The State of Michigan EE.UU. It's also been captured by the coronavirus. Currently, more than 30,000 infections and about 3,000 deaths from coronavirus have been recorded. In the Detroit capital, things are “very bad.” “There are many poor Black and Latino people who already have quite a few health problems.” Joseba Gabilondo (Urretxu, Gipuzkoa, 1963) has been an associate professor at Michigan State University for years. Teaches Peninsular Studies. He is well aware of the reality of the United States of America, where he started Ph.D. in 1987: he conducted comparative literature and film studies at the University of California, San Diego. He made his thesis in 1992 on Hollywood blockbuster film and what was then called cyber/hyperspace (Internet). These days he works from home with his students. And he's answered these questions from home, via email, in three rounds.

Has this plague surprised you?

Yes, everyone. But the concrete explanation of the plague surprised us. I wrote the book Globalization in 2014, and I clearly explained these increasingly rapid crises of capitalism; we have been announcing it for a long time. As we say in English, the writing was on the wall. Or if I was allowed a Borgiar-Menar joke, Marx had already predicted our 2020 coronavirus. It's very old! England was the old Wuhan of all 19th-century viruses, as industrialization itself generated the conditions for the plague.

The ways, the steps to combat the epidemic unexpectedly here and there?

The form and management of the rulers that surprised me, or rather the chapuzerism? No, I think we all know that the goal of governments is no longer to govern people long ago. Without going into long explanations, and on that the PNV-PSE are absolutely exemplary, current governments are managers of elites (the Basque oasis is the fifth deadliest in the world in this epidemic). Without falling into old topics, but sometimes it has to be said: today there is plenty of wealth in the world so that we can all live very well. Therefore, managing the plague is nothing more than a shortcoming or a temporary unconsciousness for governments. The situation is again what our response is going to be. An anecdote: the American Congress has just approved a $2 trillion package. From there, every American citizen has received a payment of 1,200 dollars, but each of the 47,000 millionaires here has also received a “check” of one and a half million dollars (in the form of payment and tax discount). I mean, government is socialism with the rich. The government or people’s management is limited to “taking measures not to rebel”.

The United States has become the main focus of the pandemic, with its number of infections, deaths and deaths. A new clamp on the loss of hegemonic power in the United States? Definitive?

Yes, but not because it has become the main focus. The empires in general are very flexible when they are forced to kill or sacrifice their populations. Here poverty kills hundreds of thousands of people every year and, to a large extent, the elites and the middle classes have not cared too much about these deaths, as it has made them invisible (for example, between 1968 and 2011 1.4 million people have been killed by weapons; only half a million people died in the civil war; cardiovascular diseases of the poor are the biggest killer of EE.UU. The coronavirus has been a major change, that is, it has polluted the middle class and the elite (pan-demia, everyone). And there, the limitations of the American Neoliberal State have been clearly explained. But, and I'm not saying this cynically, that can also be a revitalizing effect of the empire's elites: from this crisis the richest will be strengthened. In fact, the global hegemonic power of the United States has only spread between 1989 and 2001, so we must demystify it (although the cultural hegemony in the West dates back to 1945). There's always been a collision between superpower. The First Cold War, and now the undeniable hegemonic ambition of China (the local elites), gives us the signs of a new Pacific Hot War. There is no doubt that the elite Chinese class wants global hegemony. Likewise, as the virus has explained, the Chinese administration has demonstrated competition as low as that of the Westerners in times of crisis. China is also about to fall.

On 11 September it marks an enemy of the United States and on the way to Western civilization. Current epidemics?

No, absolutely. The real milestone comes from China and Russia, i.e. the rise of the elites in most peoples. The enrichment and rise of these elites has created this new polar world. The question is how these elites can (no) mobilise (no) their own populations. That's why ideology is now key. Trump has developed authoritarian neoliberalism well (its success or approval, according to the polls, has been increasing so far by 44%) and we do not know whether the oldest hegemonic forms of neoliberalism, called multiculturalist or progeistic neoliberalism (incarnated by Obama and Clinton), have lost for the long term or will be overcome again in the elections. If Trump wins, and now seems very possible, we will see a clash of authoritarian neoliberalisms all over the world (China vs. EE.UU, manipulating the previous two Russia and Saudi Arabia, etc.) It's going to strengthen a global elite. What has been shown clearly against all this are the demonstrations and riots after the Arab Spring (2011). That will be the real milestone: the response of increasingly precarious peoples and peoples, including the middle class, to progressive or authoritarian neoliberalism in Polopes. There is the greatest potential for a future progressive policy. At the moment, however, these riots are on and off, without creating an international dynamic that cannot be postponed. We will have to see and learn from feminism and ecological protests, which are also at risk of co-optation.

