From: "Travas Gunnell" <travasg@yahoo.com>
> You have the situation completely reversed. To
> reiterate, there are two very different definitions of
> socialism. The two are diametrically opposed. The
> definition that people are using here (state
> socialism, Marxism, Leninism, etc.) does not equate
> with anarchism.
Let me tell you a little secret about the real world (as opposed to the
anarchist, socialist world).
Capitalism prevails because it allows players to have a real and palpable
stake in the game. That's why the US government encourages citizens to own
their own homes. Private ownership stabilizes the system by giving people a
reason *not* to riot, rebel, and revolt. Take away private ownership, and
people have nothing to lose by burning down the neighborhood (or the whole
country for that matter). Anarchism is a nice ideal, but it just doesn't pay
the mortgage, and it never will.
--J. R.
Useless hypotheses:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, anarchy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:47 MDT