Source: http://www.polyarchy.org/basta/sussurri/index.html
In 1863 he appeared in a literary text that made great impression on the Russian youth for the originality of the story and the lucidity of ideas presented.
Its author's name was Nikolai Chernysevsky and the novel was entitled What to do? A tale of new people . When Lenin wrote his pamphlet on political party and the tasks it had to do the titled What to do? appropriating the title perhaps also hoping to enjoy part the popularity of the text had Chernysevsky between people, especially young women, eager for change.
What to do? is a question that all people ask when they are in a new situation and, in the presence of multiple options, they must make decisions that deviate from the daily routine. For a person
innovative, willing to experiment, to address new problems and look for new solutions is an integral part of his life and this is very positive because it enables progress in all fields. Many others shy away from new challenges and like to follow the beaten paths and decisions taken by others. However, in that course of action there is nothing objectionable, and indeed it is necessary that there are also people that consolidate some of the choices made by others to the point where they can become, if they are valid and extremely functional, general protocols of behavior that become part of General routine.
Instead, what is not acceptable and it is extremely regrettable is when people are blocked by the innovative experience of other individuals or groups who, for various reasons (eg. Ignorance, fear, pure and simple interest on location) resist change and want to impose on all a way of life from certain unacceptable. At that point, the question What to do? becomes un imperativo urgente se non si vuole che la massa dei consuetudinari, interessati al mantenimento dello status quo, non trascini tutti in un degrado e in una decadenza senza fine.
Nelle società europee e, nello specifico, nel caso della società italiana, sembra proprio che siamo arrivati al punto in cui un numero crescente di persone si pone, apertamente o implicitamente, la domanda Che Fare? per uscire dall’impasse e dal conseguente scontento che li domina. Io sono convinto che nel corso di questo decennio o troviamo risposte pratiche intelligenti a questa domanda o tutti noi saremo condannati ad una insoddisfazione e a un disagio crescenti.
A questo punto è necessario però porre una pre-condizione to ensure that the freedom to experiment intended by one does not result in situations of oppression or disadvantage to others.
This means that those who are eager to experiment must propose solutions to the concerns of conservation eager to maintain their beliefs and their behavior without someone to feel constrained or disadvantaged (not to say the least) on the choices made by anyone . To make a specific reference to current events, this means that Egypt's President Mubarak supporters who see any change as a leap of faith, held their president, if the fund with their money and follow the laws he wants to enact for his followers, while those who do not want Mubarak are perfectly free to withdraw their (forced) support, are no longer required to maintain through taxes (mandatory), and there may be other laws and other protection systems. All this clearly in a context of mutual respect, non-interference and peaceful coexistence that is not hard to imagine a time that the bullying had ceased on all sides.
At this point I already imagine some turn up their mouths and declare the proposal a complete nonsense. A little 'as did the opponents of religious tolerance when proclaimed totally ridiculous and absurd that a Protestant and a Catholic could live side by side without having to impose on each other's faiths religious. This thing you want is then carried out peacefully and at that point, even the slowest-witted they understood that it was religious persecution and taxation that were born the wars of religion and hatred for each other. Similarly, perhaps it will be clear to all, a pretty near future I hope, that is persecution and taxation policies that created most of the conflicts that give rise to clashes then more or less violent.
The proposal that is advanced here is therefore that of volunteers parallel societies, organized independently by individuals based on their free choices, with the utmost respect for each other. This is an idea that is gaining a bit 'of time e che non tarderà a un certo punto ad apparire come la classica scoperta dell'acqua calda o dell’uovo di Colombo tale è la sua semplicità, funzionalità, razionalità. Come ebbe a dire Arthur Schopenhauer, la verità, prima di emergere, passa generalmente attraverso tre fasi: nella prima fase essa è ridicolizzata, poi è violentemente contrastata, e infine è accettata come un dato del tutto naturale.
Probabilmente tale è il destino anche di questa idea che si farà strada solo dopo che molti saranno passati attraverso esperienze assurde pur di non mettere in discussione i precetti in cui sono cresciuti (la democrazia maggioritaria, lo stato territoriale, l'identità nazionale e via dicendo) and they consider unquestionable dogma to be imposed on everyone, whether they like it or not. Eventually they too will realize that the alternative, reduced in its essential terms, is this:
parallel societies or voluntary war (in) civil obligation.
to moving further towards the implementation of parallel societies in fact voluntary my suggestion on what to do? boils down to three points list rather than treat:
culturally Escape from statism. many who speak against the father was master can not imagine a future without the state and continue to use words and expressions totally soaked and statism recall situations in the past. Yet without a profound change in their way of thinking and his language there is even a chance to make concrete proposals alternatives. When, for example, as a journalist Oscar Giannino still confuses law with rule of law (as well Carmelo Miragliotta noted in a speech recently on Facebook) means that we are really in a bad situation of cultural obscurantism and confusion.
Escape materially from statism. When a new paradigm begins to emerge in the brains of the old constraints mental collapse and has the strength and creativity not only to implement but also to formulate concrete proposals that only until shortly before might have seemed crazy (eg. create the circuits of production and consumption, which act as clubs and use alternative means of payment to the fiat currency imposed by the state).
Defending concretely by statism. even now need to be developed by TDI statism, for example by making available to others for free, and naturally their knowledge in law, economics, computer science, etc..
Clearly I only touched the issue but I hope there will be time to go also to the specific, targeted interventions of many others. The only thing we absolutely must not do is let us stop not only by fears but also by the illusions and fetishes of the past, the words magic and mythical figures.
As Jacques Prevert wrote:
"if the plaignait de ne pas avancer. (He complained about not advancing.)
the suivait Pourtant son idée. (And yet following his own idea.)
C'était une idée fixe. "(It was an obsession.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment