The Godfather trilogy (1972, 1974 & 1990) and the politics of Machiavelli as described in The Prince, part 2

Historical/Moral Truth  in  The Godfather Trilogy: Illegitimate vs. The Legitimate pt. 1

Although the content throughout the godfather trilogy is largely impressionistic because of the fictional elements there are elements in these films which are very realistic i.e. they come close to the truth. One of the great achievements of the Godfather trilogy is the creation of this dynamic fictional world which seems to have so many dimensions. The trilogy is so great that one can draw on elements from previous films to justify the actions of a particular character. The actions of Michael in relation to those of his father are the main historical current flowing through these series of films.  The realism throughout the Godfather trilogy, apart from the actual events and personalities on which these films are based, is the honesty or dishonesty of the characters that accurately portray the vicissitudes of human nature. The honesty and dishonesty of the characters largely reflects the extent you are able, over the course of the three films, to identify with each character and share in their highs and their lows. This is one sign of great fiction in any format; the motivations of the characters have to seem believable and these motivations are highlighted by their actions and the words that are spoken. In these series of films the dramatic moments stem from the search for truth and therefore add some philosophical dimensions that have not been discussed as much as it should have been by the so called top critics. 

The truth at times is concealed because of the cat and mouse game that unfolds when one character is trying to undermine the other or when one character deliberately conceals information from another. The films in this trilogy normally end in a bloodletting climax when all enemies are vanquished to pave the way for the Corleone family. There are however intimate moments aside from the subterfuges in the Mafia world that highlight the truth in certain statements. The tussle between Michael and Kay is one such example of this intimacy; intimacy from this viewpoint is speaking of the honesty between the two characters.  Michael upon meeting Kay appears somewhat naive or ignorant of his destiny. Michael arrives in the Godfather part one with Kay at the marriage between Connie and Carlo. He tells her of the strong arm tactics used by his father to have his way but assures her that he will never be a man like his father. The story he relays to her is the one with the bandleader who refused to release Johnny Ola due to  contractual obligationshowever Vito responds to this by using Luca Brasi, his enforcer,  to threaten the bandleader with death so that Johnny Ola can be released from his obligations in order that he can pursue his solo career. Kay is obviously a bourgeois from the suburbs who has grown up with an idyllic, almost naive view of the machinations of this world. When she slowly comes to the realization that the business Michael is involved in is the so called crime underworld she is attacked by her sensibilities but stays on because of her love for Michael. The end of part one sees the door closed on Kay and this scene is very significant when it comes to searching for the truth. The film does highlight that she knows but doesn’t know what is going on. The main impression in her mind is that the people involved in the business Michael heads have men killed.

Michael at first says to Kay, after being separated from her for quite awhile that he is working for his father now. She reminds Michael ‘I thought you would never become a man like your father’ Michael:  ‘My father’s no different from any other powerful man. Any man who’s responsible for other people, like a senator or a president. Kay: ‘Do you know how naive you sound?' Michael: 'Why?' Kay: ‘Senators and Presidents don’t have men killed’. Michael: ‘Oh! Who’s being naive Kay?

This is an accurate statement because when it comes to the notion of defence more than likely a president or senator or a prime minister will have men killed. (i will discuss this in the next section) Since the beginning of time the idea has been that  in order not to be conquered you must have mechanisms in place that will protect you and your citizens. If you do set out to conquer someone it is, more than likely to see the enrichment of your populace. If Xerxes of Persia had succeeded in conquering the Greek states, for instance, it would only have increased the prestige and, more importantly, the riches of the Persian Empire. It is always fool hardy to conquer someone simply because you don’t like them. If you do that then you would have wasted precious resources which will never be recovered. When a nation or person becomes big the natural thing will be the desire to make itself bigger through expansion of its boundaries.  It is an apocryphal tale that has been with us for centuries. When you do become powerful normally others will recognize this quality in you and through affinity will appoint you to be their leader based on the extent of your accumulation or the accomplishment of deeds that saw you excel ahead of everyone else. Michael is correct when he says that Senators and Presidents have men killed. In the so called crime underworld it seems more transparent because the bureaucracy is not as developed. America could not have been America today if it did not revolt against the British through its revolutionary war that cost the lives of  thousands. The civil war was fought to unite America etc. It is therefore true that what Vito Corleone does is no different than what leaders in other spheres have been doing for centuries.  In part 2 we see that Vito’s mandate is to protect Italian American immigrants and this is made clear when a young Vito speaking to Genco wonders why Don Fanucci extorts from his own people. Genco replies ‘ because he knows that they have no one to protect them.’ This is the essence of the alias The Godfather and is played out in part 2 in a humorous episode where the Calabrese landlord evicts his tenant who comes to Vito asking for help. He, the calabrese landlord, eventually, and smartly, concedes knowing the prestige accorded to Vito by the Italian Americans after it must be common knowledge that for him to assume the leadership role he would have had to killFanucci (which in fact he did).

