Original subtitles

This sequence introduces in practice and in theory,

in practice and in theory,

what the film is going to be.

To explore the links between the theory and the practice

we start with two images of Lenin,

in parenthesis, Vladimir.

One picture of him writing and one of him talking.

To each of these pictures, the word "theory" is added

and then the word "practice".

Theory, then practice.

Then there are two more images:

one of a camera and one of a tape recorder.

We also hear a voice, Karl Rosa's voice,

coordinating this group or sequence of pictures,

in parenthesis, Lenin,

the words "theory" and "practice",

the camera, the Nagra, end of parenthesis.

The voice tells us more or less who it is and where it is located.

It is in a film, but which film?

And what was the previous film?

The previous film was on Palestine.

Thus the voice indicates that it is part of a certain process,

a process which it perceives and controls only imperfectly,

only imperfectly.

The voice first asks itself

why it is making this film called "Vladimir and Rosa"

and answers that it is through economic necessity,

to pay for the film on Palestine.

To pay for the film on Palestine.

But the voice also observes

that the economic necessity of producing a film

does not prevent this necessity from being part of a larger movement,

part of a larger movement,

a political movement,

a process which endeavours to be revolutionary.

The voice says

it has a case against the production process

and to see how the case is going,

it is about to take part in the making of a film

a film aimed at a political analysis

of charges currently being brought

by the bourgeois justice system against radicals

arrested by the police for so-called riots and conspiracy.

So-called riots and conspiracy.

The voice is committed

to a revolutionary movement fighting conservatism.

The real title of the film should be,

"The Meaning of the Charges Brought."

"The Meaning of the Charges Brought."

Clearly, then, the film will be both theoretical,

theoretical,

exploring the meaning of the trials of radicals

in imperialist countries,

and practical,

exploring how the portrayal of such a trial,

in other words its reflection in the recorded images and sound,

can be achieved as accurately as possible.

That is, how should the film be made in practice?

How should the images be filmed and the sound recorded

so that in theory,

when the film is screened,

it will be useful to people who see it?

It was decided to start from a real case,

the trial of the Chicago Eight,

in which US imperialism prosecuted its own children.

I'm still for non-violence!

I'm still for non-violence!

I'm still for non-violence!

I'm still for non-violence!

I'm still for non-violence!

Next!

Next!

But you told me to go with them!

You told me to go with them!

The government representative had a report of its own investigation.

The riot had been organised by the police force.

But the government representative also had another report

showing that two thirds of American and French people

condone police violence, according to a poll.

So they indicted eight cops on the one hand

and eight radicals on the other.

The cops' trial was kept quiet.

The radicals' trial got all the publicity.

The defendants were carefully selected.

There was Yves, a revolutionary student at Vincennes and then Berkeley.

Then there was Anne, who was active in the Women's Liberation Front.

Then there was me, Friedrich Vladimir.

I'm a friend of Danny's, Danny the Red.

We were in the Moscow Circus together,

back in its heyday, of course.

No, that's me again, Karl Rosa.

Then there was David Dellinger, a very liberal doctor.

There was Juliet, a real activist.

She was just back from the USA She'd been with the Weathermen.

I think she'd been in Japan too, with the Maoist students.

Then there was Jacky, a "maladjusted" worker

from the northern suburbs of Paris.

And then there was Bobby, a militant from the Black Panthers.

One, two,

three, four, five...

No, that's me again, Karl Rosa.

...six, seven, eight.

No, that's still me, Karl Rosa!

The papers called it the "Conspiracy Eight".

Bobby's case is a bit different.

He had come to speak at a rally before the demonstration.

He left straight afterwards.

But the government was hell-bent on putting a "nigger" on trial.

That's why Bobby's here.

He's the only one of us who's not out on bail.

He'd already been accused of killing a cop.

The government just took him out of jail 3,000 km from here

and put him in jail here 3,000 km from where he'd been.

3,000 km from here!

Why and on what grounds is imperialism trying these Eight?

We've just told you.

The government's own violence forced it to arrest eight cops

and indict them,

in parenthesis, in the name of eternal justice,

end of parenthesis.

And so, to restore the balance,

the government has decided to indict a representative

of each type of radicalism,

in parenthesis, class justice, end of parenthesis.

It's against the law to cross a state line with intent to incite a riot.

The law dates from 3 June 1968.

Not just to incite to riot, but to have the intent to do it,

or the intent to have the intent.

It doesn't matter if you do it or not. That's what the law calls "conspiracy".

I told Rosa that in order to tell this story,

since the government had clouded the issue,

the best approach was to get a bird's eye view

in the hope of juggling all the balls at once.

It means leaving out a lot,

like the make of the gun

shoved in Bobby's ear to get him to shut his mouth.

Like the make of the gun shoved in Bobby's ear

to get him to shut his mouth.

But a bird's eye view will at least amount

to talking about the rain once the clouds have gathered.

Usually, in films it's the opposite.

It's a complicated story but, as radicals, it's our job

to simplify it as a service to others.

Our Chinese comrades call this "serving the people".

Has the prosecution any questions to ask the jury?

No, Your Honour.

It looks like a fine, upstanding jury to me.

Any questions, Mr Kunstler?

Quite a few, Your Honour.

Do you consider young men who resist conscription

because they're against the war in South-East Asia

to be antipatriotic cowards and traitors?

Have you ever moved out of an area

because of the arrival of people from a different religion or ethnicity?

Have you ever hear of Archie Shepp, Jimmy Page or Eric Clapton?

Do you admire Billy Graham and Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber?

Those questions won't be asked.

The jury has now been chosen.

Obviously, anyone with long hair and weird clothes

who can't talk politely and properly

despite being in a polite and proper place

can join the defendants.

Will the witness define a subversive organisation?

A subversive organisation

is any organisation which creates problems...

Objection, Your Honour. The answer is unclear and irrelevant.

Objection overruled.

It's a clear, relevant definition.

So if a football team can't find a field

and that raises problems for the city

then that football team is a subversive organisation.

Objection, Your Honour.

Objection sustained.

We'd like to ask the witness

why his police force drew up a so-called security plan.

I say "so-called," because we have just found out

it was drawn up two months before the march was announced.

Objection, Your Honour. That's a leading question.

Objection sustained.

My colleague for the prosecution is right:

in a political trial all questions lead someplace.

Your Honour, I request that you overrule the objection.

Objection sustained.

