Ralph Nader attributes this definition to his father, given at the family dinner table during one of their typical Socratic discussions. "Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is the corporate ownership of the means of government." "Take your choice", he adds, smiling ironically, "concentrated power". Asked where he stands with respect to these two, he demurs, instead referring to himself as a "justice-seeker...otherwise known as an open mind" and thereby avoiding the trap of being restricted to a given, usually misunderstood discipline. The average polarized American "citizen" of either persuasion, "conservative" or "progressive", could learn a lot from this viewpoint.
The goal of Kelso and Adler's "capitalist revolution" is by no means diametrically opposed to that proposed by Marx and Engels. Both auspiciously seek to raise the quality of life of all men and ensure equality of opportunity to be free of grinding subsistence, to be free to contribute more of their life-force to liberal pursuits, arts, science, philosophy, religion/spirituality, education, in short, to the advancement of human civilization. No one system, so far, can rightfully claim unqualified superiority over another in this regard. The truth probably lies, as the Buddha said, in the "middle way", some type of hybrid of the forms that have until now tried to remain exclusive, in fact, antagonistic of each other.
In A Socialist Manifesto, North Syracuse, NY: Gegensatz Press (2007), Eric v.d. Luft calls for socialism to steer "an Aristotelian middle course among these three, preserving to the greatest possible extent the freedom of anarchy, the fairness of utopian communism, and the ingenuity and vigor of the free market", (Adler was also a well-known Aristotelian philosopher of his day). He enthusiastically supports democracy and universal suffrage as well as the elimination of organizational hierarchies in favor of cooperative networks of people. Echoing Kelso and Adler, he recognizes the "remarkable incentive" to work and produce things of value that capitalism provides, but demands its "strict, ethical, and enforced regulation". The Europeans are often scoffed at by Americans who are under the sway of the propaganda promulgated by their ruling classes. Their "socialist democratic" models can be shown by many measures to provide a higher standard of living than that in America. We must remain open-minded to ways to develop a system of economy and governance that will provide, in actual practice and not just in name, a society that will be a "beacon to the world".
In the 1970's in Florida, high school seniors were required to take a course called "Americanism versus Communism" or "AVC". My memory recalls a focus on the military and political events of the Communist Revolution, but I now believe the course was a form of latter-day Cold War propaganda intended to prejudice the next generation of American citizens against any other form of political and economic organization than "free-market" democracy. These Americans had this viewpoint justified by the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990's. This event caused Francis Fukuyama, in The End of History and the Last Man, New York: Free Press, (1992), to declare Western liberal democracy the final victor in the war between political ideologies. These Americans are now among the political and entrepreneurial classes that establish the course of development of the economy and the government. Thus we have an institutionalized misunderstanding of the various possibilities of a nuanced, hybridized system incorporating the best of all systems while guarding against the worst. In recent years, this idea of "Americanism", which has become a potential synonym for "Consumerism", has begun to betray major structural weaknesses that threaten to cause a collapse of the system akin to what the Soviets experienced. We are ripe for a new paradigm to emerge but impeded by an ignorance of the possibility due to a limited vocabulary!
In a 1964 edition of The Communist Manifesto, New York: Simon and Schuster, editor Francis B. Randall, Ph.D. accuses Marx of this wrong prediction, that "the peasants would be drawn into the cities by economic necessity, and most of the bourgeoisie would become bankrupt by capitalist competition, and would sink into the proletariat." The gross maldistribution of wealth, the industrialization of agriculture, and the rampant incidence of foreclosure and personal bankruptcy we are seeing in early 21st century American capitalism would give him reason to believe he had been hasty in his assessment. It is very possible that the time is right for Americans to open their minds to alternative solutions than what they have been coerced to believe is the "only way". This will be facilitated by taking a fresh look at the original thinking hidden behind the misinterpreted "isms" they have become so used to demonizing.
Here's a great way to grab the attention of most Americans. Start talking about Jesus in a way other than what they hear at church, every Sunday, all their lives (sounds a little like mind-control to me). Didn't Jesus rail against the "moneychangers"? Didn't he advocate for the poor, the infirm, the "meek"? Whether or not one sees him as some kind of metaphysical being, doesn't he sound a lot like some kind of proto-socialist prophet? Open your minds, Americans; your political future depends on it.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
3
2
