Econ Crisis Will Not End US Hegemony (Chomsky Interview)
- News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
Chomsky: Econ crisis will not end US hegemony
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:16:51 GMT
By Afshin Rattansi
Press TV, Tehran
The following is Press TV's exclusive full-length interview with
American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author and MIT
professor Avram Noam Chomsky:
Press TV: Noam Chomsky, obviously the markets are all down; in your
propaganda model, you lay great store by the commercial interests in the
media, I guess the media has been saying that there was not a grave
economic problem in the system, but if the markets are collapsing,
presumably down to advertising, will we expect a better corporate media?
Chomsky: I don't see any reason to expect that the structure of the
media, their institutional structure remains unchanged.
In fact, apart from investment banks, the general institutional
structure of the state capitalist system remains the same. There may be
some modifications, I mean obviously, the media cannot overlook the
financial crises; it is indeed very serious. No one doubts that.
So yes, they recognize it, but in fact it was predictable and predicted.
Also the reasons for it were understood long ago and they have barely
been given expression in the media, or for that matter by most
economists, although some knew and wrote about it.
Press TV: But independent media -- often independent media that
certainly promoted your work -- predicted all of this, and predicted a
market collapse. Do you think investors are beginning to realize though,
that cooperate media is not trustworthy? Also, unemployment rates
certainly seem to be going up in the United States and look set to be
going up. Can we expect a shift in attitudes in the United States?
Chomsky: Well, popular attitudes in the United States are highly
negative toward the media, and in fact toward all institutions, so this
doesn't get reported, but editors know the polls pretty well.
About 80 percent of the population says that the country is run by a
'few big interests looking out for themselves' meaning corporations and
not for the people.
About 95 percent of the population objects to the fact that the
government does not pay any attention to public opinion.
I don't remember the exact numbers on the media, but the negative
attitudes are very high. In fact, they are very high for just about
every institution. We read about George Bush's historically low
popularity rating, in fact very low, but the fact is congress is even
Press TV: We've had politicians in Europe and Russia talking about the
end of US hegemony. Even if the US cannot pay its bills it still has the
largest military on earth. You have written about the power of that
military. Doesn't that military in itself confer power?
Chomsky: Oh sure, and I don't agree with the conclusions about loss of
US hegemony. I mean, first of all this financial crisis is very likely
going to hit Europe even harder than the United States. Several European
countries have already declared official recession, which the US has not.
Banks are collapsing rapidly in Europe. The immediate problem, not the
deep problem, the immediate one is toxic assets and mortgage-based
We do not have the details, it's all not very transparent, but the
general estimate is that about half of them are held in European banks.
One country, Iceland, is practically on the verge of declaring
bankruptcy because of its enormous exposure to the tides of financial
Press TV: What about supranational institutions, the Security Council
and the international courts? It seems that we see a waning of some US
power ... Beijing and Moscow vetoing decisions of the Security Council
certainly on Iran, and the decision by the General Assembly to refer the
recognition of Kosovo.
Chomsky: We saw that, but that is normal. Since you brought up the
media, it's interesting to see the reporting of it.
The vote, which I think, was 77 to 6 or something like that was reported
that there was a division in the vote and that it was polarized, but
what was not reported was that joining the United States, were Albania
the Marshal Islands, and I think probably Israel, practically nobody.
But that is normal, for example on the embargo against Cuba, the regular
votes in the UN year after year, are on order 180 to 4 or something like
that, with the US supported only by Israel and a few Pacific Islands.
That doesn't usually get reported. And that's actually nothing new.
As far as the Security Council is concerned, what is not too well-known
and you do not get the reports, is that since the United Nations pretty
much fell out of control by the 1960s as a result of decolonization and
the recovery of other industrial countries; since the mid 60s, the
United States is far in the lead in vetoing Security Council resolutions.
Britain is second, and no one else is even close, so we do not see
anything new in terms of US isolation in international institutions.
The US is also the only country right now that has rejected an official
world court decision. It had been joined earlier by Albania and Libya,
but they have since accepted them. So this isolation is consistent. As
for US hegemony, it is based on objective factors.
One is what you mentioned, the military view, the US military is
approximately at the scale of the rest of the world combined, and far
But it's also a very rich country with plenty of resources and it is
homogenous unlike Europe. Europe is roughly on the same scale
economically but it is not homogenous. You could see that in the
reactions to the financial crises, in the United States they're uniform
taken by the federal government and in Europe they are national and not
For about 35 years it has become clear. I've written about it and so
have others, that the world is becoming more diverse. It is becoming
what has been called tri-polar, with three major economic centers and
only one military center.
The economic centers are North America based in the US, Western Europe
based mainly in Germany and France and the northeast Asia based in
Japan, increasingly China and South Korea is a major industrial power
... these three centers differ substantially in their characteristics.
And to some extent, in my opinion, the Asian center is increasing in its
role in world affairs and we can see it in this crisis.
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
- On 10/11/08, Dan Clore <clore@...> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/45j8zfI think he's missing the point. It's not a matter of the relative
> Chomsky: Econ crisis will not end US hegemony
> Chomsky: Oh sure, and I don't agree with the conclusions about loss of
> US hegemony. I mean, first of all this financial crisis is very likely
> going to hit Europe even harder than the United States. Several European
> countries have already declared official recession, which the US has not.
economic setbacks of the U.S. compared to Europe and Asia. It's a
matter of the absolute constraints on American resources. Chomsky's
right that the crisis is hitting everyone. It's affecting the
resources of the state in every part of the world. Which means that
it's making a model of global hegemony based on aircraft carrier
groups less viable for anyone. But that's a bit like saying the law
prohibits everyone from sleeping under bridges or stealing bread. The
U.S. is the only country that currently pursues that model, so
economic crises that constrain the ability of *any* country to do so
will in practice affect the U.S. disproportionately. The good part is
that the resource constraints will prevent any other would-be hegemon
from taking America's place.
Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
Anarchist Organization Theory Project