Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance
- Downloads：6181
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-04-23 13:51:21
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Noam Chomsky
- ISBN：0241482615
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
An essential primer on capitalism， politics and how the world works， based on the hugely popular undergraduate lecture series 'What is Politics？'
Is there an alternative to capitalism？ In this landmark text Chomsky and Waterstone chart a critical map for a more just and sustainable society。
'Covid-19 has revealed glaring failures and monstrous brutalities in the current capitalist system。 It represents both a crisis and an opportunity。 Everything depends on the actions that people take into their own hands。'
How does politics shape our world， our lives and our perceptions？ How much of 'common sense' is actually driven by the ruling classes' needs and interests？ And how are we to challenge the capitalist structures that now threaten all life on the planet？
Consequences of Capitalism exposes the deep， often unseen connections between neoliberal 'common sense' and structural power。 In making these linkages， we see how the current hegemony keeps social justice movements divided and marginalized。 And， most importantly， we see how we can fight to overcome these divisions。
Is there an alternative to capitalism？ In this landmark text Chomsky and Waterstone chart a critical map for a more just and sustainable society。
'Covid-19 has revealed glaring failures and monstrous brutalities in the current capitalist system。 It represents both a crisis and an opportunity。 Everything depends on the actions that people take into their own hands。'
How does politics shape our world， our lives and our perceptions？ How much of 'common sense' is actually driven by the ruling classes' needs and interests？ And how are we to challenge the capitalist structures that now threaten all life on the planet？
Consequences of Capitalism exposes the deep， often unseen connections between neoliberal 'common sense' and structural power。 In making these linkages， we see how the current hegemony keeps social justice movements divided and marginalized。 And， most importantly， we see how we can fight to overcome these divisions。
Reviews
Francis Kilkenny
，
Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone’s ‘Consequences of Capitalism’ relates the history and consequences of capitalism in the last century or so， with a strong emphasis on the role of U。S。 power。 This book is formed from a series of lectures that Chomsky and Waterstone gave at the University of Arizona， which are lightly edited。 Chomsky， as always， is skewering in his critique of U。S。 domestic and foreign policy， while Waterstone provides a more theoretical perspective on capitalism and its effects。 Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone’s ‘Consequences of Capitalism’ relates the history and consequences of capitalism in the last century or so， with a strong emphasis on the role of U。S。 power。 This book is formed from a series of lectures that Chomsky and Waterstone gave at the University of Arizona， which are lightly edited。 Chomsky， as always， is skewering in his critique of U。S。 domestic and foreign policy， while Waterstone provides a more theoretical perspective on capitalism and its effects。 As someone who has read a lot of Chomsky， I will say that Chomsky’s lectures are essentially Chomsky being Chomsky。 Which is to say， a lecture from likely the most intelligent and knowledgeable critic of power in our lifetime。 Chomsky’s grasp on political history is outstanding and you will always come away smarter。 In fact， Chomsky’s intellect and ability to muster facts is so powerful that it can take some time to see his blind spots。 But， like everyone， these blind spots exist。 The major one being his relentless focus on U。S。 power。 While his critiques are extremely hard to argue with， this focus lets many other entities off the hook。 Sometimes this is simply omission。 For example， Chomsky doesn’t focus on Russia much， but he would never say Putin is good for the Russian people。 However， in some cases Chomsky leaves the impression that certain groups are infallible。 In Chomsky’s ideology， people’s movements and unions are pretty much always good。 Of course， there is no question that these movements have advanced human rights。 But， according to Chomsky， when these movements go wrong it is basically always due to suppression or corruption from outside sources of power。 This ignores the potential for inherent weaknesses within these movements。 For example， in the past Chomsky has explained away the racism manifest in some union movements。 Chomsky is a strong proponent of anarcho-syndicalism， which focuses on worker solidarity and direct democracy。 