Reddit mentions of Walden Two (Hackett Classics)

If you liked Walden, you should check out Walden Two- Skinner. It's a short read and you'll either love it or hate it.

I think he was a shill even back then.

It appears he got specific government/military grants to conduct linguistic research as did the electronics lab he worked for . . . in addition to the general military funding of MIT. How many other linguistics professors got military grants for linguistic research?

Here's an [article](http://libcom.org/history/noam-chomsky-politics-or-science
) that discusses the military funding of Chomsky (even if I think the author's ultimate conclusions are a bit muddled):

>Several questions arise. Why did Chomsky – an outspoken anarchist and antimilitarist – take the money? Secondly, what did the military think they were buying? Both questions are sharpened by the fact that MIT at this time had no tradition in linguistics. This confronts us with a third puzzle: why was such military investment not directed to an institution with a proven record in linguistic research?

Here's Chomsky himself, from CAMPUS, INC.: Corporate Power in the Ivory Tower, edited by Geoffry D. White:

>I happened to be on a committee that was set up to investigate these matters about thirty years ago. It was the first such committee for me as a result of student activism that was concerned about the reliance of MIT on military spending, what it meant, and so on. So there was a faculty/student committee set up and I was asked to be on it, and I think it was the first review ever of MIT funding...My memory is that at that time, about half of MIT's income came from two military laboratories. These were secret laboratories. One was Lincoln Labs and one then called the I Labs, now the Draper Labs, which at the time was working on guidance systems for intercontinental missiles and that sort of thing. These were secret labs and that was approximately half of the income. And, of course, that income in all kinds of ways filtered into the university through library funds and health funds and so on. Nobody knew the bookkeeping details and nobody cared much, but it was an indirect subsidy to the university.

>The other half, the academic budget, I think it was about 90 percent Pentagon funded at that time. And I personally was right in the middle of it. I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications,they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics. But in fact, even if you were in the music department, you were, in effect, being funded by the Pentagon because there wouldn't have been a music department unless there was funding for, say, electrical engineering. If there was, then you could dribble some off to the music department. So, in fact, everybody was Pentagon funded no matter whatever the bookkeeping notices said.

It's interesting Chomsky sat on this committee. If you were a government military shill under liberal cover, that is an obvious assignment.

Also, Chomsky claims he had to go to M.I.T. because he didn't have credentials to get hired at a traditional department, but I find this hard to swallow because Chomsky got his degree from an Ivy League school, University of Pennsylvania (under a traditional 'linguistics' program, and worked at Harvard. Plus he was very smart.

People may ask what the motive is for the Chomsky is a shill theory (and this is where I think Chris Knight's article is a bit muddled). Upon looking into it, and seeing the vicious attacks Chomsky leveled at B.F. Skinner, I think the agenda involved something to do with behaviorism.

I was surprised that I had so many misconceptions about Skinner and behaviorism. I thought Skinner wanted to use behaviorism to control the masses, but in fact he seemed to basically argue the genie was out of the bottle, and TPTB were already trying to control the masses and that behaviorism was neutral--it could be used for good or bad. In fact, learning about how humans are controlled can better help us prevent a small elite controlling us. And seeing Skinner's utopian novel, Walden Two, and the intentional community that was created based on it, I see that Skinner was not interested in controlling the masses for the establishment.

http://www.twinoaks.org/index.html

it's based off the book Walden 2 by B.F.Skinner.

I would also recommend these two books:

Communitas by Paul Goodman. Goodman was a lifelong anarchist and very influenced by Kropotkin, but writes with the perspective of 20th century technology. Communitas is an easy read and presents a lot of creative solutions to problems of planning and design.

Walden Two by B.F. Skinner. Skinner was a famous professor of Psychology, known for his theory of Behaviorism and Operant Conditioning. While he never embraced the label of anarchist or communist, the ideas in Walden Two nonetheless are very relevant to people interested in autonomous ways of life; for example, systems of democratic planning and decision-making, community education and parenting, arts, and production.