hydrarchist writes:

This is an interview conducted by a participant in the Generation mailing list with Hobo, an Italian militant.

* Am I right in thinking that the panther movement (a wave of
university occupations in 1990, so named because it coincided with
the escape of a panther from Rome Zoo) caused an expansion and
de-ghettoisation of the social centres? Did students get involved
with the social centres at this time?

Yes, even if the the panther movement marked just a beginning of the
longer process of de-ghettoisation. Which can be considered
accomplished, years later, with a big opening up to "civil society"
and its heterogeneous component (grassroots associations, NGO's,
catholics, etc.). We can say that a big boost in this sense was given
by the Zapatistas after their first "encuentro internacional" where
they introduced the concept of "enlace civil". Going back to the
panther, yes they brought a real renewal in the social centres,
giving vital energy and wiping out that diffuse sense of defeat. Many
new social centres (actually, most of the existing social centres)
were occupied in those years by the panther students themselves.

* What were the principles of the Milan charter (in broad terms) and
how did it form the basis of a re-grouping? It seems to have been
partly about links to the institutionalised left.

It was the synthesis of the work of three committees: "repression,
decriminalisation and prison", "citizenship income" and "social
centres and discarded areas", each one making its contribution to the
final document. The first committee stated the right to social
struggles and the illegitimacy of prison as an answer to exclusion
and marginalisation. They asked for a general amnesty for political
prisoners and for all those inquired into activities linked to social
struggle, they affirmed the right to freedom of circulation for
everyone (specially for immigrants), demanded the closure of the
detention camps for immigrants, the decriminalisation of narcotics,
and the release of all prisoners affected by aids. The second
committee declared the opening of a campaign to force the renewal of
the old debate about a universal income. They talked about the need
for a very "plural" participation in this mass movement, with wide
and rich differences. So they propose the creation of an operative
network organised by "tute bianche". The third committee (and this is
the critical point) affirmed the will to exit the losing loop of
"conflict - repression - struggle against repression" and to enter a
different scene; where social conflict can bring positiveness and
start a new loop "conflict - projects - broadening of the sphere of
rights"... "I'm gonna quote the document (beware of my lousy
translation): 'we think of projects as constituent items, prefiguring
further social, economic and relational models. We think of conflict
which, starting from ourselves, can claim and conquer rights for all,
leaving behind definitively self-referential logics. We think that
it's impossible, at this time, to put off the necessity of
determining an overall political solution, valid for the whole
nation, which allows the social centres to escape from the dimension
of precariousness in which we are confined, giving back social value
to the concept of liberation and the re-use of discarded areas".
This point ends with the need to intervene, starting from the local
disputes, even into the legislative dimension, in order to guarantee
a total acknowledgement of our self-management. In fact at that time
there were some administrators (i.e. Massimo Cacciari mayor of Venice
and Paolo Cento in parliament) who's experiences was not so far from
that of the movement and who looked at the social centres favorably.
The point was: let's start from this and try to acquire some rights
that can be extended overall. I can't say if this is a good strategy,
I can only see the results and in my opinion they confirm the initial
bet. We have been able to bring members of parliament to Belgrade and
Ramallah to give voice to the movement, we have been able to bring
them to detention camps for immigrants and close them... but, above
all, we can move out of a defensive role and try to propose what we
actually want. We have to fight hard (and the Genoa days are a
dramatic example) but we can't easily be pointed out as isolated
thugs... even the right-wing journals are forced to refer to us as a
social movement. They can talk about violence, radicalism, whatever,
but they have to admit we represent a part of this society.

* How controversial in the movement was/is participation in local
council elections? What's the thinking behind it?

Actually there wasn't *one* movement. In a very schematic way, we can
say that there was a part oriented towards investigating and
interpreting the changes in the world: in politics, in society and in
production; while there was another part tied to orthodox Marxism and
to an unaltered ideology, which simply couldn't accept any contact
with institutions. The social centres split into these two sides,
with some more nuances. Basically those who subscribed to the milan
charter and those who didn't. The controversy was hard. They called
us traitors and we called them pointless... maybe it's not completely
decided, but now it's much softer, as in these years we've shown that
we didn't abandon the conflict, in fact the struggle has increased.

* I've heard theories that these were defensive moves based on a fear
that political parties such as Lega Nord were growing in the areas of
immaterial labour that the movement was hoping to grow in.

I don't think those terms are exactly right. The thing is that Lega
Nord was successful, so we started asking why. They collected the
protest and displeasure of a lot of people, canalising it into the
worst populist platitudes. In most of the cases the roots of this
protest were fair, but people were duped. They fed their rage with
intolerance and egoism. It was evident that there was something
missing in this... and it was responsibility of the left. The new
subjects of this change in northern Italy were not "working class" in
the historical sense, nor "capitalist class"... maybe not a "class"
at all. Just the intermediate result of the work in progress of the
transformation of the production system. They asked for federalism in
order to obtain more autonomy from an old centralistic and statist
vision. We always liked the concept of federalism, going back to the
Paris commune, and we have better arguments to advance than the
racist and reactionary ones advanced by the Lega Nord. So we tried,
with some success, to take this advantage away from the Lega Nord and
trace back the concept of federalism to its acceptance of freedom and
anti-statist co-operation. In fact some of the moderate currents of
the Lega Nord left the party and distanced themselves from those
racist position."

* How extensive are the links with Rifondazione and the
institutionalised left? Do you think they are based on a need for
self defence or is it based on a real points of commonality (perhaps
with the grassroots)and a moving forward together? After all the
movement in Italy seems vibrant compared to the rest of Europe and
not defensive.

I think I've already partly answered this question. I think we've got
out of a merely defensive attitude. In some oriental martial arts,
you can dodge a blow while attacking at the same time... with
rifondazione there are no particular links, not more than with other
parties or groups or associations. There are tighter links with the
greens, just because the structure of that party allowed some
representatives of the social centres to be elected to the parliament
or in local administrations. Nothing ideological. Just trusting
people. One of the big changes in these years is the overcoming of
ideologies and of fetishes. We can agree with Bertinotti
(rifondazione leader) if he is doing good, but we don't have any
arrangement to follow when we think he's doing bad. The force of this
movement is really in this networking method: a multitude, not a
party.

* Can you give a sense of the geographical spread and influence of
the Ya Basta, Tute bianche and then the disobedients movements?

I'm afraid I can't be accurate in this estimation, but I'll try. Take
it with some reservation. First of all, I think that the anti-g8
events in Genoa signalled a strengthening of the movement, so many of
the hesitant subjects position themselves with the disobedients.
Anyway, they spread from the whole north-east (padova, venice, etc.),
where they are quite hegemonic, to milan with the "leoncavallo", the
biggest social centre in italy, to ancona in east-center, to rome, to
naples, to some social centres in the south (puglia and sicily). In
these places the influence is very strong and these are very
important for the rest of italy. In other places like florence or
bologna it's more debatable, while in turin they dislike the
"disobedients".

* Can you explain the composition of the post-genoa "movement of the
disobedient" is it a renamed Tute bianche network? What are the
political/theoretical developments that it is based on?

This development is not just a rename, it's a further expansion.
Casting off the "tute bianche" also casting off a presumed role of
leadership or avant-garde of a movement. The disobedients are not
only social centres, they are a multitude composed of all who in
actual fact oppose neo-liberalism: many grassroots organisations,
some catholics, sectors of parties... the whole people who were
demonstrating in Genoa. It was time, especially in those days, to
give to this movement the strength to walk on its own legs. All
together, all different parts of a wide mass movement. Thanks to this
they couldn't bind someone into a ghetto and all "normal" people
watching TV know the truth about the violence of the police.

