Sacco and Vanzetti (and Berardelli and Parmenter)

[Project Willow]

Leave it to RI to tear down all comers, regardless of what cause they or their legends might serve. Only perfection will do I suppose.

Oh, my god.

Yeah, uh, fuck that shit.

I was thinking of the "Fuck Jill Stein" thread, and attacks on individuals on this very board who are activists, but hey, take it to any extreme that will make you happy.

OMG

[FourthBase]

Leave it to RI to tear down all comers, regardless of what cause they or their legends might serve. Only perfection will do I suppose.

Oh, my god.

Yeah, uh, fuck that shit.

I was thinking of the "Fuck Jill Stein" thread, and attacks on individuals on this very board who are activists, but hey, take it to any extreme that will make you happy.

OMG

You were thinking of that thread, when you posted this song?

Sacco had come from the mountains of Italy,
Had a wife and children three;
Vanzetti sold fish on the streets of North Plymouth,
Was a writer of workers's poetry.

The world shook harder on the night they died
Than 'twas shaken by that Great World's War;
More millions did march for Sacco and Vanzetti
Than did march for the great War Lords.

More millions did pray, more millions they did sing,
This August night in nineteen twenty-seven,
When strapped there in that chair they did die.

More millions saw the light, more walked into the fight,
And more from shore unto shore
Than ever did fight for the rich man's hire
Or dress in the warrior's uniform.

The peasants, the farmers, the towns, and the cities,
The hills and the valley they did ring,
Hindenburg, Wilson, Harding, Hoover, Coolidge
Never heard this many voices sing.

The zig-zag lightnings, the rumbles of the thunder,
The singing of the clouds blowing by,
The flood and the storm for Sacco and Vanzetti
Caused the rich man o pull his hair and cry.

Bonus stanza:

Berardelli woke up that morning with a yawn
Kissed his two young children and he said goodbye
Went to slave for The Man, carried cash that wasn't his
Met two Galleanists on the street who said, "Die!"

They weren't just a fishmongerer and a cobbler.
They didn't just write poetry, and daydream, lol.

"The flood and the storm for Sacco and Vanzetti"
What he really means there, I think, is "of", i.e., violence-idols for the meek singer.

[compared2what?]

Sure, they were reportedly considered Galleanists, or sympathizers to the movement. So they're scumbags for entertaining radical views, then?

Seems the cops had been eyeing them for one after another Galleanist crime for half a decade, and Vanzetti was charged with...what, does anyone here remember? In 1919? Plymouth? And if they weren't important and influential Galleanists, then why why did anyone give a crap?

Because the elites running the show and the system with which they ran it were being seriously challenged. Sacco and Vanzetti/Galleanists made everybody from Eugene Debs to....um, Emma Goldman? (there are probably better examples) look bad.

That's why (blah blah blah, presumption of innocence, political prosecution, etc) they're not supposed to be able to do that.

As I've been saying.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Sure, they were reportedly considered Galleanists, or sympathizers to the movement. So they're scumbags for entertaining radical views, then?

Seems the cops had been eyeing them for one after another Galleanist crime for half a decade, and Vanzetti was charged with...what, does anyone here remember? In 1919? Plymouth? And if they weren't important and influential Galleanists, then why why did anyone give a crap? Why did their fellow Galleanists blow stuff up on their behalf in protest? (Once after Vanzetti basically begged them for said bombing revenge.) Why did the state have any big desire to rig the trial a little to ensure their imprisonment? Not to say the rigging was justified, but: Because those two were actually, in fact, dangerous, menaces, wannabe if not consummated murderers.

Why was Joe Hill shot?

[compared2what?]

Right.

And there are more than just the two examples, as you know.

And what did we end up with?

Americanism.

Not you, Joe, obviously. We Americans. Though you too, in a way, I guess.

[Project Willow]

You were thinking of that thread, when you posted this song?

I was pretty damn clear about why I posted the song. My contribution here is purely about politics, or the lack of political savvy, as it were. While I've no objection whatsoever to an examination of those held up as revolutionaries in by-gone days in general, I just don't see the utility of the exercise when there are so many contemporary, unequivocal examples to call upon, not to mention the TPTB that deserve serious scrutiny and judgement, now, today.

Of late, you've spent a great deal of energy targeting oppressed groups to which you do not belong for examination and criticism, and I saw this thread as akin to that pattern. Whom are we fighting today? Is it people with DID, is it women, is it the quasi-icons of US labor history like Sacco and Venzetti? Do you realize most people have never heard of Sacco and Vanzetti, yet enormous power and resources are invested in killing the shred of what's left of the labor movement in the US?

