssion Cir-le

... 0 hardly (now what to say. What all of yo* said reflects) 0 thin( ,eryacc*rately) the state that we<re in. +ny -lace 0 go to) there are -eo-le li(eyo*. They<re all interested in significant) i&-ortant -roble&s4-roble&s of

-ersonal e&-ower&ent) of *nderstanding the world) of wor(ing with others)of *st finding o*t what yo*r ,al*es areC of trying to fig*re o*t how -eo-lecan control their own li,es) and hel-ing each other to do it. We<re all facingessentially the sa&e fact? there<s no str*ct*re of -o-*lar instit*tions aro*ndwithin which we can wor(.

o* don<t ha,e to go bac( ,ery far in history to find that in -ast days) agro*- li(e *s wo*ldn<t ha,e been &eeting in a -lace li(e this? we wo*ldha,e been &eeting in the labor *nion head *arters. There<s still a resid*e ofthat in -arts of the world. Bor instance) 0 was in England last wee( gi,ing

-olitical tal(s) and tal(s in England are not in ch*rches or on college ca&4 -*ses) they<re in a g*ild hall4beca*se in England there<s still a resid*e of the -eriod when there was a -o-*lar &o,e&ent) a wor(ers< &o,e&ent) with itsown &edia) its own -laces of gathering) its own ways of bringing -eo-letogether. There was a ti&e when we had a wor(ing4class c*lt*re here too. 0&ean) 0 can re&e&ber it4barely) beca*se 0 was a child4b*t there was a li,ewor(ing4class c*lt*re in the United States not that long ago. My fa&ily wasin it) that<s how 0 got &y -olitical ed*cation. + lot of it was centered aro*ndthe 'o&&*nist Party U.S.+.O) which for the -eo-le who were in,ol,ed in itdidn<t &ean s*--orting Stalin<s cri&es) it &eant sa,ing -eo-le<s li,es in theSo*th) and *nioniGing ind*stry) and being at the front of e,ery ci,il rightsstr*ggle) doing e,erything that was i&-ortant.

0 &ean) the +&erican 'o&&*nist Party had a lot of terrible things abo*tit) b*t it also had a lot of ,ery good things too. +nd one of the& was this4

399




0 &ean) that was a life. The 'o&&*nist Party wasn<t so&ething yo* ,otedfor) it was so&ething where if yo* were an *ne&-loyed sea&stress in New

or( and yo* wanted to get away for the s*&&er) they had a s*&&er ca&-where yo* co*ld go and be with yo*r friends) get into the 'ats(ill Mo*n4tains) that sort of thing. +nd it was -icnics) and &eetings) and concerts)fighting on -ic(et lines) de&onstrations) the whole b*siness. That was all

*st nor&al life) it was ,ery organic.+nd they had their own &edia. 0n fact) yo* don<t ha,e to go bac( too far

in the United States) a little earlier than that) to find wor(ing4class andco&&*nity4based news-a-ers that were ro*ghly at the scale of the &ain4strea& ca-italist -ress. So a o*rnal li(e *ppeal to Reason) which was sortof a socialist o*rnal in the early -art of the cent*ry) had 0 thin( abo*t three

*arters of a &illion s*bscribers4&eaning who (nows how &any -eo-leact*ally read it.X +nd that was in a &*ch s&aller -o-*lation than today ofco*rse) &*ch s&aller.

Now) we<re not in anything li(e that sit*ation? we don<t ha,e -arties) wedon<t ha,e &edia) we don<t ha,e stable instit*tions4so) this gro*- isn<t&eeting in a *nion hall) beca*se there isn<t any s*ch thing. !n the otherhand) we ha,e other ad,antages. There<s a tre&endo*s di,ersity and rangeof interests and concerns now) and an awf*l lot of -eo-le are in,ol,ed. +ndthat gi,es *s a (ind of strength? an organiGed) centraliGed &o,e&ent can

easily be cr*shedC a ,ery di,erse &o,e&ent that<s rooted all o,er the soci4ety4well) yo* can get rid of this -iece and that -iece and the other -iece) b*tit<ll *st co&e bac( *- so&ewhere else. So there are both strengths andwea(nesses) and 0 thin( we sho*ld recogniGe that.

My own feeling is that the right a--roach is to b*ild on the strengths? torecogniGe what<s healthy and solid abo*t ha,ing not h*ndreds) b*t tho*4sands of flowers bloo&ing all o,er the -lace4-eo-le with -arallel concerns)&aybe differently foc*sed) b*t at the core sort of si&ilar ,al*es and asi&ilar interest in e&-ower&ent) in learning) in hel-ing -eo-le *nderstandhow to defend the&sel,es against e1ternal -ower and ta(e control of theirown li,es) in reaching o*t yo*r hand to -eo-le who need it. +ll the thingsthat yo* -eo-le ha,e tal(ed abo*t4that<s a co&&on array of concerns. +ndthe fact that there<s a tre&endo*s di,ersity can be a real ad,antage4it can bea real way of learning) of learning abo*t yo*rself) and what yo* care abo*t)and what yo* want to do) and so on. 2*t of co*rse) if it<s going to bringabo*t real change) that broad array of concerns is going to re *ire so&efor& of integration and inter4co&&*nication and collaboration a&ong its,ario*s s*b4-arts.

Now) we<re not going to de,elo- that sort of integration thro*gh the&ainstrea& instit*tions4that wo*ld be craGy. 0 &ean) yo* sho*ld not e1-ectan instit*tion to say) AHel- &e destroy &yself)A that<s not the way in4stit*tions f*nction. +nd if anybody inside the instit*tion tried to do that)they wo*ldn<t be inside it &*ch longer. Now) that<s not to say that yo* cando nothing if yo*<re already in so&ething li(e the &ass &edia. Peo-le who



Chapter Six ?

ha,e see-ed in fro& the -o-*lar &o,e&ents can ha,e effects4and -eo-leo*tside the& can also ha,e effects) *st by barraging the editors and so on. 0&ean) the editors don<t li(e -eo-le co&ing to their doors and ca*singtro*ble any &ore than -oliticians do) or b*siness&en do. +nd if yo* co&eand yo* bother the&) and gi,e the& &aterial) and -ress*re the&) yo* canso&eti&es get res*lts. 2*t in the end) there really are only s&all changesthat can be &ade within the e1isting instit*tions4beca*se they<,e got theirown co&&it&ents) which are basically to -ri,ate -ower. 0n the case of the

&edia) they ha,e a co&&it&ent to indoctrination in the interests of -ower)and that i&-oses -retty strict li&its on what they can do.So the answer is) we<,e got to create alternati,es) and the alternati,es

ha,e got to integrate these lots and lots of different interests and concernsinto a &o,e&ent4or &aybe not one necessarily) which so&ebody co*ldthen c*t the head off of) b*t a series of interconnected ones? lots of associa4tions of -eo-le with si&ilar concerns) who<,e got in &ind the other -eo-lene1t door who ha,e related concerns) and who can get together with the&to wor( for changes. Maybe then we can *lti&ately constr*ct serio*s alter4nati,e &edia40 &ean) not Aserio*sA in the sense that the concerns of e1istingalternati,e &edia aren<t serio*s) b*t serio*s in scale) at the -oint where theycan consistently -resent -eo-le with a different -ict*re of the world) a

-ict*re different than the one yo* get fro& an indoctrination syste& basedon -ri,ate control o,er reso*rces. +nd as to how yo* can do that) well) 0don<t thin( there<s any big secret abo*t it4if there<s any big secret abo*tgetting social change) 0<,e ne,er heard of it.

W+M*$, ust &eep organi ing.

es4large4scale social change in the -ast and &a or social re,ol*tions inthe -ast) so far as 0 (now) ha,e co&e abo*t *st beca*se lots of -eo-le)wor(ing where,er they are) ha,e wor(ed hard) and ha,e loo(ed aro*nd tofind other -eo-le who are wor(ing hard) and ha,e tried to wor( togetherwith the& when they find the&. 0 thin( e,ery social change in history) fro&the de&ocratic re,ol*tions to things li(e the 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent) haswor(ed that way. 0t<s &ostly *st a *estion of scale and dedication. There

are -lenty of reso*rces aro*nd that -eo-le can *seC they<re ,ery scatteredb*t -art of the way the instit*tions -rotect the&sel,es is to &eepthe& scattered.0t<s ,ery i&-ortant for instit*tions of concentrated -ower to (ee- -eo-lealone and isolated? that way they<re ineffecti,e) they can<t defendthe&sel,es against indoctrination) they can<t e,en fig*re o*t what theythin(.

So 0 thin( it &a(es sense to loo( at what the instit*tions are doing and tota(e that al&ost as a (ey? what they<re trying to do is what we<re trying toco&bat. 0f they<re (ee-ing -eo-le isolated and se-arate) well) we<re tryingto do the o--osite) we<re trying to bring the& together. So in yo*r localco&&*nity) yo* want to ha,e A*nity gro*-sA or whate,er they<re called) 0




don<t (now) A <left< *nity gro*-sA40 don<t e,en li(e the word. 2*t yo* wantto t*rn the& into so*rces of alternati,e action that -eo-le can get in,ol,edwith) and can oin in together to fight the effects of ato&iGation. There are

-lenty of reso*rces aro*nd) enor&o*s n*&bers of -eo-le are interested4andif yo* don<t see organiGations that are doing things) well) fig*re o*t whatyo* can do) and do it yo*rself. 0 don<t thin( there are any secrets.

M*$, 'he greatest source of information for me in these past couple years

has been our co8op radio. *nd 6 trust everyone here supports co8op radioifnot) well) you should. (ecause we have to cultivate and develop any form ofalternate media that is wor&ing) or that we can thin& of that will wor&. So 6

Aust want to say) hats off to co8op radio, 6"m glad you"re here.

0t<s certainly tr*e4when yo* go to towns or co&&*nities that ha,e al4ternati,e radio or other &edia that in,ol,e co&&*nity -artici-ation) thegeneral &ood is stri(ingly different. +nd the reason is) -eo-le there areconstantly challenged with a different -oint of ,iew) and they can

-artici-ate in the debates) they<re not *st -assi,e s-ectators. That<s the wayyo* learn) that<s the way yo* disco,er who yo* are) and what yo* reallywant) it<s how yo* fig*re o*t yo*r own ,al*es and gain *nderstanding. o*ha,e to be able to (noc( ideas off other -eo-le and hear the& get beaten

down in order to find o*t what yo* act*ally thin(. That<s learning) asdistinct fro& indoctrination4and listener4s*--orted radio is ,ery good inthat res-ect. 2*t the sa&e is tr*e of the whole tre&endo*s networ( ofalternati,e &edia that e1ists by now on *st abo*t e,ery i&aginable iss*e)all o,er 'anada and the United States .

Bor instance) 0 don<t (now how &any of yo* (now the o*rnal Maga8 ine) b*t it<s a -olitical o*rnal that<s an offshoot of So*th End Press) which brings together interests of essentially the sort that yo*<,e all been raisinghere. +nd it<s national) and yo* read it in one -lace and see that -eo-le arethin(ing abo*t the sa&e things so&ewhere else) and yo* write a letter in) or

-ro-ose an article and so on4that<s the ty-e of serio*s interco&&*nicationthat we want to foster. +fter all) we<re li,ing in a world where yo* don<tha,e to tal( *st to the -erson who li,es ne1t door) we ha,e the sa&einterests as -eo-le all across the world) and these days we can co&&*nicatewith the&. 0n fact) as they de,elo-) things li(e this co*ld really hel- to*nify the -o-*lar &o,e&ents) and they sho*ld be -ressed as far as they cango) 0 thin(. $

The /arl) Pea-e )ovement and a Change in the 1=7 s

M*$, $oam) there are two contradictory strains that 6 can identify in yourwor& on the :uestion of 1hope.1 +n the one hand) you spea& about the ef8




achie,ed anything) and yo* ne,er will achie,e anything.A +f course theysho*ld tell *s that4and they sho*ld e,en tell *s) A o* don<t want to achie,eanything) all yo* want to do is cons*&e &ore.A

+s long as -ower<s concentrated) that<s what it<s going to tell *s4AThere<s no -oint in wor(ing to hel- other -eo-le) yo* don<t care abo*tthe&) yo*<re *st o*t for yo*rself.A S*re it<s going to tell *s that) beca*sethat<s what<s in its interests. There<s no -oint in telling o*rsel,es) AThey<relying to *sA o,er and o,er again. !f co*rse they areC it<s li(e saying thes*n<s setting or so&ething li(e that. !b,io*sly they are.

So what we want to try to do is de,elo- stable eno*gh str*ct*res so thatwe can learn these (inds of things and not (ee- getting beaten down by theindoctrination4so we don<t ha,e to (ee- fighting the sa&e battles o,er ando,er again) we can go on to new ones) and bigger ones) better ones. 0 thin(that co*ld be doneC slowly) o,er ti&e.

M*$, o you see any of those sorts of continuing progressive structuresdeveloping these days in the 2nited States0

There isn<t a lot) it<s &ostly local. So 0<ll go to so&e -lace li(e etroit)say) and there<ll be a &eeting li(e this with -eo-le fro& different -arts ofthe city who are wor(ing on different things4b*t &any of the& don<t e,en(now abo*t the others. E,erything is -retty &*ch fractionated. Now) if yo*go to a s&all town which has listener4s*--orted radio4li(e 2o*lder) 'ol4orado) for instance4it<s different) it<s *nified. +nd -art of the reason it<s*nified is beca*se of one co&&*nity radio station and a co*-le of o*rnalsand so on that e,erybody can be a -art of. !r 0 re&e&ber going to so&etown in New Ha&-shire which ha--eFed to ha,e a &o,e&ent boo(store)and e,erybody went to the boo(store to find o*t what was going on) yo*<dgo there and loo( at what<s on the wall and stic( together that way. o* dofind things li(e that aro*nd the co*ntry.

2*t ta(e 2oston) where there<s nothing central to bring -eo-le together4there<s no co&&*nity radio) there<s no co&&*nity news-a-er. 0 &ean) thereare lots of -eo-le doing all sorts of acti,ist wor() b*t they don<t e,en (nowabo*t each other? there<s a gro*- in one section wor(ing on 2i(es for

Nicarag*a) there<s a gro*- in another section of the city wor(ing on a Sister'ities -rogra& for 'entral +&erica) they don<t e,en (now of each other<se1istence.

'he N*clear BreeGe Mo,e&ent

W+M*$, What else do you feel we can learn from organi ations you don"tthin& are going about it the right way0

Well) there are -lenty of gro*-s aro*nd that are doing things 0 don<tthin( are ,ery constr*cti,e) e,en tho*gh 0<& often a &e&ber of the& and




>orbache, So,iet leaderO declares a *nilateral n*clear test freeGe and stillthere<s no effect4well) we sho*ld be learning so&ething. 8 Then we sho*ld

be carrying on to the ne1t ste-. 2*t that wasn<t the reaction of the n*clearfreeGe organiGers. The reaction a&ong the organiGers wasn<t) AWell) we ob4,io*sly &is*nderstood the way things wor(A4it was) AWe did the rightthing) b*t we -artially failed? we con,inced the -o-*lation) b*t we didn<t&anage to con,ince the elites) so now let<s con,ince the elites.A o* (now)AWe<ll go tal( to the strategic analysts) who are conf*sed4they don<t *n4

derstand what we *nderstand4and we<ll e1-lain to the& why a n*clearfreeGe wo*ld be a good thing.A +nd in fact) that<s the direction a lot of thedisar&a&ent &o,e&ent too( after that? the -eo-le went off and got the&4sel,es Mac+rth*r Bellowshi-s and so on) and then they went aro*nd Acon4,incingA the strategic analysts. s

Well) that<s one of the ways in which yo* can (id yo*rself into belie,ingthat yo*<re still doing yo*r wor() when really yo*<re being bo*ght off4be4ca*se there<s nothing that elites li(e better than saying) A!h) co&e con,ince&e.A That sto-s yo* fro& organiGing) and getting -eo-le in,ol,ed) andca*sing disr*-tion) beca*se now yo*<re tal(ing to so&e elite s&art g*y44and yo* can do that fore,er? any arg*&ent yo* can gi,e in fa,or of it) hecan gi,e an arg*&ent against it) and it *st (ee-s going. +nd also) yo* getres-ectable) and yo*<re in,ited to l*nch at the Har,ard Bac*lty 'l*b) and

e,erybody -ays attention to yo* and lo,es yo*) and it<s all great. That<s infact the direction in which the n*clear freeGe &o,e&ent went4and that<s a&ista(e. +nd we o*ght to be aware of those &ista(es and learn fro& the&?if yo*<re getting acce-ted in elite circles) chances are ,ery strong that yo*<redoing so&ething wrong40 &ean) for ,ery si&-le reasons. Why sho*ld theyha,e any res-ect for -eo-le who are trying to *nder&ine their -owerI 0tdoesn<t &a(e any sense.

6wareness and 'ctions

M*$, * lot of the activists 6 wor& with operate under the assumption that ifwe can Aust ma&e people aware) everything"s going to wor& out and there"ll

be a change. Even with c.d. ;civil disobedienceJ actions protesting nuclearweapons) that"s been my assumption too, get people to see us doing it) holdup our signs. (ut it seems li&e that"s not all that is needed) really88whatmore) would you say) besides education0

Ed*cation is *st the beginning4and f*rther&ore) there are sit*ationswhere yo* can get e,erybody aware and on yo*r side) and they still won<t

be able to do anything. i(e) ta(e a loo( at Haiti. 0 don<t thin( there<s &*chdo*bt abo*t what ;% -ercent of the -o-*lation there wants) and they<reaware of it4they *st can<t do anything abo*t it witho*t getting sla*ghtered.So there<s a whole series of things which ha,e to ha--en) and they



Chapter Six !?

begin with awarenessC yo* don<t do anything witho*t awareness) ob,i4o*sly44yo* don<t do anything *nless yo*<re aware that there<s so&ethingthat o*ght to be done) so that<s the beginning al&ost by definition. 2*t realawareness in fact co&es abo*t thro*gh -ractice and e1-erience with theworld. 0t<s not) first yo* beco&e aware and then yo* start doing thingsC yo*

beco&e aware through doing things.Bor instance) yo* beco&e aware of the li&its of refor&ist -olitics by try4

ing it. 0n &y ,iew) yo* sho*ld always -*sh all of the o--ort*nities to theirli&its4-artly beca*se so&eti&es yo* can get so&e *sef*l res*lts that hel-

-eo-le) b*t -ri&arily beca*se -retty soon yo*<ll find o*t what those li&itsare) and yo*<ll *nderstand why there are li&itsC yo*<ll gain awareness yo*can<t gain fro& a lect*re. 0 &ean) yo* can hear all the lect*res yo* li(eabo*t the way that -ower wor(s) b*t yo* learn it ,ery fast when yo*act*ally confront it) witho*t the lect*res. So there<s an interaction betweenawareness and action4and so&eti&es the ste-s yo* ha,e to ta(e to &a(echanges re *ire ta(ing things to the le,el of ,iolent re,ol*tionary str*ggle.

i(e) if -eo-le in Haiti were in a -osition to o,erthrow the &ilitary there byforce) in &y o-inion they o*ght to do it. So&eti&es it co&es to that.

+s to the c.d. de&onstrations abo*t n*clear wea-ons) *st -ersonallys-ea(ing) 0 had a lot of disagree&ents with so&e of &y friends on that) -eo4

-le 0 really res-ect a lot) li(e the -eo-le in Plowshares a gro*- acti,e on dis4

ar&a&ent iss*esO. 0 &ean) 0 thin( these are all tactical *estions44li(e) 0 don<t thin(there<s any *estion of -rinci-le in,ol,ed in whether yo* sho*ld s&ash a &issilenose4cone or not) it<s not li(e a contract between yo* and >od or so&ething. The

*estion is) what are the effectsI +nd there 0 tho*ght the effects were negati,e. 0tsee&ed to &e that the effects of what they were doing were) first of all) to re&o,ethem fro& -olitical action) beca*se theywere going to be in ail for twenty years) and also to tie *- tons of &oneyand effort in co*rts) which is absol*tely the worst -lace to be. 0 &ean) theworst waste of ti&e and effort and &oney in the world is a co*rt4so anyti&e yo*can stay o*t of co*rts) yo*<re well off. 2*t the second thing is) 0 don<t thin(that they reached -eo-le4beca*se they didn<t -re-are the gro*nd for it.

i(e) if yo* s&ash *- a &issile nose4cone in so&e town where -eo-le arewor(ing at the &issile -lant and there<s no other way they can &a(e ali,ing)and they ha,en<t heard of any reason why we sho*ldn<t ha,e &issiles) thatdoesn<t ed*cate anybody) it *st gets the& &ad at yo*.

So 0 thin( these tactical *estions ha,e to be ,ery caref*lly tho*ghtthro*gh4yo* can<t really -redict with &*ch certainty) b*t as well as yo* can)yo* ha,e to &a(e a g*ess as to what the effect of the tactic is going to be. 0fthe effect is going to be to b*ild *- awareness) that<s good. 2*t of co*rse)awareness is only the beginning) beca*se -eo-le can be aware and still notdo anything4for instance) &aybe they<re afraid they<ll lose their obs. +ndob,io*sly yo* can<t criticiGe -eo-le for worrying abo*t thatC they<,e got(ids) they<,e got to li,e. That<s fair eno*gh. 0t<s hard to str*ggle for yo*rrights4yo* *s*ally s*ffer.



Chapter Six!

niGed in the c*lt*re for what they are. So it<s necessary to distort historyand &a(e it loo( as if >reat Men did e,erything4that<s -art of how yo*teach -eo-le they can<t do anything) they<re hel-less) they *st ha,e towait for so&e >reat Man to co&e along and do it for the&.

2*t *st ta(e a loo( at the 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent in the UnitedStates) for e1a&-le4ta(e) say) Rosa Par(s who triggered the 3;55Montgo&ery 2*s 2oycott -rotesting racial segregationO. 0 &ean) the

story abo*t Rosa Par(s is) this co*rageo*s blac( wo&an s*ddenlydecided) A0<,e had eno*gh) 0<& not going to sit in the bac( of the b*s.AWell) that<s sort of half tr*e4b*t only half. Rosa Par(s ca&e o*t of aco&&*nity) a wellorganiGed co&&*nity) which in fact had 'o&&*nistParty roots if yo* trace it bac() things li(e Highlander School aTennessee school for ed*cating -olitical organiGersO and so %%.6 2*t itwas a co&&*nity of -eo-le who were wor(ing together and haddecided on a -lan for brea(ing thro*gh the syste& of segregation4RosaPar(s was *st an agent of that -lan.

!(ay) that<s all o*t of history. What<s in history is) one -erson had theco*rage to do so&ething4which she did. 2*t not on her own. Nobodydoes anything on their own. Rosa Par(s ca&e o*t of an organiGedco&&*nity of co&&itted -eo-le) -eo-le who<d been wor(ing togetherfor change for a ,ery long ti&e. +nd that<s how it always wor(s.

The sa&e was tr*e of Martin E*ther "ing? he was able to a--ear andgi,e -*blic s-eeches beca*se S.N.'.'. wor(ers and Breedo& Ridersand others had -re-ared the gro*nd4and ta(en a br*tal beating for it.+nd a lot of those -eo-le were -retty -ri,ileged (ids) re&e&ber? theychose it) they didn<t ha,e to do it. 'hey"re the 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent.Martin E*ther "ing was i&-ortant beca*se he co*ld stand *- there andget the ca&eras) b*t these other -eo-le were the real 'i,il RightsMo,e&ent. 0<& s*re he wo*ld ha,e said the sa&e thing too)incidentally4or at least) he sho*ld ha,e.

+s for >andhi) again it<s the sa&e story. He had a ,ery &i1ed record)act*ally4b*t the -oint is) it was the -eo-le on the gro*nd who did thewor( that -re-ared the basis for >andhi to beco&e -ro&inent) and sort

of artic*late things. +nd when yo* loo( at any other -o-*lar &o,e&ent)0 thin( it<s always li(e that.

evels of Change

M*$, $oam) as we wor& to build up that &ind of movement) what do youthin& are the best methods we should be using as pressure tactics rightnow0 Should we be doing the traditional reformist &ind of steps8lobbyinglegislators) writing letters) trying to get -emocrats into office8or should wego with more of a direct action &ind of approach) demonstrations and civildisobedience and so on0



Chapter Six3

read Mar14-eo-le fig*red that o*t for the&sel,es long before Mar1? it was *st the nat*ral res-onse to ind*strial ca-italis&. +nd in fact) Mar1 didn<tsay &*ch abo*t it anyway. So it co*ld be the labor &o,e&ent that<s doingit.

2*t there<s a ton of acti,is& going on aro*nd the co*ntry a-art fro&that4and tho*gh right now it<s foc*sed on -retty narrow iss*es) *lti&atelythe -eo-le are all tal(ing abo*t the sa&e thing? illegiti&ate a*thority of onefor& or another. 0 &ean) if yo* want a list of organiGations to contact) it<seasy to find4 *st write to any of the &a or -rogressi,e f*nding organiGa4tions) li(e Resist in 2oston) for e1a&-le) and they<ll be delighted to gi,eyo* a list of the co*-le h*ndred gro*-s they<,e f*nded in the last few years?yo*<ll find a&ong the& gro*-s in,ol,ed in any -olitical ca*se yo* cani&agine. 3: +lso) in any &a or city there<s ty-ically so&e ch*rch which is acoordinating center for all (inds of -eace and *stice acti,ities4and yo*<llfind anything in the world there. That ha--ens e,erywhere) and they<ll bethrilled if yo* hel- direct -eo-le to the&.

.on/:iolen-e

M*$, Mr. Choms&y) 6"ve always hoped we could disassemble corporatecapitalism through non8violent yet very determined and organi ed resis8tance) and the creation of alternative institutions that could someday ta&eover and diffuse power peacefully. 6"m wondering) do you thin& that &ind ofhope for non8violence is at all realistic8and how do you feel about the useof violence in general0

Well) li(e 0 say) nobody really (nows anything &*ch abo*t tactics4atleast 0 don<t. 2*t 0 thin( yo* ha,e to thin( thro*gh the non4,iolence *es4tion in detail. 0 &ean) anybody is going to try to do things non4,iolently if

-ossible? what<s the -oint of ,iolenceI 2*t when yo* begin to encroach on -ower) yo* &ay find that it<s necessary to defend yo*r rights4and defense ofyo*r rights so&eti&es does re *ire ,iolence) then either yo* *se it or yo*don<t) de-ending on yo*r &oral ,al*es.

So ta(e a loo( at +&erican labor history. +ro*nd the first half of thiscent*ry) h*ndreds of +&erican wor(ers were si&-ly (illed by sec*rityforces) *st for trying to organiGe. 38 The United States has an *n*s*ally ,io4lent labor history) so ,iolent in fact that if yo* read the right4wing 2ritish

-ress in the 37;%s4the right8wing 2ritish -ress) li(e the ondon 'imes88 they *st co*ldn<t *nderstand the br*tality of the treat&ent of +&erican wor(ersand their lac( of rights. 35 +nd it<s not beca*se the wor&ers were trying to be,iolent4it<s beca*se -eo-le with -ower were ,iolently -rotecting their

-ower against -eo-le trying to get ele&entary rights.+lright) if yo*<re a -acifist or so&ething) yo* ha,e to as( yo*rself so&e

*estions at that -oint? are -eo-le allowed to defend the&sel,es by force



Chapter Six =

Trans-ending Capitalism

M*$, Referring bac& to your comments about escaping from or doingaway with capitalism) 6"m wondering what wor&able scheme you would putin its place0

MeI

M*$, +r what would you suggest to others who might be in a position to

set it up and get it going0

Well) 0 thin( that what *sed to be called) cent*ries ago) Awage sla,eryA isintolerable. 0 &ean) 0 do not thin( that -eo-le o*ght to be forced to rentthe&sel,es in order to s*r,i,e. 0 thin( that the econo&ic instit*tions o*ghtto be r*n de&ocratically4by their -artici-ants) and by the co&&*nities inwhich they li,e. +nd 0 thin( that thro*gh ,ario*s for&s of free associationand federalis&) it<s -ossible to i&agine a society wor(ing li(e that. 0 &ean)0 don<t thin( yo* can lay it o*t in detail8no body<s s&art eno*gh to design asocietyC yo*<,e got to e1-eri&ent. 2*t reasonable -rinci-les on which to

b*ild s*ch a society are *ite clear.

M*$, Most efforts at planned economies &ind of go against the grain ofdemocratic ideals) and founder on those roc&s.

Well) it de-ends which -lanned econo&ies yo* &ean. There are lots of -lanned econo&ies4the United States is a -lanned econo&y) for e1a&-le. 0&ean) we tal( abo*t o*rsel,es as a Afree &ar(et)A b*t that<s baloney. Theonly -arts of the U.S. econo&y that are internationally co&-etiti,e are the

-lanned -arts) the state4s*bsidiGed -arts4li(e ca-ital4intensi,e agric*lt*reKwhich has a state4g*aranteed &ar(et as a c*shion in case there are e14cessesLC or high4technology ind*stry Kwhich is de-endent on the Pentagonsyste&LC or -har&ace*ticals Kwhich is &assi,ely s*bsidiGed by -*blicly44f*nded researchL. Those are the -arts of the U.S. econo&y that are f*nc4tioning well. 36

+nd if yo* go to the East +sian co*ntries that are s*--osed to be the bigecono&ic s*ccesses4yo* (now) what e,erybody tal(s abo*t as a tri*&-h offree4&ar(et de&ocracy4they don<t e,en ha,e the &ost re&ote relation tofree4&ar(et de&ocracy? for&ally s-ea(ing they<re fascist) they<re state44organiGed econo&ies r*n in coo-eration with big conglo&erates. That<s

-recisely fascis&) it<s not the free &ar(et. Now) that (ind of -lanned econo&y Awor(s)A in a way4it -rod*ces at

least. !ther (inds of co&&and econo&ies don<t wor() or wor( differently?for e1a&-le) the Eastern E*ro-ean -lanned econo&ies in the So,iet erawere highly centraliGed) o,er4b*rea*cratiGed) and they wor(ed ,ery ineffi4ciently) altho*gh they did -ro,ide a (ind of &ini&al safety4net for -eo-le.




2*t all of these syste&s ha,e been ,ery anti4de&ocratic4li(e) in the So,ietUnion) there were ,irt*ally no -easants or wor(ers in,ol,ed in any deci4sion4&a(ing -rocess.

M*$, 6t would be hard to find a wor&ing model of an ideal .

es) b*t in the eighteenth cent*ry it wo*ld ha,e been hard to find awor(ing &odel of a -olitical de&ocracy4that didn<t -ro,e it co*ldn<t e1ist.2y the nineteenth cent*ry) it did e1ist. Unless yo* thin( that h*&an historyis o,er) it<s not an arg*&ent to say Ait<s not aro*nd.A o* go bac( twoh*ndred years) it was hard to i&agine sla,ery being abolished.

The >ibb"t* E4periment

*$+'/ER M*$, /ow could you ma&e decisions democratically withouta bureaucracy0 6 don"t see how a large mass of people could actively par8ticipate in all of the decisions that need to be made in a complex modern

society.

No) 0 don<t thin( they can40 thin( yo*<,e got to delegate so&e of thoseres-onsibilities. 2*t the *estion is) where does a*thority *lti&ately lieI 0

&ean) since the ,ery beginnings of the &odern de&ocratic re,ol*tions inthe se,enteenth and eighteenth cent*ries) it<s always been recogniGed that

-eo-le ha,e to be re-resented4the *estion is) are we re-resented by) asthey -*t it) Aco*ntry&en li(e o*rsel,es)A or are we re-resented by Ao*r

bettersA I 3 9Bor e1a&-le) s*--ose this was o*r co&&*nity) and we wanted to enter

into so&e (ind of arrange&ent with the co&&*nity down the road4if wewere fairly big in scale) we co*ldn<t all do it and get the& all to do it) we<dha,e to delegate the right to negotiate things to re-resentati,es. 2*t thenthe *estion is) who has the -ower to *lti&ately a*thoriGe those decisionsIWell) if it<s a de&ocracy) that -ower o*ght to lie not *st formally in the

-o-*lation) b*t actually in the -o-*lation4&eaning the re-resentati,es can be recalled) they<re answerable bac( to their co&&*nity) they can be re4

-laced. 0n fact) there sho*ld be as &*ch as -ossible in the way of constantre-lace&ent) so that -olitical -artici-ation *st beco&es a -art of e,ery4

body<s life.2*t 0 agree) 0 don<t thin( it<s -ossible to ha,e large &asses of -eo-le get

together to decide e,ery to-ic4it wo*ld be *nfeasible and -ointless. o*<regoing to want to -ic( co&&ittees to loo( into things and re-ort bac() andso on and so forth. 37 2*t the real *estion is) where does a*thority lieI

M*$, 6t sounds li&e the model you"re loo&ing to is similar to that of the&ibbut im ;collective farming communities in 6srael<.



Chapter Six ?

eah) the (ibb*tG is act*ally as close to a f*ll de&ocracy as there is) 0thin(. 0n fact) 0 li,ed on one for a while) and had -lanned to stay there) for

-recisely these reasons. !n the other hand) life is f*ll of all (inds of ironies)and the fact is4as 0 ha,e co&e to *nderstand o,er the years e,en &ore than 0did at one ti&e4altho*gh the (ibb*tGi& are ,ery a*thentic de&ocraciesinternally) there are a lot of ,ery *gly feat*res abo*t the&.

Bor one thing) they<re e1tre&ely racist? 0 don<t thin( there<s a single +rabon any (ibb*tG in 0srael) and it t*rns o*t that a fair n*&ber of the& ha,e

been t*rned down. i(e) if a co*-le for&s between a Jewish &e&ber of a(ibb*tG and an +rab) they generally end *- li,ing in an +rab ,illage. Theother thing abo*t the& is) they ha,e an e1tre&ely *n-leasant relationshi-with the state4which 0 didn<t really (now abo*t *ntil fairly recently) e,entho*gh it<s been that way for a long ti&e.

See) -art of the reason why the (ibb*tGi& are econo&ically s*ccessf*l isthat they get a s*bstantial state s*bsidy) and in ret*rn for that state s*bsidythey essentially -ro,ide the officers< cor-s for the elite &ilitary *nits in 0s4rael. So if yo* loo( at who goes into the -ilot training schools and therangers and all that (ind of st*ff) it<s (ibb*tG (ids4that<s the trade4off? thego,ern&ent s*bsidiGes the& as long as they -ro,ide the Praetorian >*ard.B*rther&ore) 0 thin( they end *- -ro,iding the Praetorian >*ard in -art as ares*lt of (ibb*tG ed*cation. +nd here there are things that -eo-le who be4

lie,e in libertarian ideas) as 0 do) really ha,e to worry abo*t.o* see) there<s so&ething ,ery a*thoritarian abo*t the libertarian str*c4t*re of the (ibb*tG40 co*ld see it when 0 li,ed in it) in fact. There<s tre&en4do*s gro*- -ress*re to confor&. 0 &ean) there<s no force that ma&es yo*confor&) b*t the gro*- -ress*res are ,ery -owerf*l. The dyna&ics of howthis wor(ed were ne,er ,ery clear to &e) b*t yo* co*ld *st see it in o-era4tion? the fear of e1cl*sion is ,ery great4not e1cl*sion in the sense of not

being allowed into the dining roo& or so&ething) b*t *st that yo* won<t bea -art of things so&ehow. 0t<s li(e being e1cl*ded fro& a fa&ily? if yo*<re a(id and yo*r fa&ily e1cl*des yo*4li(e &aybe they let yo* sit at the table)

b*t they don<t tal( to yo*4that<s de,astating) yo* *st can<t s*r,i,e it. +ndso&ething li(e that carries o,er into these co&&*nities.

0<,e ne,er heard of anybody st*dying it) b*t if yo* watch the (ids grow4ing *-) yo* can *nderstand why they<re going to go into the rangers and the

-ilot -rogra&s and the co&&andos. There<s a tre&endo*s &acho -ress*re)right fro& the ,ery beginning4yo*<re *st no good *nless yo* can gothro*gh Marine 'or-s training and beco&e a really to*gh bastard. +nd thatstarts -retty early) and 0 thin( the (ids go thro*gh real tra*&as if they can<tdo it? it<s -sychologically ,ery diffic*lt.

+nd the res*lts are stri(ing. Bor e1a&-le) there<s a &o,e&ent of resistersin 0srael esh ><,*lO) -eo-le who won<t ser,e in the !cc*-iedTerritories44b*t it doesn<t ha,e any (ibb*tG (ids in it? the &o,e&ent *stdoesn<t e1ist there. "ibb*tG (ids also ha,e a re-*tation for being what arecalled Agood soldiersA4which &eans) yo* (now) not nice -eo-le? do whatyo* gotta do.



Chapter Six

h*&an -roble&sC socialis& is an effort to get yo* to the -oint where yo*can face the h*&an -roble&s. +nd 0 thin( the (ind of thing yo*<re con4cerned abo*t is a h*&an -roble&4and those are going to be there. H*&ansare ,ery co&-licated creat*res) and ha,e lots of ways of tort*ringthe&sel,es in their inter4-ersonal relations. E,erybody (nows that) witho*tsoa- o-eras.

6nar-hism and 5ibertarianism

W+M*$, #rofessor Choms&y) on a slightly different topic) there"s a separate meaning of the word 1anarchy1 different from the one you oftental& about8namely) 1chaos.1

eah) it<s a b*& ra-) basically4it<s li(e referring to So,iet4style b*rea*4cracy as Asocialis&)A or any other ter& of disco*rse that<s been gi,en a sec4ond &eaning for the -*r-ose of ideological warfare. 0 &ean) AchaosA is a&eaning of the word) b*t it<s not a &eaning that has any rele,ance to socialtho*ght. +narchy as a social -hiloso-hy has ne,er &eant AchaosA4in fact)anarchists ha,e ty-ically belie,ed in a highly organiGed society) *st onethat<s organiGed de&ocratically fro& below.

W+M*$, 6t seems to me that as a social system) anarchism ma&es suchbottom8line sense that it was necessary to discredit the word) and ta&e itout of people"s whole vocabulary and thin&ing8so you Aust have a reflex of

fear when you hear it.

eah) anarchis& has always been regarded as the *lti&ate e,il by -eo-lewith -ower. So in Woodrow Wilson<s Red Scare a 3;3; ca&-aign againstAs*b,ersi,esA in the U.S.O) they were harsh on socialists) b*t they &*rderedanarchists4they were really bad news.

See) the idea that -eo-le co*ld be free is e1tre&ely frightening to any4 body with -ower. That<s why the 3;6%s ha,e s*ch a bad re-*tation. 0 &ean)there<s a big literat*re abo*t the Si1ties) and it<s &ostly written by intellec4t*als) beca*se they<re the -eo-le who write boo(s) so nat*rally it has a ,ery

bad na&e4beca*se they hated it. o* co*ld see it in the fac*lty cl*bs at theti&e? -eo-le were *st tra*&atiGed by the idea that st*dents were s*ddenlyas(ing *estions and not *st co-ying things down. 0n fact) when -eo-leli(e +llan 2loo& a*thor of 'he Closing of the *merican Mind< write as ifthe fo*ndations of ci,iliGation were colla-sing in the Si1ties) fro& their

-oint of ,iew that<s e1actly right? they were. 2eca*se the fo*ndations ofci,iliGation are) A0<& a big -rofessor) and 0 tell yo* what to say) and what tothin() and yo* write it down in yo*r noteboo(s) and yo* re-eat it.A 0f yo*get *- and say) A0 don<t *nderstand why 0 sho*ld read Plato) 0 thin( it<s non4sense)A that<s destroying the fo*ndations of ci,iliGation. 2*t &aybe it<s a




-erfectly sensible *estion4-lenty of -hiloso-hers ha,e said it) so why isn<tit a sensible *estionI

+s with any &ass -o-*lar &o,e&ent) there was a lot of craGy st*ffgoing on in the Si1ties4b*t that<s the only thing that &a(es it into history?the craGy st*ff aro*nd the -eri-hery. The &ain things that were going onare o*t of history4and that<s beca*se they had a (ind of libertariancharacter) and there is nothing &ore frightening to -eo-le with -ower.

M*$, What"s the difference between 1libertarian1 and 1anarchist)1 exactly0

There<s no difference) really. 0 thin( they<re the sa&e thing. 2*t yo* see)AlibertarianA has a s-ecial &eaning in the United States. The United Statesis off the s-ectr*& of the &ain tradition in this res-ect? what<s called Alib4ertarianis&A here is *nbridled ca-italis&. Now) that<s always been o--osedin the E*ro-ean libertarian tradition) where e,ery anarchist has been asocialist4beca*se the -oint is) if yo* ha,e *nbridled ca-italis&) yo* ha,e all(inds of a*thority? yo* ha,e extreme a*thority. 0f ca-ital is -ri,atelycontrolled) then -eo-le are going to ha,e to rent the&sel,es in order tos*r,i,e. Now) yo* can say) Athey rent the&sel,es freely) it<s a freecontractA4b*t that<s a o(e. 0f yo*r choice is) Ado what 0 tell yo* or star,e)Athat<s not a choice4it<s in fact what was co&&only referred to as wage

sla,ery in &ore ci,iliGed ti&es) li(e the eighteenth and nineteenthcent*ries) for e1a&-le.The +&erican ,ersion of Alibertarianis&A is an aberration) tho*gh4no4

body really ta(es it serio*sly. 0 &ean) e,erybody (nows that a society thatwor(ed by +&erican libertarian -rinci-les wo*ld self4destr*ct in three sec4onds. The only reason -eo-le -retend to ta(e it serio*sly is beca*se yo* can*se it as a wea-on. i(e) when so&ebody co&es o*t in fa,or of a ta1) yo*can say? ANo) 0<& a libertarian) 0<& against that ta1A4b*t of co*rse) 0<& stillin fa,or of the go,ern&ent b*ilding roads) and ha,ing schools) and (illing

ibyans) and all that sort of st*ff. Now) there are consistent libertarians) -eo-le li(e M*rray Rothbard

+&erican acade&icO4and if yo* *st read the world that they describe) it<s aworld so f*ll of hate that no h*&an being wo*ld want to li,e in it. This is a

world where yo* don<t ha,e roads beca*se yo* don<t see any reason whyyo* sho*ld coo-erate in b*ilding a road that yo*<re not going to *se? if yo*want a road) yo* get together with a b*nch of other -eo-le who are goingto *se that road and yo* b*ild it) then yo* charge -eo-le to ride on it. 0f yo*don<t li(e the -oll*tion fro& so&ebody<s a*to&obile) yo* ta(e the& toco*rt and yo* litigate it. Who wo*ld want to li,e in a world li(e thatI 0t<s aworld b*ilt on hatred. 3;

The whole thing<s not e,en worth tal(ing abo*t) tho*gh. Birst of all) itco*ldn<t f*nction for a second4and if it co*ld) all yo*<d want to do is get Qo*t) or co&&it s*icide or so&ething. 2*t this is a s-ecial +&erican aberra4tion) it<s not really serio*s.



Chapter Six 5

6rti-"lating :isions

M*$, %ou often seem reluctant to get very specific in spelling out your vi8 sion of an anarchist society and how we could get there. -on"t you thin& it"simportant for activists to do that) though8to try to communicate to people awor&able plan for the future) which then can help give them the hope andenergy to continue struggling0 6"m curious why you don"t do that moreoften.

Well) 0 s*--ose 0 don"t feel that in order to wor( hard for social changeyo* need to be able to s-ell o*t a -lan for a f*t*re society in any (ind of de4tail. What 0 feel sho*ld dri,e a -erson to wor( for change are certain prin8ciples yo*<d li(e to see achie,ed. Now) yo* &ay not (now in detail4and 0don<t thin( that any of *s do (now in detail4how those -rinci-les can best berealiGed at this -oint in co&-le1 syste&s li(e h*&an societies. 2*t 0 don<treally see why that sho*ld &a(e any difference? what yo* try to do isad,ance the -rinci-les. Now) that &ay be what so&e -eo-le call Are4for&is&A4b*t that<s (ind of li(e a -*t4down? refor&s can be *ite re,ol*4tionary if they lead in a certain direction. +nd to -*sh in that direction) 0don<t thin( yo* ha,e to (now -recisely how a f*t*re society wo*ld wor(? 0thin( what yo* ha,e to be able to do is s-ell o*t the -rinci-les yo* want tosee s*ch a society realiGe4and 0 thin( we can i&agine many different waysin which a f*t*re society co*ld realiGe the&. Well) wor( to hel- -eo-le starttrying the&.

So for e1a&-le) in the case of wor(ers ta(ing control of the wor(-lace)there are a lot of different ways in which yo* can thin( of wor(-laces beingcontrolled4and since nobody (nows eno*gh abo*t what all the effects aregoing to be of large4scale social changes) 0 thin( what we sho*ld do is trythe& -iece&eal. 0n fact) 0 ha,e a rather conser,ati,e attit*de towards socialchange? since we<re dealing with co&-le1 syste&s which nobody *nder4stands ,ery &*ch) the sensible &o,e 0 thin( is to &a(e changes and thensee what ha--ens4and if they wor() &a(e f*rther changes. That<s tr*eacrossthe board) act*ally.

So) 0 don<t feel in a -osition4and e,en if 0 felt 0 was) 0 wo*ldn<t say it44to(now what the long4ter& res*lts are going to loo( li(e in any (ind of detail?those are things that will ha,e to be disco,ered) in &y ,iew. 0nstead) the

basic -rinci-le 0 wo*ld li(e to see co&&*nicated to -eo-le is the idea thate,ery for& of a*thority and do&ination and hierarchy) e,ery a*thoritarianstr*ct*re) has to -ro,e that it<s *stified4it has no -rior *stification. Borinstance) when yo* sto- yo*r fi,e4year4old (id fro& trying to cross thestreet) that<s an a*thoritarian sit*ation? it<s got to be *stified. Well) in thatcase) 0 thin( yo* can gi,e a *stification. 2*t the b*rden of -roof for anye1ercise of a*thority is always on the -erson e1ercising it4in,ariably. +ndwhen yo* loo() &ost of the ti&e these a*thority str*ct*res ha,e no *stifi4cation? they ha,e no &oral *stification) they ha,e no *stification in theinterests of the -erson lower in the hierarchy) or in the interests of other




-eo-le) or the en,iron&ent) or the f*t*re) or the society) or anything else4they<re *st there in order to -reser,e certain str*ct*res of -ower and do&4ination) and the -eo-le at the to-.

So 0 thin( that whene,er yo* find sit*ations of -ower) these *estionssho*ld be as(ed4and the -erson who clai&s the legiti&acy of the a*thorityalways bears the b*rden of *stifying it. +nd if they can<t *stify it) it<s il4legiti&ate and sho*ld be dis&antled. To tell yo* the tr*th) 0 don<t really*nderstand anarchis& as being &*ch &ore than that. +s far as 0 can see) it<s

*st the -oint of ,iew that says that -eo-le ha,e the right to be free) and ifthere are constraints on that freedo& then got to *stify the&. So&eti&esyo* can4b*t of co*rse) anarchis& or anything else doesn<t gi,e yo* theanswers abo*t when that is. o* *st ha,e to loo( at the s-ecific cases.

M*$, (ut if we ever had a society with no wage incentive and noauthority) where would the drive come from to advance and grow0

Well) the dri,e to Aad,anceA40 thin( yo* ha,e to as( e1actly what that&eans. 0f yo* &ean a dri,e to produce more) well) who wants itI 0s thatnecessarily the right thing to doI 0t<s not ob,io*s. 0n fact) in &any areas it<s

-robably the wrong thing to do4&aybe it<s a good thing that there wo*ldn<t be the sa&e dri,e to -rod*ce. Peo-le ha,e to be driven to ha,e certainwants in o*r syste&4whyI Why not lea,e the& alone so they can *st beha--y) do other thingsI

Whate,er Adri,eA there is o*ght to be internal. So ta(e a loo( at (ids?they<re creati,e) they e1-lore) they want to try new things. 0 &ean) whydoes a (id start to wal(I o* ta(e a one4year4old (id) he<s crawling fine) hecan get anywhere across the roo& he li(es really fast) so fast his -arentsha,e to r*n after hi& to (ee- hi& fro& (noc(ing e,erything down4all of as*dden he gets *- and starts wal(ing. He<s terrible at wal(ing? he wal(s oneste- and he falls on his face) and if he wants to really get so&ewhere he<sgoing to crawl. So why do (ids start wal(ingI Well) they *st want to donew things) that<s the way -eo-le are b*ilt. We<re b*ilt to want to do newthings) e,en if they<re not efficient) e,en if they<re har&f*l) e,en if yo* geth*rt4and 0 don<t thin( that e,er sto-s.

Peo-le want to e1-lore) we want to -ress o*r ca-acities to their li&its)we want to a--reciate what we can. 2*t the oy of creation is so&ething,ery few -eo-le get the o--ort*nity to ha,e in o*r society? artists get toha,e it) crafts-eo-le ha,e it) scientists. +nd if yo*<,e been l*c(y eno*gh toha,e had that o--ort*nity) yo* (now it<s *ite an e1-erience4and it doesn<tha,e to be disco,ering Einstein<s theory of relati,ity? anybody can ha,e that

-leas*re) e,en by seeing what other -eo-le ha,e done. Bor instance) if yo*read e,en a si&-le &athe&atical -roof li(e the Pythagorean Theore&) whatyo* st*dy in tenth grade) and yo* finally fig*re o*t what it<s all abo*t) that<se1citing4AMy >od) 0 ne,er *nderstood that before.A !(ay) that<s creati,ity)e,en tho*gh so&ebody else -ro,ed it two tho*sand years ago.



Chapter Six 53

o* *st (ee- being str*c( by the &ar,els of what yo*<re disco,ering)and yo*<re Adisco,eringA it) e,en tho*gh so&ebody else did it already. Thenif yo* can e,er add a little bit to what<s already (nown4alright) that<s ,erye1citing. +nd 0 thin( the sa&e thing is tr*e of a -erson who b*ilds a boat? 0don<t see why it<s f*nda&entally any different40 &ean) 0 wish 6 co*ld dothatC 0 can<t) 0 can<t i&agine doing it.

Well) 0 thin( -eo-le sho*ld be able to li,e in a society where they cane1ercise these (inds of internal dri,es and de,elo- their ca-acities freely4instead of being forced into the narrow range of o-tions that are a,ailable to&ost -eo-le in the world now. +nd by that) 0 &ean not only o-tions that areobAectivelya,ailable) b*t also o-tions that are subAectively a,ailable44li(e)how are -eo-le allowed to thin() how are they able to thin(I Re&e&ber)there are all (inds of ways of thin(ing that are c*t off fro& *s in o*rsociety4not beca*se we<re inca-able of the&) b*t beca*se ,ario*s bloc(agesha,e been de,elo-ed and i&-osed to -re,ent -eo-le fro& thin(ing in thoseways. That<s what indoctrination is about in the first -lace) in fact44and 0don<t &ean so&ebody gi,ing yo* lect*res? sitco&s on tele,ision) s-orts thatyo* watch) e,ery as-ect of the c*lt*re i&-licitly in,ol,es an e1-ression ofwhat a A-ro-erA life and a A-ro-erA set of ,al*es are) and that<s allindoctrination.

So 0 thin( what has to ha--en is) other o-tions ha,e to be o-ened *- to -eo-le4both s*b ecti,ely) and in fact concretely? &eaning yo* can doso&ething abo*t the& witho*t great s*ffering. +nd that<s one of the &ain

-*r-oses of socialis&) 0 thin(? to reach a -oint where -eo-le ha,e the o-4 -ort*nity to decide freely for themselves what their needs are) and not *stha,e the AchoicesA forced on the& by so&e arbitrary syste& of -ower.

&ant Creation

M*$, (ut you could say that 1to truc& and barter1 is human nature8that people are fundamentally materialist) and will always want to accumulatemore and more under any social structure.

o* co*ld say it) b*t there<s no reason to believe it. o* loo( at -easantsocieties) they go on for tho*sands of years witho*t it4do those -eo-le ha,ea different h*&an nat*reI !r *st loo( inside a fa&ily? do -eo-le Atr*c( and

barterA o,er how &*ch yo*<re going to eat for dinnerI Well) certainly afa&ily is a nor&al social str*ct*re) and yo* don<t see -eo-le acc*&*lating&ore and &ore for the&sel,es regardless of the needs of the other -eo-le.

0n fact) *st ta(e a loo( at the history of Atr*c(ing and barteringA itself?loo( at the history of &odern ca-italis&) abo*t which we (now a lot. Thefirst thing yo*<ll notice is) -easants had to be dri,en by force and ,iolenceinto a wage4labor syste& they did not wantC then &a or efforts were *nder4




ta(en4conscio*s efforts4to create wants. 0n fact) if yo* loo( bac() there<s awhole interesting literat*re of conscio*s disc*ssion of the need to &an*4fact*re wants in the general -o-*lation. 0t<s ha--ened o,er the whole longstretch of ca-italis& of co*rse) b*t one -lace where yo* can see it ,erynicely enca-s*lated is aro*nd the ti&e when sla,ery was ter&inated. 0t<s

,ery dra&atic to loo( at cases li(e these.Bor e1a&-le) in 37:3 there was a big sla,e re,olt in Ja&aica4which wasone of the things that led the 2ritish to decide to gi,e *- sla,ery in theircolonies? after so&e sla,e re,olts) they basically said) A0t<s not -aying any4&ore.A So within a co*-le years the 2ritish wanted to &o,e fro& a sla,eecono&y to a so4called AfreeA econo&y) b*t they still wanted the basicstr*ct*re to re&ain e1actly the sa&e4and if yo* ta(e a loo( bac( at the

-arlia&entary debates in England at the ti&e) they were tal(ing ,ery con4scio*sly abo*t all this. They were saying? loo() we<,e got to (ee- it the wayit is) the &asters ha,e to beco&e the owners) the sla,es ha,e to beco&e theha--y wor(ers4so&ehow we<,e got to wor( it all o*t.

Well) there was a little -roble& in Ja&aica? since there was a lot of o-enland there) when the 2ritish let the sla,es go free they *st wanted to &o,eo*t onto the land and be -erfectly ha--y) they didn<t want to wor( for the2ritish s*gar -lantations any&ore. So what e,eryone was as(ing in Parlia4&ent in ondon was) AHow can we force the& to (ee- wor(ing for *s) e,enwhen they<re no longer ensla,ed into itIA +lright) two things were decided*-on? first) they wo*ld *se state force to close off the o-en land and -re,ent

-eo-le fro& going and s*r,i,ing on their own. +nd secondly) they realiGedthat since all these wor(ers didn<t really want a lot of things4they *stwanted to satisfy their basic needs) which they co*ld easily do in that tro-4ical cli&ate4the 2ritish ca-italists wo*ld ha,e to start creating a whole setof wants for the&) and &a(e the& start desiring things they didn<t then de4sire) so then the only way they<d be able to satisfy their new &aterial desireswo*ld be by wor(ing for wages in the 2ritish s*gar -lantations. $o

There was ,ery conscio*s disc*ssion of the need to create wants4and infact) e1tensi,e efforts were then *nderta(en to do e1actly what they do onT.D. today? to create wants) to &a(e yo* want the latest -air of snea(ersyo* don<t really need) so then -eo-le will be dri,en into a wage4labor soci4ety. +nd that -attern has been re-eated o,er and o,er again thro*gh thewhole entire history of ca-italis&. $3 0n fact) what the whole history of ca-4italis& shows is that -eo-le ha,e had to be driven into sit*ations which arethen clai&ed to be their nat*re. 2*t if the history of ca-italis& shows any4thing) it shows it<s not their nat*re) that they<,e had to be forced into it) andthat that effort has had to be &aintained right *ntil this day.

3issidents0 Ignored or +ilified

M*$, $oam) if 6 can Aust change the topic a bit. %ou"ve been called a neo8 $a i) your boo&s have been burned) you"ve been called anti86sraeli88don"t



Chapter Six 5=

you get a bit upset by the way that your views are always distorted by themedia and by intellectuals0

No) why sho*ld 0I 0 get called anything) 0<& acc*sed of e,erything yo*can drea& of? being a 'o&&*nist -ro-agandist) a NaGi -ro-agandist) a

-awn of freedo& of s-eech) an anti4Se&ite) liar) whate,er yo* want. $$ +c4t*ally) 0 thin( that<s all a good sign. 0 &ean) if yo*<re a dissident) ty-icallyyo*<re ignored. 0f yo* can<t be ignored) and yo* can<t be answered) yo*<re,ilified4that<s ob,io*s? no instit*tion is going to hel- -eo-le *nder&ine it.So 0 wo*ld only regard the (inds of things yo*<re tal(ing abo*t as signs of

-rogress.+nd in fact) it<s gotten a lot better since the 3;6%s. +gain) we don<t re4

&e&ber4yo*nger -eo-le) in -artic*lar) don<t a--reciate4 *st how &*ch it<schanged. et &e *st gi,e yo* an ill*stration. 2oston<s a -retty liberal city)and the first &a or anti4Dietna& War action there was in !ctober 3;65) theA0nternational ays of Protest)A it was called. There was a -*blicde&onstration on the 2oston 'o&&on4which is li(e Hyde Par() UnionS *are) it<s where yo* gi,e tal(s4and 0 was s*--osed to be one of thes-ea(ers. Well) the &eeting was co&-letely bro(en *-? we ne,er said oneword. There were tho*sands of co*nter4de&onstrators) &ostly st*dents&arching o,er fro& the *ni,ersities4and 0 was ,ery -leased that there were

h*ndreds of co-s there) otherwise we wo*ld ha,e been lynched.The &edia were *st irate abo*t the de&onstration. The front -age of the (oston Dlobe had a big -ict*re of a wo*nded war ,eteran on it) and the restof the -age was all conde&nations of these -eo-le who dared to get *- andsay that we sho*ldn<t bo&b North Dietna&. +ll of the radio -rogra&s weredel*ged with den*nciations of these 'o&&*nists and traitors. The liberalsin 'ongress deno*nced the A*tter irres-onsibilityA of the de&onstrators)who were *estioning the right of the United States to bo&b North Diet4na&4this was in 3;65. $: 0ncidentally) 0 sho*ld say that those de&onstrationswere so te-id it<s e&barrassing e,en to thin( abo*t the&4we weren<t e,encriticiGing the attac( on South Dietna&) which was &*ch worse) we wereonly tal(ing abo*t the e1tension of the bo&bing to the North.

The ne1t big de&onstration was in March <66) that was the second 0n4

ternational ays of Protest. We fig*red there was no -oint in ha,ing a -*b4lic de&onstration) beca*se we<d get (illed) and we didn<t want to ha,e it at a*ni,ersity beca*se the *ni,ersity wo*ld -robably get s&ashed to d*st) sowe decided to ha,e it in a ch*rch. So there was a &arch fro& Har,ardS *are down to the +rlington Street 'h*rch in downtown 2oston) the Uni4tarian 'h*rch which was (ind of the center of the &o,e&ent acti,ities) andthe &arch was -retty well -rotected4g*ys on &otorcycles were dri,ing *-and bac( trying to (ee- -eo-le fro& getting sla*ghtered and so on. Binallywe got down to the ch*rch and went in? the ch*rch was attac(ed4there were

big &obs o*tside throwing -ro ectiles) to&atoes) cans. 0 &ean) the -olicewere there) and they were -re,enting -eo-le fro& getting (illed) b*t theyweren<t doing &*ch &ore than that. That was in 3;66.



Chapter Six 5?

been lea(ed a lot of st*ff fro& there by -eo-le wor(ing in the office whoare *st o*traged by what goes on. Bor instance) they lea(ed &e &y file aco*-le years ago4it had h*ndreds of -ages of &aterial) beca*se whene,er 0s-ea( anywhere) they<,e got a s-y wor(ing for the& who<s ta(ing notes andsending the& bac( to so&e central office. So so&ebody will be here) say)ta(ing notes on what 0<& saying) and so&e ,ersion of it will get into &y fileand then be circ*lated aro*nd to their offices in the rest of the co*ntry?there are interce-ted co&&*nications) and fe,ered inter4office &e&os) Ahe

said so4and4so at s*ch4and4s*chA4all (inds of schmut ) as they call it in &yc*lt*re ;1schmut 1 &eans AdirtA in iddishOP2*t if any of yo* ha,e e,er loo(ed at yo*r B.2.0. file thro*gh a Breedo&

of 0nfor&ation +ct release) yo*<,e -robably disco,ered that intelligenceagencies are in general e1tre&ely inco&-etent4that<s one of the reasons whythere are so &any intelligence fail*res? they *st ne,er get anything straight)for all (inds of reasons. +nd -art of it is beca*se the infor&ation they getty-ically is being trans&itted to the& by agents and infor&ants who areideological fanatics) and they always &is*nderstand things in their owncraGy ways. So if yo* loo( at an B.2.0. file where yo* act*ally (now whatthe facts are) yo*<ll *s*ally see that the infor&ation has so&e relation toreality4yo* can sort of fig*re o*t what they<re tal(ing abo*t4b*t by the ti&eit<s wor(ed its way thro*gh the ideological fanaticis& of the intelligence

syste&) there<s been all sorts of weird distortion. +nd that<s tr*e of the +nti4efa&ation eag*e<s intelligence too.

2*t this st*ff certainly is circ*lated aro*nd4li(e) -robably so&ebody inthis area recei,ed it fro& the regional office) and there<ll be so&e article inthe local news-a-er to&orrow that<ll -*ll a lot of *n( o*t of the file) that<swhat *s*ally ha--ens when 0 go -laces. +nd the -oint is that it<s *sed toclose off the disc*ssion? since they can<t deal with the iss*es) they<,e got toclose off the disc*ssion4and the best way to do it is by throwing eno*ghsli&e so that &aybe -eo-le will fig*re) where there<s s&o(e there<s fire) sowe<d better not listen.

Well) the +. . . is an organiGed gro*- where that<s their &ain ob. $7 2*tthere are -lenty of others who do the sa&e sort of thing4beca*se this is re4ally the instit*tional tas( of the whole intellect*al co&&*nity. 0 &ean) the

ob of &ainstrea& intellect*als is to ser,e as a (ind of sec*lar -riesthood) toens*re that the doctrinal faith is &aintained. So if yo* go bac( to a -eriodwhen the 'h*rch was do&inant) the -riesthood did it? they were the oneswho watched o*t for heresy and went after it. +nd as societies beca&e&ore sec*lar in the eighteenth and nineteenth cent*ries) the sa&e controlswere needed? the instit*tions still had to defend the&sel,es) after all) and ifthey co*ldn<t do it by b*rning -eo-le at the sta(e or sending the& toin *isitions any&ore) they had to find other ways. Well) o,er ti&e thatres-onsibility was transferred to the intellect*al class4to be g*ardians of thesacred -olitical tr*ths) hatchet4&en of one sort or another.

So yo* see) as a dissident) yo* sho*ldn<t be s*r-rised to get all of this




st*ff done to yo*) it<s in fact a -ositi,e sign4it &eans that yo* can<t *st beignored any&ore.

W+M*$, %ou"re really not discouraged by the fact that your wor& almostnever gets portrayed accurately to the public or reviewed in a serious wayby the press0

No) not at all4and we really shouldn"t get disco*raged by that (ind ofthing. oo() 0 a& not e1-ecting to be a--la*ded by -eo-le in editorial of4fices and at Bac*lty 'l*bs4that<s not &y a*dience. 0 &ean) 0 was in 0ndia alittle while ago and ,isited r*ral self4go,erning ,illages) and the -eo-lethere were ha--y to see &e. 0 was in +*stralia at the in,itation of Ti&oreseref*gees) and they were glad that 0 was trying to hel- the&. Recently 0 ga,etal(s at a labor federation in 'anada) and 0<,e done that in the United Statesoften4those are the -eo-le that 0 want to tal( to) they<re the a*dience 0<d li(eto address.

Now) it<s interesting and worth -ointing o*t that the &edia in the UnitedStates are different in this res-ect40 do get -retty easy access to national&edia in other co*ntries. 0n fact) it<s only in the United States and the oldSo,iet E&-ire that 0 ha,en<t had any real access to the &a or &edia o,er theyears. +nd it<s not *st me) of co*rse? the &a or &edia in the U.S.) as wasthe case in the for&er So,iet E&-ire) -retty &*ch e1cl*de anybody with adissident ,oice. So 0 can ha,e inter,iews and articles in &a or o*rnals andnews-a-ers in Western E*ro-e) and in +*stralia) and all *- and down theWestern He&is-here. +nd often 0 get in,itations fro& leading o*rnals inother co*ntries to write for the&4li(e) recently 0 had an article in 0srael<s&ost i&-ortant news-a-er) /a"aret ) which is (ind of the e *i,alent of the

$ew %or& 'imes, it was an in,ited criti *e of their foreign -olicy) and ofthe so4called A-eace -rocess.A $; !r in +*stralia) 0 ga,e a tal( at the Na4tional Press 'l*b in the Parlia&ent 2*ilding) which was nationallytele,ised twice on +*stralian World Ser,ices) their ,ersion of the 2.2.'44they wanted &e to s-ea( abo*t *ustralia"s foreign -olicy) so 0 ga,e a ,erycritical tal( to a national a*dience) and 0 s-o(e to Parlia&entarians and

o*rnalists and so on) and was all o,er the -ress and -a-ers there. +nd thesa&e thing is tr*e in E*ro-eC 0<& often on the '.2.'. nationally in 'anadaCand so on. Well) as yo* say) that<s all *nheard of in the United States4andthe &ain reason) 0 thin() is *st that what -eo-le thin() and are allowed tothin() is &*ch &ore i&-ortant here) so the controls are &*ch greater. :%

M*$, 6 heard something vaguely about your boo&s being burned 6nCanada once. Were you there0 What was that li&e for you0

That was in Toronto. eah) 0 was there. 0 &ean) 0 thin( -eo-le ha,e aright to b*rn boo(s if they want. 0 was in fact inter,iewed abo*t it) 0 saidthe ob,io*s thing40<d rather they read the& than b*rn the&) b*t if they




were fifty &edia cor-orations instead of three) for e1a&-le) 0 thin( they<ddo abo*t the sa&e thing they do now4 *st beca*se they all ha,e basicallythe sa&e interests. Maybe there<d be a little bit &ore co&-etition) b*t -rob4ably not &*ch. That<s &y ,iew of the *estion) at least.

M*$, /ave you ever had your linguistics wor& censored or impeded in publication because of your politics0

Ne,er in the United States4b*t in the rest of the world) s*re. Bor in4stance) 0<ll ne,er forget one wee() it &*st ha,e been aro*nd 3;9; or so)when 0 was sent two news-a-ers? one fro& +rgentina and one fro& the So4,iet Union. +rgentina was then *nder the r*le of these neo4NaGi generals)and 0 was sent 7a #rensa fro& 2*enos +ires) the big news-a-er in +r4gentina4there was a big article saying) A o* can<t read this g*y<s ling*isticswor( beca*se it<s Mar1ist and s*b,ersi,e.A The sa&e wee( 0 got an articlefro& 6 vestia in the So,iet Union which said) A o* can<t read this g*y<sling*istics wor( beca*se he<s idealist and co*nter4re,ol*tionary.A 0 tho*ghtthat was -retty nice.

M*$, $oam) aren"t you at all afraid of being silenced by the establishment for being so prominent and vocal in spea&ing out against 2.S. power andits abuses0

No) not really4and for a ,ery si&-le reason) act*ally? if yo* loo( at &e)yo*<ll see what it is. 0<& white) 0<& -ri,ileged) and that &eans 0<& basicallyi&&*ne fro& -*nish&ent by -ower. 0 &ean) 0 don<t want to say that it<s a .h*ndred -ercent i&&*nity4b*t the fact of the &atter is that these two things&ean that yo* can b*y a lot of freedo&.

oo() there isn<t any tr*e ca-italist society in the world) it co*ldn<t s*r,i,efor ten &in*tes) b*t there are ,ariations on ca-italis&) and the U.S. istowards the ca-italist end of the world s-ectr*&4not ,ery far towards it) 0sho*ld say) b*t towards it at least in ,al*es. +nd if yo* had a tr*ly ca-ital4ist society) e,erything wo*ld be a co&&odity) incl*ding freedo&? therewo*ld be as &*ch of it as yo* can b*y. Well) since the U.S. is towards that

end of the s-ectr*&) it &eans there<s an awf*l lot of freedo& aro*nd if yo*can afford it. So if yo*<re a blac( organiGer in the ghetto) yo* don<t ha,e&*ch of it) and yo*<re in tro*ble4they can send the 'hicago -olice in to&*rder yo*) li(e they did with Bred Ha&-ton a 2lac( Panther assassinated

by the E2.0. in 3;6;O. 2*t if yo*<re a white -rofessional li(e &e) yo* can b*y a lot of freedo&.

+nd beyond that) 0 also ha--en to belong to a sector of the society wherethose who ha,e real -ower are going to want to -rotect &e40 &ean) they&ay hate e,erything abo*t &e and want to see &e disa--ear) b*t they don<twant the state to be -owerf*l eno*gh to go after -eo-le li&e&e) beca*sethen it co*ld go after -eo-le li(e them. So the fact of the &atter is that inso4



)

2nderstanding #ower

can learn fro& other -eo-le who ha,e tho*ght abo*t s*b ects and hade1-eriences.

M*$, (ut what 6"m wondering is) what else do you thin& would go intoteaching people about resistance) and activism in general0

Birst of all 0 don<t thin( yo* sho*ld &islead -eo-le? yo* sho*ld get the&to *nderstand that if they<re going to be inde-endent thin(ers) they are

-robably going to -ay a cost. 0 &ean) one has to begin with an *nderstand4ing of the way the world wor(s? the world does not reward honesty and in4de-endence) it rewards obedience and ser,ice. 0t<s a world of concentrated

-ower) and those who ha,e -ower are not going to reward -eo-le who*estion that -ower. So to begin with) 0 don<t thin( anybody sho*ld be &is4

led abo*t that.+fter yo* *nderstand that) o(ay) then yo* &a(e yo*r own choices. 0f

yo*r choice is that yo* want to be inde-endent anyhow) e,en tho*gh yo*recogniGe what<s in,ol,ed) then yo* sho*ld *st go ahead and try to do itb*tthose can be e1tre&ely hard choices so&eti&es. Bor instance) 0 (now thatas an older -erson who often gets a--roached by yo*nger -eo-le forad,ice) 0<& always ,ery hesitant to gi,e it on these sorts of decisions Ke,entho*gh so&eti&es the circ*&stances are s*ch that 0 ha,e toL4beca*se 0<& inno -osition to tell anybody else what to decide. 2*t what 0 thin( one can dois to hel- -eo-le *nderstand what the ob ecti,e realities are.

oo() yo* can gain a lot by acti,is&) li(e all of yo* were saying earlier4 b*t there are also &any things that yo* can lose. +nd so&e of those thingsare not *ni&-ortant) li(e sec*rity for e1a&-le4that<s not *ni&-ortant. +nd

-eo-le *st ha,e to &a(e their own choices abo*t that when they decidewhat they<re going to do.

Isolation

W+M*$, 'o stay on a personal level for a moment) $oam) 6"ve alwaysbeen &ind of fascinated by how you find the time to write boo&s and arti8cles) and teach) give tal&s all over the country) have a family life) be theleading figure in linguistics) you document your wor& very thoroughly8are

you in some &ind of a time warp) where you experience something otherthan a 48hour day li&e the rest of us0

No) it<s *st -*re) ordinary fanaticis&4and in fact) a lot of things go.+nybody who<s -retty serio*sly in,ol,ed in -olitical acti,ity or organiGing(nows that a lot of other things *st go) li(e -ersonal li,es so&eti&es. 0&ean) yeah) 0 try to (ee- &y -ersonal life going4so &y grand(ids and chil4dren were o,er a few nights ago) and 0 -layed with the&) that sort of thing.2*t -ersonal relationshi-s do s*ffer. Bor instance) if 0 see &y closest -er4



$ 3 8 2nderstanding #ower

they too( o,er the town and ran e,erything. +nd this was d*ring a ,eryracist -eriod) re&e&ber4there weren<t a lot of blac(s aro*nd right there) b*tthere was real racis& directed at Eastern E*ro-eans. So) what were calledAH*nsA Kwhich co*ld be Slo,a(s or anybody) it didn<t ha,e to beH*ngariansL were treated sort of the way blac(s are treated4and the racis&was ,ery ,icio*s. 2*t it all colla-sed in the &iddle of the Ho&estead stri(e.+nd also) wo&en were r*nning all sorts of things too) a lot of the se1is&was bro(en down as well. +nd that<s what tends to ha--en when -eo-le

oin together in co&&on str*ggles. :$ 0t also ha--ened in the for&ation of the c.0.!. a *nion for &ass4

-rod*ction ind*stries for&ed in 3;:5O4blac( and white wor(ers wor(edtogether to create the c.0.!. +nd it ha--ened in the 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent4S.N.'.'.) for e1a&-le) was ,ery o-en) it was white) blac() anything. + lotof the *n-leasant as-ects of life disa--ear) and yo* can co&-ensate forthe&) in the co*rse of so&e (ind of co&&on str*ggle. 0n fact) an old friendof &ine who was in the Polish resistance in Warsaw d*ring the NaGiocc*-ation4and li,ed thro*gh that ti&e and s*r,i,edalways *sed to say thatit was the best -eriod of his life. 0 &ean) it was e1tre&ely dangero*s4yo*co*ld end *- in a gas cha&ber and e,erybody (new it4b*t there was a senseof co&&*nity that he<d ne,er felt before) and ne,er had after.

So the best answer) 0 s*s-ect) is *st the sa&e as for e,erything else4weha,e to de,elo- stable -o-*lar organiGations) and a c*lt*re of concern) andco&&it&ent) and acti,is&) and solidarity) which can hel- to s*stain *s in

these str*ggles) and which can hel- brea( down so&e of the barriers that X

ha,e been set *- to di,ide and distract *s.

S-ien-e and 9"man .at"re

M*$, $oam) could you elaborate a little more on what your own opinionsare about human nature8for instance) do you see humans as more de8

structive than constructive) or is it maybe the other way around0

Well) first of all) &y o-inion abo*t it is no better than yo*rs? it<s *st -*re int*ition) nobody really *nderstands anything abo*t h*&an nat*re.oo() -eo-le don<t *nderstand &*ch abo*t big &olec*les4when yo* get

beyond that to things li(e h*&an nat*re) anybody<s g*ess is as good asanyone else<s.

M*$, (ut you"ve studied a lot of the results of human nature.

eah) b*t if yo* loo( at the res*lts of h*&an nat*re) yo* see e,erything?yo* see enor&o*s self4sacrifice) yo* see tre&endo*s co*rage) yo* see in4tegrity) yo* see destr*cti,eness) yo* see anything yo* want. That doesn<ttell yo* &*ch.



Chapter Six =

M*$, 6t seems li&e a great deal of your research documents thedestructive nature of humans) though.

Well) b*t a lot of it doc*&ents other things too. 0 &ean) &y general feel4ing is that o,er ti&e) there<s &eas*rable -rogress? it<s not h*ge) b*t it<s sig4nificant. +nd so&eti&es it<s been -retty dra&atic. Bor instance) ta(e thesort of Aoriginal sinA of +&erican history4what ha--ened to the nati,e

-o-*lation here. 0t<s a re&ar(able fact that *ntil the 3;6%s) the c*lt*re si&4 -ly co*ld not co&e to ter&s with that at all. Until the 3;6%s) with ,ery raree1ce-tions) acade&ic scholarshi- was grossly falsifying the history) ands*--ressing the reality of what ha--ened4e,en the n*&ber of -eo-le (illedwas radically falsified. 0 &ean) as late as 3;6;) in one of the leadingdi-lo&atic histories of the United States) the a*thor Tho&as 2ailey co*ldwrite that after the +&erican Re,ol*tion) the for&er colonists t*rned to thetas( of Afelling trees and 0ndians.A :: $obody co*ld say that now4yo*co*ldn<t e,en say that in a Wall Street ournal editorial now. Well) thoseare i&-ortant changes) and it<s -art of a lot of other significant -rogress too.Sla,ery was considered a fine thing not long ago.

M*$, So you thin& that human nature is individually &ind of destructive)but overall it"s constructive0

0 don<t (now4li(e) they didn<t ha,e gas cha&bers in the nineteenth cen4t*ry) so yo* can find all (inds of things. +nd if yo* want to loo( for scien4tific answers) it<s Gilch) nobody (nows a thing? the answers &ostly co&efro& history or int*ition or so&ething. 0 &ean) science can only answer,ery si&-le *estions4when things get co&-licated) yo* *st g*ess.

*$+'/ER M*$, #eople often as& you about the connections between your scientific wor& in linguistics and your politics) and you tend to say something about) 1%es) there are a few tenuous connections.1 Would youamplify on that0 0 myself have been thin&ing that maybe part of our

political problem is that the human brain is very good at seeing things incompetitive terms li&e 1more1 and 1less)1 and it"s not very good atconceptuali ing 1enough.1

Well) that &ay be tr*e4b*t these are to-ics where the scientific st*dy oflang*age has nothing to say. 0 &ean) yo* (now as &*ch abo*t it as the fan4ciest ling*ist aro*nd.

M*$, Where are they) then8even the tenuous connections0

Not thereC the ten*o*s connections are so&ewhere else.Birst of all) we sho*ld re&e&ber that the (inds of things that any sort of

science can shed light on are -retty narrow? when yo* start &o,ing to co&4 -licated syste&s) scientific (nowledge declines ,ery fast. +nd when yo*get




to the nat*re of h*&an beings) the sciences ha,e nothing to say. There are afew areas where yo* can get a lot of insight and *nderstanding) and certainas-ects of lang*age ha--en to be one of those areas) for so&e reason4b*tthat insight still doesn<t bear on *estions of real h*&an concern) at leastnot at a le,el which has any conse *ences for h*&an life.

The connections are *ite different4and they are ten*o*s. The onlyreason for stressing the& is beca*se they<,e been -ointed o*t &any ti&esthro*gh the co*rse of &odern intellect*al history) and in fact they lie rightat the core of classical liberalis&. 0 &ean) contrary to the conte&-orary ,er4sion of it) classical liberalis& Kwhich re&e&ber was -re4ca-italist) and infact) anti4ca-italistL foc*sed on the right of -eo-le to control their ownwor() and the need for free creati,e wor( *nder yo*r own control4forh*&an freedo& and creati,ity. So to a classical liberal) wage labor *nderca-italis& wo*ld ha,e been considered totally i&&oral) beca*se it fr*s4trates the f*nda&ental need of -eo-le to control their own wor(? yo*<re asla,e to so&eone else.

Well) in trying to locate sort of a core in h*&an nat*re for a right to free)creati,e wor( and control o,er it) so&e classical liberal -hiloso-hersloo(ed at other as-ects of h*&an intelligence) and one as-ect that had in4deed been st*died since the se,enteenth cent*ry) and had a lot to do with'artesian tho*ght as well i.e. after the Brench -hiloso-her escartesO) was

lang*age4where it was recogniGed) *ite acc*rately) that sort of an identi4fying criterion of -ossession of a &ind in the h*&an sense Kas distinct fro&an ani&al or an a*to&atonL is the free creati,e as-ect of the nor&al *se oflang*age.

So for e1a&-le) a central -art of escartes< arg*&ent for a shar-) e,enontological distinction between h*&ans and e,erything else in the worldwas that if yo* -ose a *estion to a h*&an being abo*t a new to-ic *sing

-hrases that the -erson has ne,er heard before) they can gi,e yo* a new re4s-onse rele,ant to what yo* said) which is not ca*sed by their internal stateand not ca*sed by any e1ternal circ*&stances) b*t which so&ehow co&eso*t of so&e creati,e ca-acity of their &ind. 2*t the sa&e thing won<t betr*e of an a*to&aton or an ani&al or anything else4li(e) if yo* ta(e a &a4chine and set it in a certain en,iron&ent and -*sh a b*tton) what will co&e

o*t is -redeter&inedC or if yo* gi,e a -igeon a certain sti&*l*s) its actionsalso are going to be -redeter&ined. 2*t in h*&an lang*age) the -rod*ctthat co&es o*t is not -redeter&ined4it<s *ndeter&ined) b*t still so&ehowa--ro-riate to sit*ations.

Well) to escartes) that was the cr*cial as-ect of the h*&an &ind. +ndthere was an atte&-t right thro*gh the classical liberal -eriod) by Ro*ssea*)and H*&boldt) and others) to lin( *- these ele&ents and identify sort of aneed and a right to freedo&) an Ainstinct for freedo&)A it was so&eti&escalled) so&ething at the cogniti,e core of h*&an nat*re? free creati,etho*ght and its e1-ression.

Now) that<s -retty &eta-horic4li(e 0 say) nobody really (nows any4



Chapter Six ?

thing abo*t h*&an nat*re) so certainly yo* don<t (now whether there<s aninstinct for freedo& or not. 0 &ean) if so&ebody wants to say that h*&ansare born to be sla,es) they can gi,e as &*ch of a scientific arg*&ent asRo*ssea* co*ld when he said they<re born to be free4it<s li(e where yo*rho-es are) it<s not that there<s any scientific (nowledge.

+nd the sa&e thing is tr*e today? li(e) yo* can read any boo( yo* wantabo*t sociobiology theory that s-ecific social beha,iors and not *st -hys4ical characteristics res*lt fro& e,ol*tionO) and it<s &ostly *st fairy tales40&ean) it<s all fine when it<s tal(ing abo*t antsC when it goes *- to the le,elof &a&&als) it starts being g*esswor(C and when it gets to h*&ans) it<sli(e) say anything that co&es to yo*r head. 2*t 0 thin( yo* can see a

-ossible connection of that sort4a -otential connection. Whether thatconnection can act*ally be &ade s*bstanti,e) who (nowsI 0t<s all so far

beyond scientific *nderstanding at this -oint that yo* can<t e,en drea&abo*t it. So that<s the &ain reason why 0 don<t tal( abo*t these things &*ch.0 *st thin( they<re interesting ideas) which are &aybe worth thin(ing abo*tin the bac( of yo*r &ind) or &aybe writing -oe&s abo*t or so&ething. 2*tthey<re si&-ly not to-ics for scientific in *iry at this -oint.

Charlatans in the S-ien-es

W+M*$, $oam) there"s an idea in behavioral science) tied in with #iaget"s theory of cognitive development) that human compassion is alearned :uality ;the Swiss psychologist #iaget believed that mentaldevelopment in children progresses through four genetically8determined

stagesJ. Some politicians have sei ed upon this idea to promote the death penalty being used more often, li&e) either you catch the boat or you don"t)either you learn human compassion or you don"t8so if these murderershaven"t learned it) well) then it"s impossible to teach it to them now. 6"m

sure you"re familiar with these arguments0

This st*ff doesn<t e,en rise to the le,el of idiocy4literally. 0 &ean) if -eo4 -le want to ha,e a fra*d*lent reason for defending the death -enalty) fine) b*t there is no scientific basis. Ta(e Piaget? Piaget<s wor( on de,elo-&ental -sychology was interesting) he had so&e interesting e1-eri&ents and so on4the whole edifice has totally colla-sed) nobody belie,es a word of itany&ore. 0t t*rned o*t that all of the de,elo-&ental AstagesA are false? asyo* got better e1-eri&ents) yo* co*ld show that tiny infants co*ld do allthe things he -ost*lated they co*ldn<t do at that stage. 0 &ean) it was an in4teresting set of ideas) it wasn<t st*-id4and -eo-le learned fro& the e1-eri4&ental wor(. 2*t there<s nothing left of the -ict*re. ero.

