Transcript: Noam Chomsky On China, Artificial Intelligence, & The 2024 Presidential Election

We just heard a couple of weeks ago from the IPCC, the International Scientific Monitors, their most dire report cutting few corners about where we now stand. Overwhelming scientific consensus, if anything’s solid, that is. They say we have to radically cut the use of fossil fuels, beginning now, aiming for termination a couple of decades from now. If not, we pass irreversible tipping points where there will be a steady decline to essentially destruction of organized human life on Earth. The other possibility is we do it quickly with a nuclear war.

Well, going back to the 2024 election, as in every other major decision in our lives, these are the top issues of concern. There are other issues. Will American democracy survive in any form? Rather serious question. It’s not a joke. Other democracies are in deep trouble. Read the newspaper this morning. In India, the head of the opposition party, Rahul Gandhi, was just tossed into jail as part of Prime Minister Modi’s effort to dismantle India’s democracy and install a racist Hindu ethnocracy in its place. It’s one case.

Talk about others. The United States is plainly the most important because of its extraordinary power and influence in the world. So that’s at stake. And we can continue. There are lots of other things. So I think we could have said for each of the recent elections that it’s the most important. Yet, that was correct. It will be also true of the next one.

The State of American Politics

Alex Levy: Yeah, it’s really interesting. And you touch on many crucial points that I want to get into our conversation today. And in terms of electing someone, there’s a lot of names that are coming around more in the angle of the Republican Party, which are Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy and Donald Trump, and some that are potentially running, which are DeSantis and Mike Pompeo.

And also, in terms of the Democratic Party, it seems that there’s speculation that Biden may not run or perhaps he’s not leaning towards running or maybe he will run. But these are all of the questions that I have for you. What are your thoughts in the Republican candidates? Is there anyone that really you would be interested in in having as the next president? And also, what are your thoughts in a potential re-election of President Joe Biden?

Dr. Noam Chomsky: The Republican organization is not a political party in the traditional sense, but it has been turning into something quite different for several decades. In fact, I agree with the comments of the political analysts of the American Enterprise Institute, Thomas Mann, Norman Ornstein, that the Republicans have become what they call a radical insurgency that has abandoned the procedures of normal parliamentary politics.

If you look at international rankings, its attitudes and commitments, it ranks alongside the far-right parties in Europe with neo-fascist origins. The popular base of the party is pretty much in the pocket of Donald Trump. You look at polls, overwhelmingly popular. That’s the end result of a long period, you can trace it back to Richard Nixon, in which the party recognized, back at that time, it was an authentic political party.

The Republicans and the Democrats, whatever you thought of as them, they pretty much overlapped in modes of procedure, attitudes, and so on. The Republicans were the more pro-business of the two business parties in the United States. The United States is basically a one-party state. The business party has two factions called Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans were the more dedicated pro-business party.

Richard Nixon, the strategist, understood that the Republicans cannot win elections on their actual programs. Their programs of strong support for the business world, for the ownership class, for investors, banks, and so on, can’t get votes that way. So he recognized that what the Republicans ought to do is to shift attention away from their social economic policies to something else, what are now called cultural issues. With Nixon, it was what was called the Southern Strategy. Let’s draw Southern Democrats to the Republican Party by barely concealed racism.

By the mid-1970s, Republican strategists, Paul Weirich in particular, recognized that if the Republicans pretended, I stress pretend, to be opposed to abortion, they could pull in the huge evangelical vote, then being politicized for the first time, and the Northern Catholic vote. So they all switched on a dime. George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, had been strongly what’s now called pro-choice, suddenly became what’s now called pro-life, almost instantly other leaders too. So that became a plank of the Republican Party.

Later on, love of guns. Later on, something else. Anything to keep people’s attention away from the socio-economic policies, which are very harmful for their own constituency. So you have to shift it. With Newt Gingrich, when he took over the House, this became almost an open war. He said, we have to declare war on the Democrats.

And since then, it’s been steady decline in this direction. Became Donald Trump, who’s a very good showman, was able to mobilize these ideas, these tendencies very successfully. So you look at his legislative program, one achievement, a major tax cut for the rich in the corporate sector, stabbing everyone else in the back.

But you don’t talk about that. What you talk about is the Great Replacement, Democrats being sadistic, pedophiles, anything else. Just it’s kind of don’t look behind the curtain. And that’s been, you can understand the success. There has been a period of 45 years of what amounts to savage class war against the general population. It’s bipartisan, led by Republicans, started around Reagan, followed by Bill Clinton, Obama. And it’s called neoliberalism, which has a technical definition.

The definition of neoliberalism, you look it up in the dictionary, it says something about free markets, free enterprise. That’s not what it is. It’s basically class war. So yes, there is deregulation. That is free enterprise. But there’s a footnote. Deregulation leads to financial crashes very quickly, in fact, started right away in the Reagan administration.

