Franchise Is Not `Proletarian'

To the editors:

I disagree with James Allen Johnson's plea for a Harvard Square McDonald's (Opinion, March 9), invoking McDonald's "right" to be here. John-son unfairly accuses those who are anti-corporate-chain-monolith of being anti-proletariat. Those who fight McDonald's can care about the local working class.

Small businesses put dollars back into the local economy. Sure, McDonald's has low prices, but that does not mean McDonald's benefits the working class in the long run. National chains take revenues out of the area in favor of corporate payoffs elsewhere. They crush local small business owners because chains can pump so much capital into their new locations. This ends local character and diversity.

Look at the recent closing of the Tasty. Many of the anti-Big-Mac folk were pro-Tasty. They realized that the Tasty's prices and spirit were fair to the working class and true to the area's feel. In that case, the defenders of Harvard Square were concerned for poorer residents. Is a bigger bank really needed here?

Being anti-Starbuck's does not make me anti-proletariat. (Starbuck's, like many chains, is hardly aimed at the lower classes!) It simply means I want to be able to choose from a variety of cafes when I go out, and I want to support local business owners. REBECCA REIDER '00   March 10, 1998