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
