<HTML>Chuck: Anarchism doesn't call for a "wholesale change of heart," because it sees that most people already have libertarian and cooperative instincts. The problem is getting rid of the state and capitalism so that people can have total freedom to develop and explore these tendencies. << Chuck0 >> David: ....and quite a problem it is, indeed, especially with no means or organization or institution to carry out the removal of the state, let alone capitalism. But, how is it that we've determined that "most people", in a capitalist society, have libertarian and cooperative instincts? Was a poll conducted by Gallup that I don't know about? Are you referring to the patriotic fervor caused by September 11 where Americans now help their Fellow Americans more, and snitch on their neighbors if they act "uncooperatively"? "People" of course is a classless term, so I assume this author is referring to poor people, workers, the bourgeoisie, rich oil magnates, etc. all together in one group. If we are to look at this thing from a materialist rather than an idealist standpoint, it seems rather the reverse: i.e., in a capitalist society, "people" must compete in order to survive. It is easy enough to cooperate when there is enough to go around. But, when capitalists forcibly hold back commodities due to lack of ability to generate any surplus value, then we've got another problem altogether. Suffice it to say, I don't think we will rectify the situation by way of good will, or "natural" human instinct, whatever that is. Otherwise it would simply be no problem, and, since "most people" supposedly have the "instinct" to do the "right" thing, the revolution would already have been won by now...... Chuck: Community and worker control over their lives has been advocated by *all* anarchists, Brian, not just those of you who fetishize one form of anarchist ideology. What you fail to understand is the implications of this simple goal: as soon as everybody has real control over their lives, they aren't going to be very interested in doing the shitwork necessary to keep a high tech society going. If you can provide all of your material needs on only a few hours of work each week, then why in the hell would you volunteer your time in some factory, office or mine? If you have basic health care, plenty of food, a roof over your head, some interesting cultural opportunities, why are you going to volunteer your extra time at some chemical plant? << Chuck0 >> David: This seems to be a rather individualist sentiment. What if the "chemical plant" is making life-saving AIDS drugs? (Oh, right, I forgot: Those should be produced in small, decentralized artisan shops that have individual proprietors, not mass-produced in those yucky factory thingies...) What about working for the good of the larger community-- cooking community meals, sweeping the neighborhood streets, cleaning public restrooms, making sure all the organic pumpkins are harvested? Aren't these things, in essence, "shit work"? Is "shit work" necessarily a product of the state and capitalism, i.e., is "the shit" necessarily a product of "the shitty"? Doug: Somehow I got on the (print) mailing list for the Federation of Intentioanl Communities, which now seems to have either split or evolved into the Federation of Egalitarian Communities and the Fellowship for Intentional Community, and also the mailing list for Twin Oaks <<A HREF="http://www.twinoaks.org/">http://www.twinoaks.org</A>>, one of the oldest surviving communes, founded in 1967. I admire what they do, but I can't say I'd be happy weaving hammocks or making tofu. But they exist, and there's even one on Staten Island, of all places. Doug David: Oh, yeah, I looked into that place in my glory days. Ganas, right? They do a lot of biofeedback on people-- talk about "shit work"! Didn't seem like my cup of tea.... -- David</HTML>