I Think We Need To Think Of

One Of The Fairly Interesting Things About Money Is That It Makes Certain Things Possible That Wouldn't Be Possible Otherwise - It Doesn't Make Them Inevitable. Hence The Strange Blindness Of Economists To What Would Actually Happen When One Does Exchange Things If There Isn't Money In Such Contexts.

Anarchism Is Surprisingly Effective In Solving Actual Problems Largely Because Anarchists Have Thought A Lot About Solving Actual Problems On A Micro Level In Ways That Other Political Ideologies Don't Really Feel They Have To Until After They Seize State Power.

[a] Great Embarrassing Fact… Haunts All Attempts To Represent The Market As The Highest Form Of Human Freedom: That Historically, Impersonal, Commercial Markets Originate In Theft.

Now, We're Used To Thinking Of Communism As Being Once-upon-a-time-all-things-were-owned-in-common, Maybe-someday-this-will-come-again. And People Agree That There Is A Sort Of Epic Narrative Going On Here. I Think We Should Just Throw This Narrative Out, It's Irrelevant Anyway, And Who Cares Who Owns Things? I Don't. You Know, We All Own The White House. So What? I Still Can't Go In, Right?

The Question We Should Be Asking Is Not Why People Are Sometimes Cruel, Or Even Why A Few People Are Usually Cruel (all Evidence Suggests True Sadists Are An Extremely Small Proportion Of The Population Overall), But How We Have Come To Create Institutions That Encourage Such Behavior And That Suggest Cruel People Are In Some Ways Admirable-or At Least As Deserving Of Sympathy As Those They Push Around.