In a message dated 8/14/2 2:42:35 PM, you wrote:
>Brian O. Sheppard x349393:
>> I have to agree with David on this one, Chuck. Surely you know that any
>> better society is not as dependent upon people becoming, well, "good," as
>> it is on developing instutitional means to hold coercive forces in check.
>> The point isn't making people become angelic; it's constructing means to
>> hold people to account and eliminating the aspects of modern institutions
>> that allow some to unjustly dominate the rest (private property in means
>> of production, etc.)
>>
>> Of course, the defense of this sort of system would rely upon the
>> vigilance of those who benefit by it. They would have to want it to work.
>> If they didn't want it to work, it wouldn't.
Gordon:
>I think to some extent we're stuck with the necessity of
>effecting a cultural change as well as changes in institutions
>and relations if we want to emerge from capitalism. Anarchists
>could not force this change on other people; they would have
>to hope that, presented with a choice, other people would
>decide to live in and support freedom. Hence the necessity
>of revolutionizing not through elections, coups or civil wars
>but through actually doing things differently beginning on a
>local level.
>
>If people won't do this, then there's not much use imposing
>righteous institutions on them from above. They won't stick.
Ahh, now we seem to have arrived at Maoism. The change will be cultural. If lifestyle changes are not to be forced on people, then the prevailing hegemony will ensure that things stay the same. The existing economic order can stay put, and people will "change their minds" independently. Humans are "inherently good." Just focus on your mantra.
<< Dave0 >>