1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Rebuttal: Dr. Leonard Peikoff

 
 
 

There is no reason why any man should be equal to any other except equality before the law. Social justice is gaining what you have earned, and no man deserves another mans' property. Communal ownership is a negation of all rights        

 
 
 
 

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

Leonard Peikoff

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

Dr. Peikoff: “ …. Well, I would need five hours to even comment on the number of absolutely fantastic charges made without any content or foundation, and I want to make a few more points. I'm going to try to stay on the topic of the debate which is morality and not Central America. There is no justification for egalitarianism and morality, nor did our opponents offer any. There is no reason why every man should be equal to every other in anything except equality before the law. People differ in their intelligence, in their morality, in their honesty, in their conscientiousness, and if you talk about social justice as one of them did, justice consists of gaining what you have earned by your own efforts, not in an equality which requires somebody else's production to be taken from him and given to you when you didn't earn it.

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

(LCW) It seems pretty obvious and irrefutable. There is a certain sadness. I think that it is unfortunate that the debate is won and lost by default. It was an opportunity to present a cogent and reasonable argument for what they say is an important issue, but they neglected to bring their views and beliefs and engage the audience in a passionate discussion. I am disappointed on so many levels.

The point is not even that one perspective may be right, or more right, than the other. It is the fact that we are not even talking about the substance of the positions, but keep talking about peripheral issues, and inevitably, nothing gets accomplished. As Dr. Peikoff says, they didn’t even offer anything of value up to this point, and I am confused and frustrated at the inability to do so. Or is it strategic and premeditated? I see it so often with the narrative from the left, with the socialists a mirror image of that conversation. I simply don’t understand why they refuse, and it is a refusal since no one has any control over their responses but themselves. They seem to be disconnected and uninterested in the focus being on the essence of the debate. Almost to the point that they have no fundamental confidence in their own ability to prosecute a valid defense or explanation of their own philosophy. Truly incomprehensible.

Pickoff’s single statement could be the focus of a lengthy debate. He asks legitimate questions. Why do they remain unanswered? I have no idea. Present the moral justification for egalitarianism, when it is obvious that all individuals are not equal in any real sense. We cannot legislate equality any more than we can legislate intelligence, common sense, or athletic ability. We can hide from the reality of what exists, and we can talk of helping or educating those with less to do more with whatever talents are available to them, but pretending something to be true that obviously is not true at all is irrational.

Why not step back from the expectation of some kind of perfection for every human being, and be realistic in our goals and work towards creating a hybrid that helps those who truly cannot help themselves, and offer whatever resources are necessary to allow the others to create and develop an environment that they can use to have an existence of value and substance, where they are not a burden on their neighbor, and willingly accept the responsibilities and obligations of being in a communal relationship with those neighbors? Egalitarianism, perhaps, but in opportunity and not in an unachievable equality in result. With a community available, not to give you what you need, but to be instrumental in teaching you how to realize independence on your own, and truly become a participating member of a vibrant society. Dare I say it, an integral part of the ‘greater good’? I find it hard to accept that the only way to do this is through coercive charity and totalitarian actions, instead of voluntary, creative, insightful and empathetic conclusions.

We need to have people actually discuss and debate issues such as ‘social justice’ and not just engage in a rhetorical war of words to attain power and never deliver resolution. With each passing day, I fear that the ability and the possibility are slowly slipping away from us. There is no concerted effort to do anything but demean, vilify and condemn. It’s not what we need. It’s not going to work, and all those people that they want to help will remain forever in a limbo of their own making.

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

Dr. Peikoff: “ …. with regard to the claim that we are concerned with property rather than people we deny such a dichotomy. People cannot exist without property, they're not ghosts. A system which preserves human freedom has to preserve the right to the physical goods that you yourself have produced, otherwise you can be free in heaven but on this earth you have to take orders from the government, so if you're talking about freedom that has to include the freedom to own property and that means private property”.