Essentially proposing that unions and associations between unions should form the basis of political power。 There are a couple of assumptions of this philosophy that come out in Chomsky’s work， this book being no exception。 First， spoken to above， is that this form of societal organization is assumed to work if not for those meddling elites。 The potential inherent pitfalls of this system are left unexamined。 Second， there is a deep suspicion of technology， almost to the point of Ludditism。 Technology is seen as a way of taking jobs away from workers， while also being devastating to the environment， and most technological progress comes from the government anyway and should be in the hands of the people。Waterstone’s lectures in this book do not have the same force as Chomsky’s， though they are generally solid。 One can learn a lot from these lectures about the theoretical underpinnings of capitalism。 However， I felt their was an over reliance on Marx。 In particular， this over reliance colors Waterstone’s views on technological progress， much as Chomsky’s anarcho-syndicalism colors his views。 Labor is seen as the only source of value， while technology is ignored as a source of value。 This glosses over a substantial development in the history of human civilization。 Further， capital is seen primarily as a way of exploiting worker labor， taking value from labor and moving it into the hands of capital。 At a certain level this is undeniable。 But， because most technological progress would not be possible without accumulated capital to back it， this progress has to be viewed with suspicion in order for a Marxist view to remain coherent。 Thus， the source of technological progress becomes more important than its ultimate effects， though those are suspect as well。 Indeed， Waterstone hammers on the ravages of capitalism on the environment， as driven by technology。 This view is unfortunate， because many signs point to a potential reversal in the trend of increasing resource depletion and environmental damage。 We are likely entering a new phase where economies are dematerializing due to technological progress。 Mercantilism and industrial-stage capitalism have clearly done immense damage both to people and the environment。 But technological progress has also brought us methods to reverse this damage， to make more with less。 Now， Waterstone’s suspicion is not all unfounded。 Only some of the destructive trends are reversing， and while we have reason to be optimistic， little of the damage has been substantially reversed at this point。 Therefore， one can be forgiven for being skeptical。 More importantly， trends in surveillance and automation are quite troubling。 Waterstone is especially concerned about surveillance and what it means for democracy， a question we should all be asking。While I have so far focused my criticism on the philosophical perspectives of Chomsky and Waterstone， I would still rate this book at four stars for the intellectual fire power that it brings to bear。 However， I rated this book at three stars。 Why？ The lecture format。 First， a quibble。 The lectures are arranged in order to make a more coherent book， but are not in order of the actual lectures。 Because this book was only lightly edited， there are many references within the lectures that don’t lead anywhere because they refer to a structure that no longer exists。 This is a bit frustrating， but certainly ignorable。 More problematic is the constant asides。 Chomsky uses phrases like “think about that。。。” when he clearly has a certain direction in mind for the reader to follow。 This rhetorical stab is often used as a way to implant certain ideas without having to defend them。 With Chomsky this is subtle and hard to detect。 Waterstone is far more blunt。 She inserts opinions and leaves them hanging， or she uses a quick rhetorical argument that plays to our psychological biases without actually supporting her claim in any way。 One of the most egregious examples of this was made in regards to GMOs （a very complex topic that is， unfortunately， almost universally divided into all-pro or all-con arguments）。 Waterstone includes GMOs alongside some other clearly problematic technologies， the problems of which are decently explained。 But， her only argument about why GMOs are problematic is that nobody consulted her about whether they should be part of our food supply。 This is a way of acting as if GMOs are so obviously bad that we can move on to the next discussion。 It’s these kinds of biased asides that make me wish that this book had a little more than light editing。 。。。more
Mike Schellman
，
This series of lectures by Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone is full of interesting information about the evolution of our current form of Government。 Chomsky is especially good at compiling quotations and historical data that reveals the motives behind what goes on in the world。 Whether you agree with his conclusions or not - he definitely makes a case that must be answered， or conceded。Since I listed to the audio version of this book， I will have to go back and mine some of the information from This series of lectures by Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone is full of interesting information about the evolution of our current form of Government。 Chomsky is especially good at compiling quotations and historical data that reveals the motives behind what goes on in the world。 Whether you agree with his conclusions or not - he definitely makes a case that must be answered， or conceded。Since I listed to the audio version of this book， I will have to go back and mine some of the information from the text version。 The audible version has helpfully included titles for each of the chapters - which should make identifying interesting sections much easier。 。。。more
Bennett Hoffman
，
What is "common-sense"？ The book begins with that question。。。 and takes the reader on a roller coaster ride of self exploration。 In a sense I think it is a sequel to Manufacturing Consent， where the mechanisms used to create our reality for us were laid bare。 Now， we have the opportunity to look deeper at how we believe what we believe， how our beliefs square with truths that have perhaps been unavailable to us， who profits from these manufactured beliefs， what systems have been installed to kee What is "common-sense"？ The book begins with that question。。。 and takes the reader on a roller coaster ride of self exploration。 In a sense I think it is a sequel to Manufacturing Consent， where the mechanisms used to create our reality for us were laid bare。 Now， we have the opportunity to look deeper at how we believe what we believe， how our beliefs square with truths that have perhaps been unavailable to us， who profits from these manufactured beliefs， what systems have been installed to keep this whole ball rolling。。。 and how we can change all this so the needs of every-day people are better served。It is an incredible book， and the extensive notes and recommended readings make it a lasting resource。I should add that the format is one of alternating presentations by Chomsky and Waterstone for what I assume was a course at Univ。 of Arizona。 But it flows well， and though filled with data it always makes it point。。。 and often-times left me staggering。 。。。more
Graham
，
You can just read chapter 2 （Waterstone’s lecture） instead of all 800 pages of Marx’s Capital vol。 1 Overall， I found Marv Waterstone’s contributions to be the strongest since it’s a useful introduction to some theoretical frameworks， particularly Gramsci。 Because it’s the most recent and so simple， I’d say this book works as a nice summary of Chomsky’s history of power in the 20th and 21st century。 If you’ve read other Chomsky books， it’s familiar material but made up to date as of 2019
Stefan
，
A book that lays bare a lot about our modern world that we take for granted， and incidents that we would never learn about without stumbling upon them somewhere。 This book is a series of layups by Noam and Marv， and the book is exceedingly persuasive and lucid in its commentary。 I will probably read this many more times in the future。
Prem_gem
，
As consequential as any Chomsky book
Dave Seibert
，
Great readIt is always a pleasure to read Noan Chomsky as work。 I wish I could have enjoyed more of his lectures in person。
C F
，
Essential reading for movement-builders。 It's literally a transcription of college lectures delivered in alternating chapters by Marv Waterstone and Noam Chomsky， with a logical progression from historical analysis and analysis of structural power to lessons from recent decades of struggle that should be beneficial to activists committed to building stronger movements。 One of the frustrations is that there is a lot of "more on that later" - but that's attributable to the fact that this is a tran Essential reading for movement-builders。 It's literally a transcription of college lectures delivered in alternating chapters by Marv Waterstone and Noam Chomsky， with a logical progression from historical analysis and analysis of structural power to lessons from recent decades of struggle that should be beneficial to activists committed to building stronger movements。 One of the frustrations is that there is a lot of "more on that later" - but that's attributable to the fact that this is a transcript of a series of lectures。 。。。more
Gregg
，