You said, and the Middle Ages are here with their pests.

Yes, but not in the sense in which we believe. Philosophers such as Jean Luc Nancy and José Luis Villacañas have argued that the reason for the plague is the almost infinite connectivity that globalization has brought; and that the crisis is civilizing, “civilizing”. No, it's not true. It's about how that connectivity is managed. The objective has always been the growing and unlimited capitalist profit (the global and massive tourism we also suffer in the CAPV is the best example at home). The Middle Ages were also much more connected than we thought, and that is why the Black Death spread through the Silk Road (which killed between 30 and 60% of the population of Eurasia and North Africa).

The Middle Ages had the wrong technology (alchemy, Aristotelian medicine) to deal with the epidemic, but we too. That is, the ultimate goal of today's healing is unlimited performance, and that's why our healing cures the symptoms (what always happens to you is a pill or an operation). And of course, when the epidemic occurs in Congo or in a “backward” Chinese province, but when it comes to “home” it is clear that “pill and intervention” medicine cannot cope with the epidemic; ours is as inadequate as alchemy or Aristotelian medicine (we are still waiting for a vaccine and we do not know if they will get it, SARS is not yet six years old). And the real crisis now is that this is not going to be either the first or the last (even a blind capitalist like Bill Gates predicted it). Or that the epidemic of “opioids” that have not yet passed (72,000 deaths in the US in 2017) or the cardiovascular epidemic of diabetes/high blood pressure (800,000 deaths in the US in 2016) will not go away. To “cure” these pests, we must stop the economic growth of capitalism and eradicate poverty. Today, this medicine does not exist, we are using “capitalist alchemy” to manage and cure other pests. We have made more and more scientific progress in medicine and are becoming more and more medium-sized, and our “alchemical” error is explained more clearly. On the other hand, and as Silvia Federici has explained, medicine is only professionalized when it enters modernity, assuming and monopolizing the knowledge of women's health in the Middle Ages. In this respect, in the Middle Ages we should enter.

In addition, we go to the Middle Ages because the sovereign (imperialist) sovereign state model has been dissolved and, therefore, instead of a general model of sovereignty (sovereignty is the State), we now have many contradictory forms of sovereignty, from body to world. Today the state has had to stop applying the biological sex that imposed us on us in modernity and, on the contrary, we have managed to implement the principle of sovereignty of our body (every day there are more types of bodies: men, women, intersexes, asexual..) and as we have seen in the European Union, that union is also torn apart. Northern Europe has said that the southern crisis is not going to be solved, that it is not its economic crisis. Economic intervention in Greece (2015) was also a coup d’état that destroyed the country’s sovereignty. That is, the world is once again fragmented into empires, kingdoms, counties, free peoples or pounds, tributes (Whatsapp, Facebook...) and heterogeneous bodies, where there are more sources of sovereignty, the state is not the only one. The same is true of fundamentalisms: today, the faith of the barbarians prevails everywhere; modern European enlightenment has also become fundamentalism, nostalgia for a missing religion. Here is the political potential of the reference of the Middle Ages: this historical period ended in a very strong hierarchical feudalism, but it began with the fall of an empire (Rome) in the west (and in Asia, with the co-existence of numerous empires, China was not hegemonic in the fifth century). The Roman slavery disappeared in the Middle Ages, the Islamic world brought science to the west (above Córdoba, Paris and London) and numerous political experiments were carried out which until then did not exist, although they adopted religious forms (from arranism to many forms of communalism). These two Middle Ages are currently taking place together. We don't know what we're going to end up with, more feudal or free poststimperial. The Basques enter history in the Middle Ages, precisely as Basques (we don’t know what they were or if we were few sources, hence the origin of the tribes of the CAV territories that are still in full swing today, the Celta-Indo-European or the Basque Vascon).

On the other hand, and because of the real and final deadly plague that comes to us, that of the ecological crisis, we no longer think of it as a broad and endless horizon of progressive historical and temporal chronology (utopia). We think of Revelation as: we wonder if at the end of history we will end up in a global disaster, and that debate defines us, we think of the present based on an apocalyptic future. And also, on this occasion, the technology-secular god of science will not save us. What will happen? It is precisely unthinkable, that is why we have moved on to an apocalyptic era in which the concept of history is no longer applicable. As some say, the “future” has become a matter of the past. Surely people will come out alive from the ecological apocalypse, but their future is unthinkable to us. The indigenous communities victims of modern imperialism have the experience and memory of a past apocalypse and that is why we have to learn from them, because for them it is a second apocalypse, not the first (although in Latin America the data are debatable, it is estimated that somewhere 80% of the population died or the XVI-XVII. in the 15th and 16th centuries). By the year 2050 we can already be in the pain of the (post)apocalypse. The current pandemic will be no more than a joke in comparison.

They have announced the end of globalisation. But is it the same thing to end globalization as to end neoliberal globalization?

No, globalization can end and neoliberal globalization can move forward, or even enter into an irreversible crisis. In other words, globalization is a consequence of modern Euro-American imperialism. Theoretically, as Francis Fukuyama dreamed, the social-democratic state (welfare state) could spread throughout the world from 1989, when the Soviet Union was dissolved. As David Harvey explained, in the decade of 1970-1980, after experiments of the rich capitalist class (the first laboratory was Chile) and after developing economic thinking in a university (the University of Chicago, Milton Friedman) spread all over the world, this economic doctrine founded/strengthened neoliberalism and a new economic class, which we can today call a plutocracy. Today, in the United States, 1% of the richest families (households) have more wealth than 80% of the families below. This difference in percentages was unthinkable 40 years ago! Therefore, neoliberalism is the result of very concrete and historical experiments in which there was no historical inbitability. In that, not even China is different. And precisely because it is very historic and concrete, neoliberal globalization can disappear: concern is heightened throughout the world and at the end of the pandemic we will have flocks of unemployed people and armies. We do not know what political dynamics it will generate. Nor do we know the effect that new ideas (common, universal minimum wage) will have on post-pandemic neoliberal globalization. There is a fundamental law that Marx defended, that capitalism adds its internal contradictions and that it cannot, after all, overcome. And I think that's still true, although Mario Zubiaga just called me a semi-joke "mechanistic." It is clear, and here we agree with Mario and I, that the outcome or the future of these contradictions is open, that it is historic and that it cannot be predicted (the dictatorship of the proletariat will probably not occur). There too the future will be very medieval. And there's the opportunity for our political mobilizations, we can change things. So, the importance of the riots and demonstrations since 2008, of feminism, of the ecological struggle.

You draw two possible Middle Ages: the barbarian or the feudal. Where do we go after this pandemic?

We don't know. Two currents of thought are emerging: those who argue that neoliberal capitalism cannot respond to the structural crisis caused by the pandemic (Slavoj Zizek, etc.). and that from this crisis neoliberalism will emerge strengthened (Byung-Chul Han, David Harvey…). Unfortunately, I am the second side.

Catalan archaeologist and anthropologist Eudald Carbonell has just said that the virus is the last warning human beings have if the collapse does not come. Are we on the verge of collapse?

By no means. We will see the collapse very slowly and clearly, as a punctual and growing crisis. As our children approach the year 2050 (if I stay alive, I will be 87 years old and I hope to face any apocalypse with great peace of mind). The main problem is that of the new generation. I don't mean any foolishness, but I think the positive aspect is that we are now going to be able to do many different social experiments as the crisis escalates. The side of those who think that science and technology are going to solve the ecological problem is decreasing, because it is capitalist science itself that makes the problem possible. But let's be honest: nobody knows. This is an exercise in calculation and invention of probabilities from history and Marxism.

In the text Revelation, biopolitics and a dismal state: precarization in times of cholera is considered, in a way, the awareness of the revelation as a tool of transformation, as opposed to the utopian and enlightened Renaissance approach.

The logic of apocalyptic thinking makes us ethically and politically more coherent. We cannot “pull the ball forward” by relying on the naive utopian hope that the problems will be resolved in the future. We have to deal with the crisis that is coming to us, whether we want it or not. There's the advantage of apocalyptic thinking: it's more realistic. Also in the year 1,000, although it was a religious apocalypse, it was seen to what extent he had forced people out of their comfortable routines and to carry out radical (religious) transformations. Our new horizon is not history, but apocalypse (in a very materialistic, not sensatzionalist sense). And if not, look today at children aged 5 to 6 (who will be adults by 2050). There's the apocalypse.

On the contrary, there are those who talk about the need for a new illustration, such as Marina Garcés, with Nova il·lustració radical; or when Anjel Lertxundi tries to recover humanism...