Continental Illinois bailout, homing, savings and home crisis. The business world understands that the way it works is you get deregulation, we move towards monopolization. Quite naturally, we make risky investments, make a ton of money. When it all crashes, the state comes in and the friendly taxpayer bails us out. We’re seeing it right now, in fact, that it happens over and over.

So it’s a market bailout economy for the very rich and many other things that cooperated. So Reagan and also Thatcher is associated in this. Their first acts were to attack the labor movement and undermine it severely. That made good sense. The labor movement is the main way in which people can defend themselves in a vicious class war. So you have to eliminate the defenses. They used illegal means, but it didn’t matter.

This opened the door to the corporate sector to move in with massive efforts at strike breaking, undermining labor laws, much of it illegal. When you control the criminal state, it doesn’t matter what you’re doing. And many other things like this go through the details. Like, for example, real wages for male workers are basically 1979. Productivity has increased, goes to very few hands. We don’t have measures of it.

The Rand Corporation, super respectable, did a study of what they call politely the transfer of wealth from the working class and the middle class, lower 90% of the population, transfer wealth from them to the top 1%. Their estimate over the 40 years of class war, they don’t call it that, is about $50 trillion. That’s quite impressive, class war, to steal $50 trillion from the working class and the middle class. And in order to get away with it, you have to shift attention away from the policies and go to cultural issues.

Well, one of the effects of the class war has been to shatter the social order. People live with precarious existences, very little wealth, if you’re Afro-American, virtually no wealth, precarious jobs, maybe you’ll be called tomorrow, maybe you won’t. Associations dissolved, people are alone, atomized, angry, properly angry, resentful, rightly resentful. Distrust institutions, rightly, institutions don’t work for them, very fertile terrain for demagogues. You get an accomplished megalomaniac, narcissist like Donald Trump, who’s a good gentleman, he can mobilize people on this basis.

And from their point of view, it’s understandable. The Republican organization now relies pretty heavily on a rural vote. Take a walk through a rural town, see what it looks like. Where’s the industry? It’s gone. Clinton developed, insisted on global trade policies, which were designed to harm the American working class, and to benefit rich entrepreneurs and investors, called NAFTA, the World Trade Organization. It’s not free markets, highly protectionist. It’s one reason why drugs are out of sight in the United States, because of the highly protectionist elements of the investor rights agreement, called free trade agreements, are in our propaganda system.

So the industry is gone. Stores are shuttered, homes are shuttered, young people are leaving, there’s nothing there. Desperation, in fact, there’s even an increase in mortality, among the white working class, increase in mortality, unheard of in societies outside of war and pestilence, it’s happening here. Economists call it deaths of despair. Well, you grab on to something, maybe it’ll be the church, maybe it’ll be the great replacement.

The Democrats are bringing in immigrants to undermine the white race. Almost half of Republicans believe that the Democratic Party is run by sadistic pedophiles who are trying to groom children. One after another, crazy belief, and you can understand it, when your life is being taken away, you grab on to something. Well, used to be things like, say in the 1930s, when I was growing up, you grabbed on to the labor unions, which were then growing, developing, my own family, first generation working class.

Things were pretty harsh, much worse than today, objectively. Well, it was a hopeful period, I remember it very well, we’re going to get together, we’re going to get out of this together, we’ll work together. There was a moderately sympathetic administration, labor unions were not just wages, they were cultural institutions, classes, adult education, meetings, discussions, concerts, even a week in the park in the Pocono Mountains, my Catskill Mountains, for my aunts who were unemployed seamstresses. It was a whole way of life, gone.

Reagan was a vicious, brutal, killer, and racist, understood, or at least his advisors understood, we got to wipe this out. And that’s been the same pretty since Clinton joined in, in his own way. Well, that’s where we are now. We have an election coming up with one party, which is, for quite rational reasons, dedicated to undermining of democracy.

They can’t survive in a democratic system. You can’t have a party whose sole commitment in policy is to enrich the very rich in the corporate sector and stab everyone else in the back. Can’t run on those programs. So let’s undermine democracy. Let’s bring up issues like democratic pedophiles, the Great Replacement, whatever crazy idea comes along next. But just turn people’s attention to that. And again, given the collapse, the attack on the social order, this is not too hard to do. That’s one party.

The other party is split. The Democratic Party, which still functions as a political party, is pretty much split between a Clintonite party management, which is part of the general assault, with a slightly softer touch, and the sort of Sanders movement, which has a strong popular base. Not much of a representation in Congress. And they are, in the American system, doctrinal system, they’re called radical. In fact, by international standards, they’re mildly centrist.

In fact, one of the editors of the London Financial Times, the major business journal, by no means a radical journal. One of them quipped, half-jokingly, only half-jokingly, that if Bernie Sanders was in Germany, he could be running for the conservative Christian Democrat Party. If you look at it, it’s not false. Take a look at his programs. Universal health care, free higher education, child care. You have that everywhere. You have it in Germany, Mexico, France.