The book， a series of lectures Chomsky and Waterhouse gave last year， begins with a premise that urges a skill I think should be taught in kindergarten。 Learn to see what’s right in front of your face。 “Common sense，” Waterhouse calls it—that which society takes as a given—should always be questioned， scrutinized， analyzed。 So much “common sense” in our country is held up to the light in this book， and found wanting。 We can’t afford health care for all。 Economic growth is what we want above all。 The book， a series of lectures Chomsky and Waterhouse gave last year， begins with a premise that urges a skill I think should be taught in kindergarten。 Learn to see what’s right in front of your face。 “Common sense，” Waterhouse calls it—that which society takes as a given—should always be questioned， scrutinized， analyzed。 So much “common sense” in our country is held up to the light in this book， and found wanting。 We can’t afford health care for all。 Economic growth is what we want above all。 Bad guys are coming to get you。 The people are too dangerous to be given control of their own livelihoods。 Indeed， go down this route of thinking sustainedly and it doesn’t take long to realize that things like the 40 hour work week， wage slavery， lack of democratic representation and risible wages-to-work ratios are all literally a bunch of made up shit thrust upon us by the real rulers of the country that we do not have to put up with。 In other words， capitalism is not serving our needs。 dReaders of Chomsky will find much familiar material here， although， since it was composed in 2020， our former president and his bloviating is used as a framework of discussion。 Waterhouse is equally engaging—he brings the discussion back to the notion of hegemony effectively and knowledgeably。 Lots of details here， lots of history and economics， lots to digest。 Lots of horrid material that， frankly， I’d forgotten about while drowning in the deluge of the Trump news cycle; other material I did not know about （details about COINTELPRO， and Department of Justice crackdowns on peaceful 2017 inauguration protestors， among others） and now have to fit into the existing framework。 And of course， global warming。 Towards the end， the authors mention that we can look forward to further COViD outbreaks since， as a result of species migrations and temperature increases， more rampant disease is all but guaranteed。 But the authors remain optimistic， if measuredly。 Things have been bad before。 But they changed。 Things can change again。 If we’re willing to do the work。 。。。more
Jordan
，
Pretty good intro to politics and capitalism undergraduate lecture series by a marxist and chomsky
Gionysius
，
WoahThis book made me want to read Karl Marx， always been afraid to pick that up， but I feel I have to now。 So good。 All my deep-rooted Rage Against Capitalism， which I have felt simmering within since I was a young child， is here explained。
Michele Zephier
，
Essential reading。
Oscar Cecena
，
Sometimes when reading， one phrase or a concept stands out， and I cannot stop thinking about it。 And in this case， this is the one。 Capitalism is so engraved in me that I cannot imagine it ending。I’m a huge Chomsky fan。 I started reading his articles when I was in high school。 But， despite my bias for everything Chomsky， the Consequences of Capitalism book is quite insightful。 It does not give you a leftist view for the sake of it。 No， it gives you facts backed up by history。One other thing they Sometimes when reading， one phrase or a concept stands out， and I cannot stop thinking about it。 And in this case， this is the one。 Capitalism is so engraved in me that I cannot imagine it ending。I’m a huge Chomsky fan。 I started reading his articles when I was in high school。 But， despite my bias for everything Chomsky， the Consequences of Capitalism book is quite insightful。 It does not give you a leftist view for the sake of it。 No， it gives you facts backed up by history。One other thing they talk about， and I loved， was the idea of common sense， how we， as a society， build our concept of how life should work and if someone steps out of it， then they’re wrong。 He talks about The American Dream， the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules， you’re going to be okay。 And even in Canada （where I live） or Mexico （where I was raised）， we have the same perception。 And， because， some of us have lived privileged lives， we may think that common sense is real。I’ve met honest people in my life who work hard and play by the rules but still cannot make ends meet。 I find it ridiculous to look a single-mother in the eye and tell her that working two jobs and not being able to provide for her children is fair。 I think it’s obvious for most people that the system is broken。 It’s just a matter of making the people who benefit from the system （like me） realize that it’s wrong， and that’s the hardest part。 。。。more
