L’incompatibilità tra Stato pesante e meritocrazia Three articles have impressed me a lot in recent days by amplifying the bitterness that characterizes this period in all my perception of the Italian political scene:
1. Francesco Giavazzi Courier on Sunday, October 29 that talks about the results of a survey according to which, when asked if some would prefer a lower paid job in a more precarious but well-paid, six out of 10 young people today still prefer the security of not having to put in game the risk of having to really confront their own abilities and skills and then with meritocracy, while the prospect of earning more.
2. Giuliano Da Empoli on Reform of Monday, October 30, who says that yes we are witnessing today a phenomenon of youth policy of rapprochement, but this approximation seems to concentrate mainly on the left and look to the past and then reproducing the same patterns of Communist propaganda struggle class, capitalism bad, the working class exploited and uncritical defense of the status quo. Compared to this article believe that it is true that the trend towards rapprochement is catalyzed primarily by the left, look to the past and the defense of own small corporate privilege, perhaps even inherited from his family, is certainly also a shared right.
3. Maurizio Ferrera on Nov. 1 Courier yesterday, which said today as the analysis of modern society through the mere application of sociological categories of class, is not exhaustive, as the company is definitely much more nuanced than the dichotomy bourgeoisie / proletariat, Despite the radical left is so determined to want to anachronistically describe in these terms, also equally anachronistic, is not only the radical left to use those categories, but they are taken up officially by the government in office that with the Budget proposes the dynamics of class struggle with a dubious redistributive policy towards the weaker social classes (not further identified because the budget law itself comes up against the difficulty of identifying unambiguously weak class) and ditching the self in Sometimes it is the most at risk in the famous ability to make ends meet.
cite all three of these articles because I believe together very well describe the Italian reality of today: a vicious circle from which no policy or proposal heard so far, but those of a few white fly, you off. I try to summarize this vicious circle that comes from my perception and that I see more clearly through these articles.
Today's youth, which should also be the future of politics and push for growth, renewal, improvement of social conditions and the spread of wealth, are convinced that it is better to have no ambition for personal growth, no opportunity to compete with themselves, no chance of finding what is the means by which they can implement self-realization. They lost the momentum that is supposed to be typical of their age, and prefer to sail in safe waters, protected from the liquid state Amiot mother who takes care of them and maybe you already gave him, because inherited from the family situation, a corporate privilege of some kind, however slight, they do not want to miss putting in play (without necessarily talking about notaries, doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, and so on, transferring their privilege directly to the children, the son of a worker who somehow feels secure in the hope of having a job like that unless things change for another in certain contexts of law can take over their parents).
But as there has been an almost complete loss of momentum to do and understanding to realize what you really like and is satisfying in a different way each of us?
From my point of view the main cause of the phenomenon described the inability of young people to get involved in the folding and conservatism, is a country too ingombrante.Tale cause becomes effect (and thus the vicious circle) when in fact the phenomenon of lack of responsibility of individuals, produces the need for a State defend the current situation, even if untenable, and take care of them in every aspect of their lives.
A state that is ingested in all spheres of public and private life of citizens crushes individuality and peculiarities of the people who get used to not recognize it in themselves and thus rely totally to the State, a State does not leave heavy room for meritocracy and the people are unaccustomed to seeing the positive effects that can emerge and be satisfied with what we have as individuals and for what we wanted and managed to do, not a heavy state creates opportunities and creates it if only to reward those that the help and support (friends and relatives all) and therefore is incompatible with the ability to access opportunities equally regardless from membership in a social environment only through its own capabilities.
Here, after years of State greedy people in general and youth in particular, are increasingly used to seeing examples of people who have achieved results through any type of meritocracy, but more often through questionable relationships with power, this contributes to widespread dissatisfaction that results in the uncritical rejection of the system in which we live. Since no (or almost) force field provides policy (he has an interest in providing) concrete reform proposals for which this state of things can change and does not propose an analysis of the causes nor the solutions, this refusal is often uncritical exploited by the radical left, thanks to its extensive presence in the territory, is much more successful than the right, to channel them into the stereotype of corrupt capitalism, capitalism panacea of \u200b\u200ball evils and would seek to defend any privilege that is not better identified working class has gained against the master pimp, without thinking that this is unsustainable and certainly not possible to improve the general living conditions. On the other hand I do not think that the right side otherwise, indeed also tend to channel the consensus around the defense of all the privileges acquired by corporations, and then their young children, who look to this part of cultural policy, helping to not shed light on the cause of this lack of aspiration, even and especially in a time when it may have finally awakened to the important role of making a difference.
course, what the current government is doing even more amplifies the effect described the lack of courage to test themselves to understand their own inclinations favor and development: a budget that gives new meaning to the class struggle, officially opposing the bourgeoisie in a poor weak unidentified class of course good in a simplistic categorization of Italian society when most of the major experts does not believe that this facility is more (or ever) to describe the great complexity of today's society means will continue to maintain this situation food and a lack of understanding of reality by the people. It means to create the entitlement to continue to promote a state that occupies of every sphere of our lives.
publicly put to shame and self-employment and small and medium-sized enterprises as it is doing with a deceitful propaganda campaign, this government indicated as evaders then act against the state against the rule of law against the people who live in the illusion that the state is good, does nothing but fuel the desire to entrench in what you have even if it's not, rather than risk to test, especially if then the compensation is to be persecuted as tax evaders or simply fail to survive because thwarted by the state-owner who has a vested interest in not encourage meritocracy. It is here that the cause becomes effect greedy because the state creates the perception of need among the people, who therefore wants it and defends it.
I think the political class today, both right and left, to keep the excessive power of the state apparatus from which they themselves take or have taken innumerable benefits, has every interest in encouraging this kind of defeatist attitude, rather than provide the right analysis of the problem and a solution especially in the libertarian sense. I do not hear any complaints clear that if ever it were possible a clear distinction between the exploited and exploiters, the first and second we'd all those who are pushing for increasing the greed of the state. I feel only very clearly (apart from a few sporadic examples) the will to keep everything as is.
