2010-04-04
C'e' Bisogno di Sinistra: There is a Need for the Left. Italiano/Inglese
8 comments
Versione Italiana. English below.
‘C’è bisogno di Sinistra!’ si legge sul manifesto. Per quanto in passato io abbia inveito contro certi sentimenti (c’è bisogno di cambiamenti sociali ma la retorica della “Sinistra” è da tempo logora, anche se i suoi fini restano assolutamente validi) la Sinistra sembra in qualche modo particolarmente adatta all’Italia.
Non so se questo dipenda dal fatto che in qualche maniera lo spettro del Fascismo incombe ancora o perché i media mantengono una forte presa su questo Paese, ma è proprio vero che i parametri politici variano da un paese all’altro.
Per esempio, l’estrema sinistra nel Regno Unito è una forza svuotata di ogni energia mentre in Italia ha raccolto un numero significativo di voti. Lo stesso Presidente (Napolitano) era un membro del partito comunista fino al suo scioglimento e, successivamente, ha giocato un ruolo importante nel partito in cui il PCI si è trasformato, il Partito Democratico della Sinistra.
Probabilmente il fatto che qui il Presidente appartenga in genere a un partito opposto a quello del governo in carica fa sì che l’Italia sia per molti versi meno ‘capitalista’ rispetto al Regno Unito.
Ma questo è quanto Berlusconi sta cercando di cambiare, essenzialmente a suo vantaggio.
In Italia si discute della privatizzazione dell’acqua, avvenuta in Gran Bretagna nel 1989. E qui, forse, la Sinistra ha un suo ruolo. Fosse anche solo per un’ultima battaglia.
Ad ogni modo la mia visione politica è senza dubbio pesantemente influenzata dal fatto di essere inglese… e non sono sicuro che le idee politiche di chi, come me, ha trascorso i suoi primi 29 anni in un paese, si possano mai applicare a quelle di un’altra nazione.
Basti dire che i metodi per introdurre un cambiamento devono essere impiegati in maniera pragmatica. Mi riferisco alla necessità di allontanarsi dalla retorica della Sinistra in Italia e al bisogno di avere volti nuovi… almeno nel Regno Unito e negli USA sosterrei questo.
E l’Italia, a essere obiettivi, non è certo la promotrice di una spinta per un cambiamento mondiale.
Localmente la Sinistra potrebbe essere una cosa positiva da invocare, ma nel mondo le cose sono andate oltre.
Tradotto da Adriana Panza
English
'There is a need for the Left!' Says the poster. Whilst I have railed against such sentiments (i.e. there is a need for social change, but the rhetoric of the 'Left' is long worn out, even if the intended ends are completely sound) the Left seems somehow more fitting in Italy. I'm not that sure if that is because the spectre of Fascism somehow looms, or because the hold that the media here has is so strong, but it's very true that political parameters differ from one country to the next. For example, the far Left are just a spent force in the UK, whereas they pick up significant votes in Italy. The President himself (Napolitano) was a member of the communist party up until its dissolution, he then played a strong part in the party it became - the Democratic Party of the Left. It's because, perhaps, that a President here is generally opposed to the direction of the ruling party that things are in many ways less 'capitalised' than in the UK. Though that is what Berlusconi seeks to change, primarily for his own benefit.
In Italy they argue about the privatisation of Water, something which happened in the UK in 1989. So perhaps there is a role for the Left there (i,e, 'here' !). If only a last stand.
Anyhow, there's no doubt my politics is heavily coloured by my being English... and I'm not sure your politics can ever really become the politics of another nation if, like me, you spent your first 29 years in one country. Suffice to say, methods for bringing about change need be deployed pragmatically. Talk about a need to move away from Leftist rhetoric in Italy and people switch off... in the UK and US, however, I'd stand by that. And Italy, lets be fair, is not leading the thrust towards worldwide change. Locally, the Left might be a good thing to invoke, but worldwide things have moved on.
4 April 2010 13:12
Yes we have a fossil problem but its important to remember the big question is -Can capitalism survive? Corrupt outmoded and ill equipped to deal with a rising urban world population and environmental catastrophe, I don't think so.
4 April 2010 19:56
Yes, capitalism is doomed, gradually crumbling to its fateful demise, but endings are no end in and of themselves. What shall emerge from the ruins? To which legacy will this emergence be granted, to the legacy of the imitators of revolution (what is left of the Left) or to the legacy of revolutionaries (a legacy which once included the now archaic Left)? I don't think the Left will win. I have my reasons, but I lack the time to divulge them. I have good reason to believe (with economic and historic evidence) that the the latter legacy will be revisited at capitalism's second death.
5 April 2010 01:13
Thank you. I don't think Capitalism will survive as it is, but I don't think there will be any singular significant changes big enough to constitute an end to Capitalism in themselves. Slow and subtle modulation is the only way... some of these slow changes will lead Capitalism to give way more than expected, perhaps... we're already seeing that with regard to creative production and sharing online. The implications of that go far beyond whether or not a musician gets royalties. That latter issue is Capital clinging on admidst changes for which we have not yet seen the final impact (and ironic that such conservatism is voiced from the creative fraternity).
In any case, where the free market hasn't fully embedded there will be local causes for which Leftist rhetoric is appropriate.
5 April 2010 05:38
This comment has been removed by the author.
5 April 2010 09:42
well at the end of the day it comes down to what kind of world we want one with more democracy, justice and fraternity, these things can only be achieved though a movement towards them, a willingness. A world of private health schemes, lack of housing and low pay for some jobs at best and refugee camps and gradual genocide for the displaced poor at worst is not something to tolerate. Of course working towards something with the limited means which human beings have doesn't mean something will get better. But the will to want to improve things and tackle injustice is important, we may be relativly o.k at the moment but there is such a thing as complete despair in overwelming poverty. Its only important if things become more just. If by saying mr Phalgun, you don't think that the left will win, you mean that that things are just going to get more unjust then I hope you're wrong. what you both seem to be saying is that the traditional left is no longer a suitable means to achieve change. The problem is that as i see it the concept of traditional left is a bit of an oxymoron. It is just a struggle for emancipation and more democracy.
5 April 2010 09:42
This comment has been removed by the author.
5 April 2010 12:17
Andrew, it's a simple as this: I think the notion of class struggle is old hat and over simlified, and the rhetoric generally associated is inadequate to our times. However, a fairer society is of course always desirable.
What gets me, and this is a constant sticking point over the last few posts on this subject, is that I'm not supporting the Right, or Capitalism. All of these terminologies are redundant. But some people have an emotional attachment to bygone terms and associations... meaning that instead of doing something to make society better, they just bleat on. You wouldn't doubt this of the Roman Catholic church, so why is it such a hard pill to swallow with regard to socialism? But, as I say, the undelying desire for a better world is sound... it's the rhetoric that is old hat. For more on this see: http://www.indieoma.com/commentaries/open-ideas-mark-fisher-and-mike-watson-dialogue-on-free-education-capitalism-and-its-alternatives
13 April 2010 15:03
To clarify my point, organization was, is, and for as far as I can see still will be the core of political action. A lonely martyr is a man of good intention. Politics, on the other hand, does not deal with mere intentions, but with actuation, the disorganization of, say capitalism, through a very real and affirmative organization of people. My dispute with the Left is based on disillusionment with what it claims to be capable of, even as it has suppressed workers' strikes and such in the past. We need to move on. I still find Marxism to be the best analysis of capitalism, saving room for slum dwellers, but the political methodology of the vanguard Party is a Leninist ideal. And although I deeply respect and revere Lenin's work, both in revolution and on the shelf, I cannot but find this portion of the Left to be a dead notion. Unionization as well is seeing its demise as it quickly becomes a corporatized idea of worker disunity (think Foucault's society of control) in favor the corporate class. We do not need a storm of anarchy, but a mere breath of it in the form of new means of organizing. I would venture to call this the undying fire of communism.