Derek Boyes
，
This was my first Chomsky （and Waterstone） book and I was looking forward to what he had to say about the world。 I was worried it would be too academic， but actually it gave a clear overview of the various ways the Elite maintain a version of 'common sense' to keep us all 'distracted' in order to justify their continual pursuit of Capitalism。 This is despite decades of evidence and warnings that a continued expansion on a planet with limited resources ultimately leads to catastrophic consequence This was my first Chomsky （and Waterstone） book and I was looking forward to what he had to say about the world。 I was worried it would be too academic， but actually it gave a clear overview of the various ways the Elite maintain a version of 'common sense' to keep us all 'distracted' in order to justify their continual pursuit of Capitalism。 This is despite decades of evidence and warnings that a continued expansion on a planet with limited resources ultimately leads to catastrophic consequences， not just for the human race， but for all life on Earth。 I had always heard murmurings that the US （and UK） invaded Iraq to control its oil （despite maintaining they were protecting us from 'weapons of mass destruction' and later， that they were 'freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny）， but knowing oil was now considered a 'soon to be obsolete form of energy，' I could never understood why they needed to。 Now that the motives have been laid out so clearly in this book， along with many other 'secret wars' （like those in south America during the 80's）， it's shocking how void of humanity these Elite's are。I was hoping the last three chapters would propose effective ways to overcome such ever-expanding Capitalist dominance， but all that is really offered is activism through various movements。 However， marching and protesting as a way to make slow change seems rather elementary and ineffective for 2021， especially when radical left identity politics encourage in-fighting within oppressed groups （The Elite's must love this）。Surely there are other innovative ingenious ways to influence/steer/overthrow such power， if not， then may be the environmental catastrophes will eventually wipe out these Elites and their capitalist ideas。 。。。but at the expense of millions， if not billions of innocent lives。Definitely worth reading， but don't expect any tangible solutions。 。。。more
John
，
3。5 stars rounded up。I struggled in the beginning with the style of this book。 It is essentially transcripts from lectures they gave in a class they co-taught。 As such， I feel as if a lot of nuance in delivery， inflection， sarcasm， etc。 was lost。 I got more used to it as I progressed through the book and it became easier to read。They did address relationships and impacts of capitalism in a variety of fields that helped provide a useful lens for which to examine the world around us， particularly 3。5 stars rounded up。I struggled in the beginning with the style of this book。 It is essentially transcripts from lectures they gave in a class they co-taught。 As such， I feel as if a lot of nuance in delivery， inflection， sarcasm， etc。 was lost。 I got more used to it as I progressed through the book and it became easier to read。They did address relationships and impacts of capitalism in a variety of fields that helped provide a useful lens for which to examine the world around us， particularly the US。 They did address how capitalism and racism have been historically connected， although I feel as if the issues of racism came second-handed and they missed opportunities to go further。 （Granted， the book is focused on capitalism and racism is not their area of expertise。 Nevertheless， I would have like to see them go further） 。。。more
Randall Wallace
，
At the start of WWI in order to get “a pacifist population to become raving anti-German hysterics”， While the BSO was forced to stop playing Beethoven， while Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays sat amazed watching people， who once thought for themselves， jump right in line and Lippman realized it was the “manufacturing of consent” and Bernays （the father of PR who saw himself as a propagandist） saw it and devoted himself to the engineering of consent。 Lippman saw fellow citizens as a “bewildered h At the start of WWI in order to get “a pacifist population to become raving anti-German hysterics”， While the BSO was forced to stop playing Beethoven， while Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays sat amazed watching people， who once thought for themselves， jump right in line and Lippman realized it was the “manufacturing of consent” and Bernays （the father of PR who saw himself as a propagandist） saw it and devoted himself to the engineering of consent。 