To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » The Use of Force

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

The Use of Force

By Noam Chomsky at Jan 31, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
The use of force always bears a heavy burden of proof, but I think it can sometimes be met. When? No one can give a general answer to that. There are some approaches, for example, by the most important UN resolution condemning terrorism in all its forms and calling on all countries to stamp out the plague, passed in 1987 under Reaganite pressures to mobilize the world for its "war on terror." The resolution was not reported here and remains unmentionable, for the usual reason. Apart from one abstention (Honduras) and two negative votes, it passed unanimously.  The two negative votes, as usual, were the US and its Israeli client...The resolution endorsed the right of people to resist racist and colonialist regimes (meaning the US-Israeli ally apartheid South Africa) and foreign military occupation (meaning US-backed Israel).  Therefore, the strongest international condemnation of terrorism has been effaced from the history of terrorism and the reaction to it -- joining a lot more unacceptable facts. The resolution did not spell out what kind of resistance is legitimate, but one can make some plausible inferences.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (49)

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Enigma, Overt at Feb 08, 2005 21:28 PM
Sigma-6. "How do you know the rest of us aren't doing that too? Of course, if you were out protesting when you wrote that, you wouldn't have written it. Is what you wrote any less 'all talk' than what the rest of us write?" Hmm. I am not going to indulge in a "I know you are, but what am I" type contest with you. Rather examine the length of time it took for me to respond to you, and read my post again. Carefully. Then please construct a response that I can dispute with fact, rather than conjecture.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By K, Mr at Feb 06, 2005 09:34 AM
fascism is not the word i think noam said statist reactionaries. So to all you lefties beware the 5th column is now operational and your all on some 'list'. If things get worse maybe all left wingers will get a star or maybe a tattoo? When God starts running the show you know there's no response except another election. Maybe the brainwashed 'believers' will see the light at the end of the tunnel and vote this bible thumper out of office. If freedom is on their meal ticket how come their freedom fighters are not changing regimes in china or any other 'hard' target? Yankee warmongers even practice society on the cheap. 1st outsourcing now 'welfare' war on the cheap. i bet you could have put a ten year old in charge of the Coalition and would have had better results than this current leadership. Where's the profit in the middle east? I've already won the war on my imposed terror because i disconnected my cable subscription. I feel more confident already! No more racial profiling and 'situational analysis' or any other trumped up hype which the yankee propagandists can come up with. save your souls turn off your television and win this war with me!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Enigma, Overt at Feb 04, 2005 17:57 PM
Its easy to sit here and talk about this, and that; then log off our computers, go to walmart to by a pack of chips and a case of beer, then sit down to watch the 1/2 time show at the Superbowl. Do you see the problem with that? Its just all talk, and its disheartening to those out there that are protesting to make our world better for us and our children. Back to the critical mass analogy - we're all feeling the frustration right now, so are we going to take it for another 4 years? Are we going to sit there and say, "after 4 years, we can relax because we will have another election." No. Do something now. If not for yourselves, then for your children; and for those soldiers that have no choice but to fight an illegal war.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Enigma, Overt at Feb 04, 2005 17:24 PM
I've touched on another issue here. It is easy for us to sit here and criticize society; how we are being oppressed by fascist, psychopathic corporations. While all this may be true, we also have a share in the blame. Why? Because we let it happen. We let issues like abortion take precedence over soldier's lives in Iraq (At the risk of offending some, forget about those not born yet; concentrate on those that are alive). The US has elected a man, who speaks like he had to buy is H.S. Diploma, to represent them and their ideals. We invest in the stock market, albeit in hopes for securing our future, which further validates corporate oppression both internationally and domestically. We're validating their mandate by participating in the process. We've also validated Bush's mandate by giving him a second term of office. Clearly, our own lethargy is more important than the world we are trying to create for ourselves and future generations. This is how we are also to blame.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Enigma, Overt at Feb 04, 2005 17:17 PM
... ctd And it is repeating itself today. The fact that this blog exists with so many participants; that we have authors like Prof. Chomsky and Street; that there was a clear divide in the recent US elections is testimony to the fact that society is reaching critical mass. Yet Bush is maintaining is pro-elite policies, both domestically and internationally. Do you think he sees it coming?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Enigma, Overt at Feb 04, 2005 17:14 PM
But, let me continue. The eye-of-storm analogy also applies to society. If one is living in an oppressive society, constantly being marginalized by the elites of the society, all that that person is aware of is his/her own frustration. IF a large number of these individuals were to be put together in the same place (in this case society) two things would happen. 1) Each person being oppressed would start to talk and realize that they are not alone in their marginalization. 2) Instead of frustration being felt at an individual level (which can be managed), you now have social movement that is capable of inducing change. But again, each participant is involved in heavy feelings of resentment and frustration, and they invoke change for no other reason then they are tired of feeling downtrodden. The fact that they bring about social change, is secondary. This is what the French revolution was all about.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Enigma, Overt at Feb 04, 2005 17:10 PM
Wow. Bad english. 2nd last paragraph above should read: Retrospect is the only perspective you or any other commentator can offer. We can easily see what lead to the 'explosion' after we have seen the explosion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Enigma, Overt at Feb 04, 2005 17:08 PM
