Sure has been nice to see some civil discussions, and I thank you, Tresy, for
introducing this thread, which I have enjoyed following.  One small point.  I
agree that what is good for the whole is good for the individual, but it does
not necessarily follow that what is good for the individual is also good for the
whole.  In the literature, this is described as "The Commons Dilemma".  For
example, individuals may become wealthy by plundering a resource (fishery,
forest, game, water, whatever), destroying the habitat or depleting the resource
in the process.  Still individuals have become wealthy and can take their
capital and apply it to a new endeavor and or pyramid their capital through its
rent value.  Dan

Tresy Kilbourne wrote:

> on 3/28/00 3:58 PM, b at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > Anyway, just
> > to straighten out your misunderstanding of what issues anarchists do or do
> > not address, you'd do worse than an evening by the fire with Kropotkin's
> > 'Mutual Aid'. And from the same man's Ethics -
> Thanks, b, Kropotkin is on my list of books to read (but not near the top of
> it). Perhaps with your recommendation it will move higher. I do have
> Rocker's book (with preface by Chomsky) on my bedside stand, but so far it
> hasn't grabbed me.
>
> At any rate, I mentioned libertarian socialism in passing because of its
> relevance to a number of people on this list, such as yourself--also because
> Bill Bartlett and I had a spirited argument about its feasibility some years
> ago. I thought the evolutionary argument might spark his interest.
>
> On the merits, the extract from Kropotkin makes sense. If I understand him
> correctly, he's saying what's good for the whole IS good for the individual,
> so there's really no conflict between individual self-interest and the good
> of the collective. One task of mutual aid societies is to reshape man's
> consciousness to understand that fact. Have I got that right?
>
> Tresy