Michael: Here’s a wild thought for you, Kevin. 80 percent of all individual political donations in the US come from the richest quarter of one percent of Americans. Kevin: Eighty percent? That can't be right. That’s not a statistic, that’s a punchline. It’s like saying the referee of the Super Bowl is also the quarterback's dad. It just feels… wrong. Michael: It feels wrong, but according to campaign finance data, it's the reality. And it raises a deeply uncomfortable question. What if our elections aren't a marketplace of ideas, but just... a market? Where the highest bidder wins. Kevin: Wow. Okay, so democracy for sale. That's the unsettling world we're exploring today, isn't it? Michael: It is. And this idea is at the very heart of Noam Chomsky's explosive book, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order. Kevin: Chomsky, right. The legendary linguist from MIT who became one of the most vocal and controversial political critics of the last century. I've heard his books are intense and often get polarizing reviews from readers—some see him as a prophet, others as a radical crank. Michael: Exactly. He's been dissecting power for over 60 years, and he doesn't pull any punches. In this book, he argues that the entire global economic system we live in is built on a series of carefully constructed lies. And we're going to start with the biggest one of all. Kevin: Let me guess. The one that gets printed on campaign posters and whispered in boardrooms? Michael: The very same. The grand illusion of the 'free market'.

Kevin: Okay, 'free market'—we hear that term everywhere. It’s supposed to be about rugged individualism, competition, letting the best ideas win. What's the illusion? Michael: The illusion is that the system we call 'neoliberalism' has anything to do with a truly free market for everyone. Chomsky defines neoliberalism as the dominant political and economic paradigm of our time. But he says it’s not about freedom. It’s about a small group of capital owners managing to control as much of social life as possible to maximize their personal profit. Kevin: So when politicians talk about 'getting government out of the way' and 'unleashing private enterprise'... what are they really talking about? Michael: They're talking about a public relations campaign. Chomsky argues that neoliberalism is often presented with this friendly face: consumer choice, personal responsibility, fighting big government. But behind that mask, it's a different beast entirely. He quotes a line from the 1930s, where fascism was sometimes called 'capitalism without a mask.' Chomsky says that definition applies perfectly to neoliberalism today. Kevin: That’s a heavy comparison. Capitalism without a mask. It sounds like something from a dystopian movie. Is there a concrete example of this? Where the mask almost slipped off in public? Michael: Oh, there’s a perfect one. And it’s a story most people have never heard. It’s about something called the Multilateral Investment Agreement, or MAI, back in the late 1990s. Kevin: MAI. Never heard of it. Sounds incredibly boring, which probably means it was incredibly important. Michael: Exactly. The MAI was being negotiated in total secrecy by the world's richest countries. The goal was to create a treaty that would give corporations unprecedented new rights. For example, if a country passed a law to protect its environment—say, banning a toxic chemical—a foreign corporation that wanted to sell that chemical could sue the government for the 'lost profits' it would have made. Kevin: Hold on. Let me get this straight. A private company could sue a country for passing a law that its own citizens voted for? A law to protect their own health? Michael: Precisely. The corporation could take the country to a secret tribunal, not a public court, and demand millions or even billions in compensation. It would have essentially made democratic laws subordinate to corporate profit. Kevin: That is absolutely insane. It’s like giving corporations a veto power over a country's entire legal system. How did this not become the biggest news story of the decade? Michael: Because it was secret! The negotiations were happening completely behind closed doors. It was only because a draft of the agreement was leaked to a small activist group in 1997 that the public found out. Once the word got out, there was a massive global backlash. People were horrified, and the public pressure became so intense that the entire agreement collapsed in 1998. Kevin: Wow. So the mask didn't just slip, it was ripped off. And what was underneath was pretty ugly. Michael: It was the real face of the project. It showed that when they say 'free market,' what they often mean is a system free from democratic interference, free from environmental regulations, free from anything that gets in the way of profit. The MAI was a failed attempt, but Chomsky argues that its spirit lives on in countless other trade agreements and institutions that quietly shift power away from people and towards corporations. Kevin: So the illusion is that it's about our freedom as consumers and citizens, but the reality is that it's about freeing corporations from any and all accountability. Michael: You've got it. And that story of the MAI, where a secret deal almost completely overrode the democratic will of entire nations, leads us right to Chomsky's next devastating point: the fundamental, unavoidable clash between this system and real democracy.

