From: "Travas Gunnell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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.
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