now were the food is provided, shelter, a security, they cleaned up but they think they are independent people. [laughter] we are running at a time. the current political climate on the right, the tone as we have reforms that he would side with burke for toe is very much at a taco. -- out of tempo. do you think the american conservative movement could move back to that

temperament? >> or for word. i think part of the reason is to offer a different intellectual history of ourselves. we define ourselves that way that the left just does not. too often when the conservatives reached for intellectual history or philosophy they reach for the most radical version for the jeffersonian tail and we squeezed abraham lincoln into the story and it ends up being too radical about ourselves burke offers a different way to understand the liberal society. achievement not a break but ameritech is the greatest achievement and not throwing away what key before but

throw rigo way but made us so therefore as improves and grows it is not a radical process it requires conservative is a man and one of the lessons we could take from burke it has the engagement with policies that you had to fix problems before they got too big to invite radical solutions. that is how he worked in conservatives today should do more than that. that is my day job and this is why it is important to be involved with governing also to approach society from a

disposition of gratitude a and care rather than to begin from a place of danger at what is lost. i am a agree with what is lost. the left is destructive to the american ideal it has too much power. i really do but the solution the way to persuade the people is to offer the different path in a concrete way with a case that is friendly to the present and future that is as simple nostalgia but not in the past but a better future for america so the conservative tone could have some improvement but that the

very least it is all i can do. >> host: talking about british exceptional is some and as to tocqueville's says america is a british man left alone. one of the things that comes through that so much that accounts for american principles with the constitutional order is a cultural product of the in english. the question that i have this is not fair but if that is true in and do say our liberties are more conceptual plan from the abstract rights on a piece of paper what does that say about immigration? where would he come down?

to have the protection of these rights if you lost that consensus? >> guest: what it means to reserve is a living see not just a set of ideas one way to think is to have continuity. but what it can be in is it was transmitted self to the future generations. i was born in israel and i will truck patriotic because the idea of the idea has been the case for generations and generations. barakat is able to be open to immigrants because it is not just simply britain but our way of life does not require our family can trace

itself continuously but not because it is defined by abstract principles but the actual living in existence of the incredibly free and open society to allow people to experiment and cons -- to be approved by providing these ideas and changes are grounded with the american idea. what conservatives want to conserve is that whole or the reality of not just the abstract principles but the combination of the history of the world so we can still integrate immigrants if we tried. but we don't really try we don't try to teach ourselves or outsiders one american life is all about. we have a terrible failure of assimilation.

if we can address that we don't have to be any less of a nation. i don't know if that is what burke would have thought. that is what i think. >> host: i hope you enjoyed it and i hope people go out and get "the great debate."

>> the beauty of america is we have the ability to right the script of our own lives. we are the driving seat of our own future. the biggest decisions are made by us. america creates the sense of possibility and out of that you can become an activist, a community organizer you are living off a great capitalist explosion of wealth you did not create >> it is hard to know where to begin. nobody said america is the most terrible place but there are a couple of assertions that are astonishing. one is america's greatest invention is wealth creation

that is not theft but what about the theft of the entire continent? that was a theft. 90% of the residents who lived here were murdered that was a part of it also. [applause] [appe] [applause] it's hardly a secret that the terms of political discourse are not exactly models of precision a and

considering the way the terms are used it is next to impossible to try to get a meaningful in answer to such questions as what to do socialism or capitalism or markets, of free markets and many others. that is even more true of the term of anarchism for reasons pointed out. not from their varied use but also quite extreme abuse that sometimes by bitter enemies or unfortunately by people who hold this manner highs so much so is the variation of abuse that it produces any simple characterization so to redress the question what is says anarchism to identify

of the the it is or major currents of the rich and complex to the contradictory traditions of anarchist thought it and action. a sensible approach can start with remarks of the manner of the activist rudolph rocker he saw it not as a social system with a fixed a answer to all the multifarious questions of human life but rather as a truant and the historic development of mankind which dries for the free and hindered in the unfolding in and social forces from the 1930's. these concepts are not

original and derived from the indictment. and in similar words with the founders of classical liberalism to describe the leading principle of his thought of the essential importance with his richest diversity it is a phrase that he took of his own liberty. it follows from that is the tissues that constrained such development are legitimate unless they could justify themselves to find a similar conception so with adam smith everyone has read the opening paragraphs of wealth of nations where he

extols the wonders of the vision of labour but not many people have gotten farther incited to read his bitter condemnation of the division of labor and to and end the civil society they would have to intervene because it will destroy personal integrity and the essential human rights to turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as a cuban keaton be. it is not too easy to find the passage. if you look at the scholarly edition at university of chicago bicentennial it is not even listed in the index. but one of the most important passages in the book. in these terms anarchism is the tendency of human development to identify structures of

hierarchy, authority, and others that constrain human development. that seeks to subject them to a reasonable challenge to you justify yourself to demonstrate you are legitimate and and in special circumstances with principal if you can meet that challenge which is the usual case, the structure should be dismantled. is not just dismantled but reconstructed from below. the deals that founded expression during that era era, they foundered off some of shoals of american capitalism. but what is argued is they remain alive in those

traditions. dave range widely from the of left from a the bolshevik markets some -- marxism also what has reached its peak of achievement with the revolutionary period in 1936 a and well to remember that despite substantial achievements issued successes, it was crushed by the combined force of fascism, a commute one dash communism and western democracy. they had differences but agreed it had to be crushed with a free people to control their own lives had to be crushed before they turned to use their petty differences called the spanish civil war. the same tendencies reach

further with worker controlled enterprises from the rust belt use and northern mexico to reach the greatest development in spade is partly a reflection of the achievements of the of complex tradition and it comes out of sources. also included in this tendency toward that quite as essential movements that exist in many parts of the world but it also encompasses a good part of feminist in human rights activism. it sounds like truisms so why should anybody defended the legitimate structure?

no reason and it is correct i think anarchism should be called a truism that they have merit one is the merits to be true i'd like other political discourse but this belongs to interest the category of the principles not only universal but ee that they're almost universally accepted it and rejected and practiced this is one of the many wines 4/8 to both the general principle we should apply to ourselves for the save and standards we do to others or more specific policy proposals like democracy

promotion or the humanitarian intervention rejected and practiced almost universally. this truism is the same to challenge komer said institutions of all kinds to justify themselves dismantle reconstruction it is easy to say but not to act on or practice. well proceeding with a similar thought i will quote him again anarchism freeze labor from economic exploitation to free society it long dash society from the political guardianship and to open the way to the alliance of the three groups of men and women based on cooperative favor with eppley and 50 feet is in the

interest of the community. he was the anarchist activist as well as political thinker and goes on to call the workers of the popular organizations to create not only the ideas put the current society the injunction that goes back one traditional anarchist slogan is no god no master. it is the title of his collection. it is fair to wonder stephen the phrase from the terms that were just quoted that word ecclesiastical guardianship. they are a different matter is of no concern to other to

free thought and action and wish leads to the tradition of religious anarchism. dorsey is a very repressive catholic worker but the phrase no master does not referred to individual but to dominance that is taken seriously seeks to dismantle to rebuild from below. unless it can somehow beat the harsh burden to establish the legitimacy. but by now we have departed from truisms and in particular righted this point the american brand of

libertarianism diverts sharply from the libertarian tradition and it except san dedicates the support of working people to see economy and furthermore the subjection of everyone to their restrictive discipline and destructive features of the market's. these are topics worth pursuing and will take them up later if you would like. also recommending it based on the comments to come together the energies of the young libertarian left and right as is sometimes done with the important work of a valuable theoretical and practical work of the economist. anarchism is famous lee

opposed to this day while at the same time advocating the play a administration in the interests of community. beyond that brodeur federation of the self-governing communities in and workplace, in their real world of today, dedicated and richest often support state power to protect people and society and the earth's itself from the ravages of private capital. said take a journal like freedom that goes back and tell 8086 form to by supporters. if you open the pages you will find much of it is devoted to defending rights

of people, a society and also to invoke state power which is like regulation or the environment of safety and health in the workplace. there is no contradiction as is sometimes thought. people live a and suffering tuned in to work in this world but not one we imagine to with all means available to be used to safeguard even if the long-term goal is to replace these devices for alternatives. in discussing fess sometimes the image comes from the brazilian workers movement discussed in the interesting work that they speak of the

image to widening of the floors of the cage of coercive institutions that turned the committed with the popular struggle happening effectively over many years. you can extend that beyond. would get the cage of the state institutions as they protection from savage beasts will be outside the lead of predatory state-supported capitalist institutions dedicated to the principle of private gain, power, domination that maybe revered in rhetoric but the practice or even with anglo-american law as, it is worth remembering anarchists condemned the

existing states not the visions of unrealized democratic dreams such as government of a and by year-end for the people they bitterly oppose the rule of law was called the bureaucracy which he predicted 50 years inexperience that would be the most savage of human creations and also opposed parliamentary systems elements of class rule. now in the united states it is a plutocracy which is easy to demonstrate not a democracy. it has no influence over policy. as you move up the wealth scale you get more influence do and people get what they point.

>> a truly democratic system would be quite different to have the character with those groups of men and women based on the flavor and with the of frustration with the interest of the community. that is not too remote from one version of the mainstream democratic ideal. take for exhume both of leading the whose major concern was and education. and no wonder it took two years. but with his conceptions of legitimate structures must be dismantled in that includes the with private

control of spain's key issue in the lending unit interesting with those private survey of 50 you recognize used that power controls but whoever rolls them runs the life of the country until these institutions are in the hands of the public politics will remain in the shadow cast by big business on society. very much what we see around us. but support went beyond calling for public control that could take many forms. with a free and democratic

society that workers should be the masters of their own industrial fate not tools rented by employers or directed by state authorities. that position goes back to the leading lady is of classical liberalism articulated by others and extended in his tradition in turn into education his -- it is liberal and moral to train children to work for the sake of the work earned two to be cheating those scores in which case it is not free the participated in to that is quickly forgotten as we know from experience. so industry must be changed

to a democratic social order indeed should be designed to return urged creativity isn't experience a and exactly the opposite of what is happening today. these lead to a vision of society based on workers' control of the institutions was a link to a community control within the framework of free association and federal organization. with the general style of thought that includes all along with mindy anarchist like they killed of socialism in england left the current developments such as the you probably won't. long with that theory.

>> those are more notable than others. where the enterprises and cooperatives where it is actually taking place. . . cliché, right in the mainstream of american history and culture. in fact all of these ideas and developments are very deeply-rooted in the american tradition and in american history. in fact which is kind of suppressed but actually very obvious when you look into it and when you pursue these questions to enter into an important terrain of inspiring often bitter struggles. ever since the dawn of the industrial revolution which was

right around here, lawrence and eastern massachusetts mid-19th century. the first serious scholarly work study of the industrial worker in those years was 90 years ago still very much worth reading. he reviews the hideous working conditions that were imposed on formerly independent craftsman and immigrants and farmers as well as the so-called factory girls, young women brought from the farms to work in the textile mills around boston. he mentions that buddy focuses attention on something else, what he calls the degradation suffered by the industrial worker, the loss of status and independence which could not be canceled even where there occasionaoccasiona lly was some

material improvement and he focuses on the radical capitalist social revolution in which sovereignty and economic affairs passed from the community as a whole into the keeping of a special class of masters, often remote from production to the producers and where it shows pretty convincingly that for every protest against machine industry and predation there can be 100 protests against the new power of capitalist production and its discipline. in other words workers were struggling and striking not just for bread but for roses in the traditional slogan of the workers communities and organizations. they were struggling for dignity and independence and for their rights as free men and women. their journals are very interesting. there's a rich lively labor press for --

written by working people artisans from boston and factory girls from the farms and in these journals they condemned what they called the blasting influence of monarchical influences on democratic soil which will not be overcome until they who work in the mills will own them, the slogan of the massive knights of labor and sovereignty will return to free and independent reducers. then they will no longer be the humble subjects of a foreign debts but the absentee owner, slaves in the strictest sense of the word who toil for their masters. rather they will regain their status as free american citizens the capitalist revolution instituted crucial change from price to wage. it's very important. when a producer sold this product for a price he retained

his curse but when he came to sell his labor he sold himself read he quoted from the press. that's a big difference. he lost his dignity as a person as he became a slave, a wage slave to use the common term of the period. 160 years ago a group of skilled workers repeated the common view that a daily wage was equivalent to slavery and they weren't warned perceptively that a day might come when wage slaves will so forget what is due to manhood as the glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respecy hoped would be far in the distance. these were very popular notions in the mid-19th century. in fact so popular that they

were a slogan of the republican party. you can read them in editorials in the new york times. they may come back, let's hope. labor activists at the time warned bitterly often of what they called the new spirit of the age, and gained gain wealth forgetting all that self. that was 150 years ago and in sharp reaction to this demeaning spirit there were quite enormous and active rising movements of working people and radical farmers. radical farmers began in texas and spread to the midwest and much of the country. of course it was an agricultural country then but these were the most significant democratic popular movements in american history. they were dedicated to solidarity, mutual aid.

