hydrarchist writes "Italy, Rumors are often misleading - or guilt by association.

[In a previous post http://www.ainfos.ca/02/jun/ainfos00392.html
we pointed to attacks of "Disobbedianti" on anarchists.

Without discriminating between various groups who were associated in
the past with the Ya-Basta, a post: http://www.ainfos.ca/02/jun/ainfos00391.html
included among the guilty the Wu-Ming.

That post was a response to an interview distributing in a-infos-ca list and
whose English translation that was sent to us by Robeto is below.

The author seems to not understand the reasoning of the Wu-Ming
people to hold this style of a common name for the people of
their collective (like the previous Lute Bliset shared name by hundreds
of people in that Project).

It seems the author was not aware of the fact that the Wu-Ming people
have not join the Disobbedianti. Following is the main content of the
communication with Roberto Bui of the Wu-Ming:]

> 1) First, the response to the wholesale blame:

From: Wu Ming 1

To: a-infos-d@ainfos.ca (http://www.ainfos.ca/d/ainfos00272.html)

Cari/e compagni/e,

On June 19th, 2002 A-Infos put into circulation an anonymous message from
Italy stating that

(1) the Wu Ming collective is part of the so-called Disobbedienti and

(2) is "relative" of the people who assaulted an "Umanita Nova"-selling
anarchist in Venice some time ago. In the same message the Wu Ming
collective was also

(3) charged with being "social democratic" and "bolshevik" and somehow
accustomed to attacking anarchists. Furthermore,
(4) we were accused of being "hypocrites" and "shits" because our novels
are published by a corporate publisher "part of Silvio Berlusconi's group".

Here's our repleader.

-1-

We are not part of the Disobbedienti or every other current of the
movement, we are absolutely autonomous from all currents, groups and
parties, we are a collective of novelists.
Indeed we criticize the Disobbedienti, sometimes we do it bitterly. We were
involved in the "tute bianche" experiment (1998-2001), one of us took even
part to escorting the Zapatista "March of Dignity" in Mexico, that's well
known, but later reflected upon the flaws and limits of the TB experience.
After Genoa we wrote that everyone (not only those wearing white overalls)
had to start over. In case someone is interested to read our analysis on
the tute bianche and their times:

http://www.wumingfoundation.com/english/giap/giapd igest11.html

Not every person involved in the "tute bianche" joined the Disobbedienti,
indeed, several local affinity groups quit that network in the past 12
months. Our critique of the "wooden language" employed by the Disobbedienti
is available here (unfortunately only in Italian):

http://www.wumingfoundation.com/italiano/outtakes/ languedubois.html

-2-

We never were anarchists, that's no mystery: we position ourselves a
thousand light-years from most branches of the Italian anarchist movement
(especially those who affect ultra-nihilist suicidal tendencies). we also
dislike most articles featured on Umanita Nova, and yet we *strongly*
condemn any aggression, anybody must be free to publish and spread any kind
of opinions, if someone else disagrees they have to counter with other
opinions not by kicking asses.

As to our alleged custom of "attacking" anarchists: we never did that. We
were extremely critical of the way Black Blockers acted last year in Genoa,
that's no mystery either, we still think that on July 20th 2001 the BB was
*mocked*, imitated by agents provocateurs in several spots of the town,
however, we never criminalized the BB. Our appreciation of the way the BB
acted in Quebec City is available here:

http://www.wumingfoundation.com/english/englishmen u.htm>

On June 19th 2001,after the riots in Gothenburg, we also co-authored a
communique titled "Stop The Encirclement of the Black Bloc", which I
enclose here:

We're witnessing a very serious attempt at criminalizing this section of
the movement. We refuse to save our ass to the detriment of the Black Bloc,
we regard them as a fully legitimate part of the movement and refuse any
distinction between "good protesters" and "bad protesters".

White Overalls of Bologna / Wu Ming>>

-4-

The things we do everyday are sufficient evidence of the fact that we're
neither "bolsheviks" nor "socialdemocrats".

