تاسو به په سیاسي لحاظ ځان څنګه تعریف کړئ؟
ښه زه فکر کوم چې زه یو کیڼ اړخ ته سړی یم او زه به ځان ته مارکسیست وایم.
ستاسو د لیکچر عنوان دی، "په ختیځه اروپا کې د لیبرال ډیموکراسۍ ناکامي ... او هر ځای." د دې مرکې لپاره، زه واقعیا غواړم د دې لیکچر په ماهیت او محتوا تمرکز وکړم، شاید یوازې ستاسو د پوهیدو سره پیل شي چې لیبرال ډیموکراسي څه ده او څه معنی لري.
ښه البته زه هڅه کوم چې په عمومي ډول منل شوي تعریف ته نږدې وساتم ترڅو وکولی شم په معقول ډول خبرې وکړم. لیبرال ډیموکراسي د عناصرو مجموعه ده، چې زیاتره یې د فردي حقونو لیبرال عناصر دي او د خودمختاره ځان فعالیت، شخصي حاکمیت، او د دولتي ځواک په وړاندې د تضمین لپاره قانوني تضمینونه دي. او ډیموکراسي چې معنی لري، ښه، یوازې د خلکو واکمني نه، بلکې په تصمیم نیولو کې د خلکو ګډون - نن ورځ یو سړی یوه رایه، یا یو کس یوه رایه. او البته سیاسي ګډون لاهم د بشپړیدو څخه لرې دی. موږ نشو ویلای چې هر وګړی قانون جوړونکی او قانون جوړونکی دی. موږ اکثرا د قانون غیر فعال ترلاسه کونکي یو او د قانوني سیسټم اطاعت کونکي یا نافرماني تابعین یو.
پروفیسور تاماس استدلال کوي چې لیبرال ډیموکراسي د 1980 لسیزې په پیل کې راڅرګنده شوې وه مګر دا شیان د بحران وروسته خورا څرګند شوي، او دا نن ورځ په ځانګړې توګه سخته شوې ده. یو له مرکزي دلیلونو څخه چې هغه یې رامینځته کوي دا دی چې د نړۍ نفوس ډیریدونکي سلنه زموږ د غالب ټولنیز نظم څخه په بشپړ ډول بهر کیږي. ټیکنالوژي په نړۍ کې د ډیری لپاره کار بې ځایه کړی دی، او له همدې امله دوی د پانګې - کارګر اړیکو څخه بهر شتون لري.
It seems to me that nowadays we are not only failing to fulfill the moral and theoretical conditions of what would constitute a liberal democracy, but even our faith in the fundamental principles is dwindling as a result of some changes. These changes consist mostly of technological and economic developments that partly through globalization (i.e. the flight of capital to lower wage regions of the world; therefore, the demolition of traditional North American and European manufacturing industries and other economic assets have been stripped and just exported to where there is technology on the one hand, and on the other hand, cheap labour). But most importantly, these technological developments make it so that every human activity is so mechanized—to use the old expression—digitalized, and miniaturized, and robotized, and automated and so on, that the old dispensation according to which most people worked in manufacturing or in services and commerce, it’s not true of today.
There won’t be again full employment. Most people will be outside of productive work—productive meaning producing commodities that can be sold on the market. And that means that the previous modals of social organization, which were mostly work, will be lacking. They will be characteristic of only a minority of the populations, and the rest of us will be dependent upon the community itself to survive. So partly there will be people who work in the public interest, but not productive, like schoolteachers and doctors and so on. And the rest, if society remains as it is, will be in dire need of social assistance, social assistance that must be available based on resources that governments insist they are lacking. Of course this is a system that I do not recognize or let alone like, but if you accept the basic facts about it—which I don’t—then it’s quite obvious that the resources are not there, and governments will have to choose between various groups—whom to assist, whom to help, and who will be left behind, neglected, excluded, condemned to very precarious life or to death by starvation.
And therefore the political community is split along the lines of legitimacy of income—what I mean by this is that, still in all our societies there are two main legitimate sources of income: capital and labour. As for the rest, that comes to us through state redistribution—tax monies that are redistributed by government—that are subject to political decisions. And an increasing number of people are dependent on resources that are available to them through redistribution and government channels. And the government has the immense power nowadays, although it has been depleted institutionally, to decide who will get what, and since not everybody can receive these goodies, there’s a great fight about legitimizing or delegitimizing social groups. So nowadays you will say that people with some illnesses, people above a certain age, immigrants, racial groups, lifestyle groups designated as being of a criminal behaviour and the undeserving poor—to use the 19th century expression—those people are not only ill-served by their government, but also excluded from the core of society, and real active citizenship is re-becoming a privileged instead of a general condition of human beings. And that is something new. After all, liberal democracies aspired to universalize civic rights, to extend the privileges and securities and pride of citizenship to virtually all human beings. Well this trend has been reversed, and this is what I call the failure of liberal democracy.
یو له هغو مثالونو څخه چې تاسو د دې لینونو په اوږدو کې ورکړی د هنګري اساسي قانون دی. ایا تاسو کولی شئ په لنډه توګه تشریح کړئ چې هلته څه پیښ شوي؟
په تېر يو نيم کال کې د هنګري سياسي پرمختګ ډېر اندېښمن کړی دی. نوی حکومت نوی رژیم نصب کړ. دا یوازې د حکومت بدلون نه دی؛ دا د ټول هیواد یو ډیر ژور بدلون دی چې د سلګونو نویو قوانینو سره د هیواد ټول قانوني جوړښت بدلوي - د یو ډیر نیمګړتیا مګر لاهم شتون لرونکي لیبرال ډیموکراتیک نظم څخه په خورا عصري، خورا معاصر استبدادي نظام کې، چې په ډیر احتیاط سره فکر کیږي. او ډیر همغږي. دا یو شمیر اقدامات لري چې زه نشم کولی په لنډه مرکه کې لیست کړم، کوم چې د مطبوعاتو ازادۍ، د غونډې ازادي، د اعتصاب حق او دا ټول شیان کموي، پداسې حال کې چې ډیری بنسټونه چې د یو ډول خپلواکۍ څخه برخمن دي، کموي. رسنیو ته، پوهنتونونو ته، ښوونځیو ته، هنري موسسو ته، اتحادیو ته، هر څه ته.
But all this is based on a very intellectually interesting development in constitutional law that also has some symbolic changes—for example, Hungary is no longer designated a republic as of the January 1. It’s just Hungary. And where there are articles from the old constitution disappearing, such as equal pay for equal work—that’s not any longer in the constitution. Old welfare statist prescriptions are not there any longer. But what is most important is that rights are not defined as they are normally—like in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the beginning of your Constitution—but they are made dependent on the satisfactory delivery of duties—delivery of public functions and observance of duties. And there are other articles of the Constitution wherein its partially hidden, partially declared openly, that only citizens with a community spirit, and honest work, and appropriate makeup of a citizen can really count on the plenitude of all rights. The state is not obliging itself any longer to the performance of obligations on the side of the state toward citizens. So, for example, whenever the old constitution said that the government must guarantee housing or health or whatever, it said now that the government must do its best to insure fairness, health, housing, welfare, et cetera. So both the welfare state remnants in the old constitution are wiped out completely, and also the absoluteness of rights on which liberal democracies are based in most places have disappeared, which of course enables the authorities to deny various things to citizens in need.
داسې ښکاري چې دا یو رجحان دی چې موږ یې شاهد یو، لکه څنګه چې تاسو وایئ، نه یوازې په ختیځ اروپا کې، بلکې په بل هر ځای کې - د استبدادي دا ډیریدونکي رجحانات، په ځانګړې توګه په مقننه اړخ کې، خورا ځانګړي برید کونکي قوانین. دا زما لپاره د دولت د رول په اړه په زړه پورې پوښتنې راپورته کوي. په ځانګړې توګه په کاناډا کې، د انارشیست تنظیم کولو قوي بنسټ شتون لري. دا دلته په ښي خوا کې یو قوي انګیزه ده. زه حیران وم چې ایا تاسو کولی شئ د انارکیزم په اړه خپل افکار وغږیږئ ، په ځانګړي توګه د هغه چا په توګه چې ډیری وختونه یې د سیاسي ګوندونو سره کار کړی وي.
Well, I was myself an anarchist as a young man, and most of that I haven’t reneged on. I published in some illegal publication called the Eye and the Hand, and it actually has been translated into French, and appeared in a small anarchist publishing house in Switzerland in 1985. “Louis la main” it’s called. It’s a short tract of anarchist political libertarian philosophy.
The problem of the state is very perverse nowadays, because the state is the only hope of many needy abandoned people—the same oppressive people that causes most of the problems. And people cling to the state, still hoping that the state, according to the old principles, is still representing fairness, and help, and redistribution, and a soothing hand. Well needless to say that this is a vain hope. But we always have to take into account that we are speaking within the frameworks of the existing capitalist system, which I’ve done up until now in this interview, accepting experimentally that this is the framework in which we live. And of course I’m not at all opposed to reformistically trying to improve our lot if possible, although in the past time we haven’t witnessed the most progressive performance.
