Oh, now you`re going to mince words? Intent? That simply isn`t sufficient evidence to prove you were not dealing. I`m not really interested in your legal troubles; that`s just an outward display of your insincerity to construct any meaningful efforts at marijuana law reform, and it hurts American efforts too. And you think Bush lied?

"...fascism is opposed to free market capitalism also."

How does that relate to the USA and it's monopoly capitalist system?


What happened to all the street cars? They weren't democratically removed, that's for sure:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Junked_streetcars.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy



What happened to the electric car? Same deal:


http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/imageSnag/Crushed_EV1s.gif

Electric car conspiracy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb9ypkc9Uvs

The film explores some of the reasons that the auto and oil industries worked to kill off the electric car. Wally Rippel is shown explaining that the oil companies were afraid of losing out on trillions in potential profit from their transportation fuel monopoly over the coming decades, while the auto companies were afraid of losses over the next six months of EV production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F




I just learned today that Ford made ethanol cars for 12 of the 13 years of alcohol (ethanol) prohibition, and the year after he gave up making such cars (due to the lack of ethanol) they ended alcohol (ethanol) prohibition. So much for "democracy" - it's rule by the oil companies:


http://hemp-ethanol.blogspot.com/2008/01/economics-history-and-politics-of-hemp.html


You want more? I got more.


We could talk about corporate crimes - how you're more likely to be robbed and or killed by a corporation than a human but a corporate CEO is more likely to be unpunished:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_corruption

We could talk about the corporate origins of the latest oil wars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force


I got lots more ... try to explain that all away.

"Oh, now you`re going to mince words?"

Different charges are different charges. You do understand how the law works, don't you?

I think you're talking out of your ass most of the time so it doesn't surprise me to see how sloppy you are with the facts.





"I`m not really interested in your legal troubles;"

For someone who isn't interested you sure bring them up often enough.



"... that`s just an outward display of your insincerity to construct any meaningful efforts at marijuana law reform"

That's like attacking an anti-Nazi rabbi in 1939 Germany for getting busted for distributing Old Testaments. It's easier to challenge laws you have broken. That's why we have courts - sometimes the laws are struck down. I intend on going all the way to the Supreme Court AGAIN from these charges (the same way it happened last time for similar charges) - who are you to tell me that won't happen?

"Human Rights? You have to survive the purges first, huh David?"

That's why I fucking hate commies. Murdering bastards. They're almost as bad as the CIA and US military!




Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.

by William Blum


"Far and away the best book on the topic."
Noam Chomsky

"I enjoyed it immensely."
Gore Vidal

"I bought several more copies to circulate to
friends with the hope of shedding new light
and understanding on their political outlooks."
Oliver Stone

"A very valuable book. The research and organization
are extremely impressive."
A. J. Langguth, author, former New York Times Bureau Chief

"A very useful piece of work, daunting in scope,
important."
Thomas Powers, author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist

"Each chapter I read made me more and more angry."
Dr. Helen Caldicott, international leader of
the anti-nuclear and environmental movements

Table of Contents
Introduction
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ... and 500,000 others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution," said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present
Notes
Appendix I: This is How the Money Goes Round
Appendix II: Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1945
Appendix III: U. S. Government Assassination Plots
Index

http://www.killinghope.org/

Anarchist communism
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed: see
Libertarian socialism is a political philosophy dedicated to opposing what its advocates regard as illegitimate forms of authority and social hierarchy, most famously the institution of government. It has gone by various names: libertarian communism, anarcho-communism, left-anarchism, and, most commonly, anarchism. Libertarian socialists therefore believe in the abolition of privately held means of production and abolition of the state as an unnecessary and harmful institution (anarchism/libertarianism).


Overview
Libertarian socialists usually call themselves anarchists except when necessary to disambiguate or disassociate themselves with others who use the same term. Libertarian socialism should not be confused with libertarianism either: the two philosophies are only alike in their professed love of liberty and in their opposition to statism, hence the similarity in name. In this article, the terms libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, anarcho-communism, left-anarchism and anarchism are used as synonyms.

The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: adherents believe that management of the common good (socialism) is necessary, but that this should be done in a manner that preserves individual liberty and avoids concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Some libertarian socialists say individual liberty and societal harmony are necessarily antagonistic, and anarchist philosophy must balance the two. Others feel that the two are symbiotic, and that the liberty of the individual guarantees the harmony of the society and vice-versa.

