Noam Chomsky full length interview: Who rules the world now?

Summary

In this transcript, Noam Chomsky discusses the factors contributing to Donald Trump's rise, highlighting the economic struggles of the white working class and the decline of democracy. He emphasizes the dangers posed by Trump and other Republican candidates regarding nuclear war and environmental catastrophe. Chomsky also addresses the Transatlantic Trade Partnership (TTIP), describing it as an investor rights agreement that undermines public interests and environmental regulations. He critiques the perception of the U.S. as a leading terrorist state and provides his views on the global power dynamics involving the U.S., China, and Russia.

Takeaways

• 📊 Economic stagnation and decline have left the white working class poor feeling marginalized, contributing to the rise of Trump's support.
• 🔍 The decline in functioning democracy is evident as elected representatives often fail to reflect the interests and concerns of their constituents.
• 🚀 The concentration of wealth among the top 1% has led to a significant disparity in opulence and poverty.
• 🌍 The greatest dangers to humanity are the threats of nuclear war and environmental catastrophe.
• 🏛️ Hilary Clinton, unlike Republican candidates, acknowledges climate change and the need for action, although not to Chomsky's satisfaction.
• 🌳 The Republican stance on environmental issues is largely denial, with the exception of Kasich, who acknowledges climate change but opposes action.
• 🛠️ Republican candidates advocate for the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency and the reduction of regulations to benefit business.
• ⚔️ Militarism is a concern as Republican candidates aim to increase the already substantial military budget.
• 🇪🇺 Chomsky does not agree with Trump's view on the EU, fearing that Brexit could weaken the EU and make Britain more subordinate to US power.
• 🌐 The question of 'Who rules the world?' is complex, involving the balance of power between states, corporate interests, and the public.
• 🇨🇳 China's role in the world is significant, but it is not on the same scale as the United States, especially in terms of military power and global influence.

Q & A

What does Chomsky attribute the rise of Donald Trump's support to?

Chomsky attributes the rise of Donald Trump's support primarily to the white working class poor who have been marginalized during the neo-liberal period, experiencing stagnation or decline in real male wages and a decline in functioning democracy.

How does Chomsky view the current state of democracy in the United States?

Chomsky sees a decline in functioning democracy, with elected representatives barely reflecting the interests and concerns of the people, leading to increased contempt for institutions like Congress.

What are the two major dangers Chomsky believes the human species faces?

Chomsky identifies the rising danger of nuclear war and environmental catastrophe as the two major dangers facing the human species.

How does Chomsky evaluate the stance of Republican candidates on climate change?

Chomsky criticizes Republican candidates, including Trump, for denying the existence of climate change and wanting to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, in contrast to Hillary Clinton who recognizes the issue.

What is Chomsky's perspective on the Transatlantic Trade Partnership (TTIP)?

Chomsky views TTIP as an extreme danger, not a free trade agreement but rather an investor rights agreement that is protectionist for private power and undermines efforts at regulation, including environmental protection.

How does Chomsky assess the power dynamics within the United States?

Chomsky believes that power in the United States is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a narrow sector of corporate wealth and private power, which interacts with similar entities globally.

What is Chomsky's opinion on the role of China in global power dynamics?

While acknowledging China's significant economic role, Chomsky notes that China has internal problems and is not yet on the same scale of power as the United States, especially militarily.

How does Chomsky describe the United States' global actions?

Chomsky describes the United States as carrying out actions all over the world, including assassination campaigns, which he considers extreme terrorist war.

What is Chomsky's stance on the European Union and Brexit?

Chomsky does not have a strong opinion on Brexit but is concerned that it could weaken the European Union and make Britain more subordinate to US power, which he views as not beneficial for the world or Britain.

How does Chomsky view the concept of 'Who rules the world now?'

Chomsky suggests that there is no simple answer, as power dynamics include states, internal power structures, and the public's potential influence, with the United States remaining the most powerful state despite its decline.

What is Chomsky's assessment of Russia's actions?

Chomsky describes Russia as authoritarian and harsh, carrying out ugly actions in its own region, but also notes that the United States carries out similar actions globally.

Outlines

00:00

🗳️ The Rise of Trump and Economic Discontent

This paragraph discusses the factors contributing to the rise of Donald Trump, highlighting the economic struggles of the white working class and the decline of democracy. It mentions stagnant wages, the concentration of wealth among the top 1%, and the public's growing distrust in institutions like Congress. The conversation also touches on the dangers posed by Trump's policies, particularly regarding nuclear war and environmental catastrophe, and contrasts his stance with that of Hillary Clinton on climate change.

05:03

🌍 Who Rules the World? Power Dynamics and Global Influence

The speaker explores the complexity of global power, noting that while the United States remains the most powerful state, internal power dynamics and the influence of corporate wealth play significant roles. The public's potential power is acknowledged, as well as the growing influence of China, despite its internal challenges. The conversation also addresses the United States' role as a leading terrorist state and the geopolitical tensions between the US, China, and Russia.

