The populist story differs from history and even from historical memory, understood as the history of the defeated and forgotten of Walter Benjamin, not only in its explicit focus on the part and in its character of self-justification, but above all in its political will mobilizing.
That is what the story of the former Vice President of the Government Pablo Iglesias has dealt with. A narrative in the trompe l’oeil mode in which Leninism and populism are connected, destined to flatter the ears of their already mature peers of the communist youth, who in the 1990s took up Leninism and the revolution at the wrong time and who today are among the nostalgia of the In the past, the pride of the unprecedented presence in the coalition government and the dissatisfaction with the so far meager results of the much-maligned reformism.
Within the story in which the role of Greek hero is reserved, the will of the State stands out as the plot of the centenary of the PCE, from the October Revolution to the current progressive coalition government, which reveals the resistance of the dark forces and culminates with his immolation for the sake of the continuity of the project. It does not clarify whether to place himself in a new role of ideologue and story builder or, on the contrary, for the moment to leave the focus and perhaps return later with more force.
The core of the argument is the continuity of the will to state of the communists, as a euphemism for the revolution and the seizure of power from Lenin and the communist movement, to the outrage led by Pablo Iglesias and the presence of communists in the coalition government with Podemos, passing through the Popular Front in the last phase of the Second Spanish Republic.
A will of the State in the manner of the Nietzschean transcript of the will to power, reflected first in the revolutionary seizure of power and now in the seizure of power by assault, then in the surprise of the PSOE on the left, finally frustrated, whose last Meaning is now reduced to participation in the coalition government. The will of the State that has become the mere will of the government with the landing in reality.
For this reason, in his narration the Second Republic, the long and harsh anti-Franco resistance and finally the pact for freedom, do not interest him, nor a Transition that he sees partial and bittersweet, to put it mildly.
In the story he consciously eludes what is most important and what the paradigm shift and the singular identity of the PCE within the communist parties signify: the 1956 National Reconciliation proposal built in the clandestine struggle and in the prisons of the anti-Franco struggle, as well as raising awareness against fascism and by extension against any form of totalitarianism, including that of actually existing communist regimes, with the logical culmination of a Copernican turn from revolution to reform, from the assault on power to the defense of democracy Parliament and ultimately with the new Eurocommunist strategy, not only as a democratic path to socialism, but as the essence of a socialism that can only be democratic. Pablo Iglesias, however, ignores it and thereby hides a good part of our history and the true identity of the PCE and the PCE within IU. The problem is that this PCE and this IU are not suitable for a populist project.
Again, as has been traditional since the very origin of Podemos, the speaker also underestimates and misrepresents the Democratic Transition with the discourse of its partial and Gatopardian character (change everything so that everything remains) and as a consequence its decline, little less than inevitable , in the democracy of imperfect bipartisanship in a continuist alliance with the nationalists, including the class unions CCOO and UGT as part of the aforementioned power bloc.
The typical leftist discourse of betrayal and the submissive left of the Transition, in which the PCE would become harakiri by committing itself to the democratic game with the insurmountable limit of the veto of its presence in the State Government. A betrayal of the will of the State. In short, it is a rejection of the complexity required by the idea of the will of the Power-State that only germinates in simplification. Democracy is rejected as a complex idea. The contradiction comes when the UGT and CCOO unions are invited to the PCE party and ranks are closed with them to defend the achievements, always partial and insufficient, of every coalition government and even any democratic government.
Nor is it a coincidence that it ignores the United Left’s strategic project and its contribution to Spanish democracy, mainly in the autonomous and local governments and in collaboration or opposition to successive governments. Struggle and government that is an inseparable part, first of the PCE project and then that of the IU and that Julio Anguita develops with his municipal experience as the will of the government. Something very different from the will of the State. IU was a second democratic immersion of the PCE after the first produced by Eurocommunism.
In this sense, its situation in Spain perhaps has more to do with the IU’s inability to take advantage of the possibility of opening up to broad sectors of the left and the withdrawal of CCOO and UGT, something that we should consider why it occurred. IU gave up exhausting the logic of its own foundation and the dichotomous and Manichean language that Iglesias deploys today at the PCE party, I must admit that it began to be dominant in that one, my dear IU.
As a consequence of the above, Pablo Iglesias presents himself as the doer who breaks with subordination and puts an end to the exclusion of communists in the State Government, when on the contrary the problem has been general in Europe in the context of the cold war and as a consequence in addition to the scant electoral support and the existence of the replacement of the nationalists so that we have been able to become part of coalition governments like the current one. Likewise, he presents himself as the leader of the new alternative alliance with EH Bildu and ERC, in the face of the attempt to recompose the reformism with the Citizens’ center, without of course stopping to analyze it based on its costs and results. What is the will of the State of these two political forces? Of course, and very legitimately, not that of a common State for all of Spain. Then an ideological alliance with these two left houses a contradiction that does not want to be made explicit. This does not prevent cooperative and political alliances that are an indispensable part of democracy. It is the leftist myth that Pablo Iglesias wants to promote by symbolically using these two political forces to enhance his revolutionary aesthetic. More populist ammunition that a political system needs without centripetal and moderating force.
Nor does it analyze the complexity of the dark forces of the deep state, but instead claims to have brought it to light thanks to its presence in the Government and its alliance with the pro-independence parties, without taking into account its previous existence and especially its strengthening as A consequence of the polarization that populism supposes, beyond the deficits of the transition, now monopolized by the extreme right. That is why the left must put the democratic will before the will of the Power-State, since the latter does not harbor the concept of plurality.
At the end of his speech, he explained his departure from the vice-presidency of the Government as a necessary sacrifice as a result of the reaction of the Deep State to his policy of alliances with the independence movement as an alternative to continuity, without clarifying the contradiction that his vindication of the will of State and not even the most reformist will of government, with its ephemeral presence and unexpected departure from the Government for the lost battle of Madrid. Something very little Leninist and very little responsible, on the other hand.
In short, Pablo Iglesias appears before you and wants to continue being the ideologue of United We Can and the radical left, who from outside the Government reveals to us the strategy to follow and the resistance, more than obvious, of the Deep State, so that they are others those who manage reality and its contradictions. Because the results of the will of government and concrete management will always be unsatisfactory. A matter of women and men, rather than heroes and gods.