The Prosperous Few And The Restless Many - The Real Story Series

by Noam Chomsky

These wide-ranging interviews, from 1992 and 1993, cover everything from Bosnia and Somalia to biotechnology and nonviolence, with particular attention to the "Third Worldization" of the United States.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Economics, Philosophy, Sociology, Political Science

Paperback

First published July 1, 1993

About the author

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Reviews

[Guy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A gentle introduction to Chomsky, as it is a series of short questions and answers in an interview with David Barsamian. And by gentle I don't mean soft or empty of hard truths. Not at all. In very few words it is full of clear examples of the brutality of America's foreign policies and the role of the media in disseminating delusion. Even though I am very familiar with Chomsky's critiques of American global hegemony, I still came across some new gems. For example, here is an American intellectual's justification of 'colonialism': It is interesting to see how [colonialism] is treated in the West these days. There was an amazing article in the Wall Street Journal [Jan 7, 1993] [sic] criticizing the intervention in Somalia. It was by Angelo Codevilla, a so-called scholar at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, who says: Look, the problem with the world is that Western intellectuals hate their culture and therefore they terminated colonialism. Only civilizations of great generosity can undertake tasks as noble as colonialism, which tries to rescue barbarians all over the world from their miserable fate. The Europeans did it — and of course gave them enormous gifts and benefits. But then these Western intellectuals who hate their own cultures forced them to withdraw. The result is what you see [general poverty and 'third' world status].

You really have to go to the Nazi archive to find anything comparable to that. Apart from the stupendous ignorance — ignorance so colossal that it can only appear among respected intellectuals — the moral level is so low you'd have to go to the Nazi archives. And yet this is an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (61).

And in a rare comment, I read him refer to one of his books suffering from a publisher's editorial cuts. That which was cut was very interesting. He elaborated on that in the section near the end of the book, sub-titled Human Nature and Self-Image: is racism something that's learned, or is it innately endowed? Chomsky's initial response is I don't think either of those is the right answer. He then elaborates on the nature of being an animal of the human genus. ... The people who are in control, who are harming others — those people will construct justifications for themselves. They may do it in sophisticated ways or non-sophisticated ways, but they're going to do it. That much is in human nature. One of the consequences of that can turn out to be racism. It can turn out to be a lot of other things too.

Take the sophisticated ones. One of the intellectual gurus of the modern period in the United States was Reinhold Niebuhr. He was called the 'theologian of the establishment.' He was revered by the Kennedy liberal types, by people like George Kennan. He was considered a moral teacher of the contemporary generation.

It's interesting to look at why he was so revered. I went through his stuff once. [There was supposed to be a chapter about him in one of my books — but the publisher thought it would be too arcane for the audience, so I didn't include it.] The intellectual level is depressingly low — you can hardly keep a straight face.

But something made him appealing — his concept of the 'paradox of grace.' What it comes down to is this: No matter how much you try to do good, you're always going to do harm. Of course, he's an intellectual, so he had to dress it up with big words, but that's what it comes down to.

...

That may well explain why Niebuhr was so appealing to American intellectuals in the post-WWII period. They were preparing to enter a life of major crime. They were going to be either the managers or the apologists for a period of global conquest.

Running the world is obviously going to entail enormous crimes. So they think, 'Isn't it nice to have this doctrine behind us? Of course we're super-benevolent and humane, but the paradox of grace...'

Again, if you are an intellectual, you dress it up and write articles about it. The mechanisms, however, are quite simple (72-4).

There is a great deal more. I almost stood up and cheered when Barsamian and Chomsky mocked David Frum for lying (or at least exaggerating) about Chomsky's having had a big presence in the op eds of The New York Times (85). I thought it very funny. And what brought me to my feet is that whenever I see Frum talking I see either a full blown liar or the epitome of intellectual stupidity and sycophancy the like of which has little to compare outside of Fox's creative news-entertainers.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Thomas Jefferson’s goal at the very left-liberal end of the spectrum, was to create a country ‘free of blot or mixture’ – meaning no red Indians, no black people, just good white Anglo-Saxons. That’s what the liberals wanted.” “The first secretary of defense, General Henry Knox, said that what we are doing to the native population is worse than what the conquistadors did in Peru and Mexico. He said future historians will look at the ‘destruction’ of these people – what would now be called genocide – and paint the acts with ‘sable colors’”. John Quincy Adams late in life developed a stronger conscience and said he had been involved – “in a crime of ‘extermination’ of such enormity that surely God would punish them for these ‘heinous sins.’”