+s far as co&-assion being learned) anyone of yo* (nows as &*ch asthe fanciest scientist4and what yo* (now is what yo* (now by int*ition ande1-erience? yo*<,e seen children) &aybe yo*<,e had children) yo*<,e




-layed with the&) yo* see the way they grow *-. That<s what anybody(nows) nobody (nows any &ore than that. +nd the sciences ha,e nothing&ore to tell yo*4and f*rther&ore) there<s no indication that they e,er will?it<s *st way too far away. 0 &ean) they &ay gi,e yo* so&e statistical e,i4dence) or &aybe so&eday so&ebody will be able to show that this (ind of

bac(gro*nd leads to &ore co&-assionate -eo-le than so&e other (ind of bac(gro*nd) that<s entirely -ossible. 2*t that doesn<t &ean there<s e,ergoing to be an *nderstanding of it.

oo() as science -rogresses) there will be atte&-ts to draw -olitical con4cl*sions fro& it4b*t they<re going to be li(e this Piaget and the death -enalty thing? that is) -eo-le who ha,e so&e -olitical agenda will findso&e total charlatan in the sciences who will tell the&) Athis is the basis forit.A 2*t in ter&s of act*al scientific (nowledge) we aren<t e,en withins*-er4telesco-e distance of to*ching any of these *estions4there<s *stnothing there. 0 &ean) it<s not that yo* can<t do research on the&? yo* cando descri-ti,e research) yo* can do thera-y) yo* can try to e1tend insights

by &a(ing the& a little bit &ore caref*l and controlled4b*t that<s abo*t it.0t<s (ind of li(e -sychothera-y? so&e -eo-le say they get so&ething o*t

of -sychothera-y) and &aybe they do and &aybe they don<t4b*t if they do)it<s not beca*se there<s any science behind it? there<s no science behind it)any &ore than there is behind faith4healing. 0t<s *st that so&ehow) ,ario*s

(inds of h*&an interactions so&eti&es see& to wor(.0 re&e&ber an anthro-ologist friend of &ine who<s wor(ed in So*thwest+&erican 0ndian co&&*nities once described to &e -eo-le being healed intribal healing cere&onies? he said that if he didn<t see it with his own eyes)he wo*ldn<t ha,e belie,ed it. So so&e -erson will be really ill40 &ean) ,eryserio*s -roble&s) -hysical sy&-to&s) he<s not &a(ing it *-4and they willgo thro*gh so&e co&&*nity4ty-e rit*al which in,ol,es dancing) andsinging) this and that and the other thing) and the -erson *st gets better?yo* see it ha--ening) nobody (nows why it<s ha--eningC &aybe it<s so&e4thing abo*t e&-athy) or being -art of a co&&*nity) whate,er it &ight be.Well) there<s abo*t as &*ch scientific *nderstanding in that as there is in

-sychothera-y.!r e,en *st ta(e narrow *estions of &edicine. o* (now how they de4

cide what (inds of dr*gs are worth gi,ing to yo*) say for heart -roble&sI0t<s not beca*se the science of it is *nderstood4they *st do e-ide&iologicalst*dies with controlled -o-*lations) to see if one of the sa&-le -o-*lationsta(es this dr*g and the other sa&-le -o-*lation ta(es that dr*g) which oneli,es a little bit longer. 0 &ean) yo* can call that AscienceA if yo* li(e4b*tit<s the (ind of science that can be done by anybody who can co*nt

basically) or who (nows so&ething abo*t st*dying sa&-les and things li(ethat. 0t<s not beca*se anyone *nderstands the biology of these things4*s*allythat<s barely *nderstood) if at all.

So 0 thin( that whene,er yo* hear -eo-le tal(ing abo*t things li(eAlearning of co&-assionA and so on) a big red flag sho*ld go *-.



Chapter Six

W+M*$, %ou don"t thin& science will ever have much to say abouthuman behavior8there"s Aust something spiritual at the human level that isundefinable by science0

0t<s not *st abo*thumans that scientific insight is ,ery li&ited4e,ensi&-le -hysical things can<t be dealt with either. Bor instance) there<s aAthree body -roble&A in -hysics? yo* can<t really fig*re o*t what ha--enswhen three bodies are &o,ing) the e *ations are *st too co&-licated. 0nfact) a -hysicist 0 was tal(ing to recently ga,e &e another e1a&-le4he saidif yo* ta(e a c*- of coffee with crea& swirling aro*nd in it) -res*&ably allof the nat*ral laws are (nown) b*t yo* can<t sol,e the e *ations beca*sethey<re *st too co&-le1. +lright) that<s not h*&an beings) that<s crea&swirling aro*nd in a c*- of coffee? we can<t fig*re o*t what<s going on.

The -oint is) we &ay (now the laws) b*t the -ossibility of a--lyingthe&) or of sol,ing the e *ations) or of wor(ing o*t the -roble&s) or of *n4derstanding what<s going on) declines ,ery fast when we get -ast only the,ery si&-lest things.

+lso) we -robably don"t (now all the laws40 &ean) it<s ,ery *nli(ely thatwe really do (now the laws) e,en at the core of science. + -hysicist will tellyo* &*ch &ore abo*t this than 0 can) b*t ta(e) say) the &atter in the*ni,erse? &ore than ;% -ercent of the &atter in the *ni,erse is what<s called

Adar( &atterA4and it<s called Adar(A beca*se nobody (nows what it is. 0t<s *st sort of -ost*lated that it e1ists) beca*se if yo* don<t -ost*late it)e,erything blows *-4so yo* ha,e to ass*&e that it<s there. +nd that<s o,er;% -ercent of the &atter in the *ni,erse? yo* don<t e,en (now what it is. 0nfact) a new branch of -hysics has de,elo-ed aro*nd s*-ercond*cti,ity

As*-ercond*cti,ityA refers to the co&-lete disa--earance of electrical re4sistance in ,ario*s solids at *ltra4low te&-erat*resO) and while 0 don<t ha,ethe (nowledge to e,al*ate the clai&s) what so&e of the -hysicists wor(ingon it say is that they can now ,irt*ally -ro,e K0 &ean) not :uite -ro,e) b*tco&e *ite close to -ro,ingL that in this do&ain of highly condensed &at4ter) there are -rinci-les which are literally not ded*cible fro& the (nownlaws of nat*re? so yo* can<t red*ce the -rinci-les of s*-ercond*cti,ity tothe (nown laws of nat*re. +nd again) that<s tal(ing abo*t really si&-lethings) nothing li(e a co&-le1 organis&.

Then when yo* begin to tal( abo*t how organis&s de,elo-4well) -eo-lesay it<s Anat*ral selection)A and that<s not false? *ndo*btedly arwin wassort of right. 2*t it co*ld be that nat*ral selection is only a ,ery -eri-heral

-art of the de,elo-&ent of organis&s. So) there<s a channel of -hysical -ossibilities that -hysical laws &a(e a,ailable) and within that channel of -hysical -ossibilities only certain things can ha--en4and within the range ofthose things that can ha--en) yo* are going to get effects d*e to nat*ralselection. 2*t the str*ct*re of the channel is totally *n(nown? 0 &ean)nobody (nows what (inds of laws a--ly to co&-le1 organis&s) there are

*st the bare beginnings these days of the st*dies of




self4organiGing syste&s4how syste&s de,elo- str*ct*re and co&-le1ity *st by ,irt*e of their nat*re. These things are *st barely beginning to be*nderstood4and we<re tal(ing abo*t things way si&-ler than h*&an beings .

Bor instance) in ne*ro-hysiology) the organis& that -eo-le st*dy is a lit4tle wor& called ne&atodes4and the reason they st*dy ne&atodes is beca*sethey<re tiny) for one thing? they ha,e a tho*sand cells) a three4day gestation

-eriod) three h*ndred ne*rons) and the entire wiring diagra& of the threeh*ndred ne*rons is (nown) so we (now e1actly how they<re all lin(ed *-

together. 2*t still) nobody can fig*re o*t why the st*-id wor& does what itdoes) whate,er it does40 don<t (now) -robably t*rn left or so&ething.Whate,er it does is so far *ne1-lained on the basis of a three4h*ndred4ne*ron syste&) where the entire str*ct*re of it is (nown) and the wholegestation -eriod is co&-letely (nown. 0t<s *st too co&-licated) too &anythings are going on) there are too &any che&ical interactions. +nd this isthree h*ndred ne*rons4it<s not 3%33 ne*rons) li(e in yo*r head. So thedifference is *st so *alitati,ely h*ge that the fall4off in *nderstandingwhen it co&es to h*&an beings is e1tre&ely dra&atic.

+nd this is again why the st*dy of lang*age is so -artic*larly interesting) beca*se for so&e reason it see&s li(e things in the inorganic world? thereare as-ects of it yo* can st*dy by the &ethods of the sciences) which isc*rio*s4b*t still it<s li(e a little laser bea& of light that goes thro*gh h*&an

beha,ior) lea,ing &ost things abo*t lang*age o*t. i(e) science has nothingto say abo*t what yo* and 0 are doing now4only abo*t the &echanis&s thatare involved in it) not abo*t how we do it. +bo*t that) there<s nothing to say)e1ce-t again yo* can write -oe&s. So the reach of scientific *nderstandingis highly s-ecific? ,ery dee- in the few areas where it goes) b*t they<reli&ited areas.

Now) when yo* say that h*&an beha,ior &ight be beyond o*r in *iry)that<s -ossible4b*t 0 wo*ldn<t say that<s beca*se of a As-irit*alA -ro-erty weha,e? the sa&e thing &ight be tr*e of large -arts of nat*re. So there<s so&eca-acity of the brain) so&e fac*lty of the &ind that nobody *nderstands)which allows *s to do scientific in *iry4and li(e any other -art of biology)it<s highly str*ct*red? it<s ,ery good at certain things) and conse *ently ,ery

bad at other things. 0 &ean) yo* can<t be good at so&ething if yo*<re not bad

at so&ething else) those two things necessarily go together4li(e) if yo*<re agreat weight4lifter) yo*<re going to be a rotten b*tterfly. o* can<t be both)rightI So if a h*&an e&bryo can beco&e a h*&an being) it can<t beco&e afly4it<s too Awea(A to beco&e a fly) if yo* li(e) beca*se it<s AstrongA eno*ghto beco&e a h*&an being? by a &atter of logic) those things go together. Soif yo* ha,e a great ca-acity in one area) yo*<re going to ha,e lo*syca-acities in another area. +nd if the h*&an sciencefor&ing ca-acity isgood eno*gh to fig*re o*t *ant*& theory for so&e co&-letely*ne1-lained reason) it<s also going to be so bad that it<s not going to fig*reo*t lots of other things. +nd we don<t (now what those



2nderstanding #ower

they e,er read to -age 89:4answer? well) they -robably read the first -aragra-h) then sort of re&e&bered what they<d been ta*ght in so&e col4lege co*rse.

2*t the -oint is) for classical liberals in the eighteenth cent*ry) there wasa certain conce-tion of *st what h*&an beings are li(e4na&ely) that what(ind of creat*res they are de-ends on the (ind of wor( they do) and the(ind of control they ha,e o,er it) and their ability to act creati,ely and ac4cording to their own decisions and choices. +nd there was in fact a lot of,ery insightf*l co&&ent abo*t this at the ti&e.

So for e1a&-le) one of the fo*nders of classical liberalis&) Wilhel& ,onH*&boldt Kwho incidentally is ,ery ad&ired by so4called Aconser,ati,esAtoday) beca*se they don<t read hi&L) -ointed o*t that if a wor(er -rod*ces a

bea*tif*l ob ect on co&&and) yo* &ay Aad&ire what the wor(er does) b*tyo* will des-ise what he is A4beca*se that<s not really beha,ing li(e ah*&an being) it<s *st beha,ing li(e a &achine. :9 +nd that conce-tion r*nsright thro*gh classical liberalis&. 0n fact) e,en half a cent*ry later) +le1isde Toc *e,ille Brench -olitician and writerO -ointed o*t that yo* can ha,esyste&s in which Athe art ad,ances and the artisan recedes)A b*t that<s in4h*&an4beca*se what yo*<re really interested in is the artisan) yo*<re in4terested in people) and for -eo-le to ha,e the o--ort*nity to li,e f*ll andrewarding li,es they ha,e to be in control of what they do) e,en if that ha-4

-ens to be econo&ically less efficient. :7 Well) o(ay4ob,io*sly there<s *st been a dra&atic change in intellect*al

and c*lt*ral attit*des o,er the -ast co*-le cent*ries. 2*t 0 thin( those clas4sical liberal conce-tions now ha,e to be reco,ered) and the ideas at theheart of the& sho*ld ta(e root on a &ass scale.

Now) the so*rces of -ower and a*thority that -eo-le co*ld see in frontof their eyes in the eighteenth cent*ry were *ite different fro& the onesthat we ha,e today4bac( then it was the fe*dal syste&) and the 'h*rch) andthe absol*tist state that they were foc*sed onC they co*ldn<t see the in4d*strial cor-oration) beca*se it didn<t e1ist yet. 2*t if yo* ta(e the basicclassical liberal -rinci-les and a--ly the& to the &odern -eriod) 0 thin( yo*act*ally co&e -retty close to the -rinci-les that ani&ated re,ol*tionary2arcelona in the late 3;:%s4to what<s called Aanarcho4syndicalis&.A +n4archo4syndicalis& is a for& of libertarian socialis& that was -racticed

briefly in regions of S-ain d*ring its re,ol*tion and ci,il war of 3;:6) *ntilit was destroyed by the si&*ltaneo*s efforts of the So,iet Union) the West4ern -owers) and the Bascists.O 0 thin( that<s abo*t as high a le,el as h*&ansha,e yet achie,ed in trying to realiGe these libertarian -rinci-les) which in&y ,iew are the right ones. 0 &ean) 0<& not saying that e,erything that wasdone in that re,ol*tion was right) b*t in its general s-irit and character) inthe idea of de,elo-ing the (ind of society that !rwell saw and described in0 thin( his greatest wor() Ho&age to 'atalonia44 with -o-*lar control o,erall the instit*tions of society4o(ay) that<s the right direction in which to&o,e) 0 thin(. :;

...•



9

Intelle-t"als and So-ial Change

(ased primarily on discussions at Woods /ole and Rowe)

Massachusetts) in 3;7;) 3;;: and 4.

The 5eninist?Capitalist Intelligentsia

M*$, %our vision of a libertarian socialism is a very appealing one86"m

wondering) what"s gone wrong0Birst of all) &aybe nothing<s gone wrong. o* co*ld arg*e that we

ha,en<t been ready for it yet4b*t there was also a -eriod when we weren<tready for ending sla,ery eitherC when conditions) incl*ding s*b ecti,e con4ditions) were s*ch that abolition *st wasn<t in the cards. So one co*ld arg*ethat conditions today are s*ch that we need the degree of hierarchy anddo&ination that e1ists in totalitarian instit*tions li(e ca-italist enter-rises)

*st in order to satisfy o*r needs4or else a Adictatorshi- of the -roletariat)A orso&e other a*thoritarian str*ct*re li(e that. 0 &ean) 0 don<t belie,e a word ofit4b*t the -oint is) the *stification for any (ind of -ower syste& has to beargued and -ro,en to -eo-le before it has any clai& to legiti&acy. +ndthose arg*&ents ha,en<t been &ade o*t in this case.

0f yo* loo( at what<s act*ally happened to the ,ario*s efforts at libertar4ian socialis& that ha,e ta(en -lace aro*nd the world) the concentration offorce and ,iolence -resent in those sit*ations has *st been s*ch that certaino*tco&es were ,irt*ally g*aranteed) and conse *ently all inci-ient efforts atcoo-erati,e wor(ers< control) say) ha,e si&-ly been cr*shed. There ha,e infact been efforts in this direction for h*ndreds of years4the -roble& is) theyreg*larly get destroyed. +nd often they<re destroyed by force.

The 2olshe,i(s -olitical -arty that seiGed -ower d*ring the R*ssianRe,ol*tion and later beca&e the 'o&&*nist PartyO are a -erfect e1a&-le. 0nthe stages leading *- to the 2olshe,i( co*- in !ctober 3;39) there wereinci-ient socialist instit*tions de,elo-ing in R*ssia4wor(ers< co*ncils)collecti,es) things li(e that i.e. after a -o-*lar re,ol*tion first to--led the

$$8



Chapter Seven =

Tsar in Bebr*ary 3;39O. +nd they s*r,i,ed to an e1tent once the 2olshe,i(stoo( o,er4b*t not for ,ery longC enin and Trots(y -retty &*ch eli&inatedthe& as they consolidated their -ower. 0 &ean) yo* can arg*e abo*t the

Austification for eli&inating the&) b*t the fact is that the socialist initiati,eswere -retty *ic(ly eli&inated.

Now) -eo-le who want to *stify it say) AThe 2olshe,i(s had to do itA4that<s the standard *stification? enin and Trots(y had to do it) beca*se ofthe contingencies of the ci,il war) for s*r,i,al) there wo*ldn<t ha,e beenfood otherwise) this and that. Well) ob,io*sly the *estion there is) was thattr*eI To answer that) yo*<,e got to loo( at the historical facts? 0 don<t thin(it was tr*e. 0n fact) 0 thin( the inci-ient socialist str*ct*res in R*ssia weredis&antled before the really dire conditions arose. +lright) here yo* get intoa *estion where yo* don<t want to be too ca,alier abo*t it4it<s a *estion ofhistorical fact) and of what the -eo-le were li(e) what they were thin(ingand so on) and yo*<,e got to find o*t what the answer is) yo* can<t *stg*ess. 2*t fro& reading their own writings) &y feeling is that enin andTrots(y (new what they were doing) it was conscio*s and *nderstandable)and they e,en had a theory behind it) both a &oral theory and a socio4econo&ic theory. 3

Birst of all) as orthodo1 Mar1ists) they didn<t really belie,e that a social4ist re,ol*tion was possible in R*ssia) beca*se R*ssia was *st a -easant

bac(water? it wasn<t the (ind of ad,anced ind*strial society where in their,iew the co&ing socialist re,ol*tion was s*--osed to ha--en. So when the2olshe,i(s got -ower) they were ho-ing to carry o*t (ind of a holding ac4tion and wait for Athe iron laws of historyA to grind o*t the re,ol*tion in>er&any) where it was s*--osed to ha--en by historical necessity) and thenR*ssia wo*ld contin*e to be a bac(water) b*t it wo*ld then de,elo- with>er&an hel-.$

Well) it didn<t end *- ha--ening in >er&any? there was a re,ol*tion) inJan*ary 3;3;) b*t it was wi-ed o*t) and the >er&an wor(ing class wass*--ressed. So at that -oint) enin and Trots(y were st*c( holding the bag4and they basically ended *- trying to r*n a -easant society by ,iolence?since R*ssia was s*ch a dee-ly i&-o,erished Third World society) theytho*ght it was necessary *st to beat the -eo-le into de,elo-&ent. So they

too( ste-s to t*rn the wor(ers into what they called a Alabor ar&y)A *ndercontrol of a A&a1i&al leader)A who was going to force the co*ntry toind*strialiGe *nder what they the&sel,es referred to as Astate4ca-italis&.A :Their ho-e was that this wo*ld carry R*ssia o,er the early stages of ca-i4talis& and ind*strialiGation) *ntil it reached a -oint of &aterial de,elo-&entwhere then the iron laws of history wo*ld start to wor( as the Master saidthey were going to) and socialis& wo*ld finally be achie,ed i.e. "arl Mar1theoriGed that history -rogresses according to nat*ral Alaws)A and that thead,anced stages of ca-italis& will ine,itably lead to socialis&O.

So there was a theory behind their actions) and in fact a &oral -rinci-le4na&ely) it will be better for -eo-le in the long r*n if we do this. 2*t




what they did) 0 thin() was to set the fra&ewor( for a totalitarian syste&)which of co*rse Stalin then accelerated.

M*$, Would you describe the authoritarian result of the (olshevi&s" ac8tions as an honest mista&e) a 1historical accident1 maybe8or was it Aust thenatural outgrowth of the 7eninist worldview, the idea that only a few

people are smart and &nowledgeable enough to be the leaders) and they should run the show0

eah) in &y o-inion the heart of the -roble& is Mar1is&4 eninis& it4self4the ,ery idea that a A,ang*ard -artyA can) or has any right to) or has anyca-acity to lead the st*-id &asses towards so&e f*t*re they<re too d*&b to*nderstand for the&sel,es. 0 thin( what it<s going to lead the& towards is A0r*le yo* with a whi-.A 0nstit*tions of do&ination ha,e a nice way ofre-rod*cing the&sel,es40 thin( that<s (ind of li(e an ob,io*s sociologicaltr*is&.

+nd act*ally) if yo* loo( bac() that was in fact 2a(*nin<s -rediction halfa cent*ry before4he said this was e1actly what was going to ha--en.

2a(*nin was a nineteenth4cent*ry R*ssian anarchist) and with Mar1 aleading fig*re in the &ain socialist labor organiGation of the ti&e) the Birst0nternational.O 0 &ean) 2a(*nin was tal(ing abo*t the -eo-le aro*nd Mar1)this was before enin was born) b*t his -rediction was that the nat*re of theintelligentsia as a for&ation in &odern ind*strial society is that they aregoing to try to beco&e the social &anagers. Now) they<re not going to

beco&e the social &anagers beca*se they own ca-ital) and they<re not goingto beco&e the social &anagers beca*se they<,e got a lot of g*ns. They aregoing to beco&e the social &anagers beca*se they can control) organiGe)and direct what<s called A(nowledgeA4they ha,e the s(ills to -rocessinfor&ation) and to &obiliGe s*--ort for decision4&a(ing) and so on and soforth. +nd 2a(*nin -redicted that these -eo-le wo*ld fall into two cate4gories. !n the one hand) there wo*ld be the AleftA intellect*als) who wo*ldtry to rise to -ower on the bac(s of &ass -o-*lar &o,e&ents) and if theyco*ld gain -ower) they wo*ld then beat the -eo-le into s*b&ission and tryto control the&. !n the other hand) if they fo*nd that they co*ldn<t get

-ower that way the&sel,es) they wo*ld beco&e the ser,ants of what wewo*ld nowadays call Astate4ca-italis&)A tho*gh 2a(*nin didn<t *se the ter&.+nd either of these two categories of intellect*als) he said) wo*ld beAbeating the -eo-le with the -eo-le<s stic(A4that is) they<d be -resentingthe&sel,es as re-resentati,es of the -eo-le) so they<d be holding the -eo4

-le<s stic() b*t they wo*ld be beating the -eo-le with it. 8 Well) 2a(*nin didn<t go on with this) b*t 0 thin( it follows fro& his

analysis that it<s e1tre&ely easy to shift fro& one -osition to the other4it<se1tre&ely easy to *ndergo what<s called the A>od That BailedA syndro&e.

o* start off as basically a eninist) so&eone who<s going to beco&e -artof what 2a(*nin called the ARed 2*rea*cracy)A yo* see that -ower doesn<tlie that way) and then yo* ,ery easily beco&e an ideologist of the right) andde4



Chapter Seven ?

,ote yo*r life to e1-osing the sins of yo*r for&er co&rades) who ha,en<tyet seen the light and shifted to where -ower really lies. +nd yo* barelyha,e to change at all) really) yo*<re *st o-erating *nder a different for&al

-ower str*ct*re. 0n fact) we<re seeing it right now in the for&er So,ietUnion? the sa&e g*ys who were 'o&&*nist th*gs) Stalinist th*gs two years

bac( are now r*nning ban(s) they<re enth*siastic free4&ar(eteers) -raising+&erica and so on. +nd this has been going on for forty years4it<s beco&e(ind of a o(e.

Now) 2a(*nin didn<t say it<s the nature of -eo-le that this will ha--en. 0&ean) 0 don<t (now how &*ch he tho*ght it thro*gh) b*t what we sho*ldsay is that a Red 2*rea*cracy or its state4ca-italist co&&issar4class e *i,a4lent is not going to ta(e o,er beca*se that<s the nat*re of -eo-le4it<s that theones who don"t do it will be cast by the wayside) the ones who do do it will&a(e o*t. The ones who are r*thless and br*tal and harsh eno*gh to seiGe

-ower are the ones who are going to s*r,i,e. The ones who try to associatethe&sel,es with -o-*lar organiGations and hel- the general -o-*lationitself beco&e organiGed) who try to assist -o-*lar &o,e&ents in that (indof way) they<re *st not going to s*r,i,e *nder these sit*ations of con4centrated -ower.

(arxist Theor) and Intellectual %aker)W+M*$, $oam) apart from the idea of the 1vanguard)1 6"m interestedwhy you"re so critical of the whole broader category of Marxist analysis in

general8li&e people in the universities and so on who refer to themselves as1Marxists.1 6"ve noticed you"re never very happy with it.

Well) 0 g*ess one thing that<s *nattracti,e to &e abo*t AMar1is&A is the,ery idea that there is s*ch a thing. 0t<s a rather stri(ing fact that yo* don<tfind things li(e AMar1is&A in the sciences4li(e) there isn<t any -art of

-hysics which is AEinsteinianis&)A let<s say) or APlanc(ianis&A or so&e4thing li(e that. 0t doesn<t &a(e any sense4beca*se -eo-le aren<t gods? they

*st disco,er things) and they &a(e &ista(es) and their grad*ate st*dents

tell the& why they<re wrong) and then they go on and do things better thene1t ti&e. 2*t there are no gods aro*nd. 0 &ean) scientists do *se the ter&sANewtonianis&A and A arwinis&)A b*t nobody thin(s of those as doctrinesthat yo*<,e got to so&ehow be loyal to) and fig*re o*t what the Mastertho*ght) and what he wo*ld ha,e said in this new circ*&stance and so on.That sort of thing is *st co&-letely alien to rational e1istence) it onlyshows *- in irrational do&ains.

So Mar1is&) Bre*dianis&? anyone of these things 0 thin( is an irrationalc*lt. They<re theology) so they<re whate,er yo* thin( of theologyC 0 don<tthin( &*ch of it. 0n fact) in &y ,iew that<s e1actly the right analogy? notionsli(e Mar1is& and Bre*dianis& belong to the history of organiGed religion.

So -art of &y -roble& is *st its e1istence? it see&s to &e that e,en todis8




cuss so&ething li(e AMar1is&A is already &a(ing a &ista(e. i(e) we don<tdisc*ss APlanc(is&.A Why notI 2eca*se it wo*ld be craGy. Planc( >er&an

-hysicistO had so&e things to say) and so&e of the& are right) and thosewere absorbed into later science) and so&e of the& are wrong) and theywere i&-ro,ed on. 0t<s not that Planc( wasn<t a great &an4all (inds of greatdisco,eries) ,ery s&art) &ista(es) this and that. That<s really the way weo*ght to loo( at it) 0 thin(. +s soon as yo* set *- the idea of AMar1is&A orABre*dianis&A or so&ething) yo*<,e already abandoned rationality.

0t see&s to &e the *estion a rational -erson o*ght to as( is) what isthere in Mar1<s wor( that<s worth sa,ing and &odifying) and what is therethat o*ght to be abandonedI !(ay) then yo* loo( and yo* find things. 0thin( Mar1 did so&e ,ery interesting descri-ti,e wor( on nineteenthcent*ryhistory. He was a ,ery good o*rnalist. When he describes the 2ritish in0ndia) or the Paris 'o&&*ne 9%4day Brench wor(ers< re,ol*tion in 3793O)or the -arts of Capital that tal( abo*t ind*strial ondon) a lot of that is (indof interesting40 thin( later scholarshi- has i&-ro,ed it and changed it) b*tit<s *ite interesting. 5

He had an abstract &odel of ca-italis& which40<& not s*re how ,al*ableit is) to tell yo* the tr*th. 0t was an abstract &odel) and li(e any abstract&odel) it<s not really intended to be descri-ti,ely acc*rate in detail) it<sintended to sort of -*ll o*t so&e cr*cial feat*res and st*dy those. +nd yo*

ha,e to as( in the case of an abstract &odel) how &*ch of the co&-le1reality does it really ca-t*reI That<s *estionable in this case4first of all) it<s*estionable how &*ch of nineteenth4cent*ry ca-italis& it ca-t*red) and 0

thin( it<s e,en &ore *estionable how &*ch of late4twentieth4cent*ryca-italis& it ca-t*res.

There are s*--osed to be laws i.e. of history and econo&icsO. 0 can<t *n4derstand the&) that<s all 0 can sayC it doesn<t see& to &e that there are anylaws that follow fro& it. Not that 0 (now of any better laws) 0 *st don<tthin( we (now abo*t AlawsA in history.

There<s nothing abo*t socialis& in Mar1) he wasn<t a socialist -hiloso4 -her4there are abo*t fi,e sentences in Mar1<s whole wor( that refer to so4cialis&. 6 He was a theorist of ca-italis&. 0 thin( he introd*ced so&einteresting conce-ts at least) which e,ery sensible -erson o*ght to ha,e

&astered and e&-loy) notions li(e class) and relations of -rod*ction ...W+M*$, -ialectics0

ialectics is one that 0<,e ne,er *nderstood) act*ally40<,e *st ne,er *n4derstood what the word &eans. Mar1 doesn<t *se it) incidentally) it<s *sed

by EngelsI +nd if anybody can tell &e what it is) 0<ll be ha--y. 0 &ean) 0<,eread all (inds of things which tal( abo*t AdialecticsA40 ha,en<t the foggiestidea what it is. 0t see&s to &ean so&ething abo*t co&-le1ity) or alternati,e

-ositions) or change) or so&ething. 0 don<t (now.0<ll tell yo* the honest tr*th? 0<& (ind of si&-le4&inded when it co&es to




stood can -robably be described -retty si&-ly. +nd when words li(e Adi4alecticsA co&e along) or Aher&ene*tics)A and all this (ind of st*ff that<ss*--osed to be ,ery -rofo*nd) li(e >oering) A0 reach for &y re,ol,er.A

M*$, 6 find it very reinforcing that you don"t understand the word 1di8alectics) Ait sort of validates me.

0<& not saying that it doesn<t ha,e any &eaning4yo* obser,e -eo-le *singthe ter& and they loo( li(e they<re co&&*nicating. 2*t it<s li(e when 3watch -eo-le tal(ing T*r(ish? so&ething<s going on) b*t 0<& not -art of it.

+ct*ally) occasionally in inter,iews 0<,e said this abo*t not *nderstand4ing Adialectics)A and 3 get long letters bac( fro& -eo-le saying) A o* don<t*nderstand) here<s what <dialectical< isA4and either it<s inco&-rehensible) orelse it<s tri,ial. So &aybe 0<,e got a gene &issing or so&ething4li(e -eo-lecan be tone4deaf) they *st can<t hear the &*sic. 2*t e,erything 3 enco*nterin these fields either see&s to be sort of interesting) b*t -retty ob,io*s onceyo* see it4&aybe yo* didn<t see it at first) and so&ebody had to -oint it o*tto yo*4or else *st inco&-rehensible.

0<& s(e-tical? 3 thin( one has a right to be s(e-tical when yo* don<t *n4derstand so&ething. 3 &ean) when 3 loo( at a -age of) say) *ant*& elec4trodyna&ics) 3 don<t *nderstand a word of it. 2*t 3 (now what 3 wo*ldha,e to do to get to *nderstand it) and 0<& -retty confident that 3 could getto *nderstand it40<,e *nderstood other co&-licated things. So 3 fig*re if 3

bothered to -*t &yself thro*gh the disci-line) and 3 st*died the early st*ffand the later st*ff) 0<d finally get to the -oint where 3 *nderstood it. !r 3co*ld go to so&eone in the Physics e-art&ent and say) ATell &e whye,erybody<s e1cited abo*t this st*ff)A and they co*ld ada-t it to &y le,eland tell &e how to -*rs*e it f*rther. Maybe 3 wo*ldn<t *nderstand it ,erydee-ly) or 3 co*ldn<t ha,e in,ented it or so&ething) b*t 0<d at least begin to*nderstand it. !n the other hand) when 3 loo( at a -age of Mar1ist

-hiloso-hy or literary theory) 3 ha,e the feeling that 3 co*ld stare at it forthe rest of &y life and 0<d ne,er *nderstand it4and 3 don<t (now how to

-roceed to get to *nderstand it any better) 3 don<t e,en (now what ste-s 3co*ld ta(e.

3 &ean) it<s -ossible that these fields are beyond &e) &aybe 0<& not s&arteno*gh or so&ething. 2*t that wo*ld ha,e (ind of a f*nny concl*sion4it<snothing to do with &e. That wo*ld &ean that so&ehow in these do&ains

-eo-le ha,e been able to create so&ething that<s &ore co&-le1 than -hysicsand &athe&atics4beca*se those are s*b ects 3 thin( 3 co*ld get to*nderstand. +nd 3 *st don<t belie,e that) fran(ly? 3 don<t belie,e that liter4ary theorists or Mar1ian -hiloso-hers ha,e ad,anced to so&e new intellec4t*alle,el that transcends cent*ry after cent*ry of hard intellect*al wor(.

M*$, o you thin& the same thing about philosophy in general0

There are -arts of -hiloso-hy which 3 thin( 3 *nderstand) and it<s &ostof classical -hiloso-hy. +nd there are things that 3 don<t *nderstand)

beca*se



Chapter Seven 3

they don<t &a(e any sense4and that<s o(ay too) these are hard *estions. 0&ean) it<s not necessarily a criticis& to say that so&ething doesn<t &a(esense? there are s*b ects that it<s hard to tal( sensibly abo*t. 2*t if0 read)say) R*ssell) or analytic -hiloso-hy) or Wittgenstein and so on) 0 thin( 0 canco&e to *nderstand what they<re saying) and 0 can see why 0 thin( it<swrong) as 0 often do. 2*t when 0 read) yo* (now) errida) or acan) or +04th*sser) or any of these40 *st don<t *nderstand it. 0t<s li(e words -assing infront of &y eyes? 0 can<t follow the arg*&ents) 0 don<t see the arg*&ents)anything that loo(s li(e a descri-tion of a fact loo(s wrong to &e. So&aybe 0<& &issing a gene or so&ething) it<s -ossible. 2*t &y honesto-inion is) 0 thin( it<s all fra*d.

M*$, 6 thin& you may be glorifying the scientists a bit by proAecting themas somehow &ind of pure. @or example) ta&e $ewtonian mechanics, Ein8

stein came along and showed how it was wrong) but over the years the sci8entific community did refer to it as 1$ewtonian1 mechanics.

That<s an interesting case) beca*se Newtonian &echanics was treated as(ind of holy4beca*se it was s*ch a re,ol*tionary de,elo-&ent. 0 &ean) itwas really the first ti&e in h*&an history that -eo-le e,er had an e1-lana4tion of things in any dee- sense? it was so co&-rehensi,e) and so si&-le)

and so far4reaching in its conse *ences that it al&ost loo(ed li(e it wasnecessary. +nd in fact) it was treated that way for a long ti&e4so &*ch sothat "ant) for e1a&-le) regarded it as the tas( of -hiloso-hy to deri,e

Newtonian -hysics fro& a priori -rinci-les) and to show that it was certaintr*th) on a -ar with &athe&atics. +nd it really wasn<t *ntil the late4nineteenth and early4twentieth cent*ry that the fallacy of those conce-tions

beca&e *ite clear) and with that realiGation there was a real ad,ance in o*rconce-tion of what AscienceA is. So science did ha,e (ind of a religio*scharacter for a -eriod) yo*<re right4and that was so&ething we had to geto*rsel,es o*t of) 0 thin(. 0t doesn<t ha--en any&ore.

Ideologi-al Control in the Sciences and 9"manities

M*$, Would you say that as academic disciplines) the sciences are funda8mentally different from the humanities and social sciences in terms of ideo8logical control0 'here don"t seem to be the same &inds of barriers toin:uiry or the same commitment to indoctrination in the scientific fields asthere are in other areas) li&e in economics or political science) forinstance.

Well) 0 thin( there was an ideological control -roble& in the sciences)it<s *st that we transcended it4>alileo faced it) for e1a&-le the 0talian as4trono&er and scientist was arrested by the Ro&an 'atholic 'h*rch in 36::and co&-elled to reno*nce his concl*sion that the earth re,ol,es aro*nd thes*nO. o* go bac( a co*-le cent*ries in the West and the ideo4




logical control -roble& in the sciences was se,ere? escartes is alleged toha,e destroyed the final ,ol*&e of his treatise on the world) the one thatwas s*--osed to deal with the h*&an &ind) beca*se he learned of the fateof >alileo. That<s the analog to death s *ads4the 0n *isition was doing

-recisely that. !(ay) that<s -assed in the West at least) b*t not e,erywhere.

M*$, (ut why has it passed0

Well) 0 thin( there are a few reasons. !ne is *st a general increase infreedo& and enlighten&ent) won thro*gh -o-*lar str*ggles o,er cent*ries4we<,e beco&e a &*ch freer society than we were in absol*tist ti&es. +ndintellect*als ha,e often -layed a role in that) brea(ing down ideological bar4riers and creating (ind of a s-ace for greater freedo& of tho*ght) for in4stance d*ring the Enlighten&ent in the eighteenth cent*ryO. That often too(a lot of co*rage and *ite a str*ggle) and it goes on *ntil today.

There are also *tilitarian reasons. 0t t*rns o*t that) es-ecially since the&id4nineteenth cent*ry) the ability to gain a dee-er *nderstanding of the

-hysical world thro*gh &odern science has interacted critically with &od4ern ind*strial de,elo-&ent? -rogress in the sciences has contrib*ted &ateri4ally to -ri,ate -rofit4&a(ing) -ri,ate -ower. So there are *tilitarian reasonsfor allowing freedo& of scientific in *iry) b*t 0 wo*ldn<t o,er4e1aggeratethe&40 thin( what<s ha--ened with the sciences is a lot li(e the -rocessthat<s led to freedo& in other do&ains) li(e why we don<t ha,e sla,ery) let<ssay) or why after 35% years of +&erican history wo&en won the right to,ote in 3;$%O.

+nd also) re&e&ber) after the great scientific re,ol*tions that led to theEnlighten&ent) it got to the -oint where yo* co*ldn<t do science any&ore ifyo* were s*b ected to the (inds of doctrinal controls that re&ain *ite ef4fecti,e in other fields. 0 &ean) if yo*<re a -hysicist after Newton trying tos-in off ideological fanaticis&) yo*<re *st o*t of the ga&e4-rogress has

been too &*ch. That<s ,ery different fro& the social sciences and the h*4&anities4yo* can tell falsehoods fore,er in those fields and nothing wille,er sto- yo*) li(e yo* don<t ha,e Mother Nat*re aro*nd (ee-ing yo* hon4est. +nd the res*lt is) there<s a real difference in the two c*lt*res.

So when yo* go to grad*ate school in the nat*ral sciences) yo*<re i&&e4diately bro*ght into critical in *iry4and in fact) what yo*<re learning is (indof a craftC yo* don<t really teach science) -eo-le sort of get the idea how todo it as a--rentices) ho-ef*lly by wor(ing with good -eo-le. 2*t the goal isto learn how to do creati,e wor() and to challenge e,erything. That<s ,erydifferent fro& the h*&anities and the social sciences) where what yo*<res*--osed to do is absorb a body of (nowledge) and then -ic( yo*rself alittle area in it and for the rest of yo*r life wor( on that. 0 &ean) the wayyo* beco&e a highly res-ected scholar in the h*&anities) say) is to -ic(so&e arcane area) li(e English no,els fro& 39$% to 39;%) and get to (now&ore of the data abo*t that than any other h*&an being in history.



Chapter Seven 33

So yo* (now who co-ied this word fro& that) and so on. + lot of it is (indof &indless) b*t that<s the sort of thing yo*<re s*--osed to (now. +ndthere<s really ,ery little intellect*al challenge? the only way yo* co*ld bewrong is if yo* got a co&&a o*t of -lace4and in fact) that<s considered theworst cri&e. 0<& (ind of caricat*ring it a bit4b*t fran(ly 0 thin( it wor(s thisway. +nd certainly the sciences are ,ery different.

The !"n-tion of the Schools

W+M*$, (ut 0 guess 0 don"t :uite see how this ideological controlmechanism actually wor(s in the humanities and social sciences86 mean)how exactly is it that the schools end up being an indoctrination system0Can you describe the process in more detail0

Well) the &ain -oint 0 thin( is that the entire school c*rric*l*&) fro&(indergarten thro*gh grad*ate school) will be tolerated only so long as itcontin*es to -erfor& its instit*tional role. So ta(e the *ni,ersities) which in&any res-ects are not ,ery different fro& the &edia in the way they f*nc4tion4tho*gh they<re a &*ch &ore co&-le1 syste&) so they<re harder to st*dysyste&atically. Uni,ersities do not generate nearly eno*gh f*nds to s*--ortthe&sel,es fro& t*ition &oney alone? they<re -arasitic instit*tions that needto be s*--orted fro& the o*tside) and that &eans they<re de-endent onwealthy al*&ni) on cor-orations) and on the go,ern&ent) which are gro*-swith the sa&e basic interests. Well) as long as the *ni,ersities serve thoseinterests) they<ll be f*nded. 0f they e,er stop ser,ing those interests) they<llstart to get in tro*ble.

So for e1a&-le) in the late 3;6%s it began to a--ear that the *ni,ersitieswere not ade *ately -erfor&ing that ser,ice4st*dents were as(ing *es4tions) they were thin(ing inde-endently) they were re ecting a lot of theEstablish&ent ,al*e4syste&) challenging all sorts of things4and the cor-o4rations began to react to that) they began to react in a n*&ber of ways. Borone thing) they began to de,elo- alternati,e -rogra&s) li(e 2.M. began toset *- (ind of a ,ocational training -rogra& to -rod*ce engineers on their

own? if M. T. wasn<t going to do it for the& the way they wanted) they<d doit the&sel,es4and that wo*ld ha,e &eant they<d sto- f*nding M. T. Well)of co*rse things ne,er really got o*t of hand in the Si1ties) so the &o,es inthat direction were ,ery li&ited. 2*t those are the (inds of -ress*res thereare. 7

+nd in fact) yo* can e,en see si&ilar things right now. Ta(e all this b*si4ness abo*t +llan 2loo& and that boo( e,erybody<s been tal(ing abo*t) 'heClosing of the *merican Mind. 0t<s this h*ge best4seller) 0 don<t (now ifyo*<,e bothered loo(ing at it4it<s &ind4bogglingly st*-id. 0 read it once inthe s*-er&ar(et while &y ... 0 hate to say it) while &y wife was sho--ing 0stood there and read the da&n thingC it ta(es abo*t fifteen &in*tes to read.



Chapter Seven 3=

*re o*t what<s right) what<s wrong) what<s a better way of loo(ing at it) whywas he saying this when he sho*ld ha,e been saying so&ething else) whatgrotes *e error of reasoning did he &a(e o,er here) and so on and so forth.That<s the way yo* wo*ld read serio*s wor() *st li(e yo* wo*ld in the sci4ences. 2*t yo*<re not s*--osed to read it that way here) yo*<re s*--osed toread it beca*se it<s the tr*th) or it<s the great tho*ghts or so&ething. +ndthat<s (ind of li(e the worst for& of theology.

The -oint is) it doesn<t &atter what yo* read) what &atters is how yo*

read it. Now) 0 don<t &ean co&ic boo(s) b*t there<s a lot of c*lt*ral wealtho*t there fro& all o,er the -lace) and to learn what it &eans for so&ethingto be c*lt*rally rich) yo* can e1-lore al&ost anywhere? there<s no fi1eds*bset that is the basis of tr*th and *nderstanding. 0 &ean) yo* can read theA>ood 2oo(s)A and &e&oriGe what they said) and forget the& a wee( later4if it doesn<t mean anything to yo* -ersonally) yo*<d &ight as well not ha,eread the&. +nd it<s ,ery hard to (now what<s going to &ean so&ething todifferent -eo-le. 2*t there<s -lenty of e1citing literat*re aro*nd in theworld) and there<s absol*tely no reason to belie,e that *nless yo*<,e readthe >ree(s and ante and so on) yo*<,e &issed things40 &ean) yeah) yo*<,e&issed things) b*t yo*<,e also &issed things if yo* ha,en<t learnedso&ething abo*t other c*lt*ral traditions too.

J*st ta(e a loo( at -hiloso-hy) for e1a&-le) which is a field that 0 (now

so&ething abo*t? so&e of the best) &ost e1citing) &ost acti,e -hiloso-hersin the conte&-orary world) -eo-le who<,e &ade a real i&-act on the field)co*ldn<t tell Plato fro& +ristotle) e1ce-t for what they re&e&ber fro&so&e Bresh&an co*rse they once too(. Now) that<s not to say yo* sho*ldn<tread Plato and +ristotle4s*re) there are &illions of things yo* sho*ld readCnobody<s e,er going to read &ore than a tiny fraction of the things yo*wished yo* (new. 2*t *st reading the& does yo* no good? yo* only learnif the &aterial is integrated into yo*r own creati,e -rocesses so&ehow) oth4erwise it *st -asses thro*gh yo*r &ind and disa--ears. +nd there<s nothing,al*able abo*t that4it has basically the effect of learning the catechis&) or&e&oriGing the 'onstit*tion or so&ething li(e that.

Real ed*cation is abo*t getting -eo-le in,ol,ed in thin(ing for the&4sel,es4and that<s a tric(y b*siness to (now how to do well) b*t clearly it

re *ires that whate,er it is yo*<re loo(ing at has to so&ehow catch -eo-le<sinterest and &a(e the& want to thin() and &a(e the& want to -*rs*e ande1-lore. +nd *st reg*rgitating A>ood 2oo(sA is absol*tely the worst wayto do it4that<s *st a way of t*rning -eo-le into a*to&ata. o* &ay call thatan ed*cation if yo* want) b*t it<s really the o--osite of an ed*cation) whichis why -eo-le li(e Willia& 2ennett Reagan<s Secretary of Ed*cationO and+llan 2loo& and these others are all so &*ch in fa,or of it.

W+M*$, *re you saying that the real purpose of the universities and thL schools is Aust to indoctrinate people8and really not much else0 YZ

L



Chapter Seven 3?

want to be too glib abo*t it4there are children with beha,ior -roble&sb*t alot of the& are *st inde-endent4&inded) or don<t li(e to confor&) or *stwant to go their own way. +nd they get into tro*ble right fro& the ,ery

beginning) and are ty-ically weeded o*t. 0 &ean) 0<,e ta*ght yo*ng (ids too)and the fact is there are always so&e who *st don<t ta(e yo*r word for it.+nd the ,ery *nfort*nate tendency is to try to beat the& down) beca*sethey<re a -ain in the nec(. 2*t what they o*ght to be is enco*raged. eah?why ta(e &y word for itI Who the hec( a& 0I Big*re it o*t for yo*rself.

That<s what real ed*cation wo*ld be about) in fact.+ct*ally) 0 ha--en to ha,e been ,ery l*c(y &yself and gone to an e1-er4i&ental4-rogressi,e eweyite school) fro& abo*t the ti&e 0 was age one4and4a4half to twel,e Uohn ewey was an +&erican -hiloso-her anded*cational refor&erO. +nd there it was done ro*tinely? children were en4co*raged to challenge e,erything) and yo* sort of wor(ed on yo*r own) yo*were s*--osed to thin( things thro*gh for yo*rself4it was a real e1-erience.+nd it was *ite a stri(ing change when it ended and 0 had to go to the cityhigh school) which was the -ride of the city school syste&. 0t was theschool for acade&ically4oriented (ids in Philadel-hia4and it was thed*&best) &ost ridic*lo*s -lace 0<,e e,er been) it was li(e falling into a

blac( hole or so&ething. Bor one thing) it was e1tre&ely co&-etiti,e4 beca*se that<s one of the best ways of controlling -eo-le. So e,erybody was

ran(ed) and yo* always (new e1actly where yo* were? are yo* third in theclass) or &aybe did yo* &o,e down to fo*rthI +ll of this st*ff is -*t into

-eo-le<s heads in ,ario*s ways in the schools4that yo*<,e got to beat downthe -erson ne1t to yo*) and *st loo( o*t for yo*rself. +nd there are all sortsof other things li(e that too.

2*t the -oint is) there<s nothing necessary abo*t the& in ed*cation. 0(now) beca*se 0 went thro*gh an alternati,e to it4so it can certainly bedone. 2*t gi,en the e1ternal -ower str*ct*re of the society in which theyf*nction now) the instit*tional role of the schools for the &ost -art is *st totrain -eo-le for obedience and confor&ity) and to &a(e the& controllableand indoctrinated4and as long as the schools f*lfill that role) they<ll bes*--orted.

Now) of co*rse) it doesn<t wor( a h*ndred -ercent4so yo* do get so&e -eo-le all the way thro*gh who don<t go along. +nd as 0 was saying) in thesciences at least) -eo-le ha,e to be trained for creati,ity and disobedience4

beca*se there is no other way yo* can do science. 2*t in the h*&anities andsocial sciences) and in fields li(e o*rnalis& and econo&ics and so on)that<s &*ch less tr*e4there -eo-le ha,e to be trained to be &anagers) andcontrollers) and to acce-t things) and not to *estion too &*ch. So yo*really do get a ,ery different (ind of ed*cation. +nd -eo-le who brea( o*tof line are weeded o*t or beaten bac( in all (inds of ways.

0 &ean) it<s not ,ery abstract? if yo*<re) say) a yo*ng -erson in college) orin o*rnalis&) or for that &atter a fo*rth grader) and yo* ha,e too &*ch ofan inde-endent &ind) there<s a whole ,ariety of de,ices that will be *sed to




deflect yo* fro& that error4and if yo* can<t be controlled) to &arginaliGe or *st eli&inate yo*. 0n fo*rth grade) yo*<re a Abeha,ior -roble&.A 0n college)yo* &ay be Airres-onsible)A or Aerratic)A or Anot the right (ind of st*dent.A0f yo* &a(e it to the fac*lty) yo*<ll fail in what<s so&eti&es calledAcollegiality)A getting along with yo*r colleag*es. 0f yo*<re a yo*ng o*r4nalist and yo*<re -*rs*ing stories that the -eo-le at the &anagerial le,elabo,e yo* *nderstand) either int*iti,ely or e1-licitly) are not to be -*rs*ed)yo* can be sent off to wor( at the Police des() and ad,ised that yo* don<tha,e A-ro-er standards of ob ecti,ity.A There<s a whole range of these tech4& *es.

Now) we li,e in a free society) so yo* don<t get sent to gas cha&bers andthey don<t send the death s *ads after yo*4as is co&&only done) and not farfro& here) say in Me1ico. 00 2*t there are ne,ertheless *ite s*ccessf*lde,ices) both s*btle and e1tre&e) to ens*re that doctrinal correctness is notserio*sly infringed *-on.

S"btler (ethods of Control

et &e *st start with so&e of the &ore s*btle waysC 0<ll gi,e yo* an e14a&-le. +fter 0 finished college) 0 went to this -rogra& at Har,ard called theASociety of BellowsA4which is (ind of this elite finishing school) where theyteach yo* to be a Har,ard or ale -rofessor) and to drin( the right wine)and say the right things) and so on and so forth. 0 &ean) yo* had all of thereso*rces of Har,ard a,ailable to yo* and yo*r only res-onsibility was toshow *- at a dinner once a wee() so it was great for *st doing yo*r wor( ifyo* wanted to. 2*t the real -oint of the whole thing was socialiGation?teaching the right ,al*es.

Bor instance) 0 re&e&ber there was a lot of anglo-hilia at Har,ard at theti&e4yo* were s*--osed to wear 2ritish clothes) and -retend yo* s-o(ewith a 2ritish accent) that sort of st*ff. 0n fact) there were act*ally g*ysthere who 0 tho*ght were 2ritish) who had ne,er been o*tside of the UnitedStates. 0f any of yo* ha,e st*died literat*re or history or so&ething) yo*&ight recogniGe so&e of this) those are the -laces yo* *s*ally find it. Well)so&ehow 0 &anaged to s*r,i,e that) 0 don<t (now how e1actly4b*t &ostdidn<t. +nd what 0 disco,ered is that a large -art of ed*cation at the reallyelite instit*tions is si&-ly refine&ent) teaching the social graces? what (indof clothes yo* sho*ld wear) how to drin( -ort the right way) how to ha,e

-olite con,ersation witho*t tal(ing abo*t serio*s to-ics) b*t of co*rse in4dicating that yo* could tal( abo*t serio*s to-ics if yo* were so ,*lgar as toact*ally do it) all (inds of things which an intellect*al is s*--osed to (nowhow to do. +nd that was really the &ain -oint of the -rogra&) 0 thin(.

+ct*ally) there are &*ch &ore i&-ortant cases too4and they<re e,en&ore re,ealing abo*t the role of the elite schools. Bor e1a&-le) the 3;:%swere a -eriod of &a or labor strife and labor str*ggle in the U.S.) and it was



Chapter Seven 3

scaring the daylights o*t of the whole b*siness co&&*nity here4beca*selabor was finally winning the right to organiGe) and there were otherlegislati,e ,ictories as well. +nd there were a lot of efforts to try to o,er4co&e this) b*t one of the& was that Har,ard introd*ced a ATrade UnionProgra&.A What it did was to bring in rising yo*ng -eo-le in the labor&o,e&ent4yo* (now) the g*y who loo(s li(e he<s going to be the ocal

-resident ne1t year4and ha,e the& stay in dor&s in the 2*siness School)and -*t the& thro*gh a whole socialiGation -rocess) hel- the& co&e toshare so&e of the ,al*es and *nderstandings of the elite) teach the& thatA!*r ob is to wor( together)A AWe<re all in this together)A and so on and soforth. 0 &ean) there are always two lines? for the -*blic it<s) AWe<re all inthis together) &anage&ent and labor are coo-erating) oint enter-rise) har4&onyA and so on4&eanwhile b*siness is fighting a ,icio*s class war on theside. +nd that effort to socialiGe and integrate *nion acti,ists4well) 0<,ene,er &eas*red its s*ccess) b*t 0<& s*re it was ,ery s*ccessf*l. +nd the

-rocess was si&ilar to what 0 e1-erienced and saw a Har,ard ed*cation to be &yself.

!r let &e tell yo* another story 0 heard abo*t twenty years ago fro& a blac( ci,il rights acti,ist who ca&e *- to st*dy at Har,ard aw School4it(ind of ill*strates so&e of the other -ress*res that are aro*nd. This g*yga,e a tal( in which he described how the (ids starting off at Har,ard aw

School co&e in with long hair and bac(-ac(s and social ideals) they<re allgoing to go into -*blic ser,ice law to change the world and so on4that<s thefirst year. +ro*nd s-ringti&e) the recr*iters co&e for the c*shy s*&&er

obs in the Wall Street law fir&s) and these st*dents fig*re) AWhat the hec()0 can -*t on a tie and a ac(et and sha,e for one day) *st beca*se 0 needthat &oney and why sho*ldn<t 0 ha,e itIA So they -*t on the tie and the

ac(et for that one day) and they get the ob) and then they go off for thes*&&erand when they co&e bac( in the fall) it<s ties) and ac(ets) andobedience) a shift of ideology. So&eti&es it ta(es two years.

Well) ob,io*sly he was o,er4drawing the -oint4b*t those sorts of factorsalso are ,ery infl*ential. 0 &ean) 0<,e felt it all &y life? it<s e1tre&ely easy to

be s*c(ed into the do&inant c*lt*re) it can be ,ery a--ealing. There are alot of rewards. +nd what<s &ore) the -eo-le yo* &eet don<t loo( li(e bad

-eo-le4yo* don<t want to sit there and ins*lt the&. Maybe they<re -erfectlynice -eo-le. So yo* try to be friends) &aybe yo* e,en are friends. Well)yo* begin to confor&) yo* begin to ada-t) yo* begin to s&ooth off theharsher edges4and -retty soon it<s *st ha--ened) it (ind of see-s in. +nded*cation at a -lace li(e Har,ard is largely geared to that) to a re&ar(ablee1tent in fact.

+nd there are &any other s*btle &echanis&s which contrib*te to ideo4logical control as well) of co*rse4incl*ding *st the fact that the *ni,ersitiess*--ort and enco*rage -eo-le to occ*-y the&sel,es with irrele,ant andinnoc*o*s wor(.

!r *st ta(e the fact that certain to-ics are *nst*diable in the schools4



Chapter Seven 3

scaring the daylights o*t of the whole b*siness co&&*nity here4beca*selabor was finally winning the right to organiGe) and there were otherlegislati,e ,ictories as well. +nd there were a lot of efforts to try to o,er4co&e this) b*t one of the& was that Har,ard introd*ced a ATrade UnionProgra&.A What it did was to bring in rising yo*ng -eo-le in the labor&o,e&ent4yo* (now) the g*y who loo(s li(e he<s going to be the ocal

-resident ne1t year4and ha,e the& stay in dor&s in the 2*siness School)and -*t the& thro*gh a whole socialiGation -rocess) hel- the& co&e toshare so&e of the ,al*es and *nderstandings of the elite) teach the& thatA!*r ob is to wor( together)A AWe<re all in this together)A and so on and soforth. 0 &ean) there are always two lines? for the -*blic it<s) AWe<re all inthis together) &anage&ent and labor are coo-erating) oint enter-rise) har4&onyA and so on4&eanwhile b*siness is fighting a ,icio*s class war on theside. +nd that effort to socialiGe and integrate *nion acti,ists4well) 0<,ene,er &eas*red its s*ccess) b*t 0<& s*re it was ,ery s*ccessf*l. +nd the

-rocess was si&ilar to what 0 e1-erienced and saw a Har,ard ed*cation to be &yself.

!r let &e tell yo* another story 0 heard abo*t twenty years ago fro& a blac( ci,il rights acti,ist who ca&e *- to st*dy at Har,ard aw School4it(ind of ill*strates so&e of the other -ress*res that are aro*nd. This g*yga,e a tal( in which he described how the (ids starting off at Har,ard aw

School co&e in with long hair and bac(-ac(s and social ideals) they<re allgoing to go into -*blic ser,ice law to change the world and so on4that<s thefirst year. +ro*nd s-ringti&e) the recr*iters co&e for the c*shy s*&&er

obs in the Wall Street law fir&s) and these st*dents fig*re) AWhat the hec()0 can -*t on a tie and a ac(et and sha,e for one day) *st beca*se 0 needthat &oney and why sho*ldn<t 0 ha,e itIA So they -*t on the tie and the

ac(et for that one day) and they get the ob) and then they go off for thes*&&erand when they co&e bac( in the fall) it<s ties) and ac(ets) andobedience) a shift of ideology. So&eti&es it ta(es two years.

Well) ob,io*sly he was o,er4drawing the -oint4b*t those sorts of factorsalso are ,ery infl*ential. 0 &ean) 0<,e felt it all &y life? it<s e1tre&ely easy to

be s*c(ed into the do&inant c*lt*re) it can be ,ery a--ealing. There are alot of rewards. +nd what<s &ore) the -eo-le yo* &eet don<t loo( li(e bad

-eo-le4yo* don<t want to sit there and ins*lt the&. Maybe they<re -erfectlynice -eo-le. So yo* try to be friends) &aybe yo* e,en are friends. Well) yo*

begin to confor&) yo* begin to ada-t) yo* begin to s&ooth off the harsheredges4and -retty soon it<s *st ha--ened) it (ind of see-s in. +nd ed*cationat a -lace li(e Har,ard is largely geared to that) to a re&ar(able e1tent infact.

+nd there are &any other s*btle &echanis&s which contrib*te to ideo4logical control as well) of co*rse4incl*ding *st the fact that the *ni,ersitiess*--ort and enco*rage -eo-le to occ*-y the&sel,es with irrele,ant andinnoc*o*s wor(.

!r *st ta(e the fact that certain to-ics are *nst*diable in the schools4



Chapter Seven #4

Well) Ja-an has r*n its econo&y -retty &*ch the sa&e way we do) e14ce-t with one cr*cial difference. 0nstead of *sing the &ilitary syste&) theway they<,e wor(ed their -*blic s*bsidies in Ja-an is they ha,e a go,ern4&ent &inistry) M.0.T.0. the Ministry of 0nternational Trade and 0nd*stryO)which sits down with the big cor-orations and conglo&erates and ban(ingfir&s) and -lans their econo&ic syste& for the ne1t co*-le years4they -lanhow &*ch cons*&-tion there<s going to be) and how &*ch in,est&entthere<s going to be) and where the in,est&ent sho*ld go) and so on. Well)

that<s &ore efficient. +nd since Ja-an is a ,ery disci-lined and obedient so4ciety c*lt*rally) the -o-*lation there *st does what they tell the&) and no4 body e,er as(s any *estions abo*t it.

+lright) to see how this difference -layed o*t o,er the years) *st loo( atthe AStar WarsA -rogra& in the United States) for e1a&-le. Star Wars theStrategic efense 0nitiati,eO is the -rete1t for a h*ge a&o*nt of researchand de,elo-&ent s-ending thro*gh the Pentagon syste& here4it<s o*r wayof f*nding the new generation of co&-*ter technology) lasers) new soft4ware) and so on. Well) if yo* loo( at the distrib*tion of e1-enses for StarWars) it t*rns o*t that it was ,irt*ally the sa&e allocation of f*nding as was&ade thro*gh the Ja-anese state4directed econo&ic syste& in the sa&e ti&e

-eriod? in those sa&e years) M.0.T.0. &ade abo*t the sa&e *dg&ents abo*thow to distrib*te their reso*rces as we did) they s-ent abo*t the sa&e

-ro-ortion of &oney in lasers) and the sa&e -ro-ortion in software) and soon +nd the reason is that all of these -lanners &a(e a--ro1i&ately thesa&e *dg&ents abo*t the li(ely new technologies.

Well) why was Ja-an so co&-etiti,e with the U.S. econo&ically) des-itehighly ina*s-icio*s conditionsI There are a lot of reasons. 2*t the &ainreason is that they directed their -*blic s*bsidy straight to the co&&ercial&ar(et. So to wor( on lasers) they tried to fig*re o*t ways of -rod*cinglasers for the co&&ercial &ar(et) and they do it -retty well. 2*t when wewant to de,elo- lasers for the co&&ercial &ar(et) what we do is -o*r the&oney into the Pentagon) which then tries to wor( o*t a way to *se a laserto shoot down a &issile ten tho*sand &iles away4and if they can wor( thato*t) then they ho-e there<ll be so&e co&&ercial s-in4offs that co&e o*t ofit all. !(ay) that<s less efficient. +nd since the Ja-anese are no d*&ber thanwe are) and they ha,e an efficient syste& of state4coordination while weha,e an inefficient one) o,er the years they s*cceeded in the econo&icco&-etition.

Well) these are &a or -heno&ena of &odern life4b*t where do yo* go tost*dy the& in the *ni,ersities or the acade&ic -rofessionI That<s a ,ery in4teresting *estion. o* don<t go to the econo&ics de-art&ent) beca*sethat<s not what they loo( at? the real hot4shot econo&ics de-art&ents are in4terested in abstract &odels of how a -*re free4enter-rise econo&y wor(s4yo* (now) generaliGations to ten4di&ensional s-ace of so&e none1istentfree4&ar(et syste&. o* don<t go to the -olitical science de-art&ent) be4ca*se they<re concerned with electoral statistics) and ,oting -atterns) and




&icro4b*rea*cracy4li(e the way one go,ern&ent b*rea*crat tal(s to anotherin so&e detailed air. o* don<t go to the anthro-ology de-art&ent) beca*sethey<re st*dying hill tribes&en in New >*inea. o* don<t go to thesociology de-art&ent) beca*se they<re st*dying cri&e in the ghettos. 0n fact)yo* don<t go anywhere4there isn<t any field that deals with these to-ics.There<s no o*rnal that deals with the&. 0n fact) there is no acade&ic

-rofession that is concerned with the central -roble&s of &odern society. Now) yo* can go to the business school) and there they<ll tal( abo*t the&4 beca*se those -eo-le are in the real world. 2*t not in the acade&ic de-art4&ents? nobody there is going to tell yo* what<s really going on in the world.38

+nd it<s e1tre&ely i&-ortant that there not be a field that st*dies these*estions4beca*se if there e,er were s*ch a field) -eo-le &ight co&e to *n4

derstand too &*ch) and in a relati,ely free society li(e o*rs) they &ightstart to do so&ething with that *nderstanding. Well) no instit*tion is goingto enco*rage that. 0 &ean) there<s nothing in what 0 *st said that yo*co*ldn<t e1-lain to *nior high school st*dents) it<s all -rettystraightforward. 2*t it<s not what yo* st*dy in a *nior high 'i,ics co*rse4what yo* st*dy there is -ro-aganda abo*t the way syste&s are s*--osed towor( b*t don<t.

0ncidentally) -art of the geni*s of this as-ect of the higher ed*cation sys4

te& is that it can get -eo-le to sell o*t e,en while they thin( they<re doinge1actly the right thing. So so&e yo*ng -erson going into acade&ia will sayto the&self) A oo() 0<& going to be a real radical hereA 4and yo* can be) aslong as yo* ada-t yo*rself to these categories which g*arantee that yo*<llne,er as( the right *estions) and that yo*<ll ne,er e,en loo&at the right

*estions. 2*t yo* don<t feeIli&eyo*<re selling o*t) yo*<re not saying A0<&wor(ing for the r*ling classA or anything li(e that4yo*<re not) yo*<re being aMar1ist econo&ist or so&ething. 2*t the effect is) they<,e totallyne*traliGed yo*.

+lright) all of these are s*btle for&s of control) with the effect of -re4,enting serio*s insight into the way that -ower act*ally wor(s in the soci4ety. +nd it &a(es ,ery good sense for a syste& to be set *- li(e that?

-owerf*l instit*tions don<t want to be in,estigated) ob,io*sly. Why wo*ld

theyI They don<t want the -*blic to (now how they wor(4&aybe the -eo-leinside the& *nderstand how they wor() b*t they don<t want anybody else to(now) beca*se that wo*ld threaten and *nder&ine their -ower. So onesho*ld expect the instit*tions to f*nction in s*ch a way as to -rotectthe&sel,es4and so&e of the ways in which they -rotect the&sel,es are by,ario*s s*btle techni *es of ideological control li(e these.

Cr"der )ethods of Control

Then aside fro& all that) there are also cr*de &ethods of control. So ifso&e yo*ng -olitical scientist or econo&ist decides they are going to try to



Chapter Seven #4

Well) Ja-an has r*n its econo&y -retty &*ch the sa&e way we do) e14ce-t with one cr*cial difference. 0nstead of *sing the &ilitary syste&) theway they<,e wor(ed their -*blic s*bsidies in Ja-an is they ha,e a go,ern4&ent &inistry) M. T. the Ministry of 0nternational Trade and 0nd*stryO)which sits down with the big cor-orations and conglo&erates and ban(ingfir&s) and -lans their econo&ic syste& for the ne1t co*-le years4they -lanhow &*ch cons*&-tion there<s going to be) and how &*ch in,est&entthere<s going to be) and where the in,est&ent sho*ld go) and so on. Well)

that<s &ore efficient. +nd since Ja-an is a ,ery disci-lined and obedient so4ciety c*lt*rally) the -o-*lation there *st does what they tell the&) and no4 body e,er as(s any *estions abo*t it.

+lright) to see how this difference -layed o*t o,er the years) *st loo( atthe AStar WarsA -rogra& in the United States) for e1a&-le. Star Wars theStrategic efense 0nitiati,eO is the -rete1t for a h*ge a&o*nt of researchand de,elo-&ent s-ending thro*gh the Pentagon syste& here4it<s o*r wayof f*nding the new generation of co&-*ter technology) lasers) new soft4ware) and so on. Well) if yo* loo( at the distrib*tion of e1-enses for StarWars) it t*rns o*t that it was ,irt*ally the sa&e allocation of f*nding as was&ade thro*gh the Ja-anese state4directed econo&ic syste& in the sa&e ti&e

-eriod? in those sa&e years) M. T.X. &ade abo*t the sa&e *dg&ents abo*thow to distrib*te their reso*rces as we did) they s-ent abo*t the sa&e

-ro-ortion of &oney in lasers) and the sa&e -ro-ortion in software) and soon. 3: +nd the reason is that all of these -lanners &a(e a--ro1i&ately thesa&e *dg&ents abo*t the li(ely new technologies.

Well) why was Ja-an so co&-etiti,e with the U.S. econo&ically) des-itehighly ina*s-icio*s conditionsI There are a lot of reasons. 2*t the &ainreason is that they directed their -*blic s*bsidy straight to the co&&ercial&ar(et. So to wor( on lasers) they tried to fig*re o*t ways of -rod*cinglasers for the co&&ercial &ar(et) and they do it -retty well. 2*t when wewant to de,elo- lasers for the co&&ercial &ar(et) what we do is -o*r the&oney into the Pentagon) which then tries to wor( o*t a way to *se a laserto shoot down a &issile ten tho*sand &iles away4and if they can wor( thato*t) then they ho-e there<ll be so&e co&&ercial s-in4offs that co&e o*t ofit all. !(ay) that<s less efficient. +nd since the Ja-anese are no d*&ber thanwe are) and they ha,e an efficient syste& of state4coordination while weha,e an inefficient one) o,er the years they s*cceeded in the econo&icco&-etition.

Well) these are &a or -heno&ena of &odern life4b*t where do yo* go tost*dy the& in the *ni,ersities or the acade&ic -rofessionI That<s a ,ery in4teresting *estion. o* don<t go to the econo&ics de-art&ent) beca*sethat<s not what they loo( at? the real hot4shot econo&ics de-art&ents are in4terested in abstract &odels of how a -*re free4enter-rise econo&y wor(s4yo* (now) generaliGations to ten4di&ensional s-ace of so&e none1istentfree4&ar(et syste&. o* don<t go to the -olitical science de-art&ent) be4ca*se they<re concerned with electoral statistics) and ,oting -atterns) and




it<s a to-ic that 0<& interested in) and 0<,e wor(ed on it -robably &ore thananybody else there) so there was *st no way for the& to say 0 co*ldn<t do it.Then the ro*tine started. The first stage in the doctoral -rocess is that thecandidate has a &eeting with a co*-le of fac*lty &e&bers and -resents her

-ro-osal. Us*ally two fac*lty &e&bers show *-) that<s abo*t it. This ti&e itwas different? they circ*lated a notice thro*gh the de-art&ent saying thate,ery fac*lty &e&ber had to show *-4and the reason was) 6 was going to

be there) and they had to co&bat this balef*l infl*ence. So e,erybodyshowed *-.

Well) the wo&an started -resenting her dissertation -ro-osal) and yo*co*ld *st see -eo-le t*rning -ale. So&ebody as(ed her) AWhat<s yo*r hy4

-othesisIA4yo*<re s*--osed to ha,e a hy-othesis4and it was that &ediaco,erage of So*thern +frica is going to be infl*enced by cor-orateinterests. Peo-le were -ractically -assing o*t and falling o*t the windows.Then starts the critical analysis? AWhat<s yo*r &ethodology going to beIWhat tests are yo* going to *seIA +nd grad*ally an a--arat*s was set *-and a le,el of -roof de&anded that yo* *st can<t &eet in the socialsciences. 0t wasn<t) A0<& going to read the editorials and fig*re o*t what theysayAyo* had to co*nt the words) and do all sorts of statistical nonsense) andso on and so forth. 2*t she fo*ght it thro*gh) she *st contin*ed fighting.They *lti&ately re *ired so &*ch *n( in her thesis) so &*ch irrele,ant)

-hony social4scientific *n() n*&bers and charts and &eaningless b*siness)that yo* co*ld barely -ic( o*t the content fro& the &orass of &ethodology.2*t she did finally &a(e it thro*gh4 *st beca*se she was willing to fight ito*t. Now) yo* (now) yo* can do that4b*t it<s to*gh. +nd so&e -eo-le reallyget (illed.

The %ate of an 9onest Intelle-t"al

0<ll tell yo* another) last case4and there are &any others li(e this. Here<s astory which is really tragic. How &any of yo* (now abo*t Joan Peters) the

boo( by Joan PetersI There was this best4seller a few years ago in 3;78O) itwent thro*gh abo*t ten -rintings) by a wo&an na&ed Joan Peters4or at

least) signed by Joan Peters4ealled @rom 'ime 6mmemoria2s 0t was a bigscholarly4loo(ing boo( with lots of footnotes) which -*r-orted to show thatthe Palestinians were all recent i&&igrants i.e. to the Jewishsettled areas ofthe for&er Palestine) d*ring the 2ritish &andate years of 3;$% to 3;87O.+nd it was very -o-*lar4it got literally h*ndreds of ra,e re,iews) and nonegati,e re,iews? the Washington #ost) the $ew %or& 'imes) e,erybodywas *st ra,ing abo*t it. 3; Here was this boo( which -ro,ed that there werereally no PalestiniansX !f co*rse) the i&-licit &essage was) if 0srael (ic(sthe& all o*t there<s no &oral iss*e) beca*se they<re *st recent i&&igrantswho ca&e in beca*se the Jews had b*ilt *- the co*ntry. +nd there was all(inds of de&ogra-hic analysis in it) and a big -rofes4



Chapter Seven 4=

sor of de&ogra-hy at the Uni,ersity of 'hicago Phili- M. Ha*serO a*then4ticated it. $% That was the big intellect*al hit for that year? Sa*l 2ellow) 2ar4

bara T*ch&an) e,erybody was tal(ing abo*t it as the greatest thing sincechocolate ca(e. $3

Well) one grad*ate st*dent at Princeton) a g*y na&ed Nor&an Bin(el4stein) started reading thro*gh the boo(. He was interested in the history of

ionis&) and as he read the boo( he was (ind of s*r-rised by so&e of thethings it said. He<s a ,ery caref*l st*dent) and he started chec(ing the refer4ences4and it t*rned o*t that the whole thing was a hoa1) it was co&-letelyfa(ed? -robably it had been -*t together by so&e intelligence agency orso&ething li(e that. Well) Bin(elstein wrote *- a short -a-er of *st -reli&4inary findings) it was abo*t twenty4fi,e -ages or so) and he sent it aro*nd to0 thin( thirty -eo-le who were interested in the to-ic) scholars in the fieldand so on) saying? AHere<s what 0<,e fo*nd in this boo() do yo* thin( it<sworth -*rs*ingIA

Well) he got bac( one answer) fro& &e. 0 told hi&) yeah) 0 thin( it<s aninteresting to-ic) b*t 0 warned hi&) if yo* follow this) yo*<re going to get intro*ble4beca*se yo*<re going to e1-ose the +&erican intellect*al co&&*4nity as a gang of fra*ds) and they are not going to li(e it) and they<re goingto destroy yo*. So 0 said? if yo* want to do it) go ahead) b*t be aware ofwhat yo*<re getting into. 0t<s an i&-ortant iss*e) it &a(es a big difference

whether yo* eli&inate the &oral basis for dri,ing o*t a -o-*lation4it<s -re-aring the basis for so&e real horrors4so a lot of -eo-le<s li,es co*ld beat sta(e. 2*t yo*r life is at sta(e too) 0 told hi&) beca*se if yo* -*rs*e this)yo*r career is going to be r*ined.

Well) he didn<t belie,e &e. We beca&e ,ery close friends after this) 0didn<t (now hi& before. He went ahead and wrote *- an article) and hestarted s*b&itting it to o*rnals. Nothing? they didn<t e,en bother res-ond4ing. 0 finally &anaged to -lace a -iece of it in 6n 'hese 'imes) a tiny left4wing o*rnal -*blished in 0llinois) where so&e of yo* &ay ha,e seen it. $$

!therwise nothing) no res-onse. Meanwhile his -rofessors4this is PrincetonUni,ersity) s*--osed to be a serio*s -lace4sto--ed tal(ing to hi&? theywo*ldn<t &a(e a--oint&ents with hi&) they wo*ldn<t read his -a-ers) he

basically had to *it the -rogra&.2y this ti&e) he was getting (ind of des-erate) and he as(ed &e what to

do. 0 ga,e hi& what 0 tho*ght was good ad,ice) b*t what t*rned o*t to be bad ad,ice? 0 s*ggested that he shift o,er to a different de-art&ent) where 0(new so&e -eo-le and fig*red he<d at least be treated decently. That t*rnedo*t to be wrong. He switched o,er) and when he got to the -oint of writinghis thesis he literally co*ld not get the fac*lty to read it) he co*ldn<t getthe& to co&e to his thesis defense. Binally) o*t of e&barrass&ent) theygranted hi& a Ph. .4he<s ,ery s&art) incidentally4b*t they will not e,enwrite a letter for hi& saying that he was a st*dent at Princeton Uni,ersity. 0&ean) so&eti&es yo* ha,e st*dents for who& it<s hard to write good lettersof reco&&endation) beca*se yo* really didn<t thin( they were ,ery good4



Chapter Seven 4?

boo( was good) 0 *st said it<s an interesting to-ic)A things li(e that. +t that -oint) the $ew %or& Review sw*ng into action) and they did what they al4ways do in these circ*&stances. See) there<s li(e a ro*tine that yo* gothro*gh4if a boo( gets blown o*t of the water in England in -laces -eo-lehere will see) or if a boo( gets -raised in England) yo* ha,e to react. +nd ifit<s a boo( on 0srael) there<s a standard way of doing it? yo* get an 0sraelischolar to re,iew it. That<s called co,ering yo*r ass4beca*se whate,er an0sraeli scholar says) yo*<re -retty safe? no one can acc*se the o*rnal ofanti4Se&itis&) none of the *s*al st*ff wor(s.

So after the Peters boo( got blown o*t of the water in England) the $ew%or& Reviewassigned it to a good -erson act*ally) in fact 0srael<s leadings-ecialist on Palestinian nationalis& ehosh*a PorathO) so&eone who(nows a lot abo*t the s*b ect. +nd he wrote a re,iew) which they thendidn<t -*blish4it went on for al&ost a year witho*t the thing being -*b4lishedC nobody (nows e1actly what was going on) b*t yo* can g*ess thatthere &*st ha,e been a lot of -ress*re not to -*blish it. E,ent*ally it wase,en written *- in the $ew %or& 'imes that this re,iew wasn<t getting -*b4lished) so finally so&e ,ersion of it did a--ear. $5 0t was critical) it said the

boo( is nonsense and so on) b*t it c*t corners) the g*y didn<t say what he(new. $6

+ct*ally) the 0sraeli re,iews in general were e1tre&ely critical? the reac4

tion of the 0sraeli -ress was that they ho-ed the boo( wo*ld not be widelyread) beca*se *lti&ately it wo*ld be har&f*l to the Jews4sooner or later itwo*ld get e1-osed) and then it wo*ld *st loo( li(e a fra*d and a hoa1) andit wo*ld reflect badly on 0srael They *nderesti&ated the +&erican intel4lect*al co&&*nity) 0 sho*ld say.

+nyhow) by that -oint the +&erican intellect*al co&&*nity realiGed thatthe Peters boo( was an e&barrass&ent) and it sort of disa--earednobodytal(s abo*t it any&ore. 0 &ean) yo* still find it at newsstands in the air-ortand so on) b*t the best and the brightest (now that they are not s*- -osed total( abo*t it any&ore? beca*se it was e1-osed and they were e1-osed.

Well) the -oint is) what ha--ened to Bin(elstein is the (ind of thing thatcan ha--en when yo*<re an honest critic4and we co*ld go on and on withother cases li(e that. Editors< Note? Bin(elstein has since -*blished se,eral

boo(s with inde-endent -resses.OStill) in the *ni,ersities or in any other instit*tion) yo* can often findso&e dissidents hanging aro*nd in the woodwor(4and they can s*r,i,e inone fashion or another) -artic*larly if they get co&&*nity s*--ort. 2*t ifthey beco&e too disr*-ti,e or too obstre-ero*s4or yo* (now) too effecti,e4they<re li(ely to be (ic(ed o*t. The standard thing) tho*gh) is that they won<t&a(e it within the instit*tions in the first -lace) -artic*larly if they werethat way when they were yo*ng4they<ll si&-ly be weeded o*t so&ewherealong the line. So in &ost cases) the -eo-le who &a(e it thro*gh theinstit*tions and are able to re&ain in the& ha,e already internaliGed the




right (inds of beliefs? it<s not a -roble& for the& to be obedient) they al4ready are obedient) that<s how they got there. +nd that<s -retty &*ch howthe ideological control syste& -er-et*ates itself in the schools4that<s the

basic story of how it o-erates) 0 thin(.

!orging Working-Class C"lt"re

M*$, $oam) 6 want to turn for a moment to people who weren<t sentthrough the ideological control system of the schools) to see what &ind ofindependent minds people today should be struggling to foster. 6"ve oftenheard you tal& about the insights that guided the early labor movement inthe 2nited States at the beginning of the industrial revolution in the ! 5s.%ou say that social movements today are going to have to start by regaining

some of that understanding. My :uestion is) who were those people exactly8was it mostly European immigrants to the 2nited States0

No) it<s what were called at the ti&e the A owell &ill4girlsA4&eaningyo*ng wo&en who ca&e off the far&s to wor( in factories. 0n fact) a gooddeal of the labor organiGing in the nineteenth cent*ry in the United Stateswas done by wo&en) beca*se *st li(e today in the Third World) it was as4s*&ed that the &ost docile and controllable seg&ent of the wor(force waswo&en4so therefore they were the &ost e1-loited.

Re&e&ber) the early ind*strial re,ol*tion was b*ilt on te1tiles. 0t too(off aro*nd here4it was in owell and awrence Massach*settsO) -laces li(ethat. +nd ,ery e1tensi,ely the labor force was &ade *- of wo&en. 0n fact)so&e of the &ain labor o*rnals at the ti&e were edited by wo&en) and theywere yo*ng wo&en &ostly. +nd they were -eo-le who wanted to read)they wanted to learn) they wanted to st*dy4that was *st considered nor&al

by wor(ing -eo-le bac( then. +nd they wanted to ha,e free li,es. 0n fact)&any of the& didn<t wor( in the &ills for ,ery long4they<d wor( there for aco*-le years) then go bac( to so&e other life. 2*t in the early stages of the+&erican labor &o,e&ent) it was the owell &ill4girls) or far&ers whowere being dri,en off their far&s by ind*stry) who were the ones who b*ilt*- the early wor(ing4class c*lt*re.

When the big wa,es of E*ro-ean i&&igrants began to arri,e in theUnited States) the story started to change a bit) act*ally. See) the &a orwa,e of i&&igration to the United States ha--ened aro*nd the &iddle ofthe nineteenth cent*ry) and the i&&igrants who were arri,ing were fleeingfro& extremely i&-o,erished -arts of E*ro-e4li(e 0reland) for e1a&-le.That was at the ti&e of the 0rish fa&ine of 3786453O) and 0reland was

being absol*tely de,astated by it) so a lot of -eo-le *st esca-ed to North+&erica if they co*ld.

Peo-le often forget) 0reland<s the oldest colony in the world? it co*ldha,e been a rich -lace) *st li(e England) b*t it<s been a colony for 7%%




econo&ic le,el) which it wasn<t Kin fact it was -robably raising itL4it was beca*se it was ta(ing -ower o*t of their hands) and s*bordinating the& toothers) and t*rning the& into &indless tools of -rod*ction. +nd they didn<twant that.

0n fact) if yo* want to do so&e really interesting reading) one boo( 0wo*ld s*ggest is the first boo( of labor history that was written4e,er) 0thin(. 0t ca&e o*t in 3;$8) and it was *st re-*blished in 'hicago? it<s called'he 6ndustrial Wor&er) by Nor&an Ware) and it<s &ostly e1cer-ts fro& theinde-endent labor -ress in the United States in the &id4nineteenth cent*ry.:% See) there was a big inde-endent wor(ers< -ress in the United States atthe ti&e4it was abo*t at the scale of the ca-italist -ress) act*ally4and it wasr*n by what were called Afactory girls)A or by crafts&en. +nd it<s e1tre&elyinteresting to loo( at.

Right thro*gh the nineteenth cent*ry) wor(ing -eo-le in the UnitedStates were str*ggling against the i&-osition of what they described asAdegradation)A Ao--ression)A Awage sla,ery)A Ata(ing away o*r ele&entaryrights)A At*rning *s into tools of -rod*ction)A e,erything that we now call&odern ca-italis& Kwhich is in fact state4ca-italis&L they fo*ght against fora f*ll cent*ry4and ,ery bitterly) it was an e1tre&ely hard str*ggle. +nd theywere calling for Alabor re-*blicanis&A4yo* (now) A et<s go bac( to thedays when we were free -eo-le.A A aborA *st &eans A-eo-le)A after all.

