Interviewee: Thank you
Interviewer: You are a known established political thinker of left but you seem very disillusioned with the politics of main stream left in the United States and the other parts of world too, why?
Interviewee: On the hall today throughout the world the progress have no project. Their project is the project of their conservative accessories with humanizing discount. They seek the point a softer face on the agenda on their conservative opponents. And that’s not what we need.
Interviewer: That’s all important what humanizing politics is important?
Interviewee: it’s not good enough what the world is seeking now, restless as a it is, under the dictatorship of no alternative, is an alternative they would give offertunity and instrument to the ordinary man and women. So they calling is not enough?
Interviewer: In my introduction to you, I used the word revolutionary. Do you really see yourself as revolutionary?
Interviewee: While we used to think that any consequential change will have to come all of sudden in the form of substituent of one system to another. Socialism or capitalism I don’t believe that I believe that the change can be substational but never the last piecemeal, gradualist and experimental. The great problem we have now in the world is that we understand that real change must be structural it must have to do with organization of the market economy and democratic politics but unlike the liberals and the socialist of the 19th century. We can no longer commit ourselves to a dramatic blue print, so that how then can we think an act regarding to the structure without subscribing to one of the dormant.
Interviewer: So let me pick the history a little bit. If you are saying, revolution doesn’t have to be violent, it doesn’t have to be an explosive one of event, it can be gradually, it must be structural then where will you place somebody like fDr and the new deal and that period of democratic politics in America which to many word revolutionary, Did you see that as revolutionary?
Interviewee: When you see at the beginning was the last major episode of institutional experimentalisation in the United States and we need a lot more of that now. For 200 years ideological debate in the world has been dominated by the simple model the state against the market. More state less market and more market less state or some synthesis of two. Now contest is begin to emerge about the alternative form of market economy of the democratic politics and the independent civil society
Interviewer: let me pin you down into some definition, new forms of market does that mean you are oppose to free market capitalism as we have understand it today or not?
Interviewee: it’s not enough to regulate the market, it’s not enough to compensate for the qualities use in the market with respective tax and transport program, what we need is to reshape the market in its institutional contain.
Interviewer: What’s that it mean?
Interviewee: So that more people have more access to more market in more ways, so what does it mean, I will give you some examples for what it means in different areas. First we now have immerging in the world the new style of production which is characterizes by permanent innervation. We often associate with high technology with this enervative vein guard less style of production is typically confined to narrow vein guards of each national economy weekly connected with the rest and the great majority of lay before since before excluded from this vein guards. What we need is to disseminate these advance practices to large sectors of the economy on the society. Second finance and the real economy so..
Interviewer: let me stop there, if I may, the main important thing is being said I want to get which one you said. You side up an example of the Silicon Valley, the creativity so it means vitality of that particular corner of the U.S economic and you sort of imply that you want to see whole of the America economy and may be you even want to take it to your home country brazil as well as whole the Brazilian economy imbued with that element of that creativity and adding human value but I put is that is just fantasy, I mean..
Interviewer: National economy, a huge national economic can never be Silicon Valley with large just what …
Interviewee: No , not in the form of high technology but that’s not the point, the most important agents in contemporary economics are multitude of smaller medium size business and most of these business throughout the world, in United States and Brazil are pushed back to a year guard relatively primitive production. What we need is to give very large part of the labor force axis to these advance productive practices now….
Interviewer: But the state not going to be a vehicle to doing that is it surely the whole message of Silicon Valley in the rise of people like Bill Gate and Stevie Jobs is that they did that what they did with the element of genius, not because of standing deviation or stating message but because of something within themselves.
Interviewee: So we have two models of relations between government and business in the world. We have the American model of aren’t made regulation of business by government and we have the north East Asian model of implication of unitary trade and industrial policy by the beurocratic apparatus of the state what we do not have any, is the example of the decentralized partnership between government form to the end of dissimilating advance practices to large part of national economy.
Interviewer: Interesting comparison but I can’t help reflecting that if you look at success and failure in the global economy right now. Not to the success lies nor very ancient communist south Korea or may be even in china itself who are delivering incredible rates of growth and industrial development and highly educative work forces particularly in the case of….
Interviewee: Temporarily, because they have not solve fundamental problem of generalizing innervation and educational capability throughout their society so this change in the structure of the market economy has to run in parallel with several other changes. First it has to be complimented by a radical change in the character of education. We need a form of education that is analytic that deals with information on selectively as a device of the acquisition of analytical capabilities. That is co-operative rather than individualist authoritarian and that is dialectical approach to receive now is say introduces students to ideas always contrasted main points of view.
Interviewer: alright what have late out there vision for what you think a society can deliver making the most of the potential of its people, let’s move away from the abstract to deeply political I begin by asking you about the Democratic Party and the left. Let’s bring right up to date and let’s talk about Barrack Obama. You welcome this election in the rate that was significant because you used to teach Barrack Obama in harbored your school. You have since written very powerful condemnation of Barrack Obama describing him as a disaster for Democratic Party and for progressives, why disaster?
Interviewee: Because the democratic party under his leadership has fail to come up with the sequel to Rosa belt medial. There is no project in United States responsive to the needs and asproriference for the broad working class majorities of the country. Obama and his collaborators have mistaken conformism for realism. They think they gone up but in fact they fallen down.
Interviewer: Isn’t there is a difference between you as a political theories and philosopher. And Barrack Obama who lives in the real world of Washington politics, he has done what he can to drive a co and co liberal agenda. He passed through the investment of massive political capital is affordable health care act. He put huge amount of stimulus in to the economy, change some to keep America working.(inaudible). He failed out the water industry to maintain American jobs. These are all things that he did because his vision for what government can do to help ordinary people, that’s progressive politics, isn’t it?
Interviewee: Very limited no challenge to the dominant economic structure of the country. No attempt to reorganize the relationship…
Interviewer: America doesn’t want relationship; America is not a revolutionary country. It’s a country with small seek conservatives and its large as DNA.
Interviewee: It’s an experimental country. It’s a country that central creative which is faith and constructive genus of ordinary man and women. This faith has lived under the burden of an institutional idolatry. The scene of public health care of united states is the tendency to believe that country discovered at time of his foundation the definitive formula of free society and the rest of humanity by myself describe this formula or continue to languid in poverty and expectation. Now the United States need its institutional innervation to give offertunity and equipment to the ordinary man and women.
Interviewer: the point for you is whether, you are saying is the realistic in the contest of today’s America with today’s congress the balance of power as it exists in the America.
Interviewee: every transformation that we thinking about define as the direction of the long term can be translated into steps right now.
Interviewer: you talk to Obama or you communicated by email well after he left harbored law. You stayed broadly in touched with him. Why do you believed he has failed to fulfilled your hope, isn’t it because he is not prepared to show leadership, he is not prepare to go up against the force that you said working against a sort of change you want, what is it?
Interviewee: The most important attribute of the statements tenacity, courage and hope and vision. He and his collaborators have demonstrated only the first of the four and prove deficient in the other three, while being products or in words which exert the virtue in which they are lacking.
Interviewer: Just like in the words your political theory stefen homes, who have looked a lot of your ideas about what America need in terms of new progressive politics. And he said that you constantly toy with idea that America needs a new age of comfort. It needs some catastrophe, some serious moment of crisis.
Interviewee: No catastrophe no
Interviewer: while he calls it preposterous Romanization of stability.
Interviewee: just the opposite, so the limited forms of democracy politics that we know have in new world that forms the quire crisis to make change possible
Interviewer: so do you want crisis to come?
Interviewee: no I want just the opposite, I want us to organize politics and the democracy, so that we do not need trauma as a condition of transformation.
Interviewer: let me, if I may then, turn our focus to brazil away from the rich world to a very important developing country on economy and look at what happen when you invited inside the tent, inside the system in brazil. Pristine Lula do you want criticized
Interviewee: I agree to work with him in the second chance, to work with him in redirection of the country and what.
Interviewer: do you think when you were brought inside the system and you became a minister of strategic affair, some called you the minister of ideas, do you think do you really made a difference?
Interviewee: There were two great achievements in US government for the country. First Brazil democratized on the demand side, increase of the wedge, social program that diminish poverty and inequality to lesser extent.
Interviewer: to what those précised to short and tight program that in America you said just mentioning but not dealing with….
Interviewee: Popularization of assumption and consumption that was the one achievement ant the real achievement in the country is as rather than unequal as ours and the second achievement was an imaginary achievement. When the Brazilian people accepted ruler one of them as their leader, they accepted themselves and that was a revolutionary change in the spiritual life of the people. What we have failed to achieve so far is transition to the achievement of another much more difficult and important task which is democratizing on the supply zone. The unaxcess to the resources and offertunity of productions and education that democratizing of the market economy within term required a deeply meaning of democracy, that’s where I thought for the government and that’s where I fail to achieve.
Interviewer: you know, again it comes to divide between a philosopher and a practical politician. The works party is still in power, ruler affectively hand picketing success deal no receive. She says the king by the rular agenda. Yet what we see in brazil today frankly abstracting economy. We see rites approaches from the poor from the street of brazil big cites. We see a cooperate economy in big trouble. Brazil riches man is going bust. You were part of a government and philosophical approach for changing brazil with all your respect doesn’t seem to.
