Of raves and commercial colonization of free time.
First, one thing: raves are not an emergency. The chronicles mention two in the past year. This controversy was artfully created not to mention the main fact, namely that a minister of the new government is being investigated for fraudulent bankruptcy, namely the Santanche'. The left, as usual, participates in the distraction operation.
But let's also go into the merits of the matter.
And let's go back to naming the problem. RAVE is prohibited in many ways and for many reasons, but it is fought for many other reasons.
- It is forbidden to occupy private properties.
- Gatherings without permission are prohibited.
- It is forbidden to distribute drinks without a VAT number.
- It is forbidden to listen to music without having paid the SIAE.
- It is forbidden to gather in unsuitable places (bathrooms, fire rooms, etc.)
Etc, etc, etc. I completely overlook the problem of drugs, because they are also sold in legal gatherings.
What does it mean? Meaning no law was needed, since pretty much everything in a RAVE is off limits.
So far, it seems that I agree with those who want to close them, but this is not the case. For a reason. Suppose we "regulate" the RAVE itself. What do we have to do?
- PAY rent for the place.
- PAY to do all the paperwork for permission to gather.
- PAY all the formalities that serve to distribute drinks.
- PAY the SIAE
- PAY the certifications of the premises.
As you can see, the RAVE is not a public order problem, but an ECONOMIC problem. To do the same thing perfectly in order it is not necessary to change the characteristics of the RAVE, it is necessary to PAY.
So let's start from an assumption: the difference between an "illegal" and a "legal" rave is purely economic. Nothing in a rave is really off limits, AS long as you pay.
Nothing that happens inside the shed is really forbidden, the problem is not what happens, it's just HOW it happens, i.e. WITHOUT PAYING.
What does it mean? It means that I was wrong in saying that today RAVE is forbidden by the already existing rules.
They are forbidden ONLY TO POOR KIDS.
That said, I want to go to the next point. I start from a personal anecdote, and then move on to the concrete event.
In the place where I grew up we had two alternatives. One was a disco we could only enter on Sunday afternoons, the other was something called ARCI SPIM club.
As both things were disconcertingly bleak, clearly designed around the idea of "young" that an octogenarian can have. As a result, "partying" began to be fashionable. Initially they were held at home, but growing up it began to become, let's say, unlivable for the parents and they became parties in the second home in the countryside or in some farmhouse.
What happened in these cases? It happened that suddenly the carabinieri of the town, or the SIAE, acquired the superpower of receiving "reports from the neighbours" (usually around 4/5 km away) about improbable noise or drug consumption.
I say improbable noises because one night we were beyond a place called Ostellato, in a locality called Vallette, LITERALLY narrow streets surrounded by marsh, in an old farmhouse, with a fog (as you know it is badly sound absorbing), and we discovered that no better specified "neighbors" had reported too much noise. We discovered it because the usual two carabinieri with the bar of soap (an absurd vehicle of the period, which didn't have a maximum speed, but a minimum slowness) came to tell us.
What was the problem? The problem was that when it wasn't someone's second home in the country (that is, the now uninhabited place where they kept their tools and barns) it was a barn that we barely paid for thirty thousand lire.
We went to buy drinks by the box at the supermarket or even the local retailer. We bought the rest by the kilo from the baker, pastry chef, etc. We had the records.
It was cheap. And when we were there, we weren't in the shitty disco, nor in some "sandwich shop", nor in some SPIM club where the Inti Illimani (*) were mandatory.
It's not like this starved the local economy. But the masters of entertainment were powerful and had connections. Let it be clear, they were powerful at the municipal administration or police station level. But they were.
And so, the problem was simple: the "masters of entertainment" had it in for private parties, whether they were those of SPIM (ultimately, "the Party") or the various sandwich shops or nightclubs, and therefore when they knew of a party they picked up the phone and called some the SIAE, some the CC.
Now let's move on to Modena. It's Halloween party. All the Masters of Entertainment had been preparing for weeks for the big party for which, BY PAYING, they had bought a monopoly on entertainment . They look forward to the receipts.
And the news comes to him that someone might take a few thousand guys off the paying list, who are already a scarce commodity, and bring them to an event that doesn't PAY that much.
Because let's understand each other: in the Modena area, a decent evening of entertainment costs an amount that no child of a working class family can really afford. Let's say it's a lucky place, but not for everyone.
Now these come along and they're having a rave right on Halloween. As is the case with our parties, this certainly won't hurt the local economy. But the masters of fun are powerful and have hookups. Let me be clear, they are powerful at the municipal administration or police station level. But I am.