they were crushed by force. they have a very violent labor history compared to other countries but it's a battle that's not over, far from over. despite set backs often violent repression. there are apologists, familiar apologists from the radical revolution of wage slavery and they argue that a worker should indeed glory in a system of free contracts voluntarily undertaken. there was an answer to that 200 years ago by shelley in his great poem mask of anarchy. this was written right after the massacre in england manchester the calvary that brutally attacked a peaceful gathering of tens of thousands of people, the first major example of the huge

nonviolent protests and the reaction of the state authorities to it. they were calling for parliamentary reform. shelley wrote that we know what slavery is. it is to work and have such pay is just keeps life from day-to-day. sna self for its entire used to dwell. it is to be slaved and sold them to hold no strong control over your own wills but y'all that others make of you. that is slavery and that is what working people and independent farmers were struggling against. the artisans and factory girls who struggle for dignity and independence and freedom might very well have known shelley's words. observers at the time noted that they were highly literate. they had good libraries than they were appointed with the standard works of english literature.

this was before mechanism and wage slavery, the wage system and it the days and curtailed the days of independence, high culture and security. before that he points at a workshop might've been called the lyceum turning out the higher boys to read with the mall they worked. these were social businesses with many opportunities for reading and discussion and mutual improvement. along with the factory girls and the journeyman and the artisans that bitterly condemned the attack on their culture. the same as chairman and when incidentally where conditions were much harsher. there's actually a great book about this by jonathan rhodes called the intellectual life of the british working class. it's a monumental study of reading habits of the working

class in kinsey in england and he contrasts what he calls the passionate pursuit of knowledge by proletarian -- with the pervasive philistinism of the british aristocracy. actually i'm old enough to remember the residents that remained among working people right here in new york in the 1930s who were deeply immersed in the high culture of the day. it's another battle that may have receded but i don't think it's lost. i mentioned that duly and american workers and farmers held one version of democracy. it was very strong libertarian elements of the dominant version has been radically different. it's most instructive expression is that the regressive end of the mainstream spectrum so that is among people who are good

woodrow wilson fdr kind of liberals. there are a few representative quotes from the icons of the liberal intellectual establishment on democratic theory. the public are ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. they will have to be put in their place. decisions must be in the hands of an intelligent minority of responsible men, namely us. we have to be protected from the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd out there. the herd does have a function in democratic society. they are supposed to lend their waves every few years to a choice among the responsible men but apart from that, their function is to be spectators, not participants in action. all of this is for their own good. we should not succumb to democratic dogmatism's about

them being the best judges of their own interests. they are not. they are like children. we have to take care of them. we are the best judges of their own interests of their attitudes and opinions have to be controlled for their own benefit we have to regiment their minds the way in army regiments soldiers and we had to discipline the institutions responsible for what they called the indoctrination of the young, schools, universities and churches. if we can do this we can get back to the good old days. we get out of to the good old days when truman have been able to govern the country with the cooperation of a relatively small number of wall street employers and bankers through democracy. these are quotes from icons of liberal establishment. walter lippman edward bernays

harrell blass well founder of modern political science, samuel huntington trilateral commission and staff the carter administration. the conflict between these conceptions of democracy goes far back. it goes back to the earliest modern democratic revolution in 17th century england. at that time as you know there was a war raging between supporters of the king and supporters of parliaments. that's a civil war that we read about. but there was more. the gentry, the men who call themselves of best quality, they were appalled by the dash you didn't want to be ruled by either king or parliaments and mike the spanish workers in 1936 they wanted to be ruled. they had their own pamphlet literature and they said they wanted to be ruled like a

country that no one wants. it will never be a good world while knights and gentlemen make make -- and do not know the people's swords. that 17th century england. the central nature of this conflict which as far from ended was captured nicely by thomas jefferson in his later years when he had serious concerns about both the quality and the fate of the democratic experiment. he made a distinction between what he called aristocrats and democrats. the aristocrats and i'm quoting him, are those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all powers into the hands of the higher classes and the democrats in contrast identify with the people have confidence on them, cherish and consider them as the honest and safe

although not the most wise depository of the public interest. the modern progressive intellectuals, the wilson, roosevelt, kennedy intellectual left are those who seek to put the public in their place and are free from democratic dogmatism's about the capacity of the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders to enter the political arena. there -- they are jefferson aristocrats. these basic views are very widely held. there are some disputes mainly who should play the guiding role. should it be what the liberal intellectuals called a the technocratic and policy oriented intellectuals, the ones we celebrate as intellectuals who run the progressive knowledge society or should it be bankers and corporate executives and

other versions. should it be the central committee or the guardian council of clerics? all have pretty similar ideas and they are all examples of the ecclesiastical and political guardianship that the genuine libertarian tradition seeks to dismantle and reconstruct from below. while also changing industry from feudalistic to a democratic social order, one that is based on workers control, community control, respects the dignity of the producer as a genuine person not a tool in the hands of others in accordance with the libertarian tradition that has deep roots and like marx's old mole is always burrowing quite close to the surface and ready to spring forth. thanks. [applause]

[applause] >> for the discussion i would like to invite anybody who has a question to line up behind the microphones on either side and please try to keep it concise and as you do that i would like to start if you don't mind. i wonder if you could say something about the images that represent some of your first encounters with anarchism. i think for people who have gotten excited about these ideas to the occupy movement it was important to see them practice somehow. i wonder what those images have been for you? >> i grew up in the 1930s as a kid in a deep depression and plenty of suffering. there were images that kind of stick in my mind of people.

