Subtitle: the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
 |
| AFP PHOTO / MOHAMMED ABED |
The Arab world burns. On December 17 the revolt broke out in Tunisia: Mohammed Bouaziz is seized the fruit and vegetables because - they say the police - there is no la licenza. Seguono proteste da parte del giovane 26enne e relative percosse da parte delle forze dell'ordine. Il 4 gennaio 2011 Mohamed muore in seguito alle ustioni riportate per aver protestato dandosi fuoco.
È l'inizio della rivolta: i tunisini si riversano in strada, e da quel momento la c.d. “rivolta per il pane” diverrà la miccia che incendia gran parte del mondo arabo: dopo la Tunisia ad essere investite dalle proteste saranno l'Algeria (8 gennaio), la Giordania (13 gennaio), il Marocco, lo Yemen, la Mauritania (16 gennaio) e l'Egitto (18 gennaio).
Si protesta per quel che si protesta in tutto il mondo: inflazione galoppante, disoccupazione, aumento dei prezzi dei generi alimentari e degli rents. The police, every time, took to the streets to do its duty to defend - with repression - the system that passes the salary. Hundreds dead and an unknown number of wounded.
The revolt, however, seems to loom even as anti-authoritarian revolt, especially in situations such as Tunisia, where the former President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali has remained in office for 23 years (and particularly when the Protests continued when you tried to recreate the "system Ben Ali" without Ben Ali) or Egypt, where Hosni Mubarak in power for 30 years exactly.
The face of the protests, meanwhile, is expanding by tapping a few hours to Albania and l'Italia. O meglio: in Italia si spera che ci sia qualcuno disposto a scendere in piazza per protestare. Non lo faremo per i problemi reali quali – vado a memoria – il lavoro che scarseggia o per il quale vengono riviste le regole (leggasi alla voce “modello Marchionne”) per non parlare di quella strage quotidiana degli omicidi sul posto di lavoro (le c.d. “morti bianche”). Non scendiamo in piazza in solidarietà a tutte quelle persone che quotidianamente perdono la propria abitazione perché – anche per effetto del lavoro che sempre più diventa nuovo sfruttamento – non hanno i soldi per pagare affitti sempre più alti (non entriamo poi nella casistica degli affitti agli studenti fuori sede), the less we do to denounce as the right to study a phenomenon class is coming back already now closed to those who can not afford high tuition fees and books are often more useful to the publishers not to teaching.
No. We do not take to the streets of Tunisian rivals or the Egyptians. Italy has been called to the streets to defend the judiciary!
do not know what effect on you this video, but to me the idea to the streets to defend the judiciary puts the shivers. Before being accused of being "organic" to the Berlusconi - given that in this period if you dare to say something different from anti-Berlusconi're automatically "pro- " - I want to clarify that it does not make me shudder because I think the theory-Cicchitto of "judicial coup". But what seems increasingly clear is the delegation - total - that the so-called "parliamentary opposition" entrusted to the judiciary, mindful of what was the "piano-Craxi": unable to plan even the idea of \u200b\u200bsociety (just look at the total adoption of the "Marchionne plan" and the consequent absence - also the total - an alternative plan) the ruling class relies on anti-Berlusconi again codes and laws to bring down the regime.
But the "regime" is another thing: the "system" today is that the party system of parliamentary opposition - at least at the level of national leadership - is none other than the center-left wing of the system the competitive one-party where we are. I make my own the words of Professor Domenico Losurdo that defines the character of this system in an interview with "L'Ernesto" (find the full version here: http://www.lernesto.it/index.aspx?m=77 & f = 2 & IDArticolo = 19905):
(...) In conclusion. During the twentieth century has developed a giant three-pronged process of emancipation, which began with the October Revolution and the struggle against war and the carnage of the First World War. All this is now forgotten and removed to the point that the dominant ideology today, the history of communism became the horror story.
The paradox is that this gigantic manipulation has not participated in only the right as such, it has also provided its good contribution Fausto Bertinotti, which Vendola is the heir and disciple. No doubt, he has undertaken in an attempt to erase the historical memory of the huge and varied process of emancipation resulted from October revolution: of this great chapter of history, he drew a picture that is not very different from that path and ideology by the ruling class.
It came so to be a culture, or rather an 'ignorance', which is of great help to the existing order. How about a more strictly political, is also on the ideological work that I (always in the book Democracy or Bonapartism mo) I have called the scheme "one-party competitive." We see the work that a single party, in different ways, refer to the same ruling class, the monopoly bourgeoisie. Of course, do not miss the moment of electoral competition, but it is a competition between political classes, each of which seeks to achieve its ambitions of short breath, without putting in any discussion mdo in the strategic framework, the cultural orientation and social class background of reference, namely the bourgeoisie monopoly: what can not argue either.
This is the position in which we find ourselves: the one-party Competitive. The cancellation of the proportional system has favored consolidation. (...)
Michele Santoro, in the video presentation of "Come on Judges" (according to - according to me guessed at least in terms of "marketability" - title of the newspaper "Times" today) pone comunque una domanda che merita di essere ripresa. Intorno al terzo minuto si chiede se si possa dire con sicurezza se magistratura, polizia, servizi segreti in questo momento non siano usati per attaccare chi non è il vero avversario del premier.
