malatesta « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Blog de Zapican Malatesta

cccej — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:43:02 +0000

http://zapicanmalatesta.blogspot.com/ Gente querida,les envìo el enlace(arriba)para ingresar a mi Bl

Anarchy - Mission, Feasibility, and Implimentation

deadondres — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:14:44 +0000

I remember when I first realized that the notions I had regarding politics and social affairs could most closely be called Anarchy. I was in one of my Spanish literature class (to my delight my second major, Spanish, was filled with all the exciting peripheral fight-the-power ideas that I had been so disappointed to learn that my original major, English, lacked), taught by my favorite professor, an Argentine. He lectured about three recent political structures:

1st – The Nation/The People - The Nation is ruled by a government that represents the will of The People. Top-down.

2nd – The Leader/The Masses - Coming from Argentina my professor was especially familiar with Peronism and this form of organization. The Leader is one who sweeps to power through the overwhelming support of The Masses . Not empowered by the national sovereignty such as Rousseau talked about…but instead representing a more coarse group outside the structure of government, one that fills government with its exploding will. Also top-down.

3rd – The Multitudes/Sporadic Potential – He said this was what truly excited him. The Multitudes combine to create Sporadic Potential which in turn affects the direction of decisions and policies. Bottom-up.

Many in my class, especially one young woman, were furious about his teachings. She called him a communist. But what I realized was that his political leanings were something even more taboo, which he was understandably loathe to openly admit – an anarchist. And for the first time I understood Anarchy and it slotted completely into my misgivings about power, government, corruption and subjection. It all made so much sense then…although this realization made me distressed and uncomfortable at first.

As I read further I came to realize that Anarchy had been developed over centuries, and was not as scary as I had once thought. It seemed that above all other political theorists, the Anarchists had the most beautiful vision of human potential, the most heartrending devotion to what so many others scoff at.

The following conversation stems from an excellent post on one of my favorite blogs on WordPress, Speak Now Peace Works. It was specifically in response to the post Positively Deviant, which talks about the success observed when ideas come from within groups instead of from outsiders providing guidance, however well-intentioned.

It was a good opportunity to try and elaborate further on what, for me at least, Anarchy is. It also raises some very difficult questions that an ideal conception of the world with sporadic, independently-functioning beings would have to address. But those are the topics for further posts…

That is why I am mostly an Anarchist!

People can solve their own problems, if we give them a chance. The human brain is more amazing than any machine could ever be…

I believe in bottom-up solutions always and hope that these ideas catch fire throughout the world!

Great to see you have been writing a lot lately, this is one of my favorite stops while my brain is fried from staring at reports and contracts, ugh…

By: deadondres on November 18, 2009
at 1:46 PM

Thanks!

I agree that people are great at solving problems and most of the time solutions work better when they’re bottom-up….but anarchy? Nah. I still think there needs to be a top as well. In a state of anarchy, there would be no mechanism for communicating solutions. Everyone would have to reinvent the wheel. An example I’ve used elsewhere is the law that the doors of public buildings must swing outwards, to facilitate people exiting in case of emergency, like a fire. Do you want to live in a society where individual building owners have to figure that out for themselves, and have a greater chance at getting stuck in a burning building, or do you want to live in a society that has the capability to write and enforce building codes so that everyone benefits from an idea the first time someone figures it out?

I googled Cicero just now because I was looking for what he said about something like, “the set of rules which produces the greatest possible freedom”. Didn’t find it, but did come across this:
http://www.theartofgoodgovernment.org/g2rightlaw.html

Here’s an excerpt:

A Land of Liberty is not a land in which we all have absolute freedom to do exactly as we please. That would be a land of anarchy, since everyone would be free to limit, or eliminate the freedom of anyone else.

A Land of Liberty is a land in which we are all subject to some restraint in those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, so that we can all enjoy not absolute, but a measure of Liberty. In this way, the general Liberty can be maximized.

Without the Rule of Law people would be free to injure one another in the widest possible sense, each attempting to enhance his or her own personal wealth and possessions through the dispossession of others. This is Anarchy.

The remedy is the kind of Government visualized by Jefferson and Lord Denning, Government which exists specifically to prevent people from doing those things which are injurious, harmful or detrimental to one another.

When Government as referee identifies those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, then prevents such actions by Law and its enforcement, Government is limiting individual freedom; but in so doing it creates the conditions in which the general overall Liberty is maximized.

By: Cheryl on November 19, 2009
at 2:13 PM

I completely hear you, and with the highest respect want to elaborate a couple points.

Forgive my verbosity.

I think when people think of the word anarchy they imagine mobs with spears and torches, looting and pillaging. As Malatesta once wrote: he was frequently asked why not choose another word, to which he replied, the problem is not the word but the concept itself, which will always offend the same group.

Another term, however, that is synonymous with Anarchy is liberterian socialism.

It is not completely without form, or utterly without a “top”, but the top is generated from below, instead of from above downwards – much as is spelled out in the ideal vision of democracy. I think the reason that Anarchy appears to currently oppose government and capitalist institutions more than anything other organization is that these two formations and humankind’s devotion to them are the greatest source of misery in this world today.

In a sense Anarchy posits that humans can better and more justly organize themselves without the demands of an imposing system, that our morality will in fact flourish when not subjugated, leaning towards Locke and considering the mentality of Hobbes to be the greatest impediment to meaningful change. If a perfect government could be established that respected all of our natural rights and freedoms, then I think it would cease to be a target for the anarchists.

A quote from Chomsky, who is probably the most prominent Anarchist intellectual today:

“A French writer, sympathetic to anarchism, wrote in the 1890s that ‘anarchism has a broad back, like paper it endures anything’—including, he noted those whose acts are such that ‘a mortal enemy of anarchism could not have done better.’ There have been many styles of thought and action that have been referred to as ‘anarchist.’ It would be hopeless to try to encompass all of these conflicting tendencies in some general theory or ideology. And even if we proceed to extract from the history of libertarian thought a living, evolving tradition, as Daniel Guérin does in Anarchism, it remains difficult to formulate its doctrines as a specific and determinate theory of society and social change. The anarchist historian Rudolph Rocker, who presents a systematic conception of the development of anarchist thought towards anarchosyndicalism, along lines that bear comparison to Guérins work, puts the matter well when he writes that anarchism is not:

‘a fixed, self-enclosed social system but rather a definite trend in the historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and governmental institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a relative, not an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to become broader and to affect wider circles in more manifold ways. For the anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all the powers, capacities, and talents with which nature has endowed him, and turn them to social account. The less this natural development of man is influenced by ecclesiastical or political guardianship, the more efficient and harmonious will human personality become, the more will it become the measure of the intellectual culture of the society in which it has grown.’

One might ask what value there is in studying a ‘definite trend in the historic development of mankind’ that does not articulate a specific and detailed social theory. Indeed, many commentators dismiss anarchism as utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society. One might, however, argue rather differently: that at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to—rather than alleviate—material and cultural deficit. If so, there will be no doctrine of social change fixed for the present and future, nor even, necessarily, a specific and unchanging concept of the goals towards which social change should tend. Surely our understanding of the nature of man or of the range of viable social forms is so rudimentary that any far-reaching doctrine must be treated with great skepticism, just as skepticism is in order when we hear that ‘human nature’ or ‘the demands of efficiency’ or ‘the complexity of modern life’ requires this or that form of oppression and autocratic rule.”

To me this is a beautiful dream, one that does not fetter itself with fundamentalist zeal to any fixed concept but instead concentrates all of its efforts on promoting the greater freedom – however this should be accomplished.

As the Chinese aphorism goes – roughly – the one that is betrothed to any conception or ideal placed on a dais is more dangerous than the one that is motivated by purely human desires, because even the greedy individual will preserve what they desire, whereas the idealist will destroy anything and everything for the sake of their ideal.

Thus Anarchy attempts to balance on the tightrope of freedom without overly clinging to any set notion. It is a political philosophy without a politic, in a sense, but also seeks to achieve what Virginia Wolfe called “freedom from unreal loyalties” that place concepts such as “government” and “religion” over living breathing feeling entities. To get there requires not only a political but spiritual revolution as well.

It is an ethereal conceit, but one that I believe we all yearn for, and one that is embedded in all of our struggles for a better world.

