by Gianluca Pinto
Italy is a particular country. It is a country where laws considered by the ECHR as a violation of human rights are necessary to combat organized crime (present in a pathological way since the landing in Sicily). It is a country where the free press is fighting anti-employer free thinking. It is a country where violence and cynicism of the economic model are told in “politically correct” language. It is a country where the company is the driving force, but some large companies are the cause of disasters such as the collapse of bridges or the fall of cable cars. It is a country that has been a model for public services and public health, now devoured by private individuals. It is a country where violence against women it is alarming and we are concerned with the endings. Italy is also a country that had advanced labor law and now has a mass of workers exploited without rights.
Given the resurgence of references to sacred images by some politicians, no wonder that they consider a return to work natural as a divine curse, as originally sanctioned. We know, in fact, that in the Holy Scriptures, work is presented as a curse from God and that man has tried hard in the last century to make it less “cursed” and to define it also in the quantity and quality of “sweat”. Reminding the spokespersons of the master class the speech of the plain – “But woe to you, rich people, because you have already received your consolation” (with no other specifics than wealth as such) -, I would recommend to manage with Cistercian discipline the uneducated references to ancient collective symbols that risk being not very accessible for their representation itself.
That said, the fact that the right that represents pushed liberalism supports a model in which profit must also be derived fromerosion of labor law (including safety) and the exploitation of workers does not surprise me. What leaves me with a bitter taste, however, is the rather ambiguous combination between work and immigration, and between illegal work and Citizenship Income (as if it were linked to the latter) that I heard proposed by Enrico Letta. If we have to face the theme of hospitality in terms of gain from the point of view of the workforce (already here we could talk for hours, because the cynicism of the roots of this thought is almost unscrupulous) I would have expected a connection complete and logical between: emigration, immigration, work and, last but not least, the much reviled citizenship income.
In fact, those who emigrate from Italy are not only the researcher or the graduate, but also workers of various kinds; this is due to wages and working conditions (in Italian “exploitation”) in certain sectors in our country. However, these working conditions are inevitably suffered by those who have no choice because in conditions of extreme fragility and / or invisibility, perhaps arrived by sea to escape from hunger and / or war. A common denominator underlying all this concerns the concept of “work”That we must define in Italy. Given certain working conditions, with well-made checks, even the problem of “black” cumulated with citizenship income at least it would downsize and the alleged correlation between the lack of workers in certain sectors and the DRC would cease to be the master.
It seems to me that we have a liberal right aggressive and very effective in mixing in the uneasiness of the conditions that she herself advocates and supports, and a “left” (a definition that would be a perfect argument for a dispute over universals) which, despite having all the favorable conditions to regain possession of a role and a definition, by passerby or comment without offering alternative solutions or by proposing palliatives that are irrelevant to a fair society. I do not notice lights at the end of the tunnel, train coming apart.