"The Evilness of Power" transcript

My interest in doing a video collage explaining antiauthoritarian principles and ideas, started a few months ago after posting two videos on youtube in which I asked people questions such as:

would you ever grant anyone the power to deny you the things you need to survive?

Passenger one

No

Would you ever grant anyone the power to deny you the things you need to survive?

passenger 2

Oh no, that is just crazy.

passenger three

No, not only would I not grant that power; I would fight any attempt to take that power.

Would you prefer to not have a boss?

passenger 4

Of course.

Now, if you had enough money to live comfortably the rest of your life, would you still do something productive or creative for the community?

Of course I would, cause' you know why? The community is where I come from.

If you had enough money to live comfortably the rest of your life, would you still do something productive or creative for the community?

passenger five

Yes.

Now, would you prefer to not have a boss?

Yes.

If you had enough money to live comfortably the rest of your life, would you still do something productive or creative for the community?

passenger six

Absolutely.

Would you prefer to not have a boss?

Absolutely.

Would you prefer to not have a boss?

passenger seven

Yeah, who wouldn't?

I was surprised that most of the hundreds of people I asked said they did not want to have a boss or anyone with the power to deny them the things they need to survive, and that they wanted to do something productive and creative for the community without the profit incentive. I wondered what these kinds of psychological tendencies meant; what their origin is, and how they are being suppressed in our society.

Murray Bookchin:

Hierarchy as it exists in the family, Hierarchy as it exists in the school, Hierarchy as it exists in sexual relationships, Hierarchy as it exists between ethnic groups. Not only class divisions based upon economic exploitation -- domination which may not even have any economic meaning at all. The domination of women by men in which women are not economically exploited. The domination of ordinary people by bureaucrats, in which you may even have a welfare, so-called socialist type of state.

John Zerzan:

The first step to agriculture, the shift to control, the shift away from taking what nature supplied, the move to extort from nature, to colonize nature, to engineer nature, contains the other stuff. It's implicit. You will get to the genetic engineering and the total control sooner or later, if you don't break that logic.

Voiceover about Bushmen:

where any other person would die of thirst in a few days, they live quite contentedly in this desert that doesn't look like a desert.
They know where to dig for roots and bugs and tubers...
...and which berries and pods are good to eat.
And of course they know what to do about water.
For instance, in the early morning, you can collect dewdrops...
...from leaves that were carefully laid out the previous evening.
Or a plume of grass can be a reservoir.
And if you have the know-how, an insignificant clump of twigs can tell you where to dig...
...and you come to light with an enormous tuber.
You scrape shavings off it with a stick that was split to give it a sharp edge.
You take a handful of the shavings, point your thumb at your mouth and squeeze.
in this world of theirs, nothing is bad or evil.
Even a poisonous snake is not bad.
You just have to keep away from the sharp end.
Actually, a snake is very good. In fact, it's delicious.
And the skin makes a fine pouch.
Sometimes kiko tells about the time when he went to look for the end of the earth, and about the strange heavy people he met on his journey. In the mornings they like to read the news. They can read that the hyena has a new girlfriend; that the cheetah has lost one of her babies, that the oryx is starting to migrate to the west. The older children teach the younger ones how to read all the gossip about their neighbors the animals, because everything that happens in the Kalahari gets printed out in the sand.

They're very gentle people.
They'll never punish a child or even speak harshly to it.
So of course those kids are extremely well-behaved and their games are cute and inventive.
When the family needs meat...
...the hunter dips his tiny arrow in a brew that acts as a tranquilliser. So when he shoots a buck, it only feels a sting and the arrow drops out.
The buck runs away, but soon it gets very drowsy...
...and it stops running.
After a while, it goes to sleep.
And the hunter apologizes to his prey. He explains that his family needs the meat.
The one characteristic which really makes the bushmen different from all other races on Earth..
...is the fact that they have no sense of ownership at all.They must be the most contented people in the world.
They have no crime, no punishment, no violence, no laws...
...no police, judges, rulers or bosses. Only 600 miles to the south, there is a vast city; and here you find civilized men.

Michael Albert:

How much say we have over our lives? How much influence we have over decisions? How much say we have over our lives? How much influence we have over decisions? How much influence we have over decisions? One person might say "democracy". Our value for that is that we should have democracy; we should have majority rule. Everybody gets the same vote; we tally them up: 50% plus one wins. Another person may say: "we should have consensus". Our value for decision-making is consensus. We should all at least abide or sign off on any decision. Another person might say: "well, I think that maybe one person should decide." Somebody might say that. I actually say: all three. And many other things. I don't think any of those are a principle. They are all algorithms. They are all methods of arriving at a decision. But they're not a principle. One of them is right in one context. Another one is right in another context. When you got dressed this morning, you didn't say to yourself: "we should have a majority vote of everybody who is going to be there on what color socks I wear. And that made sense, because that decision it was appropriate to make that way. On the other hand, if you want to carry around a boom-box and play it in here during the talk, you don't get to decide that all by yourself. Why not? Because we all hear it. And the idea here is that people should have a say in decisions in proportion to the degree we are affected by them. Now, you're not going to be anal about this. It isn't to the sixth decimal point; but broadly speaking people should impact decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by them. The name for this, I think, reasonably, is self-management.

Young man:

But they want leadership.


Chomsky:

I mean, if the people want to be told "here is what I am going to do for you" they are starting off on the wrong foot. They have to be encouraged to think for themselves what they want.


young man:

Well, to be fair to them, I mean, they did; they gave me quite a drilling.

Chomsky:

Okay, that's good. Then, your role as a leader should be to eliminate yourself.

young man:

Should be to...?

Chomsky:

eliminate yourself.

Young man:

Maybe that can become one of my things. I could say that this country will be fully operational the day I become not King, but a citizen.

Chomsky:

I think you get a decent society if in fact it doesn't rely on leaders.

young man:

So I'm just a...?

Chomsky:

It's not saying that it should not select representatives.

young man:

Well, maybe I can do that. Maybe I can get some... when I decide... when I can get some kind of representatives, when I can delegate some responsibility for specific departments.

Chomsky:

Well what I would suggest is that instead of you delegating it, that they delegate it. It should be the task of the people involved to determine what tasks have to be undertaken; but the point is that it is all from below.

young man:

Maybe I can use the Internet, you know, for voting.

Chomsky:

It isn't just voting. It's also participation and discussion and interchange.

young man:

So regular meetings would be good -- regular kind of meetings, where they can ask questions.

Chomsky:

and come up with proposals, on whatever issue it is.

Councilwoman:

"Accountable to us"

voiceove homage to Catalonia:

in the barbershops were anarchist notices. The barbers were mostly anarchists -- solemnly explaining that barbers were no longer slaves. In the streets were colored posters, appealing to prostitutes to stop being prostitutes. The anarchists were still in a virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized. Even the boot blacks had been collectivized. Waiters and shop workers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said "senor" or "Don" or even "Usted". Everyone called everyone else "Comrade" and "thou" and said "salud" instead of "buenos dias". You saw very few destitute people, and no beggars except the Gypsies. Above all there was a belief in the revolution and the future -- a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings, and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.

second voiceover:

a swift look at history reveals a colossal amount of evil and suffering in the world. Throughout history people have tried to identify and understand its primary cause. Explanations have ranged from the corrupting influence of artificial institutions, to the intrinsic wickedness of human nature, to the workings of the devil and evil spirits, or of certain groups such as royal families, capitalists, communists, slave owners, atheists, Deists, Jews, Freemasons etc. while it would be impossible to attribute all the evil of the world to one cause, there seems to be a concept that is quite central to most manifestations of it: hierarchy, a form of organization in which people or groups are ranked one above another according to status or authority. This is tied to a violation of a basic moral principle. Those who have or seek more power than others do not apply to themselves the same standards they apply to others. Obviously, one cannot say that all authority is evil -- particularly non-exploitative, challengeable and accountable authority that allows people to survive or grow. However, hierarchical authority is inextricably connected with the marginalization and disempowerment of those without authority, with a lack of control over their actions and destinies, and with a subsequent rationalization of one's place in the pecking order. This, not only arouses instincts which predispose people to cruelty and indifference in the face of the suffering of their fellows, but it interferes with honest communication between people at different levels of power, and turns people into subordinates -- following orders from above regardless of their effect on others. Given that evolutionary biology has proven that mutual aid is more important for survival than competition, it is not surprising that the massive structures of hierarchy and competition we have created in recent civilized history have now come to endanger our survival and that of many other species. In the modern era, if we count the number of crimes, for example, the number of people killed and the amount of money stolen by elite hierarchical institutions like governments and corporations, and compare it to the smaller criminals like bank robbers, serial killers, gangs, Islamic terrorists etc. it is not even close. Furthermore, evidence shows that, contrary to popular belief, the institutions of power that shape the law do not restrain criminal behavior, but actually promote the alienation, violence and socioeconomic disparity that create most of these smaller criminals.

Chomsky:

it's a fair assumption that every flesh and blood human being is a moral person. You know, we got the same genes, we are more or less the same. But our nature, the nature of humans allows all kinds of behavior. I mean, every one of us under some circumstances could be a gas chamber attendant and a saint. You want to distinguish between the institution and the individual. So slavery for example, or other forms of tyranny are inherently monstrous. But the individuals participating in them may be the nicest guys you can imagine: benevolent, friendly, nice to their children, even nice to their slaves, caring about other people, I mean, as individuals they may be anything. In their institutional role they are monsters because the institution is monstrous. You see a starving child and you can steal food from him and there's no policemen around; very few people would do it. If they would do it, they are really pathological. I mean, there's some pathological extremes. But ordinarily people would not behave like that. They do behave like that on a massive scale, massive scale, but they're unaware of it, and there is a huge indoctrination system design to make them unaware of it, and even to make them think that the starving child stealing from them, so we are the victims. That is what propaganda and regimentation are all about. And it sort of works.

Chris Crocker:

And how fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Britney? After all she's been through!

Chomsky:

and it erodes the moral character. It prevents you from looking at what you yourself are doing, or what your leaders are doing, and worry about somebody else.

Chris Crocker

And now she's going through her custody battle.

Chomsky:

you see that all the time. So the people can be very moral.

Chris Crocker:

she's a human!

Chomsky:

but they're acting within institutional structures, constructed systems in which only certain options are easy to pursue.

Linda Peano:

my name is Linda Peano. I am here primarily today to make a public confession. In the spring of 1987, as a physician, I denied a man a necessary operation that would have saved his life, and thus caused his death. No person and no group has held accountable for this. Because in fact what I did was I saved the company a half $1 million for this. And furthermore, this particular act secured my reputation as a good medical director, and it ensured my continued advancement in the healthcare field. I went from making a few hundred dollars a week as a medical reviewer, to an escalating six-figure income as a physician executive. In all my work I had one primary duty. And that was to use my medical expertise for the financial benefit of the organization for which I worked.

Healthcare worker:

God, you know, like one time I had a couple. And they were so happy... they were so happy... I took them through this application... and the husband was late for work, and the wife said to him: "don't worry baby, it's going to be okay because we have health insurance now" and when I looked at the end of the application I could tell that they were both going to get declined because of their health conditions. And they were so happy! and I thought "oh God, they're going to get that phone call in a couple of weeks, telling them that they're not eligible for insurance" and I just felt so bad, because I just really thought, and I knew, and I couldn't say anything to them. I just felt like crap. And that's why I'm just such a bitch on the phone to people; because I don't want to get to know them, I don't want to know about their lives. I just want to get in and get out, and get done with it because I cannot take the stress of it.

Michael Moore:

I said to my wife: "you know we both are sons and daughters of autoworkers in Flint, Michigan. There isn't a single one of us back in Flint, any of us, including us, whoever stopped to think "This thing we do for a living, the building of automobiles is probably the single biggest reason why the polar ice caps are going to melt and end civilization as we know it." There's no connect between "I'm just an assembler on an assembly line building a car" which is good for people in society; it moves them around -- but never stopped to think about the larger picture and the larger responsibility of what we're doing.

song:

Hey you, out there on the road
always doing what you're told, 
Can you help me?
Hey you, out there beyond the wall,
Breaking bottles in the hall, 
Can you help me?
Hey you, don't tell me there's no hope at all
Together we stand, divided we fall.

Philip Zimbardo

most of the evil in the world comes about not out of evil motives, but somebody saying: "get with the program, be a team player". When a person feels "I am not personally responsible; I'm not accountable" "it's a role in planning" or "these are the orders I've gotten" then you allow yourself to do things you would never do under ordinary circumstances.

Prisoner 416

I began to feel that I was losing my identity; that the person that I call "Clay", the person who put me in this place, the person who volunteered to go into this prison. Because it was a prison to me. It still is a prison to me. I don't regard it as an experiment or a simulation. It was just a prison that was run by psychologists instead of run by the state.

Mock guard

I really thought that I was incapable of this kind of behavior. I was surprised; no -- I was dismayed to find out that I could really be a... that I could act in a manner so absolutely unaccustomed to anything that I would even really dream of doing. And I... and while I was doing it didn't feel any regret. I didn't feel any guilt. It was only afterwards when I began to reflect on what I had done that this began to... that this behavior began to dawn on me and I realized that this was... this was a part of me I hadn't really noticed before.

prisoner 8612

I feel so fucked up inside, I feel really fucked up inside, I don't know, I gotta go, to a doctor, anything. I can't stay here. I'm fucked up. I don't know how to explain it. I am all fucked up inside! and I want out! I want out now! God dammit. I'm fucked up. you don't know, you don't know. I mean, God; I mean, Jesus Christ -- I'm burning up inside, don't you know? This is fucked, I can't take it.

Zimbardo

The scene you just saw was at the end of only 36 hours into the study. Each day after that another prisoner had a similar reaction; and so at the end of five days we had five kids -- kids who chose because they were normal and healthy having emotional breakdowns.

