A-Infos (en) France, OCL CA #358 - Italy - Resistance to the Employers' "Reconquista" (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Following the turbulent autumn discussed in the February issue of 
Courant Alternatif, the government offensive, which merely fulfills the 
wishes of employers to eradicate what remains of the 1970s and regain 
control of all sectors of society, continues step by step. After the 
incident at the Askatasuna social center in Turin (1), evacuated by the 
police, there will be the referendum on judicial reform on March 22nd 
and 23rd. But first, let's revisit a recurring issue that has been 
omnipresent for 20 years, a hallmark of the employers' reconquista: the 
restriction of the right to strike.

Right to strike.

Except perhaps to experience la dolce vita in Rome or relax in a gondola 
in Venice, the French bourgeoisie isn't in the habit of looking 
longingly towards the other side of the Alps. It's too chaotic in a 
country where they assassinated Aldo Moro and where bosses are beaten 
down. Yet, there is one Italian model that makes them dream: the 
regulation of the right to strike. From BFM to Le Point, from CNews to 
Capital, to L'Opinion or Le Figaro, all these media outlets that are 
used to whining about "the poor commuters who bear the brunt of the work 
stoppages by these damned strikers" are posing the question on their 
front pages: Right to strike: should we take inspiration from Italy? 
Obviously, the answer is contained in the question!

So what is this model? After the Years of Lead, social conflict is 
decreasing. The bourgeoisie is determined to take back the few 
advantages it had been forced to grant in the 1970s and to make no 
further concessions (2). By signing sectoral contracts (3) with 
employers, unions can no longer justify, in the eyes of workers, 
mobilizations in the form of simple days of action, category by 
category, aimed at signing a "good" contract which is known to prove 
disastrous for employees in a period where the slightest advantage 
granted is offset by measures to increase productivity, imposed 
mobility, and staff reductions.

A law was then enacted to regulate the right to strike in order to 
ensure minimum service in a vast list of "essential" sectors. The unions 
adhered to a "code of self-discipline" which involved accepting 
mandatory notice and certain prohibitions for the rest of the year.
The problem was that the long-standing crisis of confidence among some 
employees towards the three "major" unions had led to the emergence of 
local committees (Cobas), operating outside the confederations. Although 
a minority, they still managed to maintain a degree of social conflict 
and, not being signatories to collective agreements, they could 
occasionally paralyze certain sectors such as logistics, transportation, 
public services, or education.

This reality irritates employers and leads them to embark on a long and 
patient march towards a right to strike so restricted that it would no 
longer be necessary to prohibit it.
In 1998, new rules mandated a "cooling-off" period for conflicts before 
a strike notice could be filed, including a mandatory conciliation 
phase. If a union does not represent 50% of employees, it must wait a 
minimum of 10 days after the end of a strike before filing a new notice, 
which effectively prevents rolling strikes.

Regarding "essential" public services, a new law further restricting the 
right to strike was passed by Parliament (with a center-left majority) 
in April 2000, coinciding with Italy's hosting of the World Cup. 
"Essential public services" are defined as "human rights, including the 
right to life, health, liberty and security, freedom of movement, social 
assistance and welfare, education, and freedom of communication," thus 
broadening the concept of public service to include professions such as 
lawyers, doctors, and taxi drivers. Strikes are prohibited during the 
Christmas and Easter holidays and during the summer holiday travel 
period. If this proves insufficient, the government can order 
requisitions if it deems that a strike risks causing "serious and 
imminent harm" to users. For example, by limiting work stoppages to four 
hours per day, as was ordered during the strikes last autumn! A 
supervisory body is responsible for ensuring compliance with this law, 
which nevertheless has not succeeded in breaking the momentum of 
independent unions.

In other words, a strike is only legal when it doesn't inconvenience 
anyone. This is also a way of dividing the working class between public 
sector employees (wrongly equated with "privileged" civil servants) and 
traditional workers, who have become mere users whose right to rest is 
deprived by strikers in order to reproduce their labor power. The three 
major trade union confederations, CGIL, CISL, and UIL, approved the 
Parliament's vote. During the movements that shook Italy last autumn in 
solidarity with Gaza, against the militarization of the state budget and 
austerity measures - see CA of February 2026 (4) - the question of the 
right to strike was a constant underlying issue. Some strikes were 
called with little or no notice, including by the CGIL, relying on a 
little-known article of the 1990 law which states that the provisions on 
non-notification "do not apply in cases of work stoppage to defend 
constitutional order, or to protest against serious events detrimental 
to worker safety." These conditions were met, they argued, because Italy 
was violating constitutional limits on peace and cooperation with 
countries that do not respect human rights, and because the Italians 
aboard the Sumud Global Flotilla were workers. But the supervisor still 
deemed these strikes illegitimate.

The referendum on justice
On March 22 and 23, 2026, Italian voters will be called upon to confirm 
or reject the "Nordio reform," which would amend seven articles of the 
Constitution concerning the organization of the judicial system and 
appears to be a cornerstone of the Meloni government's program.
The Italian government considers judges and prosecutors to be too 
militant. They are "red judges," as former Prime Minister Silvio 
Berlusconi, himself facing numerous charges, proclaimed in the 2000s!
The reform consists of abolishing a single Superior Council of the 
Judiciary (CSM), whose function was to appoint judges, assign them 
cases, and, if necessary, impose sanctions. Composed until now of judges 
elected by their peers and lay legal experts elected by Parliament, this 
system was supposed to guarantee the "independence of the judiciary," 
which was undoubtedly still too great in the eyes of Italy's "brothers."

The single High Council of the Judiciary (CSM) would be replaced by two 
separate bodies: one for judges, another for prosecutors. These bodies 
would still be composed of judges and laypeople, but chosen by lot-from 
among their peers for the former, and from a list drawn up by Parliament 
(i.e., the parliamentary majority, the government) for the latter. A 
High Disciplinary Court would also be created, in which judges would be 
represented, but whose majority could be appointed by the government. 
This clearly represents a firmer takeover of the judicial system by the 
State and its government, definitively shattering the myth of an 
independent judiciary. This, of course, is done in the name of greater 
efficiency in a bureaucratic nightmare, the burden of which falls on the 
user (yet again!). This argument resonates favorably with groups 
supporting a left-wing "yes" vote, led by the Socialist Party and even 
some members of the Democratic Party (PD) (5).

Unlike the two previous referendums (6), known as repeal referendums, 
which required a minimum 50% voter turnout for the result to be valid, 
the March referendum, known as the confirmation referendum, does not 
require a minimum turnout. In the previous referendums called for by the 
left, the governing parties that supported the "no" vote simply called 
for abstention, resulting in only 14% voter participation and the 
rejection of the proposal to reinstate abolished social benefits. This 
time, the law will be ratified unless the "no" vote prevails. But as we 
have seen, the real issue for us lies elsewhere: how can each 
mobilization on a specific issue contribute to the emergence and then 
the strengthening of a force for social transformation?
This question has become even more pressing following the solidarity 
movement with Askatasuna.

The Freedom Affair
On December 18, 2025, in Turin, police sealed off the occupied house 
"Askatasuna," an emblematic site in the history of alternative social 
centers which, for thirty years, had been a point of reference for the 
Italian autonomous movement, especially during the height of the No TAV 
movement (Val Susa) and more recently in support of the people of Gaza.
Already on August 21, 2025, one of Italy's most famous social centers, 
Leoncavallo in Milan, established in 1975, was evacuated by law 
enforcement in an effort to eliminate "no-go zones."

Alternative social centers are a distinctive feature of Italy's 
extra-parliamentary political landscape. They flourished throughout the 
country in the mid-1970s and continue to this day. Initially squatted 
spaces, they host a wide range of activities: concerts, political 
meetings, fundraising events for various struggles, soup kitchens, 
literacy classes-the list goes on. A city like Rome has several dozen, 
while others like Bologna and Turin have more than ten. Often, a 
particular tendency within the worker autonomy movement is dominant, but 
nevertheless, all tendencies intersect, debate, and clash. They also 
serve as training grounds for new generations entering the struggle, who 
come to the centers to meet, discuss, and strengthen themselves through 
contact with the multifaceted nature of the counterculture. Born from 
the high intensity of social conflict in the 1970s, they have persisted 
to this day, undergoing of course the slow decline of this conflict, but 
perpetuating a culture of rupture with the capitalism of the dark years.

But the far right, which is in charge of the country, doesn't see it 
that way. A project spearheaded by the Turin city council (a Democratic 
Party, therefore "left-wing") was intended to legalize squatting by 
recognizing the building as "common property." However, citing numerous 
"incidents" in the street and the number of activists prosecuted, the 
council blocked the project by turning the municipal majority against it.
Targeting community centers has become a propaganda and symbolic tactic 
used to embody radical change, to talk about order and security rather 
than the economic and social situation. This is especially true since 
the scale of the pro-Palestinian movement is revitalizing community 
centers that were struggling to maintain their role as a counterweight 
to power and to resist all attempts at integration through institutional 
recognition. "It is clear that the government wants to strike at the 
pro-Palestinian movement and attack social struggles," the Askatasuna 
collective reacted in a statement shortly after the center's closure.

The day after the police intervention, solidarity was evident throughout 
the city. A call went out for a general assembly, which brought together 
several hundred people on January 17th and decided on a major national 
demonstration for the 31st: "The eviction of Askatasuna was a show of 
force, a kind of exemplary punishment for those who had dared to block 
the train stations and ports, for those who had gone on strike and seen 
its effectiveness, for all those who thought: together, we are stronger. 
It meant striking a city, Turin, a symbol of resistance but also of a 
serious industrial and economic crisis," reads a text from the workers' 
autonomy movement.

The demonstration was unexpectedly large (30,000 to 40,000). Towards the 
end, thousands of protesters broke away from the main march to clash 
with the police in front of Askatasuna headquarters. There were injuries 
on both sides, a vehicle was set on fire, and the images that went viral 
showed a policeman being struck with a hammer. "An attack against the 
state" (one would like to believe it!) declared the Carabinieri 
commander-in-chief. The Minister of the Interior stated that "we are 
facing a strategy aimed at escalating the confrontation with 
institutions and which, through unrest and violence, seeks to 
consolidate the anarcho-antagonist movement and galvanize its adherents."
Indeed, there was cause for concern... or perhaps rejoicing.
Among the protesters, and particularly the most aggressive ones who 
attacked the police, was a large proportion of very young working-class 
people who had not participated in the social center saga. Their story 
is one of revolt against the massacres in Gaza, which they recognize as 
their own revolt against the world they endure, and not as a 
substitution for a vanished class, as was the case in the past with 
Third-Worldism.

In conclusion, I believe we must consider each of the strikes and 
demonstrations currently shaking Italy not as the starting point for a 
convergence of struggles and a possible political realignment, but as 
the tentative culmination of a shared rejection of this world, which 
each group interprets according to its own history and social context. 
The current movement originates from the grassroots and is not the 
product of any partisan strategy; the question is whether the 
self-organization that has prevailed in many initiatives will be dynamic 
enough to revive a hegemonic, autonomous, and anti-capitalist political 
and cultural sphere.

JPD

Notes
1. Freedom in Basque. A key word of the liberation movement in the 
Basque Country (including ETA: Euskadi ta askatasuna, Basque and 
freedom), it has become an embodiment of social resistance far beyond 
the borders of the Basque Country.
2. A process of regaining control that culminated in the Jobs Act, 
passed in December 2014 under the Renzi government (Democratic Party 
supported by the Italian Socialist Party, PSI), which further 
liberalized the labor market.
3. Most often for a period of three years.
4. In the sidebar on Italian trade unionism, we stated that the CUB was 
the most important of the smaller unions. A reader pointed out that, in 
fact, it is the USB that has the most influence and that took the 
initiative in the pro-Gaza mobilizations, while the others followed. And 
this despite the fact that we have more sympathy for the first than for 
the second, which has Stalinist-Maoist roots and remains affiliated with 
the WFTU, from which the French CGT has withdrawn.
5. The Democratic Party (PD) emerged in 2007 from the historic 
compromise between remnants of the self-dissolved Communist Party and 
the "left wing" of the Christian Democrats. Allied with a part of the 
center-right, it participated in the 2013 government and suffered a 
resounding electoral defeat in 2018. It returned the following year in a 
national unity government with the Five Star Movement, until the 2022 
elections that brought Meloni to power. For an overview of Italian 
political history during this
https://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article1360
6-9/6/2025

http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4664
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en