1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Opening Comments: Mr. John Judis

 
 
 

Mr. Judis considers himself a radical socialist, and that he is. He sees a future socialism that will arise from the ashes of a failed capitalism, and yet incorporate many of the aspects of that failed attempt              

 
 
 

The Opening Comments of Mr.John Judis

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

Mr. John Judis

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

I was happy to learn that we would be having a debate between socialism and laissez-faire capitalism because I'm uncomfortable debating capitalism rather than laissez-faire capitalism.

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

(LCW)   The problem is that there was no mention of laissez-faire capitalism. I, too, welcome the inclusion of laissez-faire capitalism, but that would preclude almost all of the instances and examples of capitalism that are to be included in the presentations of the socialist players.

The fact that capitalism exists in a country overrun with oligarchs, totalitarians, dictators, and yes, even socialists, does not mean that any of the consequences experienced by those countries are a direct response to the existence of some version of capitalism, by any means, but do not expect that this will stop the comments from insinuating thus.

It is a shame since that will prevent the exchange of the information that many, especially myself, came here to experience. But no matter, there is always something to learn and to think about. At times, we learn as much, or more, from the negatives, as we learn from the positives. Do you not agree?

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

(JJ)   Since I stand for a fleeting ideal myself, I prefer to have to contend with another fleeting ideal. I should warn you that my views as a socialist are not necessarily representative of all socialists. In one sense I'm a radical, in another sense I'm a conservative.

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

(LCW)   When I first heard him say this, when watching the debate, I was pleasantly surprised. I find most socialists to be a fairly tight group, in many ways. I am not sure what is meant by fleeting since I find that it sounds a bit scatterbrained, and I am sure that is not his intent. My own views have never been either mainstream or predictable, no matter what group I was affiliated with.

While it would be easy to characterize me as ‘conservative’, it would be a simplistic and predominantly false assertion. I am first and foremost an Objectivist, although I believe that Ayn would excommunicate me if she had the opportunity. I disagree with her on a number of issues, and yet feel compelled to identify with Objectivism since I have yet to find something of more relevance or a more legitimate philosophical base.

I am not sure what exactly a ‘radical’ is since I am inevitably asked to go find somewhere else to play since I question and refute anything when it seems reasonable to do so. Suffice to say I am not much of a joiner or a follower. Most would call me conservative, but I find much to be wary of and find just as much to appreciate in the liberal camp, and yet rarely see a practical way of incorporating what they espouse into daily life.

Make no mistake about it, some of my positions would put a liberal to shame, and yet, they would never acquiesce to my suggestions on making it work. It is something more than semantics, being directly related to that rational imperative.

I do not claim to represent Objectivism, capitalism, conservativism, or liberalism, and certainly not socialism. Don’t get me wrong, some of socialism sounds tempting. The problem is that no one ever explains it in any detail, fails miserably in ‘persuading’ me towards their camp, and is so vindictive towards my personal perspectives that I find it curious that they think this could ever change any of my positions with little else besides attitude and demeaning comments made. They often come across as hubristic and arrogant, and that does not help the paradigm at all.

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

(JJ)   I'm radical, I suppose, in the sense that I don't think that the German Democratic Republic, the East Germany, is either democratic or socialist, and I'm conservative in the sense that I think that socialism itself will evolve out of capitalism and share many of the features of modern democratic capitalism. Not only the parliamentary system and civil liberties but also the rudiments of the market and small and medium scale private property as well.

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

(LCW)   This would seem to imply that he is not, in fact, a socialist. First of all, virtually all of the socialists I have heard deny the reality that Germany was in fact a socialist experiment, one of many that failed miserably, and secondly, those same socialists do not accept or promote the inclusion of capitalism, in any guise, as any kind of a precursor or necessary component in their version of socialism.

This is a somewhat new concept for me. A socialist that wants to hijack capitalism to use as its whipping boy. It is difficult to absorb the concept of a socialist since in my 50 years’ experience trying to investigate the socialist agenda, this is the first time that any socialist has entertained the possibility that capitalism could morph into a new and improved form of socialism.

If it is that innovative and valuable that you don’t even want to start from scratch anymore, which seems to be what they expect, and I have heard that a thousand times, then why don’t we just fix the capitalist system and save us all a large amount of heartache?

Did I hear right? We are now talking about a ‘modern democratic (socialistic) capitalism’? Where is the word socialism? Did I miss something? And he talks about a parliamentary system as well as civil liberties? Doesn’t that evoke the concepts of freedom and free will? Is that even possible in a traditional socialistic environment? And he reverts again to the ‘rudiments’ of a market while talking of, of all things, medium-scale private property as well?

