personnel may not go to these subtleties and, in the middle of dancing figures representing all social demands-the numbers of those who called and the numbers of those who do not want feel alluded to by the call-many have lost the essence that emerges from past events 29S. Not only that we saw unions ineffective, clueless politicians, workers undecided contrapié employers, background noise and general indifference. So what we have seen, it would not hurt himself when the foundation of democracy is precisely the right to dissent, to build noise without violence and confused with rigor. The worst thing is that we saw the stage machinery of the system itself: a monster devoid of ideological content, built from and to the economic transaction and the flows of money, and any other reference lacks the slightest sense. Postmodernism policy, privatization confusing, disassembly of welfare, media manipulation and social and labor deconstruction. Little more. Little else.
Meanwhile most citizens still squander their time arguing from ideology, struggling with issues inherently political, the truth is that much brawl is nothing but a waste of time because the actual holders of political parties, unions, social partners, media-are not interested in ideological cares nothing rent, which produce little and not publicly traded. That is the big scam in the average citizen lives submerged, that the policy exists, that ideologies are real, to vote and express themselves politically still is, to paraphrase Marx, an exercise in transforming reality ... False ... The fact is that rectors of this theater does not want change or representation, or rules, or actors, and thus have become friends of one great principle of democracy contemporary western: that the way everything changes constantly so that nothing ever changes in the background.
aideologismo This tricky problem of democratic governance, subject to conditions and tensions over the left than the right. Inevitably so. Meanwhile the left has been characterized from the very beginning, the debate on the merits, by the battle of alternatives, the revolutionary spirit and continuous movement, the right has always been clear: any change, any change in the principles, is bad because it alters these balances of power set (mine) that must be preserved at all costs. And in that debate eternal versus counter-revolution, is gaining ever who has no alternative to force and not even want it. Without internal debate, without ideology, without change, without policy in a word, there is no discussion why (or why). It is paradoxical that the ideological inertia and negativity English right-wing politics, aristocratic by birth and conviction ultramontane, is accurate to be last of Soviet totalitarianism, all still, all together, all the same.
English unions, the heirs without trying (although not prevent) the vertical regime and maintained by the State itself have been slow to understand, assume and integrate these facts and are unable to defend against them, their evidence and their consequences. Because you can not make war on who will hold the same way that you can not put up with that supports you if you mistreated. Every position has its costs and any road tolls. The contradiction is destroying the same time as the material dependence of the state limits their movements and initiatives, this limitation will add to the discredit citizen and ideological disaster (again). And if a general strike is the quintessential revolutionary action, which makes a real democracy almost meaningless, "every revolution need alternatives which do not have. Because we destroyed them and why not have them interested in: social conflict is bad for the bank dividends, the income statement, the stock price and the exploitation of resources. Therefore, because the latter is what should be enhanced and protected above all else, is what government is more afraid of GDP or the state of public finances as any union member, and assumed to be socializing losses banks at the same time it dismantled slowly but without stopping, for example, the public health system. Things that our supposed right and our supposed left completely agree.
This explains the Government's position. Greek Brussels after the disaster requires a change of direction so that the matter not be repeated, and we must meet the conditions imposed on us to stay afloat and enjoy international credibility to attract investment. In short: Zapatero lacks room for maneuver and therefore is unable to satisfy demands for hard labor that arise. Sure. The problem is that the labor reform, so tremendous to those less fortunate as perfectly understandable if govern the right, he plunges into disrepute because they sold us "left." This is the inherent difficulty staff to believe that ideologies exist in order to get a vote, which then requires accounts to not understand what in fact is nothing but an imaginary contradiction. The same displacements at Mariano Rajoy to find-surprise-that the opposite change the script and starts to recite the text.
This is how stupid our pseudopolíticos aideologismo imposed for the sole purpose of maintaining the stability of socio-economic relations and ensure that money flows (the two pillars of Western capitalist democracy), we intellectual turmoil leads to 29S. Everyone is in an offside position and no one understands anything. The left does things "right", is situated right in speech "left", the unions go on strike seeking the lost legitimacy they never found, employers do not know who to align and citizens, stupefied, gaped at this absurd spectacle and well seasoned, served course-by media.
Kafkaesque.
