<html﻿>﻿

﻿<head﻿>﻿<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/bundle-playback.js?v=2N_sDSC0" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/wombat.js?v=txqj7nKC" charset="utf-8"></script>﻿
﻿<script>window.RufflePlayer=window.RufflePlayer||{};window.RufflePlayer.config={"autoplay":"on","unmuteOverlay":"hidden","showSwfDownload":true};</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="﻿https://web-static.archive.org/_static/﻿js/ruffle/ruffle.js"></script>
﻿<script type="text/javascript">
  ﻿  __wm.init(﻿"https://web.archive.org/web"﻿);
  __wm.wombat(﻿"http://www.newsocialist.org/old_mag/magazine/05/article08.html"﻿,﻿"20100626202631"﻿,﻿"https://web.archive.org/"﻿,﻿"web"﻿,﻿"https://web-static.archive.org/_static/"﻿,
	      "﻿1277583991﻿");
</script>
﻿<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/banner-styles.css?v=1utQkbB3" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/iconochive.css?v=3PDvdIFv" />﻿
﻿<!-- End Wayback Rewrite JS Include -->
﻿

﻿<title﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, Speaking Truth, Exposing Lies - Article﻿</title>﻿

﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="description"﻿ ﻿content="New Socialist Group socialism communism  socialists communists "﻿>﻿

﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="keywords"﻿ ﻿content="socialism, communism, socialists, communists, marx, marxists, marxism, Marx, Marxists, Marxism, Canada, politics, anarchism, Trotsky, trotskyism, NDP, radical, revolution, revolutionary, Lenin, leninism, leninist, Luxemburg, working class, 1917, syndicalism, radicalism, union, labour, anarchy"﻿>﻿

﻿</head>﻿


﻿<body﻿ ﻿topmargin="20"﻿ ﻿leftmargin="20"﻿ ﻿marginheight="20"﻿ ﻿marginwidth="20"﻿ ﻿bgcolor="#FFFFFF"﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="5"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿

﻿<center﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Speaking Truth, Exposing Lies

﻿<br﻿>﻿</b>﻿</font>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="2"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿

by Mitchell Shore﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<i﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, September 1996﻿</i>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿</center>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿size="1"﻿>﻿American radical Noam Chomsky is best known for exposing the big business and pro-government bias of the mainstream media and for his criticisms of US foreign policy. His "Propaganda Model" explains a central aspect of mass social control in a "democracy."﻿</font>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Noam Chomsky's voice is perhaps the most well recognized on the radical left today. As such, it is no surprise that he is virtually absent from the mainstream North American media. However, it would be a mistake to assume that being excluded from elite journals and news programs like the New York Times or "Nightline" is enough to equal political isolation or marginalization. Chomsky is one of the most sought-after speakers in the United States. In fact, he is hardly able to accept more than a fraction of the invitations he gets. His books are selling in larger numbers than ever, he was the focus of an award-winning documentary and, according to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, his work has been cited in more academic papers than the work of any other living writer. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Chomsky is best known as a virulent critic of US foreign policy and the use of its power abroad. He is also equally concerned with the moral and intellectual climate of the US, and the narrow set of beliefs which govern the thinking of much of the population. Chomsky argues that this climate of ideas creates a social foundation which permits and facilitates the illegitimate use of power both at home and abroad. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

There is a common assumption that the mass media are free, independent and defiant. It is this assumption that Chomsky seeks to challenge. He argues that the mass media in the U.S., despite self-serving illusions to the contrary, is in fact supportive and compliant towards those who hold power. Chomsky has devoted himself to exposing and contesting the assumptions underpinning the consensus of the experts. And the most fundamental assumption in the mainstream is that the U.S. is a benevolent power, motivated by a desire to do good. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

In a totalitarian society, Chomsky points out, the state routinely uses force to keep the public in line. In a democratic society gentler means are needed. The public must be persuaded to leave power in the hands of the ruling elite and they must be dissuaded from asking too many questions about how that power is used. Instead of cowering beneath a jack-boot, we lounge in front of the TV screen. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Propaganda Model﻿</b>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

According to what Chomsky and his co-author Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent call the "Propaganda Model," it is "the societal purpose of the media to protect privilege from the threat of public understanding and participation." In other words, the purpose of the media is to cultivate public stupidity and conformity in order to protect the powerful from interference by the lower orders. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The Propaganda Model is a "guided-free-market model" in which thought control is the product not of violence and terror, but of market forces in a highly unequal society. In democratic societies, ruling elites cannot control the population by brute force and must replace external controls on the individual with internal controls -- control of thought itself. What matters is not what people are able to do, but what they are able to think. This is "brainwashing under freedom". 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Chomsky reminds us that media corporations are still corporations, and it would be surprising if they worked to undermine corporate interests. This confirmation has been provided by dozens of different tests, all of which seem to have vindicated the claim that the media systematically distort the news in favour of the ruling class. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

In order to reach a mass audience a media organization must be a sizable corporation, owned either by the state or by rich individuals. The field is dominated by huge, profit-seeking corporations which are closely interconnected and share common interests with other corporations, banks, and government. The Propaganda Model focuses on the inequality of wealth and power that these institutions depend on. It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and private interests to get their messages across to the public. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The "filters" include the need of reporters and news gatherers to rely on information provided by governments and especially "experts" funded and approved by them; the tendency by big business to produce "flak" -- in the form of organized letter campaigns and pressure from media "watchdog" organizations -- as a means of disciplining media employees; and at the ideological level, the careful cultivation of anti-Communism "as a national religion and control mechanism". 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Within the mainstream, it is possible to record official errors and failures in the pursuit of "noble" objectives, but not to expose their recurring patterns or to link these actions to the interests of those with privilege and power in our society. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Although there is planning and conscious thought in the Propaganda Model, it is by no means a conspiracy theory. Chomsky points out that you don't need to assume that a secret conspiracy is afoot when all managers at GM try to maximize company profits. The Propaganda Model is an institutional critique based on the nature of social structures, not an accusation against particular individuals or secret groupings. There is no cabal of commissars conspiring to control the media. Chomsky stresses that this model is largely the result of impersonal market forces. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Too monolithic﻿</b>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The dominant impression left by Chomsky's writings is a chilling picture of power and its resilience that does not offer much hope or encouragement. He chooses to emphasize the incredibly monolithic nature of opinion formation in democratic societies, which accounts for his frequent use of such adjectives as "fascist" and "totalitarian" to describe their impenetrability. While there is much truth in this analysis, it is too seamless and too monolithic. The Propaganda Model works on the assumption that policy makers themselves are free of competing factions or interests; that U.S. elites and their allies always stand in agreement with American goals and intentions; that foreign policy is insulated from popular domestic pressures; and that the nations which the U.S. tries to rule present no obstacle to the realization of its aims. None of this, of course, need always be the case. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

While not denying that democratic societies have a vested interest in shaping public opinion, it seems that Chomsky tends to exaggerate his case. Despite the considerable political and cultural means at the disposal of opinion makers and politicians, most citizens remain surprisingly capable of seeing through the veils of deceit and making up their own minds. Although processes of opinion formation may well transpire within tight boundaries, such a construction is no guarantee of the way in which people will choose to interpret the information and arrive at independent decisions. Might it not make more sense to re﻿gard the mass media industry as an area of engagement, in which the ruling class naturally holds most of the power, but no universally predictable result can be arranged? 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Chomsky is undoubtedly justified in his relentless attack on servile conformity. But all is not lost; Chomsky believes that the propaganda system that is "based on lying and deceit is inherently unstable." It follows, therefore, that there are opportunities for constructive action and means of resisting the power of the propaganda system. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Chomsky urges people to develop techniques of "intellectual self-defense," particularly the ability to think independently of the crushing pressures of the mass media. Intellectual self-defense requires hard work and, Chomsky stresses, it is not something that can be carried out in isolation. Yet, as he is fond of pointing out, being able to understand and critique capitalist foreign policy is not any more intellectually challenging than being a well-informed sports fan. Chomsky himself neither uses nor needs any exotic information. He relies on freely available information collected and organized in new patterns. He simply compares "today's lies with yesterdays lies" and attempts to construct some rational story out of them. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Socialist Vision﻿</b>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Noam Chomsky is widely regarded as an anarchist. He, however, tends to call himself a libertarian socialist or a socialist anarchist. While many anarchists today regard socialism as synonymous with 'statism', Chomsky finds himself in sympathy with what he calls the classical socialist tradition where socialism is thought of in terms of a society controlled by free associations of workers. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Chomsky expresses his preference for the tendency in anarchism which merges with those currents in Marxism which stress the need for workers' councils to the exclusion of a political party (what's often called "council communism'). Chomsky believes that it is necessary to reconstruct the economic life of society from the ground up and build it in the spirit of socialism from below. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