my parents were teachers so we had some money. we weren't rich but we got along and in fact a whole family of unemployed working-class kind of converged around our house, at least something. there were images of people coming to the door and trying to sell rags to try to get a piece of bread to survive. i remember riding with my mother on the trolley cars and watchine plants in philadelphia and watching women on strike being literally beaten by security forces and my own family, extended family was mostly unemployed working-class nsi mentioned very high culture. as the new deal began to have an impact they were able to enjoy

the string quartet. my unemployed seamstress and swear members of the ladies garment workers union and would get a couple of weeks in the countryside of solidarity camp. that was life and a lot of that was communist party. we were not allowed to say anything nice about the communist party as a rule and there were a lot of things wrong and i mentioned some of them but there were things that were right about it. one was that it overcame the amnesia that nathan talked about. it was always there. people remembered. somebody remembered how to turn the mimeograph machine or organize a demonstration and he went from a civil rights demonstration to a labor organizing to something else. they had crazy international ideas but it was kind of in the back of their minds. it wasn't what was really going on. the destruction of the communist

party was quite important. he killed off the radical continuing elements that kept a lot of the left traditions going you know the reasons. it was the cold war framework. as far as the anarchists were concerned the place i learned about that was by reading. when i was a kid i would go to visit my relatives and as soon as i got old enough to get on the train at 11 or 12 years old i would take the train to new york and stay with my relatives but spent most of my time, for those of you who know new york, union square is to be the place where the anarchists offices were. lots of pamphlets and lots of interesting people that were quite eager to talk to a young kid so it's not hard to have discussions. down below union square on fourth avenue, not today but

then there were rows of small bookstores a lot of them run by european emigrates a lot of them spanish anarchist refugees who were also quite eager to talk and had lots of pamphlets and a real original documentary material. actually when i wrote about this 20 years later i used documentary material that i had picked up as a young teenager. a lot of buzz is available now but that was a pretty inspiring picture i felt of the spanish revolution. it was a really inspiring moment which is why i think it elicited such a vicious response from every corner of power. that's quite important to remember. communists, fascists, liberal democracies all combined on

this. this was something they couldn't tolerate. then they could have a fight later about who puts up the spoils. actually there were anarchist proposals that i felt were not unreasonable. for how to win the civil war. anarchists thinkers like camile burn area that was murdered by the communists in may 1937, one of the leading anarchist thinkers. he proposed -- he pointed out and turned out quite correctly that they would never win a conventional war. for one reason because the commitment to the war on the part of the population had seriously declined after the revolution was crushed. they have lost what they had fought for and didn't care very much who is going to pick up the spoils. he pointed out, and of course

the fascists were being directly supported by hitler and mussolini and the west was not opposed to that. we forget now but fascism had a pretty good energy and the west in the late 30s. mussolini was that admirable italian general and hitler was regarded by the state department in the late 30s as a moderate who was holding off the forces of left and right so we shouldn't be too critical of him. the united states had a console in berlin up until pearl harbor who was sending back dispatches saying you shouldn't be too hard on

hitler and mussolini couldn't provide and they couldn't find the left press couldn't find it but the state department could. going back to bring airy with the proposed was that in spain itself the popular forces should fight a guerrilla war. that is a old spanish tradition to fight a guerrilla war and in morocco call for support the moroccan liberation forces that were trying to free themselves from french and british and spanish imperial control. that was the base of franklin's army. they were moorish troops so his idea was to fight a revolutionary war and support them in their efforts to overthrow imperialist control they thought what he wrote the end fascist armies just as in

spain itself the popular forces were fighting until they were crushed. well if you read the scholarship on the matter and up until today that is kind of dismissed as a sort of romantic joke is the whole anarchist movement is but i don't think it was. that was my initial exposure to it. [laughter] >> hi. thank you so much for doing this. i just wanted, you touched briefly, you have this wonderful -- and you touched on your family's engagement with high culture and i was going to ask you briefly on the contemporary state of high culture and serious art and how important you think engagements with that serious contemporary literature and music cinema whatever it is how important it is in exploring the vanguard of political thought and you know whether or not contemporary artists and

contemporary audiences are rising to that challenge? >> i think it's very important and i'm not the only one who thinks so. i think people with power think so. that is why the famous mural wasn't allowed to be put in the rockefeller center and that is why if you go back to cinema, say go back 60 years in the early 50s. some of you will remember. in 1953, and it shersinger for cinema. there were two major films that came out. two films that came out on the labor movement. one which was a huge box office success with pr advertising and so on featured marlon brando was about a corrupt union leader and how the heroic joe with his lunchbox finally overcame the

corrupt union leader at the end of this element throws them into the water and everybody cheers. that was one. there was another film, a marvelous film called salted the earth earth, a low-budget film which was about a victorious strike led by a hispanic woman. it was really at rate film. if you can find it somewhere you should look at it. you can find it maybe in a small art theater in downtown new york somewhere but that wasn't the kind of film that was going to get publicity. and that runs through consistently. i think when people in power believe something firmly it's worth paying attention to them and i think they believe firmly that it should not have revolutionary popular art in which people participate. actually that is one of the reasons i think for destroying the beauty in the new york

subways. that is considered a great achievement of bloomberg. popular art all over the subways because that's just too dangerous. it's part of the drug war, the grotesque drug war and race war and murder. a large part of the came from the fact that the harlem renaissance black artists in harlem were playing jazz and smoking marijuana so that had to be destroyed. the mexicans were doing it too. this was pretty constant so yeah i think it's really important. >> noam what is preventinpreventin g people of anything from organizing themselves into worker controlled collaboratives? you alluded to co-ops and if not much is preventing them from doing so to what do you attribute their relative lack of

popularity and the related question would be what could union control pensions for example be doing if the problem is capital for example? why aren't more entities like punitively worker controlled pensions invested in the capital they have control over in supporting these kinds of worker controlled alternatives? >> first of all pensions are not in the hands of the working people. the unions are not popular democracies. pensions are in the hands of the bureaucrats and money managers and they are not about to hand over power to popular organizations. actually that's not entirely true. there are some interesting initiatives. i don't know if they're going to get anywhere but they are interesting. the united steelworkers which is one of the more progressive unions has recently made some tentative arrangements in the

vast country this huge worker owned industrial banking housing school educational cooperative. that could get somewhere and i mentioned pair away its work and is discussed in participates in the spread of worker owned enterprises in mostly northern ohio. they have kind of an interesting history. back in 1977 at the beginning of the concerted efforts to destroy industrial production in the united states so the beginning of the neoliberal assault on the population, u.s. steel decided to close its main steel plants in youngstown ohio. it was a steel town like other