Michael and Kay continue their roller coaster ride and in part 2 she reveals that she aborted the child ‘just like this marriage is an abortion: something that’s unholy and evil’. Kay’s naiveté in her attack suggests that she is not only attacking Michael but the world of man. It is not any clearer whether she has fully grasped how business is actually conducted in the world and how money is made and how people become powerful.  After the divorce we see Kay again in part 3 and what she says to Michael seems all too true based on her perception: Michael has bought his way into respectability in the Vatican. In the beginning we see him invested with an order of the Roman Catholic church after donating $100 million. After the ceremony Kay comes to Michael in his room and says after awhile: ‘I came to protect my son (after clarifying that she did not come for him) I didn’t come to see you disguised by your church. I think that was a shameful ceremony.’ This does ring with truth because after engrossing all this money Michael feels that he can buy his way into respectability. The only real penance he does enjoy is after his confession to the cardinal in Sicily about his past nefarious deeds. Michael responds after Kay’s attacks by saying ‘I spent my life protecting my family.’ His father was in trouble, the family was in trouble so he had to take on the role. If he hadn't where would his family be and within the context of the three films we are able to identify with what he is saying and it it is a testament to the dynamic world created by Mario Puzo. Hyman Roth says to Michael after telling the story of Moe Greene, ‘I didn’t complain. I knew Moe; knew he was headstrong. And I said to myself this is the business we’ve chosen.’

There are other statements of truth from a historical perspective. When Michael is contemplating how to kill Hyman Roth Tom Hagen says, there’s no way we could get to him. It would be like getting to the president.’ Michael responds ‘Tom y’know you surprise me. If history has taught us anything it's that you can kill anyone’ (not exact quote). This is certainly true look at the French and English revolutions; the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, JFK and Julius Caesar; the revolutionary events in St. Domingue that led to the Haitian revolution; events in antiquity where deposed rulers would often lose their lives. It is a tale as old as time. When Frank Pentangeli says to Tom Hagen in part 2 ‘you remember Tom when we was like the Roman Empire; the Corleone family was like the Roman Empire with capo regimes and soldiers.’ Tom Hagen says, ‘It was once’. This exchange hits home every time I hear it. In chronicling the rise of the Corleone family the screen writers have highlighted how the values that once made the Corleone family a symbol of resistance against the pezzonovante/bourgeoisie have faded. This is similar to what occurred with the Roman Empire which started small and eventually became so large that the leaders became divisive.

How does this relate to Machiavelli? Machiavelli thought that the only way to prove his points was through historical references and that is how his ideas are justified. This is evident in most sections of his book where he uses events that occurred in ancient and modern (modern being his own time) history. The impressionism creeps in at various points of his analysis based on these references to historical events and Machiavelli is never able to translate this impressionism into an objective reality. The comparison of past events with present day initiatives are sure to inspire some form of analysis on power but because of the change in structure of how politics is conducted in the present day as opposed to ancient days for instance it is hardly comparable. He therefore does not account for the change in the political structure over time which would have allowed for a better assessment of how a prince should definitely act in the time when the work is published. In his section ‘Those who come to power by crime’ he says:

 ‘I shall give two examples, one from the ancient world one from the modern, without otherwise discussing the rights and wrongs of this subject, because I imagine that these examples are enough for anyone who had to follow them.’

This is the trend he takes for the majority of his work where he offers no analysis except to say these examples should suffice to explain why he says what he says. This is the same case in the Godfather trilogy where most actions are justified by the past actions of others whether in the world created by Mario Puzo or in the real world. Another technique used by the Puzo and Coppola is the merging of actual historical events with the fictional world inhabited by the Corleone family. In part 2 Michael along with Hyman Roth and other business men are preparing to invest in Cuba on the eve of its revolution in 1959. It is important in the film when they highlight rebel activity and an actual encounter with the corrupt Cuban president Fulgencio Batista. When Michael, is ordered by subpoena to testify before the senate committee in part 2 this is based on the McClellan hearings of 1963 where public spotlight was placed on the Mafia for the first time. In part 3 the dealings with the church coincide with the events that shook the Vatican in the  1970s: the sudden death of Pope John Paul 1, the accountant of the Vatican bank hanging from a bridge and the debt of the Vatican bank. The alias The Godfather is said to be one of the nicknames of crime boss Carlo Gambino and the five families in part one are based on the fact that New York was divided between five families. The real world is intertwined throughout with the Corleone family and adds dimensions to this fictional account of underworld crime.