I am having difficulty in deciding whether he is a capitalist or not, or a socialist for that matter. Most socialists that I have had the honor and difficulty of speaking with had a problem with private property of any kind. What in the world does ‘medium scale’ even mean?

I read at one time that Marx believed in private property, at least such things as a toothbrush and a book and possibly a pair of glasses. So if something has any real intrinsic value to the greater good, ‘you’ may not retain ownership or possession, but anything nobody wants is up for grabs?

I would think we need to talk of property, either as real and allowable, or not at all. This middle ground nonsense is simply silly, and disingenuous. So something I create from scratch is not mine, but something I buy or is given to me is ok? I find that extremely disturbing and troublesome. And the worst part is that there is no explanation given as to what and why. Do we need a list of every item every made to be able to tell them apart, good property and bad?

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

(JJ)   Now what is the moral basis of socialism as I describe it? Well, I'm gonna say something that might seem paradoxical here, and that is that the moral basis of socialism is really no different than that of laissez-faire capitalism. Socialism comes out of the failure of laissez-faire capitalism to realize its own ideals.

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

(LCW)   This is fascinating. I have been searching for a legitimate explanation of the morality of socialism for decades, and today I find out it is ‘identical’ to that in capitalism, which for me, is the morality of Objectivism. I am again a bit confused. I am not sure that paradoxical is the correct term. It seems more a matter of hypocrisy with much of this praising of capitalism.

I fail to see the connection between socialism and capitalism on some moral equivalence. Where is the explanation of what socialism stands for? Objectivism and capitalism stand for freedom and individuality, and socialism doesn’t believe in either. How can any form of morality apply to both? Socialism is portrayed as the savior of the failed capitalistic paradigm, but the failure is not articulated in any sense, and this realization is nothing but rhetoric.

Nothing is explained, not the extent of the failure, or even an example, and not the reality of how socialism is able to ‘realize’ the ideals that capitalism was not able to deliver. What ideals? Without the interference of outside players, like socialism and totalitarianism, not to mention the introduction of force, capitalism has done rather well.

Without the corruption, nepotism, cronyism and opportunism, capitalism would have been able to deliver its ideals, but freedom is an ideal that is quite messy, and the imperative to allow freedom to seek its own level leaves it open to the danger of misappropriation. Where were the socialists when it was needed to call out the bad players? They were making the argument that the system was ineffective. They could have made a difference, but that would not have been in their own best (selfish?) interests. Talk about paradoxes.

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

(JJ)   Those ideals are basically three, one which Harry Binswanger discussed, is an ideal of a man himself, of human beings themselves, having a higher capability, and of society itself being structured in such a way as to fulfill that higher capability. It's an ideal that comes from the Greeks, goes through Hegel, the Enlightenment thinkers.

The other ideals are those of liberty and equality and those were born out of the struggle to wrest capitalism out of feudalism. Liberty is the right to be free of inherited obligation, to be born not in a manner in which one's life was laid before him but to have a possibility of doing different things with one's life. Equality, again, as being born neither in a particular caste or class, a rough equality, but an equality based on the absence of an aristocracy.

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

(LCW)   What is this feudalism that is incessantly inserted into the narrative? If Mr. Judis does not recognize that Nazi Germany was socialist in any way he deems legitimate, why do we have to talk of feudalism that may have a place in history, but is not a part of any paradigm that exists today? You have to understand that if this new modern democratic capitalism is to emerge from the ashes of capitalism, then this historical burden of feudalism will in fact be a precursor and an intricate part of the ancestry of this new socialism as well?

Speaking of the freedom to be born both with liberty and equality, without any existing obligation to the past, how does socialism respond to the fact that any member of the socialist reality will be born, without exception, with the obligation to the greater good, without any opportunity or freedom to disagree or to challenge the status quo? Sounds a bit restrictive.

Isn’t this a strong indication of the individual being born with an existing obligation to socialism itself, if there are no other alternatives and if no others are even allowed to exist? The freedom to rise within society, as already well-illustrated as a benefit of the capitalistic environment, is this something that the socialist mindset is for, or against?

Does socialism have a position on the existence of caste or class, especially when, seemingly without exception, that was a result of the existence of any of the collectivist experiments? A small group of individuals that always seemed to find the good life within an environment of unequivocal, at least on paper, equality. It is a source of anxiety if the new social order ever comes close to fruition. Why has it never resulted in the expected result? Why has it never been successful on even a small scale? Something to contemplate.

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

(JJ)  Now these three ideals of what one might call self-creativity, equality, and liberty were the ideals that informed Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, what we might call the democratic tradition in American thought, and the way that they conceived them being fulfilled was in terms of a society of equal small producers in which each person or family would be roughly equal, would be free, and would have the power to control their own destiny in society.

