of things going on in the world. right now, one of the major ones is, of course, the war in ukraine. there's many others. there are background issues. we are, like it or not, the human species, racing to imminent disaster. there are two huge problems. one is the growing threat of nuclear war. which would, basically, end modern civilization as we know it. the other is the destruction of the environment. inexorable. we know it has to be done, we are not doing it.

if we do not turn that corner soon, we will reach an irreversible tipping point and it will be a matter of slow moves towards catastrophe, irrevocable catastrophe. that, in addition to what is right on the front pages, the background of it. there is plenty to be on everyone's mind. >> professor chomsky, you have been active for decades on nuclear war, economic policies, social justice, what is the progress you think you have made, or that the world has made? noam: there has been, over long periods, there has been progress. we happen to be -- we happen to have been, for the past 40 years, in a period of serious regression. but, there are ups and downs

before. if you think back to what society was say, in 1960, 60 years ago, this was a society in which we literally had laws against miscegenation, which were so extreme that the nazis refused to accept them. the one drop of blood loss. -- laws. the rights of women were still not recognized. it was not until 1975 that women had the legal right, guaranteed legal right to serve on the federal juries. that means, to be regarded as

peers, as persons and not property. which they basically were in british common law that the country to go over. they were, in many respects, minimal rights were not respected. well, that has changed. that is an improvement. beginning in the late 1970's, there was a shift in the nature of the state capitalist system, which was described in the previous comment, the move towards the neoliberal system that has been quite harsh for the general population here, and across the world. an enormous concentration of

wealth and a precarious existence for many, which has led to understandable feelings of anger and resentment, distrust of authority, contempt for institutions. that can take positive forms. let's have changes for the better. there are such elements that can also take very dangerous forms. i am old enough to remember 90 years ago when there was, as today, a very serious threat, the threat of the depression, deep depression, much worse than anything today. my extended family was first immigrated, new increments --

new immigrants, first-generation immigrants, working-class mostly. they were, and this was -- there were two ways out of the depression. one was taken by the united states. the u.s. led the way towards a social democratic revival, committed to and -- by a revived militant labor movement. organizing, militant labor tactics, led the way to the new deal measures which pioneered postwar social democracy, an enormous lift for the population. that was one way out. the other way out was what happened in europe, which sank to the depths of fascism.

those were the ways out. actually, there are residences today -- residences -- it would be utterly ironic if the united states continues to unravel and move towards a kind of proto-fascism, while europe hangs onto the -- of social democracies that have resisted the neoliberal assault. and perhaps revise these very positive tendencies. it doesn't have to. the choice is in our hands. meanwhile, there are imminent problems. the war in ukraine is on the front page headlines. it is not the only one.

literally millions of people are facing starvation in afghanistan. millions of people facing imminent starvation. people who a little bit of money can't go to the markets where there is food, to buy food for their starving children because the banks are shut. they can't get access to the money. where is the money? new york. the u.s. refuses to release to the people of afghanistan their own money. the banks are supposed to be fiduciary institutions. you place your money in them, with the assurance that it is yours to attain when you need it. not in this case. the u.s. government has stepped

in, not just in this case, but others too, to block people from getting their own money. there is a pretext for this. the pretext is, we have to assure that victims of 9/11 have a right to compensation from afghans who had nothing to do with 9/11. the rural people of afghanistan who are starving had nothing at all to do with 9/11. in fact, those with good memories will recall that the taliban offered total surrender, which would have meant handing over to the united states the suspects in the 9/11 attack, the al qaeda suspects. remember, at the time, they were suspects.

the fbi informed the press months later that they suspected them, but did not have definitive evidence. but, the taliban offered to turn them over. the u.s. reaction was, we do not do surrenders. romney. echoed by george bush. rumsfeld, i am sorry. echoed by george bush. george w. bush. now, the afghan people have to starve to death because we hold their funds. and there are other things happening in the world. thankfully, there seems to have been an agreement for a two month reduction of fighting in yemen.

the worst humanitarian disaster in the world, according to the united nations food -- united nations. the saudi government, which is the main force responsible for the disaster, along with the united arab emirates, saudi arabia had been blockading, intensifying its blockade of the only port in which food and oil can be imported into the starving country. the official death toll last year was 370,000 people. the actual death role is unknown. again, the united nations warns that hundreds of thousands of children are facing imminent starvation. the saudi and emma rossi --

emirate air forces cannot function without u.s. equipment and u.s. intelligence. u.s. trading. we are assisted by britain, a few others, that the u.s. is in the lead. these things can be changed. the things that can be uppermost in our mind. what can we do? what can we do about suffering, major problems in the world? whether it is existential problems the existence of the species like global warming or nuclear war, or whether it is the terrible, miserable suffering of the people of

ukraine, under brutal and violent aggression by the russian army. people starving to death in afghanistan. or yemen. we can mention other things, but what can we do about all of those things? that is what we have to be asking ourselves. that is what should be on everyone's mind. >> this is your chance to talk with noam chomsky. if you have been interested in public policy for the last 50 or 60 years, chances are you have heard of professor chomsky, perhaps even read some of his hundreds of books. the numbers are on the screen. for those of you of the east and central time zones. 8201 for the mountain and pacific time zones. you can also send a text message. please encode -- please include your first name and your city.

we also have several social media ways of getting a hold of us. we will scroll through those on the screen. i want to quote professor chomsky from one of your most recent books, requiem for the american dream. you say that some of the problems of government in the u.s. today stem from an excess of democracy. why do you say that? noam: actually, i did not say that. i quoted it. the quote was from a very important study, about 40 years ago, 50 years ago, 1975, it is the first study of the trilateral commission. the trilateral commission is an international commission of liberal internationalists. you get a rough idea of their

political stances by the fact that the carter administration was drawn almost completely from within the ranks. so, that group of people in the united states, they -- their counterparts in europe and japan, liberal internationalists were the trilateral commission. they came out with a very important report called, the crisis of democracy. they were responding to the activism of the 1960's, which considerably civilized society. and led to the developments that i mentioned briefly before. the trilateral commission warned that there is a crisis of democracy. the crisis is what you quoted,

an excess of democracy. there is too much democracy. what is happening, they described during the 1960's, is that segments of the population that are supposed to be passive and obedient began to try to enter the political arena to press their own demands. these are what are often called special interests. young people, old people, working people, women, farmers, minorities, these people are not supposed to be making noises in the political arena. there supposed to be quiet, obedient, apathetic, show up every couple of years to push a button, go home.

