Robert Goodby wrote:
>Bill--I'm afraid I have to agree with Chomsky on this one. To say the LA
>riots/uprising were the oppressed taking on their class enemies is really
>dosen't square with what happened. Like many urban riots in the US, state
>power effectively confined it to the poor sections of the city, so that's
>where all the damage was. While a lot of burnings, beatings, lootings,
>etc.were specifically directed, the targets tended to be small-scale Asian
>businesses. The real class enemies were snug and secure in Brentwood &
>Beverly Hills, and likely never heard a shot.
Maybe, but I imagine them up all night feverishly studying the fine print
of their property insurance policies! Wondering if welfare 'reform' was
such a good idea after all...
>And, of course, some of the
>violence was purely random, such as the infamous beating of
>working-class truck driver Reginald Denny, simply for the crime of being
>white.
Actually I don't think that was THE infamous beating was it...
>While it may have been nicely hidden by the media, I really can't find
>signs of real organization in what happened. For one thing, it didn't
>sustain itself for more than a day or two. For another, despite their
>romanticization by some on the left, the LA gangs really seem to be
>criminal organizations before anything else. They are the primary means
>through which crack and other drugs reaches the urban poor (how it gets to
>the gangs is of course another matter). They are linked with countless
>episodes of violence, directed not against any class enemy but against
>other gangs, often with innocent bystanders killed as high-as-a-kite
>hoodlums gun each other down with the most sophisticated of weapons. To
>the extent they nare orgnaized, it is as capitalist enterprises, working
>through drug sales, gun sales, extortion, theft, etc. to wring as much
>wealth out of the impoverished ghettos as they can.
>
>No, I'm afraid if you want a hopeful case of class solidarity and
>resistance Chiapas is, for now, the place to go.
I didn't say they were perfect, all I was getting at was that it seemed to
be a valid example of class conflict. The point is not that the gangs
organised, or even could have organised the LA actions by themselves
either, just that they were the "vanguard", the most organised element of
the uprising. Chomsky had implied that the uprising had no such element of
ORGANISED resistance and I was merely pointing out a possible error in that
analysis.
I take it that the gang members were a minority, but that their involvement
may have been critical to the success of many others seizing and destroying
the property of their class enemies.
As for it lasting only a few days, that's not a bad effort, considering it
wasn't entirely unexpected and the authorities have considerably greater
resources at their disposal.
Such actions as the LA "riots" seems to be not only a traditional means of
expressing discontent in the US, but the ONLY type of action that the US
ruling class takes any notice of, so I can't dismiss them as easily as you.
After all it was urban unrest, and threats to propertied interests, not
liberal lobbying, that were primarily responsible for the 'great society'
concessions in the 60's.
This is not unique to US history either, state welfare dates from the time
of the European peasant wars towards the end of the feudal era. And even
back in Roman times it was acknowledged that the 'proletariat' would get
ugly if they didn't get their 'bread and circus'. (The proletariat of
course being of somewhat different character then, but the same problem.)
If the LA riots had spread further this time and had looked like awakening
a conscious revolutionary movement, as happened in the 60's, things might
be very different in the US now. Welfare reform might be taking a very
different direction, and while I don't see that as a solution I do
recognise that it is a direct result of perceived threats to the interests
of the ruling class.
|