Take a Brazil look around the world. So these are mildly social democratic policies. The United States, considered very radical. The United States has a very class-conscious business class. This goes way back. That’s why we have a very violent labor history. Extremely violent. Surprised conservative Europeans. And now, even simple things like maternal care, care for a woman after childbirth. The only country that doesn’t have it is the United States and a couple of Pacific Islands. Here, it’s considered a very radical idea.

Right now in France, people are out in the streets demonstrating that Macron’s version of neoliberalism, raising pension age. Here, nobody understands it. Of course, everybody wants to work like a maniac until the last minute. Well, France, still people want to have decent lives. You raise the pension age, who are you attacking? Working people. Not affluent professionals. Not people like me. Not people who work in offices.

We live longer. You’re a construction worker, police officer. You’re not going to live very long. It’s a hard life. Raise the pension age. You have less of a retirement to enjoy yourself. Do whatever you want. So, in France, that’s fighting issues. Here, it’s almost even unimaginable. Raise the pension age. 64. What’s that about? I mean, Europeans, Americans work about a month or six weeks longer than Europeans because of the savage character of the conservative business run system. Not in the genes.

Go back to the 1930s, my childhood. The United States led the way in social democracy. Europe was descending into fascism. The New Deal was offering hope for social democracy. It was later picked up in Europe. So, it’s not a law of nature. These are basically questions of the character of class war. That’s the essence of it. You’re not allowed to talk about that in the United States.

There’s no such thing as class. No such thing. Just everybody’s middle class, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Well, it’s not the case. There are people who give orders. There are people who follow orders. That’s class. If you look at the way this has developed over the years, there’s been a constant class war. It takes different forms. The last 40 years, it’s been pretty savage. Not just in the United States. It’s various forms elsewhere.

In France, you see the forms during Macron’s period. In office as prime minister, you look at the record. The rich have become richer. The workers have become stagnated or become poor. That’s a mild form of the class war called neoliberalism. You find the worst victims, those who suffered worst, were the global south. They were subjected to IMF structural adjustment programs. We’ve had devastating effects in Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere. The weaker are the ones who suffer most, naturally.

Mexican Cartels, Guns, and The Fentanyl Crisis

Alex Levy: Professor, thank you for that answer. There’s a lot there that we can unpack. Right now, you mentioned Latin America. My next question was regarding what we’re seeing with the fentanyl crisis and what we’re seeing in Mexico with the cartels. There’s been a lot of concern with how to solve this challenge. I kept asking myself, what would Professor Chomsky say? How can we really tackle this challenge? There has to be a solution. Which one should it be? Should it be a military intervention, which I’m sure you wouldn’t agree on, led by the U.S.? Or would it justify the killing of Americans? Would it justify us coming and helping the Mexican military cope with the cartels? Or how do you think we can solve the rising violence that’s happening south of our border?

Dr. Noam Chomsky: Well, let me give an unserious answer and a serious answer. There’s a saying in Mexico, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, that Mexico is too far from God and too close to the United States. Okay, since it’s too close to the United States, adopt the U. S. way of dealing with these things.

So in the United States, there is a major issue. The fossil fuel companies and the banks are destroying the possibilities for life on Earth. So how do we deal with it? We try to bribe them to be nicer people. You look at the recent so-called Inflation Act, basically a climate act. What it basically does is say, please, fossil fuel companies, be nicer. We’ll pay you to be nicer. We’ll give you incentives to be nicer. We’ll offer you more fossil fuel fields to exploit. We’ll give you subsidies.

All right, so how should Mexico deal with the cartels? Bribe them. Say, here, we’ll pay you off if you stop killing people. If you listen to the United States, it’s too close to the United States. Why not try that? Of course, that’s ludicrous. Is it more ludicrous than what we’re doing here? No.

Now let’s talk to a serious answer. What’s the source of the drug problem? It’s in the United States. Where do the guns come from for the Mexican cartels? From where I’m sitting right now in Arizona I don’t know which end of a gun to hold, but I could go into a gun store, buy a rifle, hand it over to the local cartel representative, and he can take it to Mexico and start murdering people.

The problem is primarily in the United States. That’s where the drug problem is. That’s where the majority of the guns are coming from. So the problem has to be answered here. It’s the criminalization of drugs and the harsh drug policies.

Now, there’s a history to this. In fact, it goes back to Richard Nixon. Except that in his case, the Republican Party still hadn’t moved off to total savagery. So Nixon did impose kind of drug laws, but they had a rational, humane element to them. One part of the drug laws was prevention and treatment. Now that’s gone.

There are studies, again, around the corporation. Others have done studies on what ways work for cutting down drugs. Well, they studied just in terms of cost effectiveness, the least cost, the most effect. It turns out the most effective by far is prevention and treatment. Worse than that is criminalization. Put them in jail. Worse than that is border controls.

The worst of all is chemical warfare, what we call fumigation. So destroy the crops in Colombia, including drugs, but all over the world. So destroy the crops in Colombia, including drugs, but all other crops as well. So you create insurgencies and terrorism and so on. That’s the worst of all. That’s the ranking.