and then go home and let their betters decide for them. what to do. well, that excess of democracy, they said, is putting too much of a burden on the state. so, we must have, what they call moderation in democracy. people should return to their passivity and obedience. they also talked about particular sectors of society, like the universities. they said the universities and the churches are not doing their job of indoctrination of the young. their phrase, not mine. we have to do better indoctrination of the young so that they are not out there in the streets protesting the vietnam war and calling for civil rights, or women's rights,

other things which are too much. so, that is the liberal internationalists. there's actually another major argument that came out at about the same time also in response to the activism of the 1960's. the powell administration. it was meant to be secret. this was a man who richard nixon appointed to the supreme court, justice powell. powell issued a memorandum to the chamber of commerce, to the business world, and it was in a way similar to the trilateral commission report. but, much harsher. the document was intended to be confidential but it surfaced pretty soon. it is available is -- it is

available publicly. this memorandum urged the business community to take up a forceful reaction to the attack on business that was going on in the 1960's. they said businessmen were being persecuted, the rate of profit is declining. we are under attack. the universities have been taken over by crazed radicals led by herbert marcuse a, who of course nobody had ever heard of. the business world is under attack by ralph nader, who is demanding that automobiles have safety measures built in them. and moving for consumer rights and consumer safety and other domains. so it, the -- so, the business

world cannot tolerate these attacks. it went on to say look, we have the resources, we have the money, we can fight back. we can refuse to accept this attack on our power and privilege. in fact, that resonated. that was part of the background which led to the neoliberal reaction of today. -- as quoted in earlier remarks were for the program, the roughly $50 trillion robbery of the middle-class and working-class that has taken place in the past 40 years, since it started in the late quarter years and escalated under reagan and thatcher. and spread around the world, under u.s. power, structural

adjustment programs which were imposed by the imf, which is under u.s. domination. which had a devastating effect on much of the global south. more than i can talk about now. but, going back to excess of democracy, that was the phrase from the trilateral commission report. which i did write about when it appeared, and have referred to sense. but, those two documents said a kind of -- set an ideological framework. one from the liberal internationalists. another from the business run right-wing. they kind of set the frame in which, over the coming years, the neoliberal programs were developed. imposed.

we have been living under that assault for 40 years. with pretty harsh effects. you're actually harsher effects in other countries. -- there are actually harsher effects in other countries. what actually happened in the late 1970's, there was what was called -- pretty high inflation in the united states. the carter administration responded to it. with a very short rise in interest rates, which increased under the reagan years. well, during the 1970's, countries like mexico, other countries in the south had been urged by the world bank, the

u.s. run world bank, they had been urged to take out extensive loans. mostly from u.s. banks. citibank. citigroup, the conglomerate. many others. they were deep -- they were deeply in debt. when the high interest rates were introduced, their debt is linked to u.s. interest rates. so, they were in deep trouble. they couldn't pay. they began to default. they had to take loans from the international monetary fund, which imposed harsh conditionality's. they had to cut back social spending, cut back efforts and development -- efforts in development, and other similar

measures which devastated the populations. it had horrifying effects and much of the third world. yugoslavia, which had been more or functioning country, fell apart under the impact of the structural programs which intensified ethnic conflicts and laid the background for the horrors that will -- that took place in the early 1990's. the worst case was actually rwanda in the 1970's. there already had been significant conflicts between hutu and tutsi. my friend edward herrmann and i had written about it in the 1970's. in the 1980's, rwanda, like

other countries, was hit very hard by the structural adjustment programs. and the society, which was already very fragile, collapsed. the conflicts that existed were extensively intensified. i won't go into details, but that's part of the background of the horrendous developments that took place a few years later in the 1990's. actions have consequences. maybe you do not anticipate them, but you should. that was the third world, the global south, the rich countries like the united states, it's pretty much what was described by the rand corporation. it is all part of the neoliberal reaction to the former period of

what is called sometimes, regimented capitalism. state capitalism based on new deal measures. it is worth remembering how far we have moved from those days. take dwight eisenhower. the last conservative president, in the traditional sense of the word conservative. eisenhower, if you read his statements, sounds like a flaming radical today. eisenhower said that any person who does not accept new deal measures, the measures of social welfare developed in the new deal, and continued in following years, anyone who does not accept these measures does not belong in our political system. that's eisenhower. anyone who denies working people the right to unionize, a firm

essential rights, such a person does not belong in our political system. well, that was the 1950's. it continued for some years into the 1960's. and then we get into the reaction, which escalated under reagan. compare eisenhower with what you hear today from the remnants of what remains of the party that he represented. it is quite a change. it tells us a lot about the regression of the past 40 years. >> let's get some of our collars involved. let's begin with barbara in oak bluffs, massachusetts. barbara, go ahead and ask your question. caller: thank you, peter. think admit -- thank you mr. chomsky for your amazing career. continuing with president eisenhower, his famous statement

about the emergence of the military industrial complex. so, we have watched decades of grotesque spending on weapons, but now we see this conflict in ukraine where tiny musicians -- munitions like stingers, javelins, switchblade drums, other types of drones, these tiny micro weapons are able to take out the -- macro weapons of the tanks, jet fighters and the naval ships. what do you make of this transition to micro warfare and its implications? >> thank you. noam: it heralds a new era of warfare, which is more dangerous

and more threatening to everyone. let me just ask a slightly different question, if you do not mind. i mentioned before that we should be concerned, constantly, with what we can do and what we should do. well, one thing we should do is send weapons. there is an argument for that. ukraine is under foreign attack from a brutal military force, which has no mercy. they have a right to defend themselves. but, there is another question. what is our goal? do we want to escalate the war? more ukrainians dying? more destruction? or, do we want to move towards a peaceful negotiated settlement?

one of the most respected individuals in the u.s. diplomatic corps, ambassador chas freeman, highly respected individual with a wonderful record. a couple of days ago, he came out in an interview and said, u.s. policy seems to be to fight the russians to the last ukrainian. that is the policy. -- formulated no feasible goals that can lead to an exit from this tragedy. so, we can keep pouring in arms. we are good at that, to escalate the fighting. more ukrainians will day -- will die, more russians will die and it goes nowhere. just further escalation. well, is there a possible

diplomatic settlement? yes there is. chas freeman outlined it once again. everyone knows what it is. the settlement, this has been going on for 30 years, i should say. it didn't just start today. the settlement is, in rough help on, and neutralized ukraine, not part of a military bloc, and an internal settlement that will guarantee the rights of the russian-speaking minority, provided some form of federal solution like switzerland, belgium, others, in which minority groups have a degree of autonomy in their own regions. it is actually formulated in an agreement called minx -- minsk

two. some version of that has to be the possible outcome. and as friedman stressed, if we don't want to just fight to the last ukrainian, we have to offer vladimir putin an escape hatch. he has to have some way to escape from this with what amounts to suicide. if we send our current message, you are going to face war crimes trials, there is nothing you can do about it, sanctions will continue no matter what happens, we are telling him to fight onto the last ukrainian. that might sound bold. a winston churchill impersonation, it sounds heroic.

for the ukrainians, it is a death warrant. we have to come out with a proposal. we have to support, i should say, the proposals that are on the table and have been for a long time. for a settlement that offers putin some kind of escape, like it or not, that is a necessity. it will have to be based on neutralization of ukraine and some kind of diplomatic arrangement for a degree of autonomy for the russian oriented areas. those things are on the table. the u.s. is not supporting them. the u.s. actually has an official policy, unfortunately, it does not seem to have been reported in the united states press. at least, i can find it.

but, the policy is there. you can read it in government documents. i have quoted it repeatedly in things i have been writing. the policy was set in september, 2021. september 1, 2021. there was a joint statement of the u.s. and ukraine. this is months before the russian invasion. the document is basically a policy statement of the united states, reiterating and amplifying the policy that had been in effect for many years. it is worth reading. first it says the door to ukrainian entry in to nato is wide open. we are inviting you to join nato. it says, the united states will

intensify the sending of advanced military weapons to ukraine. it will continue with joint military efforts. in ukraine. it's called nato, but it means the u.s. ukrainian military operations. all of this placing weapons within ukraine, aimed at russia. all of this is part of the enhanced nato admissions program. you should really look at the exact wording, i am paraphrasing. but, it is roughly that. well, that is a call for the horrors that have followed. it did not just start then. it has been going on for 28 years. you look back to the george h w

bush administration. the first president bush. 1990, 1991. the soviet union was collapsing. there were intensive discussions with george bush, james baker, secretary of state, his russian counterpart mccalla gorbachev -- mikhail gorbachev. the question was, what would be the shape of the post-cold war world with the soviet union collapsing? well, there were several visions. gorbachev's vision was what he called a common european home. from the atlantic, from lisbon

all the way to vladivostok. no military blocs, mutual accommodation. this was an extension of a program of charles de gaulle in earlier years. that emmanuel macron has recently been pressing something similar, a common european home from the atlantic to the urals, incorporating russia within a european and maybe eurasian, peaceful system with no military blocs. that was one vision. the other one, and disco spec 50 or 60 years, the u.s. vision called atlantis, based on the

atlantic alliance, based on nato and europe, which the u.s. dominates and controls. that is a dip -- that is a deep issue in world affairs that goes back to the second world war. will europe be subordinate to the united states? within the atlantis nato framework? or, will it move towards a european common home, along the lines of the goal of --? gorbachev's proposals in 1990. well, the u.s. had no interest to oppose the european common home. but, it did have a compromised version. and that was what was agreed. bush, baker in the united states , germany, gorbachev in russia, nato -- germany would be unified

and would join nato. which is quite a concession on the part of the russians. recall their history. germany alone had practically destroyed russia several times in the past half-century. to allow a unified germany to join a hostile military alliance was not a small step. gorbachev agreed on a condition. the condition was that nato would not move 1 inch to the east beyond germany. it fact, nato forces would not even go to east germany. that was the condition. perfectly explicit, unambiguous. you want to see the actual wording?

look it up in the online national security archives, georgetown university. which has a record, an authoritative record with the official documents. no ambiguity. well, gorbachev agreed to that. the bush-baker administration adhered to it. they adhered to it. clinton came in years later -- the first to use of diminished -- the first few years of the administration he also agreed. by 1984, with his eye on domestic politics, clinton began to offer hints of east european countries joining nato. in 1997, presumably with his eye

on the 1998 vote, clinton invited several east european countries on the borders of russia to join nato. well, boris yeltsin, then president, was very close to clinton. in fact, clinton had intervened to have him elected in 1996. yeltsin bitterly objected to this. sorted gorbachev. so did every russian leader. u.s. statesman george kennan, jake matlock and former ambassador to russia under reagan, leading russian specialists in the government, numerous others. henry kissinger. numerous others pointed out to washington they are making a terrible mistake.

i should say that includes the current cia director william burns. and former cia director stansfield turner. william perry from secretary of defense under clinton, was so outraged he practically resigned in protest. 50 specialists in russia wrote a warning later -- warning letter to clinton saying, this is extremely dangerous and you should not be doing it. you are just calling on russia to become militant and aggressive instead of accommodating and a common european home. well, clinton went ahead. george w. bush later tore it to shreds. 2008, he invited ukraine to join -- that was actually vitord --

vitoedy and france. everyone i quoted, how u.s. diplomats and russian specialists and so on, understood perfectly that for russia, there are some definite red lines that no russian leader will tolerate. none. yeltsin, gorbachev, anyone. and that is ukraine and georgia, within the russian strategic heartland, joining a hostile military alliance. they will never accept that. the u.s. foraged ahead. september, 2021 policy statement amplifies it. it states it explicitly. we will go ahead and we will continue to arm ukraine.

if you want to imagine what that is like from the russian point of view, understood well by high u.s. level statesman -- high-level u.s. statesman, it is if -- it is as if mexico were to join a chinese run military alliance and carry out joint exercises with the chinese army. place weapons in mexico. aimed at washington. we wouldn't tolerate that. it would never. not mexico, not anywhere in latin america. remember the cuban missile crisis? inconceivable. notice that this is no infringement on the sovereignty of mexico. mexico is essentially neutral. it is not part of any military alliance. it has restrictions.

