GANGSTER CAPITALISM Letter to the Editor SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE November 29, 1999 San Francisco, California Dear Editor: One reason that you have an interesting paper is because of your section �Notes from here and there� by Lewis Dolinsky. I feel that one statement in his Nov. 24th article deserves comments and mine reflect a background in Technocracy Inc., a scientific, educational-research organization. Dolinsky was writing about the problems facing Russia. He commented on their changing from a controlled government to a �democracy� and stated �Had our advice [U.S. and allies] to privatize, privatize, privatize led to prosperity, not gangster capitalism, they might be more receptive.� Think of this matter in this respect. There are two general classifications of people: (1) The �have nots� and the champions of this group are referred to as �liberals.� (2) The �haves� and the champions of this group are a bit hard to define so will be referred to as the champions of the haves. Most notable of the liberals are such people as Alexander Cockburn, Helen Caldicott, Cornel West, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Angela Davis, Howard Zinn, etc. Radio station KPFA also belongs in this group. Without the least bit of hesitation, they would all shout at the highest decibel possible that, indeed, we are run by gangster capitalism. On the other hand, those who are the champions of the haves would say that people in industry � entrepreneurs -- are responsible for what society really is and they sincerely wish to be of service to the public. These champions would avoid speaking about the entrepreneurs� drive for profit, huge chunks of money. There is one small group � members of Technocracy � who feel it is a total waste of one�s time to be involved in what these liberals have to say. On the other hand, it is also a total waste of one�s time to pay any attention to the other group. These two groups march hand-in-hand and are �companions-in-arms� on one large, important point. They both feel that our socioeconomic structure, our �Price System,� is adequate for our times. Both groups show total ignorance of how we have moved from a primitive agrarian age and now live in a scientific-technological age. Because this new age is so complex, so entirely different from the past primitive age, we must have a social structure that is specifically laid for it. Both groups fail to see that our Price System is an abomination in our scientific-technological age. Technocracy is the champion of this point and, unfortunately, stands alone. One good way to start a study of why our Price System is an abomination today is to log onto <www.technocracysf.org> Then click on MENU and read �A Commentary to Jim Lehrer.� Sincerely, John A. Taube
