Subject: (11) from THE RADICALS AND NONVIOLENCE
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
THE LESSON OF THE CENTURY
Interview with Karl Popper
[...] The first point is peace. [...] This is the first point on the list
and it requires the co-operation of all parties. And it should no longer be
considered an ideological point. Then we have to halt the population
explosion. This, the second point on the list, is a vital point for the
whole world. All this talk about the problem of the environment is
pointless if we don't address the real question, the terrifying growth in
the world population. This is the cause of the destruction of the
environment [...]. On this fundamental point, too, everyone should
co-operate without ideological distinctions. The third point is education.
And here, too, I believe we need a programme on which everyone can
co-operate [...]. The state of law consists above all in the elimination of
violence. I cannot, on the basis of law, throw punches at another person.
The liberty of my punches is limited by the right of the other person to
defend his nose. When we allow the general aversion to violence to be
demolished and eliminated, we sabotage the state of law and the general
agreement on the basis of which violence must be avoided. In this way we
sabotage our own civilization [...]. The state of law requires nonviolence,
which is its fundamental core. The more we neglect the duty to teach
nonviolence, the more we will have to extend the state of law, that is
provisions and laws in the fields of publishing, television, the mass
media. It is a very simple principle. And the idea is always the same:
maximize the freedom of each person within the limits of the freedom of
others. If we carry on as we are doing now, on the other hand, we will soon
find ourselves living in a society in which murder will be our daily bread.
- We now know the fundamental priorities that you would like to see drawn
up at the top of the political agenda. And these are points - peace, an end
to the population explosion, education in nonviolence - which require the
co-operation of everyone. In your opinion, are these proposals right-wing
or left-wing?
Neither right-wing nor left-wing. These priorities indicate something that
should take the place of the distinction between right-wing and left-wing.
That is, we must not consider what factors are necessary for the
achievement of these objectives [...]. In short, we should get rid of this
horrible party system, on the basis of which our representatives in
parliament are first of all dependent on a party, and only after that can
use their brains for the good of the people they represent. It is my
opinion that this system must be replaced and that we must return, if
possible, to a State in which those elected enter parliament and say: I am
your representative and I don't belong to any party. I believe that the
collapse of Marxism offers a chance to proceed in this direction. As for
the priorities I have indicated, I hope that some party, it doesn't matter
which, will accept them and declare that it has accepted them. In this way,
other parties would be encouraged to accept them and a new situation would
be created.
- We know your concept of democratic interventionism, and now we know your
priorities. On this basis, what type of model do you believe to be most
suited to our times?
A good political model is essentially that of democracy, of a democracy
which does not aim to assume cultural leadership. In other words, it is now
a matter of working for peace and for the other points I have indicated,
but the fundamental characteristic of democracy must be that people are
culturally free, not directed from above. Which is not simple [...]. Our
world is threatened by irresponsible education. I believe we must really
act on this point, and once we have managed to achieve responsible
education we will be able to return to the days when violence was a rare
event [...].
- But how can we organize political action to achieve the objectives you
have set out? With what resources? How can we gather the consensus of the
people around these priorities? This is the traditional objection to
liberalism: it is too weak to overcome the forces of the opposition, to
overcome the passions, interests and convictions of the opposition.
This is the traditional objection, and I will meet it with the traditional
liberal answer: we must oppose violence. [...]
- One of the most serious causes of violence at the moment seems to be
nationalism. How do you view the growing aspirations to form independent
states, in Europe too? Is it a danger of a regression in civilization and
of war, or is it a right of peoples who are united by language, race or
religion to have their own state?
The essential question is that in such a densely populated world all these
outbreaks of nationalism must be considered as dangerous. It is a danger
that concerns the state of law. We have, first of all, to say something
which, as far as I know, is not given sufficient consideration in the
European debate on nationality, and which alone contains the whole
political question of nationality: the fact that minorities must be
protected. The very idea of a nation-state is impossible to achieve if this
principle is not accepted.