10:07

💣 The Dangers of TTIP and Global Trade Agreements

The paragraph focuses on the Transatlantic Trade Partnership (TTIP), revealing its potential dangers and the reasons behind its secrecy. It explains that TTIP is more of an investor rights agreement than a free trade agreement, granting corporations the power to sue governments and undermining environmental regulations. The speaker criticizes the lack of transparency and the corporate influence on such agreements, which are not truly about trade but rather about protecting private interests.

15:12

📈 NAFTA and the Illusion of Free Trade

In this paragraph, the speaker debunks the myth of free trade agreements like NAFTA, emphasizing that they are not about reducing tariffs but rather about protecting corporate interests. The discussion points out that the increase in trade across the US-Mexico border is more of an internal command economy interaction than genuine trade. The speaker also addresses the broader implications of such agreements on global trade and the economy.

Keywords

💡Impotence of voters

Refers to the feeling of powerlessness among voters, who may believe their votes do not influence political outcomes. In the video, Chomsky suggests this sentiment contributes to the support for Trump, as voters feel their interests are not represented by traditional politicians.

💡Neo-liberal period

A term describing an economic and political ideology that advocates for deregulation, free trade, and reduced government spending. Chomsky criticizes this period for leading to economic stagnation and decline for the working class.

💡Functioning democracy

Refers to a democratic system where the elected representatives truly reflect the interests and concerns of the people they serve. Chomsky points out a decline in this concept, suggesting that the public's trust in institutions like Congress is at an all-time low.

💡Wealth inequality

The unequal distribution of wealth among different groups in society, with a significant portion accumulating at the top. Chomsky argues that this inequality has increased, with the rich becoming richer while the working class stagnates.

💡Nuclear war

The potential for a conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons, which would have catastrophic global consequences. Chomsky identifies this as one of the greatest dangers facing humanity, along with environmental catastrophe.

💡Environmental catastrophe

A large-scale environmental disaster that could lead to severe and irreversible damage to ecosystems and human societies. Chomsky sees this as another existential threat, particularly due to climate change.

💡Transatlantic Trade Partnership (TTIP)

A proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union, which Chomsky criticizes for being secretive and for favoring corporate interests over public welfare.

💡Corporate power

The influence and control that large corporations have over economic and political systems. Chomsky argues that power in the United States is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few corporate entities.

💡Public power

The collective influence that the general population can exert on political decisions and societal changes. Chomsky suggests that the public can be a significant force in shaping who rules the world, if they choose to exercise their power.

💡Brexit

The United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union, which Chomsky views as potentially weakening both the EU and Britain's autonomy, particularly in relation to US influence.

💡Superpower

A term used to describe a country with immense military, economic, and political influence over other nations. Chomsky discusses the concept in relation to China's growing influence but argues that it is not yet on par with the United States.

Highlights

The rise of Donald Trump is attributed to the angry impotence of voters, particularly the white working class who have been marginalized during the neoliberal period.

Economic stagnation and decline have led to real male wages being similar to those in the 1960s.

There is a decline in functioning democracy, with elected representatives failing to reflect the interests and concerns of their constituents.

Contempt for institutions, especially Congress, has increased significantly.

Wealth has become concentrated in the hands of the top 1%, leading to enormous opulence for a few.

The greatest danger posed by Trump and other Republican candidates is their stance on nuclear war and environmental catastrophe.

Hillary Clinton, unlike Republican candidates, acknowledges climate change and the need for action.

Republican candidates deny climate change and aim to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Transatlantic Trade Partnership (TTIP) is criticized for being an investor rights agreement rather than a free trade agreement.

TTIP provisions undermine regulatory efforts, including those related to environmental dangers.

The term 'climate change' does not appear in the TTIP documents, indicating a lack of focus on environmental issues.

China is a growing power but still has significant internal problems and is not on the scale of the United States in terms of power.

The United States is considered the leading terrorist state due to actions such as the global assassination campaign.

Russia is described as authoritarian and harsh, but its actions are regional compared to the global reach of the United States.

The United States is seen as the greatest threat to world peace according to international polls.

The public can have significant power, as noted by David Hume, if they are willing to exercise it.

The United States' internal power structure is increasingly in the hands of a narrow sector of corporate wealth.

The concept of 'Who rules the world?' is complex and involves states, internal power structures, and the public.

The EU's role in global power dynamics is discussed, with concerns about Brexit weakening the EU and increasing British subordination to US power.

Transcripts

Mr Chomsky that impotence of voters, that angry impotence as you talk about, presumably

you’d say that is what is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump, is it?

It’s pretty clear what is responsible for the rise of the support for Trump and there’s

general agreement about it.

