Generation Z has a reputation for being muckrakers, shirking institutional convention with newfound ideologies of gender, self-driven career paths, and an ever-increasing emphasis on social media as primary communication. Ongoing whispers of a Twitter revolution beg the question as to whether physical presence is necessary for social change; however, answering this question requires discovering if physical action ever did influence an effectual reformation of societal structure and human functioning. Discovering whether reform can occur virtually requires defining the necessary components for a revolution, analyzing the success of physical revolutionary behavior, and ultimately, determining whether popular perceptions of successful revolutions truly fulfill those criteria. Analyzing the effectiveness of social movements requires stripping away the baseless claims of their incendiary leaders and uncovering the underlying motives and foundational bases, often leading to the disappointing conclusion that protest is misguided and ineffectual in producing societal change. By conforming its operations to present societal structure, protest creates an illusion of reform rather than catalyzing genuine social change because its incendiary leaders perpetuate existing dominance relations by appealing to the human desire for subjugation and incite futile mass action with no underlying substance. 

 

Human nature is the most stabilizing yet limiting aspect of being. Acting within human nature is inherently unavoidable, which makes resisting human nature all the more difficult. Acting within and beyond societal constructs entails the same relationship. Given his evaluation of the eternal motion of the political cycle, Niccolò Machiavelli argues fortune is seized through any means necessary, and effective usurpations of political power necessarily entail some extent of physical force. When the political cycle ebbs in their favor, leaders must capitalize on the opportunity without moral infringement, committing violence because leadership presupposes it. Ensuingly, by promoting using force from necessity, Machiavelli develops an oppressor-oppressed dichotomy between the ruling class, often the nobility, and the subjugated class, the plebeians, that underscores their behavioral patterns and the inherent conflict between social classes. In The Prince, he posits that the nobility is marked by a desire to oppress and the plebeians are marked by a desire to not be oppressed. In this regard, the plebeians appear as victims within society’s foundational dominance relation, wrongfully subjected to the nobility’s oppressive nature despite themselves having a pure, egalitarian sentiment. 

 

Though Machiavelli seems to insinuate the poor have wholesome intentions in The Prince, his inclusion of an anonymous speech in the Florentine Histories regards the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy as a cycle that fuels all human reaction, granting no group more innocent intentions than the other. In her analysis of this anonymous speech and the revolt’s context, Yves Winter determines that both the nobility and the plebeians share the human desire to subjugate. The plebeians seek to invert the current oppressor-oppressed roles (becoming the oppressors themselves), whereas the nobility seeks to maintain the current roles (remaining as the oppressors) because ultimately all human desire seeks to oppress. In this case, the violence that Machiavelli promotes for assuming political power seems to be an equalizer within the political cycle, given its accessibility to both groups and its effectiveness relies upon physical exertion rather than social standing. 

 

Despite Machiavelli’s claim that leaders must use violence when the opportunity for power arises, successful usurpation requires supplementing fortune (chance) with virtú (individual initiative). Though violence is necessary to start a revolution, overextension of violence warrants a fruitless revolt just as a complete lack of violence would. In regard to inciting the Ciompi Revolt, the aforementioned anonymous speaker falls victim to the belief that violence can be the sole driving factor of a successful revolt. His call-to-arms merely inflames passions to incite mass violence, neither confronting the underlying issues of the Ciompi’s condition nor defining real solutions to cease their oppression:

 

“We must have two ends in our deliberations: one is to make it impossible for us to be punished for the [evils] we have done in recent days, and the other is to be able to live with more freedom and more satisfaction than we have in the past…. When many err, no one is punished, and though small faults are punished, great and grave ones are rewarded…. All those who come to great riches and great power have obtained them either by fraud or by force…. [Good men never rise] out of poverty unless they are rapacious and fraudulent. For God and nature have put all the fortunes of men in their midst, where they are exposed more to rapine than to industry and more to wicked than to good arts, from which it arises that men devour one another and that those who can do less are always the worst off. Therefore, one should use force whenever the occasion for it is given to us; nor can a greater occasion be offered us by fortune than this one…. As a result, either we shall be left princes of all the city, or we shall have so large a part of it that not only will our past errors be pardoned but we shall even have authority enabling us to threaten [the nobility] with new injuries…. Now is the time not only to free ourselves from [our superiors] but to become so much their superiors that they will have more to lament and fear from you than you from them." (Machiavelli 122-123)

 

Considering the speech within its immediate context, as the plebs become increasingly wary of each new malice deed they commit, the speaker’s persuasion is crucial to maintaining their participation in the revolt as its only hope for success requires adhering to its foundation of unrelenting mass violence. The speaker’s endorsement of mass violence necessarily underlies his ensuing motivations to his wary audience. Assessing the speaker’s motives for continuing the revolt, his primary goal directly addresses the pleb’s present worry: punishment. He argues that employing further mass violence will allow the plebs to evade punishment for their previous and ensuing “evils,” theorizing that if more people suffer, less people will be capable of punishing their deeds (Machiavelli 122). To assuage their hesitation, he defends perpetual violence as merely playing by the rules of a corrupt game, claiming that the plebs must necessarily act moralessly against the nobility because such behavior is the surefire path to attaining a better life. As the nobility have proven, corrupt means are the only means that lead to power; thus, the speaker aims to sever the plebs from any remaining goodness, so they can come to power in the same way as their current oppressors. He poses an ultimatum that “good men” stay impoverished unless “rapacious and fraudulent” to scare his men into further compliance with the revolt, positing that they can either choose violence now or misery forever (Machiavelli 123). He makes the choice for them, though, by construing domination as inherent within human nature. His declaration that “men devour one another” frames human existence as survival of the fittest, in which society functions as a food chain rather than a civilization (Machiavelli 123). It follows: the stronger man preys upon the weaker and necessarily subjugates him; being the stronger man is the only way to not be subjugated; thus, being violent is the only means to become stronger and attain the second end of his speech: freedom. 

 

In comparison to his primary goal (i.e. escaping punishment), attaining greater “freedom” seems directly correlated to performing greater evils (Machiavelli 122). This definition of freedom is far from disbanding the existing oppressor-oppressed dichotomy of the nobility and the plebs but rather functions within the same structure responsible for current oppression. To gain freedom, the plebs’ must oppress the nobility. Indeed, as Winter suggests, the speaker’s indication of human dominating nature suggests that the plebs’ revolt seeks to invert the oppressor-oppressed roles in their favor rather than reform the oppressive societal structure and definitively cease oppression. The anonymous speaker’s sentiment for mass violence merely perpetuates the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, evinced by his comments that the revolt’s success will enable the plebs to be “princes of all the city” with authority not only “to threaten” but to usurp the role of “their superiors” (Machiavelli 123). By persuading his followers to act upon a corrupt means to attain a corrupt end, his message promises freedom at another’s expense and emulates the conviction of the Ciompi’s oppressive predecessors. The speaker’s nonrevolutionary ideas entail zero intent for reforming the cycle of oppression and, ultimately, reveal his lack of virtú, foreshadowing the Ciompi’s unsuccessful attempt to gain power. 

 

Ironically, the revolt itself responded to an ephemeral economic issue rather than the underlying source of the Ciompi’s persisting oppression, such that its dramatic flare and violent demonstrations were misguided means for the Ciompi’s minimal demands. Despite having endured long standing “economic and political grievances” via their inability to join guilds and hold any stake in the wool manufacturing process, the Ciompi revolted upon experiencing a “series of cripping crises” that triggered “a rapid fall in wool production” (Winter 741). Though the anonymous speaker portrays this economic injury as an “[occasion] offered us by fortune,” founding the revolt upon an immediate economic circumstance rather than a reflection of ongoing oppression neglects the severity of the Ciompi’s oppressed condition, rendering their reaction more akin to a temper tantrum than a message against injustice (Machiavelli 123). Further, as Machiavelli attests, great “fortune” must be met with even greater virtú; and, given their guiding strategy of perpetual mass violence, those conditions are not met by the Ciompi’s response (Machiavelli 123). 

 

Evidently, the Ciompi’s lack of virtú enabled the revolt’s demise. Their excessive violence proved disproportionate to their ultimate “political and social demands”: “the right to form a guild” and “production increases for the wool industry” (Winter 742). Even if granted, these demands “remained well within the medieval corporatist system” and would still render the Ciompi as fodder for the production moguls. Their lackluster petition begs the questions: why fight for a consolation prize when given the opportunity for justice? And, why build a platform to conform rather than reform? The problem attributes itself to the movement’s baseless foundation, and its leader’s unrevolutionary ambition to cause oppression to attain freedom. The Ciompi’s call-to-action responded not to their lifetime of oppression, whose underlying cause is ingrained much deeper within societal structure than its manifestation via the wool industry, but to one fleeting economic issue, which was bound to subside on its own when the political cycle revolved once again. Indeed, the political cycle did just that: the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy re-favored the nobility, the Ciompi’s wool guild was “disbarred,” and Florentine political power returned to the “elites” (Winter 743).

 

Confronting the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy is an ongoing societal battle in contemporary politics; the Ciompi Revolt is not alone in its failure to triumph. One modern manifestation is observed by the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011. Similar to the Ciompi Revolt, a current oppressed class experienced a crisis that worsened their existing oppression, prompting them to finally resist their oppressors on the grounds of one immediate issue. The conditions for each movement parallel each other on three major planes, necessitating the same futile result in the contemporary as in the historical. First, New York City’s economy mimics the medieval Florentine economy, marked by an emerging “commercial capitalism” with an emphasis on “[trade] and banking” that led to the rise of “an industrial and financial elite with unprecedented power” (Winter 739). Second, the wool industry, fueling Florentine economic growth, parallels Wall Street, fueling the American economy, with each playing a lead role in the prosperity of its citizens (Winter 739). Third, within the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, the Ciompi and the Occupy protestors assume the same role of the oppressed, subjected to their respective production systems and the elites who maintain them. Seemingly, Machiavelli’s sentiment to seize fortune to attain power is largely applicable to the Ciompi and the Occupy protests’ reactive responses to their respective economic crises. However, Machiavelli’s emphasis on the role of virtú in coming to power equally reflects the fruitlessness of the movements as both their leaders lack the virtú to make lasting impacts on society, evinced by their followers’ re-subjugation to the wealthy elites and reinstated oppression. 