And when I’m taking a step back to look more carefully at things, of course I know that there is no substantial hope of the state improving. You can see that in such countries like Canada, which, compared to others, has been a pretty mild proposition. It’s becoming ever more brutal, although nothing on the scale of the French or the Italian state. Nevertheless, I can see, even though I have no large knowledge of Canada, that privacy, treatment of prison populations, police powers, there’s a progress backwards. It’s called regress. So of course I don’t think that, if indeed the possibility of oppression is enshrined in the basic tenets of any given society, then you can expect the oppressors to convince them that in the goodness of their heart that they should dispense with all this. Of course they wouldn’t. What has been the only thing, and what will always be, is to mount pressure and to build up counter-powers.
او که تاسو د انارکیستانو سره خبرې کوئ، پوښتنه دا ده چې څنګه د ضد ځواک رامینځته کول دي، کله چې د دوی په ماهیت کې ضد واکونه هم درجه بندي وي؟ تاسو جبر کاروئ، کوم چې کیدای شي د نورو ډولونو په پرتله ډیر منتشر او لږ زهرجن وي. په هرصورت، که تاسو مشرتابه لرئ، که تاسو تنظیمي بڼې لرئ، نو د یو ډول یا بل ډول جبر به تل عملي شي. دا تقریبا ابدي ستونزې دي. په هرصورت، زه فکر کوم چې موږ باید د هر څه په ترسره کولو سره وګرځو - په خپلو حلقو کې د راتلونکي - سوله ایز، مساوي، او غیر ظالمانه او بې ځایه شوي ټولنې څخه مخکې د پخوانۍ ستونزې په اړه بیا غور وکړو. څنګه په استحصال، ظلم او جبر کې ژوند وکړو او په ټولو احساساتو کې ټولنه ټوټه ټوټه کړو، بخښنه، په داسې طریقه چې موږ کولی شو لږ تر لږه په خپل ژوند کې د هغه اصولو درک کولو هڅه وکړو چې موږ یې غواړو ژوند وکړو. دا خورا خورا ستونزمن کار دی، په داسې حال کې چې موږ باید خپل ژوند ترلاسه کړو، او په زندان کې پاتې شو، او د دې ټولو شیانو څخه ډډه وکړو، په داسې حال کې چې جوړجاړی، او مرغۍ، او ځان پټول، او په دې اړه دروغ ویل چې موږ څوک یو. زه ښه پوهیږم چې تاکتیکي ژوند ستاسو غاښونه څنګه خرابوي. د دې لپاره هیڅ حل نشته. دا پدې مانا ده چې تاسو باید ملیوس رامینځته کړئ په کوم کې چې یو ډول باور شتون لري چې تاسو کولی شئ پدې ټولو ستونزو کې اخلاقي مرسته ترلاسه کړئ ، او دا د فرقې جوړونې او د کلتور جوړولو ټولې معمولې ستونزې لري. ډیری رنځپوهنې شتون لري چې د آزادۍ مینه والو خلکو ته زیان رسوي څوک چې غواړي د دې واقعیا نه زغملو ټولنو څخه بهر شي.
د دې په اړه خورا خبرې کول - د بدیلونو رامینځته کولو لپاره په موجوده ټولنیزو نظمونو کې هڅه - یقینا یو قوي حوصلې شتون لري ، په ځانګړي توګه د پانګوالي وروستي بحران وروسته ، یا د پانګوالي وروستي بحران په مینځ کې ، یو قوي سوسیالیستي تحرک. او زه غواړم د یوې مقالې په اړه وغږیږم چې تاسو لیکلي وو، "کمونیزم د سوسیالیزم په کنډوالو کې." په داسې وخت کې چې د کیڼ اړخو پراخې برخې د بیا راژوندي شوي سوسیالیزم غوښتنه کوي، دا مقاله ډیره وايي چې که هر څه وي، سوسیالیزم د پانګوالۍ په ساتلو کې مرسته کړې ده. نو تاسو کولی شئ له دې سره خبرې وکړئ، شاید؟
Right, so this was initially a speech that I gave last year [2010] in Berlin together with Alain Badiou, Slavoj Žižek and Antonio Negri. I’m proud of it, yes—great men. So the main thing about it is that socialism, which is my common name for the social democratic and the Bolshevik branches of the former international workers movement, that in their own separate ways, what they have realized, which in terms of civilization is enormous—state based egalitarianism—real egalitarianism. I mean transformation of life in which, to use the language of the epoch, the common man for the first time could enjoy a roof over his and his families head, indoor plumbing, hot water, some sanitation, guaranteed pensions, paid holidays, all that stuff, which of course is an enormous advance compared to what the situation had been in the 19th century, and of course for millennia. So for the first time, working people had a modicum of counter-power in the workers movement, in whatever forms—democratic or dictatorial forms—and gave a kind of counter-hegemony in working class culture. And what I’m always saying to make it comprehensible, is that all subordinate classes in history before, what was their culture? It was folklore, complaint, rage—but mostly complaint. And then the working class was the first subordinate class in history that had its own science, its own theory, its own philosophy, its own political organization, its own separate corporate pride, and its own attempt to gain power, and build up its own state, and to kick its adversaries in the teeth. And this is a tremendous historical development, a huge achievement…which failed.
