In the introductory presentation of the book “The Dynamic Compromise “, Luciano Pellicani a) objectively distinguishes the positions expressed by Dahrendorf from the neoliberal positions; b) at the same time he clarifies the sterility and inconsistency of Dahrendorf’s positions; c) he does not deny the difficulties faced by the democratic left: d) he finally gives a strong support to my book. I will limit myself to a few quotes from his writing …

Social democracy, says Dahrendorf, has created an extensive social security system, thanks to which the gradual conquest of citizenship rights was completed by the “excluded.” But, for the very fact that it was able to realize the positive inclusion of the “internal proletariat” of the modern industrial society, it has exhausted its historical role. Moreover, in addition to extending the bureaucratic logic to vast sectors of the economy, it has itself been bureaucratized, losing its reform momentum. Hence its inevitable decline …

HoweverPelicani points out that Dahrendorf’s position should not be confused with the neoliberal positions; and goes on stating: “Dahrendorf believes that the achievements of social democracy must be preserved, albeit under a duly rationalized Welfare State. His position seems unassailable. The difficulties the parties of the Socialist International are under the gaze of all… ”

Pellicani, figures in hand, states, however, that it is not about electoral difficulties, given that the different expressions of social democracy in every single European country is still one of the pillars of the democratic alternative; it is rather the crisis of a business model able to differentiate itself from the conservative parties; and he goes on …

“What has happened is that the crisis of the Keynesian model has, so to speak, “bewilder” social democratic parties. It has deprived them of a solid operating system for an effective intervention in the capitalist society, correcting those that are its constituent flaws: the recurring crises and the unequal distribution of life chances. The result: today the European left is on the defensive.

But that does not mean, this is the central thesis of the book by Mario Midnight, that social democracy has lost its positive role in the dynamics of post-industrial societies. After all, what does Dahrendorfpropose …. Nothing or little more than nothing. At least the neoliberals do have an alternative model: the dismantling of the welfare state and the restoration of a self-regulated market. But, if one does not want to go down that route, which Dahrendorf does not, as a matter of fact, intended to do, it is not possible to  see what other institutional framework is on the horizon of Western Europe, outside of the social-democratic one, based on a logical and temporal sequence: question-answer-conflict-compromise… (I shall return to this point in the first chapter of the book: “The sequence”)

The market economy – continues Pellicani – to the extent in which it is centered on the release of a possessive-competitive Individualism, has a dissociative logic, whose long-term effects could be terribly negative. It needs to be countered in some way …

Well, according to Mezzanotte , only social democratic parties and trade unions can hold the anomic logic of capitalism. As long as they rediscover the moral tension that typified them during the time in which they managed to humanize capitalism.

The book “The dynamic compromise” is divided into three chapters: 1) the sequence, 2) the variables, 3) the fair compromise. The first chapter is the result of my thoughts – after a lifetime in the union, and to a lesser extent in politics, in Italy and in Europe-, about the social action “logic” and “social democratic” politics, which ended up historically to prevail in both fields of action. I summarized it in the opening of the chapter in the following terms …

“The modern history of human progress is the history of people who have wanted to change to maximize their material conditions and status, referring to the ideals of freedom, solidarity and equality; it is the story of the people who are opposed to those that they did not want such a change not wanting to have to give up a slice of their wealth; and in any case the ideals mentioned above could possibly be preached, but never practiced if to some extent they questioned the pre-established balance of power.It is the history of conflict that followed, and of the ways in which they ended: never definitively, always on the verge of starting. The logical time sequence: question-answer- conflict-compromise, summarizes the process from the moment the demand for change is born in the sense of social progress to the contrast between question and answer that triggers a conflict whose outcome is determined by the will “to compromise” of the two opposing parties and the “force” they respectively manage to put in place. If this sequence can help us understand who we are and where we are going, then it is worthwhile to deepen the experience of the union, that has internalized this sequence better than any other organization and institution. And after it has refined and codified it, it has come to give it the dignity of a philosophy; even if a real union philosophy was never written ”

In a nutshell, I argue that the “logic” of the sequence must be identified in the conflict aimed at a (possible)compromise. This implies acceptance of specific ways of being and operating of social subjects when facing one another. So beyond the drama we so often happen to witness, 1) it implies, as I said, not only the mutual recognition of the equal dignity of individuals in conflict, but above all the need to understand, as much as possible, the people we have in front of us, their diverse reasons and the interests that drive them; 2) nevertheless, in the end a solution has to be found; however – and this is the point -, the compromise does not leave standing winners and losers on their knees on the field; 3) and that for the simple reason that those who face one another assume that the evolutionary dynamics of society, gradually imposes other compromises; 4) it is important to try to prevent that the rope pulled by both parties to assert their point of view, at some point does not break (with unpredictable and still negative cascading consequences for both sides, and this usually happens when one does not take into account the broader interests rather than the particular interests that one legitimately pursues, of course to prevent such an event from happening, it takes two to want it).Clearly, the “logic” of which I speak – prospectively – also includes the political compromise between the progressive ideals of such action landmarks of the liberal left, and the complex economic, social and political reality, with which we need to deal with…

To further clarify the “logic” of a (possible)compromise, in the book I ventured a look into the future; in these terms; “Indeed, we can imagine a future community in which all the activities necessary to the functioning of the community, except for those executives and of control, are carried out by androids equipped with artificial intelligence. So we can expect that in those communities, trade unions, political parties, institutions as we know them and live them today, may no longer have a sense. But if in those communities the individual still has a sense, this can only come from the conception of interpersonal and social relations animated by the spirit and by the logic of compromise, understood in this science fictional example, such as faith in the ability of Man – at some time of the physiological confrontation – conflict between individuals -, to know when to stop and think in order to find an agreement, and this in order to avoid destroying himself and his dynamic potential … ”

So far I have analyzed things from the point of view of a liberal not Marxist political left; however, in the text, I also comment on maximalist positions (Marxist and not, present in the union and in various associations) going against the logic of the conflict aimed at a possible compromise. So I also commented on those positions, which on the contrary state that the best thing to do is to leave  the individual act as it feels better in his particular interest (then everything else will follow automatically in the best way …) . So it’s about different visions of relations and human conflicts, which have a long history and whose understanding brings to the second chapter of the Variables.

(I am quoting from the introduction of the chapter). “The understanding of the Variables that influence and give meaning to the social and political agenda, requires the intervention of specialized cultures that knowledge has divided into: ethics, politics, sociology, economics, psychology, history … in fact in the political-social conflict the variables involved are: egoism and altruism, the rules of the political-institutional game, the forms of government (with its guidelines), the variety of relationships of the ruling structure with the social base in the parties, trade unions and various associations, the guidelines of the maximalist gradualist culture, social stratification and the different role expectations, the oscillations between recession, stagnation and development of the economic system, the different cultural influences arising from the interpretation of historical human relationships … in this chapter I discuss only a few variables, but it is the whole – in which even the imponderable case can be significant – that conditions the social and political conflict. One then understands that the only way that to some extent enables people-if they want to – to determine the “quality” of compromise, which is to take an active part in the conflict. ”

In this second chapter I develop my argument – among the infinite possible reasonings – I aim at giving a certain order and value to the “variables”. For those who are interested, they can read the entire text using the procedure that I indicated. In this summary I tried to focus on the complexity of the context in which the political and social conflict realizes itself (I will immediately say that the state of health of the economic system, is among the most important factors: in fact, the dignity of the person is at stake, in the sense of greater or lesser possibility that it offers everyone to earn an independent income by means of one’s own labor); but since it is still a compromise that defines the economic compensation of one’s labor (employees or self-employed or otherwise defined), in my opinion two points are fundamental: 1) as I said, if you want to change for the better, you have to engage actively in the first phase of the conflict aimed to compromise; 2) from the more general point of view of the reformist, democratic, liberal, government left, in a word: social democratic left, you have to take action and make your voice heard within collective bodies pursuing your own ideals and political and social purposes; collective bodies which are crucial to obtaining a more favorable compromise in terms of social progress.Of course it is first and foremost important to establish specific and realistic socio-economic objectives that we intend to reach in the given time.

I also insist on this point in the Introduction to the book (which I have integrated here with a touch of current affairs). “A strong role of the collective political actors (political parties, trade unions, co-operations, various forms of associations: in short, the set of movements that propel towards social progress) becomes essential to counter the “culture” of individualistic selfishness that capitalism injects physiologically in society. The very task of the Social Democratic Party (by now the meaning I give to this term  is clear) is to mediate between the State and society, constantly recalling the attention of people from the singularity to the plurality of the human condition. Of course the figure of a strong leader is inherent to modern society in a globalized world, and it is the appropriate answer to the question of essential efficiency to solve the problems that arise.But whatever the ability of the progressive leader, it is not possible to see how he can determine that constant change resulting from the compromise between the multiplicity of interests, expectations and aspirations, although legitimate, that occur in the heart of a civil society, and the objectives of protection of the general interests of the people and the country; and this without the active presence and the continuous act of the collective political actors in society; which on the one hand must “talk dialectically” with the leader (who has the final say; but if wrong, passes the buck), on the other hand it is in their own interest to take action in order to overcome the obstacles that from time to time may impede the achievement of the objectives of the “friendly” government program (if these goals have been shared; otherwise, it would open to a whole different problem: in fact, one thing is the role of the party that the leader expresses, another thing is the role of those collective subjects, especially trade unions, which maintain their independence from political parties). Of course, it would be better if we all rowed toeards the same direction … “

In the third chapter, The fair compromise, I asked myself the question: where does the “sequence” that I described lead to, sailing in the very rough (complex) sea of the  “variables”? My response is not intended to indicate the route that leads to the City of Utopia; but to a fair society, namely ever more just and more balanced.

I am still quoting from the text: “On the page before the introduction to the book, there is a sentence of the German Social Democrat Eduard Bemstein (words that appeared in an article published in 1896 by NeueZeit, and which at the time aroused misgivings among the same socialists ): “The movement is everything, the final goal of socialism, nothing.” Perhaps the title of the book “The dynamic compromise” was unconsciously suggested to me from this expression quoted by George D.H. Cole in his “History of the socialist movement”; that took the letter of clarification sent by Bemstein to the German Social Democratic Party, in which he stated that “he was not indifferent to the final realization of socialist principles, but rather to the shape that the final arrangement would take.”

The more significant sense of the action of the left-liberal party, which I summed up in the word Social Democracy (and other independent collective associations who share its socio-political idealism), is found in the words of Pellicani: By humanizing capitalism.