Bill Bartlett wrote:


This would suggest that the main difference was merely one of tactics. The
tactics of the alienated working class youth of LA were to simply take
what they wanted and hit their enemies where it hurts most, their
property.
Organisation styles differ, but that is to be expected in view of the
comparatively stronger forces ranged against the youth of LA, particularly
when we take into account Chomsky's point that the Chiapas rebels have
massive public support that tempers the state's response.

I have no way to judge who is right but it certainly appears that Chomsky
is wrong to say that the youth of LA don't have social bonds, goals or
hopes.

But then I admit that I am hardly objective. I can still remember the
surge
of elation and solidarity I felt when I saw footage of the oppressed
people
of LA looting and burning. Taking what they wanted and destroying the
property of their (and my) class enemies. I'm sure it was an inspiring
sight to millions of other people all over the world.


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. 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.

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.