it cannot do what i just described. it cannot join a chinese run military alliance and carry out military operations with the people's liberation army. get training and advanced weaponry from chinese military experts, place weapons on the border aimed at washington. nobody bothers to say this. it is perfectly well understood. notice that what i have just described is the september 2021 u.s. official policy. well. none of that justifies russian aggression, which is a kind of crime that ranks with the u.s. invasion of iraq, the headlight-stall invasion of

poland, other examples of what the nuernberg trails called supreme international crime. crimes of aggression, not defense. nothing justifies that. but, to understand is not to justify. to understand is important. if we care about ukrainians, and even if we care about world peace. because this thing could escalate, easily, to a major conflict with the u.s. and with nato which could go on to a terminal nuclear war. so, we should try to understand and recognize. understanding is not justifying. the people i mentioned like henry kissinger and william perry, william burns, cia

director and many others, are not -- is no longer with us -- would not be justifying russian aggression when they explain the background for it, and in which we play a role and continue to play a role. by not joining, today, in offering and developing diplomatic options supporting those that are already on the table. going back to ambassador freeman. that was his point. crucial point. as long as our position, and that -- is finished, putin, you are done. war crimes trials, permanent sanctions, no way out for you. we are telling putin, as freeman said -- and i am closing hymn --

we are going to fight you to the last ukrainian. that is not something we should be doing. we should be moving towards peace. we spend a lot of time talking about the kinds of weapons we can provide. ok. worth doing it. but, the real thing we should be talking about is how can we move towards a peaceful settlement which will end this horror? not to the last ukrainian. >> your watching book tv on c-span two. joining us is noam chomsky, which since his first appearance on this program has written dozens more books. the next call comes from marine in toms river, new jersey. caller: professor chomsky, i am a great admirer of yours. it is a pleasure to speak with you. i wondered about your thoughts and any optimism about the

recent starbucks locations. in newark, they had unionized. and now, the amazon warehouse in staten island is euthanizing -- unionizing. do you think that would have any effect in emboldening people throughout the country to actually start unionizing and recognizing they can take this power into their own hands? >> thank you, marion. professor chomsky. she was talking about amazon unionizing and if you think that is a good sign and other thoughts about those types of issues. noam: labor has been under better -- better -- attack throughout this whole liberal period. you may recall that reagan's first action was to attack unions.

using, what were internationally regarded as, illegal means. scabs, permanent replacement workers. it was it an attack on the labor movement. margaret tat -- margaret thatcher, who is carrying out the same programs in england, hope -- opened her programs the same way. a major attack on unions that opened the door to private corporations. saying ok, we can do it too. caterpillar and others launched antiunion activities, using internationally banned measures like scabs. the laws, which were changed to make labor organizing much harder. there is a national labor relations board which is supposed to protect workers rights, it was defunded and barely functions.

bill clinton came along. another major attack on labor. the nafta agreement with mexico and canada, was bitterly attacked by the labor movement. actually, they were in favor of an agreement, but not this one. labor came forth with a proposal, the labor action committee, the proposal for north american free trade agreement, which would be based on the principle of high wages and high growth. they were seconded by the office of technology assessment. congress' research bureau, which has since been disbanded. congress doesn't seem to want independent information. but, it existed then.

they come up with a proposal for nafta very similar to the labor movement proposals clinton went the corporate based system, low wage, low growth but great for profits. well, that was nafta that was later extended to what is called the uruguay round the world trade organization agreements which have the same properties. i could go into the details. a bitter attack on the labor movement. we have some evidence of how great an tack it was. a couple years after nafta a study was undertaken under nafta rules by kate bronson brenner a

labor historian at cornell, undertook a study of the effect of nafta on union organizing. turns out that the fact was dire. nafta, along with the refusal of the government to apply labor laws led it a very sharp reduction in union organizing by illegal means. a business couldn't -- if there was an effort at organizing, a business couldn't put up a banner saying transfer operation mexico, could call in works for obligatory meetings or would tell them you go ahead with this union organizing, we are going to move to mexico. they didn't intend to do it but the warning was enough. meanwhile, a major industry had

developed of strike breaking. there are now major industries working on what used to be call scientific methods of strike breaking. lots of techniques. many of them illegal, but it doesn't matter if you have a criminal state that doesn't enforce the law. the effect of this over the years has been a sharp decline in the labor movement. this is happening at a time when workers want to unionize. you look at workers' preferences the majority want to be in unions but unionization declined every year. again last year. density of unionization declines under attack from a state corporate program of attacking labor. that is what it amounts to. going back to the amazon strike, it is a dramatic break from that

despite the enormous advantages that corporate business system has been given by state criminality, which is what it is, despite the enormous advantages amazon works in staten island managed to win an election. they will be immediately under attack by amazon, but the kinds of means i have described but it is a small victory. there are a couple others. there are signs, small signs, of revival of labor. it actually started in nonunionized areas in red states like my state of arizona, west virginia, it began with teachers, teachers who are not unionized began it strike for

not just for higher wages but for better conditions for children. part of the neoliberal programs has been to defund education to try to destroy the public education system. under the trump years we had a secretary of education who was openly committed to destroying the public education system. public education is one of the great achievements of american democracy. back in the hit 19th and early 20th century the united states led the world in developing public education, mass public education, an enormous contribution to democracy and a healthy society. it is an american achievement.

at the university level, too. the grants for universities unfortunately taking away native american land wasn't pretty but the left hand grants enabled the establishment of major universities. the united states has great state universities. m.i.t., where i taught all my life, was actually a land grant university. that was an enormous contribution. during the neoliberal period it has been under sharp attack. i quoted the crisis of democracy calling for more indoctrination of the youth, an attack on the educational system that was also defunding. funding for state colleges and

university has sharply declined, also at the k to 12 level, all part of the effort to destroy one of the major contributions of the united states toward democracy and believe welfare. it is still continuing. teachers began it strike in the red states, west virginia, arizona, calling for better funding for schools. so a teacher doesn't have to sit in front of 50 kids unable to teach because there are no resources and no possibility of dealing with the children. teachers were not just footing for better salaries which they richly deserved but better conditions for children and schools. they got a lot of support. i happen to be living in arizona now and i drive around tuscon where i live there were signs on

lawns all over the place supporting the teachers. signs on businesses support, the teachers. they won referenda. arizona pass a freshman calling for more funning for the schools which they badly need. the relying legislature won't do it so the battle continues. but there is a major growth of liberal organizing. it has centennialed to the page labor movement, not enormous statistically speaking but there have been scattered victories. starbucks, there was a general motors victory. amazon is the latest. but there's a long way to go.

the national labor relations board has to be reconstituted so into it actually carries out its legal responsibility of defending works from illegal attacks by business which have devastated the liberal movements sense reagan. -- since reagan. the biden administration has been trying to do it, but it has been blocked by 100% rock solid republican opposition joined by a few right wing democrats so it can't get through. just very recently a very good representative appointment who was pro-labor was blocked and there is a big battle to over come -- i'm old enough to remember the early 1930's and it is kind of similar. the labor movement in the 1920's

had been crushed. the united states has a very violent labor history. were worse than usual. the woodrow wilson red scare had crushed the vibrant labor movement. 1920's there was almost nothing left. early 1930's in the wake of the depression it began it revive. c.i.o. organizing, lebanon actions, sitdown strikes. under that impetus it was a sympathetic administration. you got the new deal measures which have greatly improved the lives of americans, enormously, and led the world to the

post-war social democratic movements. well, maybe it will begin today. but it is going to be a battle, a major battle. amazon victory is a striking example of what could be done, but it is going to be a long haul. the attack on labor continues right now relentless, bitter, and it will take plenty of dedication an commitment to beat back and overcome it. >> we have about an lore left with our guest, noam chomsky, this afternoon. we will continue to take your calls. he has appeared on c-span 28 advertisements. national representation really sprang forth in 1967 when he wrote a responsibility for intellectuals essay and in 1989

he gave a lecture on thought control in more than society. here is portion. noam: the talk i suppose you saw is necessary alawses thought control in document societies. the title is intended to be paradoxical. it should be. thought control and indoctrination are inconsistent with democracy therefore within can't have thought control in a democratic society. the -- there's a standard view about this matter. the standard view as expressed by supreme court justice powell who speaks of what he calls the societal person of the first amendment that is enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process. he happens to be speaking about the media and their crucial role in affecting this societal purpose and similar remarks

could be made an should be made about the educational system, about publishing, about intellect all life but the media are particularly important in providing free access to information an opinion and allowing a democratic process to function in a meaningful way. so, the media therefore fulfill what "new york times" on sunday called their traditional jefferson i don't know role as a counterbalance to government power. and if within tax jefferson seriously, as he may or may not have taken himself, he would presumably have gone further speaking not just to counterbalancing government power but counterbalancing other concentration of power specifically the kinds that developed in the post-jefferson ian period, corporate power which is the dominant feature of modern social life. all of this seems obvious and it

is worth bargain in mind that there is a contrary view and it probably is the dominant view among will be rely document theorists. it goes back to the originalens of monitor democracy and english revolution of the 17th century. at that time great concern was expressed over popular agitators, itinerant preachers and workers with their little printing presses an pamphlets and believe speeches which were removing the cloak of mystery behind which the parliament and king were carrying out their were narrower struggle the one you read about in history becomes. these people were, in their words, there were people who wanted to be represented not by lords and gentry but men of

their on kind, machine who know the people sores quoting from a package 234re9 and observing their activities. one contemporary hrpb warned by revealing the working of power tell make the people so curious and arrogant that they will never find humility enough to submit to a civil rule, which is a big problem. well, well after these radical democrats had been crushed by 1660 john locke wrote that day laborers an tradesmen, spinsters and dairy maids must be told what to believe. the greatest part can't know and therefore they must believe. these concerns arose again during the american revolution as they typically do during popular revolutions and it was not until the 1780's that the

radical democrats in the american revolution were crushed and there was no more any thought that people would be represented by people at that time, men of their own kind who know the people source. they would be represented by those qualified to rule over them of home they were permitted to make a selection, the modern democratic political system, which follows the principle laid down by the founding fathers that those who own the country ought to govern it quoting john jay. now, all of this comes to the present. i won't try to go through the history. but there's a rich tradition expressing the same views comes to present in the monitor version reinhold? niebuhr explained rationality belongs to the cool observer but

because of the stupidity of the average man he follows not reason but faith and it favorite relies on necessary i will laws and emotionally potent oversimplifications which have it be provided by the myth makers, by the cool observers, folks like us, smart guys who know how to serve power. walter lippman dean of american journalists earlier talked about the manufactured consent which has become a sever conscious art and regular organ of popular government in a revolution in the practice of democracy and that is appropriate because the common interests very largely elude believe opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialize the class. niebuhr's cool observers.

the same concerns explain a good deal of the fear of radical movements abroad up to the present. for example, in the early 19th century the czar of russia was deeply concerned about the contagion of revolutionary ideas from american democracy which might undermine the conservative world order that he and others were presiding over and a century later the roles were reversed but same ideas were expressed at the time when wood re-wilson isn't troops it join the western in intervention against the bowl chef vicks. his secretary of state worned that there were appealing to the proletariat of all countries to the ignorant and mentally deficient who by their numbers are urged to become masters. the same ideas appear in the

public arrests industry. the anticipate right hand saint of the modern believe relations industry received his training in the commission he was a member of and later developed the concept of what he called engineering of consent which he said is the essence of democracy and is something which he practiced, for example in demonizing the democratic capitalest government of inadequate malla -- guatemala paving the way for the c.i.a. coup. the public relations industry from beginning the early part of the century described the task as controlling -- controlling the pblg mind and educating the american people about the economic facts of life to ensure a favorable climate for business and proper understanding of what was called the common interest.

the public mind is the only serious danger confronting the company an at&t executive commented about 80 years ago and toes problems have been addressed ever since with the role of the p.r. industry. there's an academic twist to this and page theme in the academic social sciences. one of the leading american political scientists this major figure in communications was harold laswell wrote an interesting commentary on this in 1933 in the internationalen psych media of social sciences the entry under propaganda. those were more honest days people called things what there were. he wrote an entry under propaganda in which he explained that we must not succumb to the democratic dogmatism about machine being the best judge of their on interest.

they are not. the best judges are the elite who must be enshooter to ems in their means and they are a whole new technique of criminal largely through propaganda. it is necessary to do this because of the ignorance an superstition of the masses. 10 he explain why it is person in democracy. it is not the case that naive that indoctrination is inconsist content with democracy but it is the essence of democracy. the point is in a military state or feudal state or what we would call a to the taeurpb state it -- tell taeurpb state totalitarian it doesn't matter what they think because you have a bludgeon and you can control what they do. but when the state loses the bludgeon and you can't control people by force and we the voice of the people can be heard, you have it problem.

it may make people is curious and arrogant that they don't have the humility to submit to a civil rule and therefore you have to control what people think for their own good of course to ensure that they don't get out of control. >> that was noam chomsky in 1989, one of 28 appearances he has made on c-span over the years. he joins us now live from his home in tuscon, arizona. the next call for him is from michael in miami. michael, please go ahead and ask your question. caller: hello and thank you for your humanity and scholarship, mr. chomsky. if you answer yes i believe the reason you are doing so is because we here in the south and i'm calling you from broward

county which is probably the school district that has under the most attack by a governor and a lot of forces you described in covering everything. i don't know people who -- why michael, what is your question. caller: we had or governor say that he wished to increase natural covid herd immunity in order to increase what he viewed as a benefit but it is the very definition when you push something like leader immunity for a decease that is a equivalent of using smallpox. >> so covid leader immunity is the question, governor desantis it's noam: the question is about governor desantis and covid

immunity? >> covid herd immunity. noam: herd immunity. well, there is unfortunately a powerful antivaccination movement in the united states. desantis has played a role in it in his not refusing vaccination but not following policies advised by serious health officials, not florida but elsewhere. and i think this is seriously prelonging a significant crisis. about a million americans have already died. the hospitals are overflowing with mostlien vaccinated --

mostly unvaccinated patients and at the provide a pool for future more mutations. we have the means to, if not eradio indicate -- eradio indicate greatly control and diminish the harm caused by the and limit the possible mutations which could be more harmful. the means exist but they have to be followed. if they are not followed there will be more suffering, more pain, more deaths, more crushing of hospitals, many hospitals have literally had to suspend

normal operations just because of the overflow much -- of largely unvaccinated patients into are filling up the covid wards. in a manner way i have experienced that myself but it has been serious. so, i think it is a major problem. there's a lot to do. there's more to say about there -- this. it is critically important to get vaccination advanced in the large regions of the world which have not had access to vaccines or only limited access. the rich countries, europe and the united states, in the early part of the plague have tended to monopolize the vaccines for

themselves. actually, the or piano -- the european record is worst and the biden administration has taken some steps it try to break through the monopolization a large part of which goes back to the world trade organization rules that i mentioned earlier which provide they are called free trade agreements and they are not free trade. they provide extreme protectionist measures to ensure very high profits for pharmaceutical corporations for mega media corporations and others called intellectual property rights exorbitant patent rights that allow themno way over-charge and make

extraordinary profits even though in the case of the tarpl suit calendar industry -- pharmaceutical industry much of the research and development is done at believe expense including the moderna vaccine. but the rules of the mislabeled free trade agreements allow them to have basically monopoly pricing grants. the germans have been even more adamant in protecting this than we have. but the fact has been to deprive large parts of the world of the vaccines they need. this is a threat to us as well, not just to them. it means again a large pool of an vaccinated people, which provides the virus opportunities to mutate as it does rapidly and nobody knows what the physician

variant might be. we have so far been kind of looky in that the variants -- lucky in that the variants that have appeared over the years have either been lightly lethal but not very contagious like ebola or highly contagious but not very lethal like omicron. can't guarantee that that will continue. the point is, going back it what i said before, the question is what can we do? well, what we can do is apply the means that are available, intensive vaccination, protected spaces for people who want to be safe from infection, distancing, masks, many mechanisms that can be used to reduce the spread of

infection and it ameal your rate the crisis largely overcome it. so we have to per sue those measures -- pursue those measures. florida want desantis do not have a good record on this. >> jim is on lean. caller: my question is basically the internet. your thoughts on it. it has not been that long since it came into being. the last 20 to 25 years and seems to have taken over the world. thank you very much. >> professor? noam: didn't quite catch it, i'm sorry. >> the impact of the internet over the last 20 to 25 years. noam: the impact of the internet? >> yes, sir. >> it is quite a story. i was actually present at the

origin of what is now the internet. i was in the 1950's at the research laboratory of electronics at m.i.t., which is where the early ideas were formulated. it became what was called the orp net and it later became the internet. it is interesting to know the internet was whofr jimming like computers generally developed on believe funding. it was a publicly, largely possibly created achievement. later it was privatized and handed over to private power for pr profit. but it was many years later into the 1990's. the internet has now become a major phenomenon.

well, it has mixed consequences. the internet does allow us to discover things that we otherwise would not have known. it offers tremendous access to information. for years i have work the on -- many years, 50 years, back to the article you mentioned -- been working on how the media operate as a kind of combination of information and endock nation system -- indoctrination system. i used to have to go to the library and look up, work with microfilm machines to try to find out what was in "new york times" two years ago. now i can do it by clicking a

button. being find things that you never would have found. like i quoted before, a crucially important document, crucially important, settlement 2021 u.s. government policy statement on ukraine. you can find that on the internet. you are not going to find it in the media even if you went to libraries you wouldn't find it. but now you can pick it up from the white house official page on the internet. that magnifies. it is a tremendous source of potential information and enlightenment. but i stress potential. it matters how you use it. unfortunately, it is often used to limit understanding and to restrict information. there's a natural tendency, you

can understand it, partially share it -- to turn at once toward the internet sites which reinforce your own positions. i know i'm going to hear the kind of things i like so i will turn to that. now, that tends to create bubbles, small bubbles of severinoorsing -- severinoors ing doctrines and ideas where people become not only ignorant on the outside but immune to it because they are hearing and getting reinforced by what they want to hear. that is a very widespread phenomenon. i think we are all familiar with it and it is quite dangerous. it is under mining the possibilities of event change and interreaction across society

which are a prerequisite for a functioning democratic society. based on an informed look rate -- electorate understanding the views of others, able to move forward. that is the basis of the healthy society. that is pretty much what it was like during the fighting new deal period dark exciting new deal period. in the noon 60's it was true over a very wide range of the, at the time, mostly younger population. i was in my 40's at the time is i was one of the old folks. but this is deteriorating. so, while the internet could be a mechanism of liberation an

enlightenment, it can also be an instrument of control, indoctrination, divisiveness, breakdown of absorb order. it has all that potential. it is like a lot of technology. take a hammer. a hammer doesn't care whether you use it to build a house or whether a torturer uses it to crush somebody's skull. the hammer is an different. a lot of technology is like that. the internet is an example. can be an enormous force for enlaytonment -- enlightenment, liberation, mutual aid an mutual understanding. but we have it make that decision. the internet will not make it for us. >> john is call in from el

paso, texas. please go ahead, john. you are on book tv. caller: i hope you don't mind it i change my question. i first asked if, was going to ask if the united nations could solve the problems in yemen and afghanistan an ukraine. but now i'm really concerned with whether or not you think that economic sanctions are an act of war. >> did you catch that, professor? noam: well, it is worth remembering that sanctions, if sanctions are carried out by the united nations, they are legal. we can ask whether they are advisable. but they are at least legal. most of the sanctions are carried out by the united states. actually, more than half of the world's population is now under

one or another form of u.s. sanctions. these have no legal authority. the united states is using sanctions wildly to person people, sometimes with some justification maybe, sometimes not. but it -- we do not want a world, at least i don't want a world in which one power which happens to have enormous force behind it, is capable of deciding who gets sanctioned. that is not a liveable world. sometimes the sanctions are grotesque. tack -- take cuba. for 60 years ago cuba has been under direct attack by the united states. it began with the can

administration. kennedy carried out a major maj terrorist war against cuba. not much discussed here but it was real and very serious and part of what led to the missile crisis that almost destroyed us. then hash sanctions were imposed. well, they continued when russian support was withdrawn an cuba faced really serious problems because it was a the limited support it was getting under the harsh u.s. sanctions regime at that amendment. the clinton administration, bill clint outflanked the republicans from the right by increasing the sanctions, increasing the torture then came the law that made it worsement u.s. sanctions were called third party

sanctions. others have to adhere to u.s. sanctions even if at the oppose them. in the case of cuba, dramatically the whole world opposes them strenuously. look at the annual votes in the united nations on the cuba sanctions. they are condemned every year. by to you they are condemned by everyone. the last vote was 184 to 2, the two were the united states and israel, which has it follow u.s. orders. it is a client state. actually doesn't even observe the sanctions but has it vote with the united states. why do other countries observe u.s. sanctions even though they oppose them? because they are afraid of the united states. it is a frightening country.

europe opposes the sanctions. it opposes the iran sanctions vigorously but it has to go along because you can't step on toes of the united states. it is dangerous. in fact, the united states has the capacity to throw countries out of the international financial system which mostly runs through new york and can carry out other measures. nobody is willing to face that. so, countries can't provide, say, sweden, medical equipment to cuba. they can't sell something that uses nickel that is imported from cuba. what is the reason for this? one of the good things about the united states is it is quite an open society, much more so than others. we have a lot of information about what or government is

doing -- what our government is doing, not perfect but a lot. a lot of material gets declassified,en like other countries. that is a very good thing. so we can look back through the records of the kennedy and johnson administrations in the 1960's and ask why the torture of cuba and it is for -- torture. the reason is, i'm quoting successful defiance of u.s. policies back to the 1820's to the monroe doctrine which established the u.s. right to dominate the hemisphere, to turn the hemisphere into a sphere of influence for the united states. well, back in the 1820's the united states wasn't powerful enough to implement it.

britain was much more powerful and impeded the u.s. but over time as predicted by u.s. leaders, john quincy adams, others, bresch support waned and american support increased and finally the u.s. was able to impose the monroe doctrine. cuba was acting in successful defiance of u.s. demand to dominate the him severe and determine what happens here. so we have to for clear them make them suffer bitterly and brutally and europe joins in, the whole world joins in because they are afraid of the united states. same with iran. therefore the joint agreement on

nook weapons signed by the obama administration 2015. iran lived up to it completely. u.s. intelligence confirms that iran completely lived up to the agreement. it sharply limited iran's capacity to develop nuclear systems whether they intended to develop nuclear weapons we don't know. they say they weren't but maybe they were. president trump dismantled it. tore it to shreds violating security council ordersment security county had ordered all countries maintain the jcpoa. trump decided i don't like it, i'm going to tear it apart so he destroyed it. then he punished iran for the u.s. violation of security

council orders by imposing harsh sanctions on iran. europe bitterly opposed that but they have to conform for the reasons i mentioned. that is now maintained by the biden administration. there is a chance that we might be able to restore the agreement. trekkie thing. well, we can look through the rest of the world. there are u.n. sanctions which one can debate whether they are right or wrong but at least they are legitimate. but u.s. sanctions have no legitimacy, nor would those of or countries if other countries were capable of imposing them. to a limited extent they do but not much. it is mostly a u.s. weapon. and we should look into them

closely. take the -- there are some about which we've extensive evidence if we want to learn. so take the clinton administration, clinton, blair, u.s. -- u.k. sanctions on iraq in the 1990's. very hash sanctions -- harsh sanctionsed a murder through the u.n. but basically u.s.a.-british sanctions. there were distinguished international diplomats who administered the sanctions. the first was an ash diplomat dennis holiday. he resigned in protest because he said the sanctions were genocidal. he said they are bitterly harming iraqi civilians.

