Roberto Unger - Philosopher HARDtalk


Roberto Unger - Philosopher

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Roberto Unger - Philosopher. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

levels of government. Syrian officials have dismissed the

:00:00.:00:00.

allegations. It is time for HARDtalk.

:00:00.:00:07.

Welcome to HARDtalk. What exactly is progressive politics? In the rich

:00:08.:00:18.

world, it is identified with the centre`left, with faith in the

:00:19.:00:20.

State's ability to ameliorate the perceived excesses of the market

:00:21.:00:28.

capitalism. My guest today has a more ambitious take on what it means

:00:29.:00:33.

to be progressive. Roberto Unger is an influential Brazilian political

:00:34.:00:36.

philosopher, who taught Barack Obama law at Harvard. He served as the

:00:37.:00:43.

former president's so`called Minister of ideas in Brazil. He

:00:44.:00:50.

calls himself a revolutionary. Is the world, rich or poor, ready for

:00:51.:00:51.

his progressive revolution? Roberto Unger. Welcome to HARDtalk.

:00:52.:01:29.

Thank you. You are a long established political thinker in the

:01:30.:01:33.

left. You seem very disillusioned with the politics of the mainstream

:01:34.:01:36.

left in the United States, and indeed in other parts of the world.

:01:37.:01:42.

Why? On the whole today, the Progressives have no project. Their

:01:43.:01:48.

projects are that projects of their conservative opponents, with a

:01:49.:01:55.

humanising discount. They seek to put a softer face on the agenda of

:01:56.:02:01.

their conservative opponents. That is not what we need. Isn't

:02:02.:02:08.

humanising politics important? It is not good enough. What the world is

:02:09.:02:13.

seeking now, restless as it is under the dictatorship of no alternatives,

:02:14.:02:16.

is an alternative that would give the opportunity and instruments to

:02:17.:02:25.

the ordinary man and woman. Sugar coating is not enough.

:02:26.:02:31.

In my introduction to you, I used the word revolutionary. Do you

:02:32.:02:33.

really see yourself as a revolutionary?

:02:34.:02:37.

Well, we used to think that any consequential change would have to

:02:38.:02:40.

come all of a sudden, in the form of a substitution of one system for

:02:41.:02:48.

another. Socialism for capitalism. I do not believe that. I believe that

:02:49.:02:53.

change can be substantial but nevertheless piecemeal, gradualist,

:02:54.:03:00.

and experimental. A great problem we have in the world now, we understand

:03:01.:03:08.

that change must be structural. It has to do with the organisation of

:03:09.:03:11.

the market economy, and of democratic politics. Unlike the

:03:12.:03:18.

Liberals and the socialists of the 19th`century, we can no longer

:03:19.:03:21.

commit ourselves to a dogmatic blueprint. How then can we think and

:03:22.:03:27.

act with regard to the structure, without subscribing to one of these

:03:28.:03:39.

dogmas? Let me pick away at history. If you are thinking that revolution

:03:40.:03:42.

does not have to be violent, that it does not have to be explosive, it

:03:43.:03:46.

can be gradual and structural, where would you lay someone like FDR, and

:03:47.:03:55.

the New Deal? That period of democratic politics in America which

:03:56.:04:02.

to many was revolutionary? Did you see that as revolutionary? The New

:04:03.:04:06.

Deal at the beginning was the last major episode of institutional

:04:07.:04:08.

experimentation in the United States. We need a lot more of that,

:04:09.:04:17.

now. For 200 years, ideological debate in the world has been

:04:18.:04:21.

dominated by a simple model. The state against the market. More

:04:22.:04:29.

state, less market, or the opposite. Or some synthesis of the two. A new

:04:30.:04:37.

contest is beginning to emerge. This is about the alternative forms of

:04:38.:04:40.

the market economy, of democratic politics, and of independent civil

:04:41.:04:44.

society. Let me pin you down to some definitions. New forms of market.

:04:45.:04:49.