-5-

The socio-political and economical situation in Italy is too tangled and
bizarre to be summarized here, and it's very difficult to explain that
there is no apartheid between high and low culture, the mainstream and the
underground etc. It is all the more difficult to explain how bankrupt and a
system of chinese boxes forced the most prestigious leftist publisher in
Italy (that published such authors as Gramsci, Marx (both Karl and
Groucho), Adorno, Benjamin, Agamben, Pasolini, Aleksandr Herzen, Sartre,
Barthes, Tzara, Breton, Artaud, Gandhi, George Jackson, Angela Davis and so
on) to become a sub-label of the Mondadori colossus whose main shareholder
is Berlusconi. Nevertheless, Einaudi remained completely independent as far
as contents and editorial choices are concerned.
Anyway, the most important thing is that we have complete control on our
output, since the mid-Nineties we have imposed an anti-copyright notice on
our books and, generally speaking, we manage to do whatever the fuck we
please, in happy and thorough self-management.

As far as our bank accounts are concerned, we are a group and share every
precious drop of income. So far we have barely made a living out of that.

I hope that you'll give this reply the same relevance you gave to the
slanderous message.

Thanks,

Wu Ming 1 (on behalf of Wu Ming)

> 2) Second - communication with Roberto Bui:

Dear Roberto

Your post was distributed to the a-infos-d@ainfos.ca -
where responces to posts go usually.

Thank you very much.

>I just wonder If you define yourself as anti-authoritarian
and despise the vanguardist-elitist position of
parts of the old left.

Yes we do both, our long journey started from "autonomist marxism", a
tradition which emphasized the creative and revolutionary power of workers
on their own, apart from state and party. Of course nobody is completely
exempt from authoritarianism, not even anarchists, people make mistakes.
Freedom is a tendency, not a state of things. It is like the horizon, you
move towards it but you never reach it.

Q -What is the use of the horizon then?
A- You look at it and it makes you want to move forward, again and again.

Bye

> 3) The interview with the Wu-Ming - translation of:

http://www.ainfos.ca/02/jun/ainfos00364.html

From: Wu Ming 1

To: I. S.

The anonymous message I replied to was a comment on an interview with Wu
Ming on intellectual property, which was published on the newsletter of the
Italian Association of Libraries (June 2002). It was a Spanish translation.
This is the English one. Bye

R.

-----------------------------------

Q - What do you think about the recent law on copyrights which prevents
people, even in public libraries, from photocopying more than the 15% of
any book that's on the market? Do you reckon it is an effective way to
protect authors, help the publishing industry and foster the reading of books?

A - No we don't. The reading of books can only be fostered by liberalizing
the circulation of texts, not by restricting it. If you don't have twenty
euros to buy a book, you just don't have them. What are you goin' to do,
bury a coin in the Field of Miracles? Prohibition hits a class of people
whom the publishing (and record) industry have lost already because of
short-sighted policies, continual rises in prices and a general decrease of
quality. Think of university textbooks: most of them are on syllabuses in
spite of being mediocre or even awfully bad, only because their authors are
members of some academic circle... Generally speaking, it must be noticed
that all legislation on copyrights is the product of an holigarchic and
repressive mentality, politicians are ever more huddled up in defense of
those privileged corporate lobby groups embezzling stuff that belongs to
everyone.

Q - Is there any alternative solution?

A- As regards universities, the trouble is "upstream": books suck and yet
they cost an arm and a leg. In general, we believe in free reproduction.
Free reproduction doesn't affect the sales in bookstores, the circuits are
different, the formats are different, even the users' approach is
different. We witness it every day, for our books carry this notice:
""Partial or total reproduction of this book, as well as its electronic
diffusion, are consented to the readers for non-commercial use".
The latter detail has a political meaning: ordinary bourgeois
(liberalistic) jurisprudence is founded upon a subject whom closer
investigation exposes as abstract and estranged from actual social
relations: it is the "proprietory individual", who is described as
invariable, regardless of contexts. On the contrary, we believe that
there's a marked difference between the subjects, thus there's difference
between their respective rights, that is, a single pennyless reader must be
entitled to a kind of freedom which a big company must not enjoy. It took
three years of hard work to conceive, write and edit any of our novels. Add
hundreds of presentations and conferences all across Italy. The
bloodsuckers of corporate entertainment must not be allowed to hijack our
efforts gratis, turn our stories into cash-in movies and fortify their
cultural strongholds. In the past few years we have realized how important
was to add that phrase on "non-commercial use", although some anticopyright
purist criticized us. These people are unaware of the risks one takes on
this job and, at the end of the day, they are unaware of the fact that this
world is divided into classes :-)
Anyway, we keep on seeking a better notice and better solutions that can be
adopted by others. In the meanwhile you can allow your library users to
photocopy our novels and show our copyleft notice to SIAE inspectors or
agents of the Guardia di Finanza :-)

