Women, left: symbols and simulacra.

There is much discussion of Schlein, and it would be nice to be able to comment on her political ideas, or her programme, but since neither exists, her presence is purely symbolic. It is there not for what it is, or for what it will do, but for what it symbolizes. In line with a vast history, on the left, which proposes nothing but symbolic acts.

It's been thirty years now that on the left everything is symbolic, it's all message, and then underneath there's little substance. If there is a party that has launched neologisms, in addition to M5S, it is precisely the left. But it should also be noted that under these neologisms there was actually nothing: Renzi, perhaps taking up Grillo, launched the word "scrapping", but if we look at today's PD cadres, we notice that he scrapped practically nothing.

And this tradition is part of the traditional "gattopardesimo" of the Democratic Party: what will Schlein do for the Democratic Party? She is young, female, and lesbian. Okay. BUT what will Schlein do for the PD? Well, she's young, female, and lesbian. Yes, but how will he fight the problem of currents that paralyze the party? Well, she's young, female, and lesbian. And how is it going to transform the party into something different that the left can like? Well, she's young, female, and lesbian.

These three symbols, "young", "woman", "lesbian" are completely abstruse from politics, and have no political significance. Politics (at least in a democracy) is a choice: Schlein didn't choose to be young, she didn't choose to be a woman, or even to be a lesbian. How would these three qualities by themselves be a change in the party?

Simply, "young", "woman" and "lesbian" have become mere symbols, devoid of content, devoid of practical effects. You will be asked to vote for her because she is young, a woman and a lesbian. Which doesn't change one iota of party politics, country politics, or any political agenda.

His electoral promise, to not seek revenge and to include everyone present, tells us one thing: that he won't change anything. Pure leopardism.

The usual barrage of symbolic acts that accomplish nothing doesn't stop there: he took off the stage. Okay. Symbolic act, but that doesn't change anything, it doesn't change the party's policy, it doesn't change the composition of the top management, it doesn't change the internal decision-making mechanisms.

Therefore, "the stage" has become another symbol devoid of any practical meaning or use. Then he will take "the backpack", and with the "notebook" he will go to listen to people's problems. I could demolish these symbols simply by pointing out that, after several years of active politics (it wasn't born yesterday, it was in Brussels in 2014), people's problems should at least have already been glimpsed, and not since yesterday. Apparently, however, she still hasn't quite grasped what the real country's problems are, and it will take her a while (armed with a backpack and notebook, because she believes in digitization) to figure out what the country's problems are. To have been in politics AT LEAST since 2014 (she was a MEP), she 's either deaf or "in a bit of a crackpot".

In any case, he fed his base with his beautiful (over)dose of symbols devoid of practical effects on politics: Elly Schlein is {“woman”, “lesbian”, “young”, “backpack”, “notebook ”, “feminist”, “we”} (I inserted the last part because, listening to it, she seems to love the plural maiestatis. She says “we” instead of “I”. Which, having no practical effect, should be declassified to the role of "symbol").

And I don't want to wonder if it is a "symbol" or a "simulacra" according to the postmodernist school, because in that case I should conclude that its strength derives from its obvious falsehood, as happens to simulacra.

So I'm good, and I simply call them "symbols" and not "simulacra", as they were "Berlusconi worker", or "giorgia meloni political news". Otherwise I would be too bad.


Now you will tell me that symbols are important in politics, and that for some they are "everything": this explains many disasters that occur on the left, and explains its inexorable decline. If you say so, you are on the left, and therefore get used to losing.

The famous trade unionist of the black slaves, now under investigation, was not a "trade unionist of the black slaves", but simply "THE SYMBOL" of the trade unionists of the black slaves. Just like his muddy rubber boots were "THE SYMBOL" of struggles. Non-existent. It was a simulacra, but I repeat: I want to be compassionate because today I ate well.

It is precisely this fetishism for symbols which, by itself, constitutes the PRACTICAL reason why few still vote for them: Italians have real (not symbolic) problems, and if before they didn't give a shit about symbols, now they have become allergic. Except those who can afford the symbol fetish, who usually don't have the problems of other mortals (which are not symbolic, but practical: making ends meet, paying bills, finding a job, getting medical care, etc.).


