Tresy Kilbourne wrote:.
>
> Meanwhile what you describe doesn't sound like anarchism, but rather
> anarchy, another thing altogether in my book. Put another way, how is
> your anarchist utopia different from the Hobbesian state of nature, viz.,
> "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," "a war of all against all"?
> Since you renounce force as legitimate means for achieving revolution,
> you are thrown back on persuading people of the superiority of the
> anarchist program, if you ever hope to see it realized. How do you
> address these perfectly common sense objections?
>
> To get back to your original thought, you alluded to attempts at
> alternatives to the wage system. I am still looking forward to hearing
> what those were, and how they fared.
>
> y'r obdt. Svt.,
>
> Tresy

        Anarchy is different from Hobbes view of nature because Hobbes
has no semblance of reality. I DO advocate anarchy because AnarchISM
can be just as stultified  as Capitalism or Communism. The "war of all
against all" is not what nature produces as anyone who has thoroughly
read Kropotkin's MUTUAL AID would agree. Even sociobiologists recognize
that the social-darwinist conception of reality is fraudulent because it
is based on the fallacy of group selection. Hobbes' homily is little more
than a transparently statist sermon with no scientific basis.

                        Howard