Josep Ramoneda (Cervera, 1949) is a journalist and philosopher who always helps turn on the lights. Something that isn’t easy during weeks like this. It’s difficult because Trump’s victory forces many questions to be asked, and it’s likely that not all of them will be answered. Or an easy answer.
“Poder i llibertat” (published only in Catalan by Edicions 62) is a compilation of eight essays written by Ramoneda over the last 20 years in which he analyzes the mutations that are undermining liberal democracy with an acceleration that directly endangers it. The balance of power has changed, the right has become radicalized and social democracy is not capable of stopping an authoritarian drift from which Europe is not saved either.
The conversation with the author has been edited to reduce its length and make it easier to read.
In his latest book, he reflects on what he defines as an era change. What elements would you cite to help us understand that we are in such a decisive moment?
In the book, I go a relatively long way because there is material from the last 20 years. We see how things are evolving even if the three main texts, “power”, “freedom” and “nihilism”, are more recent. I like to take the 2008 crisis as a reference because it marks the change in the economic system, the transition from industrial capitalism to financial and digital capitalism. This is a key issue which is reinforced by another fundamental element: acceleration. The emergence of new digital technologies makes this acceleration exponential. This makes it much more difficult to accept changes.
What consequences does this change in the economic system have?
There are two: economic power is highly concentrated in hands that have supranational influence, and it is also organized through a new system of communication. From these two factors, a big question arises: in this new stage, will democracy remain achievable? That’s the underlying question. What does it mean when Trump’s companions say his freedom is incompatible with democracy? Should we understand that liberal democracy is a stage which corresponds to a certain period and that we are now entering another phase in which this democracy is on the verge of extinction?
And what is your theory?
We are witnessing a trend that I call post-democratic authoritarianism, which involves a movement from the right towards radicalization.
Is Trump the greatest representative?
This is because of the importance and power of the United States. It is very important that a country with a great liberal and democratic tradition votes for a man whom no one has prevented from appearing in court even though he has a judicial conviction for 34 counts and other open cases, for example, and with a totally shameless and strong speech. by Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, two guys who were decisive in the campaign and who believe that democracy is disturbing. They are the ones who control a communication system in which truth and lies are confused.
One of the main threats to democracy is what we call technopopulism?
Yes, because it is a new, very restricted economic elite with unprecedented powers. In industrial capitalism, there was a physical space in which parties met. And that is now unclear. The comparison should not be trivialized, but Trump’s victory has similarities with Hitler’s in Germany because it marks a stage that produces a definitive deterioration of Western democracies. Macron’s failure is very interesting here.
The comparison should not be trivialized, but Trump’s victory has similarities with Hitler’s in Germany because it marks a stage that produces a definitive deterioration of Western democracies.
He is still very critical of the French president.
Macron looked like a star of the liberal world, with that famous entrance through the Louvre when he was elected president, and he made a series of absolutely unnecessary mistakes that led him to call elections that were also absolutely useless . And after the reaction of citizens, in the second round, against the far right, he went to form a minority government at the disposal of Marine Le Pen. She will decide when this ends.
In this scenario, what questions should social democracy ask itself?
What social democracy must do is react. These are those who still believe and defend democracy, but it is nothing more. It has lost the momentum it had and that is because more and more important sectors of society feel like they are in an abyss. Sectors that, out of desperation, are ready to do whatever it takes and sign up to support certain gentlemen who promise to solve their problems when in reality they are lying, since the policies they pursue will be contrary to their needs. The old social democracy and the left in general are increasingly blurred. They are fortunate that as the right becomes radicalized, they emerge as defenders of democracy.
The question is whether it is enough for them to insist that an alliance between the right and the far right can be very harmful.
We must celebrate the victory of someone like Trump and not take it as something normal. But it is obvious that if this is happening, it is because social democracy and the left are not capable of maintaining a clear position to avoid this drift. This is largely due to changing power relations.
And because economic power becomes stronger and stronger and political power less and less.
