COMMENT
Political change -- for good or for bad -- in history is often (almost always) the result of rebellion, which means violence that goes against the "interests of the state."
The state, of course, uses preventive violence systematically to maintain order and discipline.
Examples: American Revolution (1776), American Civil War (1860), Russian Communist Revolution (1917), Arab Spring (2010).
What kind of criteria do you use to sort out the "good" revolutions from the "bad" ones?
Start with a reflection on Sacco & Vanzetti and the distance between the reality of anarchists' methods and their ideals (also Toni in L'emigrante would be a good example.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Sacco & Vanzetti, I felt this feeling a dread because I already knew how the story was going to end going into the film. It especially didn't help that Sacco & Vanzetti were idealists who believed in their anarchist ideology and were willing to resort to anything to achieve their goal except for using violence.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the same couldn't be said for the American and Russian Revolutions, the American Civil War and the Arab Spring which mostly started and ended in violence. In my opinion, "good" revolutions are ones that end with the least amount of violence possible. If a group can overthrow a government largely without using violence (a la Ghandi's fight for Indian independence)then that is a revolution worth fighting for. While in some instances, violence is necessary it should never be the first option, in my opinion.
I knew from the beginning that Sacco and Vanzetti were going to die. Just to see all the racists in the courtroom and witnesses being bribed to lie against them. It just shows how the system to this day has failed.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, the two (Nicola and Bartolomeo respectively) became martyrs, an indictment on a system that failed them simply because they were anarchists. Vanzetti has an amazing speech in the film where he explains his reasons for becoming an anarchist, which (to paraphrase) is due to what he felt was an unjust system. He wanted to see the abolition of borders and a system of government for the people as opposed to rewarding those in power. His speech is the essence of anarchism. It is deeply anti-authoritarian with a belief in the right to protest in the form of political discourse. Now part of the assignment is to discuss Toni, but he is more difficult to pin down because he uses bombs. This has always been the flaw that I've found in anarchists' form of protest which is the use of violence. Now I have agreed with violence as a means of meting out revolution before (speaking historically). Our country was founded on this type of bloody revolution. From Giuseppe Garibaldi, Huey Newton to Che Guevara, violence has always defined revolution, but bombing the public is no way to get a political message across. Toni's reasoning for wanting to use a bomb is noble but short-sighted and antithetical to the essence of revolution, which is to inspire change and not deter aspirations with fear. Toni, although bumbling and used for comedic relief, is the "bad" side of the rebellion spirit. Sacco and Vanzetti (before their incarceration) were using the "good" side of rebelling. They didn't want to use violence. All they needed was their words and literature.
ReplyDeleteSacco and Vanzetti were idealists: they believed in the true goal of anarchy and the liberation of social classes, borders and war but without the use of violence. Although they are idealists, in reality anarchists usually use violence to bring attention to their goals. Although they both dislike government officials for sending poor citizens to go to war, Sacco and Vanzetti may use pamphlets, but other anarchists would rather use bombs to address the issue. This creates the contradiction and bad image for anarchists as their beliefs may be ideal and appeal to the mass, but their actions are extreme and opposite what they believe. It is hard to sort out good revolutions from bad revolutions as both sides would have their own reason for inciting it and to actually determine good or bad, you'll have to empirically judge both sides without bias. As most countries are founded on revolutions, the use of violence can’t be the sole factor to determine if a revolution is good but how sensible the reason for the revolution and how humane the plan used to carry it out.
ReplyDeleteUntil the last moment I believed that there will be a way to save them but unfortunately it was a sad ending. Sacco and Venzetti had all of these ideals about anarchy that it means freedom and the end of class society and equal for all, but they didn't do anything to make it stop. For 7 years they were asking for mercy and justice from the court meanwhile they didn't believe in this power system. How can they ask the jury for mercy if they hated the whole system? In my opinion the good revolution would be a revolution with less violence and less deaths of people. Less of destroying the property and a revolution with a good outcome, meaning at the end the problem got resolved and people got what they were fighting for.