Now take a look at the funding. It’s the opposite. Most funding goes to the worst. Least funding, in fact, practically none, goes to the best. Well, it’s another form of class war. In fact, the drug war has been an effective way of removing what are sometimes called the dangerous classes.

In fact, if you look back over the history of drugs, the way it’s always been, take prohibition back in the, I mean, you know, the Women’s Temperance League and so on. But what was the powerful force behind it? Get rid of the dangerous people. The guy, the immigrants who hang around in bars, don’t like those people. If you were a rich banker living in Westchester County, you could get any kind of wine or liquor you wanted. If you were a poor immigrant in a bar in New York, you get arrested and thrown into jail.

Well, what happened when prohibition ended? The Harry Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, had nothing to do. So they launched a huge propaganda campaign trying to show that marijuana was a killer. Senate hearings with lurid presentations, so-called doctors coming in talking about the hideous things that would happen to you if you smoked a joint and so on.

Just happened that marijuana was being used by the dangerous classes, Harlem blacks, working class people. So let’s go after marijuana. Let’s make that the enemy. Then it’s one after another.

But I think Nixon was probably the last president to have had any semi-reasonable element in this drug program. So you want to solve the Mexican cartel problem, overcome the drug crisis in the United States, which is where it’s coming to, and stop the crazed gun culture. I mean, there are hundreds of millions of guns in the United States. It’s outlandish.

The far-right Supreme Court has turned the Second Amendment into holy writ. You know, you ask people what’s in the Constitution, first thing they’ll say is the Second Amendment in the modern form, the form that was created by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2008.

Before that, the Second Amendment meant what it said, in order to have a well-regulated militia, you know, don’t restrict arms. Now it’s changed. Clarence Thomas’s view, Thomas’s picture of the United States is a hateful, murderous society. His view is, look, you can’t walk in the streets without having an armory. You need it because this is such a horrible society. That was the latest decision on the New York law to try to restrict guns in the street.

Now everybody has to have lots of guns. A six-year-old kid has to walk down the street with an assault rifle because who knows what’ll happen next. Well, when you create that kind of culture, you’re going to be overflowing with guns. Schools are going to become one of the most dangerous places in the country, and it’ll flow into Mexico, where the drug cartels are delighted to have a cheap source of guns.

The actual figures, we don’t really know, but most studies show that at least the majority of the guns in Mexico come from the United States. Mexico itself has pretty tight gun laws. You can’t just walk into a store and buy a gun, as you can where I live in Arizona. But with the United States right next door, not much in the way of border controls to the south, you can import guns, you can export drugs.

Well, we know the answer, but it’s here in the United States. Mexico itself can’t do very much.

Alex Levy: Well, thank you, Professor, and it seems that it’s an interesting take that we have to tackle it from our end of the equation rather than trying to solve it for Mexico.

The Russia-Ukraine War

And moving on, last year, we also had a conversation which was in-depth regarding the Ukraine-Russia crisis. We’ve been seeing the conflict escalate and escalate and escalate and continue to escalate up until today. And we’ve seen also President Biden going to Ukraine in the past month to meet with President Zelensky and with ongoing threats of escalation, nuclear escalation, with the treaty being removed, the nuclear treaty being removed.

So our listeners wanted me to ask you on your update, your current update perspective on the conflict, and where do you think it’s going from this point on?

Dr. Noam Chomsky: Side comment before I get into it. How many presidents or high officials visited Baghdad when the United States was demolishing it? Zero. In fact, the peace activists in Iraq were ordered to leave because life was so impossible under the U.S. attack. Does that tell you something? It does. Something you’re not allowed to talk about. It’s called whataboutism. Okay. It’s a way of deflecting attention from what is highly important and recognized throughout, certainly throughout the global South, but even in Europe. The hypocrisy is just beyond shocking, and it’s having an effect.

Well, what’s happening in Ukraine? The war is escalating. Ukraine is suffering bitterly. Huge number of casualties. Ukrainian army has been apparently virtually destroyed. Young recruits, not very well trained. Huge casualties on the Russian side. Civilian casualties. We don’t know the details. The United Nations estimates 7,000, which is surely a serious underestimate, maybe twice, three times that many. Pretty serious.

I mean, it’s not Iraq. It’s not the American kind of war, but it’s bad enough, and it can increase. Now it’s tanks beginning to be jet planes. The American military has, actually Washington Post had an article a couple of weeks ago pointing out that the US, American forces basically, are directing the fire of the advanced weapons by Mars and others that are being used.

The world, most of the world, sees this as a proxy war between Russia and the United States, fought over Ukrainian bodies, and it’s become harder and harder to avoid that conclusion. If the war continues to escalate, Ukraine will be, I mean, the economy is very severely harmed.

I mean, not like Iraq or Libya or targets of American attack, but bad enough, serious, and it’s going to get worse. Pretty soon, increase tanks, jet planes, and so on. Russia will probably retaliate by a harsher attack against Western Ukraine, against supply lines, run into conflicts with NATO. At that point, you’re moving up the escalation ladder to terminal war.

Putin has made statements, inflammatory statements, about nuclear weapons in reserve, suspended participation in the New START treaty. All of this is very dangerous. I should say it’s equally dangerous the way it’s escalating in China. We don’t talk about it much, but should. But all of this is quite serious.

U. S. policy in Ukraine remains stable. The war must continue in order to severely weaken Russia. That’s policy. Britain, which is a virtual satellite of the United States now, Britain and the United States actually intervened directly last March and April to urge Ukraine not to move towards negotiations. Negotiations were going on with Russia under Turkish auspices. They broke down. We don’t know exactly why, but Britain and the U.S. were very clear that we’re not ready for negotiations, and still not. The official stand remains, despite the war, to severely weaken Russia.

If you think about it, just from a practical point of view, it’s kind of sadistic that people are in fact talking about it. It’s a bargain for the United States. At a small fraction of the huge military budget, the United States is severely degrading the military forces of its main military enemy. That’s being openly discussed now in the United States and Britain pointing this out.

It’s pretty obvious whether that’s a factor or not. You can debate, but it’s certainly a fact. The United States, in fact, you look around, almost the entire world is suffering from Ukraine most, but Africa, Asia, and the curtailment of food and fertilizer shipments having a big effect. Europe is declining, even moving towards deindustrialization because of the breaking of its natural trade commercial relations with Russia. The whole German-based, very successful European industrial system was based on interactions with the East.

Russia doesn’t have much of an economy. It’s about the size of Mexico, but it’s very rich in resources, minerals, oil, all essential for West European industry. It’s collapsing. All over the world, decline, one exception. US is doing brilliantly. It’s degrading the forces of its enemy at very low cost. Fossil fuel companies are just euphoric with the huge profits that come. Germany’s importing liquefied natural gas from the United States at far higher costs than it could get cheaply from Russia. Arms manufacturers are doing great. Food monopolies, the global food system is half a dozen companies raising prices, profits going through the roof.

Yeah, it’s very successful in many ways. How long will Europe agree to accept this? We don’t know. We do know what’s happening in the global south. They’re just refusing to participate. It became very dramatic in the international conference in Munich a couple of weeks ago. It was an international conference, a strategic conference. The United States, Vice President Harris was there, other representatives, desperately trying to get the countries of the south to join the United States in the war.

One after another said, we don’t pay any attention to your hypocritical proclamations. We know exactly what they mean. We’ve suffered from your savagery for centuries. Stop lecturing to us. Just laugh at it. We’re not going to take part in this. We’re going to make our own commercial and other arrangements with Russia and particularly with China. You don’t like it? Too bad.

Even US, long-time US allies like Colombia simply flatly refused. Brazil, no, it’s not our war. I don’t know what Mexico said, but probably something similar. Asia, India, Indonesia, sorry, we continue in our own way. The United States is quite isolated. The English-speaking countries and for the time being, continental Europe are essentially isolated. Probably 90% of the countries in the world don’t even observe the sanctions.

Meanwhile, China is moving ahead with its loan development investment projects, also moving ahead diplomatically. It just threw a major wrench in long-term US policy in the Middle East by arranging the Saudi-Iranian negotiations to a very severe blow to the United States. The control of the Middle East has been a prime concern of US foreign policy for several years.

Now China comes in while the United States was working very hard to put together an alliance of the most reactionary states in the region in a conflict with Iran. It’s called the Abraham Accords. The United States was supposed to applaud. It was wonderful. It’s actually a reactionary alliance subordinated to the United States aimed at Iran. China just dismantled it, took the main element. Saudi Arabia was not technically a member of the Accords, but basically part of it.

The main source of oil pulled it into the Chinese system. It had already happened with the United Arab Emirates, the other major state. China has two major development programs for Eurasia. There’s what’s called the New Silk Road, which goes through the Eurasian countries, but there’s also a Maritime Silk Road that runs along the south through the seas. One of the hubs is the United Arab Emirates. The main, along with Saudi Arabia, the main U. S. ally in the region, the hub of the Maritime Silk Road of China. These things are all taking place. The U.S. can’t stop them with guns. That’s the U.S. comparative advantage, military force.

But it doesn’t stop these things. They continue, and the world is moving towards complicated reconstruction. The Ukrainian war is part of it. The Ukrainian war has driven, I mean, apart from the criminality of the aggression, major crime, it’s also criminally stupid from Putin’s point of view. He gave the United States its fondest wish, Europe, on a silver platter. Instead of an accommodation between Russia, Germany, to the benefit of both, could drive Europe into the hands of Washington, and Russia moves to the east.

Now, we don’t have the details of the latest meeting of China and Russia a couple of days ago, but what’s leaking out indicates probably that the part of it is economic policies, Chinese development of industrial projects in eastern Siberia, and access to the rich mineral resources of eastern Siberia. That’s very likely.

As Russia moves to the east, Europe sits in the pocket of the United States and declines. Well, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, they’re just going in their own direction, making their own arrangements. That seems the way the world is moving. And the U.S. has one overwhelmingly powerful weapon: violence, but it doesn’t work very well in this situation. In fact, the U.S. moving to China, the U.S. which of course controls NATO, has now expanded NATO to the Indo-Pacific region. That is very significant.

The last NATO summit meeting declared that the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean are part of the North Atlantic. So, NATO is now an Indo-Pacific organization. Europe is drawn into the conflict that the U. S. is escalating with China. It’s both military and commercial. The Biden administration has quite openly declared an economic war against China, trying to prevent China’s economic development by withholding from them advanced technology and trying to force Europe, Netherlands particularly, South Korea, Japan to break off their relations with China, which is their main market for advanced technology. Will they accept this? I don’t actually know.

I’m going to take Netherlands as the main industry in the world for crucial parts of the development of semiconductors. Are they going to agree to lose their major market because the U.S. told them to? Maybe. If so, they go into decline. If not, the world changes. I think all of these things are right on the border. And the one top U.S. general, I’ve forgotten his name, just a couple of weeks ago, predicted that there would be a U.S. -China war within two years. There can’t be a U.S. -China war. Both countries get destroyed. There’s no such thing.

But the people, generals, Congress, talk about it as if it’s a possibility. This very casual talk about nuclear war is utterly shocking. You can read today in the New York Times a long interview with Dan Ellsberg, who’s now suffering terminal cancer, but still trying to alert the world to the incredible, unbelievable stupidity of even thinking about nuclear war. It’s totally impossible.

But it’s being bandied about as if it’s some kind of possibility. And Putin is throwing his own oil on the fire. But that’s what we’re hurtling towards, including environmental catastrophe. It’s the most dangerous period in human history.

Alex Levy: Yeah. It’s very, like you say, it’s very concerning that we are just casually talking about a nuclear war and casually talking about the world transitioning from a unipolar order to a multipolar order.

Chomsky on Artificial Intelligence

And like you say, my next question was going to be your thoughts on the China-Russian developments, diplomatic developments, which you answered very thoroughly. And I appreciate that. And it’s impressive, like you say, that we’re moving on to a world where nuclear war is being discussed just casually, like even among friends. Which is a strange time to live in and a concerning one, indeed.

Professor, moving on to an article you wrote on artificial intelligence. You wrote it the last couple of weeks. And it got me thinking on your thoughts on, of course, you write them thoroughly in that article, but in the future, which is moving very rapidly for many of us, including my generation, who has to transition and adapt to a world where AI can come to get all of our jobs.

So what are your thoughts for our listeners who haven’t read your article on ChatGPT, on artificial intelligence, on its dangers in terms of not only taking jobs, but also building a more dangerous world for all of us and its potential threats?

Dr. Noam Chomsky: Well, we should first recognize that a huge amount of the discussion about chatbot and other devices is totally groundless. These have nothing to do. They tell us these systems are designed in such a way that in principle, they can tell us nothing about language, about learning, about intelligence, about thought, nothing. They do some very sophisticated, there’s a lot of sophisticated programming, but basically what it comes down to is sophisticated, high-tech plagiarism. That’s in a certain way. I mean, you have a computer when you’re typing a letter, you get hints about what the next word will be, autofill.

Well, this is glorified autofill. It’s ways of making a good guess about what your next word will be in a sequence of words. If you do this with an astronomical database, extraordinary database, supercomputers, a couple of billion parameters, string it together, you get something that looks pretty much like a normal language use.

The programming is quite sophisticated. So, you don’t choose the most probable next word, because if you did that, it would look kind of bland and not very interesting. So, you pick a lower probability word. So, it’s a little bit surprising that it gives the false impression that something’s happening. I mean, conceivably, somebody will come up with a constructive purpose. So far, there’s none, but it’s very dangerous in many ways.

Not so much taking jobs, maybe in the long term, but I don’t think that’s a major thing. It’s dangerous in other ways. For one thing, people take it seriously. There are cases. People think they’re talking. It’s like asking questions of these devices. What do they call them? Alexa. You ask Alexa, should I leave my wife or something? Alexa says something or other.

Well, it’s Alexa. You don’t pay that much attention. It’s a check, but you do pay attention. And there are already documented cases of people getting deluded into believing these things are real. Thomas Friedman had an article in the New York Times about it, in which he wasn’t criticizing it. He was accepting it. He was saying, oh, my God, it’s Promethean, the greatest advance ever.

Well, people fall for it, cause them a lot of problems. It’s a terrific technique of defamation and disinformation. That’s already being used, especially when you combine it with artificial image creation, which is not very hard. You get things, you can put somebody’s name under it. Fantastic defamation, massive ways of disinformation.

As soon as it gets with bots and organized societies behind it, it’ll be a flood. All of this can be extremely dangerous. No scientific interest, no intellectual interest. But it does have, could have major effects. It’s conceivable that it might replace some work, like maybe routine coding or something like that. But it’s a very threatening, dangerous development.