The witness will not answer the question.

This is not a political trial.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a criminal trial.

That's what the arch war criminal Adolf Hitler said

to Georgi Dimitrov, a political activist.

Political, political... I'm fed up with that word!

Just what do you mean by political?

I feel I'm in the process of answering that question.

Let the record show that the defendant said:

"I feel I'm in the process of answering that question."

Personally I feel that you are not answering it.

If Your Honour will hear my client out

and ask questions afterwards,

I think it will help him to present his defence.

I'm sure Your Honour is anxious to see that Yves Alfonso has a fair trial.

You know me, Mr Kunstler, and therefore you know

that this trial will be conducted...

democratically.

All right.

But I'd like you to discuss

the rights guaranteed by the constitution,

labour union rights,

and also that future society of yours.

I'm on trial here as an alleged specialist

in the art of instigating various acts

regarded by some as criminal.

"Regarded by some as criminal." There's the crux.

The masses disagree and they applaud these actions,

which foreshadow their future liberation.

This difference of interpretation by exploiters and the exploited

is inherent in the class struggle.

Remember the posters

that the Nazis put up in Europe in 1944.

They too wanted to pass revolutionary activists off

as terrorists and criminals.

"The Threepenny Opera" by Brecht depicts bourgeois morality

in underworld terms and it's as valid today as ever,

for among us is a handful of hoodlums who have all the power:

the police, the army, the television, newspapers and the law.

These rich gangsters openly despoil the masses

and commit wilful murder

so it's logical for them to pass off rebels as criminals.

I'm accused of preaching violence,

but capitalism has made violence a daily occurrence.

Capitalism means the exploitation and humiliation

of the vast majority.

Am I in charge of the National Guard and the CRS?

Do I use the third degree?

No.

Nor is it I who invented guerrilla actions.

I didn't invent rebellion or mass uprising.

The masses did that

when they ransacked the Bank of America,

cut down the apples trees of rich landowners

and stormed the Metro without paying.

You speak of democracy.

You forget that the ruling class always has the system it needs

and the system makes a farce of democracy.

Courts aren't for the masses.

Justice is too expensive for the people.

Lawyers cost a fortune.

And legal-aid lawyers always try to strike deals:

a plea of guilty to a minor charge

in return for an acquittal on a major one.

The system of bail keeps the poor in prison.

Appeals are costly.

The transcript required for an appeal is too expensive for the poor.

What's more, no poor person, no black person and no radical

can expect a fair trial from a jury.

Its members are picked from the phonebook,

from the list of local property owners

and the electoral rolls,

from classes which have a vested interest

in society remaining unchanged.

...contradictory.

So let's take...

something

which makes it possible...

to bring out the contradictions

and show how we're trying

to clear up the situation

that oppresses us.

What did we say?

What are we in?

We're in a situation

of constant repression

and we're going to show you

some victims of that repression

who are nonetheless trying to break free.

- A trial, then? - Yes, a legal proceeding.

That would be...

That's not bad, proceeding.

I know now why we chose "proceeding".

It's because we're involved in a process,

a revolutionary process

opposing a conservative system,

and in the movies you have to dodge bullets too,

sugar-coated bullets

but dangerous bullets all the same, deadly even.

But it explains

all our difficulties.

It's the reason why we can't even talk.

It's the contradiction between theory and practice.

Take Jacky's case, for example.

I'm drawn to him because...

...his actions may be individualistic...

...but they're also quite spontaneous.

At times, he breaks with the system,

telling them all to go to hell

or refusing to pay in the Metro

because he's sick of getting up at six

in order to be at work by eight.

It's purely spontaneous but it's also individualistic.

He's the one who beats up the boss.

It's a revolt that extends beyond him. He sets an example to others.

He meets other guys who want to join in

but he's still fighting alone, as best he can.

That's why he talks so little in life and in the film.

Something's taking shape there, but it's not clear yet.

For Dave Dellinger the break is something else.

He's different.

He's a graduate of Washington University.

He's 53 years old.

He's a pacifist who first served time during WW2.

He was at Union Theological Seminary.

He was going to be drafted as a chaplain.

He refused to go as a conscientious objector.

He didn't want anything to do with any army.

He got a year and a day in jail.

He got out, refused to go a second time, and ended up back in jail.

Dellinger was like Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

He's marched, he's staged sit-ins,

he's been arrested at hundreds of demonstrations

and he's still at it.

You can't tell if he's scared or not when you see him at a demonstration.

His face is as dead-pan as a Canadian lumberjack,

except for that stubborn look he has

when he sits on the ground and has to be dragged away by the cops,

or when he intervenes in person

whenever the situation gets explosive.

Not that it doesn't take courage to step in front of a policeman's baton,

but as for writing petitions all the time and making lists, what's the use?

It didn't help the Rosenbergs much.

And the Stockholm Appeal didn't do much either.

So he ought to find another way to make the break too.

What a waste!

And in sequence three,

when Yves answers...

Yes, but he responds.

- Yes, he responds in the gaps. - The gaps in the judge's speech.

The speech he makes is really violent.

But do people in the audience realise

that this violent speech has lost its impact?

- I say they don't - It's just in the gaps.

I say they don't, Rosa,

because Yves was being directed by Judge Himmler.

Don't you think so, Rosa?

Yes, it's true.

I think we ought to start over again

and show how these activists on trial

have been conditioned by everything,

by the whole of their previous lives...

We must show them outside the courtroom.

Yes.

To broaden the picture.

It's not so easy to make the break

inside the judicial system.

And the main problem, after all,

is making the break.

But how can you show the break in pictures?

I really don't know.

First, we have to become accustomed

to the images that oppress us

in order to learn how to destroy them

and later...

And later...

Take Juliet, she's a fighter. She has courage.

She's come to blows several times with the police.

And then she uses a type of discourse

which is often right.

OK, but let's look at the practical side.

How does she live?

Here she's in a kind of collective.

This group of friends got together and formed a collective.

But they haven't really tried

to think through the reasons for it and the practical aspects of it.

And anyway, how is this collective any different

from the way they lived before?

It's still pretty obscure.

There's an awfully big difference between this shot

and the shot that's meant to be political,

the one where she's got her helmet and club.

They just don't seem to go together.

And then there's John Kunstler, the lawyer.

Sure, he's a nice guy,

but he's got a fancy apartment and a Daimler

and he rehearses his speeches

like a ham actor.

