 Hello, I'm Yanis Valfakis with a very warm welcome to all of you. On this episode of DMTV's Another Now, an end of year, end of 2021 wrap-up of a very strange, weird and pretty awful year, within which I trust and I hope you manage to extract some joy and some hope. In this very special episode, made special, because I have a very special guest in Noam Chomsky, no less, we're going to be talking about the top issues, the top threats, as well as glimmers of hope that have managed to shine through this very dark cloud of the pandemic, of the developments that have depleted many of the opportunities that our species has had. Here's a preview of some of the things that Noam and I discuss. By the way, please forgive us for the very rough edit, different camera angles, different sound qualities. This interview took place in the middle of the night for me. Late in the afternoon in Phoenix, Arizona for Noam, I hope you recognize that DMTV, thankfully, is not a professional outfit, we shall remain amateurs to the very last moment of our existence. So as you will see very shortly, I kick off the discussion with Noam by asking him to pinpoint the radical lessons from 2021. Naturally, Noam talks about the pandemic, the lessons we have to learn from the handling of the pandemic, by the powers that be, by those in authority, and links it skillfully with Noam's usual skill. He links the lessons from the pandemic and the influence of corporate capital, of financialized capital, of concentrated capital on the mishandling of this pandemic. He links it to the other existential threat that humanity is facing and which made a time for the far, far worse in COP26 in Glasgow, the pivotal moment supposedly, where the great and the good from around the world would meet in Glasgow in the fall in order to give our species a chance, a chance of ending its vandalism of the planet, a chance that we missed. And it is interesting how Noam connects the way in which the capitalist world order, or I call it post capitalist, but doesn't matter, mishandled the pandemic and the way in which it wasted a fantastic opportunity this year in Glasgow. At some point, I decided to play devil's advocate and put it to him that we progressives are a bunch of losers going from one perpetual defeat to the other. It is interesting how Noam Chomsky responds, and a great source of hope, turning to more specific geographic national in the economic bloc regions. Noam doesn't mean his words regarding the United States. He explains meticulously, with his usual analytical skills, why and how the United States is a political economy that is going off the rails with terrible repercussions for Americans and non Americans alike. Then he turns his laser sharp focus on the European Union, is equally critical, particularly of the subservience of European leaders to the United States hegemonic forces. And then together we make a segue to the oncoming threat of a new Cold War, which is being built up by Washington DC, by certain forces within the security apparatus of the West in Europe, in Australia, and of course in North America. But I also ask him the question, how can we fight against the new Cold War? How can we stop as a movement, as the Progressive International, for instance, a process where the Cold War may become a hot war and certainly how we progressives, led by the Progressive International, of course, can put an end to this new Cold War without being apologists for the atrocities committed against peoples, against dissidents, against certain segments of the population within Russia, within China, within those economic and political blocks, that the West's oligarchy is trying to engage in hostilities in a new Cold War. Then, and I have to tell you that this is I think my favorite part of the discussion with Noam, I bring up the question of safe spaces in universities in particular, but more generally within movements. A concept that has emerged recently, but powerfully, within the scheme of identity politics within our movements, within our academy. I think that part of the discussion has a great deal of utility for progressives. And of course, at the very end, I asked Noam to deliver a message regarding 2022. Before we start, let me use this opportunity to plug the meta dialogues, the dialogues that our meta center, the Center for Post Capitalist Civilization of TM25, will be planning throughout 2022 between members of the advisory board of TM25, like Noam Chomsky, like Guy Standing, like Caroline Lukas. These dialogues are going to bring two members of our advisory board together in a discussion, like the one that I'm having today with Noam Chomsky, but far more targeted to the issues of, you know, what is it exactly that we're fighting against? What is the system that we are fighting against is it capitalism? Is it something worse than capitalism? And what system do we want to put in its place? This is the plug for the meta dialogues. Watch this space and the TM25 and meta websites. They promise to be intriguing conversations throughout 2022. Without further ado, let's go to my discussion with Noam Chomsky. COVID-19, to quote Monty Python, what has it done for us? Has it contributed anything to progressives to humanity? Has it taught us any lessons that we can draw from? Has it accelerated the decline of the system of capitalism, call it what you will, that progressives must challenge? Is