Yes, of course. There are proposals for everything, we write and read ironically more than ever. You can also put the worms, Diu, etc. into that bag with differences. It has to be said clearly: a new illustration is always a conservative backward thought. No one is interested outside Europe and it is the clearest expression of Europe’s endless agony. Today we have to build thought amongst all; Europe is a very dubious minority in today’s global world. And the main quality of this other post-European thought should not be individualistic rationalism, let alone individualistic rationalism. Look where we're done. It is time to stop looking at the European navel and hearing what those outside are saying.

Is the pandemic feeding the thinker?

Yes, not everyone? I think we haven't thought about it so much lately! We've all become incapable of intellectualizing. And it's everyone's responsibility, whether it's in Whatsapp or Twitter, to launch those ideas, whether it's a line or a meme. This is the time of common thought.

The texts are splashing through these times. Even books, like Zizek's. Do thinkers who criticize urgent and hyper-technological times not fall at the centre of this hasty dynamic?

Completely! Zizek says that for the first time the plague has allowed us to put aside the hyperproduction tendencies demanded by neoliberalism, but then he is the hyper-producer (neoliberal) philosopher par excellence. It has always been compulsive, but right now he has argued that we have to stop this compulsion. It is one thing to think and bring to light that thought (a thought that we have no choice but to publish on the Internet, as we do not currently have bars or schools). Another thing is that this release appears in a calculated way as a commercialized self-promotion (buy my book! Mine is the only fair theory! ). Today we all have to think, but above all we have to share that thought and not present it and promote it as finished and canonical thought, as a product.

You are also in a time of creative prosperity. Do you think of yourself as a compulsive thinker?

No. I waited for him to tell me I had something to tell him, until I learned enough, to start publishing books. When I was 43 years old I published my first academic work (The Remains of the Nation: Beginning to a Post-National History of Contemporary Basque Literature, 2006) and, therefore, compulsion has not led me to publish quickly (I have members who at 20 years old published books; I at 28 years old brought out a book of unemployment chronicles and ready: Wholeheartedly, from California). My motor is a more insatiable curiosity than a compulsion. In my case compulsion also has a very socioeconomic biography. At home, we had two books. Manual of the ebanist and The Household Book. Then the “kajadesavings” gave us the Aviraneta or the life of an adventurer of Baroja for savings (at home the records were an unnecessary bourgeois luxury; radio and television were monotonous and happy! ). And there finished the written home culture (good and Diario Vasco). In addition, my parents were old and although at the time I saw it as a disadvantage and a shame, as I grew up and looked back, it has been a great intellectual advantage, as long as they talked about the Basque rural world of their past, and I heard and thought in the conversations of the parents of the house the last works of an old regime or the elongated Middle Ages (among the parents the favorite topic was death, the literature of the Basque Basque Basque Roman Roman Roman Roman Word. Hazi, in addition, made me at the 1980 Errenteria wrestler. All of this gives you an unfulfilled curiosity, a real intellectual hunger, to want to know more to respond to that subaltern Basque history, with political responsibility towards him, which is what guides me today in my writing.

Have we not experienced the expectacularization of thought fully, moving Guy Debord to the field of thought?

Yes. We go back to the Middle Ages. We have potatoes (mothers) in the new church of philosophy, so, in writing our works, we are always forced to say them, as St. Butler says, as the pope of the Diocesan Church Diu says... We enter a spatial canonization. And I've never seen what these authors do that write against capitalist accumulation with so many sales profits. The case for me would be the most ridiculous but also the most dignified: Toni Negri and Hardt drew the Commonwealth book (the toilets, that is, the heritage of the people). After making an apology for the shared free goods, the book was published at Harvard University Presse as a private and profit-generating commodity. I have just looked at: They ask for 24 dollars! And why not put the book free on the web? In addition, this expectaculariciada-hierarchical-private structure extends to all levels. In Euskal Herria there is also an intellectually expecting elite, in post-Marxism, feminism, queer theory, decolonial discourse, sociology, philosophy... We are all slaves to this system, whether or not they are explicitly accepted. This expectation is the result of the lack/heterogeneity of sovereignty: the most leading players assume all the sovereignty and are therefore the most spectacular (it is the logic of the winners take all).

Thought stars like Zizek or Chul Han, Chul Han or Zizek. Hyper-media. In a way, it is part of the star system of thought, although it is critical of the social model of capitalism and individualism.

