Air Deccan Airlines Slogan

Republic 31/08/2006 Headlines
DISCUSSION
Socialism? Let's talk about capitalism
of Alain Touraine

theorists
between socialism and capitalism
After 30 years of neoliberalism, now a "circle" on the left

The success of capitalism has been amplified by globalization, today the public wants the leaders to limit the omnipotence of the markets and businesses
Who can lead the fight for a system of social protection against new inequalities? In the Italian case is that the government must look

Socialism is a confusing word, used by people to express different opinions varied. So let him aside. On the other hand, speak not only against capitalism is more than reasonable, but is also much more current than most people think.
What defines capitalism is the dropping of social, political or otherwise limiting the economic actors. When you are free, ie not controlled, these players have a real power over other institutions, which have always, for their part, take into account the interests of managers of the economy. The reference to this power is part of the concept of capitalism. This freedom, the same omnipotence of the leaders of the economy is a necessary part of modernization. There has never been great economic development without a phase of capitalism that we can even define "wild." Great Britain and then the United States have been the great examples. Today, China is to be the most capitalistic country in the world.
But modernization also requires that after a period of extreme freedom of the dominant economic forces reach a stage where they appear opposite new projects promoted by public unions and parties that they particularly want a redistribution of income. This alternation is the basic formula for economic development. There is no development without without anti-capitalism and capitalism. But many prefer the succession of these two phases, a mixed system that combines permanent collection and redistribution. This is often the case of Europeans and in particular the Germans, who have just voted for an open economy and competitive, but also for the maintenance of Sozialmarktwirtschaft (social market economy), which is one of the main forms of what Delors has called "the European social model."
The real problem we are facing is to choose, not between capitalism and socialism but between the system of alternation and that of the permanent combination of an open economy and a strong share of redistribution. Opponents of alternation fear that this system reinforces the tensions and social conflicts. The enemies of mixed systems are worried that the redistribution is not for the benefit of the poor, but in certain sectors of the middle classes, particularly in the public sector. Supporters of capitalism, for their part, accuse their opponents of both camps so to push away the Welfare State by choking growth and create a budget deficit that can only be filled by increasing the public debt, then through a levy anticipated income of the next generation.
What position should be taken now? The answer must take account of our historical situation. We live, since the early 70, in a phase that is called neo-liberal and has taken the place of the economy "managed" that dominated most of the world after the Second World War. The success of capitalism was amplified by globalization that has increased the freedom of companies, especially financial ones, and especially compared to the unions, which in many countries are losing their importance.
Today, public opinion tends to seek balance in favor of employees and social expenditures. It shocked by the news of the scandals that have occurred in large firms, and the golden rain which receive many managers. The workers are indignant at the fact that their companies are delocalized even when they are active and produce profits. The anti-globalization movements, better defined as anti-globalization, organize forums and large gatherings in all parts of the world. To alleviate this pressure is the fact that the events that dominate the news are not economic, but religious and military.
Despite these obstacles exist, especially in Europe, the trend of public opinion in favor of new state intervention, especially against the creation of a Europe of Margaret Thatcher. The public does not want the necessary reform of the health service and pensions will result in a limitation of benefits.
Formulated in these terms, the answer to the question that we asked is clear: public opinion expect from the leaders that highlight the limits to the omnipotence of the markets and businesses. Calls a "circle" on the left.
But such a response is insufficient because it does not say how, under the pressure of such forces, we can obtain a change of direction. The social security system, created in the aftermath of the last war, were introduced at the behest of unions, and especially to protect workers against the risks that threaten them: accidents, unemployment, sickness, old age. Who can play that role today motor trade unions took place half a century ago? Who can lead a struggle for a new system of social protection to cover not only workers, to protect all against new risks and inequalities: old-age dependency, mental illness, conflicts between minorities, the consequences of offshoring, inequality of opportunity at school, etc..
Such pressure, parties and unions are unable to exercise may be carried out by grassroots movements, associations, NGOs, in other words from what is called civil society. But today we see a strengthening of such basic actions. They are in fact losing strength in certain areas. At least in the Italian case, is that one must look to the government. Despite his narrow election victory, already enjoys a strong reserve of support in public opinion, and this support increases. It is probably a general trend in today's world, this to limit the neoliberal system and to direct the political power to better protect the population is not privileged.
After thirty years of supremacy in the postwar period, managed economy has been replaced by neo-liberalism. Thirty years have passed. But it is not the time to tip the balance in the other direction?

