1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Opening Comments: Mr. John Ridpath

 
 
 

Mr. Ridpath finds the two fundamental conflicts between the ideologies rest over the issue of the initiation of physical force and the fact that the socialist perspective seems to embrace the inevitability of it          

 
 
 
 

The Opening Statements from Dr. John Ridpath

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

Dr. John Ridpath

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

The debate this evening is in essence about two issues. The first issue is why the initiation of physical force is immoral and the second issue is which social system employs the initiation of physical force and which social system rejects it. Professor Binswanger has addressed himself to the question of what are the standards of moral value that we employ and arguing for capitalism I'm going to apply what he has said to the question of capitalism as a social system.

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

(LCW)   I find it curious that it is so difficult to get a clear and substantive answer to a relatively simple and reasonable question. How does socialism respond to the issue of the initiation of force specifically, and to coercion in the larger sense, especially in respect to the members of a socialist collective? If and when it is desirable or even allowable, and why, or, if applicable, why not. It is a fundamental question in relation to the interaction between individuals in a society and one that, I would think, any prospective member of such an ideology would demand to know before entering into any sort of an agreement in principle, or even a consideration of the philosophy.

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

(JR)   I'd like to start by observing that a society is nothing more than a collection of individuals who are interrelating with each other according to rules, laws, customs, which pertain in that culture. If one asked what is at the basis of these rules and these laws one would discover that at the basis of these things lies certain philosophical principles such as we have been discussing, principles with regards to nature of reality, the nature of man, what mans’ social needs are.

That is why philosophical principles are at the heart of a social system. As a social system, capitalism, socialism, whatever you like, the essence of these social systems is philosophical principles that underlie them. The fundamental identifying characteristic of any social system is the set of moral and philosophical principles which it embodies and this debate really is about the differing principles underlying socialism and capitalism.

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

(LCW)   This is not a loaded statement. In fact, it seems fundamental to the creation and implementation of any social system under almost any conditions. If this is in conflict with any socialist beliefs or concerns, I would think it a reasonable request to find out what that might be. Again, I find it both interesting and concerning that the subject is never breached by the socialist camp and avoided and dismissed when actually asked. I wonder why that is.

I was hoping to find answers such as this within the structure of a debate. If not here, if not now, then when can we do that? Is there a reason that they refuse, or maybe just resist, the opportunity to do so? I am perpetually at a loss as to why not.

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

(JR)   Now, before discussing capitalism as a social system I want to remark on the state, on government as the central social institution. It is the enforcer of the laws of the principles which are in place in the culture. It is the central social institution, it is the, if you like, the dominating social institution in a culture.

If we would ask ourselves, what is the government, what is the state, as a social institution, what is its essential defining characteristic, we would see that the central essential defining characteristic of government is that it is that social institution that has a legal monopoly over the use of force in society. That is what government is. A central question with regards to any social system, therefore, is what are the principles dictating the way that the state relates to its individual citizens?

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

(LCW)   I would think this, as well, would be a legitimate question to ask in a forum such as a debate. I find it fascinating that the way the capitalist presents their positions are so different than what the socialist does. The capitalist offers relevant comments on what they believe to be the most important aspects of their theoretical construct, and tries to answer their own queries. From the socialist side, I see much more intent in attacking the capitalist perspective, and rarely doing some kind of comparison between themselves and their opponents. I have no idea if they debate other groups, but it seems that they are not as interested as the capitalists in bringing some kind of clarity to the concepts.

It has been obvious for decades that the state is an essential part of the collective, socialistic, communistic mindset, but it is rare to hear them talk about not only the necessity of the existence of a state but the way it would be implemented and be used by the members of the collective to administer the group. Since property and production are to be owned and run by the people themselves, at least in theory, would that not indicate that the state would be also owned by the membership?

Is the state not the ‘production’ of security and peace? Why is this never offered as a ‘given’ as is the production of wealth and items? I believe that this is a tremendous conflict within the ideology itself, or at least it should be. Would that not infer that it would, as the capitalist American paradigm states, be run by the people, and for the people? What other responsibility does it possess in either system? Once again, something that I would be fascinated in hearing, and yet the socialist camp seems to be reluctant to do so.

