1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Opening Comments: Harry Binswanger

 
 
 

Dr. Binswanger believes that mankind realizes his purpose through his rationality. He has a right to exist and to a personal and rational self-interest. He lives by his own decisions and on his own terms.                

 
 
 

The Opening comments of Dr. Harry Binswanger

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

Harry Binswanger

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

(Moderator)   The opposition between capitalism and socialism is a moral opposition. Each side must state and defend the moral basis of its political views. We champion capitalism as the only moral political system. What is morality? Morality is a code of values to guide man's choices.

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

(LCW)   I am going to try something a little bit different with this debate response. While I took out paragraphs from the speakers' monologues in the first instance and commented in kind, it, at times, seemed to be a bit disconnected when the comments were long and drawn out. In this scenario, I will try to do more of an in-line observation, which is probably my favourite format. It may, or may not, make much of a difference. We shall see.

I think it important to make some initial distinctions. Both of these two initial debates are supposed to be, primarily, about the issue of morality in relation to the two philosophies. I found that this was not ultimately the case, especially with the socialist camps. There can be no argument that there are very important aspects of a political and economic nature involved with these ideologies, but the focus, if you will, was supposed to be about the morality, almost exclusively, of the philosophy behind the ideology.

While it cannot be denied that examples used in the illustration of a position might be political or economic, the fundamental questions to be answered are to be of the existing ethical and moral foundation. It is less relevant to talk of the Industrial Revolution or the intrusions into other countries interior political realities, or the horrible examples of death and slaughter at the hands of totalitarian individuals and groups than to talk of the expectations of the ideologies, and the philosophies that are integral to the eventual societies that are envisioned to interact under these theories.

I think it is more important to talk of the expectations of these insights and thought constructs instead of the failures. Being unsuccessful does not negate either philosophy, since the individuals involved in specific decision-making are the reason for the resultant systems, not to mention the ethics, morals, character, and integrity of the players used to achieve their ends.

The ideology itself may, in fact, be the answer we are all looking for. Perhaps it is our own failure in not choosing the appropriate leadership to take us to that Promised Land. It is extremely short-sighted and even hypocritical to demean and condemn a system that remains viable under other circumstances and paradigms.

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

(HB)   There is only one fundamental choice, to live or not, to be or not to be. If one chooses to live then one must act in a certain way. One must achieve certain goals, certain values. One must satisfy one's needs. If one does not choose to live then no action and no values are possible or necessary. One simply sits and waits to die. Life, in other words, is the ultimate goal at the root of all values. Life is a self-justifying primary.

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

(LCW)   Is there no truth in these words? He is not even talking about an ideology as of yet. Is this not a fundamental concept in any ideology? It is totally reasonable to speak of these things first, and it inevitably leads to the concept of morality. How do we gain those things that are not only instrumental, buy inescapable, in providing life, first to ourselves, and eventually to those around us?

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

(HB)   This is why you need a morality, you need a moral code in order to know how to live, and that means that the standard of morality, the abstract principle by which we judge good and evil is man's life. Every species has a specific means of survival set by its nature. This is a simple biological fact. Unlike the lower animals, man has the power of choice, but he doesn't have a choice over his basic nature, and his basic needs. What is man's means of survival? How does man get his food, his shelter, his safety, his health, and so forth?

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

(LCW)   Morality is based primarily on the ‘science’ of philosophy. I am not sure that philosophy is exactly a science, but it is certainly a discipline, and without that discipline, there can be no enlightenment and no relevant conclusions on which to base our existence.

For me, Objectivism is all about the philosophy that is the basis for all of the actions taken, within behaviour, to illustrate the concepts considered and adopted as instrumental in the undertaking of the ideology itself. There can be no ideology without a rational philosophy, of course, recognizing that the concept of ‘rational’ itself, has a strong component of subjectivity to it, inarguably.

Objectivism is objective in nature, but humanity is based on the subjective interpretation of everything that ever happens to us, and cannot be denied to any real extent. The moral and ethical philosophy will always be the keystone to any ideology and overrides any political or economic aspects. One can have a philosophy without the following of any particular political or economic sub-ideology, but not the other way around. Without the presence of a rational philosophy, there can be nothing but anarchy and chaos. Only an opinion, but I have yet to see something of more relevance.

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

(HB)   Well, obviously, not by any great strength of muscle or by claw or fang, not by instinct, but by thinking, by reason. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is man's basic means of survival. Now, this is a key to our whole position so I want to stress this. Reason, thinking, the use of man's intelligence, is his means of survival.

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

(LCW)   Is there really any conflict with such a statement? How does one determine anything at all without the inclusion of reason? I am not sure there is any ability at all to make decisions without it. It is the one ability that sets us apart from the animal kingdom and allows for our survival.

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

(HB)   Man survives not by appropriating pre-existing values the way that animals do but by creating new values. The means of doing this is productive work and by production I mean the application of reason to reshaping matter to serve human ends. It is not true, in other words, that wealth exists in some static quantity like a natural resource so that when one person gets more another automatically gets less.

Life is not a zero-sum game. Wealth is created, it isn't found, and the creation of wealth takes knowledge. Knowledge is available only through rational thinking, thus reason is man's only means of knowledge and therefore his basic means of survival. Look around us. Right now, we're in a man-made world, or in a man-made environment. Electric lights, plastic seats, clothes from artificial and natural fibers from all parts of the world, a microphone system.

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

(LCW)   It is important to make the distinction between wealth and a resource. A resource is an existing commodity, in whatever form it may take. Wealth, except in instances where it is an applied value, such as gold, is something that takes more than simple possession to transform it into something of more value than in its basic, primitive form. Animals, except in specific and rare instances, cannot do much in relation to that transformation. Mankind is capable of making the jump from what is, to what could be, and then makes the adjustments necessary to do so.

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

(HB)   Where did all these things come from? They came from the minds of the scientists who discovered the physical laws involved, from the engineers who found out how to translate that abstract knowledge into working instruments, from the entrepreneurs who risk their capital to bring these things to a market to serve human need, and in addition, the physical labor under the direction of the intelligence of the entrepreneur to produce them.

The moving cause here, the basic source of all these things, is not then the physical labor as such, it's not muscle power, it is not that we expend more calories of energy per minute than the caveman and that's why we are here in an auditorium lit by electricity, and he is in the cave. In fact, we put forth much less muscular labor today than in any time in human history. We even go out of our way to create exercise because we find ourselves doing so little in our work. The actual source of wealth then is man's mind, man's rational thinking capacity.

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

(LCW)   This is not to say that the ‘muscle’, which is certainly sometimes required in the transformation, is of no importance whatsoever. At times it is absolutely essential, but the other aspects mentioned are of a greater relevance and importance, where in most instances the harvesting, the insight, and the production are simply not possible without the inclusion of the thought process and intelligence that ultimately results in some benefit to the individual or the society.

Socialism often presents this muscle, normally under the guise of ‘labour’, to be the most important aspect of the process of production, when it is not. This is the excuse for individuals and groups, or ideologies, to take over, by force, the production of items and wealth that somehow are the sole ‘property’ of the greater good, simply by the fact that, at times, physical labour is an aspect of production.

This is simply not a valid point. They deserve recognition, as well as remuneration of some sort, but if they wish to achieve a greater legitimate section of that proverbial ‘pie’, they must also have the ability to think, and to conceive of something that has value for others, and then to develop and produce.

This is not to say that there are not players that do so without regard for others, but again, it is not the ideology or the process that is at fault, but the individuals that are inappropriate players, as well as those other individuals that conspire with them to achieve their illegitimate gains.

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

(HB)   Now, it is true that some men can attempt to live without using their minds but they can do so only by parasitizing the wealth created by those who did choose to think and work. It is still true that man's life depends upon thinking even though some people mooch or steal the products of the thinking of others. Those others had to think.

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

(LCW)   I think that I would have to disagree with Mr. Binswanger on this point. Parasitism is something specific. Normally there is a benefit of some kind between the two. There must be recognition of the value of the physical end in much of our resource harvesting, production, and delivery of products.

The socialist attempts to make the point that it is of primary value, which is disingenuous at best, and a gross misrepresentation at worst. The reality is that while important, it is the labor aspect of production that is more easily replaceable than the thought process that goes into creation and production, and should be acknowledged. The bottom line is that they are both inseparable and integral to the final product.

This has been illustrated many times throughout history, when those groups championing ‘muscle’ over ‘reason’, have taken control, only to watch as the internal mechanisms of production slowly, and at times not so slowly, devolve into something unworkable and unable to be replaced by pure muscle. The great revolution of 1917 in Russia is a good example, losing their productive ability to the victors, who quickly found that it was not just a matter of running the machines, but controlling a myriad of factors from removing resources from the earth to final product distribution that was so much more complicated than the confiscation of physical property.

That is one of the reasons property has such an importance because its value comes from something more subtle and intangible, and when the ‘creator’ is removed from the equation, the equation is often irreparably transformed into something unworkable.

The Russian example showed that force, by itself, this muscle, by itself, was not enough to run the engine of capitalism. While they continued to produce products, they were inferior, and of much less value and produced demonstrably less wealth than what was confiscated. This is one of the reasons that socialism has so often reversed course, and allowed capitalism back into the equation, not because of any such concept as the greater good but because the ideology simply cannot exist on its own, independently, to support the elevated classes within the society, that was not even supposed to exist anyway.

I think it important to resist the negative connotations when speaking of the differences between the two ideologies, especially on positions of things like labour, since it does nothing but increase the perceived gap between the two, and the real conflict is in the philosophies that support the ideologies more than some specific personalities that are used to prove irrelevant positions.