(Translated by Fabio Galimberti)

the poster 8/31/2006
Hungary in Italy
Valentino Parlato

Before Yesterday Unit published a front page article by Robert Roscani , which had opened in the text of a short message Giorgio Napolitano to Joseph Tamburri, president of the Foundation Nenni. Napolitano gave place to Pietro Nenni had been right, when he condemned the Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956. In fact it was not a new thing because Napolitano this criticism and self-criticism had already made public some time and also in his interesting volume autobiography PCI to European socialism. Everything is normal, I guess. But yesterday, the Republic
has broken out with an editorial by Miriam Mafai and two full pages with an article by Simone Fiori and Pietro Ingrao and interviews with Antonio Giolitti condemning the Soviet invasion. At this point, we must ask why so much emphasis now on an incident condemned a long time. Of course I read the day before yesterday that Giddens gives to socialism and died yesterday of allegations that other load the old Communist Party, is the doubt that it is not just the damnatio memoriae of a party that has done something good as well, but even to say that all the ideals of change in the existing state of things should be settled forever. Maybe I wrong - and contrary to that of Andreotti - even accidentally. But I think so.
A separate discussion on "facts of Hungary 'in 1956, adding that any self-criticism (much easier now) should be in context with the facts at the time. Of course, that the Communist Party, was a serious choice, but to what extent and how this choice was conditioned state of affairs?
In 1956 I was in the Communist Party of Hungary and the facts were for me and many friends, a blow, a terrible shame. Running a few months later, Nagy was despicable. PCI was not in the agitation of the surface. There was the position taken by Giuseppe Di Vittorio, there was the appeal of the 101 intellectuals, even in sections (remember the Italy section) the debate was bitter and passionate. We do not accept the party line as disciplined soldiers. The consensus statement that Napolitano did then (and quite correctly reproduces) certainly was not calm and quiet. However, most of us (though without enthusiasm) remained in the Communist Party. The question is why we were there, because although, bitterness and shame, we were 'on this side of the fence "? Because most of us are not putting in the wake of Pietro Nenni?
not mean to justify the consequences were very severe and bloody Soviet invasion, but try to remember - on the edge of memory rather 'bumpy - how things were then.
In those days England and France with the help of Israel tried to occupy the Suez, then they were deterred by the U.S., for Hungary does not move a finger. There was the XX Congress of the CPSU, which opened to the de-Stalinization. The Soviet Union seemed to kick-starting growth with man in space (in 1957) and other initiatives with the ex-colonial countries (Bandung Conference); opened the era of "peaceful coexistence". In short, there was still "driving force" of the USSR.
In Italy there was the defeat at Fiat, and a violent anti-working class offensive, with threats of putting the outlawed Communist Party. And then there was the Communist Party. A PCI
that on the one hand was still making secchiana influence, such that a break with the USSR would have caused a serious split in his. And together with the interview that a Communist Party of Togliatti New Topics and the VIII Congress of 1956, behind Hungary, calling into the field turning point of Salerno and the Italian road to socialism. There was hope and work. There were reasons to stay.
This is not to deny the mistake of the Soviets, we was serious. Worth mentioning that when there were protest movements in Poland the Soviets sent tanks, but resumed Gomulka to power. The error is indisputable and weighs more, but less instrumental to open a discussion on the events of 50 years ago maybe it could still be useful. Completely different - in fact and in context - the events in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
is a different matter, even inside the Communist Party, as to the existence of this newspaper, someone should remember.

