8 ms·

Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individua

Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice that it entails, as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage of history either one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global community. The question is whether privileged elite should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must -- namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well be essential to survival. ~Noam Chomsky, from "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" 1992

jacquesm 16y ago
The question is, taking all that in to account and conceding that it is (1) true, and (2) a real problem how will we do better?
- klbarry 16y ago
  The above is a very concise version of my thoughts, thank you. There are a lot of problems with democracy, stemming from the dangers of mob rule. For instance, there are some strong arguments that a senate operating behind closed doors would be more effective at ignoring special interests and working together than otherwise. The writers of the constitution did just this (they swore secrecy of anything they talked about in the convention to avoid voter backlash) [1] This is why they initially wanted health care debates behind closed doors - the lobbyists can make much more use of transparency than the uninterested voter can. Fareed Zakaria wrote a lot about this in The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. [A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin]
- genieyclo 16y ago
  Some would argue there is no point in doing better. Some would argue the "we" is populated by stupidity that knows almost no bounds, and the only solution is to join the ranks of the Man on the quest to the mythical (in a probably hyperinflationary environment) trillion dollars. Cash in while the shit house goes down.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > Cash in while the shit house goes down. Now that is depressing. Surely there must be a way out. If there is one thing that I've noticed as a pattern over the years then it is that mankind will only get off their collective asses when it is proverbially speaking 1 minute to twelve (or even 1 past). That gives me some hope that our considerable intelligence will be brought to bear in time of need and that we will actually deal with these problems, but first we need to be forcibly kicked out of our comfort zone. Historically the house going down was the prelude to building a bigger and better house. The problem is that it sometimes took as much as several centuries to recover from the house going down.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  >"But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole" Translation: we will just put the right people in charge. Most totalitarian ideologies boil down to this point, which includes all anti-capitalism since capitalism is simply the state of free human exchange.
- Yzupnick 16y ago
  True, the basic problem I have seen with people that present views such as Chomsky's is that I have yet to see an alternative to free market capitalism that doesn't have worse problems (in my opinion) than any problem pointed to by those such as Chomsky.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    And we never will so long as we never try.
jacoblyles 16y ago
>"Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. Bullshit. A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity[1]. Anti-capitalists are anti-human. I wonder if the billion or so people that climbed out of poverty over the last decade thanks to global capitalism would change Chomsky's mind at all. But I doubt it, considering how invested the man is in being a spokesman for a flawed worldview. It seems to me that anti-capitalism is a symptom of simple ignorance of basic facts about world economic development. [1]http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/01/best-decade-ever.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/01/best-decade-ever.html
- lisper 16y ago
  > "Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. > Bullshit. A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity[1]. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
  - jacoblyles 16y ago
    Sure. And nobody has proven that Jesus or Vishnu won't come back and destroy the world for its sins, either. Positing a future apocalypse that will envelope the world unless everyone adopts your pet religion has a long pedigree.
    - anthonycerra 16y ago
      Now I think you're going too far. The point above says that you can use capitalism to benefit the world around you. Instead of spending $3 million on a car, you can spend $3 million on businesses in a 3rd world country. In the end everyone wins instead of you alone.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- steveklabnik 16y ago
protomyth 16y ago
I've seen the effects of "rational social planning" by the enlightened and would rather go with the flawed individual freedom crowd.
- borism 16y ago
  but have you seen the effects of "rational social planning" by the unenlightened?
  - protomyth 16y ago
    They said they were enlightened, but I admit to having my doubts.
    - hessenwolf 16y ago
      I grew up in a socially-planned town. The problem is in the practicalities of the execution of a large project, by people who just consider it a day job, competing against the corrupting influence of local personal interest. The product of the planning wasn't exactly a macbook pro.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  You do understand that he's not speaking of a centrally planned government, right? Chomsky specifically advocates as close to direct democracy as possible.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    I didn't get that from the above quote, but I haven't read Chomsky. I just have quite a bit of problems with people believing that the group is always right compared to the individual, and I got the group vibe from the above. I admit my interpretation could be in error.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      No worries, I haven't read as much Chomsky as I should either. His views are obviously nuanced, but he's most often described as an anarcho-syndiclist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_syndicalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_syndicalism The main problem with your interpretation is not that the group is better than the individual, but that then the group _imposes_ that view upon the individual. There's a big difference between cooperative decision making and a dictatorship by an 'enlightened few.'

jacquesm 16y ago

The question is, taking all that in to account and conceding that it is (1) true, and (2) a real problem how will we do better?

klbarry 16y ago
The above is a very concise version of my thoughts, thank you. There are a lot of problems with democracy, stemming from the dangers of mob rule. For instance, there are some strong arguments that a senate operating behind closed doors would be more effective at ignoring special interests and working together than otherwise. The writers of the constitution did just this (they swore secrecy of anything they talked about in the convention to avoid voter backlash) [1] This is why they initially wanted health care debates behind closed doors - the lobbyists can make much more use of transparency than the uninterested voter can. Fareed Zakaria wrote a lot about this in The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. [A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin]
genieyclo 16y ago
Some would argue there is no point in doing better. Some would argue the "we" is populated by stupidity that knows almost no bounds, and the only solution is to join the ranks of the Man on the quest to the mythical (in a probably hyperinflationary environment) trillion dollars. Cash in while the shit house goes down.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > Cash in while the shit house goes down. Now that is depressing. Surely there must be a way out. If there is one thing that I've noticed as a pattern over the years then it is that mankind will only get off their collective asses when it is proverbially speaking 1 minute to twelve (or even 1 past). That gives me some hope that our considerable intelligence will be brought to bear in time of need and that we will actually deal with these problems, but first we need to be forcibly kicked out of our comfort zone. Historically the house going down was the prelude to building a bigger and better house. The problem is that it sometimes took as much as several centuries to recover from the house going down.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jacoblyles 16y ago
>"But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole" Translation: we will just put the right people in charge. Most totalitarian ideologies boil down to this point, which includes all anti-capitalism since capitalism is simply the state of free human exchange.
Yzupnick 16y ago
True, the basic problem I have seen with people that present views such as Chomsky's is that I have yet to see an alternative to free market capitalism that doesn't have worse problems (in my opinion) than any problem pointed to by those such as Chomsky.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  And we never will so long as we never try.

jacoblyles 16y ago

>"Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. Bullshit. A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity[1]. Anti-capitalists are anti-human. I wonder if the billion or so people that climbed out of poverty over the last decade thanks to global capitalism would change Chomsky's mind at all. But I doubt it, considering how invested the man is in being a spokesman for a flawed worldview. It seems to me that anti-capitalism is a symptom of simple ignorance of basic facts about world economic development. [1]http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/01/best-decade-ever.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/01/best-decade-ever.html

lisper 16y ago
> "Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. > Bullshit. A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity[1]. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  Sure. And nobody has proven that Jesus or Vishnu won't come back and destroy the world for its sins, either. Positing a future apocalypse that will envelope the world unless everyone adopts your pet religion has a long pedigree.
  - anthonycerra 16y ago
    Now I think you're going too far. The point above says that you can use capitalism to benefit the world around you. Instead of spending $3 million on a car, you can spend $3 million on businesses in a 3rd world country. In the end everyone wins instead of you alone.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
steveklabnik 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago

I've seen the effects of "rational social planning" by the enlightened and would rather go with the flawed individual freedom crowd.

borism 16y ago
but have you seen the effects of "rational social planning" by the unenlightened?
- protomyth 16y ago
  They said they were enlightened, but I admit to having my doubts.
  - hessenwolf 16y ago
    I grew up in a socially-planned town. The problem is in the practicalities of the execution of a large project, by people who just consider it a day job, competing against the corrupting influence of local personal interest. The product of the planning wasn't exactly a macbook pro.
steveklabnik 16y ago
You do understand that he's not speaking of a centrally planned government, right? Chomsky specifically advocates as close to direct democracy as possible.
- protomyth 16y ago
  I didn't get that from the above quote, but I haven't read Chomsky. I just have quite a bit of problems with people believing that the group is always right compared to the individual, and I got the group vibe from the above. I admit my interpretation could be in error.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    No worries, I haven't read as much Chomsky as I should either. His views are obviously nuanced, but he's most often described as an anarcho-syndiclist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_syndicalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_syndicalism The main problem with your interpretation is not that the group is better than the individual, but that then the group _imposes_ that view upon the individual. There's a big difference between cooperative decision making and a dictatorship by an 'enlightened few.'