No one has thought Capitalism is a viable system “for sixty or seventy years – if ever.” The reason the U.S. never gets condemned by the Security Council is because it merely vetoes the resolutions (The invasion of Panama brought two Security Council condemnations that were vetoed). General Assembly resolutions get passed all the time but they are not binding – “they’re just recommendations”. “Israel is not a small state. It’s an appendage to the world’s superpower.” The only way to justify an occupation is to be a racist – to blame the victim. “It is perfectly true that Israel wants peace. So, did Hitler. Everyone wants peace. The question is, on what terms?” Try preaching non-violence when you are in the front lines (like Dave Dellinger), it’s much harder.

Britain singlehandedly turned Bengal, one of the richest places on earth, described as a paradise, into a land of famine by first destroying its agricultural economy, then destroying its textile industry. During India’s forced de-industrialization, Britain was saying, it had to be done for the Manchester mills to survive. And now Bengal is Bangladesh. At the height of British power in India there was no more than 150,000 British in India. 90% of the control over the Indian people came from other Indians. Divide and conquer. In France, people were rounding up Jews faster than the Nazis could process them. Look at the parts of Europe that were colonized, like Ireland, there is a noticeable third world element. “From 1980 to 1988, U.S.-backed South Africa was responsible for about a million and a half killings., plus about sixty billion dollars of damage – and that’s only in the region surrounding South Africa.” Nobody cared because South Africa was our ally. Huge massacre in Burundi in the 70’s? No problem. “When you have your boot on someone’s neck, you have to justify it.” There are five hundred years of reasons why migrants aren’t going from Europe to Africa.

Only two groups are allowed to discuss “class” in the U.S.: the business community and U.S. planners. Both of those groups have to worry about class. Reinhold Niebuhr becomes famous among sold-out liberal theologians because of his concept of “paradox of grace.” The concept means that when you try to do good, bad will also come out of it. That’s wonderful because you can now explain away every terrible thing the U.S. does with the “paradox of grace” – we meant to do well, but, you know, that “paradox of grace”. Noam says you have to go and chat with old women in Sicily to find beliefs similar to the U.S. where three-quarters of our population believe in religious miracles. Noam says 9% of the U.S. population believes in evolution. Is it any wonder why Noam in other writings has called the United States a cultural backwater? David Hume’s importance is his comment in a book of political theory, where he states that even though the population submits to the governed, “force is always on the side of the governed.” Another great book by Noam.

[Max Urai · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chomsky is one of the few authors who makes me want to be a better person.

[Kony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Truth be told, I was poised to give this 3 stars... until I hit the latter sections.

The first half consists of mile-a-minute punditry on bad behavior by US state/corporate entities, at home & abroad. It might be brilliant, but you need intimate familiarity with 1980s-90s politics to fathom what he's saying. This I lack. So I felt like I was dog-paddling through a sea of vaguely familiar references.

In the second half, I woke up and enjoyed myself. Here, Chomsky riffs on class, racism, and human nature, and how these operate to sustain oppressive structures. He gives a thought-provoking critique of Gandhi and a pithy breakdown of how modern society is set up as a prisoner's dilemma that makes collective action unlikely and invaluable.

I don't regret slogging on to the end. But if you're new to Chomsky or to this kind of material, start with What Uncle Sam Really Wants...

[Brett · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've enjoyed Chomsky since I was first exposed to him in college and read a whole lot of his books, especially when I was in my twenties. He is undoubtedly someone who challenges many preconceptions, though I have often wished his prose was more readable and less repetitious.

This book is one of a series of very small volumes (less than 100 pages) where Chomsky is interviewed by David Barsamian. It was published in the early 1990s and much of its content reflects the current events of the time.

The idea behind the series, I gather, is to present Chomsky in more bite-sized and manageable segments, though I'm not sure it is really succeeding in making him more easy to digest. Instead, to me, it feels like we never really get very far into any particular topic, and instead hop around as Barsamian goes from one thing to the next. We leap freely from the WTO/GATT to bio-engineering to Gandhi's legacy in the blink of an eye.

I can appreciate the idea, and maybe there is someone out there that could make it work, but I don't think these books pull it off. Because of my familiarity with Chomsky, I could still read and enjoy this book, but it's not serving its intended purpose.

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5/ Chomsky is best in interviews!

[Joe Reeve]

"when fascism comes to this country, it's going to be wrapped in an American flag"

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

A quick and easy read that was prescient in many ways about the disruptive effects that "free" trade would have on the economy and politics. While classical and neo-classical economic theory holds that the removal of trade barriers are largely beneficial, the models assume away any distributional impacts. Chomsky predicted--accurately in my opinion--that a change in the rules related to international trade would benefit a very small number of people who had the economic and political power to capture almost all the economic gains. Trade liberalization resulted in declining real wages, economic insecurity, and political destabilization. The lower costs of cheap imports hardly made up for the loss of income for most Americans, and the story played out in countries throughout the world.

