The Futurist Manifesto and the Plan of Potosi - Essay Example

Marinetti’s Cultural Revolution and Madero’s Political Revolution (A Comparative Analysis) The Futurist Manifesto and the Plan of Potosi are ments written by individuals who have been regarded as revolutionaries in their distinctive ways. The former, which was written by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in 1909, called for a revolution in the field of culture. However, as he did so, he eventually desired also radical changes in other spheres in society, particularly in politics and economy. Being himself a writer and a lover of the arts, Marinetti promoted the destruction of anything representative or reflective of the old culture and pushed for the establishment of one that respects the absolute freedom of the individual. The Plan of San Luis Potosi, on the other hand, is a statement made by Francisco Madero, a leader of the political opposition in Mexico when the country was under the grip of a dictator, Porfirio Diaz. In the statement, Madero explicitly expressed the necessity of a revolution that would oust the dictator and establish a truly democratic government. Although both authors apparently wrote their respective pieces to promote revolutions, they do have significant differences in terms social analysis, objectives, methods, and perspectives. The fact that one is essentially cultural, while the other is political, is already a major factor in the difference between the two. Before Marinetti explained the concepts he is promoting in the Manifesto, he made an effort to first express his sentiments regarding the realities in Italian society then. It is apparent that he had nothing but harsh criticisms for the people’s continuing reverence of items of antiquity. He believes that people should no longer adulate anything that is a remnant of a bygone era because this only tends to obstruct the rapid pace of development. He writes: “what is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the mysterious shutters of the impossible?” (Marinetti) However, Marinetti clearly goes to the extreme, when he considers that humane concepts are also outmoded. Clearly, this cultural revolution that he proposes is radical in a sense that it essentially seeks the eradication of what has been considered characteristically human: compassion. In place of love and compassion, which Marinetti believes are traits that can only be attributed to the weaknesses of humans, are hatred and violence. In explaining his agenda, Marinetti points out that all things that symbolize so-called glories of the past, including cemeteries and museums, should be destroyed so that futurism can be advanced. He asserts that “daily visits to museums, libraries and academies (those cemeteries of wasted effort, calvaries of crucified dreams, registers of false starts) is for artists what prolonged supervision by the parents is for intelligent young men, drunk with their own talent and ambition.” (Marinetti) In order to achieve what he envisions, Marinetti endorses the use of violence or war. For him, total destruction of the old through the use of violent force is the prerequisite to the realization of futurism. Madero, on the other hand, puts forward the idea of launching a political revolution against the Diaz dictatorship in his country, Mexico. Madero expounds the bases of the revolution in the article Plan of San Luis Potosi. The Mexican people have suffered much under the undemocratic rule of the current regime. Their basic civil and political rights have been violated many times, the most glaring example of which is the anomalous election results that led to the failed attempt of Madero to take the presidency. Madero denounces the Diaz promise of achieving peace without democracy. He writes that it is “a peace full of shame for the Mexican nation, because its basis is not law, but force; because its object is not the aggrandizement and prosperity of the country, but to enrich a small group who, abusing their influence, have converted the public charges into fountains of exclusively personal benefit, unscrupulously exploiting the manner of lucrative concessions and contracts.” (Madero) In this statement alone, Madero is able to relate the gross injustices that the Mexican people are suffering to the issues of extreme poverty while the few elite in government and business are appropriating much of the country’s resources. The entire political system has been compromised, according to Madero. The other branches of government which are supposed to be independent from the executive body have become tightly controlled by the regime. Both the legislature and judiciary are manned by politicians and judges loyal to the dictatorship. With no other state or governmental institution to depend on in the effort of introducing political reforms, Madero sees no other recourse but to take the violent path of resistance and change. He calls for a revolution to be initiated. Putting forward his leadership of the revolutionary struggle, he says: “"it would be a weakness on my part and treason to the people, who have placed their confidence in me, not to put myself at the front of my fellow citizens, who anxiously call me from all parts of the country, to compel General Diaz by force of arms, to respect the national will.” (Madero) With this conclusion, Madero sends the signal that he is ready and willing to lead the armed revolutionary fight with the objective of overthrowing the Diaz dictatorship. It is clear that there are obvious differences in the cultural revolution called for by Marinetti and the political revolution led by Madero. The social basis of the two revolutions, for one, is dissimilar. Marinetti is rabidly critical of anything, concepts or tangible objects that he deems as vestige of the past. It is contemporary culture that he is attacking because it retains many obsolete concepts and practices. For him, this particular weakness of contemporary culture is the basis why people have also become feeble and societies, frail. In order to strengthen societies and peoples, a revolution that would introduce futurism would be necessary. Madero does not see culture as the enemy but the people who are holding the reins of political power. It is not just ideas that made the people of Mexico suffer the absence of freedom and democracy; it is actually the presence of the Diaz dictatorship. Therefore, unlike Marinetti, Madero is able to put a human face on the target of the revolution he is proposing. He is able to make the enemy more real in the eyes of those whom he wishes to unite under the banner of the revolutionary struggle. Apparently, Madero has better chances of being able to convince people to support his goal. While they may have differences in terms of social analysis, both Madero and Marinetti uphold the necessity of revolutionary violence. However, Marinetti pushes forward the need to apply violence not because it is the only means to remove the obstacles to futurism. He justifies violence because it is the essence of the ideology he is promoting. The people of the past are weak and peaceful while those who belong to the future are strong and violent. Because of this philosophy, Marinetti clearly minces no words in asserting that violence should be applied in order to push forward the cultural revolution. As can be observed in his message, Madero takes time to explain the basis of the political revolution before he lays down his proposal of the use of armed force to overthrow Diaz. It is evident that he considers the use of violence not as an immediate or automatic recourse in the struggle against the dictatorship. He has to argue that all avenues for a peaceful transformation of the Mexican political system are already compromised because these have become controlled by the regime. Because of such circumstances, the use of revolutionary violence against the dictatorship has become the only option left. The appeals made by Marinetti and Madero were addressed to two different peoples, the Italians and the Mexicans respectively. However, it is clear that due to the objectiveness of its analysis and the tangibility of its aims, Madero’s revolution was more appealing to the people it wished to mobilize and serve than Marinetti’s was to the Italians. Works Cited Madero, Francisco. “The Plan of San Luis Potosi, November 20, 1910.” Modern History Sourcebook. 5 Apr. 2011 < http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1910potosi.html>. Marinetti, Filippo. “The Futurist Manifesto, 1909.” 5 Apr. 2011 Read More