1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Rebuttal: John Ridpath

 
 
 

The sadness at the lack of engagement from the socialists is palpable. He questions the socialist position to the initiation of force in the disposition of some beautiful society and asks if the state, in socialism, is a coercive one?

           
 
 
 
 

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

John Ridpath

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

Dr. Ridpath: “ …. Dr. Vickers has said that she wants to bring this debate down to reality and by that she really means she wants to bring this discussion down to an unphilosophical level. Well, I have news for you, this is a philosophical topic you were invited here to discuss philosophy. You're invited here to discuss the morality behind your views and I'm expecting you to do that, the audience is expecting you to do that. I'd like to say that this is the fifth year in a row that I've debated socialists around this time of the year in a format similar to this and I've had it with you people, I really have had it with you.

Why it is that I can't get into an intellectual and philosophical debate with you people escapes me every time. I come into a debate, I'm faced with euphemisms, sarcasms, ad hominem arguments, vagueness, evading the point, appealing to emotion, and I've simply fed up with this.”

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

(LCW) While I find some fault with his ‘you people’ comment, I tend to interpret that as unfortunate. I can certainly feel his frustration with not being able to prosecute a debate with like-minded people that only want to defend their own perspectives and try to convince or dissuade others as to their own positions, only to be defending egregious and demeaning comments, no matter if preceded by words such as ‘worthy’ or ‘esteemed’ to give it the air of a scholarly and reasoned debate. The opportunity is certainly there for them to present what they say is the most important imperative of the human condition, and then devolve into infantile and vile characterizations and disrespectful comments. I am at a loss.

I fully support the wish to have the discussion that was envisioned, and I assume, agreed upon by all the participants. I find the moderator as culpable as those he does not scold for not following the rules. While I completely agree that a moderator should be virtually invisible, there is still a task to be done, and that has been invisible as well. Shame on you.

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

Dr. Ridpath: “ …. for you to come in here and intimate that we are appealing to childish wishes, that we are offering seductive ideas, that we are advocating some utopian future at some unknown time in the future, that some of us but certainly not the righteous believe in peace that we are actually at because of McCarthyism, that we are advocates of torture, that is totally inexcusable. We have been standing here arguing for the repudiation of the initiation of physical force in human affairs. How can you say that we are an advocate of torture, McCarthyism and all these things? Are you not hearing what we're saying?

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

(LCW) Some very reasonable comments and questions. It seems that some individuals believe that the goal of a debate is to personally destroy the opponent, under any circumstances, irrespective of reality or anything that can reasonably be stated, with evidence, as to their beliefs and actions. I see multiple instances where the accusations are in direct conflict with stated positions and beliefs. They are obviously stating that they don’t in fact believe what they profess and that they are blatant liars, but they do not say so. Where is the decorum, the respect, the benefit of the doubt, not as to outcome, but as to intent? It creates an impossible environment where there is no goodwill, no ‘scholarly’ investigation, no reasonable expectation, and a difficult situation where it is not even possible to present your argument, much less defend or refute. It is the antithesis of what a debate should be, and a total negation of the concept of sharing ideas and ideologies.

I think that many lose sight of the true objectives in a debate. It is not to break down reason, but to build up communication and perspectives to culminate in an elevated level of understanding, not just in the concepts covered, but in the process of sharing and analyzing information. I know that passion is inevitably a part of the procedure, but the debasement of the opponent is absolutely inappropriate. I believe that this particular debate is a stunning example of why we have so little improvement in the societal growth as we speak. It is a discordant note when you hear people talk of love and community, helping all around us, justice and equality, and looking forward to a time when we can all live together, and hear and see the complete opposite in both their words and deeds. I cringe to think of what comprises their thoughts. Is there no hope for mankind? The future looks bleak indeed.

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

Dr. Ridpath: “ …. now this debate is a serious issue and the essence of the issue, as far as I see it, with regards to socialism versus capitalism. Capitalism, properly defined as we've defined it, is the role of the initiation of physical force in human affairs, which you have not addressed yourself to the truth of the matter, is the state as a coercive institution, and you as socialists are advocating the coerced imposition of your view of the beautiful society on everybody here. That's the truth.