Corriere della Sera 31/08/2006 Headlines
LEFT AND HISTORY
Hungary: The Turn of a Bis
Gian Antonio Stella

wrote one day Marcello Veneziani, intellectual right disconcerted by the speed of a turning point "without any cultural labor" that smelled a bit 'shortcut' Fini deleted fascism as if it were a kidney stone. " Here: a joke so on Giorgio Napolitano and communism will not do anyone.
The last doubts were swept away by the way at this time has been granted yet another fifty years of extensive labor, the elderly better leader. The recognition that Pietro Nenni and the Socialists, then, they were right.
"Words like stones," wrote Robert Roscani, author of the scoop on 'unit in which the content was revealed in the letter sent by the Head of State Joseph Tamburri, president of the Foundation Nenni. Words that should be put in line the chronically unhappy, "In Italy, where historical controversies are often an excuse for riots and lynchings by the right, someone has pretended that this road was not completed. Already twenty years ago, as claimed in his writings, Napolitano acknowledged that "Giolitti was right." Today broadens the discussion to the merits of the Italian left and Nenni. "
Tamburrano agrees: "For me, those words have enormous value. I know that the Communist Party in 1956 could not break with Moscow, there were no conditions. The party would be torn apart. " Even if "looking back through the eyes of today ...». Moreover, says La Repubblica: "It is implicit in this award to PSI, a rethinking of the relationship between the two parties. Clear allocation of responsibility for the PCI break left. "
Giorgio Ruffolo, another socialist battered for years by hostility between partners, relaunch: "It's hard which in Italy is a leading exponent of political claims to have been wrong on a crucial issue. Napolitano has the courage, honesty and stature to do it. The
Reform, which also wants to stay one step more to a modern Left, is associated with: the message quirinalizio "has great political value." Thesis also married Valdo Spini ("it is not just something that satisfies the pride socialist ") and even, albeit with a hint of irony, from a socialist to three months ago, Secretary of Berlusconi as Mauro Del Bue. According to Napolitano's words which are "music to the ears of those who have directly experienced the years of hateful polemics against the Socialists of the PCI autonomy '."
Hurrah. Even the most loyal supporters of the long march of' Lord Carrington ', even the fiercest theory of prudence and "gradual" policy, even the most strenuous opponents of those who like Free depicts the head of state in the role of a commissioner of the Soviets with a closed fist from which blood flows should, however, admit that a lot of homework and admired mourning for the letter to Joseph Tamburrano sounds, let's say, a tad exaggerated. And back to point one of the great problems of this country: the trail of mistakes, memories, resentments, silence, hatred and repressions of the past that too often impede that confrontation between the right and the left that is the lifeblood of any democracy.
Sure, Napolitano may well feel offended by the latest blood test 38 years after his release condemning (although even blaming the "reactionary forces" aimed at obscuring "the historical achievements of the Soviet Union ') wagons tanks in Prague and 28 years after the trip to the USA and Rebirth in the article on which dismissed the idea that the Red Brigades were "puppets of the reaction appropriately dressed" for "we still do with the degeneration, progressing to delirium and ideological most barbaric crime, the inspiration of revolutionary Marxism and the Communist movement." Fini said in '94 yet that Mussolini was "the greatest statesman of the century" and a handful of years later was without cries of mourners at the Palazzo Chigi. Nor can you ask a man who has made the sober words of cutlery a reason for living (the Labour Denis Healy laughingly described it as "the best imitation of a banker who knows the City") liquids such as its past president An liquidate their first trip of the fundamental in Jerusalem, in an interview to 'Jene'.
Among the unconditional surrender taken from "A Fish Called Wanda" Albertini said that one day Bossi ("I'm very sorry and I apologize unreservedly! Offer complete and utter retraction ...») and the endless drops of distilled words from decade to decade, however, is there a middle ground. And if it is true that he felt the need to ask a few months ago Fassino and D 'Alema "admit to having done wrong assessments, have made mistakes in judgments about Consorte," the head of state will admit that does something read about 'Unity today, that "even twenty years ago," in 1986, he recognized that "Giolitti was right." Thesis, moreover, supported a decade ago in an article written by himself: "It is now that the" choice of field, "ideological and political, against the Hungarian revolution and for the Soviet intervention is considered untenable by non few of those who shared and supported: including young leaders of that time, as I do that already in the thirtieth anniversary of the "facts of Hungary" have acknowledged publicly the reasons for the "dissenters" of the time, the reasons for Antonio Giolitti '.
's all there, in those four words, "already in the thirtieth anniversary ...». Respectfully, we would like we were saved in 2016, to read that "even the fiftieth anniversary" of the facts of Hungary was recognized that Piero Nenni was right. Or at least there was condoned the adjective "historical".

Republic 08/31/2006
liberal economy of state socialism
Franco Debenedetti

"reformist socialism he believed in a mixed economy," writes Anthony Giddens (The postsocialist century, the " Republic, August 29), a compromise in which the key sectors of the economy remain under state control, and that "it seemed able to function thanks to the merits (...) economic theory formulated by a liberal, John Maynard Keynes. " "Today," says Giddens, "the key question is whether this type of socialism is dead." Today? In 2006? Singular question: is the first since 1919 that von Mises in "Gemeinwirtschaft" and "Kritik des Interventismus" to mention only the main Hayek and then 30 years have demonstrated in a logically compelling that this "compromise" could not work: that is, well before it appears that the distortionary effects, and uneven dispersion of resources, "which led, according to Giuliano Amato, his translation also in social contexts. Porsel singular, that question in an article which follows that of Amato. It was in fact him to dismantle Fourteen years ago, few days, sometimes within hours, the structure with which the State controlled key sectors of the economy and finance, and to begin to get control over the costs become unsustainable welfare. Amato is "proud to be a socialist" ("The Republic", August 28) aware that the terms "equality and freedom have come to oppose," and that liberal-socialist has become an oxymoron. In the ensuing tension, and the ability to draw the strength to convince those who, from left, opposes it, is the only hope left for her to be to carry out the reform agenda that we Giddens lists.

The Reform 08/31/2006
So Napolitano has dismantled the last excuse
Paolo Franchi

E 'was good that the Giorgio Napolitano has written a few lines to Joseph Tamburri, to make public testimony in 1956 that he was right and wrong Pietro Nenni who, like him, in front of the Hungarian tragedy, shared the Togliatti choice to keep the PCI without much hesitation "on one side of the fence." To repel a campaign of right-wing press, certainly, and also to get rid of ambiguity and misunderstanding in view of his imminent visit to Budapest. But also, and above all, to pay homage to the truth. And, I might add, to remove any remaining alibi, fifty years after the Hungarian revolution, that part of the Italian left, more extensive than commonly believed, that this truth still prefer not to look at her face. He had reason
Nenni, the Socialists, who paid the bitter price of the collapse of Italian socialism in the name of the Popular Front, the Stalin Prize for peace after Stalin's death had still asked for more and terrified of the Communists moved what would never state of the world proletariat, and that though the sight of quell'insurrezione national, democratic and working violently repressed by the Soviet tanks had clearly read, even beyond the pain and indignation, as though he were now opening a very long but perhaps irreversible crisis the communist system. And had Palmiro Togliatti wrong, and with him not only the generation time of the bond forged in iron with the Soviet Union, but also the leverage of the then thirty-somethings, the renewal in the continuity at that juncture promoted to command responsibility. And they were wrong not because they lived in anguish that drama, but because with all their anxieties want to believe, as opposed to the Socialist Nenni, you have to do with a terrible crisis, but in the system. So, with a system that sooner or later if they do not smarrisse compass, as long as you could find the balance between the resistance of the conservatives and the impatience of innovators, could have been reformed. All
already clear, everything already obvious, all already discounted? Maybe. But the fact remains that a child of their original sin that mistake the Italian Communists, the long arduous journey in search of independence from Moscow, remained ultimately hanged, despite dissent for the invasion of Czechoslovakia, despite the tear Enrico Berlinguer, until the collapse of the Soviet Union. And with few exceptions even when they stopped calling and considered the Communists wanted to recognize the error with them, the historical reason of Nenni and the Italian part of socialism that fifty years ago began his long march autonomy. Of all the leaders of the Communist Party, Napolitano was undoubtedly the toughest and most consistent in the prospect of his party, in Italy and Europe, a social democratic destiny. And it paid off, at the time, also the price. If the Italian left has bled into a grueling civil war, and a similar fate has not been fully accomplished and maybe not ever be accomplished, giving us a vacant, recurrent debates on the crisis of the very idea of \u200b\u200bsocialism while avoiding to ask why only here there is a large socialist party, it is also wrong because of that old never repaired and never recognized that ancient right. In his words, Giorgio Napolitano has also helped to restore thickness and current affairs already open to reflection sull'indimenticabile fifty-six.



Republic 08/31/2006
Galileo, POET OF THE MOON
The great scientist was also a great writer. We will talk about the Festival of the Mind Sarzana
of Piergiorgio Odifreddi

Second Italo Calvino was the greatest writer of Italian literature. And it is time to join him in public readings at Dante
Leopardi wrote without taking account of the discoveries of Newton
Before him, the journey on our satellite was generally "fantasy"

Galileo is the greatest writer of Italian literature of any century. Peremptory statement, this, that will surely make the reader smile enough humanist, ready to give advice to the mathematician to worry about the topics of its competence.
pity though that the statement is one of our greatest writers: Italo Calvino in fact made the Corriere della Sera, December 24, 1967, never fail to elicit reactions and protests. Carlo Cassola, for example, jumped on to say: "Why, I thought it was Dante! And then, Galileo was a scientist and writer. " Without
desist, Calvin replied stating his thoughts on two floors. The first, interior, noted that Galileo uses language not as a neutral tool, but with a literary consciousness, with ongoing participation in expressive, imaginative, even lyrical. " The second, external, noted that "Galileo admired and footnotes that poet Ariosto was lunar and cosmic," and that "in Zibaldone Leopardi admired the prose of Galileo for the precision and elegance combined."
In other words, Galileo would be the mean proportional between Ariosto and Leopardi, and three identified an ideal line of force in our literature. Needless to say that Calvin himself was considered a point of this line, characterized by a conception of literature as a map of the world and of knowledge, and a style somewhere between realism and the fairy-tale fairy-tale realism. And perhaps nothing performs this commonality of styles, most of the parallel and almost identical metaphors that Galileo and Calvin make the writing itself, as an endless and unbroken line created by the movement of the pen.
We read in the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, "Those traits pulled in so many ways, here, there, up, down, forward, backward, and 'ntrecciati ritortole a hundred thousand, are not, in essence and real, but Pezzuoli a single line that stretched across one way, without altering the decline verun'altra tract dirittissimo sometimes a little bit left and right and move the pen tip or faster or more slowly and but with minimal inequality in '.
And in the last lines of the Baron in the Trees, "This drop of ink, as I left it running for pages and pages full of erasures, references, daubs of nervous, stains, gaps, in moments that are shelling in clear large berries, at moments thickens as seeds in tiny signs point now turns back on itself, time splits, now connects lumps of sentences with contours of leaves and clouds, and then it encounters, and then resumes in twisting, and runs and runs and winds and unwinds a final bunch of meaningless words, ideas and dreams is over. "
So why approach Calvin and writers for the sheer pleasure of reading, and Galileo and the scientists only the duty to know? It would be pointless to bring the pages of dialogue in the public squares, in the same way that Dale Benigni and recite the verses of the Divine Comedy? With the advantage, inter alia, not be forced to put up with the anachronisms of the poor father Dante, who with his angels and demons today seems more a precursor of the fumettoni Dan Brown, the singer of a modern vision of the world?
After all, wishing to speak the truth, it is the baseness cosmological, theological, philosophical and political work which Petrarch already accused of being directed to "seek the applause of the people of the inn," to make it well suited to the high performances of our most comical. But not always and we all want to laugh, and sometimes someone might want the serious reading of pages that were noble and too high for the full content, not only for the empty form. And what are those of Galileo, it already shows the short quote above on writing: far from being a free literary metaphor, it's in fact serves as a thought experiment to show the relativity of motion of the stylus with respect to a ship moving on where you find the writer.
More generally, the ship sails on which Galileo is one of the literary laboratories where scientific experiments are carried out the ideals of dialogue, and the fact that on it's life takes place in exactly the same way as on Earth, For example, regarding the fall of a ball of lead or the flight of an insect, shows the Galilean relativity: the fact is, that the laws of mechanics are invariant with respect to systems in uniform motion, which are therefore indistinguishable from this point of view. Three centuries later, Albert Einstein like trains and elevators will use to argue for, respectively, of the special and general relativity: the fact is, that even the laws of electromagnetism are invariant with respect to systems in uniform motion, and gravitational acceleration and produce effect indistinguishable.
But nothing shows better the difference between the metaphors in themselves of the literature of escape, and policies to a purpose of the dissemination of literature, makes use of the moon that Galileo in his Dialogue. Before him, Ariosto and up, the trip on our satellite and its geography and once belonged to the fantasy genre, and space travel were unlikely to be sustained propulsion: water from the trumpets of the true story of Lucian of Samosata all'ippogrifo of 'Orlando Furioso.
Dialogue With the first day of the Moon change the face instead. Or rather, for the first time shows its true face, with the mountains and valleys that the telescope has uncovered, and it appears as we know it today, thanks to photos of telescopes, satellites and astronauts. And even better, because neither Galileo nor more or less contemporary Kepler, the author of that first science fiction novel that is the Somnium, recarvicisi needed to understand how a person would view the Moon from Earth, with results exceeding all faded colorful poetic invention.
On the one hand, in fact, the Earth in the sky of the moon phases equal and opposite to what the Moon in the sky of the Earth. Second, because the moon always shows the same face to Earth, it can be seen only from the face of the Moon, and where you can see, it is fixed in the sky. This means that a person on the face of the Moon over a period of full Earth, can be observed "this globe fatal," the property lunar sky, turn on itself in 24 hours: a wonderful visual demonstration of the motion of the Earth's rotation, which could lead to a self-conscious poet exclaim: "What do you do, you, Terra, in heaven? Tell me, what are you doing, silent Earth? "
Poets of the unconscious, however, the Moon only know one thing: there is. But even those amateur astronomers do not know much more, since even the Galileo Leopardi lover and loved by Calvin continued to write in 1819 unaware that the Moon 'fall was never seen by anyone except in a dream, "although since 1687 Isaac Newton had not only composed the verse "The moon always falls to Earth," but had also calculated exactly than it falls: in due proportion, exactly the same amount of an apple which falls at the same time here. So, therefore, "the force with which the moon is retained in its orbit is the same force which we commonly call gravity.
So, you read well in the classroom and in public places the verses of Dante and Leopardi, for the pleasure that the air stirred by the voice of one who recites it gives them the ear of the listener. But that adds to the school curriculum and also the theater and especially the prose of Galileo and Newton, to bring joy to the mind with what you already Pythagoras called the Poetry of the Universe: a poem that "can not comprehending those who do not test ' and that "it can not be understood without first learns to comprehend the language and know the characters, I 'which is written."