Ascanio Celestini

Ascanio Celestini

The People is like a child

He doesn't understand anything about politics.
If you talk Him about revolution and you do it seriously, it ends up that the People really makes it, that revolution.
So, we must do as the Communist Party did.
They made the People see the revolution from a distance, like a dancer on television.
The People is like a child and enjoys watching dancers.
Boys watch television because they like dancers's asses.
And girls watch television because they would like to have an ass like those dancers who boys are so fond of.
Everybody watches asses on TV
But both girls and boys know that TV is just an appliance.
That those asses exist only into TV.
They look around and the truth is that they are just sitting on the sofa in their apartment with no ass and no dance around.
But they're happy anyway. They are happy because every time they turn on TV again, there will be an ass ready to be watched, live broadcast.
And no matter if it is fake like Cinderella tale.
It matters only that after the live-broadasted ass they can go to bed serene.
The People likes the revolution, but you must show it as the ass of the a dancer.
Like something beautiful and impossible.
You must tell Him about the revolution, like a fairy tale.
The People is like a child.
He always wants to have reason.
So who rules the people has to tell him that the "the others are always wrong.
The others are disbelievers atheists, perverted homosexuals, dirty southerns, stinky black ones...
..in other words: relativists".
Then the People is happy.
Because the People is a child and as all the children He likes to play.
In children's games there is always someone who wins and some other who loses.
That's why the People likes football so much.
The People knows that the real football is not the one played in the small fields, it's not a match among friends.
The People knows that He cannot play the real football.
That He can only watch the real football on television.
Then the People sits and watches.
The People screams, shakes, gets tired like a child.
And when the night comes He immediately falls asleep. The People is very good, He is like a sheep.
The People knows that life is like a football game on television, as the final of the world championship: the whole world watches it, but then the match is played only by two teams.
Football is beautiful! Life is beautiful!
Only a few can enjoy it, but everyone else can cheer.
The People is like a child.
If you steal His candies, the child gets angry.
But if you put them in a shop He buys them immediately.
So you, who are smarter than the People, would make them pay twice of their value.
So for each candy He buys, one you sell and another you steal.
If you put your hands in the People's pocket you're a thief,
but if the People comes to you and empties His pockets, it's only a law of the market.
The People is like a child, He likes to buy candies.
Then maybe He takes them home and doesn't even eat them.
Maybe He throw them in the bucket, maybe.
Because children like to buy buy buy.
So you, who are more adult than people sell them everything.
The People wants to eat? And you sell Him junk until He bursts.
The People wants songs? And you sell Him some pounds of refrains to sing under the shower.
The People want ideals? And you sell Him also those.
Then maybe He takes them home and no longer believe in them.
Maybe He threw them in the bucket.
Better! Better...
So He goes straightaway back to the supermarket to buy candies.
The People is like a child.
Makes lots of questions and you can not tell Him the truth
otherwise He makes your life difficult.
For example, I've got a son, his name is Robertino Casoria, he's the worst of his class.
She said "Daddy what are the terrorists?"
I've wanted to tell the truth, I told him: "Do you remember when you were a child? At Christmas I told you that Santa Claus would come.
You were a smart kid and you didn't believe.
But then at night I went to put the presents under the tree and the next morning when you saw them you started to believe that Santa Claus had brought them. You thought that if there is a gift it means that there is also the bearded one who takes it with the sleigh with reindeer.
But it was still me.
And terrorists are the same thing. Someone tells you that there are terrorists and you do not believe it.
Then a bomb bursts, a couple of skyscrapers collapse
and everybody thinks that if there is the attack it also means that there are the terrorists...
but it is all a lie, it's still Dad who silently in the night blows up bombs and then blames the terrorists".
And my son goes:
"My friend Pancotti Maurizio" - Robertino goes around with
a fat kid that is unbearable, and I think it's also a bit stupid - he told me, "says Maurizio Pancotti that this thing is called strategy of tension"
Then I told him "your friend Pancotti Mauritius is a Communist!
And you know why he is so fat? Because communists eat the children. Be careful when you go to him for a snack because he is going to eat you!"
And my son Robertino began to tremble.
For a week he no longer left the house.
I obrained him to do whatever I wanted, I told him "wash my car! Tidy up your room! Bring me my slippers!" He obeyed me like a dog. Because one can rule with fear.
And the People is the same.
The People is like a child.
If you don't want Him to get lost in the woods you have to tell Him that there is the big bad wolf, the monster!
The terrorists, the Arabs with their big beards, the Malaysians pirates. Occasionally words must change, to perform a rotation.
The devil, the zombies, the monster of Loch Ness, the bugaboo, the Martians, the ghosts.
The People is like a child.
If you scare Him, He brings you your slippers, He washes your car.
The People is like a child.
If you scare Him, He obeys immediately.