there a silver lining to the COVID-19 cloud? What have we learned in 2020, Noam Chomsky? We learned more forcefully things we already knew. The take Omicron is perfectly clear why this happened and why it will happen again. The rich countries have monopolized vaccines for themselves and have insisted on preserving the outlandish of property rights agreements, patent rights assigned to the basically monopoly pricing rights assigned to the pharmaceutical corporations in the mislabeled free trade agreements, which means that, for example, Moderna, which was a small company, was able to use extensive government funding, government research to develop a very effective vaccine, propelled several of the management up into the super billionaire category, but they will not permit South Africa, which has a pharmaceutical industry, to produce other vaccines. It means that South in South Africa could not vaccinate the population sufficiently to withhold the ongoing mutations. It means that in the unvaccinated South, there is a potential for a mutation which can lead to serious consequences, of course, will spread back to the West. The wealthy and the powerful are who recognize all this, they understand it, are willing to place the profits of the major corporate major pharmaceutical corporations, and their prerogatives given in the, in the improper trade agreements, place that above the lives of many millions of people, and even the welfare of their own populations. It's an interesting value system. It generalizes something much more important, global warming. We just saw the outcome of the COP26 fiasco. There were two events taking place inside the halls of the great buildings, the men and women with their suits and ties and jackets and fancy dresses and so on. So John Kerry, the American negotiator was euphoric about the fact that we now have the market on our side. How can we lose? The big investors have committed themselves to working for our cause. So with the holy market working for us, we're racing ahead. He was referring to the commitment by to the comments by the head of Blackstone, Larry Fink, that there are now the investment community is now ready to commit $130 trillion to solving the crisis. We're in business. Till you look at the footnotes, which was actually done by Adam twos, fine, political economists to point it out that there's a little condition attached. The investment community is willing to invest the money if they are guaranteed to be risk free by the IMF. So we're perfectly happy to jump in and help you as long as we make money from it. And there's no risk involved. Yes, the market's on our side. That's the way the market works. The structured the market structured by the rich and the powerful in their interests. So we've learned that or we should have learned that we should have also learned that while the these meetings were going on within the stately halls, there was also another event outside. Tens of thousands of demonstrators mostly young, saying that we want a world, a decent survivable world for ourselves and our children. We want you inside those halls to use the means that are available and you know are available to overcome this crisis to lead the way to open the door to a much better world. And that leaves us with the standard question, which of these forces is going to prevail? Here's where the progressive international has its main function to ensure that the demonstrators in the industry will prevail. And it's the same on COVID serious problem, but not at the scale of global warming. It's that means the end. We don't deal with it. It's finished. COVID pandemics, this is probably not the last, will be deadly and destructive, but not total destruction. Those are the choices we have. It seems to me from what you're saying that the real lesson we're learning is that concentrated capital, concentrated corporate power, knows how to make to take advantage of a crisis of a humanitarian crisis, whether it's COVID-19 or it's a crisis of the climate breakdown. They know how to marketize it. They know how to make use of the state. There's no conflict between the state and the market. There will be no market without the state. The state creates the circumstances for capital accumulation, for profit maximization. So they know how to take advantage of that effectively undermining humanity's collective interest or the interest of the majority. You're right. These are the two forces. The forces within the corridors and the rooms of power in Glasgow, let's say, and the demonstrators outside the walls. But is it not really? Let's know a bit about the bush. Isn't the lesson of 2021 that so far the forces within the corridors and the rooms of power are winning hands down? We've had demonstrations. We had the World Social Forum. We had Bologna. We had Seattle. We had the Occupy Wall Street. We had the Canaktismeni here in Greece. We had the Indignados in Spain. But in the end, our resistance follows a sine wave, goes up and down. But it doesn't affect the capacity of the insider to ride the coattails of a catastrophe, making it worse for humanity, for the majority, while maximizing their own returns. I don't think it's perpetual defeat. There's slow steps forward, not enough, but so. So take the protests, the international protests, the global climate strike, extinction, rebellion, all of these things have had an effect. It