Bruno Arpaia
Per Una Sinistra Reazionaria

I also come from the ranks of the left, like many of you. I have never been a member of any political party (I only had a card from a student organization), but for a certain period I cheered for that shapeless faction. There was everything in the so-called left: Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Eurocommunists, Catholic-communists, social reformists, ecologists, anarchists, liberals, libertarians, and the list goes on! The "left", as argued by Massimo Fini and Costanzo Preve, is now a container devoid of any meaning and utility.

In the "left," you can find a De Benedetti like a Ferrando (leader of the PCL), a Bonino and a Diliberto, a Binetti or a Nichi Vendola! Everything and its opposite, in other words! Is there at least a Common Denominator or an appearance of it? Yes! There are precisely two! Anti-fascism and "progressivism".

Much could be written about anti-fascism, both regarding the various "anti-fascisms" and concerning the relevance of CERTAIN anti-fascism, but it is the concept of "progressivism" that I would like to focus on.

I do so, precisely, after having read this interesting book by the writer Bruno Arpaia. A man of the "left" who, perhaps wrongly, continues to define himself as such. A past in the ranks of the left and a present in the same ranks. Yet Arpaia, although not matching the audacity of the aforementioned Massimo Fini, tries to surpass one of the characteristic Common Denominators of the faction in question: progressivism.

"For a Reactionary Left", in fact, is a book that tries to demolish the frenzied race towards "the future" characteristic, by now, of all parliamentary factions but always dear to that aforementioned container that, for convenience, we will continue to call "left."

The faith in that forward-projected timeline, economicism, the exaltation of urbanization ("Communism is the power of the Soviets plus the electrification of the entire country," Lenin stated), the prostration before the Goddess Science and a semi-futuristic anxiety (but not in a Marinetti sense) towards "suns of the future" or, in the liberal-capitalist version, towards production and consumption.

Time, by Arpaia, is re-evaluated in a somewhat unorthodox way compared to what are the progressive canons. Indeed, slowness and a humanly sustainable rhythm are re-evaluated. Progress is not thus seen as an enemy but, on the other hand, is not conceived as a universal and indisputable dogma.

Another theme dear to Arpaia is that of the relationship between "individual and community". A theme, for those interested in political philosophy, already addressed on the "right" by Marcello Veneziani and on the "left" (but don't tell the person concerned!) by Costanzo Preve. The author does not refer to the paradigm of "organic community" nor to the Marxian "Gemeinwesen," so dear to the Turin communitarian philosopher. Here, the community is understood, very simply, as a solid network of human interactions. A space where instead of individual interest, of clear liberal and Anglo-Saxon matrix, the "collective" is favored. For Arpaia, provocatively, we should abolish the pronoun "I". Abandon a degenerate and alienating selfishness, a product of the current era, to rebuild community fabrics now dissolved or dying. While considering the individual dimension extremely important, I find myself quite agreeing with the critique launched by the author against a society founded on suspicion, fear, and isolation. Products of capitalism, true, but also of a certain frenzied libertarianism (which, in my opinion, even a Stirner would ridicule).

There is a lack of criticism against leftist benevolence-forgiveness, a lack of attack against certain old vices of the "left" faction (veterofeminism and sectarianism) but, overall, I find "For a Reactionary Left" a more than useful supplement. Simple, linear yet full of very valid points for reflection.

Attention: this is not an attempt to create improbable "red-black" or "red-brown" alliances. It is not even the attempt to combine Evola with Marx or the martiality of the Cossacks with that of the action squads! No third-rate political-ideological syncretism! Only, and excuse me if it's little, a conscious and lucid critique of that faction which today, more than ever, struggles to stand. The "left," indeed.

Is there more? Yes. But I leave it to you the honor of discovering it!