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

(LCW) I find that the liberal/socialist perspective always presents issues in a dictatorial format where everything is black and white, us and them, for us or ‘agin’ us. This creates a false narrative virtually every time before the issue can even be addressed. It is what they have done with the concept of capitalism. If you believe in trade and production without the heavy hand of government being involved, then you have to accept the actions of every charlatan and grafter as proof that the system does not work and is inherently flawed, and not that it may be individuals that pervert the intent. They refuse at the same time to acknowledge that same responsibility with their own ideology, but that seems to be OK. It’s not. If there is one thing that I have found in life, it is that there are almost no absolutes whatsoever. Life is a million shades of grey, and for each of us to decide which one has relevance, and just how much grey we can accept and still retain some integrity in our actions.

They simply will not compromise, and ironically, in the case of a debate, will not even discuss it where they may not come out on top, so they speak to themselves, and I guess they believe that if they can convince themselves they will convince others, which, of course, rarely works. That is why they do not wish to ‘vote’ on issues, no matter how much they proclaim that their socialism simply ‘must’ be based on democracy. If not, then why do they not vote openly in the system that we already have, that has a component of freedom to actually vote? Is it because the majority of the people are not actually in agreement with their goals? I think that is part of the problem. There is nothing that cannot be resolved under the present system, no matter the degree of corruption and perversion. In any case, those things will simply be transferred to whatever system will replace it, and I think it undeniable that the new paradigm, without the inclusion of the genius that went into our own Constitution and founding documents, will result in a far inferior version of government, and we will all be the worse for that eventuality.

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

Dr. Peikoff: “ …. if I have to get the consensus of the people in this room let alone of the whole country's government before I can act, I am a slave and any communal ownership of property necessarily means the negation of all rights, it means dictatorship and it is of absolutely no difference whether it's achieved by majority rule or by a minority coup. If I am not in the majority that voted, once they establish this system I am just as much enslaved. It doesn't make any difference how many people voted for that government, so I don't even recognize such a phenomenon as democratic socialism. Once it's socialism that's the end of anybody's power except the power of the government”.

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

(LCW) I realize that it is very tempting for many to dream of getting something for nothing. I dream of winning the lottery, and that, besides outright theft or donation, and possibly inheritance, is the only way that happens. We cannot ‘vote’ away property rights, unless, of course, that ‘everyone’ votes for it, and that would mean a ‘unanimous’ vote, or something approaching it. Not 51%, nor 70% or even 90%.

Both sides of the issues speak of ethics, and morality, and I speak of character and especially integrity. How can you profess to these things if what you do is to ‘steal’, or take by force, the fruits of someone else’s mental abilities, their creative and intellectual resources, not to mention the physical labour and time and effort put into education and planning, as well as dollars, which were all reliant on these same things to be produced and exist, through the use of fiat or legislation? How does one justify that?

Those without will ‘always’ vote for the execution of such a law, and an execution is what it actually is. The execution of production, and incentive, and motivation. The negation of any hope for the future, any expectations of a better life based on an individuals’ own sweat and tears, and an inevitable expectation only in the ‘largesse’ of nameless neighbors and bureaucrats, not even representatives, to dole out to those they interpret as having need, and taking from those that for some arbitrary reason, have so much more than they could possibly use, and probably achieved under dubious circumstances.

There will be no need of any evidence or proof. It will all be an exercise in subjectivity in regards to that need, and their interpretation of concepts such as selfishness and selflessness, which they will never need to define nor exhibit. Why do you think that collectivism, in all of its forms, has never been successful? It is not because capitalism exists, as some would have you believe, and use that as a weapon to try and expunge the concept from our consciousness and our reality. It is because it drains the ability to care about almost anything at all at some point.