towns like detroit which had actually been built by the working classes. they didn't get the profits that they built it and they wanted to keep it. u.s. steel wanted to sell it, to close it down and the union offered to buy it. they had community support. they even had some support of i think a republican governor. just let the workers by the planting keep running it or you u.s. steel did not want that and in fact this is pretty consistent. i mentioned david who is one that is worked on a number not create very common around here too. he's from massachusetts. when the workers decide to try to take over an enterprise, an enterprise which may be perfectly profitable but not profitable enough for the multinational who runs it. maybe they don't want to keep the books. when they try to buy it, which

would be a good deal for the multinationals they refuse to sell it for class reasons. they have class interests. they do not want to see the spread of popular democratic organizations for perfectly obvious reasons. this just happened, and i'll come back to youngstown in a minute but it happened a couple of years ago right here. it was a small but quite successful manufacturing plant made specialized parts for aircraft but the multinational didn't want to bother with it so they were going to close it down. the union tried to buy it. the multinationals usually refuse to sell it and there wasn't enough support, popular support to push it through. there was an occupy movement at that time, real. i think that's something they might if pushed through. actually on a much larger scale.

a couple of years ago the obama virtually nationalized auto industry. not entirely but virtually. there were a couple of options. one option was to restructure it, use taxpayer funding and hand it back to the original owners or other people just like them with a different face, bankers and ceos etc. and then have it continue to do what it did before, building cars. that is what they chose. they handed over to the workforce and have been built what is needed in the country which is not more cars for traffic jams but high-speed mass transportation. the united states is very back what in the world in this respect. you take a high-speed train from beijing to kazakhstan but try to take a train from boston to new york.

it's as low as it was 60 years ago. this is a really backward country and the former auto industry could have been handed over to the workforce and may be given some support to do this but that wasn't an option. a large-scale -- suppose there had been a large-scale occupy movement but broader and expanded. i think that takes popular consciousness but going back to youngstown the case went to court in 1977. the union workers lost and the steel mills were destroyed but they didn't give up. they didn't just say okay we will starve to death and go somewhere else. they began to organize small worker owned enterprises and they began spreading around the woodland area youngstown and

northern ohio into other areas so it is taking place but it's happening elsewhere to. in northern mexico they are quite successful with their plants. it's not easy because the banks don't like the capital and the government doesn't like to support them again for class reasons but at the sufficient popular support these things can develop. and it's not easy. it's hard work and the people who organize usually suffer for it but that's typical of almost every civil rights movement. practically any movement that has ever gotten anywhere the people of front usually take it in the chin. it's hard and people have to be willing to endure for longer-term gain and that's not easy but it can happen and it does.

>> hi. i'm just curious if you could address the role of the surveillance technologies and increasingly the militarization of police as far as moving forward today and in the future and kind of where do you see that now? >> their two things to bear in mind about that. the first thing is the phenomenon itself shouldn't be at all surprising. the second is that the scaled at least to me is kind of surprising. i hadn't really expected that scale but the phenomenon is normal and again as american as apple pie. you can go back a century. take say the philippine war early in the 19th century, 20th century. it was a vicious war. the u.s. conquered the philippines in the philippines killed --

after the military victory it had to be suppressed and controlled and a huge pacification campaign was initiated using the highest technology of the day for surveillance, subversion and breaking up groups and building up hostilities, all kinds of things. ..

and if there is a disaster in the long term then it's not their business. it's obvious with environmental issues and the same with nick their weapons.

so sure this stuff is going to go on unless you stop it. you can stop it and it does not have to go on. speaking you offer a critique of start of culture and entrepreneurship which offers many of the characteristics, the seeming characteristics of autonomy but isn't so? >> the seeming characteristics? start of culture is okay. people like their absence so one but it's based very heavily on state subsidy. it's kind of a narrow form of entrepreneurship. take for example the silicon valley culture. what are they using? they are using computers or the internet and electronics and so one so forth almost all developed in the state sector for decades before its handed over to private power for

commercialization and application. so there is initiative there. people are having fun and doing maybe interesting things but relying very heavily on the background state subsidy which takes many forms. actually everyone at m.i.t. -- salaries for years. [laughter] and for decades computers and the internet and the whole base of the i.t. culture were developed right here or similar places and so on. finally after decades it was handed over to bill gates and steve jobs to market and commercialize and make profit and make little things that you carry around with you. so it's a kind of, it has entrepreneurial aspects but it is a parasitic, it is parasitic

on much more development. it's hard work. the creative work is quite substantially in the state sector. it's not just subsidy. there are many other devices of taxpayer support for private enterprise. one of the main ones is her cair so for example in the early 60's ibm through the 50s had learned mostly in government laboratories, places like this had learned to switch from punch cards to digital computers and they built the world's biggest computer in the early 60's. but it was much too expensive for business so the government bought it. that is the purchaser of last resort and i think it went to los alamos. that goes on all the time.

procurement is a major form of public subsidy to private enterprise and there are many other ways. this is one of the reasons why private capital does not want markets. they want markets for other people but not for themselves. for themselves they won't a nanny state, a powerful nanny state that will support them. what the significance of the entrepreneurial culture is you can judge. i'm not overwhelmed by the fact that there are thousands of new apps coming. i think there are more important things. >> i had a question about how you reconcile the emancipatory tradition of anarchism to the kind of abstractness of the ideology itself around authority and power and coercion. it could be argued for example the federal government intervene in the south during the civil war was corseted federal states. we know that the civil war was a

revolution of the slaves against slavery and the federal government ended up intervening much later but that could be argued that was a form of authority. yeah so how do you actually navigate that with would say for example the marxist definition which would be between labor and capital for example? do you see that as something that is maybe different from or a different perspective from anarchism because that could account for the reason why for example there are changes and andarko capitalism. the state is sent paying my workers in low-wage or whatnot. >> i didn't understand exactly. >> my question is authority itself is an abstract term. >> i don't think there's

anything abstract about it. people do it all the time. that is jirga if you are a worker, a wage slave. it's true if you are ,-com,-com ma until very recently for most women it's been obvious. nothing abstract about it. women didn't even have legal rights in the united states until pretty recently. >> my question is like two workers have the authority for example to take over? >> do they have the authority? yeah why not? they built the plant and they made the products and they did the work. why should they be tools rented by some bank or somewhere else? that is the way our institutional structure happens to be as formulated but it doesn't mean it's legitimate. when you talk about authority you're asking questions about legitimacy do people have the right to run their own lives or

do they have to be sort of the tools in the hands of foreign master's? will you now that is a question of legitimacy not authority. you mentioned the civil war and there is ample evidence by now that there were dairy significant slave initiatives in the civil war and there is more to say about that a lot more so take the american revolution. to a large extent that was a revolution carried out in order to maintain slavery. if you look back at the history around 1770 in britain the legal system was he getting to undertake strong condemnations of slavery. that was the somerset case in 1772 were slave owners from united states brought their

slaves with them to angle and. one of them escaped and his owner wanted him back. it's my property and it went to court and went to lord mansfield famous jurist who ruled slavery so odious that was a term he used that it can't be tolerated on english soil. it could be tolerated in the colonies but that's another story but not on english soil. the united states, the founders of the country were almost all slaveowners and they could see the handwriting on the wall. if the colonies remained under british rule, probably these laws would apply here and they would lose their property. that was surely a significant element of the revolution and it runs right to the present. i mean right to this moment the civil war is still being fought. simply take a look at the electoral maps.

save the map of the election of 2012 red states and blue states. it's almost identical to the civil war. it's a confederacy which now call themselves republicans. they shifted names and the rest which was the north. it's a large part of the motivation behind the effort to shut down the government is just revenge. we want to shut down washington and win this war finally. the united states never developed class parties like labor parties. they didn't amount to much but elise they were something. the u.s. never have been. it's always had sectional parties and it's a reflection of the civil war which never ended. it hasn't ended in the prisons and elsewhere. it's a very deeply-rooted thing in society and hard to extrapolate. >> i hope you all will join me

in thanking noam chomsky once more. [applause]s a history

professor at the cooper union for the advancements of science and art in new york city. this is an hour. [applause] >> thank you. if you don't mind i'm going to sit rather than go to the podium. i've had a few health problems and i would just as soon not test myself. thank you for coming tonight. in thinking about the problem of liberalism i have to start off with a simple problem. most people including most people who think they have studied the subject have a very

weak idea of the history of liberalism whether it be on the left or the right. there is an idea that you started with progressivism, you move done to -- no, i'm teasing. [laughter] you started with progressivism. he proceeded to the new deal and then you went into the great society as a continuous flow. the trouble is it's simply not true. most progressives did not become new dealers. very few republican progressives you have to remember progressivism was a bipartisan movement. very few republican progressives became new dealers and not surprisingly enough i'm on the democratic regresses the group most likely to become new dealers were social workers, lowly social workers and they saw what they wanted and what they hoped for in the new deal.

part of the reason for this is their is a kusair him around world war i and has to do with personality. personality of woodrow wilson. a great deal has been written about the personality of woodrow wilson but in my opinion not enough. he had an extraordinary effect. but before i get to woodrow wilson i just want to lay out the broad argument and then i will come back to wilson. when we think of liberalism today top and bottom coalition we associate with barack obama. this began not with progressivism and the new deal but whether the wake of the post-world war i disillusioned with american society. most americans were happy to get back to the harding years the subject of braun alice's new book but that was not true of intellectuals. and it was not true of writers of fiction.

those people, let me people that i'm referring to. h.g. wells, h. l. mencken sinclair lewis and randolph bruin. my suspicion is most of the people in the room don't know who randolph warren is. after you read a book i hope you will have a better idea because he has an enormous and i mean enormous impact on the 1960s. many of the ideas of the 1960s are his ideas. h.g. wells as you all know you think of him as the writer of great science fiction. wells was an enormous political influence on both sides of the atlantic. he met with teddy roosevelt. they talked about his fictions. he met with president taft.

he met with fdr repeatedly. he was the worst to be reckoned with. sinclair lewis if you are over 50 you are ready know who he is from the novels main street and it can't happen here. which is still, are still part of the political landscape of america. and mencken. many of you know or expect all of you know who mencken is that you probably don't know that rankin was the most influential liberal of the 1920s. you don't know this because in the 30s he was enormously hostile to fdr and he was cast into perfidy. but in the 1920s no one and i say no one was more influential among liberal thinkers. young advanced thinkers on the campus today's equivalent of the

creative class god help us. no one was more influential than mencken. like communism fabianism and fascism modern liberalism was a vanguard movement born of a new class of politically self-conscious intellectuals. let me repeat that because it may sound odd. like communism atheism and fascism was a vanguard movement born of a new class of politically self-conscious and righteous. i'm not suggesting that liberals are fascists communists or fabians. none of the love. i'm saying there are great similarities end there created by the vanguard of intellectuals. critical of mass democracy middle class capitalism liberals despise the individual assessments pursuit of profit as well as the conventional individual self-interested or

suit of success. both of which thrives in the 19th century in new york. snobbery is not new to liberalism but the actual history of liberalism will be new to most readers. liberalism like his rivals including communism fascism and fabianism emerged as part of the 20th century response the newly emergent worlds mass politics and mass culture. like fascism and communism and i should add here fabianism liberalism strongly influenced by their writings of nietzsche. the first book in america written about nietzsche was written a h.l. mencken. the first book on george bernard shaw and american was written by the same man, mencken. mencken made shah famous in america before shot was famous in england.

