Middle East / Dear Codello, but the problems are more

The article Codello Beyond appearances, the last issue, is certainly interesting, though, especially with regard Arrigoni, is not very clear to the end of what they want to support. First of all I think it has little importance whether or not Arrigoni was a true pacifist. Besides the fact that it is not for us to judge, that of peace has always been a driving license that is distributed with a shocking carelessness, often the result of ignorance. I therefore think that it is not fair or that it's worth it, especially in reference to those who paid with their lives, to question the status of what they remembered. Even regarding the Palestinian issue because it seems to me that the real problems are made of quite another. There, more than a clash between Palestinians and Jews, to all intents and purposes there, bulky and weighty, the presence of a state, that of Israel, formally democratic procedures, but very, very authoritarian, with peaks of xenophobia and chauvinism to frightening theocracy. In contrast the other hand, I am referring to Hamas in particular, there is a tension for the formation of a very authoritarian tendency has been to, with great dangers of advanced points of fundamentalist theocracy. If you manage to run the risk of establishment in the state of Israel would not shame. You may face this problem from a libertarian point of view only by breaking away from these two opposing options, because it showed a clash between two nefarious authoritarianism. You have to have the foresight and fortitude not to take sides, neither here nor there, since it is a war for the triumph of authority, not to achieve a social condition of freedom. Everything in my opinion should not immediately been apparent in the article. One can only guess if you already know the speech.
Regarding Asor Rosa on the other hand Codello was too good. Personally I would have been much more explicitly anti-Bolshevik. And I do not care if I was going to irritate a masked Bolshevism updated newbies who do not even have the courage to declare honestly that would back the dictatorship, and opportunism, if not forced by the controversy, merely reproduce the stereotype that wants to counter the bourgeois dictatorship. I believe that the neo-Bolshevik are convinced the worst of all, why advertise to fight for and crave the freedom to establish a dictatorship. Although class, in fact (pardon!) party (one course), you can not always be dictatorship, ferocious and anti-proletarian, as the history of Bolshevism has lived and spent amply demonstrated.

