Louis Althusser.

It opened my eyes. I came to France as president of the Catholic University Action, starting to excite faith and with the objective of working Marxism. Although determinism, mechanism and materialism made me crujir, Althusser taught me a different Marxism, a Marxism that served me to understand society. As a Christian, I dreamed of a society of solidarity where people loved each other, and Marxism, instead of promoting egoism and competitiveness, warned me of the need for a new structure that facilitates love among people. On the other hand, I owe Althusse the method of studying classics. He constantly insisted that the thought of the time had to be understood in order to know the meaning of the words of the author, because, according to the time, words had a different meaning. So I'm clear that Althusser taught me a tool for fighting, not an intellectual esnobist pomp. Imagine that in South America the Althusserian interpretation of Marxism has been internalized to the bottom, from the theology of liberation to the left committed to the struggle.

Back from Paris to Chile, you committed yourself to the training of workers and farmers.

In 1969, I wrote the famous Elemental Concepts of Historical Materialism, and since it was more important than the PhD to have written a book to be a university professor, I began to structure the first professorship of Marxism. At the same time, as a member of the Socialist Party, he taught training classes. The workers and the peasants had tremendous knowledge compared to the others. They wanted concepts that were applicable to their daily lives, not debates about the shape of clouds. For me, it was adding practice to theory, an enriching experience, and since then I have the obsession with transferring the wisest idea to people who don't have academic studies.

Today, is the working class ideologically correctly trained? Don't intellectuals behave among them?

The crisis of training is not today. After the fall of socialism, the left was hit by skepticism, and starting to look for new forms of organization, the leaders forgot that they had received a Marxist formation and established on the ground floor broad structures that did not address the problem of training. So what has happened? Very interesting movements have emerged, such as the M-19 of Colombia, but when it comes time to relay, the party is over! On the contrary, Brazil’s Landless Movement, which is to me the most interesting phenomenon in the world, made a huge commitment in schools of training and transmission, supporting all farmers in South America and many urban movements. It is essential to understand the path previously opened, to exchange views on what we are doing and what we want to do, and to discuss showers. I care more than intellectuals say the craving to know that it is appearing in South America. Unfortunately, we do not have enough teachers to satisfy it.

How would you convey the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of real socialism?

At that time, I left the University of Chile to take the direction of a journal on the left. There we predicted and denounced the coup that was about to come, and by defeating Allende, I had to exult myself unreservedly. The defeat of socialism raised problems and contradictions in me. I realize it fell so soon, because no one felt it. To get out of that puddle of despair, I looked at the experiences that showed that, despite the crisis on the left, a race had been undertaken. I saw the seeds of another form of society, pure and transparent governments delegating power to the people. The crisis also led to suspicion of books and the need for new training methods. So I realized that I could reach far more people telling stories than by organizing concepts, that starting with practice is always more effective. That is why, if I were to convey something, I would say that the struggle and training never end. In sweet and difficult times, we always have to move forward.

Are government and opposition Marxism the same?

I started researching local experiences in Brazil, and I realized there was a big contradiction between those who were in government and those who were not. On the right track, our thinking accepts the party's vision and action, but the party spends too much time discussing and deciding, and the government needs short-term responses. If you add to that that the people who are trained are not in the party but in the government, how is there not going to be clashes? The only way to deal with it is to exchange people on a continuous basis, that what is in government today will go to the party tomorrow and vice versa. The easiest thing is to cook and grab onto the chair with your fingernails, but the effort to take the general photo is worth more than the experience of several years in a position. Because the dynamics of a social movement have nothing to do with that of a government, and contradictions and criticism are always going to arise. That is why it is imperative that Governments assume the pressures and criticisms and clearly recognize them to the people: “I’m nothing, I need you to be organized, to warn you of my defects, to stimulate me...” We must not forget that every left-wing government is in an apparatus that would not build on its own.

How should the left be articulated?

