Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On Masters Of Mankind 20150405

A bit of housekeeping. Preassigned books will be available in the lobby on garcia street books. Also for those of you in the Colorado Hotel which i understand now is standing room only please, here afterwards to get books. Well, good evening santa fe. [cheers and applause] [speaking spanish] [applause] spent im david and welcome to one of the most anticipated events of this or any other year. Noam chomsky. [cheers and applause] and backstage i was joking with noam. I held up the slide that said sold out in which will be i think ammunition for his enemies. But rest assured, noam chomsky has never sold out. [laughter] go. [applause] thanks to the Land Foundation in pursuit of cultural Freedom Series which organizes events. Thanks also for enabling alternative radio to digitize our noam chomsky audio archive which now numbers close to 250 recordings. You can go to alternative radio. Org. Thank you. [applause] i started alternative radio because of noam chomsky. I wrote him a letter in the rollback. We started corresponding, and after a while i suggested we do an interview. He said yes of course. That was 31 years ago. Its an honor for me to introduce noam chomsky. But how can i introduce someone who as they richly say needs no introduction . Well, do Something Different, i thought, like kelly story. Theres a powerful from the sunni position called the elephant in the dark. For those enough away with that it is the esoteric inner dimension of islam. Others have told this story and ive added a bit to it. Its called the elephant in the dark. Some men, and women perhaps, who have never seen an elephant are blindfolded and are asked to touch different parts of the elephant and identify what they are touching. Someone touches and ear and says, its a fan. Another touches the tail and says confidently, its got to be a row. Another touches the tuscan says for sure it is a speed. Another a leg says with great confidence it is a pillar and on and on and on. They started start bickering among themselves, each adamantly insisting that he was right. Their voices were getting louder and louder. And then along comes a sage stage who tells them guys chill out. This is not in i can hardly imagine in the 13th century that sage would say guys, chill out, but kind of modernize it a little bit. Let me remove your blindfold. See, its an elephant. They were all flabbergasted. For many of us all over the world noam chomsky is that sage the guide. Never showboating or grandstanding but simply laying out what he sees back to with the facts and documentation. He doesnt tell you what to do but he teaches by example. The next step is up to you. You have to figure out your path of societal involvement and action. For decades he has been illuminating the dark crevices of a rapacious Economic System and an imperialist foreign policy. And always in a calm soft voice. And listen for the irony. By any measure hes led a most extraordinary life. Hes a pioneer in the field of linguistics. To call his efforts tireless and his writings prolific our huge understatement. If records are kept for such categories as giving lectures and interviews, writing books and articles, he would be world champion. At 86, he still a Rebel Without a cause. And as they say in your dish [inaudible] and yes, there comes that four letter word children cover your ears, love. He is deeply loved by many. Ive seen it on the faces of people, and its no wonder because hes been there for so many, from nicaragua, to palestine to colombia. And this evening he is here for us. Brothers and sisters, please welcome noam chomsky. [cheers and applause] thank you. Its now 70 years since the end of the most horrific war in history. It ended with the use of an ultimate weapon which can bring Human History to an end a day which i happen to remember very well. We have been living under the shadow ever since. 20 years later told two leading figures of intellectual life, russell and einstein, issued an appeal to the people of the world calling on them to face a choice that is stark and dreadful and inescapable, shall we put an end to the human race or show mankind renounce war . They recognized of course that war can very quickly turned into terminal nuclear war. In 1947 the bulletin of atomic scientists established its famous Doomsday Clock, setting it seven minutes to midnight. Midnight is the end. Last january it was advanced to three minutes before midnight. Thats a threat level that had not been reached for 30 years and the grim moment to which i will return. The accompanying explanation invoked the two major threats to human survival Nuclear War Nuclear weapons and unchecked Climate Change. They condemned World Leaders who are endangering every person on earth by failing to perform their most important duty, ensuring in preserving the health and vitality of human civilization. The Russell Einstein the bill differs from the current declaration into crucial respects. One is that it did not include the threat of environmental catastrophe, which 50 years ago was not sufficiently understood. And secondly it directly addresses the people of the world, not the political leadership. That difference is of some significance. Theres substantial evidence that on Climate Change, Nuclear Weapons planning, International Policies generally the population seems much more concerned than the political leadership, who do not regard their most important duty to be ensuring in preserving the health and vital of human civilization as ample evidence reveals. Its hardly a secret that even in the most free and democratic societies that governments respond only in limited ways to popular will. For the United States, its wellestablished in academic scholarship that a considerable majority of the population at the lower end of the income wealth scale are effectively disenfranchised. Their views are simply ignored by policymakers. Influence increases slowly as one moves up the scale and at the very top which means a fraction of 1 the policy is pretty much determined. That being the case the attitudes at the top of the ladder are a very great significance. These are revealed dramatically in a hole of ceos that was released last january at the davos conference in switzerland, the conference of masters of the universe as the Business Press describes them by rather ominous coincidence. This was just at the moment when the Doomsday Clock was advanced to three