IN-DE-PEN-DEN-A.

Until now, nationalism has focused too much on irrational motivations, until the blow of history. The latest trends in nationalism, however, are answering the question “why and for what?”, putting on the table the economic, social and cultural benefits. Unfortunately, working on the motives alone will not create new blocs, it will not move people. In addition to reasoning more substantially the need for independence than hitherto, we should also reflect on what faithfulness generates. How do membership of the nation emerge? Do these fidelities move people through rational work? Can we get to the block in front of us? Not in vain, Joseba Gabilondo and Eduardo Apodaka say that we first have to burn that land, rewrite our nation so that those ideas change.

How does the road begin?

Understanding that the nation is something that is built and dissolved every day. What is national construction? What El Correo does every day using the word “people.” Although it does not appear explicitly, the nation is the first condition to be taken into account in carrying out all projects, values and rights. When Podemos says that it prioritizes the social approach, it does not say that it prioritizes it for Spanish citizens. This changing understanding of the nation should not frighten people. We wouldn't have a battlefield if we considered the static nation. Variability puts the battlefield on the day to saya.Cuando I die of laughter with El Club de la Comedia, I have to be clear that this humorist is building a Spanish nation, that the symbolic references he uses increase my membership of my Spain. Whatever we want, that affects our nature. For example, we have a very Spanish way of understanding politics. We do not know how to make constructive criticisms, in the first word in which we do not agree, we threw the threat of going home. So if we want an ever larger movement, we'll have to learn how to express the differences by keeping what we have in common.

Is it good for us to have a state like everyone else?

We're afraid to be normal. We don't want to be normal. It's convenient to build your political project against. Without the State, the misery of the State does not turn its back. That is why saying “the Basque State will be feminist or not” or “the Basque State will be Basque or not” is the same for me. This dilemma does not exist. The State will be a reflection of the correlations of forces of society. If the Basque State were to be created today, it would be what we see every day on the street. State structures cannot be much more progressive than your society. It's a bad thing to forget that society is very conventional. There are many enlightened revolutionaries who make plans for the people without regard to the people. Whether you like it or not, the most read journal is El Correo Español. This sums up common sense here.

That is why we are debating so much independence with the independentists and so little with those who deny independence?

Right now, the opponents of independence, with Podemos’s hand, have a very definite project that can be attractive to Basque society. We don't. We are committed to discussing why yes and why not independence, but when are we going to define our model of state? If you want to attract people, you have to clearly set your goal. At the moment, however, although the conditions are being created for this, there is no independent strategy. In order for this strategy to be one-sided, we will have to play all the cards without fear of opening roads and burning ourselves. For example, it may be tactically interesting to make bilateral proposals from a unilateral position, knowing that the State will not accept them. If your proposal has full social legitimacy, you immediately show that in Spain parliaments have great limitations. We can't design a pro-independence strategy from the top down, but through punctual movements, you can sculpt people's view. Right now, a large majority believes that we are living well in the CAV and in Navarre, that there is no need for change, that parliaments are quite free. That is what needs to be changed. Only in this way can you put the silver above the legal one. It takes time and we cannot think that in that time we can keep society mobilized at all times. The key is to reinforce the step taken by mobilisation when it seizes the peak, making it irreversible. I'm going to be reproached that we don't go with gradualism, but societies work that way.

Unilaterality. The magic word of the Abertzale left of recent times.

We have not yet been able to explain what unilaterality is. So for the time being, the strength we have is more mental than strategic. As people continue with the glasses of the bilateral scheme, all the critical readings of the Abertzale left are considered a concession to the state. However, if these readings are analyzed in the face of the people, the analyses and sentences are different from the current ones. The liberation movement had been wanting for years to answer some of the questions, and when I thought I had answers, the questions have changed. It is natural that some of the ideological pillars of the 1960s are outdated. How are nations constructed and unbuilt? Where is the common sense of people born? What strength do the media have? These are the questions to be answered, although so far the Left has considered that ideological debates were on a different footing. We have shown that more is needed than the reason for convincing people. If the struggle of ideas for you is a matter of the first order, you have to detect where that struggle takes place and if you have to prepare a person to go to the Klaudio Landa program, get ready. In order for people to see reality in a different way, it is necessary to adapt their discourse to some frameworks. We therefore do not now have the right framework.

Can frames be changed?

The first condition for changing the framework is to realize that showing reality as such is not worth a peep. It ended up thinking that we'll win because we're right. What is the fundamental difference between United Left and We? IU moves in the old left and right frame with words spent as “oligarchy,” and We can recover the high and low frame with fresh expressions like “casta”. The two say the same thing, but one has an updated everyday framework, the other of another century. That's the difference. We can't fight for reality, the reality was there, it was obvious. Most leftist parties, however, believe that people are not voting for them because they don't realize the reality. That's why they're continuously contributing data, waiting for people to come to them when they find out what's going on. They do not understand that this is not a matter of conscience. People have their frame and, despite showing the crudest reality, if your speech is not inscribed in that frame, you have a party. I have the impression that every time the Abertzale left says something it says something within the framework of another. Today at the PNV, tomorrow at Podemos, past tomorrow... That is not possible. We are going to create our framework. We understand concepts as a framework for struggle. Concepts have multiple meanings; reality is not one and the only one.

Do the models we love have to do with reality?

There is a terrible gap between what we really would like and what we really are. We need minimal sociology, we need to study common sense, we need to investigate what people spend and what they consume. It directly influences the Basque culture. We complain that we have more writers than readers, but what do people consume? Video games, porno, motors... Does the Basque Country have a presence in these camps? We do not want to dirty Euskera, we want to put it in relation to all the ideals of social change, but Euskera also has to lean towards consumption trends. Otherwise, what is not offered in Basque will be consumed in Spanish. We cannot constantly live in the hypocrisy of our romantic and heavenly values. It's not that everything that the popular movement does is good and everything that comes from institutions is bad. There is nothing to do if the social and institutional front does not go hand in hand. The people ' s movement must monitor the way for the organization to make change possible. For example, in Gipuzkoa, on the subject of door-to-door garbage collection, the popular movement had to face the conservative aggression from door-to-door in a much more aggressive and massive way. It is not good that they are on the same side and that once you reach the decision points you are asking or picoting separately.

“In the game of coexistence and you in the small berts...” sings Ruper.

After so many years of tragic struggle, the Abertzale left has created a very strong emotional identity. It is very difficult to change anything within that identity without crime. When you've spent the years screaming, "Struggle is the only way!", how won't transitional justice hurt you? People do not consider it an ideological debate, but an attack on their identity. That's why he accuses you of trying to override the liberation movement. In vain you will tell someone that pragmatism is necessary when you cut the world in their eyes. That mythical view is what has led people to struggle, not pragmatism. This mystified vision, however, has created a monster in which current debates are not intellectual debates, but emotional debates. Hence the general lack of illusion. On the Abertzale left, people have run out of their world. For everyone, it's the time of relocation and recycling. A lot of people are going to internalize change and go ahead, and a lot of people are going to stay there forever. It's a matter of time.

Is the assimilation of real participation by political parties a matter of time?

No. One more scourge of our political culture that Catalonia has exposed: We do not know how to carry out a strategy that has not been fully defined, we are not able to manage what goes down the road without foreseeing it. Our parties are based on a desire for total control. They live convinced that people are going to be wrong if they don't think what they think. Let people get it wrong! But no, they prefer to keep believing that voters and votes are their own. That's why they get anxious when they realize that people vote based on elections. I believe that the parties should be happy with the liquidity of the vote. It places the political struggle in the capacity that each project has to seduce society. When the blocks are fully defined, your battlefield is much more limited.

I mean, threats can be opportunities.

We live in a time when unique opportunities are offered to create new fidelities. Fidelities aren't forever, but they leave a mark both emotionally and rationally on you. In addition, society cannot, as it is now, continuously walk without ground. Sooner or later, I am sure that the chess board will be redefined and that the nation will continue to have weight on the new board. The account of our nation that we have developed in the coming years will be very important. It is no coincidence that Joseba Sarrionandia attempted to integrate everyone from a point of view of oppression.