+nd in fact) they also were fighting against the i&-osition of the &ass -*blic ed*cation syste&4and rightly) beca*se they *nderstood e1actly whatit was? a techni *e to beat inde-endence o*t of the heads of far&ers and tot*rn the& into docile and obedient factory wor(ers. :3 That<s *lti&ately why

-*blic ed*cation was instit*ted in the United States in the first -lace? to&eet the needs of newly4e&erging ind*stry. See) -art of the -rocess oftrying to de,elo- a degraded and obedient labor force was to &a(e thewor(ers st*-id and -assi,e4and &ass ed*cation was one of the ways thatwas achie,ed. +nd of co*rse) there was also a &*ch broader effort to de4stroy the inde-endent wor(ing4class intellect*al c*lt*re that had de,elo-ed)which ranged fro& a h*ge a&o*nt of *st o*tright force) to &ore s*btletechni *es li(e -ro-aganda and -*blic relations ca&-aigns.

+nd those efforts ha,e been s*stained right to this day) in fact. So labor*nions ha,e by now been ,irt*ally wi-ed o*t in the United States) in -art

by a h*ge a&o*nt of b*siness -ro-aganda) r*nning fro& cine&a to al&oste,erything) and thro*gh a lot of other techni *es as well. 2*t the whole

-rocess too( a long ti&e40<& old eno*gh to re&e&ber what the wor(ing4class c*lt*re was li(e in the United States? there was still a high le,el of itwhen 0 was growing *- in the late 3;:%s. 0t too( a long ti&e to beat it o*tof wor(ers< heads and t*rn the& into -assi,e toolsC it too( a long ti&e to&a(e -eo-le acce-t that this ty-e of e1-loitation is the only alternati,e) sothey<d better *st forget abo*t their rights and say) A!(ay) 0<& degraded.A

So the first thing that has to ha--en) 0 thin() is we ha,e to reco,er so&eof that old *nderstanding. 0 &ean) it all starts with c*lt*ral changes. We



Chapter Seven =

ha,e to dis&antle all of this st*ff c*lt*rally? we<,e got to change -eo-le<s&inds) their s-irits) and hel- the& reco,er what was co&&on *nderstand4ing in a &ore ci,iliGed -eriod) li(e a cent*ry ago on the sho- floors of ow4ell. 0f that (ind of *nderstanding co*ld be nat*ral a&ong a h*ge -art of thegeneral -o-*lation in the nineteenth cent*ry) it can be nat*ral again today.+nd it<s so&ething we<,e really got to wor( on now.

The !ra"d of )odern E-onomi-s

M*$, $oam) you mentioned 6reland being forced to export food to En8 gland during the 6rish famine because of the supposed demands of the freemar&et. /ow exactly did that &ind of 1free mar&et1 economic thin&ing getinstituted as legitimate in the universities and in the popular ideology as awhole over the years8for instance) the wor& of the Social -arwinists ;whoclaimed that natural selection and 1survival of the fittest1 determine indi8vidual and societal wealth<) and of Malthus ;early8nineteenth8centuryeconomist who argued that poverty was inevitable and population growth

should be chec&ed by famine) war) and disease<) and others who in variousways blamed the poor for being poor0

Malth*s gets (ind of a bad -ress) act*ally? he<s singled o*t as the g*y

who said that -eo-le sho*ld *st be left to star,e if they can<t s*--ort the&4sel,es4b*t really that was -retty &*ch the line of classical econo&ics ingeneral. 0n fact) Malth*s was one of the fo*nders of classical econo&ics)right alongside of g*ys li(e a,id Ricardo.

Malth*s<s -oint was basically this? if yo* don<t ha,e inde-endent wealth)and yo* can<t sell yo*r labor on the &ar(et at a le,el at which yo* can s*r4,i,e) then yo* ha,e no right being here4go to the wor(ho*se -rison or goso&ewhere else. +nd in those days) Ago so&ewhere elseA &eant go to

North +&erica) or to +*stralia) and so on. Now) he wasn<t saying it wasanyone<s fault if they were -oor and had to re&o,e the&sel,esC he was say4ing) it<s a law of nat*re that this is the way it has to be. :$ Ricardo in fact saidthat it was tr*e at the le,el of Athe -rinci-le of gra,itationA 4and of co*rse)to try to interfere with a law of nat*re li(e that only &a(es things worse. ::

So what both Malth*s and Ricardo were arg*ing) sort of in -arallel) wasthat yo* only har& the -oor by &a(ing the& belie,e that they ha,e rightsother than what they can win on the &ar(et) li(e a basic right to li,e) be4ca*se that (ind of right interferes with the &ar(et) and with efficiency) andwith growth and so on4so *lti&ately -eo-le will *st be worse off if yo* tryto recogniGe the&. +nd as yo* s*ggest) those ideas are basically still ta*ghttoday40 don<t thin( the free4&ar(et ideology that<s ta*ght in *ni,ersityecono&ics de-art&ents right now is ,ery &*ch different. S*re) yo* ha,e&ore &athe&atical for&*las and so on today) b*t really it<s -retty &*ch thesa&e story.




M*$, (ut how did that thin&ing get instituted0

How did it get instit*tedI +s a wea-on of class warfare. +ct*ally) thehistory of this is (ind of intrig*ing4and as far as 0 (now) there<s only one

boo( abo*t it? it<s by a good econo&ic historian na&ed Ra ani "anth) whowas *st rewarded for his efforts by being thrown o*t of the Uni,ersity ofUtah. 2*t he goes thro*gh it all) and it<s ,ery re,ealing. :8

o* see) d*ring the early stages of the ind*strial re,ol*tion) as Englandwas co&ing o*t of a fe*dal4ty-e society and into what<s basically a state4ca-italist syste&) the rising bo*rgeoisie there had a -roble&. 0n a traditionalsociety li(e the fe*dal syste&) -eo-le had a certain -lace) and they hadcertain rights4in fact) they had what was called at the ti&e a Aright to li,e.A 0&ean) *nder fe*dalis& it &ay ha,e been a lousy right) b*t ne,ertheless

-eo-le were ass*&ed to ha,e so&e nat*ral entitle&ent for s*r,i,al. 2*twith the rise of what we call ca-italis&) that right had to be destroyed? -eo4

-le had to ha,e it (noc(ed o*t of their heads that they had any a*to&aticAright to li,eA beyond what they co*ld win for the&sel,es on the labor&ar(et. +nd that was the &ain -oint of classical econo&ics. :5

Re&e&ber the conte1t in which all of this was ta(ing -lace? classicalecono&ics de,elo-ed after a -eriod in which a large -art of the English

-o-*lation had been forcibly dri,en off the land they had been far&ing forcent*ries4that was by force) it wasn<t a -retty -ict*re i.e. intensi,e enclo4s*re of co&&*nal lands by acts of Parlia&ent occ*rred between 395% and376%O. 0n fact) ,ery li(ely one of the &ain reasons why England led the in4d*strial re,ol*tion was *st that they had been &*ch &ore ,iolent in dri,ing

-eo-le off the land than in other -laces. Bor instance) in Brance a lot of -eo-le were able to re&ain on the land) and therefore they resisted ind*s4trialiGation &ore. :6

2*t e,en after the rising bo*rgeoisie in England had dri,en &illions of -easants off the land) there was a -eriod when the -o-*lation<s Aright toli,eA still was -reser,ed by what we wo*ld today call Awelfare.A There wasa set of laws in England which ga,e -eo-le rights) called the APoor

awsA initially and &ost co&-rehensi,ely codified in 36%3O4whichessentially (e-t yo* ali,e if yo* co*ldn<t s*r,i,e otherwiseC they -ro,idedsort of a &ini&*& le,el of s*bsistence) li(e s*bsidies on food and so on.+nd there was also so&ething called the A'orn awsA dating in ,aryingfor&s fro& the twelfth cent*ryO) which ga,e landlords certain rights beyondthose they co*ld get on the &ar(et4they raised the -rice of corn) that sort ofthing. +nd together) these laws were considered a&ong the &aini&-edi&ents to the new rising 2ritish ind*strial class4so therefore they *sthad to go.

Well) those -eo-le needed an ideology to s*--ort their effort to (noc(o*t of -eo-le<s heads the idea that they had this basic right to li,e) and that<swhat classical econo&ics was abo*t44dassical econo&ics said? no one hasany right to li,e) yo* only ha,e a right to what yo* can gain for yo*rself onthe labor &ar(et. +nd the fo*nders of classical econo&ics in fact said



Chapter Seven =3

they<d de,elo-ed a Ascientific theoryA of it) with4as they -*t it4Athe certaintyof the -rinci-le of gra,itation.A

+lright) by the 37:%s) -olitical conditions in England had changedeno*gh so that the rising bo*rgeoisie were able to (ill the Poor aws theywere significantly li&ited in 37:$O) and then later they &anaged to do awaywith the 'orn aws in 3786O. +nd by aro*nd 378% or 3785) they won theelections and too( o,er the go,ern&ent. Then at that -oint) a ,ery interest4ing thing ha--ened. They ga,e *- the theory) and Political Econo&ychanged.

0t changed for a n*&ber of reasons. Bor one thing) these g*ys had won)so they didn<t need it so &*ch as an ideological wea-on any&ore. Bor an4other) they recogniGed that they the&sel,es needed a -owerf*l inter,ention4ist state to defend ind*stry fro& the hardshi-s of co&-etition in the o-en&ar(et4as they always had in fact. +nd beyond that) eli&inating -eo-le<sAright to li,eA was starting to ha,e so&e negati,e side4effects. Birst of all) itwas ca*sing riots all o,er the -lace? for a long -eriod) the 2ritish ar&y was&ostly -reocc*-ied with -*tting down riots across England. Then so&e4thing e,en worse ha--ened4the -o-*lation started to organiGe? yo* got the

beginnings of an organiGed labor &o,e&ent) and later the 'hartist&o,e&ent an 37:7487 -o-*lar ca&-aign for Parlia&entary refor&O) andthen a socialist &o,e&ent de,elo-ed. +nd at that -oint) the elites in En4

gland recogniGed that the ga&e *st had to be called off) or else they reallywo*ld be in tro*ble4so by the ti&e yo* get to the second half of the nine4teenth cent*ry) things li(e John St*art Mill<s #rinciples of #olitical Econ8omy) which gi,es (ind of a social4de&ocratic line) were beco&ing thereigning ideology.

See) the AscienceA ha--ens to be a ,ery fle1ible one? yo* can change it todo whate,er yo* feel li(e) it<s that (ind of Ascience.A So by the &iddle ofthe nineteenth cent*ry) the AscienceA had changed) and now it t*rned o*tthat laisseG faire the idea that the econo&y f*nctions best witho*tgo,ern&ent interferenceO was a bad thing after all4and what yo* got insteadwere the intellect*al fo*ndations for what<s called the Awelfare state.A +ndin fact) for a cent*ry afterwards) AlaisseG faireA was basically a dirty word4nobody tal(ed abo*t it any&ore. +nd what the AscienceA now said was that

yo* had better gi,e the -o-*lation so&e way of s*r,i,ing) or else they<regoing to challenge yo*r right to r*le. o* can ta(e away their right to li,e)

b*t then they<re going to ta(e away yo*r right to r*le4and that<s no good) soways ha,e to be fo*nd to acco&&odate the&.

Well) it wasn<t *ntil recent years that laisseG4faire ideology was re,i,edagain4and again) it was as a wea-on of class warfare. 0 &ean) as far as 0 cansee) the -rinci-les of classical econo&ics in effect are still ta*ght? 0 don<tthin( what<s ta*ght in the Uni,ersity of 'hicago Econo&ics e-art&enttoday is all that different) what<s called Aneo4liberalis&A an econo&icstance stressing c*tbac(s in social ser,ices) stable c*rrencies) and balanced

b*dgetsO. +nd it doesn<t ha,e any &ore ,alidity than it had in the early nine4




teenth cent*ry4in fact) it has e,en less. +t least in the early nineteenth cen4t*ry) Ricardo<s and Malth*s<s ass*&-tions had some relation to reality.Today those ass*&-tions ha,e no relation to reality.

oo(? the basic ass*&-tion of the classical econo&ists was that labor ishighly &obile and ca-ital is relati,ely i&&obile4that<s re *ired) that<s cr*4cial to -ro,ing all their nice theore&s. That was the reason they co*ld say)A0f yo* can<t get eno*gh to s*r,i,e on the labor &ar(et) go so&e-lace elseA4

beca*se yo* could go so&e-lace else? after the nati,e -o-*lations of -laces

li(e the United States and +*stralia and Tas&ania were e1ter&inated ordri,en away) then yeah) -oor E*ro-eans co*ld go so&e-lace else. So in theearly nineteenth cent*ry) labor was indeed &obile. +nd bac( then) ca-italwas indeed immobile8first beca*se Aca-italA -ri&arily &eant land) and yo*can<t &o,e land) and also beca*se to the e1tent that there was in,est&ent) itwas ,ery local? li(e) yo* didn<t ha,e co&&*nications syste&s that allowedfor easy transfers of &oney all aro*nd the world) li(e we do today.

So in the early nineteenth cent*ry) the ass*&-tion that labor is &obileand ca-ital is i&&obile was &ore or less realistic4and on the basis of thatass*&-tion) yo* co*ld try to -ro,e things abo*t co&-arati,e ad,antage andall this st*ff yo* learn in school abo*t Port*gal and wine and so on Ri4cardo<s &ost fa&o*s hy-othetical for de&onstrating how free trade co*ld be&*t*ally ad,antageo*s to -artici-ating co*ntries in,ol,ed England con4

centrating on selling cloth and Port*gal wineO.0ncidentally) if yo* want to (now how well those theore&s act*ally

wor() *st co&-are Port*gal and England after a h*ndred years of tryingthe& o*t4growing wine ,ers*s ind*strialiGing as -ossible &odes of de,el4o-&ent. 2*t let<s -*t that aside ...

Well) by now the ass*&-tions *nder-inning these theories are not only false8they"re the opposite of the tr*th. 2y now labor is immobile) thro*ghi&&igration restrictions and so on) and ca-ital is highly mobile) -ri&arily

beca*se of technological changes. So none of the res*lts wor( any&ore.2*t yo*<re still ta*ght the&) yo*<re still ta*ght the theories e1actly as

beforee,en tho*gh the reality today is the e1act o--osite of what wasass*&ed in the early nineteenth cent*ry. 0 &ean) if yo* loo( at so&e of thefancier econo&ists) Pa*l "r*g&an and so on) they<,e got all (inds of littletric(s here and there to &a(e the res*lts not *ite so grotes *ely ridic*lo*sas they<d otherwise be. 2*t f*nda&entally) it all *st is -retty ridic*lo*s.

0 &ean) if ca-ital is &obile and labor is i&&obile) there<s no reason why&obile ca-ital sho*ldn<t see( absolute ad,antage and -lay one nationalwor(force against another) go where,er the labor is chea-est and therebydri,e everybody"s standard of li,ing down. 0n fact) that<s e1actly what we<reseeing in N.+.B.T.+. the North +&erican Bree Trade +gree&entO and allthese other international trade agree&ents which are being instit*ted rightnow. Nothing in these abstract econo&ic &odels act*ally wor&s in the realworld. 0t doesn<t &atter how &any footnotes they -*t in) or how &any ways



Chapter Seven ==

they tin(er aro*nd the edges. The whole enter-rise is totally rotten at thecore? it has no relation to reality any&ore4and f*rther&ore) it ne,er did.

The $eal (arket

So ta(e a loo( at one of the things yo* don<t say if yo*<re an econo&istwithin one of the ideological instit*tions) altho*gh s*rely e,ery econo&isthas to (now it. Ta(e the fact that there is not a single case on record in his4tory of any co*ntry that has de,elo-ed s*ccessf*lly thro*gh adherence toAfree &ar(etA -rinci-les? none. 'ertainly not the United States. 0 &ean) theUnited States has always had extensive state inter,ention in the econo&y)right fro& the earliest days4we wo*ld be e1-orting f*r right now if we werefollowing the -rinci-les of co&-arati,e ad,antage.

oo() the reason why the ind*strial re,ol*tion too( off in -laces li(eowell and awrence is beca*se of high -rotectionist tariffs the U.S. go,4

ern&ent set *- to (ee- o*t 2ritish goods. +nd the sa&e thing r*ns right *-to today? li(e) we wo*ld not ha,e s*ccessf*l high4tech ind*stry in theUnited States today if it wasn<t for a h*ge -*blic s*bsidy to ad,anced in4d*stry) &ostly thro*gh the Pentagon syste& and N.+.S.+. and so on4thatdoesn<t ha,e the ,ag*est relation to a Afree &ar(et.A

0n fact) if yo* want a good ill*stration) *st read today<s $ew %or& 'imes.There<s a story on the b*siness -age abo*t how we<,e got a f*nny (ind ofecono&ic reco,ery going on in the co*ntry right now? there<s a lot ofecono&ic growth) b*t not &any good new obs4yo* (now) big s*r-rise.+nd they *se one factory as an e1a&-le) a sto,e factory that<s being set *-in T*lsa by the Whirl-ool cor-oration. Well) the last -aragra-h of the arti4 Y s5de -ointso*t how the Afree &ar(etA really wor(s? the reason why Q.Y) Whirl-ool decided to -*tthe factory in T*lsa instead of) say) in Me1ico) isthat the ta1-ayers in T*lsa 'o*nty are going to -ay $5 -ercent of the cor4 .4

-oration<s ca-ital costS. :9 !(ay) that<s how the free &ar(et really wor(s4 Q in fact)that<s how it<saIways wor(ed) fro& the early days of the ind*strial re,ol*tion right*- *ntil this &orning) witho*t any (nown e1ce-tion. :7

+s a &atter of fact) the United States has been the &ost econo&ically

-rotectionist co*ntry in history. We<,e traditionally had the highest -rotec4tionist tariffs in the world) so &*ch so that one leading econo&ic historianin a recent boo( K-*blished by the Uni,ersity of 'hicago Press) no lessL de4scribes *s as Athe &other co*ntry and bastion of &odern -rotectionis&.A :;So for e1a&-le) in the late nineteenth cent*ry) when E*ro-e was act*allytoying aro*nd with laisseG faire for a brief -eriod) +&erican tariffs werefi,e to ten ti&es as high as theirs4and that was the fastest econo&ic growth

-eriod in +&erican history.8o+nd it goes on right *ntil the -resent. The United States de,elo-ed a

steel ind*stry a cent*ry ago beca*se it radically ,iolated the r*les of theAfree &ar(et)A and it was able to reco,er its steel ind*stry in the last decadeor so



=> 2nderstanding #ower

by doing things li(e restricting i&-orts fro& abroad) destroying labor*nions to dri,e down wages) and sla&&ing h*ge tariffs on foreign stee3. 83 0&ean) the Reaganites always tal(ed enth*siastically abo*t A&ar(et forces)A

b*t they ref*sed to allow the& to f*nction4and for a ,ery si&-le reason? if&ar(et forces had been allowed to f*nction) the United States wo*ld nolonger ha,e an a*to&obile ind*stry) or a &icrochi- ind*stry) or co&-*ters)or electronics) beca*se they wo*ld ha,e *st been wi-ed o*t by theJa-anese. So therefore the Reaganites closed off +&erican &ar(ets and

-o*red in h*ge a&o*nts of -*blic f*nds. +nd act*ally) they were -erfectlyfran( abo*t it to the b*siness co&&*nity4tho*gh of co*rse) not to the

-*blic. So when he was Secretary of the Treas*ry) Ja&es 2a(er -ro*dly -roclai&ed to a b*siness a*dience in 3;79 that Ronald Reagan Ahas granted&ore i&-ort relief to U.S. ind*stry than any of his -redecessors in &orethan half a cent*ryA4which was far too &odest) act*allyC Reagan -robably

-ro,ided &ore i&-ort relief to ind*stry than all his -redecessors com binedin that -eriod. 8$

!f co*rse) the Afree &ar(etA ideology is ,ery useful8it"s a wea-on againstthe general -o-*lation here) beca*se it<s an arg*&ent against socials-ending) and it<s a wea-on against -oor -eo-le abroad) beca*se we canhold it *- to the& and say A o* g*ys ha,e to follow these r*les)A then *stgo ahead and rob the&. 2*t nobody really -ays any attention to this st*ff

when it co&es to act*al -lanning4and no one e,er has.So there was *st a 2ritish st*dy of the h*ndred leading transnationalcor-orations in the 1@ortune 5%%)A and it fo*nd that of the h*ndred) e,erysingle one of the& had benefited fro& what<s called Astate ind*strial -ol4icyA4that is) fro& so&e for& of go,ern&ent inter,ention in the co*ntry inwhich they<re based. +nd of the h*ndred) they said at least twenty had beensa,ed fro& total colla-se by state inter,ention at one -oint or another. Borinstance) the oc(heed cor-oration was going *nder in the early 3;9%s) andthe Ni1on ad&inistration *st bailed the& o*t with -*blic f*nds. 8: !(ay) sothey<re bac( in b*siness. +nd now they stay in b*siness beca*se the -*blic

-ays for '43:%s &ilitary aircraftO) and *-grading B436s) and the B4$$ -ro ect) and so on4none of which has anything to do with a Afree &ar(etAeither.

!r ta(e the fact that so &any -eo-le li,e in the s*b*rbs and e,erybodyhas to dri,e their own car e,erywhere. Was that a res*lt of the Afree &ar4(etAI No) it was beca*se the U.S. go,ern&ent carried o*t a &assi,e social4engineering -ro ect in the 3;5%s to destroy the -*blic trans-ortation syste&in fa,or of e1-anding a highly inefficient syste& based on cars andair-lanes4beca*se that<s what benefits big ind*stry. 0t started with cor-oratecons-iracies to b*y *- and eli&inate streetcar syste&s) and then contin*edwith h*ge -*blic s*bsidies to b*ild the highway syste& and enco*rage ane1tre&ely inefficient and en,iron&entally destr*cti,e alternati,e. That<swhat led to the s*b*rbaniGation of the co*ntry4so yo* get h*ge sho--ing&alls in the s*b*rbs) and de,astation in the inner cities. 88



Chapter Seven =?

2*t these -olicies were a res*lt of -lanning4they had nothing to do with theAfree &ar(et.A

+ct*ally) the &ost dra&atic e1a&-le of these A&ar(et distortionsA that 0can thin( of4which 0 s*s-ect is ne,er e,en ta*ght in econo&ics co*rses4concerns the reason why the United States had an ind*strial re,ol*tion inthe first -lace. Re&e&ber) the ind*strial re,ol*tion was f*eled by te1tiles)&eaning one co&&odity? cotton. +nd cotton was chea-) that was cr*ciallyi&-ortant. Well) why was cotton chea-I Was it beca*se of &ar(et forcesI

No. 'otton was chea- beca*se they e1ter&inated the nati,e -o-*lation hereand bro*ght in sla,es4that<s why cotton was chea-. >enocide and sla,ery?try to i&agine a &ore se,ere &ar(et distortion than that.

!ther co*ntries who had their own cotton reso*rces also tried to start onind*strial re,ol*tions4b*t they didn<t get ,ery far) beca*se England had&ore g*ns) and sto--ed the& by force. Egy-t) for e1a&-le) had its own cot4ton reso*rces) and started on an ind*strial re,ol*tion at abo*t the sa&e ti&eas the United States did) aro*nd 37$%4b*t the 2ritish weren<t going totolerate an econo&ic co&-etitor in the Eastern Mediterranean) so they *ststo--ed it by force. !(ay) no ind*strial re,ol*tion in Egy-t. 85

The sa&e thing also ha--ened in 2ritain<s earliest Ae1-eri&entA withthese ideas) in what was called 2engal) in 0ndia. 0n fact) 2engal was one ofthe first -laces coloniGed in the eighteenth cent*ry) and when Robert 'li,e

2ritish con *erorO first landed there) he described it as a -aradise? acca)he said) is *st li(e ondon) and they in fact referred to it as Athe Manches4ter of 0ndia.A 0t was rich and -o-*lo*s) there was high4 *ality cotton) agri4c*lt*re) ad,anced ind*stry) a lot of reso*rces) *te) all sorts of things4it wasin fact co&-arable to England in its &an*fact*ring le,el) and really loo(edli(e it was going to ta(e off. Well) loo( at it today? acca) Athe Manchesterof 0ndia)A is the ca-ital of 2angladesh4the absol*te sy&bol of disaster. 86

+nd that<s beca*se the 2ritish *st des-oiled the co*ntry and destroyed it) by the e *i,alent of what we wo*ld today call Astr*ct*ral ad *st&entA i.e.econo&ic -olicies fro& the World 2an( and 0nternational Monetary B*ndwhich e1-ose Third World econo&ies to foreign -enetration and controlO.

0n fact) 0ndia generally was a real co&-etitor with England? as late as the37$%s) the 2ritish were learning ad,anced techni *es of steel4&a(ing there)0ndia was b*ilding shi-s for the 2ritish na,y at the ti&e of the Na-oleonicWars 37%:43735O) they had a de,elo-ed te1tiles ind*stry) they were

-rod*cing &ore iron than all of E*ro-e co&bined4so the 2ritish *st -roceeded to de4ind*strialiGe the co*ntry by force and t*rn it into an i&4 -o,erished r*ral society.89 Was that co&-etition in the Afree &ar(etAI

+nd it goes on and on? the United States anne1ed Te1as in 3785O) andone of the &ain reasons for that was to ens*re that the U.S. achie,ed a &o4no-oly on cotton4which was the oil of the nineteenth cent*ry) it was whatreally f*eled the ind*strial econo&ies. So the +&erican leadershi- fig*redthat if they co*ld ta(e Te1as) which was a &a or cotton4-rod*cing area)



=! 2nderstanding #ower

then they wo*ld be able to strangle England econo&ically. See) Englandwas the &ain ene&y at that ti&e) they hated England? it was &*ch &ore

-owerf*l &ilitarily than the United States) it (e-t *s fro& con *ering'anada and seiGing '*ba the way elites here wanted to4and in fact) the onlyreason the +&erican colonists had been able to defeat England in the+&erican Re,ol*tion in the first -lace was that the Brench &ilitary had&assi,ely inter,ened in the colonial *-rising here to hel- o,erthrow 2ritish

-ower. 87 So England was the real ene&y. +nd if yo* read the Jac(soniane&ocrats) Presidents Pol( and Tyler and so on) they were saying? if we

can get Te1as) we can bring England to o*r feet and gain &astery of thetrade of the world. 0n fact) the worst charges) -aranoid charges) that werele,eled against Sadda& H*ssein before the >*lf War a--ly -recisely to theJac(sonian e&ocrats? they wanted to &ono-oliGe the &ain reso*rce of theworld so they co*ld bring e,erybody else to their feet. 8;

+nd e1actly the sa&e lessons a--ly today. Today it<s oil that<s at the cen4ter of the ind*strial econo&ies. +nd why is oil chea-I Well) that<s what yo*

-ay yo*r ta1es for? a large -art of the Pentagon syste& e1ists to &a(e s*rethat oil -rices stay within a certain range4not too low) beca*se Westernecono&ies and energy cor-orations de-end on the -rofits fro& it) b*t nottoo high) beca*se that &ight interfere with what<s called the AefficiencyA ofinternational trade i.e. beca*se trans-ort and other costs of trade rise with

the oil -riceO. Well) trade is only AefficientA beca*se a lot of force and inter4national ,iolence (ee-s oil -rices fro& going too high) so if yo* reallywanted to &eas*re the Aefficiency of trade)A yo*<d ha,e to fig*re in all ofthe other costs which ma&e it that way) li(e the costs of the Pentagon forone. +nd if anyone e,er did that) yo* co*ldn<t possibly say that trade is Aef4ficient.A 0f anybody e,er bothered to calc*late these things) the efficiency oftrade wo*ld dro- ,ery) ,ery low) and it wo*ld in fact -ro,e to be e1tre&elyinefficient.

0 &ean) these &ar(et distortions are not footnotes4they are absol*telyh*ge -heno&ena. Nobody e,er tries to esti&ate the&) beca*se econo&ics isnot a serio*s field4b*t -eo-le in the b*siness world (now abo*t the&

-erfectly well) which is why they<,e always called *-on a -owerf*l state to -rotect the& fro& &ar(et disci-line? they don<t want &ar(et disci-line any&ore than they want de&ocratic control) and they<,e always bloc(ed it.+nd the sa&e is tr*e of *st abo*t e,ery as-ect of any de,elo-ed econo&ythere is.

6"tomation

Well) let<s *st ta(e one last case of this) an e1tre&ely i&-ortant and re4,ealing one? let<s loo( at a*to&ation. 0 &ean) it<s standardly clai&ed thesedays that the reason why the -o-*lation is s*ffering) why -eo-le ha,e beenlosing obs at a &ad rate) real wages ha,e been going down for the lasttwenty4fi,e years and so on) is d*e to) as Ricardo said) Alaws li(e the -rin4



Chapter Seven =

ci-le of gra,itationA 4ine1orable &ar(et forces are &a(ing it that way) li(ea*to&ation) or the efficiency of international trade. That<s the standard ar4g*&ent? these things are ine,itable beca*se the &ar(et is *st i&-osingthe& on *s. 5% 0t<s all total b*llshit. 0 &entioned one reason why the Aeffi4ciency of tradeA arg*&ent is &ostly a fra*d) now let<s loo( at a*to&ation.

Well) it<s tr*e that a*to&ation is AefficientA4li(e) by &ar(et -rinci-les)a*to&ation sa,es b*siness&en &oney and dri,es wor(ers o*t of obs. 2*t itdidn<t get that way beca*se of the &ar(et) not at all? it only got that waythro*gh intensi,e and -rolonged f*nding and de,elo-&ent thro*gh the statesector4that<s &ar(et distortion. 0 &ean) for thirty years a*to&ation wasde,elo-ed thro*gh the &ilitary syste& in the United States) and the reasonwhy it too( so long and cost so &*ch is that a*to&ation was so inefficientto begin with that it co*ldn<t -ossibly ha,e s*r,i,ed in the &ar(et4sotherefore a*to&ation was de,elo-ed the sa&e way we de,elo- &ost hightechnology? thro*gh the -*blic sector.

See) in the +ir Borce and the Na,y Kwhere &ost of this too( -laceL) no4 body cares abo*t costs4beca*se the ta1-ayer<s -aying) so the de,elo-&entcan be as e1-ensi,e and inefficient as yo* li(e. +nd in that way) they wereable to de,elo- a*to&ation to the -oint where it co*ld then be *sed to dri,e

-eo-le o*t of wor( and &a(e -rofits for cor-orations. Bor instance) ta(e thehistory of a*to&ated n*&erical control of &etal4c*tting &achines i.e.

translation of -art s-ecifications into &athe&atical infor&ation that can befed into &achines witho*t the need for s(illed &achinistsO. That was de,el4o-ed thro*gh the +ir Borce) it went on for decades) and finally it got effi4cient eno*gh so that it co*ld be handed o,er to the cor-orations and theyco*ld then throw o*t their wor(ers. 2*t it didn<t ha--en thro*gh &ar(etforces) not at all4it was the res*lt of &assi,e state inter,ention.

B*rther&ore) if yo* loo( at the &indof a*to&ation that was de,elo-ed)yo* see -recisely what wor(ers in the early labor &o,e&ent were co&4

-laining abo*t? being t*rned into &indless tools of -rod*ction. 0 &ean) a*4to&ation co*ld ha,e been designed in s*ch a way as to use the s(ills ofs(illed &achinists and to eli&inate &anage&ent4there<s nothing inherent ina*to&ation that says it can<t be *sed that way. 2*t it wasn<t) belie,e &eC itwas *sed in e1actly the o--osite way. +*to&ation was designed thro*gh

the state syste& to de&ean and degrade -eo-le4to de4s(ill wor(ers and in4crease &anagerial control. +nd again) that had nothing to do with the &ar4(et) and it had nothing to do with the nat*re of the technology? it had to dowith straight -ower interests. So the &indof a*to&ation that was de,elo-edin -laces li(e the M.0.T. Engineering e-art&ent was ,ery caref*llydesigned so that it wo*ld create interchangeable wor(ers and enhance&anagerial control4and that was not for econo&ic reasons. 53 0 &ean) st*dyafter st*dy) incl*ding by &anage&ent fir&s li(e +rth*r . ittle and so on)show that &anagers ha,e selected a*to&ation e,en when it cuts bac& on

-rofits4 *st beca*se it gi,es the& &ore control o,er their wor(force. 5$ 0f yo*<re interested) there<s been so&e ,ery interesting wor( done on thisC

the g*y who<s done the best wor( is a,id Noble4for his sins he was




denied ten*re at M.0.T.) and now he<s teaching in 'anada. He wrote a boo(called @orces of #roduction) which is a -retty s-ecialiGed technical analysis&ainly of the de,elo-&ent of n*&erical control of &achinery) b*t he<s alsogot a good -o-*lar boo( o*t) called #rogress Without #eople, 6n -efenseof 7uddism. Unfort*nately) this is the (ind of boo( that<s -*blished li(e in"at&and* or so&ething4it<s -*blished by a ,ery s&all anarchist -ress in'hicago. 2*t it<s ,ery interesting) didn<t &a(e hi& too -o-*lar in the Bac4*lty 'l*b and so on. 5:

!ne of the things he disc*sses there is *ddis& a &o,e&ent of Englishwor(ers who wrec(ed ind*strial &achines) which began in 3733O. See) the

*ddites are always acc*sed of ha,ing wanted to destroy &achinery) b*t it<s been (nown in scholarshi- for a long ti&e that that<s not tr*ewhat theyreally wanted to do was to -re,ent themselves fro& being de4s(illed) and

Noble tal(s abo*t this in his boo(. The *ddites had nothing against&achinery itself) they *st didn<t want it to destroy them) they wanted it to

be de,elo-ed in s*ch a way that it wo*ld enhance their s(ills and their -ower) and not degrade and destroy the&4which of co*rse &a(es -erfectsense. +nd that senti&ent r*ns right thro*gho*t the wor(ing4class&o,e&ents of the nineteenth cent*ry) act*ally4and yo* can e,en see ittoday.

Well) if econo&ics were li(e a real field) these are the (inds of thingsthey wo*ld be st*dying. None of it is ,ery co&-licated4li(e) e,erybody(nows why cotton was chea-) for instance? e,erybody who went toele&entary school (nows why cotton was chea-) and if it hadn<t been forchea- cotton) there wo*ldn<t ha,e been an ind*strial re,ol*tion. 0t<s nothard. 2*t 0<d be ,ery s*r-rised if anybody teaches this st*ff in econo&icsco*rses in the United States.

0 &ean) s*re) there are so&e &ar(et forces o-erating4b*t the reality is)they<re -retty &*ch off aro*nd the edges. +nd when -eo-le tal( abo*t the

-rogress of a*to&ation and free4&ar(et Atrade forcesA ine,itably (ic(ing allthese -eo-le o*t of wor( and dri,ing the whole world towards (ind of aThird World4ty-e -olariGation of wealth40 &ean) that<s tr*e if yo* ta(e anarrow eno*gh -ers-ecti,e on it. 2*t if yo* loo( into the factors that madethings the way they are) it doesn<t e,en co&e close to being tr*e) it<s note,en re&otely in to*ch with reality. 2*t when yo*<re st*dying econo&ics inthe ideological instit*tions) that<s all *st irrele,ant and yo*<re not s*--osedto as( *estions li(e these? yo* ha,e all the infor&ation right in front ofyo*) b*t these are si&-ly not &atters that it is -ro-er to s-end ti&e tal(ingabo*t.

+ %evol"tionary Change in )oral :al"es

M*$, $oam) given an intellectual culture li&e the one you"ve been describ8ing8can you find any 1honest1 intellectuals in the 2.S.0



Chapter Seven >

o* can find the&) b*t li(e 0 say) *s*ally they<re not inside the instit*4tions4and that<s for a ,ery good reason? there is no reason why instit*tionsof -ower and do&ination sho*ld tolerate or enco*rage -eo-le who try to*nder&ine the&. That wo*ld be co&-letely dysf*nctional. So ty-icallyyo*<re going to find &a or efforts &ade to &arginaliGe the honest and seri4o*s intellect*als) the -eo-le who are co&&itted to what 0 wo*ld call En4lighten&ent ,al*es4,al*es of tr*th) and freedo&) and liberty) and *stice.+nd those efforts will to a large e1tent s*cceed.

M*$, Who are those people0 6 mean) you ma&e the whole situation loo&very blea&8who would you say are the intellectuals that are going aboutthings in the right way0

Well) ,ery often they<re the -eo-le who ha,e done things to &a(e a realchange in the world. Ta(e the S.N.'.'. St*dent Non,iolent 'oordinating'o&&itteeO acti,ists) for e1a&-le4they were serio*s intellect*als) andthey &ade a big change. !r ta(e the -eo-le in the 3;6%s who did the wor( l that<s ledto so &any of the i&-ro,e&ents we<,e seen in the co*ntry o,er the last twenty years4and Awor(A didn<t *st &ean r*nning aro*nd the< streets wa,ing signs) yo* (now) italso &eant thin(ing abo*t things) and fig*ring o*t what the -roble&s were) and tryingto teach -eo-le abo*t the& and con,ince the&. es-ite what yo* always hear) that

was not elite intel4 . lect*als? the liberal intellect*al co&&*nity in the United Stateswas always strongly o--osed to the -eo-le who -rotested the +&erican aggression in0ndochina on -rinci-led gro*nds) they were not the ones assisting the -o-*lar&o,e&ents. Well) those -eo-le were serio*s intellect*als) in &y ,iew.

So yo* see) there is sort of an AhonestA left intelligentsia) if yo* li(e4&eaning intellect*als who are not ser,ing -ower as either a Red 2*rea*4cracy) or as state4ca-italist co&&issar4e *i,alents. 0t<s *st that &ost of theti&e they<re o*tside the instit*tions4and for al&ost tri,ial reasons? yo*<re notgoing to find a &ilitant labor acti,ist as 'hair&an of the 2oard of >eneralElectric) rightI eah) how co*ld there beI 2*t there are -eo-le all o,er the

-lace who are honest and co&&itted) and are thin(ing abo*t the world) andtrying to change it4&any &ore today than there were thirty years ago) infact.

0 &ean) it<s standardly clai&ed that there<s less of a left intelligentsiaaro*nd today in the United States than there was in the Bifties and Si1ties4

b*t 0 don<t belie,e a word of it. 0 thin( the o--osite is tr*e) act*ally. J*stta(e a loo( at the -eo-le who they<re calling the big thin(ers of the 3;5%s?who were theyI They were intelligent -eo-le) li(e Ed&*nd Wilson<s an in4telligent -erson4b*t left intellectual0 !r Mary Mc'arthy? yeah) s&art

-erson) wrote so&e nice no,els4b*t not a left intellect*al. 0n fact) what yo*ha,e now is &*ch &ore serio*s acti,ists all o,er the -lace) -eo-le who arethin(ing caref*lly abo*t i&-ortant *estions) and who *nderstand a lot.




0 tra,el aro*nd all the ti&e gi,ing tal(s) and thro*gho*t the 3;7%s 0 wasama ed to go to -laces and see it. Ta(e the 'entral +&erica solidarity&o,e&ent) which was a -retty dra&atic de,elo-&ent40 don<t thin( there<se,er been anything li(e it in history) in fact. 0<d go to a ch*rch in "ansas) orso&e town in Montana or Wyo&ing or so&ething) +nchorage) +las(a) andfind -eo-le there who (now &ore abo*t atin +&erica certainly than the'.0.+.) which isn<t ,ery hard act*ally) b*t &ore than -eo-le in the acade&icde-art&ents of *ni,ersities. They<re -eo-le who<,e tho*ght abo*t it) and

who<,e *nderstood things) and bro*ght a lot of intelligence to the iss*es40can<t e,en tell yo* their na&es) there are too &any of the&.+lso) 0<& not e,en s*re the word AleftA is the right word for the&? a lot of

the& were -robably 'hristian conser,ati,es) b*t they were ,ery radical -eo-le in &y ,iew) and intellect*als who *nderstood) and who did a lot.They created a -o-*lar &o,e&ent which not only -rotested U.S. atrocities)

b*t act*ally engaged the&sel,es in the li,es of the ,icti&s4they too( a&*ch &ore co*rageo*s stand than was e,er done in the 3;6%s. 0 &ean) the

-o-*lar resistance that too( -lace in the Si1ties was i&-ortant4b*t therewas nobody bac( then who e,en dreamt of going to a Dietna&ese ,illageand li,ing there) beca*se &aybe a white face wo*ld li&it the ca-acity of the&ara*ders to (ill and destroy. That wasn<t e,en an idea in yo*r head. 0nfact) nobody e,en went to try to report the war fro& the side of the ,icti&s4

that was *nheard of. 2*t in the 3;7%s it was co&&on? -lenty of -eo-le didit4in fact) -eo-le who were co&ing o*t of religio*s gro*-s li(e Witness forPeace were doing that by the tho*sands and tens of tho*sands. +nd the

-eo-le who were doing that are serio*s left intellect*als) in &y ,iew. 58 Re&e&ber) what will be labeled AleftA in the general c*lt*re and gi,en

-*blicity is going to be so&ething that<s *gly eno*gh so that -eo-le can berallied to o--ose it. So boo(s are co&ing o*t now abo*t Aleft intellect*alsAin Brance who were Stalinists4and loo( at the awf*l things they did. !(ay)that (ind of Aleft intelligentsiaA is allowed to ha,e -*blicity and -ro&i4nence) in fact the elite c*lt*re will gi,e the& as &*ch -ro&inence as it can.!r -eo-le will say Athe leftA is things li(e the S-artacist eag*e) or the So4cialist Wor(ers Party or so&ething4little sectlets) the (inds of gro*-s thatanybody who<s been in,ol,ed in &o,e&ent acti,ities (nows are the -eo-lewho hang aro*nd yo*r offices and yo*r tal(s trying to see if they can dis4r*-t things. That<s not the left) that<s -arasites that *nder&ine the left4b*t toshow how lo*sy the left is) the elite -ress will say A!h) the S-artacist

eag*e doesn<t ha,e a lot of &e&bersA? yeah) big e1cite&ent. 55 !n the otherhand) the real left they don<t tal( abo*t4li(e they don<t tal( abo*t thetho*sands and tho*sands of -eo-le in,ol,ed in this) that and the other ca*sedoing serio*s wor(.

So if by AleftA yo* &ean -eo-le who are str*ggling for -eace) and *stice) and freedo&) and h*&an rights) and for social change) andeli&ination of a*thority str*ct*res) whether in -ersonal life or in theinstit*tions4if that<s



Chapter Seven >3

what the left is) there are &ore of the& aro*nd than 0 can re&e&ber in &ylifeti&e) at least. + lot &ore.

M*$, 'here really has been a big change in the culture.

es. 0f yo* ta(e al&ost any area yo* can thin( of in life) whether it<srace) or se1) or &ilitary inter,ention) the en,iron&ent4these are all thingsthat didn<t e,en exist in the 3;5%s) -eo-le didn<t e,en thin( they wereiss*es) yo* *st s*b&itted. +nd -eo-le don<t any&ore. 0 &ean) if 0 *st loo(at -ict*res fro& the early Si1ties) 0 can hardly belie,e how disci-linede,erything was) how dee- the a*thority str*ct*res were4e,en *st in

-ersonal relations) and in the way yo* loo(ed and tal(ed when yo* went o*twith yo*r friends. o*nger -eo-le &ay not always realiGe it) b*t life<s a loteasier than it was forty years ago? there<s been a big change) there are a lotof s*ccesses to -oint to.

oo() a lot of this st*ff got started o,er the Dietna& War. Well) in ter&sof official ideology) all of *s who were o--osed to the war *st lost) flat o*t?within the &ainstrea& instit*tions) the only *estion today is) ha,e theDietna&ese done eno*gh to co&-ensate *s for the cri&es that they co&4&itted against *sI That<s the only *estion yo*<re allowed to disc*ss if yo*want to be a -art of the ed*cated c*lt*re in the United States. So >eorge

2*sh can get *- and say) AThe Dietna&ese sho*ld *nderstand that we bearthe& no -er&anent gr*dge) we<re not going to &a(e the& -ay for e,ery4thing they did to *sC if they finally corne clean) yo* (now) de,ote theirentire li,es and e,ery last reso*rce they ha,e to searching for the re&ains ofone of those -eo-le they ,icio*sly blew o*t of the s(y) then &aybe we<llallow the& entry into the ci,iliGed worldA4and there won<t be a singleeditorial writer or col*&nist who either falls on the floor la*ghing) or elsesays) AThis g*y is worse than the NaGis.A 2eca*se that<s the way they allare? the only iss*e is) will we forgi,e the& for the cri&es that theyco&&itted against USI56 0 &ean) a&ong the ed*cated sector of the

-o-*lation in the U.S.) there is o,erwhel&ing o--osition to the war4b*t it<sonly on what are called A-rag&aticA gro*nds? na&ely) we co*ldn<t get awaywith it. So?

AWe tried) we &ade bl*ndering efforts to do good) b*t it was a &ista(e.AWell) at that le,el) we<,e *st lost the entire disc*ssion.!n the other hand) let<s go to the general -o-*lation? to this day) after

twenty4fi,e years of this endless) *nre&itting -ro-aganda to which no re4s-onse is e,er tolerated) 66 -ercent of the +&erican -o-*lation still dis4agrees with the elite c*lt*re4that tells yo* there<s been a ,ictory at anotherle,el. 0 &ean) if two4thirds of the -o-*lation still says in -olls) after all ofthis brainwashing) that the war was Af*nda&entally wrong and i&&oral)Anot Aa &ista(e)A well) so&ething got thro*gh. +nd re&e&ber) e,erybodywho<s choosing that answer is choosing it all by the&sel,es4beca*se that isnot what they hear in the &ainstrea& c*lt*re) certainly not fro& ed*cated

-eo-le. 59




+nd the thing we ha,e to (ee- in &ind is) the -eo-le in -ower (now it?they &ight not want us to (now it) b*t they (now it. 0n fact) it<s e,en clearfro& their own doc*&ents that they (now it. Bor e1a&-le) a ,ery i&-ortantearly 2*sh ad&inistration -lanning doc*&ent on Third World inter,entionwas lea(ed to the -ress and -*blished on the day of the gro*nd attac( in the>*lf War4by Ma*reen owd) incidentally) who<s basically a gossi-col*&nist for the $ew %or& 'imes. 0t was an inter4agency st*dy on thegeneral world sit*ation) -re-ared by the '.0.+. and the Pentagon and others

d*ring an early stage of the 2*sh ad&inistration) well before the >*lf War.+nd it had a section on U.S. &ilitary inter,ention) and what they said was?in the case of confrontations with A&*ch wea(er ene&iesA&eaning anybodywe<re willing to fight4we &*st not only defeat the&) b*t we &*st defeatthe& Adecisi,ely and ra-idly)A beca*se anything else will A*nderc*t

-olitical s*--ort)A which is *nderstood to be e1tre&ely thin. 57 See) their belief is) &aybe we can frighten the do&estic -o-*lation and

get the& to h*ddle *nder the flag for a co*-le days) b*t *nless we get theinter,ention o,er with *ic(ly) it<s ho-eless4-eo-le are going to start to rise*- and -ress*re *s to sto- it. These -eo-le recogniGe that there can<t beclassical inter,entions any&ore4yo* (now) *.S. soldiers slogging it o*t inDietna& for years and years4it has to be either clandestine warfare) as inPer* now) where not one +&erican in ten tho*sand (nows there are U.S.troo-s) or the Pana&a 0ra ga&e) with enor&o*s -ro-aganda abo*t theene&y ready to destroy *s) and then a *ic( ,ictory witho*t any fighting.5;

Well) that<s *st a radical difference fro& the "ennedy -eriod4and thatdifference reflects &a or changes in the c*lt*re. Powerf*l -eo-le here *n4derstand that they do not ha,e the o-tion of carrying o*t foreign inter,en4tions any&ore) *nless they carry o*t decisi,e) ra-id ,ictories o,er totallydefenseless ene&ies) after ha,ing first gone to great lengths to de&oniGethe&. They certainly recogniGe that4and that<s a tre&endo*s ,ictory for theleft.

+nd anybody who<s &y age or e,en a little bit yo*nger &*st also realiGethat it<s a ,ery different co*ntry today4and a &*ch &ore ci,iliGed one. J*stloo( at the iss*e of the rights of indigeno*s -eo-les. When 0 was a (id) 0considered &yself a radical4anarchist4this that and the other thing4b*t 0 was

-laying A'owboys and 0ndiansA with &y friends? yo* (now) shoot the0ndians. That<s li(e -laying A+ryans and JewsA in >er&any4yo* go o*t andtry to (ill the Jews. Well) that lasted for a ,ery long ti&e in the UnitedStates) and nobody e,en noticed anything c*rio*s abo*t it.

0 &ean) *st to tell yo* another story? 0 li,e in e1ington) a &ainly *--er4&iddle4class -rofessional town near 2oston) which is ,ery liberal) e,ery4

body ,otes for the e&ocrats) they all gi,e to the right ca*ses) and so on.Well) in 3;6;4the year<s interesting4one of &y (ids was in fo*rth grade) andshe had a Social St*dies te1tboo( abo*t the early history of New England)called Exploring $ew EnglandG the boo( was centered on a boy na&edRobert) who was being shown the glories of colonial New England



Chapter Seven >=

by so&e older &an or so&ething. Well) one day 0 decided to -o(e thro*ghit) beca*se 0 was c*rio*s abo*t how the a*thors were going to deal with thecolonists< e1ter&ination of the nati,e -eo-les here. So 0 t*rned to the -ointin the boo( where they got to the first really &a or act of genocide in NewEngland) the Pe *ot Massacre of 36:94when the colonists &*rdered thePe *ot tribe. +nd to &y s*r-rise) it was described *ite acc*rately? thecolonists went into the ,illage and sla*ghtered all the &en) wo&en and chil4dren) b*rned e,erything down) b*rned o*t all the Pe *ots< cro-s. Then 0 gotto the botto& line. The botto& line had this boy) Robert) who<s being toldall of these things) say? A0 wish 0 were a &an and had been there.A 0n otherwords) it was a positive -resentation. That was in 3;6;) right after the My

ai &assacre was e1-osed. 6o That wo*ld be inconceivable today4beca*se there ha,e been ,ery i&4

-ortant changes in the c*lt*re) and a real increase in ci,iliGation. +nd thosechanges are largely the res*lt of a lot of ,ery significant acti,is& andorganiGing o,er the last co*-le decades) by -eo-le that 0 wo*ld refer to asAhonest intellect*als.A

0n fact) 0 thin( all of this screa&ing abo*t APolitical 'orrectnessA that wehear these days in the elite c*lt*re is basically *st a tantr*& o,er the factthat it has been i&-ossible to cr*sh all of the dissidence and the acti,is&and the concern that<s de,elo-ed in the general -o-*lation in the last thirtyyears. 0 &ean) it<s not that so&e of these AP.c.A things they -oint o*t aren<ttr*e4yeah) s*re) so&e of the& are tr*e. 2*t the real -roble& is that the h*geright4wing effort to reta(e control of the ideological syste& didn<t wor(4andsince their &entality is basically totalitarian) any brea( in their control isconsidered a h*ge tragedy? ;7 -ercent control isn<t eno*gh) yo* ha,e toha,e 3%% -ercent controlC these are totalitarian strains. 2*t they co*ldn<t getit) es-ecially a&ong the general -o-*lation. They ha,e not been able to beat

bac( all of the gains of the -o-*lar &o,e&ents since the 3;6%s) whichsi&-ly led to a lot of concern abo*t se1is&) and racis&) and en,iron&entaliss*es) res-ect for other c*lt*res) and all this other bad st*ff. +nd it<s led toreal hysteria a&ong elites) so yo* get this whole P.c. co&edy.

0 &ean) right now the *ni,ersities are all flooded with !lin Professor4shi-s of Bree Enter-rise endowed by the conser,ati,e !lin Bo*ndationO)there are glossy right4wing &agaGines handed o*t free to e,ery st*dentandthese are not *st right4wing) b*t cra y right4wing. Meanwhile) e,erybody<sscrea&ing abo*t how the left has ta(en o,er. +nd that<s all *st o*t ofhysteria that they ha,en<t gotten bac( total control4in fact) they<,e -robablylost &ost of the -o-*lation by now. +nd there<s no reason to thin( thatthose changes ha,e ended40 thin( there<s e,ery reason to thin( that theyco*ld go a lot f*rther) and *lti&ately lead to changes in the instit*tions.

+gain) -eo-le *st ha,e to re&e&ber? there is nothing in the &ainstrea&c*lt*re that is e,er going to tell yo* yo*<,e s*cceeded4they<re always goingto tell yo* yo*<,e failed. 0 &ean) the official ,iew of the Si1ties is that



>> 2nderstanding #ower

it was a b*nch of craGies r*nning aro*nd b*rning down the *ni,ersities and&a(ing noise) beca*se they were hysterics) or beca*se they were afraid togo to Dietna& or so&ething4that<s the official story) and that<s what -eo-lealways hear fro& the intellect*al c*lt*re. They &ay (now fro& their ownli,es and e1-erience that that<s not what really ha--ened) b*t they ne,erhear anybody saying it? that<s not the &essage the syste& is always -o*ringinto yo* thro*gh tele,ision) and radio) and news-a-ers) and boo(s) andhistories) and so on and so forth. 0t<s beating into yo*r head another story4that yo* failed) and that yo* should ha,e failed) beca*se yo* were *st a

b*nch of craGies.+nd of co*rse) it<s nat*ral that the official c*lt*re would ta(e that ,iew? it

does not want -eo-le to *nderstand that yo* can &a(e changes) that<s thelast thing it wants -eo-le to *nderstand. So if there ha,e been changes) it<s

beca*se AWe the elites are so great that we carried thro*gh the changes.AWhen they bow to -ress*res) they<re going to -resent that as their bene,o4lence. i(e) AWe ended sla,ery beca*se we were s*ch great &oral fig*resthat we decided we didn<t li(e sla,eryA 4b*t the ca*se is gone) the sla,e re4,olts and the +bolitionist &o,e&ent are gone.

+nd we<,e seen that on a not4so4tri,ial scale in the last thirty years withregard to the Si1ties &o,e&ents. There<s been so&ething close to a re,ol*4tionary change in &oral ,al*es and c*lt*ral le,el in the general -o-*lation)

b*t since that change has ta(en -lace witho*t any lasting instit*tional ef4fects) the intellect*al c*lt*re can *st (ee- -o*nding ho&e its &oral? A o*g*ys are worthless) yo* can<t do anything4why don<t yo* *st sh*t *- and goho&e.A That<s what they<re always going to tell *s) and we sho*ld try tore&e&ber that.



7

Pop"lar Str"ggle

(ased on discussions in Massachusetts) Maryland) +ntario)

California) and Wyoming in 3;7; and between 3;;: and >.

is-overing .ew !orms of Oppression

M*$, -r. Choms&y) some of your examples Aust reemphasi e for me how power is not with popular opinion. 6"m wondering) what do you thin& shouldhappen if power ever gets bac& into popular hands0

Well) it wo*ldn<t be Abac()A beca*se it ne,er was there. 2*t 0 thin( whatwe want to do is to e1tend the do&ains of -o-*lar -ower in as &any areas as

-ossible. 0n fact) a large -art of h*&an history is *st that? a str*ggle toe1tend the do&ains of -o-*lar -ower and to brea( down centers of con4centrated -ower.

Ta(e the +&erican Re,ol*tion) for e1a&-le. There was (ind of an ideo4logical str*ct*re behind it) and that ideological str*ct*re was in -art liber4tarian. So if yo* really too( the rhetoric serio*sly4and to so&e e1tent theeighteenth4cent*ry effersonians did) it wasn<t nothing4what yo* wanted todo was to brea( down concentrations of -ower and to create a society ofessentially e *al -artici-ants. Now of co*rse) their sense of Ae *al -artici4

-antsA incl*ded only a ,ery s&all -art of the -o-*lation? white &ale -ro-4

erty4owners. Today we wo*ld call that a re,ersion to NaGis&) and rightly so.0 &ean) s*--ose so&e Third World co*ntry ca&e o*t saying that a -art ofthe -o-*lation is only three4fifths h*&an4that<s in the U.S. 'onstit*tion) infact. 3 That wo*ld be *nacce-table.

So the +&erican 'onstit*tion was basically for white &ale -ro-erty4owners) beca*se they<re the only ones who are real -eo-le4b*t the idea wass*--osed to be that they"re &ore or less e *al) and therefore yo* want to

brea( down the concentrations of -ower that are o--ressing the&. Well) inthose days that &eant 'h*rch -ower) state -ower) the fe*dal syste&) and soon4and what yo* were s*--osed to get was this egalitarian society for AthePeo-le)A e *als white &ale -ro-erty4owners.

$69



>! 2nderstanding #ower

Well) it didn<t wor( o*t that way) e,en for the white &ale -ro-ertyowners) b*t that was the -ict*re behind it. +nd to so&e e1tent it wasachie,ed4so&e for&s of centraliGed -ower were in fact dissol,ed. +nd theco*rse of +&erican history since then has *st gone on fro& there. 0n thenineteenth cent*ry) concentrated -ower began to be located in cor-orations4that<s another center of -ower that now has to be dissol,ed) and if yo*<re aneighteenth4cent*ry4style libertarian) that<s what yo*r &ain criti *e will beof today.

2*t it see&s to &e that this is a -rocess which goes on fore,er4it<s notso&ething that yo* e,er finish with. 0 &ean) &y own s*s-icion is that withany ,ictory that<s won) we will then disco,er that there<s so&e other for& ofa*thority and re-ression we didn<t e,en notice before) and we<ll try to goafter that one.

+nd certainly there is real -rogress yo* can -oint to. So while fro& the -oint of ,iew of Jeffersonian libertarians in the eighteenth cent*ry) therewas no de,iation fro& de&ocracy and freedo& if rights were li&ited towhite &ale -ro-erty4owners) nobody e1ce-t so&e Neanderthal wo*ld ac4ce-t that ,iew today. Well) that<s -rogress) that<s c*lt*ral and social

-rogress. +nd that -rogress was achie,ed thro*gh str*ggle? it didn<t ha--en beca*se so&ebody sat aro*nd and tal(ed abo*t it) it ha--ened thro*gh thestr*ggles of the +bolitionists) and the wo&en<s &o,e&ent) and the labor

&o,e&ent) and others.

!reedom of Speech

M*$, (ut don"t we need to do something to reverse the trend of revolutions falling short throughout history8don"t we have to change the psychology ofhuman beings before a really libertarian revolution would succeed0

Well) we<re not going to change -eo-le<s -sychology4that<s a &atter forre,ol*tion) that<s not *st going to ha--en. 2*t 0 don<t thin( the fail*re ofre,ol*tions reflects so &*ch the -sychology of h*&an beings as it reflectsthe realities of -ower. Now) in general 0 thin( it<s tr*e that -o-*lar re,ol*4

tions fail) and one or another elite gro*-ing ta(es o,er afterwards. 2*t -o-4*lar re,ol*tions also s*cceed4we<re no longer li,ing in the Middle +ges)after all.

Ta(e so&ething li(e freedo& of s-eech. That<s a ,ery i&-ortant right) b*t it has only ,ery recently been achie,ed. Breedo& of s-eech is an inter4esting case) act*ally) where -o-*lar str*ggles o,er h*ndreds of years ha,efinally &anaged to e1-and a do&ain of freedo& to the -oint where it<s

-retty good) in fact4in the United States) the best in the world. 2*t it didn<t *st ha--en? it ha--ened thro*gh the str*ggles of the labor &o,e&ent) andthe 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent) and the wo&en<s &o,e&ent) and e,erything



Chapter Eight >

else. 0t<s the -o-*lar &o,e&ents which e1-anded the do&ain of freedo& ofs-eech *ntil it began to be &eaningf*l4if those -o-*lar &o,e&ents hadn<tta(en -lace) we<d still be where we were) say) in 3;$%) when there wasn<te,en a theoretical right of freedo& of s-eech. The history of this is re&ar(4ableC it<s not ,ery well (nown.

Ta(e the S*-re&e 'o*rt? as &any free s-eech cases ca&e to the UnitedStates S*-re&e 'o*rt fro& 3;5; to 3;98 as in the entire -receding historyof the 'o*rt4it was only then that freedo& of s-eech was being won. $ 0&ean) there had been i&-ortant ad,ances towards it thro*gh the str*gglesof the labor &o,e&ent) which had e1-anded it to incl*de the rights of -ic(4eting and labor organiGing) b*t it wasn<t *ntil aro*nd the late 3;5%s that theright of freedo& of s-eech really began to be clai&ed by -o-*lar &o,e4&ents4and beca*se of that it fo*nd its way into the co*rts) and the co*rts

began -assing decisions. 0t wasn<t *ntil 3;68 that the S*-re&e 'o*rt str*c(down the 39;7 Sedition +ct which forbade s-o(en or written criticis& ofthe go,ern&ent) 'ongress) or the PresidentO4that<s ,ery recent history.

M*$, (ut were there ever any prosecutions under the sedition laws0

!h s*re) -lenty of -rosec*tions. : +fter the Birst World War) fore1a&-le) E*gene ebs Socialist Party and labor leaderO was -*t in ail forten years for &a(ing a -acifist s-eechC he was -rosec*ted *nder the 3;39Es-ionage +ct) which was another sedition law. That was a Presidentialcandidate44went to ail for ten years for &a(ing a s-eech. 8 !r ta(e the S&ith+ct of 3;8%) for e1a&-le? -eo-le went to ail *nder the S&ith +ct. That&ade it illegal to oin a gro*- which ad,ocated44and didn<t do anythingabo*t44changing the social order. 5 +nd all of these -rosec*tions wereupheld by the S*-re&e 'o*rt) re&e&ber? they were held to be consistentwith the 'onstit*tion. 6

0n fact) if yo* loo( at so&e of the things that are called victories for free4do& of s-eech) yo* find that they weren<t that at all. Ta(e the fa&o*s Aclearand -resent dangerA criterion to *stify re-ressing s-eech. That was fro& adecision by Hol&es S*-re&e 'o*rt J*sticeO in 3;3;) one of Hol&es<s first

big s-eech decisions4it was Schenc& vs. 2nited States) for a long ti&e con4sidered one of the big ,ictories for ci,il liberties. Here<s the case.

Schenc( was a Jewish socialist acti,ist who -*t o*t a -a&-hlet in whichhe criticiGed the draft as illegal. He ga,e constit*tional arg*&ents) and he*rged -eo-le to o--ose the draft by legal &eans? try to o--ose the draft inthe co*rts) that<s what his -a&-hlet said4it -robably went o*t to twenty

-eo-le or so&ething. He was bro*ght to co*rt and conde&ned for sedition?assa*lting the state with words. 0t went *- to the S*-re&e 'o*rt) and thiswas *st at the -oint when Hol&es and 2randeis were beginning to &a(e acrac( in the a*thoritarian tradition. Hol&es wrote the decision for a *nan4i&o*s co*rt) in which he upheld the con,iction4that<s so&ething that -eo-leforget) he *-held Schenc(<s con,iction4and he -*t forth this Aclear and




-resent dangerA criterion? yo* can be -*nished if yo* falsely cry ABireXA in acrowded theater. Hol&es said? yo* can control freedo& of s-eech whenthere is a clear and -resent danger) and when Schenc( -*t o*t his doc*&entsaying -eo-le sho*ld o--ose the draft by legal &eans) that was a clear and

-resent danger. 'hat"s the great ,ictory for ci,il liberties. 9 +nd so it goes. 0t wasn<t *ntil 3;68 that laws -*nishing seditio*s libel

were str*c( down. The case is interesting and instr*cti,e4it was a 'i,ilRights Mo,e&ent case) that<s what did itC it was $ew %or& 'imes vs. Sulli8van. What ha--ened was) the $ew %or& 'imes was s*ed by the State of +l4aba&a for r*nning an ad in s*--ort of Martin *ther "ing and the 'i,ilRights Mo,e&ent) which acc*sed the sheriff of Montgo&ery of doing a

b*nch of rotten things to ci,il rights acti,ists.

M*$, 'his is the big libel law case0

es) b*t it was seditious libel4beca*se it was criticis& of a go,ern&entofficial that was being -*nished. See) whether yo* ha,e seditio*s libel issort of at the core of whether it<s a free society or not? if yo*<re not allowedto criticiGe the go,ern&ent) if yo* can be -*nished for assa*lting the go,4ern&ent with words) e,en if that<s in the bac(gro*nd so&ewhere) the soci4ety is not really free. +nd truth is no defense to this (ind of libel charge)(ee- in &ind4in fact) traditionally tr*th &a(es the cri&e worse) beca*se ifwhat yo*<re saying is tr*e) then the *nder&ining of state a*thority is e,enworse.

So this elected sheriff in +laba&a s*ed the $ew %or& 'imes saying theyhad defa&ed hi&? the idea was that by -*blishing this ad) the 'imes had*nder&ined his a*thority as an agent of the state. Well) it went *- to theS*-re&e 'o*rt) and the S*-re&e 'o*rt40 thin( it was 2rennan who wrotethe o-inion4for the first ti&e said that seditio*s libel is *nacce-table. 0nfact) they referred to the 39;7 Sedition +ct) which had ne,er been str*c(down by the 'o*rt) and said this is inconsistent with the Birst +&end&ent. 7

That<s the first case in which the co*rts str*c( down seditio*s libel.0f yo* want a history of this) the &a or Establish&ent legal history of

freedo& of s-eech is a boo( by a legal scholar na&ed Harry "al,en) called

* Worthy 'radition. The boo(<s ,ery good) e1ce-t for the title4it<s act*allyan unworthy tradition that he<s describing. +nd he -oints o*t) 0<& basically*oting hi&) that 3;68 was the first ti&e the United States &et the &ini&al

condition for a de&ocratic society? yo* can<t assa*lt the state with words. ; 0t wasn<t *ntil 3;6; that the S*-re&e 'o*rt then re ected the Aclear and

-resent dangerA test4which also is awf*l. A'lear and -resent dangerAsho*ldn<t be a criterion for -*nishing s-eech. The -ro-er criterion) if there<sany) sho*ld be contrib*tion to a cri&e44co&&ission of) or &aybe e,enincite&ent to) an act*al cri&inal act. That<s a -la*sible criterion. +nd theS*-re&e 'o*rt only reached that criterion in 3;6; in the case

(randenburg



Chapter Eight ?

vs. +hio<. 5 So yo* (now) freedo& of s-eech is a ,ery recent inno,ation inthe United States4and the United States is *ni *e? it doesn<t e1ist anywhereelse in the world.

Bor e1a&-le) yo* &ight ha,e read that in 'anada they (e-t Sal&anR*shdie<s boo( ;'he Satanic Ferses< o*t of the co*ntry for a co*-le wee(swhile they were trying to fig*re o*t if it conflicted with a 'anadian law44it<sreferred to as an Aanti4hateA law or so&ething. That law &a(es two things acri&e. Birst) it &a(es it a cri&e to distrib*te Afalse news.A That<s so&ethingthat goes bac( to 3$95) 0 loo(ed it *-4in 3$95 the first Afalse newsA law wasestablished in England) &a(ing it a cri&e to -rod*ce Afalse news.A Whatthat &eans is) the state deter&ines what<s tr*e) and if yo* say anything that<snot what the state says is tr*e) that<s Afalse newsA and yo* go to ail. That<sin 'anada. The second thing the law -rohibits is state&ents which areAhar&f*l to the -*blic interest.A That -ro,ision was intended to sto- -eo-leli(e Holoca*st deniers) g*ys who say there were no gas cha&bers and soon) beca*se they<re har&f*l to the -*blic interest4so therefore the state canre-ress the&. +nd when 'anadian officials sto--ed the R*shdie boo() itwas *nder that -ro,ision? they had to chec( it o*t to see if it was infla&inghatred of M*sli&s or so&ething li(e that.

Well) e,erybody here screa&ed abo*t it at the ti&e of the R*shdie case4 b*t nobody here raised a -ee- when that law was act*ally applied a fewyears ago to -*t a g*y in ail for fifteen &onths.

M*$, 6n Canada0

0n Toronto. This is in fact the g*y who the law was ai&ed at? he<s so&e(ind of neo4NaGi who wrote a -a&-hlet) which he -ri,ately distrib*ted) inwhich he said that there were no gas cha&bers) or there was no Holoca*st)or one thing or another4and he was bro*ght to co*rt *nder this ,ery sa&elaw that (e-t the R*shdie boo( o*t. Ernst *ndel his na&e is. He was con4,icted and sentenced by the co*rts to fifteen &onths in -rison -l*s a three4year -eriod in which he is not -er&itted to tal() -*blicly or -ri,ately) abo*tanything directly or indirectly related to the Holoca*st4&eaning he can<ttal( with his friends abo*t the Second World War. +nd there was a &o,e tode-ort hi&) which the iberal Party in 'anada s*--orted. 33

+lright) this was re-orted in the +&erican -ress. The (oston Dlobe hadan editorial in which they -raised the *ry for ha,ing the co*rage) finally) tosh*t these g*ys *-4by enforcing a law that gi,es the state the -ower to de4ter&ine tr*th) and to -*nish de,iation fro& it. 3$ When the Dlobe startedscrea&ing abo*t the R*shdie affair) 0 sent the editors a co-y of that editorialand as(ed the& if they wo*ld li(e to rethin( itC well) 0 ha,en<t heard any4thing yet .... +nd yo* (now) yo* didn<t ha,e S*san Sontag +&ericanwriterO getting *- in -*blic and saying) A0 a& Ernst *ndel)A all this (ind ofthing. The -oint is) yo* defend freedo& of s-eech when it<s s-eech yo* li(e)and when yo*<re s*re there<s a half4billion Western E*ro-eans o*t there be4



? 2nderstanding #ower

tween yo* and the +yatollah "ho&eini so yo* can be co*rageo*s the 0ran4ian leader -*t a [6 &illion -rice on R*shdie<s head in 3;7;O. 2*t when yo*get to a case where nobody li(es what<s being said) then so&ehow defenseof freedo& of s-eech disa--ears.

Well) yo* co*ldn<t ha,e a law li(e that in the United States any&ore) b*tyo* can ha,e it in 'anada4and +&erican intellect*als basically s*--ort it)li(e the liberal (oston Dlobe) the $ew %or& 'imes) the P.E.N. writers anorganiGation that -ro&otes free e1-ression for writersO who don<t get e14cited. 0t<s only when it<s a case where we li(e the ,iews being attac(ed thatyo* get a big o*tcry abo*t freedo& of s-eech here.

+nd other co*ntries are the sa&e as 'anada4li(e in England) there is nofreedo& of s-eech) by law. The -olice there can go into the 2.2.'. 2ritish2roadcasting 'or-orationO offices) as they did recently) and rifle thro*ghthe files and ta(e o*t anything they want) and the go,ern&ent can -re,ent

-eo-le fro& -*blishing things. 3: 0n fact) as +le1 'oc(b*rn 2ritishX+&erican o*rnalistO *st noted) there<s a new law in England called anAanti4terroris&A law) which &a(es it illegal to re-ort state&ents by -eo-lethe state regards as terrorists. Well) that incl*des Sinn Bein re-resentati,es

Northern 0rish -olitical -artyO) -eo-le who are elected to Parlia&ent in2ritain4yo*<re not allowed to re-ort what they say. 'oc(b*rn -ointed o*tthat this law was recently *sed to bloc( a doc*&entary in which a co*-le of

eighty4year4old 0rish wo&en were being inter,iewed abo*t things that ha-4 -ened in the 3;:%s? the tele,ision channels were afraid to r*n it beca*se ofthe ris( of being -rosec*ted. So in England) yo* can<t ha,e a co*-le of 0rishwo&en tal(ing abo*t things that went on in the 3;:%s) beca*se the state&ight not -er&it it.

0n Brance) where there isn<t e,en a ,ag*e tradition of freedo& of s-eech)the go,ern&ent last year canceled a news-a-er of +lgerian dissidents inBrance on the sole gro*nd that its -*blication was har&f*l to Brench di-lo4&atic relations with +lgeria4none of the Brench intellect*als e,en raised a

-ee-C they were all screa&ing abo*t Sal&an R*shdie) b*t not abo*t this. 380n fact) the sa&e is tr*e where,er yo* go? the United States is *n*s*al44

-ossibly e,en *ni *e in the world4in that we act*ally -rotect freedo& ofs-eech. 2*t that was only won after long) bitter str*ggle4it ha--ened be4ca*se -eo-le were fighting abo*t it for cent*ries. +nd the sa&e is tr*e ofe,ery other right yo* can thin( of.

Negati,e and Positi,e Breedo&s

W+M*$, 6 have to say that 6"m a litt le uncomfortable with your &ind ofextreme freedom of speech advocacy) though. 6t Aust seems to me that untilthere"s a more e:uitable distribution of access to free speech) it"s going tobe used destructively more often than it"s used positively. 6t ma&es meuncomfortable) so 6 Aust don"t want to Aump on your bandwagon.




-endent str*ct*re that can do that) that<s the state) that<s state -ower) go,4ern&ent -ower) the -olice) yo* (now) the co-s) B.2.0. 'hey can &a(e thatdecision) nobody else can. So the *estion is) do yo* want the& to be in a

-osition to decide what s-eech is acce-tableI That<s essentially what itco&es down to. +nd 0 wo*ld say) no) we don<t want the& to ha,e any rightto &a(e any decision abo*t what anybody says. +nd of co*rse) that<s goingto &ean that a lot of -eo-le are going to say things that yo* thin( arerotten) and yo*<re going to say things that a lot of other -eo-le thin( arerotten.

+s to the obligation to the ,icti&s) s*re4b*t that<s a &atter of b*ilding *-and e1tending the -ositi,e freedo&s. 0n fact) here<s a case where 0 thin( theleft is off on really &arginal iss*es. Ta(e the *estion of -ornogra-hy? 0&ean) *ndo*btedly wo&en s*ffer fro& -ornogra-hy) b*t in ter&s of -eo-les*ffering fro& s-eech in the world) that<s hardly e,en a s-ec(. Peo-les*ffer a lot &ore fro& the teaching of free4trade econo&ics in colleges44h*ge n*&bers of -eo-le in the Third World are dying beca*se of the st*ffthat<s ta*ght in +&erican econo&ics de-art&ents) 0<& tal(ing abo*t tens of&illions. That<s har&. Sho*ld we therefore -ass a law that says that thego,ern&ent o*ght to decide what yo* teach in econo&ics de-art&entsI+bsol*tely not) then it wo*ld *st get worse. They<d force e,erybody toteach this st*ff.

M*$, What about things li&e shouting 1@ireB1 in a movie theater) or com8manding people to assault somebody0 -on"t you thin& there should be alimit there0

Well) the -eo-le who attac( free s-eech rights ty-ically say) A oo()s-eech is an actA4which is tr*e) s-eech is an act. 2*t therefore it o*ght to betreated li(e other acts. 0 &ean) let<s agree) s-eech is an act) it certainly is.2*t then let<s treat it li(e any other act. Bor e1a&-le) if yo* throw a bo&binto a crowded theater) yeah) that<s a cri&e) so&ebody o*ght to sto- yo*.+nd if yo* -artici-ate in the act of so&ebody else throwing one) e,en ifyo*r -artici-ation is with words) so&ebody also o*ght to sto- yo*. i(e) ifyo* and 0 go into a grocery store with the intent to rob it) and yo* ha,e ag*n) and 0<& yo*r boss) and 0 say ABireXA and yo* (ill the owner) that<ss-eech. 2*t it sho*ldn<t be protected s-eech) in &y o-inion4beca*se thatstate&ent is -artici-ation in a cri&inal act.

M*$, What about things li&e sexual harassment0

That<s a different story. See) there are conflicting rights. Rights aren<t ana1io& syste& i.e. where there are no contradictionsO) and if yo* loo(closely at the&) they often conflict4so yo* *st ha,e to &a(e *dg&ents

between the& in those cases. +nd li(e freedo& of s-eech) another right that -eo-le ha,e is to wor( witho*t getting harassed. So 0 thin( laws against



?> 2nderstanding #ower

throw hi& o*t.A !n the other hand) if the teacher *st says things yo* don<tli(e) that<s different.

+gain) rights aren<t an a1io& syste&) so there are conflicts betweenthe&) and -eo-le *st ha,e to &a(e their own *dg&ents. 2*t &y own *dg4&ent) at least) tends to be that a lot of leeway o*ght to be allowed. !ftenthe cases are *ite hard) tho*gh4beca*se o*r &oral codes si&-ly aren<t cleareno*gh to gi,e answers in a lot of sit*ations) and -eo-le co&e *- withdifferent ones.

M*$, %ou thin& there"s some ambiguity with sexual harassment) then0

!h yeah) a fair a&o*nt of a&big*ity. Bor e1a&-le) se1*al harass&ent bywords in the streets4li(e if so&ebody &a(es a nasty crac( abo*t so&ewo&an<s dress or so&ething40 don<t thin( they sho*ld be -*t in ail.

W+M*$, What about violence on television0 -oes that also conflict withother rights0

Diolence on tele,ision raises *ite hard *estions) 0 thin(. 2*t 0 don<t(now? if yo* loo( at the literat*re on whether T.D. ,iolence or -ornogra-hyca*se a de&onstrable har&4yo* (now) res*lt in ,iolence in the real world4it

doesn<t show anything con,incing. So &aybe it<s too hard to st*dy orso&ething li(e that) b*t there are al&ost no -robati,e res*lts that 0 (now ofone way or the other? the facts *st aren<t there. There<s psychic har&) that<s*ndo*btedly tr*e) b*t that yo* can<t &eas*re. +s for the (inds of things yo*can &eas*re) li(e increase in acts of ,iolence40 &ean) yo* -robably get&ore acts of ,iolence co&ing after things li(e s-orts e,entsC not h*gea&o*nts &ore) b*t there<s a notable increase in do&estic ,iolence) say) afterthings li(e the S*-erbowl. 35

Cyberspa-e and 6-tivism

W+M*$, Mr. Choms&y) on a very different note) 6"d li&e to tal& a bit about

some of the recent computer technologies li&e the 6nternet) and e8mail) andthe World Wide Web and so on) and how significant an impact you thin&they are going to have on political activism and organi ing in the future.

o you see the 6nternet as more of a force for democracy) or a force fordiverting the population from engaging themselves politically in the world0

Well) &y feeling is that the 0nternet is -retty &*ch the sa&e sort of -he4no&enon as radio and tele,ision were4or for that &atter) as a*to&ation.

oo() in &ost cases technology isn<t -redis-osed to hel- -eo-le or har&



Chapter Eight ??

-eo-le4there<s ,ery rarely anything inherent in it which re *ires that eitherof those things be the case) it *st de-ends on who gets control of it.

So ta(e radio) for e1a&-le. o* &ight as( why -o-*lar &o,e&ents inthe United States ha,e to loo( to s&all co&&*nity4controlled radio stationsto get -rogra&&ing which addresses their interests and needs and goals)why doesn<t any &ainstrea& radio do thatI Well) the reason is) the UnitedStates *st di,erged fro& the rest of the world on this bac( aro*nd the late3;$%s and early Thirties) when radio was first co&ing into e1istence.

See) radio has a li&ited fre *ency band) which necessarily has to be ra4tioned4so the *estion is) how is that rationing going to be doneI Well) ine,ery &a or co*ntry in the world4and &aybe in every co*ntry e1ce-t theUnited States4radio was t*rned into a -*blic for*& to so&e degree) &ean4ing it<s as de&ocratic as the co*ntry is. i(e) in R*ssia) it<s not de&ocratic)in >reat 2ritain) it<s as de&ocratic as England is4b*t so&ehow it<s still inthe -*blic do&ain. The United States went the other way? here radio was

-ri,atiGed) it was -*t into -ri,ate hands4and f*rther&ore) that was called avictory for de&ocracy here. 36 So now if yo* want radio that<s not *ndercor-orate control in the United States) yo* ha,e to go to s&all local co&4&*nity radio stations4which are ,ery i&-ortant) b*t of co*rse are on the&argins) and ha,e only e1tre&ely li&ited reso*rces.

!r ta(e tele,ision? when tele,ision ca&e along in the 3;8%s) the sa&e

thing ha--ened in the United States. 0n fact) in the case of tele,ision) therewasn<t e,en a battle abo*t it4it was *st co&-letely handed o,er to -ri,ate -ower at once. 39

Well) 0 thin( the 0nternet is going to be the sa&e basic story? if it<s -*t inthe hands of -ri,ate -ower) li(e T.D. and radio were) then we (now e1actlyhow it<s going to t*rn o*t. 0n fact) they<,e been telling *s abo*t it con4stantly. So 0 re&e&ber an article in the Wall Street ournal abo*t the won4ders of all the new technology) and they described the great things that can

be done beca*se it<s Ainteracti,eA4yo* (now) yo* don<t *st ha,e to be -assi,e any&ore) now yo* can really do things when yo*<re sitting there infront of the t*be. Well) they described how it wo*ld wor() and they ga,etwo e1a&-les) one for wo&en and the other for &en.

Bor wo&en) it<s going to be an incredible ho&e4sho--ing thing? li(e)

yo*<re sitting there watching so&e &odel) and she shows yo* so&e ridic*4lo*s ob ect) and yo* fig*re) AWell) 0<d better ha,e that or &y (id won<t grow*- -ro-erlyA4and now it<s interactive) yo* (now) so yo* can *st -*sh a

b*tton and they<ll send it right o,er to yo*r ho*se. That<s the interaction forwo&en. Bor &en) the e1a&-le they ga,e was of watching the S*-erbowl)which e,ery red4blooded &ale is s*--osed to do. Well) today it<s -assi,e?yo* *st sit there and watch the gladiators fighting. 2*t with the newtechnology) it<s going to be interactive. So what they s*ggest is) while thetea&<s in its h*ddle getting instr*ctions fro& the coach abo*t the ne1t -lay)e,eryone in the a*dience4yo* (now) the entire &ale -o-*lation




that<s ali,e4is going to be as(ed to &a(e their own decision abo*t it? li(e)sho*ld it be a -ass) or a r*n) or a (ic( or so&ething. +nd then after the -layis r*n Kwhich is going on co&-letely inde-endently of this) of co*rseLthey<ll flash on the screen what -eo-le tho*ght the coach sho*ld ha,e done4that<s going to be the interaction for &en.

+nd that<s -robably the way it<s going to go in general? it<ll be *sed asanother techni *e for control and &ani-*lation) and for (ee-ing -eo-le intheir roles as &indless cons*&ers of things they don<t really want. S*re44why sho*ld the -eo-le who own the society do things any differentlyI

2*t of co*rse) none of these technologies have to be *sed li(e that44again) it *st de-ends who ends *- controlling the&. 0 &ean) if the general

-*blic e,er ended *- controlling the&) they co*ld be *sed *ite differently.Bor e1a&-le) these infor&ation4-rocessing syste&s co*ld be *sed as &eth4ods by which wor(ing -eo-le co*ld co&e to control their own wor(-laceswitho*t the need for &anagers and bosses4so e,ery -erson in the wor(-laceco*ld ha,e all the infor&ation they need in order to &a(e all the decisionsthe&sel,es) in real ti&e) when it co*nts. Well) in that (ind of circ*&stance)the sa&e technology wo*ld be a highly de&ocratiGing de,ice44in fact) itwo*ld hel- eli&inate the core of the whole syste& of a*thority anddo&ination. 2*t ob,io*sly it<s not *st going to de,elo- li(e that on itsown4-eo-le will ha,e to organiGe and fight to &a(e that sort of thing e,erha--en) in fact fight ,ery stren*o*sly for it.

+s to the effects of all of this on acti,is&) 0 thin( it<s a co&-licatedstory.

0 thin( we can be certain that there<s a lot of thin(ing going on abo*twhether to e,en allow things li(e the 0nternet to e1ist4beca*se fro& the

-oint of ,iew of -ower) it<s *st too de&ocratic? it<s ,ery hard to controlwhat<s in it) and who can gain access to it. Bor e1a&-le) 0 ha,e a da*ghterli,ing in Nicarag*a) and d*ring the *.s. contra war in the 3;7%s it was i&4

-ossible to tele-hone or send letters there. The only way 0 co*ld stay incontact with her was thro*gh the +RP+net) which is basically a Pentagonco&-*ter syste& 0 was able to get access to thro*gh M.0.T.4so we werecorres-onding than(s to the Pentagon. Well) that<s the (ind of thing thatha--ens on the 0nternet) and a lot of -owerf*l -eo-le ob,io*sly don<t li(e

that as-ect of it.+nd they don<t li(e the fact that yo* can get the te1t of the >.+.T.T.>eneral +gree&ent on Tariffs and TradeO treaty) and the latest news that

doesn<t a--ear in the U.S. news-a-ers) and so on4in fact) if yo* loo( aro*nd onthe 0nternet) yo* can find ,irt*ally e,erything 0 tal( abo*t so&e4

where in there. +nd on so&e iss*es) li(e say) East Ti&or) it<s also been anin,al*able -olitical organiGing tool4beca*se &ost of the infor&ation abo*twhat ha--ened there was si&-ly silenced by the U.S. -ress for years andyears. Well) those are all bad things fro& the -ers-ecti,e of -ri,ate -ower)and they s*rely wo*ld li(e to sto- that side of it.

