Hal

Ah, I was specifically referring to this gem of a comment: "Little Strafrocio piezzemmerda... why don’t you respond to me about the amnesty that the communist comrades voted for in 1989 to abolish their crimes regarding illegal funding for parties? You change the subject (as well as the nickname) because you don’t want to remember all the money you red thieves stole from taxpayers through your mafia-like and money-laundering COOP ROSSE? You are just a bunch of shit communist thieves and mafiosi... your skill has been to buy off even the judges, that’s why they haven’t thrown you in jail, but that doesn’t mean you were honest, rather more mafioso than all the others (Christian Democrats, liberals, and socialists)..."

I almost forgot the position of the PCI in the national unity governments during the years of lead.

typo 1 "to the espionage activities against Enrico Berlinguer"

On the concept of the left. The socialist party has always been divided into two fundamental currents: maximalists and reformists. Some of the latter, in the 1980s and in a perspective of political competition with the PCI, shifted their political center of gravity towards the center, distancing themselves from the left (the period of the long socialist wave around the mid-80s). This shift, connected with the growing hostility towards the Italian left, has dug a trench such that the political protagonists of that time now find themselves comfortably in the center-right alongside the representatives of AN. An example? De Michelis. But even in this case, one could go on for a long time listing those "on the left" seated in the right wing of Parliament. Even Berlusconi has a personal history linked, not coincidentally, to the PSI of Craxi. I conclude with a note on democracy. According to one of the foremost theorists - Norberto Bobbio in "Il futuro della democrazia" - democracy is nothing more than a set of shared rules of the game, based on a series of values, which in the Italian case are found in the Italian constitution. It is not an example of democracy to address a political opponent with epithets such as "lercio", just to give an example drawn from your arguments. Furthermore, it would be better not to pepper discussions with banal clichés (smoke a joint etc.) that are pointless. Then do as you like. But from someone who does not respect the values of respect for political opponents, I don't believe one can learn what democracy truly is. Sorry for any mistakes, but I wrote this spontaneously. Bye.

In Israel, the construction of a concrete wall that divides the territories occupied by the state of Israel is coming to an end. Tension is rising, and the international community is absent, despite its significant responsibilities for the genesis of the situation. The only positive element has been the decision of the Sharon government to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. A step that should have prompted the international community and the United States, in particular, to seek solutions. But the silence is chilling. On the concept of democracy. The discourse is lengthy. There are substantial differences between totalitarian communist parties and those that have operated in Western democracies. To give a simple example, reports that the CIA made regarding the espionage activities of Enrico Berlinguer reveal a sincere democratic sentiment on his part. This is historically proven by a series of facts: 1. the position of the PCI during the years of terrorism; 2. the separation of the PCI from the PCUS; 3. Berlinguer's declaration that he felt more protected under NATO's umbrella; 4. the affirmation of Eurocommunism. But going even further back, it is historically proven that in the aftermath of the attack on Palmiro Togliatti, he halted the demonstrations of rebellion that could have led the country to the brink of civil war. At the same time, an association called GLADIO was established in Italy, which certainly did not have democratic and/or patriotic purposes, since it anticipated the realization of a coup d'état in the event of a victorious election for the PCI.

Very quickly. Point one: Bush. I do not agree with his policies for several reasons. The main one is that his stated goal was to counter international terrorism (I mean the declared objective, there may be others, the conditional is due to caution and lack of objective evidence), but this goal has not been achieved; in fact, it is a fact that there has been an exponential increase in this regard. A list would easily fill this page. Not to mention the false issue of weapons of mass destruction, on which both Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell expressed the absence of evidence. This was a politically very serious fact that should not be downplayed. As for Clinton & Co., I personally did not agree with the warmongering choices of that historical period, even though those choices were made in a context of international coordination that is now completely absent. So I would avoid generalizing. On this point, the Italian left (and others) has encountered no small divisions. Regarding Bush's second term, what concerns me is the part of the program that advocates greater reliance on "preventive war." I believe that this strategy, so far counterproductive, cannot bring benefits. Perhaps it would have been better to try to contribute to finding a solution in the Middle East, particularly regarding the Palestinian condition, which was, by the way, hoped for and announced by Bush himself in the aftermath of September 11. Instead, what is happening?

I'm a bit in a hurry, so I'll just say a collective thank you for your nice comments, bye :)

What a beautiful discussion! It's worth rereading several times, slowly. I believe Gabri's reading of the symbolic meaning of the cover, in relation to the musical content, is correct and incredibly interesting. However, I'm not sure if I can share it. Let's be clear, it's true that the word "peace" has been tarnished excessively in recent years, and it's equally true that it has been stripped of its meaning. But WHO has carried out these operations? Who has worn down the term peace? Perhaps only those who intended to. That is, the masters of war in their disguises. There are, I hope, still many who attribute a different value to that word, not necessarily and exclusively linked to the currents of '68. I believe the strength of this word lies in those who still want to give it a positive meaning. Regarding the reaction to the erosion of peace highlighted in this CD, I wonder if its essence—how to define it... nihilist (perhaps...), pessimistic... I don’t know— is really useful, or does this risk diminishing the existing value of the term and its contents? An extremely complex and interesting topic, but I'll stop here because I don't have the time to delve deeper right now; unfortunately, we will return to this topic later. The review is very interesting, just one note for the record: wasn't Lennon’s text "All WE are saying..."? That's how I remember it, and I don't believe that the use of the plural in this case is irrelevant. Sorry for the mess. Bye.

You managed to make us understand what you think of this album, and it's never easy. Go on devon

True, even more so in this case. You don't like this, but I like it just for that :)