minutes to midnight. Though poll revealed that Climate Change did not merit inclusion among the top 19 risks that concern ceos. Worse still at the top of the ranking of perceived risks was regulation. That is the prime method for addressing environmental catastrophe. Their overriding concern was with Growth Prospects for their companies. Thats not surprising. Whatever their individual beliefs in their institutional role, that ceos are constrained to adopt policies that are designed to post extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, in the words of the Doomsday Clock declaration. And given their enormous role in determining state policy, its less surprising that policy lags behind Public Opinion on the concerns that move the clock so close to midnight. The effects are before our eyes every day so take last sundays wall street journal, typical example. Theres a Weekend Review section. It features an article entitled fossil fuels will save the world, really. The lead story in the new section is headlined u. S. Producers ready new oil ways. The article glories and the thought of what they call an ocean of oil from u. S. Shale as American Energy companies are poised to unleash a further flood while they lead us exuberantly to the precipice. Scientists are well aware that most of the oil must be left in the ground if theres to be some hope for a decent life or our grandchildren, but who cares as long as there are spectacular profits for tomorrow. On International Affairs as well, the popular opinion diverge significantly from that of the decisionmaking class among many other examples a considerable majority in the United States have held that the United Nations not the u. S. , should take the lead in international crises. Such views are so remote from all the opinion that they are barely even articulated publicly. A good part of the reason is the nature of the opinion. And as often is the case its a critical end of the spectrum thats the most informative or so heres an example from a featured article by the former director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the Current Issue of the new york review of books leading u. S. Intellectual journal rather left liberal in orientation. Heres what she writes. American contributions to interNational Security, Global Economic growth, freedom, and human well being have been so selfevidently unique and have been so clearly directed to others benefit that americans have long believed that the u. S. Amounts to a different kind of country, where others push their national interests, the u. S. Tries to advance universal principles. Well, the comment should be superfluous, but whats important is that this is what many in socalled enlightened circles actually believe. Its quite an astonishing fact in a free society where information is readily available. And the impact on policy is not obscured. Nuclear weapons policy reveals very dramatically how governments, and also the concentrator domestic concentrations of power that largely dominate governments how both regard the principle that ensuring in preserving the health and vitality of human civilization is the most important duty. When we inquire we discover that regrettably governments have consistently not even considered security of their own populations as a particularly high priority. Its rather enlightening to review the record, albeit with some high points or maybe low points. So lets begin with the early days of the ultimate weapon. At a time when the United States had overwhelming wealth and power, remarkable security. There was, however a potential threat icbms with nuclear warheads. Theres a standard scholarly review of nuclear policies. I met george bundy the National Security advisor to president s kennedy and johnson. He had access to the highest level of documents. Quoting him now, he said that Timely Development of the listed missiles during the Eisenhower Administration is one of the best achievements of those eight years or yet, it is well to begin with a recognition that both the United States and the soviet union might be in much less Nuclear Danger today if these missiles have never been developed. He then adds, remarkable comment. He says i am aware of no serious contemporary proposal in or out is the government that Ballistic Missiles should somehow be banned by agreement. In short, there was apparently no thought of trying to prevent the sole serious threat to the United States the threat of utter destruction. Rather, the institutional imperatives of state power prevailed, much as in the case of the ceos for whom the fate of the species is not such a little concerned that it does not even enter into the ranking of risks are furthermore these Shocking Facts seem to arouse little interest or comment. In fact, ive never seen a reference to them. Could development of these missiles have been prevented . There might have been opportunities. One suggested indication is a proposal by stalin in 1952 offering to allow germany to be unified with free elections on condition that it not join a hostile military alliance, which was hardly an extreme condition in the light of the history of the preceding halfcentury. Stalins proposal was taken seriously by the respected political commentator james warburg, but apart from him it was ignored or ridiculed. Recent scholarship has just begun to take a different view. The bitterly anticommunist soviet scholar from harvard takes the status of stalins proposal to the unresolved mystery, washington, he said wasted little effort and flatly rejecting moscows initiative on grounds that were embarrassingly unconvincing, leaving open the basic question. Was installed and genuinely ready to sacrifice the newly created german democratic republic, east germany, on the altar of real democracy with consequences for world peace and for American Security . That could have been an enormous. Leffler, one of the most respected cold war scholars that recently published a review of research in released soviet archives. He observes that many scholars were surprised to discover, quoting him now that the sinister, brutal head of the secret Police Proposed that the kremlin offer the west a deal on the unification and neutralization of germany, agreeing to sacrifice the east german economys regime to reduce eastwest tensions and improve internal political and Economic Conditions in russia. Opportunities that were squandered in favor of securing german participation in nato. Its actually a