From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:30:10 GMT
	<1993Jan19.111505.12374@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
	<1993Jan19.190623.9255@shearson.com>
	<1993Jan22.125059.6851@spider.co.uk>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: ian@spider.co.uk's message of 22 Jan 93 12:50:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.125059.6851@spider.co.uk> ian@spider.co.uk (Ian Heavens) writes:



   In article <1993Jan19.190623.9255@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
   >
   >Get real, Mr. Cooke. Socialists have NEVER had a monopoly on the
   >notion of anarchism, and if anything the anarchocapitalists have been
   >around longer, as the first people to seriously broach the notion of
   >anarchism in the modern sense in the 17th century were individualist
   >rather than collectivist in orientation. In spite of this, of course,

>>   Not here, they weren't; the first radical group that can be definitely
>>   identified as anarchist were the Diggers, who were definitely collectivist;
>>   anarchist communist, I would say.  I don't think you can claim the
>>   individualist tradition for 'anarchocapitalism', whatever that is, and
>>   certainly not outside the U.S.  Mr. Cooke is right; the majority of
>>   anarchists have been 'libertarian socialists', or 'libertarian communists' 
>>   (if only because it is the collectivist tradition that has got organised).
>>   How does anarchocapitalism differ from unregulated capitalism (we've seen
>>   the ghastly effects of that)?

  We have seen the even more ghastly effects of socialism and truly
dehumanizing effects of communism as well. First for capitalism to
work you need an level playing field. Here in the US you go to the
states school for 12 years and there is not one class offered that
shows people how to be capitalist. The reality of the current world
situation mandates that people are instructed in capitalism. The
people who used to refered to as bourgeoisie are quite stratified
now. In America people have risen from the lower classes to become
even richer than the old money. It happens elsewhere to, what's that
fellow from Virgin Records name? The problem (or ghastly effect)
is that they rise by climbing, indeed trampling those around them.
The RAT RACE. It need not be that way. If people are instructed in 
capitalism and taught the values of self-reliance tempered with
mutual aid(the type where if you see someone in need you help out
without being asked or coerced to do so) capitalism can be become
more "user friendly". 

A "worker" even a laborer will make a substantial amount of money
in his lifetime. The problem is he doesn't realize that whatever
that sum is, it is finite. Young people spend the money like
water, not ever grasping that at some point they will not be able
to work and then they either becomes reliant on the state, or if he
was prudent and saved enough money they retain independence and
dignity. Most people end up somewhere in the middle, being dependent
on the state, to dole out the money taken from them in their lifetime  
and using their savings to try to maintain a standard of living.
They would be much better off if they kept that portion of their
wages and invested it for themselves. Putting money in a bank,
even with compound interest will not help you maintain your independence
in later life. You must take more risk, and thereby increase the return
on your investment. The problem is where do learn about investment
alternatives and money mechanics if you don't have a degree from
business school? People who do learn do it on there own. If the state
has your attention for 12 years, isn't it concievable that the
most valuable thing they could teach you is how to manage your
money and how to put it to work for you? TEACH CAPITALISM from
day one kindergarden.

Do you have to wait until you are in you 60's? No. If you find
that you want another type of lifestyle, you don't need a lot
of fancy toys, and expensive things, and you are willing to live
a more spartan existence, you can retire at 30. You will have to 
work for some period of time, and save your money, living as
you will after you retire, will allow you to save that money.
Then to maintain yourself you need work only 20 hours a week.
Even better for you if those hours are spent doing something you find
rewarding.

The point is workers don't need unions or goverments to look after
their interest. They need to be taught how to look after themselves 
and how to harness the forces of the market for their gain.
 
I see no state on the planet at this time that does this.

[next time how Mutual Banking could work in today's market
 conditions]

-sjm

--
Sean J. Merritt		         |"Road-kill has it's seasons just like     
Dept of Physics Boston University|anything, there's possums in the autumn  
merritt@macro.bu.edu             |and farm cats in the spring." T. Waits