has compelled the rich and the powerful to recognize that they have to do something to indicate that they are on the side of the public. Now, of course, they find their own ways of doing it. They'll do it rhetorically. They'll do it by greenwashing. They'll do it by saying, yes, net zero emissions, but of course, we mean no, no elimination, only innovation. That's the phrase out of the ExxonMobil playbook, repeated by Joe Manchin, the Senator, the Democratic Senator, who's essentially working with the fossil fuel companies to ensure that nothing happens. No elimination, only innovation. And we're on your side. We want to go to net zero emissions, but make as much profit as we can along the way. Okay, which of course means that it's finished. They'll find their ways to, that's class war. You find your ways to make to achieve your aims by whatever method you can. But that doesn't mean you always win. In fact, there are steps forward. They're very, they're halting steps, not enough. But there are some. Take the United States, the Biden administration put forth a climate program, which is inadequate, but well beyond anything that preceded it. Right now in Congress, it's being cut back to virtually nothing by 100% Republican opposition and right wing Democrats like Joe Manchin, who happens to be a coal baron himself, and the leading recipient in Congress of fossil fuel funding. So he's blocking it. But at least something is there. There is a resolution in Congress initiated by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ed Markey, senior senator from Massachusetts, which does spell out in some detail, the well known feasible means to deal with and overcome the crisis. It's reached the level of a resolution. Well, that tells you what you have to do next, increase the pressure until it becomes a legislative option. It's a step, not enough of a step. If it hadn't been for the demonstrations, the pressures and so on, we would just be essentially in the Trump Bureau, race as fast as possible, quickly as possible toward the precipice. Well, neither is good, but one is worse than the other. So in some ways, we've the activism has fended off the worst, but left plenty of room for the class war to continue. And that's true at every level. One of the lessons we should learn from 2021 is what is happening to the most powerful, wealthy state in world history. It's going off, literally going off the precipice. There was recently a study of attitudes of Republican voters on many issues. Comparative study, comparing them with European parties. The results are pretty grim. They rank with parties like alternative for Deutschland, the right wing, neo fascist parties. That's the, it's going, it is one of the two major parties in the United States, the party that is very likely to take power next year. And in 2024, because of various manipulations and shenanigans that they're carrying out, they won't win the vote, but they may very well, they'll probably win the election. Now, if the AFD was taking power in Germany, we'd be concerned. It's much more dangerous when it's taking power in the world dominant power history is most powerful state. That's a lesson to learn. It's not a small point. If you take a look at the attitudes of Republican voters, during the four Trump years, concern for global warming, declined by about 20%. That's four years of propaganda. There are ominous signs of worship of a semi deity. We're both old enough to remember that from somewhere else. Okay, these are not pleasant developments. And it's going to be very tricky to overcome them. Massive popular protest is necessary. And it has to be backed in Europe. Another lesson of 2021 is that Europe is unwilling or incapable, incapable of taking it's the role in the world that it could play. Take Germany, which was in the lead in protecting the rights of big pharma to keep the process patterns for themselves. Germany may be the most civilized country in the world right now was in the lead. It shouldn't be happening. Right now the Iran negotiations are collapsing. Largely because Germany and the rest of Europe refuses to play an independent role in World Affairs. When the United States pulled out of the agreement in violation of international law, if anyone cares, it's in violation of Security Council resolution. Europe strongly protested that we don't like this, we oppose it. We oppose the extra sanctions you're imposing, but we'll obey. Because we obey. As long as Europe follows that policy of subordination to external power to US power. The outlook looks quite grim. That brings us to another crucial issue. What's called the China threat. What exactly is the China threat? Actually, the former Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating, a distinguished international diplomat, had a pretty good definition of it. He wrote an article in the Australian press, running through the various claims about the China threat showing the bumping them and said the China threat is real. It's China's existence. The existence of a power that will not be intimidated by the United States, the way Europe is, and will not be pushed around the way Europe is, but insists on pursuing its own interests, plenty to criticize about China. But that's not the reason for the China threat. It's true. The reason is it's there. It's refusing to be intimidated. It's continuing to expand. It's what are