Italy: the street refuses to pay for rearmament with the price of bread

Thousands of people demonstrated in several Italian cities against the rising cost of living and the increase in military spending, according to Al Jazeera. The network does not give, in the summary before us, any precise figures, a list of cities, or the names of the organisers. We will not invent them. What follows is our reading, not an established fact.

The slogan is clear: the two demands are one. The protesters do not say "the cost of living, and incidentally weapons." They link the two. They are right to do so, because a budget is not a buffet where you help yourself while nobody settles the bill.

Cui bono? Let us ask the question early and answer it plainly. Every euro directed towards tanks, missiles and munitions is a euro that does not go to wages, hospitals, transport or schools. Or else it is borrowed, and the debt will be repaid later, through taxation and austerity. The winners on the supply side are known: the arms manufacturers and the creditors who finance the state. The loser is the person doing the weekly shop at the end of the month.

The state, here, is not an arbiter. It is a manager of the common affairs of the propertied class: budget, taxation, spending priorities. It may hesitate, it may bow to pressure from the street, it has some room for manoeuvre. But its limits are set by the need to keep capital moving. When arms profits rise, the argument of "security" serves to dress up a class choice.

Italy is not going it alone. The push towards militarisation runs through Europe, driven by the rivalry between great powers for markets, resources and spheres of influence. Alliances, arms contracts and trading blocs are the political shell of these economic competitions. We are sold "shields" and "deterrence." What we are not told is that these words are also order books.

A caveat, however. A demonstration, even a massive one, does not set a budget. Reforms wrested from the street can be reversed as soon as profits demand it. The real question is not whether the government will concede a bonus or an energy allowance. It is whether the mobilisation gains strength and confidence, or whether it dissolves into a parliamentary compromise and a fine communiqué about "social dialogue."

What we still do not know: the exact size of the march, the forces organising it, and the government's response. What we do know: when people are asked to choose between heating and cannon, some refuse the menu.