For Chomsky the extension of democratic control is both desirable and possible: workers should control the work they do, the purposes it is carried out for, the conditions under which it is performed, the relationships between their own and other sectors of the economy and the interrelationships between the workplace, the community and the environment. His basic principle is that socially necessary work should be divided on some egalitarian basis, and that people should have, as an inalienable right, the widest possible opportunity to do work that interests them. Unlike many anarchists, Chomsky has given some thought to the questions of technology, and to the potentially liberating and counter-hierarchical possibilities of high-tech innovation. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

In terms of a more organized political structure, Chomsky suggests "one can imagine a network of workers' councils, and at a higher level, representation across the factories, or across branches of industry, or across crafts, and on to general assemblies of workers' councils that can be regional and national and international in character." 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

While Chomsky's libertarian socialist vision is to be applauded, it is not without its flaws. He continues to put forward a particularly tight definition of "Leninism" and "Trotskyism" which comes strikingly close at times to the views of conservative historians who blame Lenin for the horrors of Stalinism in Russia. Because of this, Chomsky tends to stay away from the idea that workers need socialist parties in order to make successful revolutions. While he mentions that people need to organize themselves, he is prepared to go no further than this vague recommendation. Chomsky is reluctant to devote energy to "revolutionary strategy". He feels that such work is premature, since talking about such matters is meaningless to the bulk of the population. This relates to his argument that the propaganda system has crushed peoples capacity for independent thought, and that the structure of power severely limits peoples options. Rather than elaborate on what kind of organization is needed, he tends to rely on the idea of creative and spontaneous mass action; he looks toward a "spiritual transformation" in the masses. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Chomsky's focus on the spiritual aspect of class struggle is interesting. Here we enter into his emphasis on "human nature" and the potential for social change. Chomsky has argued that the left "should have a vested interest in innateness." While most socialists and anarchists have argued that character is largely part of the environment, Chomsky has attempted to find a biological concept of human nature with its own innate intellectual and cognitive aspects. In terms of social transformation, Chomsky relies on the "instinct for freedom," that lives deep within each of us, to spontaneously reveal itself. In other words, instead of looking to a democratic, revolutionary party that can coordinate activities in the struggle against the old order, Chomsky seems to be waiting for some unique historical moment when a great, almost mystical, breakthrough will take place. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Despite his fatalism, Chomsky is a committed activist and has been involved in and provided support for numerous grassroots struggles over the years. This can be seen in his dissident stance with regards to the immoral U.S. foreign policy record, especially in cases like the various interventionist wars that extend from Vietnam to Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada, Panama and the Persian Gulf. Chomsky has done tremendous work to bring the issue of the U.S.- and Canada-sponsored Indonesian invasion of East Timor to public attention. And he has not been afraid, despite many attempts at vilification and misrepresentation, to critique the odious policies of the Israeli government and to stand up for the right of Palestinian people to have their own state. For Chomsky, the central issue is one of responsibility. "It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose the lies." The purpose of radical critique of the state and media interests is to establish the truth as far as it can be known, and to expose the lies, hypocrisies and techniques of misinformation that have prevented the public from developing a factual and moral perspective. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Rather than succumbing to the complacency or opportunism that many academics have, Noam Chomsky has proven himself to be a committed and serious radical. He has recognized that intellectuals, who should speak the truth to power, ought to stay honest and stay out of it. Chomsky likes to cite Gramsci's motto, "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will." There are few who have personified it as he has. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<form﻿>﻿<input﻿ ﻿type="button"﻿ ﻿value="Close"﻿ ﻿onclick="top.close()"﻿>﻿</form>﻿


﻿</body>﻿

﻿</html>﻿<!--
     FILE ARCHIVED ON ﻿20:26:31 Jun 26, 2010﻿ AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
     INTERNET ARCHIVE ON ﻿09:35:02 Mar 05, 2026﻿.
     JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

     ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
     SECTION 108(a)(3)).
-->
<!--
﻿playback timings (ms):
﻿  ﻿captures_list﻿: ﻿0.834﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots﻿: ﻿0.062﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots.policy﻿: ﻿0.044﻿
﻿  ﻿esindex﻿: ﻿0.015﻿
﻿  ﻿cdx.remote﻿: ﻿50.128﻿
﻿  ﻿LoadShardBlock﻿: ﻿102.982﻿ (﻿3﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.datanode﻿: ﻿86.128﻿ (﻿4﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.resolve﻿: ﻿59.843﻿ (﻿3﻿)
﻿  ﻿load_resource﻿: ﻿83.297﻿
﻿--