I recall listening with skepticism to Chomsky and other critics of NAFTA and the subsequent GATT rounds back in the early 1990s, thinking they were alarmist and that the adjustment would be temporary and milder than they predicted. In retrospect, I think it is fair to say that even the worst critics of Bush and Clinton trade liberalization underestimated how much the changes in the rules would concentrate so much wealth and power in the hands of so few at the expense of so many.

My main problem with this slim volume is that it is mostly based on speeches and interviews, and is only casually edited with only a few citations. Historically interesting, but there are better researched and more current works that cover the same ground.

[Aron Kerpel-Fronius · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great introduction to Chomsky, discovering a wide range of topics, although not getting into too much depth on anything. an easy an interesting read although we think fundamentally different things about how the world works.

[Public Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Classic quick Chomsky.

[A. B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first Chomsky. Lots of interesting insights. A few of the points that struck me:

(1) When you have national economies, you have national govts. When you have international economies, you have a de facto world govt, buoyed up by institutions like the IMF and World Bank. This has led to a democratic deficit, where parliaments slowly lose power, which has in turn led to populism.
(2) The US has just as well developed an industrial policy as most other nations, except it chooses to hide it in the Pentagon apparatus. The military-industrial complex fuels American interventions worldwide.
(3) A corporation is a fascist structure internally. Since politics are less and less able to influence the world, vague culture wars as in the US, Race wars, anti-immigrant hysteria in Europe, or religious fundamentalism in India are used. These are the same old tactics of Divide and Conquer.
(4) The economic miracles of the IMF are growth in GDP and in the pockets of fat-cats complemented by drastic cuts in social spending which put more and more people in poverty.
(5) Israel initially sponsored Islamic fundamentalism, the PLO is secular, nationalist and diplomatic. Israel funded the terrorists primarily to undermine this. Chaim Weizmann himself noted that the greatest danger to Israel was Arab moderates, not extremists.
(6) The longer the British were in a region in India, the poorer it was; starting from Bengal and Calcutta being the poorest. The white man's burden is a common belief in the West, even enshrined in the WSJ.
(7) Racism really developed during colonialism, as a way to convince themselves that they were in the moral right, by accusing other races of being inferior and depraved. Race is also used in the US to obfuscate class differences, as is religion in India. In an ironical version of Marxism, it is the business community that is most class-conscious, seeking to maintain their privileges. With their stranglehold over the media, class is made a taboo word for the populace. The elites also support diversity because it doesn't much matter to them. And this loyalty is as shifting as the fortunes of the political parties. The rulers rule by controlling opinion, more than violence.
(8) Society is structured to drive us towards individualistic gain, instead of collective politics due to the threat that poses. It asks us to look our for ourselves, and those who put themselves out there to protest for a better world for all, suffer.
(9) There are two ways to social change: the more difficult way is if a large-scale popular movement wants it, and the easier one is if the business community wants it. Hume's paradox is that in every society, the ruled submit to the ruler for some reason, even though revolt is very much possible.
(10) Adam Smith recognized that class was the basis for social and govt policy. In fact, he advocated for capitalism as it was then a better system for the masses than mercantilism or feudalism. He was an Enlightenment individual and not the neo-liberal apologist he is made out to be.

[Audrey Benson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating how he mentions how the most class conscious are the business elite ruling class. This is why the US refused to publish Navarro’s study (the one that ties class to benchmark statistics reflecting quality of life). Chomsky harps on how our capitalist system makes it nearly impossible to not want to pick the individualistic route in society (I.e. education , job, suburbs ,wealth domination) and that because of that it is pretty unbelievable that progress has been made at all. He additionally forewarns about religious fundamentalism and how the seemingly innocuous interest of millionaire fundamentalists in local politics is actually pretty terrifying. In 2020 we can see his concern was not unreasonable. He suggests that this fundamentalism stems from an increasingly industrially globalized world in which certain identities are stamped out thus sparking folks to resort to tribalism in the US.

[Brumaire Bodbyl-Mast · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked this up at a local book store partially out of a feeling of obligation to buy something after scouring the politics/history section, though I picked up some other ones as well. I expected Chomsky, and it delivered. It’s a series of interviews transcribed, which was the style at the time, Said did something similar for TV lectures he did, in a very digestible format. It’s an interesting artifact, done at the height of “humanitarian interventionism” between the bush and Clinton admins, and during the debate over NAFTA. Chomsky’s analysis largely holds up, but it also bears a lot of that ‘well duh’ attitude he tends to have. (Which, to be fair I am guilty of.) The nature of Chomsky as the “last enlightenment intellectual” is very noticeable here- he cities Adam Smith plenty of times, never Marx. I do of course have to disagree with some statements made but generally it’s Chomsky’s standard left-liberal analysis so I can’t complain.

