In recent days, following the demonstrations and clashes in Rome, on the web has turned an intense and fruitful debate on the effectiveness of different methods of protest. On
Twitter and other social networks the debate was intense and exciting, not only as a symptom of an event of this kind was in the air but also expected.
Carmilla and Dazieri [1] (to name only the first two I've read) have commented positively on the violent reaction of students to Rome, praising the ability to react and, above all, to act. On 16
Republic appears on a letter Saviano children of the movement that in many ways, acted as a watershed in the debate.
This can be seen for example in the reactions of Evangelisti or Dazieri [1] and in particular on the turn of the debate on the comments to an earlier post on Japan and the strong response Saviano by students in Naples.
This state of things today, from my point of view. Of course, personal and questionable.
The first impulse I tried, in front of pictures of the clashes, was absolute and complete proximity to students (my first thought was: "Finally, even in Italy are beginning to wake up!") And I very much appreciated assistance in this direction.
Needless to say, reading the letter of Saviano I felt some disappointment that I immediately interpreted as Evangelists: Roberto attends environments too diverse and too far away from the square (certainly not by choice!) And is entering into the logic of those environments.
just did not think in particular of its stock, but its recent activity: theatrical and television alongside conductors "cerchiobottisti" publishers, editors and managers to broadcasters and politicians.
's inevitable that changing the context in which lives a person changes his perspective on the world. The same has happened to her escort, living in close contact with him, has established a relationship of friendship and esteem that surely has also led to an ideological revision.
do not consider a priori a negative phenomenon but when it becomes a symbol character (which ceases to be a person) expressing opinions on a phenomenon so heavy that his words seem to have observed and heard from a great distance both physical and cultural. I was surprised to read his sentences were almost equivalent to those of La Russa the same evening Annozero.
This was my first impulse, of course dictated by strong anger (or better exasperation) to a government and to a power system that has all the cultural and ideological connotations of a scheme.
What then do not use (not always, at least) the typical "traditional instruments" [2] schemes change little: what defines it as a scheme is its inability to understand the other, what is different or in opposition it. Ignored when prostrate, attacking when he shows the slightest willingness to act independently.
Then the anger softens, return to reflect more clearly and talk with others, especially people with "common" outside the circles of the web and that you inform via television and newspapers. There falls the donkey in the perception of these people are the events in Rome were criminals, fomented by a few fanatics and dumb students to follow them.
Obviously the ass I am: I expected that at least those who profess daily contempt, or at least uncomfortable, to this government was more inclined to accept a strong reaction. Not so just read the comments (trivial and superficial as you want but indicative of a widespread feeling) in newspapers or on generalist social network to see this mass.
I think it is useful at this point whether and how these events have benefited the student movement and, more in general, to any alternative forces.
While I believe that strong reactions can be healthy, like a fever, which helps to eliminate pathogens from the body, the other can not ignore my pacifist orientation nor the social and cultural context in which these events take place.
These considerations must be weighted by two factors that can not be ignored:
- we live in a country where the weight communication is strongly shifted towards the television media, in fact controlled by a few;
- violence raises a priori , indignation and repulsion in those who do not know the causes and dynamics.
Therefore, considering the context, I ask: the backlash effective? And 'moral?
When I chose the road of pacifism and nonviolence I asked myself the same questions: the violence is not effective? And 'moral?
I would not dwell on the moral issue that deserves much more depth, and the liquid by saying that, if it is tautological to say that nonviolence is a radical and revolutionary violence that nourishes the roots supporting the tree ' authority, hierarchy and abuse.
I'm more interested to reflect on the effectiveness of non-violence and the conditions to realize this effect.
Non-violence inevitable need for some principles:
- courage and honesty of those doing the course;
- unity among individuals participating in action;
- support action by the caregiver. Simplifying
to almost trivial: the non-violent act must be undertaken with conviction, clearly examining the causes of violence and planning on a long time its elimination, as much as possible spreading their ideas, goals, hopes to engage in ' Action also the people who by nature or interest, tend they are apathetic.
In a previous post I talked about the partisans: Have not found support and help in the population, exacerbated by the violence of fascism?
They could not so much vincere ma anche solo a sopravvivere senza questo aiuto? E il discorso si può estendere a tutte le forme di lotta, pacifica o meno, che hanno ottenuto dei risultati concreti, per quanto troppo spesso solo temporanei (la violenza ottiene risultati duraturi ma che si trasformano sempre nella copia speculare di ciò che essa voleva combattere).
La non violenza non è un'utopia ma un progetto a lunga scadenza.
Se oggi lottiamo con rabbia contro delle riforme assurdamente distruttive dovremmo chiederci: era possibile evitare di arrivare a questo punto?
Oggi ha senso lottare e forse la lotta violenta è l'unico modo rimasto. Non voglio giudicare le considerazioni e conclusioni di chi attua delle scelte in un ambiente dal quale are years away, although it is not strange.
I just wonder: We can not fight peacefully today so that tomorrow there is no more need to struggle with violence?
I believe so.
If the problems are listed below: cultural, information, participation, as we do today in order to create a more participatory society, united, involved and informed?
I believe that the instruments are not lacking but are deliberately limited to those in power: broadband deployment, freedom of information, education and culture for disadvantaged segments of the population (for example older people who heavily influence the vote and that very rarely known sources of information other than television).
fight for free education (should also be private, even if it opens the debate about "who pays for what"), for the dissemination of information tools simple, low cost, heterogeneous, for the direct involvement of all the social, mediated through channels that meet the needs of participants.
Without falling into certain "Whatever grillini" I think it is not only possible but also essential to identify factors that support the current system and figure out how to circumvent, if not eliminate them. Cultural autonomy and production / work, federalism (in the anarchic, non-vulgar one-League), interaction with the environment, communication topics are being discussed for centuries but now we have concrete tools and (relatively) simple to allow us to achieve it.
remains one last step to overcome: not only make them potentially usable but also made use of. Supporting business forms that avoid the logic of capital and profit, free from the cultural authorities, create new relationships between knowledge, technology and society, assess the progress (qualitatively and with reference to the natural limits) and its applicability to local conditions.
Ask: make sense? And if it seems to lack the sense to look for flaws in its foundations.
These and many others (I would like to return to this subject) are struggles that here and now, are feasible and can realize a better, freer and more open. Had in ten years, but without perseverance and consistency there will never be a change: If we are fighting today for decisions that are already been taken we are destined to failure if we struggle to create ideas that the system still can not think or imagine, we can win.
may be the opportunity and the right time to start a fight not only to solve a specific problem but to bring a better future. Theorize ideologically but not limited to specific project into its components.
We have the tools and energy and will, as we have seen, there.
notes :
[1] on the 17th, on Twitter, writes: "I think the most important one which says Maroni on students today, that what Saviano said yesterday."
[2] torture, killings, disappearances, detentions and killings without trial, elimination of the opposition (in this case we are removing from the sun) ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment