The bridge, the cable car and the obscenities
Riccardo Ruggeri's Cameo not only on the Mottarone cable car
My interest in the Funivia case certainly does not concern the roles and responsibilities of the three: “the Boss”, “the Technician”, “the Operative”. The problem is in the hands of the magistrates, as that of the Morandi Bridge continues to be in their hands. No comments, I await the judicial truth, for me only reflections, and deep sadness.
Both cases have in common what I call "the obscenity of the gesture", which for the cable car meant putting a tool to block the brake, rather than blocking the cable car, which would have blocked the "turnover".
Will this aspect be grasped by the citizens? Or will everything end as it was for Mani Pulite or for Ponte Morandi, with the search for the “scapegoat”, in order to close the file?
In 2020 I wrote about the character that I consider most emblematic in the world of human justice today: the "Scapegoat", who does not always coincide with the culprit (see Alberto Mittone and Fulvio Gianaria, From the part of the investigated Il Mulino, 1987).
Thus was born The Trial of Achille K., a novel that I recommend to respectable people. It is the Kafkaesque story of a character, Achille K. always present in the triad: the "Boss", the "PM", the "Scapegoat". In the novel, Achille K. is described as innocent, and according to the evangelical tradition he is, and he pays off sins not his own by "centering the evils of the world on himself". But he, for a series of his considerations and choices, pleads guilty, and is convicted, while the real culprit (the "Boss") is saved.
CEO capitalism would not be conceivable without the "Scapegoat", because he represents the waste material of the model. For the sake of completeness, let's go back to Mani Pulite, from which everything is born.
Important politicians asked for maxi-bribes from important entrepreneurs, and these, through their collaborators-carriers, paid the treasurers of the parties, obtaining supplies at particular conditions in exchange. In this way, they made obscene profits, plundering the state. They robbed their criminal behaviors in "lobbying", continuing to extol terms such as "market", "competition", "meritocracy", "open society" in conferences, on TV, in newspapers. All crap. These "Bosses" were common criminals, who demanded gender impunity.
Before the prosecutors they claimed that the culprits were their collaborators (here is the "Scapegoat"!) Who had not informed them (exactly as in the cases of the Bridge and the Cableway), let alone gave them orders. But they did not know how to answer the obvious question that obtusely for years I posed to magistrates and entrepreneurs: "Admitted and not granted that you did not know anything, because one of your employees would have had to steal money from her, not to keep it, but to bribe public officials, so that they earn more money for her? "
How did it end? The carriers were jailed for talking (legal obscenities of the magistrates), then sentenced. The only corrupting entrepreneur who also became a carrier committed suicide, undermining the criminal model of his fellow snacks. But all the "Bosses", by hook or by crook, blew it up.
I guess, the "Bosses" said to themselves: What to do to protect themselves in the future, both from jail and from the loss of turnover? Why not go back to the evangelical figure of the "Scapegoat", so that the magistrate identifies his (evident, immediate) responsibilities and the investigation stops at that level, not involving us?
In these thirty years, the judiciary has lost credibility, it is perceived as a caste that makes mistakes, but instead of accepting punishments it claims privileges. Instead, the caste of CEO capitalism now dominates the scene, it may have worked in secret to create a protective curtain (not just the 231 law) that would preserve its "Bosses", and their privileges, from the magistrates.
How? I guess with the tool I call "Budget". At the time of taking on the role, the "Operative" undertakes to carry out the mandate respecting the "Budget". The "Boss", assigned the "Budget", orders nothing more, wants to know nothing more, formally leaves the scene. It is implied that if you do not respect the "Budget" you are fired. And the tapino knows it.
For example, in the case of the cable car, but it also applies to the bridge, it is the "Operative" who has chosen to lock the brakes in order not to block the cable car, hence the "turnover". Did he (apparently) have no orders, did he respect the "Budget" rather than his conscience? Criminal liability is personal, therefore his. The Ponte Morandi case has several passages of this type, one very recent.
I observe, disheartened, that at the level of public opinion, "the obscenity of the gesture" is no longer understood, at times it is even rejected.
I fear that CEO capitalism has entered so much into the nerve endings of our brains, burning them, that we accept the growth of “turnover” as our only life priority. This economic mantra has become culture, because if you accept the “Budget” as your model of life, you automatically accept being a “Scapegoat”. And it is your "gesture" that preserves the "turnover".
I know I am out of date and irrelevant, but culturally I do not accept the Ponte and Funivia cases, at the same time I find it all very sad.
Communication: Wednesday 9 June, at 8 pm, Marco Piraccini and I will introduce the debate on the “obscene gesture” of the cable car in the “Room” of Zafferano.news on Clubhouse. Anyone wishing to participate, write an email to “[email protected] to receive the invitation.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/il-ponte-la-funivia-e-le-oscenita/ on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 05:10:54 +0000.