R4D20. You chose the analogy - so it was your anthropomophizing of society that I responded. I merely added relevance to it; and as such, I cannot take credit for it. "But, yes, sometimes it IS obvious. The Tzar and King Louis should have seen it coming." Let's approach this logically. Given: 1) Megalomaniacs cause this 'pressure' 2) Megalomaniacs are consumed with themselves and are ignorant of all else except their self interests. The following question is raised: How can any megalomaniac see it coming, given the two statements above? The Tzar and King Louis clearly did not see it coming, otherwise, they would have fled their respective countries as it is in violation of 2 - their self interests (of which, self preservation takes precedence over all else). In retrospect, with is the only perspective you or any other commentator can offer, can easily see what lead to the 'explosion' after we have seen the explosion. Let me use another anology - you can never tell how bad a storm is, if you're in the eye of it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 04, 2005 07:27 AM
"But, yes, sometimes it IS obvious. The Tzar and King Louis should have seen it coming." And so should king George W. on the question of whether we should piss or let it explode; we have tried the pissing before and it only built up again and needed to be re-pissed. I say let it blow, and we can finally move forward.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 04, 2005 01:37 AM
"Just like your bladder, society doesn't know when it will reach critical mass. It only knows when it has acheived critical mass is about to blow. To further invalidate your analogy, your head knows when your bladder is reaching critical mass at which point you, just like our heads of state, will have a choice. Do I 'piss'? Or should I just let it build and see what happens?" You are going to far in anthropomorphizing society. Your brain is hardwired to miles of nerves that quickly send info about your body to the brain. The avenues of information between society and the heads of state, otoh, are slow and inaccurate. There is no comparison between the reliability of your sences and the reliability of the information available to the head of state - your brain can trust its sources much better than the best head of state can. But, yes, sometimes it IS obvious. The Tzar and King Louis should have seen it coming.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Enigma, Overt at Feb 03, 2005 23:28 PM
Sorry, 4th paragraph should read as follows: "Just like your bladder, society doesn't know when it will reach critical mass; it only knows when it has acheived critical mass and is about to blow."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Enigma, Overt at Feb 03, 2005 23:27 PM
...ctd. Do we work within the existing framework and reform our institutions (vent the liquid from the bladder)? Or do just let the pressure build until it explodes? (Revolution). By my use of 'we', I meant our heads of state. Just like your head knows when to piss, i.e. vent; our heads of state will need to know when to reform, or else here comes revolution. By the way, revolution is not always bloody. Revolution is just rapid change in a short period of time. Reform or evolution is change at a greater period of time. In any case, the key point here is change and its inevitability. Just like your bladder, society doesn't know when it will reach critical mass. It only knows when it has acheived critical mass is about to blow. To further invalidate your analogy, your head knows when your bladder is reaching critical mass at which point you, just like our heads of state, will have a choice. Do I 'piss'? Or should I just let it build and see what happens? I wonder which you would choose.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Enigma, Overt at Feb 03, 2005 23:18 PM
R4D20. "I KNOW when I have to piss, but I don't know when society is ripe for revolution." Hmm. Perhaps society knows when it has to 'piss'. A more acurate analogy would be your bladder fills up with liquid, and the pressure builds, and builds, and builds - until it is either vented or it explodes. To coin a phsyics term, call it critical mass. Society works in much the same manner. Only so much facism, elitism and oppression can be endured by people upon which this is visited. At some point, the frustration will reach a cricial mass, and we will be faced with an important decision: ..ctd.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 03, 2005 21:45 PM
i also believe to talk only of reforms will tie us to the mediocracy of the past. There is an old political slogan that you should ask for more than you want. This is were talk of revolution and even mobilization of the masses in an attempt to intimidate comes into play. I would dissagree strongly Bryce, to say that as far left as we can go is the dems is only to bring the whole discussion to the right, but by making loud noises from the far left we can make even the dems look conservative and shift the discussion our way. This is political scinece 101, you are giving in and helping the aristocracy by talk of reform through the Dems. Agitation and an offering of radical alternative ideas is the way to open the discussion up wider. This will allow the people to look objectively at the different options, instead of offering one pro-corp. party against the other pro-corp. party.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 03, 2005 21:37 PM
You are probably right that the word fascism is too strong a word, but the control by the media is and the collusion of business and government is at least approching the first stages. As for the right wing revolution, I believe we are in the midst of it ant that this move to the right will bring about a strong reaction. We the policies of the right wing (I am talking about the Dems here too)fail to provide for the people of not only this country but the world, there will be a response. I think the watering down of the ideas would be quite simple to do, the power of corporations and the absurd economic stratification that will result from the policies being implemented will reveal to all the necessary slogans of the revolution.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 03, 2005 21:37 PM
bryce, Thanks for the endorsment but I hope I didn't convey the impression that I am totaly fatalistic. I only take issue with extravagant rehtorics of arm chaired revolutionaries. There are certainly a lot we can do on a more practical, attainable level through a variety of activisim. All of these can be classified as "reforms". Voting the Democrats is not the only game in town.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Bkuzmick, Bryce at Feb 03, 2005 15:20 PM
I'd like to agree in general with bwong. Unless the progressive left can collectively pool capital within the "free" market (I use this term loosely) and wisely invest it, they will never develop their own the means of production nor win the hearts and minds of American's to overthrow/revolutionize/reform the state. You need to spend billions of dollars on advertisements and product management to create an economic/political base that can actually compete with current corporate bodies and their political affiliates. This is just not going to happen. Sorry to break your hearts, but their will be no socialist reformation/revolution in america, your better off just voting democrat LOL