This is a part of a monologue by Ascanio Celestini. The translation is mine, the original is over here.

...So, who to vote for?

In this post (in Italian) my analysis about the political situation in Italy, waiting for the regional election day this coming sunday-monday (too long and boring to translate ;-)).

Primaries of PD

This coming sunday there will be the primaries for the election of PD's leader. I will vote for Ignazio Marino, for the reasons i described some times ago in this post.
I share all the points listed by Artemisia on on her blog.

Good election day to everybody.

Take that, Berlusconi!

I stole this photo from my friend Silvano's blog.

The rejection of the law "lodo Alfano" [the judical immunity for the four highest offices of State - Berlusconi included], deserves deep and complex political discussion.
In the mean time this panda bear, endangered animal just like endangered is democracy in Italy, enjoys a good fart in spite of Berlusconi.

Why to vote for Ignazio Marino at the primary elections of Partito Democratico

I consider myself "leftish" from since when i was old enough to understand, but i am also very critical towards the Partito Democratico since its foundation a few years ago.
My aversion to PD is in its roots. Its founding fathers, through Veltroni's "Corro da solo" ["i run by myself" - a tactic in which he refused any alliance with other minor parties], have managed to build a big party plundering the votes of the Left. They did it riding an electoral system considered by everyone a terribly unjust thing (so much that its creator Roberto Calderoli himself named it "Porcellum" ["pig thing"]). And they took advantage of the "voto utile" ["useful vote"], that is, the leftists realization of the need to stem the fascist tendency towards which the country was already going. The leftists, therefore, preferred to address the strength of their votes to PD instead of wasting them on a minor party. In fact, votes to parties that obtained less than 4%, for the perverse mechanism of the "Porcellum", ended up enforcing the most voted party (the Berlusconi's and his fascist mates' one).
To tell the truth, for PD, the use of this perverted mechanism would neither be such a bad thing if, other than taking advantage of the votes of those electors, it would also take in charge the task to represent their values.
But no. PD did never assume the responsability to give a voice to the values of the Left. To most people, like me, PD became more like a big set of seats that allowed a soft support to the fat butts of who was already well seated in the parties that originated it. PD has never taken any firm position against Berlusconi's extra-power, just when the Country really needed it and waited till now, in the guilty incapability of giving any alternative to Berlusconi's fascism.

So, it's clear for everyone that the old leadership doesn't represent the Left anymore, and for this reason, even without considering the reasonable suspicion of collusion with the "enemy", it should resign allowing new entries to take their place. But it looks like for those old leaders it is more important to preserve their warm ass on the soft throne than the good for Italians.

Ignazio Marino

In the beloved American democracy, anyway, they do exactly that: respectful goodbyes to the losers. Personally, i liked Al Gore a lot. He lost by a few votes in some elections which results were suspicious. But if he didnt give up America wouldn't ever had Obama - and i doubt that Gore, in his pants, running as a loser, would ever been able to win against McCain.

Ignazio Marino is running for the leadership of PD. I'm not comparing him to Barack Obama here, but it is clear that, while Franceschini and Bersani [the other candidates of PD leadership] have already clearly lost against Berlusconi (which suggests that they will loose again), Marino is the New Way. And this statement is valid without even giving a look to his program.
Reading the program one will be astonished by the strength of his positions, an absolute novelty in the context of PD, even before evaluating the contents, which, incidentally, looks to me reasonable and agreeable for anyone naming himself "leftist".

In fact, the Italian media, totally subservient to Berlusconi, publicizes the PD primary elections as a duel between Franceschini and Bersani, giving no visibility to Marino. Obviously because Berlusconi would prefer an opponent who agrees not to contradict him, in exchange for a peaceful coexistence in the puppet theater.

