Capitalism will eat democracy -- unless we speak up | Yanis Varoufakis

譯者: lisa li 審譯者: Regina Chu

Democracy.

民主。

In the West,

在西方社會，

we make a colossal mistake taking it for granted.

我們犯了一個巨大的錯誤， 視其為理所當然。

We see democracy

我們並非將民主視為 最易凋零的花朵，

not as the most fragile of flowers that it really is,

其實它是如此脆弱，

but we see it as part of our society's furniture.

卻將其視為我們社會的家具。

We tend to think of it as an intransigent given.

我們常認為民主是既有的賦予。

We mistakenly believe that capitalism begets inevitably democracy.

我們錯誤地相信資本主義 必會孕育出民主。

It doesn't.

其實不然。

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and his great imitators in Beijing

新加坡的李光耀 和他在北京的眾偉大模仿者，

have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt

證據確鑿地闡明了，

that it is perfectly possible to have a flourishing capitalism,

完全有可能在 沒有民主的政治情況下，

spectacular growth,

資本主義能以驚人的速度

while politics remains democracy-free.

繁榮起來。

Indeed, democracy is receding in our neck of the woods,

事實上，我們附近區域的 民主正在退步，

here in Europe.

就在歐洲。

Earlier this year, while I was representing Greece --

今年初，我以財政部長身分代表希臘

the newly elected Greek government --

新選舉產生的政府，

in the Eurogroup as its Finance Minister,

去歐元集團參加會議。

I was told in no uncertain terms that our nation's democratic process --

我被明確地告知 我們國家的民主進程──

our elections --

我們的選舉──

could not be allowed to interfere

不容干預

with economic policies that were being implemented in Greece.

當時正在希臘實施的經濟政策。

At that moment,

那一刻，

I felt that there could be no greater vindication of Lee Kuan Yew,

我感到那是對李光耀，

或者對中國共產黨來說 一份無上的認證，

or the Chinese Communist Party,

indeed of some recalcitrant friends of mine who kept telling me

事實上我一些桀驁不馴的朋友 不斷地告訴我，

that democracy would be banned if it ever threatened to change anything.

民主會被禁止， 當它一旦威脅到要改變現狀。

Tonight, here, I want to present to you

今晚，在這裡，我希望向你們展示，

an economic case for an authentic democracy.

一個真正民主的經濟案例。

I want to ask you to join me in believing again

我想邀請你們，跟我一起重新相信，

that Lee Kuan Yew,

李光耀、

the Chinese Communist Party

中國共產黨、

and indeed the Eurogroup

還有歐元集團

are wrong in believing that we can dispense with democracy --

他們都錯了， 錯在相信我們可以去掉民主──

that we need an authentic, boisterous democracy.

其實我們需要不折不扣 和生機勃勃的民主。

And without democracy,

沒有民主的話，

our societies will be nastier,

我們的社會會更糟糕，

our future bleak

我們的未來會黯淡，

and our great, new technologies wasted.

而我們偉大 創新的科技會被浪費掉。

Speaking of waste,

說到浪費，

allow me to point out an interesting paradox

請允許我指出一個 滿有意思的吊詭之處，

that is threatening our economies as we speak.

它當下就在威脅著 我們的經濟。

I call it the twin peaks paradox.

我稱其為雙峰吊詭。

One peak you understand --

第一個高峰你們理解──

you know it, you recognize it --

你們知道，你們認識它──

is the mountain of debts that has been casting a long shadow

那是一座堆積如山的債務， 投射出一道巨大的陰影，

over the United States, Europe, the whole world.

籠罩著美國、歐洲，以至全球。

We all recognize the mountain of debts.

我們全都認識這座堆積如山的債務，

But few people discern its twin.

卻沒有多少人辨識到 它有一個雙胞胎。

A mountain of idle cash

一座堆積如山的閒置現金，

belonging to rich savers and to corporations,

歸屬於富有的存款者和企業，

too terrified to invest it

過於恐懼而不將其投資

into the productive activities that can generate the incomes

在那些可以衍生收入的生產力活動，

from which you can extinguish the mountain of debts

透過這些活動，可以消弭那座 堆積如山的債務，

and which can produce all those things that humanity desperately needs,

還可以製造出人類亟需的物品，

like green energy.

例如環保能源。

Now let me give you two numbers.

