The conflicts of 1977 began with a student occupation at the University of Rome to protest education reforms. This quickly escalated into a fully-fledged guerrilla battle with the police on the streets of Rome. The conflicts spread to other Italian university towns and trade unions and political parties were also dragged into the conflict. After a student was killed during a demonstration in May, riots broke out.
This photo was taken by Paolo Pedrizzetti in Milan during the riots. It depicts a young man in a ski mask who was a member of a far-left organization who turned their guns against the police, killing officer Antonio Custra on May 14th ‘77. The image became synonymous with The Years of Lead and spoke of the culmination of years of struggle between neo-fascists and the radical left to control the political future of the Italian Republic.
And what should be done when these avenues are defanged and ignored by moneyed interests? It’s never a comfortable life when you have to stand up for your rights but rolling over will never result in a good outcome.
I don't know where you live in the world but my country, the US, is graded as a flawed democracy (source). Gerrymandering, an unelected lifetime Supreme Court, & the influence of money are all examples as to why it's a flawed democracy. That said, I don't think violence is a rational option for political change here. I think violence begets violence and that's my understanding one of the origins of Italy's Years of Lead. One extreme side resorted to violence. So the other extreme side retaliated. And they spiraled into political assassination and bombings. If you support that then you and I have nothing to talk about. If you take an overt act in the furtherance of that then I can only hope that the FBI knocks on your door and give you some free bracelets.
Absolute nonsense. Do you think leftists simply didn't vote hard enough to prevent fascism in Germany and Italy?
Leftists didn't appeal to enough of the population to prevent fascism in Germany and Italy, probably because one of the major forces in left parties of the time was batshit insane "Let's wreck everything on orders from Moscow" factions.
Mussolini only performed his march on Rome after considerable electoral success, and with a strong right-wing majority already dominating parliament. Hitler was appointed by forming an alliance with the other right-wing party in Weimar Germany, giving them an actual elected majority.
You want to stop fascism? Street brawling isn't going to prevent them from worming their way into power with the consent of a considerable part of the population. You fight the fucking causes. You turn people to your side. Violence is notoriously ineffective at that.
I was explicitly not talking about 1936 Germany or 1922 Italy.
What do you find the fundamental difference to be between then and now?
The rise of fascism in Europe is an incredibly complex topic. Historians and political scientists today are still debating the definition of fascism and whether or not the word can be applied to anything after WW2. I read articles on Jstor that argued that Franco and Tito couldn't be considered fascists. I don't feel like I know nearly enough about those societies to talk about them authoritatively. I feel like I have at least somewhat of an understanding of American society and I don't think political violence is justifiable. Less than 50% of eligible voters voted in the last midterm election. I believe more political participation could lead to political change.
The thing is, this is what they had to work against .