The party models have been copists, but in South America it is clear that we have to create a new political instrument. That does not mean that we do not have to delve into party recovery, but that we have to change the way and the dynamics of understanding politics. It can be a broad front that plays a much more important role than what social movements currently have, it can be a network, it can be... We have to rethink this tool, because we've come to believe that we don't need tools to structure our ideas from the denial of leftist parties. What has happened, however, with the great demonstrations that have taken place around the world? Otherwise, they have been exhausted without result. Faced with an enemy as powerful as capitalism, we are obliged to organize ourselves, only that will open the door for decisive action at the decisive moments. This tool must adapt to local reality and promote change. It will have to structure what is in some countries, in others to be born from scratch, but it is a great mistake to have the movement at the service of the party. The word is from the movement and leaders must be more popular educators than leaders.

Shouldn't governments promote social critique and work on the pedagogy of government boundaries?

It's inevitable. The Left is not used to governing, until it reaches the Government it has not reflected on the policy of governing. That's why we're in the middle of a transition, and transitions are always conflicting. People think the world can change from morning to night, but that's impossible. First of all, the institutional rules of the previous system must be changed, but sometimes the relations of force do not leave you, and mismanagement can lead to a reactionary legislature. That is why we must constantly try to create a wind of change, overcome every obstacle that comes down the road, and to do so we must explain to people at all times what the situation is. Many authorities, frightened by problems, do not leave the office because communicating problems is a sign of weakness, but it is the other way round. Sharing with the people the anguish of not being able to satisfy the will of the people makes them all one boat, and there is no more wind of change.

He was the wife of the one who was the head of the Cuban security forces, Manuel Piñeiro, and adviser to Chávez. You have seen the dangers of power.

The issue of “gifts” is key to everyone who governs. We must systematise policies against and act transparently. People do not know what is done with these “gifts”, what they are accepted for or why they are denied, creates misgivings and increases social inequality. On the other hand, the families of the authorities are also a problem. Many authorities feel guilty about not devoting enough time to their relatives and leave them one day of compensation an official car, first a Saturday, then every Saturday, and finally ... Case with the paraphernalia of power! The proverb says that governing is rotting, and on the left it is up to him to lift the reins of security against him. Each authority must have a nucleus that puts it on alert, not only to prevent treason, but to analyse, monitor and guide all its conduct. Consistency between our words and actions is essential. It could reach power more than once, but credibility is lost once.

Is this one of the fundamental foundations for the reconstruction of the left?

We have long believed that the assumption of power by an active minority was sufficient to transform society. Without the support of the majority, however, we have forgotten that a project cannot be maintained. So, we have to win the hegemony, conquer the hearts of the people's heads: without people there is no socialism. In order to convince ourselves, we have to be clear about the alternative model of society, but above all, develop attitudes that fit that project. On the other hand, we cannot continually curse the fact that we have against the world, the wind and the media. It is perhaps we who are unable to explain our social model correctly. I am objectively clear that the Bolivarian project should reach 85% of South America, but the ratio of forces extracted from the ballot box is different. It is therefore up to us to change our attitude and to create our style. The similarity of the speeches and styles of the right-wing and left-wing leaders gives rise to enormous scepticism. That's what we're overcoming in South America. Finally, we have to keep the word, be efficient. People are demanding results, and if we have promised a work, there is no excuse. Many times, the Left has preferred celestial debates, but people want efficiency.

He has stated that the Left should have collective governing bodies, but those who have come to power have been charismatic leaders. What is it, the celestial debate or the issue of efficiency?

I share the idea that leaders are essential. Neoliberalism promotes social fragmentation. It doesn't matter if there are many small groups, it sees the danger when they articulate. Thus, to cope with this fragmentation, a leader is needed that integrates these fragmented subjects. However, these leaders must understand that their role is to sow the conditions that allow collective leadership, the development of the autonomy of the movements and the execution of the participating organizations. We need the leading role of citizenship. That is why the good leader is not the one who maintains power at any price, but the one who is creating the conditions for him to disappear continuously. I have often thought that if Chávez had known the date of his death, he would have worked that collective vision much more. But it's not easy, because social transformations require a long-term vision, and political norms leave nothing but short-term thinking.