Why work hard if the ‘state’ is going to take it from you, if and when they deem it necessary. If I cannot keep property, my house, my possessions, my life savings, are all an intangible that cannot be counted on to be there tomorrow. Do I work 100 hours a week for 50 years so that some undetermined person of ‘need’ gets it? Why not work 40 hours and save absolutely nothing? Why work hard for anything if we all get the same benefit? Russia is a great example. The ‘proletariat’ took over, threw out the manufacturers and the businessmen, and within years the economy was sucked dry.

Those that ended up benefiting from the change had nothing to do with it personally. Everyone had to wait in lines to get what before they could buy with their rubles. Business ceased to produce viable products. Eventually they allowed capitalism and private ownership back into the equation, since without it, it was inevitable that the system would crash. China has done the same thing. Without capitalism they would not be an economic threat to the world, they would be what they had been for millennia, an agrarian and unsophisticated society. And in every case, whatever socialist construct was created, ‘democratic’ or not, has collapsed at some point without the ‘capitalistic’ component that is the life blood of any successful experiment on the world stage.

If there is no one that wishes to devote, and ‘sacrifice’ their existence to the whole, then the dream ceases. Socialism, to be successful, needs not just one or a small group of individuals to do this, but virtually every single member of that greater good. It has never happened in history, and never will. The human condition doesn’t work that way. The men of intelligence and creative thought, and productive ability are the ones that drive the bus. Make no mistake about it, the workers are an integral and indispensable part of the whole, and there needs to be a paradigm that takes that into account, which capitalism does. With the underpinning of an Objectivist philosophy, or any legitimately ethical and moral ideology, capitalism will give all the participants the ability to achieve some semblance of success. Equality of opportunity will exist, but equality of result will not.

You can certainly disagree if you wish, but the scenario that Dr. Peikoff lays out is undeniably a version of slavery. Is that what they envision? I know it isn’t, but please educate me and explain how being forced to work and give up that work, to think, and to give up the fruits of that ability, to produce, and get nothing in return, to work whether you agree or not, doing what has been determined by others, to a degree that may or may not be unacceptable to you, and gain no satisfaction or remuneration for you effort, is not slavery. What do you call that then? It seems that we call it socialism. If we allow a modicum of capitalism, subservient to the socialism, does that make it right, is that a ‘hybrid’ capitalism? From my perspective, it is only a hybrid paradigm of slavery. I don’t see how you can characterize it as anything else.

If anyone out there thinks there will ever be something approaching true equality of result, they are irrational, and should be avoided. It will not happen. We need to reduce and control that element to the best of our ability, but that requires that we understand the differences between right and wrong, and resist and reject those that do no exhibit the attributes that are necessary to ensure a consistent and stable environment to allow such a reality. Anything else is doomed to failure. Socialism is a societal dead-end.

It is inarguable, and that is why there is no determined action on the part of the socialists in this debate and any other I have watched or heard or participated in. It is indefensible, and they know it. But the need and the lust for power and control is something even more coercive than socialism. They don’t care what you call the system, as long as there is a benefit in it for them. The scary part is many do not even do it for personal gain. They actually believe in it. Take an impossible dream, and mix it with fanatical participation, and you have a recipe for disaster.

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

Dr. Peikoff: “ …. there's many misrepresentations of our view. Our opponents seem to confuse us with the moral majority in the United States. We do not advocate governmental interference in abortion, we do not advocate governmental censorship of pornography although apparently one of the opponents seems to suggest that she is in favor of that. We do not advocate, we are not quote conservatives, in the sense that we want government control of the mind. We want government out, only for the purpose of protecting individual rights as defined by Dr. Ridpath, so don't confuse us with Jerry Falwell, please”.

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

(LCW) If the audience does not acknowledge that misrepresentations are being presented, then I have no recourse but to recognize a level of ignorance and credulity that will ensure a socialist leadership at some point in the future. These are not misconceptions or concepts in need of clarification, this is by intent and done premeditatively. The capitalist speakers have been quite specific about what they believe, and they have repeatedly made their points with a consistency that is admirable. I simply can’t say the same for the socialist presentation.

How in the world can you confuse Objectivism, or even the concept of capitalism, with anything ever uttered by any representation of the moral majority? Objectivism does not even embrace the concept of a deity in its tenets, much less the perspective possessed by that group. I don’t believe that it is outright rejected by the philosophy, although many would disagree with me, as well as Rand herself. I don’t accept that god and religion are the anathema she promotes but recognize her concerns and the fact that it does indeed result in many instances of just another example of power and control over the individual and the absence of individual choice. I find socialism much closer in essence to religion than capitalism or Objectivism. God and religion are often benign in intent, and can be used as a tool to understanding and a gateway to philosophy in general, but I do understand her concerns. I spoke previously on absolutes, and god and religion are not an absolute, either in the context of good, or evil.

I believe that the good Doctor makes an excellent point when he states that his side, Objectivism, does not favor the use of state power in anything but the fundamentals that have been offered as the states’ role in society, the authority when it comes to the intrusion and initiation of force, either internally or externally, and the settlement of disputes between individuals.

Isn’t it ironic that the socialist have a whole host of specific issues where they would like the state to intercede on the behalf of their pet peeves? When does this ‘democracy’ that they reference get to be a part of the ideology and it processes? They demonstrably ‘do not’ believe in freedoms, except for the ones that they have determined are necessary. It is the same scenario once more. Freedom as long as you agree with ‘us’, us being the state, and you being the ‘not-state’, whose opinion is marginal at best, until you create an environment where you are to ‘self-sacrifice’ yourself to the greater good. They attempt to never speak in terms of your termination, but what happens when you are not in the mood to self-sacrifice? I would really enjoy hearing that answer from one of our ‘esteemed’ speakers.

To label either of these speakers on the side of capitalism and Objectivism as ‘conservative’ is somewhat disingenuous, since they are not really conservatives. I, personally, would have to admit I am conservative leaning, but I have a myriad of views that would unequivocally be considered progressive, even liberal, as well as anarchistic at times. These speakers are not considered ‘mainstream’ by any definition. They think outside the box, promote ideas that are not accepted by the majority of conservatives, except when it benefits themselves, and are often at odds with any number of individuals across the board.

While possibly more conservative than liberal, I speak for myself only, but think they might agree, I have no loyalties to either the Democrats or the Republicans, and find that much of what they do is self-destructive to the country and irresponsible and contra-Constitutional, if not treasonous in nature to the very existence of this great republic. If anyone cannot accept this as offered, the issue, and the problem, exists within themselves, and not in my own philosophical beliefs.

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

Dr. Peikoff: “ …. as to the question of the lucky few versus the many who are dispossessed and the constant idea that capitalism is a system of exploitation, that is nonsense. Wealth has to be created, it doesn't grow on trees and there's a limitless amount. One person's creation is not taken from another, it is a Marxist myth that you get rich at the expense of the poor. If they're poor how did you get the money from them to begin with? ….

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

(LCW) With all due respect to the socialistic perspective, it becomes an imperative after a number of accusations, for the ideology to explain this conflict between the few who benefit, and the many who are dispossessed. It is extremely dishonest to continually make these statements without citation and some kind of evidence. No one argues that there are poor, as well as that infamous 1%, but the onus is on those who make the accusations to bring clarity to the discussion. I realize that they think it self-evident, but some don’t accept that there is a direct link between cause and effect. We ask for a demonstration, an education if you will, as to the validity of the claims.

I, myself, have never been a member of the vaulted 1%. Wanted to be, but it never happened. I worked fairly hard to be in that dubious sweet spot of the 50%, give or take a point or two. Was able to buy a house, and retire with it paid off, a few dollars in the bank, a couple of cars in pretty good shape, even a small boat and miscellaneous stuff to go with the lifestyle. We don’t live outside of our means, although we know many who do.

