From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:58:53 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan22103010@macro.bu.edu>, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

>  We have seen the even more ghastly effects of socialism and truly
>dehumanizing effects of communism as well. First for capitalism to
>work you need an level playing field.

"Life ain't fair"  --  old capitalist proverb.

>Here in the US you go to the
>states school for 12 years and there is not one class offered that
>shows people how to be capitalist. The reality of the current world
>situation mandates that people are instructed in capitalism. The
>people who used to refered to as bourgeoisie are quite stratified
>now. In America people have risen from the lower classes to become
>even richer than the old money. It happens elsewhere to, what's that
>fellow from Virgin Records name? The problem (or ghastly effect)
>is that they rise by climbing, indeed trampling those around them.
>The RAT RACE. It need not be that way.

CAPITALISM need not be that way?????

>If people are instructed in 
>capitalism and taught the values of self-reliance tempered with
>mutual aid(the type where if you see someone in need you help out
>without being asked or coerced to do so) capitalism can be become
>more "user friendly". 

Is this what King George meant by a kinder gentler nation? Capitalism is
extremely user friendly as it is.  My sympathies are with the "usees".

>A "worker" even a laborer will make a substantial amount of money
>in his lifetime. The problem is he doesn't realize that whatever
>that sum is, it is finite. Young people spend the money like
>water, not ever grasping that at some point they will not be able
>to work and then they either becomes reliant on the state, or if he
>was prudent and saved enough money they retain independence and
>dignity. Most people end up somewhere in the middle, being dependent
>on the state, to dole out the money taken from them in their lifetime  
>and using their savings to try to maintain a standard of living.
>They would be much better off if they kept that portion of their
>wages and invested it for themselves. Putting money in a bank,
>even with compound interest will not help you maintain your independence
>in later life. You must take more risk, and thereby increase the return
>on your investment. The problem is where do learn about investment
>alternatives and money mechanics if you don't have a degree from
>business school?

The real problem is, how do you deal with the casualties which are an
inevitable by-product of the risks you mentioned?  Or is re-invention of mutual
aid by capitalists supposed to take care of that?

>People who do learn do it on there own. If the state
>has your attention for 12 years, isn't it concievable that the
>most valuable thing they could teach you is how to manage your
>money and how to put it to work for you? TEACH CAPITALISM from
>day one kindergarden.

This would be a solid foundation for "doctrinaire capitalism".

>Do you have to wait until you are in you 60's? No. If you find
>that you want another type of lifestyle, you don't need a lot
>of fancy toys, and expensive things, and you are willing to live
>a more spartan existence, you can retire at 30. You will have to 
>work for some period of time, and save your money, living as
>you will after you retire, will allow you to save that money.
>Then to maintain yourself you need work only 20 hours a week.
>Even better for you if those hours are spent doing something you find
>rewarding.

Well, it is a relief (and news to me) that ambition to get ahead of one's peers
is not a prerequisite for survival under a market system.

>The point is workers don't need unions or goverments to look after
>their interest. They need to be taught how to look after themselves 
>and how to harness the forces of the market for their gain.

There is another side to this coin.  Education for survival under capitalism
also entails learning how to keep the forces of the market from harnessing you
for gain.  I have no personal experience of the invisible hand being anything
other than an instrument of leverage which is rarely to my advantage, and then
only in my role as a consumer, usually of luxury items.

>I see no state on the planet at this time that does this.

This is partly because employer types want to keep the masses dependent on
them.  Some of your capitalist brethren are corrupting the faith!  To sell them
on capitalist education for the masses you have to convince them that they
don't have a vested interest in a population which is naive on the how-to of
hard-ball negotiation.  (I'm convinced that they _do_ have such an interest). 
Some of the most sophisticated competition-avoidance and risk-avoidance
behavior is to be found in the business world.

>[next time how Mutual Banking could work in today's market
> conditions]

Keep 'em coming!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee                                          w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

Who then is free?  The wise man who can command himself.
                                -- Horace
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy