Aristotle [would] Probably Conclude Most Americans, For

If You Want To Minimize The Possibility Of Unexpected Breakthroughs, Tell People They Will Receive No Resources At All Unless They Spend The Bulk Of Their Time Competing Against Each Other To Convince You They Know In Advance What They Are Going To Discover.

Consensus Isn't Just About Agreement. It's About Changing Things Around: You Get A Proposal, You Work Something Out, People Foresee Problems, You Do Creative Synthesis. At The End Of It, You Come Up With Something That Everyone Thinks Is Okay. Most People Like It, And Nobody Hates It.

Money Has Always Been A Particular Problem For Revolutionaries And Anti-capitalists. What Will Money Look Like 'after The Revolution'? How Will It Function? Will It Exist At All? It's Hard To Answer The Question If You Don't Know What Money Actually Is. Proposing To Eliminate It Entirely Seems Utopian And Naive.

Anarchism And Anthropology Go Well Together Because Anthropologists Know That A Society Without A State Is Possible Because So Many Exist.

Within A Capitalist Corporation, Someone Says, "lend Me A Wrench," And Someone Asks, "yeah, What Do I Get?" You Assume That The Idea Of Each According To His Or Her Abilities, Each According To His Or Her Needs - In Solving A Problem - Is Actually The Only Thing That Works. And In Situations Of Disaster, There Are Often Communistic Notions Of Improvisation, Where You Basically Exchange Hierarchies And All Of A Sudden All Those Things That Are Luxuries That You Can't Afford, You Have Them In An Emergency.