Does that mean you are opposed to free`market capitalism, as we

:04:50.:04:55.

understand it today? Or not? It is not enough to regulate the

:04:56.:04:59.

market. It is not enough to compensate for the inequalities of

:05:00.:05:01.

market through retrospective tax and transfer programmes. What we need is

:05:02.:05:10.

to reshape the market in its institutional context. What does

:05:11.:05:14.

that mean? So that more people have more access

:05:15.:05:18.

to markets in more ways. What does it mean? I will give you examples of

:05:19.:05:25.

what it means in different areas. First, we now have emerging in the

:05:26.:05:30.

world a new style of production. It is characterised by permanent

:05:31.:05:34.

innovation. We associate it with high technology. This style of

:05:35.:05:41.

production is typically confined to narrow vanguards of each national

:05:42.:05:44.

economy, weakly connected with the rest. The majority are excluded from

:05:45.:05:55.

this vanguard. We need to disseminate these advanced practices

:05:56.:05:58.

to large sectors of the economy and society. Finance and the real

:05:59.:06:07.

economy. So... Let me stop you there. Important

:06:08.:06:11.

things are being said, I want to get to the heart of each one. You have

:06:12.:06:15.

cited the example of Silicon Valley, the creativity, the immense vitality

:06:16.:06:18.

of that particular corner of the US economy. You have implied that you

:06:19.:06:25.

want to see the whole of the American economy, indeed, maybe even

:06:26.:06:27.

Brazil, imbued with that element of creativity and added human value. I

:06:28.:06:36.

would put it to you that that is fantasy.

:06:37.:06:40.

No. A huge national economy could never

:06:41.:06:45.

be Silicon Valley, writ large. It would not work.

:06:46.:06:48.

Not in the form of high technology. That is not the point. The most

:06:49.:06:51.

important agents in contemporary economies are a multitude of small

:06:52.:06:59.

and medium`sized businesses. Most of these businesses throughout the

:07:00.:07:02.

world, in the US, in Brazil, are pushed back to a rear guard of

:07:03.:07:11.

relatively primitive production. What we need is to give very large

:07:12.:07:15.

parts of the labour force access to these advanced productive practices.

:07:16.:07:22.

The state will not be the vehicle for doing that. Surely, the message

:07:23.:07:27.

of Silicon Valley and the rise of people like Bill Gates and Steve

:07:28.:07:30.

Jobs, they did what they did with an element of genius, not because of

:07:31.:07:33.

state intervention or state messages, but because of something

:07:34.:07:39.

within themselves. So, we have two models of

:07:40.:07:42.

relationship between government and businesses in the world. The

:07:43.:07:45.

American model, orange length regulation of business by

:07:46.:07:48.

government. Then the north`east Asian model of imposition of a

:07:49.:07:51.

unitary trade and industrial policy by the bureaucratic apparatus of the

:07:52.:07:59.

state. What we do not have, and what we need, is the example of a

:08:00.:08:02.

decentralised partnership between governments and firms, to the end of

:08:03.:08:05.

disseminating these advanced practices through large parts of

:08:06.:08:13.

each national economy. An interesting comparison. I cannot

:08:14.:08:16.

help but reflect it. If you look at success in the global economy, much

:08:17.:08:20.

of the success lies in those very Asian economies, think South Korea

:08:21.:08:22.

or maybe even China, who are delivering incredible rates of

:08:23.:08:24.

growth and industrial development, and highly educated workforces,

:08:25.:08:27.

particularly in the case of South Korea. Temporarily. They have not

:08:28.:08:38.

solved the fundamental problem of generalising innovation and

:08:39.:08:39.

educational capability throughout the society. This change in the

:08:40.:08:47.

structure of the market economy has to run in parallel with several

:08:48.:08:52.

other changes. First, it has to be complemented by a radical change in

:08:53.:09:05.

education. We needed to be analytic. We need to deal with information

:09:06.:09:09.

only selectively, as a device of the acquisition of analytic

:09:10.:09:10.

capabilities, that is cooperative rather than individualist and

:09:11.:09:12.

authoritarian, and that is dialectical in its approach to

:09:13.:09:20.

receive knowledge. That is to say, it introduces students to ideas,

:09:21.:09:22.

always to contrasting points of view.

:09:23.:09:29.

You have laid out a vision to what you think a society can deliver,

:09:30.:09:32.

making the most of the potential of the people. Let us move away from

:09:33.:09:38.

the abstract to the deeply political. I began by asking you

:09:39.:09:41.

about the Democratic party and the left. Let us bring that up to date,

:09:42.:09:46.

and talk about Barack Obama. You welcomed his election, and that was

:09:47.:09:48.

significant, because you used to teach him at Harvard. You have since

:09:49.:09:55.

written very powerful condemnations of Barack Obama, describing him as a

:09:56.:09:58.

disaster for the Democratic party, and for progressives. Why a

:09:59.:10:07.

disaster? Because the Democratic party under

:10:08.:10:10.

his leadership has failed to come up with the sequel to results. ``

:10:11.:10:26.

Roosevelt's new deal. There is no project in the US

:10:27.:10:29.

responsive to the needs and aspirations of the broad

:10:30.:10:31.

working`class majority of the country.

:10:32.:10:32.

Obama and his collaborators have mistaken conformism for realism.

:10:33.:10:38.

They think they have grown up. In fact, they have fallen down.

:10:39.:10:41.

Isn't this the difference between a USA political theorist and

:10:42.:10:44.

philosopher, and Barack Obama, who lives in the real world of

:10:45.:10:49.

Washington politics? He has done what he can to drive a liberal

:10:50.:10:54.

agenda. He passed through the investment of massive political

:10:55.:10:56.

capital in his affordable healthcare act, he put stimulus into the

:10:57.:11:05.

economy to keep America working. And he bailed out the auto industry,

:11:06.:11:09.

maintaining American jobs. Those are all things he did because of his

:11:10.:11:12.

vision of what government can do to help ordinary people. That is

:11:13.:11:17.

progressive politics, isn't it? You are very limited. No challenge

:11:18.:11:21.

to the dominant economic structure of a country. No attempt to

:11:22.:11:28.

reorganise the relation... America does not want revolution, it

:11:29.:11:34.

is not a revolutionary country. It is conservatism writ large in its

:11:35.:11:37.

DNA. It is an experimental country. It is

:11:38.:11:43.

a country, the central idea of which is faith in the constructive genius

:11:44.:11:48.

of ordinary men and women. This faith has lived under the burden of

:11:49.:11:56.

an institutional idolatry. The sin of the public culture of the United

:11:57.:11:59.

States is the tendency to believe that the country discovered at the

:12:00.:12:02.

time of its foundation is the definitive formula of a free

:12:03.:12:09.

society. That the rest of humanity must either subscribe to that

:12:10.:12:12.

formula, or will continue to languish in poverty and despotism.

:12:13.:12:16.

Now the US needs institutional innovation to give opportunity and

:12:17.:12:19.

equipment to the ordinary man and woman.

:12:20.:12:26.

The point for you is whether what you are saying is realistic, in the

:12:27.:12:29.

context of today's America, with today's Congress, the balance of

:12:30.:12:36.

powers as it exists in America. Every transformation worth thinking

:12:37.:12:39.

about can be translated into steps right now.

:12:40.:12:46.

You have talked to Barack Obama, you communicated with him long after he

:12:47.:12:50.

left Harvard. You have stayed broadly in touch with him. Why do

:12:51.:12:54.

you believe he has failed to fulfil your hopes for him? Is it because he

:12:55.:13:00.

is not prepared to show leadership, that he is not prepared to go up

:13:01.:13:04.

against the forces that you say are working against the sort of change

:13:05.:13:09.

you want? What is it? The most important attributes of a

:13:10.:13:12.

statesman are tenacity, courage, hope and vision. His collaborators

:13:13.:13:17.

have demonstrated only the first of the four. They have proved deficient

:13:18.:13:23.

in the other three, while being prodigal in words that exalt the

:13:24.:13:38.

virtues they are lacking. I'm looking at the words of Stephen

:13:39.:13:42.

Holmes. He is looking at what America needs in terms of a

:13:43.:13:44.

progressive policy. He says he constantly toy with the idea that

:13:45.:13:50.

America needs a new age of conflict. It needs some catastrophe,

:13:51.:14:04.

some serious moment. Just the opposite! A limited reforms of

:14:05.:14:11.

democratic politics that we now have in the world are forms that require

:14:12.:14:17.

crisis to make change possible. Do you want the crisis to come? No, I

:14:18.:14:23.

want just the opposite. I want us to organise politics and democracy so

:14:24.:14:29.

that you do not need former as the condition of transformation. Let me,

:14:30.:14:36.

if I may, to now focused to Brazil. Away from the rich world and an

:14:37.:14:42.

important developing economy and look at what happened when you were

:14:43.:14:46.

invited inside the system in Brazil. The president, who you once

:14:47.:14:50.

criticised... I agree to work with him. For the redirection of the

:14:51.:14:57.

country. Do you think when you were brought inside the system and you

:14:58.:15:01.

became minister for strategic affairs, some cooled you his

:15:02.:15:05.

minister for ideas, do you think you really made a difference? There were

:15:06.:15:14.

two great achievements in that President 's time in charge of the

:15:15.:15:17.

country. Brazil democratised a great deal. Increasing wage, social

:15:18.:15:28.

programmes... Those sort of entitlement programmes that in

:15:29.:15:30.

