Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What is "capitalism"? (Explorations of "social-interest")
Message-ID: <661@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 08:58:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.661
Posted: Fri Jun 21 08:58:21 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 00:27:00 EDT
References: <298@spar.UUCP> <2380030@acf4.UUCP> <211@ubvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 52

> In article <2380030@acf4.UUCP>, mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
> > When I say what is best for X, I don't mean technically, but rather what X
> > should attempt to get out of life.  X may not know what is best for
> > him/herself.  But if X does not indeed know, then on what basis could X make a
> > decision to trust the decision to Y & Z?
> 
> In many strategic situations (where more than one actor is needed to ensure
> success), an actor's goals may be influenced by what that actor considers
> as possible.  If what is possible depends on the actions or strategies
> pursued by other parties, such that alliance with those parties helps X,
> then X may have reason to trust the decision to Y & Z of what the group
> strategy should be, especially if X has no power over the determination
> of that strategy anyways.
> 
> That is, there are many strategies where being a follower is optimal,
> even if the follower doesn't quite know what's going on.  In fact, knowing
> what is going on may hurt a follower in the sense that the follower's
> anticipation of leaders' strategies may make the follower a candidate
> for scapegoating or being passed over due to over-ambitiousness.
> 
> In the world political situation, most smaller nations fit the above
> description of X and X's optimal strategy.  In lots of organizations too.
> 
> Tony Wuersch
> {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw

Ah, now you are talking Tony! Regardless of whether one is a leader or
follower or one among equals there are many many times when each individual's
*self*-interest is best served by joining with others for everyone's
*social* interest.  Joining with other people to accomplish things
cooperatively does not imply oppression or a lack of freedom or anything
else.  Without joining together with other people most things simply
cannot be done.  To take the most basic example, none of us would even be
alive if we were not helped to adulthood by our parents or guardians.
Infants left alone without aid will die. Period.
Does this mean the family is "oppressive"? Of course not, caring for the
young is one of the foundations of life. 
 
Having the necessity and the advantages from working together to achieve
goals, the question then becomes "how can everyone have a relatively equal
say in how things get done?" "How can we insure that the benefits of
such cooperation are shared equally?"  
I happen to believe the answers to these questions are through some
form of democracy rather than an autocracy or authoritarian setup in
which one leader or owner has all the power.
In a democracy X is not making a decision to simply trust the judgements of
Y & Z but X has power to affect decisions.  If Y & Z are officeholders
then they can be challenged.  X may come to be an officeholder herself
and be able to accomplish things for her self-interest as a citizen
that are greater than anything she could accomplish by herself alone.

                 tim sevener  whuxl!orb