In the speech of the new secretary of the PD, a “central” question is mentioned in the Transition phase that opened in human history: the role of work within business processes. It could seem either the re-edition of a debate from the mid-900s - when the line that emerged at the Bad Godesberg congress of German Social Democracy opened up the co-management mechanisms that characterized the very nature of German industry from then on - or hints at the debate Italian of the '70s that alluded to a real mechanism of inversion of the command bridge in the production process that opened up the theme of company ownership itself.
In reality, the contemporary theme seems to be dominated more by the fear of having lost, within the social conflict, one of the essential components of the productive relationship within advanced capitalist production - that of representing the world of work and its direct interests. - that from the desire to try to question existing social roles and leaderships. In a nutshell (or rather in pennies ...) we try to put the issue of social representation of the world of wage labor back on track but without opening the comparison that serves to understand why the large mass organizations that represented it have weakened and have lost their ability to address and representativeness. It will not be enough, for the left of the 900st century, to retrace the roads, strategies and conflicts of the XNUMXth century to bring back a subjectivity capable of reproducing the autonomous representation of the interests of the world of work that led to the conquest of social rights and welfare states.
The reality of the processes, on the other hand, describes some discontinuities that I will try to list:
- development of intangible production linked to digitization processes (with the related central changes in new generation goods, products and services);
- global dimension of the new digital industries and platforms (with very low territorial added value effects due to the residual work they produce in the area in relation to the work they destroy and its pre-existing social forms);
- acceleration of the process of transformation of living-work into dead-work (automatic machines) due to the intertwining of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics;
- breaking of the “mathematical” equilibrium of social welfare models based on full employment of “official” work that repaid their cost;
- structural crisis between the productive capacity of the production system and the purchasing capacity of the distributed wage necessary for the production of those goods (even the Keynesian model of support to the cycle requires increasingly macroscopic and increasingly unsustainable interventions within the old production scheme and distribution, both of commodities and of redistributed wealth);
- impossibility of hypothesizing (even managing to find a macroeconomic solution of "relaunch" that does not seem conceivable nor is it hypothesized by any new "theory") a new "news deal" due to the limits of the current "world consumption" that humanity it produces with its presence on the planet.
The list is not exhaustive but only indicates that the gaze on the horizon must be much longer and the ballistic capacity of thought stretch even higher. The advent of digital technologies has transformed both production and traditional "goods" but also open to new forms of economies, forms on which Europe has shown all its cultural inertia and the inability to grasp innovation processes . The USA and China lead the way and constantly raise the level of confrontation / confrontation, while our continent is left with the sterile debate on where and with whom to take sides. The late Giorgio Galli had launched a provocation that at least had the merit of putting his finger in the sore: having, the great global digital companies, reached the power of the main statehoods, the time has come to propose that the Boards of Directors of the large corporations be submitted to the democratic scrutiny of the vote. In essence, a transfer of sovereignty: from the stock exchange to the people (it will also be the people of "prosumers" but much more representative of the general interests now represented by these platforms than that expressed by stock market players looking for profits unhooked from any social responsibility ).
The terrain indicated by Letta, in my opinion, should be grasped as the possibility of re-discussing the present starting from work, with the foresight that even on the historical level wage labor (today still predominant) no longer has the exclusive right and that the old the left's struggle for liberation from wage exploitation can find new and unprecedented forms and objectives. Even more general and strategic than the general objectives represented by the imposed scheme of wage labor.
After all, the left was born to free humanity from this archaic form of exploitation and today the conditions for thinking and planning a new economy all exist.