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

(JR)   Now, what would a moral social system be? A moral social system would be one which was based on pro-life principles, one which was based on the values that human life requires, one that serves man's life rather than destroys man's life, one in which the government is limited in its functions to the social requirements of human life, in other words, the moral social system would be one which acknowledged and protected man's fundamental social need, which is for freedom from the initiation of physical force in a social context.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure how anyone could find fault with this reasoning, but I have to admit that it is a bit simplistic. I agree in principle and believe that we would be on the same page from other comments by the speaker, but the point needs to be mentioned that it is possible to have a negative or ‘bad’ morality as well as a positive one. All of the bad players of history had a morality, albeit a perverted and malignant one. Thus the need to go into detail as to what is considered a beneficial morality as it regards the individual as well as the societal. Thus the need for discussion, and debate.

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

(JR)   Now, it is the concept of man's rights that captures man's need to be left free from the initiation of physical force on the part of his neighbors when he deals with them in society. It is man's right to life, liberty, private property, in the pursuit of happiness, which morally sanctions his need for freedom.

The individual is a sovereign entity, his life belongs to him, it does not belong to anybody else, and it is immoral of anybody else or any social institution to attack him, to violate his rights, and force him to live for the needs of others. Man needs freedom to act, he cannot be physically barred from acting, once he has decided through the rational use of his mind on the goals he wishes to pursue, and if he should succeed in his actions in gaining values he needs the right to own those values and to retain them for his own use. He needs the right to private property.

Without property rights no human life is possible. The principle of man's rights is the bridge from morality to the question of the moral social system. The only moral social system, therefore, is the system that is based on the recognition of man's rights, on the recognition of man's need to be free from physical force.

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

(LCW)   I would contend that all of this is obvious, but reality has shown me that things are never that simple, even when they probably should be. The ‘initiation’ of physical force is a fundamental necessity and needs much more detailed investigation and explanation. It is intrinsic in the formation of a system that allows the freedom necessary to allow the interaction, not just of individuals, but those of demonstrably differing belief and value systems, but even with these differences, there should be a common ground to allow opposing individuals to be able to act in their own interests without infringing on those of another.

It is this reluctance, this refusal, to grant to others what is demanded for self that seems to always be the obstacle to the creation of an environment where the need for conflict is kept to a minimum. Like the agreement between all the players that make up a socialistic society to work together for the common good, there needs to be the acknowledgment that, even though the individuals may not be in agreement to final objectives, the right to a path to that result is something that everyone should be open to.

It is the refusal to even allow the existence of that which we do not understand or agree with that tends to restrict the ability to co-exist at all. It is not just morality that allows this to happen, but the intellectual and philosophical underpinnings that support the ideologies involved. This is why it is so important to articulate what those basic principles are, in great detail.

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

(JR)   The only moral social system is that social system where the government is limited to this function where it never initiates force in order to violate the rights of its own citizens, where it supplies the police, the Armed Forces, and the courts for dealing with rights violations and in which it has no economic functions whatsoever. Just as the state should be separated from the church, the state should also be properly totally separated from economics.

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

(LCW)   It would seem to follow that this ‘separation’ of state from church and economics easily translates into the separation of state and education, state and banking, and others. The state is not supposed to be the driving force behind the development of the system, but simply the source of arbitration and security. It is not there to decide and direct but to implement and enforce, in an unbiased, unprejudiced, and non-partisan way, which is not what it has evolved into.

In a construct that is by and for the people, I question what it is trying to accomplish by ‘telling’ the community of individuals what to do instead of creating an environment where they get to make these decisions themselves. Is this really any different than the vision that socialists offer for the workers to own and control their own economic destinies? The fundamental obstacle that I see with socialism is that they do not want to own their own companies and run them as they so choose, but to enslave those that have the capabilities to do their bidding, while they make no effort whatsoever to obtain or develop, for themselves, those capabilities in order to direct, not the future or others, but their own objectives and futures.

There is an undeniable problem with monopolistic constructs controlling specific areas of the economy, and the state, perhaps, should be involved to some degree, but not as the imperative behind the decisions of what to do, but the referee, if you will, to make sure that the playing field is somewhat level, which is next to impossible, but they have not become involved in the past except to ensure their own personal or ideological needs. This problem does not come about through the actual ‘system’ of capitalism, but from the sidelines by a relatively small amount of players that disrupt and imbalance the system itself. These players constitute probably less than 10% of the whole, and perhaps much less.

How does this create a system where all of these accusations against capitalism are considered the norm and not the outliers? There is nothing systemically wrong with the system of capitalism, but with the minority of immoral and amoral components that have no objectives besides personal gain. Socialism says they want to remove this component, but I have never heard how that is possible, or what they would do to accomplish this. Without that information, the entire ideology is somewhat moot and completely undesirable.

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

(JR)   Now, the proper definition of capitalism as a social system is to identify the fundamental principle underlying capitalism. The fundamental moral principle underlying capitalism is the sovereign individual and his right to his own life and his own property, therefore the proper definition of capitalism is it is the social system based on the uncompromising recognition and protection of individuals’ rights. This is a definition in terms of fundamentals.

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

(LCW)   I find a basic tenet of socialism to be contradictory and immensely confusing. There seems to be a great reluctance to embrace a religious component in the philosophy but, without property, I fail to see the incentive to the system except in the quasi-religious promotion of this infatuation with this concept about from each according to their ability and to each according to their need.

At least with property, there is a tangible incentive to gain benefit from their own work, to be used or distributed as per the individuals' own decisions and conclusions based on their own personal philosophy, i.e., morality. While never exactly the same, it allows the individual to determine, through their own means, exactly how much of their ability is to be distributed and to whom, based on a lifetime of experience and contemplation. I fail to see the downside in this.

While I readily acknowledge that not all will wish to participate in this, it seems vastly superior to a paradigm where every single individual, which may be a misnomer in this scenario, not only ‘donates’ but ultimately has no choice in the determination. I fail to see how I, and many others, will ever accept that paradigm that demands that I not only work as hard as I can but that I contribute to the whole, even if it is not in my best interests or my pre-determined objectives. This is self-destructive and anti-life, and I find it incomprehensible that anyone would willingly do so.

Property is a tangible and demonstrative example of what it is I have accomplished with my life. Does socialism give any credibility to actual ability, or is it just something to be used, ironically, to support the collective? Do the concepts of hard work and effort, success, creativity, innovation, insight, and even charity even mean anything within the construct of the philosophy? These are questions that I ask whenever I think of socialism, and answers that are never forthcoming. This ‘religious’ aspect, that it can never be about ‘self’ or it is selfish, which of course has some limited legitimacy, but exclusively only about strangers, not even family, where all of the resources and wealth are expected to be redistributed, with no recognition or reward of any kind. It comes across as ghoulish and inhuman.

We spend our lives looking for recognition of our thoughts and actions, and socialism tends to downplay if not arbitrarily dismiss these motivations. It’s always about ‘others’ and we don’t even get to decide who that may encompass, but there exist individuals within the ideology that get to make those decisions for us. Why do they get to make decisions while the producers have to stand on the sidelines and simply acquiesce to their wishes and demands?

I have a real conflict as to the legitimacy of any system that would find this acceptable. The individuals should be doing this through their own deliberations, through their own ethics and morality. It should be accomplished through the use of reason and persuasion, which, ironically, the socialists have referenced many times in this venue as well as others. But they cannot, they do not. They promote and condone coercion, the initiation of force, and that is one of the main reasons that the capitalists and Objectivists incessantly bring up the concept. Because it is relevant, legitimate, and because the socialist never respond in any meaningful way.

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

(JR)   Now, the Socialists define capitalism as a social system where there is wage labor and where there is private property in the means of production. These are derivatives. It is true that there is private property in the means of production, it is true that there is wage markets, the market for wage labour, but these are expressions of every individual's right to act on his own, in his own interests and trade accordingly and voluntarily with his fellow man, so to identify capitalism as a social system exhibiting wage labor and private ownership of the means of production is superficial. The fundamental and proper definition of capitalism is that it protects every man's right to his own life.

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

(LCW)   These concepts of wage markets and private property are often conflated as evil and undesirable when they are in fact the epitome of personal and economic freedom, and the driving force behind progress. These issues are a perfect example of choice, which most individuals, irrespective of what school of thought is followed, seem to promote and wish for themselves, at least, if not for others.

Private property allows the individual to make up their own mind what tangible objects that they wish to achieve in life. Whether a home, or a car, or a career, or social standing. A thousand choices, and for each to decide on their own. The wage markets allow them to search out the best way to reach those goals. All the time, with either, being at the discretion of the individual as to how to achieve that which will bring them peace and happiness, security, and satisfaction. Is there really an argument that someone else should be making those choices for them? That the individual is not capable of doing so, but some nameless, and possibly, if not probably, incompetent bureaucrat, will make a better decision? I strongly disagree.

This is not to say that obstacles do not exist, but we should be investigating avenues of removing those obstacles and not envisioning destroying the system and replacing it with another with no track record, no real expectation of improved advantages or benefits, and no legitimate template for the possible success in such an endeavor. Just a dream, a dream with an ending just waiting on the horizon. We should all trust in such a wisp of smoke? Is anything inevitable, or is it more of a religious experience?

