How could we ever expect a bipolar, Manichean politico-ideological code (with the “capital” and the “privileged” on the one hand and the “people” and the “non-privileged” on the other) which was nurtured and prevailed for so many years to now achieve some kind of national understanding?
A kind of simplistic interpretation of Marxism became the theoretical basis of a political culture (which naturally served the populist standoff between the “progressives” and the “reactionaries”) from which we now await, at the very last minute, salvation, to save a bankrupt country.
Changes and transformations don’t take place from one minute to the next or through emergency procedures. Most of all, they don’t come about in the absence of productivity. So what comes next? The perpetuation of the dead-end situation and nothing else? The answer is no, if we understand that what we refer to as a “national narrative” mainly comprises a “national desire” for production.