Kevin: That makes sense. If you're trying to give corporations the power to overrule governments, you're not exactly a fan of 'power to the people.' How does Chomsky frame this conflict? Michael: He introduces this chillingly brilliant concept from the early 20th century: 'consensus without consent.' Kevin: Consensus without consent? That sounds like a contradiction in terms. Like 'silent music' or 'jumbo shrimp.' Michael: It is. The idea was proposed by a philosopher who was trying to solve a problem for rulers: what do you do when the public disagrees with your plans? His solution was that rulers could legitimately act against the public's will, as long as they believed the 'stupid and prejudiced people' would later come to 'heartily approve' of the decision. Kevin: Oh, I see. It’s the ultimate 'we know what's best for you.' It’s paternalism on a global scale. 'Just trust us, you'll thank us later.' Michael: Exactly. And Chomsky argues this is the operating principle of neoliberal foreign policy. Democracy is permissible, even encouraged, but only as long as it produces the 'right' outcome. If people vote for a government that wants to, say, use its own resources for its own people instead of for foreign investors, then that's not real democracy. That's a 'virus' that needs to be eliminated. Kevin: A virus? That's terrifying language. You're not just disagreeing with them, you're framing them as a disease that needs to be wiped out. Michael: And there is no more tragic or powerful example of this than what happened in Chile on September 11th, 1973. Kevin: I know the date, but I feel like the story I know is incomplete. Michael: It's a story that should be taught in every civics class. Chile had a vibrant democracy. In 1970, they elected a socialist president, Salvador Allende. He was a doctor, a reformer. He started nationalizing key industries, like copper, and using the profits for social programs—literacy, healthcare, free milk for children. Kevin: Sounds like a politician actually trying to help his people. What was the problem? Michael: The problem, from Washington's perspective, was that he was a 'virus.' The US feared that if Chile's democratic socialism succeeded, other countries in Latin America might get the same idea. It threatened the interests of powerful American corporations. So, the CIA, with the full backing of the US government, actively worked to destabilize the country. They funded opposition groups, spread propaganda, and created economic chaos. Kevin: So they manufactured a crisis. Michael: They did. And on September 11th, 1973, the Chilean military, led by General Augusto Pinochet and supported by the US, launched a coup. They bombed the presidential palace. Allende died during the assault. What followed was nearly two decades of a brutal military dictatorship. Tens of thousands were tortured, killed, or simply 'disappeared.' Kevin: That's horrifying. A democratically elected government, wiped out by force. But where does neoliberalism fit into this? Michael: This is the crucial, chilling connection. Pinochet's dictatorship became the world's very first laboratory for a full-scale neoliberal experiment. The government brought in a group of economists trained at the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman—the godfather of free-market theory. They were known as the 'Chicago Boys.' Kevin: The Chicago Boys. Sounds like a benign 1950s singing group. Michael: Their policies were anything but. They privatized everything—pensions, healthcare, schools. They slashed social spending, deregulated industries, and opened Chile up completely to foreign investment. It was the neoliberal playbook, implemented by force. Kevin: So the first real-world test of these 'free market' ideas that are sold to us under the banner of freedom and democracy was actually imposed by a violent military dictatorship? That completely shatters the entire narrative. Michael: It shatters it completely. And it reveals the core logic Chomsky is pointing to: when democracy produces an outcome that threatens profit and power, the system has no problem discarding democracy. The 'consensus' of the Chilean people was violently replaced with a new one, 'without their consent.' Kevin: It's starting to sound like there are two completely different sets of rules. One for the powerful, and one for everyone else. Michael: That's exactly it. And that's Chomsky's third major critique. He calls it the 'really existing doctrine of the free market,' which I just call the Double Doctrine: 'Market discipline is for you, but not for me.'

