Finally, I wish to focus on Chomsky's positive arguments, on what he has to offer in place of what he criticizes. After all, it is easy to criticize capitalism, but to propose solutions (such as starting communitarian societies) is the devilish part. Let us look at Chomsky's concluding words as he ends his article with some hopeful words concerning what people can do to escape or change capitalism:
The scale of all this [corporate control of government] is nowhere near as great or, for that matter, as novel as claimed; in many ways it's a return to the early twentieth century. And there's no reason to doubt that it can be controlled, even within existing formal institutions of parliamentary democracy. These are not the operations of any mysterious economic laws; they are human decisions that are subject to challenge, revision and reversal. They are also decisions made within institutions, state and private. These have to face the test of legitimacy, as always; and if they do not meet that test they can be replaced by others that are far more free and more just, exactly as happened throughout history.(16)
In other words, nothing specific.
_____
We could also quote Chomsky quoting Skinner:
"Similarly, we can perceive the power of Skinner's behavioral technology by considering the useful observations and advice he offers: "Punishable behavior can be minimized by creating circumstances in which it is not likely to occur" (p.64); if a person "is strongly reinforced when he sees other people enjoying themselves….he will design an environment in which children are happy (p. 150); if overpopulation, nuclear war, pollution, and depletion of resources are a problem, ''we may then change practices to induce people to have fewer children, spend less on nuclear weapons, stop polluting the environment, and consume resources at a lower rate, respectively" (p.152)" (p.175 Chomsky Reader)
In other words, as Chomsky notes, nothing profound.
The important points for me, not thoroughly addressed as far as I'm concerned, are:
1. The use by Skinner of the words "reinforce" and it's variants which seem designed to eliminate all the other words which may have to do with "inner states'' such as emotions, intentions, will, or those offered by Red Deathy - imagination and desire. As Chomsky notes: "in fact, a Skinnerian translation is always available foor any description of behavior - we can always say that an act is performed because it is "reinforcing" or "reinforced' or because the contingencies of reinforcement shaped behavior in this way, and on and on. There is a handy explanation for any eventuality…." (p. 175 C..R.)
2. The problems surrounding the question of designing a culture. While the control of the culture should presumably be by members of the culture (perhaps arrived at by consensus), Chomsky quotes Skinner again (out of context?): "….the control of the population as a whole must be delegated to specialists - to police, priests, owners, teachers, therapists, and so on, with their specialized reinforcers and their codified contingencies". (p.176 C.R.)
The key here is that the underlying value of such a culture is not something so abstract and 'inner' as providing for individual freedom and dignity, but presumably for Skinner, the ultimate purpose is the (metaphysical?) survival of the particularly designed culture itself.
bill