Sure, he defends revolutionaries.

He quotes the Bill of Rights passed in 1789.

But he doesn't realise that this is a bourgeois travesty,

a travesty of justice.

He waves his arms about like Castro at Moncada,

but Castro was in a concrete situation,

and so was Dimitrov.

As for the Algerian NLF prisoners,

they played the French game

since they were prisoners of war,

an undeclared war,

but they were real revolutionaries.

John talks and waves his arms about.

He's full of altruism.

But he, too, must realise that he must change his life.

It's fine to want to change other people's lives,

but you've got to start by changing your own.

What was that about the radicals?

The radicals need to say

they've been jailed by the bourgeois justice system

for their radicalism.

They must also turn their trial

into an act of resistance.

It's a continuation of what's happening in universities

and companies

and factories

against the cops,

and it's not so simple...

Our position in this trial

may at first sight appear

ridiculous and grotesque.

A puppet show, yes.

Yes, but in Chicago they woke America up,

Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.

Yes, because next

we're going to try to explain...

It is the turn of the defence.

What is your name?

That's hard to say.

There are so many informers and agitators in this court,

paid by the government to infiltrate us,

that I can't believe what I say any more.

I end up wondering if I'm not one of them.

That's right, he's a Finkerton man!

- Silence! - That's right.

I may just be a finking machine now.

Miss Country Joe MacDonald,

sing us the song you sang at the meeting on Wednesday the 12th.

Objection, Your Honour. He's trying to influence the jury.

The witness will speak the lyrics or hum the tune

but not both together.

The hours spent asleep

in your dormitory suburb.

Or half-suffocating on your commute.

Same rat-race, morning and evening, come rain or shine.

Yesterday, today, tomorrow the alarm goes off at five.

Catch the 5:52 train. Clock in or out.

The starting gates open and the next ten-hour shift begins.

Thousands of robots rush into a nightmarish factory.

Reeking from tons of steel and sticky with grease.

Meanwhile the rich are still dreaming their privileged dreams.

Beyond those hellish hours, is any life left?

The local swimming pool on a Sunday morning.

Nights out organised by your boss in seedy clubs for suckers.

But the people are rebelling.

It's only just begun.

No one understands the meaning of the word justice better than you.

Comrade, what you paid for in sweat is yours.

Comrade, what you paid for in blood is yours.

Quake with fear, privileged scum.

Your dream is over.

Our feast will begin with your nightmare.

Can you explain to me, Mr Rosa,

the reason for this strike

when the workers have just enjoyed a pay rise of 25 centimes an hour?

How can you "enjoy" a pay rise of 25 centimes?

I mean they have more money and hence greater enjoyment.

So if the government gives you 25 centimes an hour

you get a hard-on?

Absolutely.

Contempt of court.

Extreme contempt of court.

Silence!

- Silence! - Objection, Your Honour.

The defendant is evading the issue.

Objection sustained.

The defendant must answer questions directly.

I direct the dialogue in a way that makes its impact clear.

In other words,

delivering the lines may satisfy or anger the speaker

and we, too, may be angered or satisfied with the words spoken.

This makes it harder to watch films.

Often the message isn't clear until the second viewing.

Silence!

- Who are you? - I'm a dirty nigger by choice.

- What's your name? - Up-the-arse.

My mother fucked the Unknown Soldier.

- Where do you live? - Dope City.

- What state is that in? - A state of mind.

I belong to a nation where the young feel alienated.

We carry that nation in our minds like the Sioux carried theirs.

Silence!

That's enough. We won't stand for any references

to the philosophy of the Indians.

Silence!

Silence!

Is it true that you told United Press

that your organisation threatened to put LSD

in the reservoir?

Is it true that you told a reporter from Japanese television

that you were going to perform the just act of liberating the lions

in order to necessitate the deployment of the forces of order to the zoo

when they were needed elsewhere?

Objection, Your Honour. Objection.

The defendant keeps repeating my questions.

Objection, your Honour.

The prosecutor is using my answers as questions.

The defendant must not echo the prosecutor.

Anyway, I say my lines

before the audience hears them.

What it hears will be in the past.

Each word coming out of my mouth follows a set path

and falls into the listener's ear.

I wait and listen to it fall.

I know our experiences are not the same

and take place at different times.

Silence!

America.

Sieg Heil.

France.

Sieg Heil.

Soviet Union.

Sieg Heil.

Israel.

Sieg Heil.

And now we'll give you

a formal demonstration

of the use of a baton.

Eins, zwei, drei.

Objection. The images in this film...

Your Honour, the best way to show the court

the state of mind of my clients, Karl Vladimir and Friedrich Rosa,

is by the images in this film.

Conclusions based on experience

do not generally connect up in the same way

as the facts behind the experience.

Simply putting conclusions together

does not give a true picture of the facts on which they rest.

When the conclusions are all linked

and there are too many of them

it is often very difficult

to refer back to the facts.

It's the whole world that produces the image

but the image...

but the image does not encompass the whole world.

It is more important to link conclusions

to experience than to other conclusions...

than to other conclusions,

when these conclusions

are aimed at controlling things.

Lenin was against the idea

of constructing images,

images of the world that were too complete.

The state of mind is what the law means by "intent".

The defendants are accused not of conspiracy against state security

but of the intent to conspire, or rather the intent to have the intent.

Article 23 of paragraph 5 of the decree voted in by the senate on 3 June 1968.

Very interesting, Mr Chrysler.

Kunstler!

Very interesting, Mr Tobler.

Objection overruled.

Mr Rosa and Mr Vladimir's film will not be screened.

Mr Vladimir, can you explain to me

the meaning of the word "racist"

which Mr Bobby X keeps throwing at me?

I'll explain to you with an image.

Imagine a worker who is so poor

he has to eat shit.

Now ask him this:

given that he has to eat shit

would he rather eat shit from a white man's arse

or a black man's arse?

If he prefers white man's shit,

then that worker is a damned racist.

Dialectical materialism is a scandal and an abomination

for class leaders and their ideologies.

Along with a clear conception of things as they are,

it retains the knowledge of their inevitable negation,

their necessary destruction.

Given the nature of the term movement,

in which all forms are a transitory configuration,

nothing can oppose it

because it is essentially critical and revolutionary.

This sequence, like all those which take place outside the court,

which is every second sequence,

is narrated by Vladimir and Rosa

who point out the general theme.

Here the theme is sexuality and the break.

Anne says it is almost impossible as things stand

to show in a convincing way

that is neither fascist or anarchist

a shot of Yves and herself...

a shot of Yves and herself

really breaking with bourgeois sexual ideology.

Even showing an image of herself is difficult,

even though she's fighting for women's liberation

and tying her struggle in with that of the Viet Cong

and the workers.

- Anne? - Yes?

We're going to show Anne illustrating the theory to Yves

that a woman's text, in this case a text written by a South African woman,

becomes a completely different text when read by a man.

ABORTION FREE, LEGAL, NO CHARGE

FOR THE RICH THE CLINIC

FOR THE POOR THE KNITTING NEEDLE

ABORTION IS A CLASS ISSUE

CRÈCHES FOR THE PEOPLE!

"Today, women from every walk of life know they are oppressed

"and we want to join forces to take our liberation in hand.

"We must revolt at home, at work and in the streets

"against the capitalist system that oppresses us

"and the ideologies that enslave us.

"Dare to fight. Unite. Women's liberation, year zero."

Not bad.

We discussed this with Juliet.

She doesn't think it's relevant to the trial.

When she ends up in a women's prison she'll see how relevant it is.

Prison is a different matter.

Agitation is necessary, of course,

but if the women jurors heard anything like this,

they just wouldn't get it.

It would be a start, wouldn't it?

Yes, but maybe a false start.

We should talk to the others first.

Don't you think so?

The others are like you.

They say they understand, but they don't.

"We women are fighting for a time when we cease

"to get less pay than a man for the same work,

"to be financially dependent on our men,

"to do unpaid yet socially essential housework."

I understand perfectly.

"Our bodies are exploited

"because we are not allowed to choose whether to have a child

"because of the ban on abortion

"and the moral pressures on our sex life.

"We must bow to feminine norms imposed by advertising

"to earn recognition."

That should be clear to anyone.

Once we're all sent down for two years

none of us will be fucking any more, that's for sure.

When we're both locked up for two years there won't be any more fucking.

Of course, but I don't see how is that so hard to understand?

All right, Yves, but when it comes to fucking

us girls will talk about it differently

than you will with your cellmates.

Even Juliet will see that women's minds are shaped by their situation in society.

Even Juliet will see that women's minds are shaped by their situation in society.

Of course. We're men.

And you're girls.

Damn it, Yves!

OK, I guess I don't get it.

Damn it.

OK, I don't get it. I'll listen.

I'll just listen.

OK, I don't get it so I'll listen.

What you don't get is that you don't get it.

What is this?

That was written by a black woman, an African.

It was published on 2 July 1970 in the Black Panther newspaper.

"Triple Oppression.

"The Women's Liberation Front declares our fight against oppression

"to be linked to that of the working classes in all aspects.

"Both anti-slavery and women's rights movements

"are still considered a threat to the establishment

"for the same reasons.

"Black people and women can both be paid less.

"Until both are organised on an equal basis

"and are no longer discriminated against

"they'll be the vulnerable group of the working classes.

"Of course, black people are exploited more.

"They suffer at every class level.

"Most black women are triply exploited:

"as black people, as women and as workers."

"Women remain in the category of the most underpaid,

"except, perhaps, in the private sector and in specialist work.

"In periods of unemployment

"they often have no hope of finding work

"except as servants.

"In South Africa a black woman can work as a maid, a farm hand

"or in a factory where she is the cheapest labour available.

"Most working women, whether in South Africa or in England,

"are non-specialised workers or maids.

"Female workers are doubly exploited:

"by their husbands and by capitalism.

"A male worker, despite being exploited by the system,

"collaborates with it in his relations with his wife.

"Whether they get along or not, he still exploits her."

"With the rise in private property,

"women became an object of exploitation.

"Whether slaves, serfs or wage earners,

"women have always been vassals par excellence."

Give it here.

"Middle-class women are also exploited.

"Middle-class women in the private sector are also exploited.

"For they are so hell-bent on proving

"how efficient they can be in a job controlled by men

"that they work much harder for less pay

"and they do it just to keep their jobs

"because the competition is stiff.

"They are told that aggressiveness and force of character in the workplace

"are not attractive in a woman.

"That's why they can't get rid of old prejudices

"such as: a woman's place is in the home.

"To not attract a man, no matter who the man is,

"is felt to be a lost business opportunity."

Hang on.

"When women show aggressiveness in a professional context

"it is always regarded as a loss of femininity.

"For example, radical feminists are often told by male radicals

"that they want to castrate them and make them impotent.

"We have to listen to nonsense like..."

- Give it to me - Let me finish.

"...nonsense like,

"'When she tells men off, she's getting back at her father."'

Give it to me.

"Messages of solidarity came from women in North Vietnam

"and from the FLN,

"students at Oxford occupying the Clarendon Building..."

Make an effort. Don't read like that.

Unbelievable! I listened to you!

"...Clarendon Building

"and female workers on strike in textile factories in Leeds,

"but most tangible of all

"were the women's meetings held all over England

"and the lists of organisations exchanged for the first time.

"In Vietnam women fight alongside men to free their country

"in a socialist revolution.

"In the US, they occupied the offices of Vogue and Newsweek,

"furious at the patronising attitude of the men in the movement

"who put them up front at demonstrations, just to be nice."

Just to be nice!

Darling, we want to work together. For that we've got to think together.

Try for once to think with my voice.

We'll see how unlike we are,

even if our views are alike.

Look straight ahead.

The Women's Liberation Front

calls for the fight

to be not only about getting our immediate demands met

but also about fighting shoulder to shoulder

with the workers,

shoulder to shoulder

with the workers

to put an end to this system of exploitation

of men and women by men.

To put an end to this system of exploitation

of men and women by men.

PATRIARCHAL ORDER

CLASS STRUGGLE

This sequence is composed of two shots separated by a black screen.

The first shot is a close-up of Bobby.

Our commentary explained in sequence four

that you can't just eliminate the narration.

Rosa explains that the decision to show not a black picture

but a picture of a black

was prompted by the fact that for a Black Panther

the break has a different meaning.

The Black Panthers, because of racist oppression

and the struggle to which they are committed,

have already made a concrete break

with bourgeois imperialist society.

And having broken with society,

their way of maintaining the break when society puts them on trial

is to demand the strict application

of the rules of the game of bourgeois justice.

By this simple demand

black radicals deepen the system's contradictions,

exposing its so-called democracy

and good old liberal objectivity.

Witness the method of defence used by Bobby Seale in Chicago.

He asked to be defended by a separate lawyer

but the judge said no.

Then he asked to represent himself since he was denied his own lawyer

and the judge said no to this too.

I have no more questions, Your Honour.

I'd like to cross-examine the witness.

Your lawyer has just done that.

Bobby X is not my client and never was.

My lawyer's not here so I'll defend myself.

Again it's apparent to this court that defendant Bobby X's actions

constitute a deliberate attempt to obstruct the federal justice system.

That's a lie!

I want to defend myself. It is my constitutional right to do so.

Let the record show that the defendant refuses to behave,

despite admonishments by the court.

Let the record show that Bobby X is upholding his rights.

I am bound by law to declare

that if the defendant fails to heed the warnings of the court

he will be found guilty of contempt of court.

As a human being I have the right

to exercise my constitutional right to defend myself.

I hope that's clear. It's all I've got to say.

I'll go on saying what's necessary for my defence.

I still want to cross-examine the witness.

Let the record show that Bobby X raised his voice

and pounded the table with his fists.

That will be useful for the future.

But Bobby wasn't shouting or pounding his fists that day.

Later, when he did cross-examine a witness

and the judge stopped him,

he coolly quoted section 1892, paragraph 42 of the US penal code.

Ironically, that was not the section he meant to quote.

While the judge was obviously furious

X remained very calm throughout.

I still argue that the court has no right

to deny me my right to defend myself in the absence of my lawyer.

Mr Kunstler here present is your lawyer.

Bobby X is not my client, Your Honour.

Mr Kunstler has never been my lawyer. I will defend myself.

Silence!

Mr X, are you going to stop obstructing justice

or must I ask the marshals to...

I want to discuss my right to defend myself.

Court is adjourned.

Marshal, take that defendant out of court

and give him the treatment he deserves.

It's the final struggle.

The prosecution may examine the witness.

Did the girl have a symbol of black power on her shirt?

It's not a symbol of black power.

It's the symbol of power to the people.

You just made another racist statement.

Objection, Your Honour. He keeps calling me a racist.

Objection sustained.

Imperialism is a whore.

Being black here is like playing Russian Roulette

with six bullets in the gun.

No matter what, you get fucked over.

Silence!

X was the exception.

Sticking to his claim...

Sticking to his claim

that he was being denied his right to legal assistance,

he'd wait until Kunstler had cross-examined a witness

and then he'd stand up and ask his questions.

The judge would tell him to sit down.

His outbursts would be recorded again in the transcript of the trial.

At times they'd force him to sit. At times he wanted it noted down.

He never interrupted the trial at any other time.

At times Kunstler would interrupt

to remind the judge that he was not X's lawyer.

Sometimes, as on the morning of Bobby's birthday,

it was the prosecutor who started it all.

Since Bobby was in jail between sessions,

because of that murder trial,

the other defendants only saw him in court.

So Kunstler asked the judge's permission

for the other defendants to bring X a birthday cake in court.

Judge Himmler said he wouldn't let anyone bring anyone a birthday cake.

The other seven defendants were waiting just outside the door.

Vladimir carried the cake

as they filed in.

You can imprison a cake, but not a revolution.

Silence!

OK, brothers, cool it for now.

I give the orders here.

They won't obey a racist judge.

Marshal, give him the treatment he deserves.

Now for a black screen while Vladimir and Rosa explain

that Bobby's "legalistic" defence

is a consequence of his having broken with society.

His co-defendants must adopt, each in his or her own way,

an "anti-legalistic" defence

in order to join Bobby in his rebellion.

So we decided to show you an image of a pacifist

breaking with his non-violent ideology

and actually struggling, instead of maintaining his dignity

whilst getting beaten up by the cops

after he calmly insulted the judge,

protesting against the treatment Bobby was being given.

This sequence will last a good ten seconds.

Flouting an enemy flag

is the craziest thing I've ever seen anybody do in a courtroom.

Marshal, destroy that flag.

Today, on Independence Day, I request a minute of silence

for those killed in action in South-East Asia.

I forbid you to speak.

It will be recorded that this man called...

David Dellinger.

I forbid you to finish my sentences.

The prosecution may continue cross-examining the witness.

Simply tell the court what you saw.

After the order to disperse was given

I saw this man and a group of others run off, shouting...

- Bullshit. - "Everybody to the Hilton!"

In all my career I have never heard such obscenity in court.

You've never been on trial here

and had to listen to liars, paid by the government, talking crap.

How dare you, Mr Kunstler! How dare you, Mr Kunstler!

Take the defendant out and give him the treatment he deserves.

Every evening after the trial

we gave a press conference

since we were all out on bail,

except for Bobby

on account of his murder charge

in Connecticut.

The problem we faced

during each press conference

was this:

while John was telling the reporters

about our daily struggle

against imperialist justice,

Vladimir and Rosa forced...

forced the imperialist television cameras

to shoot Bobby's absence

instead of our presence.

In others words,

they forced the cameras,

the enemy,

to shoot politically

a political fact

that was more important

than the faces of us radicals.

If we fight

all day long

with the police

we must also fight

the police state's press.

It's logical.

Open the sequence.

Before Your Honour entered the court

Bobby X stood up and spoke to the black people in this room.

You're right.

And Bobby X said to them:

I spoke up for my constitutional rights.

I have a right to defend myself.

And he told the people in court that he wanted it on the record...

- Objection, Your Honour. - Objection overruled.

...so they'd know how to deal with an attack.

He was talking about an attack carried by them...

Liar.

You filthy liar!

An attack on them, not by them.

An attack by the pigs.

I said fight back.

You're a rotten racist pig.

A fascist liar!

You're a bullshit liar,

a lying fascist pig.

I said they had the right to fight back if they were attacked.

You're lying.

You're lying. You filthy liar!

An attack on them.

Not by them, on them!

An attack by the pigs!

I told them to defend themselves.

Racist!

You're just a fascist liar.

A liar, a dirty lying fascist pig.

We have a right to defend ourselves.

If we come under attack we have a right to fight back.

And I hope that went on the record and exposes Nixon's prosecutor

for the liar he is.

We have a right to fight back.

If you attack me, I'll fight back.

That is what he said earlier. He said the exact same thing.

How so?

In terms of a physical attack.

No, an attack by those damned Marshals, I said!

People have a right to defend themselves if they're attacked,

SMALL FIGHTS MAKE... BIG REVOLTS

- Can't I walk if I like? - Sure.

My moped's broken down.

I've got a crappy moped and that car's not bad.

- Where did you get it? - The street behind my house.

Has stealing a car changed you?

Sure, now I can go farther and come back faster.

I worked in that factory. For three years.

When I play my music

I feel I'm still working there.

Because it's the only music made for the people in there.

It's because I worked in there that I play that music.

I thought they only liked Mireille Mathieu.

They don't give a damn about pop music.

Yes, right now they don't.

Because these people every day at the same hour

listen to the radio and get brainwashed.

Throughout the day all they hear

is the latest bourgeois crap,

the latest bourgeois tunes.

That music doesn't reflect their struggle.

It's dream music that makes them forget.

It makes them forget that they sit at their machines all day long,

like jerks.

It talks to them about Ford Mustangs,

about nice neighbourhoods

and heartbreak.

My music isn't about that.

Mine talks about the daily grind at the factory,

about taking the Metro without paying, about the cops slugging them,

the way they slug me.

The cops slug me because I play that music.

And the cops know that.

The contradictions of rotting capitalism

hit young people in four areas in particular:

education, work, conscription and the army,

cops and justice.

First, in prison-like schools

the young are fed racist, chauvinist,

anti-communist and anti-working class lies.

The sound I'd like to make with my guitar is...

one shrill shout, one big, shrill shout.

A shout, or rather a scream.

It's more than a shout. "Shout" is too feeble.

It's a scream for all these people locked up here,

doing slave labour all day long, because they're people...

What's stopping you playing that scream?

You've got the technology with all those electronic instruments.

Why don't you do it?

Because right now nobody wants to hear that scream.

Or rather, tons of people want to hear that scream

but no one wants them to hear it

for fear that they all start screaming in unison.

Secondly, unemployment among the young

is three times the national average.

With more and more jobs threatened by automation

and the specialised industries in decline,

the unions act to ensure employment for those who already have jobs.

Newcomers to the labour market can't find work

so unemployment is on the rise.

Stepped-up rates of production

and lowered safety standards have a similar effect.

That scream from my guitar,

I want the people to hear it first thing in the morning.

I want it to burn their ears and be with them all day.

Why? So they'll have to wake up.

You can't sleep with a scream in your ears.

I want them to hear a scream in their ears all day long every day.

- Why? - So they'll start the revolution.

On Sunday night he screamed: "The street belongs to the people."

And he added,

- "Let's throw the pigs out!" - How did the crowd react?

- They cheered. - Was vulgar language used?

Objection, Your Honour.

The defendant's speech habits are immaterial.

It's beside the point.

My client, Mr Jacky Martin, is not on trial for bad language.

Objection overruled.

It is the point.

I'm beginning to get it.

- What did you say? - I said, I get it.

The prosecution has the floor, not you.

OK, I'll shut my gob.

I would like to cite a fact from the past

that may shed some light on Jacky Martin's morals.

This man is already known to the police.

At the age of 17 he had intercourse with his sister, aged 15,

and was sentenced to seven months in prison.

The legal-aid lawyer told him to plead guilty to avoid a worse charge.

We only had one blanket between us, that was why.

And the judge told me I should kill myself.

He said beasts have to be destroyed.

If the defendant continues to ignore the court's directives

he will be found guilty of contempt of court.

OK, I'll shut up. I get it.

OK, I'll shut up. I get it.

Will you be quiet? Do you understand French?

Well? Do you understand French?

Will you be quiet?

Will you, yes or no?

Yes or no?

Yes, you motherfucking fascist capitalist bastard!

For this black passage

Vladimir and Rosa decided it would be a good chance

to pan from Jacky to Bobby and back again

It would show the objective links between the wild revolt of young workers

and the revolutionary movement of black people.

We will later prove by re-cross-examining this man

that he incited the crowd to return to the park and fight the police.

- What a farce! - Who said that?

- I want to know. - David Dellinger.

I did. I'm overcome by the prosecutor's dishonesty.

- Objection, Your Honour. - Objection sustained.

- Himmler, I want to say something. - "Judge Himmler" to you!

I forbid you to make a mockery of this country's laws.

Stop, sir, stop! I'll talk about violence.

Stop, sir, stop! I'll talk about violence.

Stop, sir, stop! I'll talk about violence.

The girls get him out of the car, throw him onto an embankment,

strip him, and jump on top of him, one after the other.

They leave him unconscious from kicks in the stomach.

It took Angelo two days to recover. He pointed out...

Women's Liberation Front, Year Zero!

Stop, sir, stop! I'll talk about violence.

Stop, sir, stop! I'll talk about violence.

Stop, sir, stop! I'll talk about violence.

We in the movement feel that there are only two choices.

Either we become soldiers in the revolutionary war

or we sink into our bourgeois holes

and become anti-communist pigs.

Young people have the greatest revolutionary potential

because their privileges have not been institutionalised

and they are the most alienated sector of the western white working classes.

Words alone will not transform lefties into revolutionaries.

Only actions plus words can do it.

And this alone is not enough

since a young white person can always crawl back into their bourgeois hole.

Always, unless they become totally immersed in the revolution,

not only in terms of their ideas, but also in their way of life.

Hello?

Is this El Al airlines?

Good afternoon.

In your opinion

what goes tick-tock,

weighs two kilos

and is flying at this very moment

from Tel Aviv to Washington?

Right now the armed struggle is becoming more and more generalised,

not just with acts of sabotage but with overt attacks

on all the forces of imperialism, whatever and wherever they may be.

Fine, we're all lumpen, it's true,

from the lumpenproletariat

which has no vested interest in means of production

and capitalist institutions.

There is no security in their links with these means of production

and these institutions.

The lumpenproletariat forms a reserve labour corps

which remains in reserve.

They have never worked, and they never will.

They have no qualifications and no aptitudes.

They have been replaced by machines, automation and cybernetics.

Management refuses to invest in them by training them in the new technology.

They live on welfare benefits and social security.

Is agitation difficult? No.

Just print clear tracts which are right on target,

posters you can stick anywhere.

But when it comes to distributing them, you need the wiles of war.

Turn up at workshops.

Wait for the boss to turn his back.

If he never turns his back,

back him up against the wall so you can agitate freely.

