Who rules the world?

The world we live in is a complex web of power games, economic interests and environmental challenges. The book Who Rules the World? by Noam Chomsky offers an insightful look at these dynamics, revealing how power elites, foreign policy, and irresponsible attitudes toward the planet are shaping today's reality. Chomsky asks the key questions: who really holds power in their hands? What tools do superpowers and corporations use to maintain their dominance? And what price do ordinary people pay for this? This book is a cautionary message that invites us to reflect on the direction of humanity and to seek pathways to a more just and sustainable future.

On a global chessboard where every player is vying for power and influence, the United States stands firmly in a position to determine the rules of the game. This dominance is not only the result of military power or economic wealth, but above all the ability to create narratives that influence the thinking of other countries. Despite the rise of economies in China or India, the US remains seen as the main guarantor of the 'international order', even though this order is often built on asymmetry and the benefit of the more powerful. History shows that this US position began to take shape after the Second World War, when the Marshall Plan revitalised European economies while consolidating US influence on the old continent. Through international institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the UN, the United States has been able to assert its interests while maintaining its image as the 'defender of freedom'. However, what seemed like aid often led to the dependence of smaller countries on American economic or military support. During the Cold War, America gained another advantage. At a time when the world feared the expansion of communism, it acted as the leader of the Western bloc and the defender of democratic values. However, this narrative did not reflect reality in all cases - support for dictatorships in Latin America or interventions in the Middle East showed that 'values' were often subordinated to geopolitical interests. In modern times, dominance is manifested in more subtle ways. Technology giants like Google, Apple and Amazon are extending American influence into every household and changing the ways we communicate, shop or work. The dollar remains the world's reserve currency, giving the US a huge economic advantage. American movies, music and TV shows also dominate the cultural landscape, spreading ideas that influence the minds and values of billions of people. However, US dominance is not unthreatened. More and more countries are questioning the unilateral nature of American influence. Projects such as China's 'Belt and Road' show that new players are on the horizon who want to rewrite the rules of the game. Although the United States is still on top, the question is not whether it will lose this position, but when and under what circumstances. A world led by one country is inevitably full of paradoxes. The United States, as the guarantor of peace, often wages wars that undermine the stability of regions. As promoters of democracy, it supports governments that trample on these principles. This imbalance makes us wonder what mechanisms could replace the dominance of one hegemon with a fairer system of global governance.

The world we live in is often portrayed as a place where democracy and freedom determine the direction of society. In reality, however, power often rests in the hands of a small group of political and financial elites who influence decision-making at international and domestic levels. This concentration of power is characteristic of many modern states, where formal democratic structures serve as a façade for the interests of oligarchs and large corporations. One of the most visible examples of this phenomenon is the lobby groups in Washington. Companies such as ExxonMobil or Goldman Sachs invest millions of dollars in campaigns and direct contacts with politicians in order to secure legislation favourable to their business. The same model is at work in Europe, where large corporations influence decision-making in Brussels - from regulation of the technology sector to climate policy. As a result, the interests of the wealthiest often outweigh the needs of ordinary citizens. The political elite often collaborate with financial tycoons in order to consolidate their position. This is illustrated by the rise of the oligarchs in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where a few individuals gained control of key sectors of the economy. Similar patterns can be seen in the West, where financial crises such as the one in 2008 have shown how the interplay between political and economic interests can destabilise entire societies. The banks that caused the crisis were bailed out with public funds, while millions of people lost their homes and savings. This concentration of power has not bypassed international institutions. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, originally set up to promote economic development, are often criticised for pursuing policies that favour wealthy states and corporations. Demands to liberalise markets or privatise public services in poorer countries often lead to even greater dependence of these states on the global North. The problem, however, is not only the very existence of this elite, but also the way in which it consolidates its power. Through media influence, they shape public opinion and weaken the ability of citizens to oppose unjust systems. Similarly, educational institutions, which are funded by large corporations, often promote ideologies that legitimise the current power structure. The question before us is whether it is possible to change this system. Many experts argue that the solution could be greater transparency in politics, stricter regulation of corporations and more active citizen participation. But this requires not only systemic reforms, but also a change of mindset - a rejection of passivity and an acceptance of responsibility for the future we want to create. A world controlled by a small group cannot be fair if it does not ensure equal opportunities for all.

US foreign policy is often presented as protecting democracy and human rights around the world. But behind this façade are long-standing power ambitions, which Chomsky notes with the precision of a surgeon. This policy is not driven by ideals, but by the pragmatic objectives of securing control over strategic areas and resources, even at the cost of supporting authoritarian regimes or destroying democratic initiatives. In Latin America, the United States has often been involved in coups that have overthrown democratically elected governments. An example is the Guatemalan coup in 1954, when the CIA deposed President Jacobo Árbenz in order to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company. This intervention led to decades of instability and harsh dictatorships, the consequences of which are still being felt in the country today. The same was true in Chile in 1973, where Salvador Allende was replaced by the regime of Augusto Pinochet, known for his brutal suppression of the opposition. The Middle East is another example of the duplicity of American policy. While the United States criticises authoritarian regimes, it often supports them when it suits its geopolitical interests. Relations with Saudi Arabia, a country with one of the most repressive regimes in the world, are emblematic of this pragmatic policy. On the other hand, the intervention in Iraq in 2003 was justified by the fight against weapons of mass destruction that were never found. This conflict brought enormous human suffering and destabilisation to the entire region. Economic interests are also driving foreign policy. Through instruments such as sanctions, the US is able to economically isolate countries that it perceives as a threat. For example, the embargo on Cuba was intended to weaken the communist regime, but in reality it has affected ordinary people the most. Conversely, countries that are strategically important for US investment are often supported regardless of their undemocratic practices. Chomsky also draws attention to the military aspect of US foreign policy. After the end of the Cold War, the United States remained the largest military power, with its military bases spread all over the world. This militarisation has not only come at a huge cost to the American taxpayer, but has also created a sense of threat to other countries, contributing to the escalation of global tensions. US foreign policy thus reflects power interests at the expense of stated ideals. Its criticism is not just an academic debate, but an issue that affects the lives of millions of people. If the world is to be a fairer and more stable place, it is essential for the great powers, including the United States, to prioritise genuine cooperation over hegemony.

