Il valore di un uomo Published in
But what happens in Naples? Now consider my city for a place of the planetary and global means any citizen of the world, from landfilling of Nairobi, to grimperos Latin America can be found in Naples, a touchstone that makes it more beautiful, cleaner, better.
should be that every citizen of the global village in which the news arrived in Naples as royalties would pay a cent for this heritage di monnezza che mettiamo a disposizione per sollevare la sua autostima.
E dovrebbero pagare un po’ di più i filosofi, perché Napoli tiene aperti interrogativi filosofici altrimenti offuscati dall’opulenza e dall’efficienza. Ad esempio come si stabilisce il valore di un uomo.
A quanto pare per le primarie un uomo vale 20 euro, per le politiche, a seconda della congiuntura tra 50 e 100 euro. Anni fa al top delle stragi un killer costava 300.000 lire: veramente prezzi popolari. Ora preferisco non tenermi aggiornato su questo tariffario. Quindi basta fare una media ponderata di questi numeri per sapere il valore di un uomo. Molto basso qui a Napoli.
L’ulteriore philosophical question is why systematically for many centuries people of anything, ('sublingual' and all) those who are worthless, defeated the mighty men that is, those studies that only cost us tens of thousands of euro (the rest is between worker and manager there is a relationship between a 500 and an underclass and a man of culture should be a similar distance) and because people feel a particular affinity for anything with that of bloody Cardinal Ruffo, with the crass vulgarity of Bourbon, with the vulgar controlled Lauro, brothels with Berlusconi?
Now all tore their clothes because people are going to vote for a few € or small favors in the suburbs.
I saw on TV who have gone on to occupy the provincial headquarters of the Democratic Party. They are people who have sweaty tenaciously in twenty years their small-scale power used by small group leaders to board the big party. They are the ones that have prevented me from even doing volunteer work, because there was no leaf should not be branded with the disgusting taste of favor and dell'intrallazzo. And were protected equally by Bassolino and Iervolino and for decades have kept the suburbs under the iron heel of a policy favors. If there is excluded from all humanity, no history, no resources, no future, there will always be someone exposed to the arbitrary ready to serve as ambassadors and to use it as a mass movement. We had already seen in previous elections, when he appeared Rossi Doria. In middle-class neighborhoods of the vote was the result of thought and choice and to some extent it is also directed to a new idea, but the situation was stuck in the suburbs, the suburbs there was a vote that was not controlled. This knew the losers of today, they have remained silent on this all indignant now, none of them has ever, on any occasion, attempted to change the role of pawns that have excluded in our society. I'd play that with so many others by spreading from the base, from living everyday in my turn I was excluded. From this point of view I want to sing the praises of the voter to twenty euro, the only one so far who has pierced the veil of a policy that is so accustomed to the exchange, climbing power, instrumental use of the misfortunes of others that was not even able to imagine being able to move to another arena with other rules, giving hope to people rather than exploit their desperation.
I'm not sure that young Tunisian who chased Ben Ali are very different from young people who have gone to the barricades of rubbish and that they sold the vote for twenty euro. The difference lies in the type of opponents they face: both are faced with piles of rubbish heaps of garbage and urban policy still others have the privilege of being able to beat against a real dictator, against a real crackdown. Ours is a war on anything and even the winner can not have anything.
*** While writing these optimistic thoughts to another part of Italy the usual Neapolitan immigrant wrote - with greater ownership of the political language - of all things similar. His name is Adolfo Scotto di Luzio, is a historian who teaches at the University of Bergamo and is an expert in school history. Checking the web I saw that it is the drafter of the document school Futura Italy (Montezemolo). The article was published by Corriere del Mezzogiorno, but strangely has not been picked up by blogs citizens, nor are they able to find the archives of the Courier. I do not know, maybe it was too radical to think that not a complaint, perhaps can not be understood. Here it is:
center-rather than a new beginning is the end of a long season of
Adolfo Scotto di Luzio
It 's my personal opinion. I'm not asking anyone to share it. He wants to be but the beginning of an argument. The primary outcome of the Neapolitan sanctioned the primacy of the worst that c'è. E se ce ne fosse bisogno, ribadisce la sterilità politica della cosiddetta stagione bassoliniana del governo della città. Queste primarie non rappresentano l'inizio di un nuovo, ancorché incerto, ciclo politico e civile per Napoli , ma sono il riassunto di ciò che è stata la politica in città in tutti questi anni.