Andrea Papi

Nobody loses when women win

What happens today in Italian politics? That exceeds the reality, as is natural, fantasy.
A man, SB, groped to fill the void left by the end of patriarchy, empty space that opens the eyes of those who noticed it directs the portentous as the matrix of the new well, he staged a regime porno-cratic, turning millions of men and Women visceral involvement, fed by narcissism and frustration and yes of course rooted in the deepest fears, but in its power of symptoms, revealed the desire of the dark power.
What sense does the story of this old man, who, first of all - and we must never forget - is suffering from delusions of omnipotence? Instead of enjoying the sunset of his life playing with his grandchildren, serene as a good grandfather, tanned like a vaudeville ham actor, showing his helplessness in the basement of the villa in Brianza, almost a caricature of the sublime despair after the death of 'beloved mother. And I do not do irony: his mother was his reason for living. S.B. since then is a death without tears: the man is alone in Italy.
Many people in Italy and abroad do not give answers to questions: it seems that you can understand what is happening. It is indignant: how is it possible? How can this person do what he does to have this power turning people into fanatics and fanatical? Despite his arrogant, vulgar and so forth.
S. B. embodies the idea of society where the language is money: how money is made for forgery, falsifying the language so you search for a control of the real, making it a useless male fetish. S.B. should be helped by S.I.M.A.P. of competence, being in obvious confusion: his behavior and his words are always in a relationship of contradiction.
Who does not find answers to questions that the case SB poses, it means he is in wrong road: the categories of political thought that seemed to shape the world and explain it are (as always, I say) only the keys that opened the gates of ghost towns. You need a new look, in which all reality is accepted, even the dense substance that nourishes the depths of the human imagination, to mention it.
If you look at the "real truth" without prejudice, that's something else you can see in the facts: SB is finished politically and credit for the victory to all women, from when Veronica Lario has spoken. The victory is primarily symbolic order: the words of women, all of them, giving rise to a political discourse that reveals that the king is naked, literally. This argument can be summarized in a few sentences: SB a man who is "not well", "is a lonely man," "old" with "flabby ass."
The rumor is not true of women's silence on the history of SB on the contrary, the porno-cratic regime collapses precisely in the words of the women closest to him: a wife who loved him because he broke the secret loves and the "girls" of incestuous bunga bunga spread the truth to the four winds, Red Cross nurses who can talk about the evil of SB, the fear that gripped the man-who-laughs. The darkest fear, but to die, to live.
The political defeat of Berlusconi marks the end of fascism in Italy, indeed, the fasci-comunism, of which the League is the expression of Pasolini. There is a plethora of diagnostic analysis of exorcism from the pulpits of the intellectual culture of the so-called left-berlusconi. What about the meaning of, but not enough good will, the dialectics of the most authoritative critical knowledge from the academy does not even touch the heart of the historical question as long as this knowledge is lacking of salt, until you think thoughts as neutral in limbo sexual indifference.
That's left is a policy that does not move, mirror, rather than in defense: to meet with flogging priapism.
Instead, the political practice of women as Eros, is basically an Erotica: hence its effectiveness in making light, simple thin shiny. It is the policy that women act as a common language, which is the vital exchange between conscious and unconscious, between the visible and invisible, between matter and spirit, the logic of which is unpredictable, the carnival.
The Berlusconi in Italy is off because feminism has brought an awareness that opens a new horizon of meaning: it is really a historical novum because now there is no separation between private and public, between personal and political, between the house and the palace.
Through the story of S.B. Italy women have now taken the stage and their words are order of reality to the listener as a discourse of freedom. Nothing will ever be. Italy is now the site of an epochal revolution of world: here is revealed the power of the symbolic mother's power that always works and that bursts with feminism, it goes further and states in the agora.
According to this order the relationship between love and sex is the heart of politics.
S.B. -is already past the stage of institutional power is in trouble, too late, he missed the flight. Women have won, while the "leaders" of the parties proved unable to win: to do so SB should have understood, that is, in short, to understand what it means to be human and what it means to be women. Think about their own being, but are able to do so, lost in the spooky reality show that alienates them from the people? Because now it is clear that S.B. is a symptom whose power reveals the impotence of power relations on which rests the law that attempts to reduce human exposure to things. And the masterpiece S.B. was to have embodied, revealing the reason of this required extreme helplessness, the fear of female power, the power of love, absolute freedom, but not against the law beyond the law. So he picked up and seduced a male imagery confused by the end of patriarchy, where women's bodies is the subject without a subject, a fetish of a mania. The show put on by the impresario shows the obscene of the male envy of feminine enjoyment. Just think of the mother of the tavern scene: dozens of young women, beautiful and naked at your disposal. It is here, in the privacy of home, the Boss celebrates the exercise of power. And this does not happen in some Sultanate, but in the Italian city more "European". In this way S.B. tried in vain to give form to the void that the demise of the Name-of-the-Father opens horizon fertile incredible creations - the Bible - the great millennium progresses. But S.B. fails, can not but fail, because the mutation has made history, is irreversible.
The party men (and women that hold them up, other non-profit organization that makes the weak fierce), trying in vain to take the microphone, attributing the defeat of SB to some other cause, inventing excuses for not recognizing the event of the speech of women, not because they see, but because they are in the political blindness. Their words sound like a stammering that aphasia in a landslide without a true silence in which the truth can touch them.
Any representation of the force (the modern state, miserable braggart mercenary mask) is now ineffective, since it no longer has the power of representation. It's the end of the regime of representation: political parties are in the flesh, men and women. The body is the reason why politics is never neutral: they are already so many men are discovering the beauty of free reports that venture into the open melting love the balance of power. It will be more and more to get involved in that game being where God always wins his human greatness.
I talked about a speech woven by women, all of them: but it is clear that the words of this speech are very different, that there is political conflict. Indeed, this is the deepest field of political conflict, which gets rid of this kind of rhetoric, false myth that attempts to silence the power of sexual difference. Women are not a genre, an abstraction in which demeans the richness of the uniqueness of each. Women are the sex of the world where science is in the grace of this common experience of singularity. Historical merit of feminism was to shed light on the conflict just a symbolic act that has always not only between men and women, but also between men and women, but also between women and men.
If you finally grasp the profound truth of the relationship between love and sex as the core foundation of civilization, the history can be understood in a new vision: the contradictions are not removed, but can be deciphered to open unexpected horizons of meaning.
What, then, the fascination that SB has had on so many women? It is clear that the political categories of economism (right / center / left) are not only unnecessary, but just misguided. But even more than that oppose moralistic "good girls" and "bad girls" that are unacceptable even for women who are against SB: the symbolic order of the mother teaches that women can not know themselves through the recognition of the '" other ", because of the stark be women. Only this approach allows us to understand an essential point: SB, with its mise en scene, captures a vital political desire that can never be perverted at all, despite the grotesque simulation of the power of Eros. Hence the 'appeal that has led many women to give him credit.
Echolalia in the so-called center of politics, however, echoes the narrative of the crisis, with its economy of sacrifice: a strategy of depression, in which happiness is forbidden in the name of his caricature, the bureaucracy of rights. In this way we try to clear the political Kylie, who turns into free relations of difference in women and men whose stories are real history.
The political desire of women "right" not only asks, it also gives us valuable traces: one woman show has written a book of poems for SB, for the man who becomes "the reality in a dream." Illuminating words in which the truth, even half-drunk, makes its way.
The historical discourse of female desire, in fact, gives rise to a policy in which reality and dreams are meant for each other.
I look at your world in my face, God, and not escaping from reality to take refuge in dreams - I want to say that next to the most atrocious reality there is no place for sweet dreams - and I continue to praise your creation, in spite of everything! :
Etty Hillesum, 18 maggio 1942.

Mara Paltrinieri
mystic.mara@tiscalit.it

American co-operatives

Just received the May issue of the magazine focused on the excellent work I immediately, I must say, Enrico Massetti which are strongly and my compliments. For years, I try to spread these business models that define liberals and libertarians at the same time not forgetting that the basic democratic representation and administrative transparency that makes these cooperatives or foundations to share ownership of the real "free family farms." The Massetti dossier is full, there are blogs, websites and videos to watch as well as the numerous examples cited of cooperatives. The model described by Massetti financial management is defined in the U.S. "mutualism" and from this continent with theoretical formulations that have influenced a lot and also the libertarian left (and left-libertarian) has issued a new form of neo-mutualism, that among the main theorists is Kevin Carson. The neo-mutualism believes that capitalism as commonly understood would be impossible without a state, so free trade does not involve risk of exploitation, once eliminated the infiltration authoritarian state in the economy and the procedures that this entails. This issue suggest, even to distribute it in the manifestations of workers here in Italy perhaps adding a small place where the schematic how to build and rely on such legal sources to create a cooperative and mutualist libertarian. What do you think?

Again congratulations,

Domenico Letizia
(Maddaloni – CE)

Vegan 1/To think not only of the human species

We would like groped to answer questions that Panzeri Roberto (vegan or vegetarian, in "A" 362, May 2011, p.. 105) puts the dossier on the achievement of which we have participated in a vegan. Let's assume, of course, that we only do it on a personal basis. Asking "what do you think vegans?", In fact, is a bit 'like asking "what do you think the anarchists?".
And it is interesting from this point because too often confuse veganism with a religion of commandments to follow. This probably happens because different religions imposed a ban on eating meat.
Ethical Veganism, however, is the practice and policy that apply in everyday life philosophy antispecista. Which is a little 'how to say that tolerance and respect for the different practices are used to apply anti-racism, anti-fascism, anti-sexism the ... This point is very important because it allows us to understand that an ethical vegan (antispecista a) is not in search of personal purity that could be given in by not killing animals. What is sought, however, is the disruption and the exposure of ideology in the domain that you treat people (human and nonhuman) as of goods to be disposed of freely, as the entity to control and exploit until make. What is required, especially to people who already share the anti-fascism, the 'anti-racism ... is to extend these practices, not exclusively to the human species, just as was once asked not to reserve civil rights only to the white race.
The first question concerns the protection of cultivated plants that could be eaten or destroyed by other animals. Personally cultivate and collect a good portion of the food we need and we discovered that the techniques of estrangement and discouragement are not only effective, but help prevent the poisoning of the food we eat. Our potato field, so for example, has been repeatedly looted from Istria wonderful digging tunnels under the fence to take away the precious tubers for himself and his family. Instead of throwing concrete or underground networks more robust or to place traps cynical we thought it was enough to plant a little 'more than potatoes, so today, there is something for us and for the porcupine. If we consider that the fruit crop is not proprietary to us, the attitude changes radically, and many animals are no longer competitors, but partners with which we must come to terms. However, it is necessary to consider that agriculture (even if organic) does not care at all nonhuman animals, those who do not recognize the concept of property in relation to the cultivated field. And it is precisely for this reason that within the vegan is beginning to practice agriculture peaceful: a method of cultivation, already active in England and the U.S., which does not require the use of animal manures and killing people does not threaten human crops. Ask how do vegans who do not cultivate his field, ask how they waiting for the peaceful farming extends to the masses, is a bit 'like asking how an anarchist rule when the police (which does not recognize the 'authorities) stops him at a checkpoint. As already mentioned, this is not to seek the purity or perfection, but to do everything possible to avoid exploitation, imprisonment and death of sentient beings.
The second question concerns the bees and the disease that Panzeri Roberto to the claims, led to the extinction of all wild bees, or left untreated. We feel strongly contradict this statement since about a month ago, the wild apple trees near our house were full of these insects. These were the Osmia: important wild bees for pollination. Not only that, the thousands of people who participated in the Vegan Fest Expo Camaiore were able to see the trestles made with copper inhabited by these insects (and certainly were not the place to be exploited and robbed of their honey). Of course we can not risk the extinction of the species Apis. And even if he were to happen we believe that the more intelligent behavior would be to sponsor and help, not to raise them in order to pick up their honey, which is a substance essential for their health and the proliferation.