In an era when technological advances continue to surpass human expectations, nuclear weapons remain a memento of the dangers that these innovations can bring. Chomsky describes nuclear weapons as one of the greatest threats to humanity's survival, but he also points to the striking lack of seriousness with which the world treats the issue. The potential destruction that their use would bring is almost unimaginable, yet the nuclear arsenal is not only being maintained but modernised. Historical events, such as the 1962 Cuba crisis, show how close the world may be to a nuclear apocalypse. During those tense days, the fate of billions of people was decided in mere seconds, and the cool heads of a few individuals prevented the worst. However, this incident is just the tip of the iceberg - there have been many other situations since then where technical errors or misinterpretations could have led to irreparable consequences. The nuclear powers, in particular the United States, Russia and China, are constantly engaged in an arms race. The modernisation of weapons and the development of tactical nuclear warheads suggest that their use may no longer be a theoretical possibility. In this context, it is particularly worrying that diplomatic arms control efforts, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), are increasingly being ignored or undermined by unilateral moves. For example, the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty in 2019 signalled a return to a policy of confrontation. However, the dangers of nuclear weapons do not only lie in conflicts between great powers. The proliferation of nuclear arsenals allows this deadly technology to fall into the hands of countries with unstable regimes or terrorist groups. The scenario in which a nuclear warhead is used in a regional conflict or for a terrorist attack is no longer a matter of science fiction, but a real threat that security experts are considering. Humanity today stands at a crossroads. Either it will continue the arms race, which only leads to greater risk and escalation of tensions, or it will choose the path of disarmament and international cooperation. Initiatives such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017, are a beacon of hope. Their efforts show that a world without nuclear weapons is not a utopia, but a goal that requires political courage and global solidarity. Nuclear weapons are a reminder of our ability to create instruments of destruction. Chomsky stresses that addressing this threat requires more than technical measures - it requires changing the way we think about security, power and responsibility. If we want to survive, we must realise that real power lies not in the ability to destroy, but in the willingness to work together to keep the peace.

Climate change is no longer a distant threat, but a reality that affects the daily lives of people all over the planet. Rising global temperatures, rising ocean levels, more frequent and intense natural disasters - these are all consequences we are facing. Yet despite scientific evidence and alarming forecasts, the response of world leaders often remains inadequate, which Chomsky argues reveals an imbalance between economic interests and the need to address the environmental crisis. Looking at the historical context, we realise that the Industrial Revolution brought not only technological advances but also the beginning of massive emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Today, fossil fuels, which form the basis of modern economies, are responsible for a large proportion of emissions. Despite the fact that scientists have been warning about their impact on the climate for decades, large energy companies and their lobbyists have been holding back the transition to renewables. ExxonMobil, for example, recognised the consequences of burning fossil fuels as early as the 1980s, but invested in spreading doubts about climate change instead of solutions. But climate change is not just an emissions issue - it has profound social, economic and political consequences. In poorer countries, its impacts are particularly harsh. Examples can be seen in sub-Saharan Africa, where long periods of drought are leading to crop failures and forcing millions of people from their homes. This migration is causing tensions in other regions and shows that the climate crisis is not an isolated problem, but a global challenge that requires international cooperation. On the other side are the policies of the great powers. The United States, one of the largest emitters, has repeatedly failed to meet its commitments. The withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017 was a symbol of a short-sighted approach that prioritises economic interests over environmental responsibility. Although the US later returned to the agreement, constant compromises and pressure from industry are slowing real progress. But in an environment where large corporations and governments often seem to be failing to react quickly enough, promising initiatives are also emerging. Movements like Fridays for Future, led by young activists like Greta Thunberg, show that public pressure can change the political agenda. Cities and local communities are also implementing innovative solutions, from expanding renewable energy to creating sustainable infrastructure. Climate change is testing our ability to move beyond short-term interests and think about future generations. Chomsky warns that ignoring this crisis can lead us down a path of irreversible damage. If we want to keep the planet habitable, we must not only change the ways we produce and consume, but also rethink the very foundations of what we think of as progress and prosperity. The future of our planet depends on a willingness to act now - by individuals, communities and, most importantly, by those who hold power in their hands.

Chomsky's work reveals the deep injustices and inequalities that lie beneath the surface of the modern world. The dominance of political and economic elites, the manipulative foreign policies of the great powers and the ignorance of ecological challenges are bringing us to the brink of a social and environmental crisis. But at the same time, the book offers an opportunity for reflection and mobilisation - showing that change is possible if we act with a sense of responsibility towards future generations. Ultimately, the message is simple: if we want to survive and prosper, we must replace the power game with cooperation, sustainability and true equality. Chomsky gives us a mirror in which to see ourselves as we are - and at the same time a hope for who we could be. Do you have feedback for us? We'd love it if you let us know your opinion on our content! Just send an email to feedback@rewio.app with the title of this book in the subject line and share your impressions!