Lippman saw fellow citizens as a “bewildered herd” that “must be put in its place” where they stay “spectators of action” not “participants”。 Lippman’s view is still common， that such citizens push a button every four years and go away。 Liberal theologian Reinhold Niebuhr explained that because of “the stupidity of the average man” enlightened readers have to construct “necessary illusions”。 There’s a great book about the rift between Niebuhr and my grandpa， by Mark L。 Kleinman。 Truth tellers aren’t treated well。 Socrates had to drink his hemlock。 Prophets back then were considered dissidents。 It was the flatterers who were honored at court。 Look at today’s Prophets: Of Gramsci， Mussolini’s prosecution said， “we must stop this brain from functioning for 20 years” when sentencing him。 Sadly， now after the death of Romero and the Jesuit martyrs， we know our prophets won’t go to prison but get their head blown off in public and “you have to make sure that they are unknown forever。” Those who go to the best schools know that “there are certain things it wouldn’t do to say， or， we may add， even to think。” Orwellian self-censorship。 Remember Animal Farm’s original preface attacked England’s culture of self-censorship – things it wouldn’t do to say。 The most authoritative source on the Cold War is the Cambridge History with many volumes and it clearly states that from 1960 to “the Soviet collapse in 1990， the numbers of political prisoners， torture victims， and executions of nonviolent political dissenters in Latin America vastly exceeded those in the Soviet Union and East European satellites。” Things it wouldn’t do to say。 Article VI of the Constitution is a good one to look at since both sides of the aisle routinely enjoy defiling it。 Article VI says all treaties “shall be the supreme law of the land。” We signed the UN Charter， which says in Article 2 （4） that “the threat or use of force” is banned in international affairs。 “among the things it wouldn’t do to say is that the leading figures of the administration are violating the US Constitution， the supreme law of the land。 Does anybody care？ Apparently not。 It seems to be of no concern to responsible intellectuals。” “It is normal for political leaders to violate the Constitution by threatening force。” Obama criticized the Iraq War as a strategic blunder but good luck finding Obama （the Constitutional scholar） saying the Iraq War was the “supreme international crime。” Barack is not brain dead – he is fully aware he violated Article VI with his supreme war crimes of aggression。 The US prosecutor at Nuremberg， Robert Jackson， said this is a poisoned chalice and if we sip from that chalice， we will suffer the same fate as the Nazi’s。 To that verdict， every president of our rogue state since FDR has apparently added， “Just kidding。” After all， Noam often says that war crimes during WWII are standard US foreign policy now。 On Vietnam: Find any mention that the US invaded Vietnam （and Indochina）。 Why can’t you find it？ You can’t find anything written by Hitler as incriminating as Kissinger’s genocidal ode to Asia: “Anything that flies on anything that moves。” Such violence led to creation of the Khmer Rouge。 Liberals can’t go near the truth on Vietnam; the furthest left is the NYT with Anthony Lewis calling the war as “blundering efforts to do good。” US public opinion is actually to the left of liberals: in a poll by the Chicago Council on International Relations， 70% of responders thought the Vietnam War was “fundamentally wrong and immoral”。 Such views it wouldn’t do to say in the Mainstream Media。 “It is dangerous to have a people know their own strength”。 Kissinger noted that he couldn’t dispute Allende’s legitimacy， but saw that he was the threat of a good example and so Chile’s simple social democracy became labelled Marxism throughout the press。 A rotten apple can spoil the barrel。 Nixon himself said， “Our main concern is the prospect that he can consolidate himself and the picture projected to the world will be his success。” The Pinochet coup gave US planners a terrific chance to try neoliberalism and Friedmanite policies because if anyone objects to it， they get tortured。 Simple。 And it was a great success， “if you ignored the human costs。” In 1982， Chile crashes and is bailed out by state intervention while laughter breaks out among sharp analysts seeing “the Chicago road to socialism”。 Laisse faire capitalism comically dissolving into a “de facto socialized banking system。” Noam reminds us that one US century earlier， “It was plausibly feared that the Haitian Revolution would be an insidious model for others。” India is openly deindustrialized by England and then England kicks away the ladder （after developing itself at the expense of India）， leaving it “a deeply impoverished， largely peasant society。” Study: Shay’s Rebellion of 1786 and 1787 in Massachusetts。 