Because of course it could not, and did not, create a society in which the fundamental characteristics of exploitation and hierarchy disappeared. These were, even in the social democratic variant, pretty hierarchical and oppressive societies, in spite of the undeniable great merits of the 20th century—I mean real heroism, so this is a respectable thing that will be remembered as Ancient Greece is remembered. Nevertheless, it is the past, and in many ways a very unsavoury past. I have no illusions about its tragic greatness, if you wish. Now, the characteristics of socialism in this sense—I mean real socialism in a social democratic and Bolshevik way—of course these were productivists and tried to accumulate and produce a lot and construct newer enterprises and plants and factories based on a very limited and naïve faith in technology and the natural sciences, and in growth, which of course they shared with capitalism. These were societies in which it was not the suppression of wage labour that was aimed at but wage raises; not the abolition of commodity production was aimed at, but more commodities (i.e. more consumption); wealth, abundance if possible. So therefore I feel that, as people have felt before, that there’s no time to try the detour through étatiste, welfarist, egalitarian systems to get humankind out of their contemporary shit. I don’t think that we can, or we should, try the social democratic solution, which is of course superior to the present order, but reconstructing it will be very onerous, people don’t really like it, and it could not address the bio-political problem that I alluded to earlier [the bio-political problem of climate change, which Tamas argues, is immensely difficult to tackle in a liberal democratic manner].
Now stimulating production wouldn’t solve the problems of the majority. Work has to be changed, production has to be changed, consumption has to be changed, social hierarchy has to be changed, the whole rationality of public administration and law has to be change—in short, the system must be changed, because it cannot survive in this way. I very much would like humankind to survive. And I very much would like this to happen without supreme sacrifice—in destroying our livelihood, our culture, our nature, our towns and so on. A lot of valuable and fun things are going on, and it would be a pity if we had to hunker down in some igloos to survive the global storm provoked by capitalism. So it’s an urgent task, and I know it sounds absurd, but given what we see around us, it’s extremely urgent to turn toward the original ideas of communism, which of course, I must emphasize, has nothing to do with 20th century dictatorships. The idea of a society in which the artificial separations between producers and the means of production, between classes, between races, between persons in authority and persons who obey et cetera, should be dispensed with, and in which indeed human activity based on personal aspirations and non-hierarchical relations should decide about directions to be taken, and which sacrifices in the favour of an imagined supreme common good are not any longer expected.
I’ll give you a shamefully simple example. What are we spending on the military, which is of course especially in North America is something really obscene, and which contributes to death by being shot, and death by the terrible environmental damage that military activities [inflict]. I just read a very good article in Canadian Dimension about the environmental damage that the military is inflicting on all our societies. And we are supposed to pay for this in taxes, and to suffer the terrible consequences in the name of a supposed superior common good un-debated by the citizens. These things have to stop.
People should really take over, and triumph over the automatisms, and the mechanisms and the impersonal building blocks of capital in which what looks as spontaneity is just anonymity and impersonality of capitalist power. And it is urgent I say because we are of course in great trouble. This has happened before, and in that respect we are very much like people in the 1920s—there’s a great bitterness, and unhappiness, and callousness everywhere—and this is nothing that cannot be stopped. We are no worse than we’ve been before, nor better, but there’s no really intrinsic reasons why things should be like this. And I think the radical solutions will do, because the moderate solutions have been tried, are being tried, without any result. I mean quite seriously who would really believe that, for example in your country, Mr. Harper’s Conservative government gets voted down in one moment and then comes who? You know, Mr. Topp [NDP leadership candidate] or somebody, more humane—a slower version. And everybody knows, of course even small advances aren’t to be spurned, but they won’t really help. But what is the obstacle between us and this noble goal is a great deficiency of which I share, unfortunately. We don’t have the innovative and imaginative way of people in the 19th century to invent new political forms. I think we all should furiously think about what kind of guaranteed free forms of political struggle to invent, because we seem to be clueless, myself included.