I find many, many discrepancies with the way the country is run, economically, as well as socially, etc. I see many ways to fix it and believe that it could have been done better, and I see uncountable paths to a better life for those who are deemed as ‘dispossessed’. If half the country can achieve some modicum of success, why can we not make available a path for most (acknowledged that it may never be all) of those individuals to create a better life and future for themselves and their loved ones? Capitalism has done this, irrefutably in the past, and could do much better in the future if our efforts were not misplaced. Most of the millionaires created in this country, and around the world as well, have been self-made. They did not inherit, so while there are issues with deceptive gains by some, it is not endemic, or even prevalent. Most have earned what they have, and for those that have not, why has the paradigm not been addressed and resolved? Because of the economic system, or the corruption that is possible and rampant at every level of business and representation, and much of the responsibility for this lies in the purview of each and every individual citizen in whatever country you would like to talk about.

Exploitation is a reality that we cannot ignore. The leeches and moochers and opportunists that exist will ‘always’ take advantage of a mark. It was P.T. Barnum that said “there is a sucker born every minute”. A different context, but the message is the same. And he was the opportunist that took advantage of it. Not because there was anything wrong with the country, or even the people, but just because he could, and he did. No ethics, possibly some rationalized version, no morals, because he had to know that it was wrong, no character or self-respect, and obviously no integrity in his interactions with other individuals. He was by definition ‘not’ an Objectivist, but well may have considered himself a socialist. From the many to the few, meaning himself, as well as the ‘greater good’, which is himself once again. That is the end result of most of histories experience with socialism. There are always those who are just like everyone else, but seem to have a lot more ‘stuff’ than anyone else, a lot more freedom than others, a lot more choices and money than almost anyone, and power that few will ever possess. Tell me I am wrong. Tell me that it is not ‘your’ version of socialism. Tell me that things will be different ‘this’ time, but don’t explain why it has never worked in the past. At least give it a shot. I’m interested, and I’m willing to listen. Unfortunately, I am not expecting much.

I must acknowledge that Dr. Peikoff may have some difficulties with his question on how you take money from those that don’t have any. It is not unreasonable to point out that taking away potential wealth is a real concern. Perhaps they do not have any money to begin with because there is an environment that is coercive and manipulative from the get-go. This is not to say that it is a completely legitimate criticism of capitalism as a cause of that lack of wealth or opportunity, but rather the inappropriate control by a specific individual or group. Oppression takes many forms, and comes in many guises, and can be an obstacle because of the existence of said oppression. This continually comes down to societal integrity and the lack of leadership and quality of same.

As long as those entrusted with the implicit responsibility to ensure the security and opportunity within the society are an integral part of the problem itself, there is no path to resolution, and the system is incapable of making the changes necessary to take away that impediment. As previously stated, it is my firm belief that it is not the system itself that is systemically flawed, but a perverted, personal based integrity that seems to be at odds with the human condition. The problem always seems to depend on the morality of those in positions of power. And once again, ironically, that is what this debate is supposed to be focused on, and halfway through this ordeal, while we have some perspective from the capitalist and Objectivist camp, there is a noticeable and disappointing lack of anything related to morality from the socialist camp.

The issues we confront have little to do with poverty and equality, healthcare and torture. All of these things stem from philosophy and personal responsibility and obligation, and that is inevitably based on the ethical and moral actions of the individual. This is the rightful focus that needs to be addressed. All of these other things are distractions, in the abstract, and are simply the result or symptom of the cancer that lies within. To change any of these things you need individuals of character and integrity that simply will not personally take part in the inappropriate behaviour outlined, and will not allow the leadership to reflect that which is anathema to the stated goals of the society. Even socialism could be a viable alternative, under very specific circumstances. Unfortunately, I fail to see it exhibited in the current ideology, as presented, and certainly not in the words and actions of the representation we have before us today.

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

Dr. Peikoff: “ …. one of my opponents interchangeably equated cooperation and commitment to the community. Now commitment to the community is a very dangerous thing. Commitment to the community is what any dictator advocates because the question immediately becomes who is the voice of the community? The community doesn't speak with one voice unless you have Adolf Hitler or his equivalent. Commitment to the community means obedience to the fury. A freedom means individualism, it means you are committed to your own life and you are not a surf of the community.

That is an entirely different thing from cooperation which term she used. Cooperation is peaceful, human agreement to do something together, the difference between cooperation under capitalism and under socialism, is that under capitalism if you don't want to cooperate you go your own way, but under socialism you have a gun held to your head, that is what the difference is, because that's what the function of government is. As far as William Buckley is concerned please do not confuse us with that entity.
Thank you.”

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

(LCW) It is a simple, albeit naïve consideration to equate cooperation with commitment. Dr. Peikoff started his initial segment with the proposition that we need to define the concepts as we go along that we intend to discuss, for the simple reason that words are being consistently perverted as to conventional meanings. This is not something that is not expected, at least to some degree. Language changes all the time, and some words change in context due to environment and usage, but the degree that has taken over our societal communication in the recent times is more than a bit troubling. It seems that words have begun to lose their meanings, and not just by the passage of time, but almost day to day, depending on the speaker, to the point where meaning is diluted and we are never sure anymore what the other person is even talking about. My major concern is if this is by design or through some quirk of evolution. It only helps one side of the societal conversation, as exemplified by our own debate today, and the main disadvantage is that it gives credibility to both sides of the argument since no one is sure anymore what anything actually means. This is not the way to investigate problems or discover the underlying causes of our challenges nor come up with ways to deal with them. This paradigm is the ally of chaos and misinformation, and I think our politics of the last decade is a clear example of such an environment.

Commitment is an elusive concept. It is not necessarily a positive or desirable thing at times. Slavery was a commitment by a specific group to take advantage of another. Mob rule is a commitment to a cause that in most cases is ill-advised. War is a commitment, as is peace. Justice is a commitment, as is vigilantism. Be careful what you wish for. Once started, it can be impossible at times to deter or control. Rebellion and revolution is a commitment, which always ends up in the death of untold individuals, for a reason, for a cause, for a commitment. Often, through intimidation and misinformation.

Freedom may be a stated goal, and occasionally is, but it is not an integral part of the commitment itself, since the freedom to disagree is normally frowned upon, sometimes with deadly consequences. Is that what we want? Not particularly.

Cooperation, on the other hand, is something that can only be accomplished through the ‘voluntary’ agreement of disparate individuals that have decided to work together towards common goals, and as soon as the direction is diverted or perverted, the ‘cooperation’ is reconsidered and possibly retracted. These concepts may well be compatible to one another, and work together to strengthen resolve and determination, but they are not, by any stretch, prerequisites to one another.

Dr. Peikoff makes the point, which has been confirmed many times throughout history, that this commitment to community can be dangerous, and result in the exact opposite of what was intended or expected. Cooperation, for that matter, can do the same. It is all reliant on that component of freedom and voluntary action that gives these concepts any validity or legitimacy.

He asks the question that goes to the heart of much of what we talk about today. Who exactly is the voice of the community within socialism? When we talk of morality and integrity, who defines these concepts, and is there any wiggle room for those that may agree in principle, but have issues with degrees, direction and implementation? Again, the concept of freedom is removed from the equation because that makes the whole exercise very messy, and takes away control from whatever self-appointed leader assumes authority within the socialist environment. Until you can answer that question, there can be no concrete philosophy, and no true cooperation or commitment.

In either case, the paradigm has to be based on voluntary agreement, i.e., freedom, or its nemesis, control and dogmatic philosophy. I just can’t accept blind acceptance in any form when it comes to life decisions. Both ideological camps are passionate in their beliefs, but only one is willing to blindly ‘follow-the-leader’ while the other wants it to be a process where there will always be the alternative of choice. You would think that both sides would demand that freedom should exist so as to ultimately decide for themselves, but that is not the case, and I have to deeply question why.

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