In the search scientific terminology should be pointed out the choice and scope of the working hypotheses. So, quite correctly, was the same author Massimo Teodori during the presentation of the essay History of the laity and clergy in the Italian Communist (Marsilio 2008) point out that more than opposition to clericalism, the term "secular" wanted to understand a meaning much wider (or narrower according to the point of view), or those parties, movements, intellectuals and foreign newspapers and to the Christian Democrats and the Catholic culture, both the PCI and the common culture.
seems obvious? But, no, this methodological premise we have ice cream. Because on one hand, it is true, on balance it turns out now that have had enormous influence, far superior to what we should expect from the mere sum their election results, the so-called "secular" as residually understood. (By the way, the more correct term "secular", let's face it, is so bad that is used more by the Church and the Vatican in order that the secularists themselves controversial).
Author and co-presenters in the presentation, in fact, agreed that almost one third of the electoral votes was "secular", at least until the end of the First Republic. So much so that in a fit of pessimism Teodori has admitted that it is clear at this point, after those repeated missed opportunities, the union of all "secular" does not do more.
But on closer inspection, what it apparently meant to slice off the cake and political power? That had formed even before the ideological and philosophical disputes is over the meeting place, a real Third Force. A policy area, that is, able to mediate between the duopolists DC and PCI, large enough and strong enough to threaten or to ally with one or the other duopolies behave so as to "tip the balance."
But it was a third force of pure power, because in terms of cultural and ideological differences, even between the two main components, the Liberals (PLI and PRI) and the Socialists (PSI er PSDI), were not so great as to make operational in the daily political, economic and trade union that does not alleged or virtual, but real, though inefficient, the Third Force. Also because of the usual radical, then more fully liberal-socialists now, leaned on the first hour, now on the second side of the scale, and therefore could not be fully utilized by any of the two components.
no accident, the exception that proves the rule was contrary to the Department and individual moral issues such as divorce, abortion ol'obiezione of conscience, who saw perfectly together, like in the big final rally before the referendum on divorce, Piazza del Popolo in Rome, where there was everything from a Malagodi Parri. But unlike Teodori, it should be considering the visual symbol, theatrical, even mass, Terza Forza laica, confinato com'era alle pure questioni di coscienza, diciamo meta-partitiche, era anche la definitiva decretazione dell'inutilità politica di quella artificiosa categoria.
L’errore fondamentale dei "terzaforzisti" fu infatti – lo ha ripetuto nella presentazione lo stesso Teodori, che è stato a lungo dirigente e deputato radicale – quello di litigare e antipatizzare cordialmente tra di loro: Pannella non sopportava Saragat, questi aveva in antipatia Malagodi, il quale non amava La Malfa, e così via. E tutti erano concordi nel disprezzare Pannella, del resto abbondantemente ricambiati.
Non parliamo, poi, dei socialisti Psi: l’arrivo di Craxi allontanò anziché avvicinare la prospettiva di una terza forza laica davvero operativa. Basti pensare al Concordato con la Chiesa, segretamente preparato e presentato come un fulmine a ciel sereno. Noi laici liberali ne fummo colpiti: avemmo la conferma che il velleitario PSI craxiano perseguiva solo una politica di puro potere. Altro che ideologia. Non si sentiva né laicista, né terza forza, ma semplicemente mirava a scalzare e sostituire il PCI o la DC, nientemeno, nella più comoda posizione di "seconda forza".
Ulteriore complicazione, l’appartenenza dei socialisti e di alcuni socialdemocratici alla CGIL che allora era collegata con una "cinghia di trasmissione" al PCI. E quindi qualsiasi ipotesi di effettiva terza forza si sarebbe scontrata anche con questa ambigua infiltration.
This is intended to be a mere exercise in rhetoric paradoxical statement that the journalism Salvemini (in a 1953 paper in the weekly World , properly distributed by his Liberal Lamedica of Veneto) feels at once liberal, democratic, republican and socialist indeed none of the four, having regard to their quarrels, envy, strife and figures. It was part of the stylistic "good" of a newspaper that was - and is in the ideology of Salvemini Pannunzio - prove to be completely independent, but also sensitive and attentive to the vast post-shareholder lib lab and the readers of middle-class Croce's intellectual or democratic.
Therefore, it is the working hypothesis "secular" = residual third force between DC and PCI, which does not hold up historically or at the ideological level. A too wide, muddy swamp. Both options were divergent economic, political, methodological, including liberal Republicans, on the one hand, and socialist, albeit democratic, on the other. Do not forget that even today the only two options are still possible democratic and reformist liberal and socialist. Merge them, it would be illogical and ambiguous.
But today times have changed radically. Communism collapsed and liberalism has emerged, more to the demerits of his opponents for their own merits, as the only political doctrine, effectively and with fewer side effects. And socialism is dead or dying.
Therefore, if a third force in the Republic botched and had contested for more than 25 percent today according to the pure ideological views of the respondents only the liberals would have well over 30 or 40 percent. Although voters have been traditionally marry in almost all parties, and therefore difficult due to the coherence unit shewn ideological party.
But the point is that we liberals do not want any more, today, an ambiguous unity of the so-called "secular" meant to Teodori. We do not need. It riproporrebbero in all the contradictions and dialectics which divided the parties of penta. At the point where we, as today for a quirk of history, we found the knife from the ideological part of the handle, we want the unity of the liberals. Other than "secular".
That would have been the case in several movements, parties or personalities liberals to be connected. The more correct lesson of "lay" just as liberal, individualistic, anti-clerical, defenders of competition and liberalization, friends of the West and advocates of NATO, would have given the conduct of research a more linear and less ambiguous, at least to pay attention the presentation of this interesting volume. Volume
that we have not read, and now, with that, we will read avidly.
0 comments:
Post a Comment