2nd mock guard

You put a uniform on and are given a role, I mean, -- a job -- saying "your job is to keep these people in line" then you're not, certainly not the same person as if you were in street clothes and in a different role. You really become that person once you put on that khaki uniform. You put on the glasses. You take the nightstick, and, you act the part. That's your costume and you have to act accordingly when you put it on


Prisoner 416

it harms me; I mean harms -- in the present tense, it harms me.

2nd mock guard

How did it harm you? How does it harm you? Just to think that normal people can be like that?

Prisoner 416

Yeah, it let me in on some knowledge that I've never experienced firsthand. I've read about it. I've read a lot about it; but I have never experienced it firsthand. I've never seen someone turn that way. And I knew you were a nice guy, you know.

2nd mock guard

You don't know that

prisoner 416

I do, I do know you are a nice guy, I don't get bad...

2nd mock guard

then why do you hate me?

prisoner 416

because i know what you can turn into

2nd mock guard

it surprised me that no one said anything to stop me. No one said "you can't say those things to me, those things are sick". Nobody said that. They just accepted what I said. I said "go tell that man to the face he's the scum of the earth" and they'd do it without question. They'd do push-ups without question. They'd sit in the hall. They'd abuse each other. And here they're supposed to have a little bit... they're supposed to be together as a unit in jail, but here they're abusing each other because I requested them to. And no one questioned my authority at all. And it really shocked me. Why didn't people...? When I started to get... abuse people so much, I started to get so profane and still people didn't say anything.

Group:

prisoner 819 did a bad thing. Prisoner 819 did a bad thing. Prisoner 819 did a bad thing...

Zimbardo:

As soon as I realized that 819 could hear this, I rushed to the room where I had left him. And what I found was a boy crying hysterically, while in the background his fellow prisoners were chanting and yelling that he's a bad prisoner and that they were being punished because of him.

Group:

because of what prisoner 819 did, my cell is a mess. Because of what prisoner 819 did, my cell is a mess...

Zimbardo

I'm trying to... comfort this young man and he says: "I have to go back" and I say: "what do you mean?" "I have to prove to them I am not a bad prisoner". And at this point I said: "no, you're not a bad prisoner. You are Stu and I am not the superintendent. I am Phil Zimbardo. This study is over" and he kept saying: "now I have to go back; I have to prove to them that I am not a bad prisoner". So the reality of that prison was so deep that even when I give him the opportunity to leave, his reputation, his image as a bad prisoner has to be undone, has to be reconciled... When we released the first prisoner 8612 we brought in a substitute, but he came in halfway through. And what's interesting is day by day as the situation degraded, we all adjusted to it. That is, each day's level of violence, of abuse was a platform for the next day. But he comes in now and he is seeing him all these crazy things going on and he says right up front: " I'm not having any of this". And they told him: "you can't leave; they won't let you leave," which we never said. In fact, 8612 was the one who told him: "they won't let you out". And so, he says: "I'm going to go on a hunger strike; I'm not going to eat anything. I'll get sick and they'll have to let me go." And he is a skinny kid to begin with. And the guards go crazy because he is now the symbol of resistance. All the other kids are broken, and if they are not having emotional breakdowns there are like zombies -- they're doing whatever the guards said. And for the next two days every guard on every shift -- their mission is: get this prisoner to eat those damn sausages. They put him in solitary confinement. They make him hold his sausages. And to his credit he resists. So he should have been the hero. He should have been the hero for the other prisoners. Instead, he becomes a troublemaker. The guards set the other prisoners against him and they say: "if he doesn't eat his sausages you don't get your visiting hours; if he doesn't eat his sausages you guys don't get your blankets; if he doesn't eat his sausages were going to put your blankets in nettles and spurs and you're going to spend hours digging them out. So they start jumping all over him: "eat the damn sausages, you're ruining our life.

Chomsky

it happens that that's the way states operate. Some of them can get away with it, the more powerful ones. Most of them can't get away with it. Maybe they would like to but Luxembourg can't handle it, you know, or Andorra. But countries like the United States can. A powerful state does not want authorization, because that weakens its power. If you have to have authorization from someone you're not powerful enough to do anything you choose. The same reason why the Mafia don does not want a court order.

Man talking to Mafia don:

"... it's taken a week"

Mafia don:

I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse

Chomsky:

suppose some mafia don isn't being paid by some guy, a grocer or something. He doesn't go after a court order to get the money. He doesn't want to court order. He wants to send his goons in to beat him to a pulp. That's called "credibility".

George W. Bush:

if we would leave before the mission is complete it would hurt US credibility

Lyndon Johnson

if this little nation goes down the drain, ask yourself what's going to happen to all the other little nations

Richard Nixon

I still think we ought to take the dikes out now... will that drown people?

Henry Kissinger

that would drown about 200,000 people

Richard Nixon

well, no, no, no... I'd rather use the nuclear bomb

Henry Kissinger

that, I think, would just be too much

Richard Nixon

the nuclear bomb? Does that bother you?

Henry Kissinger

[ inaudible ]

Richard Nixon

I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christ's sakes

Chomsky

so the Cold War, in effect, was a war of the United States against the Third World, and of Russia against its much smaller domains in Eastern Europe. Each great power used the other's threats as a pretext. The major objectives in Vietnam are pretty much what they were in Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Congo, all around the world. They were afraid that Vietnam was going to undergo successful social and economic development and, as it's put in high places, "the rot might spread to others" "it might lead to ideological victories for the mode of socioeconomic development that they're pursuing. "The virus might infect others" as Kissinger put it with regard to Chile. Well, when you have a virus, what do you do with it? You kill the virus, and you inoculate the potential victims. And that's what happened. Indochina was killed. It's not going to... you know, maybe it will survive but it's not going to be a model for anything. And the surrounding region was inoculated. In the 60s and early 70s, the US succeeded in installing brutal and vicious military dictators in every country. And that stopped, prevented the rot from spreading.

Howard Zinn

I always found in any discussion on war, inevitably, in any discussion on war, at a certain point in the discussion somebody would say: "oh well, it's human nature". And... well first of all, from my own experience... and I still have to tell this to people, because there's still people who talk about the desire of young men to go to war, the thrill it is for young men to be in war, to shoot their guns -- to kill. And, I thought about my own experience in the Air Force, and it was very clear to me, looking around at all these guys around me who were dropping bombs and who were killing people, that it did not come from inside. It did not come from: "oh God, how good it would be to kill some people today". You know, there was no urge to kill, even though they were the "enemy". No. What it came from was simply we had been trained. And also we have been told it's a good war. We have been told we are the good guys, they're the bad guys. It would be bad if they won. It'll be good if we win. We got to drop the bombs. And then when I got away from my own experiences and just begun to study history and history of wars, something else became clear to me. And that is: wars don't take place out of the rush of a population demanding war. It isn't the population that demands war. It is the leaders who demand war and who prepare the population for war.

George W. Bush

Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spending enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell

Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb.

George W. Bush

nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon nuclear weapon

Colin Powell

active, chemical, munitions, bunkers, mobile production facilities

George W. Bush

We know he's got chemical weapons. He's got them. He's got them. He's got them

Howard Zinn

and it was clear to me, from looking at the works of anthropologists; there were some tribes that were fierce, and some tribes that were peaceful. It clearly wasn't a universal quality. It depended on the conditions under which they lived. And this guy, Colin Turnable wrote books about the forest people and the mountain people. And the forest people, the pygmies in the forest lived under the kind of conditions which made them violent. The people in the mountains were living under different kinds of conditions and they were peaceful. So, I just didn't see any scientific evidence. And also, the word "aggression" is a very ambiguous term. Because you can take out your aggressions in many ways. You don't have to take it out by killing people.

Michael Parenti

But, what we have in history is the fact that, when surplus value develops, when there's more than a subsistence economy, you have some portion of the population that will do everything it can to enslave and to expropriate the labor of the rest of the people. And one of the things that is used in that arrangement is a very conscious instrument of control.

Young man

Don't taser me bro, don't taser me. I didn't do anything.

Michael Parenti

An organization that has a monopoly on the legitimate uses of force and violence. And that instrument is called the state.

Egyptian General

They want loot, slaves, power. And with this, they will get them.

Chomsky

There's a current version of that; a crude version by Thomas Friedman, who says that "McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas" meaning the US Air Force.

Corporate spy

I was invited to Washington DC to attend this meeting that was being put together by the national security agency, called "the critical thinking consortium". I remember standing there in this room and looking over on one side of the room and we had CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, customs, Secret Service and then on the other side of the room we had Coca-Cola, Mobil oil, GTE and Kodak. And I remember thinking "I am like in the epicenter of the intelligence industry right now. I mean the line is not just blurring, it's just not there anymore."

BBC woman interviewer

But don't you sometimes need big government to deal with big business, that in some sense there is a kind of balance between these large forces.

Chomsky

It's like saying that there's a balance between two members of the Board of Directors of General Motors. Yes, they're some kind of a balance, but they're so closely interlinked and connected that to first approximation they're the same thing.

Voiceover

Of course, this doesn't mean that some governments are not better than others, or that governments cannot offer a certain degree of protection against market forces. It doesn't mean that the public cannot have a certain degree of democratic influence over government, or that they cannot have more influence over government than they do over totally undemocratic institutions like corporations. After all, most of the freedoms that we enjoy in the West have been the product of successful grassroots struggles; like the civil rights movement, the labor movement, the women's movement etc. which were able to influence and constrain governments, corporations, and other elite institutions, which subsequently took credit for the freedoms gained by these struggles. What it means is that freedoms are usually not a gift from above, and that when they are, they're either incidental, or they foster dependence and subordination, creating hierarchy.

Cartoon character

Thank you

Voiceover

Government, whether it calls itself "Republican" "Democrat" "socialist" "capitalist" "communist" or whatever is a means by which minority controls a majority; either by itself or in conjunction with other powerful entities like corporations. Here, the concept of property is important. Having property for personal use and need, like a home, a bed, a toothbrush etc. does not require government, but when one's private property extends beyond those items to the means of production: like industries, large swaths of land, or any property that is not for personal use, then the need for government appears. When property is used to deprive others access to the basic necessities of life, or when property is used to derive profit at the expense of others without having to work -- simply by granting permission to use the means of production; then, the need for government appears.

Adam Smith

Till there be property, there can be no government; the very end of which is to secure wealth and to defend the rich from the poor.

John Locke

The great and chief end of men's uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under government is the preservation of their property.

John Jay

Those who own the country ought to govern it.

James Madison

Government ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

Journalist

Comrade Durruti. The readers of the New York Herald would like to know if you, anarchists, consider yourselves to be under the command of the government or if you're in a clash with it.

Durruti

It's about crushing fascism forever; and that, if necessary, in spite of the government. Maybe one day, not far away, this very republican government will need the fascist forces to destroy the workers' movement. We fight for the Revolution; we don't expect anyone's help. We'll show you, Russian Bolsheviks, how to do the revolution. In your country there is dictatorship. In the red Army there are Colonels and generals, while in my column there are no bosses nor subordinates. We all have the same rights. We are all soldiers. I am, too, just a simple soldier.

Russian Bolshevik

The men in your column are accused of having fallen into a certain disorder -- chaos, some say. Professional military men have difficulties getting respect. What do you think?

Durruti

The bourgeoisie always tend to identify liberty with chaos. We have organized enthusiasm, not obedience. Every man and woman is responsible before themselves and before the others. That is our strength. We, the workers are destined to inherit the land.

Journalist

With all certainty, it will be a very expensive triumph.You will stand over a pile of rubble.

Durruti

We're not afraid of rubble. We, the workers have built up the palaces and cities of Spain and America. We can do it again. The bourgeoisie may blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. But we carry a New World in our hearts. And that world grows every second. It is growing this very second, as we speak.

Murray Bookchin

Society could be managed without the state. And by the state I don't mean the absence of any institutions, the absence of any form of social organization. The state really refers to a professional apparatus, of people who are set aside to manage society -- to preempt the control of society from the people.

Journalist

The people are being asked to die and pay for this, and you're saying they have no say in this war.

White House press secretary

No, I didn't say that Helen, but Helen this president was elected...

Journalist

What it amounts to is you saying we have no input at all.

White House press secretary

No... you had input. The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up.

Voiceover

It is only natural that those on top of a hierarchy will try to limit public input by creating conflict and division; that is by promoting unity only as it relates to a uniform support for elite ideology and actions. And it's only natural that violence and deceit will be used to suppress the freedom instinct of the masses. After all, if the subordinate majority ever unite, elite power could be jeopardized. In fact, not only do power structures create situations where we oppress each other. But they create situations where we defend and become attached to our own oppressors. In other words, those at the top of a hierarchy become part of us, like an extension of our egos. The most obvious example of a hierarchical power structure having this effect is the state. Worship of the state has become a secular religion for which the intellectuals serve as a priesthood. The more primitive sectors of society go further -- fostering forms of idolatry in which such sacred symbols as the flag become an object of forced veneration, while God and state are linked in public ceremony and discourse. But the state is not the only major hierarchical organization with control over our lives.

Mark Kingwell

Every institution provides the people who are members of it with a social role to occupy. And typically, institutions that are vibrant, and have a lot of power will specify that role in some sense as a list of virtues. It's true for churches, for schools, for any institution that has power over people and shapes them.

People in front of the American flag

"One nation"

Mark Kingwell

The Corporation, likewise, provides us with a list of virtues, a kind of social role which is the good consumer.

Voiceover

Like the waters of a mighty ocean people also represent a tremendous force; the understanding of which is of greatest importance to the American way of life. This force is known as consumer power.