It's all about priorities. I'd rather see a thread combating profligate anti-union propaganda and its ill-gotten legislative gains than something like this.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Its a similar story across the world. Someone described litvinenko's death as "an example to others" in some fancy french phrase.

And its not as simple as "non violence". Gandhi used non violence successfully cos he was a skilled media operator. Same with MLK. Non violence gets you no where if there isn't a context - if the eyes of the world aren't watching its easy for non violent people resisting power to be killed brutally and never achieve anything.

I did a uni course on the UN and human rights (as part of an unfinished legal degree) and the most disturbing conclusion I came to was that most of the time to get the UN to take notice you have to be capable of inflicting effective violence. or suffering it in a public way and managing the media response.

Even in Australia it took violence (the Eureka Stockade) to guarantee "universal" suffrage and the beginning of rights we take for granted in this country.

4B ts not as simple as saying "blowing shit up is bad".

Do I really give a fuck about the people killed in the Brighton Hotel Bombing that missed Thatcher? Of course not. Fuck em. They got what they deserved. (Of course its tragic for their families and loved ones, just as the deaths they were responsible for were tragic). Some of the injured maybe didn't deserve to be caught up in the bombing or suffer for it, tho I don't know enough to know. It was an act in a war between two groups, one of whom thought they were immune to the actual violence in the conflict.

One serious (to me) difference between the gallaenists and the Boston bombers was identifiable targets in what was seen as a class war. The Boston bombs seemed to target civilians randomly on a day of community and civic pride. Its not an attack on specific judges or businessmen or the apparatus of the state. Its people celebrating other peoples achievements in running a marathon.

I do understand why you might take it personally, its hard to see how a city like Boston could take it any other way. It'd be like someone bombing the AFL grand final at the MCG or the Boxing day test match or the City to Surf fun run. Australians felt that way about the Bali bombing even tho they weren't even specifically targeted.

Its still no reason to celebrate the deaths of people who were killed for their politics despite reasonable doubt about their alleged crimes. You're saying its OK for the state to kill people without due process to protect its vested interests - this is exactly the reaction that false flag attacks aim for. Boston may not be a false flag attack, but it might turn out that it is too.

[compared2what?]

Why did their fellow Galleanists blow stuff up on their behalf in protest? (Once after Vanzetti basically begged them for said bombing revenge.) Why did the state have any big desire to rig the trial a little to ensure their imprisonment? Not to say the rigging was justified, but: Because those two were actually, in fact, dangerous, menaces, wannabe if not consummated murderers.

There's a difference, and it's not minor.

Also, you're repeating the government propaganda of yesteryear. How hard can it be to grasp this:

That trial and other actions like it are where you got the image you have of bomb-throwing anarchists as dangerous, menaces, wannabe if not consummated murderers. Because that was the purpose, point and goal of that trial and those actions..
___________

That conflict was (not quite but) more like a slave uprising than it was what an equivalent union/anarcho action would be in the present.

Propaganda of the Deed actually has a lengthy, righteous pedigree in context, when not distorted by cherry-picked state-rigged representations of it.

So please stop saying "They were Galleanists!" as if that meant "scum, not our kind, not the American way." All you're doing is mixing then and now to the detriment of both. And that's a shame. It goes the other way.

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^^^^

That right there. What she said.

[FourthBase]

You were thinking of that thread, when you posted this song?

I was pretty damn clear about why I posted the song. My contribution here is purely about politics, or the lack of political savvy, as it were. While I've no objection whatsoever to an examination of those held up as revolutionaries in by-gone days in general, I just don't see the utility of the exercise when there are so many contemporary, unequivocal examples to call upon, not to mention the TPTB that deserve serious scrutiny and judgement, now, today.

No utility? So, let legends be legends, as long as they serve a good, liberal cause. Don't be objective. Don't be consistent about applying ethics. Play favorites, or something. We on the left or outside the spectrum altogether, we need our myths, too, we need our noble lies, so don't spoil any few that we have with critical, moral thought. Is that it? If so: No, sorry, will not do. Ever.

Of late, you've spent a great deal of energy targeting oppressed groups to which you do not belong for examination and criticism, and I saw this thread as akin to that pattern.

O RLY? You are going to have to be very specific there, sister.

I hope you don't mean that I'm not poor, or Italian. Because I am. I hope you don't mean that I'm not officially designated by the state as "mentally ill", because I was. I hope you don't mean that I am not invested in the plight of females, because my mother and sister and grandmothers are and were females, and all females are human, and I am also a human. What, praytell, what else do you mean? Be specific, please, or I might just complain to the mods.

Whom are we fighting today? Is it people with DID, is it women, is it the quasi-icons of US labor history like Sacco and Venzetti? Do you realize most people have never heard of Sacco and Vanzetti, yet enormous power and resources are invested in killing the shred of what's left of the labor movement in the US?

Yeah, uh, anyone with eyes can check the IanEye's Theory of Personality thread and see exactly who was saying what, and trust me, you don't look so good in that thread. Epistemic closure and hypocrisy: It doesn't suit you.

"Quasi" icons? You mean, the two guys who've had more songs and books and plays and polemics based on them than just about any other two guys in American history? Most people have definitely heard the names Sacco and Vanzetti, almost everyone around here (this board, my region) and most of those most have a vague sense of what their story is, but no, as we see in this thread, most people do not know the uglier aspects of the story, and one couldn't fill a minor league baseball stadium with the number of people in the world who've heard of Alessandro Berardelli, who was just an Italian working stiff and father of two. But...fuck him, right? He doesn't serve a cause, right? His legend isn't useful? Mmm. Fuck legends. Legends that rehabilitate and airbrush an ugly truth, anyway. Oh, truth. Remember that thing, truth? Yeah, it is still and it will always be priority number one for me. Sorry if you don't like that. I could barely care less, though.

It's all about priorities. I'd rather see a thread combating profligate anti-union propaganda and its ill-gotten legislative gains than something like this.

No. It's all about the truth. What are you, a Leninist?
Crack a few eggs of truth to make a noble omelet of lies?
Yeah, no thanks. Pass. I'll take my truth unscrambled, please.

Go make that other thread. This one was sparked by an incredible coincidence. 4/15, around 3pm.

[FourthBase]

Its a similar story across the world. Someone described litvinenko's death as "an example to others" in some fancy french phrase.

And its not as simple as "non violence". Gandhi used non violence successfully cos he was a skilled media operator. Same with MLK. Non violence gets you no where if there isn't a context - if the eyes of the world aren't watching its easy for non violent people resisting power to be killed brutally and never achieve anything.

I did a uni course on the UN and human rights (as part of an unfinished legal degree) and the most disturbing conclusion I came to was that most of the time to get the UN to take notice you have to be capable of inflicting effective violence. or suffering it in a public way and managing the media response.

Even in Australia it took violence (the Eureka Stockade) to guarantee "universal" suffrage and the beginning of rights we take for granted in this country.

4B ts not as simple as saying "blowing shit up is bad".

No, Joe, it is definitely that simple. Bad, ethically. Bad, legally. Bad, for public relations. Again: If someone thinks their only option is blowing up people (not shit) then 99.9% of the time that someone hasn't been thinking hard enough, has been too lazy or stupid to think up better options, has been too eager to play the role of violence-hero. Just because some violence has in the past triggered change, does not in the slightest mean that only such violence would have triggered that change. "But, but...it was hopeless! Nobody would listen!" Nothing is hopeless, and there are endless peaceful ways to get someone's attention. For example, no bombs necessary here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0731-08.htm

Before anyone builds a bomb, that should be on the checklist of "Things I Haven't Done Yet But That Still Might Work Instead of Violence", and it's a long, long, long, longggggggggggggg checklist. There is NO excuse for those who do the bomb and murder and physical violence thing without exhausting ALL other options first.

Do I really give a fuck about the people killed in the Brighton Hotel Bombing that missed Thatcher? Of course not. Fuck em. They got what they deserved. (Of course its tragic for their families and loved ones, just as the deaths they were responsible for were tragic). Some of the injured maybe didn't deserve to be caught up in the bombing or suffer for it, tho I don't know enough to know. It was an act in a war between two groups, one of whom thought they were immune to the actual violence in the conflict.

Man, I know there's no need to mourn some people (see this thread where I hardly mourn Parmenter, just in case he was an elite goon) and I know there's such a thing as karma. But, come on. You mentioned family, loved ones. Someone's father might have been a bad person who did evil things to other people, but now that someone's father is dead, that someone has no father, and that rarely leads to good things. People bemoan the fact that promiscuous drone bombing and invasions will create a generation of poor brown kids who despise the West. Newsflash, when anarchists kill the elite fathers and mothers of children, those children won't grow up to be Whole Foods clerks who protest Wall Street and want to save the earth. An act of war, my ass. It was the perpetuation and internalization of war. Fuck war.

One serious (to me) difference between the gallaenists and the Boston bombers was identifiable targets in what was seen as a class war. The Boston bombs seemed to target civilians randomly on a day of community and civic pride. Its not an attack on specific judges or businessmen or the apparatus of the state. Its people celebrating other peoples achievements in running a marathon.

Mmm, not quite. It's loaded with dignitaries at the finish line, as well as cops, and some soldiers as we've seen, and generally speaking loaded with yuppies, who, by your above standard of complicity, are active soldiers themselves in a class war. The finish line at the Boston Marathon...yeah, I can totally see Galleanists choosing it. Not as a top target, but on their evil list. And yeah, doesn't matter who's on it. It's an evil list. Judges, businessmen, "little Eichmanns", etc. They are humans, too. They have families, too. But what's missing from such a Galleanist list? Oh, right: Fellow poor Italians. Because what resulted from their ill-conceived attempt to liberate poor Italians, was just a shitload more of harassment, exclusion, oppression. My Irish cop uncle finally eased up as he got elderly, but he did not like my Sicilian father much. Why? Not in some small part because of an automatic association of "Italian" with "Italian anarchist", so, yeah, thanks a lot Sacco and Vanzetti, you idiot scumbags.

I do understand why you might take it personally, its hard to see how a city like Boston could take it any other way. It'd be like someone bombing the AFL grand final at the MCG or the Boxing day test match or the City to Surf fun run. Australians felt that way about the Bali bombing even tho they weren't even specifically targeted.

Its still no reason to celebrate the deaths of people who were killed for their politics despite reasonable doubt about their alleged crimes. You're saying its OK for the state to kill people without due process to protect its vested interests - this is exactly the reaction that false flag attacks aim for. Boston may not be a false flag attack, but it might turn out that it is too.

Dude. Will you? Please? Quit the "celebrating" and "saying it's okay" shit?
If you really need to, read this whole thread again, more closely.

[FourthBase]

Why did their fellow Galleanists blow stuff up on their behalf in protest? (Once after Vanzetti basically begged them for said bombing revenge.) Why did the state have any big desire to rig the trial a little to ensure their imprisonment? Not to say the rigging was justified, but: Because those two were actually, in fact, dangerous, menaces, wannabe if not consummated murderers.

There's a difference, and it's not minor.

Also, you're repeating the government propaganda of yesteryear. How hard can it be to grasp this:

That trial and other actions like it are where you got the image you have of bomb-throwing anarchists as dangerous, menaces, wannabe if not consummated murderers. Because that was the purpose, point and goal of that trial and those actions..

Oh, come on.

What, was the decades-long worldwide campaign of Galleanist terror just a myth?

Give me...no, give yourself a break. A break from this shit.

Galleanists were real. Their bombs were real. They murdered real people.

___________

That conflict was (not quite but) more like a slave uprising than it was what an equivalent union/anarcho action would be in the present.

Slave uprising, my ass.

You realize how many Galleanists were immigrants, right?
Let the implications of that sink in. They had a choice.
They were not Nat Turners. Fucking far from it.

Propaganda of the Deed actually has a lengthy, righteous pedigree in context, when not distorted by cherry-picked state-rigged representations of it.

So please stop saying "They were Galleanists!" as if that meant "scum, not our kind, not the American way." All you're doing is mixing then and now to the detriment of both. And that's a shame. It goes the other way.

Oh, whoa, wait...you are praising Galleani now? Really?

Look, people. I root for Nat Turner. I even have a soft spot for Valerie Solanas. I can almost even understand the actions of so-called eco-terrorists if they limit themselves to destroying only the property of slaughterhouses where millions of animals are murdered. But if you're asking me to contemplate Galleani's pedigree: No. Sorry. Do not give a shit. Will not. Appalled that you would. Maybe it's best we stop discussing this. I do not like what I'm reading.

[FourthBase]

Just this: Realize that all this apologizing for and defending leftist terror has a counterpart. No, not the state. No, that would justify your reprehensible interpretations. No, it's the right wing. The KKK, the neo-Nazis, the militias. They probably read Galleani with admiration. Bin Laden (or take your jihadist pick), too. The arguments you are making, are mirrored on the right, in ways you presumably condemn. Right? What's the difference? You're a good person, and they're not? Yeah, that's what they think, too.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Again: If someone thinks their only option is blowing up people (not shit)

yeah that was a poor choice of words. Sorry.

