In recent days, the 88-year-old mit honorary professor, linguist and philosopher noam chomsky was interviewed at a symposium at mit by chris hedges, present-day facilitator of oncontact, who is a professor at princeton university。
In the interview, chomsky stated that the minimum wage should be $20 an hour, “neo-liberalism is tyranny”, while the republicans “commit to destroying human existence”, “we are heading towards the cliff, the worst of which we are facing is brought by the market system”
Honorary professor, linguist and philosopher noam chomsky, massachusetts institute of technology. Chart
Chomsky traced the current history of neoliberalism, from the left and right origins in the late 1970s to the time of donald trump。
“requiem for the american dream, an in-depth interview with chomsky in 2015, the same documentary film, was published earlier this year. “the neo-liberal ideology claims that it is increasing its freedom, whereas in fact it only adds to tyranny.”
According to chomsky, putting the benefits of capital — especially those of transnational corporations and financial institutions — above the people has led to “democratic cuts” and “the majority of wage growth has stalled or declined”. Chomsky, on the other hand, claims to be a socialist and advocates a more rational distribution of wages。
“neoliberalism competes with the world's working people, but allows for the free flow of capital and, indeed, a high degree of protection of capital. For example, intellectual property rights are a huge tax for people,” chomsky notes that microsoft’s tax avoidance schemes for monopoly technology patents and apples are a means of exploiting the general public。
Chomsky, co-author of the 1992 outstanding media study, building consensus, pointed out that these changes had led to the marginalization and even dismantling of opponents through “indoctrination” to the stigma of “anti-american”。
“in addition to the united states, i do not know which other non-autonomous, non-autonomous states exist. This is a very interesting concept. And if you judge the policy -- you're anti-american."
The grammatical theory of the choms gene has gained academic credit and is now focused on climate change, in particular the recent withdrawal of the united states from the paris accord signed by former president barack obama in 2015。
“the position of the barbarians of american capitalism — the republicans — is very striking, and they are really on their way to the cliff. What organization in history is so dedicated to destroying human existence?" all along, chomsky kept criticizing trump. “when the world tries to do something, the united states goes to the cliff.”
Heges interviewed chomsky in two parts, the first of which was published today in russia on 2 july。
Today russia (hereinafter “rt”): in your book, based on the documentary “the spirit of the american dream”, you set out ten key messages of concentration of wealth and power. What does that mean
Norm chomsky (hereinafter “nc”): first of all, i would like to comment that the ten key building blocks are largely due to the contributions of editors. Through this format, they have integrated numerous hours of interviews and discussions very effectively. The “reduced democracy” means the gradual marginalization of people; it weakens the role of ordinary people in public decision-making, which can be expected and predicted in the introduction of the neoliberal transition of the 1970s and beyond。
The post-war socio-economic history of the united states is essentially divided into two phases. The first stage, sometimes referred to as regulated capitalism, was embedded in liberalism in the 1950s and 1960s, a period of rapid growth, as was the growth of egalitarianism, and the 1960s, an era of massive growth and democratic participation — a period of genuine participation in the public arena. All these have different impacts. One effect is a recession and a decline in profitability, which is crucial. The second effect is the overzealous interest in participation in public affairs。
Rt: this is samuel huntington's "excess of democracy," isn't it
Nc: “excess democracy”. Indeed, both very important publications were published in the early 1970s — both in response to that theory. Interestingly, they were at the opposite ends of the political spectrum, but essentially reached the same conclusion, albeit with different rhetorical approaches. The first was the powell memolandum, written by a corporate lawyer working for tobacco companies, who later became a judge of the supreme court under nixon. He wrote a memo that was supposed to be confidential, but it was leaked to the united states chamber of commerce business group. It's quite a fascinating term: his views are not rare among those who really rule the world - their control has weakened very slightly — like the spoiled three-year-olds who did not get a piece of candy — which means the end of the world. So you really need to read this term to appreciate it。
Rt: there was an attack on the free enterprise system in the united states, wasn't there
Nc: the business world was severely attacked under the leadership of ralph nader and herbert marcuse. We are the only remaining attack on all vital aspects of american life. He then said, “well, take care of us, the businessman basically has everything. We're reliable partners at the university. We don't have to make the kids crazy. We can finally control the media; we have power.” it requires the business world to mobilize to defend themselves。