現在，讓我向你們展示兩個數字。

Over the last three months,

在過去的三個月裡，

in the United States, in Britain and in the Eurozone,

在美國、英國和歐元區，

we have invested, collectively, 3.4 trillion dollars

我們總共投資了 3.4 兆美元

on all the wealth-producing goods --

在那些可以創造財富的物品──

things like industrial plants, machinery,

例如工業廠房、機械、

office blocks, schools,

辦公大樓、學校、

roads, railways, machinery, and so on and so forth.

道路、鐵路、機器，諸如此類。

$3.4 trillion sounds like a lot of money

3.4 兆美元聽起來是很大一筆錢，

until you compare it to the $5.1 trillion

直到你拿去跟在同樣的那些國家裡、

that has been slushing around in the same countries,

就是在我們的金融機構中，

in our financial institutions,

閒置的 5.1 兆美元比較，

doing absolutely nothing during the same period

在同樣的時段內， 白白的擺放著在那裡，

except inflating stock exchanges and bidding up house prices.

只讓股票市場膨脹，房產價格上漲。

So a mountain of debt and a mountain of idle cash

所以一座堆積如山的債務， 和一座堆積如山的閒置現金，

form twin peaks, failing to cancel each other out

形成了兩座山峰， 不能透過正常的市場運營

through the normal operation of the markets.

相互抵銷。

The result is stagnant wages,

這樣下來，就是薪酬停滯，

more than a quarter of 25- to 54-year-olds in America, in Japan and in Europe

過四分之一的 25-54 歲的 美國人、日本人、和歐洲人

out of work.

沒有工作。

And consequently, low aggregate demand,

隨之而來，造成了總需求的降低，

which in a never-ending cycle,

周而復始，

reinforces the pessimism of the investors,

加劇了投資者對前景的悲觀，

who, fearing low demand, reproduce it by not investing --

投資者就是怕低需求量， 而不再投資──

exactly like Oedipus' father,

正像伊底帕斯的父親，

who, terrified by the prophecy of the oracle

神諭他會被長大後的兒子所殺，

that his son would grow up to kill him,

他對此感到害怕，

unwittingly engineered the conditions

於是在不知不覺間創造了各種條件，

that ensured that Oedipus, his son, would kill him.

導致了自己真的被自己的兒子， 伊底帕斯，殺了。

This is my quarrel with capitalism.

這是我對資本主義有爭議的地方。

Its gross wastefulness,

它那種碩大的浪費，

all this idle cash,

所有閒置的現金，

should be energized to improve lives,

其實應該用於改善人民的生活，

to develop human talents,

發展人類的才能，

and indeed to finance all these technologies,

以及去資助所有的科技，

green technologies,

環保科技，

which are absolutely essential for saving planet Earth.

這對於拯救地球來說 絕對是很重要的。

Am I right in believing that democracy might be the answer?

我相信民主可能就是答案， 這信念對嗎？

I believe so,

我相信是對的，

but before we move on,

但在我們繼續談下去之前，

what do we mean by democracy?

我們所說的民主是什麼？

Aristotle defined democracy

亞里斯多德將民主定義為

as the constitution in which the free and the poor,

一個體制，在其中， 政府是由佔大比數的

being in the majority, control government.

自由人和窮人來掌控的。

Now, of course Athenian democracy excluded too many.

當然，雅典時代的民主 把很多人排除在外。

Women, migrants and, of course, the slaves.

女人、移民，當然還有奴隸 都排除在外。

But it would be a mistake

但是，如果僅僅由於 有多少人被排除在外，

to dismiss the significance of ancient Athenian democracy

就否定古老的雅典民主制度 其重要性的話，

on the basis of whom it excluded.

那當然是錯誤的。

What was more pertinent,

古老的雅典民主值得肯定之處，

and continues to be so about ancient Athenian democracy,

且時至今日仍然受到肯定的，

was the inclusion of the working poor,

是它包括了貧窮的勞工，

who not only acquired the right to free speech,

他們擁有的不僅是言論自由的權利，

but more importantly, crucially,

更重要、更關鍵的是，

they acquired the rights to political judgments

他們擁有政治批判的權利，

that were afforded equal weight

他們在國家事務政策的 制定過程中，

in the decision-making concerning matters of state.