It's not hard, it just takes a little daring and solidarity.

In an automated economy

you cannot ascribe the high level of production

to the working classes alone.

Machines and computers are not members of the working classes,

even if working-class spokespeople, especially Marxist-Leninists,

seem to act like machines or computers.

What's the use of discussing at length a workshop's aims and objectives?

Do not focus on the future.

Only discussion based on practice is useful,

or uniting around ways of standing up to the bosses.

That's how you start to organise. It's easy.

The lumpenproletariat must create their own rebel forces

in accordance with their living conditions

and their own links

with modes of production and social institutions.

They must attack all the structures surrounding them,

including the right wing of their own class

when it tries to bar the road to revolution.

Mr Kunstler, you may cross-examine the witness.

This witness' testimony concerns only Bobby X

and I am not his lawyer.

I'd like to cross-examine the witness.

You can't. That's been settled. Sit down.

Why did you follow me?

- Have you ever tried... - Sit down, nigger!

...to infiltrate the Black Panthers?

Have you ever killed a Black Panther?

This court adjudges Bobby X guilty

of contempt of court

in sequences 7, 9 and 13

and sentences him immediately

to 15 months in prison for each instance

with each sentence to run consecutively.

Moreover, Bobby X's trial

for conspiracy against state security,

against state security,

will be heard separately from that of his co-defendants.

Objection, Your Honour.

It was an insult to defence and counsel

to read that sentence so theatrically.

I speak with the voice God gave me.

Palestinians hijack planes that were not given to them by God.

What does this black section represent?

We just had a shot of John Kunstler refusing to represent Bobby

and then one of the judge banishing Bobby

for alleged contempt of court.

This black section represents the disappearance of Bobby,

the black radical.

So for once this black screen really means something.

It represents Bobby's absence.

For us, Vladimir and Rosa, it's a great victory in filmmaking.

We've been trotting out these black frames...

We've been trotting out these black frames for ages...

May 1968 was a bit like a gun without bullets

or a bladeless knife without a handle.

At first, these black frames were shots we couldn't shoot.

We were told that the images belonged to CBS

or that the images belonged to Gaumont

and we couldn't afford them

so we'd leave the screen black instead.

Then we realised that those black frames

were shots we didn't know how to shoot,

shots of bourgeois ideology and imperialism

and they weren't even black.

They were coloured like in any James Bond movie

or in westerns.

So we started looking for black images,

in other words, images of the production process,

images that defined that process.

The main difficulty was going from black

to showing other colours that didn't feature

in bourgeois and imperialist films.

And so now,

after shots of Yves or of the jury,

of Vladimir and Rosa or Juliet,

this black shot indicating that Bobby is gone

at last has meaning, so it's a victory.

A real victory, not like Proust's pyrrhic victory

but more, "Until victory, always,"

with the Palestinians and all the rebels in the world.

Your Honour, this has been rigged by the government.

I won't tolerate insults to the government in this court.

Be careful, Mr Kunstler.

Let a committee of two look into the matter,

one chosen by the government, the other by the defence.

I'm in charge here

and I'm quite capable of making my own enquiries.

Miss Russel.

What's in this letter?

"Look out, we're watching you," signed by the Black Panthers.

Have you ever seen this letter before?

No, never.

Now that you have seen it, tell me, child,

- can you still keep an open mind? - No, sir, I cannot.

Objection, Your Honour.

The juror had never seen the letter before.

It was Your Honour who showed it to her

and led her to say that she is no longer impartial.

Objection overruled.

As usual, Your Dishonour.

What? What was that?

What? What?

What?

I said, the defence's objection is being overruled as usual,

Your Dishonour.

This is becoming intolerable, Mr Kunstler,

is it not?

I suggest the jury be tested

to see if they have been affected by recent events

or by the court's crazy antics.

- This is the last time. - Objection, Your Honour.

The rudeness of the defence is unprecedented.

My methods are identical to those of the prosecution.

You leftist poof of a lawyer!

- Silence in court! - You commie!

Silence!

The defence's request is rejected

because it was not properly stated.

May I repeat it more properly, Your Honour?

No, a thousand times no!

Don't try to outsmart me, Mr Kunstler.

Let's get back to it.

What is a riot?

According to the law of 1 May 1968

it's a public disorder involving acts of violence

perpetrated by three or more persons.

Any one of the three can commit the act, so long as they are all together.

Say there are three people lying in bed

and another comes and drops an ashtray out of a window.

Legally, it's a riot.

There's also a definition of violence here.

It can be aimed at property, not just a person.

Three kids slashing a tyre, that's a riot.

To put it another way, police officers have testified

that when Yves Alfonso was taken to the car

the tyres were already slashed

and cross-examination has shown who did it.

So we can reverse the accusation

and find the city police guilty of rioting and not Yves Alfonso.

There are more than three of us in this room

so this session is a riot too,

and as you yourself said, you're in charge of it, Your Honour.

Do you wish to call any more witnesses, Mr Kunstler?

- Yes, Your Honour. - Then be quick about it.

Let's not waste time. The holidays are approaching.

Your Honour deserves a holiday.

My last witness is Judge Ernest Adolf Himmler,

Senior Presiding Judge of the Chicago Courthouse,

appointed by the government

to stage the trial of the so-called Conspiracy...

Eight, now...

eight minus one.

Why did the witness in sequence three

declare something to be clear when it was not clear?

Objection, Your Honour.

Sustained.

Now, Your Honour, should I answer that question?

No, honourable witness, you need not answer the question.

In sequence seven a motion by the defence was rejected

because counsel had not given the required four hours' notice.

Two minutes later a motion for the prosecution was agreed.

Why? Why?

Objection, Your Honour.

Objection sustained.

Must I answer the question?

No, honourable witness, you needn't respond to the question.

I have been here for four and a half months,

watching Your Dishonour accept or refuse objections

like an old monkey with peanuts.

I now know that this is a fascist trial.

FRIEDRICH ENGELS THE ROLE OF FORCE IN HISTORY

I say this from the bottom of my heart,

even if it means I am to be disbarred and jailed,

for I know of no better reason to be disbarred and jailed.

Right.

Right.

The country's future and the solution to its problems

must no longer depend on the interests of a handful of billionaires

or their coldly calculated profits.

THE BOSS CAN PAY!

Right.

Right.

There is no justice in this courtroom. This trial is meaningless.

Jailing these people is a legal lynching.