shocking decision that is being relived right now. Under the circumstances of the early 50s its not impossible that agreement might have been reached that wouldve protected the security of the u. S. Population from the gravest threat on the horizon. But the option apparently was not even considered. And possible opportunities were dismissed with ridiculed, another indication of how slight a role authentic security plays in state policy. And to heighten the extraordinary significance of this failure, it was just at the time that the Doomsday Clock was moved to two minutes to midnight, the closest it has ever been. These events from the early days of the cold war have considerable residents right now, right at the borders of russia and ukraine. There are serious crisis that traces right back to the end of the cold war period a crucial issue at that time around 1990 had to do with the fate of nato. Now that the alleged threat of russian invasion had disappeared. One minute believe nader would have dissolved. Quite the contrary. Expanded radically. Mikhail gorbachev agreed to allow a unified germany to join nato, rather significant concession but there was a quid pro quo. Namely that nato would not expand one inch to the east. That was the phrase that was used in high level internal discussions, referring to east germany. Nato at once expanded to east germany. Gorbachev naturally objected, that he was informed by washington that these were only verbal commitments and nothing in writing. The kind of unspoken implication is that if youre naive enough to accept verbal gentlemens agreement with the United States, its your problem. Clinton came along and expanded nato to the borders of russia, and as another leading International Relations recently pointed out in a major establishment journal of foreign affairs, he pointed out that the indications that ukraine might be assimilated into the western system possibly even into nato could not fail to be threatening to any russian leader. We need only imagine how the United States would have reacted at the height of soviet power if the warsaw pact had taken over most of this hemisphere and now mexico we are preparing to join the rush and run military alliance. Last december the western backed Ukrainian Parliament voted 3038 to rescind the policy of nonalignment that had been adopted by the ousted president. And they committed ukraine in their words to deepen cooperation with nato in order to achieve the criteria required for membership in this organization. The growing crisis concerning ukraine is no slight threat, and it is an unavoidable one by diplomatic steps to guarantee ukrainian neutrality steps which regrettably are not being taken. Returning to the 1950s, other developments revealed a low priority assigned to authentic security. When Nikita Khrushchev took over after stalins death he recognized that it could not compete militarily with the United States and that if russia hoped to escape its economic backwardness and the devastating effect of the war the arms race would have to be reversed. Accordingly, he proposed sharp mutual reductions in offensive weapons. The incoming Kennedy Administration considered his offer and rejected it. Instead turning to Rapid Military expansion. The policies are summarized by distinguished International Relations scholars kenneth waltz, point out that the Kennedy Administration undertook the largest strategic and conventional peacetime military buildup the world has yet seen, even as khrushchev was trying at once to carry through a major reduction in conventional forces, and to follow a strategy of minimum deterrence here and we did so even though the balance of strategic weapons greatly favored the United States. Well once again the decision u. S. Decision severely harmed National Security while enhancing state power. How severely it harmed National Security was revealed in 1962 when khrushchev sent missiles to cuba. Partially that was a foolhardy attempt to right the balance. Partially it was because of the very clear threat of u. S. Invasion in the course of a major terrorist campaign that kennedy was waging against cuba. Kind of erased from our history but very much alive in real history. Chris childs chris childs effort to set off what Arthur Schlesinger called the most dangerous moment in history. What happened then. Careful clear consideration no time to go through the details but its worth remembering that at the peak moment of the crisis october 2627, 1962, kennedy received a letter from khrushchev offering to end the crisis peacefully by simultaneous public withdrawal of russian missiles from cuba and u. S. Missiles from turkey. These were jupiter missiles, liquid propelled, meaning slow to set in motion which means that they were first strike weapons, not intended for deterrent. They were also obsolete weapons. The u. S. Had already issued had already issued an order to withdraw them because they were being replaced by even more lethal weapons. So that was kennedys choice. Shall we publicly withdraw obsolete missiles from first Strike Missiles from turkey on the border of russia, which are being replaced by even more lethal missiles, or should we refuse . He refused. His own estimate subjective estimate of nuclear war at the time was between onethird and one half. That in my view is one of the most appalling decisions in history, and even more appalling is that kennedy is praised for his cool courage in handling the crisis. They were frightened away. The security of the population was a matter of little concern as usual. Ten years after that the Reagan Administration launched operations to probe russian defenses and simulating air and naval attacks against russia. These actions were undertaken at a very tense moment right at that time when the missiles were being installed in western europe in a five to ten minutes flight time for the district and also reagan had announced his program that is presented here but every strategic analyst on all sides understands Missile Defense is a first strike weapon. If Missile Defense works which it might not we couldnt stop the first strike strike but it conceivably might stop a retaliatory strike, which means its a first strike weapon and that was being installed at the time. All of this very seriously caused great alarm and russia especially with its simulated attacks that led to a major war scare in 1983 that was the last time that the doomsday reached three minutes before midnight 1984. The newly