1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Opening Statements: Dr. Jill Vickers

 
 
 

Self-described feminist and socialist. Socialism can only be moral when built upon a moral base, and it is impossible for women to achieve in a system based on selfishness or laissez-faire capitalism. Morality is a matter of human choice      

 
 
 
 

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers: “Wow! Wouldn’t it be fascinating if you came to a debate and one side said to the other you got me? It’s not going to happen tonight ladies and gentlemen. My honorable opponent talked a whole lot about man. I want to start by talking about a woman. She happens to be my favorite woman, she happens to be my mother, and she always gives me good advice. Her advice for tonight was “Jill, remember someone else washed their underwear and remember your manners, and since you’re playing the hometown team get your ‘thank-you’s’ out of the way at the beginning” and so I’d like to do that.”

***********************************************************************************

(LCW) I would like to be magnanimous as she begins her presentation, and I realize that many people who speak in public like to begin with a joke, but I was disappointed with her opening comments. As a writer, it is important to let the reader know, and in this case, the listener, exactly what it is that you intend to cover, especially in the case of a debate scenario, and to try and pull them in with some hint of what is to come. Not by any means a prerequisite, but an expectation. I will leave it at that.

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers: “… now Peter described me as a feminist and a socialist and I’m both of those, and what I want to talk about tonight is why I think socialism is the only truly moral system when it’s built on a feminist base and why I think it’s impossible for women in this country or anywhere else in the world to achieve with men a moral society built on the selfishness of laissez-faire capitalism”.

***********************************************************************************

(LCW) It is so disappointing to start off a discussion on morality and philosophy already mired in preconceptions that come across as immature and defensive. I am not sure what being a feminist has to do with the issues at hand, not that a feminist cannot be a socialist as well, or even that they could be well informed and educated to what they mean, but the feminist eludes me. It is like me presenting myself as a gardener or a chocoholic and everything I believe is based upon those attributes. I am sorry, but I just don’t understand.

To start by demeaning the opposition for using the word ‘man’, when any educated individual understands that it is simply a manner of speech, is simply a reflection of the need to control and try to define the conversation before it has even begun. If your positions on morality and economics have value and substance, it will become evident soon enough. I have had the pleasure on too many occasions to become mired in meaningless peripherals immediately. It takes away the intended offer of a measured and rational argument on the fundamentals of the issues.

It seems inevitable that her positions on socialism are not even mainstream within the ideology if it ‘must’ be based on a feminist ideology to be ‘truly’ moral. Her claim that it is ‘impossible’ for women in ‘this’ country or anywhere else in the world for that matter to achieve anything approaching a societal morality built on the selfishness of laissez-faire capitalism. Please pay close attention to the fact that this ‘assertion’ will never be addressed nor clarified. So …. We already have alienated a huge segment of the audience by her words, which could have been controlled if there had been some kind of statement or presentation of something of substance to complement the assertions. Peikoff immediately went into a prepared presentation without the need for condescension. While it’s true that people achieve their objectives by different means, it seemed incongruous to me to start from such an adversarial position, downplaying the opposition on a number of issues, instead of illuminating and clarifying their own perspective. We shall see the evolution of her narrative.

Instead of immediately making her case for her own philosophy, she has chosen to make prejudicial statements against her opponent for the day. Not that they will also resort to something similar in due time. What I find curious is that there was no self-imposed control to do so in an appropriate manner at a more opportunistic time. We don’t even know what she believes at this time, except for who and what she ‘does not’ like. I find this troubling.

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers: “The issue we’ve gathered to talk about is the relative morality of the human orders involved in these two systems. I stress the word ‘relative’ because morality is always a matter of human choice. If it were self-evident we wouldn’t need debates of this sort”.

***********************************************************************************

(LCW) I couldn’t agree more. The concept of morality being relative is unquestioned. As much as Objectivism points to a degree of objective perception in our life experience, I am at odds somewhat with Rand and her belief that we can attain an undue level of objective experience that can be compared and considered in relation to others and what we all call ‘reality’. I think that there is a thing called ‘objective’ truth but at a much lower and primitive level. She talks of identity, and A=A, which is irrefutable. But as soon as we enter the realm of thought and philosophy, everything, almost without exception, is subjective, and therefore, as Vickers offers, relative. But I find it strange that she makes such a statement only seconds after presenting all-encompassing blanket claims about why it will be impossible for ‘women’, the assumption is this is ‘all’ women, without any clarification, will be unable to achieve any moral society built on capitalism ‘anywhere’ in the world. Does not the concept of relative and subjective play a part in any of this, or are all women subservient and in agreement with this one self-centered feminist? That is a lot to take into consideration a minute into the debate, wouldn’t you say?