In short, I believe that the staunch Democrats should support Marino, hoping that upon winning the primary elections, he will be able to defeat Berlusconi at the Political Elections, where the rest of the leadership of PD always failed in the past.
Those like me who flow into PD for the "useful vote", should prefer Marino in the hope that finally some conditions will be created to reconcile the values of the whole Left in one only political force. In this way PD could represent their values, the very same values that the old leadership had failed.
I would also say that the supporters of Italia del Valori [another political party, allied to PD] should like Marino leading PD. This party, in fact, can hardly aspire to govern Italy alone or to find allies other than PD. And it is certainly better to relate to a force that has clear goals rather than a rabble of selfish people like Berlusconi's flunkies.

Dario Franceschini and
Pier Luigi Bersani

Obviously, the leadership of the Right would prefer a "subservient" opposition as the one leaded by Franceschini or Bersani: the weakness of the opposition goes hand in hand with the strength of the majority.
But if I were an elector of the Right, I think i would prefer a minority but viable opposition, which tends to make the Good for the citizens, although with different methods. And pressing the Right to always do the best for the Italians (after all this is the proper task of the opposition, isn't it?).

In short, shouldn't it be in the interest of any voter to have loyal and honest opponents?
At the end I think that Marino, as leader of the new PD, would be good for all Italians, except for some politicians and any kind of corrupted persons.

My contribution to this will be to vote for him at the primary elections October the 25th. Also non-members are allowed to vote, at a cost of 2 euros as a contribution for the expenses.
The mechanism for the election of the Secretary, however, is rather complicated. Here are the rules.
What I understand is that voting is permitted to any Italian citizen, EU or with a valid residence permit. But it looks like these elections are decisive only if one candidate obtains more than 50% of the votes, a result that is not realistic for Marino. Otherwise, the secretary shall be chosen among most voted via secret ballot restricted to the National Assembly. So Marino will likely lose, in which case I think PD will have to manage without my vote.

But a relative majority or even a good success of Marino may be a sign of change and an indication of the will of the electorate - that this time, the usual dinosaurs can not ignore.

I believe that the corrupt and fascist regime in which Italy is falling into is primarily a serious responsibility of the Left, which was unable or unwilling to offer a decent alternative. I think Ignazio Marino is an opportunity to fix the problem.

Barack Hussein Obama

Barack Hussein Obama

I wanted not to blog about the election of the president of the United States, but... i am not exempt from the enthusiasm that is overwhelming everybody.
My American friends for sure would be surprised noticing how much interest we have, on this side of the ocean, about the election of the American Presitent.
I believe that the citizens of the United States are more involved by a possible change about the big subjects of the internal politics, education, health care, public safety, on which i don't dwell upon, admitting my ignorance about them.

For us, instead, these elections deal about the role of the United States as the dominators of the world.

Nevertheless i believe that the President of the United Stats is not the one that really has the power. World economy is an interest much bigger than American democracy, and it's exactly this interest that determines the world order.
This raises to me doubts about Obama, as a possible renewer of the world politics. If there will eventually be a significant social change worldwide, it will be due by the achievement of an interest of the big multinational companies. And about this i fear that the will of the President doesn't have a big influence.
Even less the one of the electors.

Anyway, i like Obama. More than McCain. Infinitely more than Bush. I like Obama because he's black, and i hope that this feature of his will give a shake to all the consciousness of the world, especially over here in Italy, agains any type of racism. I like Obama because he has the image of a pacifit and environmentalist, although i believe that about these themes the image doesn't match with the real programs. I like Obama because of his human face, that doesn't work to hide his tears behind a plastic smile. In conclusion, i like Obama not because for a trust in a real change, but because he reflects a hope in a change that comes from the deep of the consciousness of the common man. A change towards a more imparcial, more peaceful, more environmentalist, more human society.

A change, in a society like ours, can happen only if it comes from the "high" of who handles the levers of the world capitalism. But a line on the sand that shows the direction of a change towards a more moral world order could be drawn only by the consciousness of the common man. And the image of Obama is a reflection of it.

Today i love the American People for having the courage to choose for that change.

The government of majority

Wikipedia, in the Italian version, at the entry "partito politico" defines: "Un partito politico è un'associazione tra persone accomunate da una medesima finalità politica ovvero da una comune visione su questioni fondamentali dello gestione dello Stato e della società o anche solo su temi specifici e particolari" ("A political party is an association among people joined by an identical political aim, or even by a common vision on fundamental questions on the State and society managing or even only on definite and particular themes").
It is odd to notice that the English version, at the entry "political party" says something completely different: "A political party is a political organization that seeks to attain and maintain political power within government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns".

Italian constitution

Both of the two versions look enough correct to me, even if they start from two different points of view. The Italian version shows the need of citizens to participate to the government, through the vote. The English version is instead focused on the problem of control of power.

From Wikipedia definitions one could deduce that the task of a political party is to defend the interests of who votes for it.
It shouldn't work like that: a party's task, in my opinion, is to govern the Country.
And to govern, in a democracy (as the etymology of the word itself suggests: government of the people - the whole people, and not only the majority) means to work for everybody's interests, also of who didn't vote for it.

What's the need to vote for one party instead of another, if any winner would anyway do everybody's interest, then?
The answer is that it's not so obvious to decide which are the actions to do on a legislative/executive level to reach that goal. For example one typical interest of all the citizens is to increase the wealth of the State (and so, atleast on average, the wealth of the citizens). This is the goal of both Capitalism and Communism philosophies, but they want to obtain it in completely different ways.
The need to vote is to decide which way that goal should be obtained. Who votes shouldn't do it to promote its own interests, potentially opposite to other people's interests, but to contribute to the achivement of the whole community interests.

Then, there is the problem to define on one side the set of people that have the right of vote, and on another side the set of who is subject of the decisions of who wins the elections. Surprisingly the two sets are not the same.
For example it is obvious that underage people are subject to the laws although they don't have the right of vote. There's also an open discussion in Italy about the right of vote for the non-citizen immigrants, but it is unquestionable that the laws dictate also their rights/duties.
The distinction of the two sets is dangerous, because it shows that there is a set of people that decide how another set of people must behave, while those last people don't have any possibility to give their political point of view. In my examples it is not a problem for underage people because they are the children of who has the right of vote. But in the case of non-EU immigrants for example the thing is different. If the voters vote for their own interests and not for the common one, the immigrants are discriminated. Moreover there is the problem of the looser minorities. Since the majoritiy is the one who governs, in a democracy a vote aimed at the realization of the personal interests of the voters could discriminate not only the non-voters, but also the minoritarian groups of voters. Nazism warried to obtain the interests of who voted for it, also if this included also the extermination of the Jews.
Actually this cannot happen if there is a Constitution that prevent it, but this works only if also political power is submitted to Constitution. If instead the winner political party can change the Constitution, there is an obvious contraddiction.

The sense of this post is that, even if this looks to me obvious and necessary for a real Democracy, it seems that nor the elected people of the majority in Italian Parliament, nor their electors notice that those rules are not respected. And, by the way, not even in the minority.

And to pay the fee is the interest of the Country.

Demonstration

Today there is the demonstration against the "processes lock" law by Berlusconi at 6:00pm, Piazza Navona, Rome. Too bad not being able to be there.
Besides the promoters, Furio Colombo, Paolo Flores d'Arcais, Francesco "Pancho" Pardi, also Antonio di Pietro, Dario Fo, Andrea Camilleri, Margherita Hack, Sabina Guzzanti, Ascanio Celestini, Moni Ovadia, Rita Borsellino, Marco Travaglio, Dacia Maraini, Gianni Vattimo will participate.

MicroMega.

Even George W. Bush looks like he understood the real nature of The Dwarf!

Ingrid Betancourt is free!

La Repubblica
Corriere della Sera
Cnn
Time
The New York Times
BBC
El Expectador
El Colombiano
El Tiempo
Le Monde
El Pais

I am for saving

This post starts from a discussion started on Maurice's blog, about the habit, to drink, of the water sold in the stores, typically in plastic or glass bottles instead of the "mayor's water" (the one coming from the aqueduct [in Italy it is a service by the Municipality], that is declared drinkable, and often purer than the one sold in bottles).

We, at home, use water in returnable glass bottles. The attempt is to cut to the bone the waste of plastic, fighting not only the scattering of this polluting material, but also the environmental damage, smaller but still not insignificant, given by the recycling processes.
Nevertheless also the returnable glass bottles cause a useless environmental damage, because this system produces some wastes: for example the detergent to wash the bottle, the plastic cap to close it (note that in a regular plastic bottle, the amount of material in the cap is bigger than the much in the bottle itself), the paper label and the glue to attach it, the energy for the machines that fill the bottles, the fuel for the transportation to the groceries, the fuel to take the bottles home, and then all the path backward of the returning bottles till closing the cycle.
But, the "mayor's water" in our village, also admitting that it is bacteriologically pure, is really disgusting. It tastes like chlorine and it is very calcareous. For this last problem there are efficient filters in commerce, but against the chlorine there's no simple solution, as far as i know.

In that discussion, Maurice himself writes:

Credo che sia necessario anche mettersi d’accordo sullo sviluppo sostenibile, come sostengono alcuni ecologisti fra i quali vorrei collocarmi.
Una semplice bottiglietta d’acqua inquina il pianeta, ma dà anche lavoro (e quindi produce ricchezza) a chi deve produrre la bottiglia ed il tappo, a chi la imbottiglia, a chi la trasporta, eccetera.
Leggiamo spesso cifre precisissime sull’inquinamento - ricordo a memoria che una bistecca inquina quanto un’auto che corre per 50 km - ma non ho mai letto quanto valore produce la bistecca in termini di lavoro e di ricchezza.
Credo che si possa vivere con agiatezza rispettando la natura e l’ambiente, senza con questo ritornare alle società primitive. Ammesso che esse rispettassero l’ambiente, come non hanno fatto i pellerossa distruggendo le foreste delle grandi praterie per permettere la sopravvivenza delle mandrie di bisonti e di loro stessi.

I believe that it is also necessary to agree about sustainable development, as some ecologists, among whom i would put myself, assert.
One simple water bottle pollutes the planet, but it also gives work (and so it gives wealth) to who produces the bottle and the cap, to who fills it, to who transports it, etcetera.
We often read very exact numbers about pollution - i remember that a steak pollutes as much as a car that runs 50 km's - but i never read about how much value the steak produces in terms of work and wealth.
I believe that we can live in prosperity respecting nature and environment, without having to go back to the primitive societies for this. Also admitting that those ones used to respect the environment, as the native american did not, destroying the forests of the big prairies to allow the survival of the bison herds and of theirselves.
[Free translation by me]

I believe it's a mistake to justify consumerism with the excuse that it is a system that allows a fair redistribution of wealth. Firstly because it doesn't seem fair at all to me.
But above all, the hole in the capitalist consumerism is right intrinsic in the mechanism, according to which the amount of commercialized goods (and services) must always increase, and so, also the useless has to be sold (and bought) anyway.
From one side it is true that the commercialization of a water bottle gives wealth to those who are part of its production/distribution chain. But let's consider, for example, the driver that transports it on his truck, which we can name Mario. At the end, how great is the wealth that Mario gets from the delivery of a bottle? For sure less than the cost at the store of that bottle. Mario, indefatigable worker, will eventually be thirsty, before or after, won't he? And how will he quench his thirst? Will he drink from the tap the "mayor's water"? No! Carefully applying the logic of consumerism, he will go to the shop to buy a water bottle similar to the ones he hauled (spending more money than the amount he made for each of them).
Now, it is also true that our Mario doesn't deliver only one, but an entire truck of bottles, and I'm not going to say that the necessary physical exertion for that job gives him such a thirst to drain the entire charge. But it is also true that Mario would have the need to buy other products, which probably suffered similar commercial stages. If Mario buys an apple because he's hungry, it means that there is somebody else that hauled apples. And maybe this last delivery person would have the need to quench his thirst with Mario's water besides to appease his hunger with his own apples.
In short, applying this mechanism to the whole closed system, society consumes exactly the entire amount of products that are commercialized, spending exactly an amount given by the sum of money that any single individual made as fruit of his work. In this system, so, no wealth is created. At most it has been re-distributed in higher or lower amounts belonging to how hard any individual worked. Since the amount of wealth in the closed system is not infinite, if wealth is proportional to work, when an individual works more, the other individuals must work less. And this mechanism generates social inequalities, which is the exact opposite of the system purposes.