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 03, 2005 05:50 AM
Let's not get carried away with rhetorics. While I agree with most of what you say about the problem with the U.S. But at least *domestically* the United States is still much better than most places on earth where the people are truly desperate. Over the weekend I watched a Chomsky speech on TV. Afterwards someone asked him to comment on the "Fasicist" Patriot Act. Chomsky basically replied that while PA is a very bad thing that needed to be opposed, it was nothing comparing to the repression during the 60's and that despite the recent set back the U.S is a much more open place than it was a few decades ago. He added that people shouldn't use words like "Fascism" too liberally lest they lose their meanings.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 03, 2005 05:46 AM
Actually I should say it is much more likely to have a rightwing Fascist revolution in the U.S than any progressive revolution.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 03, 2005 05:42 AM
"The question should really be how much are the people within going to put up with and how far are they willing to go to stop the aristocracy of their own country" The answer is obvious. The American people are willing to put up with a lot more and they don't even realize there is an aristocracy. Hence, not only four more years for Bush, a lot of people apparantly voted for Bush because they think he is a "common man just like us"! You hardly need a revolution to address many of these problems. But many American don't even care enough to vote, let alone mounting the barricade. Not that voting alone would do substantial good, but a large number of people don't even do that minimal bit and the majority of those who do care enough think gay marriage is the single most important issue. If you think there is any possibility for any revolution any time soon,(with due respect) I am afraid you're deluded like the International Socialists.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 03, 2005 05:12 AM
Granted that there are people who are motivated by ideas but they are usually a minority. Without mass support the idealogues are just common criminals and terrorists. What usually happen is when a revolution succeeds the small band of idealogues with the organizing apparatus use the opportunity to sieze power and then impose their will on the majority. A recent example is the Islamic revolution in Iran. The revolution that overthrew the Shah was a broad base movement consisting of many fellow travelers with different agenda united under the banner of Islam. After the revolution there was a coalition government including many secular elements. But then the Mullahs staged a coup and turn the country into a rigid theorcracy. The dynamics of the Boshevik revolution was somewhat similar.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 03, 2005 05:11 AM
"I would also argue that one of the reasons people revolt is because of "abstract" ideas, along with desperate situations." Abstract ideas only stay in books without mass appeal. But to gain mass appeal the ideas invetible have to be watered down and modified. People join and support a revolution for different reasons. I would suggest the vast majority do so for more immediate reasons rather than abstract ideas. The revolution needs organizations and an idealogical banner,but the majority are best described as fellow travellers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 03, 2005 04:49 AM
"I KNOW when I have to piss, but I don't know when society is ripe for revolution. It is easy to define "inevitable" revolutions in hindsight - we just to the successful ones. But to the people on the ground at the time it was not quite to obvious. " I am refering to the objective conditions for a revolution, not the subjective judgements of individuals. But even without any hind sight it is obvious that certain necessary conditions have to be met before one can even contemplate the possibility of a revolution. One condition is a critical mass of pissed off and desperate people. Now that alone may not be sufficient but it is a pre condition. Individuals make wrong judgements of the conditions all the time. Sometimes their mistakes are pretty obvious.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 03, 2005 04:26 AM
"The russian revolution was the result of political agitation by "abstract idealists" and was able to offer hope in the desparate situation of the pre-revolutionary aristocratic state." Still, the motto that worked the best for them was "Bread, Land, and Peace", which is hardly an idealogical screed. Ideals that start revolutions are usually ideals that are simple and, therefore, have broad appeal. However, being simple they also are ill-defined and open for interpretations. Governing, however, requires more than simple and broadly worded slogans. The broad support found for "bread, land, and peace" does not always lead to support for the specific government that the revolutionaries have in mind to supply those things. .