How To Bring Back Optimism In Our Society

Alex Levy: Professor, it’s a counter idea, counter argument to all of the hype that we’re seeing in terms of ChatGPT and artificial intelligence. It’s also a sobering thought that without checks and balances, these technologies can pose threats that we can’t even imagine. With heightened disinformation and the effects of fake images constructed and many more dangers. And it’s important to have these conversations, to have them in mind.

I’m beginning to be aware of the time, professor I know we have to wrap up soon. So, my last question goes back to when you were remembering the 1930s and how you said the times there were in your childhood were of optimism and how to build a future that we can all strive towards. And it seems that in today’s conversations, in today’s political climate, and in today’s society, the conversations are how can we become more divided and how can we really not be optimistic into the future, having more of a dystopian vision.

So, professor, my last question for you is how do you think we can reconcile our differences in the American society in this bipartisan environment that we are on and how can we get back to that optimist perspective, optimistic vision of the future?

Dr. Noam Chomsky: I think we know exactly how to do it. You go back to the Obama years, not very far, the message was hope and change. We can do it. Brought it in a lot of people, a lot of the working class that’s now voting for Trump was voting for Obama, took the word seriously, the words seriously, the actions didn’t coincide with the words. The actions were betray people, tell them this is just rhetoric. You voted for me, now go home, I’ll continue working for the rich and powerful.

Well, what’s the answer? Take it seriously and do it. Can be done. I mean, a lot of things can be done. Let’s take the financial crisis, 2008. Let’s be concrete. One of the things that happened was that the government virtually nationalized the auto industry, which was collapsing. The government took it over. What did they do? Bailed out. The owners put them back in their positions, maybe new faces, but the same class and set them to redoing what they had been doing, producing more automobiles, more SUVs.

There was an alternative. Hand it over to the workforce, hand it over to the communities. Let it be run by the people and workers in Detroit, not rich bankers in New York. Have them produce things that the country needs, like mass transportation, not more and more SUVs. That was a possibility. Wasn’t thought about because we were not organized, active, militant enough to make that an issue. Okay, let’s do it. Let’s make it an issue.

Let’s say, yes, these things are possible. That’s one example. There’s a thousand more examples. Another example is take over the fossil fuel industries. In fact, you could even buy them at market prices. The government could, and it wouldn’t be more than a bailout for the financial industry. Turn them to sustainable energy. It can be done.

Now, I see the workforce is even interested. West Virginia, Coal State, United Mine Workers has accepted a transition program. My friend and colleague, Robert Pollin, he and his group, Perry Group, have been working on this in the ground. Working class people have said, okay, we can imagine moving to a transition program away from coal towards capping the mines, developing sustainable energy, better jobs, better communities, better life. The coal baron representative Joe Manchin, he doesn’t want to hear about it. Of course, the coal, the fossil fuel industries don’t want to hear about it.

But these things are on the verge of possibility. And there’s many more like them. You can think case after case. Well, the reason to be optimistic is there are these opportunities. Can it be achieved? Who knows? Can’t tell until you try. It’s like negotiations in Ukraine. You don’t try, nothing will happen. You do try, maybe it’ll fail. Maybe it’ll succeed. Same with everything else.

Alex Levy: Professor, thank you. Thank you for that answer and for this enlightening conversation. I’m sure our listeners will find it very insightful as the previous ones. And I’m looking forward to having this conversation more in the future and getting to get your insights into our world, ourselves, and how to become more optimistic and also active in building our society to live better.

So, Professor, again, thank you so much for joining me.

Dr. Noam Chomsky: Very glad to be with you.

Want a summarized version of this long conversation? Here is the summary.

SUMMARY:

In this podcast episode featuring Professor Noam Chomsky, the conversation revolves around various significant issues, including the upcoming 2024 presidential election, the current state of American democracy, the Republican and Democratic parties’ dynamics, and the broader societal landscape shaped by economic policies.

The host welcomes Professor Chomsky, a renowned scholar, and engages in a dialogue on pressing matters. Chomsky’s insights are sought on the forthcoming presidential election, which he considers to be pivotal not only for the U.S. but also for the world. He emphasizes two primary concerns that transcend the election: the threat of nuclear war and the urgent need to address climate change. Chomsky refers to a recent dire report by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that underscores the need for immediate action to mitigate the effects of global warming.

The conversation then shifts to the state of American democracy, with Chomsky highlighting challenges posed by the Republican party’s transformation into what he terms a “radical insurgency.” He explains how the party has shifted focus from economic policies to cultural issues, aiming to divert attention from policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and powerful. Chomsky traces the history of this strategy back to Nixon, who initiated the “Southern Strategy” and the subsequent shift toward exploiting cultural issues to maintain voter support.

The discussion continues with Chomsky analyzing the decline of industries in rural areas, resulting in economic struggles and a loss of social cohesion. He delves into the impact of neoliberalism, which he characterizes as class war benefiting the wealthy. Chomsky points out that the Democratic party has its own divisions, highlighting the contrast between party management and the more progressive Sanders movement.