The Illegitimate vs. the Legitimate pt. 2 in The Godfather Trilogy

The conflict between being the legitimate and the illegitimate is the central theme in the Godfather trilogy. It is primarily Michael’s struggle to try and elevate himself from the mire of illegitimacy and his lack of success which is the tragic element of this series of films. The godfather part one opens with the memorable scene ‘ I Believe in America’. The undertaker says he believed in America because America has won his fortune and he has been absorbed into the ranks of the bourgeoisie. Reality hits home when a daughter who goes out with two true blooded American boys is beaten and justice is not meted out in the courts for the two youths receive a suspended sentence and walk scotch free. The undertaker is stunned: ‘Suspended sentence...and those two bastards just smiled at me’ (not exact quote)’I said to my wife for justice we must go to Don Corleone.’ After hearing this Vito considers what he has said and replies that the undertaker did well in America where he made his fortune and was protected by the police and courts of law and ‘now you come to me and say Don Corleone give me justice; you don’t even think to call me godfather.’ The undertaker resists but by the time he leaves he acknowledges Vito as the Godfather. This opening scene represents the plight of immigrants in that great bastion of capitalism known as the United States which is ruled with an iron fist by the bourgeois class. The rise of Vito Corleone represents the response by the proletariat to the strangle hold of the ruling class and the godfather trilogy documents the difficulties faced by the under classes who wish to rise to the top in America.

  The Corleone family accumulates their fortune through so called illegitimate activities such as gambling, prostitution and the drug trade. These activities are given structure through institutions such as casinos and billiard/pool rooms/entertainment clubs and brothels. The Godfather part 2 does mention, while chronicling the rise of Vito Corleone, that he engaged in the importation of Olive Oil which seems perfectly legitimate however the expansion of his fortune was more than likely due to his involvement in the rackets which is why in part 1 in the opening wedding scene the FBI is watching the house closely. The Olive Oil business was probably not that big at the time and perhaps provided the legitimate front needed for the expansion of Vito’s so called illicit trades. This is what most so called criminal organizations do when it comes to the rackets. This element however is not developed thoroughly in the trilogy and as I mentioned before this is due to the impressionism present in these series of films which does not provide a concrete presentation of the day to day running of the family.  The business of gambling, women, drugs and any other product deemed illegal by the state is normally engaged in by most criminal outfits. Firstly these activities are considered illegitimate  because they encourage the growth of vice in human society. When these activities are regulated they are supposed to promote order in society and this is the mandate of the pezzonovante/ bourgeoisie in a state built on a majority consensus. The question is: why are these trades so popular despite being classified as illegitimate? The answer is simple because there is an overwhelming demand. The laws of economics state that once there is a demand it will reduce the risk of investment in a particular enterprise. Sex will always be in demand; drugs will always be in demand and gambling will always be in demand. The criminals get rich off these enterprises because they have to charge not only for the product but the risk that they take of being imprisoned. This is why riches are there to be had regardless of the illegitimacy of the product. Another reason why these products and services are frowned upon by the diehard conservative is the notion of what is an unproductive product or service as opposed to a productive service or product. Most services are unproductive because there is no tangible surplus value that originates from the service. A service is intangible because no material product on a large scale is produced by the service. What occurs with a service is one person being paid to perform a favour or duty on your behalf as opposed to doing it yourself.  This is not to say services are not valuable to you but they are inherently unproductive. Productive labour is one that generates surplus value by producing  material objects on a large scale for the capitalist. This is produced by variable or living labour. This is where true profit originates for the capitalist charges the customer for the constituent elements of the product which include raw materials etc and wages and also the unpaid part which is given gratis by the worker to the capitalist. The capitalist therefore claims this unpaid part as surplus value which is accumulated as profit and forms the basis for new, subsequent investments. In a service there is no surplus value; what people in professions such as law, medicine and some transport services,  such as taxis do, is to appropriate the surplus value generated from the productive sectors or more specifically the sources of revenue which include the profits of the capitalist, the workers’ wages,  rents of the landlord and the interest for the money lender. These sources of revenue are generated by the labour time of the worker who gives some time to replenish his own labour (necessary labour time) which is paid to him in the form of wages and the unpaid part (surplus/extra) which goes to the capitalist. This is why you could say that the two forms of revenue are really just wages of the worker and the profits of the capitalist for the rent of the landlord and the interest of the money lender is normally paid out of one of these two sources.  If you go to the doctor because you are sick you will pay him out of these wages and he therefore appropriates a portion of the surplus product and this is where he makes his living and this highlights why his service is unproductive because it does not generate new income unless the doctor becomes a capitalist himself with the money he accumulates. In an unproductive enterprise such as gambling the casino appropriates the surplus product from either the worker’s wages or the capitalist profits when they deal at the table or place bets in the slot machine. A prostitute only takes what you earn for a sexual service but can never create surplus value from sex unless you create life. Let me clarify that surplus value is generated under the capitalist who tries to squeeze as much surplus value out of the worker as he can thereby driving down his necessary means of subsistence. In this way some services can be transformed into surplus value. If a taxi man works for himself he is not a capitalist and works merely to reproduce his means of subsistence whereas if a capitalist supplies the taxi and demands that he make a certain amount by the end of the day it is a guarantee that he will pay him less than what is generated by the worker. If the worker makes 3000 the capitalist will pay him 1500 if the rate of surplus value is 100%. This is because a separation has taken place where the capitalist supplies the taxi and the man who drives the taxi can only supply his labour power. The same can apply to doctors and lawyers but it is difficult to measure the value of a service but easier to measure the value of a material product. A service perishes in an instant however when one can supply the means of production for a prostitute which is a room or a taxi for the taxi man with the condition that in return they give you a part of the proceeds then you can consider yourself a semi capitalist for it appears more like share cropping. In any case the one who supplies the means of production should receive a surplus value or it is pointless to supply the means of production for a woman to become a whore. The more people you employ that generate this revenue for you will increase the rate of surplus value that is generated.   This is the case for the capitalist mode of production which most of the world will be engaged in by the next 50 years (some countries are still making that transition to the capitalist mode of production and these countries are called the developing nations). Karl Marx in his monumental work Das Kapital which comprises 4 volumes is the reference point for this brief analysis on productive labour.

