Noam Chomsky

[Music] Ola assume gusto sterile dia do a cone on a fibula sin duda mundial and professor Noam Chomsky él ha sido distinct IDO por lo never see a national autónoma de mexico con el doctor honoris causa and those medias cuando compromise cien anos de ser una ver SI anissina assume the connoisseur linguist consider por algunos como Kissel linguist tomas importante the result emos Sesenta setenta knows a tambien assume pencil or political una lista de la realidad de la vida no solamente una dos sino mundial por la cuarta - Moira consider a soft or Dino mirabilis leaders must the same libros more than 100 books it ambient the mutual recognition means assume gusto esta aqui Thank You professor Chomsky to be with us I let's start with your biography your you say in one of the your latest book that your father was poor he was immigrant and he was able to study a PhD and to become a middle class man well how was your family why you decided to study linguistics what'd you learn about this your family your experience how was your life when you were a child and then when you became student well actually my father came from a small village in the Ukraine shtetl little village which was full of mud and medieval basically and he emigrated in 1913 the he was 17 the it was mainly to escape the Czar's army which was virtually a death sentence for Jewish boys and came across in steerage didn't know any English no money got a job as a in Baltimore as sorting rags and uh and some kind of a company and anyway he gradually pretty soon he was learned English she managed to go to college ended up with a PhD became a scholar and of course I didn't know any of this when I was a baby but he you follow him I said well a lot easier for me I grew up in a middle-class family my father was a he actually directed Jewish education in the city of Philadelphia he was a recognized scholar one of the first I mean I was old enough to read his doctoral dissertation when it came out was a study of a 14th century Hebrew grammarian which was a history of submitting Semitic swizerland it done I sort of learned this is a nine or ten year old child and he was pardoned he was an influential injury interest to study linguistics it was one of several strands that led to it but I had a kind of a firm childhood a sort of some sort of background and Semitic linguistics and and that's why you study not really it's just many things came actually I got I was a 16 year old student in college and I had looked forward very my I went to an academic high school which was extremely boring I was looking forward to college which had all kind of exciting descriptions of courses and I took what after another each one was extremely boring I was almost ready to drop out when I happened to meet through other connections political connections actually a very impressive person who turned out to be the the leading as theoretical linguist in the country maybe the world zelich harris and but but our connections were through our common interests and kind of the radical politics at that time was a lot of it was concerned with what was in Palestine and it was groups which were then called Zionists are now called anti Zionist which were opposed to the idea of creating a Jewish state wanted a Jewish Arab socialist Commonwealth and Palestine which I was interested in as a child he had been involved in as a leading intellectual figure and activist and he suggested that I take his graduate course in linguistics I took that and then started taking other graduate courses I never really had an undergraduate education under political thinking the roots of your political thinking many people say you are an artist or they say you are an anarchist socialist or but beyond the level how can you describe your main I think ideas well these terms are very vague and of many different applications but there is a strand of thinking that grows out of classical liberalism has much deeper roots of course it foundered with the rise of capitalism which was inconsistent with I think with classical liberal ideals and out of this complex there emerged stream which is one of the main streams of anarchist thought in action which is fundamentally committed to a central principle that structures of hierarchy and domination of any kind have no self justification there the assumption is they're unjustified they have to demonstrate that they are justified the burden of proof is on any form of control domination Authority and when it turns out that the justification cannot be given which is usually the case then that structure should be dismantled as a step towards a more free addressed society and that holds from everything from personal relations to international affairs and everything in between and I think that's the core principle of the anarchist thought that developed out of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism and I would I think it's a guiding principle that can be applied over and over again to all sorts of situations and from childhood that I was kind of interested these ideas the anarchist revolution in Spain in 1936 was of particular interest to me by the time I was 11 or 12 years old I was spending a lot of time in anarchist offices in New York and fry or by thirst Emma the Yiddish anarchist movement in those days in New York I don't know you New York City but Union Square and down South fourth Avenue we're full it's now all gentrified in big buildings and so on but then it was small stores secondhand bookstores many of them run by emigration Spain I found those anarchist emigrate from Spain I picked up pamphlets talk to people learn things still have a lot of the pamphlets and but do you think for example do you think that something has been improved in after liberal democracy or it's just another way of domination if you look over the long stretch of history you find fairly consistent progress there are periods of regression of course but many things that we now take for granted we're considered unthinkable not very long ago so I think over over time there's a consistent tendency towards as Martin Luther King put it bending the moral arc of the universe towards justice slowly sometimes it bends back but over time I think one can see this tendency in human affairs but for example in