The usual catchphrase.
Perhaps due to a stronger blow, perhaps due to a dirtier conscience, the usual useless process of self-analysis of the PD proceeds undeterred. Why the defeat? And judging by the refined minds that are dealing with the matter, see Natalia Aspesi, the problem is that Italy "drowns in a sea of the right".
The problem, apart from the fact that the parties are not liquid in which to drown, but the metaphor is fine, as usual the numbers are forgotten. I am not one of those who cite abstention, but since in terms of state probability it is difficult for Italy to be all right, the problem is that we can consider very likely that many who are left are not go to vote more.
The numerical point is that for the first time in these elections the number of voters was less than 50% of the population. But when we consider an official average lifespan of 82 years, and the fact that there is a shortage of young people, that means A LOT. Ultimately it means that the right has 60% of the voters, but they correspond to about 30% of the country.
So, now comes the problem: why don't many on the left vote for PD? The first answer is simple: it is useless. It's useless.
The PD is useless.
You will say: but for example what is the right for? Well, if you are a tax evader, if you are a fascist, if you have certain ideas of women and reproduction, (that is, if you are right-wing), the right-wing party serves you: ultimately, they will do those things they say – even if it isn't. a good news.
But when a leftist approaches the PD, what does he discover? First of all, that it is an abstruse hybrid between an American liberal party (that is, a party that has an intersectionist vision of society – let's get to that immediately) and a socialist party (that has a classist vision of society).
What does this mean? It means that very American-liberal arguments are accepted in the PD such as "the world of work is male chauvinist, the proof is that none of the S & P500 companies has a female CEO".
Now, I don't even want to discuss the opportunity to use the CEOs of the S & P500 and use them as a representative champion of the world of work. This would be enough to say "but go fuck yourself, pile of idiots".
But the problem is much worse: from the American-liberal, ie intersectionist, point of view, the problem with the S & P500 is that there are not enough women, blacks, GLBT and more among the CEOs.
But if you are a socialist, the catastrophic problem with the S & P500 is that they own 65% of the world's wealth. A "leftist" woman shouldn't even try to consider a situation where the S & P500 is right, or acceptable. It's a situation that shouldn't even exist. It is an absurd form of inequality, in the class sense, not in the intersectionist sense.
If we say that 500 companies own 65% of the world's wealth, the socialist says it must be redistributed with the less well-off, the American-liberal says that 50% of CEOs must be women.
It's like complaining about Hitler's aftershave. How to complain because the sentries in Buchenwald were all white. All very true, but aftershave is not the problem we have with Hitler, and skin color is not exactly the problem we have with the Buchenwald concentration camp.
What happens when a moderately intelligent person reads bullshit like "the world of work is male chauvinist, the proof is that none of the S & P500 companies have a female CEO".
It happens that the pen falls from his hand and says "never, never will I vote for such a pile of idiots".
Another example of uselessness is given by the fact that, for convenience and cowardice, the left continues to make very just battles, taking care to carefully choose the battles for the express purpose of never fighting with the powerful.
The battles, mind you, are sacrosanct. It's just that others are missing. And systematically, the difficult ones are missing.
Gay unions were basically easy. The ZAN decree is much more difficult. Why'? Why do you go and shut up that pit of homophobia that is the Catholic Church. And here, coincidentally, a mess happens and the decree stops for a diatribe on a non-existent problem. There are a few hundred gay unions. They don't bother anyone.
It is a duty to be indignant against femicide. But you don't have to clash with any strong powers. On the other hand, being indignant because 1100 people die a year on the job, means fighting with Confindustria. Guess which battle is chosen and which is forgotten? What does not clash with the strong power, of course, is forgotten.
This careful selection of battles without a fight, and of opponents as long as they are not strong , is exactly what makes the PD useless. They complain that the workers no longer vote to the left, and they say that it is because they no longer go to the factories. But the problem isn't that they don't go to the factories. The problem is that those of the PD do not enter the Confindustria headquarters like a Mongol horde, impaling people until the obscenity of deaths at work ends, and salaries have not returned to the European average.
Not that the right will, mind you. But it must be equally clear that it is not the MISSION of the right. It was that of the left.
They will tell me that we are "in fact" debating a left that fights inequality. Convenient, like this. But the problem is not "fighting inequalities", or differential equations (which in my opinion are much more vulgar). The problem is that in the PD they are all extremely available to fight equality, as long as they do not go AGAINST those who buy a boat with inequalities.
Pure, simple, cowardice.
Let's start adding a few things. Minorities broke the dick. And I mean it seriously. Because it's okay for me to stand up for gays or black volleyball players or transsexuals. But if this is to be THE ONLY point of identity of the left, honestly, expect the same number of votes that any Arcigay has.
In the US, intersectionism can also make sense, if we consider that black people are 17% of the population, Mexicans also, and therefore the "minorities" are large masses of people, who vote and play politics.
But when you talk about a country where 92% of people are ethnically Italian, (whatever that means), transsexuals are twenty-two per ten thousand and gays less than two per cent, reduce "the left" to "let's protect minorities" and 'a political suicide.
Especially when even majorities have very serious problems. Can you explain to me what is the point of pulling your hair out because if you are transsexual you can't find a job, when the unemployed are MILLIONS?
When the only minority that the left does not defend are the poor Italians, what are we talking about? What is this party for? Nothing. It is simply surreal.
And if we really have to be surreal, then we have to thank the famous Burlesque dancer, Rosy Bindi, if between one strip and another she returns to politics and says that "the PD must be dissolved". What else can we say? Should we ask porn stars for the next political program?
The purpose of all this left-wing catchphrase is simply to talk to each other until they forget defeat. There will also be some local administrative elections within a year. People will return to Ultras Curva Sud mode, and forget about defeat. And this is the purpose of the useless catchphrase of the analysis of defeat: to waste time.
Anyone who thinks that a better PD can come out of the opposition or defeat, did not understand the point: the PD exists only in the worst version. It was born to be worse. It was designed to be worse.
Perhaps you will think that I am angry with the ruling class. No. Because that ruling class isn't from Mars. It comes from a party that has been selecting its members for decades. And it selects them on the downside. Before saying that the PD presidency is not up to par, let's try to ask ourselves if the PD voter is.
A voter who agrees to read this:
And when you get to write "the melancholy of class", and no one picks you up in pairs for two weeks, something in the PD has been lost.
A minimum of a sense of ridicule.