hundreds of thousands of children are dying and the economy is being destroyed and they are not harming sa -- saddam julio jones the population is suffering and has to shelteren the umbrella of the brutal government so it strengthens the tyrant, harming the population to the point where it is general r genocidal. he resigned. he was replaced by another distinguished international diplomat. he had researchers all over the country observing what was happening, knew more about iraq than anybody in the west. he resigned in protest because, as he put it, the sanctions are

genocidal. he reiterated and strengthened what dennis halladay had said. he also published an important book called "a different kind of war" in which he described in detail the brutality and sadism of the u.s. after british sanctions and what they were doing to population while they were strengthening the tyrantment we are not a fascism i was -- fascist country but try to find it. i don't think there's a single a in united states or britain. you can find it in detail, what sanctions are like when they are applied in a brutal and sadistic manner and you can't prove it but he kind of suggests and i

think there's some plausibility to this that the sanctions may have saved saddam from being overthrown from within that happened to a lot of tyrants, brutal u.s. backed tyrants. marcos in the philippines. duvalier in haiti. in romania the worst of the gangs doctors in the -- gangsters in the soviet system supported by the united states until virtually the day of his overthrowing. within after -- one after another were toppled by internal revolts. same thing happened in south korea. possibly it could have happened in iraq but not under the conditions of the sanctions

which so punished the population an demoralized them and so forced them to shelter under the saddam umbrella that there was no possibility of overthrowing the government. cannot prove it but that might have happened. well, that is one case of sanctions where we can learn a great deal from the book. it is very detailed and instructive but we can only learn it if we try. if we decide we want to accept the indoctrination, ok, then it doesn't matter that it is a free country. well, there are other cases you can look at. the usual discussion of sanctions is do they achieve their ends. so, there's a lot of criticism of the iran sanctions, public

criticism in the united states, because they didn't work. they didn't force iran it accept u.s. demands. it is not the right question. the right question is, what right does the united states have to destroy the agreement in violates of security council orders and punish iran because we destroyed the agreement? that is the question that should be asked. what right did we have to compel others to adhere to or decision to punish iranians because we withdrew from the agreement. those are the questions that could be asked and similar questions could be asked in other cases. cube is the obvious within. venezuela, others. remember, u.s. sanctions are so widespread that they actually reach over half of the world's

population. earlier i quoted chaz freeman one of the highly regarded members of the u.s. diplomatic corps and he goes into the illegality and cruelty of the sanctions. it is worth listening to and worth thinking about. >> in your book who rules the world there is a chapter that is spwaeulted "the u.s. as a leading terrorist state" kathy in albuquerque, go ahead. caller: the one issue that weighs heavily on my mind is immigration. i have a feeling it will only get worse because of global warming. i don't know if there is anything to do to make it

better. i don't think we should turn these people away because it is not easy to leave a place they are familiar with and go somewhere. i don't know if you agree also that it will get worse because of global warming and what we can do. >> thank you, ma'am. noam: i sort of half got it but not sure if i got it completely. could you complete the essence? >> she is concerned about immigration and thinks it will get worse because of tkpwhrpbl -- global claimant change. noam: immigration is an interesting question. we don't have much time but one thing away might do is look at the u.s. record on immigration. the u.s. is in an unusual position. it has extraordinary advantages. very low population density enormous resources.

what is year lift on immigration? up until the 20th century immigrants were welcomed from europe, white immigrants. why? not a pretty story. we were wiping out and exterminating the indigenous populations. the country was being opened,for settlement and needed lots of white faces to settle it. 1920 the other centals -- or kwrpbtales were blocked. 1924 the first strict immigration restriction was inposted. the words were not used but in effect it was aimed at italians and jews. that is the effect and design of the immigration act of 1924.

many jews ended up in extermination camps because at the couldn't get into the united states. happens it include the recommendments of my extended family but that's the least of it. this law stayed until 1965. other arrangements were made which are worth discussing. i have no time for it today. today the u.s. has, it is not alone, europe is even worse. europe is even more brutal anti-immigration policies than the united states. europe has spent centuries devastating and destroying africa. it is now working hard to ensure that people escaping, trying it escape from the wreckage of european savagery can make it

european shores. europe even has a military installations in central africa, niger, to try to prevent miserable refugees from making it to the mediterranean, where at the might enter european shores. so, you want it feel good about it, europe is worse but our policies are horrendous. people who are fleeing from the destruction of their societies by u.s. terror under reagan in the 1980's, murderous terror operations killed hundreds of thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of refugees, orphans. much of it is extended. people are trying it escape.

in honduras there was a military coup in 2009 condemned by almost the entire continent, accepted by obama and hillary clinton, who basically supported it. turned honduras even into more of a horror chamber than it had been to a huge wave of flight. we now turn them back at the border or separate parents from children at the border under trump. it is disgraceful. the pope, pope francis properly said that the refuse gentlemen crisis is not a refugee crisis, it is a moral crisis of the wealthy, of the rich, of the west. well, the question that it will get more extreme, we are now intensifying the threat and danger of global warming which will be devastating.

it will lead to huge flight. countries like say bangladesh will become unlivable. post of south asia is literally going to be virtually unlivable. large parts of africa. what are the people going to do? they are going to have it flee, hundreds of millions will be trying it flee. not so great here either. in arizona where i live there's a long drought that may have very severe consequences but it is nothing like the poorer countries of the world. they are going to be shattered by this. and, yes, will there be enormous immigration problems. the way it deal with it is to stop immediately or assault on -- our assault on the global environment. we are destroying the environment which can sustain

life on earth. we must start immediately following the strong advice of the scientific community, by p.c.c., that we cut back fossil fuels right away. a certain percentage every year, right away until we end use of fossil fuels within a couple of decades. we're finish. ok. >> professor you have spoken for decades with conscience woven throughout the remarks an writings in the manner of dr. chomsky. he has two new books coming out a world in our hearts and not on resistance., you have a breakdoe

social order. it is happening over much of the world. >> live from his home in tucson, arizona where he is america plus professor at the university of arizona, noam chomsky. professor chomsky, what issues -- what is on your mind these days? noam: well, there are lots of

things going on in the world. right now, one of the major ones is, of course, the war in ukraine. there's many others. there are background issues. we are, like it or not, the human species, racing to imminent disaster. there are two huge problems. one is the growing threat of nuclear war. which would, basically, end modern civilization as we know it. the other is the destruction of the environment. inexorable. we know it has to be done, we are not doing it. if we do not turn that corner soon, we will