  The other question is: who decides what is legitimate as opposed to what is illegitimate? In the West, where the Godfather trilogy takes place, the capitalist mode of production is under way and the bourgeoisie being the dominant economic force that controls the means of production are the symbols of power in society. There is a great scene in part 2 of the godfather trilogy highlighting that the workers or proletariat class are comprised of a large immigrant class from different parts of the world. This scene occurs right after Vito has fled Sicily under threat of death and arrives in New York by ship with a motley assortment of immigrants from different parts of the world.  The reason so many immigrants are on these ships in the year 1901 (when Vito arrives in New York) is the great investments of capital that are taking place in the  United States during this period which would require labour to generate relative surplus value meaning that there is a greater proportion of unpaid labour as opposed to paid labour or, to be more accurate, cheap labour to drive down the wage bill. This is why in part 2 you see such an influx of immigrants. In the first two decades of the 21^st century immigrant labour will be running to Asia which is generating considerable surplus value because of its massive labour supply. In 1901, where the story of the godfather begins, America, along with a united Germany, was generating a great amount of surplus value through investments replacing Britain, which was beginning to fade at this point, as a leading economic power. This is why the scene with the immigrants has a lot to say. When The Godfather begins the bourgeoisie is in power and this is what Vito says to Michael in their last conversation in part 1: ‘I refused to be a puppet on the strings of all those big shots’. The big shots are the bourgeoisie. The organization that Vito pioneers: the Corleone family is the response by the working class to the stranglehold of the bourgeoisie who derive their power from being able to extract as much surplus value from the proletariat class which in this film are represented by Italian immigrants seeking riches in America through starvation wages and by becoming members of the petty bourgeois class by opening small businesses. His syndicate thrives on those activities that are considered illegitimate by the bourgeoisie class such as casinos, brothels and entertainment clubs either because they are unproductive sectors or because they encourage human vice and folly. Vito is able to get away with so much for the hypocritical bourgeoisie, while promoting a virtuous lifestyle, do engage in these activities that encourage vice. They are only human. This is why Vito says at the Council of the leaders in part one to discuss the effects of the war following the incursion made by Sollozo that his friends in politics would not be so helpful if they realised that his business was in drugs as opposed to gambling or even women ‘which they consider to be a harmless vice’. The incursion made by Sollozo introduces drugs into the underworld. This product is a tangible material product which will ensure a huge amount of profits for the families for this product has to be sold and should incorporate surplus value as opposed to a service where you rely on others to perform a service for you. With drugs you are able to introduce a demand that is regulated objectively by market prices as opposed to the whims of individuals which is what occurs in the service trade. The reason why Vito’s friends in politics would not be so helpful is that they recognise the profitability in the drug trade for it is a tangible material product which encourages human vice. Also drugs in its natural form, such as cocaine and the ganja herb/marijuana are essentially raw materials. It is known that ganja and cocaine are used    in medicinal products which represent its  industrial by product or absorption of the raw material. If there is a trade in these products, illegally, on such a large scale it will hike up the cost price. The capitalist detests expensive raw materials which increases the proportion of constant capital to variable capital (wage labour). The cocaine raw materials however encourage vice and are supposed to be responsible for the violent excesses of the proletariat much like what alcohol does. This is why you have a narcotics divisions in police headquarters because drugs are products that are illegitimate and it is easier to catch criminals this way as opposed to capturing someone performing a service on or for another individual. Drugs represent a more tangible means to catch someone involved in the rackets. This is why Vito says that he feels that this ‘drugs business will ruin us in the years to come.’ This is all ironic for the hypocritical bourgeoisie pioneered the first international drug trade in Opium. The British did this through the East India Company in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. The Opium wars 1840-42 with China represented the pinnacle of bourgeoisie excess.  This was done all in the name of profits however it is proven that there will always be a demand for drugs. In Jamaica smoking ganja/cannabis is intertwined with a spiritual experience; and the smoking of nicotine seems to relax people. These drugs seem to fill a void in people’s lives much like liquor and sex which is why we have addicts. The Prohibition in America during the 1930s, was the same thing, however they must have realised that liquor is ingrained in the human experience much like drugs. There will always be a demand for drugs and the smuggler will always be the man to meet the demand. Adam smith in The Wealth of Nations (abbreviated title) acknowledges that this is the reason why smugglers normally make enormous profits. They are labelled criminals by the bourgeoisie however they are business men much like the capitalist who swindle the proletariat through criminal means, sometimes. Labelling these smugglers criminals is almost foolish for the impression is given that they take the drugs and stuff it down people’s throats. The only problem is the escalation of violence that accompanies drugs because everybody is fighting to control the trade i.e. controlling the supply to meet the demand. This certainly occurs in part 1 of the godfather but the issue never re-emerges in the subsequent parts mainly because Michael’s business revolved primarily around casinos. It is a hard trade to control and normally expenditure on defence is necessary to stay afloat in the underworld. When one man conquers all then normally if you deal in drugs you have to pay some form of tribute to the boss. The incursion by Sollozo, the Turk,  is important for now all the families have to fight and this will determine who emerges to control this new trade in drugs. In part 1 Barzini seems to be the man who wants to take over from the Corleone family. This is why Vito says to Michael that ‘Barzini will move against you first’ (after his death of course).

The bourgeois class in the godfather has come a far way from the illegitimate enterprises that have made them the dominant force in the modern day capitalist economies. This is where the naiveté of a character such as Kay is paramount in understanding this dilemma. The bourgeois class had to make the same transition from illegitimacy to the legitimate. The illegitimacy stems from the fact that for the emerging bourgeoisie from the late 17^th to early 19^th century to become the predominant economic force in society a lot of blood had to be shed in the name of profit. Karl Marx documents this in Capital vol. 1. The emerging bourgeois class of the 17^th century came to power through corruption and murder much like the Corleone family for as pointed out before to be the dominant force in any society BLOOD MUST BE SHED. There are no two ways about it. In Jamaica, for instance, May 24, 2010 saw the invasion of Tivoli Gardens by Government storm troopers and the largely corrupt police force to dismantle the so called Tivoli garrison which ironically used violence( supported by corrupt politicians) to ensure that the ruling party is ensured of at least one seat in the general elections. The only way the government forces could enforce their presence was through violence because the Tivoli garrison had been so isolated from the Jamaican sphere of life that they established their own code of regulation. The government seeking to enforce their way of life had to invade with violence so as to establish their authority over this community. It was a decisive victory for the bourgeois class. All the inquiries in the world cannot ignore the truth that blood had to be shed to get the business done (extraditing Tivoli don). This was compounded by the fact that the Jamaican government is comprised of bourgeois sycophants that pride themselves in kissing the ass of the bourgeois class of the  United States of America for the bourgeois class of Jamaica has little or no economic clout in world affairs.  It is no use getting riled up about the issue for this has been the way of the world since the beginning of time. The bourgeois class must use illegitimate means to enforce its position to be the dominant force in society. In 17^th century England the bourgeois class in partnership with the government enforced policies that saw the destruction of the yeomanry by kicking the small landowners off the land using thugs disguised as protectors of the people. This resulted in many deaths etc however it was done for the greater good because at least more profit would be had for this endeavour. This illegitimate practice continues to this day in sophisticated forms such as the war on terrorism which is merely a mask for aggrandizement policies for economic gain or the commodity of oil. All empires engage in this so called war on terrorism which is only a way of saying that they need to subject other territories to their will. In any case with the bourgeois class haven risen so high from swindling the working classes they try and add panache to it stating that laws should be put in place or a code of regulation which would now regulate society or promote order, always bearing in mind the rights of the bourgeois class for  whom the governments in most capitalist nations will always be indebted. It must have been a stunner for some of these companies to be indebted to the government during the global recession although this was not really the case as a lot of these companies invest significantly in government bonds; this investment in government bonds ensured that they would receive bailouts even if it was from taxpayer dollars.  Therefore Americans cannot get too riled up over what some of these companies did with the bailout money considering that the government itself was probably heavily indebted to these said companies. In any case the bourgeois along with the government, which owes economic growth to them, ensure that this code of regulation known as the law keeps the proletariat in check since it is largely known that the bourgeois class is fearful of the violence of the proletariat. The other reality is that the only way the proletariat class will achieve its goals is through violence. There is no other way. The bourgeois class is fearful of this which is why they allow the police to brutalize the working classes. The police in Jamaica, for instance, were originally created to keep the working classes in check so that the bourgeois class can engage in sodomy and white collar crimes.  The media in Jamaica, for instance, discovered tortures chambers in Tivoli however the police force engages in just as much excess when it carries out violence on the proletariat. The novel Waiting for the Barbarians by J. Coetzee is reflective of the paranoia of the bourgeois class. Now this is not to say that there is not scum in the proletariat class but I am speaking from the perspective of those who claim to have the right to rule. The bourgeoisie have lived so well off the backs of the proletariat that they have squeezed the class so that it remains dependent on them. This is why illiteracy among the proletariat is paramount. It is necessary to keep the proletariat ignorant so that one can exercise his or her influence. This is why the proletariat become scum having been squeezed all over the world for centuries by the bourgeoisie who use several arguments such as race,  old wealth and divine rights as  justification for their right to rule.  The saying Knowledge is power is pretty accurate.  In the Godfather trilogy the character Kay represents the outcome of the legitimate program of the bourgeois class which is used to conceal the illegitimacy of their programs. The Christian church which is a bastion of the bourgeoisie class promotes the superficial Ten Commandments and in the case of the godfather trilogy the most important one is thou shall not kill and steal. These commandments represent the heights of absurdity which seems to say that killing or stealing should never occur; in this capitalist system that is how fortunes are won. I repeat that from the beginning of time blood has to be shed when it comes to gaining profits. In the case of Kay she has imbibed all of this hypocritical ideology to justify her actions against Michael. Her tirades against Michael seem pathetic but it is realistic and her presence in the film is symbolic of the judgments of the bourgeois class. ‘You people are killers’ 'Presidents and Senators don’t have men killed (rubbish)’ etc. It is pathetic but this is the mindset of the bourgeois class especially when discussing the proletariat. In the godfather trilogy the proletariat is represented by the Corleone family. As they are from the proletariat class they are going to be exposed to numerous bourgeois prejudices. Michael seems to want to carry out Vito’s mission of legitimacy especially as his family is not legitimate for Vito was not born in the United States. Vito says to Michael