ReplyDeleteSacco and Vanzetti failed the system simply because they were Anarchists. In the beginning of the movie I had the feeling that Sacco and Vanzetti wasn't going to win the case, even though at the end when the other lawyer that took over the case try to find a way to get them out of jail after 7 years. I believe the main reason they did not win the case was because they were immigrant in America and their words didn’t have no meaning and power for the community to listen. Immigrants had no right or power to voice their though and trying to prove their innocent no matter what the situation is, the community still wouldn’t listen and will still punish them. Being an illegal immigrant with no paper in America give Americans the right to treat you like crap because you have no value in their eyes.
ReplyDeleteIt was wrong for the judge to send the Immigrant to die as a punishment by electrocuting them. In my opinion I felt it was wrong for the Judge to sentence them to death just because they were Anarchism. A good revolution for me have to be a revolution where there would be no blood sharing, violence, and chaos.
The irony of anarchism in general and the revolution it intends to bring about is that it depends on systematic change rather than the abolition of a systematic society. By definition, anarchists are individuals who wish to bring about anarchy (as per Google, a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority), and yet often wish to replace one governing system with another. In the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, their pending conviction/execution was prolonged over then span of several years. During this time, the defendants continuously tried to evoke/enlist the sympathy/help of the court, of lawyers, of political figures, of the system, to gain their freedom. If they were pure anarchists, they would outright deny the authority of the system, of the government, rather than trying to save themselves within [the system's] construct.
ReplyDeleteThe criteria which I use to define "good" revolution versus "bad" revolution is the support of the people to the revolution, and the means in which the revolution is carried out. A revolution is naturally justified in its nature if it reflects the majority view of the people. A governments main function (in theory) is to be a fair representation of the people, and to govern them in a fair way. When a government fails to by for and by the people, revolution is a justified reaction by the people. Why should people accept to be governed, to be ruled, in a way in which they (the majority) feel is unjust. This being said, a revolution must be aimed at the ruling body it intends to overflow, rather than at innocent people/bi-standards, to be a just and "good" one. I don't believe that a revolution is the justification of killing/hurting "innocent people," defined as the people in which harming would help enact no/limited change. A "good" revolution should "attack" the governing body and its agents.
While Sacco and Vanzetti seemed similar in some ways, to me they were also very different from one another. Vanzetti supported the cause (anarchy) wholeheartedly and knew that his life meant less than the cause as a whole. He was willing to keep working toward what he believed in, even if it killed him. Sacco on the other hand seemed to be apart of the anarchist movement because he was fed up with how hard he worked, and for so little. To me he was not so wholeheartedly invested and it seemed that he was very distraught when they first go to prison (unlike Vanzetti).
ReplyDeleteThe two dealt with their problems in the movie in very different ways, this demonstrates that not all anarchists or extremists (if they could be called that), are the same in their relation to the world.
The distinction between a "good" revolution and a "bad" one, to me comes down to semantics. The question should not be a question of good and bad, it should be a discussion about who is benefiting and in what ways. An example that I think of is the American Revolution, this was seen as very bad from the British Perspective, but for those seeking to leave oppression and loyalty it was a success. As an American I would describe the American Revolution as a success, but my opinion is obviously biased. My point is that History, and especially revolution is subjective to those who benefit and those who do not. In these cases I would not say there is a universal "good" or "bad, it just depends on who you're asking.
Sacco & Vanzetti were anarchist and weak Italian immigrants, so I had a feeling it would be hard to figure out their cases. However, I think that the movie would be happy ending despite the obstacles and pressure, but the miracle didn't happen at all. They died even though there were plenty of evidence. Based on this movie, I think that the good revolution is a revolution that without any physical damages, like dying, injured, etc. Also, unlike the bad revolution, I think the good revolution is a harmony. everyone harmonize with each other and make voice.
ReplyDelete