America you say are not dealing with... Popularisation of access to

:15:31.:15:37.

services. That was a real achievement. The second achievement

:15:38.:15:43.

was an imaginary achievement. When the Brazilian people accepted the

:15:44.:15:46.

President, one of them, as their leader, they accepted themselves and

:15:47.:15:53.

that was a revolutionary change in the spiritual life of the people.

:15:54.:15:57.

What we have failed to achieve so far is the transition to the

:15:58.:16:01.

achievement of another, much more difficult and important task, which

:16:02.:16:08.

is democratising on the supply side. On access to the resources and

:16:09.:16:13.

opportunities of healthcare and education. That democratising of the

:16:14.:16:19.

market economy will in turn require a deeply... That is what I fought

:16:20.:16:22.

for in the government and that's what I failed to achieve. Again, it

:16:23.:16:27.

comes down to the divide between the philosopher and practical

:16:28.:16:30.

politician. The workers party is still in power. Lula effectively and

:16:31.:16:34.

picked his successor, Dilma Rousseff. She says she is sticking

:16:35.:16:40.

by the Lula agenda and what we see in Brazil today is, frankly, a

:16:41.:16:45.

stuttering economy. Riots and protests from poor people on the

:16:46.:16:49.

streets of Brazil 's big cities. The corporate economy is in big trouble

:16:50.:16:56.

with companies going bust. You were part of a government and

:16:57.:16:58.

philosophical approach to changing Brazil, which with all due respect,

:16:59.:17:03.

does not seem to have worked. I opposed the dominant... I opposed it

:17:04.:17:11.

in opposition and in government. It easier to be a realist if you accept

:17:12.:17:15.

everything and it's easy to be a visionary if you consult nothing.

:17:16.:17:22.

What you have to do is accept and confront a great deal. That is when

:17:23.:17:29.

many in Brazil will disagree with you. One analyst wrote in the New

:17:30.:17:36.

York Times while you were in the administration that the problem with

:17:37.:17:39.

you is that you were to mess ionic for Brazil. You had very big ideas

:17:40.:17:45.

about complete and radical reorganisation of the country but it

:17:46.:17:51.

was not practical. Brazil is very open to the alternative message.

:17:52.:17:54.

That was my experience throughout. We lack the institutions. The road

:17:55.:18:03.

has to begin in consciousness. You cannot change the world without

:18:04.:18:07.

ideas. And the experience of Obama and his people confirms once again

:18:08.:18:15.

the truth that the world cannot be changed by the wealthy. One word we

:18:16.:18:21.

have not altered between us is the word socialism. Just north of Brazil

:18:22.:18:27.

is Venezuela. Not very long ago, I went to Caracas to talk with the

:18:28.:18:32.

late Hugo Chavez. He is gone but President Nicolas Maduro is there

:18:33.:18:35.

and he says he is sticking by the Bolivar in socialist revolution. You

:18:36.:18:41.

have a lot of contacts in Latin America and beyond. Is there any

:18:42.:18:45.

future in socialism in your view as a way of restructuring and

:18:46.:18:48.

reordering the economy to achieve what you want, the full potential of

:18:49.:18:54.

every individual human being? No one knows today what socialism means. So

:18:55.:18:58.

why be hung up on these abstractions? When you go to

:18:59.:19:04.

Venezuela and talk to your friends and they tell you that our

:19:05.:19:08.

revolution, our socialism... I will say they have no feasible strategy

:19:09.:19:11.

of economic growth and no lasting institution. What we need is to open

:19:12.:19:17.

the gateways of access to the advanced sectors, to enlist finance

:19:18.:19:22.

in the service of the real economy, because it can be a good servant but

:19:23.:19:28.

is a bad master. You want to work with the big banks? The most massive

:19:29.:19:34.

corporate entities in the world? I don't want finance to serve itself,

:19:35.:19:38.

I wanted to serve production. Why wouldn't they? By changes in the tax

:19:39.:19:46.

and regulatory structure that... Unrelated to real production. The

:19:47.:19:50.

danger is you have to nationalise. Not at all. So heavily... No, not

:19:51.:19:58.

all. It's not stable is against the market, it's the real market. It's

:19:59.:20:02.

the reinvention of the market. And then comes a third element, which is

:20:03.:20:11.

that we cannot have an inclusive market economy based on universal

:20:12.:20:15.

precariousness of economic insecurity for the working person.

