> I'm for a world without capitalism, where people have more control over
> their lives, which means being able to make decisions about how they
> live. I see anarchism as being the venue to achieve this vision. I think
> that the nature of that world would dictate that the American way of
> life would not be feasible for anybody. Many of the things we take for
> granted in our current world would not be possible, simply because it
> would be extremely hard to make people to give up their freedoms to
> maintain a high tech, advanced industrial society.
>
> Chuck0
=========================
The problem with the above is that it is not 'the nature of the world' that would 'dictate' anything, but rather some persons would be compelling their contemporaries and descendents to believe and act upon the assertion[s] that what they experienced as freedom and choice was in fact coercion. Thus all your imaginary society does is shift the capacity to coerce from various individuals and groups to other groups and individuals. It remains to be seen whether the aggregate level of coercion that we see under contemporary capitalism would diminish or grow in such societies. If freedom includes the ability to make ecologically maladaptive decisions, then what non-coercive strategies would be deployed to encourage people to forego organizing production/technologies with which they experience various kinds of freedom of action and belief? Contemporary, high-tech. industrial societies are not exhaustively the result of coercion and unfreedom.
Ian