擁有同等的權利。

Now, of course, Athenian democracy didn't last long.

當然，雅典民主沒有延續下去。

Like a candle that burns brightly, it burned out quickly.

就像燃燒得十分明亮的蠟燭， 很快就燃燒殆盡。

And indeed,

確實，

our liberal democracies today do not have their roots in ancient Athens.

我們當今的自由民主制度 並不是源起於古代雅典。

They have their roots in the Magna Carta,

他們源起於大憲章、

in the 1688 Glorious Revolution,

源起於 1688 年的光榮革命、

indeed in the American constitution.

還有源起於美國憲法。

Whereas Athenian democracy was focusing on the masterless citizen

雅典民主集中於平民平權， 沒有所謂的主人，

and empowering the working poor,

以及賦予貧窮的勞工權力，

our liberal democracies are founded on the Magna Carta tradition,

我們的自由民主制度卻是 建基於大憲章的傳統上，

which was, after all, a charter for masters.

大憲章到底是一份 為主人所建立的憲章。

And indeed, liberal democracy only surfaced when it was possible

確實，自由民主只能在

to separate fully the political sphere from the economic sphere,

政治領域完全從 經濟領域分離時浮現，

so as to confine the democratic process fully in the political sphere,

從而把民主過程限定在政治領域，

leaving the economic sphere --

使經濟領域──

the corporate world, if you want --

你要稱它為企業界也可以──

as a democracy-free zone.

成為一處沒有民主的區域。

Now, in our democracies today,

現在，我們當今的民主，

this separation of the economic from the political sphere,

經濟領域和政治領域的分離，

the moment it started happening,

從它開始發生的瞬間，

it gave rise to an inexorable, epic struggle between the two,

就引發了兩者間 無情、史詩般的較量，

with the economic sphere colonizing the political sphere,

經濟領域侵佔了政治領域，

eating into its power.

把政治領域的權力吞噬掉。

Have you wondered why politicians are not what they used to be?

你們有沒有想過， 為什麼政治人物不再是原來的樣子？

It's not because their DNA has degenerated.

這並不是因為他們 DNA 退化了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

It is rather because one can be in government today and not in power,

而是因為今天， 人雖說是在政府裡面，

卻沒有權力，

because power has migrated from the political to the economic sphere,

因為權力已經從政治領域轉移到

分離了的經濟領域中。

which is separate.

Indeed,

事實上，

I spoke about my quarrel with capitalism.

剛才提到我對資本主義有爭論。

If you think about it,

如果你們想一想，

it is a little bit like a population of predators,

這有點像一群肉食動物，

that are so successful in decimating the prey that they must feed on,

成功地大批殺害 牠們賴以生存的獵物，

that in the end they starve.

而最終自己挨餓。

Similarly,

同樣的情況，

the economic sphere has been colonizing and cannibalizing the political sphere

經濟領域殖民統治 並噬食了政治領域，

to such an extent that it is undermining itself,

到了一個程度削弱了自己，

causing economic crisis.

造成了經濟危機。

Corporate power is increasing,

企業的力量正在增加，

political goods are devaluing,

政治的產出正在貶值，

inequality is rising,

不平等正在上升，

aggregate demand is falling

總需求正在降低，

and CEOs of corporations are too scared to invest the cash of their corporations.

企業的總裁都不敢 用他們公司的現金進行投資。

So the more capitalism succeeds in taking the demos out of democracy,

資本主義愈是成功地 把「民」從「民主」中剔除，

the taller the twin peaks

兩座山峰也就愈來愈高，

and the greater the waste of human resources

人力資源和人類的財富

and humanity's wealth.

也就更多地被浪費掉了。

Clearly, if this is right,

情況很清楚，如果這是正確的，

we must reunite the political and economic spheres

我們必須重新把 政治和經濟領域團聚起來，

and better do it with a demos being in control,

更好的是讓人民來掌控，

like in ancient Athens except without the slaves

就正如古老的雅典民主， 當然要在沒有奴隸，

or the exclusion of women and migrants.

也不把女人和移民排除 在外的前提下。

Now, this is not an original idea.

其實，這不是一個新穎的想法。

The Marxist left had that idea 100 years ago

馬克思左派在 100 多年前 就已經有這樣的想法，

and it didn't go very well, did it?

只是不太成功，對不對？

The lesson that we learned from the Soviet debacle

我們從蘇聯解體吸取到的教訓是，

is that only by a miracle will the working poor be reempowered,

只有奇蹟發生， 貧窮的勞工才能被重新賦權，

as they were in ancient Athens,

就像古老雅典時代那樣，

without creating new forms of brutality and waste.

而不會創造新形式的暴行和浪費。

But there is a solution:

但有另外的一個解決方案：

eliminate the working poor.

去掉貧窮的勞工。

Capitalism's doing it

資本主義正在這樣做，

by replacing low-wage workers with automata, androids, robots.

通過自動裝置、機器人 來取代低薪的勞工。

The problem is

問題是，

that as long as the economic and the political spheres are separate,

只要經濟和政治領域是分離的，

automation makes the twin peaks taller,

自動化只會讓這兩座山峰愈來愈高，

the waste loftier

浪費會更加巨大，

and the social conflicts deeper,

社會矛盾愈形加劇，

including --

包括──

soon, I believe --

很快，我相信──

in places like China.

會發生在像中國這樣的地方。

So we need to reconfigure,

因此，我們需要重新配置，

we need to reunite the economic and the political spheres,

我們需要使經濟和政治領域 重新統一起來，

but we'd better do it by democratizing the reunified sphere,

但是我們最好是將 重新統一起來的領域民主化，

lest we end up with a surveillance-mad hyperautocracy

以免我們最終落入 監視狂一樣的超級獨裁政權，

that makes The Matrix, the movie, look like a documentary.

讓電影駭客帝國， 看起來像是紀錄片。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So the question is not whether capitalism will survive

所以，問題並不是資本主義能否在

the technological innovations it is spawning.

在它推動的科技創新中存活下來。

The more interesting question

更有趣的問題是，

is whether capitalism will be succeeded by something resembling a Matrix dystopia

資本主義是否會被像是駭客帝國 這樣的反烏托邦所取代，

or something much closer to a Star Trek-like society,

或是被更類似於 星際迷航的社會取代，

where machines serve the humans

由機器來服務人類，

and the humans expend their energies exploring the universe

人們把精力投放在探索宇宙，

and indulging in long debates about the meaning of life

且在像古代、 雅典時代般的高科技廣場，

in some ancient, Athenian-like, high tech agora.

享受著有關生命意義的冗長辯論。

I think we can afford to be optimistic.

我想，我們可以樂觀起來。

But what would it take,

但是像星際迷航一樣的烏托邦，

what would it look like

而不是駭客帝國那樣的反烏托邦，

to have this Star Trek-like utopia, instead of the Matrix-like dystopia?

創造它需要些什麼呢？ 誕生後又會是怎麼樣呢？

In practical terms,

從實際方面來說，

allow me to share just briefly,

請容許我簡略地

a couple of examples.

分享一些例子。

At the level of the enterprise,

在企業層面，

imagine a capital market,

試想一個資本市場，

where you earn capital as you work,

在其中你以工作賺取資本，

and where your capital follows you from one job to another,

你的資本跟著你， 從一個工作到下一個工作，

from one company to another,

從一家公司到下一家公司，

and the company --

而這家公司──

whichever one you happen to work at at that time --

你正巧在那時工作的那家公司──

is solely owned by those who happen to work in it at that moment.

其所有權都歸屬於那時候 正巧在那裡工作的人。

Then all income stems from capital, from profits,

所有的收益流，從資本，到利潤，

and the very concept of wage labor becomes obsolete.

以至於最基本的 支薪勞工的概念都被廢棄。

No more separation between those who own but do not work in the company

不在公司工作卻擁有著公司，

and those who work but do not own the company;

和在公司工作卻不擁有這間公司， 這兩方的人不再有區分，

no more tug-of-war between capital and labor;

資本和勞動之間，也不再拔河；

no great gap between investment and saving;

投資和存款之間， 沒有了巨大的缺口；

indeed, no towering twin peaks.

事實上，也不會存在 兩座高聳的山峰。

At the level of the global political economy,

在全球政治經濟層面，

imagine for a moment

現在試想一下，

that our national currencies have a free-floating exchange rate,

我們的國家貨幣 有一個自由浮動的兌換匯率，

with a universal, global, digital currency,

伴隨著一種全球通用的電子貨幣，

one that is issued by the International Monetary Fund,

由國際貨幣基金組織，

the G-20,

二十國集團 G20，

on behalf of all humanity.

代表全人類所發行的貨幣。

And imagine further

再進一步想像一下，

that all international trade is denominated in this currency --

所有的國際貿易 都以這種貨幣計價──

let's call it "the cosmos,"

我們且稱它為「宇宙幣」，

in units of cosmos --

用宇宙幣為單元──

with every government agreeing to be paying into a common fund

每個政府都會同意 根據他們國家的貿易逆差，

a sum of cosmos units proportional to the country's trade deficit,

或是根據他們國家的貿易順差，

or indeed to a country's trade surplus.

來向一個共同基金投入 按比例的宇宙幣。

And imagine that that fund is utilized to invest in green technologies,

試想這個基金應用於 投資在環保科技，

especially in parts of the world where investment funding is scarce.

尤其是在世界上 某些缺乏投資基金的地方。

This is not a new idea.

這不是一個新的主意。

It's what, effectively, John Maynard Keynes proposed

實際上，這是約翰‧梅納德‧凱恩斯

in 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference.

在 1944 年的 布萊頓森林會議上所提出來的。

The problem is

但問題是，

that back then, they didn't have the technology to implement it.

在那個時候， 他們沒有科技去實現它。

Now we do,

現在我們有了，

especially in the context of a reunified political-economic sphere.

尤其是在一個重新統一的 政治和經濟領域背景下。

The world that I am describing to you

我向你們描述的這個世界，

is simultaneously libertarian,

在同一時間，既是自由主義，

in that it prioritizes empowered individuals,

因為被賦予權力的個人 屬於最優先，

Marxist,

也是馬克思主義，

since it will have confined to the dustbin of history

因為資本和勞動之間的區分，

the division between capital and labor,

已被投進於歷史的垃圾箱，

and Keynesian,

還有凱恩斯主義，

global Keynesian.

全球化的凱恩斯主義。

But above all else,

最重要的是，

it is a world in which we will be able to imagine an authentic democracy.

它是一個我們能夠想像 有真正民主的世界。

Will such a world dawn?

這樣的世界有出現的曙光嗎？

Or shall we descend into a Matrix-like dystopia?

還是我們會淪落到變成 一個駭客帝國般的反烏托邦？

The answer lies in the political choice that we shall be making collectively.

答案就在我們 要集體做出的政治選擇中。

It is our choice,

那是我們的選擇，

and we'd better make it democratically.

而且我們最好採用民主方式來選。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

Bruno Giussani: Yanis ...

布魯諾‧吉桑尼：雅尼斯…...

It was you who described yourself in your bios as a libertarian Marxist.

你在履歷中稱自己為 自由派馬克思主義者。

What is the relevance of Marx's analysis today?

馬克思主義的分析與 今天的演講有怎樣的相關性呢？

Yanis Varoufakis: Well, if there was any relevance in what I just said,

雅尼斯·瓦魯法克斯： 如果我剛剛講的還算中肯，

那馬克思主義是相關的。

then Marx is relevant.

因為重新統一政治和經濟， 最歸根究底在於──

Because the whole point of reunifying the political and economic is --

if we don't do it,

如果我們不這麼做，

then technological innovation is going to create

那麼科技創新就會促使

such a massive fall in aggregate demand,

總需求呈現大幅下跌，

what Larry Summers refers to as secular stagnation.

也就是拉瑞‧薩默斯所說的 長期性經濟停滯。

With this crisis migrating from one part of the world,

隨著這個危機 從世界某個區域向外擴移，

as it is now,

就像現在這樣，

it will destabilize not only our democracies,

它不僅僅會動搖我們的民主國家，

but even the emerging world that is not that keen on liberal democracy.

也會影響那些不特別熱衷於 自由民主的新興國家。

So if this analysis holds water, then Marx is absolutely relevant.

如果這個論述成立的話， 那麼馬克思主義絕對是相關的。

But so is Hayek,

這同時也跟海耶克理論相關，

that's why I'm a libertarian Marxist,

這就是為什麼 我是自由派馬克思主義者，

and so is Keynes,

同時也還有凱恩斯，

so that's why I'm totally confused.

這也就是為什麼 我連自己都感到糊塗了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

BG: Indeed, and possibly we are too, now.

布：確實是，可能我們現在 同樣也很糊塗了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

YV: If you are not confused, you are not thinking, OK?

雅：如果你沒有感到糊塗， 那你就沒有思考，對吧？

BG: That's a very, very Greek philosopher kind of thing to say --

布：這是非常、 非常希臘哲學家的說法──

YV: That was Einstein, actually --

雅：那其實是愛因斯坦──

BG: During your talk you mentioned Singapore and China,

布：在你的演講中， 你提到了新加坡和中國，

and last night at the speaker dinner,

還有在昨晚的演講嘉賓晚宴上，

you expressed a pretty strong opinion about how the West looks at China.

你對西方如何看待中國， 表達了相當強烈的觀點。

Would you like to share that?

你願意分享一下嗎？

YV: Well, there's a great degree of hypocrisy.

雅：那個嘛， 其實是有很大程度的虛偽。

In our liberal democracies, we have a semblance of democracy.

在我們自由民主的國家， 有一種民主的假象。

It's because we have confined, as I was saying in my talk,

正如我在演講中所說的，因為我們把

democracy to the political sphere,

民主困囿於政治領域內，

while leaving the one sphere where all the action is --

而讓另一個領域的所有活動──

the economic sphere --

經濟領域──

a completely democracy-free zone.

成為一個完全沒有民主的區域。

In a sense,

在某種意義上，

if I am allowed to be provocative,

容我比較誇張的說，

China today is closer to Britain in the 19th century.

中國今天就像是 19 世紀的英國。

Because remember,

因為要記得，

we tend to associate liberalism with democracy --

我們傾向串連起自由主義和民主──

that's a mistake, historically.

那是錯誤的，從歷史上來看。

Liberalism, liberal, it's like John Stuart Mill.

自由主義，自由， 就像是約翰·史都華·彌爾。

John Stuart Mill was particularly skeptical about the democratic process.

約翰·史都華·彌爾對於民主過程 尤其抱著懷疑。

So what you are seeing now in China is a very similar process

所以你現在看到中國的發展，

就是一個跟英國在工業革命時期

to the one that we had in Britain during the Industrial Revolution,

非常相似的發展過程，

especially the transition from the first to the second.

尤其是從第一次工業革命過渡至 第二次的那段時期。

And to be castigating China

所以苛責中國

for doing that which the West did in the 19th century,

在做西方社會 19 世紀做過的事

smacks of hypocrisy.

是很虛偽的。

BG: I am sure that many people here are wondering about your experience

布：我肯定這裡很多人都對你今年初

as the Finance Minister of Greece earlier this year.

出任希臘財政部長的經驗感到好奇。

YV: I knew this was coming.

雅：我早知道這個問題會出現。

BG: Yes.

布：是的。

BG: Six months after,

布：在六個月之後的現在，

how do you look back at the first half of the year?

你如何回顧今年上半年的經歷？

YV: Extremely exciting, from a personal point of view,

雅：從我個人來看，非常興奮，

and very disappointing,

because we had an opportunity to reboot the Eurozone.

也很失望，

因為我們曾經有機會重振歐元區。

Not just Greece, the Eurozone.

不只是希臘，是整個歐元區。

To move away from the complacency

我們應該放下自滿，

and the constant denial that there was a massive --

我們應該承認歐元區 在過去有嚴峻的──

and there is a massive architectural fault line

直到現在也有嚴峻的建構性失誤，

going through the Eurozone,

橫亙整個歐元區，

which is threatening, massively, the whole of the European Union process.

嚴峻地威脅著整個歐盟的進程。

We had an opportunity on the basis of the Greek program --

建基於希臘的方案， 我們曾經有機會──

which by the way,

順帶一提，

was the first program to manifest that denial --

希臘的方案是首個 能呈現出建構性失誤，

to put it right.

而能夠將失誤撥亂反正的機會。

And, unfortunately,

不幸的是，

the powers in the Eurozone,

歐元區裡的那些強權，

歐元集團裡的那些強權，

in the Eurogroup,

chose to maintain denial.

選擇了繼續否認這個問題的存在。

But you know what happens.

但是你知道這會導致什麼。

This is the experience of the Soviet Union.

那其實就是蘇聯的經驗。

When you try to keep alive

當你嘗試要讓在建構上 已經無法存活的經濟系統

an economic system that architecturally cannot survive,

得以繼續存活，

through political will and through authoritarianism,

透過政治意願 和獨裁主義這樣的手段，

you may succeed in prolonging it,

你也許能夠成功地將它苟延，

but when change happens

但是一旦發生轉變的時候，

it happens very abruptly and catastrophically.

那會是突如其來，而且是災難性的。

BG: What kind of change are you foreseeing?

布：你預見到怎樣的轉變呢？

YV: Well, there's no doubt

雅：嗯，毫無疑問

that if we don't change the architecture of the Eurozone,

如果我們不改變歐元區的建構，

the Eurozone has no future.

歐元區看不到未來。

BG: Did you make any mistakes when you were Finance Minister?

布：當你在做希臘財長的時候 有失誤嗎？

YV: Every day.

雅：每一天。

BG: For example? YV: Anybody who looks back --

布：比方說？ 雅：任何人回望的時候──

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

No, but seriously.

不，我說真的。

If there's any Minister of Finance, or of anything else for that matter,

如果任何財政部長， 或是任何與此有相關的人，

who tells you after six months in a job,

告訴你說在六個月的任期後，

especially in such a stressful situation,

尤其是在這樣高壓的情況下，

that they have made no mistake, they're dangerous people.

而他們竟然沒有任何失誤， 那他們是危險人物。

Of course I made mistakes.

當然我有失誤。

最大的失誤，

The greatest mistake was to sign the application

就是在 2 月底，

for the extension of a loan agreement

簽署了申請延長債務協定的 申請書。

in the end of February.

I was imagining

當時我想像著，

that there was a genuine interest on the side of the creditors

債權方是真的由衷

尋找一個共識。

to find common ground.

但其實沒有。

And there wasn't.

They were simply interested in crushing our government,

他們的主意是要壓逼我們的政府，

因為他們就不希望

just because they did not want

to have to deal with the architectural fault lines

要去處理那橫貫歐元區的 建構性失誤。

that were running through the Eurozone.

And because they didn't want to admit

再者，他們也不願意承認，

that for five years they were implementing a catastrophic program in Greece.

在過去的五年裡 他們在希臘實施了災難性的計畫。

We lost one-third of our nominal GDP.

我們失去了三分之一名目 GDP。

這比大蕭條時期更慘烈。

This is worse than the Great Depression.

三頭馬車一樣的債權人，

And no one has come clean

from the troika of lenders that have been imposing this policy

沒有任何一位 坦白承認實施這樣的政策

to say, "This was a colossal mistake."

其實「是一個巨大的錯誤。」

BG: Despite all this,

布：除了這些，

and despite the aggressiveness of the discussion,

也除了這些激昂的討論，

你似乎還是比較偏向歐洲一體化的。

you seem to be remaining quite pro-European.

雅：絕對是的。

YV: Absolutely.

Look, my criticism of the European Union and the Eurozone

這要明白，我對歐盟和歐元區的批判

comes from a person who lives and breathes Europe.

來自於一位生活和呼吸著 歐洲的個人經驗。

My greatest fear is that the Eurozone will not survive.

我最大的恐懼 是歐元區無法存活下去。

Because if it doesn't,

因為如果歐元區無法存活，

the centrifugal forces that will be unleashed

那麼離心力就會被釋放出來，

will be demonic,

如同魔鬼一樣，

and they will destroy the European Union.

最終將會摧毀歐盟。

And that will be catastrophic not just for Europe

那不僅對歐洲，對全球經濟來說

but for the whole global economy.

也將會是災難性的。

We are probably the largest economy in the world.

我們可能是世界上最大的經濟體系。

And if we allow ourselves

如果我們容許自己

to fall into a route of the postmodern 1930's,

墮進了後現代 1930 年代的那條路，

which seems to me to be what we are doing,

雖然在我看來 我們現在就已在那條路上，

then that will be detrimental

那對歐洲的未來， 和非歐洲國家的未來，

to the future of Europeans and non-Europeans alike.

都會是有害的。

BG: We definitely hope you are wrong on that point.

布：在這點上， 我們肯定希望你是錯的。

Yanis, thank you for coming to TED.

雅尼斯，謝謝你來到 TED。

雅：謝謝

YV: Thank you.

（鼓掌）

(Applause)