The framers of the Constitution in Philadelphia had to be wealthy because transportation to get there was laughable and poor people couldn’t just spend months there for free and not working。 One of framer’s biggest concerns “was how to suppress popular pressures for liberty and democracy。” John Jay， the first US Chief Justice said it clearly， “The people who own the country ought to govern it。” History showed elites they could invest their extra $$$ two ways: inwardly， as with George-Eugene Haussmann redesigning Paris， or externally in other countries。 “Toward the end of the 1890’s， Africa had been only 10 percent colonized。 By 1914， it was 90 percent colonized。” Noam includes the gripping story of Vassily Arkhipov which should be told to all US school children。 Vassily alone did more to keep Americans alive and safe than any single US citizen ever has。 Maybe that’s why we aren’t supposed to know who he is。 We now know that Eisenhower had delegated authority to use nuclear weapons to commanders so if what happened to Vassily that day happened to a US commander we all might not be alive to think about it now。 Also look at Operation Able Archer where Stanislov Petrov’s saying no， is another reason we are all alive。 Liberal Kennedy also changed policy in Latin America from “hemispheric defense” to “internal security”。 The head of US counter-insurgency Maechling said this change was “a shift from toleration of the rapacity and cruelty of the Latin American military [to] direct complicity in their crimes， to US support for the methods of Heinrich Himmler’s extermination squads。” – Los Angeles Times 3。18。82 Kennedy’s exciting new Internal security” directive led straight to Brazil’s dictatorship starting in 1964， set up by his administration a couple of weeks after his assassination。 A big part of the reason our government prefers war over helping its people is profit: there’s much less profit in infrastructure repair or pulling carbon from the atmosphere。 Analysts show social spending can help the economy as much as military spending， but social spending increases democracy while asking， “what kind of world do you want？” Military spending is never questioned。 If government helps the people， then people might start thinking it is a government “for” the people – a dangerous thought for US business。 Because of Southern Democrats， “To get New Deal legislation passed in the 1930’s， it had to be racist。” Social Security had to be designed to exclude blacks and Hispanics in order to be passed。 “Same with public housing。” “There was no federal funding for public housing unless it was segregated， right up to the late sixties。” Johnson’s push for Civil Rights sends Southern Democrats to the Republican Party where Nixon was waving the racism/white supremacy banner。 “To his last days， Kennedy was at the hawkish end of the spectrum， insisting that US troops could only be withdrawn ‘after victory’。” The Vietnam War ended partly because the top military command told Johnson “that if the war was escalated further， they would need the troops for civil disorder control in the United States。” MLK’s “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” Speech is given only one day before he is silenced。 “By that time， he had lost the liberal support that had remained strong as long as his targets were racist sheriffs in Alabama。” Thanks to COINTELPRO， at one point， “probably three-quarters of the Communist Party were FBI infiltrators， whose dues were keeping the party alive。” “The bulk of （COINTELPRO） documents were about how to repress popular activism。” Wow， no wonder everyone around me says the FBI （and the police） are not your friend。 “The [Fred] Hampton assassination alone easily outweighs the Watergate charges。” Noam says， read the Jeffrey Haas book on it。 Assembly line work wasn’t fun: Henry Ford had to hire “almost a thousand workers to see if they could get one hundred to stay on”。 Paying $5 an hour at the time was an inducement， not kindness。 Ford’s workers were surveilled on the jobs， and “even in their homes。” Conservatives cutting family planning aid will only ironically increase the number of abortions。 Here is real reason why the Middle East cannot be called a nuclear free zone: because then Israel would have to show their weapons and the US would have to admit Israel’s illegal stash exists。 If the US merely admits it， then under the Symington Agreement， military aid to Israel has to terminate under US law。 Oops。 For the record: the Iranian problem is solved instantly with the Middle East being a nuclear-free zone。 