released russian archives reveals that the danger was even more severe than historians had previously assumed. There is a recent comprehensive u. S. Intelligence study which runs through the evidence now available and concludes in its words the war scare was for real and it concludes that u. S. Intelligence underestimated the threat of the preventative Nuclear Strike which would have been the end. Recently we learned that it was even more dangerous than that in the midst of these world threatening developments, the Early Warning systems detected an incoming missile strike from the United States sending the highest level of alert. The russian officer on duty decided that it was a false alarm and he did not transmit the warnings violating protocol. That was the difference between the survival and extermination. Russian air Defense Systems are much less sophisticated than those of the United States. They pretty much rely on radar which means line of sight detection of incoming missiles in the u. S. Systems relying on the satellites to detect to the point of the launch so the russian systems are on much more tense alert, great danger to us of course. 20 years before that in the missile crisis, the Russian Submarine commander blocked the launching of the torpedoes which could have set off a terminal nuclear war. There were three submarines into the two other commanders authorized the launch. Yet its another sign of health how fin is the thread that we grasp. There are chilling estimate of the failure of the systems which as i mentioned that they are they are far more reliable than the russian ones and theres the atomic scientists of several years of data on accidental reports of soviet military launches by the Automated Systems aborted by human interventions. These are right in the years of the greatest teachers of 1789 to 93. The author concludes that nuclear war is the blacks on my feet and never see except in the brief moment that its killing us. We delay in eliminating the risk at our own peril. Now is the time to address the threat because now we are still alive. The former commander general recently reviewed his long career as a strategic weapons plan her and he wrote that he had been among the most avid but for now it is his burden to declare that in my judgment they served us extremely ill and he outlines the reasons and he raises a haunting question by what authority do the generations of leaders in the Nuclear Weapons states usurp the power to dictate the odds of continued life on the planet. Why does such audacity persist at the moment when we should stand trembling in the face of our folly and united in our commitment to abolish its most deadly manifestations. The general went on to conclude that we have so far survived the nuclear age by some combination of skill and divine intervention and i suspect the latter looking over the records one can understand his judgment. These are not risks that would be accepted by any sane Decision Maker but they are being accepted by those that are saying as the devastating risks of environmental catastrophes are being faced with eyes open and ignored by the masters of the universe. All of them are trapped by a logic that is deeply pathological and must be cured and quickly if we are not to put an end to the human race. [applause] of these lights are super bright. What is it like being a sufi sage . I promised i would do Something Different in introducing him. The un did that very cheerful talk on the institutional logic that is deeply pathological and that must be cured and quickly if we are not to put an end to the human race. How do we go about doing this . Its easy. Its all in our hands. In the case of Nuclear Weapons actually the answer is known that there are ways to end the threat of Nuclear Weapons. Furthermore as many of you know, it is an obligation of the Nuclear Weapons states to carry out a goodfaith efforts to eliminate Nuclear Weapons totally. Thats article six of the nonproliferation treaty and a legal obligation as the International Court of justice ruled and those efforts could be carried out but unfortunately we are going in the opposite direction so president ial recently announced that trillion Dollar Program to modernize the capacity of the powers acting more or less similarly. There are policies being conducted by mentioned ukraine but that is not the only one bringing the Global Situation to the point that it might lead to a Nuclear Strike that has been known for decades if the power launches a Nuclear Strike, it will be destroyed by the effects of the Nuclear Explosions so theres no way scape. Its any new clear border between any power in the capacity to the extermination. We know how to end it but the steps conduct that are in the opposite direction and there have been some efforts to implement the steps that would reduce the danger so one major threat right now has to do with iran and the United States that is claimed by the officials and others that iran is the greatest threat the world sees. Its kind of interesting to compare this with the Global Opinion taken by the polling agencies. At about a year about a year ago we did ask people around the world what is the greatest threats to world peace and the United States won by a huge margin but nobody else was even close and the second was pakistan which was probably inflated by the indian vote. [laughter] but fortunately americans are spared the knowledge of these facts and anyway here iran is the greatest threat to the questions that one can ask about what the threat is but lets say there is a threat whatever it might be is there a way to end it . Like to stick to the fiveminute mark. There have been potential steps which have been dropped by the United States. Thats unfortunate. In the case of Nuclear Weapons we know how to end the problem. Its feasible. Its a matter of implementing policies that are understood and that could be carried out if there were sufficient to popular pressure to compel them to be carried out. The populations of the world cared about survival. The leaders typically dont. They care about power. And we can influence those decisions particularly in the countries like this in the more a more free and open societies with regards to the environmental catastrophe its a solution there are measures that can be undertaken to mitigate the threats and maybe to overcome them but again policy is going in the opposite direction. What i quoted in the wall street journal is unfortunately pretty