Chomsky

The goal for the corporations is to maximize profit and market share. And they also have a goal for their target, namely the population. They have to be turned into completely mindless consumers of goods that they do not want. You have to develop what are called "created wants". So you have to create wants. You have to impose on people what's called "a philosophy of futility". You have to focus them on the insignificant things of life, like fashionable consumption. I'm just basically quoting business literature. And it makes perfect sense. The ideal is to have individuals who are totally dissociated from one another -- whose conception of themselves, their sense of value is just "how many created wants can I satisfy".

Voiceover

These people are customers because they are willing to trade money for widgets. And all the customers take their widgets home to all parts of the country. Look at all that money the widget builder has taken in from the sale of his widgets.

Chomsky

We have huge industries. The public relations industry is a monstrous industry -- advertising and so on -- which are designed from infancy to try to mold people into this desired pattern. Take, say, sports. That's another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing, because it offers people something to pay attention to that is of no importance, that keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea about doing something about. And in fact, it's striking to see the intelligence that is used by ordinary people in sports. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in. They have the most exotic information and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this. Now, remember, in high school already -- I was pretty old -- I suddenly asked myself at one point: "why do I care if my high school team wins the football game?". I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know; it had nothing to do with me. Why am I cheering for my team? It doesn't make any sense. But the point is it does make sense. It is a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements. In fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, typically they do have functions. That's why energy is devoted to supporting them, and creating a basis for them, and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on.

Jack Shaheen

Politics and Hollywood's images are linked. They reinforce one another. Policy enforces mythical images. Mythical images help enforce policy. Jack Valenti, the president of motion picture Association of America has said "Washington and Hollywood spring from the same DNA"

Words on screen:

"Benevolent superpower" "evil labor unions"

Union thug

I think somebody fell off the roof. Maybe he could sing but he couldn't fly.

Words on screen:

"Evil communists"

Ivan Drago (Rocky 4)

If he dies, he dies.

Words on screen:

"Evil Arabs"

Arab cartoon character #1

You are late

Arab cartoon character #2

1000 apologies, oh, patient one.

Arab cartoon character #1

You have it then?

Arab cartoon character #2

I had to slit a few throats, but I got it!

Jack Shaheen

Disney's Aladdin was seen by millions of children worldwide. It was hailed as one of Disney's finest accomplishments. But the film recycled every old degrading stereotype from Hollywood's silent black-and-white past. In my latest book "Reel Bad Arabs: how Hollywood vilifies a people" I looked at more than 1000 films. Films ranging from the earliest most obscure days of Hollywood, to today's biggest blockbusters. And what I tried to do is to make visible what too many of us seem not to see: a dangerously consistent pattern of hateful Arab stereotypes -- stereotypes that rob an entire people of their humanity. All aspects of our culture project the Arab as the villain. That is a given. There is no deviation. We have taken a few structured images and repeated them over and over again. The Arab image began to change immediately after World War II. There were three things that impacted the change. The Palestinian Israeli conflict, in which the United States has unequivocally supported Israel; the Arab oil embargo in the 70s, which angered Americans when gas prices went through the ceiling, and the Iranian revolution. If we look at the anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazis, at its core is an identical type of economic threat. This economic myth even made its way into children's books. Sadly, the popular image of Jews in Nazi propaganda resembles the popular image of Arabs in some of our most beloved Hollywood movies. The only difference being that the Arab usually wears a robe and headdress. To solidify Washington's connection with Hollywood, simply look at the films produced in cooperation with the Department of Defense, showing our men and women in the armed forces killing Arabs at random. We suddenly learn that the little girl we have been sympathizing with, the very girl whose humanity and innocence may have broken down our stereotypes, well, she's no better than those other Yemeni terrorists. As a result, when Samuel L. Jackson delivers the key line...

Samuel L. Jackson

Waste the motherfuckers!

Jack Shaheen
... we are now on his side. Why does this matter? Because in the end, the massacre of even women and children has been justified and applauded. It's a slaughter, yes, but it's a righteous slaughter.

Samuel L. Jackson

Sergeant Mit!

Sergeant Mit:

Sir!

Samuel L. Jackson

Contact all stations. Mission complete.

Jack Shaheen

The humanity is not there. And if we cannot see the Arab humanity, what's left? if we feel nothing. If we feel that Arabs are not like us, or not like anyone else, then let's kill them all. Then they deserve to die, right? We are at war with Iraq. We went to war in March of 2003. But didn't our entrance to the war; wasn't that made a lot easier primarily because for more than a century we had been vilifying all things Arab.

Song

Oh I come from a land, from a faraway place where the caravan camels roam; where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face. It's barbaric but hey, it's home!

Chomsky

The United States is not a totalitarian state, so you don't get a propaganda line. What you get is something much more subtle, but similar. Namely, a vigorous debate within a framework of fixed and unquestionable presuppositions; and it's those presuppositions that are the propaganda line. So take, I do know, say, the war in Vietnam -- or anything you like --. War in Vietnam: the presupposition is... well, a quote from the left end, Anthony Lewis. "We began with blundering efforts to do good but by 1969 we found that it was a disaster, which was too costly for ourselves. So therefore we should get out." That's the left. The right says "you're selling us out. We can win if we go in and fight harder." All of it assumes that the US attack against South Vietnam was a defense of South Vietnam; that it was an effort to do good. And then we can debate the tactics. That's perfect propaganda. If dictators had any brains, they would do the same thing. But, what's interesting is the nature of the criticism. It's purely tactical. "You thought the tactics weren't going to work. Ha ha they work just fine, so therefore everything was right." It's the only question you can ask. We didn't ask that question about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Or take, say, Czechoslovakia in 1968. Tactics worked fine. They didn't kill a lot of people, so what was wrong with it? Well, we all know what was wrong with it. It didn't matter that it worked. It's irrelevant. It didn't matter that they didn't kill many people. What mattered is what they were up to. But that kind of question you cannot ask about ourselves. If you ask that about ourselves -- in fact, it doesn't even happen -- but there's a whole... just to prevent the heresy, even though it barely exists, there is a very impressive array of devices that have been constructed just in case the heresy of being honest ever arises. There are even terms that are used, like "moral relativism". Moral relativism means we apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others. Or "moral equivalence", this absurd notion I think was invented by Jeane Kirkpatrick, as far as I recall, to prevent looking at ourselves. Or take, say, "anti-Americanism". That's a notion that's used as far as I know only in totalitarian states. So, in the Soviet Union, the old Soviet Union, to be "anti-Soviet" was a terrible crime. Under the Brazilian generals to be "anti-Brazilian" was a crime. You know, were the Russian dissidents anti-Russian? Of course not. They were opposed to the policies of the state; in favor of helping the people. But in an intellectual culture that has no conception of democracy, it becomes "anti-Americanism"

Arundhati Roy

It is dangerous to cede to the Indian government, or the American government, or anyone for that matter the right to define what India or America are or ought to be. Nationalism of one kind or another was the cause of most of the genocide of the 20th century.