your book of rakim for the American Dream it seems to me that you are saying today we are leaving in some way how can you say a period of decline of the era of regression but I think it's a dip in a long term tendency and I think it's now we're now seeing resistance to it developing in all sorts of ways some of them constructive some destructive but out of this could come can't sure but could come a new enlightenment after this crisis the linear rate of regression which is we can time it it's socio economic policies were instituted pretty much globally around a generation ago roughly 1980 all over the world one form or another and Latin America was the imposition of the structural adjustment programs which essentially terminated a growth and development in Latin America for several decades lost decades the then began to pick up again later and still other problems in regression and the United States it's the same in Europe in the United States if you take a measure like say just real wages how much does a person earn it's been pretty stagnant for about thirty years there has been growth and but it's gone into very few pockets so very making the high concentration of wealth pretty much stagnation for much of the population the sense that each generation does a little better than the last and if you work hard you'll get ahead that's been killed for many people not just here Europe as well taken other forms in Latin America and Africa and so on so there's you know world that's not even things develop in complicated ways but this tendency is striking around much of the world and it's related I think to the so called neoliberal policies that were instituted that were directed towards undermining social and collective commitment and responsibility throwing people into a labor market in which they had few rights and could not organize the policies that concentrated wealth cutting taxes for the rich all sorts of others have led to very naturally towards a an effect on it sets off a vicious cycle as wealth and power concentrate they determine the way the political system evolves which then produces legislation which enhances the right of the powerful when you get this spiral which we're seeing in much of the world that has led to anger resistance what's called populism which not a very good term for which to come the collapse of centrist institutions the sense of alienation from existing institutions a dislike of them resentment and so on which can take very positive forms sometimes does can be very harmful as well it has resonances of the 1930s which are do you think that a new form of populism right populism could arise out of this crisis well populism is a strange term there was a major populist movement in the United States in the late 19th century it was it actually developed it was a movement in Italy of radical farmers independent farmers who were joined together to resist the control over their lives by North Eastern capitalists merchants of banks and so on which had a which controlled the the credit the the marketing everything for the farmers and was leaving them in great distress and they organized to develop their own systems independent systems of of production of the distribution and so on and it became a major movement of Texas Kansas all through the Midwest it began to link up with the rising labor movement this is the early stage was a big to labor and others and became a very powerful and important movement it was finally crushed by force okay that was the real populist movement it was the most democratic moment in American history what's now called populism is just resentment and anger that's something okay well and do you think there are new rules in the world do rules rulers rulers yes food rules you know there have been major changes one of the striking elements of the neoliberal revolt against growth the growth and development of earlier periods was the enormous expansion of financial capital by now it's I mean you go back 50 years ago 60 years ago banks were actually banks there were places were if you had a little excess money you can put it in the bank they would lend it to someone to start a business by a car or send their children to college or something that's basically what a bank was they were connected to the real economy the real economy and and there were no crises there were no financial crises they didn't I'm talking about the United States the reason was that the New Deal legislations of the 1930s were in place and they assisted they controlled a financial system which was contributing to the real economy an effect that was one of several factors that led to the greatest growth period and probably in American history 50s in the sixties a very rapid growth some progress on social issues civil rights movement egalitarian growth there was the first period and almost the first period in American history where African Americans had a opportunity to begin to enter into the general social life one of the aspects of this period because of labor militancy and other forms of activism was that the society became more democratic and participatory and one consequence of that was a declining rate of profit the corporate sector was losing and was still very profitable but it was declining in power and profit and there was the growth of Democratic participant was quite threatening to elites across the spectrum and there came a reaction the reaction to that is in fact the neoliberal period which has been pretty regressive in many respects except in one respect the rate of profit shot up so that's a success look I'm in the thinking of ruling the world be it shot up particularly in those parts of the economy which do not contribute to the economy the financial sector so if you go up to the point of the and then there was crash after crash of course you know every time there's a crash the public bills out the institutions they become richer and bigger than before the last one was 2008 and right at that time in the United States for about almost half of corporate profits about 40% were in the financial institutions which probably contribute they may have a negative impact on the economy they certainly don't contribute much these are banks started being something totally different these are places where all sorts of