typical. You read it in the business pages across the spectrum United States can become the saudi arabia 21st century to achieve Energy Independence and we can flood the world with only loyal. Its great for American Consumers who can drive more and all these marvelous things are driving us towards the precipice which will fall over and will be extremely harmful or devastating for generations not very far away. Senator coffman of arkansas is one of the many intellectual giants in the legislative bodies and recently announced we do have a great deal to fear from iran because they control tehran. We should add you will discover senator coffman who even graduated from harvard is positioning himself to be the foreignpolicy specialist of the Republican Party taking the mantle of mccain and graham. He has other interesting warnings i dont know how much he followed his career but when he was running for the senate in arkansas, he warned the citizens of arkansas that the mexican drug cartels are linked to isis and joined together they are working to send the terrorists across the border into the United States where they can kill citizens of arkansas and of course all of this is the fault of president obama leading an open border into salon. If thats true we should move the clock to two minutes to midnight. The election in israel. Netanyahu on his third consecutive term and the cofounder says that in yahoo is good for the palestinians because he is very clear that no palestinian state, no compromise there are cosmetic differences between the two major israeli parties and in the two state solution with your view on what happened in israel . How much difference there is between the parties. They barely made it past. There are some differences. One difference if you read the appeal to the electorate they have extreme fear mongering. The citizens of israel are being driven to the polls. Its all in the efforts to undermine his policy of defending israel. That kind of fear mongering and racism. The society has been drifting very far to the right it is a Nuclear Weapon state weapons state and a violent state that started with lots of aggression. Its with the exception of israel and the United States and it could be an extreme danger that is already a very dangerous state. The conclusions i think our analyzing quite accurately. Its argued acrosstheboard by the palestinians and others but there are two options. Either a two state settlement in accordance with the Overwhelming International consensus which includes a centrally everyone outside of the United States of israel. That is one possibility. The other possibility is supposed to be what is called a one state solution, israel takes over with a whole former palestine, jordan of the sea and then there will be what is called a demographic problem. Too many in a jewish state. From the palestinian supporters like you mentioned who regard this positively say well then it will be possible to carry out the apartheid struggle, civil rights struggle to call for the rights of palestinians within this one state. The problem in that analysis is that these are not the two options. The two options are quite different. The second option is not an option. There is no reasonable possibility that israel will take over the territory and face this demographic problem. At the second option is the alternative to the states and is quite different. It is what is exactly happening before our eyes. There are policies being implemented right before our eyes. We can see them and see where they are directed. Theyve been in motion for almost a half a century, and the purpose is clear. What they are doing, the policys first over theyve taken over what is coaster is the jerusalem. It includes a substantial areas in the west bank and its supposed to be the international territory. Israel has taken over all of the parties except for the very far out ones. It is east of jerusalem to include a large town was built mostly during the clinton years and the purpose is to subdivide the west bank to partition it. They reach to jericho reached to jericho which will be less than palestinian hands. So it is extending to the east pretty much dissecting the west bank and if you look at the other corridors to the north including the other new israeli towns they break up the region further, and in addition, israel is taking over. Its committed to taking over everything that is within the socalled separation declared by the International Opinion for the u. S. Continues to support the policies. That excludes the palestinians from the orchards into salon and furthermore, israel is systematically taking over the jordan valley. That is roughly a third of the west bank. Much of it the palestinians are being steadily expelled by one another and the pretext sometimes the jewish settlements are being established. The traditional method for 100 years now are ultimately incorporated and where you look at that pattern you can see whats happening. They are carrying out the reasonable and intelligent program to integrate into israel every thing that might be of any value in the west bank. But to exclude the palestinian population, the areas that israel is taking over downtown to many palestinians and those that were there are largely expelled. That will leave the palestinian population into some kind of limbo. In one the one state to the palestinians lose everything. That is the lie of alternative. There is no serious alternative that anyone has made any meaningful case for. But to think that there could be one state, unfortunately this is the assumption that made across the board but if you think it through you can see it is extremely unlikely. What is to stop them its in the hands of the United States. The United States officially objects to these policies so the official u. S. Policy says it is unhelpful. But the u. S. Continues to support them. Thats providing the military economic diplomatic support for them. Whether it is motto or anyone else. There are differences in the policies and extremely alarmist rhetoric. So there are some differences but they are not fundamental differences. In new mexico under the u. S. Law, native american and a spanish land grant heirs have lost common land and their rights have been separated for commercial use. What hope for the future do you see from traditional people continuing to defend the rights of the commons into the use of the Natural Resources rather than exploitation for profit . Again same story. These are