[[link removed]]

PASQUALE TRIDICO ON SOCIAL JUSTICE AND POLITICAL CHANGE  
[[link removed]]


 

Stefano Galieni
September 11, 2024
Transform!Europe
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ We need to realise a project that puts peace and freedom at the
heart of EU policy. We must act to ensure prosperity for all, to
protect welfare, and to defend labour, which ever since Maastricht has
never been sufficiently represented. _

,

 

Pasquale Tridico — an economist, university lecturer, and former
director of Italy’s National Institute for Social Security — was a
successful candidate for the Five Star Movement (M5S) in the recent
European elections. In total, eight Members of the European Parliament
were elected on M5S’s lists; Tridico was himself elected for the
Southern constituency, with over 118,000 personal preferences to his
name.

In his committed intellectual and political activity, Tridico has
always marked himself out with a strong focus on social issues,
rejecting the neoliberal logics that put up unchallengeable limits to
any kind of fairness or justice.

This interview, conducted by Stefano Galieni
[[link removed]], starts from
the second round of the parliamentary elections in France, and what
[to Italian eyes at least] came as a surprising outcome.

PASQUALE TRIDICO: It seems to me that there was a clear determination
expressed [in France]. In these elections, a reactionary right, a
neoliberal centre and a popular and progressive left were all pitted
against each other. The people chose the latter. I don’t want to get
carried away by optimism. But this really points to something for our
own country, too. I would like to see us replicating this achievement,
also because there are many similarities with the outlook in Italy.

STEFANO GALIENI: THE M5S HAS CHOSEN TO JOIN “THE LEFT” GROUP IN
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, ALSO DRAWING FAVOURABLE RESPONSES FROM FORCES
SUCH AS RIFONDAZIONE COMUNISTA AND SINISTRA ITALIANA. WHY DID YOU ASK
TO JOIN THIS GROUP — AND WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT BASES OF
AGREEMENT?

The M5S has its base of reference in the popular layers of Italian
society. Here, we are talking about part of the electorate that
sometimes did not vote and took refuge in abstention. In the 2022
elections, what essentially attracted them was the expression of a
popular voice, similar to the forces to the Left of the Democratic
Party. So, a social bloc similar to ours that made a similar political
offer.

We set out three key pillars:

* social justice, equality, fairness, the fight against poverty, and
redistribution
* environmental justice, which is so crucial for our planet, and a
* politics of peace. For us Article 11 of the Constitution [on the
Repudiation of War] is the text to go by.

These are the same pillars that we found in The Left, with a similar
social bloc of reference, i.e. in the popular strata. In short,
joining The Left seemed to me a natural way to go.

THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM VARIOUS COUNTRIES INVOLVED IN THE LEFT GROUP
HAVE SIMILAR POSITIONS ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF A “SOCIAL EUROPE.”
THE LEFT WORKS TO BUILD INSTITUTIONS ATTENTIVE TO THE RIGHTS OF THE
MOST DISADVANTAGED. DO YOU THINK THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A
RADICAL REFORM IN THE EU?

If no such prospect existed, then our political work, and what we have
committed to doing, would all be pointless. A Social Europe is just
what we need. So far, we have only built an economic union — a union
based on money, on finance. As long as we do not get to the real meat
of the issue, it will never be possible to change people’s minds and
get them to see value in the European institutions.

We need to realise a project that puts peace and freedom at the heart
of EU policy. We must act to ensure prosperity for all, to protect
welfare, and to defend labour, which ever since Maastricht has never
been sufficiently represented. Again — to simplify things — we
need to think about three pillars that will dismantle the neoliberal
economic fundamentals.

The first is to fight the devaluation of labour in the name of
competitiveness — something which mainly weighs down on working
people. The second is linked to the need for an independent monetary
policy that does not only safeguard the single currency but puts
employment policies at its heart, also considering the US Federal
Reserve’s way of doing things. The third pillar is a fiscal policy
worthy of the name. Instead of thinking only of cutting public
spending and debt reduction in a deflationary regime, it needs a
change of register. This model, which has imposed austerity, has not
even brought the growth that the old liberal approach promised.

The EU has not grown more than the US, and Italy is one of the
countries that has paid the most for these policies. Austerity has led
to increased inequality without growth. And we are talking about
thirty years of the wrong policies, following the sirens of
neoliberalism. Even the International Monetary Fund was inspired by a
model that envisaged structural adjustment. Instead, the choice was
made to devote less to public spending and to be governed by the logic
of competitiveness that makes inequalities structural. The traditional
liberal approach has also been annihilated.

THE STABILITY AND GROWTH PACT IS ANOTHER CRITICAL POINT IN THE EU. HOW
DO YOU PLAN TO INTERVENE TO CHANGE A SYSTEM THAT IN FACT FORCES
COUNTRIES LIKE ITALY TO MAKE DEEP CUTS IN PUBLIC SPENDING?

The situation may change in light of the left-wing victory in France.
We had a free-marketeer camp that lost the election, and a nationalist
right in Italy which, with the Stability and Growth Pact, has strong
contradictions to deal with. It is difficult to explain how [Italian
Economy Minister Giancarlo] Giorgetti approves of the pact while in
the European Parliament, the League [i.e. Giorgetti’s own party],
Brothers of Italy and even the Democratic Party, abstained. There is a
lack of understanding of what is being voted on. All they did in the
election campaign was go on about how they were going to “change
this Europe”. Then they didn’t do it, showing how totally
incoherent they are.

I think there is an opportunity for Parliament to propose — and vote
for — different choices. The Council moves in a direction that is
often different from Parliament’s. I see things from a left-wing
approach: those of us who want European integration cannot cut €13
billion in public spending. We need new progressive proposals to
foster integration. We need to increase social spending and establish
a European minimum citizens’ income, paid from the EU budget.
Following that approach, if a crisis hit one one of the member states,
especially one of the poorest ones, the EU could pick up the slack by
providing resources through a central budget.

We should act like we did during the pandemic crisis, where there was
a positive response. Think of the SURE [Support to mitigate
Unemployment Risks in an Emergency] fund, which collectively financed
the furlough payments for the people who could not go to work. This is
a model we should follow — the opposite of what the Council’s
diktats tell us. If we create a strong and open left-wing coalition
that places the social question at the heart of things, we can achieve
important results. This what Europe can be.

THE COUNCIL AND COMMISSION RISK MAINTAINING THE SAME ORIENTATION AS
THEY HAVE IN THE PAST. SO, DO YOU CONFIRM YOUR OPPOSITION TO THE
REAPPOINTMENT OF URSULA VON DER LEYEN, WHOM YOU SUPPORTED FIVE YEARS
AGO, AS PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION?

Even from previous statements, not only by [M5S leader Giuseppe]
Conte, we made it clear that we would not vote for Von der Leyen.
Compared to what she said five years ago, the Commission of which she
was president has mounted a real U-turn on some crucial issues.

She had guaranteed investment in the Green New Deal, in the ecological
and digital transition, even suggesting the possibility of decoupling
spending from national deficits. After the invasion of Ukraine, she
instead decided instead to decouple only defence spending. This could
not be further from our approach.

Von der Leyen had also set out proposals for a minimum income and a
minimum wage. Apart from the directives, these issues have gone
missing. This is why we oppose her having a second term. We are
consistent. Most probably she will have a majority, also taking
advantage of the ambiguities of [Giorgia] Meloni and indeed of the
Greens. Nobody has proposed other candidates, so we take it for
granted that she should have the votes to secure re-election.

BACK TO YOUR POSITION IN EUROPE. AS YOU KNOW, ON THE SUBJECT OF WAR,
OR RATHER WARS, EVEN IN THE LEFT THERE ARE DIFFERENT SENSITIVITIES AND
EMPHASISES. YOU HAVE MARKED OUT A FIRM OPPOSITION TO REARMAMENT AND
SENDING ARMS TO UKRAINE. HOW DO YOU PLAN TO ACT BOTH TO STOP THIS
CONFLICT AND THE ONGOING MASSACRE IN PALESTINE?

We came into The Left with a lot of respect. We were clear on one
point: peace, and the ways of putting an end to the conflicts in
Ukraine and in the Middle East. We would like to convince our comrades
not to support arms shipments to Ukraine. Equally, the [call for]
EU-wide recognition of the State of Palestine, as reiterated by
[Jean-Luc] Mélenchon also after his great election result, will be
another key to defining the identity of The Left group.

FINALLY, AN ISSUE THAT DIVIDES LEFT-WING FORCES IN THE EU IS THAT OF
ASYLUM RIGHTS AND HOW TO DEAL WITH MIGRATION. THIS IS A STRUCTURAL
ISSUE, ON WHICH YOU, AS M5S, HAVE RECEIVED CRITICISM IN THE PAST. HOW
DO YOU THINK WE CAN AND SHOULD ACT WITHIN A EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK, ON
THESE ISSUES?

To clarify our position: we voted against the last Migration Pact,
which was presented in Parliament in the spring. I think we should
think about it with the same approach as we have for the economy. We
need a collective approach, based on real European solidarity, and
which revises the Dublin regulation. The Migration Pact arrived very
belatedly, with fake criteria and a lack of perspective.

We know that the xenophobic right has used immigration to win support.
But this has also happened because of a lack of adequate proposals.
There is surely a lot to think about. But if, for example, we started
with a legal minimum wage, the first to benefit would be migrant
workers. Their precarious conditions mean that they are first to pay
for the current injustices. An appropriate wage policy would be
important for speaking to them too, and for offering a fair response.

THE INTERVIEW WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN ITALIAN AT TRANSFORM!
ITALIA [[link removed]]. 

_Stefano Galieni is an Italian anti-racist activist with nearly 30
years of experience in migration policies. National Manager for Peace,
Immigration, and Movements at PRC (Partito della Rifondazione
Comunista) and former co-coordinator of the Migration WG of the
European Left. Also serves as Vice President of ADIF (Rights and
Borders Association) and works as a freelance consultant when time
permits._

_transform! europe is a network of 38 European organisations from 22
countries, active in the field of political education and critical
scientific analysis, and is the recognised political foundation
corresponding to the Party of the European Left (EL)._

_This cooperative project of independent non-profit organisations,
institutes, foundations, and individuals intends to use its work in
contributing to peaceful relations among peoples and a transformation
of the present world._

* Italy
[[link removed]]
* neo-liberalism
[[link removed]]
* European Union
[[link removed]]
* Left Strategies
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]