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

(HB)   Now, a morality whose standard is man's life, then man's life as a rational productive being cannot permit such parasitism. A rational morality such as we are advocating does not advocate the master/slave relationship or the robber/victim relationship but independence. Men must deal with each other as independent equals, each man being an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. Each man must stand on his own, achieve his own values, live his own life, and earn his own happiness.

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

(LCW)   I completely agree that there is no master/slave expectation within a rational capitalism, especially one based on Objectivist thought, but the recognition of some physical component is not outside of such an acknowledgment. The physical component must accept the level of the contribution that is made, and not attempt to overstate the value of the action.

This is totally acceptable, and Ayn Rand herself has tried to make the point that everyone, anyone, can be an ethical player within the parameters of society, but even at this physical level, it must be understood that ethics and integrity will still define the contribution, and the individual can be an exemplary player. Everyone cannot be a mover and a shaker, but all can be rational and invaluable to the whole.

Is this not what socialism itself attempts to present as a benchmark of its ideology? Is there not the expectation that every single member of the many will ‘accept’ its place in the system to ensure the success of the total endeavor? It does not work otherwise, and it is no different within capitalism. As soon as someone steps outside the lines of propriety, the system begins to dissolve. With enough disingenuous players, those real ‘moochers’ eventually achieve total control and make the system unworkable.

Socialism has yet to answer the question as to exactly who will be the players in their own system, and how will they prevent these bad ‘players’ from simply removing their capitalistic suits and donning their socialistic suits and continuing business as usual, which is the opportunistic and methodical ‘fleecing’ of the population? I am a little tired of hearing all the things that are wrong with capitalism when the vast majority of the problems are systemic, but from the inside, and it infects both systems, so what is going to stop the same thing from happening, whatever the system?

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

(HB)   He does get it, of course, a value from the association with others, he's not a hermit, but let's there be no mistake about what we're advocating. We are advocating selfishness, rational egoistic selfishness, as the proper code for men to deal with each other.

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

(LCW)   I think that there is an inexplicable confusion involved with the concept of selfishness. The word attracted me when I first saw the book ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ by Ayn Rand when I was still in my teens. She herself remarked that many had told her to use some other phraseology or even make up a word to circumvent the ingrained interpretations that had been instilled into our philosophical and political speech over decades of what can only be termed indoctrination. Perhaps it was by design to confront Rand herself, but in any case, I accepted her position, and I proceeded to resist the usage of anything but the word selfishness over the decades, with almost no success to speak of.

I have come to the conclusion that propaganda is a stronger imperative within our society than I had previously thought. I try to speak of the terms of rational self-interest as opposed to irrational selfishness or irrational self-interest to create some space between the two concepts, and to attempt to illustrate that, in reality, they are two quite distinct perspectives.

If one wishes to also use the term egoistic, that is not a problem for me, but I find that this word has been hijacked as well within our society, with an equally demeaning connotation. Ego and selfishness are characterized as bad, even though most of what we do in life is directly related to that rational self-interest. While there exists that irrational self-interest that that is the essence of what most recognize as ‘selfish’, there is a benign and beneficial rational self-interest that results in advantage and benefit to the individual without any detriment to another person in any way.

We practice selfishness in most of our life challenges and goals. We eat and sleep and watch nutrition to live in a healthy way to improve ourselves and ensure that we are not impacted in some negative way. All selfish acts. We act selfishly to expand our horizons when we attempt to obtain an education, learn any particular skill, pick up a hobby, or learn an instrument. All the time spent doing these things is selfish.

It does little for someone else, although the argument can be made that it brings, at some point, some semblance of peace or pleasure or benefit to others as well. We invest in relationships and treat our significant others with respect and consideration. Again, all things that are deeply selfish. They bring us happiness. They bring us peace. They bring us pleasure. All selfish.

We set goals in our lives. We work to attain a good job and standing in the community. We try to achieve success and recognition within family and society circles. What else could you possibly term that except selfish? We spend countless hours saving for our own houses, our own cars, entertainment, vacations, devices, things that bring us convenience and pleasure. Is this not selfish? Should we all live in the woods in a tent? We have children, arguably the most selfish thing that a human being can do. You can attempt to make an argument that we do it for the children, but I just don’t accept that. The pleasure I see in those individuals that truly wish to be parents is comparable to some kind of illicit bliss. The pleasure that it brings to them is incomparable. Is this not the epitome of selfish? I think it is so.

We help people we care about, and even those that we empathize with, those that have fallen on hard times, and those that are the victims of inconceivable tragedy and natural disaster. Why do we do this? Because they ‘need’? Or because it brings us pleasure to be able to offer something, anything, to those who maybe have not worked as hard as we have, but maybe, just maybe, those that were not as lucky as we were. Does it not bring pleasure to help these individuals?

Pleasure is selfishness. It is not a bad thing. It can be, and is, a good thing. If the person is a good person, and they are doing it for the appropriate reasons, how can anyone criticize their actions? So …. selfishness is a positive thing in society. Does it need to be ‘selfless’? Does it need to arouse no satisfaction or appreciation of what went into the time and effort and resources applied to achieving some level of success that ‘allows’ us to help these other people?

If you cannot agree, then I can only ask what is wrong with you. You must live a dreary existence indeed, and rarely feel anything but resentment for that existence. I find it incomprehensible. Imagine a world where there is so much success that these others that are always pointed to as our obligation, are minimal, and without the need for someone to force others to help them, through individual or ‘collective’ efforts, when often, they do not help them personally, but only through their efforts to coerce others.

I fail to see the conflict. These issues will never be resolved through coercion. The concept of voluntary cooperation is the only ‘rational’ alternative that has the ability to make an impact. We need fundamentally better people in positions of power and influence. We need better people in politics and business. We need more philosophy in our lives and a lot less coercion.

I don’t care if we go with socialism or with objectivism and capitalism, but we need something more than what we offer mankind today. Until we do the right thing, for the right reasons, the paradigm will never really change. Until we do the right thing, we will never be able to reproduce whatever we do that is beneficial and appropriate. Philosophy will never be fixed by politics and economic processes, but philosophy may someday be able to fix politics and the economy. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the concept of rational.

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

(HB)   The reason is that selfishness is required by life as such. The opposite of selfishness, which means the achievement of your own values, is a surrender of your values, the sacrifice of a higher value to a lower value, or the sacrifice of a value to a zero, to nothing. Now, that is obviously the antithesis of life. Life is a process of value achievement. Full surrender of all values would mean death. Anytime you eat a mouthful of food for yourself rather than giving it to some starving Indian beggar you are doing that not on the principle not of altruism or self-sacrifice but of egoism.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure I understand the need to be specifically speaking of Indian beggars. I don’t think that the year 1986 makes any difference. I have a feeling that he was not accused of racism in that year, but I am fairly certain that he would have been today. Have you ever asked yourself why that is? Very disappointing.

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

(HB)   Now I want to be clear, rational selfishness does not mean sacrificing others to yourself, that would be inconsistent. Each man must be selfish, each man must live his own life, and men must trade value for value when they do to each other.

So we hold that man is born free not only politically but morally. You are not born in debt to others, you have no duties to others. You are not obligated to seek their happiness. You are the owner of your own life. Your life is not the means to any higher end. It is the ultimate end. As I said, it's your basic choice to live or not. Man is not a sacrificial animal.

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

(LCW)   I have a real interest in hearing socialists, especially those in attendance at this forum, to respond to something similar to what has just been said. None of their own personal rhetoric on the issues at hand, but the concepts enunciated and provided by not only this capitalist but Objectivists in particular.

Perhaps it is indeed fictional and somewhat impractical, but what do they think of what is presented? Do not put words in their mouths, do not interpret the comments through the distorted lens of socialism. Just contemplate the words and tell us if you accept or reject what is offered. Is life about sacrificing yourself to another, nameless individual?

Is man born free? Should we be born indebted to others? Should we be obligated to seek happiness for others but not ourselves? Just asking. It would be interesting to simply have an honest answer. I hear so little that it makes me just a little bit lonely and isolated.

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

(HB)   Now, in particular, we emphatically reject the idea that need is a claim. You know the slogan, in the advertisement from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. We reject that because it's incompatible with human survival. A morality that sacrifices ability to need is a morality that holds suffering, lack, disease, impotence, failure, as that which entitles one to receive values.

The needs that must be considered are the needs of the producers if you want to use that language. What social conditions are required for man to produce wealth? Well, since the production of wealth, I argued, is through reason, there is only one basic thing required, you must respect man's sovereign reason. This means one must oppose the use of physical force, one must deal with other men by persuasion, not by force. So, a basic principle of capitalism is all interactions must be voluntary because the forced is the anti-mind and the anti-mind is the anti-life. Thank you.

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

(LCW)   I think, on the whole, it was a valid presentation. As always, there is no imperative to agree with his observations, but it would be nice if it were accepted as a heartfelt and honest summary of what the man thinks.

If you disagree, then say so, but please refrain if you are not prepared to also include why you feel that way. It is so irrelevant when one does not do so. I am here to be convinced of the truth and right of the position of the socialist. If only I was lucky enough to walk away today with unique and insightful information. The time to stand up for what you believe in is now. If not in this format and this venue, then when can we ever expect it to happen?

You may wish to take note that there is no condemnation of socialism at this point in time. He simply presented his perspective. Keep that in mind as the comments of others are introduced. It is a telling reality.

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