Mr. Elon Musk has power that no other businessman in capitalism has had.
In one of the chapters he emphasizes the importance of nihilism. Why do you emphasize it?
Nihilism is the loss of the notion of limits, believing that everything is possible. Democracy is based on the knowledge that not everything is possible, but not from an authoritarian point of view but from a rational point of view. Netanyahu perfectly exemplifies nihilism. They said: “When he has Gaza, he will stop.” It doesn’t stop. “When he gets the West Bank, he will stop.” It doesn’t stop. “With Lebanon”. And it doesn’t stop. What he did was fire the general who asked him to stop. The loss of the notion of limits has enormous destructive power. Ultimately, this is what Trump does when he denies institutions and places himself above them.
In the book, he cites Kant and his concept of emancipation to define freedom as the ability to think and decide for oneself. But that doesn’t seem to work either.
Because to have this capacity, you need balances that protect you, a society that makes it possible.
But at present, freedom is a concept distorted by politics and which ends up being a kind of gap through which inequalities are fostered.
This is why we get to where we are. Democracy started from the principle that these were groups which expressed social diversity in terms of debate and as a result there was this acceleration towards a post-democratic authoritarianism. The most serious thing is to see that here in Europe the right supports the groups that promote it.
He also talks about the conservative revolt and describes how the left practices follow-through instead of raising the flag of politics. What do you think you’ll do next?
He does not dare to deploy the counter-project, to say clearly that a series of rights and capabilities are being stolen from us and that the left will defend them. This is what happened to the Democratic Party. It was too soft. Kamala Harris gave a very good image, perhaps too sophisticated. But that didn’t help, because in a time of such tension, when people don’t feel safe, they need someone to protect them.
And there is the pocket factor, the influence of inflation on the vote.
This is the underlying problem. This is why I put the date at 2008 and the change in model, when the compensation and balancing mechanisms that avoided excessive fractures began to fade. We see that people who came to the United States through immigration voted for Trump and they say they did it because it will keep out more people who would like to do the same thing as ‘them.
This is the scaling theory. These are the ones who, when they reach a certain step, throw the person who is also trying to climb.
It is hurtful to see to what extent we can lose awareness of our own precariousness. Ultimately, the question we must ask ourselves is what to do with this new model of communications system.
What do you think should be done?
I don’t know because I have no knowledge of the digital universe, but something must be done because it is a space in which the notion of truth and lies has disappeared.
Anyway, the first big fake It was the 11M hoax and then the networks didn’t exist. And now there are television programs also devoted to lying.
Yes, that’s how it is. What the digital universe does is amplify them and they demand a guy like Alvise to be represented immediately.
If we look at things with the eyes of the past, the current political center would be the PSOE.
In one of the texts, he recalls that Edmund Husserl had warned that the main danger was exhaustion.
There are many sectors that, on the one hand, feel desperate and, on the other hand, do not see anyone offering them something to grab. This is why the one who radicalizes and speaks out against the atrocities we have heard from Trump wins. It uses immigration when the real problems are those linked to an economic system increasingly removed from state control.
In this scenario, what can Europe do?
The question is whether Europe, without the complicity of the United States, will be able to defend liberal democracy. If Trump and Putin understand each other, Europe will struggle. The first thing will be to see what happens with Ukraine.
There comes a time when we wonder if it is still possible to save politics. The Valencia tragedy put her to the test.
This is an example of how capitalism has crossed the line. With complete impunity, due to uncontrolled urban planning, physical spaces have been destroyed. Denial of the climate crisis and its consequences is an example of human stupidity.
In an era of such polarization, does the political center still exist?
Depending on what that means. If we look at things with the eyes of the past, the current political center would be the PSOE.
We end with a question about the future. Will we, as humanity, be able to stop what can be described as a wave of post-democratic authoritarianism?
Only 30% of the population lives in states with democratic systems. The problem is that more and more people continue to give up. We cannot lose our critical sense nor enter into a global discourse towards those who abuse or violate democratic legality.