By: deadondres on November 20, 2009
at 11:23 AM

Thank you for explaining this further. While I wasn’t quite picturing mobs with torches (LOL!), I was thinking of anarchy as a state of complete disorganization. I never have had any patience for anyone who places a higher priority on form than on substance. So, I do like much of what you’ve said here and feel that for a true global community to ever come to be, it will have to be in a form quite similar to what you’ve described.

By: Cheryl on November 20, 2009
at 2:03 PM

Thanks Cheryl!

Would you mind if I reprinted this conversation on our blog?

I think it raises some very interesting issues and the question of building codes would be fun to try and brainstorm through.

By: deadondres on November 23, 2009
at 11:51 AM

I don’t mind at all! I’ll be interested to see where it goes over on Active Philosophy. Another question I have for you is about whether it’s possible to have a successful anarchic society (according to your meaning of the word) if it contains individuals who do not have the inclination, or possibly even the capacity, for the degree of independent, critical, rational thought needed to form valid, informed opinions about policies. How do you decide what degree of participation is actually feasible if you can’t succeed with anarchy/ideal democracy? A democratic republic is a nice compromise in theory but as we see in the news every day, it is also subject to unacceptable levels of corruption of those in power. I’ve been working on a post about natural law & morality that’s almost ready to publish. I hope you’ll comment on that one as well.

Clotilde Peani

giuseppearagno — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:14:50 +0000

Clotilde Peani nasce a Torino il 18 aprile del 1873¹, da una modesta famiglia di lavoratori, messa in ginocchio dalla crisi che investe l’economia europea, sconvolge il corso della moneta, frena bruscamente la “crescita” – araba fenice dei sacerdoti del “laissez faire” – ma non intacca l’incrollabile fede borghese nel mercato e nelle leggi del profitto. E’ in nome di questo credo che Marco Minghetti, deciso a colmare il disavanzo dello Stato senza rinunciare alle immancabili spese militari, come comanda la religione liberista, non trova di meglio che seppellire i lavoratori sotto una marea di tributi, esazioni e balzelli approvati da un Parlamento che ignota le imposta dirette, rappresenta esclusivamente se stesso e le classi agiate e si accinge a bocciare Scialoja e l’obbligo scolastico².
Il destino ha leggi sue intangibili e, a rigor di logica, Clotilde, non ha scelta: figlia di povera gente, le tocca in sorte un futuro classista da sartina, che l’oleografia borghese vorrebbe “signorinella pallida,” rassegnata e persa nei ricordi di un vecchio “notaro”. A scuola dura poco, appena il tempo di imparare a leggere, scrivere e a far di conto, poi la miseria la conduce in fabbrica, dove cresce rapidamente. E’ poco più che adolescente, quando prende a frequentare i socialisti libertari e a diffondere volantini, giornali e opuscoli “sovversivi”, che legge avidamente, imparando ben presto a cogliere gli interessi nascosti dietro le belle parole dell’amor patrio³.
“L’era democratica non è a priori favorevole alle donne”, è stato scritto. E non a torto⁴. Mentre le utopie socialiste sembrano collocarsi ancora fuori della storia, “il lavoro delle donne è un luogo tanto di supersfruttamento quanto di emancipazione” e “la società politica uno di esclusione e di riconoscimento”⁵. Clotilde lo impara presto a sue spese. “Nubile, anarchica” e naturalmente “di cattiva condotta morale”, secondo le formule burocratiche e la concezione “reazionaria” della vita, tipica dei questurini nella “liberale” età di Giolitti, la giovane donna si sottrae, consapevolmente al cliché della “moglie fedele” e della “buona madre di figli”, ma anche in questo caso non ha scelta e fa “vita irregolare”: ha opinioni politiche che portano il segno del pensiero di Bakunin Merlino e Malatesta ed è fumo negli occhi per una società ingessata nei formalismi borghesi, che si proclama liberale, ma chiude in gabbia il dissenso e si lascia tentare dalle aberrazioni lombrosiane; un società che mostra di vivere la “Belle époque” con l’aria dissacrante del “café chantant”, ma diffida del sesso femminile, escluso dalla cosa pubblica e circoscritto nel limbo delle mura domestiche, e se ipocritamente ha per sante le madri e le sorelle, intimidisce le mogli e riduce le donne libere al rango di prostitute e cocottes. Né, d’altra parte, la libertà sessuale suscita entusiasmo tra i compagni di lotta: i rari casi di “amore libero” si sono risolti in maniera amara con le donne che si sono autoemarginate, “forse perché i compagni ne disprezzavano il corpo”, o hanno fatto scelte borghesi, sposando i loro compagni, sicché i libertari hanno trovato “nelle loro donne, che ne temono la perdizione, i primi avversari e sono perciò con esse sempre in contrasto”⁶.
Innamorata dell’anarchico romagnolo Dionigio Malagoli, va a vivere con lui “more uxorio”, come scrivono con aperto disprezzo i rapporti di polizia, poi lo lascia per il napoletano Giuseppe Di Domizio, un cartolaio anarchico conosciuto da tutte le questure del regno per le sue idee libertarie, e si stabilisce con lui a Londra⁷. Nella metropoli inglese, tra la fine dell’Ottocento e i primi del Novecento l’animo ribelle di Clotilde nasce a nuova vita tra i fermenti più avanzati dell’anarchismo internazionale, cui l’accostano la breve ma intensa amicizia che la unisce a Roberto D’Angiò e Giuseppe Ciancabilla, entrambi legati all’élite del movimento libertario francese e all’autorevole “Les Temps Nouveaux” diretto da Jean Grave⁸.
La donna che lascia la capitale inglese nel 1905 col falso nome di Angela Angeli ha intelligenza brillante e parola convincente, è una militante appassionata, una convinta antimilitarista e, soprattutto, è incompatibile con gli schemi della morale puritana e maschilista dell’Italia liberale e borghese. Passa abilmente tra le maglie strette del controllo poliziesco, fa giri di propaganda e si fa notare per le affollate conferenze, la passione libertaria e gli stretti rapporti che intrattiene col fior fiore del “sovversivismo” toscano. Fermata a Livorno e spedita con foglio di via a Napoli, dove l’attende Malagoli col quale s’è riconciliata, nel 1906 è già tornata alla militanza politica⁹. Coperta da un falso nome – ora si chiama Angiola Mallarini – è segnalata al circolo “Germinal” di Pisa, a Roma, Milano, Londra e Parigi, e ovunque prende contatti con nuovi compagni, ovunque contrasta sterili ribellismi, sostenendo la necessità di rispettare le decisioni adottate ai congressi, ovunque fa circolare stampa antimilitarista. “Come donna” – riferisce a Roma un questurino – “è pericolosa, perché suscita eccitamento tra la folla e con la sua audacia può trascinare i compagni”.
In realtà, non è facile fermarla, sicché a poco a poco la mancata sartina percorre per intero il cursus honorum dei più temuti compagni, sicché, a dicembre del 1910 si merita l’etichetta di sovversiva pericolosa.¹⁰.
I colpi prendono a giungerle ora violenti, uno dietro l’altro. Non ha ancora cinquant’anni, quando, in rapida successione, la stretta repressiva causata dalla guerra e il fascismo, che allunga ormai la sua ombra implacabile e nera sul paese prostrato, la costringono a fare “vita ritirata”. Non è ancora una resa incondizionata se, nel 1925, tuttavia, il regime, che va perfezionando il sistema repressivo ereditato dallo stato “liberale”, è costretto a prendere atto: la donna, benché “tormentata da seri problemi di salute che spesso la tengono a letto”, non “dà segni di attività politica”, ma “resta fedele all’anarchia”¹¹. A quel punto, poiché l’oppressiva sorveglianza e le ripetute e intimidatorie perquisizioni domiciliari non bastano a piegarla, giungono “provvidenziali” – tra i sovversivi è ormai un’epidemia – i “segni di squilibrio mentale” che chiudono la dolorosa partita col fascismo e aprono a Clotilde le pesantissime porte dell’ospedale psichiatrico provinciale di Napoli¹². Nel calvario inatteso che l’attende, la donna non sarà sola. Come per una misteriosa predisposizione, un inspiegabile legame tra pazzia e sovversione, la donna incontrerà compagni di fede e di sventura e qualche smarrito “oppositore occasionale”, sepolto a vita per una frase sfuggita nel vino e nell’ira. Teresa Ravanello, che giungerà anni dopo, è solo la tenutaria d’un bordello. Ascoltando Mussolini parlare alla radio e minacciare guerre, non ha saputo frenare l’invettiva: “Parla, lui parla, fa i discorsi ma siamo noi che paghiamo le tasse”. Un anno di confino fatto di ribellioni, prepotenze e un feroce repressione, poi, com’è accaduto a Clotilde, come accade a molti di quelli che non si piegano, l’ha presa una follia inopinata, “un delirio cronico d’interpretazione” che non si spiega con le nozioni della scienza medica; come talvolta accade, è una pazzia che cova proditoria nell’ombra, senza dar segno della sua esistenza e d’un tratto cresce ed esplode. Il passaggio obbligato, però, sta nelle pieghe buie d’un regime che non sopporta asimmetrie, non accetta “sbandati” e “irregolari”, non tollera dissensi e conduce fino all’estrema disperazione chi prova ad opporsi. In quei tragici corridoi si aggireranno con la Peani Tommaso Serino, un disoccupato sorpreso a far propaganda contro il regime e improvvisamente “impazzito”, e il sellaio Salvatore Masucci, socialista libertario, che ha affrontato armi in pugno i fascisti e non ha avuto scampo: dopo anni di confino, carcere e fughe all’estero, è finito al manicomio civile e ci ha trovato la morte civile. Assieme a loro l’anarchico Vincenzo Guerriero, un irriducibile, passato per Ustica, Tremiti, Ventotene, Pantelleria e Santo Stefano, uno che la polizia liberale ha sbattuto in galera e manicomio con Crispi, Rudinì e Giolitti, ma non s’è arreso finché stenti, fatica e solitudine non l’hanno schiantato e ormai – scrivono i questurini – non è “più in grado di concepire e manifestare qualsiasi idea e tanto meno di natura politica”¹³.
E’ il 1930: Parigi, Londra, le conferenze, la stampa libertaria, tutto per Clotilde Peani si è fatto incredibilmente lontano e a poco a poco si spengono l’intelligenza brillante e la passione militante. L’Italia è un paese guerriero e i liberali, passati in massa nelle file fasciste, hanno bisogno di libertà di manovra sicché, dove non sono bastati il manganello e l’olio di ricino, tornano utilissimi il manicomio, la camicia di forza e i farmaci convulsivanti.
L’ultima notizia certa su Clotilde Peani risale all’agosto del 1942: è ancora ricoverata e tutto lascia credere che abbia chiuso i suoi giorni in manicomio¹⁴. A Napoli, a Port’Alba, dove a lungo trascorse i suoi giorni, né un fiore né un marmo ricordano ai giovani che passano il suo nome e il suo impegno per un mondo migliore.

