The State: Public Enemy Number One

Gabriele's text presents a radical and deeply critical view of institutions and governments, openly challenging the common narrative about their function and usefulness. His argument is internally consistent, starting from strong premises to reach equally strong conclusions.

The initial premise, that "all problems, both individual and collective (social), are solvable," is bold. If accepted, it immediately shifts the focus from the inherent complexity of problems to the willingness or unwillingness to solve them. In this context, the failure to resolve a problem is no longer a failure or a difficulty, but an intentional choice.

The heart of the criticism lies in the assertion that many problems are not solved because "none of those who have the power to solve them are interested in solving them." Moreover, the argument goes further, claiming that "since many people benefit from people's suffering, then problems for people are constantly created, always new and increasingly serious."

This is a far-reaching thesis that, although extreme in its generalization, finds support in power mechanisms and economic interests observable in different eras and contexts.

For example, the existence of the military-industrial complex, a concept made famous by President Eisenhower, suggests that war and geopolitical tension can be extremely profitable for certain corporations and sectors, creating a disincentive to lasting peace. The persistence of conflicts in the Middle East, with the consequent demand for weapons and reconstruction services, can be read in this light.

Similarly, in the healthcare sector, in profit-based systems, there is a tendency to manage chronic diseases rather than cure them definitively, as continuous treatment generates constant revenue. The opioid epidemic in the United States, where pharmaceutical companies have been accused of pushing highly addictive drugs to maximize profits, is a glaring example of how ill health can be exploited economically.

The thesis that "institutions, indeed their institutionalizers... cause problems instead of solving them" and that "governments are organizations that create problems" is a direct accusation of systemic bad faith.

Although reality is often more complex than a monolithic conspiracy, the phenomenon of regulatory capture, where industries influence the government agencies that should regulate them, demonstrates how private interests can divert public functions. The intense lobbying activities of large corporations or financial groups, which lead to laws and policies that favor them at the expense of the common good or social stability, are further proof of how political decisions can generate or perpetuate problems for the majority, to the benefit of a few.

The observation on the difficulty people have in accepting this "truth" and their paradox of "hating politicians but protecting them" is psychologically acute. This cognitive dissonance stems from the structural and psychological dependence on the state for order, security, and essential services. Despite distrust in individual political actors, faith in the very idea of government and its presumed utility remains a pillar of social stability. "Protection" can manifest itself in the lack of perceived alternatives, voting for the "lesser evil," or reluctance to support movements that propose radical change to the system, out of fear of chaos.

The conclusion that believing in governments and entrusting them with one's life is "the gravest error" because they are "criminal organizations" is a total condemnation.

Although the label "criminal organizations" may be considered an excessive and rhetorical generalization, it serves to highlight the perceived gravity of the deviation from the declared function of the state. It is not just isolated corruption, but a system inherently oriented towards exploitation.

In summary, Gabriele's perspective, as radical and provocative as it may be, compels a critical analysis of the dynamics of power and the interests underlying political and institutional decisions. It suggests that many social and individual problems are not inherently insoluble, but are maintained or even created by those in power, in order to benefit from them. This vision, while simplifying the complexity of human motivations and governmental structures, offers a powerful warning against uncritically accepting official narratives and always investigating who benefits from the persistence of malaise.