All the critiques that anarchists develop are based on principles of decentralization of power and authority. So, while anarchists have a critique of capitalism similar to Marxism, the basis for opposition to capitalism is that it leads to concentration of power (in the form of wealth). This critique highlights the distinction between libertarian socialists and Libertarians: libertarian socialists advocate freedom while denying, to a greater or lesser extent, the legitimacy of private property, since private property in the form of capital leads to the exploitation of others with lesser economic power, and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms. Libertarians, by contrast, believe that liberty is impossible without the enforced protection of private property.


Anti-capitalism
Libertarian socialists differentiate between the idea of authority based on power, and authority based on knowledge or skills. The term "power", in this instance, refers to the social or physical dominance of one individual over another. They oppose "illegitimate" authority based on economic and political power, and social hierarchy -- some believe that all authority based on political and economic power, and hierarchy is illegitimate.

Libertarian socialists believe that all social bonds should be developed by individuals who have an equal amount of bargaining power. This means that an accumulation of economic power in the hands of a few is no different than the centralization of political power, since both reduce the bargaining power, and thus the freedom of the other individuals in society. If freedom is valued, then society must work towards a system in which individuals have the power to decide economic issues along with political issues. They seek to replace illegitimate authority and hierarchy with direct democracy and voluntary federation in all aspects of life, including physical communities and economic enterprises.

Libertarian socialists believe that productive property should be held communally and controlled democratically. For them, the only moral private properties are personal possessions.

Unlike anarcho-capitalists, anarchists believe there is little to no difference between threat of physical violence as a means of coercion and political or economic coercion. Thus the libertarian socialist argues that the anarcho-capitalist distiction between economic coercion, which they allow by the centralized accumulation of productive property and wealth, and physical corecion is an untenable dichotomy. Freedom only comes from a society in which all have equal bargaining power.

Within the socialist libertarian movement there is much debate about the exact delineation between moral "personal" possesions and immoral "productive" property. Most agree that hard capital such as real estate, machinery, etc., should be considered "productive" property, while one's lodging and clothing should be considered "personal" property. Disagreement arises about the proper way to characterize property such as one's home when it is used to carry out business, for example. Adherents of capitalism or Austrian economics would argue that the distinction between "personal" and "productive" property is specious, and that consequently such paradoxes are doomed to arise regardless of the delineation chosen.


Opposition to the state
Anarchists are most famous for opposing the existence of states or government. Indeed, in the past many anarchists refused to defend themselves in court because they did not wish to participate in what they viewed as illegitimate institutions, instead choosing to go to jail or die.

The critique of states is built on the same principle opposing concentration of authority based on power, which according to anarchists inevitably leads to abuse.

In lieu of states, libertarian socialists seek to organize themselves into voluntary institutions (usually called collectives or syndicates) which use direct democracy or consensus for their decision-making process. Some libertarian socialists advocate combining these institutions using rotating, recallable delegates to higher-level federations. Others, however, have advanced strong critiques of federated systems, and these federations have rarely been carried out in practice. (For an example of anarchist federations, see spanish anarchism.)

Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example.

Anarchists often suggest that this focus on exploration over predetermination is one of their great strengths. They point out that the success of science at explaining the natural world comes from its methods, not its conclusions, and its adherence to open rational exploration; while traditional dogmatic explanations of naturalistic phenomena have proved almost useless at explaining anything in the natural world. Critics counter that by refusing to explain how certain aspects of society would function under their system, anarchists are essentially avoiding questions that they cannot answer. Anarchists reply to this, by stating that no one knows the best way to produce a certian outcome within society, and that a methodilogical approach to exploration is the best way to achieve our social goals. To an anarchist dogmatic approaches to social organization are just as doomed to failure as are non-scientific explanations of natural phenomena.


Political roots
As Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie put it in their book The Floodgates of Anarchy, anarchism

has its particular inheritance, part of which it shares with socialism, giving it a family resemblance to certain of its enemies. Another part of its inheritance it shares with liberalism, making it, at birth, kissing-cousins with American-type radical individualism, a large part of which has married out of the family into the Right Wing and is no longer on speaking terms. (The Floodgates of Anarchy, 1970, page 39.)

Conflict with Marxism
In rejecting property and the state, libertarian socialists put themselves in opposition to both capitalist democracy and to Marxism. Although Anarchists and Marxists share a belief in an the ultimate goal of a stateless society, Anarchists criticized Marxism for advocating a transitional phase under which the state is used to achieve this aim. Historically the movement has often been ignored in the much more visible conflict between Marxism-Leninism and capitalism. Anarchist movements have come into conflict with both capitalist and Marxist forces, sometimes at the same time, as in the Spanish Civil War. Other political persecutions under either party have resulted in a strong historical antagonism between anarchists and Leninist Marxists (and their descendants, i.e. Maoists). In recent history, however, anarchists have repeatedly formed alliances with Marxist-Leninist groups.

