Since the collapse of ideologies, thirty years ago, finding arguments that characterize a political force as "left" is not easy. Enrico Letta in his acceptance speech of the candidacy for secretary of the PD, quoted many traditional points of the left from inequalities, to gender equality, to health and education rights. Titles of chapters which, in order to transform themselves into the action of a left-wing force, must be declined into actions, that is, one must say "how" one must do to achieve those objectives. But on this Letta was unable, or unwilling, to go into detail and so he entrusted the characterization of the Democratic Party as a left-wing force to the Ius Soli, and to sixteen-year-olds voting.
It is however about slogans that refer to old memories of the left, perhaps even right, but which by themselves do not seem to be very topical or popular enough to ensure a reconquest of voters who have distanced themselves from the party. The question of immigrants is much more complex and in any case the left must take note that it is precisely in the suburbs that the greatest suffering lurks for the management of people who have already arrived who are in fact abandoned to their own devices by the institutions and therefore weigh on the shoulders of the ancients residents of those areas.
It is right to think of young people but it is doubtful that the vote for sixteen-year-olds can solve the problem which consists in the accumulation of an enormous public debt (for pensions and various subsidies), a debt that weighs on the shoulders of the boys, blocking the economy and therefore job opportunities and growth offered to the new generations. Own the theme of growth was the great absentee of Letta's speech in other respects appreciable. You are particularly surprised by what he said about the labor market, an issue on which you wanted to give some details. In his opinion, it would be necessary to make workers participate in the company's results, which can happen in various ways, from entry into the shareholding structure to bonuses linked to company profits and therefore to labor productivity.
Shortly before, the president of the national assembly Valentina Cuppi had stated that the PD is in favor of the minimum wage. Putting these statements together, an epochal turning point in labor policy by the PD emerges, a turning point that would bring it on a collision course with the unions and in particular with Maurizio Landini's CGIL which is against the minimum wage by law and defends the national contract which, on the other hand, would be weakened both by the minimum wage and by a greater participation of workers in the profits of companies. In fact, this participation, by its nature, could only be negotiated within the company, leaving at most the definition of some framework rules to the national agreement.
In fact, linking a portion of one's salary to the results of a company implies a willingness on the part of workers to accept the organizational and role changes that companies have to make to win the competition and thus make profits. And this exchange can only take place at the corporate level. Does Letta really want to bring his PD to truly reformist terrain and challenge the conservatism of the trade unions? With the Zingaretti secretariat, the party was characterized by a leftist idea very similar to that of the populists, and by a relationship of maximum closeness with the unions on the crucial issues of labour, public industry and state spending.
If Letta manages to convince her more traditionalist followers that the old ideological paraphernalia of the last century is no longer usable, then a truly new left-wing party could be born, and capable of dealing with today's problems and of the future with suitable proposals to obtain positive results and not only to deceive people as happened in the past.