:20:16.:20:19.

There is a new form of production emerging in the world on the basis

:20:20.:20:25.

of decentralised networks of contractual relations, a new putting

:20:26.:20:29.

out system. We need a new regime to protect, represent and organise that

:20:30.:20:35.

worker. We need to associate the state with civil society in the

:20:36.:20:38.

competitive and experimental provision of public services. In so

:20:39.:20:45.

many of your prescriptions, you use the phrase we need. I understand

:20:46.:20:50.

that with all your learning and many years of political philosophising

:20:51.:20:52.

that you have very strong views about what we need. The question is,

:20:53.:20:57.

who is the way you are talking about? The Wii is humanity. Let me

:20:58.:21:04.

finish my point. You have two decide how your ideas, some of them frankly

:21:05.:21:08.

pretty complex, can be turned into something that appeals to ordinary

:21:09.:21:13.

men and women in the US and Brazil and here in Europe as well. How do

:21:14.:21:18.

we do that? `` how do you do that? Before we persuade others, we have

:21:19.:21:23.

to persuade ourselves. We need unity of direction. As the philosopher

:21:24.:21:28.

says, no wind helped the man who does not know what port he is

:21:29.:21:33.

failing to. Then we have to identify the particular circumstance the

:21:34.:21:36.

first steps in which to move in that direction. I wonder if you believe

:21:37.:21:40.

you can move in that direction with democracy as it is currently part

:21:41.:21:46.

dust in the US or UK or wherever? Because frankly, democracy is not

:21:47.:21:50.

throwing out the sorts of ideas you are trading in. It's not. White back

:21:51.:21:55.

so who is that the fault of? Is it the fault of the people? It's

:21:56.:22:02.

everyone 's fault. The problem is not the assignment of

:22:03.:22:04.

responsibility. The problem is throwing ourselves into this

:22:05.:22:09.

structure in order, radically, to expand the sense of collective

:22:10.:22:12.

possibility. We have this very restrict different repertoire of

:22:13.:22:17.

living options in the world. And the world is restless under the yoke of

:22:18.:22:22.

this regime of no alternative. You say that the world is restless. I

:22:23.:22:25.

come back to this idea of revolution. There is an interesting

:22:26.:22:30.

debate in the UK right now and actually, funnily enough, it was

:22:31.:22:36.

generated by a comedian who also styles himself as a revolutionary,

:22:37.:22:39.

called Russell Brand, who the other day said in a high`profile interview

:22:40.:22:43.

that he did not want to vote and did not want anyone else to vote. He

:22:44.:22:47.

said voting in a democratic system that we have today is rendering

:22:48.:22:51.

yourself complicit in a system that will never truly represent the

:22:52.:22:55.

interests of the ordinary people. Do you agree with that? Is voting in

:22:56.:23:01.

our system a waste of time? No, what we need is the opposite. To be

:23:02.:23:04.

disillusioned with the solution. What we need is to act and through

:23:05.:23:09.

our actions to create alternative political institutions. Do you mean

:23:10.:23:13.

acting outside the framework of politics? Revolutionary action? Or

:23:14.:23:18.

just going to be voting and exposing an opinion? Acting in every domain.

:23:19.:23:24.

In the institutions that exist and outside of those institutions. Now

:23:25.:23:28.

we have throughout the world a form of democratic life that continues to

:23:29.:23:33.

depend on crisis to make change possible. Well, here we are in

:23:34.:23:40.

Britain. And there is a movement of devolution of the creation of local

:23:41.:23:46.

alternatives and it can only be fertile in the creation of national

:23:47.:23:50.

alternatives if it is then combined with a style of high energy politics

:23:51.:23:55.

at the centre. That is what I want. You believe change can happen. The

:23:56.:24:00.

system even as it is constituted today can deliver change. We can

:24:01.:24:05.

only work within the world that exists. We have to meet the world on

:24:06.:24:08.

its own terms and transform the world from within. Thank you for

:24:09.:24:14.

joining us today. Thank you very much. The weather is set to remain

:24:15.:24:42.

relatively settled before things turn much windier and much colder

:24:43.:24:49.

for the end of the week. Dense patches of fog as we head for the

:24:50.:24:50.

course of this

:24:51.:24:52.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS