political theory professor at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra Raimundo Viejo Viñas, a former colleague and member of Espacio Alternativo UI years ago, makes a heartbreaking X of the current situation where the organization is, and focuses on the process of recasting, designed and led by the Communist Party thinking sector of Spain, led by Enrique de Santiago and Armando Fernández Stenka.
In his analysis (the third in a series on "Crisis, opportunity and political reorganization" and he dedicated one of them, very interesting, the implementation of Anti-Capitalist Left), published in the journal Diagonal, says Raymond has the basis of published documents, "IU is far from the interface configured as representative of the movement we need. Rather, the" re "points rather to the exhaustion aborted a model (the "political and social movement) and the need for an organization oxygenate exhausted by his own ineffectiveness."
Resume six points in his opinion, will prevent the process of revival in the current IU may have the slightest chance of success. And are:
1. A foreign discourse to changes in the world today. defense (not rejection) of work, gender feminism (and not its improvement), the economy of growth (in) sustainable production-industrialism, the relationship with technologies (unpresentable) digital canon, a historicist and unfamiliar republicanism of his own theory, symmetrical federalism (EUiA against ICV) and a long list that shows that UI remains mired in the outdated program last century.
In his analysis (the third in a series on "Crisis, opportunity and political reorganization" and he dedicated one of them, very interesting, the implementation of Anti-Capitalist Left), published in the journal Diagonal, says Raymond has the basis of published documents, "IU is far from the interface configured as representative of the movement we need. Rather, the" re "points rather to the exhaustion aborted a model (the "political and social movement) and the need for an organization oxygenate exhausted by his own ineffectiveness."
Resume six points in his opinion, will prevent the process of revival in the current IU may have the slightest chance of success. And are:
1. A foreign discourse to changes in the world today. defense (not rejection) of work, gender feminism (and not its improvement), the economy of growth (in) sustainable production-industrialism, the relationship with technologies (unpresentable) digital canon, a historicist and unfamiliar republicanism of his own theory, symmetrical federalism (EUiA against ICV) and a long list that shows that UI remains mired in the outdated program last century.
2. A centralized organizational model based on hegemony, unity and the great structures of representative government professionalized. Contrary to what you think IU (and many others), the ideological and organizational fragmentation is not a problem, but an asset, the symptom of political decline. However, IU continues to operate within a tier (the myth of "left unity") by drawing (in vain) to frame the pluralism of the movement into an organization if it centralizada.Como is in force the Fordist factory, IU is engrossed in the idea that it is possible to piece together a coordination and decision center under his leadership (PCE).
Far from being understood that the logic of representation operates from the electoral law (which IU can not change) and, as result, the unit will only be formulated in terms tactical best results, IU stubbornly articulated as a homogeneous and homogenizing project on a territory that is not.
IU's proposal is guided by the reductio ad unum, for the eradication of diversity through the production of hegemonic consensus. As noted in his paper on "convergence" (a notion that is all a sign in itself) pluralism is only a temporary phase prior to the assimilation of external diversity. Even though there are people innocently involved in the process, its sole purpose is to extend the hegemony of PCE to a new concentric circle. Significantly, there arises the dissolution of the hegemon of the English Left (PCE) to create an interface where every activity is free and equal.
3. Participation understood as a plebiscite, and procedural non-democratic. In the eight-page document to guide the overhaul of the left did not say anything about the procedures that should guide the spaces of interaction with the outside. One example: get fed up with talk of ending discrimination against women, but no concrete or more basic parity. Neither provides a single indication of the mechanisms of accountability and responsibility. Logically, to participate in this process, even though it coincides with the ideological content, is like signing a blank check to an organization that has shown, by active and passive-a remarkable inability to interact with the movement away from relationships domain (Gramscian hegemony misunderstood).
4. The bureaucracy continues to set the entire UI performance. Contrary to the opening of the process of creating something new that current circumstances require, IU chooses an administrative control process (page 4 of your guide.) In fact, the "re" IU offers the forums as places to detect the external reality that has escaped them in recent decades without the slightest intention to apply the political responsibilities arising from their involvement in all this time. They are the organization projected outward as a diagnostic strategy, agencies and capture moving society. Unable to be addressed critically, IU offers only the outstretched hand of empty words, the central administrative procedure and plurality nonexistent inside.
5. English nationalism. keeping with the logic of the reductio ad unum, is still recognized "Spain" as a national benchmark of all citizens, no alternative to the subjectivity of identity that deny national (ist) English. This, which in itself is problematic for the public at large, it is much more to their potential bases (the rejection of what is called "Spain" increases exponentially to the left). Instead of recognizing that space to represent a segmented reality today is complex and asymmetric (for a confederal model is probably the only and final opportunity to articulate their territoriality), IU continues to save "Spain" for its historical failure as a nation state.
6. UI still does not recognize the effects of neoliberalism on the social composition of activism (not only class but gender, origin, culture, etc.). His project is (re) on the basis of the centrality of the figure of stable employment, male, national, etc. Instead of rethinking the structures of domination that says hope to combat opts rather for play on your own organizational realities. His proposals do not explicitly break with the policies of the big unions conniving, or question the gender roles, English rampant, etc. Paradoxically, they aim to open up to outside where this criticism has already been done (often from IU against IU and out of IU). This is the heritage of the movement.
being so, it seems that the new foundation will give us many joys. Let alone be used to build the interface representative urging movement policy. While not taking seriously issues such as the dissolution of the parties within IU, procedural democracy, acceptance of dissent, the federal principle, autonomy, social and other factors intrinsic to the production of the interface represents just over expect a poor widening the circle of PCE UI.