This has a great impact on the growth of right-wing think tanks — most ideologies are far right. So this is the end of the right wing of the spectrum. And then you're going to go to the other end of the spectrum -- basically the liberalism of the carter administration. In fact, the trilateral commission, which works for the carter administration-- this committee is based on industrial democracies: europe, japan and the united states, which are essentially liberal internationalists. They published a book called the crisis of democracy, where the crisis of democracy is about excessive democracy. Before the 1960s, most people were passive and indifferent, while in the 1960s, people began to participate in the political arena, pressure on demand and other matters, sometimes called special interests — the interests of young people, the interests of the elderly, the interests of farmers, the interests of workers, in other words, the interests of everyone. Only the interests of the corporate sector — because they are national interests — are not mentioned. However, special interests put too much pressure on states. That is why we have to exercise greater self-restraint in democracy. People have had to return to passivity and indifference ... With some nostalgia, samuel huntington referred to the truman period, when the president, in collaboration with some wall street lawyers and general managers, was able to operate the country without a crisis of democracy。
Rt: let's get to the next point on “ideological shaping”. You discussed the difference between madison and aristotle. They all understood that there was tension between the rich and the poor as long as inequality existed. Madison calls on the government to cut democracy, and aristotle's solution, which you will clearly favour, is to reduce inequality. Your second point — ideological shaping. We refer to the powell memorandum, to the trilateral commission, but specifically to different segments of society. You have discussed the way in which they have designed structural programmes for universities, using debt to convert students into debt bondage, thereby making large-scale demonstrations impossible and destroying public institutions. Talk about the process of reconstituting ideology into neoliberal forms。
Nc: i would not like to point out that it was the trilateral commission that led these developments. This is more or less an expression of the liberal elite's consensus on these topics. It is therefore very interesting that, of course, indoctrination of young people is their rhetoric — the word of speech — and that institutions responsible for indoctrination of young people are failing。
Rt: this is an interesting way of describing educational institutions。
Nc: this is somewhat like the nostalgia that was just mentioned, and truman is able to operate the country with the assistance of a few corporate lawyers, but it is somewhat idealistic. There should be discipline, students should not be free to think, of course they will not say so, but what it really means is that students should not be free to ask, think and challenge - this is precisely the case in a good education system where young people in schools and universities are encouraged to do so. But it is dangerous because they question too many eternal truths, including whether elite rule and control are necessary. This has been consistently expressed throughout history。
Rt: how successful do you think they are
Nc: the consensus they articulated led to many developments. That was quite successful. For example, colleges and universities have begun to implement a business model, and bureaucracy has developed dramatically, reversing the balance between teacher control and bureaucratic control. The sharp increase in school fees has had a strong regulatory effect. In the 1960s, young people could say, “ok, i can take a year off from school, engage in a campaign against war, or a feminist movement, or something, and then i can come back to my life.” but if you have a debt over your head, you cannot do that. If you're from law school, you think, "i'd be happy to be a public interest lawyer, but i have to pay $200,000." you can only go to a corporate law firm and be absorbed into this culture. Moreover, there are many different ways of exercising discipline。
Rt: you also talked about some sudden criticism of the united states empire or american capitalism being labelled as “anti-american”。
Nc: anti-americanism is an interesting concept. This concept exists only in totalitarian states. For example, a man in italy criticized the berlusconi government — he would not be accused of “anti-italy”. In the former soviet union you may be condemned as “anti-soviet”, and in the brazilian military dictatorship you can be “anti-brazil”. But i do not know which other states, other than the united states, have such a concept. This is a very interesting concept. If you criticize policy -- you're anti-american. Of course, it has very interesting biblical origins. The concept was first used by king ahab, the ancient king of israel in the bible, who was the king of the bible. He called the prophet, prophet elijah, and asked him why he hated israel and why he condemned the evil king. It is a basic concept: if you challenge authority, you are anti-social, anti-cultural, anti-community。