Quote

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. -- George Orwell

Arundhati Roy

Flags, are bits of colored cloth that governments use first to shrink wrap people's brains, and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead.

Voice [ David Frum ]

you say that what the media do is to ignore certain kinds of atrocities that are committed by us and our friends, and to play up enormously atrocities are committed by them and our enemies.

Chomsky

Take a look, say, at the book that Edward Herman and I wrote on this topic. In it we discuss three kinds of atrocities: what we call "benign bloodbaths" which nobody cares about, "constructive bloodbaths" which are the ones we like, and "nefarious bloodbaths" which are the ones that the bad guys do. What you would predict, if you think it through, is that our discussion of the constructive bloodbaths would be ignored, because to reveal the fact that the media welcomed huge bloodbaths, as they did, would not be very conducive to the interests of power or to the media. It would also expose the fraud about the apparent anger over nefarious bloodbaths. So you would expect the constructive bloodbaths to be ignored. As far as the benign bloodbaths are concerned, you might expect an occasional statement, since it's... I mean the fact that the media ignored the benign bloodbaths, doesn't show such terrible things. At least they didn't applaud them. And as long as you can exclude the role of the United States in being involved in them, not terrible -- maybe a few odd comments. With regard to the nefarious bloodbaths, what would you would expect is fury and venom over the fact that the fabrications over bloodbaths of the enemy were exposed as a fraud. And that's important. And that can be used; it can be used in fact to defame the critics. See, if you show that people are lying about the crimes of official enemies, you can easily distort that into a defense of those crimes.

Arundhati Roy

It's a failure of the imagination-- an inability to see the world in terms other than those the establishment has set out for you: "if you're not a bushie, you are a Taliban," "if you don't love us, you hate us" "if you're not good you are evil" "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists"

Chomsky

It's not the case, as the naive might think, that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy. Rather, it's the essence of democracy. The point is that in a military state, or a feudal state, or what you would nowadays call a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think, because you've got a bludgeon over their head and you can control what they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon; when you can't control people by force, and when the voice of the people can be heard, you have this problem. It may "make people so curious and so arrogant that they don't have the humility to submit to a civil rule" and therefore you have to control what people think.

Ross Reynolds

You write in Manufacturing Consent that it's the primary function of the mass media in the United States to mobilize public support for the special interests that dominate the government and the private sector. What are those interests?

Chomsky

Well, if you want to understand the way any society works, ours or any other, the first place to look is who makes... who is in a position to make the decisions that determine the way the society functions. Societies differ, but in ours, the major decisions over what happens in the society, decisions over investment and production and distribution and so on are in the hands of a relatively concentrated network of major corporations and conglomerates, and investment firms and so on. They are also the ones who staff the major executive positions in the government; and they are the ones who own the media -- and they're the ones who have to be in a position to make the decisions. They have an overwhelmingly dominant role in the way life happens; you know, what's done in this society. Within the economic system, by law and in principle, they dominate. The control over resources and the need to satisfy their interests imposes very sharp constraints on the political system and the ideological system.

David Barsamian

When you talk about manufacturing of consent, whose consent is being manufactured?

Chomsky

To start with, there are two different groups. We can get into more detail, but at the first level of approximation, there is two targets for propaganda: one is what is sometimes called "the political class". There is maybe 20% of the population which is relatively educated, more or less articulate; they play some kind of role in decision-making. They're supposed to sort of participate in social life -- be there as managers, or cultural managers, like say, teachers, writers and so on. They are supposed to vote; they are supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Now, their consent is crucial. It's one group that has to be deeply indoctrinated. Then, there is maybe 20% of the population whose main function is to follow orders and not to think, and not to pay attention to anything. And they're the ones who usually pay the costs.

Ron Linville

All right, Professor Chomsky, Noam. You outlined a model with filters that propaganda is sent through, on its way to the public. Can you briefly outlined those?

Chomsky

It's basically an institutional analysis of the major media, what we call a propaganda model. We're talking primarily about the national media, those media that sort of set a general agenda that others more or less adhere to, to the extent that they even pay much attention to national or international affairs. Now the elite media are sort of the agenda setting media. That means the New York Times, the Washington Post, the major television channels, and so on. They set the general framework. Local media more or less adapt to their structure.

Man

World news

Director

It's a soundbite that says there's a beachhead

Peter Jennings

I think 6:28 is a good one.

News Director

Yeah, but I think, I think, I think six is a good start.

News Director

This is the operative soundbite for us -- he's ours

Copy editor

I think we may get out in time, we have got a minute for all the time so if that is...

Peter Jennings

I love this soundbite

Chomsky

And they do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits.

Floor director

25 seconds

Chomsky

They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict -- in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.

Peter Jennings

There is an unusual amount of attention focused today on the five nations of Central America.

Andrew Marr

How can you know that I am self censoring? How can you know that journalists...?

Chomsky

I'm not saying you are self censoring. I'm sure you believe everything you are saying. But what I'm saying is if you believed something different, you would not be sitting where you're sitting. Quite generally, it goes right through history, intellectuals have been servants of power. They say the first world war. On all sides, Germany, England, United States, France, intellectuals were extremely enthusiastic about the war. There were a few dissenters. And the best known of them ended up in jail, like Bertrand Russell for example, or Eugene Debs in the United States, or Rosa Luxemburg in Germany-- very small group of critics, some of them best known in prison. But most intellectuals were enthusiasts for their own country. And that's common; and it remains common. I mean, intellectuals write history, so you have to be a little cautious about what they say about themselves. We ask: what would you expect of those media on just, relatively uncontroversial guided free-market assumptions. And when you look at them, you find a number of major factors entering into determining what their products are. These are what we call the "filters". So one of them, for example, is ownership -- who owns them? The major agenda setting media, after all, what are they? As institutions in the society, what are they? Well, in the first place, they are major corporations -- in fact huge corporations. Furthermore, they are integrated with, and sometimes owned by even larger corporations, conglomerates; so for example by Westinghouse and GE and so on.

Student

What I wanted to know was how specifically the elites control the media. What I mean...

Chomsky

It's like asking: "how do the elites control General Motors?" Well, what isn't that a question? I mean, General Motors is an institution of elites. They don't have to control it. They own it.

Student

Except, I guess, at a certain level, I think... I guess, I work with the student press, so I know reporters and stuff...

