The global crisis: values and the marketplace in Europe and Italy

Globalization, the erosion of the classic hallmarks of national sovereignty, the technological revolution and the financialization of the economy: all these scenarios have been at the center of public debate for some years now, both in Italy and abroad. But how can we stem the tide generated by global phenomena of a largely unforeseen magnitude? How do we face up to the risks and exploit the opportunities that arise from a precipitate transformation? And what countermeasures, if any, need to be adopted?Over time, responses, proposals and theories have been put forward in answer to these questions, which have gradually converged on a single solution, namely, that of regulation. Rules to govern a capital and commodity market often left to its own devices. Rules to restore balance to the relationship between the various production factors of the world economy. Rules to preserve old safeguards and guarantee new rights.And yet, from the starting-point of a linear albeit rough formula, according to which addressing the impacts of globalization requires a clear set of rules applicable to all, recently the debate seems to have changed direction and perhaps even made a leap forward in terms of quality. Hence, the now traditional dichotomy of “openness versus protectionism” appears to have lost its edge, and not just in terms of its persuasiveness. In reality, it is a paradigm which quite clearly is no longer capable of taking in the contradictions of a revolution that has moved on from being eminently economic to become, firstly, geopolitical in nature and then a revolution of culture and identity.Alongside the movement of commodities and capital, people, ideas, expectations and fears are also mobilized. This may even have been conceivable previously, but today it is this that is unsettling. The impact is twofold: on the one hand, everywhere in the developed world, but particularly in “old Europe”, there is a general sense of displacement. As the binding (and, all things considered, reassuring) force of traditional ideologies and the political party system has dissipated, there is a search for new “agencies” of reference that are more robust in structure but more flexible in their modes of action and capable of keeping up with the quickening pace of the new global context. On the other hand, faced with this disorientation, tried-and-tested solutions are preferred to new proposals. From this springs the return to value systems shelved decades ago under the shock of rising integration. From this too stems the increasingly widespread and persuasive harking back to cultural roots, identity and religious affiliation, a call welcomed by some today as the only firm footing for the real needs of a society that lacks any fixed points of reference. But it has also raised questions for others, particularly in terms of whether it is compatible with the need to modernize the economy and society as a whole.It was within this context that the proposal to return to the Judeo-Christian roots emerged, as a way for Europe to reclaim its position in history. This suggestion served not only to effectively fuel the debate but also acted as a dialectical ploy, shifting the focus of the roundtable discussion from a technical and regulatory level to a higher policy level in a broad sense.Indeed, it was precisely policy, in its noble function, that all those present pointed to as the much-needed compass to regain a sense a direction. Some felt it should be a policy based on preservation, order, and the protection of rights gained. Others felt it should be a policy of openness and even greater integration, which is not in any way insecure and which, on the contrary, looks favorably upon the creative stimuli and opportunities offered by the brand new “global economic system”. Still others focused on the policy of the European Union which, despite setbacks and democratic shortcomings, is enabling the Old Continent to cushion the blows of the global crisis with the euro. And then there are the economic policies of those States that are already embarking on a protectionist strategy to safeguard their own production.Whichever way you look at it, is capitalism in crisis? Has Marxism been definitively consigned to oblivion? Has socialism run its course? The issue, it seems, is capable of being broken down into what is actually quite a basic statement: even globalization is not what it once was. For instance, that of the early 20th century. Or, going back further in time, that of the great empires of old Europe. The fact is that, today, the world is really global in the sense that power, for the first time in history, is no longer in the hands of the same players. There are new protagonists, new scenarios and new reference points, including ideals. In order to respond, the market alone is clearly not sufficient. There is a need for policy. The question is therefore what kind of policy to adopt and on the basis of what values, whether they be old or new, should new rules and a new system of international economic ties be built.