decisions to population could make in the case of the United States and of course as we all know, this has been going on for 500 or 400 years ever since the first english settlers came. There has been a steady attack on the indian nations driving them and exterminating them sending them to reservations. There are two fundamental crimes in history. But one is termination of the indigenous population and the other is of course slavery but its impact is still remaining. Of the united the United States is a separate colonial society. Thats an unusual form of imperialism its a form of imperialism in which the imperial powers originally in england settles the country that is being taken over, drive software exterminates the population that is an extreme form of imperialism. Its true if the anglo sphere that extend out of england through the United States, canada, australia, new zealand almost thats an unusual form of imperialism for the Indigenous People and yes they are fighting back and need support however there is another link about to be made about the preservation to the commons. That is is back to Climate Change. The commons or the environment in which we live. If they are privatized and handed over to exxon mobil and chevron and so on then we are dead for the reasons that i just mentioned that are pretty obvious. If they are preserved for the common good, we have a possibility of surviving. If you look around the world almost everywhere, its the indigenous populations which are in the lead trying to protect the commons from distraction of the industrialist capitalist powers, china and others. So australia is and iindia its the in india its the tribal people. All around the world the countries that have substantial majorities and populations that have taken steps towards trying to preserve the commons which have the rights of nature in the constitution, ecuador made an interesting effort to keep some of its oil in the ground where it out to be. If the rich European Countries would pay ecuador a fraction of the prophet that it would have received from the marketing of the fossil fuels the countries refused so now they are also destroying valuable firms. Its a striking fact that its the Indigenous People who have been driven to the margins of survival were in the lead to protect us from the foley we are now tearing out which is likely to destroy the possibility and that is a crucial aspect. Of the day after the claim of march and september the very next day the rockefellers brothers disinvestment from fossil fuels. You cant miss the significance of that giving John Rockefellers background. Is this the start of a Major Movement in terms of the divestment in both corporations. An activist told me this is one of the hottest issues in stamford to harvard. Its a hot issue on the campuses and yes its important. Its symbolic and a significant and these are some of the steps that can be made to impede the race to the precipice. How important it is like Everything Else it depends on people like me and you and whether we do something about it. I want to talk about two ships one fictional and one real, the. And moby dick and titanic. I think that it was right on this stage that years ago but was talked about urging to destroy moby dick no matter what and to take the crew down with him it was of no concern to him and what do you think about that metaphor of the nature and that he is an outofcontrol kind of capitalism and when it comes to the titanic, the reforms that are offered by the forms of power are cosmetic recycled your cardboard, to wage a previous and think like that sorry to the previous drivers. [laughter] like any kind of model and metaphor there are some differences. You might say that hitler was in a specially towards the end of the war he was dedicated to continuing the war even if germany was totally destroyed and it was the fault of the germans if they didnt succeed at winning the war. But in our case it is somewhat different it is institutional logic. Its not a matter of individuals there are those that voted in the pool if you ask them maybe they contributed they contribute to the sierra contributed to the sierra club and maybe they are in favor but in their institutional role as managers of major corporations, the heavy duty and a requirement to maximize the profit and market share and to ignore what the economists call externalities of the impact of the transaction on others that doesnt enter into the market calculations. In this case the externality happens to be the survival of the grandchildren but they cannot in their institutional role at attempt to the problem because their task is to maximize profit and market share. There is a range of choices of course had to corporations as to how they operate about this overwhelming institutional property happens to be lethal in its nature. It cannot continue if we are going to survive and in the case of state power it isnt dissimilar. Quite typically the state and government regard their own populations is a major enemy. For example they reveal the extent to which the government regards the population as an enemy that is to be monitored and controlled. The pretext of defending tourism is very weak as you may recall when the revelations came out at first it was claimed by the government that over 50 terrorist acts had been presented by the nsa surveillance but they reduced it to maybe a dozen or so. It was finally reduced to one case someone had sent 8,500 to somalia and that was the net yield of this massive program aimed at the population to ensure their control and obedience and that is typical of the government. The leadership is committed to power. If you think through the record of nuclear power, if you look at the details much worse but the record is one of disregard for the safety, welfare for the population and steps in order to enhance the state power. Thats the way the powerful institutions function and these things have to be to overcome institutional pathologies is a lot harder than overcoming an individual pathology. And in that case you can throw them into the ocean or submit them to psychoanalysis psychoanalysis were institutionalized in and there are remedies. And in the case is far more serious. As for rearranging the chairs on the titanic its not a bad image but there are some steps being taken. The development of the solar energy for example is proceeding there are major efforts to try to block it, but its proceeding unfortunately, this is not of the center