[Franks V. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fascinating state-of-the-world report from the man the New York Times called "arguably the most important intellectual alive". Here are a few excerpts:- We now have an international economy and we're moving towards the international state - "creating", to quote the business press, "a new imperial age with a de facto world government".- NAFTA is a secret document whose decisions will override those od Congress, states, localities. It's a real success in the long-term project of depriving democratic structures of any substance.- Biotechnology, genetic engineering, designing animal species, etc. is potentially vastly more important than electronics. In fact, compared to the potential of biotechnology, electronics is sort of a frill.- Much of the disparity between blacks and whites is actually a class difference, and the gap between poor and rich whites is also enormous. But you're not allowed to talk about class in the US. As soon as you say the word, everybody falls down dead.

[Ian Morel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a particularly great book but helpful nonetheless. I can’t say I learned a ton from it, but it was my first meeting with Chomsky who seems to be pretty close to spot on. I found some of it outdated but the vast majority was fascinating.

I wish he had spent more time on religious alt-right fundamentalism because WOW. What he said 30 years ago is what we see today.

The book reminds me a lot of the more political writings of Berry. From me that is about as high praise as it goes. The main drawbacks are the interview style and the dated nature of some of his points.

3/5

[Marian · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am certainly biased when it comes to anything written by Chomsky because I really love him. He is one of the people I’d adore to talk to. In this small book filled with his answers to an interview I re-experienced what I felt upon reading my first book of his, complete bliss. Its just all that he says strikes a chord with me, it truly does. If this book was mine I’d constantly be re-reading it honestly. I want everyone to read this book honestly, it’s short and worth every single millisecond.

[Jo Eva · Rating 5 out of 5]

"In a situation of occupation or domination, the occupier...has to justify what it's doing. There is only one way to do it- become a racist. You have to blame the victim. Once you become a raving racist in self-defense, you've lost your capacity to understand what's happening."

"When people grow more alienated and isolated, they begin to develop highly irrational and very self-destructive attitudes. They want something in their lives. They want to identify themselves somehow."

"We live in a society that assigns benefits to efforts to achieve individual gain."

"When fascism comes to this country, it's going to be wrapped in an American flag." -Huey Long

[Reading · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's amazing that this book was written in 1993. If you had replaced all the "Reagans" and "Bushes" with "Trumps" and "Bushes", it could have easily been written in 2019.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

[Geof · Rating 3 out of 5]

From Wikipedia, "The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many is a short book compiling three revised interviews of the United States academic Noam Chomsky by David Barsamian, originally conducted on December 16, 1992, January 14 and 21 1993."

[Dave MacFarquhar · Rating 5 out of 5]

These books (the How The World Works collection) are just dynamite. Can't recommend enough for anyone who has some slight suspicions that the United States and western capitalism might be nothing worth defending.

[Clara Martin]

A good slim introduction to Chomsky I think. Picked this up after starting in entirely the wrong place - a falling apart volume of Reflections on Language, which I might still try to get through, even though its very technical. Read this at work and a customer said "Love that guy!"

[Gabriel Sheeley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a classic Chomsky read which is as relevant if not more relevant today than it was when it was published. Capitalism has continued unchecked, and we can see clearly where this is taking us: fascism. Chomsky’s words should serve as a wakeup call to everyone that a class struggle is necessary to regain our future.

[Sehar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everything happening in the world around me makes so much more sense after reading Chomsky. The question and answer format of this book makes very heavy topics more palatable. Very informative read

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This little book is a tad dated (1993) but the wisdom is right on. Noam Chomsky is always a refreshingly good read.

[Nate Bloch · Rating 2 out of 5]

Probably my least favorite book in this series so far, but still definitely worth reading.

[Eva · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chomsky asks “under what conditions” - YES. Too tired to elaborate but maybe will later

[Maverick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Class, a high planner and business community mendate. Racism and its linkage with opperession and deprivation.

[Lucy Faria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chomsky has a way with words of writing!! Really note-worthy binge that I plan to continue. One of the few reading cases where having NAFTA background thesis knowledge is actually super useful

[Alejandro Maldonado · Rating 5 out of 5]

delightful

[Frederick Fullerton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although dated, what Chomsky wrote in 1993 is still relevant, especially with the current US regime's plan to dismantle democracy as we knew it.