Yes. And I also think that they both mean an already obsolete thought. The last article written by Han, for example, despite a final criticism, makes an implicit defense of “Asian” authoritarianism throughout the article. Zizek and Diu also tell us that we need a left Thatcher or Trump. But most of the riots or demonstrations after 2008, such as feminism and environmentalism, clearly explain to us that we have to go to a policy without authoritarianism (technically, without a master’s or master’s degree). That does not mean that there are no problems in this new political logic, but it is of a different kind. It is up to us to think about it, starting from ecology, feminism and progressive populism of revolt. I would like to think that we are seeing the beginning of the end of hypermedia and elitist intellectualism.

Is it up to thinkers in times of crisis to think well about what's out there or to make future prospects?

As Zizek says, “yes, please!” both. We need everything right now. We do not have much time (one year), at most until neoliberalism is committed to all its experiments and proposals and strengthens the best (and that depends on the money they spend! ). For example, Germán Cano and Lucía Cadahia have drawn a very rigorous and rapid article against many of the previous proposals, including Paul's theories. OK, but although you agree with most of the analysis, in the end the article is made of Foucauldian police (you have misinterpreted the Blessed Don Foucault, confess heterodoxy, you have kneeled and regretted! ). Perhaps in these times when we are, but instead of strengthening the Orthodox, of policing thought, we have to actually read everything out there, to make the interests and make the most prudent, rapid and productive use possible. A universal minimum wage, yes or no? Throw it away! It will be the debate itself that decides whether this issue is important or not. Beware, how? Jule Goikoetxea has launched a very interesting proposal. Do we have to take down armies and build larger hospitals or health systems? Should we leave the cities and live in villages more widely? Enter The Amazon Era? Will our bodies become annexes to a statistical medicine and biopolitics? If after AIDS the bodies are also remotely restructured, making them more visible but distanced (culturalist muscular body), are we now also resorting to similar spatial equidistancing? Should we stop digitizing our souls or driving a new virtual policy? Will states become a hyperospital prison? Will we end the exception in the hardest states? What about the Global South? The pandemic has not yet reached the same height and we do not know what is going to happen, but if we do not take into account the Global South, this plague may last for years, as it will reproduce twice. Is the pandemic itself a hyperobject? Therefore, my recommendation: Think about it! Talk! Write! Express yourself! Put your foot in! Today we need everything! We don't have time.

Returning to Zizek/Chul Han, one says that more capitalism will come, more authoritarian and controlled societies; the other that will be an opportunity for a new communism. Just these two options?

If something has explained the coronavirus to us is that, although the general trend of history has not taken us by surprise, although the plague was part of this predicted history, no one could see the consequences (and will have) that it would have in January. So, no, there are many more options. For example, what I mentioned earlier: to be a plague for the years, as happened with the Black Death (from 1346 to 1671), if we do not serve the Global South. The virus can mutate. Again, you can start the popular revolts around the world. Maybe some progressive ideas can get popular support that they've never had before. Nor was the French revolution a planned movement, but it was a very historic interrelationship between the numerous and heterogeneous events that had little by little no connection (of course, there were conditions for it). Today there are many different exits. It will be interesting to look back in a year (if we are still alive).

Does the Marxist and post-Marxist tradition, in a broader sense, remain of a transformative vision of the Left, a possible alternative? Or have you exhausted everything?

No, like Marxism, feminism or decolonial thought, it's a pretty endless starting point, because it continues to help think about the current problems. Maybe we, a generation, have run out, but not the thought itself.

There is also a kind of exhaustion towards the post-currents of thought (post-modernity, post-Marxism, post-structuralism...) and a return to the tangible materialistic conflicts. Is the post also running out or can you give more?

The post was exhausted from the beginning, but precisely, as there was nothing else, we had to continue with the post and continue until today. That is, what this post highlights is an impossibility. The post recognizes that our history and our thinking comes from modernity, which places us in the post/next to it, but still no one is very clear what our time consists of (globalization, anthropocene, late capitalism, time of multiple subjects, postmodernity... all of the above, only some) and how we should think. And that's where the night is. But it is true that we have passed to a more “materialistic” moment in thought as the very material precarious effects of neoliberal capitalism spread further, although the fashion thought I call “Italian phenomenology” (Agamben, Berardi, Esposito, Negri last...) is very idealistic and weak. This weak idealism will appear more clearly when the Italian theoretical drunkenness passes us. Feminism, decoloniality and post-Marxism continue to be the most interesting thought: the common, care, precarization, necropolitics, migration, late capitalism.

In our country there are those who claim the need for the state (Jule Goikoetxea...), there are those who focus on community growth and cooperativism (Azkarraga Etxagibel...). Where are you?