If you take a simple look at economic statistics, the primary support for Trump is coming from

mostly white working class poor people who’ve been cast by the wayside during the neo-liberal

period.

They’ve lived through a generation of stagnation or decline.

Real male wages are about what they were in the 1960s.

There has also been a decline in functioning democracy, the overwhelming evidence reveals

that even their own elected representatives barely reflect their interest and concerns.

A contempt for institutions, especially congress has just increased, skyrocketed it’s down

single digits often.

These are people who, meanwhile there has of course been wealth created, it’s gone

into very few hands, mostly into a fraction of the top 1%.

So there’s enormous opulence.

Yes indeed and how dangerous do you think this all is in terms of Donald Trump for example.

I mean he has been toning down some of his most extreme pronouncements recently.

He may, if he ever got anywhere near power, he could be held in check by congressman.

How dangerous do you think he is to America?

Well the greatest danger that he and indeed every republican candidate poses is barely

mentioned.

It’s kind of reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes’ dog that did not bark.

The greatest danger is – there are two huge dangers that the human species faces.

We’re now in a situation where we have to decide whether the species survives in any

decent form.

One is the rising danger of nuclear war, which is quite serious.

The other is environmental catastrophe.

Now on these issues Donald Trump and the other republican candidates are basically uniform.

On the threat of nuclear war.

And do you believe that Hilary Clinton, the democratic frontrunner, would champion those

issues in a way that would satisfy you?

Not in any way that would satisfy me, but at least she recognises that climate change

is going on and that we have to do something about.

Every single republican candidate denies that it’s happening, with the soul exception

of Kasich who says sure it’s happening but we shouldn’t do anything about it and that’s

having an impact.

The Paris negotiations last December were aiming at a treaty, they couldn’t reach

it for a simple reason; the republican congress would not accept it.

So it’s a voluntary agreement which means even the weak standards that we’re proposed

will be barely, maybe it undermines the likelihood that even they will be met.

Every Republican candidate, including Trump wants to eliminate the environmental protection

agency, Richard Nixon’s legacy, to cut back regulation to restart the press of business

quickly as possible.

On militarism, every one of them wants to raise the huge military budget, already over

half of discretionary spending leading right now.

It’s one factor leading to confrontations which could be extremely hazardous and this

again is not being discussed.

And briefly, I’d suggest one thing that you might agree with Donald Trump on would

be about the EU.

He talks about the UK may leave the EU, you’ve railed against European Union bureaucracy.

Could you agree with him on that?

No I don’t.

In fact I actually have no real strong opinion on Brexit but my concern about it would be

that it would weaken the European Union but it would also probably leave Britain even

more, don’t want to use too strong a word, subordinate to US power than it is today.

Which I don’t think would be a good thing for the world or Britain.

What in a nutshell is the answer to “Who rules the world now?”

As I try to discuss in the book, there is no simple answer.

We usually think of states when that question is raised and with regard to states there’s

no doubt that the United States, despite its decline for many many years, is still overwhelmingly

more powerful than any state or group of states.

But that’s only one factor.

States have internal structures.

An internal distribution of power.

In the United States power is overwhelmingly and increasingly, in recent years, in the

hands of a very narrow sector of corporate wealth, private wealth and power.

And they have counterparts elsewhere who agree with them, who interact with them largely

and that’s another dimension in who rules the world.

And there’s also the public.

The public can have, sometimes does have, enormous power.

We can go back to David Hume, first major modern work on political philosophy.

Foundations on the theory of government pointed out that force is on the side of the governed,

those who are governed have the force if they are willing to and eager to and recognise

the possibility to exercise it.

Sometimes they do.

That’s a major force in who rules the world.

But when it comes to state power, you don’t buy the idea of China as the next superpower,

the imminent superpower?

China?

I mean China plays a very important role in the world undoubtedly.

If you take a look at say per capita income, it’s far behind the United States and other

developed states.

It has enormous internal problems, demographic, ecological, resources and so on.

It’s undoubtedly going to play an important, in military terms it’s not even a fraction

of the United States and Western powers.

So yes, economically it’s significant but bear in mind that a good deal of Chinese production

is actually far unknown.

Apple, world’s major corporation happens to produce in China, largely, but that’s

US production which happens to use Chinese facilities, labour and other facilities.

So China is a growing, developing power, in some domains in fact it’s gone quite far

even in the high technology industry.

So for example in production of solar panels, China’s in the lead, not just in mass production

but also in innovation and high tech development.

All of this is significant but it is by no means of power on the scale of the United

States.

In fact take a look at the confrontations between China and the United States now.

There are serious confrontations.

Are they in the Caribbean?

Are they off the coast if California?

No, they’re in waters around China where China and others have territorial claims.

That’s symbolic reflection of the nature of state power.

Well you describe, scathing about the United States, no one will be surprised to hear that.

You described it as a leading terrorist state.

I’m just interested how you’d describe Russia.

How I describe Russia?

Authoritarian, brutal, harsh.

Carrying out ugly actions in its own region.

The United States on the other hand carries out such actions all over the world.

In fact again, look at the – there are serious confrontations between Russia and the United

States and once again are they on the Mexican border?

The Canadian border?

No, they’re on the Russian border.

In fact right at the point of the traditional invasion route through which Russia has been

virtually destroyed several times in the past century, also earlier history.

Again, that’s no apologetics for what Putin may be doing but it should lead us to understand,

have a rational perspective on the relationship between these forces in the world.

As for the U.S. being the leading terrorist state I should say that’s hardly just my

opinion.

So for example I noted when I was introduced, the person who introduced me said that I regard

the United States as the gravest threat to world peace.

That’s not exactly, it a little misrepresents the situation.

There are international polls run by the leading U.S. polling agency, Gallop, its international

affiliates Gallop/WIN and one of the questions they ask is “which country is the greatest

threat to world peace?” and the United States is first by a huge margin.

Far behind in second place is Pakistan, that’s undoubtedly inflated by the Indian vote and

others have slight mention, so that’s global opinion.

And I should mention that this was not even reported in the United States, happen to be

reported by the BBC but wasn’t reported in the United States.

As for being a terrorist state, President Obama’s global assassination campaign, draw

an assassination campaign, is extreme terrorist war.

I mean if Iran, let’s say was carrying out a campaign to assassinate people around the

world who would thought might be planning to harm Iran, we would regard it as terrorism.

For example, if they were bombing the editorial offices of the New York Times and The Washington

Post which publish [ ] by prominent figures saying that we should bomb Iran right now,

not wait.

So obviously they want to harm Iran.

Suppose Iran was assassinating them and anybody who happened to be standing around, all over

would we regard that as terrorism?

I think we would.

Let me put a few questions to you from people online.

People are sending in questions off our Facebook.

First Gary says what are the dangers of T Tip?

Putin?

The dangers are- No, Sorry.

What are the dangers or T TIP?

The Transatlantic Trade Partnership?

TTIP?

Oh, TTIP?

They’re pretty extreme.

In fact Greenpeace, a couple of days ago, released 280 pages of internal documents on

this so-called trade agreement and they spell out details of what all of us should know.

The so-called free trade agreements are not free trade agreements.

In fact to a large extent they’re not even trade agreements.

These are investor right agreements.

There’s a reason why they’re kept secret from the public and as soon as you look them

you see why.

Notice I say secret from the public, not secret.

They’re not kept secret, they’re not secret to the corporate lawyers and lobbyists who

are writing the detailed regulations.

Of course in the interests of their constituents, doesn’t happen to be the public of the world

or their own countries.

So these are highly protectionist for the benefit of private power, so-called intellectual

property rights, effectively raise tariffs.

They’re called patents but which have an enormous impact on economies.

Great, wonderful for pharmaceutical and media court conglomerates and others.

Investors, corporations are given the right to sue governments, something you and I can’t

do but a corporation can, to sue governments for harming their future, potentially future

profits.

You can figure out what that means and such cases already in the courts – they’re

not in the courts they go to private trade adjudication groups made up largely of corporate

representatives.

They’re already going on with NAFTA and we can expect more of them.

There are provisions that undermine efforts at regulation including incidentally, regulation

of environmental dangers and rather strikingly the phrase “Climate Change” does not appear

in these 280 pages, which are illustrative of the whole structure.

So they have almost no, I should say that these agreements, so-called Pacific and Atlantic

have virtually no effect on tariffs.

Tariffs are already quite low among the major trading partners.

When you read the propaganda about it, it says “oh yeah sure, Vietnam is going to

have to lower its tariffs.”

Yeah, almost no effect on trade.

The major trading partners already have agreements that have reduced the terrorists very substantially.

There are few exceptions, not many.

So these are basically – we should disabuse our self of the illusion that these are free

trade agreements, anything but.

And to a large extent not even trade agreements.

We have the experience of others like NAFTA, many years of experience.

So take say NAFTA, it has all of the aspects that I just described but even more.

Consider even what is called trade.

Interactions across the US-Mexico border, they’ve increased substantially since NAFTA.

So economists will tell you trade is greatly increased but have a look at them.

So for example, suppose that General Motors produces parts in Indiana, sends them to Mexico

for assembly and sells the car in Los Angeles.

That’s call trade in both directions, but it’s not.

Its interactions internal to a command economy.

It’s as if during the days of the Soviet Union, parts were made, say in Leningrad,

sent to Warsaw for assembly and sold in Moscow.

We wouldn’t call that trade.

That’s interactions internal to a command economy.

Well Noam Chomsky, Thank you very much for being so generous with your time and for staying

on to have that live online discussion.

Thank you.