This PR Racket - Quareness Series (17th "Lecture").
The primary purpose of choice is the exercise of freedom. But one of life's many quirks is that when we make choices they can have the effect of restricting our freedom later e.g. in our capitalist societies consumption, although incorporating a means to a different end (the satisfying of needs and desires) is treated as an end in itself (from an economic point of view). The very act of consuming "destroys" what is consumed and the economic imperative of capitalism seeks constantly to trap the consumer in a state of suffering from forever recurring illusions which always recede just at the point at which they are "finally" attained. It could be argued that this is simply part of the human condition, but my point is that it's necessary for the "progress" of capitalism. Fundamentally the capitalist enterprise is alien to human nature in that it has an inbuilt propensity to replicate itself regardless of the wellbeing of both its actors and those acted upon, rather like a virus (at least in the long term). Hence the ultimate inevitability of conflict and aggressive competition even with, or perhaps especially with, other rival capitalist "entities".
In this whole situation all individuals are dispensable. The core economic question from a humanist viewpoint is to what extent such a "non carnal" entity should define the human condition and does it limit human freedom to an unacceptable degree. In capitalism, value as defined by price becomes the embedded core value of consumer society to the detriment of those many inherently unconsumable things valued for themselves e.g. clean air, a "useless" person or animal, etc. Part of the problem with capitalism as a social organising system is that it tends to treat us human beings ourselves as consumable commodities, thereby diminishing the core unique value of each of us (which in my view doesn't need any justification, economic or otherwise). Real equality derives its legitimacy from this philosophical given/priceless value and from the perhaps radical notion of the equality of difference. Humans are a sacred (priceless) species. We treat sacred places, objects and lives as beyond commercial value. The alternative is to accept that everything has a price. But the trouble with such a market driven approach to decision making is that it undermines the cohesion of the group, which is bound together by shared sacred values. We perceive something sacred as possessing qualities that are unique and irreplaceable and discerning such qualities gels with our minds which are designed to sense and infer hidden properties. Indeed it can be said that such irrationality makes our beliefs rational because those beliefs hold society together. The moral view inherent in this is in my opinion in conflict with capitalism. And for this very reason economic and political societies organised on capitalist principles need to exert persuasion in order to survive.
For the "powers that be" it's in "open" societies that you need the most sophisticated methods of propaganda. And since World War 1 propaganda has become the business of public relations in many countries. And perception management is at the core of this PR business. Some major examples of how deep this can go in our time include the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad and the Jessica Lynch rescue, a story staged for the press on the same day the US invasion forces blew up the local Al Jazeera TV station killing a local journalist and shelled the Palestine Hotel killing a foreign journalist. Both of these examples were psyops stunts with the latter story "managed" by the Rendon Group PR firm whose principal John Rendon, a self described "information warrior", had been previously engaged by the CIA to "manage" the public perception of the Iraqi regime and the bombing of Afghanistan. It is telling also that Colin Powell's UnderSecretary of State in the George W Bush regime was not a career diplomat but a PR guru - Charlotte Beers "the queen of Madison Avenue" who was responsible inter alia for trying to persuade the Middle East public that Bin Laden was behind 9/11. Propaganda / PR has become the primary method of communication by the powerful to the masses in our "open" societies.
At that time many of the socalled independent military experts deployed on major news network TV in the US were in fact briefed beforehand by the Pentagon under Rumsfeld and indeed were retired generals, colonels, etc. who had private employment with contractors such as The Carlyle Group. During the Bosnian conflict psyops soldiers and officers out of Fort Bragg North Carolina were placed and working at CNN headquarters in Atlanta, helping in the production of news. Back then many of the US population were led to believe that a nuclear attack by Iraq was imminent and many of the soldiers believed so too and that their mission was to destroy a shadowy group called Al Queda and free the Iraqi people. What was actually happening was the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of an unprovoked war of aggression - a most heinous crime under the Nuremburg judgments - which has resulted in many many deaths (including large numbers of innocent civilians), many many refugees and a country and society with shattered infrastucture. And the "information weapon" of a relentless PR onslaught was an integral part of all this.
The Ludlow Massacre.