Chomsky

Elites don't control the student press, but I'll tell you something: you try in the student press to do anything that breaks out of conventions, and you're going to have the whole business community around here down on your neck, and the University is going to get threatened, and you know... maybe no one will pay any attention to you; that's possible. But if you get to the point where they don't stop paying attention to you, the pressures will start coming. Because there are people with power. There are people who own the country. And they're not going to let the country get out of control. So what we have in the first place is major corporations which are parts of even bigger conglomerates. Now, like any other corporation they have a product which they sell to a market. The market is advertisers; that is other businesses. What keeps the media functioning is not the audience. They make money from their advertisers. And, remember we're talking about the elite media. So they're trying to sell a good product, a product which raises advertising rates. And ask your friends in the advertising industry, that means that they want to adjust their audience to the more elite and affluent audience that raises advertising rates. So what you have is institutions, corporations, big corporations, that are selling relatively privileged audiences to other businesses. Well, what point of view would you expect to come out of this? And without any further assumptions, what you would predict is that what comes out is a picture of the world, a perception of the world that satisfies the needs, and the interests and the perceptions of the sellers, the buyers and the product. Now, there are many other factors that press in the same direction. If people try to enter the system who don't have that point of view, they're likely to be excluded somewhere along the way. After all, no institution is going to happily design a mechanism to self-destruct. It's not the way institutions function. So they all work to exclude, or marginalize or eliminate, dissenting voices or alternative perspectives and so on because they are dysfunctional -- they are dysfunctional to the institution itself. They're acting within institutional structures, constructed systems in which only certain options are easy to pursue.

Voiceover

And in fact, these options may magnify, in an institutional form, the worst tendencies of human nature -- tendencies, which would otherwise only be present in a small percentage of the population: psychopaths

Robert Hare

One of the questions that comes up periodically is to what extent could a corporation be considered to be psychopathic. And if we look at a corporation as a legal person, it may not be that difficult to actually draw the transition between psychopathy in the individual to psychopathy in a corporation. We can go through the characteristics that define this particular disorder, one by one, and see how they may apply to corporations. The psychopath's relations with others are superficial, surface, very very little depth -- mostly style over substance. And the idea is to impress other individuals to somehow put them in a position where you can manipulate them and so forth. And a corporation, I imagine, would be not unlike that in many respects. They would have public relations firms. They would be spending half their time and a lot of their budget in trying to present a particular image to other people. And this image is very superficial; and you never really get to know the real corporation. You're going to see what they want you to see. Psychopath is also a grandiose individual -- has a very powerful sense of self, believes that he or she is the center of the universe, better, smarter than everybody else. Corporations, I suppose, almost by their very nature would have to adopt this particular attitude. If they took the stance that they were in fact inferior to every other company, they're probably not going to get very far. So, I imagine that they would spend an awful lot of time explaining to others and to themselves that we are number one -- we are the best. The psychopath is also very manipulative; tends to manipulate, con and deceive other people to try to mold them into something that they can use. Remember, the psychopath is really a predator, and as a predator you are trying to groom and put your prey in the right position where you can make some use of this particular object (it's the way they would see them). Would a corporation be the same? To a very large extent I would imagine so, because what you're trying to do is manipulate everything -- including public opinion, for one thing -- and I imagine in a sales meeting, where you're trying to get everybody pumped up, you got to rara!, you got to manipulate them, get them into a position where they actually believe in something that they might not have believed in before. A psychopath lacks empathy. And this simply means that is very difficult or impossible for a psychopath to put himself inside the emotional skin of somebody else.They may understand at some sort of superficial level that this person is going through what could be construed as an emotion by other people, but I don't understand what it is. This is the psychopath's position. Would a company or corporation actually lack empathy? Well, maybe by definition they would have to. If you're concerned about the fate of your competitors, and also the general public, you may not have profits that are so respectable. Lacks remorse, is another characteristic that defines psychopathy. That is, having done something, you don't feel badly about it. A corporation, I imagine, would be much the same -- unless one is caught. Now, a psychopath who is caught for committing a crime, the first thing he'll say is "yeah I'm really sorry I did it. I feel remorse." But only when caught. And I imagine that most corporations would be much the same. If some sort of regulatory body finds out what you're doing and if it's considered to be illegal, I would imagine that they would say "well, yes, we are really sorry" but otherwise they're not likely to do that. A psychopath doesn't accept responsibility for his or her own behavior. Usually, diffusion of responsibility is the name of the game for the psychopath: "somebody else made me do it" "it wasn't my fault" "it was fate and I'm not really responsible". Corporations would do this almost routinely, I would imagine. In fact, they would have public relations personnel whose only job is to make sure that this image is portrayed to the general public. That is "yes, somebody else" "it was fate" "it was a political decision" "the market certainly crashed and there was a war in some other place, and this accounted for everything". Psychopaths tend to be impulsive, but in a fairly controlled sense. That is, most psychopaths are not going to do things if there's an external control present. A psychopath standing on the street corner is not going to commit a crime with the police standing right next to him. On the other hand, if the policeman is not there, if the external control is not there, then it's possible that he or she will do whatever he feels like doing if he has a chance of getting away with it. Are corporations impulsive? It's difficult to actually evaluate this, but I would imagine so in some cases. Particularly if the corporation is not well structured; if the rules of behavior and the hierarchical structure is not firmly in place, then it would be very possible for a corporation to act impulsively. Of course, if you do this then you run the risk of actually experiencing fairly serious losses. Psychopaths don't have long-term goals. Most of the things that they are striving for are short-term. It could refer to a short-term form of hedonism. And corporations I imagine are much the same way. In fact, one could argue that sacrificing short-term profits for the long-term potential of making profits would not be in the company's best interest. So, almost by their very nature they would have to lack long-term goals. Now, some corporations, of course, would have a long-term strategy. But at the same time they would have the short-term goals that are firmly in place. They got to go to the next stockholders' meeting, for example, and show that there is a profit. Psychopaths tend to be irresponsible.That means that their behavior doesn't take into account what is likely to happen to somebody else. Their own behavior puts other people at risk all the time. This could be in driving or it could be in personal relations or anything they do in their general life. And corporations, I imagine could be irresponsible in exactly the same way. That is, in an attempt to satisfy the corporate goal, everybody else is put at risk. This could be other companies, as a matter of fact I suppose one could argue that this is good in the business sense. I mean, if your competitors full by the wayside because you're acting irresponsibly with respect to them that's good -- as long as you get some sort of goal out of that, some sort of benefit. Psychopaths also tend to engage in behavior that is antisocial or at least asocial from a very early age. And this continues on throughout most of the life span. And by this I mean that their behavior is not necessarily criminal in the strict sense of the term, but in fact it's harmful to other people, other individuals. It may not take into account the fact that your behavior is going to have negative consequences for somebody else. Corporations could be much the same; and this ties in with your irresponsibility to a certain extent. What they're doing with respect to the general public and to other companies would clearly be, looked at, viewed as, or construed as asocial or antisocial. We just don't really care.

Man

I was wondering what scheme, workable scheme you would put in its place

Chomsky

Me?

Man

What would you suggest to others who might be in a position to set it up and get it going?

Chomsky

Well, I mean, I think that what used to be called centuries ago "wage slavery" is intolerable. I don't think people ought to be forced to rent themselves in order to survive. I think that the economic institutions ought to be run democratically, by the participants, by the communities in which they exist and so on. And I think basically through various kinds of free association.