Q - That is the point, Wu Ming challenges the notions of the author as an
individual and of intellectual property itself. What is the notion of
literature on which stems your work?

A - We have made the implicit explicit, nothing more than that. As a matter
of fact no author creates or writes all alone. We aren't just talking about
editors or ghost-writers, we mean that ideas are in the air and don't
belong to any single individual. An author, any author, is a "complexity
reducer", s/he plays a temporary role. The author makes a precarious
synthesis out of the fluxes of information/imagination which are produced
by the whole society and run across the society far and wide, nonstop, like
electromagnetical waves. Strictly speaking, it is absurd to claim private
property of culture: if everything is produced by the multitudes, it is
only fair that any work be available to all. There are no "geniuses", thus
there are no "lawful owners", there is exchange and re-use of ideas, i.e.
the improvement of ideas. Lautréamont said that "plagiarism" (and its
precondition, i.e. "piracy", free reproduction) is necessary in order to
make progress. In recent history such a position - which was regarded as
obvious and natural just a few centuries ago - was taken only by members of
radical and antagonist currents [...] Nowadays it is coming back as a
hegemonic view, thanks to the digital revolution and the success of free
software, GNU Public Licenses, Linux etc. On the other side is everything
the Left (any of the Left's currents) has fought against since the
Enlightenment: unearned income for the upper class and the exploitation of
work by rich parasites. However, these classes and interests are *obsolete*
even from a capitalist point of view: nowadays wealth is produced in such a
way that makes copyright outdated, an ideological wreck whose mere
existence inhibits creativity, curbs the growth of "cognitive capital".
Nowadays growth requires networks of social cooperation and brainstorming
in all directions. In order to be *productive*, ideas must be free to
circulate. If you wish to hear classic Marxist terms, we'll say that the
development of productive forces is provoking a crisis in the relations of
production. Think of P2P platforms which allow you to share and exchange
MP3 files; think of such technologies of reproduction as CD burners: the
fact that these things are on the market proves that the Berne convention
on intellectual property is being *superceded* by the very development of
productive forces. In plain words, if you sell me such technologies as
computers, samplers, scanners, CD burners and photocopiers, then you
shouldn't be entitled to call the cops because I'm allegedly using them
"the wrong way"!

There is a vast (not yet fully self-conscious) anti-copyright movement,
which the intellectual property mafia oppose fiercely by worsening the
existing laws. Moreover, the mob counterattacks on a bigger scale by
extending the logic of intellectual property to living beings and human
genes, which means that the battle on copyrights is one of the most
important frontlines in the present-day socio-ecological war.
Anyway, "we" are winning the battle on the cultural industry, just think of
music: nowadays big record companies plead poverty, attack "pirates",
witness the dramatic decrease of their profits. Perfect! Bubbles are
bursting and parasites get debunked, e.g. clown who've become millionaires
just because their one and only hit has been played at piano bars for
thirty years, or well known associations that monopolize the enforcement of
copyright laws and share the money they extort between the Big Families
that control the business etc. etc.

The way we access to music (and all cultural artifacts) is changing, "mass
culture" is being replaced by a new kind of "folk" culture, which stems on
live performances, solidarian networks, sharing, DIY culture
(self-production, self-distribution, word-of-mouth). After all, it will get
less and less important to know *who* wrote this and *who* wrote that.
Artists will cease to be Authors (with the capital "a") or "personages",
they'll become storytellers again, they'll be minstrels, bards, griots."