Thought Control in Democracies and Ron in Japan

[Scottish philosopher, David] Hume (1711-1776) posed his paradox for both despotic and more free societies. The latter case is by far the more important. As society becomes more free and diverse, the task of inducing submission becomes more complex and the problem of unraveling the mechanism of indoctrination becomes more challenging. But intellectual interest aside, the case of free societies has greater human significance, because in this case we are talking about ourselves and can act upon what we learn. It is for just this reason that the dominant culture will always seek to externalize human concerns, directing them to the abuses of others. Fame, fortune, and respect await those who reveal the crimes of official enemies; those who undertake the vastly more important task of raising a mirror to ourselves can expect quite different treatment, in any society. George Orwell is famous for Animal Farm and 1984, which focus on the official enemy, or could at least be interpreted in this light. Had he kept to the more interesting and significant question of thought control in relatively free and democratic societies, it would not have been appreciated, and instead of wide acclaim, he would have faced silent dismissal or obloquy. Let us nevertheless turn to the more important and unacceptable questions.

Keeping to governments that are more free and popular, why do the government submit when force is on their side? First, we have to look at a prior question: to what extent is force on the side of the governed? Here some care is necessary. Societies are considered free and democratic insofar as the power of the state to coerce is limited. The United States is unusual in this respect: perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, the citizen is free from state coercion, at least, the citizen who is relatively privileged and of the right color, a substantial part of the population.

But it is a mere truism that the state represents only one segment of the nexus of power. Control over investment, production, commerce, finance, conditions of work, and other crucial aspects of social policy lies in private hands, and the same is true of articulate expression, largely dominated by major corporations that sell audiences to advertisers and naturally reflect the interests of the owners and their market. (pp. 156-157)

… It is noteworthy that the fact is now tacitly conceded; the instant that the “great communicator” was no longer needed to read the lines written for him by the rick folk as he had been doing most of his life, he disappeared into total oblivion. After eight years of pretense about the “revolution” Reagan wrought, no one would dream of asking its standard bearer for his thoughts about any topic, because it is understood, as it always was, the he has none. When Reagan was invited to Japan as an elder statesman, his hosts were surprised – and given the fat fee, rather annoyed – to discover that he could not hold press conferences or talk on any subject. Their discomfiture aroused some amusement in the American press: the Japanese believed what they had read about this remarkable figure, failing to comprehend the workings of the mysterious occidental mind. (pp. 157-158, “Containing the Threat of Democracy” in “Chomsky on Anarchism”)