* I understand that since genoa the wearing of white overalls has
been abandoned does that mean that the wearing of padding and the
use of shields has also been abandoned?

The white overalls were a symbol. It wasn't anymore useful. I think
we never have to grow too attached to symbols, as they have their
cycle of life. Padding and shields are not symbols but technical
instruments to reduce pain. Sometimes it's better using them,
sometimes not. it's a technical choice "on the field". ;-)

* I'm also interested in the social forums. how widespread are they?
who is involved in them? also what role have they played in
post-genoa struggles, ie the general strike.

There are a lot of them everywhere... I just can't count them. you
can find a list at http://www.lacaverna.it/articoli/italialink.htm in
each social forum there are social centres, grassroots associations,
civic committees, student organisations, pacifist groups, Attac,
rifondazione comunista, verdi (greens party), ya Basta, cobas
(radical trade union), sectors of cgil (institutional trade union),
mani tese (a catholic organisation), lila (aids activists), some gay
associations, some independent media, etc. As for the general
struggle, they brought the concept of "generalised strike", meaning
that the same rights should be extended to non-workers (students,
unemployed, occasional workers, immigrants, etc.). There has been
complete participation in the recent demos (including the general
strike) in all the cities and the social centres presence has been
very evident.

* Part of what is exciting about the Tute bianche experience was the
attempt to do away with old ideological traps like the binaries of
violence/non-violence or reform /revolution. Along with attempt to
provide new concepts like biopolitics and multitude. Concepts that in
the English speaking world have been presented mainly through Hardt
and Negri's book "Empire". I'm wondering about the relationships
between the new concepts and the movement. From England it's hard to
work out whether Negri and other intellectuals are inventing these
concepts and applying them to the movement or whether they are
collecting concepts developed in the movement and presenting them to
the world. I wonder what your impressions are? I suppose I'm also
wondering how widely the concepts are excepted.

My impression is that in some way there's a continuous feedback
between these intellectuals and the movement, each one feeding the
other. The tute bianche experience started from research (mainly
conducted by Toni Negri and Maurizio Lazzarato) on immaterial work. A
new concept that helped investigate some major changes happening in
society. So the tute bianche' struggled for the extension of rights
to non-workers; spanning the horizon of the "political" to the
"social". Putting "bodies" and lives at the centre of the dialectic.
This, in turn, called back to Negri's mind the theory of biopolitics,
exposed by Michael Foucault, and so on... I mean that we have no
dogmas at this time. These times are too historically different from
the previous phases and we have to try new roads and constantly
verify them with a theory. The "multitude" concept has come from a
necessity to overcome the sectarianism of the former
"extra-parliament" groups, to try a networked method just like
capital is doing. in time it's become a theory that lead us to
consider the force of difference. Now we think it's a winning
notion, maybe the only way out.

* How important is music to the social centres? Is there a dominant
taste in music? Antagonistic rap, punk, dance music? I'm interested
because music can be powerful as a means of spreading new attitudes
and focusing new subjectivities but it can also become something
around which a static identity can be formed which tends to freeze
attitudes and become conservative.

Music is very important. 90% of the importance of the social centres
for the young. It's a way to appeal to people, to finance expenses
and to provide culture. I'm afraid I'm not a good reference about the
new musical scene (I'm too old) :-)))... I'll try. Antagonistic rap
is still appreciated, but just the good old names like "99 posse" and
"assalti frontali". For punk it's quite the same, except that many
small bands go on springing up and playing, but very few of them
survive long. As far as I can see, people like two kinds of music:
ethno-world like manu chao, zebda, etc. (but we have some italian
characterisations more on the folk singers side, like "Modena city
ramblers" and others) and something which i can hardly describe...
some bands that play a particular kind of music: csi, timoria,
marlene kuntz, disciplinatha, litfiba... maybe, if you want to get a
better idea, you can listen at radio sherwood live in realaudio
stream at www.sherwood.it