È una domanda interessante per almeno un paio di motivi: innanzitutto perché la stessa cosa si potrebbe chiedere rigirando la domanda, cioè chiedendosi se – ai tempi in cui a governare non era Berlusconi (per cui si dovrebbe iniziare l'analisi dai tempi della malaunità d'Italia) – la stessa cosa non sia stata fatta anche da governi di colore diverso, magari in forma meno evidente e mediatizzata. Ma questo, naturalmente, rimarrà quesito senza risposta.
that brings us to the opening caption: The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Why
area of \u200b\u200bconvergence between the left and the judiciary in the name of anti-Berlusconi, or at least, as noted above, the attempt to use the so-called left the judiciary as lifesaver (or against Berlusconi for the safety of your armchair, then, is dichotomy almost inaudible ...) looks just like that old saying, that for which it is justified - in order to achieve a certain goal - operations that could not be justified, like the old fashioned left-wing extra-parliamentary electoral cartels to create virtually con chiunque pur di tornare in Parlamento. Scrive Daniele Sepe su “Il Manifesto” del 6 giugno 2010:
La questione è stata posta qualche mese fa da alcuni interventi pubblicati su questo giornale nel dibattito sul «fenomeno» Saviano ma si è subito esaurita. Eppure il sasso lanciato non era di poco conto: «Ma cosa è successo alla sinistra radicale in Italia? Sono io che ho perso la bussola o sono altri che si sono dimenticati per strada un poco di concetti che ci accompagnavano nell’analisi della società? Ad esempio la magistratura, le forze dell’ordine, l’apparato repressivo dello stato sono oggi nostri alleati nella lotta contro il Capitale? Io ricordavo altre cose. Ma la legalità, le leggi cosa sono se non un sistema di regole che serve a proteggere il più forte dal più debole? Non sono promulgate dallo stesso stato che l’istante dopo accusiamo di essere classista, liberticida, guerrafondaio e repressivo? No, sembra da quello che sto leggendo oggi che sono io che mi sbaglio» (così Daniele Sepe sul manifesto il 6 giugno 2010).Sarebbe a mio modo di vedere buon esercizio chiedersi poi di quale magistratura stiamo parlando: perché – tralasciando gli aspetti (conflitto di interessi?) per i quali Santoro va in onda proprio grazie ad una sentenza di quella magistratura che il 13 febbraio ci chiede di difendere – bisogna capire se quella che vorrebbero difendere è la magistratura tout court or only the "anti-Berlusconi". In the latter case, of course you should admit the existence of a judiciary "good" and "bad" and then, ultimately, plead the cause of "red robes" who play politics with the law against Berlusconi.
In both cases, however, there is nothing to defend.
Why defend if the second type of judiciary we become a bit 'all over Berlusconi (and here I am reminded of the Gaber "Berlusconi not fear itself, fear in me Berlusconi"). If we defend the first version - that the judiciary as a whole - then we must also defend kind of a judiciary that has made it possible, for example, that impose any twenty-four years imprisonment to a person with twenty years of delay, so judging a person completely different from that twenty years ago he (the conditional is a must to light shadows on the process ...) committed the crime. Here you could open a discussion about when justice is really justice, and when it turns into revenge, especially in a country from justicialism easy as in recent years, is becoming ours.
Or should we defend the judiciary to impose two years in prison for a case of homonymy or just a case of mistaken identity.
Not to mention the judiciary, in the land of the arbitrator good and evil (to quote Fabrizio De André) imposes three years' imprisonment for theft of € 1.29, or two years and eight months to a man guilty of having stolen 74enne "even" a pound of ham (note that - for example - were given three years and six months to the killers of six years and Federico Aldrovani Spaccarotella Louis, who did the shooting from one side of the motorway with the life of Gabriele Sandri).
is this, I wonder, the judiciary, which we are told to defend?
We know that from the seventies onwards (with a massive escalation in the last period) we have witnessed a veritable anthropological mutation of the Italian left, that in addition to adding the centrist drift in name and in the modus operandi is now suffering from the disease that responds to the name of justicialism by which anyone is a rash to think that one of the leaders of the "new" left is a former PM, when only a few decades ago such a thing was unthinkable ... What has happened since then, I believe, can not be justified only with the identification of anti-Berlusconi.
arrive to conclusions.
We come, then, the comic aspects of the whole affair. You see comedian
the anxiety of the parliamentary opposition to the request made to the resignation of Prime Minister (with a "petition" circles ...). It's funny because he never saw the resignation request and wait until resigning to take any cabin and puppets, and of his own free will, rises from the box (obviously is a demand for "democratic").
has not been seen for a simple reason: when a man approaches the power and benefits from it (so that speech involves not only the current prime minister, but all and all those who accept this type of system), why should private? So it is with the etiquette and the "little prayer" you will get the desired effect.
Sure, you might think, or maybe you should, to the correctness or otherwise of a system in which power is maintained by a small group of people, therefore, is in a position hierarchically superior to the majority of the population (so we are talking about democracy or totalitarian regimes more or less representative does not matter). But this, of course, is another story ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment