Landini is on strike over everything except Kyiv

The secretary of the CGIL trade union, Maurizio Landini, has called yet another general strike for 20 November. Just how ‘general’ these Friday strikes really are – as shown by data on absences from work – depends more on the weather, which may or may not suggest extending the weekend. One of the issues underpinning the strike call is opposition to the ‘14 billion for arms’. Setting aside the rather questionable figure, this raises a question that remains unanswered. What does Landini think of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine? On this issue – which is, of course, central to the political debate on both the centre-right and the centre-left – the CGIL appears, curiously, to be keeping quiet. Landini, who has an opinion on just about everything under the sun, prefers to remain silent on a crucial issue, and this raises a few questions.

A defining moment in the history of the CGIL was the PCI’s condemnation of Giuseppe Di Vittorio’s support for the anti-Soviet protests by Hungarian workers, which led to the end of the trade union leadership of the most prominent trade unionist of the time. But Landini is no Di Vittorio. He tackles the issue indirectly, attacking the budget bill in which he falsely claims that military spending comes at the expense of social or healthcare spending, but he never addresses the substance of the Ukrainian issue. The battle ‘for peace’, which is in the CGIL’s DNA, can take various forms, as Sergio Mattarella has repeatedly emphasised, explaining that peace must be based on the rejection and condemnation of aggression. Landini has never found a way to express a clear-cut position, perhaps so as not to sever the ties that effectively bind him to the Five Star Movement, whilst avoiding provoking a reaction from that section of the CGIL – which is by no means insignificant – that has historically been close to the reformists within the PD. This ambiguity or reticence also renders the call for a general strike – issued without the consent of the three main trade union confederations – unconvincing; it demonstrates its instrumental nature and, in all likelihood, dooms it to yet another failure.