‘I knew Santino would have to go through this but I never wanted this for you Michael.... (He wanted him to be absorbed in the bourgeois class as...)Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone.’

Michael: ‘Another pezzonovante’

Vito: ‘Just wasn’t enough time Michael. Wasn’t enough time’

Michael having struggled with illegitimacy tries to invest in the corporation Immobiliare, in part 3, through the Vatican bank of the church after assuring them that they have given up casino etc and that they are not involved in anything illegitimate. I found it strange however in part 3, when Michael’s son Anthony says he wants to be a opera singer, that Michael still wants him to be a lawyer which is the most important profession in the family. I thought that this was what he was striving for: having his children take no part in the violence. There is an effort by the bourgeoisie to resist this massive investment of $600 million by Michael and I found it ironic that there was an interest group of catholic business men who were against Michael investing. Catholic Businessmen? Does that get you thinking? The primary arguments the interest groups are using to resist Michael’s investment is his stature as a crime lord. This is the highpoint of bourgeois stupidity; the Catholic Church, for instance, was responsible for mass murder and torture during the inquisition. Protestant ethics which are supposedly the backbone of modern capitalism  was responsible for the mass murder of the proletariat and then they turn around and say that Michael is a crime lord. They try and brush off this section of the past because they hope that in time people will be able to see their legitimate selves stand tall so as to keep the proletariat oppressed. They then send their holy thugs to tell you to forget the past and embrace the future.  The church is one of the easiest means to attain legitimacy (I will discuss this by saying what Machiavelli himself says on the subject) because it is a bastion of the bourgeois class who have raped the name of the carpenter Jesus to attain magnificent wealth.   What part 3 makes clear is that the holiness is simply a charade masking their true identity which is why Michael calls all of them vultures. The response: ‘Quite an indictment coming from a Corleone’. It’s the same as saying welcome to the club. This is the masquerade that we all play we pretend to be what we are not so as to succeed. The greatness of the godfather trilogy is to highlight that the Corleone family achieved its great fortune much like other great old families. The only difference being that their enterprise is considered criminal by the bourgeois class because they are from the proletariat class and their nefarious activities are more recent. The bourgeois class has extorted so much money criminally from the proletariat that it makes you wonder what gives them the right to judge. The recent recession is a prime example where the working classes around the world were swindled of billions of dollars by the bourgeois class in collusion with the government. In my assessment I am not speaking of race which is another subject although it is one way to keep the proletariat in chains. I will discuss this in my review of’ Boyz ‘N the Hood.’ The fact remains: for the bourgeoisie to be at the top of the social ladder in the modern period it required some form of thug like behaviour to reach there. They now attribute this behaviour to the working classes. They have now masked their sins in technology and new money which is the only redeeming quality of the bourgeoisie in today’s world. When the Corleones carry out the same practice it must be shocking for the bourgeois class to look in the mirror.

 Let me close by highlighting what the elitist Machiavelli had to say about those who come to power by crime. He gives two examples of how one should behave when he  becomes prince by some ‘criminal and nefarious method’. This applies to the bourgeoisie and the Corleone family. The first example is ‘Agathocles, the Sicilian, not only from the status of a private citizen but from the lowest, most abject condition of life, rose to become king of Syracuse. At every stage of his career this man, the son of a potter, behaved like a criminal’. I do not have to tell you how biased is Machiavelli’s tone. He came to power basically through violence; i.e. having the gall to arrange the assassination of the senators and the rich citizens. He ‘maintained his position with many audacious and dangerous enterprises’ and was feared by the populace in his kingdom despite, as Machiavelli says, not having anyone rise against him. I suppose he should have been content to remain a potter the rest of his life. In another demonstration of his weak analysis Machiavelli cannot highlight from an intrinsic perspective why this man came to power through crime since that is what many have done. I say intrinsic because he does not account for the intricacies of this man’s actions and the politics of the time and so his analysis simply comes across as a naive form of impressionistic reasoning. There are many examples in Herodotus’ The Histories which show men coming to power through such means as cruel as it may sound. The example of Machiavelli is not profound; it is only profound when he shows how despite all this Agathocles was able to retain power despite his heinous actions. Machiavelli says however ‘Yet it cannot be called prowess to kill fellow citizens; to be treacherous , pitiless, irreligious. These ways can win a prince power but not glory.’ This is poor reasoning and he sounds as naive as Kay based on the politics he is espousing: ‘One must be a fox in order to recognize traps’. I am sure his critics must have picked up on these glaring contradictions. His other example is one closer to his own time Oliverotto of Fermo who commits parricide (killing his maternal uncle) and killing the members of the council. I suppose it is a crime because he killed his uncle. This is also not a very concrete example by Machiavelli since this has been done by many. I suspect it is a class bias since Oliverotto like Agathocles came from the bottom being a foot soldier. Mighty Kings in history have committed acts just as vile so Machiavelli fails in his assessment of those who come to power through crime. He ironically does not mention the act of the senate against Julius Caesar which has me believe that , in his elitist mind, if you come from the gutter and commit the same crimes as the elite you are barbaric while they are able to legitimise their actions.  He does make one important point:

'So it should be noted that when he seizes a state the new ruler must determine all the injuries that he will need to inflict. He must inflict them once and for all, and not have to renew them every day, and in that way he will be able to set men’s minds at rest and win them over to him when he confers benefits...Violence must be inflicted once for all; people will then forget what it tastes like.’

This is important when discussing illegitimacy vs. Legitimacy for by coming to power through illegitimate means you must make an effort to sway the populace to your side. The bourgeoisie  did exactly the same thing in their rise to power. The Corleone family in the godfather trilogy also struggle with this. In Vito’s case he always had the knife in his hand so as to maintain power and this is reflective of his illegitimate position which is most insecure which is why he says ‘just wasn’t enough time’. It would also explain the attempt by Sollozo to have Vito assassinated. If he made the move into legitimacy which is the civilian world he would not have been embroiled in such mess. Michael tries to become legitimate by investing with the church in part 3 hoping that he will ease men’s minds having reassured them that he has no business in anything illegitimate. I go back to that quote where Michael says ‘Every time I find a way out they pull me back in’ (not exact quote). 'They' refer to those in the illegitimate world.   In Machiavelli’s case (the examples given above) these two men gradually resisted the use of violence and this is exactly what Michael is attempting to do at the beginning of part 3. The question is what will be Vincent’s  (his successor) move. I turn now to ecclesiastical principalities.

Ecclesiastical Principalities in The Godfather trilogy: Illegitimate vs. The legitimate pt. 3

Ecclesiastical principalities are distinct from the constitutional principality where the rule of an individual is sanctioned by the citizens of the state. This is how Machiavelli describes the ecclesiastical principality and in it one will see the similarities with the godfather films particularly part 3. In the godfather trilogy Vito comes to power through crime in Machiavelli’s case however he did establish a constitutional principality where the people acknowledged him as the Godfather or their protector which is what leaders are supposed to be.  This is what Machiavelli says with regards to ecclesiastical principalities:

‘ It now remains to discuss ecclesiastical principalities; and here the difficulties which have to be faced occur before the ruler is established, in that such principalities are won by prowess or by fortune but are kept without the help of either. They are maintained, in fact, by religious institutions, so powerfully mature that, no matter how the ruler acts and lives, they safe guard his government. Ecclesiastical princes alone possess states, and do not defend them; subjects, and do not govern them. And though their states are not defended they are not taken away from them; and their subjects, being without government, do not worry about it and neither can nor hope to overthrow it in favour of another. So these principalities alone are secure and happy’

One must always heed these lines: ‘no matter how the ruler acts and lives, they safeguard his government’ for ‘these principalities alone are secure and happy.’ This would explain the use of religious institution and ceremony throughout the godfather trilogy to safeguard the Corleone family. In part one there is the famous baptism scene where Michael uses the alibi that he will be godfather to Connie’s baby to excuse himself of the murder of the other families. In that scene while he is reciting the rites of the church there are scenes that describe the simultaneous actions of his enforcers who are in the process of consolidating Michael’s rule through murder. ‘Michael do you renounce Satan’, says the priest. ‘I do,’ Michael responds. In part 2 there is not much mention of the church apart from the opening scene where his son receives the Holy Communion. The church I am speaking of is the Roman Catholic Church in Italy. In part 3 however most of the intrigue is centred on Michael’s dealing with the church. As stated several times he donates 100 million to a church charity in the name of his daughter Mary Corleone and also has dealings with the Vatican bank where he proposes to absolve the church of its debt. Michael proposes to invest 600 million assuring the archbishop that he has renounced his illegitimate businesses. The intrigue comes to a height because the archbishop, the secretary of the bank, Don Luchessi, and Don Altobello are trying to secure Michael’s investment and then have him killed so that they would not be indebted to him. They succeed in killing his daughter but Michael escapes with a grazing. It’s no wonder that Luchessi is the one who says that ‘finance is the gun and politics is knowing when to pull the trigger.’ There is resistance by other interests to have Michael invest in the corporation Immobiliare because it is known that the Corleone family came to power through crime. It is hypocritical to say the least because this is what the bourgeoisie/pezzonovante did to absolve themselves of the sins they committed in the name of gaining economic control of society in the west. They invested heavily with the church so that they could absolve themselves of their sins in the eyes of the public but not necessarily to absolve themselves of their guilt. Once you ally with the church which is a bastion of the bourgeoise then no matter what you do the church will back you. This is why the church launches crusades in the name of Jesus to keep the proletariat in check. The bourgeoisie lifestyle seeks to emulate the precepts of the church in a superficial manner so that they can highlight to the proletariat that this is the way to behave. In most societies you have members of the proletariat that are absorbed into the lifestyle of the bourgeois class through the church. The church has to follow the bourgeois class since they are more than likely indebted to them. In the Godfather part 3 it is stated that the Roman Catholic Church has accumulated a significant amount of wealth as it is the owneof $6 billion worth of real estate making it one of the largest landowners in the world. The rents it must generate from this must be enormous assuming that it is employed productively. I am pretty sure however that it is not waste land. This was also one of the contentions during the French revolution where the Catholic Church owned a vast acreage of land and as the royal class and the nobles allied themselves with the church, which was impervious to their attacks since it validated their illegitimate rule, they could do nothing about it. In several territories, in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, of  the British, Spanish and French West Indies and in North, South and Central America the church (Anglican for the British and Catholic for the Portuguese, Spanish and French territories) played a somewhat similar role in maintaining control of the underclass and therefore consolidated the illegitimate rule of the of the planter  or hacendado class over the slaves and the subsequent freed populations following  emancipation in the various territories. They also have won several converts which would enable the bourgeois class to absorb a significant amount of the proletariat and so strengthen their position. Michael, in order to legitimise his family, had to invest in the church even if it is a sham according to Kay.  Karl Marx says in capital Vol. 3:  'The more a dominant class is able to absorb the best people from the dominated classes, the more solid and dangerous is its rule.’  

This concludes my discourse on the masterpiece that is The Godfather trilogy and the politics of Machiavelli as described in The Prince