i won't go into shock today just suffice to say he plays an important role in the book. what people found appealing in nietzsche was the sense of his call for new aristocracy. old aristocracy -- aristocracy crumbled under the impact of modernization. he wanted a new aristocracy and h.g. wells' writing if you remember was full of this. remember he is calling for the new samurai. he is calling for this new elite to run their world. he never really stops and he has picked up, when you're reading al gore and i hesitate to mention his name here but when you are reading al gore on climate change you are reading h.g. wells. core solutions to climate change are well solutions creating a

global governing body. the set of liberal and emotional attachments that political libido and we emphasize that phrase the political libido of liberalism coalesced in the wake of world war i and its anger and repudiation of progressivism and woodrow wilson. the very term liberal in its modern usage was coined by writers intellectuals who define themselves by their hostility to the middle class and were listed progressives. and you hated prohibition. i suspect many of you are aware of that prohibition was not the product of right-wing cranks. prohibition was the product of repressiveism. it was a way of preserving people's paychecks. and progressivism was a movement of social uplifting. it wasn't just about dollars and

cents and reducing bosses him. it was about uplifting america. the new deal breaks with all of that area and the new deal begins when roosevelt's first act is to appeal prohibition. which briefly sets roosevelt and mencken off on the right foot. [laughter] mencken was a great drinker of german beer. the best short summary of what liberalism is came from the once canonical literary. just for my knowledge how many people today know who burn in perinton is? very few. he was once a very widely known

a year and i suspect those of you raising your hand are historians. anyone who is not a historian raising your hand? one person. michael you are an historian. you cannot escape that. harrington said the following in the late 20s. rid society of the dictatorship of the middle class and yes he used that term. he insisted and the artists and scientists will erect a civilization and become what civilization was in earlier days the thing to be respected. this alienation from american life, the sense that america was the worst of all places was essential to liberalism and its inception. in the 1950s in a brief moment when liberals reconciled with america lionel trilling noted that quote for the first time in

history of modern american on flecha life american is not to be conceived of as a party the stupidest nation in the world. this novelty soon pass. [laughter] just a brief word to break up the narrative. crowley was the founder of the new republic. sometimes you have heard this phrase i'm sure in college from some dimwitted professor. he wanted to achieve hamiltonian ends. excuse me wanted to achieve jeffersonian ends by hamiltonian means. he had no use for hamilton or jefferson. he was a francophile of the first order. his parents were part of the quasi-catholic quasi-scientist religion of comps the french

thinker, and he was one of the first to be baptized in kantian faith, whatever that was. it's not entirely clear. his mother by the name of jennie june was an early feminist and his father in this unhappy marriage was a futurist. he saw kantian future and crowley himself had always admitted he was basically a francophile. he wanted to make america more like france. depending on what's going on whether a lot of you agree or disagree with that. ..

>> in other words, what he was hoping for, what brooks saw in wells was hope for clarity. a semisecular, in some deep

sense, religious group whose underlying values would define the country, and i'm not going to get into it today, but if you think about members of lbj's cabinet or ph.d.es, how many come from the universities, there's a famous moment when john gardener supposed by jokingly had a faculty meeting, saying, welcome, faculty. that's what it was, literally, not just metaphorically. now, the book by wells, let me try those same two people again. the book by wells that had the most influence was not the time machine, which is what he talked to teddy roosevelt about, but where we all are destined to become either beasts or loci was a small book called "anticipations," anyone familiar with the book?

okay, not even our two. [laughter] this was a fascinating book. let me just read a little bit about it. the book explained wells was defined to undermind and destroy moo monogamy, faith in god, and respectability all with cars and electrical heating. that's exactly right. for many young americans, wells' writing were a passport. now, what all the peoplemented was a secular priesthood. including born. secular priesthood that was -- this is words, sets aside slobbingly americans. born and making it in particular were german, and world war i.

make it right, atlantaic calling for german victory, and he writes an article, which is never published to his every lasting luck calling for the german conquest of america. the proof exists somewhere in the making connection letters wrote to oath people. i'll come back to it in a bit. let me turn here to 1919. we fought a war. prohibition has been imposed. during the war, there's a good deal of repression. worlds war i is egg ugly. american leftist, people like

sister crystal, who are part of the pass vies groups who visit the washington were enamored at woodrow wilson, and you'll see others enamored of woodrow wilson. we'll get to that. they see him as one of them, and he sounds like one of them. he's opposed to the war, many of the same grounds they are. he doesn't want to see european imperialism triumph. he studied socialism. he's not a socialist. he studied socialism. he sees in american progress vism and american form of socialism. but in the years of 1918 and 1920 were traumatic. in 1916, many left and embraced wilson as a form of a leader. by 1919, heavers seen as one

whose rhetoric despised as mere mum ri. the 14 points, message of good luck to the republic of labor unions, the ussr, and warning to the allies their treatment of russia would be the acid test of their good will, intention, and unselfish sympathy, and mentally impressive to us explains matt eastman. speaking for many leftists and progressives. this was the extraordinary moment, extraordinary moment when russia's war connoisseur, referring to the now famous con cement of the fellow travel. it's wilson who is the model for coining the term "fellow traveler," and using that term later, it's not true, but for a time, this appears to be the case.

the metaphor based on the belief that the american president shared a critique of imperialism and hope for reform in less capitalist u.s.. this could sound like the 1980s who still thought russia was going to catch up and we'd converge, but there's no reason to did over old garbage. liberals with those progressives would renamed themselves so to repudiate wilson. i'll repeat it. liberals, progressives who renamed themselves so as to repudiate wilson. the word "liberalism" who wrote whitman in 1919, was introduced to the american politics by a group in 1912, and wilson democrats from 1916-1918. the new liberalism was a

decisive cultural break with wilson and progressivism while the progressives inspired by faith and democratic reforms as the wounds of industrial civilization and power politics. the newly self-defined liberals saw the american democratic ethos as danger to freedom at home and abroad. sound familiar? a society at large, not just the bible belters, blaming for their sub geek gages. although writers prospers as never before, they feel oppressed as never beforement you all met people like this. not here in washington. if you come a few hours north, and you attend a dinner party, i guarantee youssef mejri bump

into those people. they always refer to most americans as the herd. this very -- my mentor, had the good sense to repudiate this. here's brooks talking about coney island. the new popular culture broadway

shows, movies k baseball, he said, were all makeshifts of dispair, proof that america was a joyless land. this takes a leap to think coney island and baseball represents joylessness. maybe if you spend time with alex rodriguez, but that would be a long time in the future. brooks compared the united states to a, quote, prime evil monster concentrating on the appetite of the moment, knowing nothing of its own vast body, encrusted with pair sites, half indistinguishable from the slime in which it moves. half indistinguishable from the slime of which it moves. it's not a positive picture. [laughter] these writers wrote the chronicle, and united in one crew saiding army by the revolt as they understood it, and in the exciting years, 1919 and