!n the other hand) it has a n*&ber of other ad,antages for -ower. Borone thing) it di,erts -eo-le) it ato&iGes -eo-le. When yo*<re sitting in front




!ree Trade 6greements

M*$, %ou mentioned that people with power probably don"t li&e it that theD.*.'.'. treaty got onto the 6nternet. 6t Aust emphasi ed for me how theseinternational trade agreements are being forced on us) and yet nobodyeven &nows what they"re about. 6"m wondering what you thin& of that0

Well) -lenty of -eo-le (now what they<re abo*t4there are -lenty of -eo-le wor(ing for big cor-orations who (now what the >.+.T.T. treaty isabo*t) for e1a&-le. 2*t yo*<re right) the general -o-*lation here doesn<tha,e the slightest idea abo*t it40 &ean) o,erwhel&ingly the general -o-*4lation of the United States hasn<t e,en heard of >.+.T.T.) and certainly theydon<t (now what its li(ely effects are going to be. >.+.T.T. was firstestablished in 3;89) b*t the AUr*g*ay Ro*ndA of negotiations to &odify itconcl*ded in ece&ber 3;;:C the treaty then was signed in +-ril 3;;8.O

What do 0 thin( of thatI 0 thin( it<s ridic*lo*s4grotes *e) in fact. oo()>.+.T.T. is so&ething of &a or significance. The idea that it<s going to bera&&ed thro*gh 'ongress on a fast trac( witho*t -*blic disc*ssion *stshows that anything rese&bling de&ocracy in the United States has co&4

-letely colla-sed. So whate,er one thin(s abo*t >.+.T.T.) at least it sho*ld be a to-ic for the general -*blic to beco&e infor&ed abo*t) and to in,esti4gate) and to loo( at) and thin( abo*t caref*lly. That &*ch is easy.

0f yo* as( what sho*ld happen in that -*blic disc*ssion4well) if that -*blic disc*ssion e,er co&es along) 0<ll be glad to say what 0 thin(. +ndwhat 0 thin( is in fact &i1ed. 0t<s li(e N.+.B.T.+.? 0 don<t (now of anyonewho was o--osed to a North +&erican trade agree&ent in -rinci-le4the

*estion was) what &ind0 ! So before N.+.B.T.+. got -assed in 3;;:O)&ainstrea& gro*-s li(e the 'ongressional !ffice of Technology +ssess4&ent44can<t get &ore centrist than that4ea&e o*t with ,ery shar- and in4telligent criti *es of the E1ec*ti,e ,ersion of N.+.B.T.+.) the one thatfinally went thro*gh. +nd they -ointed o*t that in fact N.+.B.T.+. wasdesigned to be an investor rights agree&ent) not a Afree tradeA agree&ent44and that it was going to dri,e the econo&ies of each of the three -artici-at4ing co*ntries the U.S.) 'anada and Me1icoO down towards a (ind of low4wage) low4growth e *ilibri*&C they didn<t say it of co*rse) b*t it<ll also be ahigh8profit e *ilibri*&. +nd they s*ggested ,ery constr*cti,e alternati,es.3;

Well) those sorts of constr*cti,e criti *es ne,er e,en entered the &ain4strea& disc*ssion abo*t N.+.B.T.+. here? all yo* e,er heard in the &ediawas) A'raGy ingoists don<t li(e Me1ican wor(ers.A

The sa&e was tr*e of the +&erican labor &o,e&ent? its -ro-osals werenothing li(e what was constantly being deno*nced in the -ress with ,irt*4ally 3%% -ercent *nifor&ity. $% The abor +d,isory 'o&&ittee) for e1a&4



Chapter Eight !

-0e4which by law is re *ired to gi,e its o-inion on these things) b*t was il4legally c*t o*t of the disc*ssion44ca&e o*t with *ite a constr*cti,e re-orton N.+.B.T.+.? it wasn<t against an agree&ent) it was against that agree4&ent. 0n fact) the story of the abor +d,isory 'o&&ittee re-ort tells yo* alot abo*t the way that N.+.B.T.+. was -assed in the U.S.) a lot abo*t +&er4ican de&ocracy.

Twenty years ago) 'ongress enacted a Trade +ct re *iring that beforeany trade4related legislation or treaty is -assed) there has to be cons*ltation

with a A abor +d,isory 'o&&itteeA they set *- which is based in the*nions) s*ch as they are. That<s by law? the abor +d,isory 'o&&ittee hasto gi,e an analysis and a criti *e of any +&erican trade4related iss*e) soob,io*sly that wo*ld incl*de N.+.B.T.+. $3 Well) the abor +d,isory 'o&4&ittee was infor&ed by the 'linton White Ho*se that their re-ort was d*eon Se-te&ber ;thC they were not gi,en an in(ling of what was in the treaty*ntil Se-te&ber !th8so ob,io*sly they co*ldn<t e,en con,ene to &eet.Then on to- of that) they weren<t e,en gi,en the whole te1t of the treaty444it<s this h*ge treaty) h*ndreds and h*ndreds of -ages.

2*t so&ehow they did &anage to write a res-onse to it anyway) and itwas a ,ery angry res-onse4both beca*se of the *tter conte&-t for de&oc4racy re,ealed by these &ane*,ers) b*t also beca*se fro& the gli&&eringsof what they co*ld get o*t of N.+.B.T.+. when they sort of fli--ed thro*gh

it for a co*-le of ho*rs) it was ob,io*s that this thing was *st going to ha,ea devastating effect on +&erican labor) and -robably also a de,astating ef4fect on Me1ican labor too) tho*gh of co*rse it will be highly beneficial to+&erican in,estors) and -robably also to Me1ican in,estors. $$ 0t<s also cer4tain to ha,e a highly destr*cti,e effect on the en,iron&ent4beca*se its lawss*-ersede federal and state legislation. So ob,io*sly there are really &a oriss*es here) cr*cially i&-ortant iss*es) which in a f*nctioning de&ocracywo*ld ha,e been the s*b ect of intensi,e -*blic consideration and debate.

+ct*ally) if yo* loo(ed closely) e,en N.+.B.T.+.<s advocates concededthat it was -robably going to har& the &a ority of the -o-*lations of thethree co*ntries. Bor instance) its ad,ocates in the United States were saying)A0t<s really good) it<ll only har& se&i4s(illed wor(ersA4footnote? 9% -ercentof the wor(force. $: +s a &atter of fact) after N.+.B.T.+. was safely -assed)

the $ew %or& 'imes did their first analysis of its -redicted effects in the New or( region? it was a ,ery *-beat article tal(ing abo*t how terrific itwas going to be for cor-orate lawyers and P.R. fir&s and so on. +nd thenthere was a footnote there as well. 0t said) well) everyone can<t gain) there<llalso be so&e losers? Awo&en) blac(s) His-anics) and se&i4s(illed laborA44inother words) &ost of the -eo-le of New or(. $8 2*t yo* can<t ha,ee,erything. +nd those were the advocates.

0n fact) it<s (ind of stri(ing that abo*t a day or two after N.+.B.T.+. was -assed) the Senate a--ro,ed the &ost onero*s cri&e bill in U.S. history theDiolent 'ri&e 'ontrol and aw Enforce&ent +ctO) which the Ho*se then




&ade e,en worse. Now) 0 don<t (now if that was *st a sy&bolic coinci4dence or what4b*t it &a(es sense. 0 &ean) N.+.B.T.+. was clearly going toha,e the effect of red*cing wages for -robably three4 *arters of the +&eri4can -o-*lation) and it<s going to &a(e a lot &ore of the -o-*lation s*-er4fl*o*s fro& the -oint of ,iew of -rofits4so the 'ri&e 2ill *st will ta(e careof a lot of the&) by throwing the& in ail.

!(ay) that<s N.+.B.T.+.4what abo*t >.+.T.T.I Well) in 0ndia) for e14a&-le) there were h*ndreds of tho*sands of -eo-le de&onstrating in the

streets abo*t so&e of the >.+.T.T. -ro,isions4which they (now abo*t. 0&ean) we &ay be ,ery ignorant abo*t it in the United States) b*t -eo-le inthe Third World (now a lot abo*t >.+.T.T.? 0ndian -easants *nderstandwhat<s being done to the&) e,en if -eo-le here don<t) which is why>.+.T.T. has to be -assed ,irt*ally at g*n-oint in co*ntries li(e 0ndia. $5

Well) what are those -eo-le so *-set abo*tI Here<s one thing. !ne of the -rotections codified in the c*rrent >.+.T.T. agree&ents) as in N.+.B.T.+.)is what<s called Aintellect*al -ro-erty rightsA i.e. rights to registered trade4&ar(s) -atented technologies) and co-yrights of ,al*able Ainfor&ationA

-rod*cts ranging fro& &*sic to genesO. 0ntellect*al -ro-erty rights are a -rotectionist &eas*re) they ha,e nothing to do with free trade4in fact)they<re the e1act opposite of free trade. +nd they<ll do a lot of things) b*ttwo really cr*cial ones.

Birst of all) they<re going to increase the d*ration of -atents? &eaning) ifMerc( Phar&ace*tical -atents so&e dr*g) than(s to -*blicly4s*bsidiGedwor( in +&erican *ni,ersities) for e1a&-le) now they can get a &*chlonger -atent for it *nder >.+.T.T.4&*ch longer than any of the richco*ntries e,er acce-ted d*ring the -eriods when they were de,elo-ing)incidentally. 0n fact) it<s only in ,ery recent years that the rich co*ntriesha,e e,en honored -atent rights at all4the United States ne,er did when itwas a de,elo-ing co*ntry) for instance. So) -oint one? -atents are being&*ch e1tended.

Secondly) the nature of -atents is being shifted in character. See) *-*ntil now) -atents ha,e been what are called A-rocess -atentsA 4in otherwords) if Merc( fig*res o*t a way to create a dr*g) the process of &a(ingthe dr*g is -atented) b*t not the dr*g itself. The >.+.T.T. treaty) li(e

N.+.B.T.+.) shifts that? now it<s the product that<s -atented4&eaning the0ndian or +rgentine -har&ace*tical ind*stries no longer can try to fig*reo*t a s&arter way to -rod*ce the sa&e dr*g at half the cost) in order to getit to their own -o-*lations &ore affordably. Notice that these are not onlyhighly -rotectionist &eas*res) b*t they<re a blow against econo&icefficiency and technological -rogress4that *st shows yo* how &*ch AfreetradeA really is in,ol,ed in all of this.

+ct*ally) there are significant historical -recedents on -rod*ct -atents)and 0<& s*re that they are -erfectly well (nown to the >.+.T.T. designers.Brance) for e1a&-le) once had a che&ical ind*stry) b*t it lost it4&ost of theBrench che&ical ind*stry &o,ed to SwitGerland) which is why SwitGerlandnow has s*ch a large che&ical ind*stry. The reasonI Brance ha--ened



Chapter Eight !3

to ha,e -rod*ct -atents) which were s*ch a barrier to inno,ation and tech4nical -rogress that the Brench che&ical co&-anies *st decided to go else4where. $6 Well) now >.+.T.T. is trying to i&-ose that inefficiency on theentire world. 0n fact) 0ndia already has been forced to acce-t it? a littlewhile ago they did what<s called AliberaliGingA their -har&ace*ticalsind*stry) &eaning they o-ened it *- to foreign -enetration. So now dr*g

-rices will shoot s(y4high) &ore children will die) -eo-le won<t be able toafford &edications they need) and so on. $9

Well) these changes in -atents are *st one -art of >.+.T.T.? they<re one -iece of a whole atte&-t that is now being &ade to ens*re that *nacco*nt4able transnational cor-orations will &ono-oliGe the technologies of the f*4t*re. 0n &y o-inion) that<s grotes *e40 don<t see any reason to -*sh thatthro*gh. 'ertainly anyone who belie,es in free trade wo*ld be o--osed tothese -olicies? they<re a high le,el of -rotectionis&) which in fact is s-ecifi4cally designed to be contrary to e,en the narrow definitions of econo&ic ef4ficiency they teach yo* in the Uni,ersity of 'hicago Econo&ics

e-art&ent ho&e of well4(nown e1-onents of free4&ar(et theoryO.>.+.T.T. is going to c*t down on technological inno,ation) it<s going to c*tdown on econo&ic efficiency4b*t by so&e strange accident) it<ll alsoha--en to increase -rofits) so of co*rse nobody will -ic( *- on any of thecontradictions.

+s a &atter of fact) it<s not e,en clear that these so4called Afree tradeAagree&ents are going to increase trade at all) in any a*thentic sense. Sothere<s a lot of tal( in the -a-ers these days abo*t the growth of interna4tional trade) which is s*--osed to show e,eryone how wonderf*l the &ar4(et is. 2*t if yo* ta(e a loo( at that international trade) yo*<ll find that it<s a,ery c*rio*s (ind of growth? abo*t S+ -ercent of U.S. trade now is internalto cor-orations) which &eans it<s abo*t as &*ch AtradeA as if yo* &o,eso&ething fro& one shelf of a grocery store to another) it *st ha--ens tocross an international border) so therefore it gets recorded as Atrade.A +ndthe fig*res are co&-arable for other &a or co*ntries. $7

That &eans) for e1a&-le) that if the Bord Motor 'o&-any sends so&e -arts to Me1ico to be asse&bled by s*-er4chea- labor *nder essentially noen,iron&ental reg*lations and then they shi- it bac( *- to the United Statesto add &ore ,al*e to it) that<s Atrade.A 2*t that<s not trade at all? those aren<te1-orts) they didn<t e,en enter the Me1ican &ar(et4they<re centrally4&anaged interactions by h*ge instit*tions) with a ,ery A,isible handA

-*shing the& aro*nd) and with all (inds of other &ar(et distortionsin,ol,ed that nobody here bothers to st*dy ,ery &*ch b*t which *ndo*bt4edly are se,ere. +nd S+ -ercent is not a s&all a&o*nt4that<s a lot. 0 &ean) atthe ti&e that N.+.B.T.+. was -assed) there was a lot of tal( in the -ressabo*t U.S. trade with Me1ico soaring4b*t there wasn<t tal( abo*t the factthat &ore than half of U.S. e1-orts to Me1ico were internal to cor-orations.So in fact) N.+.B.T.+. and >.+.T.T. &ight really end *- reducing trade4they<ll -robably increase things &o,ing across borders) b*t that<s not thesa&e as trade? those transfers are not &ar(et interactions.




Well) o(ay) these are co&-licated &atters) and yo* don<t *st want tosloganiGe abo*t the&4b*t in &y o-inion) all of these international agree4&ents are -art of a general attac( on de&ocracy and free &ar(ets that we<reseeing in the conte&-orary -eriod) as ban(s) in,est&ent fir&s) andtransnational cor-orations de,elo- new &ethods to e1tend their -ower freefro& -*blic scr*tiny. +nd in that conte1t) it<s not ,ery s*r-rising thatthey<re all being ra&&ed thro*gh as *ic(ly and secretly as they are. +ndwhate,er yo* ha--en to thin( abo*t the s-ecific treaties that ha,e now been

-*t into -lace) there is *st no do*bt that their conse *ences for &ost of the -eo-le in the world are going to be ,ast.

0n fact) these treaties are *st one &ore stein the -rocess that<s been ac4celerating in recent years of differentiating the two &ain class interests ofthe world still f*rther4far &ore so than before4so that the Third Worldwealth4distrib*tion &odel is being e1tended e,erywhere. +nd while the

-ro-ortions of wealth in a rich co*ntry li(e the United States will alwaysdiffer significantly fro& the -ro-ortions in a dee-ly i&-o,erished co*ntryli(e 2raGil) for e1a&-le Kdee-ly i&-o,erished than(s to the fact that it<s

been *nder the Western heel for cent*riesL) yo* can certainly see the effects*nder way in recent years. 0 &ean) in the United States things -robablyaren<t going to get to the -oint where 7% -ercent of the -o-*lation is li,ingli(e 'entral +frica and 3% -ercent is fab*lo*sly wealthy. Maybe it<ll be 5%

-ercent and :% -ercent or so&ething li(e that) with the rest so&ewhere in between4beca*se &ore -eo-le are always going to be needed in the West4ern societies for things li(e scientific research and s(illed labor) -ro,iding

-ro-aganda ser,ices) being &anagers) things li(e that. 2*t the changes nodo*bt are ha--ening) and they will be ra-idly accelerated as these accordsare i&-le&ented.

e ense epartment !"nding and Clean )oney

W+M*$, $oam) Aust to go bac& to freedom of thought for a second86"mcurious what your feeling is about the -efense -epartment funding somany of our scientists today. o you see that as a problem in terms of free8dom of research and freedom of in:uiry0 *nd does it ma&e you feel at alluncomfortable personally to be wor&ing at M.6.'. I

To tell yo* the honest tr*th) 0<,e always tho*ght that<s (ind of a second4ary iss*e. Bor instance) in the late 3;6%s) M.0T. was abo*t 7% -ercentf*nded by the efense e-art&ent4it<s less than that today) beca*se ofthings li(e cancer research &oney. 2*t what did that &eanI Was M.0T. dif4ferent fro&) say) Har,ard) which wasn<t so &*ch f*nded by the efense

e-art&entI Well) abo*t the only &a or differences between the& werethat M.0T. was a little bit &ore o-en to radical ideas) and there was &ore

-olitical acti,is& and fewer ideological controls. That<s abo*t it) as far as 0co*ld see.



Chapter Eight !=

Now) there was once a ti&e when 0 was being f*nded by the +ir Borce&yself4to do e1actly the sa&e sort of thing that 0<& doing now in &y sci4entific wor(. Right now 0<& not) so if yo* as(ed &e whether 0<& f*nded bythe efense e-art&ent) 0 co*ld in so&e narrow sense say no. 2*t the factof the &atter is) 0 am f*nded by the efense e-art&ent) whether 0 ha,e acontract with the& or not4beca*se if the efense e-art&ent weren<tf*nding the Electrical Engineering e-art&ent) which M.0T. needs) the 0n4stit*te wo*ld not be able to f*nd &y de-art&ent. 0 &ean) if yo*<re teaching

music at M.0T. yo*<re being f*nded by the efense e-art&ent) beca*se ifso&ebody they really cared abo*t weren"t being f*nded by the efense e4 -art&ent) they wo*ldn<t ha,e anything left to -ay yo* to teach &*sic. So in -art the thing is (ind of li(e a boo((ee-ing de,ice.

+s for its infl*ence on what<s done) that<s ,ery s&all? the efense e4 -art&ent doesn<t gi,e a da&n what yo* do &ost of the ti&e4they *st wantto f*nd it) beca*se they want to ha,e a bigger b*rea*cracy or so&ethingli(e that. So there<s ,ery little re-orting bac( by the scientists) they don<t

-ay &*ch attention to yo*) they don<t care whether yo* did what yo* saidyo*<d do or so&ething else) and so on. 0n fact) bac( in the Si1ties) there wasa g*y in &y lab who was wor(ing on translating H*&boldt a Pr*ssian

-hiloso-herO4he was being f*nded by the !ffice of Na,al Research) theydidn<t care.

+s far as the &oral iss*e goes40 &ean) it<s not as if there<s so&e clean&oney so&ewhere. 0f yo*<re in a *ni,ersity) yo*<re on dirty &oney4yo*<reon &oney which is co&ing fro& -eo-le who are wor(ing so&ewhere) andwhose &oney is being ta(en away) and is going to s*--ort things li(e *ni4,ersities. Now) there are a lot of ways in which that &oney can be ta(enaway fro& those wor(ing -eo-le and get fed into the *ni,ersities. !ne wayis by di,erting it thro*gh ta1es and go,ern&ent b*rea*cracies. +nother wayis by channeling it thro*gh -rofits4li(e) so&e rich benefactor gi,es it as agift to the *ni,ersity) &eaning he stole it fro& his wor(ers. +nd there areall sorts of other ways in which it ha--ens too. 2*t it all co&es down to thesa&e -oint? if yo*<re at a *ni,ersity) yo*<re there beca*se there is a socialstr*ct*re which co&&its a certain a&o*nt of As*r-l*s -rod*ct)A if yo* wantto *se a Mar1ist ter&) to f*nding -eo-le sitting aro*nd in *ni,ersities.

Now) 0 don<t see a whole lot of difference &yself as to whether that&oney wor(s its way thro*gh the e-art&ent of efense or thro*gh so&eother &echanis&4that<s why 0<,e ne,er &ade a big f*ss abo*t this. 0 &ean)to the e1tent that the efense e-art&ent infl*enced what scientists do) itwo*ld &atter. 2*t good *ni,ersities don<t -er&it that) by and large4theydon<t -er&it it *st for their own internal reasons? if yo* started -er&ittingthat) yo*<d lose the ability to do science altogether. Science si&-ly can<t bedone *nder those (inds of ideological constraints.

0t<s sort of li(e what ha--ens in cancer research? 'ongress is f*nding alot of cell*lar biology beca*se they want so&ebody to disco,er a c*re forcancer by the ti&e they get it) b*t what the scientists are doing is *st whatthey (now how to do4and what they (now how to do has nothing to do




with cancer) what they (now how to do is wor( with big &olec*les. Maybea c*re for cancer will co&e o*t of it so&eday) b*t that<s sort of by the side.+nd that<s -retty &*ch the way it goes in the sciences? yo* can wor( onwhat yo* *nderstand) yo* can<t wor( on what -eo-le tell yo* to sol,e. 0t<sli(e the o(e abo*t the dr*n( and the streetlight? yo* see so&e dr*n( g*yloo(ing for so&ething *nder the streetlight and yo* go o,er to hi& and as()AWhat<s the &atterIA He says) A0 lost &y (ey.A o* say) AWhere did yo*lose itIA He says) A!n the other side of the street.A o* say) ASo why areyo* loo(ing o,er hereIA AWell) this is where the light is.A That<s the waythe sciences wor(? yo* loo( where the light is4beca*se that<s all yo* can do.

o* *nderstand only a certain s&all n*&ber of things) and yo* *st ha,eto wor( aro*nd the -eri-hery of the&. 0f so&ebody says) A0<d li(e to ha,eyo* sol,e this -roble& o*t here)A yo* say) A0<ll gladly ta(e yo*r &oneyA44and then yo* go on loo(ing where yo* are. +nd there basically is nothing&*ch else that can be done. 0f yo* started trying to direct the &oney tosol,ing those -roble&s) yo*<d *st do nothing) beca*se we don<t (now howto sol,e the&. There<s (ind of a tacit co&-act between f*nders andreci-ients to o,erloo( this ...

The !avored State and Enemy States

W+M*$, $oam) people often attac& you as a political commentator for focusing your criticism against the activities of the 2nited States) and not so much against the old Soviet 2nion) or Fietnam) or Cuba and so on8theofficial enemies. 6"d li&e to &now what you thin& about that &ind ofcriticism0

Well) it<s tr*e that<s one of the standard things 3 get4b*t see) if that crit4icis& is &eant honestly Kand &ost of the ti&e it<s notL) then it<s really &iss4ing the cr*cial -oint) 3 thin(. See) 3 foc*s &y efforts against the terror and,iolence of &y own state for really two &ain reasons. Birst of all) in &ycase the actions of &y state ha--en to &a(e *- the &ain co&-onent ofinternational ,iolence in the world. 2*t &*ch &ore i&-ortantly than that)it<s beca*se +&erican actions are the things that 3 can do so&ething abo*t.So e,en if the United States were ca*sing only a tiny fraction of there-ression and ,iolence in the world4which ob,io*sly is ,ery far fro& thetr*th44that tiny fraction wo*ld still be what 0<& res-onsible for) and what 3sho*ld foc*s &y efforts against. +nd that<s based on a ,ery si&-le ethical

-rinci-le 4na&ely) that the ethical ,al*e of one<s actions de-ends on theirantici-ated conse *ences for h*&an beings? 3 thin( that<s (ind of li(e af*nda&ental &oral tr*is&.

So for e1a&-le) it was a ,ery easy thing in the 3;7%s for -eo-le in theUnited States to deno*nce the atrocities of the So,iet Union in its occ*-a4tion of +fghanistan4b*t those den*nciations had no effects which co*ld



Chapter Eight !?

ha,e hel-ed -eo-le. 0n ter&s of their ethical ,al*e) they were abo*t thesa&e as deno*ncing Na-oleon<s atrocities) or things that ha--ened in theMiddle +ges. Usef*l and significant actions are ones which ha,e conse4

*ences for h*&an beings) and *s*ally those will concern things that yo*can infl*ence and control4which &eans for -eo-le in the United States)+&erican actions -ri&arily) not those of so&e other state.

+ct*ally) the -rinci-le that 0 thin( we o*ght to follow is the -rinci-le werightly e1-ected So,iet dissidents to follow. So what -rinci-le did wee1-ect Sa(haro, a So,iet scientist -*nished for his criticis& of theU.S.S.R.O to followI Why did -eo-le here decide that Sa(haro, was a&oral -ersonI 0 thin( he was. Sa(haro, did not treat e,ery atrocity asidentical4he had nothing to say abo*t +&erican atrocities. When he wasas(ed abo*t the&) he said) A0 don<t (now anything abo*t the&) 0 don<t careabo*t the&) what 0 tal( abo*t are So,iet atrocities.A +nd that was right4

beca*se those were the ones that he was res-onsible for) and that he &ightha,e been able to infl*ence. +gain) it<s a ,ery si&-le ethical -oint? yo* areres-onsible for the -redictable conse *ences of your actions) yo*<re notres-onsible for the -redictable conse *ences of so&ebody else<s actions.

Now) we *nderstand this -erfectly well when we<re tal(ing abo*t dissi4dents in the old So,iet Union or in so&e other ene&y state) b*t we fail to*nderstand it when we<re tal(ing abo*t o*rsel,es4for ob,io*s reasons. 0&ean) co&&issars in the old So,iet Union didn<t *nderstand it abo*t dissi4dents there either? co&&issars in the old So,iet Union attac(ed Sa(haro,and other So,iet dissidents beca*se they weren<t deno*ncing *mericancri&es. 0n fact) an old o(e fifty years ago was that if yo* went to a Stalinistand criticiGed the So,iet sla,e4labor ca&-s) the Stalinist wo*ld say) AWell)what abo*t the lynchings in the +&erican So*thIA +lright) in that case thedishonesty<s ob,io*s) and we can easily *nderstand why.

Now) *st -ersonally s-ea(ing) it t*rns o*t that 0 do s-end a fair a&o*ntof effort tal(ing abo*t the cri&es of official ene&ies4in fact) there are an*&ber of -eo-le now li,ing in the United States and 'anada fro& the oldSo,iet Union and Eastern E*ro-e who are there beca*se of &y own -er4sonal acti,ities on their behalf. 2*t 0 don<t ta(e great -ride in that -art of&y wor() -artic*larly? 0 *st do it beca*se 0<& interested in it. The &ost i&4

-ortant thing for &e) and for yo*) is to thin( abo*t the greater conse *encesof yo*r criticis&s? what yo* can ha,e the &ost effect on. +nd es-ecially ina relati,ely o-en society li(e o*rs) which does allow a lot of freedo& fordissent) that &eans +&erican cri&es -ri&arily.

Well) that<s the &ain -oint here) 0 thin(. 2*t there<s also another consid4eration which is i&-ortant4and which si&-ly can<t be ignored) in &y o-in4ion. Honest -eo-le are *st going to ha,e to face the fact that whene,er

-ossible) -eo-le with -ower are going to e1-loit any actions which ser,etheir ,iolent ends. So when +&erican dissidents criticiGe the atrocities ofso&e ene&y state li(e '*ba or Dietna& or so&ething) it<s no secret whatthe effects of that criticis& are going to be? it<s not going ha,e any effectwhat4



!! 2nderstanding #ower

soe,er on the '*ban regi&e) for e1a&-le) b*t it certainly will hel- the tor4t*rers in Washington and Mia&i to (ee- inflicting their ca&-aign of s*ffer4ing on the '*ban -o-*lation i.e. thro*gh the U.S.4led e&bargoO. Well) thatis so&ething 0 do not thin( a &oral -erson wo*ld want to contrib*te to.

0 &ean) if a R*ssian intellect*al had started -*blishing articles deno*nc4ing ,ery real atrocities co&&itted by the +fghan resistance forces at theti&e of the So,iet in,asion of +fghanistan) (nowing that his acc*rate criti4cis& wo*ld ha,e hel-ed enable the "re&lin to &obiliGe -o-*lar s*--ort for

f*rther atrocities by the Red +r&y) 0 do not thin( that wo*ld ha,e been a&orally res-onsible thing for that -erson to do. !f co*rse) this often createsdiffic*lt dile&&as. 2*t again) honest -eo-le ha,e to recogniGe that they areres-onsible for the -redictable conse *ences of their acts. So -erfectlyacc*rate criticis& of the regi&e in '*ba) say) will -redictably be *sed byideologists and -oliticians in the United States to hel- e1tend o*r ab4sol*tely barbaric stranglehold on '*ba. o*r criticis& co*ld be -erfectlycorrect4tho*gh ob,io*sly &*ch of what we do hear today is in fact false.2*t e,en so) an honest -erson will always as() AWhat are the li(ely conse4

*ences of this going to be for other -eo-leIA +nd the conse *ences in thatcase at least are clear. Well) &a(ing decisions in these circ*&stances canoften be diffic*lt4b*t these are *st dile&&as that h*&an beings ha,e toface in life) and all yo* can do is try to deal with the& the best way yo*

can.

Canada"s (edia

W+M*$, 6"m from Canada) #rofessor Choms&y) and when 0 come to the2nited States and turn on the '. ,.) to me the propaganda all seems so bla8tant86 see this woman tal&ing about guilt and abortion) there"s this blac&woman saying) 16"m on welfare because 6"m la y)1 it"s Aust one image li&ethat after another) there"s no subtlety to it whatsoever. +n Canadian '. F.it"s more subtle, the C.(.C. ;Canadian (roadcasting CorporationJwouldn"t put on the blac& woman saying) ""6"m la y) 6"m on welfare because

6"m la y18they"d put up a chart or something that tries to say the same

thing.

That<s right.

W+M*$, 'he >lobe and Mail ;self8billed 1Canada"s $ational $ewspa8 per1< also is more subtle than the papers 6 see here8it"s not as obvious.What 6"m wondering is) how do you explain this difference in the twocountries" media systems0 6 mean) 6 don"t thin& 6 could apply the 1#ropa8

ganda Model1 you and Edward /erman laid out in Man*fact*ring 'onsentto the Canadian media8it really wouldn"t wor&.

0 thin( yo* co*ld) act*ally40 thin( yo*<re wrong abo*t that. et &e *stgi,e yo* so&e e1a&-les. The first -art of &y boo( $ecessary 6llusions was



Chapter Eight !

&ade *- of tal(s on the &edia that 0 was in,ited to gi,e in 'anada o,er'.2.'. national -*blic radio titled ATho*ght 'ontrol in e&ocratic Soci4etiesAO. !(ay) ob,io*sly that wo*ld ne,er ha--en in the United States. $; Sothat<s a difference.

!n the other hand) in -re-aration for those lect*res 0 fig*red that itwo*ld be interesting to co&-are the Dlobe and Mail) 'anada<s &ain news4

-a-er) with the $ew %or& 'imes) and &aybe 0<d disc*ss the res*lts in &ytal(s. So for a year 0 s*bscribed to the Dlobe and Mail8which 0 &*st saycost abo*t [3)5%% or so&ething in the United States) and a--arently alltheir U.S. s*bscribers are rich in,estors) beca*se e,ery two wee(s or soyo*<d get a big fat glossy boo( abo*t in,est&ent o--ort*nities in 'anada.2*t anyhow) for abo*t a year 0 read the Dlobe and Mail e,ery day and the

$ew %or& 'imes e,ery day) -l*s all the other *n() and at first 0 fig*red itwo*ld be an interesting co&-arison. +lright) it t*rned o*t that it wasn"t aninteresting co&-arison. Reading the Dlobe and Mail is li(e reading the

(oston Dlobe8it"s li(e an ordinary) *ality local news-a-er in the UnitedStates? s&all a&o*nt of international co,erage) h*ge a&o*nt of b*sinessnews) and &ostly -ic(ing stories off so*rces in the United States.

Now) it<s tr*e that o,er that year 0 did find things in the Dlobe and Mailwhich did not a--ear in the United States) or which a--eared only in reallyre&ote -laces. +nd also 0 ha,e friends in the 'anadian &edia who cli- the'anadian -ress reg*larly for &e) and they often find st*ff there that doesn<ta--ear anywhere in the United States. So yo*<re right) there are so&e dif4ferences. 2*t o,erall) reading the Dlobe and Mail for a year) 0 didn<t get adifferent -ict*re of the world than 0 get fro& reading the (oston Dlobe orthe 7.*. 'imes or any other *ality local news-a-er in the United States.The Dlobe and Mail was &ore local in orientation and less internationalthan the $ew %or& 'imes) b*t 0 didn<t feel that it was *alitati,ely different4it<s &ostly a b*siness -a-er li(e all the others.

Now) when 0 go to 'anada) 0 do get as(ed onto &ainstrea& nationalradio and tele,ision a lot) as distinct fro& here4a lot. 2*t see) that<s beca*se0 criticiGe the United States) and in 'anada they li(e it when -eo-le co&e*- and d*&- on the United States4beca*se the United States is always

-*shing the& aro*nd all the ti&e) so it<s nice if so&ebody co&es and sayshow rotten the United States is once in a while. !n the other hand) 0 gotsic( of this a co*-le ti&es) and 0 started tal(ing abo*t 'anada4and 0 was offso fast yo* co*ldn<t e,en see it. The first ti&e 0 did it was on this big&orning radio show they ha,e there) with this g*y whose na&e 0 can ne,erre&e&ber ...

M*$, #eter D ows&i.

>Gows(i) yeah. There<s this nation4wide radio tal( show in 'anadawhich e,erybody t*nes into so&e ti&e in the &orning ;Morningside) on'.2.'.O) and e,ery ti&e 0<d go to Toronto they wo*ld in,ite &e to co&e onthat show. So we<d ha,e whate,er it is) fifteen &in*tes) and this g*y wo*ld




as( &e so&e leading *estions) 0<d tell hi& how rotten the United States is) big s&ile.

Well) one ti&e 0 really got sic( of this) and 0 started tal(ing abo*t'anada. He said so&e line abo*t) A0 hear yo* *st flew in.A 0 said) A eah) 0landed at the War 'ri&inal +ir-ort.A He said? AWhat do yo* &eanIA 0 said)AWell) yo* (now) the ester 2. Pearson +ir-ort.A +nd he says) AWhat doyo* &ean) <war cri&inal<IA ester Pearson<s the big hero in 'anada he wasa -ro&inent di-lo&at and Pri&e Minister fro& 3;6: to <67O. So 0 startedr*nning thro*gh Pearson<s in,ol,e&ent in cri&inal acti,ity4he was a &a orcri&inal) really e1tre&e. He didn<t ha,e the -ower to be li(e an +&ericanPresident) b*t if he<d had it) he wo*ld ha,e been the sa&e4he tried) yo*(now. +nd 0 went thro*gh so&e of this. :% The g*y got inf*riated.

Then 0 said so&ething abo*t 'anada and the Dietna& War4'anada wasalways deno*ncing the United States d*ring the Dietna& War for itscri&inal actions) &eanwhile 'anada was -robably the leading &ilitary e14

-orter in the world -er ca-ita) enriching itself on the destr*ction of 0n4dochina. :3 So 0 &entioned so&e of this st*ff. He went into (ind of atantr*&. 0 act*ally tho*ght it was sort of f*nny) b*t a--arently his listenersdidn<t4when 0 left) after abo*t ten &in*tes of listening to this harang*e) the

-rod*cer) sort of *i,ering) sto--ed &e and said? A!h &y >od) theswitchboard<s lighting *-) we<re getting tho*sands of -hone calls fro& allo,er 'anada. A

+nd a--arently the -hone calls were all *st abo*t the fact that this g*y>Gows(i was being i&-olite40 don<t (now if -eo-le agreed with &e -ar4tic*larly) b*t there were a lot of -eo-le who were ,ery angry at the way hewas going abo*t it. i(e 0 said) 0 tho*ght it was co&ical) didn<t bother &e.

W+M*$, 6"m sorry) they got angry at hi&I

/im) yeah4and they were -retty *-set) beca*se there were a lot of calls.+lright) so then the -rod*cer as(ed &e AWell) loo() co*ld yo* go onagainIA +nd 0 said) ANo) 0<& lea,ingC 0<& b*sy while 0<& here) and then 0<&going ho&e) 0 don<t ha,e that (ind of ti&e.A So he said) AWell) can we callyo* in 2oston to do a follow4*-IA4which they ne,er do) it<s an in4st*dio

-rogra&. So 0 said) A!(ay) if yo* can arrange it) 0<ll do it.A +nyway) they&ade a big effort) they called &e *- in 2oston) and we went thro*gh an4other show4in which >Gows(i was ,ery contrite and *iet) *st to &a(e *-to the a*dience. 2*t that was the last ti&e 0 e,er heard fro& the&C 0<,ene,er been as(ed on that show with hi& again.

+nd that<s ha--ened to &e elsewhere in 'anada too) 0 sho*ld say40&ean) 0<,e been in,ited to *ni,ersities in 'anada where they<,e literally re4f*sed to -ay &y -lane fare after 0 ga,e tal(s in which 0 deno*nced 'anada.So yo* (now) 'anada<s ,ery nice as long as yo*<re criticiGing the UnitedStates4try going after 'anada and see what ha--ens to yo*.

2*t the -oint is) 0 thin( the &edia syste& wor(s the sa&e in both co*n4



Chapter Eight

tries. 0 don<t thin( it wor(s the sa&e in detail8li&e) there<s a labor &o,e&entthere) and there are other factors that are different between the twoco*ntries as well which &ay infl*ence the range of co,erage a bit. 2*t 0do*bt that the differences in the &edia -rod*ct are ,ery great4and if yo*e1a&ine the *estion in detail) 0<& -retty s*re that<s what yo*<ll find aswell.

Sho"ld <"ebe- Separate rom Canada@

M*$, 6n Canada there"s been a strong movement for Nuebec to separate from the English8spea&ing part of the country8do you thin& it would be inNuebec"s self8interest to become independent li&e that0 *nd also) do youthin& it would be to the advantage of *merican business to see that &ind ofinstability in Canada) or is it better for powerful interests here if Canada

Aust remains stable0

Well) 0 don<t (now the whole sit*ation in detail) b*t &y g*ess is that it<sin F*ebec<s self4interest to stay -art of 'anada4beca*se the alternati,e is to

beco&e -art of the United States. F*ebec<s not going to be able to re&aininde-endent) so it can either beco&e -art of the United States or stay -artof 'anada. +nd gi,en that choice) 0 thin( it<s better off staying -art of'anada. 0 &ean) if F*ebec beca&e inde-endent fro& 'anada) it wo*ldn<tnecessarily be called -art of the United States4li(e it wo*ldn<t get coloredthe sa&e as the United States on the &a-4b*t it wo*ld be so integrated intothe +&erican econo&y that it wo*ld effecti,ely be a colony. +nd 0 don<tthin( that<s in the interest of the -eo-le of F*ebec) 0 thin( they<re better offstaying -art of 'anada.

+s for +&erican b*siness) 0 s*s-ect that -owerf*l interests in the UnitedStates wo*ld &ore or less -refer things to stay the way they are4 *st be4ca*se it<s too disr*-ti,e? yo* don<t (now what all the conse *ences of se-4aration wo*ld be. The way the relationshi- between the two co*ntries isnow) things sort of wor(4and after all) all of 'anada is going to beco&e acolony of the United States anyway) thro*gh things li(e N.+.B.T.+.) so

why go and -ic( off one -iece and ha,e all of these other disr*-ti,eeffectsIRe&e&ber) -eo-le here were trying to ta(e o,er 'anada as early as the

399%s4it<s not a new idea. +nd if yo* loo( bac( at the history of the twoco*ntries) in 39954before the +&erican Re,ol*tion e,en began4the+&erican colonists had already in,aded 'anada) and had to be dri,en bac(

by the 2ritish the 'ontinental 'ongress<s first act before declaring inde4 -endence fro& 2ritain was to send an in,asion force to 'anada in the *n4s*ccessf*l AF*ebec 'a&-aignAO. Then thro*gh the nineteenth cent*ry) theonly reason the U.S. didn<t con *er 'anada was that the 2ritish forces in'anada were *st too strong to allow it e.g. in,ading +&erican forces werere-*lsed by 2ritish and 'anadian soldiers se,eral ti&es in the War of



2nderstanding #ower

373$O. +nd e,er since then) it<s *st been a &atter of the United States inte4grating 'anada into o*r econo&y thro*gh other &eans? the so4called BreeTrade +gree&ent of 3;7; ga,e that a big shot forward) N.+.B.T.+. isaccelerating it still f*rther) and it is ,ery *ic(ly ta(ing -lace.

3eciphering China

M*$, $oam) China has been in the news a lot recently) especially in lightof their resistance to intellectual property rights) and worldwide concernover some of their extremely destructive environmental practices andhuman rights abuses. What 6"m wondering is) what do you thin& would beviable diplomatic measures now to improve 2.S. relations with China0

Well) 0 don<t (now4do we want to i&-ro,e relations with 'hinaI'hina<s a ,ery br*tal society) a br*tal go,ern&ent? 0 don<t feel any -artic*4lar interest in i&-ro,ing relations with it.

oo() the ways in which iss*es are fra&ed for *s in the &edia and in the&ainstrea& c*lt*re ty-ically in,ol,e so &any ass*&-tions and -res*--osi4tions that yo*<re (ind of tra--ed as soon as yo* get into a disc*ssion ofthe&4yo*<re tra--ed in a disc*ssion yo* don<t want to be in. +nd 0 thin(yo* ha,e to start by ta(ing a-art the ass*&-tions.

So 0 don<t thin( we sho*ld be as(ing the *estion AHow do we i&-ro,erelations with 'hinaIA4we sho*ld be as(ing other *estions) li(e AWhat(ind of relations do we want to ha,e with 'hinaIA +nd when we tal( abo*tA'hina)A who e1actly do we &eanI 'hina has a ,ery wealthy sector now444

b*siness&en) b*rea*crats and others) the g*ys who &a(e the decisions444and when the U.S. -ress tal(s abo*t A'hina)A that<s who they &ean. 2*tthere are -lenty of other -eo-le in 'hina too. So for e1a&-le) yo* ta(ethese So*theastern sections of 'hina which are s*--osed to be Aecono&ic&iraclesA and h*ge growth areas4yeah) they<re econo&ic &iracles alright)

b*t a good deal of that growth is beca*se of foreign in,est&ent) which&eans absol*tely horrendo*s wor(ing conditions. So yo* ha,e wo&enfro& far&s who are loc(ed into factories where they wor( 3$ ho*rs a dayfor essentially nothing) and so&eti&es a co*-le h*ndred of the& will be

b*rned to death beca*se there<s a factory fire and the factory doors ha,e been loc(ed so no one can lea,e) and so on and so forth. :$ Well) that<sA'hinaA too4and the sa&e is tr*e of any other co*ntry. So which A'hinaAare we tal(ing abo*tI

0n fact) in this case there<s also a geogra-hical s-lit) there<s a geogra-hi4cal brea( between So*theast 'hina) which is a big growth area) and 'entral'hina) where &ost of the -o-*lation still li,es) and where things are &aybee,en going downhill in ter&s of de,elo-&ent and &oderniGation. Well) thedifferences between those areas are so s*bstantial that so&e 'hina s-ecial4ists s*s-ect that 'hina &ay *st brea( a-art into a &ore coastal area that<s



Chapter Eight 3

-art of the general East +sian growth area) with a lot of Ja-anese ca-italand o,erseas 'hinese ca-ital and foreign in,est&ent feeding into it) andthen a big area with h*ndreds of &illions of -eo-le li,ing in it which is(ind of li(e a declining -easant society4s*rely not -art of the big growthrate) and &aybe e,en declining. :: So e,en within the geogra-hical entitythat<s called A'hina)A there are regions that are li(e co&-letely differentco*ntries) and in so&e areas things co*ld go bac() as so&e s*s-ect) e,en tothe days of -easant wars and other things li(e that. So) again) yo* ha,e toas( what e1actly yo* &ean by A'hina.A

+nd in fact) if yo* loo( still &ore closely) the big Aecono&ic growthAareas in 'hina themselves are not so si&-le. So it t*rns o*t that a good dealof the econo&ic growth in those regions is co&ing fro& coo-erati,e str*c4t*res) not fro& foreign4based in,est&ent40 &ean) nobody<s really st*diedthese coo-erati,es in detail) beca*se 'hina<s s*ch a closed society) b*tthey<re not -ri,ate enter-rise and they<re not foreign in,est&ent) they<reso&e other thing. 2*t certainly they ha,e been -ic(ing *-) and they doha,e (ind of a coo-erati,e str*ct*re. +nd yo* don<t ha,e to go to AleftyA&agaGines to find this o*t4there are articles abo*t it in &ainstrea& o*rnalsli(e 'he Economist and the *sian Wall Street ournal and so on. :8 Well)those coo-erati,es are a big -art of the growth of So*theast 'hina) and theyre-resent ,ery different interests fro& the foreign in,est&ent4dri,enind*strial str*ct*res) with all their horrendo*sly e1-loitati,e conditions. Sothat<s yet another A'hina.A

+nd li(e 0 say) within all the ,ario*s A'hinasA one can identify) there al4ways are different sectors of the -o-*lation with differing interests? li(e) for

-eo-le wor(ing in the electronics factories and toy factories in >*angdongPro,ince) life is anything b*t -retty) they li,e *nder absol*tely horribleconditions4b*t there<s also a &anagerial elite sector that is growing and get4ting rich at the sa&e ti&e. So 0 thin( the first stein fig*ring o*t what to doabo*t -olicies towards so&ething li(e A'hinaA has to be to dis&antle all theass*&-tions and -res*--ositions and biases behind the iss*es as they<re

being -resented by the instit*tions. +nd while 0 don<t thin( there are any4thing li(e si&-le answers) on so&e of these iss*es of conflict that yo* readabo*t in the &edia now) 0 thin( it<s a ,ery &i1ed story.

Ta(e intellect*al -ro-erty rights. The 'hinese leadershi- hasn<t co&4 -letely acce-ted intellect*al -ro-erty rights) it hasn<t co&-letely acce-tedthese new de,elo-&ents to ens*re that rich and -owerf*l cor-orations ha,ea &ono-oly on technology and infor&ation4so now the U.S. is *sing,ario*s sanctions against the& to try to force co&-liance. Well) 0 don<tthin( 0<& in fa,or of that. i(e) 0 don<t thin( 0 want to i&-ro,e those rela4tions with 'hina) what 0 wo*ld li(e to do is to dis&antle this whole craGysyste&.

!r loo( at the fact that 'hina is one of the only co*ntries in the worldthat i&-risons its -o-*lation at ro*ghly the sa&e le,el as the United States4the United States is way in the lead of other co*ntries that (ee- sta4




tistics on i&-rison&ent) and while we don<t ha,e -recise statistics on'hina) fro& the wor( that<s been done by cri&inologists who<,e tried to&a(e sense of it) it loo(s as tho*gh they<re ro*ghly in o*r ball-ar(. :5 Well)is that a good thing4that they throw h*ge a&o*nts of their -o-*lation in ailli(e we doI 0 don<t thin( it<s a great thing. +nd it<s -robable that their -risonsyste& is e,en as br*tal as o*rs) &aybe worse. Well) the U.S. go,ern&entand U.S. -ower syste&s certainly don<t care abo*t that4any &ore than theycare abo*t the fact that the 2nited States is i&-risoning its -o-*lation at arate way beyond anyone else in the worldC in fact) that<s going *- rightnow. So that can<t be why U.S. relations with 'hina are bad.

There was so&e tal( in the U.S. &edia a while ago abo*t -rison labor in'hina4b*t ta(e a close loo( at that disc*ssion. The only ob ection to -risonlabor in 'hina that yo* heard was that the products of that -rison laborwere being e1-orted to the United States4hence that<s state ind*stry) and theU.S. ne,er wants state ind*stry to co&-ete with -ri,ately owned U.S.4

based fir&s. 2*t if 'hina wanted to ha,e -rison labor and e1-ort itso&ewhere else) that was fine. 0n fact) right at the ti&e that the U.S. go,4ern&ent and the &edia were &a(ing a f*ss abo*t Chinese -rison labor) the2nited States was e1-orting -rod*cts of -rison labor to +sia? 'aliforniaand !regon were -rod*cing te1tiles in -risons which were being e1-ortedto +sia *nder the na&e APrison 2l*esA4didn<t e,en try to hide it. +nd in

fact) -rison -rod*ction is going way *- in the United States right now.:6

Sothere<s no ob ection to -rison labor in -rinci-le) *st don<t interfere with the -rofits of +&erican4based cor-orations4that was the real &eaning of thatdebate) when yo* got to the core of it.

So what yo* want to do on e,ery iss*e) 0 thin() is to e1tricate yo*rselffro& the way the disc*ssion is being -resented in the official c*lt*re) and

begin to as( these (inds of *estions abo*t it. 0 &ean) U.S. -ower doesn<tcare &*ch if the 'hinese leaders &*rder dissidents) what they care abo*t isthat the 'hinese leaders let the& &a(e &oney4and 0 don<t thin( that isso&ething which ordinary -eo-le in the United States o*ght to b*y into. 0&ean) 'hina<s a ,ery co&-licated) big story) and 0 don<t thin( there<s any4thing li(e a si&-le answer as to what sho*ld be done in ter&s of U.S. rela4tions? li(e anything else) yo* *st ha,e to loo( at all the ,ario*s s*b-arts.2*t the first ste-) 0 thin() as with e,erything) is to refra&e in yo*r &indwhat<s really going on) re&ind yo*rself what the real iss*es are) and not gettra--ed in disc*ssions yo* don<t want to be -art of in the first -lace.

Indonesia+s >illing !ields02;S;/ a-ked 8eno-ide in East Timor

W+M*$, $oam) a little earlier you mentioned the East 'imor massacre. 6"m an organi er on that issue in Canada) and it seems to me that some en8couraging things have been happening in the big picture on that in the past



Chapter Eight =

few years) in terms of maybe pressuring 6ndonesia to withdraw and stoptheir extermination sometime in the future. -o you agree with that &ind ofoptimistic assessment at all0

;Editors" $ote, 6ndonesia finally was forced to hold a referendum inwhich the East 'imorese voted for independence in September 3;;;. 'he

following discussion of the media) the great powers) and popular activism8 given before those events8provides critical bac&ground.<

Well) it<s ,ery hard to *antify) b*t 0 thin( yo*<re right. 0 &ean) 0 don<t(now 0ndonesia that well &yself) b*t -eo-le who do) li(e 2en +nderson

+&erican -rofessorO) say they definitely find so&ething -ositi,e ta(ing -lace there. 0 ho-e so4b*t yo* (now) it<s really *- to us what ha--ens inEast Ti&or? what ha--ens there is going to de-end on how &*ch -ress*reand acti,is& ordinary -eo-le in the Western societies can -*t together.

Birst of all) does e,erybody (now the sit*ation we<re tal(ing abo*tIWant &e to s*&&ariGe itI 0t<s an e1tre&ely re,ealing case) act*ally4if yo*really want to learn so&ething abo*t o*r own society and ,al*es) this is a,ery good -lace to start. 0t<s -robably the biggest sla*ghter relati,e to the

-o-*lation since the Holoca*st) which &a(es it not s&all. +nd this is geno4cide) if yo* want to *se the ter&) for which the United States contin*es to

be directly res-onsible.

East Ti&or is a s&all island north of +*stralia. 0ndonesia in,aded it ille4gally in 3;95) and e,er since they ha,e *st been sla*ghtering -eo-le. 0t<scontin*ing as we s-ea() after &ore than two decades. +nd that &assacrehas been going on beca*se the United States has acti,ely) consistently) andcr*cially s*--orted it? it<s been s*--orted by e,ery +&erican ad&inistra4tion) and also by the entire Western &edia) which ha,e totally silenced thestory. The worst -hase of the (illing was in the late 3;9%s d*ring the 'arterad&inistration. +t that ti&e) the cas*alties were abo*t at the scale of the PolPot &assacres in 'a&bodia. Relati,e to the -o-*lation) they were &*chgreater. 2*t they were radically different fro& Pol Pot<s in one criticalres-ect? nobody had any idea abo*t how to sto- the Pol Pot sla*ghter) b*t itwas tri,ial how to sto- this one. +nd it<s still tri,ial how we can sto- itwecan sto- s*--orting it.

0ndonesia in,aded East Ti&or in 3;95 with the e1-licit a*thoriGation of>erald Bord and Henry "issinger the +&erican President and Secretary ofStateO.:I "issinger then at once Ksecretly) tho*gh it lea(edL &o,ed to in4crease U.S. wea-ons and co*nterins*rgency e *i-&ent sales to 0ndonesia)which already was abo*t ;% -ercent ar&ed with U.S. wea-ons. :7 0t<s now(nown fro& lea(ed doc*&ents that the 2ritish) +*stralians) and +&ericansall were aware of the in,asion -lans in ad,ance) and that they &onitored its

-rogress as it was *nfolding. !f co*rse) they only a--la*ded. :; The U.S. &edia ha,e real co&-licity in genocide in this case. 2efore the

in,asion) news co,erage of East Ti&or had in fact been rather high in theUnited States) s*r-risingly high act*ally4and the reason was that East




Ti&or had been -art of the Port*g*ese E&-ire) which was colla-sing in the3;9%s) and there was a lot of concern bac( then that the for&er Port*g*esecolonies &ight do what<s called A&o,ing towards 'o&&*nis&)A &eaning&o,ing towards inde-endence) which is not allowed. So before the in,asion)there was a lot of &edia co,erage of East Ti&or. +fter 0ndonesia attac(ed)co,erage started to decline4and then it declined ,ery shar-ly. 2y 3;97) whenthe atrocities reached their -ea() co,erage reached flat Gero) literally Gero inthe United States and 'anada) which has been another big s*--orter of theocc*-ation. 8o

+ro*nd that sa&e ti&e) the 'arter ad&inistration &o,ed to send news*--lies of ar&a&ents to 0ndonesia) beca*se their ar&y was r*nning o*t ofwea-ons in the co*rse of the sla*ghter. 2y then they<d (illed &aybe a h*n4dred tho*sand -eo-le. 83 The -ress did its ob by sh*tting *- abo*t what wasreally going on4when they did ha,e co,erage) it was *st re-etition ofgrotes *e lies by the State e-art&ent and 0ndonesian generals) a co&-letewhitewash. 0n fact) &edia co,erage to this day has always co&-letelywi-ed o*t the U.S. record? the strongest criticis& yo*<ll e,er find is) AWedidn<t -ay eno*gh attention to Ti&or)A or AThe U.S. didn<t try hard eno*gh toget 0ndonesia to sto- its atrocitiesA or so&ething li(e that. 8$ 0t<s (ind of li(esaying the So,iet Union didn<t try hard eno*gh to bring freedo& to Eastern

E*ro-e) or they didn<t -ay eno*gh attention to it4that was their -roble&.+nd re&e&ber) the U.S. role in all of this has ne,er been a secret4it<s infact been ac(nowledged ,ery fran(ly. Bor instance) if yo* read the &e&oirsof o*r U.N. a&bassador at the ti&e of the in,asion) aniel Patric( Moyni4han4who<s greatly -raised for his defense of international law) incidentally4he says? AThe e-art&ent of State desired that the U.N. -ro,e *tterlyineffecti,e in whate,er &eas*res it *ndertoo(. This tas( was gi,en to &e)and 0 carried it forward with no inconsiderable s*ccess.A !(ay) then he goeson to describe the effects of the in,asion) which he was f*lly aware of? hesays) in the first co*-le of &onths it see&ed Aso&e 6%)%%% -ersons had been(illed ... al&ost the -ro-ortion of cas*alties e1-erienced by the So,iet Uniond*ring the Second World War.A +lright) that<s the NaGis) and that<sMoynihan) the great ad,ocate of international law. 8: +nd he<s right) that<s

how it ha--ened? the State e-art&ent wanted things to t*rn o*t as they did)and he ens*red that they did. Moynihan<s at least being honest) let<s gi,e hi&credit for it.

+nother thing that<s ne,er re-orted) tho*gh it<s co&-letely -*blic and was -erfectly well (nown at the ti&e) is that one of the &ain reasons why theWestern -owers s*--orted the in,asion was that there<s a h*ge offshore oilfield in Ti&or<s territorial waters) and before 3;95 the +*stralians and theWestern oil co&-anies had been trying *ns*ccessf*lly to &a(e a deal withPort*gal to e1-loit it. Well) they hadn<t had any l*c( with Port*gal) and theyfig*red an inde-endent East Ti&or wo*ld be e,en harder to deal with4b*tthey (new that 0ndonesia wo*ld be easy? that<s one of o*r boys)



we<,e been r*nning it e,er since the h*ge &assacre there in 3;65 that theWest a--la*ded) when they wi-ed o*t the 'o&&*nist Party and (illed&aybe 6%%)%%% -eo-le.88 So for instance) lea(ed di-lo&atic records in +*s4tralia show that right aro*nd the ti&e of the in,asion) to- +*stralian officialssaid that they wo*ld do better with an 0ndonesian ta(eo,er) and that0ndonesia sho*ld be s*--orted. 85 +gain) 0 ha,e yet to see a word abo*t anyof this in the U.S. &edia.

+nd act*ally that e1-loitation has been -roceeding rather nicely? +*s4tralia and 0ndonesia signed a big treaty to start e1tracting Ti&orese oil in

ece&ber 3;7;O) and right after the ili &assacre in 3;;3 in which 0n4donesians (illed h*ndreds of *nar&ed Ti&orese -rotesters at a f*neralO) the

big Western reaction4a-art fro& sending additional ar&s to 0ndonesia44wasthat fifteen &a or oil co&-anies started e1-loration in the Ti&or Sea oilfields. Ha--ily for 'he,ron) there are a--arently so&e ,ery -ro&isingstri(es.

Well) to get bac( to yo*r *estion? e,en tho*gh this ,irt*ally genocidal&assacre has recei,ed al&ost no co,erage fro& the U.S. -ress) a ,ery s&alln*&ber of -eo-le started wor(ing on the iss*e4literally it was a tiny gro*-of acti,ists) -robably not &ore than a doGen. 86 +nd finally) after a few years)they<,e gotten so&ewhere? aro*nd the early 3;7%s) *st thro*gh constant

-ress*re and organiGing) they &anaged to get the &edia to start re-orting onTi&or ,ery occasionally. The co,erage has been highly selecti,e) and it stillalways e1cl*des the cr*cial role that the United States has -layed) both in

-ro,iding ar&s and in gi,ing 0ndonesia the di-lo&atic s*--ort they<,eneeded to &aintain the occ*-ation o,er the years4b*t there has been so&e. 89

+nd they<,e gotten so&e 'ongress&en interested) &ostly conser,ati,e'ongress&en) incidentally. Wider -*blic -ress*re began to de,elo-C theEast Ti&or +ction Networ( was started4and there has been a real change)

*st than(s to this s&all) indeed growing) n*&ber of acti,ists.0n 3;;$) the -ress*re act*ally got to the -oint that 'ongress -assed leg4

islation banning U.S. &ilitary training for 0ndonesian officers beca*se oftheir Ah*&an rights ,iolations)A which is -*tting it -retty &ildly. That -*tthe 'linton ad&inistration in (ind of an e&barrassing -osition) b*t they goto*t of it alright? they anno*nced that the law didn<t &ean what it said) it only&eant that the United States co*ldn<t train 0ndonesian &ilitary officers withmoney from the 2nited States itself) b*t if the 0ndonesians -aid for thetraining the&sel,es4say) with &oney we ga,e the& fro& so&e other -oc(et4that wo*ld be fine. With rare delicacy) the State e-art&ent -ic(ed theanni,ersary of the in,asion to anno*nce this inter-retation) and altho*gh'ongress -rotested) it went thro*gh. 87

Ne,ertheless) the legislation was a ,ery i&-ortant de,elo-&ent) and 0thin( it<s a sign of a real change that co*ld ta(e -lace) as yo* s*ggest. 0&ean) with eno*gh -o-*lar -ress*re) this is one of those iss*es that co*ldt*rn aro*nd? the 0ndonesians co*ld -*ll o*t) they &ay well be close to it.

0n fact) if we<re tal(ing abo*t acti,is&) this is a ,ery re,ealing case4




only -lace it got -*blished was West Perch) where,er the hell that is4-rob4ably so&e (ind of cow4town in +*stralia. 2*t it did get -*blished there)and then it (ind of see-ed o*t into the international &edia) -*shed on bythings li(e the 0nternet. +nd finally it got to be (ind of an international af4fair4tho*gh of co*rse) as *s*al there was ne,er a word abo*t it in the U.S.&edia. 59

+nyway) this g*y +dit ondro went bac( to 0ndonesia4and to e,erybody<sa&aGe&ent) nothing<s ha--ened to hi&. 0 was *st tal(ing to John Pilger an+*stralian -olitical acti,ist and fil&&a(erO two days ago) and he<d *st seenhi& and been in to*ch with hi&4he<s still tra,eling aro*nd the co*ntry) andso far they<,e left hi& alone. 57 +lright) that<s a sign) yo* (now. +nd thereare others.

0n fact) 0 *st saw one in this &orning<s news-a-er. This wee() a*thori4ties in 0ndonesia arrested a b*nch of labor leaders) which is not good. 2*twhat is good is that they arrested the& for a reason4na&ely) they had beenorganiGing) and carrying o*t stri(es. See) the labor &o,e&ent in 0ndonesiais in so&e fer&ent) and as a &atter of fact) the 0ndonesian go,ern&ent re4cently was co&-elled *st by internal -ress*res to ac(nowledge the e1is4tence of an inde-endent labor *nion in the co*ntry. Now) 0 don<t (now howfar these things will go) b*t they<re the sign of a change. 5;

+nother sign is that if yo* tal( to st*dents fro& 0ndonesia) it<s clear thatthey (now &ore than they *sed to. 0t *sed to be li(e total fascis&4theydidn<t (now anything abo*t -olitics or the world. 2*t it<s beco&e &*ch lesscontrolled in recent years? now they<,e (ind of heard abo*t things) they<re&ore aware) they<re &ore concerned to try to change things a bit. 6o +nd oneco*ld go on li(e this4b*t these are all indications of internal changes in0ndonesia) and they are in -art a reaction to Western -ress*re. +nd 0n4donesia reacts ,ery *ic(ly to Western -ress*re. 0n fact) if there was e,erany serio*s -ress*re fro& the West) the occ*-ation of East Ti&or wo*ld beo,er to&orrow.

This -oint was *st ill*strated ,ery clearly) act*ally. oo(? the UnitedStates) 'anada) England) Brance) Holland) Sweden) >er&any) Ja-an) anyco*ntry that can &a(e a b*c( off it) are all in,ol,ed in this4so it<s really nota *estion of *s laying econo&ic sanctions on 0ndonesia to -ress*reAthe&)A the only real *estion is) can we sto- (illing Ti&oreseI Howe,er)there was a case recently where the &a or Western -owers did threaten eco4no&ic sanctions against 0ndonesia4it<s not too well (nown) b*t it<s e14tre&ely instr*cti,e.

0n 3;;:) the World Health !rganiGation ,oted to re *est that the World'o*rt consider the legality of the *se of n*clear wea-ons) and iss*e ano-inion on it. Well) ob,io*sly the United States and 2ritain went totally

berser( when they heard abo*t this? *st the fact that the World 'o*rt &ighthear a case on the legality of n*clear wea-ons is already a contrib*tion ton*clear non4-roliferation. +nd of co*rse) we benefit fro& -roliferation)since we<re the &ain -rod*cer) seller) and -ossessor of n*clear wea-ons. 0&ean) it<s not



Chapter Eight 35

as if anybody wo*ld listen to the World 'o*rt if it said that the *se of n*4clear wea-ons is illegal Kwhich &eans by i&-lication that possession ofthe& is illegal tool4b*t it wo*ld certainly be a big -*blicity co*- for thedisar&a&ent &o,e&ent if it did. So for the big n*clear -owers) this was a&a or iss*e. +ct*ally) it<s of -artic*lar significance for 2ritain) beca*se oneof 2ritain<s last clai&s to being a co*ntry) instead of li(e a co*nty of theUnited States) is that they ha,e n*clear wea-ons4so for the& it<s i&-ortanton a sy&bolic le,el. +nd n*clear wea-ons are i&-ortant to the United

States beca*se they<re -art of the way we inti&idate e,eryone4we inter,enearo*nd the world *nder what<s called a An*clear *&brella)A which ser,es as(ind of a co,er to bac( *- o*r con,entional inter,ention forces.

Well) that year 0ndonesia was ser,ing as the head of the Non4+lignedMo,e&ent at the U.N. a coalition of Third World nations in the >eneral+sse&blyO) and the 33% co*ntries of the Non4+ligned Mo,e&ent decidedto introd*ce a resol*tion endorsing this re *est for an o-inion4that<s all thatwas *-) endorse&ent of a re *est for an o-inion fro& the World 'o*rt. TheU.S.) 2ritain and Brance i&&ediately threatened trade and aid sanctionsagainst 0ndonesia if) in their role as head of the Non4+ligned Mo,e&ent forthat year) they s*b&itted this resol*tion at the >eneral +sse&bly. So0ndonesia instantly withdrew it) of co*rse4when they get orders fro& the

boss) they sto-. +nd they sto- fast. 63

Well) that *st shows that there are so&e atrocities that go too far for theWestern -owers? genocide in East Ti&or we can s*--ort) b*t endorse&entof a re *est for an o-inion on the legality of n*clear wea-ons is an atrocitywe si&-ly cannot tolerate. 2*t it also shows yo* what we can do to 0n4donesia if we feel li(e it.

."-lear Proliferation and .orth >orea

M*$, ust on the subAect of nuclear proliferation8what"s the real problemwe"ve had with $orth 9orea supposedly wanting to build their own nuclearweapons0 'he media and the Clinton administration say they"re allhorrified by that prospect8is that what you really thin& is bothering them0

That<s ,ery interesting in connection with this World 'o*rt story) isn<t it4 beca*se -art of what we clai& is the -roble& with North "orea is that theirgetting n*clear wea-ons wo*ld threaten the N*clear NonProliferationTreaty. 2*t if we<re so concerned with non4-roliferation) ob,io*sly nothingwo*ld be &ore of a shot in the ar& for it than this World 'o*rt decision wetried so des-erately to bloc(. !(ay) that tells yo* so&ething abo*t o*r&oti,es in all of this. 2*t act*ally) 0 thin( the -roble& with North "orea isin fact what they<re saying? the wrong g*ys are getting -ossible -ower)n*clear wea-ons.

oo() nobody in their right &ind wo*ld want North "orea to ha,e n*4




clear wea-ons. 2*t on the other hand) there<s nothing &*ch that they wo*lddo with n*clear wea-ons if they had the&) e1ce-t &aybe defendthe&sel,es fro& attac(. They<re certainly not going to invade anybody)that<s not e,en i&aginable? if they e,er &ade a &o,e) the co*ntry gets de4stroyed to&orrow. So the only role that n*clear wea-ons co*ld -lay forthe& is as a deterrent to attac(4and that<s not totally *nrealistic.

0 &ean) it<s a -retty craGy co*ntry) and there<s not ,ery &*ch good444there<s nothing good4yo* can say abo*t the go,ern&ent. 2*t no &atter whothey were) if they were Mahat&a >andhi) they wo*ld be worried abo*t a

-ossible attac(. 0 &ean) the United States was threatening North "orea withn*clear wea-ons at least as late as the 3;6%s. 6$ +nd after all) *st re&e&berwhat we did to that co*ntry4it was absol*tely flattened. Here -eo-le &aynot be aware of what we did to the&) b*t they certainly (now it welleno*gh.

Towards the end of what we call the A"orean WarA4which was really *st one -hase in a &*ch longer str*ggle beginning when the U.S. de4stroyed the indigeno*s nationalist &o,e&ent in "orea in the late 3;8%sOtheUnited States ran o*t of good bo&bing targets. We had total co&&and ofthe air of co*rse) b*t there was nothing good left to bo&b4beca*see,erything had already been flattened. So we started going after things li(edi(es. !(ay) that<s *st a &a or war cri&e. 6: 0n fact) if yo* ta(e a loo( at the

official U.S. +ir Borce history of the "orean War) it<s absol*tely &ind4 boggling) it<s li(e so&ething straight o*t of the NaGi archi,es. 0 &ean) theseg*ys don<t conceal their glee at all) it<s *st this acco*nt of all their terrificfeelings? we bo&bed these di(es) and a h*ge flow of water went thro*ghthe ,alleys and car,ed o*t h*ge -aths of destr*ction and sla*ghtered

-eo-leX +nd they say) la*ghingly? we don<t realiGe how i&-ortant rice is forthe +sians) so nat*rally they were screa&ing with rageX 0 really can<td*-licate) yo* ha,e to read it in the original. 68 +nd the "oreans li,ed onthe other end of that.

!*r treat&ent of North "orean -risoners of war also was absol*telygrotes *e4again) it was (ind of li(e the NaGis. This is all doc*&ented in theWest by now) and of co*rse they certainly (now abo*t it. 65 So there are

-lenty of things for the North "oreans to re&e&ber) and -lenty of things

for the& to be afraid of4which is not to *stify their getting n*clearwea-ons) b*t it<s -art of the bac(gro*nd we sho*ld (ee- in &ind.

The other thing is) North "orea is in a des-erate sit*ation right now?they<re he&&ed in -olitically) and they<re str*ggling ,ery hard to brea( o*tof their total isolation4they<re setting *- free4trade Gones) and trying to in4tegrate the&sel,es into the international econo&ic syste&) other things li(ethat. Well) this is a--arently one of their ways of atte&-ting to do it. 0t<sneither intelligent nor *stifiable) b*t that<s a -art of what<s &oti,atingthe&) and we sho*ld at least try to *nderstand that.

+s far as Western concern abo*t n*clear wea-ons goes) ob,io*sly it<shighly selecti,e4li(e) nobody cares that the 2nited States has n*clearwea-ons) nobody cares that 0srael has n*clear wea-ons) they *st don<t



Chapter Eight 353

want the& in the hands of -eo-le we don<t control) li(e North "orea. +nd 0thin( that<s really the &ain iss*e behind the contro,ersy these days.

W+M*$, Could you say a few words more about the origins of the 9oreanWar0 6 ta&e it you don"t accept the standard picture that it began when the2.S. moved to bloc& a Communist expansionist invasion.

Well) the fact of the &atter is that the "orean War is &*ch &oreco&-le1 than the way it<s -resented in &ainstrea& circles. 0n this case)incidentally) the scholarshi- is considerably better than is *s*al) and if yo*loo( at the serio*s &onogra-h literat*re on the "orean War) yo*<ll see thata different -osition is -resented than the one we always hear. 66

The 3;5% North "orean attac( on the so*thern -art of the co*ntry wasreally the tail end of a long war. 0n fact) before North "orea attac(ed theSo*th in 3;5%) already abo*t 3%%)%%% "oreans had been (illed4that<sso&ething we forget. What ha--ened in "orea is essentially this. When the+&erican forces landed in 3;85 at the end of World War II, they fo*ndthat an already f*nctioning local go,ern&ent had been set *-. There had

been an anti4Ja-anese resistance) and it had established localad&inistrations and Peo-les< 'o&&ittees and so on) all o,er North andSo*th "orea. Well) when the United States &o,ed into the So*th) wedis&antled all of that) destroyed it by force4we *sed the "oreans who hadcollaborated with the Ja-anese) and in fact e,en reinstit*ted the Ja-anese

-olice to destroy it all Ja-an had occ*-ied "orea for :5 years *ntil itsdefeat in the Second World WarO. +nd that led to serio*s conflict in theSo*th) a rather bitter conflict which went on for fo*r or fi,e years with a lotof -eo-le (illed) and also there was a lot of cross4border fighting at the ti&eKgoing both ways) incidentallyL. Then there was sort of a l*ll) and thenca&e the North "orean attac( going so*th. So there was definitely a North"orean attac() b*t it was an inter,ention by the North into the So*th afterthe United States had s*--ressed the anti4Ja-anese resistance &o,e&ent ina ci,il war. 69

Now) that -*ts a slightly different color on it than the standard line wehear. Bor e1a&-le) if so&e co*ntry were4let<s say4to con *er the western

-art of the United States) and there was resistance against that con *est)and then the resistance was s*--ressed with say a h*ndred tho*sand -eo-le(illed) and then the Eastern -art of the United States Ain,adedA the Western

-art) that wo*ldn<t be *st an in,asion? that wo*ld be a little too si&-le.+nd so&ething li(e that ha--ened in "orea.

The Samson Option

W+M*$, %ou mentioned 6srael having nuclear weapons8would you ex8 pand on the significance of that0 6 remember you used the title 1'he Roadto *rmageddon1 for the last chapter of your boo& on the Middle East) TheBatef*l Triangle.



Chapter Eight 35=

thing. Well) after the fall of the 2erlin Wall) they had to change the co&4 -*ter dis( for the first ti&e. The botto& line had to re&ain the sa&e? weneed a big &ilitary) a big so4called AdefenseA infrastr*ct*re Kread? s*--ortfor electronicsL4b*t now the *stification had to change. So in 3;;%) thereason they ga,e was no longer Athe R*ssians are co&ing)A it was whatthey called Athe technological so-histication of Third World -owersA44es-ecially ones in the Middle East) where they said) o*r -roble&s Aco*ldnot be laid at the "re&lin<s door.A

!(ay) first tr*e state&ent? for the -receding fifty years) o*r -roble&s al4ways had been Alaid at the "re&lin<s door)A b*t now that the "re&lin<sgone) we<d &ight as well tell the tr*th abo*t it4beca*se we still need thesa&e -olicies. 98 +nd in fact) *st to &a(e s*re that there always is a realdanger) we also ha,e to sell all these Third World -owers high4techwea-onry4the *.s. in fact ,ery *ic(ly beca&e the biggest ar&s dealer tothe Third World after the 'old War ended. 95 +nd the ar&s contractors ofco*rse &now it? li(e) if yo* read oc(heed4Martin cor-orate -ro-aganda)they say) loo() we<,e got to b*ild the B4$$ beca*se we<re selling ad,anced*-graded B436s to these Third World regi&es) and we<re selling the& all(inds of co&-licated air defense syste&s) and who (nows) they<re *st a

b*nch of dictators) &aybe they<ll t*rn against *s4so we<,e got to b*ild theB4$$ to defend o*rsel,es fro& all the high4tech wea-ons we<re selling the&.96

+nd of co*rse) that<s all at the cost of the U.S. ta1-ayer) as *s*al.

The 5ot of the Palestinians

M*$, $oam) how do you interpret the 3;;6 elections in 6srael Hin whichthe more right8wing 7i&ud #arty) led by (enAamin $etanyahu) defeated the

7abor #arty) which had negotiated the +slo *ccords in 3;;8OI *nd whatdo you thin& the effect is going to be on the peace process that the 7abor

#arty was instituting with the #alestinians0

0 thin( it<s going to ha,e al&ost no effect on that. APeace -rocessA is a,ery f*nny word for what<s ha--ened) act*ally4it<s a A-eace -rocessA in thesa&e sense that it was a A-eace -rocessA in So*th +frica when theyinstit*ted a-artheid the syste& of official white s*-re&acyO. So whenSo*th +frica instit*ted its a-artheid syste& in the 3;5%s and set *- the 2an4t*stans -artially self4go,erning blac( territoriesO) that was also a A-eace

-rocessA4it stabiliGed the co*ntry) there was -eace for a while) and so on.Well) in &any ways that<s si&ilar to what<s called Athe -eace -rocessA in theMiddle East right now) altho*gh if yo* loo( closely) that co&-arison is not

*ite fair. 0t<s *nfair to So*th +frica.See) the 2ant*stans that So*th +frica set *- in the 3;5%s were &*ch

&ore ,iable econo&ically than any scattered frag&ent that &ay so&eday




be allowed for a Palestinian state *nder the !slo +gree&ents. +nd f*rther4&ore) So*th +frica s*bsidiGed its 2ant*stans? so if yo* go bac( to) say)Trans(ei 2ant*stan *nder a-artheid *ntil 3;;3O) So*th +frica ga,e it

-lenty of s*bsidies4in fact) a large -art of the So*th +frican b*dget went tos*bsidiGing the 2ant*stans) which were relati,ely ,iable areas econo&i4cally. Well) 0srael has ne,er -er&itted any de,elo-&ent whatsoe,er in the!cc*-ied Territories4in fact) there was act*ally a &ilitary ordinance that node,elo-&ent wo*ld be allowed there if it wo*ld be co&-etiti,e with 0sraeli

b*siness. They<,e wanted the Territories to be a ca-ti,e &ar(et) andtherefore there<s been no de,elo-&ent at all. 99

0sraeli re-orters ha,e co,ered this ,ery well) act*ally. When they wentto Jordan after the -eace treaty with Jordan finaliGed in !ctober 3;;8O)e,en they were shoc(ed by the difference between it and the !cc*-iedTerritories4and they wrote ,ery interesting articles abo*t it. 97 Re&e&ber)Jordan is a -oor Third World co*ntry? it hasn<t had any of the ad,antagesthat 0srael has had in being the chief +&erican client4state) and before the3;69 war) the West 2an( was so&ewhat &ore de,elo-ed than Jordan.Well) today the dis-arity is e1traordinary in the o--osite direction. So inJordan) there<s rich agric*lt*re) and highways) and factories) and otherthings li(e that4b*t right across the border) the West 2an( is a total disaster?0srael hasn<t allowed a cent to go into itC in fact) they<,e ta(en a lot of&oney out of it.

Bor instance) the -oor wor(ers in the 0sraeli labor force o,er the yearsha,e &ostly been Palestinians fro& the West 2an( and >aGa Stri-4they didthe dirty wor( in 0srael<s econo&y. +nd theoretically they were -aid) b*t&ostly theoretically4beca*se fro& their -ay) the 0sraeli go,ern&entded*cted what is ded*cted fro& the -ay of Jewish wor(ers) li(e ded*ctionsfor -ensions and health care and so on. E1ce-t the Palestinian wor(ersne,er got any of the benefits? the &oney for their benefits *st went right tothe 0sraeli treas*ry. Well) that a&o*nt is esti&ated to be abo*t a billion dol4lars or so. 0n fact) not long ago an 0sraeli ci,il rights gro*-) -artly &ade *-of law -rofessors at the Hebrew Uni,ersity and -artly *st a wor(ers< rightsgro*- "a, a<!,edO) bro*ght a laws*it in the 0sraeli co*rts to try to re4co,er for these wor(ers the ro*ghly billion dollars it<s esti&ated has beenstolen fro& the&. Well) the co*rt recently decided the case4and it decidedthat the clai&s were n*ll and ,oid beca*se of the !slo +gree&ents) whichit said ha,e retroacti,ely eli&inated the basis for the s*it by legaliGing0srael<s confiscation of the f*nds. +nd f*rther&ore) the decision said thatthe -*r-ose for &a(ing those ded*ctions had ne,er been to ens*re e *alrights for the Palestinian wor(ers in the first -lace) it was *st to ens*re thattheir act*al wages wo*ld be lower than those of Jewish wor(ers and to

-rotect 0sraeli wor(ers fro& *nfair co&-etition by chea-er Palestinianlabor. !(ayI That was the real -*r-ose of ta(ing the &oney fro& the&.+nd then the co*rt said that this was a worthy and legiti&ate action) *stli(e introd*cing tariffs to -rotect do&estic -rod*ction is a legiti&ate action?so therefore the robbery is retroacti,ely *stified. 9;



Chapter Eight 35?

Well) that<s *st one of the &any ways in which 0srael has ta(en -lenty ofwealth fro& the Territories) incl*ding its water. 7% +nd all of that is going tocontin*e after the !slo +gree&ents and the recent election. So if yo* loo(at the -eace treaty) e,erything *st (ee-s going to 0srael4and that<s not goingto change.

B*rther&ore) 0srael is not ta(ing any res-onsibility for what it<s done tothe Territories d*ring the occ*-ation which began in 3;69O? the -eacetreaty in fact says e1-licitly that 0srael has no liability for anything that wasdone in that ti&e) that<s all the sole res-onsibility of the Palestinian +*4thority. 0n fact) it<s the only thing that the Palestinian +*thority does get f*llres-onsibility for4e,erything else they don<t get) b*t they do get f*ll re4s-onsibility for -aying all the costs of the occ*-ation. +nd the treaty e14

-licitly says that if there is any future clai& against 0srael for so&ethingthat ha--ened d*ring the occ*-ation) the Palestinian +*thority also isres-onsible for -aying that clai& and for rei&b*rsing 0srael if there are anycharges against 0srael. So here as well) what<s ha--ened in the A-eace

-rocessA is not *ite li(e So*th +frica? the So*th +frican 2ant*stans werefar &ore forthco&ing.

Well) all of this is *st going to contin*e after the elections40 &ean) thei(*d Party wo*ld be o*t of their &inds if they didn<t -ersist in all thisC the

!slo +gree&ents are s*ch an o,erwhel&ing ,ictory for 0srael that they<d be

insane if they didn<t &aintain the&. So 0 wo*ld not e1-ect any of that tochange. Now) that<s not the standard story abo*t the elections in the United

States) of co*rse. Bor e1a&-le) the $ew %or& 'imes"s lead story in theirAWee( in Re,iewA section after the elections said) flat o*t? the -eace

-rocess is dead4e,erything the U.S. did is finished) it<s dead) it<s o,er. 73 2*t0 don<t thin( that<s tr*e at all40 thin( that<s based on a serio*s &is*nder4standing of what the A-eace -rocessA was really abo*t. i(*d wo*ld becraGy not to -ersist with the relations that ha,e been established with theP. .!. *nder the !slo +gree&ents4 *st as the white So*th +frican eliteswo*ld ha,e been craGy not to contin*e -*shing thro*gh the 2ant*stan

-rocess if they co*ld ha,e gotten away with it. 0n fact) the &ain difference between the two cases is that in the case of the 2ant*stans) nobody in theinternational co&&*nity recogniGed the arrange&ent as legiti&ate4b*t inthe case of the 0sraeli -olicy towards the !cc*-ied Territories now) e,ery4

body in the world at this -oint basically s*--orts it) than(s to U.S. -ower.0n fact) the c*rrent U.S. go,ern&ent) the 'linton ad&inistration) has goneway beyond any of its -redecessors in s*--ort for the &ost e1tre&ist 0sraeli

-olicies. The 0sraeli -ress is constantly astonished by it. Bor instance) therewas a big headline in a recent article in 0srael) which read) A'linton? The

ast ionistA4yo* (now) the only one left who really belie,es all the b*ll4shit. 7$

So yo* (now) the &ost i&-ortant -art of the A-eace agree&entA is itsco&-lete ter&ination of any -ossibility of self4deter&ination for the Pales4




tinians? they<re finished as far as this goes) they get nothing. +s far as thePalestinian ref*gees are concerned) it<s finished. 0 &ean) for years theUnited States went along with rhetorical co&&it&ents abo*t a A *stsettle&entA of the ref*gee -roble&C now it doesn<t e,en do that any&ore.!n the iss*e of control of Jer*sale&) while the United States *sed torhetorically o--ose the 0sraeli anne1ation and ta(eo,er) along with the restof the world) now that<s o,er4the 'linton ad&inistration doesn<t e,eno--ose it rhetorically any&ore. 7:

The ter&s of the treaty are -retty a&aGing) they<re really worth loo(ingat? they were -*shed by the United States in s*ch a way that the chance ofanything at all for the Palestinians is very &ini&al. So -eo-le li,ing in theTerritories *sed to ha,e two o-tions? one was to go so&ewhere else Kwhich0srael ho-ed wo*ld ha--en) and did ha--en to a considerable e1tentL) andthe other was to co&&*te to 0srael and be (ind of what in E*ro-e are calledAg*est wor(ers)A what are called here Aillegal &igrant laborA4so they wo*lddo the dirty wor( in 0srael that nobody wanted) for a -ittance) essentiallynothing. 2*t now e,en that is being c*t o*t4they<re not being allowed bac(into 0srael. 78 +nd 0srael is now t*rning to another so*rce? they ha,e bynow abo*t $%%)%%% i&&igrants Kit<s &aybe abo*t 5 -ercent of the

-o-*lationL fro& all o,er the world) fro& >hana) Ec*ador) lots of the&fro& Thailand) Ro&ania) 'hina) the Phili--ines. +nd these are -eo-le es4sentially bro*ght o,er for this -*r-ose4who *st li,e *nder the &ost &is4erable conditions.