 

Just as Machiavelli’s anonymous speaker urged collective action for mass impact, the Occupy Wall Street leaders sought to unite all who felt disparaged by the wealthiest elites with the slogan, “We are the 99 percent” (Volle). The protest was originally conceived by Kalle Lasn and Micah White, two crucial editors of the “anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters,” and announced via White’s tweet “#OCCUPYWALLSTREET” (Volle; “Facts about Occupy Wall Street”). Because of growing participatory interest and the founders’ lack of further instruction, planning the protest fell into the hands of The New York General Assembly, “a group of veteran organizers” (Volle). Being self-identified “anarchists,” the leaders’ and planners’ political biases question whether the movement intended to reform the oppressed state of its followers or to advance their own government-destroying agendas (Volle).

 

Akin to the Ciompi Revolt’s dramatic actions yet anticlimactic result, Occupy Wall Street failed to ameliorate “corporate law [corruption]” and “economic inequality” because its platform centered on surface-level tensions rather than total societal reform (Volle). Incited by the “financial crisis of 2007-08” and the “Great Recession,” the Occupy Movement was inspired by  a disadvantageous turn in the political cycle rather than long-standing grievances (Volle). Though ever-present, the pre-crisis wealth gap was accepted as the norm, requiring a shock in the economic system to inspire public consciousness of a wealth disparity. However, by directly refuting the in-crisis condition, the movement disregarded and excused pre-crisis oppression. The protests were motivated by current resentment for the failure of the market, which, though made the wealth disparity more apparent, was not the driving force of that disparity’s existence in total. One period of recession is not comparable to a lifetime of oppression; therefore, choosing to protest when all classes except the richest are negatively impacted by the economy fails to encompass the severity of the poorest citizens’ oppression. The movement’s emphasis on situationally shared economic unrest undermined the persistent economic struggle of the poorest class pre-crisis by grouping them with those only suffering during the crisis. By coining themselves as “the 99 percent,” protestors oversimplified their issue, disregarding that oppression occurs on a spectrum and diluting the severity of the most gravely oppressed (Volle). Observing the crisis, i.e. the pinnacle of public consciousness, as the root cause of wealth disparity confuses the real cause of economic inequality: the societal structure that permits disparities to be treated as the norm. A more apt representation of the disparity would reflect a less abnormal public condition, in which most citizens are profiting from the economy but the poorest continue to suffer at its expense. Reformative solutions, if ever on the radar, were sabotaged by the protest’s confusion of situational and ongoing suffering that blurred the line between unrelenting and ephemeral oppression by the elite. 

 

Ultimately, the failure of Occupy Wall Street and the Ciompi Revolt ascribes itself to their performative but fruitless pursuits fueled by their leader’s emotional appeals rather than concrete platforms for reform. No reform could manifest from either movement because their sentiments conformed to present societal structure. The Ciompi were blinded by the human desire to subjugate and believed mimicking their superiors would allow them to take their place; but, no revolution occurs from unrevolutionary ideas. Machiavelli’s anonymous speaker only grants the illusion of freedom and a better life to the Ciompi because he promotes employing the same corrupt tactics to attain power as their present oppressors did. By keeping the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy in-tact, the Ciompi leave themselves at risk to be unfavored by it again. The only way to permanently end their oppression is to seek solutions that fight with the oppressive force rather than within it and contrive a platform where freedom is sought for all, not at another’s expense. Similar to the Ciompi speaker’s misguided agenda, the Occupy movement leaders’ lack of agenda neglected to establish a definitive path for reform. Perhaps the spearheading anarchists had the right ideology for resisting current institutions; however, their distaste for all institutions leaves undefined how their ideal society would function. As evinced by the haphazard nature of the protest, a disorderly free-for-all is not a viable solution. Though the demands of the Ciompi are too modest and the demands of the Occupy protests are too abstract, both extremes attribute themselves to a shared flaw in the movements’ foundations. The movements’ unsubstantial agendas are effects of allowing emotional appeals to motivate their resistance, i.e. the Ciompi leader turning fear of punishment to hate to encourage violence and the Occupy leaders using financial unease to prompt public resentment. Though garnering high, fervent involvement, the negatively-charged sentiments hinge on hate and fear, the driving forces of oppression. Thus, the movements’ abilities to bring change are stunted by their regression to the human desire to subjugate. 

 

Effective social change must be fueled by the right intentions and find a balanced medium for its demands, wherein it poses a process to reach its end rather than proclaiming finite, immediate terms or infinite, ambiguous notions. If leaders fail to act purposefully and establish a clear outline for social change, protest is bound to be fruitless in resolving and reforming oppression. Further, so long as the forum for supposed reformative action operates within the confines of capitalist society, no resistance will eradicate the underlying, all-encompassing oppressor-oppressed dominance relation. Instead, uprisings of the oppressed will ephemerally invert the roles of the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, granting them an illusion of success until the political cycle revolves again, plummeting them back into their oppression until their next misguided uproar.