Just because some violence has in the past triggered change, does not in the slightest mean that only such violence would have triggered that change. "But, but...it was hopeless! Nobody would listen!" Nothing is hopeless, and there are endless peaceful ways to get someone's attention. For example, no bombs necessary here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0731-08.htm

Before anyone builds a bomb, that should be on the checklist of "Things I Haven't Done Yet But That Still Might Work Instead of Violence", and it's a long, long, long, longggggggggggggg checklist. There is NO excuse for those who do the bomb and murder and physical violence thing without exhausting ALL other options first.

You do know that no one gave a shit about the delta until MEND went to war against oil companies and used violence to hammer corporate profits. That protest may work now but i'll question whether or not it would have worked without an insurgency that involved lots of bombs and lots of violence.

Man, I know there's no need to mourn some people (see this thread where I hardly mourn Parmenter, just in case he was an elite goon) and I know there's such a thing as karma. But, come on. You mentioned family, loved ones. Someone's father might have been a bad person who did evil things to other people, but now that someone's father is dead, that someone has no father, and that rarely leads to good things. People bemoan the fact that promiscuous drone bombing and invasions will create a generation of poor brown kids who despise the West. Newsflash, when anarchists kill the elite fathers and mothers of children, those children won't grow up to be Whole Foods clerks who protest Wall Street and want to save the earth. An act of war, my ass. It was the perpetuation and internalization of war. Fuck war.

Yeah its all well and good to say that when you aren't in a violent conflict. I'm, not saying the IRA are heros, far from it, but by any definition they were in a war. You come from a place with a big chunk of Irish heritage so surely you must know about what happened in NI in the 20th century. Having the cops kick the door in in the middle of the night and execute every male in the household is not something that can be fixed with peaceful protest.

Mmm, not quite. It's loaded with dignitaries at the finish line, as well as cops, and some soldiers as we've seen, and generally speaking loaded with yuppies, who, by your above standard of complicity, are active soldiers themselves in a class war. The finish line at the Boston Marathon...yeah, I can totally see Galleanists choosing it. Not as a top target, but on their evil list. And yeah, doesn't matter who's on it. It's an evil list. Judges, businessmen, "little Eichmanns", etc. They are humans, too. They have families, too

It could be anyone at the finish line - I see a massive difference between random bombings that target civilians randomly and targeted bombings, (even if I don't agree with targeted bombings particularly - especially when they kill people who aren't involved in the conflict. Which is something that didn't happen with the brighton hotel bombing.)

But what's missing from such a Galleanist list? Oh, right: Fellow poor Italians. Because what resulted from their ill-conceived attempt to liberate poor Italians, was just a shitload more of harassment, exclusion, oppression. My Irish cop uncle finally eased up as he got elderly, but he did not like my Sicilian father much. Why? Not in some small part because of an automatic association of "Italian" with "Italian anarchist", so, yeah, thanks a lot Sacco and Vanzetti, you idiot scumbags.

What makes you so sure there would have been less harassment without the actions of galleanists?

Dude. Will you? Please? Quit the "celebrating" and "saying it's okay" shit?
If you really need to, read this whole thread again, more closely.

AFAIC Sacco and Vanzetti were killed by the state after an abuse of power by that state and that in all likelihood they were innocent of the crime they were killed for. Do I need to quote you being OK with this? If you're not celebrating their deaths stop saying they can rot in hell and they deserve what they got and their unjust killing was a good thing.

Why is blowing people up when they don't deserve to die not ok but misusing state power to do the same thing is ok? What logic is there behind that?

[FourthBase]

You misunderstand. Perhaps it's my fault. Even if Sacco and Vanzetti were acquitted and lived into their 90's, if they were remorseless Galleanists until their dying breath, I would still wish for them to burn in hell. The part of hell reserved for idiots who choose unnecessary violence as a not-last resort remedy for injustice. So, a nicer section of hell than Hitler's in, for example. Maybe a little bit better than that right-wing Cuban exile who bombed the shit out of people, and all that terrorist's colleagues. To me, it doesn't matter much if a terrorist bomber gets the chair after a moderately-unfair trial, or if a terrorist bomber is protected and sponsored by the state. Evil is evil is evil.

Having the cops kick the door in in the middle of the night and execute every male in the household is not something that can be fixed with peaceful protest.

And just how long did the IRA guys sit around the table dreaming up potential peaceful protests?
I'm going to guess: Zero minutes, give or take 10 minutes.