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 03, 2005 03:42 AM
"Revolution is an involuntary process like going to the bathroom.When you have to go you have to go. It is silly argue whether you "should" go!" I KNOW when I have to piss, but I don't know when society is ripe for revolution. It is easy to define "inevitable" revolutions in hindsight - we just to the successful ones. But to the people on the ground at the time it was not quite to obvious. A lot of would-be, now dead, revolutionaries "felt" that the time was right but were proven wrong by events. They hurt a lot of people and set back the progress of their nations. It seems to me one should ask the following before revolution? "Why do I feel that this is the answer and how confident can I really be in the assumptions underlying this belief?" "If I am right (see above), what are the chances and rewards for success? What are the chances/costs of failure?" "If I am wrong (above) what will the results of my actions be?"

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 03, 2005 00:04 AM
The U.S. is on a very fast pace towards fascism. With a large portion of the population now excepting torture as a tool for empire. Pofessors are being fired and attacked for expressing ideas and we are dismantling the last remnents of our welfare state. The media is controled and coopted by corporate interests and we are causing great harm to the majority of the people in the world. The question should really be how much are the people within going to put up with and how far are they willing to go to stop the aristocracy of their own country.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 02, 2005 23:41 PM
I would also argue that one of the reasons people revolt is because of "abstract" ideas, along with desperate situations. The russian revolution was the result of political agitation by "abstract idealists" and was able to offer hope in the desparate situation of the pre-revolutionary aristocratic state.(I am in no way accepting the post revolution politics of the so called socialists). I also believe that the situation in this county is at a turning point. Our dependency and lack of effort to remove our dependency on oil will be a devestating impact on our economy in the very near future. This will result in further stratification economically and politically. If we want to be ready for this historic event we must begain to discuss ideas now!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 02, 2005 23:30 PM
To dismiss any form of philisophical discussion about the possible revolutionary and post revolutinary ideas, is to dissmiss the greatest thinkers in history and to reject the great advances that have been achived through the implementation of those philosophers ideas. Granted things do always mutate under the pressure of the times, it is still necessary to have a plan of some sort and a guide line agreed upon before revolution.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 02, 2005 23:27 PM
" Guevara also says that the insurrection can bring about the conditions necessary for revolution" Bueverra died in Bolivia because of this belief. Gueverra didn't listen to the Bolivian Commmunists who told him "this won't work here". He believed that the peasants would rise up. Instead the peasants helped the police hunt him down and kill him. Trying to satrt an insurgency before there is widespread desire for it rarely works. The usualoutcome is that the guerrillas quickly tire of their vain attempts to get support and end up extorting help from people at gunpoint - thus alientating the very people they want to woo and dooming themselves and their rebellion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By K, Mr at Feb 02, 2005 18:35 PM
America don't need no revolution for change all that nation needs is some united nations inspectors at the voting booths. How about getting some new election ballot system like canada has. America's democratic system is phony and corrupt. Ohio proved that money does buy leadership and with the progress with enfranchisement in America is poor indeed. Florida and ohio have shamed the american political system and does not legitimize true democratic spirit. If only the united nations could make sure that the democratic process is fair then i'll believe who's in power today legitimately won through a legal democratic process. gerrymandering is not an american value is it? Who's to blame for the fiasco? I submit to the masters of the universe and my vote means nothing. Thank god i'm not an american. i would revolt!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 02, 2005 12:05 PM
When a people is desperate enough to start a revolution, they would appropiate whatever convenient ideology and "ism" to articulate themselves. A peasant revolution is South America can use the lexicons of Marx or Christ, it doesn't matter. A revolution in the ME may appropiate the language of Islam. The idealogy is likely to be contorted and deformed to conform to the agenda at hand, whatever they may be. It is a mistake to think that folks revolt BECAUSE of abstract theories. This is turning hisrory upside down.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 02, 2005 11:47 AM
"it's hardly an argument that holds much weight with people in a position to need a revolution to say: "You ought not to have one, because there might be a vanguard that declares itself to be the state afterward and refuses to relinquish power" Revolutions NEVER happened as a result or arguments and idealogies. When enough people are desparate and pissed off enough revolutions happen, otherwise it won't. It is as simple as that. Realsitically, idealogy is just a side show.Philosphers and the like may provide justifications and/or excuses for one side or the other but revolutions never occur or fail to occure because their erudite opinions. Intellectuals tend to overestimate their own importance. Revolution is an involuntary process like going to the bathroom.When you have to go you have to go. It is silly argue whether you "should" go!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 02, 2005 11:31 AM
There are always a few middle class student types who are impatient with any reform and call for the most radical solution to any problem. These people probably watch too much opera and have some very unrealsitic, romantic notions about revolutions. I find this attititude infuriatingly irresponsible. It represents a kind of intellectual laziness. It is always a lot easier to daydream about trashing everything than to actually do something realistically feasible. There are international socialist types at university campuses handing out propaganda advertising immininant socialist revolution. These people are such a joke that I think even the police wouldn't waste time monitoring their "revolutionary activities",--basically the shooting the breeze over a six pack.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 02, 2005 11:29 AM
After a revolution you may have to rebuild almost all social institutions from scratch.Institutions are shaped by a long history of evolution. To rebuild everything from the ground up would involve a lot of trial and error and making a lot of mistakes along the way.There is no granatee that you won't be worse off.This is a problem that most successful revolutions in history have to confront. A revolution is not something anyone should wish for except as a last resort.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 02, 2005 11:27 AM
As Mao puts it, revolution is not having a dinner party. It is neither pretty nor romantic. Revolution is ugly, violent and bloodly.It is war. The outcomes of revolutions rarely conform to wishful thinking. Revolutions have their own dynamics. History shows once the process starts idealsim is likely the first item to be sacrificed in the name of survival and expediency. The revolution would then be highjacked by the ruthlesss and ambitious because these are the personality traits selected by the harsh and violent enviroment of armed struggle.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 02, 2005 11:24 AM
"where people state that revolution can only occur after all forms of peaceful struggle or reform have been exhausted. I know many people say this but why is this true? Is it due to the fact they don't think they can get popular support until all other possibilities have been tried?" History proves that revolution can only happen when you have a lot of desperate people. While intellectuals and idealogues care about "-isms" most people have more mundane aspirations. The majority would not risk losing everything including their lives for some pie in the sky idealism dreamt up by arm chaired revolutionaries. The people only revolt when it is a matter of survival and I can't blame them for that.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By K, Mr at Feb 02, 2005 10:39 AM
poor syria! they feel the wrath from the masters of the universe for trying to protect their airspace! Who dares defy the mighty and holy thou!?! nobody dares defy the mighty american alliance of freedom. Spreading corporate democracy and colonialism as they upgrade 3rd world nations to puppet dicatorships with farce beaurocratic institutions. America the only nation who bullys its way into the market. Hey irans next they should know who's boss and get ready for the fox special 'bunkerbusters' where bill o'riley rides a scud to irantown livecam marine assualts into 'secret faucilities' hey america's hired merc army can fight these backward iranians. might makes right and unfortunately the americans are proving themselves right time after time no matter what anyone says. with fabricated reality to extreme right wing fanatics this century is going down like a bomb and hey did'nt we see this movie before? Where's the special interest groups to the rescue?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 02, 2005 04:55 AM
Callenbach's Ecotopea has shades of anarcho-capitalism which for me is a huge turn off. However your argument that the new socialism may be saved by the posession of nukes is creepy. I am sure some terrorist attacks may destroy more than the new state. I was looking for a more of a systematic explanation - nothing in my original question is icon-clad.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 02, 2005 03:03 AM
One apperent way in which to eliminate the possibility of attack from without (or from with in if only a small portion of the country had been turned) would be the aquisition of the nuclear arsinal of the U.S.. No one would dare attack the newly formed socilist state that controled that many nucs. This is clearly outlined in Ecotopea by Callahan. the issue of how to bring about change in a system that will do whatever is necessary to stay in power, one possibility is to create a third party to draw votes away from the two parties of the controlling elites. This would place into power the party that would inflict the most harm and alienate the population from their party. This is sort of a reverse psychology approch to politics and has its limitations, but could lead to some people within the third party to gain offices.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 01, 2005 23:59 PM
When the workers' councils were brutally destroyed by the Fascists after the Spanish Civil War it became clear that it is probably difficult if not impossible to defend the new order without a "state" and an armed force to protect the new socialism. I have never seen anyone address this properly. The subversion from within and armed attack from without can always be coutned on to destroy with extreme brutality the nascent order. Of course this argument is always used by the vanguard as an excuse to install a powerful regime and state that they may never relinquish.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 01, 2005 23:55 PM
I have raead in the introduction to "Towards a New Cold War" by John Pilger that armed rebellion usually ends up with a vanguard party that becomes authoritarian soon after it gains power. I have pondered this question very often - how does a revolutionary movement succeed in promoting genuine socialism without becoming authoritarian. It is clear that the people who run the US society, for example would resort to extreme fascistic tyrranny before they will relinquish their power. All the institutions that exist (and that they support and fund) are democratic only to the point that they don't undermine their power. Therefpre anything short of armed rebellion can they be expelled. However we then confront the problem that I just described (and that Bakunin often eloquently expressed). I would like to see others' opinion on this.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Vekey, Tvekey at Feb 01, 2005 21:08 PM
There does not need to be a contradiction bettween reform and revolution, they can go hand in hand. According to Marxist ortodoxy revolutionary conditions must be present for the revolution to be sucessful. (which is probably a rear occasion)In the meantime reform movement can go ahead and pave the way for it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Allen, Robert at Feb 01, 2005 20:16 PM
"We know that you cannot level a society and throw out the established upper classes by reform." How do we "know" this, moron? Have you been ever heard of Cuba, Venezuala, Brazil, all of whom replaced oligarchies with socialist style govts.? Robin Hood- your criticism of realpc is dead on. But don't bother talking to him; he has no conscience.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 01, 2005 18:57 PM
People like you, realpc, try to personalize Chomsky's ideas in a deceitful attempt to disconnect them from the real-world issues, despite the fact that Chomsky's ideas are completely in step with what is happening in the world. Everything that Chomsky talks about is "practical" - rooted firmly in the real world and the structures that exist.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 01, 2005 18:56 PM
Realpc: "There is very little in Chomsky's philosophy that is practical or realistic. We know that you cannot level a society and throw out the established upper classes by reform." Your statement. realpc, is completely false. First of all Chomsky does not advocate a "philosophy" for others to follow. All throughout, he wanted andstill wants is for others to decide for themselves what kind of a future we would like to create for ourselves. The ideas that he talks about are fully realistic and practical - from being able to protect yourself intellectually against pro-capitalist propaganda and deceipt so that people can make intelligent choices, to protest immoral agtions of the US abroad and at home. In fact what he has been trying to tell ordinary people - and they arehis "audience" is to not be fooled by hte propaganda that is ever-present, and that many people have internalized. This is not someone's "philosophy" - it is common sense if - and it should not be personalized.

Reply this comment

Person

By Wisniewski, Joseph at Feb 01, 2005 16:50 PM
I don't think he avdvocates to a partiular group.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Chadrock314, Chadrock at Feb 01, 2005 10:59 AM
Chomsky says that libertarian socialism will replace modern state capitalism only when strong alternative institutions are created to replace the old ones. You don't tear down a building till you have a plan and the materials and the power to build something in its place. There is a fundamental limit to which reform can reach. He says you should try to reform the current system as much as you can, but there is a limit. There are those who want to reform capitalism and make it nicer and there are those who want to abolish it. For the time being, those who want to reform will have more influence because they are working within the framework that exists. Those who want to total abolish state capitalism will have a tougher time and have their work cut out for them. Chomsky's libertarian socialist views are how society should be organized. But it's unlikely anytime soon that you'll have enough of federation of worker's councils, for example, to take over the industrial sector of the U.S. and take control of their own labor. Before you do that, alot of work has to be done. That work includes reform which will help build the basis for a socialist revolution.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 01, 2005 01:42 AM
Damphouse, There is very little in Chomsky's philosophy that is practical or realistic. We know that you cannot level a society and throw out the established upper classes by reform.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Use of Force

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Feb 01, 2005 00:13 AM
In reality resistance against the most mighty (US and its key allies) is an illegitimate form of resistance and a "just" reason for the use of force. Laws mean nothing if they cannot be enforced and they cannot be enforced if the law-makers are not as strong as the law-breakers. The case against Ariel Sharon that was brought up in Belgium had to be dropped, as the US threatened to move NATO HQ from Brussels, thus taking away an immense amount of Belgian income. The case that has recently been brougth up against Rumsfeld in Germany will probably end up in the trash as well. There are already rumors that Rumsfeld will not attend a conference in Germany, due to the pending case (subtle way of pressuring the German government to drop the case). If that doesn't work they can always threaten to move US miltary bases out of Germany (possibly to Poland...).

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (49)

Loading_border