Usina de Letras
Usina de Letras
261 usuários online

Autor Titulo Nos textos

 

Artigos ( 62073 )

Cartas ( 21333)

Contos (13257)

Cordel (10446)

Cronicas (22535)

Discursos (3237)

Ensaios - (10302)

Erótico (13562)

Frases (50483)

Humor (20016)

Infantil (5407)

Infanto Juvenil (4744)

Letras de Música (5465)

Peça de Teatro (1376)

Poesias (140761)

Redação (3296)

Roteiro de Filme ou Novela (1062)

Teses / Monologos (2435)

Textos Jurídicos (1958)

Textos Religiosos/Sermões (6163)

LEGENDAS

( * )- Texto com Registro de Direito Autoral )

( ! )- Texto com Comentários

 

Nota Legal

Fale Conosco

 



Aguarde carregando ...
Discursos-->Entrevista de Heitor de Paola ao Russian Journal -- 21/07/2009 - 11:16 (Félix Maier) Siga o Autor Destaque este autor Envie Outros Textos
www.heitordepaola.com

ENTREVISTA PARA O RUSSIAN JOURNAL

Либерализм либерализму рознь


Эйтор де Паола


INTERVIEW - RUSSIAN JOURNAL


Interviewer: BORIS VOLKHONSKY, Editor


Interviewed: HEITOR DE PAOLA


May 28 2009


1. Is liberalism of Western type on the decline from both political and intellectual point of view? If it is so, can you define what is the concrete expression of this decline, and what can be a possible transformation of the whole notion of liberalism? If you disagree with this point of view, how could you define the present political and intellectual status of liberalism?

Liberalism of Western type is not a homogeneous idea anymore. Classical liberalism of Adam Smith underwent many transformations in history. Also, geographically there are many differences today. First, we must distinguish what means liberalism in the USA and in other parts of the world. And this distinction touches a very sensitive issue: the difference between economic and moral-behavioral liberalism. In USA classical economic liberalism is part of conservative ideologies, whereas moral liberalism is part of what is called liberal ideologies. Classical liberalism meant originally and throughout the first centuries since Smith and Ricardo less government both in economy and life regulation but retained Christian traditions and morals. The continuity of tradition was left to family, school and religion as well as economical decisions was left to individuals. What is called liberalism now is really socialism. Disconnected from cultural, moral and religious control, free market economy destroys itself through submission to political power and private property turns into a simple delegation from the rapacious State.


2. If you agree with the point of view that today liberalism is undergoing a period of crisis, why do you think there has been no ideological alternative to it within other schools of thought? Do you consider such an alternative possible or should we simply wait for the "rebirth" of the liberalism (meaning that a new version will reject some of its forms that have become unacceptable by now)?


I do not agree to that point of view. There is no internal crisis in liberalism but an upsurge of government control over the economy and the life of the individuals. And it really means the only alternative to liberalism: socialism. Liberalism does not have to rebirth because it is not dead at all. It is only waiting the inevitable failure of State control to come to the fore.


3. Do you agree that one of the factors that led to a decline of liberalism was the misuse of the notion during Bush era, when neo-liberal ideology got associated with militarism and `spreading democracy’ by force? In that case, doesn’t it signify a serious political and ideological defeat for the West?


Two periods of Bush’s administration must be distinguished: in the first six years Bush followed strictly a liberal-conservative agenda that wasn’t affected my “militarism”. In fact it’s not militarism to use military forces to defend our home country when attacked – for the first time within its territory - as America was in 2001. But in the last two years Bush astoundingly embraced a liberal-democrat agenda. This was not neo-liberal ideology but plainly socialism which will deepen in Obama’s administration. “Spreading democracy” by force was not a complete mistake. Iraqi people have more freedom and democracy now than in the time of Saddam.


4. Has the current global economic crisis brought an end to the global liberalization?


I do not agree that there was a liberal globalization. All globalist agenda is against liberalism mostly by the fact that globalization points to more global governance and economic control. One can see it in the most globalist of all organizations: UN. UN is progressively trying to destroy all national sovereignties through the establishment of a global agenda, environmental control, international laws and Courts of law, military forces, and so on. All in the name of a futile dream: “universal peace”, but really to eventually arrive at a global government. Free market became an agent of globalist forces interested in arriving at a global World Government by stimulating the idea that economic freedom will bring after it the other liberties, persuading mankind to abdicate all kinds of freedom but one: the freedom to sell and purchase goods.


5. If liberalism still has some potential, what versions of liberalism can be acceptable today? What liberal ideas the West will never reject?


As I see it there is only one, unique version of liberalism: classical liberalism. Any other version implies government intervention is economy and, eventually, in everyday life of the citizens. I strongly wish the West will reject such malicious interventions.


6. Is religious liberalism possible in any form in present-day society? And what could its possible forms be?


I don’t know if I understood the question. What does it mean “religious liberalism”? As far as I can see religion liberty is precisely defined in American Constitution First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” As I implied above, liberalism is a product of Judeo-Christian tradition. Once you attack the latter you destroy the first.


And the last (but not least) set of questions concerns your particular region:



What does the word ‘liberalism’ mean for Latin America and Brazil in particular? How has the very notion changed during last decades? Has it been used as a political tool and for what end? Is being called a ‘liberal’ in today’s Latin America a sign of condemnation or praise? And why?


Contrary to USA liberalism in LA and Brazil meant until recently a free market economy. However, it was not spontaneous as in Anglo-Saxon countries, but imposed from above. So it is not surprising that for the last twelve years, since socialist governments of Cardoso and Lula it is slightly but firmly changing into American fashion pseudo-liberalism: growing socialism in economy and false liberalism in morals and behavior. Free market and traditional morals are under attack everywhere leading to complete liberty of behavior in the direction of a real chaotic society. So, being called a “liberal” today depends on what you are addressing: if you defend liberal economy you are attacked as a “conservative-reactionary”, if you defend total lost of control of bizarre and destructive behavior and a false notion of freedom, you’re praised as a “progressive”. However, even behavioral “liberty” is controlled by the State through laws that “permits” one to be free, as if freedom wasn’t a natural right but a government concession.


HEITOR DE PAOLA is a Brazilian psychoanalyst and an independent liberal-conservative political writer and analyzer. He writes regularly in his own site (www.heitordepaola.com), in Midia Sem Máscara (www.midiasemmascara.org) and many other sites and blogs in Brazil and abroad. He is the author of the book Latin-American Axis of Evil and the New World Order


-------------------------------

Resumo publicado em Russo, com apresentação do autor e futuramente em Inglês, na íntegra, no novo site em construção.



Comentarios
O que você achou deste texto?     Nome:     Mail:    
Comente: 
Renove sua assinatura para ver os contadores de acesso - Clique Aqui