complicated financial instruments are created all kinds of transactions take place very rapid trading a huge amount of speculation the fuse it's kind of interesting that economists haven't studied it very much but the few studies that exist suggest that it's it has a probably a negative effect on the economy um you can see it in particular corporations so take the biggest corporation in the world Apple computers as it grows it's its funding internal to the corporation its funding for research and develop and developing new products declines and its funding for financial manipulations and transactions increases this has happened across the corporate sector because it's more immediately profitable bonuses are bigger you know so it means that in the longer term research and development will shift somewhere else these are tendencies that are part of the financialization of the economy the same happened in Europe it seems happening elsewhere so you have a shift and who the if you want the rule what Adam Smith called the Masters have been going the Masters has been kind they're somewhat shifting in composition and much less participating far less in the real economy and there is a general decline in democracy and disillusionment with formal democratic institutions which is quite understandable it's very striking in Europe so if you're say a citizen of Italy you have you may vote in formal elections but even even if Italy itself was one hundred percent democratic wouldn't matter much because the decisions are being made in Brussels nothing wrong and they're being made by unelected officials the European the troika it's called the International Monetary Fund which Italians don't vote for of course it's pretty much a branch of the US Treasury Department the European Central Bank and the European Commission which is unelected that's where the basis for the sites are not elect the people who the sites are not elected no unelected and and it's led to it's led to what's called populism but I think of some better name is needed it's an amalgam of resentment anger recognition of loss of rights loss of opportunity that much of which is quite realistic there's no economic justification for it in fact if you take a look at the International Monetary Fund the it's kind of interesting the wrong economists conclude that these austerity policies are harmful but they're the political actors within the institution support them and it's late especially now let me ask you another subject you are interested in teleports you have written about the intellectuals in the 70s you wrote about the intellectuals and now you publish this year a book about intellectuals and you can see that they have a responsibility it's very interesting because you say most of the intellectuals are not critical also there are a critical intellectuals but how can what game can complain the intellectuals today or are the begging I'm the very concept of intellectual is a very strange one so suppose say in university there's a scientist say a physicist - won the Nobel Prize and spends 60 hours a week working on his on his scientific problems and so on that we don't call him an intellectual suppose the janitor who cleans the room where he works happens to be self educated very astute thinks about social and political issues as interesting ideas participates in labor activism and social activism we don't call him an intellectual the the people we call intellectuals are those this category are people with certain degree of privilege who whatever they come public or say they somehow deal with or claim to do issues that are significant for human affairs those are the people we call intellectuals they may not have anything to say maybe the janitor who cleans the floor knows more than they do but they're the intellectuals but then there's a general going back to the question of responsibility there's a very general principle that holds for everyone the more opportunity you have the more responsibility you have and since intellectuals by definition are people with a certain amount of privilege the privilege confers opportunity which confers responsibility then comes the moral issue of what you do with your responsibility you have the the a moral commitment to take to use the advantages that you have which society has granted you to be a constructive citizen of the world to contribute to justice to freedom to progress and so on if you you have another choice the other choice is to serve power in fact you can be what Henry Kissinger describes as the best intellectual the person he's very frank and honest about it it's an intellectual as a person who can articulate clearly the interests and concerns of the people in power in other words you serve the powerful as someone who can formulate for them the interests and concerns that they have doesn't matter about anyone else that's one conception of intellectual another is the conception of a person who uses the privilege and opportunity that they have to meet the responsibilities of any decent human being it's the same for everyone but intellectuals happen to be in a particularly privileged situation have opportunities those don't so the responsibility is greater and you can use follow-up Kissinger's Avenue or you can follow the avenue of say Martin Luther King to pick one but do you think that in the these thirty last year's intellectuals pale role in changing all these ideas about power economy no they pay a very important role huge role from take that say take the George W Bush administration or the Kennedy administration they were staffed by intellectuals and the policies that developed they called themselves in fact the best and the brightest during the Kennedy years in the Bush years it was the neoconservative intellectuals and they we can see what they achieved all intellect these critical intellect parts of the 60s and 70s and right up to the present what happened because they were more popular no they weren't they were no the critical intellectuals of the 1960s were persecuted were attacked by government programs the marginalized take say the Vietnam War the respected in fact but george bundy who was the national security adviser for Kennedy and Johnson the former dean of Harvard head of the Ford Foundation leading intellectual figure had an interesting article in foreign affairs the main establishment journal about about 1968 when the anti-war movement was really developing and he discussed the role of intellectuals he said there were serious intellectuals the ones who were called at the time technocratic and policy were and as intellectuals they're the ones who were following Kissinger's model you articulate the interests of people in power then there were the sort of bad people the value-oriented intellectuals he called them the wild men in the wings the people who not only who even go so far as to question the motives and goals of people in power they're the bad people we've got to get rid of them those are the critical intellectuals in every society that I know of almost at Prezi they're marginalized in this whole Soviet Union they were the dissidents not the Commodores and it's pretty constant across across the electoral world well um let's talk about the public opinion let me ask you you have been well-known because you defended and I think it's very I agree defense that of the free speech without restrictions you have been criticized because you conceded that the free speech suppose free speech not restrictions of any kind well I wouldn't I don't think there are any principles that are absolute there might be in fact my own view is that the US Supreme Court in 1969 under the pressure of the popular activist movements of the 60s that took a position on freedom of speech which I think is generally quite appropriate famous court decision Brandenburg the Ohio Court took the position that speech should be free up to the point of participation in an eminent critical action that means for example that if you and I go into a store with the intention of robbing it and you take out a gun and I say shoot that's not that's not protected speech that's participation in an imminent critical action but up to that point from the speech would be basically free now this is like any general criterion it's not an algorithm that you can apply mechanically depends very much on circumstances all sorts of things but as a general guiding principle I think that's pretty legitimate for example what happens with the hate speech they speech delivery my only feeling is that the way to deal with hate speech is not by silencing it but by confronting it so for example if white supremacists is invited to give a talk somewhere the right response is not to silent shout him down and beat up the supporters and so on but to use the opportunity to educate and to organize and to confront and to develop expects exposure and officer and organized opposition to the ideas and that works many cases so we'll take a concrete case about there must have been maybe 20 years ago a neo-fascist group in the United States planned to have a demonstration a march in a town in Illinois Skokie Illinois which happens to be have many Holocaust survivors in it and they were going to have a kind of a neo-nazi march through the town the American Civil Liberties Union defended the right to have the March and I think correctly and what happened is that public opposition was organized that was so impressive and overwhelming that they simply withdrew because they didn't want to be confronted that's the way you deal with for example lying in public they're lying public as post truth this concept I mean it has different meanings but you can lie to destroy the references of any other exposure that doesn't do any good to have the state to give the state notice we're word if you ban free speech you're giving the state the power to determine what's true and we know exactly where that leads so very wise and explosive don't bring in the police to tell them you're lying and don't you think that sometimes these are strategies to destroy the public opinion in fact we have huge industries which are devoted to controlling public opinion it's called the public relations industry the advertising industry its commitment is to control and manipulate public opinion should we ban it by law should we ban one of the major industries of the world by law because it is committed to controlling and manipulating public opinion and does so very effectively it drives people towards a subordination towards marginalization and in fact it says that that's what it's doing you go back to the origins of the public relations industry when people were more frank and honest than they are about it now they said that the goal is to direct people to the superficial things of life like fashionable consumption that I'm quoting from the business press and if we do that they'll leave us alone they won't bother us the conceptions which incidentally were held across the spectrum by liberal intellectuals walter Lippmann others that is that the public conception is that the I'm actually quoting now the public are stupid and ignorant of the issue they're Outsiders with the intelligent men of the community should that's us should determine and control policy and we should be protected from the trampling and the roar of the bewildered herd of people now in a free society there allowed to vote unfortunately but we have to make sure that they are under control you take Reinhold Niebuhr one of the leading theologian intellectuals highly respected by the liberal community his view was that you have to people are stupid and ignorant you have to provide them with necessary illusions and emotionally potent simplifications to keep them quiet and in the background and not disturb us those are fundamental principles of what we call liberal democratic society should they be banned by law or should they be exposed and and confronted I think the answer to that is quite clearly first of all they control the law well I want to go back to the strategies of the corporation you were talking about what about have you been several times in Mexico you have I think you understand very well the situation of Mexico today with NAFTA and all these kind of things how do you see Mexico and the global economy and the situation of countries like Mexico and Mexico so we have objective information about it since NAFTA Mexico has had one of the lowest growth rates in Latin America NAFTA was designed in such a way as to undermine and destroy Mexican agriculture Mexican campesinos may be very efficient but they cannot possibly compete with us agribusiness which incidentally doesn't work by free markets it's very highly subsidized by the state so you have huge mega corporations which are subsidized by the most powerful state in the world and a farmers obviously not going to be able compete with them so one of the immediate consequences of NAFTA is to drive people off the land into urban concentrations 1 another element of NAFTA is that these are called free trade agreements they're not they're investor rights agreements is to one element is to that Mexico must give what's called national treatment to an American a u.s. corporation that means it the u.s. a you a Mexican citizen doesn't get national treatment in the United States obviously but a business does get national treatment okay that has gonna have obvious effects of the it's claimed that makes it that NAFTA increased trade and take a look at what it increased the what's called trade by economists is not trade it's its decision its interactions within a command economy so for example if a ford motor company that produces parts in indiana sends them to the next northern mexico to be assembled and then sells the car and los angeles economists called that trade in both directions but it's very much like as in the old soviet union if parts were made and some factory in the Urals and sent to Poland for assembly and sold and Leningrad we didn't call that trade its interactions within a command economy now corporations are command economies they have by now global since the 90s and afters when part of it the global supply chains which involve interactions inside the mega corporation many of the people those involved may not even know what they're doing they're just putting things together somewhere Apple computers for example the design and development in the United States so the assembly is in China under the control of a Taiwanese Corporation which subsidiary of Foxconn meanwhile the they set up their office in Ireland or in the Jersey Island so they don't pay taxes and this is called a free enterprise in trade so when you look at the figures for trade cross borders it's extremely misleading people don't corporations are secret institutions they don't tell us what they're doing and it's very hard to get details about their internal operations you know the government can do it under subpoena power if they investigate otherwise use indirect information but it's probable that about maybe 50 percent of the so-called trade between Mexico and the United States is not trade in any serious sense The effect of these there are many other aspects to these agreements when Donald Trump says we ought to tear up NAFTA and start over he has a point but not the way he wants to reconstitute it there are very interesting proposals that are coming up mostly from Canada about how to reconstitute NAFTA one of them proposal is that in Mexico company unions should not be permitted you should there should be a freedom for independent unions develop not on the control of the companies of the government that should be an element of NAFTA another proposal from Canada is that the laws in the United States which are designed to undermine and destroy unions should be abolished there's a what are called in the United States right-to-work clause this is the age of or well doesn't mean right to work it means right to destroy unions this is these are laws which allow a worker and a plant to have protection from the Union but not pay dues to it that's called right-to-work it's obviously designed to destroy unions it's probably now going to become federal legislation the latest there was a the Supreme Court was split on this issue but with the new appointment by Trump it'll probably go to accept that the Canadian proposal is to change NAFTA to instituted nafta principles which ban these measures designed to destroy the opportunity for working people to organize for their rights of course this never gets reported in the United States you're responsible intellectually you don't talk about things like that but that's these are directions and these and other directions are ways in which NAFTA could be reconstructed they could be reconstructed in accord with the ideals of the man who's honored as the founder of modern capitalism Adam Smith who was quite anti-capitalist in fact and if you look at his what his own writings what he says is he's generally opposed to regulation by the state should allow the market to function but if regulations are instituted for the benefit of the worker then they could be legitimate so fine let's do that let's have regulations and benefit of people not private concentrations of power and after could be reconstructed along those lines and it could be an effective way of organizing interaction among several countries in the for the benefit of their populations and not for the benefit of investors in private corporations these are all when you think that this is not possible in perfect because of global globalization for example China it was supposed with NAFTA the investments of the corporations in Mexico it should come to Mexico and then they want to China or they go to Vietnam or they go to other they are speculating with their wages who makes those decisions well the corporations and they on this if we simply ask ourselves who makes those decisions then could we the answer is obvious the bank's the board of managers and so on but why should they have the right to make the decisions about where things are produced and distributed why not the workforce why not that you know no I agree with you okay I'm just questioning but that they are now in English and settles this client then let's change the institutions institutions have been changed in the past until pretty recently slavery was considered legitimate that was a major institution in fact it was the major institution if you look at Industrial Development industrial capitalism England in the United States later Europe it was very heavily based on slavery the early Industrial Revolution was it was based on cotton it was textile production required cheap cotton how do you get cheap cotton by the most vicious system of slavery in human history that's the origins of modern industrial capitalism of modern finance said the banks developed commerce retail was all based on again literally the most vicious system of slavery in human history that's called free-market capitalism I mean if we look at the actual history and compare it with the doctrines and ideology that people are told the gap is extraordinary and going back to the role of intellectuals yeah it's their role to expose this they're in a position to do it they have the resources they have the privilege access they can use it and some do and you think that for example they media are not also under control of corporations and they are be made yes they are corporations they're not under the control like New York Times Washington Post the major corporations parts of mega corporations I mean a lot of the work they do is extremely valuable the first thing I do in the morning is read the New York Times you know it's indispensable source of information yes but with in a framework of ideology and doctrine that determines what is considered worth reporting what is not reporting and how you describe it and so on so for example or we've just been talking about in my opinion ought to be headlines but you have to search to find it you came here to talk about today's environment how do you see this it's a real crisis the year the evidence is quite overwhelming that we're moving towards a situation in which organized a human life and anything like the form that we know will be impossible I mean take something I'd be simply because of the use of fossil fuels the fossil fuel use continues at anything like its present level we can expect the sea level to rise several meters and probably within the lifetime of our children can you imagine what life would be like if the to just take the prediction of the National Climate Commission in the United States pretty conservative out a couple of weeks ago they came out with their projections for the next coming years one of them is that at the current level of fossil fuel use the sea level will rise more than two meters may rise more than two meters there's some uncertainty but before the end of this century just think what the world would be like with two meters rising sea level you can ask what Mexico would be like but ask what Bangladesh would be like it's a flat coastal plain with hundreds of millions of people what happens to them and you get a me may have instead of the 60 million refugees you may have 500 million where they gonna go what's going to happen to countries like South Asia where the water supply which is already in danger will be devastated and you have two nuclear powers in India and Pakistan fighting for the same water and what's the world going to look like when cities and coastal cities are underwater when agriculture is undermined and the prospects are devastating and could be much worse there are things that are uncertain so there's what's called permafrost of right up near the surface yes and the huge areas a huge amount of carbon in there and what it's starting to melt what happens when it melts no you could have sudden so-called nonlinear processes suddenly exploding there are other aspects buried in the permafrost or ancient bacteria from long time ago they start appearing humans have and other animals have no immunity to them what happens then these are the circumstances were facing and how are we facing them by continuing and maximizing fossil fuel use so a couple of months ago you may have seen Mexico announced a new great discovery of new opportunities in the Gulf we could bring in foreign corporations produce a lot more fossil fuels and destroy the life of our grandchildren those are the but again it doesn't seems that any country is really taking serious measures against these Germany says that they are doing but they are consuming the energy of France which is uranium energy I mean I don't I think it's a little better than that the there are steps being taken to restrict the to move towards a more sustainable energy system they're being taken in many places they're not enough but they're happening and a very harmful development was that last November an administration was elected in the United States which denies that climate changes take place and was calling for expanding the use of the most destructive fossil fuels but even in the United States it's a split story so if you go to the there's a conference right now and international conference UN conference and Bonn attempting to the countries of the world attempting to move forward and setting standards for moving towards sustainable energy the United States has two delegations there one of them is from the federal government which is saying let's have more coal let's destroy the environment the other is from states and cities Jerry Brown governor of California Bloomberg former mayor of New York others are meeting also involuntary will join the international effort and it's a it's a real battle and struggle has to be solved pretty quickly and we don't have a lot of time to deal with this it's one of the two major existential crises that current generations are now faced the others the threat of nuclear war also expanding professor Chomsky thank you for this interview and nice to have you here in Mexico thank you hemos tenido el privilegio de estar con el professor Noam Chomsky unit electric sin duda reconocimiento del mundo é que que las preocupaciones a Bourdon temes como el de la democracia que hemos platica con el y los ríos goes la reducción de la democracia temes como le Cano Mila localization y las gnosis truck tours de poder que gobierno nel mundo y tambien algo muy importante el papel de los intellectuals a pesar de lo que hemos estado bien no y Plata condo Conair él tiene una visión positiva frente los problemas de medio ambiente frente a los problemas de una democracy increases inclusive frente los problemas Delp LSA i alternate eva's que pueden podemos seguir ecozone el mucho lo que los intellectuals pueden decir lo que los intellectuals NOS pueden descubrir irregular intellectuals como por ejemplo el mismo norm Chomsky muchas gracias por estar con nosotros [Music] [Music] you [Music]

Channel: TV UNAM

Views: 41,492

Rating: 4.9188643 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: Z-SA-adukG0

Length: 54min 54sec (3294 seconds)

Published: Mon Mar 12 2018