Queste primarie costituiscono il si gillo della fine apposto alla lunga stagione del centrosinistra in città, invece che l'annuncio di un nuovo inizio.
The party staff not only did not produce heirs important, but in the heirs is found to take accurate measurements of its real political significance. But when it was the weakness of strong political party, the Bassolino prevented the party to regroup, it was kept in a of permanent sgregazione. The point is: why this disintegration did not release new energy policies, but instead has produced any evidence of drying up the sources of the same political renewal in the city.
Neapolitan The paradox is not victory was the triumph of Bassolino under Berlusconi. The paradox of Naples and the South is that it touched to the heirs of the PCI the role that Italy played in Berlusconi and companions. This first community. Naples has meant that the party staff is claimed on the basis of old rites and bureaucratic rigidity that were its former Communist Party and who thus had the opportunity to extend their validity beyond the service life of structures and contexts that once justified them. The mixture that is derivative of new policy and staff of old costumes democratic centralism has meant that next to the leader, and his service was mobilized some of the bureaucratic apparatus of the federation has thus found the way to survive the storm of the early nineties. In sum from us again was the cri crystallization of part of the old. Now, the young in these primary have launched their challenge with Umberto Ranieri are two former aldermen, two samples of a flock of ex FGCI the boys, the old federation youth Communist, who spent much part of their childhood and adolescent knowledge parked in the rooms of the federation of the Communist Party in via dei Fiorentini.
In their there is a clear know solution of continuity and is the day on which been torn sloth repetition of the fate of small bureau crater periphery to be engaged in the empyrean of a power system to Provincial-regional basis. And there they have done. You are given a clean up.
They started to meet the right people, to make new friends and raise a family. But all is well here. If their mentor, Antonio Bassolino could imagine to have conquered power at the end of a long political battle, ideally within the ranks of a great national party that provided the its commitment meridionalista a historical perspective broad in scope, the aspiration of these young people to lead a Mature big cities of the South on the ground of a narrow bureaucratic and municipal that new times have been taught to decorate the trappings of urban marketing of unnecessary scenes of events. There is no political idea, not pro historical perspective, no ability to actually read the South. The end of politics, however, is not just about winning today, but also the losers. Even Umberto Ranieri . would do well to ponder on the profile of those who took away the victory. Ultimately, it is also its history .
Perhaps these are leading us states, is denounced as rigged by many and if not fraudulent use. Systems (heads stick, collectors of votes, etc.) which usually use in many, but only the winner is able to use better than others. The beginning we knew and now you can receive the objections of those who agreed to play first and then after have lost says that the rules of the game, I repeat, has agreed to play, were rigged . The point here is not mistaken and who today would make it a moral issue . The again inconclusive and moral issue of the country . It says that to Bassolino is a system of power and that he is the heir Andrea Cozzolino .
Well, the point is: how to fight a system of power? La risposta: o come fanno a destra, contrapponendogliene uno uguale e contrario. Oppure facen do politica.
Ranieri ha tutte le ragioni, psicologiche e politiche , a non darsi per vinto e a non rinunciare alla battaglia, ma quello di cui la città ha bisogno non è l'ennesima mobilitazione intellettuale e civile. Napoli ha bisogno di un lavoro serio e continuativo di ricostruzione del suo tessuto sociale. Ha bisogno che vengano re-erected and places mechanisms for discussion and public engagement . Needs of organized political participation Zare. Perhaps this could be the historical task of Umberto Ranieri in Naples, from a reflection on his defeat: to encourage the formation and the rise of a new political class.