The third question concerns the concept of a sentient being. Roberto Panzeri says that even a carrot and a piece of wood are sentient beings. A sentient being, in our opinion, is a being capable of feeling pain and physical pleasure and psychic. What we know and define it as pain and pleasure is perceived and transmitted by means of a nervous system. Plants, not possessing this system as we know, do not perceive pain and pleasure. But even this is not the point. Many, in fact, claim (on an intuitive level, or through personal observations or beliefs) that plants are sentient beings. Be advised that even if all this were true, would be one more reason to support free diet of animal products. Whoever feeds on animals, in fact, is responsible for the deaths of a number of plants vastly superior than a vegan. The animals they eat humans, in fact, are not free but are bred and fed with specially grown plants. This is a huge waste: a field of grain that could feed a hundred people is used to feed animals that are then imprisoned killed to feed ten people. It follows that to feed a hundred people need to sacrifice ten fields of vegetables. Not to mention the devastating environmental impact, water waste and greenhouse gas emissions. But the motivation to choose the ethical vegan products of plant origin than those of animal origin is even more simple and immediate: cereals, fruits, vegetables, legumes, oil seeds are essential to human survival, while meat, eggs, dairy products honey, skin ... not at all and, furthermore, their consumption is, in global terms, arrogant and violent behavior even if they wanted to remain in strict human. We must therefore consider that the animals exploited and killed to feed the rich west are often fed (often forcibly) with cereals grown in the southern hemisphere.
Roberto continues his letter inviting the writers of the dossier to deepen the knowledge of vegan vegetarian world. In this regard we wish to point out that only in recent years, new generations, thanks to the ease of finding in-depth information, go directly to the vegan without, first, choose vegetarianism. It is very rare so it was not a vegan, in the past, a vegetarian and that, consequently, does not know very well and that world firsthand.
The key feature of vegetarianism is determined by the desire not to be responsible for the deaths of other animals. But this, in fact, it is because the breeding of animals for the production of milk and eggs, however, determines the killings when their production begins to decline. In addition, all new born males are killed because they do not make it and, you know, that does not make the goods can not continue to live because it becomes a cost.
But even this is not the point. Vegetarianism, in fact, accepting and supporting the breeding accepts and supports the ideology of domination, not the least put in crisis the paradigm of the hierarchical pyramid that holds the show that governs us. The difference is huge. Much of the animal liberation movement has for some time now made this quantum leap in identifying 'antispecismo the key. The antispecismo, in fact, is not a diet, it is a personal choice, and it is not a lifestyle but a political and social struggle for the liberation of the human and animals from all forms of oppression.

Troglodita Tribe
(Serrapetrona – Mc)

Vegan 2 / We also need real answers

I try to answer the following step by step to Troglodytes letter Tribe

1) In my letter I wrote that "in all the movements are different souls." I am convinced that the vegan movement does not make exception. It is therefore clear that asking "what do you think vegans" should be understood "what do you think whoever wrote the dossier".
2) The techniques of estrangement and discouragement are valid only in some cases or valid in part.
For example: when the deer ate the vegetables I just put a fence to restrict the slugs often cut the grass around the vegetable garden and I put the mulch as late as possible, but this is not enough to contain them .
In many cases the problem remains and therefore should be given in each concrete answers as well as principle.
3) For the bees. Here too, it seemed obvious that I was talking dell'apis mellifera. I know that other kinds of Apis live with varroa. That said, it is said in the article that should be encouraged and maintained. How?
4) In my letter I spoke of trees and pieces of wood.
Apart from this necessary clarification, I think it is everything to prove that plants feel no pleasure and pain.
I believe that all living beings and inanimate deserves due respect and due attention is not always possible to give effect to these principles.
For example: until a few years ago I could get hold of the wood for the winter by cutting trees already dead. Now I no longer possible, but I prefer to use natural gas instead of cutting alberti or other fossil fuels.
5) I would like to point out that the reasons given in the article about the Tribe of troglodytes vegetable enormous savings that a choice involves an ethical vegan, are the same that led, 30-40 years ago, some of my generation (and here we revealing my ripe old age) to cultivate and nurture "in a bio" and not to eat meat.
6) I'm allowed to invite the authors of the dossier to learn more about the vegan vegetarian world because in the dossier was written (A353, p. 53). "Vegetarianism is a diet while veganesimo is a way of life." I wanted to emphasize that not all vegetarians are only for dietary reasons. Some, and I among them, do not eat meat because they have developed their own world view, relations with other men, animals and plants, roads and practicing looking "different." In short, a lifestyle.