But suppose by contradiction that symbols are central. Suppose too that symbols are central, and that they are the substance of a party. I don't believe it, but let's try to reason by contradiction. And let's ask ourselves why I should vote for this party. We have said that the symbols are the following:

{“woman”, “lesbian”, “young”, “backpack”, “notebook”, “feminist”, “we”}

And now I should understand why, if I lived in Italy, I should vote for one of these symbols.

If we keep the size of the symbols, or at least the context, the symbols that identify ME are:

{“male”, “licazzimiei”, “not young”, “network”, “digital”, “equalitarian”, “me”}

Now, going in order, the difference (in symbolic terms) is too large.

“Woman” vs “man”.

I am male, she is female. If we want these two symbols to have potency, then she doesn't tange me. Since putting these two symbols into politics implies that they are political choices, and I have clearly made the political choice of being a male (if it is a choice, but in a democracy membership is a choice by definition, and screw up the definitions), then the first symbolic reason to vote for it is completely missing. You may find it excessive to classify "male" using the term "political choice", because nobody really chooses his chromosomes, but I repeat: we are in a democracy and we are talking about symbols. And in a democracy, symbols are political choices: the moment a party becomes an intersectionist and places biological sex among the symbols, they become political choices. And since it is a bit difficult for me to make the political choice of being a "woman", then for me Schlein's party is unvotable.

“Lesbian” versus “licazzimiei”

On the difference between "lesbian" and "licazzimiei" is even more fundamental. Not because I don't want to talk about my sexuality (and it's absolutely true, in this period of my life and in this period of social networks) but because I think politics shouldn't transform sexual preferences into political symbols .

I have no intention of having the "party of lesbians", "the party of bisexuals", "the party of hidden gays", "the party of transsexuals", also because given the numbers the "party of males who like pussy would ALWAYS win. And the same goes for the "party of females who like cocks".

But the problem I pose to myself, even less symbolically, is what hell status do I get when sexuality becomes the subject of political debate and political identity: a shitty country, in which people have more or less rights according to the party in power.

Even on the level of "sexual identity" we are not really there. First, because sexual choices are not an identity, second because they are not political symbols, third because I hate the idea of ​​a state discussing them and making them a political issue.

When I try to picture the state discussing how I use my genitals, I can picture nothing but a state of shit. Whoever is in government.

“Young” vs “classic”.

Okay, I'm not young anymore. On the other hand, my daughter is younger than Schlein. So, is he too young, or too young? I do not know. Age is not a political choice, and if we take the lives of great dictators we are quite amazed at how young they were when they took power: perhaps their youth has something to do with the fact that they avoided tedious practices, such as “elections”, “dialogue”, or “consensus”. If we look for young politicians who overthrow a policy of the elderly, in history we almost always find them on the side of the dictators, in the sense that their youth is always based on the fact that they have circumvented some passages. Not always insignificant details.

Of course, there are also countries where young people have come to power: but this happens because ANYONE has a short path ahead. Not because the young man gets around these obstacles which are the rules: this is typical of dictators.

In this sense, Schlein stinks to me of someone who has no intention of wasting time with things like "politics", "consensus" or "dialogue". If he said "we will ensure that from now on any pinco pallino can become secretary on condition that he takes his card the day before" it would be different: then he would have a programme.

But if it's normally unthinkable and she can do it because she is she and the others are nobody , well, it smacks a lot about a dictator. (With what power or with what exercise of force he can do this, we shall see).

“Backpack” vs “net”

I remember the meaning of the term because of my venerable age. But in our century this symbol says just that: I want to use something that reminds old people of their youth. When we went around with the Invicta backpack to carry tons of "luggage" with us. Yes, I remember.

But we are in the twenty-first century, and for this thing the network is used (except in still antediluvian schools). I'm sorry, but I think that lugging around a cute backpack isn't as useful as having a good smartphone and good source management. What would the backpack represent? A symbol of modesty? Try to buy a decent one, and watch the cost. My problem is that I believe more in the transmission of information than in backpacks.

