>         Well, Chiapas is a similar situation. Of course, Chiapas is
>         objectively, much poorer -- fewer television sets and bathtubs
>         and so on. On the other hand, it's striking that in Chiapas, one of
>         the most impoverished sectors of the hemisphere, there is still
>         a lively, vibrant society, which has a cultural tradition of
>         freedom and social organization. So they were able to respond in
>         a highly constructive way. They were able to organize, they have
>         positions, they have public support.
>
>         Now take a look at South Central Los Angeles. That was just a riot.
>         This is the response of a completely demoralized society, where
>         it's just disintegrated. It doesn't have social bonds, it doesn't have
>         goals, doesn't have hopes. And that's the difference. That tells a lot
>         about the United States, actually."
>
> Chomsky doesn't really explain why the response of those in Los Angeles is
> "just a riot" though. Of course I wasn't there so I have no idea what the
> real story was. (I did talk to some-one from Launceston who was in LA at
> the time, but she was virtually unaware of what was happenning).

I disagree here. He does explain why it was "just a riot." It was
precisely because its participants were not well organised, without
bonds between neighbours, without hopes or goals. Unlike the Chiapas
situation, which was highly articulate and organised, in comparison.

It is the ability for people of the same concerns to organise and
fight unjust power that makes the difference between a movement that
"says something" to the government and "just a riot." Chomsky has
said these things in numerous speeches in the context of the Women's
movement, the Labour movement, and maintains as he always has that
there isn't any other way to fight unjust power.

When people of the same concerns get together, and voice their
concerns to each other, it has the effect that they may hold valid
opinions which they previously thought were "crazy", or that they
were the only ones who thought these things. But to know that these
things lie within them requires that the person voice his or her
concerns to a group of symapthetic listeners.  Oraganisation has its
effects, he maintains. You realise you are not atomised and alone;
that there are people who think and feel the same way you do. Once
you have an articulate and educated view of why your life has been
as difficult as it has been, and once you have a sharp perception of
your environment which is causing all of this, your energies cannot
fail to focus, and you are in a position to fight.

However, he maintains, if you sit at home in front fo the tube and
ask "how do you do it?" then nothing will get done. You are thus not
doing a good enough job of perceiving your environment, and this is
because you don't care. If you really wanted to fight the power that
keeps you down, these things would be natural. You would simply see
things as they are, and react to it. We all see things as they are,
and if we don't react, it is because we don't feel like doing
anything about it.

And why is that? Because maybe I am just thinking crazy thoughts;
maybe I'm the only one who thinks this way; maybe <place your
Corporate media-generated superstition here>; a million maybes. The
people in power have us right where they want us, atomized, alone,
and scared. Thus the LA riots were "just a riot" and Chiapas was a
full-blown "uprising."

The LA riot was just a sign of social decay. I could cite many
speeches of his (I used to work for a campus radio station which had
several "Alternative Radio" speeches of Noam Chomsky on various
topics, hosted by David Barsamian), that say these things.

He cited surveys where people were asked back in the '80s if they
agreed with the cutting back of social programs during the Regan Era.
It was overwhelmingly opposed by the survey of participants, and the
participants were asked if they thought they were the only ones in
their social circle who held these opinions, and the majority of
those opposed to the cuts said "yes", that they were alone in having
these crazy thoughts in their head.

I think once you have these ideas you can re-read the speech, and it
will have a different ring to it. Chomsky is very plain-spoken and
his arguments do not lend to an over-dissection of "who is to blame"
or "what is Chomsky *really* saying?". Both should be obvious. He
never pulls punches. Meanwhile if anyone wishes for me to look for
the speech where he draws this out in some detail, I will try to find
it. Copyright however, prevents me from giving you a "word for word"
translation so you are going to have to trust my paraphrases.

Paul King
====================================================================
Paul King              1660-309 Bloor St. E., Mississauga ON L4X 1R9
Tel: (905) 629-2138                     Email:  pking at idirect.com
====================================================================
Come visit my web page at: http://cgi.idirect.com/index///pking.html
====================================================================
"Show no favouritism to  your own discredit;  Let no one  intimidate
you  to  your  own  downfall."  ---  Sirach  4:22,  NAB  translation