Personal perspectives are by definition a specific interpretation of the things that happen to us in our limited environment. Therefore, this tends to mean that what we experience may not necessarily be what another perceives. In fact, I would argue, that since the totality of my life is contained in my personal events and my interpretation of them, it would be next to impossible to have another individual actually comprehend my reactions to those events, and ultimately whatever conclusions that become apparent to me.

So yes, morality is ‘relative’. As are ethical thoughts and actions as well as moral behaviour, and the integrity we utilize to exemplify that attribute. All the more reason that we need some reasoned arguments as to the what and why of the morality and ideology itself. Telling me that my position is inferior does nothing to convince anyone but a dullard as to the ‘truth’ of a concept or a philosophy.

The language of intimidation, this soon into the exercise of debate, is troubling to say the least. Let us have a spirited discussion, make your point, and question me relentlessly, but do so with respect as you do, and at least the appearance that the other camp can be passionate in their approach, and possibly even possess some legitimacy in some minor way. Is this not even possible in the land of the socialist? It would seem not. If there is no intent to listen and contemplate, as Ms. Vickers intimates, is there even a reason to have a debate? What are we attempting to achieve here? Information and education, or just more control and misdirection? Again, as a writer, we are told incessantly to show and not tell. At this point, the telling is evident, but the showing is yet to be introduced.

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers: “ I’d like to begin by asking ourselves why the ideas which underlie capitalism or free enterprise still seem to have so much power so long after their point of creation?”

***********************************************************************************

(LCW) I guess my initial response would be that this laissez-faire ‘system’ has only been around for maybe 300 years, and notwithstanding a somewhat inept criticism as to its efficacy, has been the primary reason that we have the technology and progress that our societies enjoy today. That is not to say that there are not shortcomings and areas that need to be addressed. No one says that. It is obvious. But let us be realistic here. Socialism has officially existed for much the same period of time. What exactly have they accomplished in any respect? Where and when? Collectivism itself has pretty well existed since the inception of the social group and has never been able to demonstrate a willingness or a capability of people to act in such a way, spontaneously for wont of a better term, to the benefit of the community as a whole.

The easy answer is that it, capitalism, works. Not perfectly by any means, but almost nothing that we are able to purchase today, and the technology that it depends upon, would simply not be available, in large part, without capitalism or something similar. I know, I know, it takes a village and ‘you didn’t build that’. Easy to say, something quite different when you have to give examples. The vast majority of creativity, innovation, and production have come about from the incentives available through capitalism. But that, again, is not about the morality of the system. Saying something is moral or not loses credibility without a reasoned argument as a component of the statement. It is still not proof, there may be no verifiable proof, but it does go to the point of credibility.

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers: “ …. My honorable opponent Leonard Peikoff argued the case in pragmatic terms. In his book he wrote historically capitalism worked brilliantly, and yes, pragmatically it’s true, capitalism worked but so did slavery and so did patriarchy until they didn’t work anymore, and both stopped working historically because of the moral costs involved could no longer be borne of systems that work for the lucky few at the expense of the many who were dispossessed because of their color, their health, their age, their family heritage or their sex”.

***********************************************************************************

(LCW) What book? Do you know that he has written more than one? Are you quoting him or are you paraphrasing him? The disingenuousness of comparing capitalism with slavery is a dishonest strategy. Disparage, demean, marginalize and attempt to negate character to make a point? How about making an actual point, with evidence and reason? What does patriarchy have to do with these issues, except from a feminist point of view? Are you even interested in addressing the focus of the so-called debate? Who says they stopped working, and when was it said? I never heard of such a determination. You have the audacity to proclaim these things without rhyme or reason? What moral costs were incurred and by who? You have yet to even intimate what morality is, but you have tried and convicted a ‘historically’ successful system without the need for fact, or even fantasy for that matter. To have a legitimate claim to any of these comments it is imperative, on you alone, to define the focus of the debate at hand, and try and refrain from defining the issue on your personal terms. She has yet to make any direct comments about socialism or the morality thereof. Don’t expect any.

