The theory of the State at the end of neoliberalism

 The theory of the State at the end of neoliberalism

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

Are the autonomous bodies and intermediate bodies part of the State? In a strict sense the answer is affirmative, but it is also important to consider the subordinate position in this regard. Suddenly it becomes urgent to review the theory of the State because in the new defensive doctrine of autonomous and independent organizations, everything is being confused in a malicious way.

What is the obsessive sense of pointing out that autonomous, independent, decentralized or public bodies are more State than government? In the past, it was an administrative matter to change the names of organizations of this type, their disappearance or creation. A truly serious thing would be the disappearance of the government, since the autonomous organisms would not have the capacity to generate governability or order, authority, legitimacy and control. These organisms are not important to unite the country or to contribute to the political system.

The discussion is important to establish because there is serious malice on the part of constitutionalists and political scientists attached to the PRIANRD and increasingly distant from scientific analysis. Cesar Cansino was not wrong when he wrote about the death of political science. In recent times, the theory of the neoliberal state will end up considering that the nation is also imaginary.

The false civilist, autonomist, pseudo-democratic and unfortunately anti-Mexican discourse; hides an authoritarian, reactionary, conservative and pro-Nazi streak. There is no liberal or anarchist thought in them, they are old and new conservatives. Reason why his real interest is to destroy the Mexican State.

The new architects of the public space are constructing paths of anti-state rhetoric that they pass off, paradoxically, as statists. During the prolonged neoliberal night, it was maintained with authoritarian dogmatism that there was no more important issue than diminishing the State, cornering it and making it transparent by all possible means. Made. Was it useful for something? Do you remember Enrique Peña Nieto? The results are plain to see, neoliberalism dismantled the Mexican state and created a welfare state for oligarchic businessmen, brought Mexican society to its knees in the face of the powers that be, and established a golden bureaucracy expert in collusion and political concertation. All of the above was carried out based on the argument of the Lilliputian dwarfism of the Mexicans and the benign civilizing work of the market. His methodology only allowed the return of the PRI. And they keep talking about the PRI State as the best.

The Peñanietista six-year term was the concrete result of that neoliberal dogma, for this reason the society decided to change the political economic model in 2018. The society chose to rebuild the State of the Mexican revolution and limit the power of the hegemonic blocks, mafias, businessmen and groups of interest.

The autonomous organizations were constituted as facades of an invisible power that dedicated itself to looting and corrupting all the structures of the Mexican State. The first people responsible for the mud on democracy and the terrible populism were the neoliberals. Instead of continuing to defend the islands of corruption and looting that autonomous organizations represent, the best thing to do would be to propose a new State model, a post-neoliberal State.

The perspective of autonomous and decentralized organizations in the 4T

 The perspective of autonomous and decentralized organizations in the 4T

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

The history of the neoliberal era in Mexico could have a prologue that states: "Once upon a time there was a State...,". As much as liberal democrat political scientists raise the issue of transparency, civil society, public sphere and human rights, etc.; as a conquest of the neoliberalist stage, the truth is that the indicators and the popular conscience do not allow them to lie anymore. The international organizations that measure the quality of democracy, governance and human development have been there for more than a decade. The destruction of the State in Mexico corresponds to neoliberalism. David Collier, Menno Vellinga and Guillermo O'Donnell each built compilations during these decades to talk about the paradigm shift that the state conception of the neoliberals meant.

When President Vicente Fox pointed out that the country could be managed like a company, this reflected the managerial and economic vision that was adopted to build public policies from the vantage points of the new public administration (for example: Ramón Muñoz Gutiérrez, Eduardo Sojo and Ernesto Derbez). The managerial perspective, like the technocratic one, was a resounding failure. The Mexican State cannot be rebuilt if the intention is to destroy it.

In accordance with the basic notes of constitutional law and political science, the government headed by Morena and the Fourth Transformation are rebuilding the State, although due to the historical gap this is a setback for some clueless people, or else, the consolidation of Bolivarian Chavismo.

The State is the legal, political, economic and even ideological configuration; that a society chooses to coexist and govern itself. Autonomous organizations and civil society do not appear anywhere in the classical theory of the state. The islands that the neoliberals developed to maintain an influence do not protect society at all, they only constitute a distinctive element of the Welfare State for the oligarchy that the members of the red circle and organic intellectuals of the business and religious right yearn for.

The social doctrine of the Catholic Church must be put into dialogue with Carl Schmitt, who they love. Is that the State that PRIANRD wants?

The Mexican State has faced its enemies since the Constitution of 1857 and, mainly, the Constitution of 1917. Neither the INE nor the INAI are indispensable for the Mexican State. Defending the juarista and revolutionary spirit of the positivist constructs that give us homeland and freedom, is the task that deserves to be highlighted.

The democracy of the INE does not combine with popular democracy

 The democracy of the INE does not combine with popular democracy

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

Liberal democracy does not have a good strain in Mexican society due to the colonialist caste system; even this is known by its defenders who represent not a social class but the vertex benefited by the pigmentocracy.

The IFE/INE was a failure from the beginning, but it constituted a new space for negotiation between the political parties and the PRI, between the clerofascists and the populists, to carry out concessions and graduate the radical democratic impulse of the masses. The electoralist pact constituted a form of Spanish canovism, that is, trading power alternatively, as had been done before within the Revolutionary Family.

Democracy in Mexico, due to the nature of its social relations, is generated outside of the political parties and the INE. Even outside the government. It is corporate, neighborhood, populist, neighborhood, small-town, union, cooperative and school. Ordinary people develop spaces for collective action however they can, because the different levels of government do not attend to them. Society understood that "democracy via competitive elections" was the game of the PRI members turned defectors and accepted by the PAN and PRD.

While the powers that be, partisan institutes, the media, liberal intellectuals and aspirational bureaucracy; defends the INE thinking that Mexico is Denmark or the United States, Mexican society survives the governmental orphanage of all political parties and autonomous institutes.

Jacobo Molina's motu proprio resignation shows that the INE was a space of looting and corrupting neoliberalism, it does not even have the capacity to defend itself. Where are the “true democrats”? The INE self-destructs because it never defended democracy or developed a civic culture. The factions that controlled the institutional electoral environment are coup leaders or cheaters; even both. They go to direct confrontation with the presidency of the republic because, as Lorenzo Córdova said, they are not equal; They are worse.

Pablo González Casanova has insisted for several years that Mexican democracy does not go through political parties, the government and much less the INE. Participatory, collectivist and mutualist social mechanisms exist independently of all. May it continue like this for the good of all.

Cuauhtémoc Blanco: president and Mexico champion in 2026

 Cuauhtémoc Blanco: president and Mexico champion in 2026

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

Of course Blanco is better than Hugo Sánchez, Chicharito and several other players; as far as football is concerned. How could he turn out as president of the republic?

A few days ago, the controversy broke out in Mexican soccer regarding the terrible performance of the national team, as well as the increasingly evident corruption translated into full incompetence.

The former American player -and of other teams-, now governor of the State of Morelos, has been considered as a profile to get involved in management positions of FEMEXFUT or assume the technical leadership of the soccer team itself. The thematic influence of the issue allows us to appreciate the level of politics and sports. Governance in Morelos does not exceed the Mexican average, although it also seems interesting to weigh the possibilities of Blanco rescuing national soccer from his fatal condition. After all, one of the worst governors in Mexico: Enrique Peña Nieto, is admired like Vaclav Havel by the PRIANRD.

Should politics and soccer be linked? Could soccer be constituted as a populism that reconciles the social and irresolvable polarization that Mexico is experiencing?

It is not surprising that soccer as a mass sport constitutes the analgesic to alleviate the country's problems; on the contrary, the ambition of the political class that forgets mundane issues seems more serious and, even in the best outsider spirit of the parties, the partisan oligarchies are always afraid of authentic competition.

Some consider soccer to be the most beautiful religion. Could be. The looming world cup in the North American region is even configured as the opportunity for Cuauhtémoc Blanco to set up an axial presidential campaign in the soccer championship for Mexico.

A presidential candidate in sync with Mexico's most popular sport can change the dynamics of the succession of power. What does the United States prefer? An Ávila Camacho resigned to a developmentalism based on the North American maquila? How about a candidate who helps boost the economic power of the main global mass sport in the region?

I hope that Blanco tries to improve the governance and quality of democracy in Morelos, and that he is taken into account to lead the destinies of national soccer. Why is it that no politician with presidential aspirations takes the world cup for Mexico as the center of his national proposal? How many votes could Cuauhtémoc Blanco reach if he intends to break the curse of the fifth game in the World Cups for Mexico? Is what happens with national soccer outside of political power?

Politics is polarized, but soccer is a fire. Blanco is one of the best players this country has ever had and can contribute a lot to the national soccer team, which, unfortunately, is becoming more of a mousetrap every day. There the most popular sport copies the steps of national politics.