stands that Penthouse is not merely a successful businessnventure but also a source of capitalism’s demise, and that profitnmade on selling deadly technology to the Soviets is not profitnat all—will we be able to discuss the renaissance of capitalism.nClass consciousness did not work for the worker, but it maynwork for the businessman.nSome would label such a proposition a throwback to Puritannethics. Perhaps it is. Everything indicates that if it is evernresurrected, it will be brought about by the have-somes, withnboth the haves and the have-nots rabidly protesting in unisonnits social actualization.nJj/conomic democratization, which Marx hailed as thenproletariat’s gift to the universe, had already materialized innAmerica during the 19th century. To Marx, it was inseparablenfrom capitalism’s demise. In fact, economic democratizationnoccurred because of capitalism. In contemporary societiesnconstructed on the Marxian premise, the economy is feudalnand economic justice is a myth. Those societies are the onlynones on earth which have preserved intact the haves/have-notsnarrangement, with nothing in the middle. Of course, officially,nthere are no haves there. According to the official version,nthere are only have-somes—which is a lie. In point of fact,nin a social reality where everybody can be deprived of everythingnby a simple bureaucratic ukase there are only have-nots.nNelson Algren, the eminent liberal writer who died notnlong ago, wrote scornfully in The Man with the Golden Arm,nhis most impressive novel, about “the great, secret and specialnAmerican guilt of owning nothing, nothing at all…” Algrennhad it all wrong. The power and moral value of the have-somesnis rooted in this feeling of guilt; it’s their glory and their bestnentitlement to a place in history. The undoing of the haves andnthe havenots is due exactly to the fact that their feelings ofnguilt have been hopelessly messed up. The haves have neurosesnor psychoses; the have-nots have rage. The have-somes feelnguilty about not having enough—which is the only positive,nproductive, constructive anxiety among all the contemporaryneconomic feelings.nBalzac was perhaps the first to understand that entitlementn—the most pervasive socioeconomic postulate of the last twoncenturies—must have a moral foundation. The aristocraticndemand for privilege through birth was wrong, but the bourgeoisnclaim for the fruits of hard work, inventiveness, thenspirit of industriousness, innovation and accumulation wasn•THE HAVES, HAVE-NOTS AND HAVE-SOMES*nLIBERAL CULTUREn.’o«’ U’f Kiioii’nWho i> rf’i)'< Ilsi ‘li- for till-nilivsoliiriiMi ol lliinI’aniiK .inii ihi-niii;irrM.i;i.- oriiiiicj I’lihiii ^• 111n-Niiiirii;!.’ Tin- msMcr IS furniii-ilic(l h lu- Pi li!i. HiDjclciisiniiii; Sssiiii . 1 Ic T • IS lui’.v a pU)nUf.im nil I’HS is ;li!viTliM.ll in .1n\ SMjipIc •IlKIllnl.imiK IK’U sll|H’ r:nHi..:,i-.!nlonViJiirnMi 1 i 1 ri-nu-niiiiiul irinu’. I’liSnI uiis nioiii’v Ironi hinli. t’USn! wiuijil sffin III In- irviiii; io lii-n: sirov miliiiin wives. WILII’Snps roil” uih/).’..•/’n.’iisdnini;.-‘ i Inright. Today, Balzac would bank on the American have-somes.nMore than a century ago, Marx declared that he was on thenside of the have-nots. Many before him had thought the same,nbut he was the first to build a powerful philosophy and moralntheory around his conviction. It didn’t help the have-nots muchnin terms of improving their condition, but it made them thenfocal point of modern culture, of contemporary moral concernsnthat are always passionate and occasionally noble, and ofnpolitical initiatives. First and foremost, Marx’s theory transformednthe have-nots into paradigms of human goodness andninnocence, abused and oppressed by countless villains.nThe have-somes ,whoarethe most constructive and virtuousnsocial class in history, still await their Marx.nTh . he gist of Marxian and radical reasoning has always beennthe moral assertion that wealth amassed by a capitalist is undeserved.nThe capitalist’s riches, this argument goes, createdna social and moral evil which ultimately depraves and degeneratesnhumanity.nEven if we accept, for instance, that Victorian-era disproportionnof income was inherently bad, the question stillnemerges: What was the society getting from the situation?nThe answer is: The bourgeois ideology and civilization, basednon a lot of ethical precepts, even if many of them turned outn(continued on page 50)nJuly/Attgttst 1981n