Of raves and commercial colonization of leisure.
First, one thing: raves are not an emergency. The chronicles mention two of them last year. This controversy was artfully created not to mention the main fact, namely that a minister of the new government is under investigation for fraudulent bankruptcy, that is Santanche '. The left, as usual, participates in the distraction operation.
But let's go into the merits of the thing as well.
And let's go back to mentioning the problem. Doing RAVE is forbidden in many ways and for many reasons, but it is fought for many other reasons.
- It is forbidden to occupy private properties.
- It is forbidden to organize rallies without permission.
- It is forbidden to distribute drinks without VAT.
- It is forbidden to listen to music without having paid the SIAE.
- It is forbidden to meet in unsuitable rooms (bathrooms, fire prevention, etc.)
Etc, et cetera, et cetera. The drug problem is completely overlooked, because it is also sold in legal rallies.
What does it mean? It means that no law was needed, since practically everything in a RAVE is prohibited.
So far, it seems that I agree with those who want to close them, but this is not the case. For a reason. Let's try to "put in order" the RAVE itself. What do we have to do?
- PAY a rent for the place.
- PAY to do all the paperwork for permission to gather.
- PAY all the formalities needed to distribute drinks.
- PAY SIAE
- PAY for 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 forbidden, UNDER AGREEMENT TO PAY.
Nothing that happens inside the shed is really forbidden, the problem is not what happens, it's just HOW it happens, that is, WITHOUT PAYING.
What does it mean? It means that I was wrong in saying that today the RAVES are prohibited by the already existing rules.
ONLY POOR CHILDREN are prohibited.
Having said that, I want to go to the next point. I start from a personal anecdote, and then move on to a concrete event.
In the place where I grew up we had two alternatives. One was a nightclub where we could only enter on Sunday afternoons, the other was something called the ARCI SPIM club.
Since both things were of a bewildering desolation, clearly drawn around the idea of "youth" that an eighty-year-old can have. As a result, "parties" began to go out of fashion. Initially they were done at home, but growing up it began to become, let's say, unlivable for parents and became parties in the second house in the country 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 neighbors" (usually, around 4/5 km away) about improbable noises or drug use.
I say unlikely noises because one night we were beyond a place called Ostellato, in a place called vallette, LITERALLY narrow streets surrounded by swamp, in an old farmhouse, with a fog (as you know it is badly sound-absorbing), and we discovered that not better specified "neighbors" had reported too much noise. We found out because the usual two carabinieri with soap (an absurd vehicle of the period, which did not 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 tools and barns) it was a barn that we barely paid thirty thousand lire.
We used to go to the supermarket or even the local retailer to buy drinks at the checkout counters. We bought the rest by the kilos from the baker, the pastry chef, and so on. We had the records.
It was cheap. And when we were there, we weren't in the shit disco, nor in some "sandwich shop", nor in some SPIM club where the Inti Illimani were mandatory (*).
It wasn't that this starved the local economy. But the entertainment masters were powerful and had hooks. Let me be clear, they were powerful at the level of municipal administration or police barracks. But they were.
And so, the problem was simple: the "masters of fun" were angry with private parties, whether they were those of SPIM (ultimately, "the Party") or the various sandwich bars or nightclubs, and therefore when they knew of a party they picked up the phone and called who the SIAE, who the CC.
Now let's move to Modena. It's the Halloween party. All the Entertainment Masters had been preparing for weeks for the evening for which, PAYING, they had bought the monopoly of entertainment . They anticipate the proceeds.
And he gets the news that someone could take a few thousand boys off the payer list, which are already a rare commodity, and take them to an event that they don't PAY that much.
Because let's understand: in the Modena area a barely decent evening of fun costs a figure 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 and have a rave right on Halloween. As in the case of our parties, this is certainly not going to ruin the local economy. But the owners of entertainment are powerful and have hooks. Let me be clear, they are powerful at the level of the municipal administration or the police station. But they are.
So, we have a first phase: the one in which the usual pieces of shit, that is, the masters of the entertainment , perceive an economic threat.
And as I have already written, it is NOT ABSOLUTELY a problem of public order, since on Halloween night, in almost the whole city, the exact same things happen that happen to a rave, with the only difference that the rave DID NOT PAY.
The problem is COMPLETELY economic.
If you think this is a marginal aspect, you have not looked around enough: and you have never wondered if there are FREE places or spaces for fun for young people.
I mean: my generation could do many things without paying. We took the scooters and went to some free beach, for example. We could organize parties, for example (even if you could already see the opposition of the masters of entertainment). We could see each other in the places where arcade games were played. Even the local bars didn't always ask for a drink if they saw you around. We could play any sport (typically football) in any open and / or not very busy place. If we wanted to see a movie, we rented the videotape, and we gathered at the house. We could also simply hang around somewhere (squares, walls, streets, parks, videogame shops – in my case) to pass the “aggratis” time together.
The "strictly paid" things, that is, Discos, Sandwich Bars, Pizzerias, concerts and everything else that existed and were paid as today, and were considered "special" outings. But for the time of each day, sociality was inexpensive and extremely simple to obtain.
The truth is that today the "aggratis" part is almost gone. The time in which you are together with others without paying anything at high cost has almost disappeared.
Let me be clear: adults do not notice it because free time for adults is ALWAYS paid , no one goes out to be with friends without money in their pockets. Limiting amounts of money, meaning you can't do it every night.
And it is for this reason that 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 all it implies spending not insignificant amounts.
Among the young this colonization is not yet complete: they remain
- the school.
- self-organized events
and this is just the furious reaction of the Free Time Masters, who want to make you pay for every minute you spend with others outside your front door.
And for poor young people, you stick to the dick.
When I say this, the usual people come and tell me “but they found equipment for 150,000 euros on the spot”. Aha. For 5000 participants, even if they had bought it ONLY for that evening and destroyed it immediately after, it would have cost 30 euros each.
Can you find me a disco where they make me dance for days at 30 euros?
But then again, 30 euros is a huge amount, because that same equipment is used dozens of times. If you suppose that equipment made ONLY ten 5,000-person raves, the cost per capita is 3 euros.
So the history of the 150,000 euro plant doesn't change a very simple thing: that a night of fun in a rave COSTS the participants much less than the local vampire who throws the hair-style party for Halloween.
And if the boy spends less, or gets more with the same money, the free time owners are not happy.
The next objection is that probably the government is not so attentive to the premises of Modena, to the point of having to do as they say. Here perhaps the functioning of the lobbies is very unknown.
Because everyone thinks that lobbies don't exist in Europe, while they only exist in the US. The reverse is true.
Italy is the country of lobbies, only you call them "conf- *", you call them parishes, mafias, freemasonry.
What probably happened is that some "conf" (confesercenti, confdiscos, sarcazzo as the lobby is called) told the government that this rave thing had to disappear, to make it clear to young people that the free time spent together would not 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 the poor young people can fuck themselves as well.
How will the story end? It depends on the economic situation. It does not depend on the government or on the lobbies. I give an example:
As long as each family has two cars and one person can accompany a fully equipped boy to a paid "football school", you will no longer see children playing football 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 in the house, or he will go with friends to play in any space they find.
As long as it is possible for families to “pay for some activity” (karate, dance, music courses, painting lessons), you will clearly not see young people hanging out on the streets.
But when families have to cut their "free time" budget, suddenly you will see them back on the streets to hang around.
And against this the lobbies cannot do anything, the politicians and the police cannot do anything about it. SIAE can't do anything about it, 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", the children will return to invade the streets, abandoned buildings, and any space where they can be together without spending money.
For adults, honestly, I see it gray: I think they will lock themselves in the house.
(*) I categorically affirm that a people capable of producing Pinochet's Inti Illimani deserves TWO. Just for the shit music.