What do
Several people ask me what to do.
Meanwhile, we must always first understand what happens, we worry if not empty.
Now that very briefly the situation seems to me this:
you play the same games, with the same cards with the same rules, with the same players. As the result you want change?
The renovators simply pick up the waste left on the road by others. It merges and is renewed, what?
There is a basic rule: to return to the social practice. There must be new cards to play, no one can even play the cards he is no longer the pawns of time but the time of active subjects. It is time to say but the time to listen first. There are now two anthropologists and a moat that separates them. Too many Democrats, progressives, revolutionaries do not realize that their speeches travel only on one side of the ditch. I remember one of the first sentences 'politics' I have learned by now almost fifty years ago, "Building a Socialism of luxury on the fruits of imperial plunder" (Franz Fanon) that expresses most succinctly the irreducible difference between colonized and colonizers. We realize how many internal colonies have? And that politics is precisely the art of holding together people who live different lives, respecting them and allowing them to produce better themselves.
Who is dedicated to bridging the ditches which divide men among them, who is working because these are not your tracks? The policy is not working against another hand, is part of the gang war of powerful groups, the powers that be rampant and powers, rulers and aspiring rulers. As long as we think of politics as a continuation of war by other means will end up in underwear escort of some more or less young, a few eddies in the endless legal battle.
I always say that there are only thousands of people in my city managers across the city, crossing the border between the city and the city's well-being of the degradation and try to weave the threads of a social fabric. Many of them are teachers, educators, volunteers, but also entrepreneurs who did not flee, officials who seek to be servants del pubblico e non accaparratori di prebende, operatori ecologici che si impegnano sul serio nella differenziata e tanti tanti altri che mantengono una dignità umana dove la dignità viene sistematicamente avvilita.
Qualcuno è disponibile a sentire ciò che costoro costruiscono, a capire come fanno?
Non è che nessuno di questi viene ascoltato ma vengono ascoltati in un contesto di scontro, per prendere posizione contro e purtroppo molti sono indotti ad esprimersi soprattutto in questi contesti senza rendersi conto di quanti essi siano deformanti.
Come non essere contro la Gelmini, come non rendersi conto di quanto insufficiente (lasciatemi l’eufemismo) siano stati 17 anni di governo di sinistra (sono stati tutti insufficienti e non solo gli ultimi), come non sapere che se oggi ogni bambino nasce con un debito gigantesco non è certo colpa mia o tua; come non sapere che anche nella crisi più nera c’è chi ingrassa ancora di più che al tempo delle vacche grasse. Ma tutto questo aver ragione, tutto questo analizzare con acume i torti degli altri non ci esime dal dover pensare qualche cosa che salvi tutti e non si limiti a dire che ci spetta il posto d’onore in una astronave che si sta schiantando in un buco nero a scelta.
Pensare il bene comune significa semplicemente questo, la condivisione di soluzioni positive. Non l’interesse pubblico che è l’omaggio ad un astratto ipotetico interesse confiscato da chi ha più potere, ma il bene comune, ciò di cui possiamo fruire insieme.
Di fronte al degrado umano di chi va a votare per 20 euro io non mi sento di dire se è più cattivo chi lo utilizza o chi condanna il suo utilizzo, io penso a quanto deve star male uno che va a votare per 20 euro e vorrei poter parlare con lui e aiutarlo a trovare un modo migliore di spendere la vita. Non mi illudo che mi accolga bene, la sua prima reazione sarà di pensare che gli voglio togliere anche quella piccola conquista di giornata, ma se voglio avere una città diversa il mio primo dovere è stabilire un dialogo con lui e non con quelli che lo hanno pagato o con quelli che mi mostrano le mani innocenti di questo delitto.
Questa è la soluzione.
Troppo semplice.