called soft power policies expanding its influence through Central Asia. Obviously with the intention of reaching Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Africa, bring in Afghanistan now, and establishing vocational schools throughout the world throughout Southeast Asia, Africa, where students will study Chinese technology, what the United States is trying hard to prevent the world from accepting fine, they can't stop the US, but they'll do their method. They'll bring in large parts of the world to be trained in later using Chinese technology as they spread their influence. Well, for the United States, that's intolerable. You cannot have a force, counter force that can't be intimidated. And that's a major threat to survival. It's leading to provocative actions, which might explode and could lead to a terminal war. This is another threat. Similar things are happening in the Ukraine, other lessons. There are ways to deal with these things. Diplomatic options are open. Negotiation is possible. Negotiations not going to lead to the world the way the US leadership wants. But it can lead to a viable world, a world in which we can move forward, progress beyond. We could even imagine in Europe, going back to something like Gorbachev's vision in 1991. Time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. There were two options on the table. Gorbachev's vision of a unified Eurasia, Brussels to Vladivostok, no military organizations, just a peaceful Eurasia. US vision was different. Expansion of a hostile military alliance NATO under US control as far to the east as possible. Well, there were moves to invite you even Ukraine into NATO, something that no Russian government would ever tolerate. And it's one of the factors. There are many leading to what could be a highly dangerous crisis. Well, these things can be overcome. Here again, an independent force like Progressive International can play a major role in mobilizing public opinion and taking particular actions in case after case. There have been some successes. It's a long haul. It's the only way, only way in which you can avert catastrophe, which is looming on many fronts. Let me share a concern that I have. I have been along the lines of what you've been saying. I've been struggling in various fora to maintain a balance between warning progressives against falling prey to the new Cold Warriors of Washington DC from Brussels, from Britain, who are persecuting a new Cold War against China, and also looking forward to they are looking forward to incite some kind of long term simmering conflict with Russia in Eastern Europe and in the Black Sea, how to not fall prey to this, not demonize China, understand what Paul Keating said in the press club in Canberra, which you quoted. I thought this was a very apt and brilliant intervention by Paul Keating at the time, while at the same time maintaining vigilance and a critical stance towards the authoritarianism of the Chinese Communist Party, of what they're doing to the brave students of the Hong Kong Polytechnic, the Uyghurs. Similarly, the authoritarianism of Putin. This balance seems increasingly difficult to maintain. I find it personally very trying that I have simultaneously to suffer the slings and arrows of those who accuse me of being an agent of the Chinese Communist Party. And, you know, some people who are supporting the Chinese Communist Party, who are portraying me as portraying me as a stooge of Western imperialism. Yeah, how are you handling this? Do you have any hints? Our priority always any moral human being. Your priority is one should be what you can hope to change and influence. I can't change the crimes of Genghis Khan. I can protest them. But I can't change them. The I can protest and do protest the brutal authoritarianism and cruelty of the Chinese government. But I can't do much about it. So the persecution of the Uyghurs in concentration camps can certainly condemn by provocative acts against China. We only increase the repression. But we can certainly protest it. We can cooperate with elements within China, which do exist that are seeking amelioration and reform to the extent we can. So we can do everything we can that is within our reach. There are other things we can do within our reach that we're not doing. So what's happening in Western China is bad enough. How about what's happening in Gaza? In China, a million people Uyghurs were sent to concentration camps, detention camps, treated very badly. In Gaza, a million children are living in virtually unsurvivable situations. Waters poisoned, constant attacks, sewage systems destroyed, water power systems devastated, military attacks anytime Israel wants to do it with US weapons. Well, we can do something about that a lot. We can end it. Okay. So that should be our priority. Incidentally, we all understand this very well with regard to enemies. So take say, I way way. I don't care. You don't care whether he criticizes US policies. If he wants to okay, if he doesn't want to, doesn't matter. His role is to be concerned with what he can influence to a limited extent. China's policies, same with East European dissidents under the Soviet Union. We didn't care what they said about Western crimes. We didn't even care when they supported Western crimes, as they often did, sometimes in very ugly ways, but didn't bother us and shouldn't have bothered us. Their job is to deal with the crimes of their own society, things they can do something about. When we can do something to help others under distress and oppression should certainly do it. But the main priority is the main decision of any moral person is what can I influence? That's what I should be my priority. That's just elementary morality. I mean, if a crime, say, suppose I read about a crime in, you know, Siberia, I can't do anything about it. Suppose I read about criminal acts in the town where I live. I can do something about it. Even if the crime in Siberia is worse, the moral position is the one you can affect somehow. That's elementary morality. As to the slings and arrows, surely they come with a turf. It disregard them. Just add one more example to the ones you gave. Kashmir, what the Indian government, the Modi government is doing to Kashmiri Muslims today, is conspicuous by its absence from any narrative of Western concern about human rights of Muslims. We have this category of fashionable victims juxtaposed against the category of unfashionable victims depending on the interests of our great and good leaders of Western imperialism to put it differently. Let me take you to another completely different setting. A setting closer to our university background. I remember back in the day, the 1970s and 1980s, in Britain, I remember I encountered for the first time the term safe space. And safe space back then, and I was reminded of that by a great comrade of ours from DM-25, Rosemary Bechler, a superb fighter and comrade. I mentioned her because she passed away two weeks ago and left us feeling like vessels caught up in a storm, anchorless. But she reminded me some time ago of what safe space meant back then. It meant a place where you would bring supporters of the IRA and unionists in one room where they would have an opportunity to make each other uncomfortable through the power of words and argument. A remarkable institution, small scale institution. But today, safe space means something quite different in our universities, especially in North America and in some parts of Europe. A safe space which causes a great deal of concern. Your view. Should cause concern. Universities should not protect students from views they don't want to hear. You can understand the sensibilities of people. Like I wouldn't want to have to go to a lecture which is condemning kikes for destroying the work, for trying to destroy the area and race. But I wouldn't ban it. I think if some group of students wants to invite those people, good, invite them, set up a counter meeting, use it as an educational opportunity and expose them and bring students to understand where that's coming from, what it's meant, what our attitudes should be towards it. That's the way to deal with it. Not creating a space where you can't hear views you don't like. That's very effective. In fact, if you do it, they don't come. If it's shown over and over, or if they do come, they run off campus defeated and students have learned something. The pressure for safe spaces is understandable. The students' sensibilities are real. It's not invented. It can be overblown, but it's based on real things. However, you have to ask, what is the right way to deal with it? We should also recognize something else. The universities have been safe spaces, safe from the left. That goes way back. Keeping the university clean from the subversion of people like you and me, who are sometimes tolerated but kept very much at the margins. Take a look at, say, economics departments in the United States and ask until a couple of years ago when things eased up a little. Ask, how many Marxist economists could you find? Could you find Paul Sweezy at Harvard? Certainly a qualified economist. Wrong ideas. You've got to keep the safe space. I could mention names, but I won't. Left economists who kept their views silent until they got tenure, then started writing. That's keeping safe spaces. It was not just the economics department all across the board. There are people who, former Harvard Dean McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor for Kennedy and Johnson, people who he called wild men in the wings. You've got to keep them out of the universities. He didn't say that, I'm saying it, but it was done. The wild men in the wings are those who go beyond criticizing US power for tactical errors and talk about more deeper crimes. That's wild men in the wings. He was writing that in 1968 when people were daring for the first time to criticize the worst crime since the Second World War, US wars in Vietnam, saying there are more than mistakes, there are crimes. You've got to stop that. Well, the university's cooperated, and in fact, the reaction when the 60s began to open the door slightly is very revealing, very revealing. In the early 70s, there was an extremely interesting, important publication, very revealing one, the first publication of the Trilateral Commission. That's liberal internationalists, Europe, Japan, United States, basically Carter administration liberals. Carter administration was drawn from their ranks. So the kind of liberal international intel against you. They were very concerned about the activism of the 60s. They said it was pressing too far. It was what they say, people were asking for too much democracy. They were pressing, that's their term, incidentally. We need more moderation in democracy. You