Chomsky then compares U.S. policy positions with those of other countries, challenging the notion that progressive policies in the U.S. are as radical as they might seem within the American context. He discusses social democratic policies like universal healthcare, free higher education, and affordable childcare, which are widely accepted elsewhere but are considered radical in the United States due to its business-driven culture.

Throughout the conversation, Chomsky underscores the complexities of the American political landscape, drawing attention to the deep-seated issues that the nation faces, from economic inequality and corporate influence to a deeply divided electorate. The upcoming 2024 election, he suggests, will serve as another critical juncture in the ongoing struggle for change and progress in the United States.

In this continuation of the podcast conversation with Professor Noam Chomsky, the focus shifts to the ongoing Ukraine-Russia crisis. The host raises concerns about the escalation of the conflict, including President Biden’s recent visit to Ukraine and the removal of the nuclear treaty. Chomsky provides a perspective on the matter, addressing both the dynamics of the conflict and its wider implications.

Chomsky starts by acknowledging the profound hypocrisy in international relations, exemplified by U.S. officials visiting war-torn regions like Ukraine while avoiding places undergoing American-led destruction, such as Iraq. He emphasizes the importance of recognizing this hypocrisy and its impact on global perceptions.

Turning to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Chomsky underscores the intensification of the war, resulting in significant casualties and destruction. He describes the conflict as a proxy war between Russia and the United States, with Ukraine suffering the consequences. He notes that the world perceives this conflict as fought over Ukrainian lives, seen as expendable pawns in a larger geopolitical struggle.

Chomsky predicts that the conflict may continue to escalate, potentially leading to Ukraine’s further economic decline and Russia’s retaliation against Western Ukraine. He highlights Russia’s inflammatory statements regarding nuclear weapons and the suspension of the New START treaty as alarming developments.

Chomsky also draws attention to the escalating situation in China, underscoring the need to address its potential implications as well. He points out the consistent U.S. policy in Ukraine to weaken Russia, viewing it as an opportunity to degrade Russia’s military capabilities with relatively minimal investment.

Chomsky highlights the global repercussions of the Ukraine conflict, affecting various regions. He notes that Europe’s trade relations with Russia have been disrupted, leading to economic decline and potential deindustrialization. However, he points out that the United States appears to benefit from this situation, with arms manufacturers, fossil fuel companies, and food monopolies experiencing increased profits.

Chomsky contrasts this with the reactions of countries in the global south, many of which have refused to participate in the conflict and instead are pursuing their own arrangements, particularly with Russia and China. He mentions that nations like Colombia and Brazil have rejected involvement in the conflict, reflecting a growing sentiment against U.S. intervention and manipulation.

In summary, Chomsky offers a critical analysis of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, highlighting its complexities, the global power dynamics at play, and the broader consequences for international relations.

In this final part of the podcast conversation with Professor Noam Chomsky, the discussion shifts to the current political climate in the United States and the challenges of reconciling differences in a divided society. The host raises concerns about the prevailing sense of division and dystopian perspectives that seem to dominate discussions today. Chomsky reflects on how to foster optimism and unity in American society.

Chomsky starts by pointing out that achieving unity is possible if political leaders take their promises seriously and actually implement change. He cites the Obama administration’s slogan of “hope and change,” which initially inspired people with the prospect of positive transformation. However, Chomsky highlights that actions didn’t align with words, leading to disappointment and cynicism among many working-class citizens.

To restore optimism and overcome divisions, Chomsky emphasizes concrete actions that could be taken. He cites the financial crisis of 2008 as an example, suggesting that the government could have taken a more transformative approach. Instead of merely bailing out failing industries and returning them to the same owners, Chomsky suggests the possibility of worker or community ownership, with a focus on producing essential goods like sustainable transportation rather than profit-driven products like SUVs.

Chomsky further proposes taking over fossil fuel industries and transitioning to sustainable energy. He notes that even in coal-mining states like West Virginia, there’s potential for support among workers for a transition program. Chomsky highlights the importance of recognizing these opportunities for change and organizing efforts to make them a reality.

Chomsky concludes that while there are challenges, the key to optimism lies in recognizing that possibilities for positive change exist. He encourages people to push for these changes through active engagement, emphasizing that without trying, progress is impossible.

The conversation ends with a sense of hope and the idea that action and engagement can lead to a more optimistic and transformative future.

For Further Reading:

Education: For Whom and For What?: Noam Chomsky (Transcript)

Sam Altman: GPT-4, ChatGPT, and the Future of AI (Transcript)

Daniel Ellsberg: The Doomsday Machine @ Talks at Google (Transcript)

Steven Pinker Discusses Linguistics as a Window to Understanding the Brain (Transcript)

Related Posts

• Transcript of Trump Remarks at US Army 250th Parade – June 14, 2025
• Full Transcript of Trump Remarks at Fort Bragg – Jun 11, 2025
• Transcript of Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: War For War’s Sake
• Transcript of President Trump Remarks At Bill-Signing Ceremony – June 12, 2025
• Transcript of A Conversation With Dr. Shashi Tharoor on Operation Sindoor