The "surprising" start of PR as we now know it was steeped in class warfare. During the period Autumn 1913 to Spring 1914 the coal miners in Colorado were striking for safe working conditions, tolerable wages and implementation of the existing mining regulations. Ed Ludlow a labour organiser had been shot by gunmen hired by the Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation owned by the Rockefeller family. The strike was eventually broken when the Colorado National Guard (then funded by the Rockefellers) attacked the miners' tented village and killed many including some women and children. This continued a consistent historical violent suppression of striking workers in the US since the mid 1800s, in Chicago and New York and Pennsylvania to name just some instances. Over the years many labour groups had emerged with perhaps the most influential being the broad based anarchist minded Industrial Workers of the World widely known as the Wobblies (of which more later). And the then "powers that be" were understandably "concerned".
The Ludlow massacre (immortalised in folksong) led to a major public reaction which for the Rockefellers eventually became a PR nightmare. The family then engaged Ivy Lee (said to have invented the press release) for his speciality crisis management skills. His idea was to manage any crisis by drawing attention to it and to assist and help the news media in covering it. He knew that the degree to which he could cultivate their services was the degree to which he could manage their coverage. He started with a disinformation campaign against the workers and followed with imposter letters to papers and government. He arranged positive publicity for the Rockefellers through charitable donations and photo ops by and for them, etc. He realised that corporations needed a makeover in order to change the public perception of them as greedy and uncaring to something of moral worth to society. In the event this early attempt at "perception management" failed largely because Lee himself was too visible. However, the lesson for the future PR industry was that success would largely depend on operating "in the dark". At the time Ivy Lee also lent his hand to engineering propaganda for the US Govt. not just against the Germans but against the American people so as to get US involved in WW1. He later worked for a large German company with close ties to the Nazi Govt. in an effort to paint that regime as one friendly to the "West". Consistency of support for one side or aspect of a story has hardly been a noticeable characteristic of the PR industry.
A more modern example is provided by one of the largest PR outfits in the world Burson-Marsteller operating today in 35 countries and listing among its clients such major players as Philip Morris, Union Carbide and Monsanto. Its CEO Mark Penn served as Hilary Clinton's chief political advisor during the 2008 election campaign. The firm also worked PR for the Indonesian Govt as it committed genocide in East Timor. In addition it lent a hand to the Nigerian Govt and Shell Oil during the Biafran war and helped bolster the image of the US backed Argentine military junta of General Videle with the international financial community and the Western press.
National security is one of the most powerful weapons of modern times to swindle people into doing what is not in their best interests. Persuasion is the name of the game. Propaganda is about world view, beliefs as distinct from policy. Before the 1916 election Woodrow Wilson's slogan was the neutralist anti war - peace without victory. Just 2 months into office this changed to - victory without peace. And this needed PR management. He set up the Creel Commission which assembled 75,000 public speakers throughout the US to push for war. They also sent periodicals to 6,000 teachers and had boyscouts deliver copies of Wilson's pro war addresses to households across the country. Two core elements here were that the US was in imminent danger from invasion by the savage German and that the US historic mission was to make the world safe for democracy. The old savage indian and negro were transformed into the barbaric hun bolstered by fake news reports about atrocities against babies, etc. Like later with the freedom fries bullshit, sauerkraut was renamed liberty cabbage. Inevitably false atrocity stories would become a staple of the PR world e.g. babies and incubators in Kuwait (young member of royal family coached by PR firm to give persuasive false testimony which was repeated in public by President George Bush Snr. to justify attacking Iraq), infamous photo of alleged concentration camp with malnourished/mistreated prisoners in Bosnia, etc. George Creel wanted "people to be herded into one white mass instinct" and the Commission arranged for 75 million booklets to be distributed across the country extolling the qualities of what it meant to be an american - the american hero.
As Marshall McLuhan (medium is the message) pointed out - the last thing a fish would think of as the most important thing in its life is water i.e. the most obvious thing in its life. And this is kinda true of any culture. Those things that are most powerful and most obvious to an outsider don't tend to be seen by those inside the water - consider the blindness of notions such as we're God's chosen people, city of light on a hill, we have the best system possible and people need to pay attention to us because we know, etc. The idea of being a saviour to the world is one used down through history by all the imperially ambitious. Such sentiments hardly appealed to Mark Twain - "my kind of loyalty is loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its office holders". George Orwell too later concluded the same thing that "patriotism is a devotion to a certain place and people, contrary to nationalism which is inseparable from lust for power". Alas this more benevolent concept of patriotism remains illusive - see how the media push the idea of support for the military regardless, once the war has begun. A real patriot feels an attachment to his country but not at the expense of other peoples. He values its achievements in terms of social justice and inclusion, peace and stability, rather than its military prowess at the expense of others.
