Your goal is to develop a critical spirit.

It's a long-standing goal. Concerning EE.UU. And Europe, the basis of this idea is found in the Age of Enlightenment. How is democracy going to be? Who will make the decisions? Nicolas de Condorcet and others of the same appreciation gave a clear answer to these questions: if we want to have enlightened citizens, they need a critical spirit, and to do so the development of public education is essential. An adverse reaction soon developed, as giving too much light to the citizens would not support the privileged.

We're always on it.

So the goal is always there. We have to know a propaganda, not let ourselves be fooled by the media or by a type of education. What I'm mentioning is not abstract. Look at the big challenge of climate warming. Oil companies have been working on a message based on lies. Donald Trump, the head of foreign policy, is denying climate change to the region.

The marks that the critical spirit is weakened are winning in Trump, the threat of Le Pen, the victory of Brexit?

We are faced with an extremely complex and difficult phenomenon. Trump’s victory has been made possible by the formation of public opinion that has opted for it. The sharp rise in inequalities, the massive rejection of democratic dialogue, the rise in unemployment... All of this, coupled with the work of the Republican Party over the past 30 years, has led Trump to power logically. We must look at what the citizens say.

What do they say?

The middle and lower classes to which equality and improvement were compromised have the feeling of being deceived. They're angry and they hear anybody. That feeling of discomfort is felt in many countries. The Left has a responsibility to listen to these citizens.

It is often regrettable that the left is quick in the complaint but fragile in the proposals.

Constructive proposals are scarce on the left. We know that the Left is against this or against that. It's easy to say. The fact is that the one who has lost his job or the one who is in poverty knows it perfectly! We must be able to propose positive and alternative proposals.

Is the left in self-criticism?

I regret to say that, but I am not quite self-critical. I am also deplore the moral setback within the left. At the heart of Western Anglophone universities, a moralizing left is banning speech, because what is said does not like it. I am an anarcho-syndicalist and we have always been talking or making proposals. Work museums or work bags were spaces for that. It is a pity that there is no more talk of self-management.

The media are essential.

Media concentration, funding through advertising… Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman say we are a “media propaganda model”. A concept of the world that reflects the interests of the dominators is being proposed. We are in a critical situation and need more free and independent media than ever before. There is only a handful of Maleruski left.

As far as public resources are concerned, what do you say?

Although anarchist, I have to acknowledge that we need them. On Sunday morning, I spent five years talking about philosophy on public radio Radio Canada. Many media outlets would not risk it! Unlike private media, audiences have the opportunity and luxury to make the offer they want.

Two words about the transformation of public education?

From the business world, you feel a lot of pressure, you want education at your service. That is very clear in EE.UU, economic interests are in universities. They also have a rapid trend towards funding research. The results and the choice of the subject remain in the hands of those who have provided them. We are in a confused situation.

In 2005, he wrote a book on intellectual self-defense.

In this book, I collected knowledge about language, sophism, numbers. Always with the idea of providing tools to ensure critical spirit.

A book of great success.

People know that many of the information they receive are questionable and that there are counter-arguments that are not heard. Thus, they seek tools to improve their situation and understand the world. That is how I explain this success. On another level, the success of Chomsky’s ideas can also be explained: it gives us tools, tells us perspectives that we did not know. It certainly takes a whim not to realise the situation in which it finds itself today! We need tools and traces to push and respond to interrogation.