There are those who affirm that this is the industry leads true beginning of the 21st century and that we will soon enter a scenario in which we will have to shuffle the cards with which we want to play. Others venture that we will experience a situation analogous to that of the industry leads second post-war context: the recovery of an agreement that will have the State as a central actor, but with problems and circumstances very different from those of the past. In the industry leads midst of the maelstrom, it is very likely that some think so. And maybe it's right. But what will be the social, ethical and programmatic bases for a new contract?
What can be expected and what can truly be industry leads expected? It is not enough just to wait for the outcome of this crisis. It is evident that, in more or less general terms, the market ultraliberals are lost: they claim the State, the same one that they fiercely contributed to industry leads scrapping, even in its essential functions. But it is equally evident that the danger of the state of control and repression cannot be the alternative to it. Is it not, rather, a question of industry leads rebuilding a community in which the State has a central dimension, but understanding that this is no longer and will not be the State of the past?
The state today is, as Tony Judt says in industry leads his book On the Forgotten Twentieth Century, "an intermediate institution." "The idea of an active State today means recognizing the limitsof human endeavor, in contrast to the utopian and arrogant ambitions of the industry leads recent past: because not everything can be done, you have to select the most desirable or important among what is possible. The idealization of the market, with the attendant assumption that industry leads anything is possible in principle, with market forces determining what possibilities will come true, is the latest (if not the latest) modern illusion. (...)