where it is proceeding to the major production of solar panels in china. This means sophisticated ones at the cutting edge of the technology and solar panel production. But some steps are being taken. There are some environmental rules but by and large the primary trust of the policy is in the wrong direction. Years ago the philosopher john dewey said politics is the shadow cast on society by big business. How would you evaluate the shadow today in light of Citizens United and other Supreme Court rulings . The comment was accurate and extends way back in the 1950s i think some of you will remember there was a clip of said of the United States as a oneparty state is a oneparty state of the Business Party which has two factions, democrats and republicans. [applause] and that was pretty accurate at the time but its less accurate today. The United States is still a oneparty state, that there is only one faction. Of the republican the Republican Party has pretty much departed from being a functioning parliamentary organization. But thats not just my judgment. At the very highly respected conservative analyst to the American Enterprise institute rightwing think tank pointed out recently and accurately that the Republican Party has been what we call a radical insurgency no longer committed to the parliamentary participation. Theres a lot of truth to that we have seen dramatically the last couple of years. We are seeing it right now, just take a look at todays paper, the description of the house budget. What does it do with a sleightofhand which comes from the u. S. Market about balancing the budget, but what it actually does is undermine medicare moving to privatize it which means it is the one part of the Healthcare System that more Health Care System that more or less works because it is not privatized due to the fact that it has to work in a highly efficient privatized system in the United States, so privatized , cutting back medicaid under the guide of the federalism repealing the Affordable Care act which sends not a wonderful legislation, but nevertheless the improvement which will send tens of millions of people into the uninsured list of cutting back food stamps and so on. And enriching the wealthy. That is the one policy of the republican radical insurgency. Do anything you can to enrich the wealthy and the powerful and attack the general population. Whats happened over the last year the Republican Party managers have mobilized sectors of the population which have always been around but have never been mobilized into a significant political force. One part is christian evangelicals the major part of the base of the Republican Party today youve seen it in the iowa primary coming up quite generally. Now there is a nativist afraid they are taking the country away from us that as a basis in fact the white population will become a minority pretty soon. And for extreme ultranationalists this is a crime that cannot be tolerated in the people that are sectors of the population that are frightened that they have to carry guns into starbucks because who knows who will come after them and there is legislation at the bottom right now being debated to allow them to come into a care centers and maybe some of these threeyearolds were trained who knows. [laughter] but these are not small parts of the population. Its a very strange country in many ways. That is a large part of the population. People can be mobilized on those issues and not notice that the posies and leaders are attacking them into supporting the super rich and the corporations. That is one of the factions. Whats the other faction aqwex its not democrats. Its what used to be called moderate republicans. If you take a look at the Democratic Party programs there are a few exceptions but if you take the core of the Leadership Council these are the policies that used to be called moderate republican. Richard nixon would be at the left of the american politics today. They are dismantling the new deal programs mainly the ones being dismantled right now. The term republican programs are efforts to dismantle those that are initiated under nixon. The drift during this whole period is pretty extreme. As you see it striking in the Public Attitude towards the health programs, the u. S. Health system as an International Scandal has about twice the per capita cost of comparable countries and relatively poor outcomes. Furthermore, the u. S. Government spends about as much per capita as comparable countries but that is a small part of the cost because they work in the Privatized Health system and in the hands of the administration so on and so forth and then in the hands of institutions that have no interest in health and Insurance Companies are not dedicated to help instead of making money. So not surprisingly they try to do things to make money. If you look back there is an extensive polling where for a long period there have been considerable majorities but a large part of the population has been in favor of national healthcare. Going back to the late 1980s the majority of the population felt there ought to be a constitutional guarantee for Healthcare National healthcare and in fact i think that it was 40 of the population thought it already was in the constitution. [laughter] take a look today when obama presented his Affordable Health care program you will recall that at the very beginning there was a public option allowing people to make the choice Something Like Medicare National healthcare. At that time almost two thirds of the population was in favor of that, but it was stopped without discussion that never entered the discussion. The United States has a very unusual wall which bars the government from negotiating drug prices. So of course they are way out of sight. The population is overwhelmingly voted for this. There havent been many that the only ones ive seen show 80 opposition. There was never even any attempt to deal with this. The power of the pharmaceutical corporation is so enormous that there wasnt even an effort to try to introduce it into the socalled obamacare. If you look at the attitudes towards the socalled obamacare theyve been pretty negative. Most of the population has been opposed even though for years the population has been strongly in favor of national healthcare. This of course isnt national healthcare. Some of that opposition is because it didnt go far enough. We dont know because the questions were not asked in the polls but a lot of it is the kind of