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers: “…. now let me make my point as clearly as I can. Many economic systems based on moral injustice have worked brilliantly in productive terms but all have eventually been discredited because their legitimating ideologies could no longer hide their immoral character so it's really not very surprising that my worthy opponents will persuade people, or try to persuade people, of the morality of capitalism rather than its functionality”.

***********************************************************************************

(LCW) It is really quite debilitating to listen to people who have so little to say. I realize that we are in a discussion that relies heavily on opinion, but a debate is founded on reasoned dialogue based on at least some modicum of information if not actual evidence or facts. She pleads with the listener to allow her to be clear and yet proceeds to say nothing that she even attempts to validate. Her whole proposition is without merit, it is barely an opinion. You can’t just point to ‘many’ economic systems and think that you have made some kind of point, and you can’t talk of undefined systems being discredited, when the system is not identified, the discrediting is not clarified, and the attempt to link these vagaries with capitalism itself is so dishonest. Guilt by association. The implication is not lost on this ‘listener’. This does not reflect badly on the system in question that she attempts to attack, but on the speaker herself. This is not even on the level of a debate at the high school freshman level.

She has yet to educate us what the morality of socialism is, much yet what socialism itself is, and she is condemning capitalism as hiding its ‘immoral character’ behind misinformation and a perverted ‘persuasion’? And please, stop calling the people that you obviously despise your ‘worthy’ opponent. You have said it at least four times already and it is nauseating. No one believes you.

You say that your ‘worthy opponent’ will “persuade, or try to persuade people, of the morality of capitalism, rather than it functionality”? I thought the debate was about morality and not functionality. When did you change the rules? Pickoff’s intro went into the moral underpinnings of the ideology of capitalism. Ms. Vickers has yet to touch any of the intended concepts. We anxiously await the unveiling.

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers: “….the ideas used to legitimize the activities of laissez-faire capitalism are very seductive because they express to all of us a childhood wish and that childhood wish is that we could do what we want to do without having to even worry about hurting other people and if only it were true if only that childish wish were true and that there were some magic hand that would solve our moral dilemmas for us”.

***********************************************************************************

(LCW) Ah, seduction. What a fascinating concept. Does socialism not seduce the masses to think that they will get their fair share of the pie, even when there is no one to bake the pie? Does it not intimate that you, the individual, will do better under socialism because we will all benefit from taking down those of ability just a notch, and will reap something from them that was unearned and undeserved? Where else does the pie come from? Those that work hard in capitalism will benefit from their effort, and those that do the minimum will have lives enhanced by what those of ability produce. I hate to repeat myself but I will continue to do so as long as she does not address and explain socialism and the morality that drives it. How does it work exactly, and who produces in socialism, voluntarily, the equivalent of thousands of hours, as well as dollars that are necessary in capitalism to be successful.

Who, in socialism, will be the creators and innovators? Who will produce those appliances and devices, and cars, and houses and companies and food when we are all equal, with no incentive to go above and beyond? Every single instance or example of a successful socialist government has a capitalistic component that pays the bills. Why is that even necessary? Can socialism not exist independently of capitalism? Why has it never worked elsewhere? If I am mistaken, then where and when did it exist? Your precepts are irrational unless you can prove otherwise. And why do you incessantly continue to deconstruct capitalism when you have not spent a second of effort in a reasoned argument for the existence of socialism, and not just a narrative for the destruction and negation of capitalism? Is there a fear of competition? Capitalism thrives on merit and competition. Socialism cowers in fear in attempting to legitimize itself, with the exception of intimidation and rhetoric.

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers: “ …. I think there's one other dimension of this seductive ideology that we have to explore and that's the thesis that by being selfish we're contributing to some positive good the goal of freedom now who can be opposed to freedom even if a small voice tells us that our dream of freedom our childish dream of freedom may only be achieved by a few on the backs of the many and when we're young the seductive lure of this call to self-interest is very clear come along they say join the parade it's a nice parade you too can enjoy life in the fast lane”.

***********************************************************************************

(LCW) It’s amazing how some individuals have the propensity, as well as the talent, to pervert and misinterpret the values and belief systems of others that they disagree with, often for no other reason than they were never successful at it when they tried. Even when they have no real reason except for some emotional gut-feeling that even they cannot explain.