The ones they sort of li(e best are the 'hinese) beca*se they ha,e a dealwith the 'hinese go,ern&ent that if these -eo-le get o*t of hand4li(e ifthey de&and that they be -aid their wages Kwhich they<re *s*ally not -aidL)or yo* (now) they want to sto- being beaten while they<re on the ob orso&ething40srael can *st call in the 'hinese a*thorities who will) as they

-*t it) Adeal with the&.A 'hina<s a ro*gh) to*gh go,ern&ent) yo* (now) sothey<ll &a(e s*re that no one &a(es any f*ss4and if they do &a(e a f*ss)0srael will *st send the& ho&e where they<ll be e,en worse off. So the'hinese wor(ers are easier to disci-line) beca*se of the coo-eration of the'hinese a*thorities) and that<s so&ething they li(e ,ery &*ch in 0srael. 75

Well) that<s a ,ery br*tal syste&) and it ends *- dis-lacing the Palestini4

ans4so that &eans one of the o-tions for s*r,i,al for the Palestinians now isgone. The other o-tion) lea,ing) of co*rse is sort of o-en4if they can fig*reo*t so&e -lace to go. 2*t with i&&igration restrictions being what they areall o,er the world) that<s getting harder and harder.

2asically there<s nothing &*ch left at all for the Palestinians. 0 &ean) if0srael<s s&art) what they<ll do is transfer so&e -rod*ction across the borderinto the Territories) li(e the United States does with Me1ico4that wo*ld bes&art fro& the 0sraeli ind*strialists< -oint of ,iew. So instead of ha,ing tohire Jewish wor(ers and gi,ing the& wages and benefits and so on) theyco*ld *st &o,e a co*-le &iles across the border and get what the U.S. getsin Me1ico or what >er&any gets in 2*lgaria and so on? s*-er4chea- labor



3 5 2nderstanding #ower

class and the -oor as well4beca*se the abor Party in 0srael) des-ite itsna&e) is the -arty of the rich elites and -rofessionals and the E*ro-eaniGedseg&ents of the -o-*lation) and big b*siness really li(es it? 0 &ean) theydon<t &ind i(*d) b*t they really li(e abor. 0n case yo* were conf*sedabo*t this) the fact that the United States has s*--orted the abor Partyo*ght to be a gi,eaway abo*t its real interests? the United States does nots*--ort -arties of wor(ing -eo-le and the -oor.

2*t the -oint is) &ost of these ,oting bloc(s that oined to -*t Ne4

tanyah* in -ower ha,e a (ind of religio*s cha*,inist ele&ent to the&4yo*(now) they want to restore and establish Jewish identity) their e&-hasis ison what are called in the United States Athe c*lt*ral iss*es)A that<s what

i(*d won on. +nd often that does ha,e sort of a -o-*list a--eal? so i(*dgot the s*--ort of -oor and wor(ing -eo-le) and they got it in the sa&e(ind of way as Pat 2*chanan gets their s*--ort here4and with abo*t as&*ch a*thenticity in ter&s of concern for their interests. +nd -art of theirony of the elections is that the -eo-le these nationalist constit*encieselected are al&ost -*re +&ericans and sec*lar40 &ean) Netanyah* co*ldr*n for office in the United States and nobody wo*ld notice it) he<s essen4tially an +&erican) *st listen to hi& on tele,ision. !r ta(e his leading for4eign -olicy ad,isor) ore >old? he grew *- in the United States) has an+&erican accent) he<s co&-letely +&ericaniGed and sec*lar4and he<s the

chief -olicy ad,isor. So what in fact ha--ened is that the &ost +&erican4iGed ele&ent that has e,er e1isted in 0sraeli -olitics won the election on anationalist religio*s -rogra&. +nd since yo*<,e got to gi,e so&e cr*&bs toyo*r constit*ency) the *estion now is) how are they going to do itI Well)that"s the iss*e after the 0sraeli elections.

+nd right now the &ore sec*lar E*ro-ean4ty-es in the 0sraeli -o-*lationare e1tre&ely worried abo*t it4and they<re e1tre&ely worried abo*t it forthe e1act sa&e reason we wo*ld be e1tre&ely worried abo*t it if the 'hris4tian Right t*rned o*t to be the &a or constit*ency of the g*y who wins thePresidential election in the United States. So s*--ose 2ob ole had wonthe Presidency here in 3;;6 with the o,erwhel&ing s*--ort of the 'hristianRight) and cha*,inist fanatics) and the A&ilitias)A and so on and so forth. 0&ean) basic -olicies wo*ldn<t change &*ch as a res*lt) b*t so&ethingwo*ld ha,e to be done4there wo*ld ha,e to be so&e (ind of -alliati,e offerto the constit*ency that ,oted hi& in. +nd that can &ean things) it can ha,eserio*s effects. So those are the sorts of changes 0 thin( one can e1-ect tosee in 0srael) and it<s not ,ery clear how these internal factors will -lay o*t.

P;5;O; 6mbitions

M*$, Can you add a word about the #alestinian leadership"s response tothe whole 1peace process10 %ou generally characteri e the #.7.+. as abunch of conservative mayor8types8has that analysis changed at all0



Chapter Eight 3

Well) yo* (now) 0<,e always tho*ght that the P. .!. is the &ost corr*-tand inco&-etent Third World &o,e&ent 0<,e e,er seen. 79 0 &ean) they<,e

presented the&sel,es all these years as) yo* (now) re,ol*tionaries wa,ingaro*nd g*ns) Mar1) etc.4b*t they<re basically conser,ati,e nationalists) andthey always were conser,ati,e nationalists? the rest was all -retense.

0n fact) -art of the reason for the fail*re of the whole Palestinian ca*se isthat the P. .!. is the only Third World leadershi- 0<,e e,er seen that didn<ttry to sti&*late or s*--ort4or e,en hel-4any (ind of international solidarity

gro*-. E,en the North "oreans) craGy as they are) ha,e &ade efforts to tryto get -o-*lar s*--ort in the United States. 2*t the Palestinian leadershi-ne,er did. +nd it<s not beca*se they weren<t told that it wo*ld be a goodidea40 &ean) there were -eo-le li(e) say) Ed Said Palestinian4+&erican

-rofessorO) who were trying to get the& to do that for years) and 0 was e,enin,ol,ed in it &yself. 2*t they *st co*ldn<t hear it. Their conce-tion of theway -olitics wor(s is that it<s arranged by rich g*ys sitting in bac( roo&swho wor( o*t deals together) and the -o-*lation<s irrele,ant. They ha,en<tthe slightest conce-tion of the way a de&ocratic syste& f*nctions. So whileit<s tr*e we don<t ha,e li(e a stellar de&ocracy in the United States) whatthe -o-*lation thin(s and does &a(es a difference here4a big difference4andthere are &echanis&s to infl*ence things. 2*t the P. .!. leadershi- has *stne,er *nderstood that.

The e1tent of this is really astonishing) act*ally. J*st to gi,e yo* one e14a&-le of it) bac( in the early 3;7%s) when So*th End Press a radical+&erican -*blishing collecti,eO was first co&ing along) it was -*blishingso&e boo(s which co*ld ha,e been ,ery *sef*l for Palestinians. So one ofthe boo(s it -*blished was a ,ery good war diary abo*t the 3;7$ ebanonwar) written by a well4(nown 0sraeli &ilitary officer who was one of thefo*nders of the 0sraeli ar&y act*ally) a g*y na&ed o, er&iya) who<s a,ery res-ected g*y and a decent h*&an being4and he was absol*tely hor4rified by what was going on d*ring 0srael<s attac( on ebanon. So he wrotea war diary which was -*blished in Hebrew and was ,ery different fro&anything yo* e,er heard here in the &ainstrea&) gi,ing an acc*rate -ict*reof what was going on) which was &assi,e atrocities. 77 Well) ob,io*sly no

-*blisher in the United States was going to to*ch it) b*t So*th End did -*b4lish it in English translation4and of co*rse) it ne,er got re,iewed) no librarywo*ld -ic( it *-) nobody (nows it e1ists) and so onC 0 had a boo( on theMiddle East which was the sa&e story) and there were a co*-le others li(ethat.

Well) there was an a--roach to the P. .!. abo*t all of this4and inci4dentally) the P. .!. had tons of &oney. 0 &ean) -art of their -roble& wasthat they were way too rich for their own good? they had a ton of &oney be4ca*se the rich +rab states were trying to b*y the& off so they wo*ldn<tca*se the& any tro*ble. So yo* (now) +rafat was able to bro(er billion4dollar loans to H*ngary) and all this (ind of craGy b*siness. 2*t anyway)the P. .!. had tons of &oney) and there was a -ro-osal to try to get the&

*st




to -*rchase boo(s4li(e) say) er&iya<s boo(4and send the& to libraries sothe boo( wo*ld be in +&erican -*blic libraries? it was nothing &ore thanthat.

!(ay) it got *- to the P. .!. leadershi-) and they ref*sed. !r rather) theywo*ld agree to do it only if the boo( was -*blished with a P. .!. i&-rinton it) saying) yo* (now) AP*blished with the s*--ort of the P. .!.A Well)yo* can g*ess what it wo*ld &ean if yo* -*blished a boo( in the UnitedStates with that i&-rint on it4so that was the end of that idea. 2*t *st to doso&ething li(e b*ying boo(s which ne,er wo*ld be re,iewed and -*ttingthe& in libraries which aren<t going to b*y the& on their own) as a way to&aybe hel- Palestinians in ref*gee ca&-s who are being s&ashed to -iecesin 2eir*t the ebanese city that was the foc*s of 0srael<s attac(Othat theywo*ldn<t do. +nd in fact) that<s *st sy&bolic? they wo*ld do nothing thatwo*ld hel- to b*ild *- s*--ort for the really s*ffering -eo-le who theywere s*--osed to re-resent4 *st beca*se they were -laying a differentga&e. Their ga&e was) AWe<re going to &a(e a deal with "issinger or

Ni1on) or so&e rich g*y in a bac( roo&) and then o*r -roble&s will beo,er.A Well) of co*rse that will ne,er wor(.

+ct*ally) the corr*-tion of the P. .!. has *st inf*riated Palestinians inthe Territories) 0 sho*ld say. 0 was in the Territories bac( in 3;77 or so) andwhen yo* went into) say) the old city of Nabl*s) or ,illages) and tal(ed to

organiGers or acti,ists) their hatred and conte&-t of the P. .!. was *st e14traordinary. They were ,ery bitter abo*t it4abo*t the robbery and the cor4r*-tion and e,erything else4b*t they *st said? loo() it<s the best we<,e got)that<s o*r international i&age) yo* want to tal( di-lo&acy yo*<,e got to tal(to the&.

Howe,er) by abo*t 3;;$ or <;: e,en that (ind of gr*dging acce-tancehad beg*n to colla-se. There was a lot of o--osition to the +rafatleadershi- in the Territories4and in the ref*gee ca&-s in ebanon) therewere o-en calls for his resignation) calls for de&ocratiGing the P. .!.) andso on. The 0sraeli -ress (new all abo*t it4they co,er the Territories -rettywell4and certainly 0sraeli intelligence (new abo*t it) beca*se they<,e got the

-lace honeyco&bed. So there were articles by do,es in the 0sraeli -ressaro*nd the s*&&er of 3;;: or so) saying? now<s a good ti&e to deal with

the P. .!.) beca*se they<re going to gi,e away e,erything4since theirs*--ort is so wea( inside the !cc*-ied Territories) the last chance theP. .!. leadershi- has to hang on to -ower is to be o*r agents) 0sraeli agents.0sraeli doves wrote articles abo*t that) and of co*rse the 0sraeli go,ern&ent(new it. 7;

Well) o(ay) that whole -heno&enon led to the !slo +gree&ents4andnow where the P. .!. leadershi- fits in is *st as -art of the standard ThirdWorld &odel? they are the r*ling Third World elite. So ta(e a classic case)loo( at the history of 0ndia for a co*-le h*ndred years *nder the 2ritishE&-ire? the co*ntry was r*n by 6ndians) not by 2ritish4the b*rea*crats whoact*ally ran things were 0ndians) the soldiers who beat -eo-le *- ands&ashed their heads were 0ndians. There was an 0ndian leadershi- which

beca&e ,ery rich and -ri,ileged by being the agents of the 2ritish i&-erial



Chapter Eight 3 3

syste&4and it<s the sa&e thing e,erywhere else. So for e1a&-le) if yo* loo(at So*thern +frica in the &ore recent -eriod) the &ost br*tal atrocities werecarried o*t by blac( soldiers) who were basically &ercenaries for the whiteracist So*th +frican regi&e. +nd e,ery Third World co*ntry is li(e that.Whate,er yo* want to call it) the whole +&erican sort of Aneocolonialsyste&A4E0 Sal,ador) 2raGil) the Phili--ines) and so on4is not r*n by

*mericans. The U.S. &ay be in the bac(gro*nd) and when things get o*t ofhand yo* &ay send in the +&erican ar&y or so&ething4b*t basically it<s all

being r*n by local agents of the i&-erial -ower) whose internal -owerde-ends on their s*--ort fro& the o*tside) b*t who ,ery &*ch enrichthe&sel,es by their client r*ler stat*s. +lright) that<s the standard colonialrelationshi-) and the P. .!. is intending to -lay that role.

So they ha,e a h*ge sec*rity force4nobody really (nows how big it is) beca*se it<s secret) b*t they &ay ha,e thirty or forty tho*sand &en enlisted.They s*rely ha,e one of the highest densities of -olice -er ca-ita in theworld) if not the highest. They wor( ,ery closely with the 0sraeli secret ser4,ices and the 0sraeli ar&y. They<re ,ery br*ta3. ;% +nd they<re &a(ing a tonof &oney. So yo* go to -laces li(e >aGa which are *st colla-sing) there are

-eo-le star,ing in the streets4and there<s also a ton of constr*ction) newfancy resta*rants) hotels) a lot of Palestinian in,estors going in and &a(ing

-lenty of &oney? it<s the standard Third World -attern) that<s the way the

whole Third World is organiGed. +nd yo* see it e,erywhere these days444Eastern E*ro-e is beco&ing that way too right now. 0 &ean) abo*t a yearago the -er ca-ita -*rchasing rate of Mercedes42enGes in Moscow washigher than it was in New or() beca*se there is tre&endo*s wealth. Mean4while) half a &illion &ore -eo-le are dying e,ery year in R*ssia than in the3;7%sC &ortality for &en has gone down se,en or eight years on a,erage inthe last few yearsC and on and on. ;3

!(ay) that<s the Third World. +nd that<s the way the P. .!. leadershi-sees its f*t*re4and with so&e *stice too) yo* (now) beca*se otherwise they

-robably wo*ld ha,e been (ic(ed o*t. So now that<s their role) to o,erseeall of this) and they<ll -*t *- with any h*&iliation) it doesn<t &atter what. 0&ean) yo* loo( at the ter&s of the -eace treaty) it was *st grat*ito*sh*&iliation. 2*t the P. .!. is -erfectly ha--y to ta(e it. +nd they<ll getrich) they<ll ha,e the g*ns) and they<ll be the e *i,alent of the elite in 0ndia)or Me1ico) Thailand) 0ndonesia) or any other -lace that yo* see in the ThirdWorld.

The .ation/State System

W+M*$, $oam) the problems you describe in the world sound almostchronic to me8systematic underdevelopment and exploitation in the 'hirdWorld) proliferation of nuclear weapons) the growing environmental crisis.What means of social organi ation do you thin& would be necessary for usto overcome these things0




Well) in &y ,iew what wo*ld *lti&ately be necessary wo*ld be a brea(4down of the nation4state syste&4beca*se 0 thin( that<s not a ,iable syste&.0t<s not necessarily the nat*ral for& of h*&an organiGationC in fact) it<s aE*ro-ean in,ention -retty &*ch. The &odern nation4state syste& basicallyde,elo-ed in E*ro-e since the &edie,al -eriod) and it was e1tre&ely diffi4c*lt for it to de,elo-? E*ro-e has a ,ery bloody history) an e1tre&elysa,age and bloody history) with constant &assi,e wars and so on) and thatwas all -art of an effort to establish the nation4state syste&. 0t has ,irt*ally

no relation to the way -eo-le li,e) or to their associations) or anything else -artic*larly) so it had to be established by force. +nd it was established bycent*ries of bloody warfare. That warfare ended in 3;854and the onlyreason it ended is beca*se the ne1t war was going to destroy everything. Soit ended in 3;854we ho-eC if it didn<t) it will destroy e,erything.

The nation4state syste& was e1-orted to the rest of the world thro*ghE*ro-ean coloniGation. E*ro-eans were barbarians basically) sa,ages? ,eryad,anced technologically) and ad,anced in &ethods of warfare) b*t notc*lt*rally or anything else -artic*larly. +nd when they s-read o,er the restof the world) it was li(e a -lag*e4they *st destroyed e,erything in front ofthe&) it was (ind of li(e >enghis "han or so&ething. They fo*ght differ4ently) they fo*ght &*ch &ore br*tally) they had better technology4and theyessentially wi-ed e,erything else o*t. ;$

The +&erican continent<s a good e1a&-le. How co&e e,erybody aro*ndhere has a white face) and not a red faceI Well) it<s beca*se the -eo-le withthe white faces were sa,ages) and they (illed the -eo-le with red faces.When the 2ritish and other colonists ca&e to this continent) they si&-lydestroyed e,erything4and -retty &*ch the sa&e thing ha--ened e,erywhereelse in the world. o* go bac( to abo*t the si1teenth cent*ry and the

-o-*lations of +frica and E*ro-e were a--ro1i&ately co&-arableC a co*4 -le cent*ries later) the -o-*lation of E*ro-e was far higher) &aybe fo*rti&es as high. Why did that changeI Well) yo* (now) those were the effectsof E*ro-ean coloniGation. ;:

So the -rocess of coloniGation was e1traordinarily destr*cti,e) and it int*rn i&-osed the E*ro-ean nation4state syste& on the world) (ind of a re4flection of internal E*ro-ean society) which of co*rse was alwayse1tre&ely hierarchical and *ne *al and br*tal. +nd if that syste&contin*es) 0 s*--ose it will contin*e to be hierarchical and *ne *al and

br*tal.So 0 thin( other for&s of social organiGation ha,e to be de,elo-ed4and

those for&s are not too diffic*lt to i&agine. 0 &ean) the United Nations wasan atte&-t to do so&ething abo*t it) b*t it didn<t wor() beca*se the s*-er4

-owers won<t let it wor(. 0nternational law is the sa&e story. 0nternationallaw is a &ethod by which yo* &ight reg*late the aggressi,e and destr*cti,etendencies of the nation4state4the tro*ble is) international law doesn<t ha,e a

-olice force? there are no Martians aro*nd to enforce it. So internationallaw will only wor( if the -owers s*b ected to it are willing to acce-t it) andthe United States is not willing to acce-t it. 0f the World 'o*rt con4



Chapter Eight 3 =

de&ns *s) we si&-ly disregard it) it<s not o*r -roble&4we<re abo,e the law)we<re a lawless state. ;8 +nd as long as the &a or -owers in the world arelawless and ,iolent) and are *nwilling to enter into internationalarrange&ents or other (inds of &echanis&s which wo*ld constrain forceand ,iolence) there<s ,ery little ho-e for h*&an s*r,i,al) 0 wo*ld thin(.

Now) &y own feeling40 &ean) big story4is that the reasons for all of thisha,e to do with the way that -ower is concentrated inside the -artic*larsocietiesC that<s the so*rce of this e1tre&e ,iolence in the world. Re&e&berthat e,ery e1isting social syste& has a ,ast dis-arity of -ower internally.Ta(e the United States? the United States was not fo*nded on the -rinci-lethat Athe -eo-leA o*ght to r*le4that<s fresh&an 'i,ics) it<s not whatha--ened in history. 0f yo* loo( bac( at the act*al record) yo*<ll find thatthe -rinci-les of the +&erican Bo*nding Bathers were *ite different.

"ee- in &ind) all of the Bo*nding Bathers hated de&ocracy4Tho&asJefferson was a -artial e1ce-tion) b*t only -artial. Bor the &ost -art) theyhated de&ocracy. The -rinci-les of the Bo*nding Bathers were rather nicelye1-ressed by John Jay) the head of the 'onstit*tional 'on,ention and thefirst 'hief J*stice of the S*-re&e 'o*rt. His fa,orite &a1i& was) AThe

-eo-le who own the co*ntry o*ght to go,ern itA 4that<s the -rinci-le onwhich the United States was fo*nded. ;5 The &a or fra&er of the 'onstit*4tion) Ja&es Madison) e&-hasiGed ,ery clearly in the debates at the 'onsti4

t*tional 'on,ention in 3979 that the whole syste& &*st be designed) as he -*t it) Ato -rotect the &inority of the o-*lent fro& the &a orityA 4that<s the -ri&ary -*r-ose of the go,ern&ent) he said. ;6

Now) Madison had (ind of a theory behind that) which was that theA&inority of the o-*lentA wo*ld be ele,ated Enlighten&ent gentle&en) whowo*ld act li(e so&e (ind of ancient Ro&an re-*blicans of his i&agination4

bene,olent -hiloso-hers who wo*ld *se their o-*lence to benefite,erybody in the co*ntry. 2*t he hi&self *ic(ly recogniGed that that was aserio*s del*sion) and within abo*t ten years he was bitterly deno*ncingwhat he called the Adaring de-ra,ity of the ti&esA as Athe &inority of theo-*lentA were *sing their -ower to s&ash e,eryone else in the face.

0n fact) still in the eighteenth cent*ry) Madison &ade so&e insightf*lco&&ents abo*t the interactions between state -ower and -ri,ate -ower.

He said) we<,e designed a syste& in which the Astoc(4 obbersA Kwhat wewo*ld today call in,estorsL are si&-ly *sing state -ower for their ownends4we tho*ght we were going to create a syste& which wo*ld -*t en4lightened gentle&en in control so that they wo*ld -rotect e,eryone fro&the tyranny of the &a ority) b*t instead what we<,e got is gangsters in con4trol *sing state -ower for their own benefit. ;9

Well) that<s the way the syste& was originally designed in the UnitedStates4and o,er the ne1t two cent*ries) that basic design hasn<t changed alot. The A&inority of the o-*lent)A who share a ,ery definite class interest)still ha,e control of the go,ern&ent instit*tions) both the -arlia&ent andthe E1ec*ti,e) while the general -o-*lation re&ains highly dis-ersed) se-a4



3 > 2nderstanding #ower

rated) and as Madison also reco&&ended) frag&ented so that -eo-le willnot be able to *nite together to identify and -ress their interests. ;7 +nd the

-rinci-le that AThe -eo-le who own the co*ntry o*ght to go,ern itA con4tin*es to be the do&inant feat*re of +&erican -olitics.

+lright) it<s not a ,ery big secret who owns the co*ntry? yo* loo( at the1@ortune 5%%A e,ery year and yo* fig*re o*t -retty well who owns theco*ntry. The co*ntry is basically owned by a networ( of conglo&erates thatcontrol -rod*ction and in,est&ent and ban(ing and so on) and are tightly

inter4lin(ed and ,ery highly concentrated8they own the co*ntry. +nd the -rinci-le of +&erican de&ocracy is that they also o*ght to go,ern it. +ndto a ,ery large e1tent) they do. Now) whene,er yo* ha,e a concentration of

-ower li(e that) yo* can be certain that the -eo-le who have the -ower aregoing to try to &a1i&iGe it4and they<re going to &a1i&iGe it at the e1-enseof others) both in their own co*ntry and abroad. +nd that<s *st an *n,iablesyste&) 0 thin(.

et<s -*t international ,iolence aside for a &in*te and ta(e en,iron&en4tal iss*es) which -eo-le are finally beginning to loo( at. Well) it<s been ob4,io*s for cent*ries that ca-italis& is going to self4destr*ct? that<s *stinherent in the logic of syste&4beca*se to the e1tent that a syste& is ca-i4talist) that &eans &a1i&iGing short4ter& -rofit and not being concernedwith long4ter& effects. 0n fact) the &otto of ca-italis& was) A-ri,ate ,ices)

-*blic benefitsA4so&ehow it<s gonna wor( o*t. Well) it doesn"t wor( o*t)and it<s never going to wor( o*t? if yo*<re &a1i&iGing short4ter& -rofitswitho*t concern for the long4ter& effects) yo* are going to destroy the en4,iron&ent) for one thing. 0 &ean) yo* can -retend *- to a certain -oint thatthe world has infinite reso*rces and that it<s an infinite wastebas(et4b*t atso&e -oint yo*<re going to r*n into the reality) which is that that isn<t tr*e.

Well) we<re r*nning into that reality now4and it<s ,ery -rofo*nd. Ta(eso&ething li(e co&b*stion? anything yo* b*rn) no &atter what it is) is in4creasing the greenho*se effect4and this was (nown to scientists decadesago) they (new e1actly what was ha--ening. ;; 2*t in a ca-italist syste&)yo* don<t care abo*t long4ter& effects li(e that) what yo* ha,e to care abo*tis to&orrow<s -rofits. So the greenho*se effect has been b*ilding for years)and there<s no (nown technological fi1 on the horiGon4there &ay not be anyanswer to this) it co*ld be so serio*s that there<s no re&edy. That<s -ossible)and then h*&an beings will t*rn o*t to ha,e been a lethal &*tation) which&aybe destroys a lot of life with *s. !r it co*ld be that there<s so&e way offi1ing it) or so&e a&eliorating way4nobody (nows.

2*t *st (ee- in &ind what we<re dealing with? the -redictable effect ofan increase in the world<s te&-erat*re thro*gh the greenho*se effect will beto raise the sea le,el) and if the sea le,el begins to rise a few feet) it<s notclear that h*&an ci,iliGation can contin*e. + lot of the agric*lt*ral lands)for e1a&-le) are all*,ial4they<re near the seas. 0nd*strial centers) li(e New

or( 'ity) co*ld be in*ndated. The cli&ate is going to change) so theagric*lt*ral4-rod*cing areas of the United States co*ld beco&e d*st4bowls.



Chapter Eight 3 ?

+nd when these changes start to be recogniGed) they<re going to set into &o4tion social conflict of a sort that we can<t e,en i&agine40 &ean) if it t*rns o*tthat agric*lt*ral areas in the United States are beco&ing *n,iable and thatSiberia is beco&ing the ne1t great agric*lt*ral -rod*cer) do yo* thin( that+&erican -lanners are going to allow the R*ssians to *se itI We<ll con *er

it) e,en if we ha,e to destroy the world in a n*clear war to do it. That<s theway they thin() and ha,e always tho*ght. +nd those conflicts are going to

be growing *- all o,er the world4yo* can<t e,en -redict what they<ll be li(e.+lright) right now we do not ha,e the for&s of internal de&ocracy or in4

ternational organiGation which will allow *s e,en to begin to co-e withthese sorts of -roble&s. The ,ery conce-t of social -lanning) of rational

-lanning for h*&an concerns4that<s regarded as ,irt*ally s*b,ersi,e. +ndthat<s the only thing that co*ld -ossibly sa,e -eo-le? rational social -lan4ning) carried o*t by acco*ntable -eo-le re-resenting the whole -o-*lationrather than b*siness elites. e&ocracy) in other words4that<s a conce-t wedon<t ha,e.

;



)ovement Organi*ing

(ased primarily on discussions at Woods

/ole) Massachusetts) between 3;;: and >

.

The )ovie )an" a-t"ring Consent

M*$, $oam) watching your reactions to the documentary they made about

your criti:ue of the media) you"ve shown a lot of discomfort . ..

o* sho*ld see the letters 0 write hi& indicating Mar( +chbar) one ofthe directorsO.

M*R9 *C/(*R, /e"s a good letter8writer.

M*$, *gain earlier today you said something critical about it. 6"m sure you reali e the politically potent effect that the film is having.

!h yes.

M*$, *nd 6 was Aust wondering) if this were a film about (ertrand Russell;(ritish philosopher and socialistJ and his powerful ideas) and how hehelped to change society with his ideas) would you be as critical of it) orwould you see it as a powerful political organi ing tool0

2oth) both.

:37

Editors" $ote, 'he 3;;$ movie Man*fact*ring 'onsent? Noa& 'ho&s(y andthe Media was the most successful Canadian feature documentary ever madeand played in more than 32 countries. *lthough Choms&y cooperated with thedirectors and li&ed them very much) he has not seen the film and does notintend to) for reasons that follow. 1



Chapter $ine 3

M*$, 'hen 0 guess 6"d love to hear you say something positive about the film.

Well) what 0 wo*ld say is e1actly what yo* said40 &ean) the -ositi,ei&-act of it has been astonishing to &e. Mar( can gi,e yo* the details) b*to*tside of the United States) the fil& is shown all o,er the -lace) and e,eninside the United States it was shown to so&e e1tent.

M*$, 6t was in a lot of cities.

eah) b*t in e,ery other co*ntry it<s been on national tele,ision.

M*$, 6t came to Seattle four times and sold out every screening.

!(ay) b*t e,erywhere else it was on national tele,ision. 0 didn<t realiGethis &yself *ntil 0 was tra,eling aro*nd E*ro-e gi,ing tal(s last year) and0<d be in Binland and A!h yeah) we all saw it on tele,isionA4it was that sortof thing all o,er the -lace. +s a &atter of fact) it<s gotten to the -oint where0<& in,ited to fil& festi,als all o,er the world4literally.

Well) one res*lt of that is there<s been a ton of re,iewing) and there,iewing is e1tre&ely interesting. The re,iews are often written *st byg*ys who write T.D. criticis& for the news-a-ers) yo* (now) co&-letelya-olitical -eo-le. +nd their reaction is e1tre&ely -ositi,e) 0<d say abo*t ;7

-ercent of the ti&e it<s very -ositi,e. 0n fact) abo*t the only thing that got alot of -eo-le -issed off) incl*ding Phil onah*e) was so&e re&ar(s 0 &adeabo*t s-orts? -eo-le got (ind of angry abo*t that. : 2*t &ost of the ti&e thereaction is ,ery -ositi,eC they say) A eah) really interesting.A

0n fact) 0 get a ton of letters abo*t it4li(e 0 get a letter fro& so&e steel4wor(er in 'anada saying) A0 too( &y friends three ti&es) we all saw it andit<s great)A and so on and so forth. Well) that<s all fine. 2*t the standard let4ter) the standard letter) is so&ething li(e this? it says) A0<& really glad they&ade this fil&C 0 tho*ght 0 was the only -erson in the world who had thesetho*ghts) 0<& delighted to (now that so&ebody else act*ally has the& andis saying the&.A Then co&es the -*nch4line? AHow can 0 oin yo*r &o,e4&entIA That<s why 0<& a&bi,alent.

Now) 0 don<t thin( it<s anything Mar( and Peter the directorsO didwrongC 0 &ean) 0 ha,en<t seen the &o,ie) b*t 0 (now that they were ,erywell aware of this -roble&) and tried ,ery hard to o,erco&e it. 2*t so&e4how it<s *st inherent in the &edi*&) 0 don<t thin( the &edi*& allows an es4ca-e fro& this4or if it does) 0 don<t thin( that anybody<s yet fo*nd it. 0 &ean)0 don<t thin( the &edi*& can &a(e -eo-le *nderstand that if they fil& &egi,ing a tal( so&ewhere) that<s beca*se so&ebody else organi ed the tal()and the real wor( is being done by the -eo-le who organiGed the tal() andthen followed it *- and are o*t there wor(ing in their co&&*nities. 0f theycan bring in so&e s-ea(er to hel- get -eo-le together) terrific)



Chapter $ine 3

M*$, 'hen 0 guess 6"d love to hear you say something positive about the film.

Well) what 0 wo*ld say is e1actly what yo* said40 &ean) the -ositi,ei&-act of it has been astonishing to &e. Mar( can gi,e yo* the details) b*to*tside of the United States) the fil& is shown all o,er the -lace) and e,eninside the United States it was shown to so&e e1tent.

M*$, 6t was in a lot of cities.

eah) b*t in e,ery other co*ntry it<s been on national tele,ision.

M*$, 6t came to Seattle four times and sold out every screening.

!(ay) b*t e,erywhere else it was on national tele,ision. 0 didn<t realiGethis &yself *ntil 0 was tra,eling aro*nd E*ro-e gi,ing tal(s last year) and0<d be in Binland and A!h yeah) we all saw it on tele,isionA4it was that sortof thing all o,er the -lace. +s a &atter of fact) it<s gotten to the -oint where0<& in,ited to fil& festi,als all o,er the world4literally.

Well) one res*lt of that is there<s been a ton of re,iewing) and there,iewing is e1tre&ely interesting. The re,iews are often written *st byg*ys who write T.D. criticis& for the news-a-ers) yo* (now) co&-letelya-olitical -eo-le. +nd their reaction is e1tre&ely -ositi,e) 0<d say abo*t ;7

-ercent of the ti&e it<s very -ositi,e. 0n fact) abo*t the only thing that got alot of -eo-le -issed off) incl*ding Phil onah*e) was so&e re&ar(s 0 &adeabo*t s-orts? -eo-le got (ind of angry abo*t that. : 2*t &ost of the ti&e thereaction is ,ery -ositi,eC they say) A eah) really interesting.A

0n fact) 0 get a ton of letters abo*t it4li(e 0 get a letter fro& so&e steel4wor(er in 'anada saying) A0 too( &y friends three ti&es) we all saw it andit<s great)A and so on and so forth. Well) that<s all fine. 2*t the standard let4ter) the standard letter) is so&ething li(e this? it says) A0<& really glad they&ade this fil&C 0 tho*ght 0 was the only -erson in the world who had thesetho*ghts) 0<& delighted to (now that so&ebody else act*ally has the& andis saying the&.A Then co&es the -*nch4line? AHow can 0 oin yo*r &o,e4

&entIA That<s why 0<& a&bi,alent. Now) 0 don<t thin( it<s anything Mar( and Peter the directorsO didwrongC 0 &ean) 0 ha,en<t seen the &o,ie) b*t 0 (now that they were ,erywell aware of this -roble&) and tried ,ery hard to o,erco&e it. 2*t so&e4how it<s *st inherent in the &edi*&) 0 don<t thin( the &edi*& allows an es4ca-e fro& this4or if it does) 0 don<t thin( that anybody<s yet fo*nd it. 0 &ean)0 don<t thin( the &edi*& can &a(e -eo-le *nderstand that if they fil& &egi,ing a tal( so&ewhere) that<s beca*se so&ebody else organi ed the tal()and the real wor( is being done by the -eo-le who organiGed the tal() andthen followed it *- and are o*t there wor(ing in their co&&*nities. 0f theycan bring in so&e s-ea(er to hel- get -eo-le together) terrific)




b*t that -erson is in no sense Athe leader.A That so&ehow doesn<t get acrossin a &o,ie4what gets across is) AHow can 0 oin yo*r &o,e&entIA +nd then0<,e got to write a letter which is a big s-eech abo*t this. So 0 a&a&bi,alent abo*t it.

0ncidentally) one &ore co&&ent abo*t the re,iews? the re,iews in theUnited States were intrig*ingly different. Birst of all) there weren<t &any)

beca*se it wasn<t shown a lot here. 2*t they were ,ery interesting. o yo*re&e&ber the $ew %or& 'imes re,iewI That was really fascinating) thatwas the &ost intrig*ing one.

M*R9 *C/(*R, 'hey left your name out of the title of the film.

Well) yeah) right. 2*t act*ally) the $ew %or& 'imes to &y s*r-rise wrotea ,ery fa,orable re,iew) or what 0<& s*re they too( to be a fa,orablere,iew. They assigned it to Dincent 'anby) who<s (ind of an old4ti&e New

ealer) he was the big c*lt*ral critic at the 'imes fore,er) and he wrote are,iew which 0<& s*re e,erybody at the 'imes too( to be ,ery fa,orable. 0tsaid so&ething li(e) oh yeah) really interesting g*y) wonderf*l fil&) so onand so forth. Then it said) ob,io*sly there<s nothing to what he<s saying) ofco*rse it<s all nonsense4b*t it was ,ery sy&-athetic.

Then it got really interesting. 0t said) tho*gh what he<s saying is all non4sense) ne,ertheless the leading idea is worth ta(ing serio*sly) e,en tho*ghit so*nds craGy. +nd the leading idea) 'anby said) is that the go,ern&ent isonly res-onsi,e to the fifty -ercent of the -o-*lation who ,ote) not to thefifty -ercent who don<t ,ote) so therefore we o*ght to try to register &ore

-eo-le. He said) yeah) this so*nds -retty far o*t in left field) b*t ne,erthe4less we sho*ldn<t disco*nt it totally) so&ething li(e that. 8 0t *st flew by hi&co&-letely4he didn<t see what the fil& was abo*t. 0 &ean) the &ost illiterateT.D. re,iewer in Tas&ania didn<t &iss the -oint li(e that) it<s only in the2nited States that it has to be co&-letely &issed. +nd that<s what it &eansto Athin( -ro-erly.A

2*t 0 do thin( the fil& is do*ble4edged. 0t<s certainly energiGed a lot ofacti,is&. 0 thin( it did a tre&endo*s a&o*nt of good *st for East Ti&oralone the fil& incl*des e1tensi,e co,erage of the *nre-orted East Ti&or

genocide as a case st*dy of Edward Her&an<s and 'ho&s(y<s APro-agandaModelA 5O.+nd it<s had a good i&-act in other res-ects. 2*t it also has thisnegati,e as-ect) which see&s to &e al&ost *na,oidable. 2*t yo* wanted tosay so&ething &ore ...

M*R9 *C/(*R, 6"m sure you"re aware that we have you saying in the film) almost verbatim) what you Aust said, that the reason you can give tal&sall over the place is because people are organi ing.

eah) 0 (now4b*t it *st doesn<t get across. There<s so&ething abo*t the&edi*& which -re,ents it fro& getting across. 0 &ean) 0 (now that it wastried) 0 (now that that was the. idea) b*t...



Chapter $ine 3

M*R9 *C/(*R, Was it really the &a ority of letters that said) A3want to Aoin your movement10

Well) they say so&ething li(e that? the general -ict*re is that it<s abo*tme8and it isn<t. The whole -oint is) it<s not. +nd 0 don<t (now how yo* getthat across to -eo-le in a fil&.

M*$, (ut it is about you) Aust the ideas aren"t about you.

NoooX

M*$, 'he ideas are for the world to thin& about.

2*t see) it really isn"t8because if 0<& so&ewhere gi,ing a tal() it<s -re4cisely beca*se so&ebody organiGed a &eeting. i(e) 0<& here) b*t 0 didn<tdo anything4Mi(e and ydia +lbert and Sargent) co4editors of Maga8

ine< did so&ething. 0 didn<t do anything. +nd that<s the way it is e,ery4where else too.

M*$, (ut you"re also here because of the way you grew up) and that school that you went to.

2*t the sa&e is tr*e of e,erybody else who<s here too. eah) s*re.E,erybody<s got their own story.

W+M*$, (ut the criti:ue of the media in the film is ta&en from speechesthat yo* gave.

eah) b*t that<s beca*se other -eo-le are doing i&-ortant things and 0<&not doing i&-ortant things4that<s what it literally co&es down to. 0 &ean)years ago 0 *sed to be in,ol,ed in organiGing too40<d go to &eetings) get in4,ol,ed in resistance) go to ail) all of that st*ff4and 0 was *st no good at itat allC so&e of these -eo-le here can tell yo*. So sort of a di,ision of laborde,elo-ed? 0 decided to do what 0<& doing now) and other -eo-le (e-tdoing the other things. Briends of &ine who were basically the sa&e as &e4

went to the sa&e colleges and grad*ate schools) won the sa&e -riGes) teachat M.0.T. and so on4 *st went a different way. They s-end their ti&eorganiGing) which is &*ch &ore i&-ortant wor(4so they<re not in a fil&.That<s what the difference is. 0 &ean) 0 do so&ething basically less i&-or4tant4it is) in fact. 0t<s adding so&ething) and 0 can do it) so 0 do it40 don<tha,e any false &odesty abo*t it. +nd it<s hel-f*l. 2*t it<s hel-f*l to -eo-lewho are doing the real wor(. +nd e,ery -o-*lar &o,e&ent 0 (now of inhistory has been li(e that.

0n fact) it<s e1tre&ely i&-ortant for -eo-le with -ower not to let anybody*nderstand this) to &a(e the& thin( there are big leaders aro*nd whoso&ehow get things going) and then what e,erybody else has to do isfollow




the&. That<s one of the ways of de&eaning -eo-le) and degrading the&)and &a(ing the& -assi,e. 0 don<t (now how to o,erco&e this e1actly) b*tit<s really so&ething -eo-le o*ght to wor( on.

W+M*$, *s an activist for East 'imor) though) 0 have to say that the film put our wor& on a co&-letely different level. Even if you have sometrouble with it personally) it has gotten people doing a lot of real wor& outthere.

0 thin( that<s tr*eC 0 (now that<s tr*e.

*$+'/ER W+M*$, $ow 6"ve got to admit it8l felt odd having you sign aboo& for my friend earlier today.

eah) it<s craGy4it<s *st co&-letely wrong. 0n a -lace li(e San Brancisco)it gets e&barrassing? 0 can<t wal( across the 2er(eley ca&-*s4literally4witho*t twenty -eo-le co&ing *- and as(ing &e to sign so&ething. Thatdoesn<t &a(e any sense.

W+M*$, 6t does feel unnatural.

0t is) it<s co&-letely &issing the -oint. 0t<s si&-ly not fact*ally acc*rate)

for one thing4beca*se li(e 0 say) the real wor( is being done by -eo-le whoare not (nown) that<s always been tr*e in e,ery -o-*lar &o,e&ent in his4tory. The -eo-le who are (nown are riding the crest of so&e wa,e. Now)yo* can ride the crest of the wa,e and try to *se it to get -ower) which isthe standard thing) or yo* can ride the crest of the wa,e beca*se yo*<rehel-ing -eo-le that way) which is another thing. 2*t the -oint is) it<s thewa,e that &atters4and that<s what -eo-le o*ght to *nderstand. 0 don<t (nowhow yo* get that across in a fil&.

+ct*ally) co&e to thin( of it) there are so&e fil&s that ha,e done it. 0&ean) 0 don<t see a lot of ,is*al st*ff) so 0<& not the best co&&entator) b*t 0tho*ght Salt of the Earth really did it. 0t was a long ti&e ago) b*t at the ti&e0 tho*ght that it was one of the really great &o,ies4and of co*rse it was(illed) 0 thin( it was al&ost ne,er shown.

W+M*$, Which one was that0

Salt of the Earth. 0t ca&e o*t at the sa&e ti&e as +n the Waterfront)which is a rotten &o,ie. +nd +n the Waterfront beca&e a h*ge hit4beca*seit was anti4*nion. See) +n the Waterfront was -art of a big ca&-aign todestroy *nions while -retending to be for) yo* (now) Joe Si1-ac(. So +nthe Waterfront is abo*t this Marlon 2rando or so&ebody who stands *- forthe -oor wor(ing &an against the corr*-t *nion boss. !(ay) things li(e thate1ist) b*t that<s not *nions40 &ean) s*re) there are -lenty of *nion bosseswho are croo(ed) b*t nowhere near as &any as '.E.!.s who are



Chapter $ine 3 3

croo(ed) or what ha,e yo*. 2*t since +n the Waterfront co&bined thatanti4*nion &essage with Astanding *- for the -oor wor(ing &an)A it be4ca&e a h*ge hit. !n the other hand) Salt of the Earth) which was an a*4thentic and 0 tho*ght ,ery well4done story abo*t a stri(e and the -eo-lein,ol,ed in it) that was *st flat (illed) 0 don<t e,en thin( it was shown any4where. 0 &ean) yo* co*ld see it at an art theater) 0 g*ess) b*t that was abo*tit. 0 don<t (now what those of yo* who (now so&ething abo*t fil& wo*ldthin( of it) b*t 0 tho*ght it was a really o*tstanding fil&.

)edia 6-tivism

W+M*$, $oam) 6 agree with you that alternative media activists have tobe very careful not to re8create authoritarian structures li&e the ones thatexist now8li&e) not have a AGChannel1 Hi.e. after MagaGine that goesabout things in the same way as *.(.C. and C.(.S. (ut 6"m not :uite surehow we can disseminate information effectively and still be egalitarian aswe do it, it seems to me there is this tendency to try to spea& from a

position of authority) and we really have to fight against that.

0 thin( that<s e1actly right4that<s a cr*cial -oint. 0 don<t co&-letely (nowwhat the answer is to that) act*ally40<d be interested in what so&e of yo*ha,e to say abo*t it.

M*$, Well) let"s Aust ta&e you personally for a second. When people as& you where to turn for more truth and for accuracy of information) what do you tell them0

What 0 *s*ally say is that they<re not -hrasing the *estion the right way.0 &ean) -eo-le sho*ld not be as(ing &e or anyone else where to t*rn for anacc*rate -ict*re of things? they sho*ld be as(ing themselves that. Soso&eone can as( &e what reflects &y inter-retation of the way things are)and 0 can tell the& where they can get &aterial that loo(s at the world theway 0 thin( it o*ght to be loo(ed at4b*t then they ha,e to decide whether ornot that<s acc*rate. Ulti&ately it<s yo*r own &ind that has to be the arbiter?yo*<,e got to rely on yo*r own co&&on sense and intelligence) yo* can<trely on anyone else for the tr*th.

So the answer 0 gi,e is) 0 thin( the s&artest thing to do is to read e,ery4thing yo* read4and that incl*des what 0 write) 0 wo*ld always tell -eo-lethis4s(e-tically. +nd in fact) an honest writer will try to &a(e it clear whathis or her biases are and where the wor( is starting fro&) so that then read4ers can co&-ensate4they can say) AThis -erson<s co&ing fro& o,er here)and that<s the way she<s loo(ing at the world) now 0 can correct for what&ay well be her biasC 0 can decide for &yself whether what she<s telling &eis acc*rate) beca*se at least she<s &a(ing her -re&ises clear.A +nd -eo-le




should do that. o* sho*ld start by being ,ery s(e-tical abo*t anything that co&esto yo* fro& any sort of -ower syste&44and abo*t e,erything else too. o* sho*ld

be s(e-tical abo*t what 0 tell yo*44why sho*ld yo* belie,e a word of itI 0 got &yown a1 to grind. So fig*re it o*t for yo*rself. There really is no other answer.

+nd in fact) if yo*<re an organiGer who<s serio*s abo*t it) what yo*<regoing to try to do is hel- -eo-le themselves find their own answers. +ndthen if yo* can be a reso*rce) or -oint the& in so&e direction that &ight be*sef*l) or hel- -*t the& in to*ch with so&ebody) or ta(e care of their (idswhile they<re o*t loo(ing for a ob or so&ething4o(ay) that<s organiGing.

M*R9 *C/(*R, $oam) one of the best things you said that didn"t end upin the film was) 16t"s not so much a matter of what you read) it"s a matter ofhow you read.1 When people as& me about sources for information) 6 rec8mend the $ew %or& 'imes as :uic&ly as 6 recommend Maga ine.

eah) 0 do too40 absol*tely agree with that. Ta(e) say) (usiness Wee&,it<s *sef*l to read it) it<s *sef*l to read what the r*ling class tells its -eo-le. o* canlearn an awf*l lot fro& the Wall Street ournal and the $ew %or& 'imes and so on.

0n fact) 0 thin( in general that -eo-le tend not to read the b*siness -ressas &*ch as they sho*ld. Most of it is ,ery boring) b*t there are things in

there that yo* do not find elsewhere4they tend to be &ore honest) beca*sethey<re tal(ing to -eo-le they don<t ha,e to be worried abo*t) and to -eo-lewho need to (now the tr*th so that they can go o*t and &a(e decisionsabo*t their &oney. 0 &ean) yo* can lie as &*ch as yo* want in the (oston

Dlobe or so&ething) b*t the -eo-le who read the Wall Street ournal ha,e to ha,e atolerable sense of reality when they go o*t to &a(e &oney. So in o*rnals li(e

(usiness Wee& and @ortune) yo*<ll ty-ically find an awf*l lot of ,ery *sef*linfor&ation. These are o*rnals that yo* sho*ldn<t buy) incidentally) they<re too

e1-ensi,eC b*t yo* sho*ld steal the& if yo* can. They<re also in the library. 6

+s a &ore general &atter) tho*gh) if yo* really want to ed*cate yo*rself -olitically)what yo* ha,e to do is beco&e -art of a gro*-4beca*se *nless yo*<re a real fanatic

abo*t it) yo*<re *st not going to be able to do it all by 0Q yo*rself. 0 &ean) 0 do it) b*t 0

(now 0<,e got a screw loose) and 0 don<t e1-ect J ..4anybody else to be that craGy. !n theother hand) a gro*- wor(ing together can do it ,ery well. Ta(e a loo( at the 'entral+&erica solidarity &o,e&ents

in the 3;7%s) for e1a&-le4they were *s*ally ch*rch4based gro*-s aro*nd the co*ntry)and they *st (e-t wor(ing at it together. They had -eo-le going down there) they hadtheir own literat*re) they circ*lated infor&ation aro*nd) and the res*lt was) there were

-eo-le 0 &et in those gro*-s who (new &ore abo*t 'entral +&erica than 0 do4and 0wor( on it hard. They certainly (new &ore abo*t it than the '.0.+.) which is no bigthing act*ally) or than -eo-le in a lot of the acade&ic de-art&ents. 2*t that<s what can



Chapter $ine 3 =

ha--en when yo* start wor(ing together4and 0 thin( that<s *st got to be theanswer) e1ce-t for a few craGed indi,id*als here and there.

+nd in fact) what 0 *st said abo*t &y own wor( isn<t really acc*rate44 beca*se 0 certainly don<t find all the infor&ation 0 *se on &y own. The factis) there are a lot of -eo-le aro*nd the world who are in a si&ilar -osition)and we share infor&ation together. + good deal of &y ti&e is act*ally s-ent

*st cli--ing news-a-ers and -eriodicals and -rofessional o*rnals) and -hotoco-ying the& to send to -eo-le4and they do the sa&e for &e. +nd theres*lt is) 0 can easily get to (now &ore than -eo-le in the '.0.+.) or in anyacade&ic research center44&ainly beca*se 0 ha,e s&art agents) not d*&bagents) and they (now what<s i&-ortant and can dig things o*t. 0 &ean)&ainstrea& scholars and national intelligence agencies don<t ha,e,ery s&art and -erce-ti,e -eo-le scanning the o*rnals and the -ress in other co*ntriesand aro*nd the United States) and finding what<s i&-ortant) doing an analysis of it andsending it to the&. The co*ntries 0<& es-ecially interested in) li(e say 0srael) 0 co*ldne,er co,er the -ress well eno*gh by &yself) it<s *st too &*ch of a ob. 2*t if 0 ha,efriends there cli--ing it and sending &e articles) and -ic(ing o*t what<s i&-ortant) wecan share *nderstanding. +nd it<s the sa&e with other -laces4for instance) a lot of thewor( 0<,e done on So*theast +sia and East Ti&or has *sed &ostly &aterial fro& the+*stralian -ress? 0 *st get tons of st*ff fro& there.

+nd again) it<s reci-rocal? yo* do this for a n*&ber of -eo-le) they do itfor yo*) and the end res*lt is) infor&al networ(s of coo-eration de,elo-thro*gh which -eo-le can -ool their efforts and co&-ensate for a lac( ofreso*rces. That<s e1actly what organiGation is all about) in fact.

S*re) oh yeah4it<s ,ery *sef*l to do it that way. +ct*ally) 0 sho*ld saythat this ter& AconcisionA is (ind of li(e a o(e4it<s a word 0 learned fro&the &edia P.R. g*ys when 0 heard one of the& *se it) 0 forget who ...

M*R9 *C/(*R, eff Dreenfield.

eah) what is he) &anager of $ewswee&0

M*R9 *C/(*R, #roducer at Nightline.

WOMAN: $oam) 6 remember in the movie you critici ed the 2.S. media forinsisting on 1concision18restricting news analysis to concise sound8bites) soonly conventional wisdom can be presented coherently. (ut in the organi ing

6"ve done) 6"ve found that it"s important to use botn 1concision1 and a more in8depth type of analysis) to use the two in combination. 6"m thin&ing specificallyof trying to get people"s attention through fact8sheets and :uic& blurbs ofinformation that you can digest easily) and then go on to find out more. 6"mwondering what you thin& about that &ind of combined use0




Prod*cer at $ightline or so&ething. He *sed the word AconcisionA todescribe what they do4yo* (now) find -eo-le who can &a(e their -oints in6%% words) or between two co&&ercials. 9 0t was the first ti&e 0<d e,erheard the ter&. 2*t yeah) it<s aro*nd) and it<s a techni *e of tho*ght control.2*t yo* can *se it *ite constr*cti,ely too.

Bor e1a&-le) d*ring the >*lf War) Maga ine ran a co*-le -ages of *st short fact*al state&ents of what the basic story was40 thin( e,ery goodorganiGing gro*- does things li(e that. 0 &ean) -eo-le need to ha,e

infor&ation in the front of their &inds) so that they (now what the generalstr*ct*re is4it<s *st that then yo* sho*ld fill in the de-th. So 0 thin( yo*sho*ld *se the techni *es in co&bination? there<s nothing wrong with slo4gans if they lead yo* to so&ething. 2*t of co*rse) we sho*ld also be&a(ing -eo-le aware that any -resentation of facts is a selection and aninter-retation40 &ean) we<re -ic(ing the facts that we thin( are i&-ortant)&aybe they<ll thin( so&ething else is i&-ortant.

W+M*$, * common response when you give people a fact8sheet is) 1Why should we trust you0 Where did you get this information01 $ot enough people as& those :uestions) actually.

They sho*ld) yeah. 2*t that distr*st still is so&ething that<s ,ery hard too,erco&e as an organiGer. 0 don<t (now how &any of yo* ha,e been fol4lowing the online 2*lletin 2oard lately a co&-*ter networ( disc*ssionfor*&O) b*t there<s been an ongoing con,ersation there in which -eo-leha,e -ointed o*t4and they<re right) 0 don<t (now any answer to it4that they<llco&e to -eo-le with) not necessarily *st fact4sheets) b*t e,en detailed)elaborate arg*&ents with a lot of e,idence and data) b*t it<s different fro&what e,eryone has always heard) and the standard res-onse is) AWell) whysho*ld 0 belie,e yo*IA

+nd that<s not an *nreasonable res-onse. 0 &ean) if so&ebody ca&e toyo* with a three4,ol*&e wor( with a lot of footnotes and statistics and&athe&atical calc*lations which -ro,ed that the world is flat) yo*<d be ,erywise to be ca*tio*s) no &atter how i&-ressi,e it loo(ed. +nd that<s the waywe<re co&ing to -eo-le &ost of the ti&e4we<re telling the& that the world is

flat) and they<re not going to belie,e all yo*r e,idence. They should) in fact)as( *estions li(e that. +nd that<s *st a hard sit*ation for organiGers too,erco&e? yo* only really o,erco&e that by winning confidence) andhel-ing -eo-le gain a broader *nderstanding for the&sel,es) bit by bit.

Self8-estruction of the 2.S. 7eft

M*$, %ou travel around the country doing a lot of spea&ing engagements) $oam. 6"m wondering) Aust from going to all these different communities)



Chapter $ine 3 ?

what do you thin& things loo& li&e in general as far as the movement goes)as far as politics go8what"s your assessment0

Well) o,er the years 0 thin( there<s sort of li(e a tendency yo* can see4atendency towards) on the one hand) &*ch larger gro*-s of -eo-le gettingengaged in -olitical acti,is& in so&e fashion) or at least wanting to beco&ein,ol,ed in so&e sort of -rogressi,e acti,ity) ro*ghly s-ea(ing. !n theother hand) the o--ort*nities for it are declining at the sa&e ti&e4and

-eo-le are beco&ing e1tre&ely isolated. 0 *st got a sense of it yesterday af4ternoon. 0 was getting ready to go off for a co*-le of wee(s) so 0 did &y&onthly &a(ing o*t of chec(s to all the) yo* (now) worthwhile organiGa4tions aro*nd the world. +nd it<s a&aGing when yo* see it. o* ta(e anyto-ic yo* li(e) no &atter how narrow it is40 &ean) health rights in theso*thern -art of >*ate&ala) let<s say4and there are fifteen se-arate organ4iGations wor(ing on it) &aybe right ne1t door to one another) so yo* ha,e to&a(e o*t fifteen chec(s.

Well) that<s what 0 ha--ened to notice yesterday) b*t it<s characteristic ofwhat<s ha--ening? e,erybody<s got their own little o-eration) e,erything ise1tre&ely narrowly foc*sed and ,ery s&all) and often the gro*-s don<t e,en(now abo*t each other<s e1istence. +nd -artly that<s the res*lt of) and -artlyit contrib*tes to) a sense of real isolation) and also a (ind of ho-elessness4a

sense that nothing<s going on) beca*se after all it<s *st &e and &y threefriends. +nd it<s tr*e) it<s yo* and yo*r three friends) e1ce-t down the bloc(there<s so&ebody else and their three friends. The s*ccess in ato&iGing the

-o-*lation has been e1traordinaryC 0 thin( that<s in fact the &a or -ro-aganda achie,e&ent of recent years4 *st to isolate -eo-le in a &ostastonishing fashion. +nd the left has done a lot to hel- that along) in &yo-inion.

So what yo* find all aro*nd the co*ntry is h*ge &obs of -eo-le showing*- at tal(s and wanting to get in,ol,ed) b*t nobody aro*nd with anythingfor the& to do) or any sense that there co*ld be any follow4*-. 0 &ean) the standard

*estion after a tal( where tho*sands of -eo-le ha,e shown *- is AWhat can 0 doIAThat<s a terrible conde&nation of the left) that -eo-le L..).Qha,e to as( that *estion. There o*ght to be fifty booths o*tside with -eo-le saying)A oo() oin *-) here<s what yo* can do.A +nd there aren<t4or ifthere are) the gro*-s are so narrow that -eo-le *st ha,e a feeling) A oo() 0don<t want to do anything this narrowC 0 &ean) 0<& all in fa,or of gay andClesbian rights in Western Massach*setts) say) b*t 0 don<t want to de,ote &ywhole life to that.A

W+M*$, What exactly has the left done that you thin& is so self8destruc8tive0

0n -art the -roble& is *st di,isi,eness4it<s -assionate co&&it&ent to a,ery narrow -osition) and e1tre&e intolerance of anyone who doesn<t see it



3 ! 2nderstanding #ower

e1actly the way yo* do. So if yo* ha,e a slightly different ,iew fro& the -erson ne1t door on) say) abortion rights) it<s a war4yo* can<t e,en tal( toeach other) it<s not an iss*e that yo* can e,en disc*ss. There<s a lot of thaton the left) and it<s been ,ery self4destr*cti,e. 0t<s &ade the -rogressi,e&o,e&ents) the sort of AleftA &o,e&ents) (ind of *nwelco&e4beca*se

-eo-le don<t li(e itC they see it) and they don<t li(e it.+lso) there<s *st a h*ge a&o*nt of frittering away of energy on real ab4

s*rdities. There are -arts of the co*ntry) li(e 'alifornia) where incrediblea&o*nts of energy go into things li(e trying to fig*re o*t e1actly whichMafia fig*re &ight ha,e been in,ol,ed in (illing John B. "ennedy orso&ething4as if anybody sho*ld care. The energy and the -assion that goesinto things li(e that is really e1traordinary) and it<s ,ery self4destr*cti,e.

!r ta(e a loo( at the intellect*al left) the -eo-le who o*ght to be in4,ol,ed in the (inds of things we<re doing here. 0f yo* loo( at the acade&icleft) say) it<s &ired in intricate) *nintelligible disco*rse of so&e craGed

-ost&odernist ,ariety) which nobody can *nderstand) incl*ding the -eo-lewho are in,ol,ed in it4b*t it<s really good for careers and that sort of thing.That again -*lls a ton of energy into acti,ities which ha,e the great ,al*ethat they are g*aranteed not to affect anything in the world) so thereforethey<re ,ery *sef*l for the instit*tions to s*--ort and to tolerate and to en4co*rage -eo-le to get in,ol,ed with.

+nother thing is) there are *st e1tre&e ill*sions abo*t what<s going on in theworld4and that<s the fa*lt of all of *s) in fact? we *st can<t see& to get o,er

the&. Ta(e the so4called A>*lf WarA4it wasn<t really a war) it was a sla*ghter) b*t ta(e the >*lf Sla*ghter. 0t led to tre&endo*s de-ression on the left) beca*se -eo-le felt li(e they weren<t able to do anything abo*t it. Well) if yo* *st thin(

abo*t it for a &in*te) yo* realiGe that it was e1actly the o--osite? it was -robably the greatest ,ictory the -eace &o,e&ent has e,er had. The >*lf War

was the first ti&e in history that there were h*ge de&onstrations and -rotestsbefore a war started4that<s ne,er ha--ened before. 0n the case of the Dietna&

War) it was fi,e years before anybody got o*t in the streetsC this ti&e) therewere &assi,e de&onstrations with h*ndreds of tho*sands of -eo-le in,ol,ed

before the bo&bing e,en started. +nd if yo* *st loo( at the attit*des of the

general -o-*lation) *- *ntil the day the bo&bing started it was abo*t two to onein fa,or of a negotiated settle&ent in,ol,ing 0ra i withdrawal fro& "*wait inthe conte1t of an international conference on regional iss*es) 0srael4Palestine

iss*es and so on. s Well) at the ti&e) the left co*ldn<t do anything abo*t it. Birst of all) it

didn<t (now it) and didn<t (now that there were alternati,es4li(e it didn<t(now that a wee( earlier high U.S. officials had re ected an 0ra i offer towithdraw fro& "*wait on e1actly those ter&s. ; 2*t ne,ertheless) there is ah*ge reser,oir of s*--ort in the general -o-*lation4it<s *st the left isn<tdealing with it.

0n fact) the attit*des of the general -o-*lation are absol*tely astonishing.Bor e1a&-le) 7: -ercent of the +&erican -o-*lation thin(s that the



Chapter $ine 3

econo&ic syste& is inherently *nfair) Athe rich get richer and the -oor get -oorerA 4&eaning things sho*ld *st be radically changed. 3% Well) what isthe left doing abo*t that &ere 7: -ercent of the -o-*lation that thin(se,erything has to be radically changedI What we<re doing is alienatingthe&) or &a(ing the& feel that we ha,e nothing to say to the&) or so&e4thing li(e that.

!r 0 re&e&ber in 3;79) when there was a big hoo-la abo*t the bicen4tennial of the 'onstit*tion) the (oston Dlobe -*blished one of &y fa,orite

-olls) in which they ga,e -eo-le little slogans and said) A>*ess which onesare in the 'onstit*tion.A !f co*rse) nobody (nows what<s in the 'onstit*4tion) beca*se e,erybody forgot what they learned in third grade) and -rob4ably they didn<t -ay any attention to it then anyway4so what the *estionreally was as(ing is) AWhat is s*ch an ob,io*s tr*is& that it &*st be in the'onstit*tionIA Well) one of the s*ggestions was) AWhat abo*t <Bro& eachaccording to his ability) to each according to his needs<IA a slogan fro&"arl Mar1O. Half the +&erican -o-*lation thin(s that<s in the 'onstit*tion)

beca*se it<s s*ch an ob,io*s tr*th4it<s so ob,io*sly tr*e that it &*st be in the'onstit*tion) where else co*ld it co&e fro&I 33 0f yo* thin( abo*t what this&eans and what we<re doing abo*t it) it<s &ind4boggling) the chas&.

!r ta(e the whole Ross Perot -heno&enon d*ring the 3;;$ electionPerot is an +&erican billionaire who ran for President on an inde-endent

tic(etO. Ross Perot a--eared on the -olitical scene and had no -rogra&) no4 body (new what he stood for) he co*ld ha,e co&e fro& Mars for all any4 body (new) and within a co*-le days he was r*nning e,en with the two&a or candidates. 0 &ean) if a -*--et was r*nning it -robably wo*ld ha,eco&e o*t e,en.

!r do yo* re&e&ber the whole b*siness with an F*ayle and M*r-hy2rownI That was ta(en ,ery serio*sly in the United States) it was treated asif these were two real -eo-le4a debate between the Dice President and atele,ision actressC act*ally) not an actress) a character on a tele,ision show)who then res-onded thro*gh the show F*ayle had criticiGed the characterfor deciding to ha,e a child o*t of wedloc(O. Well) there was a -oll done atthat ti&e in which -eo-le were as(ed who they wo*ld -refer as President)

an F*ayle or M*r-hy 2rown4and yo* can g*ess who won. 3$ There wasn<t

a -oll done as to who they tho*ght was realC 0<& not s*re what the res*lt ofthat one wo*ld ha,e been.2*t what these things de&onstrate is so&ething that is shown o,er and

o,er again in caref*l -*blic o-inion st*dies? the -o-*lation is what<s calledAalienated.A Peo-le thin( that none of the instit*tions wor( for the&)e,erything<s a sca&) a croo(ed o-erationC they feel they ha,e no way of in4fl*encing anything) the -olitical syste& doesn<t wor() the econo&ic syste&doesn<t wor() e,erything is being done so&ewhere else and it<s all o*t oftheir control. +nd this feeling goes *- across the board -retty reg*larly.3: 0&ean) they<re not aware how &*ch it<s tr*e4li(e) they<re not aware that inthe c*rrent >.+.T.T. >eneral +gree&ent on Tariffs and TradeO negotia4




tions) &a or decisions are being &ade that will ha,e a tre&endo*s i&-act on theworld and on their li,es) and neither they) nor the *nions) nor 'ongress (nowsanything abo*t the&. 2*t they get a sense of it) they sort of ha,e a feel for it.+nd the -oint is) the left is doing ,irt*ally nothing to try to ta(e ad,antage of thissit*ation and t*rn the tre&endo*s discontentedness in so&e (ind of constr*cti,edirection. What 0 see on the left at least is -retty &*ch the sa&e story e,erywhere?tre&endo*s di,isi,eness) narrowness of foc*s) intolerance) *nwillingness to &eet

-eo-le on their own ter&s) -l*s inertia) and *st &adness of ,ario*s (inds.

+nd the reason for a lot of that is4well) 0 thin( yo* co*ld sort of see so&e ofthe reasons. 0f yo* *st ta(e the 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent and loo( at itsco*rse) 0 thin( yo* get a -retty good idea of so&e of the reasons. 0n theearly -art of the 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent) in the late 3;5%s and early Si1ties)there was tre&endo*s co*rage and dedication) and h*ge n*&bers of -eo-lefinally got in,ol,ed) incl*ding all the way *- to &iddle4class +&erica. +ndit was s*ccessf*l? there were big ,ictories in the So*th. +nd then so&ehowit sto--ed. Well) what ha--enedI What ha--ened was) yo* got resta*rantsintegrated) and yo* got things li(e the Doting Rights +ct of 3;654it was alittle bit li(e what<s going on in So*th +frica now) altho*gh there it<s &*ch&ore dra&atic. +nd yo* were able to establish the for&s that in general areacce-ted by the &ainstrea& Establish&ent c*lt*re) and e,en by the b*si4ness co&&*nity4li(e) >eneral Motors doesn<t ha,e any sta(e in ha,ingresta*rants segregated) in fact they<d rather ha,e the& not segregated) it<s&ore efficient. So all of that st*ff wor(ed) at least to a certain e1tent. 0twasn<t easy4a lot of -eo-le got (illed) it was ,ery br*tal and so on. 2*t itwor(ed. +nd then it sto--ed) and it frittered away) and in fact -robably it<sregressed since then. +nd the reason is) it ran into class iss*es4and they<rehard. They re *ire instit*tional change. There the 2oard of irectors of>eneral Motors is not going to be ha--y) when yo* start dealing with classiss*es in the ind*strial centers.

So at that -oint it sto--ed) and it frittered away) and also it went off into -retty self4destr*cti,e things4re,ol*tionary slogans) carrying g*ns aro*nd)s&ashing windows) this and that4 *st beca*se it ran into harder iss*es. +ndwhen yo* r*n into harder iss*es) it<s easy to loo( for an esca-e. +nd there

are a lot of different esca-es. o* can esca-e by writing &eaninglessarticles on so&e *nintelligible ,ersion of acade&ic radical fe&inis&) or by beco&ing a cons-iracy b*ff) or by wor(ing on so&e ,ery narrowly foc*sediss*e) which &ay be i&-ortant) b*t is so narrow that it<s ne,er going to getanywhere or ha,e any o*treach. There are a lot of these te&-tations. +nd asthe n*&ber of -eo-le beco&ing interested and in,ol,ed has increased) sincethe iss*es are indeed hard) they<re not easy) there<s been a (ind of chas&de,elo-ing between the -otentialities and the act*al achie,e&ents.

W+M*$, %ou don"t thin& the left is dealing with class issues0



Chapter $ine 33

Not &*ch. 0 &ean) it<s not that nobody is. +nd they<re not the only iss*esthat ha,e to be dealt with) it<s *st that they<re the &ost i&-ortant ones44

beca*se they<re right at the core of the whole syste& of o--ression. +ndalso) they<re the hardest ones) beca*se there yo*<re dealing with solid insti4t*tional str*ct*res where the core of -ri,ate -ower is in,ol,ed. 0 &ean)other iss*es are hard too4li(e iss*es of -atriarchy are hard. 2*t they<re&odifiable witho*t changing the whole syste& of -ower. 'lass iss*esaren<t.

M*$, o you have any strategies for the left to be able to get more oncommon ground with the wor&ing class0

Well) first of all) Awor(ing classA is -retty broad. 0 &ean) anybody whogets a -aychec( is in so&e sense Awor(ing class)A so there<s a sense inwhich a lot of &anagers are wor(ing class too4and in fact) they ha,e -retty&*ch the sa&e interests these days? they<re getting canned as fast ase,erybody else is) and they<re worried abo*t it. See) in the United States theword AclassA is *sed in an *n*s*al way? it<s s*--osed to ha,e so&ething todo with wealth. 2*t in its traditional *sage) and the way the word is *sede,erywhere else) what it has to do with is yo*r -lace in the whole syste& ofdecision4&a(ing and a*thority4so if yo* ta(e orders) yo*<re Awor(ing

class)A e,en if yo*<re wealthy.+nd how sho*ld the left be dealing with class iss*esI Well) we ha,e tota(e that 7: -ercent of the -o-*lation that thin(s that the syste& is inher4ently *nfair) and increase it to a larger -ercentage) then we si&-ly hel-

-eo-le get organiGed to change it. There are no s-ecial tactics for that) it<s *st the *s*al ed*cation and organiGing. !(ay) so yo* get started doing it.

Popular /ducation

W+M*$, +ne thing that 6"ve noticed in reading a number of your boo&s)and a number of boo&s by people li&e /olly S&lar and Michael *lbert) isthat it"s a standard practice on the left in trying to help educate people8be8cause we are in the minority position8to document everything very thor8oughly) to layout very precise scholarly arguments) to marshal a lot ofevidence and have a ton of citations. (ut the thing that bothers me aboutthat is there are a lot of people who are shut out of that world.

That<s right.

W+M*$, 'hey"re not academics) they haven"t been trained in this way ofma&ing arguments. 6 really wish that there was something out there in themiddle ground that would not Aust try to persuade) but would also teachabout argumentation. Somebody told me they used to do things li&e that inthe 35s) with popular education.




+bsol*tely4in fact) that was one of the big things in the 3;:%s for leftintellect*als to be in,ol,ed in. 0 &ean) good scientists) well4(nown) i&-or4tant scientists li(e 2ernal 2ritish -hysicistO and others *st felt that it was a

-art of their obligation to the h*&an s-ecies to do -o-*lar science. So yo*had ,ery good -o-*lar boo(s being written abo*t -hysics) and abo*t &ath4e&atics and so on4for instance) there<s a boo( called Mathematics for the

Million which is an e1a&-le of it. 38

W+M*$, %eah) 6"ve heard of that.

Well) that g*y ca&e o*t of the left. +nd the -oint is) those -eo-le *stfelt that this (ind of (nowledge sho*ld be shared by e,eryone. 0n fact) oneof the things 0 find &ost astonishing abo*t the c*rrent left4intellect*al sceneis that what the co*nter-arts of these -eo-le today are telling the general

-*blic is) A o* don<t ha,e to (now abo*t this st*ff) it<s all *st so&e white&ale -ower4-lay4and besides) astrology<s the sa&e as -hysics? it<s all *st adisco*rse) and a te1t) and this that and the other thing) so forget abo*t it) dowhat co&es nat*ralC if yo* li(e astrology) it<s astrology.A 0 &ean) this is sodifferent in character fro& what was *st ass*&ed a*to&atically in the dayswhen there were li,e -o-*lar &o,e&ents) it<s a&aGing.

0f yo*<re -ri,ileged eno*gh to) say) (now &athe&atics) and yo* thin(yo*<re a -art of the general world) ob,io*sly yo* sho*ld try to hel- other

-eo-le *nderstand it. +nd the way yo* do it) for e1a&-le) is by writing boo(s li(e Mathematics for the Million) or by gi,ing tal(s in ele&entaryschools and things li(e that. 0n fact) in,ol,e&ent in -o-*lar ed*cation goeswell beyond writing boo(s? it &eans ha,ing gro*-s) gi,ing tal(s) wor(ers<ed*cation) all sorts of st*ff. +nd the fact that -eo-le on the left aren"t doingthose things today 0 thin( is a real tragedy4and also -art of the really self4destr*cti,e as-ect of a lot of what<s been ha--ening) in &y o-inion. Theseare things that ha,e always been a -art of li,e -olitical &o,e&ents.

0n fact) wor(ers< ed*cation *sed to be a h*ge thing in the United States.Bor e1a&-le) +. J. M*ste +&erican -acifist and acti,istO wor(ed in wor(4ers< ed*cation for a long ti&e) and the wor(ing4class schools he hel-ed set*- were significant and big4-eo-le who hadn<t gone thro*gh ele&entary

school ca&e to the&) and really learned a lot. 0ncidentally) M*ste was oneof the &ost i&-ortant -eo-le of this cent*ry in the United States4of co*rse)nobody (nows abo*t hi&) beca*se he did the wrong things) b*t he wasreally a leading fig*re in the sort of left4libertarian &o,e&ent. 0S

John ewey +&erican -hiloso-her and ed*catorO was also ,ery &*chin,ol,ed in -o-*lar ed*cation) and -art of it was an atte&-t to do *st this(ind of thing. So ewey wor(ed with Jane +dda&s +&erican socialwor(er and s*ffragistO and others in 'hicago d*ring the Progressi,e Periodon co&&*nity de,elo-&ent -rogra&s and so on4in fact) the whole -ro4gressi,e school &o,e&ent ca&e o*t of that) and it ,ery &*ch had this (indof de&ocratiGing co&&it&ent and a co&&it&ent to ind*strial de&ocracy)which was considered a central -art of it all. 36




generally0 ;#roportional representation refers to an electoral system bywhich legislative seats are assigned according to the proportion of votesthat each party receives rather than by maAority vote in each district) whichencourages the proliferation of parties and gives minority voters betterrepresentation. 3; E 6t seems to me that in Canada) the fact that they have alabor party ma&es people somewhat more attuned to issues that *mericanslargely miss) li&e wor&ers" issues for example.

That<s right4'anada<s an interesting case? it<s a -retty si&ilar society to*s) e1ce-t different so&ehow. 0t<s &*ch &ore h*&ane. 0t has the sa&e cor4

-orate r*le) the sa&e ca-italist instit*tions) all of that<s the sa&e4b*t it<s *sta &*ch &ore h*&ane -lace. They ha,e a (ind of social contract that wedon<t ha,e) li(e they ha,e this national health4care syste& which &a(es *sloo( bad beca*se it<s so efficient. +nd that is related to their ha,ing a labor4

based -arty) 0 thin(4the New e&ocratic Party in 'anada N. .P.O isn<treally a labor -arty) b*t it<s (ind of labor4based. Howe,er) that -arty<s abil4ity to enter the -olitical syste& in 'anada wasn<t a res*lt of ha,ing -ro-or4tional re-resentation) it was d*e to the sa&e thing that wo*ld be necessaryto get any (ind of change li(e -ro-ortional re-resentation in the first -lace?a lot of serio*s -o-*lar organiGing.

oo() if yo* ha,e a -olitical &o,e&ent that<s strong eno*gh that the -ower str*ct*re has to acco&&odate it) it<ll get acco&&odated in so&e

fashion4as in the case of *nion organiGing rights here) the Wagner +ct. 2*t when that&o,e&ent sto-s being acti,e and challenging) those rights *st aren<t going to&atter ,ery &*ch any&ore. So 0 thin( that -*shing for so&ething li(e

-ro-ortional re-resentation co*ld be worth doing if it<s -art of a wider organiGingca&-aign. 2*t if it<s *st an effort to try to -*t so&e -eo-le into 'ongress andthat<s it) then it<s -retty &*ch a waste of yo*r ti&e. 0 &ean) there is ne,er any

-oint in getting so&e -erson into office *nless yo* can contin*e forcing the& to be your re-resentati,e) and they will only contin*e to be your re-resentati,e aslong as yo* are acti,e and threatening eno*gh to &a(e the& do what yo* want)otherwise they<re going to sto- being yo*r re-resentati,e.

This -oint has been *nderstood fore,er) act*ally. So if yo* go bac( to Ja&esMadison) who fra&ed a lot of the 'onstit*tion and the 2ill of Rights and soon) he -ointed o*t that) as he -*t it) a A-arch&ent barrierA will ne,er standin the way of o--ression4&eaning) writing so&ething down on -a-er istotally worthless by itself? if yo* fight for it) yo* can &a(e it real)otherwise yo*<ll *st ha,e really nice things on -a-er. $% 0 &ean) Stalin<sconstit*tion was *st abo*t the nicest constit*tion aro*nd4b*t it was a

-arch&ent barrier. +nd the sa&e is tr*e of e,ery other -art of -olitics too)incl*ding ha,ing yo*r re-resentati,e in 'ongress.

So yo* can ,ote for >erry St*dds liberal Massach*setts 'ongress&anOif yo*<re fro& aro*nd here) and he<ll do so&e nice things4b*t he also ,otedfor N.+.B.T.+. the North +&erican Bree Trade +gree&entO. +nd



Chapter $ine 33=

that was against the will of a lot of his constit*ents4 *st beca*se thoseconstit*ents weren<t &a(ing it clear eno*gh to their re-resentati,e what hehad to do. 3 &ean) the anti4N.+.B.T.+. acti,ity that went on in the co*ntrywas i&-ortant) and it went way beyond anything 3 e,er tho*ght it wo*ld)

b*t it still wasn<t eno*gh to get -eo-le li(e >erry St*dds to co&e alongwhen it was needed4and he<s a good g*y) li(e 3 ga,e &oney to the St*ddsca&-aign. 0t<s *st that when yo* weighed all of the -ress*res) there wasn<teno*gh of a -o-*lar &o,e&ent to get the& to co&e thro*gh when it &at4tered.

This was also -art of the -roble& with the Rainbow 'oalition) in &yo-inion -rogressi,e -olitical organiGation led by Jesse Jac(sonO. 3 &ean)Jesse Jac(son was in a ,ery strong -osition a co*-le years ago with theRainbow 'oalition) and he had a choice. His choice was) A+& 3 going to*se this o--ort*nity to hel- create a contin*ing grassroots organiGationwhich will (ee- on wor(ing after the election) or a& 3 going to *se it as &yown -ersonal ,ehicle of -olitical -ro&otionIA +nd he &ore or less chosethe latter4so it died. Therefore it was a co&-lete waste of ti&e? anybodywho s-ent ti&e wor(ing on that ca&-aign was wasting their ti&e) beca*seit was *sed as an electoral -latfor&) and that ne,er &a(es sense. 0 &ean)whene,er so&ebody says A0 want to beco&e President)A yo* can forget it444as President) they won<t be any different fro& >eorge 2*sh.

So as far as 3 can see) getting -ro-ortional re-resentation in the UnitedStates today wo*ld ha,e basically no effect) the effect wo*ld be essentiallyGilch4 *st beca*se there<s nothing aro*nd to ta(e ad,antage of it. !n theother hand) if it was -assed at a ti&e when yo* had -o-*lar grassroots or4ganiGations of the (ind that de,elo-ed) say) in Haiti in the late 3;7%s) s*re)then it co*ld &a(e a difference. 2*t of co*rse) it<s only *nder those circ*&4stances that yo* wo*ld e,er get -ro-ortional re-resentation in the first

-lace.So in &y ,iew) any of these things co*ld be fine if they<re being *sed as

organiGing tools to try to get things going? they<re a waste of ti&e if yo* ac4t*ally ta(e the& serio*sly in the&sel,es) b*t if they<re *nderstood si&-ly asa -art of larger -o-*lar str*ggles4so this is what yo*<re foc*sing on rightnow) b*t the -*r-ose isn<t to get so&e words written down so&ewhere or

so&e -erson into office) b*t rather it<s to get -eo-le to *nderstand the im8 portance of the words and the need to (ee- fighting for the&4yeah) then itcan &ean so&ething.

W+M*$, So you thin& that trying to develop a third party here might beworth doing0

S*re) absol*tely40 thin( that co*ld be a ,ery i&-ortant ste-. Ta(e'anada again? why does 'anada ha,e the health4care -rogra& it doesI U-*ntil the &id43;6%s) 'anada and the United States had the sa&e ca-italisthealth ser,ice? e1tre&ely inefficient) tons of b*rea*cracy) h*ge ad&inistra4




ti,e costs) &illions of -eo-le with no ins*rance co,erage4e1actly whatwo*ld be a&-lified in the United States by 'linton<s -ro-osals for A&an4aged co&-etitionA -*t forward in 3;;:O.$3 2*t in 3;6$ in Sas(atchewan)where the N. .P. is -retty strong and the *nions are -retty strong) they&anaged to -*t thro*gh a (ind of rational health4care -rogra& of the sortthat e,ery ind*strialiGed co*ntry in the world has by now) e1ce-t the UnitedStates and So*th +frica. Well) when Sas(atchewan first -*t thro*gh that

-rogra&) the doctors and the ins*rance co&-anies and the b*siness co&4&*nity were all screa&ing4b*t it wor(ed so well that -retty soon all theother Pro,inces wanted the sa&e thing too) and within a co*-le years g*ar4anteed health care had s-read o,er the entire co*ntry. +nd that ha--enedlargely beca*se of the New e&ocratic Party in 'anada) which does -ro4,ide a (ind of co,er and a fra&ewor( within which -o-*lar organiGationsli(e *nions) and then later things li(e the fe&inist &o,e&ent) ha,e beenable to get together and do things.

Now) in the United States there are also a lot of -o-*lar organiGations) b*t they<re all se-arate) there<s no fra&ewor( to start bringing the& to4gether. So de,elo-ing a -o-*larly4based third -arty here co*ld be a ,eryi&-ortant ste- towards that) and 0 thin( it sho*ld be -*rs*ed.

0n fact) there ha,e e,en been so&e enco*raging de,elo-&ents in recentyears in getting so&ething li(e that off the gro*nd40<& thin(ing of the

e&ergence of the New Party) s-ecifically) which is sort of trying to followthe 'anadian &odel. So again) 0 don<t thin( that we sho*ld ha,e any ill*4sions abo*t wor(ing thro*gh the -olitical syste&) and 0<& not &*ch of a fanof -olitical -arties4b*t the New Party is really the first serio*s third44-artyalternati,e that 0<,e seen in the United States? serio*sly tho*ght4o*t) tryingto create grassroots str*ct*res) *sing -olitics the way it o*ght to be *sed) asan organiGing and -ress*ring techni *e) and ho-ing *lti&ately to get to the

-oint where it co*ld ha,e real infl*ence. Now) they<re not going to &a(estr*ct*ral refor&s4that re *ires &*ch bigger changes) changes in theinstit*tions. 0 &ean) when the N. .P. got into -ower in !ntario in 3;;%)they co*ldn<t really do anything) they *st carried o*t the nor&al right4wing

-olicies) and in the ne1t national election in 3;;:O they got li(e two ,otes)nobody wanted to bother with the& any&ore. 2*t e,en gi,en those

li&itations) 0 still thin( it<s i&-ortant for a co*ntry to ha,e so&ething li(ethat4there<s a lot of -otential to hel- &a(e -eo-le<s li,es better) and itcertainly co*ld be a basis for &o,ing f*rther and -ressing for largerchanges.

0n fact) that sa&e (ind of thin(ing e1tends to electoral -olitics in gen4eral) in &y ,iew. 0 &ean) right now ,oting decisions in the United Statesare -retty s*btle tactical &atters) in which the -olicy differences betweenthe two &a or -arties are not great. 2*t *st beca*se 0 say they<re Atactical)A0 don<t &ean to de&ean it? the decisions that ha,e serio*s h*&an conse4

*ences and &atter for -eo-le are mostly tactical *dg&ents) after all. i(e)we can ha,e big disc*ssions abo*t what society o*ght to loo( li(e in the f*4



Chapter $ine33?

t*re) which is fine) b*t that doesn<t affect what ha--ens to -eo-le in theirli,es right now) e1ce-t e1tre&ely indirectly. What ha--ens to -eo-le intheir daily li,es *s*ally de-ends on s&all) diffic*lt) tactical assess&entsabo*t where to -*t yo*r ti&e and energy4and one of those decisions iswhether yo* sho*ld ,ote) and if so) who sho*ld yo* ,ote for. +nd that can

be an e1tre&ely i&-ortant decision) with significant i&-lications.So for e1a&-le) we ha,e a national election co&ing *- in the United

States soon in 3;;6O) and 0 don<t really (now of any ,ery strong arg*&entsone way or another abo*t who to ,ote for4b*t that<s not to say that that

*dg&ent is an *ni&-ortant one? 0 thin( it<s ,ery i&-ortant. 0 &ean) 0<ll ,otefor 'linton) holding &y nose4b*t the reason has nothing at all to do with

big -olicy iss*esC there 0 can<t really see too &*ch difference. What it has todo with are things li(e who<s going to get a--ointed to the *diciary? thereare so&e differences between the Re-*blicans and e&ocrats on *estionsli(e that) and who<s a--ointed to the *diciary ha--ens to ha,e a big effecton -eo-le<s li,es. They &ay be s&all -olicy differences when yo* loo( atthe big -ict*re4b*t re&e&ber) there<s a h*ge a&o*nt of -ower o*t there)and s&all -olicy differences i&-le&enting a h*ge a&o*nt of -ower can&a(e big differences to -eo-le. !r there &ight be a slight difference inthings li(e the earned inco&e ta1 credit a ta1 ref*nd -rogra& for -oorwor(ing indi,id*als and fa&iliesO. !(ay) that &a(es a lot of difference for

-eo-le whose (ids are h*ngry in downtown 2oston) say. So that<ll be &ydecision in this election4again) holding &y nose. +nd that<s the way it is atthe *--er le,els of o*r -olitical syste& generally) 0 thin(.

+ct*ally) one way for third -arties to address this sit*ation is to r*n Af*4sionA candidates4&eaning) yo* ha,e yo*r own third4-arty ballot4line whichstands for whate,er yo* stand for) say for social4de&ocratic4ty-e -rogra&s)

b*t then yo* ha,e that ballot4line ,ote go to one of the &ain44-artycandidates in the election) based on these sort of tactical decisions. That<s

-ossible in so&e *risdictions. +nd it<s a co&-ro&ise way for a third -artyto -reser,e a gen*ine -olicy identity and co&&it&ent) while ne,erthelessletting -eo-le &a(e the s&all tactical ,oting choices that can &a(e a realdifference to -eo-le4and 0 thin( it<s a ,ery -la*sible co&-ro&ise.

oy-otts

M*$, o you thin& it would help to undermine corporate power if peoplewere to begin ma&ing consumer choices that directly affect companies li&e2nited @ruit ;renamed Chi:uita<) which are the most actively involved inexploiting 'hird World countries8li&e) stop buying their bananas) say) stopbuying their coffee0

+gain) if only a few -eo-le do it) it isn<t going to ha,e any effect4it *st&eans that so&e g*y -ic(ing bananas in East 'osta Rica isn<t going to ha,e




eno*gh &oney to feed his children to&orrow. 2*t if it<s done on a largeeno*gh scale that it can ha,e an i&-act on the cor-orate str*ct*re) s*re)then it co*ld &ean so&ething.

0 &ean) s*--ose yo* sto--ed cons*&ing altogether4yo* can li,e ons*bsistence far&ing in the United States in a lot of -laces) so s*--ose yo*did that. The effect on the general society wo*ld be e1actly as if yo*decided to co&&it s*icide? it wo*ld si&-ly go on as before) b*t witho*tyo*. 2ear in &ind that a lot of these things abo*t Alet<s really &a(e achange by withdrawing fro& the world and li,ing a decent lifeA ha,e

-recisely the social effect of s*icide4well) that<s a little too e1tre&e) beca*se -eo-le &ight notice and beco&e interested and in,ol,ed) so &aybe it<s alittle bit &ore than s*icide. 2*t not a lot. +nd in fact) the only thing thatdoes differentiate it fro& s*icide is when yo* *se it as an organiGing tool) $$

!therwise not) otherwise in fact it is *st li(e s*icide.

W+M*$, Would you ever advocate a boycott as a tactic) though)assuming that it was coordinated and on a large enough scale0

Well) tactics de-end on the s-ecific sit*ations yo*<re faced with40 don<tthin( yo* can say ,ery &*ch worthwhile abo*t the& in the abstract. Sothere &ight be a -artic*lar &o&ent when a boycott of so&ething wo*ld be

hel-f*l. 2*t as a general &atter) 0 don<t thin( they really &a(e a lot ofsense) fran(ly.0 &ean) s*--ose we got &illions of -eo-le to sto- b*ying? what wo*ld

ha--enI The econo&ic syste& barely f*nctions as it is40 &ean) theconte&-orary econo&ic syste& is a co&-lete catastro-he) an absol*telycatastro-hic fail*re. Bor instance) the 0nternational abor !rganiGation re4cently ga,e its latest esti&ate of *ne&-loy&ent worldwide4A*ne&-loy4&entA they define as &eaning not ha,ing eno*gh wor( to &eet as*bsistence le,el) so &aybe yo* can sell so&e hand(erchiefs at a streetcorner or so&ething) b*t yo* don<t ha,e eno*gh wor( to s*r,i,e on yo*rown. They esti&ate that at abo*t :% -ercent of the world<s -o-*lation4which &a(es it a lot worse than the >reat e-ression. $: +lrightI Now)there<s a ton of wor( to be done in the world4e,erywhere yo* loo( there<s

wor( that o*ght to be done. +nd the -eo-le who don<t ha,e wor( wo*ld bedelighted to do it. So what yo*<,e got is a h*ge n*&ber of idle hands) a ,asta&o*nt of wor( that o*ght to be done) and an econo&ic syste& that isinca-able of -*tting those two things together. !(ay) absol*telycatastro-hic fail*re. 2oycotts aren<t going to o,erco&e that fail*re) they<re

*st going to &a(e it worse.So yo* (now) they &ay be worthwhile as a tactic at so&e -oint) b*t

what<s really re *ired is *st a co&-lete rethin(ing of the entire nat*re ofecono&ic interactions and str*ct*res4there really is no other way to o,er4co&e this whole &assi,e fail*re of the econo&y.




co&es *- to yo* and says) AWhat sho*ld 0 doIA4the answer A>o attac( the -olice stationA is not ,ery hel-f*l.

The only thing that these -eo-le loo(ing for wor(&en<s co&- can do is be in,ol,ed in strong eno*gh organiGations) and in this case that &eans*nions4or &aybe they can get so&ebody fro& the National awyers >*ild

-rogressi,e law organiGationO or so&ething to hel- the& wor( thro*gh thelegal str*ct*res. Short of ha,ing an organiGation that yo* can be -art of thatwill defend yo*) tho*gh) there<s really not &*ch yo* can do4and that<s

-recisely why there<s been s*ch a -assionate effort by the b*siness worldand the go,ern&ent to try to destroy *nions. 0 &ean) e,er since the Wagner+ct first got -assed in 3;:5) there has been a s*stained ca&-aign in theUnited States to destroy the labor &o,e&ent and to o,erco&e this tragedy.+nd there<s a ,ery good reason for that? if -eo-le are all alone) they reallyare defenseless) they *st ass*&e A0 can only loo( o*t for &yself)A and thenthat b*ilds *- a real -ri,atiGation of interests) which in t*rn contrib*tes totheir o--ression. 2*t of co*rse) the dyna&ic also goes the other way too4when yo* organiGe with other -eo-le) yo* de,elo- yo*r sense of solidarityand sy&-athy) and that hel-s brea( down the o--ression.

0n fact) this all goes bac( to Ja&es Madison<s -oint again? there areA-arch&ent barriersA which say that yo* can"t fire wor(ers for trying toorganiGe) there are federal laws that &a(e that co&-letely illegal. 2*t be4ca*se for whate,er reason -eo-le ha,e not been able to fight to &aintainthose laws) the go,ern&ent *st doesn<t enforce the& any&ore. 0 &ean) thereason the -eo-le yo*<re tal(ing abo*t can be fired is that the go,ern&ent isa cri&inal o-eration? it doesn<t enforce the laws. Therefore e&-loyers ha,ethis real wea-on o,er -eo-le<s heads) which is a ,ery -owerf*l one) as yo*say.

+ct*ally) there was an interesting article abo*t this in (usiness Wee& alittle while ago. 0t was abo*t the destr*ction of *nions in the United States)and what they -ointed o*t4(ind of cas*ally) not &a(ing a big -oint of itisthat -art of the way that *nions ha,e been destroyed here is *st by a h*geincrease in illegal firings) -artic*larly d*ring the 3;7%s. The Wagner +ct&a(es that flatly illegal) b*t since the federal go,ern&ent is a cri&inal o-4eration and doesn<t enforce the laws) e&-loyers *st do whate,er they feelli(e. The sa&e thing was tr*e with ind*strial accidents? they shot way *- inthe 3;7%s) beca*se the Reagan ad&inistration *st ref*sed to enforce thelaws reg*lating wor(-lace safety. +nd this is all right o*t in the o-en44li(e)

(usiness Wee& says it straight o*t? Aillegal firings)A nobody<s trying to co,erit U-. $8

W+M*$, Can"t employers fire employees 1at will1 in the 2.S.) though0

No4if e&-loyees are trying to organiGe and they get fired) that<s againstthe law) it<s flatly illegal. $5



Chapter $ine 34

W+M*$, 6t"s tough to prove) though.

0t<s to*gh to -ro,e if the go,ern&ent won<t -rosec*te) or if the co*rtswon<t hear it) or if the National abor Relations 2oard is set *- in s*ch away that yo*<,e got to wor( for fi,e years before yo*r case e,er gets heard4

by which ti&e e,erybody<s either gone away or dro--ed dead or so&ething.0 &ean) these are all *st ,ario*s techni *es of state cri&inality to e,ade,ery clear legislation. 0n fact) the United States has been cens*red by the0nternational abor !rganiGation for ,iolating international labor standards4it<s -robably the only ind*strial society the 0. .!. has e,er cens*red)

beca*se this is a U.N. agency) so it<s largely -aid for by the U.S.) and theyne,er say anything bad abo*t the -eo-le who -ay their wages. 2*t the0. .!. in 3;;3 cens*red the United States for ,iolating international laborstandards at the ti&e of the 'ater-illar stri(e) when the go,ern&ent -er4&itted the cor-oration to bring in scabs wor(ers who cross the -ic(et4lineOto brea( the stri(e. $6

+nd the sa&e sorts of things are ha--ening *nder 2ill 'linton too. Soone of the ca&-aign iss*es that got 'linton a lot of labor s*--ort in 3;;$was that he -ro&ised to -*t so&e teeth in the law that &a(es it illegal fore&-loyers to hire scabs4which basically destroys any stri(e. 0 &ean) whenyo*<,e got a h*ge *ne&-loyed labor force) and yo* don<t ha,e a sense ofwor(ing4class solidarity in the -o-*lation) and a ton of -eo-le are des-er4ate) if yo* go on stri(e and get re-laced by scabs) o(ay) that<s the end of thestri(e4so that (ills stri(es. Now) this is *nheard of? no &odern co*ntry

-er&its this. 0n fact) at the ti&e that the 0. .!. cens*red the U.S.) only theU.S. and So*th +frica allowed it) tho*gh by now 0 thin( it<s s-reading forall (inds of reasons) es-ecially in England. 2*t one of 'linton<s big ca&4

-aign -ro&ises in <;$ was that he was going to -*t a sto- to this -ractice444and *st now he<s sort of bac(ed off fro& that) *nder the threat of afilib*ster the -ractice of bloc(ing legislation in 'ongress by indefinitely

-rolonging debateO. The -eo-le in 'ongress who were -*shing it said)rightly or wrongly) that they co*ldn<t o,erco&e a filib*ster4and so hesto--ed.

Well) that<s again the sa&e interaction? there are already laws on the

boo(s that &a(e hiring scabs illegal) b*t laws only get enforced if -eo-leare willing to fight for the&) otherwise they don<t get enforced. 0 &ean) it<snice to ha,e the laws) b*t it<s nice -artly beca*se it &a(es it easier to str*g4gle for yo*r rights4it<s not that the laws give yo* the rights. aws can be onthe boo(s and &ean absol*tely nothing) as in this case.

There are also a n*&ber of other tric(s which are being *sed all aro*ndthe world to destroy *nions. So for e1a&-le) in England *nder MargaretThatcher Pri&e Minister fro& 3;9; to <;%O) which was ,ery si&ilar to Rea4ganite +&erica in &any ways) there was also a &a or effort to try todestroy the labor &o,e&ent4and by now it<s -retty &*ch gone there too. 0t<snot *ite as bad as the United States yet) b*t it<s going that way. +ndre&e&ber)




the labor &o,e&ent *sed to be ,ery strong in England) *st li(e in 'anada.0n fact) the 2ritish labor &o,e&ent led the way in a lot of res-ects in -*sh4ing thro*gh the wa,e of &odern social refor& after the Second World War.2*t now e&-loyers in England are allowed to -ay differential wages towor(ers de-ending on whether or not they *nioniGe4in other words theycan say) A0f yo* ref*se to oin the *nion 0<ll increase yo*r wagesC if yo* ointhe *nion 0<ll lower yo*r wages.A Well) that<s de,astating for *nions.

!r ta(e another tric( they *st instit*ted there) which is absol*tely lethalfor organiGing. Union d*es ha,e traditionally been -aid by a chec(4off? yo*agree that so&e -art of yo*r salary is going to be ded*cted for *nion d*es)

*st li(e so&e -art of it gets ded*cted for Social Sec*rity. Well) the 'onser4,ati,e John Ma or go,ern&ent in England *st -assed an ad&inistrati,ereg*lation or so&ething that re *ires all *nion &e&bers to reg*larly renewtheir a*thoriGation for this chec(4off4&eaning the 2ritish labor &o,e&entnow has to reach si1 &illion -eo-le so&ewhere and -eriodically get the&to sign a state&ent saying) A0 agree to contin*e doing this.A +lright) that is

*st an incredible b*rden. E,en the &ainstrea& 2ritish -ress -ointed o*tthat if yo* tried to do that to ban(s) li(e &a(e ban(s reg*larly get writtenagree&ents fro& e,erybody they<,e e,er lent &oney to or so&ething thatthey<re still going to -ay it bac() the financial syste& wo*ld -robablycolla-se. $7 +nd the labor &o,e&ent &ostly r*ns by *n-aid ,ol*nteers44theydon<t ha,e the &oney to -ay -eo-le) so it<s *s*ally ,ol*nteers who (ee- the*nions going. So now those ,ol*nteers ha,e to ta(e ti&e off fro& theirother acti,ities to try to ro*nd *- si1 &illion -eo-le fro& all aro*nd theco*ntry) who<,e &o,ed since yo* last heard of the& and this and that) *stto get the& to sign so&e state&ent they<,e already signed before allowingthe *nions to &a(e this chec(4off of d*es.

Well) that<s the (ind of thing that<s been ha--ening all o,er the -lace inrecent years4and it<s all going to (ee- on going. 0 &ean) there are all (indsof ways in which -ower can try to destroy -o-*lar organiGations? it doesn<tha,e to be death s *ads li(e it is in the Third World. +nd *nless there iseno*gh -o-*lar -ress*re and organiGing to o,erco&e it4and in fact)

progress8they"ll win. So 0 don<t (now how &any of yo* ha,e tried to or4ganiGe these days) b*t it<s e1tre&ely hard4-artly *st beca*se there are a lotof barriers that ha,e been set *- to &a(e it ,ery diffic*lt to do) &any ofthe& instit*ted in the 3;7%s. 2*t they<re obstacles we<re *st going to ha,eto o,erco&e.

Inner/City Schools

W+M*$, $oam) a number of activists 6 &now are on welfare) and theirchildren are going to public schools that increasingly are resembling pris8ons, there are armed guards in the halls) there"s a high level of violence.

*nd 6 &now some of these &ids) they"re really brutali ed8if they"re notchroni8



Chapter $ine 343

cally depressed) then they"re violent, violent in language) violent in fact.+ne of the mothers recently told me8and she"s a pretty radical person88thatthe conservative 1School Choice Movement1 ;whereby the state would

subsidi e tuition at private institutions instead of administering public schools< really is appealing to her. 6t surprised me) but she said) 1'he leftisn"t addressing the problem of the schools) the left is sentimental about

public education. A 6"m wondering what you thin& about that0

0 thin( there<s a lot of tr*th to it. 0 &ean) it<s the sa&e with cri&e4-eo-leare really scared) es-ecially -eo-le in -oor neighborhoods. 0t<s not so badwhere 0 li,e) in the fancy s*b*rbs) b*t if yo* li,e in a -oor neighborhood)it<s frightening4*n-leasant things can ha--en to yo* and yo*r children. +ndwhen it<s frightening) -eo-le want so&ething to -rotect the&sel,es4and if

-rotecting yo*rself &eans ha,ing ar&ed g*ards all aro*nd) or calling for&ore *se of the death -enalty or so&ething) well) then yo*<ll go for that. 0fthe choices are narrowed to yo*r child being attac(ed in the halls andgetting a rotten ed*cation) or ha,ing A-ri,ate choicesA4s*re) -eo-le will

-ic( the A-ri,ate choices.A 2*t the tas( of the left is to extend those o-tions)to let -eo-le (now that there is another o-tion) the o-tion of a decent life?which is neither schools as -risons) nor -*ll yo*rself o*t and let e,erybodyelse stay in the -rison4which is what the whole A-ri,atiGation of ed*cationAstory is really abo*t.

2*t s*re? if -eo-le can<t see any other alternati,es) they<ll say A0<ll -*ll&yself o*t.A 0n fact) 0 did the sa&e thing. Why do 0 li,e in the s*b*rbsI 2e4ca*se &y wife and 0 wanted o*r (ids to go to a good school) first -erson totell yo*. !f co*rse 0 did that) and -eo-le who ha,e that o-tion will do itb*tthe idea is to set *- a syste& in which -eo-le don<t e,er ha,e to face thatnarrow set of alternati,es) all of the& awf*l.

0 do thin( it<s tr*e) tho*gh) that at this -oint the left is basically offeringnothing in the way of alternati,es. What it ought to be getting across is the&essage) A oo() this is not the f*ll range of alternati,es) there are othersA4and then it sho*ld -resent the others. +nd the others are not *to-ian. 0&ean) *st loo( at the history of inner4city schools in the United States?there was a -eriod) not so far bac() when &any of the inner4city schoolshere were e1tre&ely good4in fact) so&e of the blac( inner4city schools inWashington had a&ong the highest college4acce-tance rates in the co*ntry.$; !r ta(e &y own fa&ily) for e1a&-le? they were i&&igrants fro& EasternE*ro-e4not -easants) b*t fro& a ,ery -oor Eastern E*ro-ean bac(gro*nd4and they went thro*gh ordinary city schools in New or() so&e of the&went to the 'ity 'ollege) and they got ,ery good ed*cations. 0n fact) the'ity 'ollege of New or( *sed to be one of the best schools in the co*ntry?

-*blic city school) no reason why it sho*ldn<t be.So good -*blic ed*cation can certainly be achie,ed4b*t of co*rse) li(e

e,erything else) it<s going to de-end on the general social and econo&icstr*ct*re in which it o-erates. 0 &ean) it<s tr*e that things li(e ,iolence and




rotten schools are destroying the cities4b*t they<re destroying the& beca*seof a social str*ct*re that we<,e *st got to change) fro& the botto& *-. +ndyes) *ntil -eo-le can see so&e ho-e of changing it) they<re going to -ic(fro& within the rotten set of o-tions that are being -resented to the&.

3efending the Welfare State

W+M*$, $oam) since you"re an anarchist and often say that youoppose the existence of the nation8state itself and thin& it"s incompatiblewith true socialism) does that ma&e you at all reluctant to defend welfare

programs and other social services which are now under attac& from theright wing) and which the right wing wants to dismantle0

Well) it<s tr*e that the anarchist ,ision in *st abo*t all its ,arieties hasloo(ed forward to dis&antling state -ower4and -ersonally 0 share that ,i4sion. 2*t right now it r*ns directly co*nter to &y goals? &y i&&ediategoals ha,e been) and now ,ery &*ch are) to defend and e,en strengthencertain ele&ents of state a*thority that are now *nder se,ere attac(. +nd 0don<t thin( there<s any contradiction there4none at all) really.

Bor e1a&-le) ta(e the so4called Awelfare state.A What<s called the Awel4fare stateA is essentially a recognition that e,ery child has a right to ha,e

food) and to ha,e health care and so on4and as 0<,e been saying) those -ro4gra&s were set *- in the nation4state syste& after a cent*ry of ,ery hardstr*ggle) by the labor &o,e&ent) and the socialist &o,e&ent) and so on.Well) according to the new s-irit of the age) in the case of a fo*rteen4year44old girl who got ra-ed and has a child) her child has to learn A-ersonal re4s-onsibilityA by not acce-ting state welfare hando*ts) &eaning) by notha,ing eno*gh to eat. +lright) 0 don<t agree with that at any le,el. 0n fact) 0thin( it<s grotes *e at any le,el. 0 thin( those children sho*ld be sa,ed. +ndin today<s world) that<s going to ha,e to in,ol,e wor(ing thro*gh the statesyste&C it<s not the only case.

So des-ite the anarchist A,ision)A 0 thin( as-ects of the state syste&) li(ethe one that &a(es s*re children eat) ha,e to be defended4in fact) defended,ery ,igoro*sly. +nd gi,en the accelerating effort that<s being &ade these

days to roll bac( the ,ictories for *stice and h*&an rights which ha,e beenwon thro*gh long and often e1tre&ely bitter str*ggles in the West) in &yo-inion the i&&ediate goal of e,en co&&itted anarchists sho*ld be todefend so&e state instit*tions) while hel-ing to -ry the& o-en to &ore&eaningf*l -*blic -artici-ation) and *lti&ately to dis&antle the& in a&*ch &ore free society.

There are -ractical -roble&s of to&orrow on which -eo-le<s li,es ,ery&*ch de-end) and while defending these (inds of -rogra&s is by no &eansthe *lti&ate end we sho*ld be -*rs*ing) in &y ,iew we still ha,e to facethe -roble&s that are right on the horiGon) and which serio*sly affecth*&an



Chapter $ine 34=

li,es. 0 don<t thin( those things can si&-ly be forgotten beca*se they &ightnot fit within so&e radical slogan that reflects a dee-er ,ision of a f*t*resociety. The dee-er ,isions sho*ld be &aintained) they<re i&-ortant4b*t dis4&antling the state syste& is a goal that<s a lot farther away) and yo* want todeal first with what<s at hand and nearby) 0 thin(. +nd in any realistic -er4s-ecti,e) the -olitical syste&) with all its flaws) does ha,e o--ort*nities for

-artici-ation by the general -o-*lation which other e1isting instit*tions)s*ch as cor-orations) don<t ha,e. 0n fact) that<s e1actly why the far rightwants to wea&en go,ern&ental str*ct*res4beca*se if yo* can &a(e s*re thatall the (ey decisions are in the hands of Microsoft and >eneral Electric andRaytheon) then yo* don<t ha,e to worry any&ore abo*t the threat of -o-*larin,ol,e&ent in -olicy4&a(ing.

So ta(e so&ething that<s been ha--ening in recent years? de,ol*tion444that is) re&o,ing a*thority fro& the federal go,ern&ent down to the statego,ern&ents. Well) in so&e circ*&stances) that wo*ld be a de&ocratiGing&o,e which 0 wo*ld be in fa,or of4it wo*ld be a &o,e away fro& centrala*thority down to local a*thority. 2*t that<s in abstract circ*&stances thatdon<t e1ist. Right now it<ll ha--en beca*se &o,ing decision4&a(ing -owerdown to the state le,el in fact &eans handing it o,er to -ri,ate -ower. See)h*ge cor-orations can infl*ence and do&inate the federal go,ern&ent) b*te,en &iddle4siGed cor-orations can infl*ence state go,ern&ents and -lay

one state<s wor(force off against another<s by threatening to &o,e -rod*c4tion elsewhere *nless they get better ta1 brea(s and so on. So *nder theconditions of e1isting syste&s of -ower) de,ol*tion is ,ery anti4de&ocraticC *nder other syste&s of &*ch greater e *ality) de,ol*tion co*ld

be highly de&ocratic4b*t these are *estions which really can<t bedisc*ssed in isolation fro& the society as it act*ally e1ists.

So 0 thin( that it<s co&-letely realistic and rational to wor( within str*c4t*res to which yo* are o--osed) beca*se by doing so yo* can hel- to &o,eto a sit*ation where then yo* can challenge those str*ct*res.

et &e *st gi,e yo* an analogy. 0 don<t li(e to ha,e ar&ed -olice e,ery4where) 0 thin( it<s a bad idea. !n the other hand) a n*&ber of years agowhen 0 had little (ids) there was a rabid raccoon r*nning aro*nd o*r neigh4

borhood biting children. Well) we tried ,ario*s ways of getting rid of ityo*

(now) AHa,e4+4HeartA ani&al tra-s) all this (ind of st*ff4b*t nothingwor(ed. So finally we *st called the -olice and had the& do it? it was better than ha,ing the (ids bitten by a rabid raccoon) rightI 0s there acontradiction thereI No? in -artic*lar circ*&stances) yo* so&eti&es ha,eto acce-t and *se illegiti&ate str*ct*res.

Well) we ha--en to ha,e a h*ge rabid raccoon r*nning aro*nd4it<s calledcor-orations. +nd there is nothing in the society right now that can -rotect

-eo-le fro& that tyranny) e1ce-t the federal go,ern&ent. Now) it doesn<t -rotect the& ,ery well) beca*se &ostly it<s r*n by the cor-orations) b*t stillit does ha,e so&e li&ited effect4it can enforce reg*latory &eas*res *nder

-*blic -ress*re) let<s say) it can red*ce dangero*s to1ic waste

8



:86 Understanding Power

dis-osal) it can set &ini&al standards on health care) and so on. 0n fact) ithas ,ario*s things that it can do to i&-ro,e the sit*ation when there<s thish*ge rabid raccoon do&inating the -lace. So) fine) 0 thin( we o*ght to get itto do the things it can do4if yo* can get rid of the raccoon) great) then let<sdis&antle the federal go,ern&ent. 2*t to say) A!(ay) let<s *st get rid of thefederal go,ern&ent as soon as we -ossibly can)A and then let the -ri,atetyrannies ta(e o,er every thing86 &ean) for an anarchist to ad,ocate that is

*st o*tlandish) in &y o-inion. So 0 really don<t see any contradiction at all

here.

S*--orting these as-ects of the go,ern&ental str*ct*res *st see&s to &e )to be -art of a willingness to face so&e of the co&-le1ities of life for whatthey are4and the co&-le1ities of life incl*de the fact that there are a lot of*gly things o*t there) and if yo* care abo*t the fact that so&e (id in downown 2oston is star,ing) or) that so&e -oor -erson can<t get ade *ate&edical care) or that so&ebody<s going to -o*r to1ic waste in yo*r

bac(yard) or anything at all li(e that) well) then yo* try to sto- it. +ndthere<s only one instit*tion aro*nd right now that can sto- it. 0f yo* *stwant to be -*re and say) A0<& against -ower) -eriod)A well) o(ay) say) A0<&against the federal go,ern&ent. A 2*t that<s *st to di,orce yo*rself fro&

any h*&an concerns) in &y ,iew. +nd 0 don<t thin( that<s a reasonablestance for anarchists or anyone else to ta(e.

Pension !"nds and the a!

M*$, Mr. Choms&y) if what 6"ve been told is correct) almost half of pub8licly8owned stoc& in the 2nited States is in privately8held pension trusts)

such as union trust funds. 6"m wondering) if restrictions li&e those under E.R.6.S.*. ;the Employee Retirement 6ncome Security *ctJ can be modifiedso that wor&ers could control their own funds) do you thin& that it would be

possible to support a collaborative or union8based or popularly8basedeffort to direct that money towards socially responsible investment8li&eaway from companies that are brea&ing unions and so on0

Well) notice that whate,er the n*&bers are) it<s h*ge4b*t that &oney isnot in the hands of labor *nions) it<s in the hands of >old&an Sachs in4,est&ent fir&O. +nd in fact) if the go,ern&ent enforced the laws) thetr*stees of those -ension f*nds wo*ld be in serio*s tro*ble right now4be4ca*se they ha,e ,iolated their legal res-onsibility to in,est those f*nds insafe in,est&ents. Bor instance) they are in,esting yo*r -ensions in thingsli(e *n( bonds in Me1ico4and the -eo-le &a(ing those in,est&ent deci4sions wo*ld be legally liable for that) if we a--lied o*r laws) beca*se theyha,e a tr*st to in,est those f*nds in sec*re in,est&ents) and they don<t doit. They *st do whate,er they want with the&. Now) they<re not going to bein tro*ble) beca*se we don<t ha,e a real *stice syste&4we only go after

-oor



34?

-eo-le. 2*t they sho*ld be) and in fact) 0 thin( the labor &o,e&ent o*ght toas( for that now? li(e) R*bin) the g*y who<s Secretary of the Treas*ry) hesho*ld -robably be in ail *st beca*se of the Me1ican econo&ic colla-sealone in ece&ber 3;;8O) which he allowed to ha--en. :o

2*t the -oint is) yo* co*ld de&ocratiGe the *nions eno*gh so that theyco*ld act*ally ta(e control of their own reso*rces. +nd that wo*ld be a ,eryi&-ortant ste-. 0 &ean) there<s a lot of -otential for acti,is& and -o-*lar4

based efforts there) yo*<re right. +nd it doesn<t ha,e to sto- at their own -ensions) yo* (now? what abo*t the factories in which they wor(I Whysho*ld they be in the hands of -ri,ate in,estorsI That<s not a law of nat*re.Why sho*ld a cor-oration ha,e the rights of an indi,id*al. :3 + cor-oration isa -*blic tr*st? yo* go bac( *st a cent*ry) and go,ern&ents were ta(ingaway cor-orate charters beca*se cor-orations weren<t li,ing *- to theA-*blic interest.A :$ 0t<s a ,ery recent idea that these totalitarian instit*tionssho*ld be totally *nacco*ntable.

So) yes) wor(ers o*ght to ha,e control of their -ension f*nds4b*t alsoe,erything else too? that is) the society o*ght to be de&ocratiGed. +nd this isnot a -artic*larly radical idea) act*ally? yo* go bac( to the g*ys whofo*nded the +&erican Bederation of abor a cent*ry ago4the +.B. . is not afla&ing radical organiGation4they said) loo() wor(ing -eo-le o*ght tocontrol the -laces where they wor() there<s no reason why they sho*ld becontrolled by so&e rich g*y o*t there who -*t so&e &oney into it and hasnothing to do with it. :: That<s tr*e too) *st li(e it<s tr*e of -ension f*nds444and that wo*ld be a &o,e towards a de&ocratic society) as was always*nderstood in fact) *ntil the inde-endent wor(ing4class c*lt*re was eli&i4nated in the United States. So -ension f*nds are only a -art of it? a big -art)

b*t only -art.

M*$, What do you thin& the role of law is generally in the whole scheme ofcontrol0

Well) law is a bit li(e a -rinting -ress4it<s (ind of ne*tral) yo* can &a(e itdo anything. 0 &ean) what lawyers are ta*ght in law school is chicanery?how to con,ert words on -a-er into instr*&ents of -ower. +nd de-endingwhere the -ower is) the law will &ean different things.

M*$, So you don"t thin& there"s any legal basis for the hegemony of *mer8ican corporations) especially in the way that the @ourteenth *mendmentwas interpreted to consider them individuals) with individual rights0

Well) yo* (now) Alegal basisA is a f*nny notion? what has a legal basis is a&atter of -ower) not law4li(e) the Bo*rteenth +&end&ent doesn<t sayanything abo*t cor-orations. *ring the nineteenth cent*ry) there was *st 3change in the legal stat*s of cor-orations4a change which wo*ld ha,eabsol*tely a--alled +da& S&ith) or Tho&as Jefferson) or any other En4




lighten&ent thin(er. 0n fact) S&ith warned against it) and Jefferson li,edlong eno*gh to see the beginnings of it4and what he said is) if what hecalled the Aban(s and &oneyed incor-orationsA got the rights that they infact ended *- recei,ing) we wo*ld ha,e a for& of absol*tis& worse thanthe one we tho*ght we were fighting against in the +&erican Re,ol*tion. :8

+nd those rights si&-ly were granted4they weren<t granted by 'ongress)and in other co*ntries they weren<t granted by Parlia&entsC they weregranted by *dges) lawyers) cor-orate re-resentati,es) and others) co&4

-letely o*tside the de&ocratic syste&. +nd they si&-ly created anotherworld4they created a world of absol*tist -ower which was ,ery new. :5

There<s a lot of good wor( on this by what are called 'ritical egal his4torians) Morton HorwitG at Har,ard and others. +lso) !1ford Uni,ersityPress has a boo( by a historian at the Uni,ersity of 'alifornia na&ed'harles Sellers) who disc*sses so&e of this? it<s called 'he Mar&et Revolu8tion. 3> That<s the basic story) tho*gh? these laws were &ade by a big

-ower4-lay) co&-letely o*tside of -o-*lar control. !(ay) as *s*al) the g*yswith the g*ns are the ones that decide what the law is.

'ons-iracy 'heories

M*$, $oam) you mentioned earlier how 1conspiracy theories1 ta&e up alot of energy in the left movements these days) particularly on the WestCoast and with respect to the 9ennedy assassination8and you said that in

your view) it"s a totally wasted effort. o you really feel there"s nothing atall worthwhile in that &ind of in:uiry0

Well) let &e -*t it this way. E,ery e1a&-le we find of -lanningdecisions in the society is a case where so&e -eo-le got together and triedto *se whate,er -ower they co*ld draw *-on to achie,e a res*lt4if yo* li(e)those are Acons-iracies.A That &eans that al&ost e,erything that ha--ens inthe world is a Acons-iracy.A 0f the 2oard of irectors of >eneral Motorsgets together and decides what (ind of car to -rod*ce ne1t year) that<s acons-iracy. E,ery b*siness decision) e,ery editorial decision is acons-iracy. 0f the ing*istics e-art&ent 0 wor( in decides who to a--ointne1t year) that<s a cons-iracy.

!(ay) ob,io*sly that<s not interesting? all decisions in,ol,e -eo-le. Sothe real *estion is) are there gro*-ings well o*tside the str*ct*res of the&a or instit*tions of the society which go aro*nd the&) hi ac( the&) *n4der&ine the&) -*rs*e other co*rses witho*t an instit*tional base) and so onand so forthI +nd that<s a *estion of fact? do significant things ha--en

beca*se gro*-s or s*bgro*-s are acting in secret o*tside the &ain str*ct*resof instit*tional -owerI

Well) as 0 loo( o,er history) 0 don<t find &*ch of that. 0 &ean) there are some cases4for instance) at one -oint a gro*- of NaGi generals tho*ght of



Chapter $ine 34

assassinating Hitler. !(ay) that<s a cons-iracy. 2*t things li(e that are real bli-s on the screen) as far as 0 can see. Now) if -eo-le want to s-end ti&est*dying the gro*- of NaGi generals who decided it was ti&e to get rid ofHitler) that<s a fine to-ic for a &onogra-h4&aybe so&ebody will write athesis abo*t it. 2*t we<re not going to learn anything abo*t the world fro&it) at least nothing that generaliGes to the ne1t case4it<s all going to be his4torically contingent and s-ecificC it<ll show yo* how one -artic*lar gro*- of

-eo-le acted *nder -artic*lar circ*&stances. Bine.+nd if yo* loo( at the -lace where in,estigation of Acons-iraciesA has

absol*tely flo*rished) &odern +&erican history) 0 thin( what<s notable isthe absence of s*ch cases4at least as 0 read the record) they al&ost ne,erha--en. 0 &ean) occasionally yo*<ll find so&ething li(e the Reaganites)with their off4the4shelf s*b,ersi,e and terrorist acti,ities) b*t that was sortof a fringe o-eration4and in fact) -art of the reason why a lot of it got e14

-osed so *ic(ly is beca*se the instit*tions are si&-ly too -owerf*l to tol4erate ,ery &*ch of that st*ff. +s far as the Pentagon goes) s*re) theSer,ices will -*sh their own interests4b*t ty-ically they do it in -rettytrans-arent ways.

!r ta(e the '.0.+.) which is considered the so*rce of a lot of these con4s-iracies? we ha,e a ton of infor&ation abo*t it) and as 0 read the infor&a4tion) the '.0.+. is basically *st an obedient branch of the White Ho*se. 0&ean) s*re) the '.0.+. has done things aro*nd the world4b*t as far as we(now) it hasn<t done anything on its own. There<s ,ery little e,idence4infact) 0 don<t (now of any4that the '.0.+. is so&e (ind of rog*e ele-hant) yo*(now) off on its own doing things. What the record shows is that the '.0.+.is *st an agency of the White Ho*se) which so&eti&es carries o*to-erations for which the E1ec*ti,e branch wants what<s called A-la*sibledeniabilityA? in other words) if so&ething goes wrong) we don<t want it toloo( li(e we did it) those g*ys in the '.0.+. did it) and we can throw so&eof the& to the wol,es if we need to. :9 That<s basically the role of the '.0.+.)along with &ostly *st collection of infor&ation.

0t<s the sa&e with the Trilateral 'o&&ission) the 'o*ncil on Boreign Re4lations) all these other things that -eo-le are racing aro*nd searching forcons-iracy theories abo*t4they<re AnothingA organiGations. !f co*rse they<rethere) ob,io*sly rich -eo-le get together and tal( to each other) and -laygolf with one another) and -lan together4that<s not a big s*r-rise. 2*t thesecons-iracy theories -eo-le are -*tting their energies into ha,e ,irt*allynothing to do with the way the instit*tions act*ally Kunction.

The "ennedy4assassination c*lt is -robably the &ost stri(ing case. 0&ean) yo* ha,e all these -eo-le doing s*-er4scholarly intensi,e research)and trying to find o*t *st who tal(ed to who&) and what the e1act conto*rswere of this s*--osed high4le,el cons-iracy4it<s all co&-lete nonsense. +ssoon as yo* loo( into the ,ario*s theories) they always colla-se) there<s *stnothing there. :7 2*t in &any -laces) the left has *st fallen a-art on the basisof these sheer c*lts.



3=5 2nderstanding #ower

M*$, 'here"s perhaps one exception) though8what about Martin 7uther 9ing"s assassination0

That<s interesting4see) that<s the one case where yo* can i&agine -retty -la*sible reasons why -eo-le wo*ld ha,e wanted to (ill hi&) and 0 wo*ldnot be in the least s*r-rised if there in fact was a real cons-iracy behind thatone) -robably a high4le,el cons-iracy. 0 &ean) the &echanis&s were there)&aybe they wo*ld ha,e hired so&ebody fro& the Mafia or so&ething to doit4b*t that cons-iracy theory is -erfectly -la*sible) 0 thin(. +nd interest4ingly) 0<& not aware that there<s been ,ery &*ch in *iry into it44or if therehas been) 0 ha,en<t heard abo*t it. :; 2*t in the case of the one that e,ery4

body<s e1cited abo*t4"ennedy40 &ean) nobody<s e,en co&e *- with a -la*sible reason.

0n fact) that<s a -retty dra&atic contrast) isn<t it? the case of the "ing as4sassination is on its face ,ery -la*sible) and the case of the "ennedyassassination is on its face e1tre&ely i&-la*sible4yet loo( at the differencein treat&ent.

W+M*$, o you have any ideas why that might be0

Well) there are a lot of things in a way Acons-iringA to &a(e the "en4nedy assassination an attracti,e to-ic these days. 0 &ean) the "ennedyad&inistration was in &any ways ,ery si&ilar to the Reagan ad&inistra4tion4in -olicy and -rogra&s4b*t they did do one s&art thing that wasdifferent? they sort of b*ttered *- the intellect*al class) as co&-ared withthe Reaganites) who *st treated the& with conte&-t. So they ga,e sort ofan appearance of sharing -ower Kit was ne,er realL to the (inds of -eo-lewho write boo(s and articles) and &a(e &o,ies) and all of those things44and the res*lt is) 'a&elot has always had a ,ery bea*tif*l i&age. +ndso&ehow it<s all s*cceeded in getting &ost of the -o-*lation to belie,e thelies abo*t "ennedy. 0 &ean) e,en today yo* can go down to -oor r*ral

blac( areas in the So*th and find -ict*res of hi& on the walls. "ennedy<srole in the 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent was not -retty. 2*t so&ehow the i&4agery has s*cceeded) e,en if the reality was ne,er there. 8%

+nd certainly a lot of things ha,e gone wrong in the last thirty years) forall sorts of inde-endent reasons. 0 &ean) the 'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent &adegreat achie,e&ents) b*t it ne,er li,ed *- to the ho-es that &any -eo-le in4,ested in it. The anti4war &o,e&ent &ade achie,e&ents) b*t it didn<t endwar. Real wages ha,e been declining for twenty years. 83 Peo-le arewor(ing harder) they ha,e to wor( longer ho*rs) they ha,e less sec*rity4things are *st loo(ing bad for a lot of -eo-le) es-ecially yo*ng -eo-le. 0&ean) ,ery few -eo-le e1-ect the f*t*re for their children to be anythingli(e what they had) and entry4le,el wages in the United States ha,e *stdeclined radically in the last fifteen years4for instance) wages yo* get foryo*r first ob after high school are now down :% -ercent for &ales and 37

-ercent for fe&ales o,er 3;7%) and that *st (ind of changes yo*r -ict*re oflife. 8$ +nd one



Chapter $ine 3=

co*ld easily go on. 2*t the fact is) a lot of things ha,e ha--ened that aren<t,ery -retty. +nd in this (ind of sit*ation) it<s ,ery easy to fall into the beliefthat we had a hero) and we had a wonderf*l co*ntry) and we had this g*ywho was going to lead *s) we had the &essiah4then they shot hi& down ande,er since then e,erything<s been illegiti&ate. So really there ha,e to beserio*s efforts to get -ast this) 0 thin(.

. Y

The 3ecision to get Involved

M*$, $oam) we"ve been discussing a number of activist strategies and problems86"d li&e to tal& for a moment about some of the reasons why people don<t get involved in activism. Suppose somebody convinced you) atthe level of your belief in most things) that it was impossible to change thecountry) that the basic institutional structures we have now are going to re8main in place for the next 55 years8you &now) more or less adapted) butthe same basic structures. 6"m wondering) would you behave any differ8ently0

ero.

M*$, %ou would behave exactly the same way0

Sa&e way. 0n fact) yo* don<t e,en ha,e to &a(e it hy-othetical4when 0first got serio*sly in,ol,ed in anti4Dietna& War acti,ity) 0 was a h*ndred

-ercent con,inced that absol*tely nothing co*ld be done. 0 &ean) into 3;65and <66) if we wanted to ha,e an anti4war &eeting in 2oston) we<d ha,e tofind si1 to-ics4yo* (now) A et<s tal( abo*t DeneG*ela) 0ran) Dietna&) andthe -rice of bread) and &aybe we can get an a*dience that<ll o*tn*&ber theorganiGers.A +nd that went on for a long ti&e. 0t loo(ed i&-ossible.

M*$, So if you thought that the current situation was going to continue) Aust persist forever) you would still do it0

es.

M*$, Why) exactly0

Well) for a n*&ber of *ite si&-le reasons. Bor one thing) if so&ebodycon,inced &e of that) it wo*ld be beca*se 0<& totally irrational4there<s noway to con,ince anybody of s*ch things rationally. oo() we cannot -re4dict the weather two wee(s ahead) and that<s so&ething relati,ely si&-le)it<s not li(e h*&an society.

M*$, 6t"s a hypothetical :uestion) it gets to motivations86"m sure none of usbelieve it) none of us believe you could prove it ...



3= 2nderstanding #ower

Not only co*ld yo* not -ro,e it) yo* co*ldn<t e,en say anything con4,incing abo*t it.

M*$, (ut) nevertheless) because in fact a great many people not under8 standing that point do feel this way) or tend to feel this way sometimes) and get depressed at those moments8what 6"m wondering is) anyway) inany event) what gets you up each morning to do the things you do0 6s it that

you thin& in terms of winning a little way down the road) or is it somethingelse0

Well) it<s hard to intros-ect) b*t to the e1tent that 0 intros-ect abo*t it)it<s beca*se yo* basically ha,e two choices. !ne choice is to ass*&e theworst) and then yo* can be g*aranteed that it<ll ha--en. The other is toass*&e that there<s so&e ho-e for change) in which case it<s -ossible thatyo* can hel- to effect change. So yo*<,e got two choices) one g*aranteesthe worst will ha--en) the other lea,es o-en the -ossibility that things&ight get better. >i,en those choices) a decent -erson doesn<t hesitate.

M*$, (ut is it really true that a decent person will only go that one way0 6"m remembering a friend of mine who was an activist in the Sixties and in8tended to move into a wor&ing8class neighborhood to do organi ing) and

finally he decided not to. Somewhat later he went bac& to graduate schooland became a psychiatrist) and now 6"m sure he has progressive values) buthe"s certainly not involved in any significant way in political activity. (utthe choice he made bac& then was a very conscious one, he loo&ed aroundand said) 1'he impact that 6 personally am going to have is so small) be8cause 6"m not So8and8so and So8and8so) that 6 feel it"s Aust not worth givingup what 6 thin& 6"ll be giving up.1

0 (now -lenty of -eo-le li(e that too. 2*t see) that -erson now) let<s sayhe<s a rich -sychiatrist so&ewhere4o(ay) he<s got a lot of o-tions) he<s si&4

-ly deciding at so&e -oint not to face the&. They<re always there. Bor e14a&-le) he<s got &oney? if he doesn<t want to do things hi&self) he can gi,e&oney to -eo-le who do. 0n fact) &o,e&ent gro*-s ha,e e1isted beca*se

-eo-le who were doing other things were willing to f*nd the&4so&ethingas tri,ial as that. +nd yo* can go way beyond that) of co*rse) and still li,eyo*r elegant lifestyle and do the wor( yo* want to do. 0 (now -lenty of

-eo-le who ha,e in fact di,ided their li,es that way. Now) of co*rse) it<s e1tre&ely easy to say) AThe hec( with it40<& *st

going to ada-t &yself to the str*ct*res of -ower and a*thority) and do the best 0 can within the&.A S*re) yo* can do that. 2*t that<s not acting li(e adecent -erson. oo() if yo*<re wal(ing down the street and yo* see a (ideating an ice4crea& cone) and yo* notice there<s no co- aro*nd and yo*<reh*ngry) yo* can ta(e the ice4crea& cone beca*se yo*<re bigger and *stwal( away. o* can do that4-robably there are -eo-le who do. 2*t we



Chapter $ine 3=3

call the& -athological. !n the other hand) if they do it within e1isting so4cial str*ct*res) we call the& nor&al4b*t it<s *st as -athological) it<s *st the

-athology of the general society.+gain) -eo-le always ha,e choices) so yo* can decide to acce-t the

-athology4b*t then do it honestly at least. 0f yo* ha,e that grain of honestyin yo*) say? A!(ay) 0<& going to honestly be -athological.A !r else *st tryto brea( o*t of it so&ehow.

M*$, @or a lot of people) though) it appears that there"s an all8or8nothingchoice8it appears that there"s the choice between being 1normal)1 patho8logical as you describe) but a normal member of society with its normalbenefits and costs) having a reasonably average or perhaps elite existence)one that"s accepted. *nd then there seems to be the 1all1 choice. 6 thin& thereason why it"s so hard for people even Aust to ta&e a leaflet) or to give adonation at a relatively low level which means nothing to them financially8which is less money than they"re going to spend on dinner @riday nightwhen they go out8seems to me to be because there is this psychologicallyvery powerful effect. *t some level people &now that it"s right) but they also&now that to do it somewhat leads to doing it more8so they Aust close thedoor right at the very beginning. 6"m not sure how as organi ers we canmanage to overcome that situation.

0 thin( yo*<re right that *st gi,ing yo*r contrib*tion of a h*ndred dollarsto the 'entral +&erica S*--ort 'enter or whate,er is a state&ent that yo*(now that that<s the right thing to do4and then once yo*<,e stated that it<sthe right thing to do) the *estion arises) AHow co&e 0<& only doing thiswhen 0 co*ld be doing a &illion ti&es &oreIA +nd it<s ,ery easy *st to say)A oo() 0<& not going to face that -roble&) 0<& *st going to forget it all.A2*t that<s li(e stealing the ice4crea& cone fro& the (id.

The reality is that there<s a whole range of choices in the &iddle) and allof *s ha,e &ade the&4none of *s are saints) at least 0<& not. 0 ha,en<t gi,en*- &y ho*se) 0 ha,en<t gi,en *- &y car) 0 don<t li,e in a ho,el) 0 don<t s-end$8 ho*rs a day wor(ing for the benefit of the h*&an race) or anything li(ethat. 0n fact) 0 don<t e,en co&e close? 0 s-end an awf*l lot of &y ti&e andenergy *st doing scientific wor(.

M*$, *nd you don"t feel guilty about that.

Well) that<s not so clear. 2*t 0 certainly do de,ote an awf*l lot of &y en4ergy and acti,ity to things that 0 *st en oy) li(e scientific wor(. 0 *st li(eit) 0 do it o*t of -leas*re. +nd e,erybody else 0 (now does the sa&e thing.

M*$, o you fool yourself into believing that it increases your effective8ness as a political person somehow0



:58

2nderstanding #ower

Y

No) that<s ridic*lo*s4it has no effect on that. +nd 0 certainly don<t do itfor that reason. 0 do it beca*se 0 li(e it) and 0 thin( it<s getting so&ewhere.

oo() yo*<re not going to be effecti,e as a -olitical acti,ist *nless yo*ha,e a satisfying life. 0 &ean) there may be -eo-le who are really saints) b*t

0<,e ne,er heard of one. i(e) it &ay be that the -olitical acti,ities the&4sel,es are so gratifying that they<re all yo* want to do) and yo* *st throw Y yo*rselfinto the&. !(ay) that<s a -erfectly fine thing to be4it<s *st that f. .....)CQ<3C< &ost -eo-leha,e other interests? they want to listen to &*sic) they want to ) ta(e a wal( by theocean) they want to watch the s*nset. +ny h*&an being is too rich and co&-le1 *stto be satisfied with these things) so yo* ha,e to hit so&e (ind of a balance.

Well) the choices are all there) b*t 0 thin( yo*<,e identified -reciselywhy it<s -sychologically diffic*lt for -eo-le to recogniGe that4beca*se onceyo*<,e recogniGed that the choices are there) yo*<re always going to befaced with the *estion) why a& 0 not doing &oreI 2*t that<s *st the realityof life? if yo*<re honest) yo*<re always going to be faced with that *estion.+nd there are -lenty of things to do) and also -lenty of s*ccesses to -ointto. 0n

fact) it<sama ing how &any s*ccesses there ha,e been) if yo* really thin(abo*t it.

Bor e1a&-le) ta(e the iss*e of East Ti&or) a big &assacre. +t the ti&ethat 0 got in,ol,ed in that o,er a decade ago) nobody e,en wanted to hear abo*t it4*t after years of organiGing by so&e -retty tireless acti,ists)things finally got to the -oint where the U.S. 'ongress barred &ilitary aid

to 0ndonesia. That<s a tre&endo*s change4yo* co*ld sa,e h*ndreds oftho*sands of li,es that way. How &any -eo-le can loo( bac( and say)A oo() 0 hel-ed to sa,e h*ndreds of tho*sands of li,esAI +nd that<s one tinyiss*e. So all of it was going on in secret) nobody was interested) e,erybodyin -ower wanted to let it go on4b*t half a doGen or so -eo-le finally&anaged to brea( thro*gh.

M*$, 6"m inclined to thin& that most of the people who are involved in thateffort) instead of feeling elated) or at least feeling a degree of satisfactionover the accomplishment) rather view it as a horrendously long campaignwith very little achieved over the years.

S*--ose yo*<re on yo*r deathbed? how &any -eo-le can loo( bac( andsay) A0<,e contrib*ted to hel-ing one -erson not get (illedAI

M*$, 6"m not disagreeing with you8but there"s Aust something about ourculture that causes people on the left not to see the successes.

See) 0<& not so con,inced of this. 0f yo* go bac( to the 3;6%s &o,e4&ents) when a lot of the c*rrent fer&ent started) the -eo-le in,ol,ed o,er4whel&ingly were yo*ng -eo-le4and yo*ng -eo-le ha,e a notorio*sly short

-ers-ecti,e. That<s -art of being twenty years old? yo*<re thin(ing



Chapter $ine 3==

abo*t what<s going to ha--en to&orrow) not what life is going to be li(etwenty years fro& now.

So loo( at so&ething li(e the 'ol*&bia stri(e) which was the big thingin 3;67 h*ndreds of st*dents too( o,er 'ol*&bia Uni,ersity b*ildings foreight days to -rotest war4related research and the school<s relations with thes*rro*nding co&&*nityO. 0f yo* re&e&ber what it was li(e bac( then)yo*<ll recall that the sense on the 'ol*&bia ca&-*s4 *ite literally) 0<& note1aggerating4was? A0f we close down 'ol*&bia and ha,e f*n s&o(ing -otfor three wee(s) the re,ol*tion will be here) and then it<ll all be o,er ande,erybody will be ha--y and e *al and free) and we can go bac( to o*rordinary concerns.A Well) yo* waited three wee(s) the co-s ca&e in ands&ashed yo* *-) and nothing changed. +nd there were a lot of res*lts fro&that. !ne res*lt was *st that a lot of -eo-le ga,e *-) said) AWell) weco*ldn<t do it.A 0n fact) it<s rather stri(ing that <67 aro*nd the world is con4sidered a cr*cially i&-ortant date4b*t it was really the end.

So the fact that it was do&inantly a yo*th &o,e&ent in the Si1ties hadgood and bad as-ects) and one bad as-ect was this sense that if yo* don<tachie,e *ic(ly) yo*<d &ight as well *it. 2*t of co*rse) that<s not the waychanges co&e. The str*ggle against sla,ery went on fore,er) the str*gglefor wo&en<s rights has been going on for cent*ries) the effort to o,erco&eAwage sla,eryA4that<s been going on since the beginnings of the ind*strialre,ol*tion) we ha,en<t ad,anced an inch. 0n fact) we<re worse off than wewere a h*ndred years ago in ter&s of *nderstanding the iss*es. Well) o(ay)yo* *st (ee- str*ggling.

II9"man &ature Is Corr"pt

M*$, $oam) another view 6 fre:uently encounter lying behind people"sreticence to become involved in political activity stems from the idea thathuman nature is corrupt, egotistical) self8centered) anti8social) and so on8and that as a result) society will always have oppressors and oppressed) behierarchical) exploit people) be driven by individual self8interest) etc. 6often find that you can get agreement on the inhumanity of the system) oron the inAustice of a war) or on some specific set of policies) but that peoplewill refrain from becoming active about it because of a sense of hopeless8ness having to do with this view of human nature. *gain) it may Aust be anexcuse) a last line of defense against getting involved8but in order to dealwith it as an organi er) you still have to address the claim. 6"m curiouswhat you would say to someone li&e that.

Well) there<s a sense in which the clai& is certainly tr*e. Birst of all)h*&an nat*re is so&ething we don<t (now &*ch abo*t? do*btless there is arich and co&-le1 h*&an nat*re) and do*btless it<s largely geneticallydeter&ined) li(e e,erything else4b*t we don<t (now what it is. Howe,er)



3=> 2nderstanding #ower

there is eno*gh e,idence fro& history and e1-erience to de&onstrate thath*&an nat*re is entirely consistent with e,erything yo* &entionedin fact)

by definition it has to be. So we (now that h*&an nat*re) and that incl*deso*r nat*re) yo*rs and &ine) can ,ery easily t*rn -eo-le into *ite efficienttort*rers and &ass4&*rderers and sla,e4dri,ers. We (now thatyo* don<tha,e to loo( ,ery far for e,idence. 2*t what does that &eanI Sho*ld -eo-letherefore not try to sto- tort*reI 0f yo* see so&ebody beating a child todeath) sho*ld yo* say) AWell) yo* (now) that<s h*&an nat*reA 4which it isin fact? there certainly are conditions *nder which -eo-le will act li(e that.

To the e1tent that the state&ent is tr*e) and there is s*ch an e1tent) it<s *st not rele,ant? h*&an nat*re also has the ca-acity to lead to selflessness)and coo-eration) and sacrifice) and s*--ort) and solidarity) and tre&endo*sco*rage) and lots of other things too.

0 &ean) &y general feeling is that o,er ti&e) there<s &eas*rable -rogress4it<s not h*ge) b*t it<s significant. +nd so&eti&es it<s been -rettydra&atic. !,er history) there<s been a real widening of the &oral real&) 0thin(4a recognition of broader and broader do&ains of indi,id*als who areregarded as &oral agents) &eaning ha,ing rights. oo() we are self4conscio*s beings) we<re not roc(s) and we can co&e to get a better *nder4standing of o*r own nat*re) it can beco&e &ore and &ore realiGed o,erti&e4not beca*se yo* read a boo( abo*t it) the boo( doesn<t ha,e anything

to tell yo*) beca*se nobody really (nows anything abo*t this to-ic. 2*t *stthro*gh e1-erience4incl*ding historical e1-erience) which is -art of o*r -ersonal e1-erience beca*se it<s e&bedded in the c*lt*re we enter into4wecan gain greater *nderstanding of o*r nat*re and ,al*es.

3is-overing (oralit)

Ta(e the treat&ent of children) for e1a&-le. 0n the &edie,al -eriod) itwas considered *ite legiti&ate to either (ill the&) or throw the& o*t) ortreat the& br*tally) all sorts of things. 0t still ha--ens of co*rse) b*t now it<sregarded as -athological) not -ro-er. Well) it<s not that we ha,e a different&oral capacity than -eo-le did in the Middle +ges) it<s *st that the sit*a4

tion<s changed? there are o--ort*nities to thin( abo*t things that weren<ta,ailable in a society that had a lower &aterial -rod*ction le,el and so on.So we<,e *st learned &ore abo*t o*r own &oral sense in that area.

0 thin( it<s -art of &oral -rogress to be able to face things that onceloo(ed as if they weren<t -roble&s. 0 ha,e that (ind of feeling abo*t o*r re4lation to ani&als) for e1a&-le40 thin( the *estions there are hard) in fact.+ lot of these things are &atters of trying to e1-lore yo*r own &oral int*4itions) and if yo*<,e ne,er e1-lored the&) yo* don<t (now what they are.+bortion<s a si&ilar case4there are co&-licated &oral iss*es. Be&inist is4s*es were a si&ilar case. Sla,ery was a si&ilar case. 0 &ean) so&e of thesethings see& easy now) beca*se we<,e sol,ed the& and there<s a (ind of



Chapter $ine 3=?

shared consens*s4b*t 0 thin( it<s a ,ery good thing that -eo-le are as(ing*estions these days abo*t) say) ani&al rights. 0 thin( there are serio*s*estions there. i(e) to what e1tent do we ha,e a right to e1-eri&ent on

and tort*re ani&alsI 0 &ean) yes) yo* want to do ani&al e1-eri&entationfor the -re,ention of diseases. 2*t what<s the balance) where<s the tradeoffIThere<s ob,io*sly got to be so&e. i(e) we<d all agree that too &*ch tort*reof ani&als for treating a disease wo*ld not be -er&issible. 2*t what are the

-rinci-les on which we draw s*ch concl*sionsI That<s not a tri,ial

*estion. M*$, What about eating0

Sa&e *estion.

M*$, *re you a vegetarian0

0<& not) b*t 0 thin( it<s a serio*s *estion. 0f yo* want &y g*ess) &yg*ess is that if society contin*es to de,elo- witho*t catastro-he on so&e4thing li(e the co*rse yo* can see o,er ti&e) 0 wo*ldn<t in the least be s*r4

-rised if it &o,es in the direction of ,egetarianis& and the -rotection ofani&al rights.

oo() do*btless there<s -lenty of hy-ocrisy and conf*sion ande,erything else abo*t the *estion right now) b*t that doesn<t &ean that theiss*e isn<t ,alid. +nd 0 thin( one can see the &oral force to it4definitely onesho*ld (ee- an o-en &ind on it) it<s certainly a -erfectly intelligible idea to*s.

0 &ean) yo* don<t ha,e to go bac( ,ery far in history to find gratuitoustort*re of ani&als. So in 'artesian -hiloso-hy) they tho*ght they<d -ro,enthat h*&ans had &inds and e,erything else in the world was a &achine44sothere<s no difference between a cat and a watch) let<s say) *st the cat<s alittle &ore co&-licated. +nd if yo* loo( bac( at the Brench 'o*rt in these,enteenth cent*ry) co*rtiers4yo* (now) big s&art g*ys who<d st*died allthis st*ff and tho*ght they *nderstood it4wo*ld as a s-ort ta(e ady So4+nd4So<s fa,orite dog and (ic( it and beat it to death) and la*gh) saying)AHa) ha) loo() this silly lady doesn<t *nderstand the latest -hiloso-hy) whichshows that it<s *st li(e dro--ing a roc( on the floor.A That was gratuitoustort*re of ani&als) and it was regarded as if it were the tort*ring of a roc(?yo* can<t do it) there<s no way to tort*re a roc(. Well) the &oral s-here hascertainly changed in that res-ect4grat*ito*s tort*re of ani&als is no longerconsidered *ite legiti&ate.

M*$, (ut in that case it could be that what"s changed is our understandingof what an animal is) not the understanding of our underlying values.

0n that case it -robably was4beca*se in fact the 'artesian ,iew was ade-art*re fro& the traditional ,iew) in which yo* didn<t tort*re ani&als



3=! 2nderstanding #ower

grat*ito*sly. !n the other hand) there are c*lt*res) li(e say) aristocratic c*l4t*res) that ha,e fo14h*nting as a s-ort) or bear4baiting) or other things li(ethat) in which grat*ito*s tort*re of ani&als has been seen as -erfectly legit4i&ate.

0n fact) it<s (ind of intrig*ing to see how we regard this. Ta(e coc(4fighting) for e1a&-le) in which coc(s are trained to tear each other toshreds. !*r c*lt*re ha--ens to regard that as barbaricC on the other hand)we train h*&ans to tear each other to shreds4they<re called bo1ing &atches4

and that<s not regarded as barbaric. So there are things that we don<t -er&itof coc(s that we -er&it of -oor -eo-le. Well) yo* (now) there are so&ef*nny ,al*es at wor( there.

6bortion

M*$, %ou mentioned abortion8what"s your view about that whole de8bate0

0 thin( it<s a hard one) 0 don<t thin( the answers are si&-le4it<s a casewhere there really are conflicting ,al*es. See) it<s ,ery rare in &ost h*&ansit*ations that there<s a clear and si&-le answer abo*t what<s right) and

so&eti&es the answers are ,ery &*r(y) beca*se there are different ,al*es)and ,al*es do conflict. 0 &ean) o*r *nderstanding of o*r own &oral ,al*esyste& is that it<s not li(e an a1io& syste&) where there<s always one an4swer and not so&e other answer. Rather we ha,e what a--ear to be con4flicting ,al*es) which often lead *s to different answers4&aybe beca*se wedon<t *nderstand all the ,al*es well eno*gh yet) or &aybe beca*se they re4ally are in conflict. Well) in the case of abortion) there are *st straight con4flicts. Bro& one -oint of ,iew) a child *- to a certain -oint is an organ ofthe &other<s body) and the &other o*ght to ha,e a decision what to do4andthat<s tr*e. Bro& another -oint of ,iew) the organis& is a -otential h*&an

being) and it has rights. +nd those two ,al*es are si&-ly in conflict.!n the other hand) a biologist 0 (now once s*ggested that we &ay one

day be able to see the sa&e conflict when a wo&an washes her hands. 0

&ean) when a wo&an washes her hands) a lot of cells fla(e off4and in -rinci-le) each of those cells has the genetic instr*ctions for a h*&an being.Well) yo* co*ld i&agine a f*t*re technology which wo*ld ta(e one ofthose cells and create a h*&an being fro& it. Now) ob,io*sly he was&a(ing the arg*&ent as a red*ctio ad abs*rd*& arg*&ent) b*t there<s anele&ent of tr*th to it4not that &*ch yet) b*t it<s not li(e saying so&ethingabo*t astrology. What he<s saying is tr*e.

0f yo* want to (now &y own -ersonal *dg&ent) 0 wo*ld say a reason4able -ro-osal at this -oint is that the fet*s changes fro& an organ to a -er4son when it beco&es ,iable4b*t certainly that<s arg*able. +nd besides) asthis biologist was -ointing o*t) it<s not ,ery clear when that is4de-ending



Chapter $ine 3=

on the state of technology) it co*ld be when the wo&an<s washing herhands. That<s life) tho*gh? in life yo*<re faced with hard decisions) conflict4ing ,al*es.

)oral +alues

M*$, Where do you thin& 1values1 come from in the first place0

That<s an interesting *estion. +ny answer we gi,e is based one1tre&ely little *nderstanding) so nothing one says is ,ery serio*s. 2*t *stfro& the conditions of &oral *dg&ent) 0 don<t see how it can fail to be tr*ethat &oral ,al*es are basically rooted in o*r nat*re40 thin( that &*st betr*e. +nd the reason why 0 say that is -retty ele&entary.

0 &ean) *ndo*btedly the way in which we loo( at things and &a(e *dg4&ents abo*t the& and assess the& has a significant and notable c*lt*ralfactor. 2*t that aside) we certainly are ca-able) and e,erybody does it) of&a(ing &oral *dg&ents and e,al*ations in entirely new sit*ations4we dothat all the ti&eC we &ay not be consciously e,al*ating all the new cir4c*&stances we<re faced with) b*t we<re certainly at least tacitly doing it) andthe res*lts of those e,al*ations are the basis for o*r choices of action) o*rdoing one thing and not another. So we<re constantly &a(ing all (inds of

*dg&ents) incl*ding &oral *dg&ents) aesthetic *dg&ents) and all sorts ofothers) abo*t new things and new sit*ations. Well) either it<s being done *strando&ly) sort of li(e -*lling so&ething o*t of a hat4which certainlydoesn<t see& to be tr*e) either intros-ecti,ely or by obser,ation4or elsewe<re doing it on the basis of so&e &oral syste& that we ha,e b*ilt into o*r&inds so&ehow) which gi,es answers) or at least -artial answers) to awhole range of new sit*ations.

Well) nobody (nows what that syste& act*ally is of co*rse4we don<t*nderstand it at all4b*t it does see& to be rich and co&-le1 eno*gh so thatit can a--ly to indefinitely &any new sit*ations.

M*$, +bviously one couldn"t map it out in detail) but how do you thin& such a system might be set up0

Well) again) we really don<t (now at all. 2*t a serio*s -ro-osal for s*ch asyste&) 0 thin() wo*ld be that it &ight be so&ething li(e what we (nowabo*t lang*age4and a lot is (nown. Bor e1a&-le) there is a fra&ewor( of

basic) f*nda&ental -rinci-les of lang*age that are in,ariant in the s-ecies)they<re *st fi1ed in o*r biological nat*re so&ehow4they hold for all lan4g*ages) and they allow for only a ,ery li&ited degree of &odification)which co&es fro& early e1-erience. Then as soon as those wired4in o-tionsfor ,ariation are fi1ed) children ha,e a whole ling*istic syste& which al4lows the& to say new things) and to *nderstand new things) and to inter4



3>5 2nderstanding #ower

-ret new e1-ressions that nobody<s e,er heard before4all (inds of thingsli(e that.

Well) *alitati,ely s-ea(ing) that<s what o*r syste& of &oral *dg&entloo(s li(e) so it<s concei,able that it has a si&ilar (ind of basis4b*t again)yo* ha,e to find the answer) yo* can<t *st g*ess.

M*$, +bviously the underlying principles can"t be simple8they can"t Austbe something li&e) 1'hou shalt not &ill. 1

No4beca*se we decide &*ch &ore co&-le1 things than that. 0 &ean) wereally don<t (now what the f*nda&ental -rinci-les of &oral *dg&entact*ally are) b*t we ha,e ,ery good reason to belie,e that they<re there.+nd that<s si&-ly beca*se we can) in fact) &a(e relati,ely consistent &oral

*dg&ents) *dg&ents which are *nderstood by other -eo-le) anda--reciated by the& Kso&eti&es with disagree&ent) in which case we canha,e &oral disco*rseL) and we can do all of that *nder new conditions thatwe<,e ne,er seen before) and facing new -roble&s and so on. !(ay) *nlesswe<re angels) the str*ct*res that -erfor& those f*nctions got into the or4ganis& the sa&e way other co&-le1 things did4na&ely) they<re largely -artof a genetically4deter&ined fra&ewor() which gets &arginally &odifiedthro*gh the co*rse -robably of early e1-erience.

Well) that<s what o*r &oral syste& &ight loo( li(e. How &*ch ,ariationcan there be in s*ch &oral syste&sI Well) witho*t *nderstanding) we don<t(now. How &*ch ,ariation can there be in lang*agesI Witho*t *nder4standing) we don<t (now. 0 &ean) in the case of lang*ages) we (now that it<snot &*ch ,ariation) and in the case of &oral ,al*es 0 thin( we can &a(e afair g*ess that it also can<t be &*ch ,ariation4and the reason is *ite ele4&entary. !*r &oral syste& a--ears to be co&-le1 and deter&inate) andthere are only two factors that can enter into deter&ining it? one is o*r fi1ed

biological nat*re) and the other is indi,id*al e1-erience. Well) we (nowthat e1-erience is e1tre&ely i&-o,erished) it doesn<t gi,e a lot of direction4the logic being -retty &*ch the sa&e as when so&eone as(s) AWhy dochildren *ndergo -*berty at a certain ageIA +ct*ally) nobody (nows theanswer to that? it<s a to-ic that<s *n(nown. 2*t there are only two -ossible

factors that can enter into it. !ne is so&ething in children<s -re4-*bertye1-erience which sort of sets the& off *ndergoing -*berty4say) so&e effectof the en,iron&ent s*ch as -eer -ress*re) or so&ebody told yo* it wo*ld bea good idea or so&ething. +nd the other is that we<re *st geneticallydesigned so that *nder certain conditions and at a certain le,el of &at4*ration) hor&ones ta(e o,er) and at that -oint we *ndergo -*berty? it<swired in.

Well) witho*t (nowing anything) e,eryone *st ass*&es the second -os4sibility. i(e) if so&ebody ca&e along and said they thin( it<s -eer -ress*rethat ca*ses -*berty4it<s beca*se yo* see other -eo-le doing it) and yo* wantto be li(e the&4witho*t (nowing anything) yo*<d *st la*gh. +nd



the reason yo*<d la*gh is ,ery si&-le? the en,iron&ent is not s-ecificor rich eno*gh to deter&ine these highly s-ecific changes that ta(e -lace.+nd that logic also holds for *st abo*t e,erything else in growth andde,elo-&ent too4that<s why -eo-le ass*&e) witho*t (nowledge) that ane&bryo will beco&e a chic(en rather than a h*&an being de-ending on its

biological nat*re) not de-ending on the n*trition that<s fed in? beca*se then*trition doesn<t ha,e eno*gh infor&ation to ca*se those highly s-ecificchanges. Well) it loo(s as if &oral ,al*es and o*r &oral *dg&ent syste&are of that character too.

+ct*ally) contrib*ting to this concl*sion is *st the fact that we can have&oral disco*rse to begin with. So ta(e an iss*e on which -eo-le were reallys-lit) ta(e sla,ery. 0t wasn<t *st an intellect*al debate) ob,io*sly4there was ah*ge a&o*nt of str*ggle in,ol,ed4b*t insofar as there was an intellect*aldebate) it had a certain shared &oral gro*nd to it. 0n fact) the sla,e owners<arg*&ents are not so si&-le to answer4so&e of the& are ,alid) and ha,e alot of i&-lications. They were ta(en ,ery serio*sly by +&erican wor(ers inthe late nineteenth cent*ry) for e1a&-le.

Bor instance) the sla,e owners arg*ed) A o* ta(e better care of a sla,e ifyo* own it than if yo* rent it.A i(e) yo* ta(e better care of yo*r car if yo*own it than if yo* rent it) so yo* ta(e better care of yo*r wor(er if yo* ownit than if yo* rent it4so sla,ery<s bene,olent and Afree &ar(etA is &orallyatrocio*s. +nd the sla,e owners in fact said) A oo() we<re a lot &ore

bene,olent than yo* g*ys with yo*r ca-italist wage4sla,e syste&.A +nd ifyo* loo( bac( at the literat*re by wor(ers who organiGed into) say) the"nights of abor and other wor(ing4class organiGations of the late nine4teenth cent*ry) yo*<ll also see a strain r*nning thro*gh their -osition whichsaid? AWe fo*ght to end sla,ery) not to i&-ose itA i.e. the ind*strial wage4labor syste& beca&e do&inant after the 'i,il WarO.8: So the -oint is) on allsides of debates li(e these) -eo-le *nderstand that they ha,e to a--eal to thesa&e basic &oral -rinci-les) e,en if what they<re doing is totally ,enal.

0 &ean) it<s e1tre&ely rare e,en for an S.S. g*ard or a tort*rer to say) A0<&doing this beca*se 0 li(e to be a son of a bitch.A We all do bad things in o*rli,es) and if yo* thin( bac() it<s ,ery rare that yo*<,e said) A0<& doing this

*st beca*se 0 feel li(e itA 4-eo-le reinter-ret things in order to fit the& intoa basic fra&ewor( of &oral ,al*es) which in fact we all share.

Now) 0 don<t want to s*ggest that &oral ,al*es are uniform8if yo* loo(across c*lt*res) yo* do find so&e differences. 2*t when yo* loo( at differ4ent lang*ages) yo* also a--ear to find radical differences. o* (now theycan<t be there4beca*se if the differences really were great) it wo*ld be i&4

-ossible to ac *ire any of the lang*ages. So therefore the differences ha,e be s*-erficial) and the scientific *estion is to -ro,e what &*st be tr*e by e basic logic of the sit*ation. Well) 0 thin( the sa&e &*st be tr*e in the ie of&oral *dg&ent as well. So to go bac( to the original *estion) 0 don<t thin(we can reasonably do*bt that &oral ,al*es are indeed rooted in nat*re.




M*$, 'hen if people do have this shared set of moral values) you still haveto explain why everything is as corrupt and hierarchical and war8laden asit is.

2*t why not as( another *estionI Why not as( how co&e there<s so&*ch sy&-athy) and care) and lo,e) and solidarityI 0 &ean) that<s also tr*e.

M*$, 'hat"s the way 0 always answer the obAection8there should be noneof those things) because the institutions don"t breed them.

Well) there<s no s*ch thing as) Awhy is there so &*ch of this and so &*chof thatIA 4there is what there is. 2*t what there is do*btless is conditioned

by the o--ort*nities and choices that are i&-osed and a,ailable to -eo-le*nder -artic*lar social) c*lt*ral) econo&ic) and e,en -hysical settings. Sothe -oint is to try to get to a sit*ation where the society and all itsinstit*tions and arrange&ents are set *- so as to &a1i&iGe the o-tions for

-eo-le to -*rs*e the healthier alternati,es. +nd 0 really don<t thin( there<s been a better -eriod in &odern history for organiGing towards that than thereis right now) act*ally.

0 &ean) there<s tre&endo*s disill*sion&ent all across the co*ntry4and it<sworld4wide incidentally? there ha,e been cross4national st*dies of this) andthe le,el of -essi&is& across the entire ind*strial world is *st e1traor4dinary. 0n the United States) for e1a&-le) abo*t three4 *arters of the -o-*4lation thin(s that the f*t*re is going to be Aob ecti,ely worseA than the -ast4in other words) that their children won<t li,e li(e they do. 88 +bo*t half the+&erican -o-*lation thin(s that both -olitical -arties *st o*ght to bedisbanded) they<re *seless. 85 The disaffection fro& instit*tions is alwayshigh) and it<s been going *- ,ery consistently in -ast years. 86 These are con4ditions *nder which organiGing for social change o*ght to be ,ery &*ch

-ossible4if we<re not doing it) it<s o*r own fa*lt? these factors ha,e not beentr*e in the -ast.

2*t at the sa&e ti&e) it<s also tr*e that -eo-le feel ho-eless. 0 &ean) -artof the disill*sion&ent is that they *st don<t see anything else4they don<t seea sol*tion) or any alternati,es. E,en at the de-ths of the 3;:%s e-ression)which was ob ecti,ely &*ch worse than today) -eo-le were ne,er ho-elessthe way they are today. Most -eo-le felt it<s going to get better) we can doso&ething abo*t it) we can organiGe) we can wor(. 0 &ean) they hadill*sions too) li(e there were a lot of ill*sions abo*t Roose,elt) for e1a&-le4

b*t the ill*sions were co&bined with so&ething real going on. Today what -eo-le &ainly feel is) it<s going to get worse) and there<s nothing we can doabo*t it.

So what we<re faced with is a co&bination of a ,ery high degree of disil4l*sion&ent) and a ,ery low degree of ho-e and -erce-tion of alternati,es.

+nd that<s e1actly where serio*s organiGers o*ght to be able to stein.



1

T"rning Point

(ased on discussions in 6llinois) $ew ersey) Massachusetts) $ew

%or&) and Maryland in 3;;8 to 3;;6 and .

ringing the Third World 9ome

W+M*$, What would have to happen for people to be able to do more ofthe real wor& of society8li&e supporting each other and educating children8instead of Aust spending our whole lives wor&ing at lame Aobs forcorporations0

+ct*ally) a lot of co*ntries tend to e&-hasiGe those things) e,en todaywedon<t ha,e to loo( ,ery far for &odels. Bor e1a&-le) ta(e Western E*ro-e?those are societies not ,ery different fro& o*rs) they ha,e the sa&ecor-orate4r*n econo&y) the sa&e sort of li&ited -olitical syste&) b*t they

*st ha--en to -*rs*e so&ewhat different social -olicies) for ,ario*s histor4ical reasons. So >er&any has a (ind of social contract we don<t ha,e4one ofthe biggest *nions there *st won a :54ho*r wor(4wee() for e1a&-le.X 0n the

Netherlands) -o,erty a&ong the elderly has gone down to flat Gero) anda&ong children it<s 8 -ercent) al&ost nothing. $ 0n Sweden) &others and fa4

thers both get s*bstantial -arental lea,e to ta(e care of their children) li(e ayear or so&ething4beca*se ta(ing care of children is considered so&ethingthat has ,al*e in that society) *nli(e in the United States) where the leader4shi- ele&ents hate fa&ilies. : 0 &ean) Newt >ingrich and the rest of these

-eo-le &ay tal&abo*t s*--orting Afa&ily ,al*es)A b*t they act*ally wantfa&ilies destroyed4beca*se fa&ilies are not rational fro& the -oint of,iew )f -rofit4&a(ing.

So e,en within the range of e1isting societies set *- al&ost e1actly li(e 0rs)there are -lenty of other social -olicies yo* co*ld ha,e4and 0 thin( rsyste& co*ld tolerate those things too) it really *st de-ends if there<s L*gh

-ress*re to achie,e the&.

+ct*ally) yo* &ight want to ta(e a loo( at an interesting ,ol*&e -*b4

:6:



3>4 2nderstanding #ower

lished recently by U.N.0.'.E.B. the United Nations 'hildren<s B*ndO) abo*ttreat&ent of children in the rich co*ntries4it<s yet to be re,iewed in the $ew%or& 'imes) or anywhere else in the United States) b*t it<s really *itere,ealing. 0t was written by a ,ery good +&erican econo&ist na&ed Syl,ia+nn Hewlett) and she identifies two basic -atterns of treat&ent) aA'ontinental4E*ro-ean Ja-aneseA &odel and an A+nglo4+&ericanA &odel4which *st are radically different. Her concl*sion is) the 'ontinental4E*ro-ean Ja-anese -attern has i&-ro,ed the stat*s of children andfa&iliesC the +nglo4+&erican -attern has been what she calls Aa warAagainst children and fa&ilies. +nd that<s -artic*larly been tr*e in the lasttwenty years) beca*se the so4called Aconser,ati,esA who too( o,er in the3;7%s) aside fro& their lo,e of tort*re and &isery abroad) also ha--en to be

-assionately o--osed to fa&ily ,al*es and the rights of children) and ha,ecarried o*t social -olicies which ha,e destroyed the&. 8

Well) that<s *st the wrong story for the $ew %or& 'imes8so that st*dyne,er gets re,iewed. 0nstead what the 'imes editors de,ote the co,er4storyof their (oo& Review to is another e1tre&ely dee- -roble& the UnitedStates is facing4in case yo* aren<t aware of it) yo*<d really better read this.We<re facing the -roble& that Abad genesA are ta(ing o,er the UnitedStates4and -art of the -roof of that is that scores on S.+.T.s and 0.F. testsha,e been steadily declining in recent years) children *st aren<t doing aswell as they *sed to.

Well) so&ebody who<s really *nso-histicated &ight thin( that the -rob4le& co*ld ha,e so&ething to do with social -olicies that ha,e dri,en 8%

-ercent of the children in New or( 'ity below the -o,erty line) for e1a&4 -le4b*t that iss*e ne,er arises for the $ew %or& 'imes. = 0nstead the -roble&is bad genes. The -roble& is that blac(s) who e,ol,ed in +frica) e,ol,ed in(ind of a hostile cli&ate) so therefore they e,ol,ed in s*ch a way that blac(&others don<t n*rt*re their children4and also they breed a lot) they all breedli(e rabbits. +nd the effect is) the gene -ool in the United States is beingconta&inated) and now it<s starting to show *- in standardiGed test scores. 6

This is real hard science.The 'imes"s re,iew starts off by saying) well) &aybe the facts in these

boo(s aren<t *ite right) b*t nonetheless) one thing is clear? these are seri4

o*s iss*es) and any de&ocratic society which ignores the& does so Aat its -eril.A 9 !n the other hand) a society doesn<t ignore Aat its -erilA social -olicies that are de-ri,ing 8% -ercent of the children in New or( 'ity ofthe &ini&al &aterial conditions which wo*ld offer the& any ho-e of e,eresca-ing the &isery) destit*tion and ,iolence that s*rro*nd the&) andwhich ha,e dri,en the& down to le,els of &aln*trition) disease and s*ffer4ing where yo* can -redict -erfectly well what their scores are going to beon the A0.F.A tests yo* gi,e the&4none of that yo* e,en &ention.

0n fact) according to the last statistics 0 saw abo*t this) :% &illion -eo-lein the United States are s*ffering h*nger. :% &illion is a lot of -eo-le) yo*



Chapter 'en 3>=

(now) and that &eans -lenty of children. 7 0n the 3;7%s) h*nger declined ingeneral thro*gho*t the entire world) with two e1ce-tions? s*b4Saharan+frica and the United States4the -oorest -art of the world and the richest

-art of the world) there h*nger increased. +nd as a &atter of fact) between3;75 and 3;;%) h*nger in the United States increased by 5% percent too( aco*-le years for the Reagan Arefor&sA to start ta(ing hold) b*t by 3;75 theywere beginning to ha,e their effects. ; +nd there is *st o,erwhel&inge,idence) in case it<s not ob,io*s fro& co&&on sense) what the effects ofthis (ind of de-ri,ation are on children4-hysically) e&otionally) and&entally. Bor one thing) it<s well (nown that ne*ral de,elo-&ent si&-ly isred*ced by low le,els of n*trition) and lac( of n*rt*rance in general. Sowhen (ids s*ffer &aln*trition) it has -er&anent effects on the&) it has a

-er&anent effect on their health and li,es and &inds4they ne,er get o,er it.to

+nd the growing h*nger here isn<t *st a&ong children4it<s also been in4creasing a&ong the elderly) to na&e one gro*-. So as the Wall Street our8nal recently -ointed o*t in a front4-age story) h*nger is As*rgingA a&ongthe elderly? abo*t fi,e &illion older +&ericans) abo*t 36 -ercent of the

-o-*lation o,er 6%) are going h*ngry) they<re &alno*rished) &any of the&are literally star,ing to death. ll Now) in the United States we don<t ha,estar,ation the way they do in Haiti or Nicarag*a or so&ething4b*t thede-ri,ation is still ,ery real. 0n &any -laces it<s -robably worse than it is in'*ba) say) *nder the e&bargo.

So *st ta(e 2oston) for e1a&-le) where 0 li,e4which is a ,ery rich city)and also &aybe the world<s leading &edical center. There are so&e ,eryfancy hos-itals there) b*t there<s also a 'ity Hos-ital) which ser,es the restof the -o-*lation. Well) that hos-ital) which is not a bad hos-ital 0 sho*ldsay) established a &aln*trition clinic a few years ago4beca*se after the i&4

-act of the Reaganite econo&ic -olicies began to be felt) they were startingto find Third World le,els of &aln*trition in 2oston. +nd it gets worse o,erthe winter) beca*se then fa&ilies ha,e to &a(e the choice? do yo* let yo*r(ids star,e) or do yo* let the& die of the coldI !(ayI That<s in one of therichest cities in the world) a &a or &edical center. That<s *st cri&inal in aco*ntry as rich as this4or anywhere) for that &atter. 3$

+nd it<s not *st h*nger? it t*rns o*t that contact ti&e between -arentsand children has declined by abo*t 8% -ercent in the United States since the3;6%s4that &eans that on a,erage) -arents and children ha,e to s-end abo*t3% or 3$ ho*rs less ti&e together a wee(. 3: +lright) the effects of that alsoare ob,io*s? it &eans tele,ision as s*-er,ision) latch4(ey (ids) &ore ,i4olence by children and against children) dr*g ab*se4it<s all -erfectly -re4dictable. +nd this is &ostly the res*lt of the fact that today) both -arents ina fa&ily ha,e to -*t in 5%4 or 6%4ho*r wor(4wee(s) with no child4s*--ortsyste& aro*nd to hel- the& K*nli(e in other co*ntriesL) *st to &a(e ends&eet. 38 +nd re&e&ber) this is in the 3;;%s) a -eriod when) as @ortune &ag4aGine *st -ointed o*t) cor-orate -rofits are at a record high) and the -er4



3>> 2nderstanding #ower

centage of cor-orate inco&e going into -ayrolls is near a record lowthat<sthe conte1t in which all of this has been ha--ening. 35

Well) none of these things are disc*ssed in the $ew %or& 'imes (oo& Review article either. They are disc*ssed in the U.N.0.'.E.B. boo( 0 &en4tioned) b*t the 'imes chose not to re,iew that one.

So to ret*rn to yo*r *estion) yo* as(? what wo*ld ha,e to ha--en for *sto get social -olicies different fro& all of theseI 0 don<t thin( there<s anyreason why the A+nglo4+&erican &odelA Hewlett identifies has tocontin*e44and be e1tended by things li(e the 'ontract With +&erica aRe-*blican 'ongressional -olicy -latfor& la*nched in 3;;8O and theWelfare Refor& +ct the ABederal Personal Res-onsibility and Wor(!--ort*nity Reconciliation +ct)A which President 'linton signed in +*g*st3;;6O. These aren<t laws of nat*re) after allC they<re social4-olicy decisions4they can be &ade differently. There<s a lot of s-ace for changing thesethings) e,en in a society with the sa&e cor-orate control as o*rs.

2*t why not as( another *estion. Why not as( why absol*tist organi4Gations ha,e any right to e1ist in the first -laceI 0 &ean) why sho*ld a cor4

-oration4technically a fascist organiGation of enor&o*s -ower4ha,e anyright to tell yo* what (ind of wor( yo*<re going to doI Why is that any bet4ter than ha,ing a (ing tell yo* what (ind of wor( yo*<re going to doI Peo4

-le fo*ght against that and o,erthrew it) and we can fight against it againand o,erthrow it.

There<s -lenty of challenging) gratifying) interesting) -rod*cti,e wor(aro*nd for -eo-le to do) and there are -lenty of -eo-le who want to do it4they si&-ly aren<t being allowed that o--ort*nity *nder the c*rrent eco4no&ic syste&. !f co*rse) there<s also -lenty of *n(y wor( that has to getdone too4b*t in a reasonable society) that wor( wo*ld *st be distrib*tede *ally a&ong e,erybody ca-able of doing it. 0f yo* can<t get robots to doit) fine) then yo* *st distrib*te it e *ally. 36

!(ay) 0 thin( that<s the (ind of &odel we ha,e to try to wor( towardsnow4and fran(ly) 0 don<t see any reason why that<s an i&-ossible goal.

W+M*$, Mr. Choms&y) 6 Aust wanted to say that 6 saw the New or(Ti&es review you were discussing) and 6 was absolutely appalled by it. 6f 6was a blac& man in this country) 6 wouldn"t &now what to do with myself88itwould Aust be a burning fire inside) 6 would feel such rage.

How abo*t if yo* were a blac( wo&anI That article too( serio*sly theidea that blac( wo&en don<t n*rt*re their children4beca*se they e,ol,ed in+frica) where the en,iron&ent was s*ch4and4s*ch. 0t was -*re racis&)so&ething straight o*t of the NaGis.

2*t loo(? it<s really not e,en worth tal(ing abo*t it. The right way to re4s-ond is *st to as() what are they doing it forI +nd they<re doing it for a,ery si&-le reason. :% &illion -eo-le in the co*ntry go h*ngry. 8% -ercentof the children in New or( 'ity) &ost of the& blac( and His-anic) li,e



Chapter 'en 3>?

below the -o,erty line4which &eans they<re destroyed) o(ayI +nd that isthe res*lt of ,ery definite social -olicies that these -eo-le are s*--orting.Well) yo* want to (ee- &a(ing all yo*r &oney) b*t yo* don<t want to faceany of the rest of it) so yo* need so&e (ind of a co,er. +nd what<s theco,erI A2ad genes.A !(ay) once yo* *nderstand what<s really &oti,atingall of this) then at least yo*<re in a -osition to deal with it.

The -oint is) *st as itwas -ro-er at so&e -oint for the NaGis to say)AJews are a ,ir*s that<s destroying o*r society)A it is now -ro-er for the

$ew %or& 'imes to r*n articles ta(ing serio*sly the idea that blac( &othersdon<t n*rt*re their children) and for the &ainstrea& intellect*al c*lt*re to

-retend that these farcical boo(s on 0.F. ha,e any (ind of scientificlegiti&acy. 39

2*t these are s*ch trans-arent ideological wea-ons we sho*ldn<t e,enwaste o*r ti&e arg*ing abo*t the&. We sho*ld *st *nderstand the& trans4

-arently for what they are? the -rod*ct of a real co&&issar c*lt*re that isdedicated to obsc*ring the &ost ele&entary tr*ths abo*t the world) andrich) -owerf*l -eo-le trying to *stify the fact that they are -*rs*ing social

-olicies which are forcing children to die. 0t<s *nderstandable why nobodywo*ld want to face that4b*t it<s also clear how we can change it.

Welfare: the Pea and the )o"ntain

W+M*$, %ou mentioned the 1Contract With *merica1 and the 1Welfare Reform *ct1 ;which replaced the *id for @amilies With -ependent Chil8dren program) ending receipt of public assistance benefits by families thatinclude an adult who has received welfare for five years) and re:uiring all1able8bodied1 adult recipients to secure a Aob within two years<. 6"m won8dering) how do you explain the surge to the right in Washington over the

past several years) beginning with the Republicans" big Congressional tri8umph in 3;;8I *nd what do you thin& is the real point of these new pro8

grams0

Well) let &e *st begin with the 3;;8 elections) and the so4called A'on4tract With +&erica.A o*<re right that in the &edia that whole election wascalled a Alandslide for conser,atis&A and a A-olitical earth *a(eA and soon4b*t yo* really ha,e to loo( at that (ind of rhetoric a lot &ore caref*lly.There was an interesting fact abo*t the Re-*blicans< agenda) the so4calledA'ontract With +&ericaA 4that is) only a ,ery s&all n*&ber of ,oters e,en(new what it was) and when -eo-le were as(ed abo*t &ost of its s-ecific

-ro,isions) big &a orities o--osed it. So there was ne,er really a ,ote on it)nobody (new what it was. +nd e,en after &onths of intensi,e and *n4re&itting -ro-aganda abo*t it) less than half of the U.S. -o-*lation saidthey had e,en heard of the 'ontract With +&erica. 37 +nd it wasn<t hidden)it was in the headlines e,ery day. 'hat"s theA landslide for conser,atis&.A+nd that<s *st a way of saying that de&ocracy has colla-sed.



3>! 2nderstanding #ower

+s far as what it<s been abo*t) that co*ldn<t be &ore ob,io*s? it<s stan4dard free4&ar(et doctrine4h*ge state4s*bsidies for the rich) c*t o*t e,ery4thing for the -oor. Dery braGen. So *st ta(e a loo( at so&e of the s-ecific

-ro,isions. Bor e1a&-le) they had one section in the A'ontractA called theAJob 'reation and Wage Enhance&ent +ctA4the things *nder it were)s*bsidies to b*siness) ta1 c*ts to b*siness) and then there was one little lineat the botto& which said that the A-rogra& to increase wages and create

obsA will be to eli&inate A*nf*nded &andates)A which are one of the &ain&echanis&s to ens*re that States do things li(e -ro,ide social -rogra&s)set reg*latory standards) and so on i.e. the A&andatesA are i&-osed on stateand local go,ern&ents by 'ongressO. 3; !(ay) that<s the -rogra& to Araisewages and create obsA4and that<s (ind of li(e a sy&bol for the whole thing.

The &ain target that they<,e gone after) both 'linton and 'ongress) iswhat<s called AwelfareA4&eaning that tiny co&-onent of welfare that goesto -oorer -eo-le) which is a--ro1i&ately the siGe of a -ea on a &o*ntain.Meanwhile) they contin*e to enhance the real welfare4that is) the &o*ntainof welfare that goes to richer -eo-le. +nd they<re contin*ing to enhance itin the traditional two ways? first) by straight hando*ts to b*sinessC andsecond) thro*gh regressi,e fiscal &eas*res i.e. ones ha,ing a greaterad,erse i&-act on those with less &oneyO.

So first ta(e the straight hando*ts -art) which is the b*l( of welfare. The

straight hando*ts -art is things li(e &ilitary s-ending) for e1a&-le. Now)the United States isn<t defending itself fro& anybody4that<s not e,en a o(e.We ha,e al&ost half the &ilitary s-ending in the world) and who<s at4tac(ing *sI $% The United States hasn<t been attac(ed since the War of 373$4there is no co*ntry in the world that has as li&ited sec*rity threats as we do.$3 2*t we are defending rich -eo-le) that<s tr*e4the rich are defendingthe&sel,es against the -oor and the -oor are -aying for it) so for that) it<str*e) yo* ha,e to (ee- increasing &ilitary s-ending. 0n fact) that<s the &ainreason we ha,e the Pentagon syste& in the first -lace? it<s a ,ehicle tochannel h*ndreds of billions of ta1-ayer dollars to the wealthy) thro*gh&ilitary contracts and technology research and so on.

oo() the Pentagon<s ne,er really been abo*t defense? the Pentagon isabo*t the fact that rich -eo-le can ha,e their own co&-*ters) after decades

of de,elo-&ent -aid for by the -*blic thro*gh the state4sector4and it<s abo*tthe fact that 0.2.M. and other -ri,ate cor-orations and in,estors are &a(ingh*ge -rofits off the&. !r it<s abo*t the fact that the biggest ci,ilian e1-orterin the co*ntry is the 2oeing cor-oration) and the biggest single ind*stry inthe world) to*ris&) is fo*nded largely on technology that was de,elo-edthro*gh the +&erican &ilitary syste&4na&ely) air-lanes4and that it<s been

-o*ring h*ge s*&s of &oney into sectors of the +&erican econo&y fordecades. $$ Well) the 'linton ad&inistration and 'ongress ha,e increased allof those s*bsidies4in fact) 'linton<s &ilitary b*dget is well abo,e the 'oldWar a,erage4and the 'ontract With +&erica -ro4



Chapter 'en3>

gra&s incl*de -lenty of other for&s of direct hando*ts and s*bsidies to thewealthy as well. $:

The second (ind of welfare -ay&ent that<s being e1tended is regressi,efiscal &eas*res4which are *st another way of disg*ising welfare to therich. So for e1a&-le) if yo* increase ta1 ded*ctions for b*siness e1-enses)let<s say) that is the e1act financial e *i,alent of gi,ing o*t a welfare chec(.0 &ean) s*--ose there<s a &other with si1 (ids and no ob) and she gets ah*ndred4dollar chec(4o(ay) that<s welfare. Now s*--ose it<s &e) so&ebodywho<s rich) and 0 get a h*ndred dollars of ta1 relief beca*se 0 ha,e a ho&e&ortgage? it<s the sa&e go,ern&ent -ay&ent. 0 &ean) one of the& is adirect s*& of &oney and the other is hidden in regressi,e fiscal &eas*res)

b*t fro& an econo&ic stand-oint) they<re e1actly the sa&e thing4li(e) itwo*ld co&e o*t e1actly the sa&e if they ga,e &e the h*ndred dollars andtoo( a h*ndred dollars off her ta1es.

Well) if yo* ta(e a loo( at all of the welfare that goes to the rich thro*ghregressi,e fiscal &eas*res li(e these) it is absol*tely h*ge. Ta(e ta1 write4offs for charitable contrib*tions? al&ost all of that goes to the rich) it<s away for the& to c*t down on their ta1es4which &eans it<s a s*bsidy) e1actlythe e *i,alent of a welfare chec(. !r ta(e ta1 ded*ctions for ho&e&ortgages? abo*t 7% -ercent of that welfare goes to -eo-le with inco&es of

o,er [5%)%%% a year) and the ded*ctions get dis-ro-ortionately greater thehigher yo*r inco&e4li(e) if yo* ha,e a &illion4dollar ho&e) yo* get a &*ch bigger write4off than if yo* ha,e a two h*ndred tho*sand4dollar ho&e orso&ething. $8 !r *st loo( at inco&e4ta1 ded*ctions for b*siness e1-enses?that is a &assi,e welfare -rogra&) and it all goes to the rich. So there<s a

boo( by a 'anadian writer) inda Mc *aig) which esti&ates that the ta1loss in 'anada for what are called Ab*siness entertain&ent ded*ctionsA4li(eta(ing yo*r friends o*t to h*ndred4dollar seats at the baseball ga&e) and tofancy dinners and all that (ind of st*ff4is not far below what wo*ld beneeded to gi,e daycare to 95%)%%% 'anadian (ids who now can<t get it. $5

+nd re&e&ber) 'anada<s a far s&aller co*ntry than the United States is) fars&aller. Well) those are all welfare hando*ts too4and what<s ha--ening isthey<re being increased) while at the sa&e ti&e anything that &ight hel-

-oor -eo-le is being c*t bac(.0t<s stri(ing to see the way they<re doing it) act*ally. Bor instance) they

decided not to go after Medicare for now4they -robably will sooner or later) b*t for now they<re not. +nd the reason is) rich -eo-le get Medicare. 2*tthey are going after Medicaid right away) beca*se that only goes to -oor

-eo-le Medicare is a federal health ins*rance -rogra& for the elderly anddisabled) and Medicaid is a federally4f*nded health care -rogra& for thosewith low inco&esO. 0n fact) there were three big -rogra&s that they in4tended to go after right fro& the ti&e of the <;8 election? one wasMedicaid) one was +id for Ba&ilies with e-endent 'hildren) and the thirdwas Bood Sta&-s. Well) Bood Sta&-s *ic(ly got (ic(ed off the list. o*(now whyI 2eca*se there<s a big agri4b*siness lobby behind it. See) BoodSta&-s does



3?5 2nderstanding #ower

ha--en to feed -oor -eo-le) b*t it<s also a &a or hando*t to high4tech co&4&ercial agric*lt*re and big co&&erce) so those interests i&&ediatelystarted to lobby for it4beca*se they want it. So that was ta(en off the list. $6

What abo*t +id for Ba&ilies with e-endent 'hildrenI Well) for onething) it<s dro--ed ,ery shar-ly since 3;9%) e,en witho*t AWelfare Re4for&.A 0 &ean) co&-ared to 3;9%) &a1i&*& +.B. .'. benefits for an a,er4age fa&ily had fallen by abo*t 8% -ercent in real ter&s by =. ? 0n fact)we always hear in the &edia and fro& -oliticians how there<s so &*ch wel4fare for the -oor in the United States) b*t the reality is that the UnitedStates is co&-letely off the international s-ectr*& in this res-ect4we gi,e far less than any other ind*strialiGed co*ntry. $7

Well) +.B. .'. still has aro*nd nine &illion yo*ng children on itC theseg*ys want to ta(e fi,e &illion of the& off. +lright) those are children88a,erage age? se,en. $; +nd if yo* *st loo( at the fa&ilies who are recei,ingwelfare *nder the -rogra&) what yo* find is that a s*bstantial n*&ber ofthe &others are yo*ng wo&en who<,e been ra-ed) or ab*sed) or ne,er hadany ed*cational o--ort*nities) and so on. Well) *nder the c*rrent dog&as)their children) se,en4year4old children) they ha,e to be ta*ght Afiscal re4s-onsibilityA4b*t not Newt >ingrich<s constit*ents. They ha,e to (ee- beingf*nded by the -*blic. :%

So 2ill 'linton and all these others are tal(ing abo*t Awelfare refor&Athese days4b*t no one<s s*ggesting that we -*t executives to wor(? they<regoing to (ee- getting welfare) it<s only -oor &others who are s*--osed to

be forced into Awor( obligationsA i.e. -arents &*st obtain obs or lose benefits after recei,ing welfare for a s-ecified -eriodO. 0t<s these se,en4year4old (ids who now ha,e to be forced to internaliGe o*r ,al*es? thatthere are no h*&an rights) they don<t e1ist) the only h*&an rights -eo-leha,e are what they can gain for the&sel,es on the labor &ar(et. +nd theway they<re going to be forced to learn those lessons is by dri,ing their&others to wor(4instead of all this non4wor( li(e raising children. 0 &ean)it<s astonishing the se1is& that has been so instit*tionaliGed in the c*lt*rethat -eo-le *st acce-t the idea that raising children isn<t Awor(A 4 Awor(A isthings li(e s-ec*lating in financial &ar(ets. 'hild4care<s *st ta(en forgranted) it<s s*--osed to co&e free beca*se yo* don<t get a -aychec( for it.

Crime Control and Superfluous People

The other thing the 'linton ANewA e&ocrats and >ingrich Re-*blicans both want is to b*ild *- cri&e control4and there<s a ,ery si&-le reason forthat? yo*<,e got a big s*-erfl*o*s -o-*lation yo* aren<t letting s*r,i,e inyo*r syste&) what are yo* going to do with the&I +nswer? yo* loc( the&*-. So in Reagan +&erica) the ail -o-*lation in the U.S. &ore thantripled8tripled8and it<s been going *- ,ery fast e,er since. :3 0n the



Chapter 'en:93

&id43;7%s) the United States -assed its &ain co&-etitors in -er ca-ita -rison -o-*lation? So*th +frica and R*ssia Ktho*gh now that R*ssia<slearned o*r ,al*es) they<,e ca*ght *- with *s againL. So by this -oint) wello,er a &illion and a half -eo-le are in -rison in the United States4it<s by farthe highest -er ca-ita -rison -o-*lation of the Western co*ntries4and it<sgoing to go way *- now) beca*se the 3;;8 'ri&e 2ill was e1tre&ely harsh.:$ B*rther&ore) the -risons in the United States are so inhuman by this -ointthat they are being conde&ned by international h*&an rights organiGationsas literally i&-osing tort*re. :: +nd these -eo-le all want to increase that4they<re statist reactionaries) re&e&ber? what they really want is a ,ery

-owerf*l and ,iolent state) contrary to what they &ight say.+lso) if yo* *st loo( at the composition of the -rison -o-*lation) yo*<ll

find that the cri&e4control -olicy that<s been de,elo-ed is ,ery finely honedto target select -o-*lations. So for e1a&-le) what<s called the AWar on

r*gs)A which has ,ery little to do with sto--ing the flow of dr*gs) has a lotto do with controlling the inner4city -o-*lations) and -oor -eo-le in gen4eral. 0n fact) by now o,er half the -risoners in federal -risons are there ondr*g charges4and it<s largely for -ossession offenses) &eaning ,icti&lesscri&es) abo*t a third *st for &ari *ana. :8 Moreo,er) the A r*g WarA s-e4cifically has been targeted on the blac( and His-anic -o-*lations4that<s one

of its &ost stri(ing feat*res. So for instance) the dr*g of choice in the ghettoha--ens to be crac( cocaine) and yo* get h*ge &andatory sentences for itCthe dr*g of choice in the white s*b*rbs) li(e where 0 li,e) ha--ens to be

-owder cocaine) and yo* don<t get anywhere near the sa&e -enalties for it.0n fact) the sentence ratio for those dr*gs in the federal co*rts is 3%% to 3. :5

!(ayI+nd really there<s nothing -artic*larly new abo*t this (ind of techni *e

of -o-*lation control. So if yo* loo( at the history of &ari *ana -rohibi4tions in the United States) yo*<ll find that they began with legislation in theso*thwestern states which was ai&ed at Me1ican i&&igrants who wereco&ing in) who ha--ened to *se &ari *ana. Now) nobody had any reason to

belie,e that &ari *ana was dangero*s or anything li(e that4and ob,io*sly itdoesn<t e,en co&e close to alcohol) let alone tobacco) in its negati,e

conse *ences. 2*t these laws were set *- to try to control a -o-*lation theywere worried abo*t. :6 0n fact) if yo* loo( closely) e,en Prohibition had anele&ent of this4it was -art of an effort to control gro*-s li(e 0rish i&&i4grants and so on. 0 &ean) the Prohibition laws which were -art of the U.S.'onstit*tion fro& 3;3; to 3;::O were intended to close down the saloons in

New or( 'ity) not to sto- the drin(ing in *--er New or( State. 0nWestchester 'o*nty and -laces li(e that) e,erybody *st contin*ed ondrin(ing e1actly as before4b*t yo* didn<t want these i&&igrants to ha,esaloons where they co*ld get together and beco&e dangero*s in the *rbancenters) and so on. :9

Well) what<s been going on with dr*gs in recent years is (ind of an ana4log of that) b*t in the United States today it also ha--ens to be race4related)



3? 2nderstanding #ower

for a n*&ber of reasons) so therefore it<s in large -art ai&ed against blac(and atino &ales. 0 &ean) this is &ainly a war against the s*-erfl*o*s -o-4*lation) which is the -oor wor(ing class4b*t the race class correlation isclose eno*gh in the inner cities that when yo* go after the -oor wor(ingclass) yo*<re &ostly going after blac(s. So yo* get these astonishing racialdis-arities in cri&e statistics) all across the board. :7 +nd the -oint is) the*rban -oor are (ind of a *seless -o-*lation fro& the -ers-ecti,e of -ower)they don<t really contrib*te to -rofit4&a(ing) so as a res*lt yo* want to getrid of the&4and the cri&inal *stice syste& is one of the best ways of doingit.

So ta(e a significant *estion yo* ne,er hear as(ed des-ite this s*--osedA r*g WarA which has been going on for years and years? how &any

ban(ers and che&ical cor-oration e1ec*ti,es are in -rison in the UnitedStates for dr*g4related offensesI Well) there was recently an !.E.'. . !r4ganiGation for Econo&ic 'oo-eration and e,elo-&entO st*dy of the in4ternational dr*g rac(et) and they esti&ated that abo*t a half4trillion dollarsof dr*g &oney gets la*ndered internationally e,ery year4&ore than half ofit thro*gh +&erican ban(s. 0 &ean) e,erybody tal(s abo*t 'olo&bia as thecenter of dr*g4&oney la*ndering) b*t they<re a s&all -layer? they ha,eabo*t [3% billion going thro*gh) U.S. ban(s ha,e abo*t O >5 billion. :;

!(ay) that<s serio*s cri&e4it<s not li(e robbing a grocery store. So +&erican

ban(ers are la*ndering h*ge a&o*nts of dr*g &oney) e,erybody (nows it?how &any ban(ers are in ailI None. 2*t if a blac( (id gets ca*ght with a oint) he goes to ail.

+nd act*ally) it wo*ld be -retty easy to trace dr*g4&oney la*ndering ifyo* were serio*s abo*t it4beca*se the Bederal Reser,e re *ires that ban(sgi,e notification of all cash de-osits &ade of o,er [3%)%%%) which &eansthat if eno*gh effort were -*t into &onitoring the&) yo* co*ld see whereall the &oney<s flowing. Well) the Re-*blicans dereg*lated in the 3;7%s4sonow they don<t chec(. 0n fact) when >eorge 2*sh was r*nning the A r*gWarA *nder Reagan) he act*ally canceled the one federal -rogra& for thiswhich did e1ist) a -ro ect called A!-eration >reenbac(.A 0t was a -retty tinything anyway) and the whole Reagan 2*sh -rogra& was basically designedto let this go on4b*t as Reagan<s A r*g 'Gar)A 2*sh ne,ertheless canceled

it.8%

!r why not as( another *estion4how &any U.S. che&ical cor-oratione1ec*ti,es are in ailI Well) in the 3;7%s) the '.0.+. was as(ed to do ast*dy on che&ical e1-orts to atin +&erica) and what they esti&ated wasthat &ore than ;% -ercent of the& are not being *sed for ind*strial -rod*c4tion at all4and if yo* loo( at the (inds of che&icals they are) it<s ob,io*sthat what they<re really being *sed for is dr*g -rod*ction. 83 !(ay) how&any che&ical cor-oration e1ec*ti,es are in ail in the United StatesI+gain) none4beca*se social -olicy is not directed against the rich) it<s di4rected against the -oor.

+ct*ally) recently there<,e been so&e ,ery interesting st*dies of *rban -olice beha,ior done at >eorge Washington Uni,ersity) by a rather well4



Chapter 'en3?3

(nown cri&inologist na&ed Willia& 'ha&bliss. Bor the last co*-le yearshe<s been r*nning -ro ects in coo-eration with the Washington .'. -olice)in which he has law st*dents and sociology st*dents ride with the -olice intheir -atrol cars to ta(e transcri-ts of what ha--ens. 0 &ean) yo*<,e got toread this st*ff? it is all targeted against the blac( and His-anic -o-*lations)al&ost entirely. +nd they are not treated li(e a criminal -o-*lation) beca*secri&inals ha,e 'onstit*tional rights4they<re treated li(e a -o-*lation *nder&ilitary occ*-ation. So the effective laws are) the -olice go to so&ebody<sho*se) they s&ash in the door) they beat the -eo-le *-) they grab so&e (idthey want) and they throw hi& in ail. +nd the -olice aren<t doing it beca*sethey<re all bad -eo-le) yo* (now4that<s what they<re being told to do. 8$

Well) -art of the 'ontract With +&erica was to increase all of this. Theyweren<t satisfied with the 3;;8 'ri&e 2ill4and the reason is) the original3;;8 'ri&e 2ill still allowed for things li(e Pell >rants for -eo-le in -rison

i.e. college s*bsidies a,ailable to ca-able) low4inco&e st*dentsL) which area ,ery s&all e1-ense. See) &ost of the -eo-le who are in ail ha,e ne,erco&-leted high school) and Pell >rants hel- gi,e the& so&e degree of ed*4cation. +lright) there are &any st*dies of this) and it<s t*rned o*t that theeffect of Pell >rants is to c*t bac( on recidi,is&) to c*t bac( ,iolence. 2*tfor -eo-le li(e the >ingrich Re-*blicans) that doesn<t &a(e any sense44they

want -eo-le in ail) and they want ,iolence) so they<re going to c*t o*ts&all e1-enses li(e that so that we can ha,e e,en &ore -eo-le thrown into ail.8:

+lso) all of this Acri&e controlA s-ending is another h*ge ta1-ayer sti&4*l*s to the econo&y4&ainly to -arts of the constr*ction ind*stry) and tolawyers) and other -rofessionals. Well) that<s another ,ery *sef*l way toforce the -*blic to (ee- -aying off the rich4and by now Acri&e controlAs-ending is a--roaching the Pentagon b*dget in scaleC it<s still not *ite asfa,ored as the Pentagon) beca*se the s-ending<s not as shar-ly s(ewed to4wards the wealthy) b*t ne,ertheless it<s *sef*l. 88 +nd as the society (ee-sta(ing on &ore and &ore Third World4ty-e characteristics) we sho*ld cer4tainly e1-ect that the re-ression will contin*e4and that it will contin*e to bef*nded and e1tended) thro*gh the 'ontract With +&erica or whate,er other

techni *e they can co&e *- with.

+iolence and %epression

M*$, r. Choms&y) around where 0 wor& out in @resno) California) thelocal government has instituted a policy where they have three S.W.*.'teams roving the streets with rifles) to reduce the level of violence. My:uestion for you is) as an organi er) how can one deal with the fact thatthis is what the people really want0

What is what the -eo-le really wantI They want S.W.+.T. tea&sI



3?4 2nderstanding #ower

M*$, %eah.

Who wants the&4the -eo-le in the sl*&sI

M*$, Well) the mayor ran his election campaign on thisG it"s a pilot proAectin California. 85

+nd who ,oted for hi&4the -eo-le in the sl*&sI

M*$, 6 don"t really &now . ..

Well) there are a co*-le of -oints to be &ade. Birst of all) 0 don<t (nowBresno s-ecifically) b*t the way it *s*ally wor(s is) ,oting in the UnitedStates is a ,ery s(ewed affair? the wealthy ha,e a h*ge a&o*nt of clo*t)largely beca*se of b*siness -ro-aganda) b*t also thro*gh a whole range ofother &ethods) incl*ding things li(e gerry&andering. So that<s one -oint.

2*t another thing is) this whole bit abo*t Aco&bating ,iolenceA is so&e4thing yo*<,e really got to loo( at &ore closely. So 0 don<t (now the -artic*4lar area yo*<re tal(ing abo*t ,ery well) b*t the fact is) a large -ortion of theco*ntry<s -o-*lation is being dis&issed as s*-erfl*o*s beca*se they do not

-lay a role in -rofit4&a(ing4and those -eo-le are increasingly being coo-ed*- in concentration ca&-s) which we ha--en to call Asl*&s.A Now) it<s tr*e

that internal to those concentration ca&-s there<s a lot of ,iolence4b*t that<s(ind of li(e ,iolence internal to a fa&ily or so&ething? wealthier sectors are

-retty well ins*lated fro& it. 86 So ta(e &e? 0 li,e in a &ostly lily4white) ,ery liberal -rofessional s*b*rb

*st o*tside 2oston) called e1ington. +nd we ha,e o*r own -olice force)which is &ostly for finding stray cats and things li(e that. E1ce-t for onething? it<s also a 2order Patrol. 0 &ean) nobody there will tell yo* this) b*t ifyo* want to find it o*t) *st get so&e blac( friend of yo*rs to dri,e a bro4(en4down car into e1ington and watch how &any seconds it ta(es beforehe<s o*t.

Well) that<s how the -anic abo*t co&bating ,iolence tends to -lay o*t.2*t if yo* act*ally loo( at the facts abo*t the general le,el of ,iolence inthe U.S.) there<s really no e,idence that it<s increased o,er the -ast twentyyears4in fact) the statistics say it<s act*ally decreased. 89 B*rther&ore) con4trary to what a lot of -eo-le belie,e) cri&e rates in the United States are notall that high relati,e to other co*ntries4if yo* loo( at other de,elo-edco*ntries) li(e +*stralia and Brance and so on) U.S. cri&e rates are sort ofat the high end) b*t not off the s-ectr*&. 0n fact) abo*t the only category inwhich U.S. cri&e rates are way off the &a- is ho&icides with g*ns4b*tthat<s beca*se of craGy g*n4control laws here) it doesn<t -artic*larly ha,e todo with Acri&e.A 87

Now) the -o-*lar perception certainly is that ,iolence is greater today4 b*t that<s &ostly -ro-aganda? that<s *st a -art of the whole effort to &a(e



Chapter 'en 3?=

-eo-le frightened) so that they<ll abandon their rights. +nd of co*rse) it allhas a real racist *ndertone to it) there are little code words that are *sed)AWillie HortonA (inds of things) to try to get e,eryone to thin( there<s so&e

blac( &an o*t there trying to ra-e their da*ghter. Horton was a blac( -ris4oner who ra-ed a white wo&an while on f*rlo*gh fro& -risonC his i&agewas *sed by the Re-*blicans in T.D. ads to -ortray the e&ocrats as Asofton cri&e.AO eah) that<s the (ind of i&age yo* want to con,ey if yo*r goalis to (ee- -eo-le di,ided and calling for &ore re-ression in the society.

+nd the s*ccess of it all in the last few years has been ,ery dra&atic.0n fact) the -erce-tion of &ore ,iolence is rather li(e what<s ha--ened inthe case of welfare? -eo-le<s image is that welfare has gone way *-) b*t thereality is) it<s gone way) way down. 8; So 0 don<t (now if yo*<,e loo(ed atthe -olls on this) b*t -eo-le<s attit*des are really *ite stri(ing. Bore1a&-le) when yo* as( the&) A o yo* thin( we<re s-ending too &*ch onwelfare or too littleI)A 88 -ercent say we<re s-ending too &*ch) and $:

-ercent say we<re s-ending too little. 2*t if yo* ta(e e1actly the sa&e*estion and yo* *st re-lace the word AwelfareA with Aassistance to the

-oorA4so now yo*<re saying) A+re we gi,ing too &*ch or too littleassistance to the -oorIA4the n*&bers change radically? 3: -ercent say it<stoo &*ch) and 68 -ercent say it<s too little. 5% +lright) that<s (ind of f*nny?what<s welfareI 0t<s assistance to the -oor. So how co&e yo* get thisstrange res*ltI 2eca*se -eo-le ha,e bo*ght the racist line. The i&age theyha,e of AwelfareA is blac( &others dri,ing 'adillacs -ast so&e -oor whiteg*y who<s wor(ing?Reaganite -ro-aganda. +nd 0 thin( it<s -retty &*ch the sa&e (ind of storywith the -erce-tion of &ore ,iolence.

oo(? the -*blic relations ind*stry doesn<t s-end billions of dollars *stfor the f*n of it. 53 They do it for reasons) and those reasons are to instill cer4tain i&agery) and to i&-ose certain &eans of social control. +nd one of the

best &eans of controlling -eo-le has always been ind*ced fear? for Hitler itwas Jews and ho&ose1*als and >y-siesC here it<s blac(s.

So yes) there is ,iolence4b*t it<s &ostly the (ind of ,iolence that res*ltsfro& being coo-ed *- in concentration ca&-s. 0 &ean) if yo* loo( atHitler<s concentration ca&-s d*ring World War 00) there was also internal,iolence. That ha--ens? if -eo-le are s*fficiently de-ri,ed) they<ll t*rn onone another. 2*t when yo* say that -eo-le in 'alifornia want S.W.+.T.tea&s) 0 do*bt that the -eo-le in the concentration ca&-s do4beca*se thoseS.W.+.T. tea&s are at war with the&. 0t<s *st that those -eo-le ty-icallyare not a -art of the A-*blicA that act*ally decides on things in the UnitedStatesC &ore -owerf*l ele&ents do. +nd they decide the way they do forthe sa&e reason the liberals o*t in e1ington want a 2order Patrol) al4tho*gh they won<t say so of co*rse? beca*se yo* want to confine the ,io4lence so&ewhere else) so yo*r own fa&ily won<t be affected.

i(e) ta(e 'obb 'o*nty) >eorgia) the rich s*b*rb o*tside +tlanta that<s Newt >ingrich<s district4which gets &ore federal s*bsidies than any s*b4*rban co*nty in the United States) incidentally) des-ite its leader<s calls to

Aget go,ern&ent off o*r bac(sA Konly +rlington) Dirginia) the ho&e of the



3?> 2nderstanding #ower

Pentagon) and 2re,ard 'o*nty) Blorida) where the "ennedy S-ace 'enteris) get &oreL. Well) in 'obb 'o*nty) 0<& s*re they<re also ,ery afraid of,iolence and want S.W.+.T. tea&s to ins*late the& fro& any *rbaninfection that &ight &a(e its way o*t fro& downtown +tlanta. 5$ S*re) andit<s the sa&e thing all o,er the -lace. So 0 s*s-ect that<s -robably whatyo*<re seeing in Bresno as well.

Now) if yo* really want to tal( abo*t ,iolence) there<s -lenty of it4b*tnot the (ind yo*<re tal(ing abo*t. Bor e1a&-le) ta(e the biggest (iller of

the& all? tobacco. 'o&-ared with tobacco) hard dr*gs don<t e,en exist.eaths fro& tobacco far o*tweigh deaths fro& all hard dr*gs co&bined) -robably by a factor of &ore than a h*ndred. 5: o yo* see Jesse Hel&s in ailI 0 &ean) there *sed to be a Ho*se 'o&&ittee that reg*lated a&ongother things the tobacco ind*stry4it<s gone now) beca*se it was flat ta(eno,er by a tobacco co&-any4b*t in its last &eeting) its &e&bers released ast*dy that &ade it to the bac( -ages of the news-a-ers) and was ,ery inter4esting. 0t t*rned o*t that the data that e,erybody had been *sing for the lastco*-le years on the effects of -assi,e s&o(ing i.e. breathing of s&o(efro& other -eo-le<s cigarettesO were co&ing fro& tobacco4ind*stry st*dies4and they were fa(ed. Peo-le re4did the st*dies and fo*nd that they were atotal fra*d) they &ade the -roble& loo( far less significant. 58 +lright) that&eans these tobacco4ind*stry e1ec*ti,es and their U.S. go,ern&ent

-*--ets ha,e been (illing tho*sands and tho*sands of -eo-le4they<re (illingyo*ng children) say) whose &others are s&o(ing. +re they in ailI Whyisn<t that ,iolenceI

0n fact) right now U.S. state -ower is being *sed to force +sian co*ntriesto o-en their &ar(ets to ad,ertising for +&erican tobacco. Bor instance)we<re telling 'hina) A o* don<t allow *s to ad,ertise tobacco to the e&erg4ing &ar(ets of wo&en and yo*th) and we<ll close off yo*r e1-ortsA44so thenthey *st ha,e to do it. +lright) recently there was a st*dy done at !1fordUni,ersity which esti&ated that of the (ids *nder $% ali,e today in 'hina)abo*t fifty &illion of the& are going to die fro& tobacco4related diseases. 56

"illing fifty &illion -eo-le is fairly i&-ressi,e) e,en by twentieth4cent*rystandards4why isn<t that A,iolenceAI That<s the ,iolence of the +&ericanstate wor(ing for the interests of +&erican tobacco &an*fact*rers. o*wo*ldn<t need S.W.+.T. tea&s to go after that (ind of ,iolence) yo*<d *stneed to a--ly laws. The tro*ble is) it<s the rich and the -owerf*l whoenforce the laws) and they don<t want to a--ly the& to the&sel,es.

W+M*$, $oam) you Aust mentioned that Dingrich"s county in Deorgiais one of the leading recipients of federal government subsidies86 was won8dering) why didn"t the -emocrats ma&e that an issue during the 3;;8 elec8tions0 6"ve never heard it before) but you"d have thought that would be avery strong tactic for them to use at the time) given the Dingrich group"scampaign strategy0



Chapter 'en 3??

That<s an interesting side4light to the <;8 election story) isn<t it4the ab4sol*te silence of the e&ocrats abo*t thatI 0 &ean) d*ring the whole ca&4

-aign) Newt >ingrich was *st sla*ghtering the& with the line that they<realways -*shing the Awelfare stateA and the Ananny stateA and all this go,4ern&ent s-ending all the ti&e4b*t no one in the -ress or in the -oliticalsyste& e,er once &ade the ob,io*s re oinder that wo*ld ha,e wi-ed hi&o*t in three &in*tes? that $ewt Dingrich is the leading ad,ocate of the wel4fare state in the entire co*ntry. 0 &ean) that wo*ld ha,e been the end of the

entire disc*ssion4b*t the e&ocrats ne,er e,en raised a -ee-. i(e) nobodyraised the fact that the largest e&-loyer in 'obb 'o*nty is the oc(heedcor-oration an ar&a&ents contractorO) a -*blicly4s*bsidiGedX -ri,ate4-rofitcor-oration that wo*ldn<t exist e1ce-t for ta1-ayer s*bsidies. !r nobody

-ointed o*t that 9$ -ercent of the obs in 'obb 'o*nty are white4collar obsin ind*stries li(e electronics and co&-*ters4which are all ,ery caref*llytended by the Ananny state)A and in fact wo*ldn<t be aro*nd in the first -laceif it hadn<t been for &assi,e -*blic s*bsidies thro*gh the &ilitary syste& fordecades. 56

+nd 0 thin( the reason for that lac( of co&&ent is -retty ob,io*s) act*4ally. 0 thin( the reason is that class interests o,er-ower narrow -olitical in4terests) and there<s a real and ,ery i&-ortant class interest) shared rightacross the board in the United States) that the rich always &*st be -rotected

fro& &ar(et disci-line by a ,ery -owerf*l welfare state4that si&-ly can<t becalled into *estion at all. 0 &ean) the poor can be s*b ected to the &ar(et4that<s -erfectly fine. 2*t not the rich? they need constant s*bsidies and

-rotection) li(e they get in 'obb 'o*nty.Well) yo* can<t say any of that publicly) of co*rse) beca*se then -eo-le

&ight start to get the idea4and that wo*ld be ,ery dangero*s. So therefore)e,en if they get s&ashed in the elections) the e&ocrats still won<t tell yo*the tr*th? that Newt >ingrich is the leading ad,ocate of the Ananny state)Aand that what he wants is a big) -owerf*l) inter,entionist go,ern&ent thatwill (ee- -ro,iding the rich with constant econo&ic s*bsidy and -rotection.The 3;;8 elections were a -erfect ill*stration of the -oint4and again) it<sanother sign of the (ind of de&ocracy we really ha,e in the United Statesthat nobody e,en &entioned it.

International Capital: the .ew I,perial 6ge

M*$, 6n the past twenty8five years) there has been such a massive expan8 sion of multinational finance capital being used for speculation in interna8tional stoc& mar&ets) rather than for investment and trade) that it seems bynow the 2nited States is Aust a colony at the mercy of the movements of in8ternational capital8it doesn"t much matter who"s in office) they"re not theones really setting the agenda anymore. What"s the significance of that phe8nomenon on the international scene right now0



3?! 2nderstanding #ower

Well) first of all) we really o*ght to be a bit &ore ca*tio*s with o*r lan4g*age4incl*ding &yself) beca*se 0 tal( this way all the ti&e. We sho*ldn<ttal( abo*t things li(e Athe United StatesA4beca*se there is no s*ch entity)

*st li(e there<s no s*ch entity as AEnglandA or AJa-anA or anything li(e that.The population of the United States &ay be AcoloniGed)A b*t the corporateinterests that are based in the United States aren<t AcoloniGedA at all. So yo*so&eti&es hear abo*t A+&erica in declineA4and if yo* loo( at the share ofthe world<s &an*fact*ring -rod*ction that ha--ens to ta&e place in the

United States) it<s tr*e) that is in decline. 2*t if yo* loo( at the share of theworld<s &an*fact*ring -rod*ction that<s done by 2.S.8based corporations)that<s not in decline at all? in fact) it<s doing e1tre&ely nicely. 0t<s *st thatthat -rod*ction is now ta(ing -lace &ostly in the Third World. 59 So yo*(now) one can tal( abo*t the geogra-hical entity Athe United StatesA4b*tthat is not what f*nctions in world affairs. To be brief abo*t it) *nless yo*

begin with an ele&entary class analysis) yo* aren<t e,en in the real world?things li(e Athe United StatesA aren<t entities.

2*t yo*<re right) &ost of the population of the United States is beingdri,en towards (ind of a Third World AcoloniGedA stat*s4it<s *st that wesho*ld re&e&ber) there<s another sector in the world) which incl*des richcor-orate e1ec*ti,es and in,estors) -l*s their -eo-le in the Third World)li(e so&e Mafia th*g in R*ssia who<s r*nning their local thing for the& or

so&e rich g*y in Sao Pa*lo) and they<re a &*ch different gro*-ing. Those -eo-le ha,e ne,er been doing better.

Now) abo*t s-ec*lati,e ca-ital4that<s an e1tre&ely i&-ortant -art of this.o*<re absol*tely correct that it<s ha,ing a h*ge i&-act on national

go,ern&ents. This is really a &a or -heno&enon. J*st the n*&bers the&4sel,es are dra&atic.

2ac( aro*nd 3;9%) abo*t ;% -ercent of the ca-ital in,ol,ed in interna4tional econo&ic transactions was being *sed for &ore or less -rod*cti,eco&&ercial -*r-oses) li(e -rod*ction and trade) and abo*t 3% -ercent was

being *sed for s-ec*lation. Today those fig*res are re,ersed? by 3;;%)abo*t ;% -ercent was being *sed for s-ec*lation) and by 3;;8 it was *- to;5 -ercent. B*rther&ore) the absol*te amount of s-ec*lati,e ca-ital has *ste1-loded? the last esti&ate 0 saw fro& the World 2an( was that there isnow abo*t [38 trillion in,ol,ed4which &eans there<s now [38 trillion freeto transfer fro& one national econo&y to another) an a&o*nt which *sto,erwhel&s any national go,ern&ent<s reso*rces) and lea,es go,ern&entswith only an e1tre&ely narrow range of choices when it co&es to setting

-olicies. 57 Well) why has this h*ge growth of s-ec*lati,e ca-ital ha--enedI There

ha,e been two (ey reasons. The first had to do with the brea(down of the -ost4war world econo&ic syste&) which occ*rred in the early 3;9%s. See)d*ring the Second World War) the United States basically reorganiGed theworld econo&ic syste& and &ade itself into sort of the Aglobal ban(erA atthe 2retton Woods United Nations Monetary and Binancial 'onference of



Chapter 'en3?

3;88O4so) the U.S. dollar beca&e the global reser,e c*rrency) it was fi1edto gold) and other co*ntries< c*rrencies were fi1ed relati,e to the dollar.+nd that syste& was -retty &*ch what lay behind the ,ery s*bstantial eco4no&ic growth rate that followed in the 3;5%s and Si1ties. 2*t by the 3;9%s)the A2retton WoodsA syste& had beco&e *ns*stainable? the U.S. no longerwas strong eno*gh econo&ically to re&ain the world<s ban(er) -ri&arily

beca*se of the h*ge costs of financing the Dietna& War. So Richard Ni1onat that -oint &ade a decision to *st dis&antle the whole arrange&ent? inthe early 3;9%s he too( the United States off the gold standard) he raisedi&-ort d*ties) he *st destroyed the whole syste& totally. Well) after this in4ternational reg*latory a--arat*s had been destroyed) we started to gets-ec*lation against c*rrencies on an *n-recedented scale) and fl*ct*atingfinancial e1changes) all these other things that ha,e (e-t growing e,erSince.

The second &ain factor behind this e1-losion of s-ec*lati,e ca-ital has been the technological re,ol*tion in teleco&&*nications4which too( -lacein the sa&e -eriod) and which s*ddenly &ade it ,ery easy to transferc*rrencies fro& one co*ntry to another. So for e1a&-le) today ,irt*ally thewhole of the New or( Stoc( E1change &o,es o,ernight to To(yo? the&oney is in New or( in the dayti&e) then they *st wire it o,er to Ja-ane,ery night) and since Ja-an is 38 ho*rs ahead of *s) the sa&e &oney is*sed in both -laces. +nd by now) abo*t a trillion dollars a day &o,esaro*nd in international s-ec*lati,e &ar(ets li(e that4and that has *st ah*ge effect on national go,ern&ents. 5; 0n fact) by this -oint) what it&eans is that the international in,esting co&&*nity has ,irt*al ,eto4-owero,er what any national go,ern&ent can do.

We<re seeing it in the United States right now) act*ally. The UnitedStates has had a ,ery sl*ggish reco,ery fro& the last recession4it &ay bethe slowest reco,ery e,erC certainly it<s the slowest one since the end of theSecond World War. 2*t it<s been sl*ggish in only one res-ect? there<s been,ery low econo&ic growth) ,ery little ob creation Kin fact) for &any yearswages were act*ally going down in this Areco,eryAL) b*t -rofits ha,e beenabsol*tely Goo&ing. 6o So e,ery year @ortune &agaGine has an iss*ede,oted to the well4being of the i&-ortant -eo-le of the world) the1@ortune =55)1 and what it<s re-orted d*ring this -eriod is that -rofits wentthro*gh the s(y? in 3;;: they were ,ery ha--y) in 3;;8 they were e*-horic)and 3;;5 *st bro(e all records. Meanwhile real wages were going down)growth was ,ery low) -rod*ction was low4and e,en the slow growth that<s

been ta(ing -lace has been halted at ti&es beca*se the bond &ar(et) as they -*t it) AsignaledA that it didn<t li(e the growth.

See) financial s-ec*lators don<t want growth? what they want is stablec*rrencies) &eaning no growth. 0n fact) the b*siness -ress tal(s ,ery o-enlynow abo*t Athe threat of too &*ch growth)A Athe threat of too &*ch e&4

-loy&entA? they<re -erfectly o-en abo*t all of this) to one another. 63 +nd thereason for it is) -eo-le who s-ec*late against c*rrencies are afraid of in4



3!5 2nderstanding #ower

flation4beca*se it decreases the ,al*e of their &oney) so therefore it<s a bigthreat to the&. +nd any (ind of growth) any (ind of sti&*lation of theecono&y) any decline of *ne&-loy&ent all threaten to increase inflation.Well) c*rrency s-ec*lators don<t li(e that) so if they see signs of sti&*lati,eecono&ic -olicies or anything that &ay bring econo&ic growth) they<ll *stta(e their ca-ital o*t of that co*ntry<s econo&y4and e,en a slight with4drawal of that sort can easily trigger a recession in those co*ntries.

So what<s ha--ened as a res*lt of all of this is a big drift internationally

towards low4growth) low4wage) high4-rofit econo&ies4beca*se nationalgo,ern&ents trying to &a(e econo&ic and social -olicy decisions *st ha,e,ery little leeway to do so by now) or else their econo&ies will be wrec(ed

by ca-ital flight. 0 &ean) Third World go,ern&ents ha,e no chance at all ofdoing so at this -oint4they don<t e,en ha,e any -ossibility of carrying o*t anational econo&ic -olicy. 2*t by now) it<s e,en a *estion whether bigco*ntries can4incl*ding the United States. 0 &ean) 0 don<t thin( that anyad&inistration we<,e had in the United States has wanted to do things &*chdifferently here4b*t if they had wanted to) 0 thin( it wo*ld ha,e beene1tre&ely hard) if not i&-ossible.

J*st to gi,e yo* an indication) right after the 3;;$ election) the WallStreet ournal ran a front4-age article *st infor&ing its readers that therewas no reason to fear that any of the alleged AleftiesA aro*nd 'linton wo*ld

do things differently when they got into office. !f co*rse) the b*sinessco&&*nity already (new that -erfectly well) as yo* can see by ta(ing aloo( at the stoc( &ar(ets towards the end of the election ca&-aign. 2*t inany e,ent) the Wall Street ournal e1-lained why) if by so&e accident 'lin4ton or any other candidate did try to initiate a -rogra& of social refor& inthe United States) it wo*ld i&&ediately be c*t off. They si&-ly statedwhat<s ob,io*s) and they ga,e the n*&bers.

The United States is dee-ly in debt4that was -art of the whole Rea4gan 2*sh -rogra&) in fact? to -*t the co*ntry so dee-ly in debt that therewo*ld be ,irt*ally no way for the go,ern&ent to -*rs*e -rogra&s of socials-ending any&ore. +nd what Abeing in debtA really &eans is that the Trea4s*ry e-art&ent has sold a ton of sec*rities4bonds and notes and so ontoin,estors) who then trade the& bac( and forth on the bond &ar(et. Well)according to the Wall Street ournal) by now abo*t [35% billion a dayworth of U.S. Treas*ry sec*rities alone is traded this way. The article thene1-lained what this &eans? it &eans that if the in,esting co&&*nity whichholds those sec*rities doesn<t li(e any U.S. go,ern&ent -olicies) it can ,ery

*ic(ly sell off *st a tiny signal a&o*nt of Treas*ry bonds) and that willha,e the a*to&atic effect of raising the interest rate) which then will ha,ethe f*rther a*to&atic effect of increasing the deficit. !(ay) this article cal4c*lated that if s*ch a AsignalA s*fficed to raise the interest rate by 3 -ercent)it wo*ld add [$% billion to the deficit o,ernight4&eaning if 'linton Ksay inso&eone<s drea&L -ro-osed a [$% billion social s-ending -rogra&) the in4ternational in,esting co&&*nity co*ld effecti,ely t*rn it into a O45 billion



Chapter 'en 3!

-rogra& instantly) *st by a signal) and any f*rther &o,es in that directionwo*ld be totally c*t off. 6$

Si&ilarly) there was a great article in the ondon Economist8you (now)the big free4trade -o-4ideology o*rnal4abo*t the fact that Eastern E*ro4

-ean co*ntries ha,e been ,oting Socialists and 'o&&*nists bac( into -ower. 2*t the basic line of the article was) don<t worry abo*t it) beca*se asthey said) A-olicy is ins*lated fro& -oliticsA4&eaning) no &atter whatga&es these g*ys -lay in the -olitical arena) -olicy<s going to go on e1actly

the way it is) beca*se we<,e got the& by the balls? we control the interna4tional c*rrencies) we<re the only ones who can gi,e the& loans) we can de4stroy their econo&ies if we want to) there<s nothing they can do. 0 &ean)they can -lay all of the -olitical ga&es they want to) they can -retend theyha,e a de&ocracy if they li(e4anything they -lease4so long as A-olicy re4&ains ins*lated fro& -olitics.A 6:

What<s been ha--ening in the conte&-orary -eriod is really so&ething*ite new in history) act*ally. 0 &ean) in recent years a co&-letely new

for& of go,ern&ent is being -ioneered) one designed to ser,e thede,elo-ing needs of this new international cor-orate r*ling class4it<s whathas so&eti&es been called an e&erging Ade facto world go,ern&ent.AThat<s what all of the new international trade agree&ents are abo*t)

N.+.B.T.+.) >.+.T.T.) and so onC it<s what the E.E.'. E*ro-ean Econo&ic

'o&&*nityO is abo*tC it<s increasingly ta(ing sha-e in internationalfinancial organiGations li(e the 0nternational Monetary B*nd) the World2an() the 0nter4+&erican e,elo-&ent 2an() the World Trade!rganiGation) the >49 -lanning &eetings of the rich ind*strial co*ntries)and so on and so forth. These are all efforts to try to centraliGe -ower in aworld econo&ic syste& geared towards ens*ring that A-olicy is ins*latedfro& -oliticsA4in other words) towards ens*ring that the general -o-*lationsof the world ha,e no role in decision4&a(ing) and that the le,el of -olicy

-lanning is raised to be so re&ote fro& -eo-le<s (nowledge and*nderstanding and in-*t that they ha,e absol*tely no idea abo*t the ,ario*sdecisions that are being &ade that will affect their li,es) and certainlyco*ldn<t infl*ence the& if they did.

The World 2an( has its own ter& for the -heno&enon? they call it Atech4

nocratic ins*lation.A So if yo* read World 2an( st*dies) they tal( abo*t thei&-ortance of ha,ing Atechnocratic ins*lationA 4&eaning a b*nch of tech4nocrats) who are essentially e&-loyees of the big transnational cor-ora4tions) ha,e to be wor(ing so&ewhere in Ains*lationA fro& the -*blic todesign all the -olicies) beca*se if the -*blic e,er gets in,ol,ed in the

-rocess they &ay ha,e bad ideas) li(e wanting the (ind of econo&ic growththat does things for -eo-le instead of -rofits) all sorts of st*-id st*ff li(ethat. So therefore what yo* want to ha,e is ins*lated technocrats4and oncethey<re ins*lated eno*gh) then yo* can ha,e all the Ade&ocracyA yo* li(e)since it<s not going to &a(e any difference. 0n the international b*siness

-ress) this has all been described -retty fran(ly as AThe New 0&-erial+ge.A +nd that<s *ite acc*rate? it<s certainly the direction things are goingin.68




The %air) Tale E-onomy

M*$, * few moments ago) you described the 5s economy as 1slug8 gish)1 with low growth and low wages. 2sually we hear that this is a 1fairytale1 economy and everything"s wonderful. Can you say something moreabout that0

Well) there<s a ,ery i&-ortant boo( that co&es o*t e,ery two years)called 'he State of Wor&ing *merica. 0t<s (ind of the &ain) standard data4

base for what<s going on for wor(ing -eo-le4&eaning &ost e,erybody inthe econo&y. The latest data goes *- thro*gh 3;;9. +nd it tells yo* *stwhat the Afairy taleA econo&y is. 0t<s nothing that e,erybody doesn<t (now)they *st gi,e all the data.

Since the &id4Se,enties) the econo&y has slowed down? there<s been a -eriod of &*ch lower growth than the -ost4war -eriod. Dirt*ally all thewealth that<s been created has gone to the ,ery to- -art of the inco&e dis4trib*tion. The ty-ical fa&ily is now wor(ing abo*t fifteen wee(s a year&ore than they did twenty years ago) at stagnating or declining real in4co&es. The United States now has the hea,iest wor(load in the ind*strialworld. 0t<s also the only co*ntry in the ind*strial world that doesn<t ha,elegally &andated ,acations. +nd with that) inco&es are at best stagnatingfor the &a ority of the -o-*lation. 65

Now) it is a Afairy taleA econo&y4and the reason it<s a Afairy taleAecono&y is beca*se for the to- few -ercent of the -o-*lation) inco&esha,e gone thro*gh the roof. The boo( -oints o*t that essentially the onlygains in the -ast twenty years ha,e been to '.E.!.s) and thro*gh assetinflation in the stoc( &ar(et. Well) yo* ta(e a loo( at assets on the stoc(&ar(et) they also gi,e fig*res for that? it t*rns o*t that ro*ghly half areowned by the toone -ercent of the -o-*lation4and of that) &ost is owned

by the to- one4half -ercent. So one -ercent owns ro*ghly half the stoc(C theto- ten -ercent own &ost of the rest. +bo*t 75 -ercent of the total increasein stoc( ,al*es in this great stoc(4boo& ha,e gone to the to- ten -ercent ofthe -o-*lation) &ostly to the to- one4half -ercent. 66 0n fact) the seconddecile44yo* (now) the ;%th to 7%th -ercentiles in inco&e le,els4ha,eact*ally lost net worth d*ring the 'linton reco,ery Knet worth &eaningassets &in*s debtL. 2elow that) it<s &ostly worse. 69 The ones who ha,e beenhit hardest are the yo*ngest. So entry4le,el wages are abo*t $% to :%

-ercent lower than they were twenty years ago) which tells yo* what<sgoing to ha--en *- the road. 0t<s now e,en tr*e for white4collar wor(ers)e,en scientists and engineers. Unless they<re in a ,ery high brac(et) theirwages and inco&es are declining. 67 So that<s the Afairy taleA econo&y.

This 'linton reco,ery4which one (ind of wonders abo*t4is the first onecertainly in -ost4war history) &aybe in +&erican history) in which &ost ofthe -o-*lation has been left o*t. 0 &ean) it wasn<t *ntil the end of 3;;9 that&edian real inco&e reached the le,el of 3;7;) which was the



Chapter 'en3!3

-ea( of the last b*siness cycle. 6; That<s *nheard of? in e,ery other reco,ery)&edian inco&e has been way higher this &any years after the -ea( of thelast b*siness cycle.

2*t for so&e sectors) it<s fantastic. +nd -art of the reason is *st inti&i4dating wor(ing -eo-le with ob insec*rity.

So this is a ,ery good boo(4it<s -*t o*t by the Econo&ic Policy 0nstit*te.0t<s o*t in -a-erbac() and it<s not that e1-ensi,e. 0 thin( the data won<ts*r-rise yo*) beca*se 0 thin( yo* sort of (now it fro& yo*r li,es and yo*rneighborhoods and so on. 9% 2*t it<s not what yo*<re reading in the $ew %or&'imes and the Wall Street ournal. +ct*ally) in the Wall Street ournal yo*do read it so&eti&es4b*t not in the -o-*lar -ress.

"ilding International 2nions

W+M*$, $oam) facing an international power structure li&e the one youdescribe) which seems to be showing no signs of letting up as it extends its

grip) clearly the response has to be organi ed and coordinated on a mass scale internationally. (ut given the si e of the problems and Aust the scaleof the tas& we"re faced with) it seems nearly impossible to me) fran&ly. Even

Aust building the &inds of unions we need to develop in the 2nited States seems li&e a daunting prospect. o you thin& it"s really possible in today"sworld0

Reconstr*cting a de&ocratic trade4*nion &o,e&ent in the UnitedStatesI S*re) 0 don<t see why that<s an i&-ossible tas() it<s certainly so&e4thing that<s been done before. 2*t yo*<re right that it<s not going to be sosi&-le.

Bor one thing) in the conte&-orary -eriod so&ething that<s s*rely goingto be re *ired) which does &a(e it a lot harder than before) is that a reallabor &o,e&ent si&-ly has to be international today. 0 &ean) in the olddays) labor acti,ists *sed to tal( abo*t A0nternationals)A b*t that was &ostlya o(e. Now the labor &o,e&ent *st has to be international44beca*se therehas to be so&ething to -re,ent ai&ler42enG) for e1a&-le) fro& destroying>er&an wor( standards by shifting -rod*ction o,er to +laba&a) wherewages are &*ch lower) and the labor<s not *nioniGed) and legislati,e

-rotections for wor(ers are &*ch wea(er. !r ta(e the original Bree Trade+gree&ent with 'anada i&-le&ented in 3;7;O? in the first few years ofthat) 'anada lost a co*-le h*ndred tho*sand &an*fact*ring obs to theSo*theastern United States for the sa&e reasons. 93

0n fact) it<s gotten to the -oint where so&e &a or cor-orations don<t e,enworry abo*t stri(es any&ore) they see the& as an o--ort*nity to destroy*nions. Bor instance) the 'ater-illar cor-oration recently bro(e an eighteen4&onth stri(e in ecat*r) 0llinois fro& J*ne 3;;8 to ece&ber 3;;5O) and

-art of the way they did it was by de,elo-ing e1cess -rod*ction



3!4 2nderstanding #ower

ca-acity in foreign co*ntries. See) &a or cor-orations ha,e a ton of ca-italnow) and one of the things they<,e been able to do with it is to b*ild *-e1tra o,erseas -rod*ction ca-acity. So 'ater-illar has been b*ilding -lantsin 2raGil4where they get far chea-er labor than in the United States4andthen they can *se that -rod*ction ca-ability to fill their international ordersin the e,ent of a stri(e in the U.S. So they didn<t really &ind the stri(e in

ecat*r) beca*se it ga,e the& an o--ort*nity to finally brea( the *nionthro*gh this international strategy. 9$ That<s so&ething that<s relati,ely new)and gi,en this increasing centraliGation of -ower in the international econ4o&y) and the ability of big transnational cor-orations to -lay one nationalwor(force against another to dri,e down wor( standards e,erywhere) there

*st has to be international solidarity today if there<s going to be any ho-e4and that &eans real international solidarity.

+nother thing that has to ha--en for an international trade *nion &o,e4&ent to really be s*ccessf*l) in &y o-inion) is that it is si&-ly going toha,e to be started fro& the gro*nd *- and be r*n by its -artici-ants. +ndthat (ind of serio*s organiGing is so&ething that is ,ery diffic*lt to do. 0t<sgoing to be -artic*larly tric(y in the United States4beca*se the laborleadershi- here has traditionally been al&ost co&-letely di,orced fro& thewor(force. So ta(e a loo( at the world4wide destr*ction of *nions after theSecond World War? that<s had a really &a or i&-act on wor(ing conditions

thro*gho*t the world) and so&e of the -eo-le who were doing it were infact the +&erican labor leadershi- at the ti&e4they were a big -art of thewhole effort to brea( *- the 0talian *nions) and the Ja-anese *nions) and theBrench *nions) and so on. 9:

0f yo* loo( bac( to the history of the reconstr*ction of -ost4World War00 E*ro-e) +&erican -lanners were ,ery intent on -re,enting the rise of

-o-*lar4de&ocratic &o,e&ents there which wo*ld ha,e been based in thefor&er anti4fascist resistance) which had a lot of -restige right then. +ndthe reason was) the world in general was ,ery social4de&ocratic after thewar) es-ecially as a res*lt of the anti4fascist str*ggles that had ta(en -lace.+nd with the traditional order discredited and a whole lot of radical4de&ocratic ideas aro*nd) -owerf*l interests in the United States were e14tre&ely concerned that a *nified labor &o,e&ent co*ld de,elo- in a -lace

li(e >er&any or Ja-an.+ct*ally) the sa&e (ind of -roble& also e1isted at ho&e right then aswell? the U.S. -o-*lation was ,ery social4de&ocratic after the war4it wase1tre&ely -ro4*nion) it wanted &ore go,ern&ent in,ol,e&ent in reg*latingind*stry) -robably a &a ority tho*ght there sho*ld e,en be public ind*stry4and b*siness was terrified by it) they were ,ery scared. They in fact said intheir -*blications things li(e) AWe ha,e abo*t fi,e or si1 years to sa,e the

-ri,ate enter-rise syste&.A 98 Well) one thing they did was to la*nch ah*ge -ro-aganda -rogra& in the United States) ai&ed at re,ersing theseattit*des. 95 0t was act*ally called at the ti&e -art of Athe e,erlasting battlefor the &inds of &en)A who ha,e to be Aindoctrinated in the ca-italiststoryAC



Chapter 'en 3!=

that<s a standard straight *ote fro& the P.R. literat*re. 96 So in the early3;5%s) the +d,ertising 'o*ncil an organiGation beg*n d*ring World War00 and f*nded by the b*siness co&&*nity to assist the go,ern&ent with

-ro-aganda ser,ices at ho&eO was s-ending h*ge a&o*nts of &oney to -ro-agandiGe for what they called Athe +&erican way.A 99 The -*blicrelations b*dget for the National +ssociation of Man*fact*rers 0 thin( went*- by abo*t a factor of twenty. 97 +bo*t a third of the te1tboo(s in schoolswere si&-ly -ro,ided by b*siness. 9; They had $% &illion -eo-le a wee(

watching -ro-aganda fil&s abo*t wor(er4&anage&ent *nity) after the Taft4Hartley +ct of 3;89 allowed -ro-aganda to be shown to basically ca-ti,ea*diences in co&-anies. 7% They contin*ed on with the Ascientific &ethodsof stri(ebrea(ingA that had been de,elo-ed in the late 3;:%s? de,oting h*gereso*rces into -ro-aganda instead of goon4s *ads and brea(ing (nees. 73

+nd it was all tied *- with the Aanti4'o&&*nistA cr*sade at the ti&e4that<sthe tr*e &eaning of what<s referred to as AMc'arthyis&)A which startedwell before Jose-h Mc'arthy got in,ol,ed and was really la*nched by

b*siness and liberal &e&bers of the e&ocratic Party and so on. 7$ 0t was away of *sing fear and ingois& to try to *nder&ine labor rights andf*nctioning de&ocracy.

+nd the -oint is) the leadershi- of the U.S. labor &o,e&ent was right inthe center of the whole -ost4war destr*ction of *nions) internationally. 0n

fact) if yo* loo( bac( at their records) which are ,ery fascinating) one of thethings that they were &ost afraid of when they hel-ed to s&ash the 0talian*nions) for e1a&-le) was that they were *st too de&ocratic4they wantedthe& to be &ore li(e +&erican *nions) and they said so. A+&erican*nionsA &eans the +.B. .leadershi- sits in a roo& so&ewhere and none ofthe wor(force (nows what<s going on) the leaders &a(e the decisions) thenthey go o*t and ha,e l*nch with so&e g*y in the go,ern&ent or a cor-ora4tion4that<s the way a *nion<s s*--osed to wor( here. The tro*ble is) the0talian *nions weren<t li(e that. 0 &ight be e1aggerating it a little4b*t if yo*loo( bac( at these g*ys< records) they say it in ro*ghly those words) ac4t*ally. 7:

Well) when yo* ha,e a history of labor leadershi- li(e that) it<s anotherreason why reconstit*ting a *nion &o,e&ent here is si&-ly going to ha,e

to start fro& the botto& *-4and 0 don<t thin( that<s an i&-ossible ob. 0t<scertainly been done *nder &*ch harsher conditions than we face. 0 &ean) ifit<s -ossible in E0 Sal,ador to organiGe a *nion when yo*<,e got deaths *ads r*nning after yo* and &*rdering yo*) and then we as() A0s this toohard for *sIA4it<s (ind of li(e a o(e. 0f it<s not ha--ening) it<s beca*se -eo4

-le aren<t doing it? it<s not beca*se it<s too hard) it<s beca*se -eo-le aren<tdoing it.

So ta(e Haiti) the &ost i&-o,erished co*ntry in the He&is-here. 0 don<t(now if any of yo* ha,e e,er tra,eled to Haiti) b*t if yo* go there) yo* can

barely belie,e it40<,e gone to a lot of -arts of the Third World) and Haiti is *st so&ething else. 2*t in Haiti in the late 3;7%s) *nder e1tre&ely re-res4



3!> 2nderstanding #ower

si,e and i&-o,erished conditions) Haitian -easants and sl*&4dwellers wereable to create an organiGed ci,il society? they s*cceeded in creating *nions)and grassroots organiGations) and a whole networ( of -o-*lar gro*-ingswhich achie,ed s*ch strength that) with no reso*rces at all) they were ableto ta(e o,er the go,ern&ent. Now) it t*rns o*t they i&&ediately gots&ashed by a &ilitary co*- which we were assisting4b*t that shows yo*what -eo-le can do in the world. 78 0f yo* read the +&erican -ress when theco*- colla-sed in 3;;8O) they were all saying) ANow we ha,e to go down

and teach lessons in de&ocracy to the HaitiansA4b*t anybody e1ce-t aco&-lete co&&issar o*ght to ha,e b*rst o*t in ridic*le at that. We ha,e tolearn abo*t de&ocracy fro& the Haitians) Haitian -easants ha,e a lot toteach us abo*t de&ocracy) they show how it really wor(s.

2*t the -oint is) if yo* can do it in Haiti) and if yo* can do it in El Sal4,ador) yo* can certainly do it right now in the United States4we are &*ch

better off than those -eo-le.So yo*<re right) it<s certainly not going to be a wal(4o,er4b*t 0 don<t re4

ally see any reason why these things are beyond o*r reach. +nd 0 sho*ldsay that if they are beyond o*r reach) we<re all in trouble8bad tro*ble. 2e4ca*se if it t*rns o*t that b*ilding gen*ine &ass -o-*lar &o,e&ents on aninternational scale can<t be done) it<s not so ob,io*s that there will contin*eto be h*&an ci,iliGation for ,ery long4beca*se -art of the whole ca-italist

ethic is that the only thing that &atters is how &*ch &oney yo* &a(e to4&orrow? that<s the cr*cial ,al*e of the syste&) -rofit for to&orrow. Not *st

-rofit) b*t the botto& line has to loo( good tomorrow. +nd the res*lt is that -lanning for the f*t*re) and any (ind of reg*latory a--arat*s that wo*lds*stain the en,iron&ent for the long4ter&) beco&e i&-ossible4and that&eans the -lanet is going to go down the t*bes ,ery fast.

0n fact) this was *st de&onstrated (ind of dra&atically in the UnitedStates a little while ago. Right as the A>ingrich ar&yA was co&ing into of4fice in 3;;8 and describing how they<re going to destroy the co*ntry<s en,i4ron&ental reg*latory syste&) right at that ,ery sa&e ti&e a n*&ber ofscientific re-orts of considerable significance were released. 75 !ne had todo with New England4or really) the world? it had to do with the >eorges2an( fishing gro*nd) an offshore shelf off the coast of New England.>eorges 2an( has always been the richest fishing area in the world) and itre&ained so thro*gh the 3;9%s. 2*t in the 3;7%s) the Reaganites dereg*4lated the fishing ind*stry and at the sa&e ti&e s*bsidiGed it4beca*se that<show the Afree &ar(etA wor(s? yo* dereg*late so the ind*stries can do any4thing they want) and then the -*blic -ays the& off to &a(e s*re they stay in

b*siness. Well) when yo* dereg*late and yo* s*bsidiGe the fishing ind*stry)it doesn<t ta(e a great geni*s to fig*re o*t what<s going to ha--en4whatha--ened is) they wi-ed o*t the gro*nd4fish.

Well) now New England is i&-orting cod fro& Norway. +nybody fro& New England (nows what that &eans4it<s *ni&aginable. +nd the reasonwe<re i&-orting cod fro& Norway is that in Norway) they contin*ed to reg4



Chapter 'en3!?

*late their fishing gro*ndsC here we dereg*lated the&) so of co*rse theywere destroyed. So now a large -art of >eorges 2an( is closed off tofishing) and nobody (nows if it can reco,er. 76 Well) if they eli&inate therest of the co*ntry<s reg*latory a--arat*s) it<s going to be the sa&e (ind ofthing all o,er the -lace. So if this tas( of organiGing a de&ocratic societydoes -ro,e to be i&-ossible) we<re all going to be in ,ery serio*s tro*ble?,ery serio*s.

Initial )oves and the Coming Crisis

M*$, o you see any steps being ta&en right now towards building these&inds of international movements0

Well) 0 thin( one can see so&e things ha--ening4and yo* can i&aginethe& e1tending to a &*ch larger scale. Most of the things yo* see today areso s&all that they<re not really &a(ing an i&-act) b*t they<re real) and theyco*ld -otentially beco&e the start of bigger things.

Bor e1a&-le) the first shreds of any -ositi,e &o,e in the *nion &o,e4&ent that 0<& aware of occ*rred right after N.+.B.T.+. was -assed in3;;:O. 0&&ediately after the N.+.B.T.+. ,ote) li(e within wee(s) >eneralElectric and Honeywell both fired wor(ers for trying to organiGe *nions intheir -lants in Northern Me1ico. !(ay) nor&ally when that ha--ens) that<sthe end of it. This ti&e) for the first ti&e e,er 0 thin() two +&erican*nions) United Electrical Wor(ers and the Tea&sters) inter,ened to defendthe organiGers and -rotested to the 'linton ad&inistration. +nd they ha,eso&e clo*t? they<re not li(e cor-orations) b*t they<,e got a lot &ore -owerthan Me1ican *nions. 0 &ean) there really are no Me1ican *nions) beca*seMe1ico<s li(e a fascist state4there<s *st a go,ern&ent *nion K(ind of li(e inthe old So,iet UnionL and then essentially one other one) which of co*rseo--osed N.+.B.T.+. b*t is *nder s*ch terrific controls that it co*ldn<t doanything. 2*t the big +&erican *nions still can<t be co&-letely ignored)and in this case they were able to get the U.S. abor e-art&ent to in,esti4gate these firings in Me1ico. 79

Well) the thing went to a U.S. abor e-art&ent -anel) which was s*-4 -osed to deter&ine whether there had in fact been an infringe&ent of laborrights4and of co*rse Robert Reich<s de-art&ent disco,ered that there had

been no ,iolations. What they said is) the fired wor(ers had Me1ican law behind the&) they still had legal reco*rse *nder Me1ican law) so thereforethere was no iss*e for the U.S. abor e-art&ent. 0 &ean) yo* ha,e toread this thing40 don<t (now if any of yo* are fa&iliar with Me1ican laborlaw) b*t this doesn<t e,en rise to the le,el of hilarity. 2*t that was thedecision) so the firings went thro*gh. The fired wor(ers are allowed toa--ly for se,erance -ay) ,ery ha--yC 0<& s*re >.E. is &o*rning. 77 2*t atleast in this case +&erican *nions got to the -oint of defending the rights

of Me1ican wor(ers for the first ti&e4at this -oint o*t of their owninterests) beca*se they



3!! 2nderstanding #ower

recogniGe they<re really getting cr*shed. 2*t that<s the (ind of thing that hasto start ta(ing -lace on a &assi,e scale) if there are going to be significant

&o,es against these -roble&s.2eyond that) serio*s changes in the econo&y will si&-ly re *ire dis4&antling -ri,ate -ower altogether4there *st is no way aro*nd that in theend. +nd yo* can e,en see so&e r*di&entary ste-s towards it here andthere) 0 thin(. Weirton Steel was one recent effort wor(ers own a -ortionof the co&-any thro*gh an E&-loyee Stoc( !wnershi- PlanOC and there areothers which co*ld be t*rned into so&ething &eaningf*l. E,en things li(ethe negotiations at United +irlines co*ld be &eaningf*l initial ste-s) tho*gh*lti&ately it de-ends on whether the settle&ents are *st in ter&s of stoc(ownershi- by wor(ers or act*al e&-loyee &anage&ent) which wo*ld beso&ething ,ery different United<s e&-loyees traded stee- -ay c*ts for 55

-ercent ownershi- of the co&-any<s stoc( and : of its 3$ board seats in3;;8O.

So the methods for starting to &o,e towards real change are *ite clear)it<s *st a *estion of whether eno*gh -eo-le are willing to start -*rs*ingthe&. There are all sorts of o-tions for how to begin b*ilding -o-*lar&o,e&ents) and they co*ld be de,elo-ed on a ,ery s*bstantial scale. Thenif they<re coordinated) with gen*ine co&&*nity efforts to ta(e control o,erwhate,er reso*rces and ind*stries are within the&) and they begin to lin(*- internationally) anything at all is -ossible) 0 thin(. 0 &ean) s*re) the scaleis enor&o*s4b*t with any &a or social change the scale has been enor&o*s.

o* co*ld raise the sa&e do*bts abo*t the wo&en<s &o,e&ent) or gettingrid of sla,ery in Haiti in 39;%4it &*st ha,e loo(ed i&-ossible. There<snothing new abo*t that feeling.

M*$, 6 Aust get the sense that we"re waiting for some ecological disaster

before people really start to get active in these movements on a massive scale.

Well) if we wait for an ecological disaster) it<ll be too late4in fact) we&ight not e,en ha,e s*ch a long wait.

oo() it<s certainly tr*e that as the threats &o*nt) it &ay energiGe -eo-le4 b*t yo* don<t wait for that to ha--en? first yo* ha,e to -re-are the gro*nd.Bor e1a&-le) s*--ose it was disco,ered to&orrow that the greenho*seeffect has been way *nderesti&ated) and that the catastro-hic effects areact*ally going to set in 3% years fro& now) and not 3%% years fro& now orso&ething. Well) gi,en the state of the -o-*lar &o,e&ents we ha,e today)we<d -robably ha,e a fascist ta(eo,er4with e,erybody agreeing to it)

beca*se that wo*ld be the only &ethod for s*r,i,al that anyone co*ld thin(

of. 0<d e,en agree to it) beca*se there *st are no other alternati,es aro*ndright now.So yo* don<t wait for the disasters to ha--en) first yo* ha,e to create the

gro*ndwor(. o* need to -lant the seeds of so&ething right now) so thatwhate,er o--ort*nities ha--en to arise4whether it<s wor(ers being fired



Chapter 'en 3!

in Me1ico) or an ecological catastro-he) or anything else4-eo-le are in a -osition that they can do so&ething constr*cti,e abo*t it.

M*$, -r. Choms&y) 6"m actually wondering whether the corporate elitescan"t turn the environmental crisis to their benefit8use it as a new techni:ueof taxpayer subsidy) another form of welfare li&e the others you weredescribing0 So now the public will pay them to salvage the environmentthey"ve been primarily responsible for destroying0

eah) s*re) yo* don<t e,en ha,e to -redict it4it<s already been ha--ening.Ta(e *Pont? they weren<t all that *-set abo*t the fact that they can nolonger sell fl*orocarbons which destroy the oGone layer and ha,e beenclosely reg*lated since the late 3;7%sO) beca*se now they can *st get big

-*blic s*bsidies to -rod*ce other things that will re-lace the&. 7; 0 &ean) atleast in this res-ect these -eo-le are rational) so they are going to try to ta(ead,antage of whate,er techni *es ha--en to be aro*nd to ens*re that the

-*blic is forced to (ee- s*bsidiGing their -rofits. +nd if the en,iron&entalcrisis reaches the -oint where so&e changes ha,e to be introd*ced4as it al4ready has) in fact4they<ll be s*re to -rofit off the&.

+ct*ally) -eo-le are really worried abo*t the destr*ction of the oGonelayer4e,en the Wall Street ournal editors) who are *s*ally o*t in s-ace on

these iss*es) ha,e started getting worried abo*t it. 0 &ean) it wasn<t so badwhen it was *st (illing -eo-le in 'hile and +rgentina who are near theSo*th Pole i.e. where the first hole in the oGone layer was disco,eredO) b*twhen they detected another hole o,er the +rctic in the north4&eaning white

-eo-le are going to s*ffer so&eday4then e,en those g*ys finally noticed it.;o +nd when the ocean starts rising to the le,el of whate,er b*ilding they<rein and whate,er floor they<re on as they write their editorials) yeah) thenthey<ll agree that there<s a greenho*se effect and we<d better do so&ethingabo*t it. S*re) no &atter how l*natic -eo-le are) at so&e -oint or otherthey<re going to realiGe that these -roble&s e1ist) and they are a--roachingfast. 0t<s *st that the ne1t thing they<ll as( is) ASo how can we &a(e so&e&oney off itIA 0n fact) anybody in b*siness who didn"t as( that *estionwo*ld find the&sel,es o*t of b*siness4 *st beca*se that<s the way that

ca-italist instit*tions wor(. 0 &ean) if so&e e1ec*ti,e ca&e along and said)A0<&not going to loo( at it that way) 0<& going to do things differently)Awell) they<d get re-laced by so&eone who would try to &a(e &ore &oneyoff it4beca*se these are si&-ly instit*tional facts) these are facts abo*t thestr*ct*re of the instit*tions. +nd if yo* don<t li(e the&) and 0 don<t) thenyo*<re going to ha,e to change the instit*tions. There really is no other way.

So yes) within the fra&ewor( of the instit*tions that c*rrently e1ist) theen,iron&ental crisis will be yet another techni *e of -*blic s*bsidy to en4s*re contin*ed -ri,ate -rofits) and they<ll (ee- ca-italiGing on it e1actly asyo* describe.




