Ameri Boi wrote:From what I gather, Noam Chomsky does not advocate the act of revolution, he makes a distinction between the communists and the socialists and argues that the way to a purer democracy lies primarily in ourselves, and not our institutions; only by changing the cultural dynamic will the political institutions be vulnerable to democratic change, At least that's the vibe I get from his book/speech in 1970: Government in the Future.
i.e those questions were probably met with shrugging.
Well ok, but he seems to be reluctant to speak up about it. The question asked of him seemed to be in regards to his commentary on the disenfranchisement of minorities and immigrants in American history, such as: the return of African-Americans into a slavery-like existence about a decade after the conclusion of the Civil War—following the “compromise of 1877” that brought about an end to the Reconstruction era in the South—during which time they had obtained significant political empowerments and Civil Rights protections via the 14th & 15th Amendments. Of course, Chomsky mentioned nothing about the fact that it was precisely the pacifist wing of the then-progressive Republican party—comprised of people precisely like Chomsky and other “anti-war” types would have sided and identified with—who also stood opposed to things like “state violence” and the “illegal occupation” of the South by federal troops—who were there to provide freedmen's newly obtained suffrage rights and protect the black public schools built by the Freedmen's bureau from the neoconfederate terrorist paramilitary wing of the Democrats: the party of the Southern white supremacists. It was because of people like Chomsky that the North capitulated to the South, and “reconciliation” was achieved after the end of the military occupation and the era of black freedoms and Civil Rights that ended with it (for another hundred years). oops, I got a little carried away, ok, lemme get to the point incase anyone reads this far. okay, never mind about all that..... the question had to do with Obama being elected, and whether a radical revolution was now needed to restore democracy and give black people in America their due, since electing a black president doesn't seem to have achieved anything (or words to that effect....). Which, if you think about it, is such an unbelievably daft and stupid suggestion, since it was precisely too much democracy—i.e. a ‘tyranny of the majority’—and a spineless waffling electorate, that brought about a premature end to the Reconstruction era of military occupation and nation-building - taking with it the newly won rights and representation of African Americans in the first place. But Chomsky's reply was something along the lines of
“well sure, if you want to achieve something, you need to work towards a way to get from to A to B” the implication being that ‘radical revolution’ to bring about ‘more democracy’ was not idiotic at all, and might even be a practical means of going about it. But imo anyone with some spine and scruples should have slapped someone for being stupid enough to suggest such a thing.