You have the gall to have some view of the way men should live and be prepared to force it on everybody through the use of the state, and that is totally immoral and that is the issue that we are discussing here, and you have failed to address that issue completely. This is not entertainment, this is a serious issue. This debate is over serious ideas and you are not really prepared to discuss the issues in the level we're talking about. We have gone to considerable pains to present the argument behind our moral view.”

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

(LCW) I find it hard to argue with his concerns. Not particularly in the legitimacy of his positions, that is for the individual to ultimately decide, but in his summary as to the failure to present a valid and dynamic rebuttal to the presentations. It was clearly stated what the focus was to be, and I have to believe that the audience representing both sides were anxiously prepared for such an argument. There are socialists that would like to feel more comfortable with their own perspectives and were looking for some help in defining their positions for the eventuality of having to defend their own thoughts and ideas. They received nothing of the sort.

The capitalists in the audience wanted to hear a passionate and intellectual defense and explanation of what it is that they feel is an inadequate process and ideology, but want to understand in order to make better decisions. I know I am one of those that want to hear the best that my opponents have to offer, not to win any argument, although that may be a component, but to be able to argue from an intellectual perspective, to teach and learn, and to come to some meeting of the minds at some point, to help those very same people that are supposed to benefit by the use of the ideology of socialism.

I accept the possibility that I may be mistaken, at least in part, with my own perspectives on this socialist ideology, and I can never identify and heal those inadequacies without someone of character and integrity speaking for that which I may not fully comprehend. If there is no one, it only gives me the opportunity to conclude I have nothing to adjust, nothing to change, to achieve a more comprehensive perspective, and I am lost to my own devices.

If all I wanted to do was feel superior, then the inferior quality of the participants would bring me a measure of pleasure and inevitably be a benefit to me, but that is not what I am ever looking for. I want to ‘know’, I wish to understand the issues at hand, and I want to make the best decisions possible for myself that will have meaning for me. One does not achieve that with ignorance and enmity, but only with knowledge and perception and contemplation.

It takes a lot of work to gain comprehension of a concept. For many, it is just a matter of acceptance and follow, but that holds little satisfaction for me. I wish my conclusions to be a matter of strength and as much truth as possible, even if I realize at some point that my perspective was in error. These things are not possible with a one-sided debate. It takes a well-intentioned discussion, an honest ‘conversation’ in every meaning of the word, to do this. It is all that I want. I don’t see that expectation in this presentation.

I am uncomfortable with repeating it so often, but this debate was supposed to be about the morality of conflicting philosophies. It sounds so interesting, so tempting, and so provocative. Dr. Ridpath singled out, not only the concept of the initiation of force, and not by an individual, but by the state, and made the observation that socialism seems to promote exactly that in the prescription of the existence of socialism itself. I would be chafing at the bit to defend and explain if that was not the case, but we end up hearing silence, or how women don’t get paid, or torture of individuals in some backward country.

It is not that I don’t care about these things, but that they exist because those that could make a difference, perhaps in a debate, neglected to bring clarity to the issue. If someone feels unappreciated, they must decide if they want to stay in the relationship. Perhaps they need to work on their skills at making decisions in relation to those relationships. If people torture, and I don’t care who they are, then they do not represent anything that has to do with my own philosophy. Don’t set them up as strawmen, speaking for me without my consent or agreement in any way, shape, or form. It is so disingenuous. It is fraudulent.

What do you believe that you accomplish with such actions? Do you think you prove some unspoken point? You do not. It reflects badly on yourself, and your ideology. What am I supposed to think, that someone devoid of integrity is going to bring us some mythical future of ethical and moral Utopian proportions? The ends realized do not justify the means taken, and they never will. Only moral means can result in desired and appropriate results. If the ideology of socialism cannot produce and present impeccable individuals of character and legitimacy to champion their cause, how can I ever accept that the end result will be anything but inevitable self-destruction? I can’t.

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

Dr. Ridpath: “ …. just for those of you who are commenting that we are advocating fascism I'll say it one more time. Capitalism, as we are advocating it as a social system which would repudiate the use of force by anyone, including a government, and that is clearly the moral opposite of any fascist system.”

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

(LCW) An army of strawmen. How often can one man repeat that capitalism, at least in his world view, does not condone or promote the use of force in any manner in the dealings between men or between the relationship between man and state? What does it take for the opposition to simply accept and refute that statement? If you think that they are misrepresenting their positions, then show evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, it is incumbent on you to accept and continue from that point. Is it by design that you ignore whatever you wish to, without any legitimate reason, and continue to prosecute a position based on what, a simple disagreement and distaste for something you cannot even comprehend? Do you speak of justice and equality? When are you going to include that in your arguments?

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

Dr. Ridpath: “ …. now the truth is that capitalism is a social system, acknowledges the nature of men, it acknowledges the fact that men have to act in order to live, that men have to think before they act, that men deserve the fruits of their efforts after they act, that men deserve the right to own their own property. Capitalism is a social system in recognizing the nature of men produces a social system or would produce a social system when fully adopted, which would in fact be truly benevolent and truly productive and would bring to all men a truly prosperous future.

The argument for capitalism is the argument for individualism, the argument for rational self-interest, and the argument for rejecting the barbarism of solving our social problems through the use of coercive institution capitalism and moral grounds is completely the opposite of socialism, of fascism, and communism, of totalitarianism, of Attila the Hun, and every other form of state of society that you can think up. In that sense, capitalism stands alone advocating a free society, a society where men reject this as against all of the other versions of society that adopt the use of force in one form or another. Thank you.”

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

(LCW) I find it difficult to comprehend why it is so difficult to listen to what someone like Dr. Ridpath has to say and to craft a legitimate response. I realize there are many that simply do not agree with what he has to say, think that he is not being completely honest, and is not comprehensive and cohesive. So reply. Refute. Create a narrative that explains exactly what it is that you do not think reasonable, and present what you think is viable and beneficial to all, and don’t forget to include ‘why’. That’s the way this is supposed to work.
Let’s ask the same questions, directly. Does socialism believe in the right to men retaining the results of their own work? Pretty simple question. Does socialism deny the concept of property in all its forms? If so, why? If not, when do the exceptions exist, and again, why? A good question, already answered I think, is the specific reason that socialism rejects the concept of individualism? This is a pretty fundamental issue when it comes to socialism. Is it reasonable to say that the existence of an individual is in complete conflict with the essence of the collective? Does not the concept of the individual infer, neigh, demand that certain decisions are his alone, and that property, or the fruits of that labour, would be a part and parcel of that individuality? Can socialism ever tolerate such an existence? Interesting concept, that, tolerance. Does tolerance play any part in the reality of a socialistic society? Again, the existence of tolerance, which is allowing someone other than yourself to make a decision that is in conflict with your own, does tolerance not promote the idea once again of self-rule and individualism? Can they co-exist on any level?
I am simply ‘dying’ to hear a socialist answer these types of questions. They are not ‘gotcha’ questions. They are not out of context, or illegitimate. They are the bedrock of the differences between the two ideologies. They deserve to be asked, and so much more, the rest of us deserve an honest and complete answer. Anything else shows a certain amount of fraud, not to mention fear, as well as ignorance as to what the conflict is all about, to begin with. I have been waiting all of my life for such a conversation. I fail to see what is preventing them from doing so. Are they not proud of what they propose? Are they not even capable of doing so? Why do they resist so strongly? It should be simple. Remember, Einstein is known to have said that:

“if you cannot explain it to a six-year-old, then you probably do not understand it yourself”.

I think that sums it up quite well. Educate us, convince us. Speak to us, and paint a version, and a vision, of the future, that is irresistible. Not from a paradigm of dreams and unrealized expectations, but from a realization of truth and reason and reality.

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