The backpack seems to me the ideal symbol of a left that accepts the new only if it comes from the past, and of a left that accepts the "young" only when he has the behavior that his grandparents had when they were young. Okay, backpack. And backpack it is: but the fact that it reminds me of MY youth, while my daughter uses a tablet at school and has texts on moodle tells me a lot. The backpack is a symbol of MY youth. My daughter will have a Moodle symbol. (https://moodle.org/ ) Maybe.

I'm sick of parties that accept young people only if they look like the young people of a generation ago (and I'm generous with myself), and that accept young people's things only when you find them in an antique shop . It's not youth, it's youth. And, my daughter would say, “pretty cringe”. Schlein is definitely cringe.

“Notebook” vs “digital”.

Each party has dozens and dozens of digital advisors. It has data and polls to fuck off. For what overwhelming reason in the twenty-first century the notebook is synonymous with "memory" or "knowing", only Schlein knows and the war idiots who vote for her know it. The "notebook" is another symbol that should not be seen in the twenty-first century.

Schlein means that using the notebook she will patiently write down the people's problems, that people will report back to her and that she will listen. If we were in 1946, perhaps he would be right. But today we are no longer in 1946. It is (spiritually) in 1946 the youthful old men and the shriveled carampanes who vote for it, together with those who are old enough to be young, but have chosen to throw away this precious opportunity . You will regret it in the future. When you will vote notebooks and backpacks to forget your choice to be old already when you are young.

After all, there are those who graduate at the age of 23 by forging ahead, so I imagine that being old at 17 could be seen as a goal. If you take advice, don't do it: it 's a shitty achievement.

But I repeat, I believe in digital, if I wanted to know what people's problems are, I would get some data and process them with a good data analytics system.

Incompatible. Invotable. Unlistenable. Cringe.

“Feminist” versus “equalitarian”.

There is a profound difference between the ridiculous Americana that is modern feminism, and progressive egalitarianism. It is the difference between a European progressive and an American liberal. To use an example I abuse:

If we say that 100 companies have 50% of the world's GDP, the European progressive complains of economic injustice and proposes to tax them, the American liberal complains that there are not enough women, blacks and lesbians among CEOs, and proposes to impose quotas.

The intersectionalist vision is against me, as well as identity politics, for the simple reason that they have neither equality nor fairness as their objective, but rather the simple division of power.

After all, when 1,000 people die at work every year in Italy, 500 die in Germany, and it turns out that 90% are male, whoever comes out saying that the world of work is made to favor males wants to fight , there can't even be dialogue. When 70% of suicides are males and someone says that society is designed on a human scale, I don't think there are the conditions for dialogue. When the vast majority of the homeless, i.e. the homeless, are male, and some come out saying that the state thinks only of men, there is no room for any dialogue. It is clear that in these conditions, we are dealing with mere attempts at confrontation, and I don't fight when there is nothing to win, and in the case of assault, I don't fight when there is an evasive strategy of lesser cost.

If the lady is a feminist, I'll come to terms with it, but I'll be careful not to vote for her: as far as I'm concerned, poor people all have about the same problems, male or female, while rich people all have about the same privileges, whether male or female.

And if you don't understand it, eat brioches instead of bread.

“I” versus “we”.

For me, those who nominate themselves but pretend to be "all of us" turn on ugly light bulbs. Because there are two cases: either they are totalitarians ("my thoughts already represent everyone's thoughts, so shut up") or they are fake leaders who intend to discharge their responsibilities ("it wasn't me, it was all of us Why do I have to pay?”.

Both attitudes, which can appear alone or in any compound, I dislike too much. If I want an accountability role, I am the leader, and I take both the blame and responsibility for my actions, and if you don't like what I do, one of YOU will take my place.


How would I summarize all of this?

“Elly Schlein is just the umpteenth symbolic half-saw, very, very symbolic, who doesn't even look like a smear leader, who won't do anything practical being devoid of any content, put by the currents of the PD to act as a leaf of cool, that is to cover the fact that nothing concrete changes”.

And it would also be time for the PD to change its name, with something more symbolic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *