Ordinary people’s reactions regarding the possibility of getting the Economic Democracy Act adopted soon — or at all, for that matter — often take the form of asserting “they” won’t go for it or allow it. And who are “they”? The rich, the powerful, those who rely on the rich and powerful or want to, or who are afraid of them.
Frankly, unless a wealthy and powerful individual who is also unscrupulous gets into a position of power, there is little reason to be afraid of “them”, at least generically. Even in an absolute monarchy or dictatorship, the monarch or dictator can only get away with doing what he or she is doing if other people let him or her — there’s a good reason why such people are surrounded by bodyguards, and even the best bodyguards aren’t effective if there is an all-out effort to get rid of a tyrant.
As for the rich and powerful as a group, they are not quite as hostile as we might think to others becoming well-off or at least comfortable. There are, of course, a sizable number of people in the hostile category, who object to others gaining wealth, but they often have some kind of psychological problems to begin with or are deathly afraid that if others gain some measure of wealth, the only place they can get it is from them.
By far the greater number of people who object to something like the Economic Democracy Act are those who depend on the rich and powerful for their income and status. House slaves have always looked down on those they view as even lower than they are; it’s their way of feeling important.
As a rule, the strongest voices against expanded ownership are not the rich and powerful themselves, but those who rely on the rich and powerful to feel they are better than everybody else . . . even the rich and powerful whom they look after. Bertie Wooster was a virtual slave to his valet Jeeves, and he knew it and Jeeves was far more punctilious about poor Bertie toeing the line than Bertie ever could be.
No, if the rich and powerful have any opinion about expanded capital ownership, it’s either a vague feeling that “those people” couldn’t handle it (or “those people” would already be rich), or they simply don’t think about it at all. By and large they are indifferent . . . which is actually the worst thing they could be, if the goal is to convince them to promote the Economic Democracy Actor even just step aside while others adopt it. They don’t hate expanded capital ownership. That could be dealt with by means of reason or political will. They simply don’t care one way or another.
So, what is to be done? In his paper, “How to Win a Revolution . . . and Enjoy It,” Dr. Norman Kurland presented a “Four Prong Strategy” to bring about what he calls “the Happy Revolution.” As he explained it (with some editing),
1. EDUCATIONAL. To sell our ideas purely based on reason is vital over the long run. But this will probably be the slowest and most difficult path for us to follow, given the abandonment of reason by virtually our entire educational system, particularly in the social sciences as taught from kindergarten to graduate levels. This shortcoming is understandable once one recognizes that the field of economics is the oldest and most basic of the social sciences.
The primary vehicle for carrying out a wholly educational and research function is the Center for Economic and Social Justice (CESJ). CESJ will continue to publish and disseminate educational materials, promote debates, and seek to infuse expanded ownership economics into the main arteries of the American educational system. Key targets of this approach are young people not yet brainwashed by the outdated ideologies permeating today’s system. Courses on expanded capital ownership taught in the Cybernetics Program of the School of Engineering at San Jose State College, to graduate planning students at Berkeley, and in several other universities, plus others offered through the “free universities” of Washington and Berkeley are models for this approach. Seminars, lectures, educational TV are also recommended for dealing directly at the cerebral level.
2. POLITICAL/ORGANIZATIONAL. A second avenue for reaching our goal is to mobilize 10,000 highly committed, disciplined, and articulate members of The Third Movement, working in small groups (see discussion of “Tribunes” below), capable of carrying on spontaneous, locally directed social actions, all directed toward the same general objectives.
Here the medium — in this case, a tight-knit organization with a simple, easily understood, and universally appealing program in the midst of today’s general chaos, confusion, and programmatic disorder-will be its own message. More on this later.
In addition, members should begin to influence people in other action-oriented organizations, including students, politicians, congressmen and senators, the “anti-war” and “anti-corporation” movement, women’s liberation, ecology activists, taxpayer groups like the National Taxpayers Union, religious leaders, troubled labor unions, etc. Remember that we have something positive to offer activists on the left, on the right, and in the middle. It is possible to reach virtually every person on his own terms with our message, except perhaps certain self-proclaimed “intellectuals” and “liberals” whose arrogance and secured status have closed their minds to new ideas.
 |
| Louis Kelso |
Especially among economists who have a vested interest in protecting obsolete ideas upon which their credentials as “high priests” depend, only the younger ones are worth approaching. Your best counterattack when confronted with a hostile economist is to ask whether he has read Kelso’s books, and, if so, with what degree of care. They are also vulnerable on their understanding of “private property”, on their treatment of the issue of concentrated capital ownership, and two-factor theory generally.
The Third Movement must seize every opportunity to address new questions to potential Presidential candidates before and during the primaries and general elections. Try to arrange for maximum public exposure, preferably before the mass media. A sample question might be, “If capital ownership is a good thing for some of your biggest supporters, what are you doing to broaden the base of capital ownership?”, or “Do you really believe that ‘full employment’ is more desirable than “full ownership’ of industrial capital?”
3. PRIME MOVERS. Some members of The Third Movement are their own “media for the message” — that is, they are considered to have credentials with either the general public or certain influential segments of society. Any person with relatively easy access to the mass media must be encouraged to write, speak out, act out, communicate on expanded capital ownership in any way that is effective for reaching a broad audience, at every opportunity.
Some of us have already done so when the opportunity has presented itself. But we must begin to generate our own opportunities. We must begin to encourage other “high visibility” friends to support out program publicly. Persons need not be experts on all details to support our goals. Everyone can at least write notes to open up opportunities for willing spokesmen for our cause.
There are many people who will “tune-in” on a new idea if it comes from an “authority figure” — which unfortunately includes prime movers who have been artificially and cynically created by manipulators of the mass media. To succeed we can learn a lesson from these exploiters of the media: A good idea is useless if it is not even heard.
The “Prime Mover” approach has enormous potential for creating the favorable atmosphere needed for reopening people’s minds and flushing new figureheads to the surface. Leaders tend to follow other leaders and are swayed by credentials, no matter how undeserved.
 |
| No, the OTHER kind of model building |
True pioneers — particularly in the world of ideas — are by definition rarities among human beings. As mentioned earlier, the ultimate “figurehead” to be encouraged to carry our message to the people is the President. Every move we take should be considered a building block to gain an endorsement of our cause from persons worthy of that office.
4. MODEL BUILDING. Many people reject reason, distrust all organizations, movements, and “authorities” and will begin responding to a new message, no matter how beneficial it might be for them personally, only based on “seeing it work.” Hence, the fourth and probably the most effective path for closing the communications gap is to develop and spread information about successful models of expanded capital ownership. Such models, constructed by persons with unquestioned know-how, experience, and delivery capability, have been and will continue to be designed to demonstrate the “tools” of expanded capital ownership at four basic levels: (1) the corporate level, (2) the “community” level, (3) the national level, and (4) the multi-national level.
#30#
