A few weeks ago
Andy Kessler raised an interesting point in his piece, “Quit Modifying
Capitalism” in the Wall Street Journal of November 20, 2017 (page A15 if you’re
curious). As Kessler suggested, capitalism
is capitalism, and socialism is socialism.
Why cover up with meaningless qualifications? Kessler had in mind such modifications as "democratic capitalism," "social capitalism," "ethical capitalism," even "free market capitalism" — you name it.
 |
| Norman G. Kurland |
In response, Norman Kurland,
president of CESJ, sent a letter in to the Journal,
which we summarize in this posting. He agreed that capitalism is capitalism, so why bother to modify or try to argue in its favor by quibbling about essentially meaningless qualifiers?
Case in point, some years back, Michael Novak gave exactly the same definition of his "democratic capitalism" as Martin Green did for his "democratic socialism"! Evidently, once you start qualifying what something is, it ends up both everything and nothing. As G.K. Chesterton once said, "If use of capital is capitalism, then everything is capitalism." The same might be said of socialism, i.e., if acting in a social manner is socialism, then everything is socialism.
This is what happens when you start in qualifying things, and trying to make a bad thing good, or vice versa ("When I called you a bloodsucking tick, I meant it in a nice way!"). Interestingly, as Norm noted — "Ironically, both 'capitalism' and 'socialism' originated as pejoratives. The difference is that socialists were much more successful in spinning the term, while capitalists have fought a rearguard action since the socialist Louis Blanc gave 'capitalism' its modern meaning in 1850."
As he continued:
Case in point, some years back, Michael Novak gave exactly the same definition of his "democratic capitalism" as Martin Green did for his "democratic socialism"! Evidently, once you start qualifying what something is, it ends up both everything and nothing. As G.K. Chesterton once said, "If use of capital is capitalism, then everything is capitalism." The same might be said of socialism, i.e., if acting in a social manner is socialism, then everything is socialism.
This is what happens when you start in qualifying things, and trying to make a bad thing good, or vice versa ("When I called you a bloodsucking tick, I meant it in a nice way!"). Interestingly, as Norm noted — "Ironically, both 'capitalism' and 'socialism' originated as pejoratives. The difference is that socialists were much more successful in spinning the term, while capitalists have fought a rearguard action since the socialist Louis Blanc gave 'capitalism' its modern meaning in 1850."
As he continued:
And that
meaning? A system in which some people
control capital — things — to the exclusion of others. “Capitalism” is “thing-ism,” putting things
above people. This was something neither
Adam Smith nor Jean-Baptiste Say had in mind when formulating their theories.
And the
solution? Karl Marx thought the way to
restore justice is to abolish private ownership of capital. Lawyer-economist Louis Kelso had a better
idea: make it possible for everyone to own capital, but without redistribution
or burdening the taxpayer with the cost.
Kelso’s invention
of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) was a first step away from the injustices
of both capitalism and socialism. This
is a just, third way in which everyone controls his or her life, and safeguards
liberty, by having private property in capital.
What America and
the world needs is something that will do for all forms of capital what Lincoln’s
1862 Homestead Act did in a limited way for land. That is, reform the tax and monetary system
to enable every child, woman, and man to purchase capital on credit
collateralized with insurance, and pay for it out of the future earnings of the
capital itself.
Yours, etc.,
Norman G. Kurland, J.D.
President
Center for Economic and Social Justice