Note

1] Achivio Centrale dello Stato di Roma, Casellario Politico Centrale, (d’ora in avanti ACS, CPC) busta (di questo momento b.) 3797, fascicolo (d’ora in poi f.) “Clotilde Peani”, cenno biografico al 24-3-1905.
2] Sulla politica economica di Minghetti e sul suo ruolo di uomo di governo della Destra, Raffaella Gherardi, L’arte del compromesso. La politica della mediazione nell’Italia liberale, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1993; Aldo Berselli, Il governo della Destra. Italia legale e Italia reale dopo l’Unità, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1997. Massimo M. Augello e Marco E. Laura Guidi, Gli economisti in Parlamento 1861-1922. Una storia dell’economia politica dell’Italia liberale, Franco Angeli, Milano, 2003. Antonio Scjaloia ministro dell’Istruzione Pubblica nel governo Lanza dall’agosto del 1972, fu confermato nel secondo Ministero Minghetti, ma si dimise il 6 febbraio 1874 per la mancata approvazione del suo progetto sull’istruzione elementare obbligatoria. Costituì una commissione d’inchiesta sulla scuola che raccolse una preziosa mole di documenti, oggi conservati nel l’Archivio centrale dello Stato. In proposito si veda Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali, Ufficio centrale per i beni archivistici, Fonti per la storia della scuola, IV, L’inchiesta Scialoja sulla istruzione secondaria maschile e femminile (1872-1875), a cura di Luisa Montevecchi e Marino Raicchi, Roma 1995. Sulle politiche scolastiche dell’Italia postunitaria si veda Francesco Cormino e Giuseppe Aragno, Il giacimento in fondo allo stivale, Scuola e cultura nel Sud, Laterza, Roma-Bari, 1997.
3] ACS, CPC, b. 3797, f. “Clotilde Peani”, cenno biografico, cit.
4] Geneviève Fraisse e Micelle Perrot , Storia delle donne in Occidente. L’Ottocento, Economica Laterza, Roma-Bari, 1995, p. 4.
5] Ivi.
6] Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Questura, Gabinetto, II Serie, 1881-1901, b. 128, f. “Associazioni sovversive”, nata n. 2887 del 15-6-1894.
7] ACS, CPC., b. 3797, f. “Clotilde Peani”, cenno biografico, cit.; ACS, CPC, b. 2946, f. “Malagoli Dionigio” e b. 1781, f. “Di Domizio Giuseppe”
8] Ivi, b. 3797, f. “Clotilde Peani”, cenno biografico, cit., b. 1612, f. “D’Angiò Roberto”. Su Giuseppe Ciancabilla e Roberto D’Angiò, si vedano Nunzio Dell’Erba, Giornali e gruppi anarchici in Italia 1892-1900, Franco Angeli, Torino, 1983, passim e le schede curate rispettivamente da Alessandro Luparini e Mario Mapelli per il Dizionario biografico degli anarchici italiani, Biblioteca Serantini, I, Pisa 2003, diretto da Maurizio Antonioli, Giampietro Berti, Santi Fedele, Pasquale Iuso, pp. 393-396 e 489-490.
9] ACS, CPC., b. 3797, f. “Clotilde Peani”, cenno biografico, cit.
10] Ivi, nota senza numero del 21-12-1910 da Prefetto di Napoli a MI.
11] Ibidem, nota senza numero del 4-12-1925, da Prefetto di Napoli a MI.
12] Ibidem, nota n. 12365 del 27-11-1930 da Prefetto di Napoli a MI.
13] Per la vicenda della Ravanello e di Masucci, Guerriero e Serino, si vedano Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Prefettura, Gabinetto, II versamento, b. 48, f. “Relazioni mensili 1937”, sf “Relazione maggio”, nota 103319 del 26-5-1937 da Questore a Prefetto, e ACS, Confino Politico, Fascicoli Personali, b. 765; CPC, b. 2576, f. “Guerriero Vincenzo”, b. 3148, f. “Masucci Salvatore”; Rosa Spadafora, Il popolo al confino, La persecuzione fascista in Campania, I, Athena, Napoli, 1989, pp. 317-318 e 376; Giuseppe Aragno, biografia di Guerriero Vincenzo in Maurizio Antonioli, Giampiero Berti, Pasquale Iuso e Santi Fedele, Dizionario biografico degli anarchici italiani, I, Biblioteca Serantini, Pisa, 2003, p. 781, e Idem, Antifascismo popolare. I volti e le storie, Manifestolibri, Roma, 2009, pp. 14-15 e 148-149.
14] ACS, CPC, b. 3797, f. “Clotilde Peani”, nota senza numero del 24-8-1942.

BMX GHETTO JAM - SABADO 12/09

krial — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:51:20 +0000

Sabado 12 de Septiembre – (Por lluvia se pasa al Domingo 13)
10 a 12 Hs: Inscripcion y Practicas
12:30 Hs: Comienzo del jam
Intervalos de graffiti en vivo
17:30 Hs: Fin del jam
18:00 Hs: Entrega de premios – cierre del evento.

Ingreso: Av Triunvirato y Crisologo Larralde

Entrada general al parque: $2

Estacionamiento: $5

Categoria: open
Inscripcion: $25 (cupo limitado de 60 corredores)

Menores de edad deben estar acompañados del padre, madre, tutor o encargado.

Premios en efectivo y productos.

http://www.bmxghettojam.blogspot.com/

Malatesta

bonzo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:39:08 +0000

Errico Malatesta (14 de diciembre de 1853 Santa Maria Maggiore, Campania, Italia — 22 de julio de 19

Malatesta - Anarchy Part III

deadondres — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:23:16 +0000

This is a continuation of Anarchy Part I and Anarchy Part II, which Errico Malatesta called his greatest work…

“…We know well how in social economy theories are too often invented to justify facts, that is, to defend privilege and cause it to be accepted tranquilly by those who are its victims. Let us here look at the facts themselves.

In all the course of history, as in the present epoch, government is either brutal, violent, arbitrary domination of the few over the many, or it is an instrument devised to secure domination and privilege to those who, by force, or cunning, or inheritance, have taken to themselves all the means of life, first and foremost the soil, whereby they hold the people in servitude, making them work for their advantage.

Governments oppress mankind in two ways, either directly, by brute force, that is physical violence, or indirectly, by depriving them of the means of subsistence and thus reducing them to helplessness. Political power originated in the first method; economic privilege arose from the second. Governments can also oppress man by acting on his emotional nature, and in this way constitute religious authority. There is no reason for the propagation of religious superstitions but that they defend and consolidate political and economic privileges.

In primitive society, when the world was not so densely populated as now and social relations were less complicated, if any circumstance prevented the formation of habits and customs of solidarity, or destroyed those which already existed and established the domination of man over man, the two powers, political and economic, were united in the same hands — often in those of a single individual. Those who by force had conquered and impoverished the others, constrained them to become their servants and to perform all things according to their caprice. The victors were at once proprietors, legislators, kings, judges, and executioners.

But with the increase of population, with the growth of needs, with the complication of social relationships, the prolonged continuance of such despotism became impossible. For their own security the rulers, often much against their will, were obliged to depend upon a privileged class, that is, a certain number of cointerested individuals, and were also obliged to let each of these individuals provide for his own sustenance. Nevertheless they reserved to themselves the supreme or ultimate control. In other words, the rulers reserved to themselves the right to exploit all at their own convenience, and so to satisfy their kingly vanity. Thus private wealth was developed under the shadow of the ruling power, for its protection and — often unconsciously — as its accomplice. The class of proprietors arose, and, concentrated little by little into their hands all the means of production, the very fountain of life — agriculture, industry, and exchange — ended by becoming a power in themselves. This power, by the superiority of its means of action and the great mass of interests it embraces, always ends by subjugating more or less openly the political power, that is, the government, which it makes its policeman.

This phenomenon has been repeated often in history. Every time that, by military enterprise, physical brute force has taken the upper hand in society, the conquerors have shown the tendency to concentrate government and property in their own hands. In every case, however, because the government cannot attend to the production of wealth and overlook and direct everything, it finds it necessary to conciliate a powerful class, and private property is again established. With it comes the division of the two sorts of society, and that of the persons who control the collective force of society, and that of the proprietors, upon whom these governors become essentially dependent, because the proprietors command the sources of the said collective force.

Never has this state of affairs been so accentuated as in modern times. The development of production, the immense extension of commerce, the extensive power that money has acquired, and all the economic results flowing from the discovery of America, the invention of machinery, etc., have secured the supremacy to the capitalist class that it is no longer content to trust to the support of the government and has come to wish that the government composed of members from its own class, continually under its control and specially organized to defend it against the possible revenge of the disinherited. Hence the origin of the modern parliamentary system.

Today the government is composed of proprietors, or people of their class so entirely under their influence that the richest do not find it necessary to take an active part themselves. Rothschild, for instance, does not need to be either M.P. or minister, it is enough for him to keep M.P.’s and ministers dependent upon him.

In many countries, the proletariat participates nominally in the election of the government. This is a concession which the bourgeois (i.e., proprietory) class have made, either to avail themselves of popular support in the strife against royal or aristocratic power, or to divert the attention of the people from their own emancipation by giving them an apparent share in political power. However, whether the bourgeoisie foresaw it or not, when first they conceded to the people the right to vote, the fact is that the right has proved in reality a mockery, serving only to consolidate the power of the bourgeoisie, while giving to the most energetic only of the proletariat the illusory hope of arriving at power…”

Gendarmerie (Mitte)

eichiberlin — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:03:14 +0000

Josef Laggner ist ´ne Bank. Rund um den Gendarmenmarkt geraten gastronomisch gestrandete Gestalten g

Paolo e Francesca

Pierluigi — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:36:57 +0000

Francesca era figlia di Guido da Polenta, signore di Ravenna. Paolo invece apparteneva alla famiglia dei Malatesta di Rimini. Le due famiglie, dopo un periodo di lotte e instabilità politica decisero di allearsi. Per sugellare l’alleanza combinarono un matrimonio, tra Francesca e Gianciotto Malatesta, il figlio più anziano ma storpio (poverino) e (si dice) cattivo. Forse sono solo elementi narrativi, fatto sta che Francesca alla fine si innamorò del fratello di Gianciotto, Paolo. Questa vicenda (tragica) è descritta nel V Canto dell’Inferno di Dante Alighieri, manco a dirlo nel girone dei Lussuriosi. Paolo e Francesca amanti e adulteri pagarono con la vita per mano, appunto, di Gianciotto. Nei versi immortali di Dante, Francesca spiega al poeta come tutto accadde: leggendo il libro che spiegava l’amore tra Lancillotto e Ginevra, i due trovarono calore e passione, l’uno nelle braccia dell’altra. La vicenda si è svolta intorno al 1275-1285, quando Paolo aveva 35-39 anni, e Francesca 23-25. Dante Alighieri era dunque un loro contemporaneo!

Calais No Borders Camp - Bristol Events

bristolnoborders — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:15:19 +0000

Local Gigs, Talk, films and Breakfast

Thursday 4th June, from 7.30pm Anarchist Hip Hop frrom San Fransisco and Bristol @ The Plough, Easton, Bristol

Saturday 6th June: Calais Solidarity Breakfast@ Kebele 11.00am-2.00pm (including free arabic crash course)

Thursday 11th June: Calais Film and Info Night@ The Island, Silver Street 7.30pm

Friday 12th June: Calais Benefit Gig,: Featuring Chicken Call, Spanner & 2 Sick Monkeys@ Queens Head, Easton Rd. 8.00pm £4

CALAIS NO BORDERS CAMP 23-29 JUNE 09 link to film

The Calais border is an important focal point for the struggle between those who would see an end to all migration into the EU and those trying to break down the barriers between peoples, the borders that prevent the freedom of movement for all, not just the privileged few. The Calais No Border camp is an exciting joint venture between French activists and migrant support groups and the UK No Borders Network.

It aims to highlight the realities of the situation in Calais and Northern France; to build links with the migrant communities; to help build links between migrants support groups; and lastly, but not least, to challenge the authorities on the ground, to protest against increased repression of migrants and local activists alike. This camp is not just about Calais: we are calling for the freedom of movement for all, an end to borders and to all migration controls. We call for a radical movement against the systems of control which divide us into citizens and non-citizens, into the documented and the undocumented.

How do I Find Out More?

Come along to the Film and Info Night at The Island, Where No Borders Activists Will answer all your questions. Or e-mail :bristolnoborders@riseup.net

How Do I get there?

There will be transport from Bristol on the 22nd June (details to be confirmed) and there is transport from London on the 26th ( to get to the demo on the 27th).

For all queries regarding the camp and how to get there e-mail: bristolnoborders@riseup.net or go to www.calaisnoborder.eu.org

Pro Sesto - Venezia 3-2

magicovenezia — Sun, 17 May 2009 22:47:19 +0000

arcatori: 4′ pt Bottone, 12′ pt Di Quinzio, 11′ st Bottone, 17′ st Malatesta (rig.), 42′ st Ibekwe

Un attacco dei giocatori veneziani sotto gli occhi dei tifosi arancioneroverdi (foto Mosca)

Campionato Lega Pro Prima Divisione 2008/09

34a giornata, girone A

Stadio Breda, Milano – Sesto San Giovanni

domenica 17 maggio 2009, ore 15:00

Arbitro: sig. Alessandro Ruini di Reggio Emilia

PRO SESTO (4-4-2): Offredi; Tursi, Preite, Perfetti, Lambrughi; Di Quinzio (13′ st Bedin), Fracassetti (23′ st Porro), Boisfer, Marinoni (31′ st Bamba); Bottone, Bertolini.
A disposizione: Ferrari, Bugno, Caprini, Mele.

All.: Gian Cesare Discepoli.

VENEZIA (4-4-2): Aprea; Bertotto, Mandorlini, Gardella, Lanzara; Rebecca (35′ st Semenzato), Drascek, Bono (24′ pt Ibekwe), Ruffini; Malatesta, Morelli (20′ st Poggi).
A disposizione: Lotti, Tricoli, Cuoghi, Momentè.

All.: Michele Serena.

Note: spettatori 1000 circa di cui 130 da Venezia; ammoniti: Fracassetti, Gardella, Morelli; recupero: 1′ pt, 4′ st.

SESTO SAN GIOVANNI, MILANO – Quella che sembrava una gara largamente compromessa si è poi trasformata in una delle partite più avvincenti del campionato del Venezia, non fosse per il risultato finale di 2-3 in favore della Pro Sesto. Gli arancioneroverdi non sono riusciti a portare a casa la vittoria nonostante il gran numero di occasioni create, complice il terribile uno-due dei padroni di casa nei minuti iniziali. Come non bastasse, la Pro Sesto fa addirittura il terzo, ma poi è il Venezia a rimontare clamorosamente e a sfiorare il pareggio.

Alla fine il regalo arriva da Ravenna: il Legnano perde contro i romagnoli già qualificati ai play-off ultimando così una lunga e letale serie negativa di sconfitte che costa ai lilla la retrocessione. Al Venezia è andato bene perdere con onore la gara che per alcuni doveva vincere: l’obiettivo dei play-out è finalmente centrato, l’atto primo con la Pro Sesto è terminato con una sconfitta indolore e ora si attende con trepidazione il doppio confronto con i meneghini tra la fine di maggio e giugno.

Gli arancioneroverdi giungono al Breda dopo un risultato positivo e forti di un buon sostegno da parte dei prorpri tifosi, che quasi in 150 hanno raggiunto Sesto. Ma l’inizio non è dei migliori, dato che al quarto minuto il centravanti biancoblu Bottone insacca di testa un cross proveniente dalla destra. Gli arancioneroverdi si rimboccano le maniche e provano a raddrizzare subito la gara: Rebecca mette in rete pochi minuti dopo su tiro sbucciato di Morelli, ma il guardalinee alza la bandierina e l’arbitro annulla per fuorigioco. All’undicesimo Ruffini compie una buona giocata sulla sinistra e crossa in centro, Rebecca si inserisce perfettamente e stacca in area, ma il suo colpo di testa sfiora di niente il palo alla destra di Offredi. La gara non ha ritmi elevatissimi, ma le azioni da rete sembrano non mancare: e al 17’ i tifosi arancioneroverdi devono buttare giù un altro amaro boccone quando Bono, fisicamente affaticato, perde palla in zona difensiva e Di Quinzio segna dal vertice destro dell’area. Lo 0-2 dopo poco più di un quarto d’ora avrebbe potuto indurre il Venezia a tirare i remi in barca e sperare solo nelle notizie positive di Ravenna e San Bendetto. Ma così non è perché gli arancioneroverdi collezionano un buon numero di occasioni nella seconda parte del primo tempo. La Pro Sesto, infatti, corre due grossi pericoli: prima quando Ibekwe, entrato già dopo venticinque minuti al posto di Bono, scatta verso l’area avversaria e con il suo allungo si trova davanti al portiere, che in uscita gli respinge la conclusione, poi quando Rebecca crossa dalla destra e Morelli calcia fuori la deviazione sotto porta.

L’inizio della ripresa è nuovamente su ritmi di gioco bassi, complice il gran caldo, che diventa freddo quando Bertolini devia alle spalle di Aprea un cross del terzino sinistro Lambrughi. La sconfitta inizia a prendere dimensioni eccessive, solo due volte il Venezia aveva perso 0-3 in questo campionato (contro le prime due della classe), cosa che i giocatori dell’Unione sembrano non aver voluto si ripetesse.

Le spinte decisive per la semi-rimonta veneziana nel finale arrivano dagli scatti di Ibekwe, al quale viene concesso un calcio di rigore per atterramento in area al 17’: sul dischetto va Malatesta che di sinistro accorcia le distanze. Serena fa quindi entrare anche Poggi in avanti: il ragazzo di Sant’Elena sfiora il gol con un tiro di poco fuori, dopo che il biancoblu Bottone aveva calciato fuori da buona posizione. A tre minuti dalla fine Ibekwe è ancora decisivo quando ruba palla a Tursi e scaglia un potente sinistro che fa 3-2. C’è ancora spazio per lo scatenato Francis che verso il novantesimo calcia da posizione ravvicinata ma non trova il bersaglio grosso. Finisce quindi la partita con la bella notizia da Ravenna, arrivederci Pro Sesto a Venezia, fra 14 giorni.

I tifosi dell'Unione nella prima delle due gare stagionali al Breda

Home made pasta in the West Village

laragroup — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:17:31 +0000

We were so submerged in our new project that I haven’t realized how late it was until my stomach started to complain for food. It was already 9:30pm on a Thursday afternoon and we were still in the office trying to make the day last longer to go over everthing before my new collegue goes back to Miami on Saturday. So I stopped everything and said: We need to eat! What do you feel like eating? And as he responded Italian, I immediately thought of Malatesta and said: I will take you to my favorite place for pasta!…So we took a cab and stopped at the corner of Christopher and Washington Streets in the West Village, where you see the restaurant right there in the corner with tables outside illuminated by candle light. Outside or inside? It was a little chilly out, so we sat inside by the window. And like always, the place was full and I was warmly greeted by the waiters and the manager, all speaking with their heavy italian accent and mixing spanish words to communicate with me. My new collegue was very impresed with the place; so cozy, so simple, feels like being in Europe. We order a caraf of cabernet while looking at the menu written in one piece of paper clipped to a wooden board. We ordered the sauted calamari to start which was tender and tasfull. I was so happy to finally be there relaxed having some food and wine! Then the waiter came back to take the order and looked at me: the spinach noqui for you? That is my favorite pasta dish, spinach noqui with gorgonzola cheese…but this time I decided to try one of the specials of the day: the artichoke ravioli. He ordered the cheese ravioli. After tasting the first ravioli, I could see his face really enjoying the food…and I loved my artichoke ravioli too. And you could hear the mmmmhhh after each bite. We were so full, but I insisted to go for desert; you need to try the panacota…well, it completely disappeared a few minutes after it was served!

Errico Malatesta - Anarchy Part II

deadondres — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:14:36 +0000

This is the continuation of Anarchy Part I

“…We have said that anarchy is society without government.

But is the suppression of government possible, desirable, or wise? Let us see.

What is the government? There is a disease of the human mind, called the metaphysical tendency, that causes man, after he has by a logical process abstracted the quality from an object, to be subject to a kind of hallucination that makes him take the abstraction for the real thing. This metaphysical tendency, in spite of the blows of positive science, has still strong root in the minds of the majority of our contemporary fellowmen. It has such influence that many consider government an actual entity, with certain given attributes of reason, justice, equity, independent of the people who compose the government.

For those who think in this way, government, or the State, is the abstract social power, and it represents, always in the abstract, the general interest. It is the expression of the rights of all and is considered as limited by the rights of each. This way of understanding government is supported by those interested, to whom it is an urgent necessity that the principle of authority should be maintained and should always survive the faults and errors of the persons who exercise power.

For us, the government is the aggregate of the governors, and the governors — kings, presidents, ministers, members of parliament, and what not — are those who have the power to make laws regulating the relations between men, and to force obedience to these laws. They are those who decide upon and claim the taxes, enforce military service, judge and punish transgressors of the laws. They subject men to regulations, and supervise and sanction private contracts. They monopolize certain branches of production and public services, or, if they wish, all production and public service. They promote or hinder the exchange of goods. They make war or peace with governments of other countries. They concede or withhold free trade and many things else. In short, the governors are those who have the power, in a greater or lesser degree, to make use of the collective force of society, that is, of the physical, intellectual, and economic force of all, to oblige each to their (the governors’) wish. And this power constitutes, in our opinion, the very principle of government and authority.

But what reason is there for the existence of government?

Why abdicate one’s own liberty, one’s own initiative in favor of other individuals? Why give them the power to be the masters, with or against the wish of each, to dispose of the forces of all in their own way? Are the governors such exceptionally gifted men as to enable them, with some show of reason, to represent the masses and act in the interests of all men better than all men would be able to act for themselves? Are they so infallible and incorruptible that one can confide to them, with any semblance of prudence, the fate of each and all, trusting to their knowledge and goodness?