Once again, these questions, although asked with good intent, are very ideological. I mean, we all know the ideology of that other question. What do you want a good doctor or a Basque doctor? The alternative you gave me above is also that, although I understand it. Jule Goikoetxea does not want a neoliberal Basque heteropatriarchal capitalist state and Azkarraga Etxagibel either, I suppose (I have not read his book, just comments), but wants cooperativism in an imperialist and monocultural Spanish state. Imanol Galfarsoro would say that a neoliberal Basque state is better than the absence of a state, and I would agree. The thinking of Goikoetxea and those around him has a very clear political frontier: how to take advantage of his limited sovereignty to achieve a Basque state (Europe would oppose) at a time when the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund can give him a smooth coup d’état (Greece remembered in 2015 or Latin American Bolivarism). There is, as far as I know, no clear answer. A similar question can be posed to Azkarraga Etxagibel, how to develop his humanist cooperativism so that neoliberal capitalism does not eat? Perhaps I am wrong and they have responded to this problem, but I have not read it. International solidarity is now a pure concept. The advantage of the current situation is that we are going to see very different experiments and that history is going to make those alternatives like the one I've been given before absurd. We are in a runaway story (Walter Benjamin) that has already been derailed from the tracks of progress and now, above all, we have to think about this amplitude. In the face of the bottomless and blind tendency of improvisation shown by Governments, our ideas must be clear.

In our speech do you mean that of thinkers, that of people? Do thinkers' ideas reach people?

Yes, they arrive, like the “delayed explosion bombs”: 10, 20, 40 years later. And above all on the long and complex path of teaching. It is no coincidence that American university youth is more progressive than the rest of the generations. The Progres entered a very elitist university in the 1970s (and we continue to enter) and changed the situation at the root, although then, of course, neoliberalism completely restructured that framework of knowledge (hence the strength of intellectuals expectancy). It is true that the progressive potential of the university is over; once again we are caught in the dilemma of the post. And ideas also come through political parties. But our work is long-term, it has no impact at the moment, and it should not be. In other words, do you think that ETA or the PNV would be produced in the Basque Country without books/thought? Do you think that the Basque Country of the seven provinces is an ahistorical concept “forever”, which is always evident? No, someone has created, written and taught (Axular > Larramendi > Xaho + Abbey). In that I am very radical. I once read a reactionary French intellectual romantic (I have forgotten the name and since then I have not been able to find it again), that behind every revolution there is a book, and although in digital times the problem is more complex, I was right. Why do you think the right spends so much money on their think-tanks? Do you know who is behind the project of medieval Spanish imperialism, which has so far taken root in Spanish nationalism? A Basque Navarro, Jiménez de Rada, and especially his De Rebus Hispaniae. Moreover, when I say, I also take into account the conversations in Whatsapp, Facebook and Twitter, because, in the most post-Marxist sense of today, the real political struggle is ideological and discursive. We are all participating thank God. It also includes false-news, poster, etc. as a discursive political strategy. But indeed, if all that has been created by the right, it's because it believes in the force of speech. Those on the left believe less in the strength of ideas than those on the right; in this, in reality and paradoxically, the anti-intellectual is left-handed. And that's a big mistake. Another good example is Steve Bannon.

It was not a question of contrasting the state's claim for Goikoetxea and the cooperative communitarianism of Azkarraga, but of starting to list different alternatives. But in the end, if not all hegemonic systems and dialectic shocks of all alternatives fall into the same dark well.

Yeah, we're all in that dark well. And nobody has a clear map or guide to get out of the well, approved, convincing; we have ideas, indications, but not a clear program. But that’s why I say that, today, these alternatives or oppositions are not truly ideologically meaningful, because the challenge is more general and we all remain in the same “well”.

Making a simple and perhaps provocative reductionism, do the forms of management beyond the neighborhood and the garden provide a 'stimulating' life model?

Straight answer: you don't know. In the book Globalization, I raise this dilemma and a possible solution (Hegelian). But precisely because we don't know, we have to go both. The answer will, of course, be a hybrid. In addition, all kinds of models can be proposed, but in the end the story imposes responses in an unexpected and improvised way. Of course, the ideal is to stay in the neighborhood garden. But, for example, can you keep the global Internet this way? How do you deal with an imperialist military attack that can come from outside the neighborhood garden? That is, the communal garden must be universal (conceptual and normative) for it to work. And there's the situation. It is clear that the State is not the answer today, although it has had to mobilize to manage the coronavirus. We need a post-state, and of course, that post tells us that we know very little.