Republicans today are telling us “we should enjoy ourselves while the world burns。” People asked after Auschwitz， “What could I have done？” Noam says， “Future generations， if there are any， will asking that about us。” 1970 to 2008 is the advent period of neoliberalism。 Before that “workers were sharing in the results of this increased productivity”。 That was the Golden Age of Capitalism （Capitalism with a human face）。 The Nobel Prize in Economics went to Hayek in 1974 and Friedman in 1976 – with such questionable taste， there should be a Nobel Cooking Prize for Jeffrey Dahmer。 “Strategic hamlets” in the Vietnam War were code for concentration camps surrounded by barbed wire。 Did you know rampant US Agent Orange use in Vietnam “was only against the South”？ Veterans finally got compensation， but the Vietnamese？ “They’re unworthy victims， peanuts。” “Hideously deformed fetuses are still appearing in Saigon Hospital in South Vietnam。 That’s several generations later。” For Noam， The US has been “the most secure country” in history for 200 years and yet it keeps acting like “the most frightened country”。 The Royal proclamation of 1763 made colonists and George Washington chafe， they wanted Indian land。 Noam then offers a few great GW quotes。 Noam mentions the later “virtual genocide in California”。 The International Gallup Poll in 2013 asked: Which is the most dangerous country in the world。 “The United States was first， nobody even close。” Did you know liberal hero “President Eisenhower assigned the CIA the task of murdering” Patrice Lumumba in the Belgian Congo？ Evidently leading your nation out of poverty is a crime， if you have resources the US covets。 In his place is put “the murderous kleptomaniac” Mobutu who leads the Congo up to today with children mining in wretched conditions to get us all our new smart phones。 Noam here agrees with the Gerald Horne thesis， that the American Revolutionary War was about slavery。 Of the U。S。 elites， only John Adams had no slaves。 In 1772， Lord Mansfield ruled the end of slavery for Britain – its days were now numbered in the 13 colonies （but not in the Caribbean） and George Washington and Company all knew it when the War broke out。 In South Carolina， slaves outnumbered the overseers。 In 1804 is the Haitian Revolution， opposed by all white powers。 In the 60’s， France denied compensation to Haiti。 Noam on Haiti joins Derrick Jensen with the next lines: “In other words， first we rob and destroy them ， then when they ask for help， we kick them in the face。 The technical term for this is ‘Western Civilization’。” Noam joins the anti-civ team – right on！Anti-abortion insanity was invented in the 1970’s by Paul Weyrich， a GOP strategist。 Look at the facts: Reagan signed pro-choice legislation while Goldwater， Nixon， Ford and the first Bush were all pro-choice！ Something sneaky happened since， huh？ In 1972， a Gallup Poll found 68% of Republicans thought abortion was only between a woman and her doctor – no government allowed。 After decades of Republicans forcing the abortion issue down our collective throats – Weyrich’s distraction idea has been a master class for Noam in how to brilliantly “drive class issues to the shadows。” Noam mentions Pamela Haag’s work on the “invention of the Wild West” – for most US history guns were like shovels， just cheap tools。 After the Civil War， gun demand dried up and the major gunmakers needed to sell fancy guns for profit and a PR industry was born with the “Wild West” myth。 The job of PR and advertising is for you to make uninformed irrational purchases。 “Ooh， it’s $4。99 and not $5。00！” It is laughable that guns will protect you from government tyranny and yet that is the only remaining reason for the culture。 For Noam， the first reason for the Republican Party to keep pushing shallow gun culture is “for diverting attention from its assault on the underlying population。” McCain in 2008 ran on the Republican ticket “warning about climate change。” Noam makes it clear that the job of Republican party is to keep its voters distracted with its two main canards of manufactured fear: “liberal baby killers” & “They’re Coming to Take Our Guns”。 （the complete review of this book you'll find on my Facebook page） 。。。more
Irene
，
Absolutely brilliant。 I was familiar with the issues discussed but I was blissfully unaware of much of the historical context for a lot of American policy。 My cynicism now has cynicism。
Thomas Beard
，
Socialism would be a lot more attractive as a worldview if its champions weren't so damn self righteous。**Note: This applies to literally every worldview。 It's just happened with socialism several times now。 Socialism would be a lot more attractive as a worldview if its champions weren't so damn self righteous。**Note: This applies to literally every worldview。 It's just happened with socialism several times now。 。。。more
Grant
，