There is an in-grown aversion to calling selfishness what it is for those that simply cannot comprehend what is meant, and have no intention of trying to understand what it is, if for no other reason than to try and judge those philosophies or ideologies from a position of strength, instead of from ignorance and fear, often manifest in a position of arrogance and hubris.

Were we supposed to be involved in a reasoned argument? Well, it seems that some of us are listening to some ‘small voices’ that tell us otherwise. That’s legitimate, isn’t it? Whether it is the whisper of a god, or the state, is that not as well ‘seductive’ and release us from any responsibilities to question or even worse, to answer honestly when asked a question?

There is the mention of childish dreams, but does not socialism entice us with the promise of a world where everything is accomplished and all wrongs are resolved simply through the process of ‘want’ or ‘need’, regardless of the lack of resources and the inability to pay the piper at some point? What is a ‘childish dream’ if not socialism?

It is repugnant to hear the accusation of the few profiting on the backs of the many. To what end do you have legitimate examples of this even happening? Is this because there are poor in the world? Is there a direct cause and effect that you can produce to give credibility to your claims? A vast majority of companies do nothing whatsoever to take advantage of an individual, and that is demonstrable. The few that do could be rectified if you really wanted to. A change in representation could do it, you know. But not if you refuse to accept the fact that your representation, those you vote for and protest in the street for, are as guilty as the day is long. It is always the ‘other’ individuals representative, the ‘others’ political party, the ‘other’ economic philosophy. The indistinct and undefinable ‘them’, but never the ever-present ‘you’. If there is no will to fix the system that exists, with all of the safeguards that no one seems to remind our representatives is their sworn duty to uphold, then exactly how do you expect, when the new age of socialism rears its ugly head, those very same people to magically begin exhibiting ethical behaviour, making correct moral judgments and acting with an integrity that is non-existent in our society today? Please, explain it to me.

When one is ignorant of a concept it would do them well to make an attempt to comprehend and to contemplate the ramifications of such ignorance. There is no contradiction in terms with rational self-interest and an ethical morality, even objectively. The refusal to listen or even consider that you do not know is of much concern to me. It shows a resistance to reason and the acceptance of self-destructive behaviour. I would love to have challenged either of the socialist speakers present to give a respectful summation of what rational self-interest is. I find it incomprehensible that someone that understands the principles, even if not in agreement, could make statements such as this if they were informed, or simply open-minded. I did not see that at any point in this conversation, and we are virtually at the beginning of the exercise.

There is no promise of a better life in the ‘fast-lane’. That is a term from your own mind. There are those that think capitalism is nothing more than that. They are not the true capitalists, and certainly not of an Objective perspective. You have to consider that occasionally. All capitalists are not believers, the same as all socialists are not true believers either. There are many opportunists in both camps, way too many. The fact that you do not allow this reality sets you up to be manipulated and controlled by whoever gains power and ‘requests’ your cooperation. Poor you.

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers: “…. and as a young woman, I thought feminists should demand equal rights to join that parade in the fast lane. I thought that being free meant to pursue my self-interest. There was a terrible temptation to reject those values of nurturance and compassion, cooperation, and commitment to the community which women have traditionally upheld and I don't want to fly under false colors it probably wasn't virtue that saved me from joining that parade I know for a fact it was the realization that this freedom parade was bedecked with signs that said very few women need apply”.

***********************************************************************************

(LCW) Is this a debate on the morality of socialism versus capitalism or is this some self-absorbed memoire on a feminist coming of age? I am a bit concerned that this is an attempt to hijack the debate. What does this have to do with socialism? What is the morality of the comments?

Your, dare I say, selfish interests are of no concern to me. I don’t care if you wish to join some idealized ‘fast-lane’ of your own construction. I am not really interested if your underdeveloped philosophy thought that ‘being free meant to pursue my self-interest’ at the expense of others. Mine don’t. These things are not germane to the subject under discussion. I am hard-pressed to understand why I have to contemplate your temptation of rejecting values of nurturance has any reference to morality and socialism. You have not talked of socialism since your first comments. Why is that? What exactly is this compassion and cooperation? There is nothing that has ‘traditionally’ been dictated by what is important to women. Do you think that you can talk as a representative for ALL women? Do you really think there is anything that ‘women’, as a specific and definable group, have traditionally supported or rejected? Can you explain how you reached that understanding? You seem to insinuate that any non-woman cannot have any of that nurturance and compassion, cooperation, and commitment to the community of which you speak? You do understand how discriminatory and sexist that statement sounds? Or do you?

