1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Introductions

 
 
 

The Players are Christopher Hitchens and John Judis for the socialists and John Ridpath and Harry Binswanger for the capitalists. Add an objectivist in the guise of yours truly, and we have our speakers. Morality is the issue

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

1986: The Debate: Capitalism versus Socialism: Which is the moral system?
presented by the George Washington University Objectivist Club

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

(Moderator)   Arguing the socialist position will be Christopher Hitchens and John Judis.

Mr. Hitchens receives his graduate degree in philosophy politics and economics from Balliol College in Oxford, England. He currently writes a column called the Minority Report for the Nation magazine, he is also the current American columnist for the New Statesman, the primary publication of the social-democratic political left in London, England. Mr. Hitchens has edited and written several books including his recently published Cyprus. He frequently debates conservatives on radio, television, and campus forums, and has appeared on William Buckley’s’ television program firing line.

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

(LCW)   I am familiar with Mr. Hitchens. Not deeply, mind you, but in my research into atheism, I have found many of his comments and articles interesting. Since I also consider myself an atheist, but one with a twist, being an ignostic, and not feeling it necessary to dismiss those of a religious persuasion outright, but instead look at the end result of their actions, and allow them the freedom to believe in something that has no intrinsic value in what we term reality, at least in relation to my own.

There are many people I have encountered in life that I respect and listen to. They have intrigued and challenged me. They have been both religious and atheist. I find value in substance, and try to avoid passing judgment on things that are can neither be confirmed nor denied. His take on religion and God has been somewhat integral to my own spiritual development.

It is surprising how different atheists can be at times. I found his anger and resentment of those who believe in some higher entity to be over-the-top in many respects, and often without merit. I wish that I could have had a one-on-one with him at some point, but coulda, woulda, shoulda, does not take up a lot of my time. It will have to suffice, responding to his antemortem observations and comments in dialogues such as this debate. I found much of his perspective on socialism to be in the same vein. I applaud his confidence, not to mention his ego, even if legitimacy is often elusive.

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

(Moderator)   Mr. Judis received his MA in philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley. He is a founding editor of the Socialist Review and is currently senior editor of In These Times. He is on the editorial board of The Progressive and writes political articles for the New Republic.
Mr. Judis has just completed a biography of William F Buckley which will be published by Simon & Schuster in about a year.

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

(LCW) Mr. Judis is an unknown to me before this debate. I found him to be somewhat unfocused and disconnected from many of his own comments. He seemed to be intent on promoting many aspects of both ideologies, when they are really quite incompatible, even in relation to many of the comments by his partner, Mr. Hitchens. There was a real inconsistency.

It makes it that much more difficult to understand an ideology when the proponents of the philosophy do not agree in principle with many aspects of their own ideology. At times he seemed to be championing capitalism as something that socialism would ‘adopt’ as a part of their own positions, throwing ‘alms’ to the capitalist fence-straddlers that at least some aspects of capitalism have merit, and will be a part of the future socialist hybrid that he envisions.

It is refreshing to see some legitimacy given to the overall concept of capitalism. It is one of what I would consider my strongest points against socialism that even where instances of some pseudo-socialism exist in the world, the only time any success could even be suggested, it is with the pocketbook of capitalism that the bills are inevitably paid.

The problem, as I see it, is that socialism is anathema to capitalism, and if capitalism is to be subjugated to socialism in any way, it will, at some point, cease to create the wealth necessary to support the socialistic aspects. With capitalism as the primary, it may actually work in some perverted manner, but then the socialist perspective would have to take a back seat, and I don’t think that is an alternative to those socialists that I have engaged with. Something of a catch-22.

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

(Moderator)   On your right advocating the capitalist position will be Harry Binswanger and John Ridpath.
Dr. Binswanger received his Ph.D. from Columbia University. He taught philosophy for many years at Hunter College in New York City. In 1979 he left the academic world to launch the Objectivist Forum, a magazine devoted to Ayn Rands’ philosophy and its application to cultural issues.
Dr. Binswangers’ just-published book, the Ayn Rand Lexicon, is a philosophical dictionary of Objectivism. Dr. Binswanger has written and lectured extensively in support of the philosophy of Objectivism.

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

(LCW)   I have a minimal history with the comments of Mr. Binswanger. While I agree with much of what he has presented, I find some of his comments to be underdeveloped and in some cases, misguided. Perhaps I just have not understood his positions clearly, but I will comment on those in context. For the most part, he was able to prosecute his positions and was capable and consistent. I would have liked a format where all the participants were asked direct questions by the opposition to bring a bit more clarity to their positions.

Like politics, I find debates to be venues where the players just get to speak their own rhetoric, without any real constraints, free to ignore and misrepresent the opponents' positions, without any accountability, when, if at least some of the time, having to answer direct questions may have brought much more definition to their points of view.

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

(Moderator)   Dr. Ridpath received his master's degree in business administration from the University of Toronto and has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Virginia. He is currently an Associate Professor of Economics and social science at York University in Toronto where he has been a recipient of the prestigious award given by the Ontario Council of university faculty associations. Dr. Ridpath has been an advisor to the National Foundation for public policy development, a Canadian think-tank, and has spoken at the national policy conferences sponsored by the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party.

Professor Steven Keller, director of debate here at the George Washington University has graciously agreed to moderate tonight's intellectual combat. Professor Keller is with the Department of Communications and theatre and teaches a variety of public address courses here at GW. I'm sure you all join me in thanking tonight's participants for taking the time to present their views on this important question and Professor Keller for his assistance in planning and executing this confrontation and the GW program board for its sponsorship.

Under debate this evening will be the morality of each posing system, socialism versus capitalism. The participants are expected to defend each system by presenting the underlying ethical principles upon which it rests. They have been selected because they represent extreme polar opposite positions. I'm stressing that the issue here is morality, not economics alone. We are here to debate the fundamental moral alternatives to focus on the essential conflict between two absolutely opposed systems, socialism, and laissez-faire capitalism. Thank you.

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

(LCW)   Mr. Ridpath was a participant in the previous debate that I tried to cover. He comes across as a staunch supporter of Objectivism and is well-informed and consistent. I am unashamed and unabashedly an Objectivist as well, and find it to be both a unique and consistent philosophy for those that are willing to take the time to investigate the concepts presented within the structure of the ideology.

When I hear individuals speak, as Mr. Judis did at the end of the debate, as to not understand the concept of something like ‘selfishness’, I am disappointed in his inability to listen to or understand, something outside of his own personal ‘wheelhouse’. It is both discouraging and obstructive. The concept of, not selfishness, but of ‘rational self-interest’ is really quite simple and clear, and is easily demonstrated on a hundred levels if the listener is open-minded enough to make the attempt.

There is the temptation by many to continually misrepresent the concept, when it has been defined clearly on many occasions, by more people than I can count. It is fully acceptable to disagree with the idea, but it is more than a bit disingenuous to dismiss it outright and without debate. This is the refuge of the ignorant and the immature, those that are not capable of reasoned thought and debate.

Only my opinion, but more than willing to discuss it at any time, with any individual. After all, that is why we are here, in a debate format. I am here to learn, to make an attempt at comprehension, and to possibly adjust my perspective as well as my philosophy. It has happened before, but never simply at the behest or the demand by someone without the ability to persuade, to have a conversation, and to present their positions in detail and with precision and simplicity.

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