Some precursors of the US Patriot Act 2001 set against the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to Constitution) were the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 aimed at anyone who disrupted the military draft or encouraged disloyalty to the state. The (open to all workers - one big union) Wobblies became the first target of these laws being labelled with anarchy, sedition and lawlessness leading to the collapse of prosperity. They were indeed revolutionary in their anarcho syndicalist outlook - favouring a federated decentralised system of free associations including economic and social institutions in which humans are not forced into the position of cogs in a machine. In September 1917 the Wilson Govt. moved against the Wobblies and imprisoned 101 organisers for up to 20 years on grounds of insubordination, causing disloyalty and refusing duty in the military and naval forces. It later arrested thousands in what became known as the Red Scare - far worse than the McCarthy era. This created a widespread atmosphere of fear and what started as an onslaught against radicals quickly spread to all aspects of society with "patriots" being exhorted to inform against those who spoke out against the war. In truth the oppressive state flourishes in time of war, the forces of repression are enhanced and war is really an opportunity for the Govt of such to grow in power.
After more than 9 million dead the war had not made the world safe for democracy. What it had done was make a small number of individuals and corporations immensely rich and broken most of the labour movement. And this gave birth to what we now have throughout much of the socalled democratic world - polyarchy - social and economic dictatorship and free elections where the mass vote and then have no other power role and where the limits on distribution of community wealth remain firmly in place in perpetuity. Or as Walter Lippman "the dean of american journalism" who served along with Edward Bernays (incidently a nephew of Sigmund Freud) and others as a wartime propagandist on the Creel Commission cleverly put it - not rule by the rich but rule by the competent, educated, more able strata of society. Right from the get go American democracy bought into the older notion that elites had the right to rule over the rest of the population. Participatory democracy would on the other hand see a democratisation of the economy as well as more direct participation in politics.
James Madison the main framer of the US Constitution believed that the primary role of Govt was to protect the opulent from the majority. - hence the "more responsible" strata of society (i.e. those who will protect the wealthy) were to be in charge through the powerful executive and the senate rather than the more democratic (in theory) house of representatives. Of course he was pre capitalist in outlook and assumed that the wealthy would be benevolent and rule in the interests of all, despite Adam Smith's earlier view that the interests of those in charge of any enterprise would be nurtured first of all no matter what the effects on others. Way back in "the cradle of democracy" Aristotle too had felt that if everyone had a right to vote, the poor majority would attack the property of the rich and that was unfair. However, while Madison's solution was to restrict democracy, that of Aristotle was to restrict inequality. The Bill of Rights resulted from the more democratic elements in the US states wishing to limit the power of the more strictly federal minded. And while it's no guarantee of civil or state rights (as history surely shows when it has been in effect regularly suspended - indeed it has been reasonably argued that such suspension was the primary cause of America's civil war) it's fair to say that it can help to keep a lid on the abuses that might well arise more frequently should it not be there at all.
When US direct democracy was effectively stymied, many on the "anti federalist" side predicted a state of aristocratic tyranny where the "great" and wealthy would struggle for power and influence and the poor become prey to avarice, insolence and oppression. In effect nothing less than a nasty stride to universal empire. The readers can decide for themselves how accurate or otherwise these predictions have turned out to be. The tragedy, however, is that there was a clear concrete example of successful participatory democracy already in evidence at the time - that of the Iroquois indians who had created a federation of self governing units where the people had the ability to immediately remove corrupt leaders, everyone was permitted to participate in debate and policy formulation, the constituent societies were both exceedingly collaborative and exceedingly individualistic, the individual was honoured but the values were collaborative because of the need for everyone to get along, everybody was included in every decision which impacted on them, elders were honoured because they knew more, there was a great deal of decentralisation, the individual village would decide for itself, then the tribe would decide and then the federal govt but all respecting the original individual village decision, at the federal level the representatives of the tribes would meet but would not decide for the people - they would have to have the consensus of those all the way "down the chain" and would have to consult back if a contrary proposal was on the table. In that way the representatives were truly representative. Even if they had the authority to make a decision people would not listen to them and would remove them as leaders if they did not properly consult.