1920, they seize power in the literary world like russia. they seize power. that's exactly right. let's go back if we can to woodrow wilson, the seizure of power. wilson understands an attempt to impose uniformity in the midst of war, the antigerman hostility, you know, banning sauerkraut, you know all the specifics of this. this could be avoided, and empowers people to impose just that, a frightening uniformity on the country. if there's anything good about liberalism, and i think there is. i don't want to push it too hard, there's two things.

concern with conformity, although very most often liberals are the most conformist people imaginable, but in principle, concern with conformity, and liberals creating the aclu, had good moment, and even most are bad, and civil rights. many supporters, including the american protective league, are cracking down on german institutions and cracking down on all sorts of disacceptability, and so african-americans criticizing lynchings were denounced -- excuse me -- prussian

sympathizers, much as denounce ing 20 years later. now, i mentioned the love affair with prussian germany, love affair, and the love affair was not a a nice man. he was very -- sorry, george bernard shaw liked each other. one was a meeting -- shaw was a very strange man. they understood they worked the same side of the street. they both hate the anglo-american culture, and for making this led to a p reason --

prussian shaw led towards stalin. here's talking about the aftermath of the war. i, too, like the leaders of germany, had grave doubts about democracy. it certainly dawned on me, somewhat to my surprise, that the whole body of my doctrine i preach is fundamentally antianglo-saxoing n, as if i had a spiritual home at all, it's in the land of the ancestors. when world war i started, i was whooping for the kyeser, and kept it up so long there was not any freech speech left. unfortunatelily, he suffered a price. columns repressed and presented himself as a martyr. most of what's written about him today ignores all of this. let me jump ahead. anyone want to talk about the scopes trial later?

if so, i'll stop and talk later. interested in the scopes trial? >> [inaudible] >> i'm the boss, okay. i'll pick up the trial now. most of what you read about the trial is not true. it was not written on a town, not persecuted, and the town put imup to the case as a way of promoting the town. it seemed like a good idea. bring tourists. this was classic promotional promotionallism. ryan, william jennings brian, that's not a pompous ass or a fool. william jennings brian debated george os bourn, the president of the notch rail museum in new york, and he read. brian had failings, especially with evolution. brian was, race aside, not particular, but a decent man. when henry ford had

anti-semitism, brian repudiated it. he was a methodist who went to a presbyterian service, generally open and decent man. let me jump ahead now. any historian that you know of that you would think of the second -- i'll throw the question over. any his historian you know thatu think of the second? very famous historian. think about the kennedy assassination for a minute. >> [inaudible] >> a good guess. >> [inaudible] >> no, no. another good guess. richard hostead.

he was the second. remember supporters were -- no eve of this at all. excuse me, brian supporters. they were all -- no, we had no support for this at all. read brian in american political, you think you read it all over again, but as a historian. let me stop there and pick up in the kennedy assassination and liberalism a little later. outrage over killing belgium civilians and sinking of the lose tannian. he wrote another piece of work, and he was a fellow germman american, quote, no compromising future of the men of german blood and, quote, good, quote, right thinking. he's sarcastic. we must stand against them forever and do the damage we can to them and the democracy.

if you come across this in the writings, let me know. i rarely find it. in the 1920s, mike gold, you know, the famous fellow for jews without money declared him the nation's greatest political influence. he faded in the 30s and attackedded head, and that was not going to fly. in the 30s, the accolades still hated the biewj way see. you couldn't throw a stone in a communism mass meeting -- excuse me, couldn't through a stone in the mass meetings noted lincoln stephens in 1936 without hitting someone who sometime in the past hardly agree with the bit ire assault on everything that was typically bosh way. there's a continue newty between

the appeal in the 20s and communism in the 30s. let me turn to the writer more than anybody else encapsulates liberalism, and that's sinclaire louis. i spent you read main street, and if not, "it can't happen here." asian americans saying louis was bernard, who was a mentor to arthur, and louis was born's writing, turned into novels. his midwest issue student, was stalked with symbols of business

domination. he goes on. they fixed the image of america, and for the world in the next half century. that's exactly right. he was the first american to receive the pulitzer prize, few if you read the writings today, you'll find them not appealing. he was not a good writer, and he knew it and drove him crazy he got the pulitzer prize. it was not a favor. now, main street caught the world opposed -- post war literary disillusion with america. it's about two adults, faithful husband, suffers because her fellow citizens of gopher falls are just -- excuse me, gopher prairie, just too dull beyond

words. they don't have party in pajamas or read the best new writings, and just venn issues, and she's tortured by this. the look is enormous. mark shore, one of louis' biographers, one of the best biographers, described the book as an event in american history, not just a novel, but an event in american history. he's right. it marked -- it was a demarcation point in american culture.

twelve years he wrote babbit, he, too, oppressed by being successful. twelve years later in 1934 after his wife, dorothy thompson was in europe looking at the rise of fascism -- sorry, confusing -- louis writes the novel about the rise of fascism in america. it can't happen here. i'm sure most of you have read it. if you have not, it's worth reading, not because it's written well. it's not. just because it's so interesting because the themes of it are still alive today. it can't happen here. it's marvelous because it turns out equivalent of the black shirts and brown shirts are the rotary club meetings. [laughter] sound ludacris?

read sinclaire louis. it's the conformity he says at rotary meetings, moose meetings, elks, all the meetings essential for making democracy, that in the present day we mourn the passing because we bowl alone. all of that was for sinclaire, the base. now, he hadn't the faintest clue what he was talking about. he couldn't think politically. didn't think well socially, but he was very good at capturing a political mood. like most, he paid little attention, he was -- max eastman, paid no attention whatsoever to prussians.

was not their concern. when hitler came along, resentments op german racial purity and eugenics, popular among american liberals, louis stepped in by suggesting the loathing for main street was recon personal injurylated in europe. described as one of the most important books in america, published in the time with the american population was 127 million, and quickly sold 123,000 copies. opening just prior to the 1936 presidential elections, the play of "can can't happen here" drew 400,000 viewers in four months. it was a sensation. reissued periodically, can't

happen here, happened, part of every intellectuals required reading. i read read it at 14. it was part of every young intellectuals by word, and readers of the 2004 novel, the plot against america read in the bush years recognize the plot of "can can't happen here," the plot, and i love reading philip for the most part, but this is one of the worst novels. it just does not work. in this case, lindberg takes the country over. during the second term of yornlg w. bush, new american law brought out a new printing, and newspaper columnists and bloggers and pundits draw on the books authority take over, bush saw as