SUMMARY. The article points out the irony that by now in Italy "we are all free market supporters, on the center, on the right , on the left, all except Rauti, tarchi and "Il Manifesto"..... But even if this were the case one should point out the far from slight differences between the various positions. For some (Pera, Pannella), the free market should help unhinge the bloc that has created "the public mandarins" and a union free zones"; for Martino and Previti, the free market is a lever to "bring to power a new ruling class". The two conceptions of liberalism can coexist as long as they have common enemies, but in the long run the different political cultures on which they are based will be felt. If this is true, "progressives" are making a mistake by insisting on "bad mouthing the Radical Party". The Radical Party strategy may be a losing one, but their "quality" is very different. (editor's note: Dino Cofrancesco is a political scientist who in the 60s wrote the first essay that was sympathetic

towards the Radical Party).

(CORRIERE DELLA SERA, February 9, 19950

If by free market liberalism one means the guarantee that is offered to business (and all those operating on the market) that their professionalism and their investments will no longer be subjected to " binds and ties", to union privilege, bribes, political levies and the tendency to be suspicious of private initiatives, in Italy we are free market supporters, on the center, the right, the left, with the exception of Rauti, Tarchi and "Il Manifesto".

Such almost unanimous spirit starts to fade away when you confront the issue that, at least for a while, social well being and security and freedom of the market are zero-sum values, i.e. the more you give to one, the less the other will have. Even among those who are supporters of this idea the differences are not slight. To give you an example, there is a left free market liberalism and a right free market liberalism. For both the free market is a weapon for change. But for some -from Pannella to Pera it is an instrument to unhinge the associationist bloc that in the name of social solidarity has created , over half a century, public mandarins, union free zones, transversal complicities, mass media oligopolis. For others- from Martino to Previti- it is a lever to cut the roots of the left in Italian society and to bring to power another ruling class to replace Agnelli, Prodi, Scalfari and company.

The two liberalisms can coexist as long as they have common enemies, but the different political cultures that inspire them will make their weight felt in the long run. It is one thing to have giving back the scepter of power to commom folks as your goal and quite another to envision a new "republic of notables" who are willing to do anything (even under the table agreements with the Vatican) as long as they can liquidate the costly and inefficient parties of the First Republic. It is one thing to think about "new rules" that apply to everyone, and it is another thing to (secretely) wish to do away with all rules.

If this analysis is correct those progressives who for sometime have been doing nothing else but bad-mouthing the Radical Party are making a big mistake. One is free to think they are engaging in a losing strategy but one should not ignore the difference in their free market liberalism that gives guarantees. It is not only a question of their past contributions as a secular party but also their consistent present denunciation of the problems produced by the associationist bloc. Is the left willing to engage in a serious debate about this?