So, we have a first phase: the one in which the usual pieces of shit, ie the owners of the entertainment , perceive an economic threat.
And as I have already written, it is ABSOLUTELY not a problem of public order, since on Halloween night, in almost the whole city, the exact same things happen that happen at a rave, with the only difference that the rave HE HAS NOT PAID.
The problem is COMPLETELY economic.
If you think this is a marginal aspect, you haven't looked around enough: and you've never wondered if there are any FREE entertainment places or spaces for young people.
I mean: my generation could do many things without paying. We took mopeds and went to some free beach, for example. We could organize parties, for example (even if we could already see the opposition of the owners of the entertainment). We could see each other at places where arcade games were played. Even the local bars didn't always demand a drink if they saw you around. We could play any sport (typically soccer) anywhere that was open and/or not very busy. If we wanted to see a film, we rented videotapes and gathered at home. We could also simply hang around somewhere (squares, low walls, streets, parks, videogame shops – in my case) to spend time "aggratis" together.
The "strictly paid" things, that is discos, sandwich bars, pizzerias, concerts and all that existed and were paid for as today, and were considered "special" releases. But for everyday time, sociability was cheap and extremely easy to obtain.
The truth is that today the "aggratis" part has almost disappeared. The time you spend with others without paying anything at high costs is almost gone.
Let me be clear: adults don't notice it because free time for adults is ALWAYS paid , no one goes out to be with friends without money in their pocket. Limiting amounts of money, meaning you can't do it every night.
And this is why adults are not noticing the commercial colonization of young people's free time: theirs is already colonized. For many, even "going out" implies "going to eat", for almost everyone it implies spending significant sums.
Among young people this colonization is not yet complete: they remain
- the school.
- self-organized events
and that's just the furious reaction of the Leisure Time Owners, who want you to pay for every minute you spend with others outside your front door.
And for the poor young people, you stick to the fuck.
When I say this, the usual ones arrive and tell me "but they found equipment for 150,000 euros on the spot". Aha. For 5,000 participants, even if they had bought it ONLY for that evening and destroyed it immediately afterwards, it would have cost 30 euros each.
Can you find me a disco where they make me dance for days for 30 euros?
But I repeat, 30 euros is a huge amount, because that same equipment is used dozens of times. If you assume that that equipment ONLY made ten raves from 5000 people, the per capita cost is 3 euros.
So the story of the €150,000 system doesn't change one very simple thing: that a night of fun at a rave COSTS participants much less than the local vampire who does his Halloween hairdo.
And if the boy spends less, or gets more for the same money, the owners of free time are not happy.
The next objection is that the government probably isn't so attentive to Modena's premises, to the point of having to do as they say. Here perhaps the functioning of the lobbies is largely ignored.
Because everyone thinks that lobbies don't exist in Europe, while they exist only in the USA. The opposite is true.
Italy is the country of lobbies, only you call them "conf-*", you call them parishes, mafias, freemasons.
What probably happened is that some "conf" (confesercenti, confdiscoteche, sarcazzo as the lobby is called) told the government that this rave thing had to disappear, to make it clear to young people that free time spent together IT WILL NEVER BE FREE.
So it doesn't matter whether it happens in Modena or Catania: the point in this case is that a promise has been made, and this promise says that in Italy young people no longer have to spend free time together, unless they spend money .
And fuck the poor youngsters.
How will the story end? It depends on the economic trend. It depends neither on the government nor on the lobbies. I give an example:
As long as every family has two cars and one person can drive a fully equipped boy to a paid "football school," you will no longer see kids playing soccer on the streets.
But when the second car begins to be swallowed up by the crisis, and then also the complete football equipment, and then also the money for the tuition, there are two cases: either the parents lock the boy up at home, or he will go with friends to play in any space they find.
Until it is possible for families to "pay for some activities" (karate, dance, music lessons, painting lessons), clearly you will not see young people hanging out on the streets.
But when families have to cut their "leisure" budget, suddenly you see them back on the streets lounging.
And the lobbies can do nothing against this, neither the politicians nor the police can do anything about it. SIAE can't do anything about it, conf-whatever can't do anything about it, the cops can't do anything about it.
As the crisis bites and families have to cut the "free time budget", children will once again invade the streets, abandoned buildings, and any space where they can be together without spending money.
For adults, honestly, I see it gray: in my opinion they will lock themselves at home.
(*) I categorically affirm that a people capable of producing Pinochet's Inti Illimani deserves TWO. Just for the shitty music.