The antagonism can be traced to the International Workingmen's Association (or the First International), a congress of radical workers, where Mikhail Bakunin, who was fairly representative of the libertarian socialist view, and Karl Marx, whom anarchists accused of being an authoritarian, came into conflict on various issues. Bakunin's viewpoint on the illegitimacy of the State as an institution and the role of electoral politics was starkly counterposed to Marx's views in the First International. Marx and Bakunin's disputes eventually led to Marx taking control of the First International and expelling Bakunin and his followers from the organization. This was the beginning of a long-running feud between anarchists and what they call "authoritarian communists" (or sometimes just "authoritarians").

Some Marxists have formulated views that closely resembled syndicalism, and thus expressed more affinity with anarchist ideas. The American Marxist leader Daniel De Leon, for example, who joined and reorganized the Socialist Labor Party in 1890, advocated a form of "industrial unionism" (known as DeLeonism), which was similar to syndicalism, although De Leon himself made a point of distinguishing between the two ideologies.

Several libertarian socialists, notably Noam Chomsky, believe that anarchism shares much in common with certain variants of Marxism such as the council communism of left-wing Marxist Anton Pannekoek. In Chomsky's "Notes on Anarchism", he suggests the possibility "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It reflects the intuitive understanding that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers and technocrats, a "vanguard" party, or a state bureaucracy."

Autonomist marxism and situationism are also regarded as being anti-authoritarian variants of Marxism that closely resemble libertarian socialism.


Philosophical arguments
Anarcho-communism is a sub-category of anarchism which emphasizes the collective experience as distinct and important in the pursuit of freedom. All forms of Anarchism recognize the experience of collective identity to some extent, but the Anarcho-Communists, starting with Peter Kropotkin and extending out through Alexander Berkman, Nestor Makhno, and many others recognized that there was more to experiences which were less individualistic than meets the eye.

Implicitly, the Anarcho-Communists followed a Kantian scheme of classification: like Kant they divided life into its individualistic parts, which have a parallel with Kant's Pure Reason, and the less obvious parts of life which characterize our relations to one another, which parallels Kant's Practical Reason. To put it bluntly: no matter how autonomous we might be to ourselves when we're alone, once we start interacting with the world and with other people it seems as though another set of rules forces itself on us.

This follows from our biology. The parts of life that Kant singled out in his work on Practical Reason are not well understood by people. How does the experience of work actually feel? What do we actually think when we work? Because of some sort of biological limitation when people deal with these aspects of life they tend to resort to using obscure and abstract metaphors and analogies to explain what they're talking about.

This is where the difference between Anarchism and Anarcho-Communism shows up most clearly: the Anarcho-Communists have taken on these hard to explain aspects of life, have desired to understand them, and have integrated strategies for liberation involving these aspects of life into their overall point of view.

The catch with these aspects of life is that while mental liberation might be amazing, becoming aware of the collective substructure of life and society leads to deeper liberation than is commonly thought possible.

So in this respect the Anarcho-Communists are different because they see themselves as pursuing a fuller definition of liberation than others.

It should be pointed out that the Anarcho-Communist conventions aren't limited to their little ghetto; the dialectical thought of the revolutionary Marxists associated with Lenin and the Third International, which stressed experience and consciousness as opposed to taking a strictly economistic view of things, uses the same rudiments of thought in order to describe how classes arise and what class consciousness is.

The source of all of this is a combination of 19th century Romantic philosophy, in particularly Hegel (in addition to Kant) and Schelling, and the uniqueness of rural Russian communities, which, at the end of Europe, possessed a backwardness which was purer than the cultivated consciousness of the European heartland. But this gets into too much history.


The importance of force

For a further discussion of the importance of violence in anarchism, see the article on 'anarchism and violence.Many anarchists see violent revolution as necessary in the creation of an anarchist society. Along with many others, Errico Malatesta argued that the use of violence was necessary in creating an anarchist society; as he put it in Umanità Nova:
It is our aspiration and our aim that everyone should become socially conscious and effective; but to achieve this end, it is necessary to provide all with the means of life and for development, and it is therefore necessary to destroy with violence, since one cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies these means to the workers.[1]
But is violence necessary in maintaining such a society? Some people feel that anarcho-communism could only be sustained by the use of force -- many of these individuals argue that capitalist enterprises would spring up in such a society unless they were suppressed. These critics see this as an inherent contradiction within socialistic anarchist theory: they feel that anarchism could not be sustained without coercion, but if coercion were used, it would not be anarchism.

Most of anarchism's adherents will start by arguing that it is force that maintains current capitalist economics and all forms of government -- the basis of the argument being that hierarchal relationships ultimately rest on force. Certainly, there are few, if any, anarchists who think that violence should play a role in a future society. Some anarchists, who have been called anarcho-pacifists, reject violence altogether.


Criticisms of Libertarian Socialism
The very name is viewed as an oxymoron by many.
http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Anarchist_communism/

[img]http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Anarchist_communism/[/img]

Whatsa matter? Disgusted because there are not 100million American corpses instead of scrapped transportation vehicles?
The United States is an aspirational society which does not pay much attention to lunatic convicts.

DML converts to Socialism.

Quit trying to cover your ass. You can only hide for so long before knowlegeable people expose you.


Out yourself; your god does!!

"Libertarian Socialism ... The very name is viewed as an oxymoron by many."

Name one.


Libertarianism means "a philosophy of freedom".

Socialism means "freedom from exploitation".

How are the two combined an oxymoron? General freedom seems incompatible with exploitation. In fact, the "freedom to exploit" is the false freedom - it is the freedom to be a king or a communist ruler.

"Out yourself; your god does!!"

I'm atheist - I have no gods.

I disagree with Chomsky on many things ... 9/11, JFK assassination etc etc ....

And just because Chomsky met with and smiled at Castro doesn't mean he endorses Castro's anti-democratic system - Chomsky describes Cuba as "tyrannical" on page 149 of "Understanding Power".

Keep trying.

This is funnier than you realize; you do not even know that the longer you rant against capitalism and Democracy, the more obvious your sympathy for Marxist/Leninist becomes to anyone with political acumen. That`s the real fun part of arguing with you; never get in the way of a man willing to prove your point.

Overview
Vietnam's 85 million people are moving from a centrally planned to a market-oriented economy, their social and economic progress propelled by annual growth rates of 6–8 percent since 2000 that have enabled the country to reduce poverty by one-third. Despite its position as one of the world’s most-reforming economies and its being considered a model of successful development, Vietnam still faces challenges. These include an HIV/AIDS epidemic fuelled by injecting drug use, a potential avian influenza pandemic, and the challenges of running an increasingly sophisticated economy while developing global-standard legal, regulatory, and capital systems. Since a prosperous Vietnam is vital to maintaining regional stability, USAID’s activities strive to accelerate its transition to an open, market-based economy, develop capacities to mitigate the harmful effects of HIV/AIDS, improve vulnerable groups’ access to services, and ensure that environmental governance progresses along with economic and social development. Through its activities since 2000, USAID has provided over $200 million dollars in assistance to Vietnam.
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia/countries/vietnam/

If Vietnam starves without a free market, why are you opposing the very same system which allows you to spew your fairytales?
Because it is you who are brainwashed. It never fails; some idiot claims Americans are being brainwashed into anti communist sentiment, all the while said idiot worships a Marxist bastard who only talks anti American Socialist propaganda shit. You post some crap about junked transportation and rant away against free enterprise without aknowleging the benefits of same. Educate yourself DMao; the longer you rant, the redder you appear.

You are the one here who promotes Chomsky`s bullshit. Anarchy is a fucking tool of totalitarians. It matters very little to me if you are Chomskunist, communist, anarchist or any other shade of black, pink or Green, the fact remains that you idolize someone who heaps praises on communist dictators and scorn for Western democracy.

The World Trade Organziation meeting in Seattle, Nov/Dec 1999, surprised almost everyone with the level of violence and vandalism that was manifest. Although there were many indignant and militant radicals at the demonstrations, the lawlessness was largely the doing of self-styled anarchists, often recognizable by all black clothing and black face masks, not to mention actual black flags. This "Black Block" contingent was also conspicuous at the political conventions in 2000. This seems to be the largest reactiviation of self-consciously anarchist action since the 60's and is perhaps understandable given the level of incoherence, irrationality, and desperation in recent leftist thought. Nor is it surprising that the ignorance and nihilism promoted by public eduction would produce the crop of clueless idiots who seem to be involved in this movement. The folly of such people is painful, when nothing is more brightly written on the pages of history than the fact that, when they actually get the kind of Revolution that they want, anarchists are subsequently the first people to be massacred by the more realistic militants, e.g. Lenin.

There are, indeed, libertarian anarchists, e.g. Murray Rothbard. Few libertarians have much love for the World Trade Organization, and there is nothing in principle to prevent such people from using violence, even Revolutionary violence (as in, indeed, the American Revolution). But an animus for capitalism, business, and "corporations" in general, trashing and looting small businesses, and rejection of free trade at all, not just the "regulated" trade of the WTO, distinguishes the leftist bent of the conspicuous anarchists, as with their opportunistic allies in the following categories.

Despite the painful level of folly among the anti-capitalist anarchists, they can invoke apparently significant intellectual support. Seminal linguistics pioneer Noam Chomsky, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has for years spent much of his energy on a lunatic fringe political crusade against capitalism, the United States, and Israel. Chomsky considers himself an "anarcho-socialist," regards people like Lenin as "right wing," and supports free speech to the extent of travelling to France, where it is illegal to deny the existence of the Holocaust, to defend the questionable people who were doing just that. Chomsky, to be sure, should be particuarly sensitive about such an issue, since he was one of the people who at the time indignantly denied that a holocaust was going on in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Nevertheless, Chomsky's views are otherwise in general little "...in comparison to conditions imposed by U.S. tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise."
Noam Chomsky

more than a depressingly familiar repeat, root and branch, of Soviet propaganda points. Thus, the United States is wealthy and successful only because it "exploits" other countries and its own poor. In this the United States is merely the logically and causal successor of Nazi Germany, whence it derived an irrational and vicious hatred of the Soviet Union. Chomsky, consequently, is one of the people who tend to regard the repressive totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union, or other Communist countries, as merely the excusable response to American opposition. Their hearts were in the right place, and if they did bad things, it is our fault -- and they certainly didn't have corporations. Chomsky can only honor any such regime that refused to participate in the Western economic system, with the United States at its rotten core, and grieve its passing. Indeed, he thinks that U.S. policy is to destroy even economically insigificant countries (using unspeakable levels of torture and terror, his view of the U.S. role in El Salvador and Nicaragua) just so that the possibility of their setting an alternative "good example" is erased. Unfortunately, when such countries, like the Soviet Union itself, Vietnam, and Cuba, actually do break free of American control and the Western economic system, it is nevertheless still our fault that they do not subsequently prosper economically. How they can continue to fail although free is mysterious, although perhaps, if Chomsky is an anarchist, he assumes that they maintain a repressive state apparatus only to protect themselves from us, and that otherwise the state would "wither away" in true Marxist fashion, allowing a prosperity that the state as such precludes.

Curiously, Chomsky even explicitly endorses greater state power in the United States. He says "[R]ight now I'd like to strengthen the federal government. The reason is...in this world there happen to be huge corporations of private power which are as close to tyranny and as close to totalitarian as anything humans have devised...[s]o you end up supporting centralized state power" [Class Warfare, 1996, pp.122-123, boldface added]. The real sin of corporations, of course, is simply that they are private. If they were truly tyrannical and totalitarian, they would be able to arrest people, imprison them, and execute them. They cannot do that, however, unless they get governments to do it for them. But Chomsky wants to strengthen the government. Some anarchist. Indeed, this is the basic absurdity of anarchism: In the absence of government, people will be entirely free to form organizations for their own purposes, whether legitimate or wrongful. To stop the vicious organizations, the innocent ones would need to achieve enough power to defeat and contain them -- they would, in short, become governments. Since there will therefore always be governments, and since Chomsky doesn't like private property, wages and prices, or private corporations, only a totalitarian level of socialist government, i.e. a communist government, will be sufficient for his purposes.

However much Chomsky's worldview seems like a Twilight Zone of counterfactuals and dishonest, unfalsifiable ideology, his influence is nevertheless great in a generation whose own political and economic education is a mush of incoherent welfare statism -- the true fascism whose affinities are, indeed, more with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union itself than with laissez-faire capitalism or American Constitutional government. But since Chomsky presumably doesn't like any of those things, there is literally no precedent for the kind of regime he would prefer and no evidence for the practicality, or even coherence, of whatever economic and political system he envisions. The idea of giving power to anyone of the sort is terrifying. When I find self-identified anarchists (including one of my own students) complaining that it is an outrage that conservatives are able to be heard on talk radio, I have no doubt that the excuses for Communist regimes that someone like Chomsky offers can very easily become excuses for their own violent repression of dissent should they ever have the chance to do so. As in the Soviet Union itself, free speech and such can be allowed after class enemies are eliminated and the state does wither away. Thus, until the whole world is assimilated to their system, they don't have to apologize for any acts of violence or oppression. By resisting, we are to blame. http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm

"...in comparison to conditions imposed by U.S. tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise."
Noam Chomsky

Yeah right....and the horse you rode in on, shill.