Dilkington posted:

This discussion is always asinine because when something as complex as a society breaks, it tends to break in ways we can't predict. However, I think Chomsky's being unimaginative.

Chomsky is of course familiar with examples of successful insurgencies- I presume by his pistol-tank-nuke remark he means to emphasize how force multipliers separate the US from "weak Third World countries."

Of course, those force multipliers are tuned for symmetrical warfare, and rely on long, complex logistic chains, almost certainly disrupted in the event of a domestic uprising. The success or failure of such an uprising can't be measured in conventional terms (hoisting the red and black flag over the Whitehouse). Instead, like every other successful insurgency, it would aim to weaken the actual or perceived authority of the state and extract concessions from it (I wish there was a pithy way to sum up how violent conflict is sometimes a continuation of political struggles).

Now, consider the possibility that your violent revolution provokes a nuclear response- contrary to how Chomsky understands it, this doesn't demonstrate the hopelessness of violent struggle- it means your insurgency has already been massively successful in coercing the state.

I also find it interesting how he denigrates brutality, ruthlessness and destruction, as though history didn't bare those out as essential to successful revolutions.

I think a more topical question for Chomsky would be: should leftists and minorities arm themselves against reactionaries, either individually or en masse, or should they rely on the largesse of the state.

Bro Dad posted:

Kro-Bar posted:

Paul Ryan is the new Speaker of the House.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUKCIHzTR-0