These anarcho participatory democracy models were alas incompatible with the elitist interpretation of democracy favoured by Madison, etc. which ultimately held sway. In the event it emerged that in republics and parliamentary democracies individuals would be allowed to choose who should represent them to make decisions on their behalf but they would not be allowed to make those decisions themselves. After WW1 this crystallised with the views (supported by many intellectuals) expounded by Walter Lippman that the general mass of people should be interested spectators rather than active participants in a democracy. However, at that time a wider world was beginning to open up for the general public in America through the spread of technology and access through the media to a broader perspective. In order to preserve the existing societal structures and order Lippman suggested that what was needed was propaganda. In his "Progressive Essays on Democracy" he describes the majority as incompetents and meddlesome outsiders and to allow them to participate in decision making would be a complete disaster and therefore effective methods would have to be designed to protect "responsible men" from the trampling of the ignorant majority. He called it manufacturing the consent of the outsiders. The huge PR industry was developing at the same time and has since been charged with managing the marketing exercises known as elections in the US. Even the best advertising job award of that industry for 2008 went to the Obama campaign.
Many today argue that the world is now too complex to allow for participatory democracy. In recent times even Time magazine has stated that "democracy is in the worst interest of national goals.....the modern world is too complex to allow the man or woman in the street to interfere in its management.". This fits well with Bernays' view in his classic work "Propaganda" where he considered mass mind control so crucial that it constituted the very essence of the democratic process. In peacetime after WW1 this attitude came to prominence and ultimately gave birth to the great depression era when overproduction greatly exceeded demand. The problem could have been solved by temporarily increasing wages and reducing working hours so that workers would have more leisure time and thereby buy more products until the supply/demand equilibrium had been reestablished. However, in law US corporations were (and are) obligated to generate profit and operate in the interests of their shareholders regardless of the impact on society. Business leaders then thought that a shorter working week would undermine the work ethic and potentially forment radicalism. Accordingly the emphasis should be put on more and better work rather than more leisure. Production in this view would no longer be about satisfying human need, rather it would be an end in and of itself. Instead of a democracy of ideas or of mass participation, the US would go on to become a "democracy" of material goods and the citizen would in time be replaced by the insatiable consumer.
The core message of advertising is that buying something will make you happy and this is said to have been the major force for global social change since WW2. Beyond a certain point the truth is that material things will not make you happy, despite the incessant propaganda of the advertising industry. Rather what makes people happy are things to do with society, with personal connection, with autonomy, with relaxation. The problem of capitalism is the problem of consumption. After your basic needs have been met there is no real need for consumption. You have to convince people that their identities are based on the consumption of objects for which there is no material need. And so to persuade people to buy "unnecessary" goods, the industry focussed on what really makes them happy - social relations, family, etc. - and suggested that the goods themselves were linked to these life experiences. In effect advertising became sorta true (reflecting our real desires) and false (stimulating artificial wants) at the same time. This is necessary to expand the market. In the early days of advertising it was all about the goods themselves. However, since about the 1920s advertising has changed to talking about the relationship of goods to our needs. Bernays (again) regarded as the father of PR was a major influence in this change promoting the notion that advertising should appeal to the unconscious desires of consumers so that there'd be no limit to production or consumption. One example of his involvement was the campaign on behalf of the tobacco companies to encourage women to smoke by applying the techniques he'd advocated for national security purposes during WW1 - he staged many public events (rallies, film, etc.) portraying women smoking in an attempt to convince that it was a sign of their liberation and self empowerment. Stylized images (e.g. carefully staged or even these days enhanced with digital insertions) powerfully reflect and shape the perceptions of their times and when it comes to spending money as exhorted by the advertising sector, perception is everything.