John Zerzan

I'd like to see a gigantic project of dismantling and just getting rid of all this stuff that rests on the destruction of nature, the separates us from the natural world, that has people on this treadmill. To constantly work and constantly consume -- it's madness. It's destroying everything and it just has to go

Voiceover

Here, the question of how much of our modern industrial society needs to go arises. Obviously, people should be free to choose less technological ways of living, but let's recall that science, technology and intellect have not been devoted to stopping the destruction of nature, to enhancing workers' self-management, or to overcoming the onerous and self-destructive character of the work of society. It has always been assumed that nature and people are just there to be exploited for the benefit of elites, and it's always been assumed that there is a substantial body of wage slaves who will do it simply because otherwise they'll starve. However, if human intelligence were devoted to asking how technology can be designed to fit the needs of the human producer and of the ecosystem, instead of that of the profiteers, technology would not seem so negative. And if human intelligence is turned to the question of how to make the necessary work of the society itself meaningful, the results could be surprising. For example, much of the necessary work could be consigned to machines, which means that humans can have more leisure time or can undertake creative and interesting work involving intelligence, skill, human relations and service to the community. The task of technicians in this system of participatory councils would be to produce plans in the same way as industries produce refrigerators or stoves. That is, to explain to the people who are affected that "if you decide this, you're likely to get this or that consequence". There is, however, one impediment that we need to struggle against if we wish to avert self-destruction. That's the authoritarian and materialistic tendencies of our society.

Erich Fromm

If my sense of identity is based on what I have, on my possessions. If I can say I am what I have, then the question arises: what am I if I lose what I have? Therefore, the sense of identity based on what I have is always threatened. A person is anxiously concerned not to lose what he has; because he doesn't lose just what he has -- he loses his sense of self. That sense of identity which is based on "to be" is entirely different, because that can never be taken away from me -- except if I'm insane or some peculiar circumstance. I feel. I see. I love. I'm sad. The less you are, and the less you express your life, the more you have and the greater is your alienated life. Everything the economist takes from you in the way of life and humanity, he restores to you in form of money and wealth.

Tyler Durden

God dammit, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables -- slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes; working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.

Arundhati Roy

All 4600 million years of evolution: it's packed, sealed, tagged, valued and available off the rack -- no returns.

Erich Fromm

Capital is dead. It's amassed wealth which then can be used for certain purposes. Labor is alive. What is superior: things or life?

Roman soldier

Death!

Man

Death!

Crowd

Death! Death! Death! Death!

Emperor

You see; it is the will of the people.

Woman

The will of your slaves and parasites. How dare you speak of justice?

Man

For 50 years we've told them what to eat, what to drink, what to wear. For Christ sakes Ben, don't you understand? Americans love television. They wean their kids on it! Listen, they love game shows. They love wrestling. They love sports, violence. So what do we do? We give them what they want!

George Bush song

We cannot let the terrorists achieve the objective of frightening our nation to the point where we don't... where people don't shop.

Questioner

What do you find more satisfying working or shopping?

Man

Shopping!

Questioner

Thank you...You?

Man #2

Shopping

Questioner

I see, look at all those bags

Man #3

Definitely shopping

Questioner

What do you find more satisfying working or shopping?

Man #4

Shopping, of course

Woman

Shopping

Woman #2

That's a difficult one. Shopping

Man #5

I've been working for [inaudible] years, so shopping.

Man #6

Shopping definitely. Work sucks

Questioner

Can I ask you a quick question for school?

Black man

Yes, what's up?

Questioner

What do you find more satisfying working or shopping?

Black man

You know shopping, of course -- you know that

Woman #3

Shopping

Man #7

Shopping without a doubt. That's an easy question

Woman #4

Shopping of course

Man #8

Shopping definitely

Man #9

Absolutely shopping

Many people

Shopping shopping shopping shopping shopping shopping shopping shopping shopping

Black woman

I have to work in order to shop. So they go together.

Woman

well, I work so I can shop

Woman

I like working so that I have the money to shop

Man

Obviously shopping, but you got to work so you can shop.

Tyler Durden

Our great war is a spiritual war. Our Great Depression is our lives. We have all been raised on television to believe that one day we would all be millionaires and movie Gods and rock stars, but we won't. We are slowly learning that fact.

Hotel worker

That's all very well Mr. Hammer, but we haven't been paid in two weeks and we want our wages

Groucho Marx

Wages? You want to be wage slaves? Answer me that

Hotel workers

No

Groucho Marx

No, of course not, but what makes wage slaves? Wages! I want you to be free!

Questioner

Excuse me sir, are you going to work because you want to, or because you want to pay the bills?

Man

Just because I want to.

Questioner

Because you want to?

Man

Yes, because I have to

Questioner

Because you have to pay the bills

Man

Yeah, just because I have to pay the bills

Man

I want to pay the bills

Questioner

Thank you very much

Man

To pay the bills

Man

I got to pay the bills, so that means I have to go to work

Woman

I have to pay the bills

Man

Sorry, I'm retired

Questioner

What about when you were working? Did you go to work because you had to... because you had to pay the bills?

Man

I had to

Woman

Paying the bills

Woman

What do you think?

Many people

Pay the bills pay the bills pay the bills pay the bills pay the bills etc.

Man

Oh the bills, always the bills!

Groucho Marx

You see that? I keep them dancing for their money.

Receptionist

Yeah!

Chomsky

To inquire and to create: these are the centers around which all human pursuits more or less directly revolve. All moral culture springs solely and immediately from the inner life of the soul and can never be produced by external and artificial contrivances. The cultivation of the understanding, as of any of man's other faculties is generally achieved by his own activity, his own ingenuity, or his own methods of using the discoveries of others. Man never regards what he possesses as so much his own as what he does. And the laborer who tends a garden is perhaps in a truer sense its owner than the listless voluptuary who enjoys its fruits. And since truly human action is that which flows from inner impulse, it seems as if all peasants and craftsmen might be elevated into artists -- that is man who love their labor for its own sake, improve it by their own plastic genius and inventive skill, and thereby cultivate their intellect, ennoble their character, and exalt and refine their pleasures. A higher form of society in which labor has become not only a means of life, but also the highest want in life. Whatever does not spring from a man's free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very being, but remains alien to his true nature. He does not perform it with truly human energies but merely with mechanical exactness. And if a man acts in a mechanical way, reacting to external demands or instruction rather than in ways determined by his own interests and energies and power, we may admire what he does but we despise what he is.

Interviewer

How far does the success of libertarian socialism or anarchism really depend on a fundamental change in the nature of man -- both in his motivation, his altruism and also in his knowledge and sophistication?

Chomsky

I think it not only depends on it, but in fact the whole purpose of libertarian socialism is that it will contribute to it. It will contribute to a spiritual transformation. Precisely that kind of great transformation in the way humans conceive of themselves in their ability to act, to decide, to create, to produce, to inquire -- precisely that spiritual transformation that social thinkers from the left Marxist tradition, from Luxembourg, say, on over through anarcho-syndicalists have always emphasized. So, on the one hand it requires that spiritual transformation. On the other hand its purpose is to create institutions which will contribute to that transformation.

Arundhati Roy

To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget.