Hi Jon
Jon says: When anarchists are directly questioned about what the
substitue for Capitalism should be, they become evasive [...] because
most of them think Socialism is the ultimate solution. [...] When
presented with the fact of Socialism's worldwide failures, in particular
the former Soviet Union, they say "Well, it wasn't done the right way
there. If it's done the right way, it would work, etc, etc"
And also: There's a reason it wasn't done the right way in the Soviet
Union, and there's a reason Socialism will NEVER be done the "right"
way. Because humans are human. [...] The things people hate about
Capitalism---greed, treachery, etc---is the product of human nature. You
can put humans into a system but you can put a system into humans.
Now of course all opinions are to be respected. Nevertheless, I would
like to note that if you point your finger to the Soviet Union and say,
"socialism hasn't worked", well, that's true, but hopefully we are also
all aware that capitalism too hasn't worked - that is, that it has
brought about some very dramatic problems and further, due to its
greater efficiency with respect to Socialism, these problems are much
harder to fight - if they *can* be solved at all.
Also: saying that Socialism doesn't work because humans are humans *may*
be true, but it's far from being obvious. On the other hand, it is
obvious that we are constantly "suggested" to seek for personal success
and personal wealth. These and similar suggestions, you will agree,
easily create geed, selfishness, and all the other things that people
hate about Capitalism.
I would say that selfishness and similar attitudes are "natural" in the
sense that they are primitive; if you are thrown in a chaotic world of
predators and preys, they are the first (reasonable) reaction. This does
not mean that humans aren't necessarily capable of cultural evolution.
There are a lot of "natural" behaviors that have been suppressed, and
for the better, in the history of mankind. Thus one could be realistic
and still be a socialist by assuming that humans couldn't build a
working socialistic society in the 1st half of 1900, maybe they can't
now too, but they could be able to do so if they progress enough from a
cultural point of view. How does one progress? By seeing the problems
with what one has found and accepted insofar and trying to solve them.
To what extent can we progress? Do *you* know? In the end it's a matter
of opinions, beliefs, hopes.
BTW, you are (obviously) forced at gunpoint to do things even in a
Capitalistic society. You are forced at gunpoint not to steal, for
example. And since you won't be able to live without eating anyway, that
also means that you are forced at gunpoint to find a job, unless you are
born rich - except that you won't be *given* a job if the free market
doesn't need you; and that the fact that you're not needed may even not
be your fault, face it, Jon. So you may even be forced, in the end, to
face guns themselves; and as a plus, people will point their fingers at
you, and say you deserved it. Unless, you hold society as a higher value
than your self; in that case you will gracefully starve to death and
thus upset nobody - I think, though, that the MOQ says something about
intellect being above society.
Plus, in any society you are forced at gunpoint not to damage others.
Except that "to damage others" is vague and has different definitions in
different regimes. To refuse to work when you can, or to insist to have
private property when someone else needs what you have more than you do,
is regarded as "damage to others" in a socialistic society. So evil. In
*this* capitalistic system (west world) you are not forced at gunpoint
to share your wealth (even if it is clearly in excess), nor to preserve
the environment, nor to respect other people's health, and so on.
After all, if you think that the western system removes the "least
amount of personal freedom to do what one wants with one's life", you
are probably living in another dimension or are *very* pessimistic about
what freedom can someone have.
Many people aren't satisfied with being that pessimistic, and choose to
run the risk of being unrealistic rather than to run the risk of giving
up something that, who knows, maybe *can* be pursued.
> And if America is so bad, why do we have more people immigrate to here
> than any other country?
Perhaps because it's rich?
AS
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:17 BST