I hope I have clarified my thoughts and my doubts, even if short notice for urgent response and my seasonal work (bees, vegetables and plants) did not leave me enough time to reflect.

Roberto Panzeri
(Valgreghentino – LC)

Vegan 3/ Animalist and racist?

I read with great interest the article by Adrian Luca Carli and Fragaria, "Antispecisti right?" ("A" 360, March 2011), because it happened to me many times to discuss antispecismo, animal rights and politics. Especially in speeches that trotted out a notorious group of "animal rights activists share the name," known for the slogans and attitudes far from nonviolent, and founded by an extreme right-wing political figure who seems to use this organization to gain consensus. Many of the members do not know, do not believe it, deny it or consider it unimportant. The argument I hear often use is that it is important to political philosophy or orientation on which they rest, but the actions they do. If you can share part of (an animal saved is always a good thing), there are, on the contrary, good reasons to be wary of this strange syncretism between extreme right and animal rights. Syncretism becomes a contradiction if we antispecismo instead of animalism.
Reading that article made me think of two things. The first is the meaning of antispecismo. I came to the hypothesis that the antispecismo, not only can not be right, but not the left, if by these terms indicate the camps belonging to the political system of the present governments. With "politics" as "art of governing states."
I think that respect for the other (another animal, in this case), something that will always be difficult to enter fully into the current political system. Because it focuses on hierarchy and dominance and as such, prevents those who are involved can "play on par." For this reason, politics, understood as government policy, can not be antispecista. So, as a party can not exist antispecista right, can not exist even a party antispecista left. Because both are products of a system that relies on the idea of ​​delegation, and centralized management.
Looking at it from another point of view, you can concentrate on the ideals. A person, even if it fails to exit the system of delegation and hierarchy, according to their moral beliefs, may choose to "maybe" to a party or another, because of an ideology of rule, actually implemented, or simply perceived or touted. We can try to enter this environment, and observe the amalgam that emerges from all these causes scattered.
This second perspective, made me think of another issue, perhaps even more interesting: "Because in these cases, some noted the inconsistency of certain positions, while others do not? And these positions may exist presumably incoherent? "
We know the ideologies that underpin the movement that inspired the political currents. We know that ethics is the basis of animality and dell'antispecismo. This will help us, from outside, watching with a look as possible is not subjective and is not involved. We know that people's behavior, when viewed from the outside, may look more or less contradictory, but from within, a person always perceives herself, her conscience, as a coherent unit. We know that should they doubt its rational coherence, would act to reject these doubts and then back again to perceive themselves as consistent, or change itself in order to return again to perceive themselves coherently. The first process is the most common and simple, while the latter is more rare and takes time.
From our point of view is not involved, once you understand how consciousness constructs for itself an internal consistency, we should admit to not being able to say that there will emerge some syncretic form in which co-exist, for example, is the theory that the defense of the breed animals. It may emerge, as long as those who belong to you, perceives itself consistent. However, outside ourselves, we would perceive this as a jarring juxtaposition, unstable. Because we know the subjective ideas and ideologies the beginning that we see of them is inconsistent. We feel that there is a tension and conflict rather than harmony.
Similarly, we perceive inconsistency in those cases, easier to identify, where we know people who want to defend at all costs the lives of some kittens when they see abuse, not to be any problems in the baby sheep Magyar Easter. Again, their internal mechanism to compensate for inconsistencies, to allow their conscience to feel united, coherent and continuous, without holes, tears and breaks. We also have the Nazis who consider themselves antispecisti. One day they kill a few dozen Jews and Roma, and the day after defending fawns. Them, internally, they did not understand the root behind dell'antispecismo, but maybe in actions toward nonhuman animals, the practice as if they did.
Knowing that there dell'antispecismo behind the idea of ​​rejecting violence and equal consideration of various species (and the various "races", even if talk of race based on physical features is scientifically wrong. See: Human equality is a contingent fact of history by Stephen Jay Gould http://www.scribd.com/doc/18185121/Human-Equality-Is-a-Contingent-Fact-of-History), we find that in their behavior, something out of place.
However, it is possible to consider a consistent racist animals may simply believe that their own race as superior to others and therefore entitled to dominate and control them, he also has to decide life or death of other animals and must defend it are of his property. Maybe because they are beautiful and a source of pride for their nation, or whatever. It would, accordingly, a nationalist, racist, which it considers correct the idea of ​​having power over others, and in this, being able to get us even animal rights. We could feel it consistently. But this could not happen with the antispecismo.
I do not mean that such a person should stop being animals, but that I would trust him just because his behavior would be supported by partial concepts, which have not been thoroughly investigated. Or define himself with the terms of which does not know the meaning. Use a personal meaning in place of the original and widely accepted. For this reason, it could change their attitude from one moment to another. Even more if you think this person even antispecista. Would be unstable, difficult to predict because we do not know the inner person in that tie together the concepts that commonly originates, are so far from being perceived as incompatible.
Should stop calling antispecista or animal? Or to be? I do not know. I think you should first review their ideas and then decide on a possible change, provided that it is able. Ideally, maintained and changed ideas dell'antispecismo other, but we can not force him to do this. On the other hand, if it is true that such people can act in a manner useful to the cause antispecista or animal, I would still rely on them because of the instability that is created in them.
I am so happy for some actions that are still made in defense of animals, but I can not in any way to trust people that do, and I can not stop me feel uncomfortable in reading slogans like "The animals will be met or because the people love them , or because people will be afraid of what might happen if they were not treated with respect. "

Stefano Stofella
(Rovereto – Tn)

Vegan 4 / Our replication

Accepting the invitation of the Editorial and thanks for the space granted us, we will try to clarify some concepts in the previous article "Antispecisti Right?" Published in the magazine 360.
The premise from which we started can be summarized as follows:
a) animals other than humans need to be freed;
b) humans need to get rid of the other animals.
The first assumption is nothing more than a mere finding of a fact: we are the dominant species on planet Earth and as such those directly responsible for the suffering of others perpetrated through our undisputed sway. We can choose whether, how and when to use other animals, and this, of course, apart from any manifestation of their will.
It is within this situation are forced to move what we have called "the various souls" of the animal rights movement: their bodies, more or less radical than they are, starting from an assumption that is considered as given and immutable, ie human society in all its aspects (cultural, economic, political, anthropological, etc..), can not be changed and then you can certainly make a change in the positive sense, but in some of its components without affecting those that are the pillars on which it is based.
It is always within this framework that was born and grew up thinking antispecista.
Peter Singer, whose work is, we repeat, to be considered essential, not only limited to provide a definition of speciesism, has not only said the analogy that links to other intraspecific forms of discrimination such as sexism and racism, but has in some way when he described the source of intuition that the mechanism behind, from which they move and that justifies those forms of prejudice is the same, Singer writes that "the scheme is the same in each case."
Singer describes the exact operation of the machine speciesist, namely the mechanism of the transformation of the difference (other than a man is a dog) in the hierarchy (the man as such is superior to the dog), and the similarities with the states with interspecific other forms of discrimination and denounces the contradiction that characterizes our society when it refuses to extend some of their values ​​on non-human animals.
But there's more. In fact not only "functioning" of the different forms of discrimination to be the same: the causes that led to the birth, and the conditions that allow the perpetuation are common.
Ask whether it is possible to eliminate these forms of discrimination without knowing what are the origins and above all without eliminating those factors which constitute the causes and conditions of development means expanding and going beyond any prospect merely animal or human, to fully understand the link between exploitation of human and other animals and, therefore, that binds to human liberation with that animal.
It is from this consideration that comes the second assumption: the dominion and control of bodies not only as victims of other animals, but humans themselves. There can be no true liberation if not a total liberation of all oppressed non-humans from the base of the pyramid while not being part of human social.
It is therefore necessary to identify the right with fascism, or even worse (because unfortunately we could do worse), with Nazism, however, to realize that the values ​​which it bears (think of the principle of identity, to conservatism, to ' authoritarianism, to name a few) are in sharp contrast to the vision antispecista.
Going back to what it asks the reader goes without saying that you can not talk about parties antispecisti, if understood as institutionalized political parties, but you can talk about politics antispecista as the will to influence society and changing its basic characteristics since. The theoretical antispecista is revolutionary, it could not be otherwise, and as such alien to every human institution useful to the exercise of control and domination over the individual and society.
If it is also true that there is no way to talk about antispecismo right, we must take into account that the left merely feel it, trying to revive ideological barriers that no longer belong to the contemporary human societies, it would be quite limiting. In this regard, we suggest reading the open letter to the future movement of Veganzetta antispecista (http://www.veganzetta.org/?p=665http://www.veganzetta.org/?p=665).
In conclusion it should be emphasized that not only since its birth, the antispecismo has a solid theoretical foundation, but that has been traveled a long way from the definition of speciesism by statements prepared by Ryder and Singer, and that can really contemporary antispecismo be able to provide the necessary tools to lay the ideological groundwork for a struggle for animal liberation (human and otherwise) to refuse any discrimination based on species, may in any way endorse the other although intraspecific.