I’m sorry, but I have to ask, what colors are you flying under, and what exactly does that mean? What type of virtue would preclude you ‘joining that parade’? You do understand that the ‘parade’ of which you speak did not exist until you brought it into the conversation? I am not completely sure I even understand what that means, and, of course, you did not deign to clarify the comment.

How can you know for a fact that this self-constructed parade was ‘bedecked’ with a sign that told you ‘no women need apply’? Exactly how did you determine that this was in reality a ‘fact’? Where does any of this come from? Are there respected and recognized philosophers, psychologists, historians, economists, or astrologists that have helped you to reach these conclusions? I find myself on the edge of the abyss.

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers: “ …. one of the most devastating effects of technological capitalism I think has been its numbing of the powers of imagination especially with regard to our ability to envisage new human and communal relationships. I'm a feminist because I feel endangered by this kind of society. I feel endangered when I realize that so-called free enterprise makes billions of dollars each year out of the pornography industry which desensitizes the men I care about including my sons to the degradation of women's bodies I feel endangered by the knowledge that those in charge are willing to spend billions of dollars on weapons to defend their rights to this vaunted notion of freedom while threatening my life, my children's lives, your lives in the very life of this Planet”.

***********************************************************************************

(LCW) Allow me to offer you my condolences for your loss. Your loss of perspective, and your loss of reason. I feel like I have fallen down the rabbit hole into the realm of Alice in Wonderland. We seem to have lost a grasp of reality that needs to be re-examined.

I’m not even sure I comprehend what is meant by the ‘numbing powers of the imagination especially with regard to our ability to envisage new human and communal relationships. Do we need an instructional manual to follow this?
I am truly sorry that you feel endangered and hope that you can find some help in the resolution of your problem, but this, once again, is not a debate or an investigation into your personal issues. This is about socialism and capitalism, and you seem to have lost your way.

If you truly feel endangered by ‘this kind of society’ can we at least define exactly what it is that creates fear in your perception, and what form that takes as it relates to capitalism and morality? Try to stay focused. Your ability to digress is only matched by your inability to define and explain your point of view.

We may even be able to agree that the issue of pornography is something that deserves attention, but is this the forum for such a discussion? This is but a single, and somewhat unrelated subject to what is the focus of our discussion. There is no argument that pornography is an issue that needs to be discussed, but not here, and not under the imperatives of this conversation. Pornography is a result of freedom, and if you are not for freedom, make your position clear, and we can discuss it.

Freedom also means the right to have an abortion. Do you have an issue with that? Many people do. Freedom also means the right to practice a religion irrespective if others agree or not. Do you have an issue with that? Freedom also means to have the right to marry whomever you please, and to live where you please, and to think what you wish, when you wish, and wherever you wish. Do you have any issues with that? Freedom means the right to be a feminist and to be gay and to be able to vote, to be able to be treated like any other individual in society, and to not be discriminated against or treated differently than any other citizen. Do you have any issues with that? Do you really mean to intimate that capitalism has anything to do with these concepts in any way whatsoever? Do you have some evidence to that end? Of course you don’t, because they simply have no relationship. Then why do you react so prejudicially when someone disagrees with your opinion, and yes, it is only, and simply your opinion, in relation to positions about things that we both may agree are inappropriate and unacceptable in a reasonable society? I have to ask. Is anything that you disagree with completely incompatible with a reasonable society? Is it possible that those you disagree with have rights as well? Is it even possible to talk about it? It says a lot about your position and your philosophy if only you can grant others the rights that everyone is entitled to. What is your position? Can we hear it? Can you articulate it?

You have a very specific perspective on freedom and rights. Those billions of dollars that you decry spent on these ‘weapons’ protect your right to speak of these issues, even though you present no validation or legitimacy for your own position. When are you going to speak of socialism? When are you going to speak of morality? When are you going to engage in debate? Your narrative is extremely discouraging for progress in any future scenario.

***********************************************************************************

Jill Vickers: “ …. and it's very tempting for the feminist to say a plague on both your houses, I want no part of this corrupt male-stream political order but that would be a fundamental error the point is that the ideal of socialism is not only a form of government or a manner of managing the economy it is a way of life of living and of associating which balances self-interest with concern and compassion with others it believes with that awful old sexist Jean-Jacques Rousseau that we're a curious species equally capable of self-love and love for others and so I'm both a socialist and a feminist because I believe that morality requires a community capable of balancing our childhood dreams of self-assertion with our grown-up sense of compassion and responsibility with others for me there's no other strategy that will work and there's no other truly moral choice”.