One could raise the objection that instead of spending the entire amount of money made it would be wiser to save something. Or, that Mario should decide not to buy the apple, if he's not that hungry but to keep that money. But doing this way, that apple would remain unsold, and the wealth destined to who worked on it won't be available. In substance if the savings increase, in our closed system the consumes would decrease, and so also the money to be re-distributed would.
In other words, in our closed system, if we avoid to buy the useless, it is true that we would decrease the circulating wealth, but it is also true that this reduction is exactly equivalent to the value of the unsold useless goods.
To come back to our example, if we all used the "mayor's water", it's true that, as Maurice says, the wealth that would have been distributed in the commercial chain of the water in bottle would decrease, but its also true that globally that lost wealth would be exactly equivalent to the amount we save not to buy the water bottles.
And so, where's the social advantage in buying the water bottles?

A remark is needed about the fact that, in this analysis i considered a "closed system", which, apparently, doesn't apply very well to reality. In the capitalist westerner world (and also pretty much in the rest of the world), economical systems are not closed, meaning by this that they are based on export (and import).
The statement that working more one makes more money to the detriment of others that, working less, make less money, in a context of a non-closed system, it is false, because the eventual exceeding of product wouldn't be lost but exported. But this assumption presupposes that there is, elsewhere, another non-closed system (an importing country) that buys the surplus.
But this means that the importing country wouldn't have the need to produce the imported good, and so it doesn't have the possibility to employ workers in that productive cycle, and to produce the relative wealth, necessary to buy that product. And this looks to me a non-ethic side of the system, since it implies the increase of public debt, which means political dependency, of the importing country, increasing the social difference between rich and poor countries.
Considering instead the global economy of the world, which is obviously a closed system, since it's not possible to export outside the planet (and it looks it won't be for a lot of time), no wealth can be created, if by wealth we mean the purchasing power. Wealth equals the sum of all the goods globally produced, and so it is clear that the one coming from the production of a useless good is useless itself, because it allows only to buy a useless good.

The real wealth should be computed not in the basis of purchasing power, but according to the ownership of goods useful to better our lives. For example, the invention, production and distribution of cellphones didn't create wealth meaning purchasing power of individuals. Simplifying, the wealth given by the salaries of the workers that contributed in invention/production/distribution of cellphones is even to the wealth spent by consumers to buy that product... that's to say, at the end people that work get a salary that, after, is useful to them to buy the same goods they produce. The real wealth given by progress, instead, is the possibility to use those goods. If cellphones weren't there we wouldn't be able to send each other all those short messages to tell us romantic stuff like "TVTTTTTB" [in Italian it's the acronym of "ti voglio tanto tanto tanto bene" ("i love you very very very much"), typical teenagers' language].

Adimitting that water in bottles has the same quality of the "mayor's water" (which is clearly false in my case), to buy water bottles is absolutely useless from the economical point of view, and only a damage from the ecological one.

Anyway i am not an economist. Where's the error in my line of reasoning?

Fascists

This man

Giuseppe Ciarrapico

is a fascist.
In a Republic like ours, that reject Fascism so that there are explicit laws which forbid in a firm and drastic way the re-formation of a Fascist Party, this statement could sound as an insult. And, in fact, it would sound like that to me if i didn't know that this man did declare himself to be a Fascist. An insult is an insult only if one does say it in order to offend, so, strictly speaking, mine is not an insult, because this man would not offend for sure.
In short, this man not only is, but he also is proud to be a Fascist.
De gustibus non disputandum. Everybody has the right to define him/herself as the hell he wants, and so this man has the right to define himself a Fascist.

But, as i was saying, Italian Republic forbid the re-formation of the Fascist Party, and this principle, in my opinion, has a meaning if it is applied to the values of Fascism, and not simply to its name.
In other words, i think that the meaning of this law is to prevent the election to a political office of who identifies him/herself in the values of Fascism. That is, i deduce, this man, self-defining Fascist, should waive the right to candidate to an electoral roll. If it happened, a Fascist could eventually be elected, which would make the meaning of that law fruitless, even if this would not be exactly even to the re-formation of the Fascist Party.