Elite Planning-Slipping O"t of 2and

M*$, /ow much of this do you attribute to a conspiracy theory) and howmuch would you say is Aust a by8product of capital near8sightedness and a

shared interest in holding on to power0

Well) this ter& Acons-iracy theoryA is (ind of an interesting one. Bor e14a&-le) if 0 was tal(ing abo*t So,iet -lanning and 0 said) A oo() here<s what

the Politb*ro decided) and then the "re&lin did this)A nobody wo*ld callthat a Acons-iracy theoryA4e,eryone wo*ld *st ass*&e that 0 was tal(ingabo*t -lanning. 2*t as soon as yo* start tal(ing abo*t anything that<s done

by -ower in the West) then e,erybody calls it a Acons-iracy theory.A o*<renot allowed to tal( abo*t -lanning in the West) it<s not allowed to e1ist. Soif yo*<re a -olitical scientist) one of the things yo* learn4yo* don<t e,en&a(e it into grad*ate school *nless yo*<,e already internaliGed it4is thatnobody here e,er -lans anything? we *st act o*t of a (ind of general

bene,olence) st*&bling fro& here to here) so&eti&es &a(ing &ista(es andso on. The g*ys in -ower aren<t idiots) after all. They do -lanning. 0n fact)they do ,ery caref*l and so-histicated -lanning. 2*t anybody who tal(sabo*t it) and *ses go,ern&ent records or anything else to bac( it *-) is intoAcons-iracy theory.A

0t<s the sa&e with b*siness? b*siness is again *st o-erating o*t of a gen4eraliGed bene,olence) trying to hel- e,erybody get the chea-est goods withthe best *ality) all this (ind of st*ff. 0f yo* say? A oo() 'hrysler is tryingto &a1i&iGe -rofits and &ar(et share)A that<s Acons-iracy theory.A 0n otherwords) as soon as yo* describe ele&entary reality and attrib*te &ini&al ra4tionality to -eo-le with -ower4well) that<s fine as long as it<s an ene&y) b*tif it<s a -art of do&estic -ower) it<s a Acons-iracy theoryA and yo*<re nots*--osed to tal( abo*t it.

So) the first thing 0 wo*ld s*ggest is) dro- the ter&. There are really onlytwo *estions. !ne is) how &*ch of this is conscious -lanning4as ha--ense,erywhere else. +nd the other is) how &*ch is bad -lanningI

Well) it<s all conscio*s -lanning? there is *st no do*bt that a lot of ,ery

conscio*s -lanning goes on a&ong intelligent -eo-le who are trying to&a1i&iGe their -ower. They<d be insane if they didn<t do that. 0 &ean) 0<&not telling yo* anything new when 0 tell yo* that to- editors) togo,ern4&ent officials) and &a or b*siness&en ha,e &eetings together4of co*rse.+nd not only do they ha,e &eetings) they belong to the sa&e golf cl*bs)they go to the sa&e -arties) they went to the sa&e schools) they flow *-and bac( fro& one -osition to another in the go,ern&ent and -ri,ate sector)and so on and so forth. 0n other words) they re-resent the sa&e social class?they<d be craGy if they didn<t co&&*nicate and -lan with each other.

So of course the 2oard of irectors of >eneral Motors -lans) the sa&eway the National Sec*rity 'o*ncil -lans) and the National +ssociation ofMan*fact*rers< P.R. agencies -lan. 0 &ean) this was a tr*is& to +da&



S&ith? if yo* read +da& S&ith classical econo&istO) he says that e,eryti&e two b*siness&en get together in a roo&) yo* cna be s*re there<s so&e

-lan being coo(ed *- which is going to ha&r the -*blic. eah) how co*ld it be otherwiseI +nd there<s nothing -artic*larly new abo*t this4as S&ith -ointed o*t o,er two h*ndred years ago) the A&asters of &an(ind)A as hecalled the&) will do what they ha,e to in order to follow Athe ,ile &a1i&A?Aall for o*rsel,es and nothing for anyone else.A ;3 eah) and when they<re inthe National Sec*rity 'o*ncil) or the 2*siness Ro*ndtable a nationalorganiGation co&-osed of the '.E.!.s of $%% &a or cor-orationsO) or the restof these elite -lanning for*&s) they ha,e e1tre&e -ower behind the&. +ndyes) they<re -lanning44-lanning ,ery caref*lly.

Now) the only significant *estion to as( is) is it intelligent -lanningI!(ay) that de-ends on what the goals are. 0f the goals are to &a1i&iGe cor4

-orate -rofits for to&orrow) then it<s ,ery intelligent -lanning. 0f the goalsare to ha,e a world where yo*r children can s*r,i,e) then it<s co&-letelyidiotic. 2*t that second thing really isn<t a -art of the ga&e. 0n fact) it<sinstit*tionaliGed? it<s not that these -eo-le are st*-id) it<s that to the e1tentthat yo* ha,e a co&-etiti,e syste& based on -ri,ate control o,er reso*rces)yo* are forced to &a1i&iGe short4ter& gain. That<s *st an instit*tionalnecessity.

0 &ean) s*--ose there were three car co&-anies? 'hrysler) >eneral Mo4tors) and Bord. +nd s*--ose that one of the& decided to -*t its reso*rcesinto -rod*cing f*el4efficient) *ser4friendly cars which co*ld be a,ailableten years fro& now) and which wo*ld ha,e a &*ch less destr*cti,e i&-acton the en,iron&ent4s*--ose Bord decided to -*t a -ro-ortion of its re4so*rces into that. Well) 'hrysler wouldn"t be -*tting its reso*rces into that)which &eans that they wo*ld *ndersell Bord today) and Bord wo*ldn<t be inthe ga&e ten years fro& now. Well) that<s *st the nat*re of a co&-etiti,esyste&4and that<s e1actly why if yo*<re a &anager yo*<,e got to try to &a(es*re that in the ne1t financial *arter yo*r botto& line shows so&ethinggood) whate,er effects it &ay ha,e a year fro& now? that<s *st -art of theinstit*tional irrationality of the syste&.

0n fact) here 0 &*st say 0 wo*ld li(e to co&-lain abo*t a recent co,er of Maga ine. 0 had an article in there) and on the co,er there was the title?A'or-orate >reed.A 2*t that<s *st an abs*rd -hrase. ;$ 0 &ean) to tal( abo*tAcor-orate greedA is li(e tal(ing abo*t A&ilitary wea-onsA or so&ethingli(e that4there *st is no other -ossibility. + cor-oration is so&ething that istrying to &a1i&iGe -ower and -rofit? that<s what it is. There is noA-heno&enonA of cor-orate greed) and we sho*ldn<t &islead -eo-le intothin(ing there is. 0t<s li(e tal(ing abo*t Arobber<s greedA or so&ething li(ethat4it<s not a &eaningf*l thing) it<s &isleading. + cor-oration<s -*r-ose isto &a1i&iGe -rofit and &ar(et share and ret*rn to in,estors) and all that(ind of st*ff) and if its officers don"t -*rs*e that goal) for one thing they arelegally liable for not -*rs*ing it. There 0 agree with Milton Bried&an

right4wing econo&istO and those g*ys? if yo*<re a '.E.!.) yo* &*st dothat4otherwise yo*<re in dereliction of d*ty) in fact dereliction of offi4

.)Q J




cial legal d*ty. ;: +nd besides that) if yo* don<t do it) yo*<ll get (ic(ed o*t by the shareholders or the 2oard of irectors) and yo* won<t be there ,erylong anyway.

So in a sense the -lanning is Abad)A if yo* li(e4li(e it<s st*-id to destroy>eorges 2an( if yo*<re thin(ing abo*t fi,e years fro& now. 2*t it<s not st*4

-id if yo*<re thin(ing of to&orrow<s -rofits. +nd 0 thin( the *estion weneed to as( is) which of those things are we concerned abo*tI

0n fact) it<s interesting to loo( at the history of the go,ern&ent reg*latorysyste& in the United States in this conte1t4things li(e the 0.'.'. 0nterstate'o&&erce 'o&&issionO and so on. "ee- in &ind that these go,ern&entalreg*latory agencies were &ostly instit*ted by b*siness itself) -artic*larlyca-ital4intensi,e) internationally4oriented big b*siness4beca*se they rec4ogniGed that the -redatory nat*re of ca-italis& was *st going to destroye,erything if they didn<t bring it *nder control so&ehow. So they wantedreg*lation to (ee- things (ind of organiGed4 *st li(e they wanted labor*nions) and they wanted the New eal -rogra&s. 0n fact) if yo* loo( at&any of the things that ha,e really i&-ro,ed the co*ntry) li(e the New

eal -rogra&s in the 3;:%s) for e1a&-le Kwhich at least -artially bro*ghtthe United States into the &ain fra&ewor( of ind*strial societies withres-ect to social -rogra&sL) a lot of the dri,e behind the& was co&ing fro&

big b*siness) as o--osed to s&all b*siness.

See) big cor-orations li(e >eneral Electric and so on4which are ca-ital4intensi,e) and ha,e relati,ely s&all labor forces and an international orien4tation4they s*--orted the New eal &eas*res. 0t was &ore &ainstrea&

b*sinesses who o--osed the New eal) li(e &edi*&4le,el ind*stry) &e&4 bers of the National +ssociation of Man*fact*rers and so on4beca*se theyweren<t ca-ital4intensi,e) and they had large labor forces) and didn<t sell tointernational &ar(ets) therefore they didn<t benefit -artic*larly fro& New

eal -rogra&s. 2*t for a big cor-oration li(e >.E.) it was better to ha,e anorganiGed wor(force that wo*ldn<t carry o*t wildcat stri(es) and that yo*co*ld be s*re was going to wor( -retty reg*larly e,en if yo* had to -aythe& a little bit &ore) and so on and so forth. ;8 That<s also why big b*sinesshas tended to s*--ort the e1istence of *nions4+&erican4style *nions4to acertain e1tent? beca*se they (now the syste&<s going to self4destr*ct if

there aren<t de,ices aro*nd to bring things *nder control.+s a &atter of fact) one as-ect of the recent shift we<,e seen in +&erican

-olitics is that big b*siness is not in s*ch good sha-e in this res-ect. Theg*ys who too( o,er 'ongress in 3;;8 are not -ro4big b*siness in this way4they are not the sort of -eo-le who want an organiGed) -lanned society.See) big b*siness is (ind of 'o&&*nist? they want a -owerf*l state or4ganiGing things in their long4ter& interests. +nd the g*ys who ca&e into

-ower with Newt >ingrich in 3;;8 are a so&ewhat different breed. They<re&ore li(e the old National +ssociation of Man*fact*rers4ty-es whoo--osed the New eal) and there<s also this frea(ish f*nda&entalistele&ent a&ong the&) which is e1tre&ely -owerf*l in the United States. 0



Chapter 'en 3 3

&ean) this is not so &*ch tr*e of >ingrich hi&self4>ingrich is sort of &orereasonable) he<s *st a fla( for big b*siness. 2*t the -eo-le he organiGed arefanatics) es-ecially what they call the A'hristian RightA4they<re -eo-le whowant &oney to&orrow) they don<t care what ha--ens to the world twoinches down the road) they don<t care what ha--ens to anybody else) they<redee-ly irrational. +nd they<re totalitarian? des-ite what they say) they infact want a ,ery -owerf*l state) b*t only to order -eo-le aro*nd and tellthe& how to li,e) and to throw the& in ail if they ste- the wrong way) and

so on) a National Sec*rity State basically. Well) that<s a real basis forfascis&4and big b*siness and a lot of other -owerf*l -eo-le are ,eryworried abo*t it.

0n fact) if yo* loo(ed at the f*nding for the whole >ingrich &o,e&ent) itwas *ite interesting. The Wall Street ournal had an article on it after the'ongressional elections in 3;;8) and it t*rned o*t that the &ain -eo-le whowere f*nding the& were at the fringes of the econo&y? 0 thin( the biggestf*nder was +&way a direct4sales co&-any so&ewhat li(e a -yra&idsche&eO) which is basically a sca& o-eration) and the other big ones werethings li(e Ahedge f*ndsA4not the real bro(erage ho*ses) b*t the onesaro*nd the fringe of Wall Street who lend yo* h*ge a&o*nts of &oney for,ery ris(y loans. +nd then there was lots of &oney co&ing fro& g*n in4terests) and alcohol interests) and ga&bling interests) and so on. 0 &ean)

these are sectors of b*siness where there<s a ton of &oney) b*t they are notreally a -art of the &ainstrea& econo&y. The >ingrich gro*- wasn<t gettingits f*nding fro& >eneral Electric) let<s say. 0n fact) the only big cor-orationthat was f*nding the& was Phili- Morris a cigarette &an*fact*rerO) and theg*ys at Phili- Morris are &ass &*rderers) so they need go,ern&ent

-rotection and yeah) they<ll f*nd Newt >ingriches. ;5 2*t if yo* loo( at whowas really bac(ing the&) it<s &ostly what are called As&all b*siness&enA44they<re -eo-le in the to- two -ercent of inco&e le,els) let<s say) instead ofthe to- one4half -ercentC they<re what<s referred to as AMain Street)A li(etheir b*sinesses ha,e abo*t fifty e&-loyees or so&ething li(e that. Well)those -eo-le really do want the go,ern&ent o*t of their hair) they don<twant a lot of reg*lations holding the& bac( fro& &a(ing as &*ch &oneyas they can.

J*st to gi,e yo* an e1a&-le) there<s a contractor -ainting &y ho*se rightnow) and 0<,e been tal(ing to him8he"s the (ind of g*y they re-resent. Hehates the go,ern&ent) beca*se the go,ern&ent doesn<t let hi& *se lead inthe -aint) and it &a(es hi& -ay wor(ers< co&-ensation to his wor(ers whenthey get h*rt) things li(e that. He *st wants to get all this st*ff o*t of hishair so he can go o*t there and &a(e &oney) do whate,er he feels li(e. o*tell hi&) AWell) (ids will die of lead -oisoning if yo* *se leaded -aint.A Hesays) A+hh) a lot of go,ern&ent b*rea*crats &ade that *-) what do they(nowI 0<,e been breathing lead all &y life and loo( at &e) 0<& healthy as ahorse.A That<s the sort of attit*de that<s been s*--orting this &o,e&ent4and0 thin( big b*siness is ,ery worried abo*t it.




0f yo* want to get a sense of what it<s li(e) @ortune &agaGine in its Beb4r*ary <;5 iss*e had a co,er4story on the attit*des of '.E.!.s towards what<s

been going on in Washington. These g*ys are worried4and the reason whythey<re worried is *ite si&-le? these '.E.!.s are what<s called Aliberal.A 0&ean) they lo,e the fact that wages are going down) and that -rofits areshooting thro*gh the roof) and that en,iron&ental laws are being loosened)and that welfare is being c*t4all that st*ff is *st great to the&. 2*t if yo*loo( at so&e of their -ersonal attit*des) they<re abo*t as far away fro& the'hristian Right as the Har,ard fac*lty is. ;6 They are &ilitantly -ro4abortionon de&and. They belie,e in wo&en<s rights4li(e) they want their da*ghtersto ha,e career o--ort*nities. They don<t want their (ids to ha,e to st*dy

*cifer and 2east 666 in school. They don<t want &aniacs r*nning aro*ndwith assa*lt rifles beca*se the blac( helico-ters are bringing aliens in) orwhate,er the latest frenGy is. 2*t the troo-s that they<,e &obiliGed are inthat do&ain. The so4called 'hristian Right) for one) *st ha,e a differentagenda. +nd 0 thin( big b*siness is worried abo*t the&? the '.E.!.s don<twant that (ind of fascis&. +nd that<s why by now) if yo* ta(e a loo() yo*<llsee that big cor-orations ha,e tended to line *- with the 'linton ad&inis4tration.

Ta(e so&ething li(e science -olicy. These A>ingrich ar&yA 4ty-es don<tsee any -oint in science4it<s *st a b*nch of -ointy4headed intellect*als) who

needs thatI !n the other hand) big cor-orations *nderstand that if they wantto (ee- &a(ing -rofits fi,e years fro& now) there<d better be so&e science being f*nded today4and of co*rse) they don<t want to -ay for it the&sel,es)they want the -*blic to -ay for it) thro*gh *ni,ersity science de-art&entsand so on. They want the go,ern&ent to (ee- f*nding science) so whenso&e disco,ery co&es along they can then ri- it off and &a(e the &oneyoff it. Well) *st a little while ago) a b*nch of the big cor-orate heads wrotea oint letter to the Ho*se science co&&ittee as(ing the& to contin*e highle,els of f*nding for *ni,ersity4based science and research -rogra&s4 *stthe thing the Re-*blican 'ongress wants to c*t44beca*se their ob isn"t *stto -o*r lead -aint on so&ebody<s ho*se? these g*ys (now that they are notgoing to be in the ga&e a co*-le years fro& now *nless U.S. sciencecontin*es to -rod*ce things for the& to e1-loit. So by this -oint) they are

getting ,ery worried that these Newt >ingrich4ty-es &ight go too far andstart c*tting down the -arts of the state syste& that are welfare for them8which of co*rse is *nacce-table.

What<s ha--ened is act*ally -retty intrig*ing) if yo* thin( abo*t it. 0&ean) for the -ast fifty years +&erican b*siness has been organiGing a&a or class war) and they needed troo-s4there are ,otes after all) and yo*can<t *st co&e before the electorate and say) ADote for &e) 0<& trying toscrew yo*.A So what they<,e had to do is a--eal to the -o-*lation on so&eother gro*nds. Well) there aren<t a lot of other gro*nds) and e,erybodyalways -ic(s the sa&e ones) whether his na&e is Hitler or anything else444

ingois&) racis&) fear) religio*s f*nda&entalis&? these are the ways of a-4



Chapter 'en 3 =

-ealing to -eo-le if yo*<re trying to organiGe a &ass base of s*--ort for -olicies that are really intended to cr*sh the&. +nd they<,e done it) b*si4ness had to do it4and now after fifty years they<,e got a tiger by the tail.

+ct*ally) the >er&an b*siness&en who s*--orted Hitler were -robablythin(ing abo*t the sa&e thing in 3;:9 and <:7. They<d been -erfectly ha--yto -ayoff the NaGis to organiGe the -o-*lation on the basis of fear) hatred)racis&) and ingois&) in order to beat down the >er&an labor &o,e&entand (ill off the 'o&&*nists there4b*t of co*rse) once the NaGis got into

-ower) they had their own agenda. The big ind*strialists in >er&any didnot want a war with the West4b*t by then it was too late.

Now) 0 don<t want to say that this is NaGi >er&any) b*t there is a si&i4larity4 *st as there<s a si&ilarity to -ost4"ho&eini 0ran. 0 &ean) 0ranian

b*siness strongly o--osed the Shah the 0ranian &onarch who r*led theco*ntry *ntil 3;9;O) beca*se they didn<t li(e the fact that he controlled thestate &ono-olies) es-ecially the National 0ranian !il 'o&-any4and as ares*lt they wanted to see hi& o,erthrown) and they needed so&ebody to doit. Well) the only forces they co*ld a--eal to were the &o,e&ents in thestreets) and those g*ys were being organiGed by f*nda&entalist clerics. Soas a res*lt they o,erthrew the Shah alright) b*t they also got "ho&eini andall these f*nda&entalist &aniacs r*nning aro*nd) which they didn<t li(e.

Well) so&ething si&ilar has been ha--ening in the United States and

-eo-le are worried abo*t it. 0ncidentally) 0 thin( this is also why we<re nowstarting to get editorials in the $ew %or& 'imes defending the co*nter4c*lt*re. ;9 +nd *st to tell yo* a -ersonal thing) recently there was a fa,or4able re,iew of a boo( of &ine in the (oston Dlobe. That is *nbelie,able. ;7 0&ean) it co*ldn<t possibly ha,e ha--ened a co*-le years ago. There ha,ee,en been so&e disc*ssions in the -ress of Aclass warA4that<s a conce-t thatis *s*ally *n&entionable in the U.S. ;; +nd 0 thin( it<s beca*se a lot of elitesare really r*nning scared these days. They thin(? A oo() we<,e *nleashedthe de&on4now it<s going to go after the interests of really rich -eo-le.A Theonly way they<,e been able to (ee- their -ower is by waging a h*ge

-ro-aganda war) and that has now bro*ght *- g*ys who are li(e s*icide bo&bers) and who thin( that wo&en o*ght to be dri,en bac( to the ho&eand sh*t *-) and who want to ha,e twel,e assa*lt rifles in their closets) and

so on. Well) they don<t li(e that) and now they<re starting to get scared.

ist"rbed Pop"lations Stirring

W+M*$, /ow do you thin& it"s all going to play out) then8do you seethe *merican political system heading for a civil war0

Well) in general 0 don<t thin( yo* can &a(e -redictions li(e that4whenwe tal( abo*t -redictions) we<re *st tal(ing abo*t int*itions) and &ine are




no better than anybody else<s. 2*t 0 do feel this -eriod is (ind of a t*rning -oint. 0 &ean) yo* can see ,ery clearly where -olicy is dri,ing -eo-le) andyo* (now e1actly what its goals are. The only *estion yo* can<t answer ishow the -o-*lation is going to react as they get sla&&ed in the face4andthey are getting sla&&ed in the face. !ne way it co*ld go wo*ld be li(ethe b*ilding of the '.0.!. an integrated &ass *nion for&ed in 3;:5O) or the'i,il Rights and fe&inist &o,e&ents) or the Breedo& Rides whites and

blac(s rode b*ses together into the +&erican So*th in 3;63 to challengesegregation lawsO. !ther ways it co*ld go wo*ld be NaGis&) "ho&eini<s0ran) 0sla&ic f*nda&entalis& in +lgeria4those are all ways -eo-le co*ld gotoo.

2*t the co*ntry is ,ery dist*rbed. o* can see it in -olls) and yo* cancertainly see it tra,eling aro*nd4and 0 tra,el aro*nd a lot. There<s co&-letedisaffection abo*t e,erything. Peo-le don<t tr*st anyone) they thin( e,ery4one<s lying to the&) e,eryone<s wor(ing for so&ebody else. The whole ci,ilsociety has co&-letely bro(en down. +nd when yo* tal( abo*t the &ood of

-eo-le4well) whether it<s on right4wing tal( radio) or a&ong st*dents) or *st a&ong the general -o-*lation) yo* get a ,ery good rece-tion thesedays for the (inds of things 0 tal( abo*t. 2*t it<s scary4beca*se if yo* ca&eand told -eo-le) A'linton<s organiGing a U.N. ar&y with aliens to co&e andcarry o*t genocide) yo*<d better go to the hills)A yo*<d get the sa&e fa,or4

able res-onse. That<s the -roble&4yo*<d get the sa&e fa,orable res-onse. 0&ean) yo* can go to the &ost reactionary -arts of the co*ntry) or anywhereelse) and a tho*sand -eo-le will show *- to listen) and they<ll be reallye1cited abo*t what yo*<re saying4no &atter what it is. That<s the tro*ble? it<sno matter what it is. 2eca*se -eo-le are so disill*sioned by this -oint thatthey will belie,e al&ost anything.

Ta(e these g*ys in what are called the A&ilitiasA40 &ean) ob,io*slythey<re not &ilitias in the Second +&end&ent sense? A&ilitiasA are thingsraised by states) these are *st -ara&ilitary organiGations. 3%% 2*t if yo* loo(at who<s in,ol,ed in the&) they are -eo-le fro& a sector of the -o-*lationthat has really gotten it in the nec( in the last twenty years? they<re highschool grad*ates) &ostly white &ales) a seg&ent of the society that has re4ally ta(en a beating. 0 &ean) &edian real wages in the United States ha,edro--ed abo*t $% -ercent since 3;9:4that<s a s*bstantial c*t. 3%3 Their wi,esnow ha,e to go to wor( *st to -*t food on the table. !ften their fa&iliesha,e bro(en *-. Their (ids are r*nning wild) b*t there<s no social s*--ortsyste& anywhere to hel- the& deal with that. They don<t read the 1@ortune5%%A and -*t together an analysis of what<s really going on in the world) allthey<,e had ra&&ed into their heads is) AThe federal go,ern&ent<s yo*rene&y.A 0f yo* co&e to the& with a -olitical fra&ewor( that co*ld lead toso&e (ind of -rod*cti,e4change) it<s all *st another -ower4-lay as far asthey<re concerned44and with so&e *stice? e,erything else they<,e been toldis a croc() so why sho*ld they belie,e yo*I o* tell the& to readdeclassified National Sec*rity 'o*ncil doc*&ents) or to loo( at



Chapter 'en 3 ?

things in the b*siness -ress that wo*ld really &ean so&ething to the&40&ean) a lot of -eo-le don<t e,en read. We sho*ld bear in &ind how illiter4ate the society<s beco&e. 0t<s to*gh.

So these gro*-s certainly re-resent so&ething? they<re a res-onse toshar-ly worsening conditions. 0 &ean) they<re called Aright4wing)A b*t in&y ,iew they<re sort of inde-endent of -olitics4there co*ld be -eo-le on theleft in there too. +ll of this is not so different fro& -eo-le belie,ing con4s-iracy theories abo*t "ennedy<s assassination) or abo*t the Trilateral'o&&ission an elite thin(4tan(O) or the '.0.+. and all the rest of thatst*ff4the things that are *st tearing the left to shreds.

!r ta(e this g*y called the AUnabo&berA a serial &ail4bo&b (iller whoes-o*sed an anti4ind*strial world,iewO. When 0 read his &anifesto) 0 tho*ght) if 0don<t (now hi&) 0 (now his friends4they<re the (ind of -eo-le 0 r*n into on the leftall the ti&e. They<re de&oraliGed) they<re fed *-) they<re des-erate) b*t they don<tha,e a constr*cti,e res-onse to all the -roble&s we<,e got to face. Then again) the

.+. riots in 3;;$O also weren<t a constr*cti,e res-onse. 0n fact) all thesereactions) fro& theA &ilitias)A to cons-iracy theories) to the Unabo&ber) to the

.+. riots) they<re all the res*lt of a (ind of colla-se of ci,il society in the UnitedStates. The ,estiges of an integrated) socially cohesi,e) f*nctioning society) withso&e (ind L of solidarity and contin*ity to it) ha,e *st been destroyed here. 0t<shard to i&agine a better way to de&oraliGe -eo-le than to ha,e the& watch T.D.

for se,en ho*rs a day4b*t that<s -retty &*ch what -eo-le ha,e been red*ced to bynow.0n fact) all of these things really ill*strate the difference between co&-letely

de&oraliGed societies li(e o*rs and societies that are still (ind of hangingtogether) li(e in a lot of the Third World. 0 &ean) in absol*te ter&sthe Mayan 0ndians in 'hia-as) Me1ico who organiGed the a-atista rebellionin 3;;8O) are &*ch -oorer than the -eo-le in So*th 'entral os +ngeles) or inMichigan or Montana4&*ch -oorer. 2*t they ha,e a ci,il society that hasn<t

been totally eli&inated the way the wor(ing4class c*lt*re we *sed to ha,e inthe United States was. 'hia-as is one of the &ost i&-o,erished areas of theHe&is-here) b*t beca*se there<s still a li,ely) ,ibrant society there) with ac*lt*ral tradition of freedo& and social organiGation) the Mayan 0ndian

-easants were able to res-ond in a highly constr*cti,e way4they organiGed the

'hia-as rebellion) they ha,e -ro4gra&s and -ositions) they ha,e -*blic s*--ort) it<s been going so&ewhere.So*th 'entral os +ngeles) on the other hand) was *st a riot? it was the re4action of a co&-letely de&oraliGed) de,astated) -oor wor(ing4class -o-*lation)with nothing at all to bring it together. +ll the -eo-le co*ld do there was&indless lashing o*t) *st go steal fro& the stores. The only effect of that is)we<ll b*ild &ore ails.

So to answer yo*r *estion) 0 thin( it<s ,ery &*ch *- in the air what<sgoing to ha--en in the United States. See) there<s an e1-eri&ent going on.The e1-eri&ent is? can yo* &arginaliGe a large -art of the -o-*lation) re4



3 ! 2nderstanding #ower

gard the& as s*-erfl*o*s beca*se they<re not hel-ing yo* &a(e those daG4Gling -rofits4and can yo* set *- a world in which -rod*ction is carried o*t

by the &ost o--ressed -eo-le) with the fewest rights) in the &ost fle1iblelabor &ar(ets) for the ha--iness of the rich -eo-le of the worldI 'an yo*do thatI 'an yo* get wo&en in 'hina to wor( loc(ed into factories wherethey<re b*rned to death in fires) -rod*cing toys that are sold in stores in

New or( and 2oston so that rich -eo-le can b*y the& for their children at'hrist&asI 3%$ 'an yo* ha,e an econo&y where e,erything wor(s li(ethat4-rod*ction by the &ost i&-o,erished and e1-loited) for the richest and&ost -ri,ileged) internationallyI +nd with large -arts of the general

-o-*lation *st &arginaliGed beca*se they don<t contrib*te to the syste&44in'olo&bia) &*rdered) in New or() loc(ed *- in -rison. 'an yo* do thatIWell) nobody (nows the answer to that *estion. o* as() co*ld it lead to aci,il warI 0t definitely co*ld) it co*ld lead to *-risings) re,olts.

The :erge of !as-ism

+nd there are other things to worry abo*t too) li(e the fact that theUnited States is s*ch an e1tre&ely f*nda&entalist co*ntry4and also s*ch an*n*s*ally frightened one. 0 &ean) we beca&e (ind of a la*ghingstoc( to therest of the world d*ring the 3;7%s? e,ery ti&e Reagan wo*ld anno*nceso&e ibyan terrorist action or so&ething) the entire to*ris& ind*stry inE*ro-e wo*ld colla-se) beca*se e,erybody in the United States was afraidto go to E*ro-e4where they<re abo*t a h*ndred ti&es as safe as in any+&erican city4for fear there &ight be so&e +rab l*r(ing aro*nd the cor4ners there trying to (ill the&. That<s literally the case) it beca&e a real o(earo*nd the world4and it<s *st another sign of how &*ch e1tre&e irra4tionality and fear there is in the U.S. -o-*lation.

+nd that<s a ,ery dangero*s -heno&enon4beca*se that (ind of dee- ir4rationality can readily be whi--ed *- by de&agog*es) yo* (now) Newt>ingriches. These g*ys can whi- *- fear) hatred) they can a--eal to f*nda4&entalist *rges4and that<s been scaring &ost of the world for a while) 0sho*ld say. Bor e1a&-le) if yo* recall the Re-*blican National 'on,entionin 3;;$) it o-ened with a A>od and 'o*ntryA rally) which was tele,ised andseen aro*nd the world. 0n E*ro-e -artic*larly it really sent chills *-

-eo-le<s s-ines4beca*se they re&e&ber Hitler<s N*re&berg rallies) at leastolder -eo-le do) and it had so&ething of that tone. Well) the Re-*blicanswere able to ins*late the 'on,ention fro& it that ti&e aro*nd and (ee-&ost of that st*ff confined to the first night) b*t in the f*t*re they &ight not

be able to do that4in the f*t*re those -eo-le &ight ta(e the 'on,entiono,er) in which case we<d be ,ery close to so&e +&erican ,ersion offascis&C it &ay not be Hitler >er&any) b*t it<ll be bad eno*gh.

0t<s in fact a ,ery si&ilar sit*ation? >er&any in the 3;:%s was &aybe the&ost ci,iliGed and ad,anced co*ntry in the world) tho*gh with -lenty of



Chapter 'en 3

-roble&s) and it was *ite -ossible there to whi- *- hatred and fear) to &o4 biliGe -eo-le) and in fact to carry o*t what fro& their -oint of ,iew was so4cial de,elo-&ent4with conse *ences that yo*<re fa&iliar with. eah) whyare we differentI We<,e got the sa&e genes) and the conditions in the c*l4t*re which &ight be a -art of the bac(gro*nd for it certainly already e1ist.

+ct*ally) 0 thin( that the United States has been in (ind of a -re4fascist&ood for years4and we<,e been ,ery l*c(y that e,ery leader who<s co&ealong has been a croo(. See) -eo-le sho*ld always be ,ery &*ch in fa,or of

corr*-tion40<& not (idding abo*t that. 'orr*-tion<s a ,ery good thing) beca*se it *nder&ines -ower. 0 &ean) if we get so&e Ji& 2a((er co&ingalong4yo* (now) this -reacher who was ca*ght slee-ing with e,erybodyand defra*ding his followers4those g*ys are fine? all they want is &oneyand se1 and ri--ing -eo-le off) so they<re ne,er going to ca*se &*ch tro*4

ble. !r ta(e Ni1on) say? an ob,io*s croo() he<s *lti&ately not going toca*se that &*ch of a -roble&. 2*t if so&ebody shows *- who<s (ind of aHitler4ty-e4 *st wants -ower) no corr*-tion) straight) &a(es it all so*nda--ealing) and says) AWe want -owerA4well) then we<ll all be in ,ery badtro*ble. Now) we ha,en<t had the right -erson yet in the United States) b*tsooner or later so&ebody<s going to fill that -osition4and if so) it will behighly dangero*s.

!n the other hand) tho*gh) 0 thin( yo* can also i&agine things going

*ite differently. The sit*ation *st is ,ery -liable at this -oint in the UnitedStates. 0 &ean) these sa&e g*ys who are blowing *- !(laho&a 'ity go,4ern&ent b*ildings in 3;;5O co*ld be doing what they wo*ld ha,e beendoing si1ty years ago) which is organiGing the '.0.!.4the sa&e g*ys. 0t re4ally *st de-ends on whether -eo-le start doing so&ething abo*t it. +ndthere are also other things here that are ,ery healthy as well) and can be

b*ilt on. Bor instance) there<s a strea( of inde-endence and o--osition toa*thority in the United States which -robably is *ni *e in the world. !b,i4o*sly it can show *- in anti4social ways) li(e r*nning aro*nd with assa*ltrifles and so on. 2*t it can show *- in ,ery healthy ways too) and the tric(is to &a(e it show *- in the healthy ways) li(e o--osition to illegiti&ate a*4thority.

So yo* (now) it<s co&-licated. 'o*ld there be a ci,il warI 0t co*ld be,ery *n-leasant. + lot of ,ery *gly things co*ld ha--en) they<re not incon4cei,able. 2*t they<re also not ine,itable.

W+M*$, 6"ve often heard you end tal&s by saying basically) 1We can"t giveup hope.1 (ut do you really see any hope8for the future of democracy) or

for the 2nited States) or for the people in the 'hird World0

Well) 0<ll *ote &y friend Mi(e +lbert co4editor of Maga ine<) whowas listening to one of &y gloo&y dis *isitions and said? A o* (now) whatyo*<re describing is an organiGer<s drea&.A +nd 0 thin( that<s tr*e. Theco*ntry is in a state where -eo-le are disill*sioned) frightened) s(e-tical)



can *st see it if yo* loo( down fro& the -lane? on one side it<s brown) onthe other side it<s sort of se&i4green. The brown side is Haiti) the richest

-lace in the world. 0t &ay not last another co*-le decades4literally it &ay beco&e *ninhabitable.

Well) that<s e1tending elsewhere now) and it in,ol,es *s too. The rich and -owerf*l are going to s*r,i,e longer) b*t the effects are ,ery real44andthey<re getting worse ,ery *ic(ly as &ore and &ore -eo-le get&arginaliGed beca*se they -lay no role in -rofit4&a(ing) which isconsidered the only h*&an ,al*e. Well) the en,iron&ental -roble&s aresi&-ly &*ch &ore significant in scale than anything else in the -ast. +ndthere<s a fair -ossibility4certainly a -ossibility high eno*gh so that norational -erson lid e1cl*de it4that within a co*-le h*ndred years the world<swater4le,el will ha,e risen to the -oint that &ost of h*&an life will ha,e

been destroyed. +lright) if we don<t start to do so&ething abo*t that now)it<s not i&-ossible that that<ll ha--en. 0n fact) it<s e,en li(ely.

So whate,er 6 ha--en to thin() that<s irrele,ant. The answer to yo*r*estion is? if yo* re&ain &arginaliGed) there<s not going to be &*ch history

to worry abo*t. Whether -eo-le will react or not) who (nowsI o* (nowIE,eryone<s got to decide.

Inde4



Note that additional &aterial on these to-ics can be fo*nd in the onlinefootnotes at www.*nderstanding-ower.co&.

+bd*llah) (ing of Trans ordan)3:$3::

+bolitionist Mo,e&ent) 3$%) 3:6)3;$)

$$8)$:$)$66)$67):55):56):77 abortion) 3%3):56):5745;):;8+chbar) Mar() :374$3) :$8) :$5acti,is&?

achie,e&ents of) 348) 6) 3$)7747;)3%845)373478)377)3;%4;3)$%546)$65)$;94;;)::%):5%) :55

boycotts) ::94:;diffic*lties of)

:)3%:)3$3)39;)37$)37:478)375)376)377)3;$)$%84;)$3%433)$3$438):$64:3) ::6):8%):;9

in 'anada) 3%3)3%$4:)$%7 and internet)$9649;getting in,ol,ed in)

3;$4;:):53:55heroes of) ;8 b*ilding international

&o,e&ents) :7:47;leadershi- in) 37747;&edia re-orts of)

7;)$%5)$6$) $65466&ethods *sed in) 3%:45)

39;47%)37$)37:478)375)37;4;%)3;34;:)3;8)$3:438)$79477) :3;4$$):$8):$6)::34::)::84:5):55):76):77

-otential for)96)3$%4$:)39;)3;34;$)3;8)$%5)$66):55) :;;48%%

in western E*ro-e) 3%34$ see also specific

issues +da&s) JohnF*incy) 387 +dda&s)Jane) ::$+dit ondro) >eorge)$;;4:%% +d,ertising'o*ncil) :75 +.E .'. K+idfor Ba&ilies With

e-endent 'hildrenL) :69):6;49%

+fghanistan?So,iet in,asion of) 79) 33:)$76477 terrorist networ( in) 5U.S. aid to) 355

+.E . K+&erican Bederation ofaborL):89):75

+frica?econo&ic de,elo-&ent in)65466 effects of coloniGationin) :38 recoloniGation of)396U.S. inter,ention in) 5)3$6

agric*lt*re) go,ern&ents*bsidiGation

of) 9$) 3;5)$8%+.0.M. K+cc*racy in MediaL)$9 +ir 0ndia -lane) bo&bed)$; +lbert) Michael) :$3)::3) :;; +lbright)Madeleine) 35% +lgeria)$9$) :;6+llende) Sal,ador) 6+llon) igal) 3::alternati,e &edia) see&edia +lth*sser) o*is)$:3+&erican Re,ol*tion) 3:)67)3%$)

3$3)$35)$57)$69467)$;3 +&ericas Watch) 358+&nesty 0nternational) 389anarchis&)3;54$%8)$$$4$:):88):86anarcho4syndicalis&) 35;)$$$4$:+nderson) 2en) $;5+ngola) 5) $;

*nimal @arm K!rwellL)333

ani&al rights) :56) :59457+nti4 efa&ation eag*e)5$45:)

$%649anti4hate laws) in 'anada)$9349$ anti4i&&igrantca&-aigns) 396 Aanti4intellect*alis&)A ;54;7 anti4n*clear &o,e&ent) 67)378476anti4war &o,e&ents) :34:6);84;5)3%3)3%8)37%478)377)3;%)$%546)$6:):$7):5%):55a-artheid) 7747;) :%546) :3:

453

http://www.understandingpower.com./

http://www.understandingpower.com./



4.4 6ndex

*ppeal to Reason)?! +rab eag*e)

:%8 +rabs?anti4+rab racis&) 99) 3$7) 3:%)367 in !cc*-ied Territories)67)3:%4:3 -olicies towardM*sli&s) 358455 see also 0srael)Palestine

+rab terroris&) 9947$)369 +rafat) asir)

398):3343$ +rce)Horacio) 5 +rgentina)65) $3%A +riasA -lan) 336+ristide) Jean42ertrand) 355456)

357) 36%+ristotle) $:5ar&s race) 3) 9%496) 79) :%845C see

also &ilitary s-endingar&s sales) U.S.) 649)3$6)$;54;7):%5 +sante (ingdo&)65466

*sian Wall Street ournal) 3+*stralia) $%7) $8:) $58)$;64;9)

$;;4:%%):$5a*to&ation) $5746%+,iles) Dictoria de)387

2agdi(ian) 2en) 3%62ailey) Tho&as) $352a(er) Ja&es +. 000)$56 2a((er) Ji&):;;2a(*nin) Mi(hail)$$64$9 2angladesh)$59 2ant*stans) :%546):%9 2arbie) "la*s) 36:2arcelona) $$:2arre) Siad) 36:468

2aGin) Marc)356 2ea&ish)Rita) 35$2eilin) ossi)3$;4:% 2ellow)Sa*l) $852engal) $592en4>*rion) a,id)3::4:8 2ennett)Willia&) $:5 2erlin)disco bo&bing) 972ernal) John es&ond)::$ 2ernstein) Richard)75476 2i1) Herbert) $8:2lac( Panthers)89)33743;)$3% 2loo&)+llan) 3;;)$::4:8)$:52l*ndy) a,id) 7$2oeing cor-oration) :672olshe,i(s) 8%) 383) $$84$6C see

also R*ssia2onner) Ray&ond)$34$$ 2osnia) 393

(oston Dlobe) $$) $;) 5:) 3%9)3%7)$%5)$93)$9$)$7;)$;7):$8):$;):;5

boycotts) ::94:;2randeis) o*is .) $6;

(randenburg v. +hio) ?58?2raGil)65)38$)38:)389)387)$78)

:3:):78

2rennan) Willia& J.) Jr.) $9%2retton Woods syste&) 33;):9749; (right Shining 7ie) *KSheehanL):$4:: 2ritish2roadcasting 'or-oration

K22'L)73)$%7)$9$ 2ritishE&-ire?

cost to &aintain) 69and ind*strialiGation)

$59457 2rodhead) Bran()36$2rown) John) 3$%2*chanan) Pat) :3%2*lgaria) 38$):%74;2*ndy) Mc>eorge) 649)7)83)33; 2*rson4Marsteller)0nc.) $;72*sh) >eorge H. W.?

and '*ba) 35%and Pana&a) 35$)35: and religion) 53

2*sh ad&inistration?and >*lf War)36649%)$68 and Haiti)35645;and 0ra ) 36;and neo4NaGis) 5345:

2*siness Ro*ndtable) :;3 (usiness Wee&) $:) :$8):8%

'ahill) "e,in) $3'a&bodia) ;%) ;3) ;$4;:)

33;4$%) $%6)$;5'a&elot) :5%453'anada?

acti,is& in) 3%3)3%$4:)$%7 boo(s b*rnedin) $%74;and East Ti&or) $;6and free trade) 5745;) $7%47$)$;3)

:7:freedo& of s-eech in)$9349$ f*nda&entalistreligion in) 5% health carein) ::8) ::54:6 historicaldifferences with U.S.)

3%$4:)::54:6labor &o,e&ent in) ::84:6):8$ &edia in) $%7) $774;3&igration to) 3%$F*ebec se-aratis& in)

3%:)$;3$;$



social de&ocrats in)3%$)::84:6 ta1es in) :6;and Dietna& War)

$;% 'anby) Dincent):$% cancer research)$75476 'arlson)

a,id) $;'arter) Ji&&y) in Haiti)359 'arterad&inistration?

and East Ti&or) $;5)$;6 h*&an rights in):48and atin +&erica) 8and &edia) $%&ilitary s-ending by) :

'artesian tho*ght) $36):59457'astro) Bidel) 7)$9)38748;'ater-illar cor-oration stri(e):83)

:7:478'atholic 'h*rch) 358) 36:)$%9)

$:34:$'ha&bliss) Willia&) :9:'ha&orro) Dioleta) 3%649) 3%;)

33% 'hia-as rebellion) Me1ico):;9 'hico State Uni,ersity) 369children?

(idna--ing of)389487 labor by) 389in -o,erty) 5;46%)

:6:49% 'hile) +llendeco*- in) 6) 9'hina) ;3)38$)39$49:)$;$4;8):%7)

:96):;7'hristian Right) :3%) :;:):;8 Christian Science

Monitor) 44 'h*rchill)Winston) 388485 '.0.+.?

and +frica) 3$6and +ir 0ndia -lane) $;and cons-iracy theories) :8;):;9 in 0taly) 363) 36$46:and atin +&erica) 6) 9) 74;)

336) 35$45:)356'.0.!. K'ongress of 0nd*strial

!rganiGationsL) for&ation of)$38) :;6):;;

ci,il disobedience) 376) 379'i,il Rights Mo,e&ent) 67) 7;) ;8)

;5) 3%3)3%8)3:6)37;)$38)$67)$9%)::%):5%):;6

'lar() Ra&sey) 373classical liberalis&) $36)$$34$$ 'linton ad&inistration)388) 35%)

35645;)$73)$;9)$;7):%3):%9)::6):83):66):6749:):7%):7$47:):79

'li,e) Robert) $59

6ndex 45=

Closing of the *merican Mind)'he K2loo&L) 3;;)$::4:8

'obb 'o*nty) >eorgia) :95499'oc(b*rn) +le1ander) 3%6) 3%7)33$)

335)3$$)3:7)369)$9$'oc(b*rn) +ndrew) $7) 7:'oc(b*rn) eslie) $7'!0NTE PR!) 339437) 3$%'old War) :9483)38$485):%845 'olo&bia) 388)389):9$ 'ol*&bia Uni,ersity):55'ol*&b*s) 'hristo-her)3:54:6)8%%Commentary) 4'o&&*nist Party) U.S.) 3%8)

399497) 37;co&-*ters) de,elo-&ent in

&ilitary syste&) 9$) $83):67

con,ersion) of econo&y) 95496C see also &ilitary s-endingcons-iracy theories) $6) :$7):87453) :;%4;5):;9'onstit*tion) U.S.) $69467)

:35436) ::8'ontadora treaty) 35$Acontain&ent)A *ses of ter&):948%)83'ontract With +&erica) :66):6946;)

:9:contras) see

Nicarag*a 'oo-er)Mar() 335cor-orations) de,elo-&ent of) 3%$)

3;34;$):85486):89487corr*-tion) -ower *nder&ined by):;; cotton ind*stry) $59'ranston) +lan) 3%9creati,ity) oy of) $%$4:) $36'ri&e 2ill K3;;8L) :93) :9:cri&inal *stice syste&)8;)379)3;3)$;:4;8):9%49:):98495):;7'ro&well) !li,er) 36'*ba) $) 943%)$9)6%)387453)35:)

355)$57)$77'*ban e&ocracy +ct K3;;$L)35% '*ban Missile 'risis) 743%c*lt*re in U.S.) changes in)

3)$5%453) $6:465cybers-ace) and acti,is&)$9649; 'Gech Re-*blic) 38:

anche,) Dladi&ir) 33:dar( &atter) in the *ni,erse)$3; arwin) 'harles) $3;

ebs) E*gene) $6;Adefense)A *se of ter&) :9)83



45> 6ndex

Ade&ocracy)A *ses of ter&)8$)385 e&ocratic National'on,ention

K3;67L);84;5eng =iao-ing) ;3errida) Jac *es)

$:3 -er Spiegel)!5

escartes) Rene) $36)$:$ eweQJohn)$:9)::$)::9 dialectics)$$74:%

iana) Princess)55Adia-erology)A75

ili &assacre) $;9) $;7) $;;disar&a&ent &o,e&ent) 79)378479)

3558 G see also n*clearfreeGe &o,e&ent

oenitG) +d&. "arl) 59ole) 2ob) :3%o&inican Re-*blic) 38;)

358)8%% onah*e) Phil) :3;

onaldson) Sa&) 9;owd) Ma*reen) $68draft) :6

ra-er) Star()3%433 dr*gs?

cities and) 8748;):9349$ contras and) $7Mafia and) 36:

Noriega and) 35$45: -rofitability of) 8;):9$and racis&) 8748;):9349$ and tobacco) :96AWarA on) 8748;)

:9349$ *(a(is) Michael)53) 55 *lles) JohnBoster) 38: *Pont'or-oration) :7;

*,alier fa&ily) 356

earned inco&e ta1 credit)::9 Eastern E*ro-e) :3:East Ti&or) 388)$%6)$%7)$97)$;84:%%):%3):$%):$$):58econo&ic growth) $84$5) 89487)59)

;34;$)38$)$55):9;473Econo&ic Policy 0nstit*te) :7:econo&ics) field of) $$7)$53457 Economist) 'he) $;:):73 econo&y) international)::4:8) 87)

5746%)6$468)66)9:)33;)38%48$)3;5)$8%483)$5846%)$7%4 78) $;3) :$;4:%)::84:5) ::7):99473):7:):79

econo&y) U.S.) b*dget deficits in) :) 59)

:7%:73

free &ar(ets in)9$)3;5)$5346%) $78):76

go,ern&ent s*bsidies in) otherthan &ilitary) 9$49:)3;5)$55459) :6;49%):9:

&ilitary s-ending in) 3)$):):;)9%496)78)3$$4$:)368)3;5)$8%)$83)$55)$5;):%845):67):9:

of 3;;%s) :7$47: -rotectionis& in) $55459)$7%47: regressi,e fiscal&eas*res in) :6;4

:9%and ta1ation) 9349:) :6;and Dietna& War)::4:8)33;):9; see also -o,erty

ed*cation?and acti,is&) 3%:48)

376479) $3343$)::34::dissidence filtered in) 3:) 333)

33$) $:3487f*nction of schools in) $::4:7indoctrination ,ia)33343$)$:3487)

:75

inner4city schools) :8$488 -ri,atiGation of) 343844 -*blic) origins of) 77) $5%to-ics *nst*diable in)$:;48%)

$83488*ni,ersity -*rges in)$8: of wor(ers)::$4::

Egy-t) 3$8) 3$6) 3$94$;)3:$)$59 Einstein) +lbert) $:3elections?

econo&ic iss*es in3;78)59457 f*sioncandidates in) ::9gerry&andering and) :98in 0srael in 3;;6):%543%in Nicarag*a) 8$)3%64;

-ro-ortional re-resentationin)

:::4:8as sy&bolic acti,ities)5:457)::9 third4-arty -olitics)3;8):::4:9 in U.S. in3;;8):69

Ellsberg) aniel) 3:7El Sal,ador) 3$)$34$$)8$48:) 76)

3%5)338439)388)387)358):3:):75):76)8%%

e&ail &essages) $9;Engelberg) Ste,en)336439 Engels)Briedrich) $$7 England?

'hartist &o,e&ent in)$5: ci,il war in) 36'orn aws in) $5$) $5:



freedo& of s-eech in) 33343$)$9349$

geo-olitical tradition of)5; and >*lf War) 369)367 ind*strial re,ol*tionin) $5$and 0reland)368)$8748;)$53)$9$ labor&o,e&ent in) :8348$&edia in)3$$)$86)$93)$9$ n*clearwea-ons of) :%%4:%3Poor aws in) $5$) $5:royal fa&ily of) 55

Enlighten&ent) $:$) $63) :35en,iron&ent iss*es) $8) 57) 6%463)66469)67)$73):36439):76479):7747;):;$)8%%43E.R.0.S.+.) :86Es-ionage +ct K3;39L)$6; Es *i-*las 00) 336E*ro-ean Econo&ic

'o&&*nity KEE'L) 57):73

Exploring $ew England) >48>=

E+.0.R. KBairness and+cc*racy 0n Re-ortingL)$9)335439 Balwell) Jerry) 5%fascis&) 53) 67) 9$) 98) 35;46:)396) 3;5)$$$):79):77):;:):;748%%

@ateful 'riangle) 'he K'ho&s(yL)3::) :%:48Ba*risson affair) $%6B20?

and anti4war &o,e&ent)373 2lac( Pantherassassination by)33743;)$3%and '!0NTE PR!) 3374$%and Breedo& of 0nfor&ation

+ct) $%9and Watergate) 337

fe&inis&) see wo&en<s&o,e&ent Berg*son) Tho&as)$8:fe*dal syste&) $$$Bin(elstein) Nor&an) $85489fishing) o,erfishing) :76479):;$ Bood Sta&-s) :6;49%

@orces of #roduction KNobleL)$6% Bord) >erald R.) $;5

@oreign *ffairs) > @ortune) :$8):65):9;):;8ABort*ne 5%%)A :36) :9;) :;6Bo*nding Bathers) 3:) 387)3;$)$694$67):35436)::8):8%):89487Brance?

and +&erican Re,ol*tion)$57 che&ical ind*stry in)$7$47:

6ndex 45?

freedo& of s-eech in) $9$Brench resistance) 363Haiti as colony of) 8%%ind*strialiGation in) $5$intellect*al c*lt*re in) ;64;9)$:3 labor &o,e&ent in)36$46: n*clear wea-ons of):%3

Branco) >en. Brancisco)35; freedo&?

of dissidence in U.S.)$3%433 instinct for)$36439) $$3 negati,e and

-ositi,e) $9$496 of the -ress) 8$)3%;43%of scientific in *iry) $:$of s-eech) $67496

Breedo& Ho*se) :%4:3Breedo& of 0nfor&ation +ct)7)$%9 Breedo& Riders) 37;):;6free &ar(ets)

9$496)3;5)$5346%)$78) :76free trade)

5745;)$8%)$58455)$98)$97)$7%478)$;3):$;4:%)

::84:5):73):7:):79ABrench 'onnection)A 36:Brench Boreign egion):8 Bre*dianis&) $$94$7Bried&an) Milton) :;3Bried&an) Tho&as) 367

@rom 'ime 6mmemorialKPetersL) $88487

@rontline KTDL) $7f*nda&entalis&) seereligion

>49 -lanning &eetings) :73>addis) John ewis) :748%)83 >albraith) John)"enneth) ;8 >alileo)>alilei) $:34:$ >andhi)Mahat&a) 377) 37;>anschow) Manfred) 73>arthoff) Ray&ond) ;>.+.T.T. K>eneral +gree&ent on

Tariffs and TradeL) $97) $7%)$7$47:) :$;4:%):73

>aGa Stri-)3$84$5):3: >ehlen)Reinhard) 36:>eorges 2an( fishing gro*nd)

:76479) :;$>er&any) 9747$) 3:54:6)

35;):6:) :;5):;74;;gerry&andering) :98

>ingrich) Newt) :6:) :66) :69):9%) :9:):95499):76):;$4;8):;7Dlobe and Mail) $77) $7;A>od That BailedA syndro&e)$$64$9



45! 6ndex

>olan Heights)3$8):%; >old) ore):3%>oldwater) 2arry) 3%9>orbache,) Mi(hail)375476 >raha&)"atharine) :% >ra&a o)>eneral) $;;>reat e-ression) 85489) 9$)9:498 >reece) 385) 36%) 36346$>reenfield) Jeff) :$54$6>renada) in,asion of) 7:) 78) 353)35: >ro*- of Eight) 35$>r*ening) Ernest) ;8>*ate&ala) 8) 5) 6) 9) 83) 8$48:)65)

3%5)38$)38:)388)386487)$;;>*lf War) 36549%)395496)$68):$7 g*n4control laws):98>Gows(i) Peter) $7;4;%

/a"aret ) 5!Haiti) 38;) 353) 35545;) 36%)376479)

::5):75476):77)8%%48%3Halbersta&) a,id) :$Ha&-ton) Bred) 33743;)$3%Har(abi) ehosifat) 3$7Har,ard Uni,ersity) $:748$)$;74;; Hassan) (ing of Morocco)8:488 Ha*ser) Phili- M.) $85He(&atyar) >*lb*ddin) 355Hel&s) Jesse) :96Her&an) Edward) 38435)$5):$)3%6)

36$)$%;)$77):$%Herodot*s) 33heroes) ;:4;5Hersh) Sey&o*r) $$) :%8Hertsgaard) Mar() $%)3%6Hewlett) Syl,ia +nn) :68Highlander School) Tennessee)37; Hitler) +dolf) :7)88)3:54:6)385)

35;)36$):8;):95):;5):;7):;;Hol&es) !li,er Wendell) $6;49%Holoca*st) ed*cation abo*t) 5$45:Holoca*st deniers) 5$) $%6) $9349$

/omage to Catalonia K!rwellL)$$$ Ho&estead stri(e K37;$L)$3:438 Hond*ras) 83) 33%Horton) Willie) :95HorwitG) Morton) :87h*&anitarian inter,ention)36:465 h*&anities) ideologicalcontrol in)

$:34::h*&an nat*re) $38439)$$%4$3) :55456

H*&an Rights Watch) 8H*&boldt) Wilhel& ,on) $36)$$$

H*ngary):33 h*nger):65H*ssein) (ing of Jordan) 3$9H*ssein) Sadda&) 365)36749%)$57

02M) :67i&&igration) 89) 87) $8745%i&-erial syste&s) -rofitability of)69 0ndia) ;3)39$498)$%7)$$:)$$7)$59)

$7$):3$43:0ndochina) ;%C see also'a&bodia) Dietna&) Dietna&War 0ndonesia)9)88)388)$;84;7)

$;;4:%3):58 6ndustrial Wor&er) 'he KWareL)$5% infant &ortality) 5;46%intellect*al -ro-erty rights)

$7$47:) $;:intellect*als?

fra*d of &odern econo&ics)$53457 f*nction of schools)

$::4:7honest) $88487) $6%463ideological control of) $:34::)

$:6487left) $6346$) :$7

eninist4ca-italist)$$84$9 Mar1ist theoryand) $$94:3 and &oral,al*es) $6%466 *se ofter&) ;64;7

wor(ing4class c*lt*re) ;7)$87453 0nter4+&erican

e,elo-&ent 2an() :730nternational abor !rganiGation)::7)

:830nternational Monetary B*nd) $59):73 6nternational Security) 0nternet) $9649;0nterstate 'o&&erce

'o&&ission Kl''L):;$0ran) 9) $;) 3$6) 369)367):;5):;6 0ran4contra affair)845)6)9)$9)58)

56459)97)7:0ra ) 88)36549%)$68):$70reland) 368)$8748;)$53)$9$0sla& f*nda&entalis&) 3550srael) 3$:4:9) 36;49%)398496)

3;64;;)$88489):%:43: +nti4

efa&ation eag*e and) 5$45:)$%649+rab threat to) 3:34:8as de-endent on U.S.)3$64$9 foreign wor(ers):%7

@rom 'ime 6mmemorialKPetersL) $88489



(ibb*tGi& in)3;64;; legiti&acyto) 3:54:9as &ercenary state) 8) 5)3$6 3;;6 election in):%543% n*clear wea-ons of):%:45 and !cc*-iedTerritories) 3$8)

3$;4:3)3:84:5)39%)398495)3;9):%64;):3$

and !slo +gree&ent)36;49%)398496):%547):3$

and -eace -rocess) 8:)3$:4$;)3:$4:5)36;49%)398496):%8):%543:

and UN) 76) 3$9) 3:34:$)35% U.S. aid to) 3$6) 3$;)3:9and water) 3:%4:3) 3:8)

36;49%) :%9):%;0taly) 36%46:) :75 6 vestia)$3%

Jac(son) Jesse) ::5Ja&aica) sla,e re,olt in) $%8Ja-an) ::4:8) :;) 59) 57) 5;) 6%) 65)

66)$8%483):%:Jay) John) :35Jefferson) Tho&as) 3:) 387)3;$):35 Jennings) Peter) 9;Jer*sale&) 3:3) 395) :%7Johnson ad&inistration) 5) 358)3;% Jordan) 3$8) 3$9)3:%)3:$)3::):%6

"al,en) Harry) $9%"ant) 0&&an*el)$:3 "anth) Ra ani)$5$"ennan) >eorge) 6%) 363)36$"ennedy ad&inistration)3)$4:)5)6)

943%);5)337)38;)358)39$49:)$68):5%

"ennedy assassination) :$7) :87):8;)

:5%453):;9"eynes) John Maynard) 59)98 "han) >enghis) 83) :38"ho&eini) +yatollah) $9$) :;5):;6 "hr*shche,) Ni(ita) 743%(ibb*tGi&) 3;64;;"ifner) John) 338"ing) Martin *ther) ;5)377)37;)

$9%):5%(inshi- syste&s);; "inGer)Ste-hen) $5"issinger) Henry +.)

;6)3$5)3$7)3$;) 3:9)$;5):3$"nights of abor) :63"ohl) Hel&*t) 73

6ndex45

"orea) 66) 36%) 36$):%34:"orean +ir ines Blight%%9) $; "orean War) 39:):%$4: "r*g&an) Pa*l) $58"* "l*1 "lan) 5:) 7%"*wait) 36549%):$7

abor +d,isory 'o&&ittee)$7%473 labor leadershi-) U.S.)

36$46:) $:74:;):7:476labor &o,e&ent?and free s-eech) $6746;and Har,ard Trade Union

Progra&) $:74:;history in U.S.) 36$46:) 3;$4;:)

$3:438)$8748;)$6746;):78475):;$

i&&igrants and) $3:438)$8745% international)36$46:):7:47; legislation for):::) ::8) :83) :7:)

:;$Mafia and) 36$46:&edia and) $5%) :$$4$:

-ro-aganda against) 67):$$4$:)

:78475and reg*latory iss*es) :;$re-ression of) 36$46:)3;:4;8)

::;48$and third4-arty -olitics):::4:6 Thirties organiGing)85) ::: wea(ness of in U.S.)5%) 67) 3$$)

3;$4;:):$$4$:)$5%):8348$):78475

wo&en in) $3:438)$8745% acan)Jac *es)$:3lang*age?st*dy of) $3%) $35439) $$%ter&inology) :9) 83488

ansing) Robert) 8%aos) ;%);8

7a #rensa)3%;)$3% 7.*.'imes) ! atin+&erica?

acti,ist solidarity with) $6$):$8 ca-ital stri(e fro&) 6$'atholic 'h*rch in)358 che&ical e1-ortsto) :9$'*ba co&-ared with) 38;"ennedy ad&inistration and)

3)$)5)6)943%)38;)358)$68&ilitary co*-s in) 64;) 6$and Monroe octrine) 39%So,iet Union co&-aredwith)

38348$



4 5 6ndex

atin +&erica Kcont.PU.S. co&&it&ent to control

of) 6)68469)388)38;)353458)39%)8%%

U.S. o--osed to nationalis&in) 68465

see also specificnations 7.*. Wee&ly)

= leadershi-) 37747;ebanon) 9)3$;)3:%)3::4:8):3343$ely,eld) Jose-h) 336439eMoyne) Ja&es) 338439enin) D.

3.)383)386)$$5)$$6eninis&) 3:9)$$84$9ewis) +nthony) ::) :84:5)3%9e1ington) Massach*setts) :98)

:95 libertarianis&) in U.S.) $%%libertarian socialis&) $$84$9C seealso

anarchis&) anarcho4syndicalis& ibya?

as terrorist state) 9947:U.S. bo&bing of)

9747$)353)35: ind) Willia&) 7:ling*istics) $3%) $35436)$$% i--&ann) Walter)36) :$ literary theory) $$;

ith*ania) 3%;433ittle) +rth*r .) $5;oc(heed cor-oration) $56) :%5)

:99 7ondon Review) 4>

os +ngeles riots) :;9owell &ill4girls)

$8745% *ddis&) $6%*1e&bo*rg) 3$6

Mac+rth*r Bellowshi-s)376 Mc'arthy) E*gene);84;5 Mc'arthy) Jose-h):75 Mc'arthy) Mary) $63Mc'arthyis&):75Mc>o,ern) >eorge) 35:Mc>rory) Mary) 3%9Mac"innon) 'atharine)$9: MacMichael) a,id)336 Mac&illan) Harold)38: McNa&ara) Robert)649 McF*aig) inda) :6;Madison) Ja&es) :35436) ::8):8% Mafia) 36$46:Ma or) John) :8$Malth*s) Tho&as) $53) $58&an*fact*re of consent) ad,ocacyof)

35439):$4::)3$3

Manufacturing Consent K'ho&s(yand Her&anL)38437)$5):$4::)$%;) $77

Manufacturing Consent Kfil&L):374$: &ari *ana laws) 8;):93Mar(ha&) Ja&es) 73Marshall Plan) :;) :78Mar1) "arl) and Mar1is&) 386)3;:) 3;74;;)$$54:3):$;

Mathematics for the MillionKHogbenL) ::$Mead) Margaret) 75&edia) general analysis)

3$4:6)83488)99479)3%64$:)$%;43%

acti,is& concerning) 39747%)37:478):$:4$6

acti,is& re-orted in) 7;) 37:478ad,ertising in) 38)$$4$8)3$$)$%8 alternati,e) $64$9) 397)39;47%)

378)3;8)$99):$:4$6 b*siness -ress) :$8in 'anada) $774;3and 'entral +&erica) $34$$) $5)

$7)8$48:)76)3%643$)338439concision) :$54$6and '*ba) 35%and East Ti&or) $;54;9in England) 33343$)

3$$)$86)$93) $9$and E+.0.R. KBairness and+cc*racy

0n Re-ortingL)$9)335439 and >*lf War)365467and Haiti) 356457) 35;46%and labor &o,e&ent) $5%) $7%)

:$$4$:and ibya bo&bing)9;47: &ergers in)$%;43%and Middle East)3$94$; and

N.+.ET.+.) $7%and Pana&a in,asion) 353458and -o-*lar o-inion) 35) 374$8

-rofessional integrity in) $7)33:438 APro-aganda Model)A3:437)

$84:%)3%6)3334$:)$%;43%)$774;3

re-orters< so*rces in)$54$6 and s-ectators-orts) 3%%4%3 and

ter&inology) 8$488and U.N.) 75479and Dietna& War) :%4:5)33: and Watergate) 3394$%

Medicare and Medicaid):6; &edicine) science of)$37 Meir) >olda) $;



Mengele) Jose-h) $8;Me1ico) 5) 5;) 3:6)$:7)$7%47$)$7:):%74;):89):93):79477):;9 MiddleEast) see +rabs) Egy-t) >*lf War)0srael) !slo +gree&ent) PalestineMadrid 'onference) 36;49%&ilitary s-ending) U.S.) 3)$):):;)

9%496)78)3$$4$:)368)3;5)$8%)$83)$55)$5;):%845):67):9:

&ilitias) :;64;9):;; Mill) JohnSt*art) $5:&iracles) belief in)5%M. T. KMassach*setts

0nstit*te of TechnologyL)6746;)$8:488) $78475

A&oderate)A *se of ter&)8:488 Mondale) Walter) 59Monroe octrine) 39%Montgo&ery 2*s 2oycott) 37;&oral ,al*es) $6%466) $77):5646$ Morison) Sa&*el Eliot)3:6 Morningside Ktal( showL)

$7;4;% Morocco) 88Morse) Wayne) ;8Moynihan) aniel Patric()$;6 M*rdoch) R*-ert) 3$$

Murphy (rown) 3M*sli&s) 358455M*ssolini) 2enito) 35;)36$ M*ste) +. J.) ::$My ai &assacre) :5) $65

Nader) Ral-h) 3;$ N.+.B.T.+. KNorth +&ericanBree Trade +gree&entL) $58455)$7%47$)$;3)::84:5):73):79

Nairn) +llan) $;74;; N.+.S.+.) 9$) 9:) $55 Nasser) >a&al +bdel)3$6 $ation) 'he)3%7)335)385

National +ssociation ofMan*fact*rers KN.+.M.L) :75) :;%):;$4;: National Endow&ent for

e&ocracy KN.E. .L) 356 $ational En:uirer) 38)$6)3$3 National abor Relations +ctK3;:5L) :::)::8):83

National awyers >*ild) :8% National Sec*rity 'o*ncil) 68)

:;%4;3) :;6nation4state syste&)

3:64:9):3:439) :88

6ndex 4

Nati,e +&ericans?and acti,is&) 337) 3:6genocide of)

3:54:6)$35)$58)$59)$68465):38

tribal healing by) $37nat*ral selection) $3;4$% NaGi war cri&inals) 56459)36: $ecessary 6llusions K'ho&s(yL)79)

$7747; Nehr*) Jawaharlal) 39$)39: Nelson) >aylord) ;8ne&atodes) $$% neo4liberalis&)$5:458neo4NaGis) in 2*sh ca&-aign)5345: Netanyah*) 2en a&in):%5) :%;43% Netherlands)

-o,erty in) :6: ne*ro-hysiology)$$%

Ne*trality +ct) 35; New eal) 98) :;$ $ew Republic) = $ewsday) >>news-a -ers) see &edia) specific

papers $ewswee&) 99) 3$94$7 Newtonian &echanics) $:3 $ew %or& Review of (oo&s)$86489 $ew %or& 'imes) 'he) 38)35)$34$$)

$:)$5)$;):34:$):8):6)8:)88)73)7$)76)3%9)33%)33$43:)338436)3$3)3$7)35%)35345$)356)366)39:)396)$55)$68)$9$)$73)$7;):%9):$%):$8):68):66):69):;5

$ew %or& 'imes v. Sullivan)?5 Nicarag*a?contras in) $) 8) 5) $3) $7) 97) 7:)76)

3%9)335439dr*gs in) $7elections in) 8$) 6$)3%64;free -ress *nder the Sandinistas)8$)

3%;43%h*rricane in)3$&edia stories on) $5) 76479)3%6439 Sandinista Party in) $3)8%483) 8$)

6$46:)3%6)3%7)3%;)335social -rogra&s *nder the

Sandinistas)8%483)6$46: So&oGaregi&e in) 8%)3%5 waters*--ly in) 8%%and World 'o*rt) 76479

Nicholas 00) tsar of R*ssia) 383)$$84$5 Ni&itG) +d&. 'hester) 59

Ni1on) Richard M.) 56)3$%):;; Ni1on ad&inistration) 9:)3394$%)

$56):3$):9749;



4 # 6ndex

Nobel Peace PriGe);8 Noble) a,id)$5;46%

Non4+ligned Mo,e&ent at U.N.)39$)

:%3non4,iolence) 3;:4;8

Noriega) Man*el) 8)35$458 North) !li,er) 8)5) 58) 55 Northern

0reland) 368 North"orea) :%34:) :33 Norton) 'hris) 338435 Norway) 39%):76n*clear freeGe &o,e&ent)$3)79)39$)

398)378479):%3n*clear -roliferation)

:%345n*clear wea-ons) legality of):%%4:%3 N*re&berg trials) 56459

!a(es) John) $:!cc*-ied Territories) 3$8) 3$;4:3)

3:84:5)39%)398495)3;9):%64;) :3$

!ffice of P*blic i-lo&acy) U.S.)$ oil) 3$5) 3$6) 3$7) 355) 359)35;46%)

36;49%)$57)$;64;9):;5 !(laho&a 'ity bo&bing):;; !lin Bo*ndation) $65!&an) 39%+n (ended 9nee KHertsgaardL) $%+n the Waterfront Kfil&L):$$4$:!-eration M!N>!!SE) 94;)$9)38; organ trade) 386487!rtega) aniel) $5)3%;!rwell) >eorge) 333) 33:)3$3)$$$ !slo +gree&ent)36;49%) 398496)

:%547):3$oGone layer) 57):7;

Palestine? @rom 'ime 6mmemorial

KPetersL)$88489 -artition of) 3:3) 3:$4::) 3:8and -eace -rocess) 3$:4$5)3$9) 36;49%)398496):%543:ref*gees fro&) 3:$)3:8):%7):3$ self4deter&ination for) 5$) 3:84:5)395):%6

see also +rabs) 0srael)!slo +gree&ent

Palestine iberation !rganiGationKP. .!.L) 3$5) 3$9) 39%)398):%9) :3%43:

Pana&a) 8) 353458) 355)$68 -ara&ilitary organiGations) inU.S.) :;64;9

Parenti) Michael)3%6 Par(s) Rosa)37; -atent rights)$7$47: -atriotis&)35:

-eace &o,e&ent) see anti4war&o,e&ent

*-eace -rocess)A *se of ter&) 8:):%5 Pearson) ester 2.) $;%Pell >rants) :9:

-ension f*nds) :86487 #entagon #apers) :3) :8)3;%P.E.N. writers) $9$Pe *ot Massacre K36:9L)$65 Peres) Shi&on) 3$;Perl&*tter) Nathan) 5$Peron) J*an) 65Perot) Ross) :$;Per*) $68Peters) Joan) $88487

-har&ace*tical ind*stry)9$49:)3;5)

$7$47:Phili--ines) 66):3:

-hiloso-hy) $35439) $$34$$)$:%4:3 Pia get) Jean) $39) $37Pi(e 'o&&ittee Re-ort)36$ Pilger) John) :%%Planc() Ma1) $$94$7Plato) $:84:5

#latt"s +ilgram)=? Plowshares)

379Poland) 65)38:Political 'orrectness)$65 Pol() Ja&es ".)$57Pol Pot) ;3);$4;:)$%6)$;5 PoorPeo-le<s 'a&-aign) ;5Po-e) -lot to (ill) 36$Po-*list &o,e&ent)5%)3%$Porath) ehosh*a)$89 -ornogra-hy) $98)$96 Post&an) Neil) 3%3

-o,erty) in U.S.) 8548;) 5;46%):8$486):6849%):95):;

9 Powell) 'olin) 368Power) >en. Tho&as) ;

#ravda) 33$Princeton Uni,ersity)$85486 -rison labor) $;8

-risons)3;3)$;:4;8):9%49:):95)3 !G see also cri&inal

*stice syste& #rogressive) 'he) = #rogress Without #eople KNobleL)$6% Prohibition) :93

#ropaganda K2ernaysL) 36



APro-aganda Model)A see &edia -ro-ortional re-resentation):::4:5 -sychothera-y) $37P*blic 'itiGen) 3;$

-*blic ed*cation) see ed*cation -*blic relations ind*stry)36439)6:)

35:):95):78475 -*blic trans-ortation)

$56Faddafi) M*a&&ar al4)99 Fatar) 39%F*ayle) an)35345$):$; F*ebec)3%:)$;34;$ F*est forPeace) 3$

racis&?anti4+rab) 99) 3$7) 3:%) 367):%649)

:%;a-artheid) 7747;) :%546):%9 and dr*gs) 8;) :9349$and B20 acti,ities)33743;)$3% andi&-erialis&) 396in (ibb*tGi&) 3;9and -ro-aganda) :66) :69):95 in stri(es) $38and U.S. foreign -olicy)355 see also cri&inal

*stice syste&Aradical)A *se of ter&) 8:radio) -ri,atiGation of)$99 Rainbow 'oalition)::5 Rather) an) 33:Ra*ff) Walter) 36:Reagan) Ronald) 53) 5:456) 69467)

9$) 78)79

Reagan ad&inistration) 3)$):)8)5)6)9)3$)$%)$3)53)5:457)9947:)79)$56):8%483):8;):65):9%43):9$):95):76479):;7

Red 'ross) 36:Red Scare) 8%) 3;;):75

Reflections on the Cuban MissileCrisis K>arthoffL);

reg*latory syste&s) go,ern&ent)6$) :8%483):76479):;$4;: Reich)Robert) :79religion?

'atholic 'h*rch) 358)36:)$%9) $:34:$

f*nda&entalist) 5%453) 5:) 355):3%) :;$4;:):;8):;5

Re-*blican National'on,ention K3;;$L):;7

Re-*blican Party) and neo4 NaGis) 5345:

6ndex4 3

research and de,elo-&ent) see&ilitary

s-endingRES0ST) 89)3;:Reston) Ja&es)88Ricardo) a,id) $53) $58)$5745; Rieber) Thor(ild) 35;rights) conflicting) $98496

Aright to li,e)A $5$45:Ro&ania) 35%Roose,elt ad&inistration) 35;46%)::: Rosenberg) J*li*s and Ethel) 33Rostow) Walt) 3:9Rothbard) M*rray) $%%Ro*ssea*) Jean4Jac *es)$36439 R*bin) Robert E.) :89R*shdie) Sal&an) $9349$R*ssell) 2ertrand)386)$:3):37 R*ssia?

2olshe,i(s in) 8%)383)$$84$6ca-italist refor&s in) 38:)389)$$:) :3:de,elo-&ent *nder So,iet

Union) 383485 -rison -o-*lation in):93 see also So,ietUnion

R*ssian Re,ol*tion)8%)383)386) $$84$5

Rwanda) 393Ryan) Randol-h) 3%7

Sadat) +nwar el4) 3$9)3$74$;Sahno*n)Moha&&ed)368465 Said) Edward) :33Sa(haro,) +ndrei) $79Salt of the Earth Kfil&L):$$4$: Samson +ptionKHershL) :%8 Sa&*elson)Pa*l) 98Sargent) ydia) :$3Sarnoff) Willia&) $%;Sartre) Jean4Pa*l) ;9Satanic Ferses) 'he KR*shdieL)$93 Sa*di +rabia) 8) 3$6) 355)367) 39%)

:%8Sa,e the 'hildren) 36:Schenc& v. 2nited States)

> 8?5 Schlafly) Phyllis) 5:School 'hoice Mo,e&ent):8:488 Scho*ltG) ars) 388SchwarG(o-f) Nor&an)

36; science?charlatans in) $394$3go,ern&ent f*nding of) $78476):;8 ideological control in)$:34::)

$75476



4 4 Index

science Kcant.Pnarrow sco-e of

*nderstanding in) $35436)$37) $3;4$3) $76

Sciolino) Elaine) 3%9secrecy) go,ern&ent) 3%43$Sedition +ct K39;7L) $6;49%)$9: seditio*s libel) $6;49%)$9: Sellers) 'harles) :87se1*al harass&ent)

$98495 Sheehan) Neil):$4:: Shi-ler) a,id)3%9Siberia) 5;Singa -ore) 57Sinn Bein) $9$Si1 ay War K3;69L) 3$84$6):%; S(lar) Holly) 3:7)::3sla,e re,olts) in Ja&aica) $%8sla,ery) see +bolitionistMo,e&ent sl*&s) see -o,erty)in U.S.S&ith) +da&) 38%)

3;$)$$34$$) :;%4;3Social arwinists)$53 socialis&?

libertarian)3;54$%8)$$$4$:)$$84$9):88486

Mar1 on) 3;74;;)$$7,s. So,iet Union) 383)

385486) $$84$6Socialist Wor(ers Party) 337Society of Bellows) Har,ardUni,ersity)

$:7sociobiology)$39 So o*rners)5% So&alia)36:465 Sontag)S*san) $93

So*th +frica) 8)7747;) 3$6)398) :%546):%9):3:):93So*th End Press) :33So*th "orea) 8) 66) :%:C see

also "orea) "orean WarSo*th Dietna&) $) 6) ::) 83) 9%)

33:) 44G see also Dietna&)Dietna& War

So,iet Union?and +fghanistan) 79) 33:)

355) $76477and +rab terroris&) 99

brea(*- of) 33%) 38348$)385486) 35%)39%)$$:):%845

and 'old War):9483)38$485) :%845

and '*ba) 743%)38;45% dissidents in)$79477

econo&ic syste& of) 38%48:)3;54;6)$$9

and Egy-t) 3$%) 3$;&edia in) 33$43:)$%7)$3%and S-anish 'i,il War)35;)$$$ and U.N.) 76479

see also R*ssiaS-anish 'i,il War)35;)$$$)$$: S-ea(es) arry)9;) 7%s-ec*lation) financial) $58455):99473C

see also econo&y)international s-eech) freedo&of) $67496s-orts) ;743%3Stalin) Jose-h) 33$)388485)$$6)::8 Stars and Stripes)!58!AStar WarsA KS. .0.L) 9$)79)$83 State of Wor&ing

*merica) 'he):7$47:

steel ind*stry) $55456)$59 Stigler) >eorge) $$3stoc( ownershi-) :7$):77 Stoc(well) John)3:7 Stone) 0. B.) ;5Strategies of Containment

K>addisL) :748%St*dds) >erry) ::84:5St*dent Non,iolent 'oordinating

'o&&ittee KSN''L);8)377)37;) $38)$63

St*dents for a e&ocratic SocietyKS SL)377

S*harto)88 S*(arno)9 s*-ercond*cti,ity)$3;S*-re&e 'o*rt) U.S.) $6;493)$9: Swaggart) Ji&&y) 67Sweden) childcare benefits in):6: Sy&ington) St*art) 95Syria) 3$8) 3$9) 3:%) 3:$) 3::):%;

Taft4Harley +ct K3;89L):75 Taiwan) 8) 5) 57) 66Tas&ania) $58ta1es) $%) 9349:) $%%) ::9) :67):6; Taylor) Telford) 59Tea&sters Union) :79Atechnocratic ins*lation)A :73technology) -*blic f*nding of)9%493)9$49:)78)3;5)$8%)$83)$55456)$5746%):%5):67):99):7;):;8terroris&) 5) 943%) 3343$) $;) :9)9947$)388485)38;)355Te1aco 'or-oration) 35;46%Te1as) anne1ation of) $59457



Thailand) ;3)389)36%Thatcher) Margaret) :83 third4

-arty -olitics) 3;8):::4:9 three body -roble&) in -hysics) $3;'imes of ondon) 3;:)$86489tobacco) 8;) :93) :96Toc *e,ille) +le1is de) $$$Todd) Helen) $;74;;To(yo trials) 59Torricelli) Robert) 35%

Trade Union Progra&) Har,ardUni,ersity) $:;Trans ordan) 3:$)3::Trilateral 'o&&ission) :8;):;9 Tri-oli) bo&bing of)9747: Trots(y) eon)383)$$5 Tr*&an) Harry5.)388 T*ch&an) 2arbara)$85T*r(ey) 367Tyler) John) $57

Una bo&ber):;9UNES'!) 76UN0'EB) 38:):68):66*nions) see labor leadershi-) labor

&o,e&entUnited +irlines)

:77United Electrical Wor(ers) :79United Nations)78479)3$9)3:34:$)

3:8)35%)368)367)36;49%)39$) :%3):38435):83

U.S. +.0. .) ;:2.S. $ews and World Report) 44

Dann) John Pa*l):$4:: Datican) 36:

Deblen) Thorstein)98 ,egetarianis&):59 Didal) >ore)78Dietna&) ;%4;$C see alsoSo*th Dietna&) Dietna&War Dietna& War?

anti4war &o,e&ent) :34:6);84;5)3%3)3%8)373478)377)3;%)$%546)$6:):$7):5%):55'anada and) $;%che&ical wea-ons *sed in);% and cor-orations)::4:5) ;8 draft in) :8) :5draft resisters in) 6746;) ;8intellect*al disc*ssion of)83)33 )

6ndex4 =

&edia and) :%4:6) 33:My ai &assacre in) :5)$65 -ost4war U.S.

-olicies) ;%4;$ ref*geesfro&) $%;Tet !ffensi,e in) :%4:3) ::)

:8) ;8) 373)3;%destr*ction of co*ntry by

U.S.) 6) ;%4;3)358

and U.S. econo&y) ::4:8)33;):9; see also So*thDietna&

Fillage Foice) >Fincennes KU.S. warshi-L) $;,iolence) on tele,ision) $96Diolent 'ri&e 'ontrol and

awEnforce&ent +ct) $7347$

,isions of f*t*re society)artic*lation of) 5 83G see alsoanarchis&) anarcho4syndicalis&)socialis& Dols(y) >eorge) 336439Doting Rights +ct K3;65L) ::%

wages) 9:) :5%) :7$47:) :;6Wagner +ct K3;:5L) :::) ::8):8% Wall Street ournal) 38) $:)$7) 3%7)33$43:)33;)3$3)3$$)359)$35):$8):65):7%):7:):7;):;:Walters) 2arbara) 387wants) creation of) $%$48Ware) Nor&an) $5%Warner 'o&&*nications) $%;War on r*gs) 8;) :9349$Washington #ost) 'he)38)$3):%):3)

5:)76)33;)3$3)3$7)35: Watergate) $9) 3394$%Watson) Tho&asO.) 33;Weirton Steel) :77welfare -rogra&s) dis&antling)

$)$%4$3)87):6:468):66):69:9%

Welfare Refor& +ct K3;;6L) :66):69 welfare state) $%)3%34$)$5:):8$):88486):6949%):95):99West =?th KTDL) $7West 2an() 67) ;8) 3$84$5)3:%4:3) 3::) 395C see also 0srael)!cc*-ied Territories) PalestineWest&oreland) >en. Willia&) 3;%Whirl-ool cor-oration)

$55456 Wic(er) To&) $:)33$

chomsky - understanding power (2002)

Documents