And even if there existed men of infinite goodness and knowledge, even if we assume what has never happened in history and what we believe could never happen, namely, that the government might devolve upon the ablest and best, would the possession of government power add anything to their beneficent influence? Would it not rather paralyze or destroy it? For those who govern find it necessary to occupy themselves with things which they do not understand, and, above all, to waste the greater part of their energy in keeping themselves in power, striving to satisfy their friends, holding the discontented in check, and mastering the rebellious.

Again, be the governors good or bad, wise or ignorant, how do they gain power? Do they impose themselves by right of war, conquest, or revolution? If so, what guarantees have the public that their rules have the general good at heart? In this case it is simply a question of usurpation, and if the subjects are discontented, nothing is left to them but to throw off the yoke by an appeal to arms. Are the governors chosen from a certain class or party? Then inevitably the ideas and interests of that class or party will triumph, and the wishes and interests of the others will be sacrificed. Are they elected by universal suffrage? Now numbers are the sole criteria, and numbers are clearly no proof of reason, justice, or capacity. Under universal suffrage the elected are those who know best how to take in the masses.

The minority, which may happen to be the half minus one, is sacrificed. Moreover, experience has shown it is impossible to hit upon an electoral system that really ensures election by the actual majority.

Many and various are the theories by which men have sought to justify the existence of government. All, however, are founded, confessedly or not, on the assumption that the individuals of a society have contrary interests, and that an external superior power is necessary to oblige some to respect the interests of others, by prescribing and imposing a rule of conduct, according to which each may obtain the maximum of satisfaction with the minimum of sacrifice. If, say the theorists of the authoritarian school, the interests, tendencies, and desires of an individual are in opposition to those of another individual, or perhaps all society, who will have the right and the power to oblige the one to respect the interests of the other or others? Who will be able to prevent the individual citizen from offending the general will? The liberty of each, they say, has for its limit the liberty of others: but who will establish those limits, and who will cause them to be respected? The natural antagonism of interests and passions creates the necessity for government, and justifies authority. Authority intervenes as moderator of the social strife and defines the limits of the rights and duties of each.

This is the theory; but to be sound the theory should be based upon an explanation of facts. We know well how in social economy theories are too often invented to justify facts, that is, to defend privilege and cause it to be accepted tranquilly by those who are its victims…”

RIMINI

annairobert — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:14:01 +0000

La ciutat natal de Federico Fellini és un centre turístic gràcies a les seves platges adriàtiques. El seu nucli antic, que no està vora el mar, conserva l’estructura d’una urbs romana. Així, no és extrany trobar-se vestigis d’aquella època, com el ponte di Tiberio, la porta Montanara i les restes del fòrum a la Piazza dei Tre Martiri, on també hi ha la Torre dell’Orologgio.

L’altra referència monumental de la ciutat és la família Malatesta, que va dominar la ciutat entre 1295 i 1528. Així, la visita al Tempio Malatestiano és ineludible. És una obra de Leon Battista Alberti sota encàrrec de Sigismondo Malatesta, el sepulcre del qual es troba a una de les capelles, decorades en marbre per Matteo di Pasti i Agostino di Duccio, i on es pot contemplar el crucifix de Giotto i els frescos de Piero della Francesca.

També hi ha restes dels Malatesta a la Piazza Cavour, on destaca el Palazzo dell’Arengo, l’estàtua de Paolo V, la font, el teatre i la Peschiera.

–> ÍNDEX DE POSTS

scurt istoric al anarhismului (3)

adianarchist — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:16:21 +0000

Kropotkin este initiatorul anarhismului comunist , om de stiinta ce a cutreierat lumea foarte mult,e

scurt istoric al anarhismului (3)

adianarchist — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:32:20 +0000

Unul din ultimii mari teoreticieni ai anarhismului poate fi considerat Ericco Malatesta.Fondatorul a

Errico Malatesta Part 1 - Anarchy

deadondres — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:26:55 +0000

“Man, like all living beings, adapts himself to the conditions in which he lives, and transmits by inheritance his acquired habits. Thus, being born and having lived in bondage, being the descendant of a long line of slaves, man, when he began to think, believed that slavery was an essential condition of life, and liberty seemed to him impossible. In like manner, the workman, forced for centuries to depend upon the goodwill of his employer for work, that is, for bread, and accustomed to see his own life at the disposal of those who possess the land and capital, has ended in believing that it is his master who gives him food, and asks ingenuously how it would be possible to live, if there were no master over him?

In the same way, a man whose limbs had been bound from birth, but who had neverless found out how to hobble about, might attribute to the very bands that bound him his ability to move, while, on the contrary, they would diminish and paralyze the muscular energy of his limbs.

If then we add to the natural effect of habit the education given to him by his master, the parson, the teacher, etc., who are all interested in teaching that the employer and the government are necessary, if we add the judge and the policeman to force those who think differently — and might try to propagate their opinion — to keep silence, we shall understand how the prejudice as to the utility and necessity of masters and governments has become established. Suppose a doctor brought forward a complete theory, with a thousand ably invented illustrations, to persuade the man with bound limbs that, if his limbs were freed, he could not walk, or even live. The man would defend his bands furiously and consider anyone his enemy who tried to tear them off.

Thus, if it is believed that government is necessary and that without government there must be disorder and confusion, it is natural and logical to suppose that anarchy, which signifies absence of government, must also mean absence of order.

Nor is this fact without parallel in the history of words. In those epochs and countries where people have considered government by one man (monarchy) necessary, the word ‘republic’ (that is, the government of many) has been used precisely like ‘anarchy,’ to imply disorder and confusion. Traces of this meaning of the word are still to be found in the popular languages of almost all countries.

When this opinion is changed, and the public are convinced that government is not necessary, but extremely harmful, the word ‘anarchy,’ precisely because it signifies ‘without government,’ will become equal to saying ‘natural order, harmony of needs and interests of all, complete liberty with complete solidarity.’

Therefore, those are wrong who say that anarchists have chosen their name badly, because it is erroneously understood by the masses and leads to a false interpretation. The error does not come from the word, but from the thing. The difficulty which anarchists meet in spreading their views does not depend upon the name they have given themselves, but upon the fact that their conceptions strike at all the inveterate prejudices which people have about the function of government, or ‘the state,’ as it is called.

Before proceeding further, it will be well to explain this last word (the ‘State’) which, in our opinion, is the real cause of much misunderstanding.

Anarchists generally make use if the word ‘State’ to mean all the collection of institutions, political, legislative, judicial, military, financial, etc., by means of which management of their own affairs, the guidance of their personal conduct, and the care of ensuring their own safety are taken from the people and confided to certain individuals, and these, whether by usurpation or delegation, are invested with the right to make laws over and for all, and to constrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective force of the community to this end.

In this case the word ‘State’ means ‘government,’ or, if you like, it is the abstract expression of which government is the personification. Then such expressions as ‘Abolition of the State,’ or ‘Society without the State,’ agree perfectly with the conception which anarchists wish to express of the destruction of every political institution based on authority, and of the constitution of a free and equal society, based upon harmony of interests, and the voluntary contribution of all to the satisfaction of social needs.

However, the word ‘State’ has many other meanings, and among these some that lend themselves to misconstruction, particularly when used among men whose sad social position has not afforded them leisure to become accustomed to the subtle distinction of scientific language, or, still worse, when adopted treacherously by adversaries, who are interested in confounding the sense, or do not wish to comprehend it. Thus the word ‘State’ is often used to indicate any given society, or collection of human beings, united on a given territory and constituting what is called a ’social unit,’ independently of the way in which the members of the said body are grouped, or of the relations existing between them. ‘State’ is used also simply as a synonym for ’society.’ Owning to these meanings of the word, our adversaries believe, or rather profess to believe, that anarchists wish to abolish every social relation and all collective work, and to reduce man to a condition of isolation, that is, to a state worse than savagery.

By ‘State’ again is meant only the supreme administration of a country, the central power, as distinct from provincial or communal power, and therefore others think that anarchists wish merely for a territorial decentralization, leaving the principle of government intact, and thus confounding anarchy with cantonical or communal government.

Finally, ‘State’ signifies ‘condition, mode of living, the order of social life,’ etc., and therefore we say, for example, that it is necessary to change the economic state of the working classes, or that the anarchical State is the only State founded on the principles of solidarity, and other similar phrases. So that if we say also in another sense that we wish to abolish the State, we may at once appear absurd or contradictory.

For these reasons, we believe that it would be better to use the expression ‘abolition of the State’ as little as possible, and to substitute for it another, clearer, and more concrete –’abolition of government.’”

Poetry, Delicious Eats, Orchids, Films, Burlesque and Chekhov

thebigredapple — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 03:15:14 +0000

NOTE: The Big Red Apple is now TheBigRedApple.net

To view this post at its new location click HERE!

The last five days have been so full that I can hardly believe it has only been five days. I will chronicle my adventures and leave it to you to decide which you would like to try for yourselves.

On Wednesday I attended the InDigest Reading Series at Le Poisson Rouge, which I wrote about in an earlier post. I like the space for the most part and while the bartender was a bit clueless there was free absinthe, which was an excellent way to start the evening. Paul Dickinson read first; I found his list-style poem about the various kinds of poets (the poets who write in their cabins, the poets who write about flowers, etc.) amusing but it was the second reader, Jibade-Khalil Huffman, who the four of us found truly compelling. F and G were especially interested in him and on an impulse I bought them both copies of his book, ‘19 Names For Our Band.’ The cover of the book is fantastic and probably was at least partially responsible for the impulse.

19 Names For Our Band by Jibade-Khalil Huffman

Our minds full of poetry G and I went over to Rhong Tiam to fill our stomachs with Thai chicken soup, which was fantastic.

On Thursday evening I treated myself to even more poetry at the St. Mark’s Bookshop Reading Series at Solas, which I also mentioned in an earlier post. Tom Raworth read first. His poetry wasn’t really to my taste, though to be fair I think it was probably more about the reading style. Peter Richards had a more dynamic style; he engaged me more and I was less likely to drift into my own thoughts. There was one line of Peter Richards’ I particularly liked:

There is no extra charge for this extra charge.

I apologize that I have no idea which poem it is from; if anyone does know please tell me and I will credit it properly. Post-poetry we had a drink at my favorite secret bar, Angel’s Share, before walking over to Polonia for authentic Polish food. There were pierogi and potato pancakes and Polish beer and finally slow painful walking to the train.

Friday, my sleep-deficit already at a dangerous level, I opted out of most more elaborate plans and limited myself to the aforementioned free whiskey tasting followed by dinner at one of my favorite Italian restaurants. The whiskey tasting was held at Bottlerocket Wine and Spirit .

Bottlerocket Wine and Spirit

We were tasting bourbon, vodka and whiskey made by the only New York State distiller- Tuthilltown Spirits. All of the products we tasted were single-ingredient products, which means that there’s no recipe per say; it’s all in the quality of the ingredients and the methods by which they’re processed. I enjoyed the whiskey, though generally it’s not my beverage of choice, (I’m a gin girl), and Kate1 liked the bourbon. However, I adored the tiny squat glass bottles.

Tuthilltown Whiskey

Warmed by liquor we walked deep into the W. Village to one of the best Italian restaurants in the city- Malatesta. I first discovered this restaurant through an ex and while it was at first an emotional feat to go back there following the break-up (he met my parents there among other things), it was well worth it and I have now thoroughly reclaimed it for myself and my friends. Their cheese ravioli and gnocchi are most definitely the best I’ve ever tasted and where it lacks comfort (cramped, shaky wooden tables, etc.) it makes up for it in superb quality. Go. Eat. Be glad I never let men get between me and amazing restaurants.

Saturday was quite the day. It began with brunch at Jane, which I know I’ve told you in the past is one of my favorite brunch spots. It was delicious as always. I then meandered around Union Sq. for a bit and witnessed this classic Union Sq. tableau:

Classic Union Sq. Tableau

In the foreground we see a man with an alarming number of tattoos and a vintage-looking bike. In the background on the left is a man who is informing the general public about god, and the devil, and the likelihood that we will all go to hell (apparently quite high) and what hell will be like (apparently not pleasant). In the background on the right are a group of teenagers advertising free hugs. I post this only to lead up to the following statement- I LOVE NEW YORK.

On that note… I went up to Grand Central and G and I took the Metro North train to the New York Botanical Garden for the annual Orchid Show. The Orchid Show will be ongoing until April 12th and I would highly recommend that you head up there sometime before then; the conservatory is simply stunning.

After strolling through the grounds and watching the sunset behind the conservatory, we took the train back into the city and dared to walk through Times Sq. in search of a secret bar I had recently heard tell of… It is called Bar Centrale and I suggest that you seek it out as well. The entrance is satisfyingly hidden and the bartender is snooty (he reminded me faintly of Truman Capote for some reason) and the jazz is soothing and the carafes of extra martini are exciting.

Once I was properly giggly we hurried downtown to a screening of short films being considered for the Downtown Short Film Festival; I wrote about the audience choice screenings in an earlier post. I found out about this series through one of my bosses, SW, and we were supposed to go together but she was called away. In this case I can’t say she missed anything too exciting, however, I look forward to seeing the actual series in April as I suspect only the better films will make it in. This screening consisted of the following films:

Tunnelrat: Soldiers from opposite sides trapped in a tunnel. They get out and then one ironically gets killed by his own side. Predictable and unpleasant to watch.
Der Pfandlaie: This involves a pawn shop and a dominatrix; there was a lot of wasted potential.
Reach: A tiny robot is given life but is confined by the length of his power cord; he dies seeking to reach a mysterious bird. Sad and beautiful. Maybe WallE has conditioned me to find robots adorable.
The Last Leaf: Illness, melodrama, survival, hope, sacrifice. Too much to contain in a not particularly well put together piece.
An Angel Stops By: The Angel of Death tells a porn director he must make his film into a biblical tale to avoid death. There is death. With a small twist.

All that rating made us hungry and we were lucky enough to find space at Persimmon, a marvelous Korean restaurant in the E. Village.

Persimmon

To finish up the day (yes- this is still Saturday, astounding as that may seem) I attended the aforementioned Jackson-themed burlesque show at Joe’s Pub- ‘Beat It Burlesque.’ I had a burlesque-virgin with me and I am pleased to say this was a perfect first show; Tigger did slightly disturbing things on stage, Anita Cookie was as bubbly as can be and GiGi La Femme was the hottest pussycat out there.

Today my grandmother and I saw the final performance of Uncle Vanya at the Classic Stage Company. If you missed it I highly recommend that you look into their upcoming productions. The theater is tiny and intimate and if this show is any indication this is a company worth watching. Maggie Gyllenhaal was just as superb as I expected her to be and I got an extra special thrill because Meryl Streep happened to be seeing the show as well (she bumped into my grandmother in the lobby but was very nice about it).

I am exhausted but I promise to post this week’s events as soon as possible!

Ritrovare se stes(s)i [pt.4]

extrarude — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:50:11 +0000

La leggenda più conosciuta di quella zona, era quella di Asilea. Una giovane donna vissuta alla corte dei Malatesta che si era messa in testa di far la cantastorie, tirandosi dietro tutte le ire di quella corporazione che, per l’appunto, era da sempre riservata agli uomini. Asilea, sempre accompagnata dal suo piccolo porcellino d’India, si metteva sulle scalinate del Duomo di Urbino, nei giorni di mercato, a giocare con le sue clave e a raccontare buffe storie. Ma Asilea, anche se non dava fastidio a nessuno, era continuamente perseguitata, non solo dalla corporazione dei cantastorie, ma anche dalla popolazione della città. Era odiata perché raccontava storie in cui i protagonisti erano gli abitanti del posto, i quali, sentendosi chiamati in causa, minacciati, o addirittura in balia di qualche maledizioni lanciate dalla stessa Asilea, costringevano la ragazza a rifugiarsi ogni sera nella boscaglia delle Cesane.

continua…

Paraul Rece Winter Fun

watcherromano — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:00:50 +0000

After a work meeting in the Paraul Rece area the weather was incredibly good so I could not miss the

Leve seu gato regularmente ao veterinário

Nils — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:56:07 +0000

1. O livro de Errico Malatesta – No Café – já está revisado.

2. Está no ar, na seção Gaveta do Tradutor, uma tradução do conto Blues para um gato preto do autor francês Boris Vian. Vian era poeta, trompetista e engenheiro. E anarquista . Escreveu a canção O Desertor, que provocou um escândalo ao ser lançada durante a Guerra da Indochina; em 1954, com a revolta argelina (quando as forças armadas francesas fizeram uso sistemático da tortura), a música foi censurada por “anti-patriotismo”. A letra e a tradução podem ser encontrados neste link. Você pode ouvir a canção clicando embaixo.

Le Déserteur – Boris Vian

Estamos atendendo ao lado

Nils — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:06:16 +0000

1. O Capítulo 2 da tradução folhetim Kappa, de Akutagawa Ryunosuke (prolífico contista, autor de Rashomon, tornado famoso no filme de Kurosawa), já está no ar.

2. A Antibruma (agora sem hífen) já foi revisada. E No Café de Malatesta está sob revisão, e deve estar corrigido até dia 14. O propósito é produzir os dois títulos ao mesmo tempo.

3. A revisão do primeiro boneco de O Quarto da Claraboia, livro de contos de O’Henry, já foi realizada. A criação da capa está em andamento.

4. O Flores concordou em escrever um prefácio para Marthe, primeiro romance de J. K. Huysmans.

5. A Sonata dos Espectros, peça de Strindberg deve levar cerca de 2 semanas ainda no processo de tradução.

Não use solventes para limpar o disco

Nils — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:46:02 +0000

Os contos de O’Henry e os diálogos anarquistas de Malatesta devem ficar prontos praticamente ao mesmo tempo. O primeiro já está no estágio de diagramação e o segundo, tão logo se acertem algumas coisas do prefácio, passará à revisão. A peça Sonata dos Espectros de Strindberg está em fase de tradução. A versão está sendo feita a partir do francês e do inglês e depois confrontada com o texto em sueco por um falante nativo. O livro do grupo inglês Solidarity aguarda o estabelecimento do conjunto de textos que participarão deste reader; o texto O Irracional na Política de Maurice Brinton, expoente do grupo, já está vertido para o português. A novela Kappa de Akutagawa Ryunosuke pode ganhar uma edição bilíngue, mas isso pede um falante nativo ou proficiente. A autobiografia da anarquista Emma Goldman, Vivendo minha vida, com cerca de mil páginas, pode se beneficiar de uma variedade de títulos maior antes de ser publicada, dado o custo. Marthe de Huysmans aguarda pesquisa. Quanto à obra de Rudolf Rocker, A Tragédia na Espanha, o processo atual é de revisão. E há também A Anti-Bruma que está à disposição.

Malatesta Rise + Fall Print Release

postersandprints — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:51:50 +0000

'Rise + Fall' Edition of 23 Size: 34cm x 56cm $120 Each

I found this while surfing around today. I love the excellent usage of colors contrasting with the black shadows throughout, it reminds me of what Evan Hecox has been doing lately. Check out Malateste’s Flickr page 3-color, semi-matte paper illustration 300GSM. Stamped and Signed page to buy the artwork. I had to have the web page google translated!!

PIETRO ADAMO PENSIERO E DINAMITE.GLI ANARCHICI E LA VIOLENZA. M&B PUBLISHING 2004 10 €

prupitto69 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:15:16 +0000

Non c’e’ dubbio che l’uso e la giustificazione politico-morale della violenza rivoluzionaria e del terrorismo abbiano costituito-soprattutto tra il 1882 e il 1893-per il movimento anarchico europeo e americano motivo di accesi dibattito e di scontro ideologico e personale.Al di la’ delle disquisizioni filologiche- sulle quali indulge sovente l’autore-due furono le posizioni che si delinearono chiaramente in seno al movimento anarchico:da un lato le posizioni nichiliste individualiste e terroristiche che videro in Most,Ravachol,Duval,Pini e Parmiggiani,Schicchi i suoi massimi fautori-che senza alcuno scrupolo morale inneggiavano misticamente all’uso della violenza in termini giacobini-e dall’altro lato le posizioni-sfumate,ambigue e contraddittorie-di coloro che pur accettando la violenza rivoluzionaria ne condannarono gli eccessi affiancandola da alternative gradualistiche.Questa posizione fu fatta propria dalla maggioranza del movimento anarchico ed in particolare trovo’ in Malatesta e soprattutto in Tucher modo di manifestarsi in tutta la sua chiarezza.Ad ogni modo,la pensatrice che meglio comprese la natura inumana del terrore indiscriminato-per averlo visto all’opera in Spagna nell’estate del 1936 e che fu promosso dalla Fai e dalla Cnt-fu la Weil che nelle lettere a Bernanos ebbe modo sostenere che quando le autorita’ temporali o spirituali hanno messo una categoria di esseri umani al di fuori di quelli la cui vita ha un prezzo per l’uomo non c’e’ niente di piu’ naturale che uccidere. Decidere la morte di un essere umano equivale-per la filosofa francese-a distruggere qualsiasi liberta’ perche’ questa e’ l’ inappropriabilita’ della morte.
GAGLIANO GIUSEPPE

ANDREA CAFFI UN SOCIALISTA LIBERTARIO BFS 1996 25,00 LIRE

prupitto69 — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:36:41 +0000

Proudhoniano gurvitchiano(1887-1955),anticipatore della Arendt,entusiasta ammiratore della Weil della “Iliade poema della guerra” ed autore del saggio “Critica della violenza”,con la sua prassi politica e con la sua produzione teorica cerco’ di conseguire una interpretazione della realta’ storica che fosse frutto di una sorta di punto di incontro tra il socialismo proudhoniano e il pensiero anarchico.Pose al centro della propria riflessione l’individuo e la societa’ intesa non come massa amorfa ma come insieme solidale di minoranze politicamente attive o gruppi di affinita’ che fossero in grado di accerchiare lo stato attraverso la protesta,lo sciopero ,il boicottaggio,attraverso la realizzazione di un profondo pluralismo giuridico o diritto sociale in senso gurvicthiano che limitassero i soprusi ordinari degli stati e dei partiti che altro non erano che grandi macchine burocratiche.Ed erano proprio gli stati a rappresentare il vero pericolo per la liberta’ e la felicita’ della societa’ dal momento che la loro intrinseca finalita’ consisteva o nell’ aggredire all’esterno o nel reprimere all’interno come la realizzazione dei sistemi totalitari moderno-fascismo,stalinismo e nazismo-dimostravano senza ombra di dubbio. Pur consapevole delle profonde differenze di idealita’ tra bolscevismo e fascismo e pur avendo espresso un giudizio favorevole- ma anche critico- verso la rivoluzione del 1917,l’intellettuale pietroburghese non ebbe esitazione alcuna nel denunciare senza mezzi termini la degenerazione statalistica russa-al pari del nazifascismo- che aveva trasformato lo stato in un diabolico meccanismo di coercizione di fronte al quale la societa’ non era che un campo militare in stato di permanente allerta a causa soprattutto degli innumerevoli sistemi di sorveglianza poliziesca .In breve:l’imperialismo,la violenza e la sopraffazione trovarono nel totalitarismo la possibilita’ di concretizzarsi in modo compiuto.Proprio il tema della violenza fu molto caro all’autore.Imprigionato nel 1905 dalla polizia zarista,torturato dalla Gestapo in qualita’ di partigiano,Caffi fu consapevole che l’uso della violenza-soprattutto alla luce delle innovazioni tecnologiche della seconda guerra mondiale e della guerra fredda-avevano reso impraticabile in termini morali difenderne il senso. Solo la violenza quale extrema ratio,quale strumento cioe’ di difesa contro la sopraffazione criminale poteva avere una legittimazione.Proprio per questo-per quanto rispettasse profondamente il pacifismo radicale di Tolstoy-non poteva condividerlo.Ad ogni modo,l’alternativa ai sistemi totalitari non potevano essere né la democrazia diretta-semplicitica ed irrealistica-nè quella rappresentativa che non era altro che una sintesi perversa di ochlocrazia e plutocrazia. Il conseguimento di una reale democrazia non solo era possibile attraverso le minoranze attive ma attraverso l’unione europea-ed in particolare attraverso la Francia e l’Italia-che avrebbe svuotato progressivamente gli stati nazionali di qualsiasi ruolo.
GAGLIANO GIUSEPPE