Luca Carli, Adriano Fragano

Thanks to Dada Knorr (and also to "A")

Thanks to Francesca Palazzi Arduini, the Dada Knorr of many battles, and the TV blog http://femminismi.wordpress.com/ Groucho-Marxist, I really like his writings, how do you not share these reflections, the challenge of business at any level, the questioning of the leaders, "hierarchies" (described so well even with their antispecismo vegans), I opened it a "breakthrough" in the sexism of some (hopefully small!) of mates but even companions (if proposing roles simply "reversed" where she imitated man in authoritarianism and arrogance) and their attitudes.
I know, in his paper (“Berlu is a virus”, “A” 362, maggio 2011) there was a lot more, it is worth rereading, is a "breath of fresh air" where the Berlusconi and TV not only trade but have made ​​a clean sweep of women, to replace it with images of female that has no words, only images (where the imaginary is all-male).
Congratulations to you because Dada and cultivated for many years precious freedom of thought, relationship and change.

Patrizia Diamante
(Firenze)

Anarchy and “vil materia”

Dear editor,
I will not dwell in appreciation for your work: forty years of the magazine and the wealth of content and design of each monthly issue speak for themselves.

The first book I read is usually the one on your story ("Thirty-seven years ago"). In the May (No. 362) recalled the interview with Pier Carlo Masini Paolo Finzi on his biography of Carlo Cafiero, then published by Rizzoli.

The title of the interview is particularly "heavy": The program of Marx is a big reactionary nonsense. Then write a statement that the title takes the anarchist Puglia and the cut is highly polemical testimony that the entire team of "A" carries forward in affirming the autonomy of anarchist thought from the multifarious versions of Marxist thought. And, I imagine, many of the extra-parliamentary groups of the time.
All clear. So I was not there, and do not make much sense to say whether it would make me read this hair-raising. But today the hair remains in place, but it makes me reflect on the question of whether it is true, anarchism, as well as thought and practice - even "thoughts" and "practices" - also seems to have survived at sunset General of Marxism . Yet many of the Marxian categories - I think of materialism, the concept of alienation and commodity - is useful because it is absolutely current. The social question, and with it the class struggle, has never died down, and indeed over the last thirty years or so, has unfolded in all its violence, although according to the desired address by the bosses and the state. The twenties / thirties precarious today all this feel good, though not teorizzino openly or do it with words or different ways than previously, even more immigrants, so the women, and even more often, used twice, work and family.

Of all this I would like "A Magazine" wrote about more than he already does. The driving force of history is yes indignation yearning for freedom and justice, but is also, trivially, the "vile material". And the stomach of the worker, the unemployed, student, immigrant grumbles loudly, on both sides of the Mediterranean.

Greetings all material and ideal.

Antonio Senta
(Bologna)

The rediscovery of Pierre Monatte

The following is the ideal completion of a speech opened with the article by Walker, who appeared on 120 of "class struggle" and titled "From the Charter of Amiens and the Congress in Amsterdam today: Autonomy, independence and self-sufficiency of revolutionary syndicalism. "
There, after a brief historical overview, it attempted to grasp the substance of the difficulties that have characterized (and distinguished) the relationship between libertarian and revolutionary trade union and the organized anarchist movement. He noted the need for these reports to protect the autonomy and independence of the union in mutual respect between political organization and union organization.
However, this need may be allowed in a completely formal, resolving it in a clean separation between the two areas are clearly separated, in a sort of division of labor: on the one hand, the revolutionary political activity, the other the economic defense of workers assigned to own struggles, even the most radical.
This does not solve - and has never resolved - the problem. This vision has always allowed in principle - in words - the great reformist trade unions, were inspired by social democratic, communist or Catholic. In fact, however, the union has always been considered "belt" of the political bodies of the "vanguard" and indeed this attitude have also had many anarchists, among which we mention only the famous example of Errico Malatesta ... It is this attitude that often makes it, and made, empty words of the revolutionary trade union autonomy and independence. In essence, the lack of a definition of his project.
All this brings us back to the aforementioned international anarchist conference in Amsterdam in 1907 and to close the debate that took place, including, of course, Malatesta and Pierre Monatte, then a young revolutionary syndicalist CGT. Monatte just one of the most lucid expositions we cornerstone of the libertarian and revolutionary unionism and the need for concrete and self-sufficiency of his project.
In fact opens his speech by declaring:
"My desire is not so much give a theoretical revolutionary syndicalism of the exhibition to the work and, thus, to talk about the facts. Revolutionary syndicalism, anarchism and socialism, unlike its predecessors over time, has not said for the theory that the acts, and is in action than in the books that you have to go looking for " and further on: "Trade unionism, proclaimed in 1906 the Congress of Amiens, is sufficient unto itself. These words, I know, have not always been well understood, even by anarchists. What does this mean except that the working class, become mature enough to understand then finally to herself and did not need any place on the realization of its own emancipation. As an anarchist could find fault with a will to action so far established? "1
Therefore two strong claims: the revolutionary trade unionism based on theories and practices rather than on its being self-sufficient in its scope and because only the working class to become mature, find the tools to build their emancipation . "Agir par soi-même, it compter sur soi-même que" 2 Monatte fact accurate.
But what are these instruments, peculiar conception of revolutionary syndicalist?
"... It is of direct action. This, needless to say, takes many forms. The main one, or rather its most striking, is the strike. Double-edged sword, it was said earlier: effective and well-tempered weapon, we say, and that, skillfully used by the workers, the employers can affect the heart. It is with the strike, which enters the mass working class struggle and becomes familiar with its concepts, it is the strike that she fulfills her revolutionary education, which she measures her strength and that of his enemy, capitalism, which takes conscious of his power, he learns the audacity.
Sabotage has no rank. Can be formulated as follows: to bad pay, bad job. As the strike has been used at all times, but only recently has acquired a meaning of truly revolutionary. The results produced by the sabotage are already considerable. Where the strike has proved powerless to break the resistance has managed to master "3.
Direct action, therefore, in the dual form of the strike and sabotage ("A mauvaise paye, mauvais travail"). Strike, however, not political, nor simply claims but as a revolutionary education and awareness of workers' strength in view of the general strike that expropriating spell the end of the power of capital.
This one condition:
"If the expropriation and taking possession of the instruments and collective work products that can not be done by the workers themselves, the union is called to become a producer and the group is found to be living in today's society, the seed company Tomorrow "4.
A key point: the revolutionary trade union can not be limited to the organization of workers' struggle, from one already has to build the foundations of an alternative economy-self-management and federalism, we add - ready to replace the existing one based on profit and capitalist exploitation.
Finally:
"Trade unionism is not the earthly paradise it promises to workers. Ask them to conquer and ensures that their actions will not be in vain. Trade unionism is a school of will, energy, thought fruitful. Opens anarchism, too long back on itself - new perspectives and experiences. That all anarchists are, therefore, to trade unionism, and their work will be more fruitful, their attacks against the most crucial social system "5.
We know how it happened. The views expressed in the replication of Malatesta, conventional, based on an indifference industrial action in line with the tradition of anarchist-politic, were eventually prevail. The appeal remained largely unheeded Monatte, The libertarian syndicalism and walked his way, often the same as the anarchist movement, but sometimes not. There has never been anarchists overall adherence to the revolutionary project so well expressed by Monatte Overall, there were not a lot of constructive critical contributions to the libertarian and revolutionary syndicalist conceptions. The results we see today in the dispersion reigning design, build and impotence in a tendency to go over the dead ends of other trade union models.

Guido Barroero
(Unione Sindacale Italiana – AIT)

Note

1. Intervention by a Monatte in the session of 28 August. The translation of this and other quotations is mine.
   2 Ibid
   3 Ibid
   4 Motion Dunois final, signed by Monatte, Fuss, Nacht, Zielinski, Fabbri, K. Walter
   5 Intervention cited..