Interviewee: I approach to dominant, approach to opposition and I posted in the government. It easy to be a realist if you except everything and seems to be a visionary if you confront nothing. What we have to do is to accept a little to confront.
Interviewer: That where some in Brazil quarrels, for example analyst poliyar logoniya in the New York time, When you earning power in main stream government. He said the problem you don’t go is he too messianic for this country for Brazil. He have very big ideas about complete radical organization of structure of the company but it aren’t in practical.
Interviewee: Brazil is very open to an alternative message that was mine experience throughout but we lack the institution so it’s very long road. But the road has to begin consciousness and ideas we can’t change the world without that ideas and the experience of Obama and his peoples we address a moment ago conforms once again the proof that the world can’t be changed by the wordily.
Interviewer: One word we had between us …….. Is the word socialism just north of Brazil, there is Venezuela. Not so very long ago I went to Caracas to talk to late Hugo Chaves. Hugo Chaves is gone but president Medora was there and said that he is sticking by the boulevard and socialist revolution. You have lots of contact in Latin America and beyond, is there any future of socialism in your view as a way of restructuring and reordering the economy to achieve what you want the full sort of potential and every individual human being.
Interviewee: No one knows today what socialism is so why we hung up with this obstruction.
Interviewer: so when you go to Venezuela and talk to your friend in Venezuela they may tell you, our revolution our socialism (inaudible)
Interviewee: I will tell them what I believe. They have no fusible strategy of economic growth and no lasting institution model. What we need is to open the gate way of axes of the advance sectors to unless finance in the serves of the real economy because it can be a good servant but there is bad master.
Interviewer: What do you mean by list financial? Do you want to work with the big bank with the merchandise cooperatives?
Interviewee: I don’t want to serve finance, I want to serve production.
Interviewer: Why would they, they would ……….
Interviewee: by changing in the tax and regulatory structure that discourage financial activities unrelated to real production.
Interviewer: But the danger is, you end up having tendency to lie or at least you regulates so heavily that no longer is the free market capitalist system.
Interviewee: No it’s not stated as capitalist market, it’s a real market, it’s the radicalization of the market, and it’s the reinvention of the market. And now comes the third element which is we can’t have an inclusive market economy ( inaudible) that’s the new form of production emerging on the world so the basis of decentralization network of interacting relations. A new putting out system we need a new regime to protect, organize and as I told you we need to associate the state with civil society in the competitive and experimental project of public services.
Interviewer: In so many of your prescription, you use the word we need. I understand with all you learning and with your many years of political philosophizing you have very strong views about what we need. The question is who we talking about?
Interviewer: Let’s for the second, let me finish my point, you have decide how your idea some of them frankly pretty complex can be turned into something to appeal to ordinary man and women in united states and brazil, here in Europe too, how do you that?
Interviewee: Before we persuade other we have to persuade towards ourselves, we have to have the sense of direction because that’s does as the philosopher once said no one helps to the man who doesn’t know what for to say that and then we have to identify in the particular circumstance the first step by which moving that direction.
Interviewer: But I just want weather you believe in, you can move in that direction the democracy as it currently practice weather is in US or here in UK or wherever because frankly democracy is not throwing out a sort of idea that you are trading it.
Interviewee: It’s not because we have
Interviewer: So who is that faultier, is it the fault of the people who is just face to get it.
Interviewee: It’s everyone fault, the problem is an assignment of the word responsibility. The problem is throwing up to ourselves in the structure in order radically to expand the sense of collect possibility. We have this very respective repertory now of living option in the world and the world is restless under the yolk of this regime of no alternative.
Interviewer: While You say the word restless, I come back with this idea about revolution. I in quested you about it very beginning. It’s an interesting debit you in UK right now actually funny not in a sense it was generated by a comedian who also style himself as revolutionary. In the other day said in the high profile interview, he didn’t want to vote, he didn’t want anybody less to vote. He said that voting is the democratic system that we have today is just rendering yourself completely in a system will never truly represent the interest of ordinary people. Do you agree on that? Voting is in our system waste of time.
Interviewee: No I can tell what we need just the opposite to be dissolution with dissolution it. What we need is to act and through our action to create alternative political institution.
Interviewer: Do you mean acting outside the framework of politics, revolutionary action ( inaudible)
Interviewee: Acting in a every domain, acting in the institution that exist and acting outside of those institution so now we have throughout the world a form of democratic life that continues to depend on crisis to make things possible. Here we are in Britain there is the moment of revolution on the creation of local authority and it can only be fertile in the creation of natural alternative and if it is then combined with the style of high energy politics in the center, so that’s what I want.
Interviewer: So you believe change can happen. The system even as its constitution trade can deliver change.
Interviewee: We can only work with the world that exist, we have to meet the world on its own terms and transform it within
Interviewer: We have to end it there. Roberto thank you