thing you would see reflected in this famous townhall comment where somebody got up and said keep your hands off my medicare. People dont understand what the government is doing and what the private corporations are doing. The fact is that theres a there is a significant change in express attitudes towards policies. That is a remarkable triumph of propaganda if you think about it especially considering how Vital Healthcare is to everyones life. Those numbers have been as the rover quite some time and there is a light that says exit but im going to take a moderators privilege here and just go on for a million or two more if i may. [applause] the longest journey that youve been on did you ever imagine the kind of crowd that he would routinely draw or have your books on display at airports . [laughter] i started giving public talks on these issues much too late in the early 1960s and early days in the vietnam i started giving talks and as you know, it was talks to people in somebodys living room or church with three or four people or Something Like that. None of us that were ever involved could have guessed at the time that a couple of years later it would be a major antiwar movement, but there was. And at the same has happened on other issues. With all of the negative things that have happened over the past years, this neoliberal reaction since primarily the Ronald Reagan years theres also been plenty of audiences that are very different than they were in the past with concerns that are different. Lots of issues that were fighting issues back in the 60s. You could barely discuss them and they are now accepted and taken for granted. Womens rights, rights, there was no concern. Now there is a substantial concern. Thereve been popular activism to try to terminate the Nuclear Weapons lunacy. The general atmosphere of the public has changed a lot. Audiences kind of reflect that. All of this is positive. There is theres basically the two trajectories. One trajectory which is constructive, positive, offers hope that there is another talks about what is going in the opposite direction and the question is which one will prevail but as you want to without my saying that thats in your hands. You were just in argentina and mexico some activists on the movement in spain. What is your impression . This is an International Conference of activists from around the world mostly south america. It reflects some of the positive developments in the world. One of the major positive developments internationally in the past for a long time has been what has taken place in south america over the past roughly 15 years. South america for 500 years since the early conquest had been dominated by the foreign power, the south american countries themselves where the typical structure was a small mostly white elite extremely wealthy in this sea of misery and poverty they were oriented towards the outside. They had very little reaction on the countries that were the most religious students of the neoliberal policy structure policies of the world bank and the imf and the Treasury Department and they were the ones that suffered the most naturally. But in the last ten or 15 years they pulled out of this for the first time. Its a major change in world affairs. The south america used to be regarded here as what was called the backyard. They did whatever we told them. Now south america is out of control. You take a look at the conferences the United States is isolated in fact the primary reason why obama made some steps towards normalizing relations with cuba is that they were utterly isolated in the whole hemisphere trying to get some kind of arrangements but this is a huge change and thats why the conference was in south america but there were participants where europe has been suggested to a kind of savage Economic Program which is seriously undermined that european democracy. Its been devastating for the weaker peripheral countries and its beginning to dismantle the major achievement. That is the purpose of the policy. Its economically destructive and these are the policies under the International Monetary fund. But they make some sense from the class war they are enriching the big banks and dismantling sober the programs and so on theres a reaction. It was first in greece which has suffered most and the german banks are responsible for those that are reacting in an absolutely savage way to try to prevent greece from taking the steps that might extricate itself in the disaster thats been imposed on the calling for the restructuring so the lighting of the debt payments and so on and this is particularly ironic because germany in 1953 was permitted by the European Countries to cancel its major debt. Thats the basis for the german recovery. Thats why its a Dynamic Center of europe. Second, germany practically destroyed greece in the second world war. While, but all this together and greece is now asking for a limited element of where it is flatly refusing in a very savage way. They might get away with it because they are a pretty weak country. Spain is going to be harder. That is a more powerful economy and in spain in the last couple of years, two or three years in the Political Party they developed. In the austerity programs sustaining rebuilding the economy and the welfare state programs and moving the country toward a constructive development. They want the population to pay. I know that its a risky loan and therefore i get a lot of interest and make a lot of money out of it. If at a certain point you cant pay, its my problem in the capitalist society does but not in the society that we live. The problem is your problem and your neighbors problem. Your neighbors didnt take the best that theyve got to pay for. Thats the way our system works. It makes sense on class warfare crowns with no resemblance to the market for capitalism and thats what has been going on but there is a struggle against it but its worth keeping an eye on. They have sensible programs that might win the next election which is coming up soon. Its not going to be easy for the bureaucrats. You grow up in the 30s at the time when solidarity meant something. There was mutual support and in active labor movement. What does it take in 2015 to rekindle that spirit of solidarity . David montgomery died recently common has a book followed the house of labor and it is about the name teen 20s. There has been a lively and vibrant, active, pretty radical labor movement, but it had been crushed by the brutal