shouldn't be pressing for your rights in the public arena. Young people, old people, women, farmers, workers, just keep, keep your place. Don't press too hard. Too much pressure for democracy. In particular, they were concerned about the universities. They said the universities are failing in their responsibility of indoctrination of the young. Their phrase, not enough indoctrination of the young. You're not keeping safe spaces. You're letting these people out there who are calling for women's rights, posing the war in Vietnam, calling for offered American Indian rights. Let's ensure better indoctrination of the young. Those are the safe spaces that have reigned as long as far back as we want to go. Certainly since the Second World War, but long before, plenty of examples. So the universities were kept safe, had safe spaces. It's now an issue because young students are asking for safe spaces for something else. Safe from racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, violence, aggression, and sport for aggression, and so on. They don't want that. Well, it was wrong then when it was overwhelmingly the powerful doctrine. It's wrong now when it's at the margins. Always wrong in principle and tactically ridiculous for the left to take over the tactical devices of the powerful is both wrong in principle and suicidal. First of all, it will be turned against them. Secondly, it's a gift to the far right, a wonderful gift. In fact, the Republican Party is now running on it as their main campaign program. The main campaign issue for the Republicans, they think they found a winning issue, is CRT, critical race theory. Nobody has a clue what it is, but it's a covered term and explained as a covered term for everything we don't like. Women's rights, Native American rights, opposition to white supremacy, all of these things are critical race theory. And then you demonize it. You mobilize parents to say, look what these anti-American, commie Democrats are doing. They're forcing your innocent little white child to believe that he or she is an oppressor because of her skin color. And how do you show that you find something that happened in some county somewhere and turn it into a national operation? It's working. You can mobilize people on that. Again, we've had examples. We've had examples of people that I don't have to give the examples. They're obvious enough. Let's give the example. Take Adolf Hitler. Germany in the 1920s was the peak of Western civilization. The arts and the sciences was considered a model of democracy. American political scientists looked at it as Weimar as the real model of democracy. Ten years later, Germans were in thrall to a maniac who convinced them that they have to subject themselves to his ideological commitments to carry out some of the worst atrocities in human history. Same human beings. Ten years. Ten years later, starting to become again maybe the most civilized people in the world. Well, can happen elsewhere. Can happen in the United States. Can happen in Europe. Got an effect, as I mentioned. It's happening. Right now the Republican Party is concentrated on that as the means to try to regain what might be virtually perpetual power. It's not a small. It's not an exaggeration. Not just my opinion. You can read that in the most respectable sober world journals like The Financial Times, for example. Martin Wolfe. They're highly respected economic political correspondent warned recently that the United States is in danger of collapsing as a democracy and falling under authoritarianism. More accurately, a kind of proto-fascism. Well, that can happen. But going back to safe spaces, you're helping that when you carry out, when you go overboard, when you do things that are too much, they'll be picked up and turned into propaganda weapons, which will facilitate the forces that you think you're opposing. That's what happens. You can see it before your eyes. Tactical choices are not trivial matters. They are matters on which human life and human society depends. And you have to take them with thoughtfully and carefully. Often not being done can give examples. You can give examples. These are things to be very concerned about. Often the, I say almost always, the motive behind them may be very decent and very honest. But you have to be careful what you do. Not act in ways which are wrong in principle and provide weapons to the oppressors. And that they're waiting for it, eager to leap on it. Lastly, a message for 2022. Message for 2022 is to, the same as for past years, was made famous by Gromsche. You have to keep pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. And there's reason for optimism. There are opportunities. Things may look grim, but there are ways out. And we know the ways out. We simply have to reach enough people, get them energized enough, so they'll join and take over what they can. And in any case, struggling and not ending up compromised is more fun than submitting and ending up compromise. Noam, thank you so much for being with us today. It was wonderful talking to you. And this concludes our discussion for 2021 with Noam Chomsky. I bid you farewell. I implore you to be active within DM25, to stay active in DM25, to participate in our campaigns in the scripting of our new manifesto. 2022 will prove beyond reasonable doubt that DM25 has never been as necessary as it is now. Carpe diem.