This other man

Silvio Berlusconi

founder and leader of a party competing in the next elections, inserted in the electoral rolls of that party that man up there, so that it could be elected by the electors that vote for its symbol.
Being that one presumes that the electors that vote for a party implicitly agree with its values, one should deduce that the reason that man up there is candidated by this man in the electoral rolls of that party is the assonance of the values of that man with the values of that party.
That means that the values of Fascism are some ways represented by the Partito delle Libertà party.
In few words, the formation of PdL looks closely like the re-formation of Fascist Party.
Which is forbidden by law.

Anyway i believe that this crime is not liable of persecution because it is difficult to interpret what the hell it does mean a law that forbid the re-formation of Fascist Party. What is a Fascist Party? A party that is named "Fascist"? If it is so, then this crime has not been committed. A party that model its programs with the principles of Fascism? Well, it's not clear what also this means. It is obvious that the reason of that law is to avoid the risk to go back to a regime similar to the one of the Ventennio. And it is also clear that if somebody that declare himself Fascist is elected, this risk would be real. But it is also obvious that nobody that can be elected would admit (even if it was true) he/she want to restore the Racial Laws, to exterminate Jews, homosexuals, communists and nigros, to make an alliance with the Emperor of Japan and the Nazist Germany against the Capitalist West and the Communist East.

Anyway, surprisingly, Ciarrapico is, since some days, in the electoral rolls of Berlusconi's Partito delle Libertà.
This following is Berlusconi's declaration about it:
"Noi dobbiamo vincere. Noi dobbiamo fare una campagna elettorale e si deve vincere. L'editore Ciarrapico ha giornali importanti a noi non ostili ed è assolutamente importante che questi giornali continuino ad esserlo, visto che tutti i grandi giornali stanno dall'altra parte".
"We must win. We must do an electoral campaign and we must win. The publisher Ciarrapico has important newspapers not hostile to us and it is absolutely important that these newspapers continue to be like that, being that all the big newspapers are in favor to the other side" [translation of mine].

Apart from the fact that hearing Berlusconi himself, owner of a half of the national TV networks and a good number of newspaper and weekly magazines (thing anyway well tolerated by the previous governments whichever side), complaining because "the other side" has the monopoly of media is absolutely ridicolous, this declaration is really a masterpiece of idiocy.

Resuming Berlusconi's words, since PdL must win and the way to win is to conquire the favor of somebody like Ciarrapico, owner of other part of publishing, because it would help electoral propaganda, we can close a bit our noses and we candidate him to the electoral rolls.

Which, in my opinion, means these things:

1. The reason to candidate Ciarrapico is not, as the electors would expect, the one to have a person considered valid to vote, but to provide an exchange of favors: i put you in the roll, you publicize me on your papers.
2. One thinks that putting Ciarrapico in the rolls, he would make a campaign in favor of PdL, while if he was not in the rolls, he would make a campaign against. And so one could consider implicit that an article on a Ciarrapico's newspaper would not be targeted to the search of the truth, which, atleast formally, should be the task of the Press, but to the return of the favor: I support you because you give me that seat.
3. Being previous point so obvioius, one can deduce that the readers of Ciarrapico's newspaper are not interested to the truth, but to Ciarrapico's opinion, or, even worse, to what Ciarrapico wants others believe it is his opinion, which is the unconditioned elougy of Berlusconi, whichever he is up to.
4. So, Ciarrapico's newspapers journaists are not free to write their own opinion, or atleast simply the truth, but they have to reflect Ciarrapico's dictat, unconditionally favoring Berlusconi.
5. Berlusconi's statement, that sound like "We don't like Ciarrapico, but he's useful for us" means, implicitly, I put him in the electoral rolls, but let's hope he'll not be actually elected. Which makes me think that either Ciarrapico is a stupid, and he accepts the candidature even if he won't be elected, or Berlusconi is a stupid, which let such a statement not in favor of Ciarrapico fall of his big mouth, or the electorate of PdL is so smart to understand that Berlusconi statement is artificially mendacious, that is that Berlusconi says he doesn't like Ciarrapico, but he means exactly the opposite. Which means that also Berlusconi is a Fascist, and he tells it between the lines because he cannot say it loud.