"All of us we went after the story but I say that the fault is ours, it is clear that people are not serious when he talks about the left or right. But what is right What is left ... "( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzUoAfcyPsk ).
Gaber, an artist and genius of the word, has highlighted what I believe is a requirement of contemporary politics: to give a definition, finished nineteenth-century ideology, what is meant by left and right, or rather to give substance to these words do not fall into indifference, into populism or, worse, ridicule.
Human rights and their protection or enhancement may be a distinction between opposing positions of a socio-political vision. Therefore, rights, understood as legitimate interests, there are practical and realistically only to the extent that the law recognizes them and protects them. In practice such a right is considered only if there are "resources" addressed to its economic and social development.
Here follows a first distinction that is based on the choice of rights that the left or right is to actually protect, invest resources not only intellectual but also economic. It is, undoubtedly, this is a distinctive parameter very pragmatic, but it is a clear way to distinguish between opposing positions.
In the classic division between left and right, between "negative rights" and "positive rights, the right to defend those principles that protect the autonomy of citizens against the State and public administrations. Rights intended to "right" should aim to preserve a inviolable private sphere from the public and social dimension. The rights of the "left" than "positive", they should take the form of legal acts to enhance the individual in its socio-economic dimension from the initial right to have equal opportunities. In practice, first mentioned the need for personal freedom than the second equality. Both need to value and always on the commitment of each.
Obviously deduce and as history has taught us you can not cancel the rights of freedom of equal value to those only or vice versa. A State that would make its citizens free, but do not take steps to eliminate inequalities social, would have enormous conflicts, instability and insecurity. State organization that focused its work on the pursuit of equality among citizens at the expense of individual freedom and use their own personal abilities, which would turn into social leveling, the risk of developing oligarchy or dictatorship.
The problem of giving content to a definition of left and right must disturb the economic concept of "opportunity cost". Simply must be well aware that in choosing the right protection at the expense of another, you are to consider the opportunities that you have to sacrifice to discard, when necessary the other objective. In a scenario of limited resources the sensitivities on the "opportunity costs" and the declination of the legal protection and economic rights of the various identified a political right or left. However
underlying both the rights of freedom as well as those of justice, there is the income of the individual and society. The work, despite all the social changes that took place, remains a central element of the person is to sustain both their social identity and to contribute to the transformation of reality and achieving the goals of others. Even in the so-called post - industrial society continue to be recognized in relation to what we do and produce. Without income we would not have the economic means to consider the opportunity costs and develop their rights. But today the work is in part considered as a sort of instrumental conditions for access to the nationality of the consumer that it defines the structure and individual identity.
Labor and consumption, protection of workers and consumers, activities to address the production of wealth and consumption are those elements on which the report "opportunity cost" today identifies the political left than the right.
open up the market for a modern reformist left, it means in the first analysis break down those barriers that hinder corporate, if not block, social mobility, or that affect the initial offering of equal opportunities for all and promotion of merit, or restricting the right to a fair use. For a left reformist direct public intervention in the economy is neither a panacea nor a priori bad, essentially means free from the "traps and snares" of the corporations, by imposing rules to protect consumers and workers. Intervene in the market for a socially democratic left does not mean to compete with private enterprise, but open spaces that are important or indirect productive economies to ensure an expansion of the rights or the services that the free market would not be able to provide .
The modern practice of the contents of the democratic left should, therefore, freed from the formulas of the past, knowing how to read with a fresh eye to the needs and complexities of today, projecting into the future. This is the new "Copernican revolution" that the Democratic Party is doing in Italy, with its enormous difficulties and contradictions. It is a path of liberation and processing, interpretation and projection. The project is difficult but is the only way to request mirrored the birth in Italy of a liberal and populist right and whatever.
Carlo Bartolini
0 comments:
Post a Comment