***********************************************************************************

(LCW) It is so difficult to comment on the statements of someone who does not accept anything at all of my reality. So it is tempting to say a plague on both your houses? But you do not say so? So why bring it up at all? What exactly do both houses mean? Do you agree with no one? I need clarification with exactly who and what are these houses of which you speak.

I think that it speaks volumes when you proclaim that you ‘want no part of this corrupt ‘male-stream’ political order’. It is very sad that you do not wish to engage with anyone on either side of the aisle. It is evidence of an inability to discuss any issue, and more importantly, since we are in a debate, to debate the issues that you do not accept. Your whole segment has been without merit, without focus on the debate, without legitimacy, and without substance. I accept that you are a feminist, I guess I really don’t have much of a choice, but that was not the objective of your segment. You gave us no insight into socialism, no explanation why we should accept the legitimacy of its morals or even its existence. It was a horrible representation of what you were invited to this forum to discuss.

You finally speak of socialism as a form of government but you offer no foundational information or insight. You speak of it as an economic option for management of the economy but you offer no reason to even consider the alternative. You proclaim that it is a ‘way of life of living and associating which balances self-interest with concern and compassion with others but you give no examples or and compelling argument that shows the efficacy of such behaviour in any way whatsoever. You give no explanations. Your position is vapid. It is moot. It means nothing. There is no substance. The most intriguing part is that, at least in essence, I feel the exact same way about my own philosophy and its fundamentals.

Capitalism, to me, is a government that manages the economy or is supposed to. It has failed miserably, but that has nothing really to do with capitalism although it has much to do with morality. My Objectivist and capitalistic beliefs balance and associate my philosophy with my rational self-interest, which impacts no one else in any negative way, I have a never-ending empathy, concern, and compassion for all those around me, even those that believe in socialism, and I passionately believe that mankind is equally able to practice self-love as well as love another, and Objectivism holds that concept as an essential and integral aspect to the ideology and philosophy and you don’t even seem to be cognizant of that fact. You profess nothing that I do not, and yet your words belie your professed intent. You obviously exhibit self-love, but that love for others seems to be a bit sketchy based on your comments towards today’s opposition.

Your comment that “there's no other strategy that will work and there's no other truly moral choice” only illustrates that you have not come to the table with an open mind, and have no expectation of the exchange of ideas with the possibility of persuading nor being persuaded based on a reasoned argument. I find that sad and self-destructive.

Your reference to Rousseau is incomprehensible. Why do you call him a sexist? Is that somewhat irresponsible? What is the relevance? Yes, we are a curious and a compelling species. What does that mean? Yes, we are capable of self-love, and as a Christian, which you said you are not ashamed of, you do realize that Jesus said to “love yourself, as you love your neighbor”. What does that mean to you? Is it not selfish to love oneself? Was Jesus in error? Should we rethink his comments? Should we rethink the entire Bible?

Stating that “I believe that morality requires a community capable of balancing our childhood dreams of self-assertion with our grown-up sense of compassion and responsibility with others for me there's no other strategy that will work and there's no other truly moral choice”, is somewhat nebulous. How does one ‘balance our childhood dreams’? What in the world in a ‘self-assertion without a grown-up sense of compassion and responsibility’? Do you present that this is an absolute and all socialists and feminists are in complete agreement with you?

You said that morality is relative, and by definition that is personal and intimately unique to each individual. How does that transform into a ‘community’ mindset?

What do you base your dogmatic statement that there is ‘no other’ strategy and ‘no other truly moral choice'? You have yet to define or discuss morality in any way, and as far as ‘strategy’ is concerned, I have no idea of what you are speaking.
A thoroughly confusing and frustrating presentation. Never defending or even speaking of socialism or anything really even peripherally related to the concept. An attempt to insert the subject of feminism into a discussion that has only a tertiary connection. A poor showing, and a glaring disrespect for the forum at which she speaks. A very disappointing opportunity for me to understand the reasons for even entertaining the legitimacy of the ideology of socialism. A very poor submission, reflecting an unprepared presentation on behalf of the ideology as well as the individual. Very disappointing.

***********************************************************************************