From our observation point near the end of the 20th century,nit looks as if the economic vision of the future is goingnto be determined not by a struggle between the haves and thenhave-nots—a widespread belief 100 years ago—but by anmore complex and perverse, tripartite conflict between haves,nhave-nots and have-somes. It will be a murky contention innwhich controversial ideas and enigmatic feelings, unpredictablenimpulses and obscure sensitivities will make thenold Marxian projection of class warfare between the exploitednpoor and the rich bloodsuckers look like an exercise in naivete.nA, Lt the core of the contest—which we hope will nevernturn to violence in America—are the notions of economicnactivism, economic gratification and economic entitlement.nThese are far from being mere economic considerations:nhuman sensibilities, sentimentalities and ambitions determinenthem as well, not to mention human greed, moral fiber, sinfulnessnand idealism. The front lines, enmities and alliances innthis tug of war will frequently waver. We will see the havesnembracing the have-nots’ causes with either misty-eyed dimwittednessnor wily hypocrisy. We will see the have-somes portrayednas mankind’s evil foe, although by sheer force of numbersnthey constitute the bulk of mankind.nThis ever-increasing complexity will put the American businessmann(the most vital link between the have-somes and thenhaves) into a special mental situation. The American businessmannis wont to think that the eventual solutions to his problemsn—and he seems to have many—must be simple ones. He believesnthat the complexity of human affairs is all muddle andnconfusion, artificially intellectualized hair-splitting, and thatnsocial problems should be solvable by political means. He isnfond of thinking that if only he were left alone to do his economicnthing, everybody would recognize his social usefulnessnand virtues. A proper political party and correct administrativenpolicies loom in his mind as the ultimate answers for restoringnto him his ancient status and opportunities.nHe is wrong, of course. Capitalism’s woes are obviouslyncomplex, abstruse, noneconomic and nonpolitical in bothnnature and substance. Unless the American businessman—nthe only creature on earth who, by thinking and acting properly,ncan save both the haves and the have-nots and give a sense ofnfruitful existence to the have-somes—stops accusing thosenof us who are on his side of befuddling the issues and bewilderingnhim, he is doomed to perish, we’re sorry to say.nChronicles of Culturen•THE HAVES, HAVE-NOTS AND HAVE-SOMES*nEDITORS COM M I:N rnnnCapitalism, which triumphed originally by telling the individualnthat he could make the world a better place by way ofnwork, thrift, honest service and a quality product, is in retreat,nand not because history has proved its message wrong. Thenopposite is true: because its proposition proved to be a success,nit was challenged by those who did not consider individualnprogress through work and thrift to be a value. Their mainnweapons were, and still are, politics and culture. They cravednpower over human souls and decided to wrest that power fromnthe producers and providers by accusing them of sins rootednin greed, ambition and enterprise. They preached to the havenots—whonalways have and always will exist, economic effortsnnotwithstanding—that by transferring the process of economicndecision-making to noneconomic constructs like scholarship,ngovernment and political organizations humanity couldnachieve its oldest dream: economic plenty for all. A curiousnsituation evolved: the more capitalism thrived, the more itnengendered learning, social services, versatile political andncultural activities—all of which were used against capitalism.nIt was invariably termed a moral argument: capitalism wasnaccused of breeding injustice.nNaturally, what was at issue was not justice but power.nSometime in our lifetime, the enemies of capitalism correctlyndeduced that capitalism had bred something much more loathsomento them—namely the have-somes, that is, a stratum ofnpeople who were less concerned with economic justice thannwith the rationality of human socioeconomic endeavors. Andnthis kind of people, grounded in the consciousness of enrichmentnthrough work as a precious and permanent humannvalue, will always thwart any effort to erase capitalism fromnmankind’s preferences and aspirations.nIt’s easy to fume about money’s power—using expressionsnlike mammon and the almighty dollar—as the core of humannills, failures and wickedness. But when a society or a nationnhas been structured on antieconomic ideals and goals such asnfaith in man, or a purely spiritual sense of mission, it has generallynended in cruel oppression and slaughter. In crude terms,nthe American have-somes are the only social class which nurturesna refined faith in both man and the dollar.nThe loss of faith in man and in the dollar during the 1960’snand 70’s was perhaps the direst peril ever to both capitalismnand the American civilization. As it is doubtful whether faithnin the dollar can soon be restored, the best American capitalismncan undertake is to revive faith in man as a free and productivenagent—and make it a capitalistic credo. In order to stave off thenliberal disintegration of our culture, an ideology must be builtnaround democratic capitalism in America—with democraticncapitalism as its dialectical center. Not until the Americannbusinessman learns about his own temptations, humanizesnhis failings, develops intuition, finds pride in himself, under-n