For the world of advertising/consumerism the socalled american dream was essentially the notion that in the democracy of material goods everybody in society (rich or poor) could access success, and happiness was just a purchase away. The concrete manifestation of this dream was reflected in the growth of shopping malls (doubling as centres of leisure) and consumer credit. Indeed it's not too fanciful to suggest that not maxing on your credit card could be regarded as downright unpatriotic (where have we heard that type of sentiment echoed in recent times?). There was no need to change an already perfect system and anyone attempting to do so was just being an unreasonable subversive enemy of the people. But of course this was really all about maintaining the existing privileged stratification of society, and still is.
November 2011 saw an incident of trampling to death of a security guard at a New Jersey Walmart on Black Friday (the big sales discount day after Thanksgiving). This was a startling and tragic demonstration of the extreme impact of the consumerist mindset with people refusing to make way to facilitate the rescue ambulance service - "I'm not moving I've queued here since 5 am" - and with an almost religious power attributed to the "bargain buy". Perhaps this was also a concrete demonstration of Marcuse's one dimensional man in action? - I'm full of emptiness and I'm gonna buy things to fill that emptiness up - assuaging your anxiety by buying things - partaking in the american dream - if you work hard you will "succeed" - despite your position in society the playing field is level. The problem though is that in reality the incidence of social mobility is remarkably low and much more related to class and the resources available to the family into which you were born. Class structures keep people (with a few exceptions) mostly in their places. Of course the media tend to concentrate on the exceptions and to give the misleading impression that anyone can do similarly if they only try hard enough. If rich people are successful and most are not rich, then this outlook tells that the reason you're not rich and successful is that you didn't work hard enough and it's your own fault through your laziness or lack of intelligence.
Throughout history the rich have always argued that the poor are poor because of their own stupidity. Poverty is needed if you're gonna have wealth i.e. the only way generally to accumulate wealth is to expropriate the effort and toil of the poor. The truth is that in the main people are poor because they are paid less than the value of the product they provide.
Back in ancient China, when asked what he'd do if he controlled the state, Confucius said he would "rectify the language". Today he might say "control the media". If you can control the stories you can control people in their own heads and imaginations. And capitalism, because it's an unnatural thing, has to constantly do this to prevent falling apart. And that constant necessary repetition of the story hopefully suggests that just underneath the surface there is an alternative system which is more humane, more free, more in tune with humanity and the planet, and which will emerge and prevail in the long run over this current immense propaganda system which of necessity for its own survival has to keep trying to hold us down.
In the final analysis if a decision is taken by a centralised power that decision will reflect the interests of that power. If decisions are made by decentralised entities then those decisions will reflect the interests of those entities. And that's why the elitist mindset as propounded by Madison, Lippman, Bernays and others feels it a necessary condition for "democracy" to work that it disempower the majority because they would not pursue the interests of the "wealth of the nation". And this is understandable from the elite point of view because there tends to be a huge disconnect between public opinion and public policy in our existing representative democracies e.g. 80% of US populace are said now to believe the Govt is run by a small clique for their own benefit.
If you rule out any structural change in the capitalist stratification of society then you rule out democracy. In order for political power to be democratic and equal, economic power also has to be so. And so the elites saw clearly that behind political democracy lay economic democracy, behind political equality lay economic equality, and they did everything they could to block this.
In truth you and I and the broad mass of people in our "open societies" are the real target of these attempts at mind control and propaganda. However, be aware that propaganda loses its effectiveness if people understand what is going on and this can be helped by forcing the players to the surface - making it widely understood that what's carried in much of the main stream news media really is PR produced at the behest of a particular faction of society. For a democracy to really function and thrive what we need is more information, more freedom, more transparency and about who is manipulating public opinion. And in this way to prove wrong the Bernays' view that in a democracy people are too dumb to govern themselves. On the contrary with a well informed and critical thinking citizenry we could properly govern ourselves in a real democracy.
Both the individual and the public mind are central in this struggle where the control of public perception has been and continues today to be the operational goal of the elites. We need more and more people to understand this. The ultimate battle is in the mind.
Ladies and gents it's vital for our future wellbeing to know that what we continue to face today in our social, political and economic troubles is essentially the prevalence of the elitist mindset which has been hidden in full public view now for so long. To cope successfully with any problem we need to seek to understand the reality involved and to develop our own critical thinking abilities.
Sean.
Dean of Quareness.
March 2012.
None of the above should be taken as in any way supportive of many/most non-capitalist socieites where propaganda is just as prevalent (if not more so) but not so hidden from public view.