The Declaration of Human Rights says

that if a government violates people's rights

insurrection is a sacred right,

indeed it is an obligation.

When an individual seizes absolute power

they must be put to death by free men.

We are free since we nothing to lose but the chains you have laden us with.

As free men, we sentence you to death.

The court instructs the jury when deliberating its verdict

not to be influenced by any personal hostility

it may feel towards the defendants' long hair,

their weird clothes,

their wild manners,

their political convictions or their inflamed speeches.

May God assist you.

Hitler may have been right:

in our society wild beasts should be destroyed.

Comrades and friends in the audience,

in a few minutes the verdict will be given.

We know in advance what it will be

since one of our jobs as radicals

is to analyse in the present

what happened in the past

so as to know what will happen in the future

and thus to know how to act tomorrow and the day after.

Our comrade Bobby X

is going to read out the sentences

and then draw his own conclusions from the trial.

On the charge of conspiracy, the Chicago Eight: not guilty.

On the charge of violating paragraph 8 of decree number 14

of the law dated 1 1 June 1969,

a paragraph also known as the Patrice Lumumba amendment

which bans crossing a state line with the intent

or the intent to have the intent, to incite a riot,

Anne Wiazemsky and Jacky Martin: not guilty.

Friedrich Vladimir, Karl Rosa, David Dellinger,

Juliet Berto, Yves Afonso and myself, Bobby X:

guilty.

The maximum sentence for the Patrice Lumumba amendment

is five years and $10,000.

Judge Himmler is too weak to be too hard on us.

He'll give us five years and maybe $5,000.

In addition, for contempt of court,

the defendants will be sentenced as follows.

Yves Afonso: one year,

two months, 14 days

1 1 counts.

Anne Wiazemsky:

nine months, 17 days, 23 counts.

David Dellinger: two years, five months,

five days, 14 counts.

Juliet Berto: two years, one month, 18 days, 32 counts.

Jacky Martin: one year, eight months, four days, 17 counts.

Friedrich Vladimir:

two years, six months three days, 57 counts.

Karl Rosa: two years, two months, 16 days, 62 counts.

John Kunstler:

four years, 13 days, 47 counts.

I, Bobby X: four years, 18 days, 237 counts.

The bourgeoisie would have us believe

that only hoodlums and gangsters use certain methods to free themselves,

but the bourgeoisie reserves the "right" to use force.

If anyone else uses force to preserve his or her dignity,

they are immediately vilified by the mass media

who are under bourgeois control.

The Black Panther party is going to send a letter

to the Supreme Court,

the gist of which will revolve around the fact

that the death penalty is applied only to the poor

and to people of colour.

This is very apparent on death row where they await the electric chair.

There, the cells are occupied solely by poor white people,

black people, Arabs and other people of colour.

The death penalty is a class weapon.

It's high time someone stepped in between the people

and the bloodthirsty madmen.

We regard the judicial system not only as a corrupt institution

preserving the interests and power of the bourgeoisie

but also as a gimmick in the hands of treacherous murderers.

Since the police are agents of the bourgeoisie

and the big bosses

it is now clear that,

in order to combat the power structure,

we must lead a daily combat against the ordinary policeman

for he is the foot soldier of the bourgeoisie,

just like the Vietnamese,

in order to defeat US imperialism in general,

must fight each GI separately.

Similarly, students must fight ordinary lecturers

who are also foot soldiers of imperialism.

Ours is a vanguard party

but for it to be strong the masses must have confidence in it.

We are going to make shoes.

I've noticed that many prison inmates become skilled at shoe-making.

All kinds of shoes.

They are worn by inmates

and also sold to government agencies.

Inmates are paid two centimes an hour.

Right.

Now we're going to make shoes for our people.

Most of our children still go barefoot

in Harlem, Watts and Philadelphia.

We want to put an end to the class system

and to the privileges enjoyed by the few.

This does not mean putting an end to cultural differences.

We believe that the union of different cultures

can be as beautiful as a bouquet of flowers.

This vision is essential if the world is to be a better place

than it is now.

Comrades!

Comrades! We are all in a state of revolt.

Against the bourgeoisie.

The distinction between ordinary and political prisoners is artificial.

It is meant to divide us.

They don't want us to communicate with you.

But bars cannot prevent revolutionary ideas.

Why are you in prison, comrades?

Because you refused to work for the bourgeoisie.

Because you didn't want to be exploited,

you didn't want to work for starvation wages

while the boss lined his pockets at your expense.

Why kill yourselves for companies like Ford, Mercedes and Renault?

You preferred to steal from the bourgeoisie.

You were right, comrades.

You were right.

It's always right to rebel.

It's always right to rebel against the powers of the bourgeoisie.

You were right, in a way.

But you have to understand, comrades.

You have to understand.

Trying to find a place in the sun for yourself

doesn't change much in the long run.

One petty theft, two break-ins,

three hold-ups, four bank robberies and five murders

won't stop the bourgeoisie from exploiting us.

Comrades, we must unite.

That day, in Argenteuil, the rebellion began.

Next came revolts in Ivry, Bagneux, Maxéville and Seyssinet.

The workers and the poor farmers must unite,

bar workers and small employees,

taxi drivers and students.

They must unite with you inmates

and you must unite with them.

We must all unite now,

right here in this prison.

We must unite.

Tonight, when you go back to your cells.

Comrades, you're fed up with this life.

So are we.

So let's unite.

Let's unite and rebel.

Right here, now,

in this prison, in our cells, in the yard.

Let's begin.

Let's begin right here and now,

in our cells, in the canteen, in the yard.

For example, when you go back in a while

to, I don't know, making light-bulb filaments

or when you go back to fixing bicycle handlebars

for seven francs a day, demand the union rate.

That should bring down profits for Peugeot and Philips.

Comrades,

delinquency leads to revolution

provided you manage to leave it behind.

Comrades, this prison is yours as much as it is theirs.

Comrades and friends, this call to resistance

must not make us forget that class differences...

Conclusions come at the end of an investigation, not at the start.

The only way to get to the bottom of a situation

is to investigate society and the reality of class differences.

Those in charge should devote themselves

to a few towns or villages,

carrying out detailed investigations

from the basic Marxist point of view

of class analysis.

This is the basic way to get to the bottom of a situation.

COMMUNISTS ARE BOTH THE DRIVING FORCE

AND THE TARGET OF THE REVOLUTION