From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:43:59 GMT
	<1993Jan23.015853.1037@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu's message of 23 Jan 93 01:58:53 GMT



# In article <1993Jan23.015853.1037@vela.acs.oakland.edu> w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee) writes:

  > 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.

No, but if there is an injustice done by the the Big capitalist over the
years that is worse than all others it is the wish to keep the masses
ignorant of the secret to success. Anyone can do what they do, and they
don't want competition. The knowledge they pass onto their off-spring
is worth far more than the material property inherited by the
children.

It all goes to "teach a man to fish, rather than giving him fish." 
Isn't anarchism strengthened by individuals who are more self-sufficent
and able to care for themsleves economically. And isn't LF capitalism 
really just Economic-Anarchy?

   >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?????

No. You don't need to crush, everyone around you. A healthy but non-lethal
competition will suffice.

   >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".

This has nothing to do with GB as far as I can tell?!

as far as sympathies go:
So are mine and I realize that they are the exploited because they
lack KNOWLEDGE most of all.

   >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?

Part of the education is the evaluation of risk and risk management.
There need be no reinvention of mutual aid. Were does that come from?
My example was more like when a Hurricane hit's and the Red Cross
comes to people's aid. Certainly true anarchist, would help their
bretheren who are victims of an arbitrary act of nature without 
havein to be "taxed" to do so.

   >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".

I would not advocate creating something so rigid as a dogma.

"You say it's gospel, but I know it's only church"

-Tom Waits and Kieth Richards, That Feel, Bone Machine(1992).

It should be at the level of how mathematics or economics is 
taught today. We should not endevour to brainwash people,
but rather give them some basis for "economic-self-defense".
You are cut loose now at 17 or 18 years old and as far
as your education goes you are "defenseless" economically. 

   >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.

If it is news to you, here's a clue, free of charge:

You do not have to "work" 9-5 to support yourself if your needs
are simple and you enjoy living without all those expensive
toys that the cornucopia of LF capitalism provides. 

There is a book at now that is very popular, the title is something
like "Getting by Without a Salary." If you like I will find the
author and the ISBN for you.


   >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.

see above. You can live in a less expensive area. You don't have to work
9-5 you can grow your own food, and you need not own a car, or any
other bloody-thing you don't have a desire too.

   >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.

There is nothing counter to what I beleive here, except that I believe
that capitalism were more not less people are trying to be capitalist
and own the means of production is stronger than the simply exploitive
version. This can also take the form employee(partial) ownership of the
company through ESOP's.

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

A hint: True interest free lending is impossible because money
is time valued. Still if the loan is index to inflation then it 
truely is the case of where you borrow $100K for a house and
over 30 years you pay back the "equivalent time valued" sum.
Which is equitable to both parties and more just than interest
charged for profit.


-sjm

--
Sean J. Merritt		         |"Road-kill has it's seasons just like     
Dept of Physics Boston University|anything, there's possums in the autumn  
merritt@macro.bu.edu             |and farm cats in the spring." T. Waits