Kevin: Okay, the 'Double Doctrine.' I feel like I see this in everyday life. It’s the celebrity who preaches about climate change while flying a private jet. It’s the CEO who lays off a thousand workers to 'cut costs' and then takes a multi-million dollar bonus. Michael: That's the micro version. Chomsky shows how this hypocrisy is the macro-level operating system of the entire global economy. The official doctrine, the one preached to poor and developing countries, is pure, hardcore free market. 'Open your markets! Cut subsidies! Privatize your services! Compete!' Kevin: Right, pull yourselves up by your bootstraps. Michael: But the 'really existing doctrine,' the one the powerful nations actually practice themselves, is the complete opposite. It’s a system of massive state intervention and protectionism to benefit their own corporate interests. And this isn't new. Chomsky uses the example of 18th-century Britain and India. Kevin: I'm guessing Britain wasn't playing fair. Michael: Not even close. At the time, India had a highly advanced textile industry, producing fabrics that were the envy of the world. British engineers were literally studying Indian techniques to close their own 'technological gap.' But instead of competing on a level playing field, Britain used its colonial power to systematically destroy India's industry. They imposed massive tariffs on Indian textiles coming into England, while flooding the Indian market with their own cheaper, machine-made cloth. Kevin: So they preached free trade to India while practicing extreme protectionism at home. Michael: Extreme protectionism and outright violence. The result was the de-industrialization of India. A region that was a global leader in manufacturing was reduced to a supplier of raw cotton for British mills. The British General Governor at the time even admitted that while the policy caused immense suffering, it had the 'great advantage' of creating a class of wealthy collaborators who were loyal to the British crown. Kevin: That is just… breathtakingly cynical. And you're saying this playbook is still in use today? Michael: Absolutely. Look at the United States, the world's biggest champion of free markets. Chomsky points out that the US became the most powerful economy in history through a century of massive protectionism, shielding its infant industries from British competition. And even after World War II, the US economy was, and still is, massively subsidized by the state, primarily through the Pentagon system. Kevin: How does the Pentagon act as a subsidy? Michael: Think about it. The internet, GPS, microchips, jet engines, most of the core technologies that drive our modern economy were developed with huge amounts of public money through military research and development. The government socializes the risk and the cost of innovation. Then, once the technology is viable, it's handed over to private corporations to commercialize and profit from. Chomsky calls this a 'socialism for the rich.' Kevin: So it's like a poker champion who insists everyone play by the strict rules of the game, but you later find out they started with a stacked deck and a pile of extra chips they gave themselves before anyone else sat down. Michael: That's a perfect analogy. The powerful write the rules, but they don't apply those rules to themselves. They demand market discipline from the poor, while they enjoy the comforts of a state-guaranteed safety net. That is the double doctrine at the heart of the global order.

Michael: So, when you put it all together, Chomsky's argument is devastatingly simple. The 'free market' is a mask, an ideological cover story. That's Topic One. Kevin: A mask that's used to justify a system that actively undermines real democracy whenever it gets in the way of profit. That was the story of Chile. Michael: Exactly, that's Topic Two. And this whole global game is enforced by a breathtakingly hypocritical double standard, where the rich and powerful play by a completely different set of rules. That's the Double Doctrine. Kevin: So neoliberalism isn't really an economic theory we can debate, like Keynesianism or something. Chomsky is saying it's a political weapon. Michael: That's the core insight. It's a project of power. It's designed to concentrate wealth and decision-making into the hands of a very small number of people. And the language of 'freedom,' 'markets,' and 'democracy' is the sophisticated camouflage that prevents most of us from seeing the attack. Kevin: After all this, it really makes you wonder: how much of what we accept as 'just the way things are' is actually a deliberate design? What other masks are out there that we don't even notice? Michael: That's a powerful question to end on. And it's the kind of critical thinking Chomsky wants to inspire. We'd love to hear your thoughts. After hearing this, what's one thing in the world, big or small, that you now see a little differently? Let us know on our socials. We're always curious to hear how these ideas land. Kevin: It's a lot to chew on, but it feels essential. Thanks, Michael. Michael: Thank you, Kevin. This is Aibrary, signing off.