Unfortunately, these dreams were not realized. Instead of a society of small producers, we had a society of large producers, a society of classes of society in which poverty existed alongside great wealth, in other words, the society that we know as modern capitalism today, and socialism as an idea of the 19th century was born precisely out of the understanding that that society of laissez-faire capitalism could never be, and that in order to realize that you have to have a somewhat different kind of society, one in which human beings themselves owned the means of production in which there were no classes.

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

(LCW)   I think there is another distinction that begs to be made. American thought did realize and fulfill that dream. Even now, the number of small producers in comparison to the large producers is overwhelming. Small business opportunities dwarf large businesses. They produce more products and employ more workers. Unfortunately, they pay more taxes as well, but that is not a part of the system, but a part of the corruption of said system by its own government.

Large producers are the product of the aforementioned corruption, nepotism, and power brokerage. This is not the way it was envisioned, was not the way it was supposed to develop, and not what was required in any practical sense. It was corruption, pure and simple. They could not pervert the whole process, so they carved out their little niches, with the bought and paid for representation that was sworn to uphold existing law and Constitutional intent. Where were the checks and balances as this happened?

Once again, it was not the system that failed us, but our representation. The cancer is insidious. I have no idea if it can be reversed, but there is one thing that cannot be argued, and that is that if nothing is done, whether socialism is able to take the reins, or capitalism continues to struggle with the burden of ignorant interference, this corrupt paradigm is not going anywhere, and will remain with those that have torn this country to shreds.

I think I understand the pogroms that have taken place throughout history after a change of regime. Short of revolution, it may be the only recourse. Clear the board, and start once again, and like the phoenix, rise from the ashes of evil to start anew. I am not sure if capitalism will be a part of that, but I know for certain that socialism will not be the panacea that has been envisioned. It is custom-made for the utilization of the possibly worst instance of totalitarianism that the world has ever seen, and it has seen way too much.

I am not sure I comprehend this ‘understanding’ that laissez-faire capitalism could ‘never be’. When was this determined, and by whom? Since actual, registered ‘socialists’ in America do not even constitute 5% of the voting public, where is the legitimacy for the failure of capitalism or the credibility of some system that proclaims the right of the worker to own the rights to production which has no direct connection to the efforts or ability of any of those that will be ‘enriched’ by the change in paradigm? This is no small matter. If these things were truly determined we need to hear much more about the ‘who’, the ‘why’, and the ‘when’.

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

(JJ)   Now, here's the difficult part because, as I said at the beginning, I'm a radical in the sense that I don't think that what we have today in the name of socialism is socialism, and I think we'll get to talk about that a little more in the debate but let me just briefly explain what I'm talking about.

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

(LCW)   Just another example of refusing to acknowledge the socialist precursors. Nothing is truly socialism. Anything coming in the future has never been seen before, and will pop into existence as a perfect model and paradigm. Take their word for it, they wouldn’t lie, would they? But try and distance yourself from any instance where one individual traded with another and it ended up badly and it is irrefutably called capitalism, and they will not allow you to explain or parse or reject it as valid. No, they have to accept all the blame, without exception and without validation. Capitalism is obviously bad, but socialism is right around the corner, and it will be Utopia. How could it not be? How absurd.

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

(JJ)   Marx and the early socialists always assumed that socialism would arise only in highly industrialized societies with a democratic tradition. Highly industrialized because only in those societies would people have the time with the productivity exists, in other words, where people would have the time, to rule themselves, democratic, because only in those societies would people be educated both in trade unions and Parliament to rule themselves, but socialist movements first took power not in highly industrialized societies but in a semi-industrialized nation with a very scant democratic tradition, the Soviet Union, Russia, and socialism itself as it evolved came to be not so much a specific social system after the name of Marx but rather a means of vindicating or legitimizing a movement that stood for something quite different for socialism. Most of the societies that call themselves socialism are no more socialist than most of the right-wing movements that call themselves democratic, I'm sure you know there are those.

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

(LCW)   A distinction needs to be made here. When have the workers ‘ever’ been educated well enough to make rational decisions as to ruling themselves in a democratic fashion, or within a parliamentary system? We have today the lowest incidence of illiteracy ever to exist on this planet and we have not exhibited an ability to work together towards any better future in any respect. We are in a period of unprecedented division and conflict, so whatever Marx, and his peers, may have envisioned for the future of mankind was more delusional than prophetic.

The fact of the matter is there has never been an instance of socialism that was in such a ‘highly industrialized’ society, since an absolute requirement is the ability and the opportunity for creative production, and socialism, by definition, does not condone or support this. Agrarian societies, at perpetual subsistence levels, barely surviving, will always be ripe for the promise of a bigger piece of the pie.

Religions promise the same for the afterlife, while socialism offers it now. And once again, the proclamation that societies that call themselves socialistic do not exist, are in fact not being totally honest. I would assume that those societies actually think that they do exist, or is this an obvious flaw? Our resident socialist is not a ‘society’ but an individual, and yet he knows full well what socialism is, does he not? It is an improved version of capitalism, is that not what he suggested?

Does anyone actually know what socialism consists of? Can someone explain it to the rest of us? That is what we came here to find today. Enlightenment. Insight into what we can expect from a socialist administration of our lives. But wait. It has never existed, and those that say it has are mistaken. And no one is willing to invest the time to give us an understanding of the concept. Is it even possible? I question this deeply and with trepidation.

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

(JJ)   Now, the question is, is socialism itself, as I'm describing it, possible? Is it possible to fulfill this dream of liberty, equality, and self-creativity? There's a problem not only with existing socialist societies and the pall that they have cast over our notion of what it is to be socialist but there's a problem in fact with Marx himself and the socialists of the 19th century.

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

(LCW)   A very pertinent question, and one that I am intrigued by, not to mention fascinated as to why it has never been presented in a reasonable, comprehensive and understandable format. Why is it so difficult? Since when are the three fundamental precepts of socialism liberty, equality, and self-creativity? I feel like I have stepped into the future, or maybe the past, with his comments.

What happened to self-sacrifice? What happened to the greater good? What happened to ‘from each according to their ability and to each according to their need’? What about the perceived coercive nature of the whole ideology? I have never been able to come up with good answers to these questions, and now he is moving the goalposts. I am not even sure what we are discussing. Has anyone even mentioned the concept of morality? That is what this was about, wasn’t it?

A small caveat. He says that socialism has ‘never’ existed, but his own words in his comment reference ‘existing socialistic societies’ which seems to infer that they do in fact exist, even if perhaps not exactly to the extent of what he would ‘like’ to see. Is that not also a possibility with those individuals who believe the same paradigm exists with those scenarios that socialists use to exemplify the existence of capitalism? Should we not make the attempt to create specific instances and discuss those instead of creating an environment where nothing is concrete or usable in debate?

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

(JJ)   In my opinion, there's a fundamental error in Marx's thought, and that is, what Marx understood and the heart of what's valuable of Marx is that's that one society evolves out of the other, it both absorbs part of another society and it negates part of another society. That's going to be true of an economy of a socialist society that if we cannot conceive of what Marx conceived of as a socialist economy was simply the negation of a capitalist economy in which no markets existed and in which economic power would be concentrated in the collectivity.

What happened, as a result of that, is that the collectivity became the state, the state itself was became ruled by a political elite, and as Hikind von Mises and various other thinkers warned, one laid the basis, on behalf of Marxism, one laid the basis for totalitarianism. So what I'm describing as Marxism would have to be, in fact, a mix of laissez-faire capitalism and Marxism, what is called in the world today market socialism but market socialism founded upon democracy. Thank you.

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

(LCW)   It seems that Mr. Judis is not only at odds with his compatriot Mr. Hitchens but with the epitome of what socialism represents to many, and from what I gather, one of Christopher’s heroes. I would love to be a spectator as the two of them discuss the issues he has presented here, but I am not holding my breath.

It would seem that there is a measure of conflict between Mr. Judis and Mr. Marx as well. This concept of the negation of markets completely, which is what I always thought was a fundamental precept of socialism, seems to have been thrown to the wayside in the rush to use the best of capitalism to prop up the dying Utopian paradigm of socialism. If only it were true, but Mr. Judis is making a number of points that play well for the opposition. I am not sure that he understands some of his own positions.

The ‘market’ strongly suggests a matter of choice in the creation as well as production of items, but Marxism denotes these decisions being made by a central committee, who will decide what and how many, as well as the durability and choice of products, with the only criteria being ‘need’ and whatever is determined to be to the best interest of the ‘greater good’. If not, this should be made clear so as not to create even more confusion and frustration in the explanation of the ideology and its morality.

He goes from socialism to modern democratic capitalism, discusses the evolution of capitalism into the new socialism, conjures up a mixture of Marxism with laissez-faire capitalism and ends with something called market socialism, but not only using democracy but founded upon it. I am not even sure to what level we agree or disagree. It has been an interesting experience listening to him. I look forward to more surprises.

I hope that it has become evident at some point that the presentation of Mr. Judis was in no way similar to that of Mr. Binswanger, which is the only other speaker at this point. I commented that Mr. Binswanger made an admirable effort in his presentation on exactly what constitutes his philosophy, with examples of the ideology and at least some fundamentals on the morality of the concept of capitalism. I saw none of this with what Mr. Judis had to offer. One was focused, the other had some difficulty in even laying out what it was that he believed. Somewhat disappointing and confusing. Interesting, but not really in the way I was expecting.

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