I don’t want to look forward to life after death, I want to live it now. I don’t want to spend what life I have hoping to create some irrational environment not of my choosing, no matter how tempting it may sound. I’m sorry, but you have not persuaded me, you have not convinced me of the efficacy of your dreams. I think that you would be better served to attract a sizeable following to live and work together for some number of years to show us that the system can actually work without the confiscation of the blood, sweat, and tears of others, and then perhaps we can sit down and talk. Just maybe. And yet the collectivist mindset often is not interested in the competition of ideas or the justification for involuntary altruism. These things need to be discussed and agreed or they have no legitimacy.

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

(JR)   Now, the implications of properly defining capitalism are, first of all, that there is in a true capitalist society no connection between economics and politics. Economic power which is earned by producers by virtue of their ability to produce values that other people will buy is a positive, it is a benefit to everybody to have present in our society people who are capable of earning economic power.

Political power on the other hand is based on the power of a gun, on the power of the government to actually violate men's rights, coerce them, expropriate their property, and it is a negative and there is no connection in a capitalist social system if it's properly understood between business and government. Secondly, there is no advocation in capitalism of the right to goods, per se. People only have the right to act freely, they do not have the right to the goods of others, and there is no such thing as a right to a job.

In other words, to force another person to give you a job, a right to an education, in other words, to force another person to give you an education or a right to any such possessions at all. Now given this is obvious that capitalism has never yet fully existed in human history, it lies ahead rather than behind. The 19th century in Britain, in the United States, or the closest approximations of it and we see great productivity and benevolence.

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

(LCW)   I embrace and believe that, even if not the answer, this summation is certainly a workable and possible solution to what has come before. I am not irrational. I realize that this can be construed as something of a dream, much as the idea of socialism, but the presentation is much more inviting than the paradigm offered by the socialist camp.

I cannot embrace any scenario that is not based, primarily, on the concept of individual freedom. Anything else just reeks of coercion and inevitable authoritarianism, which would inarguably lead to totalitarianism, which has been the case pretty much across the board, and probably dictatorship, which is difficult to differentiate in any case. History clearly shows this to be true.

Five thousand years. Instances of socialism and capitalism. Socialism undeniably struggling to accomplish its goals, and for good reason failing to do so. Man wants to be free, he demands to be free. He may not be smart enough to realize it yet, but the intent is more than obvious. Capitalism struggles as well, for many of the same reasons, but has realized success, albeit limited, but not the unrealized ideals as characterized by the socialists. It has brought unprecedented progress, and as Mr. Ridpath comments, great productivity and benevolence.

Again, that is not to say that it has not been the means to great conflict, and pain, and suffering as well. Individuals have been hurt, physically and economically, but I reiterate that this cannot be placed on the system but the players with no philosophy, no ethical or moral behaviour as a positive attribute, a distinct lack of character, and completely devoid of integrity.

Both within business and within the government, the state was constructed with the expectation that it would be the safeguard against those very things. The biggest disadvantage of capitalism, and to be fair, socialism as well, is the fact the ideologies are run by individuals, by human beings, who, by definition, at least at this point in time, are grossly fallible beings, making many more mistakes than I would have hoped at this point in history. These individuals will wreak their havoc throughout our societies until, and if, we can instill a superior philosophical, rational basis on which to make decisions.

Changing to socialism is not going to change this truth. In my perspective, it is an absolute. Until we change the paradigm of our education to incorporate philosophy as a primary, above reading and writing and arithmetic, I see no available alternatives. It is not just going to happen because we pray to some god or wish upon a star. It will be hard work, and harder thought to accomplish what is necessary. But until then, the debate between socialism and capitalism is somewhat moot and will continue unabated.

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

(JR)   The moral is the practical, but today we have no examples of capitalism in the world, we only have mixed systems which in fact are systems of incompatible principles. Principles of statism such as the socials put forward and some vestiges of freedom. Now it is my view that having completed our comments that we, as capitalists have done what is required of us which is to make a case for capitalism. That is our case for capitalism, it is the only moral system available to man. Thank you

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

(LCW)   There is much that can still be debated, but, for the most part, I believe, not surprisingly, that his positions were well presented. Both of them, actually. I can’t make up my mind if the socialists have made the same kind of effort to offer a competitive product, especially in the context of what the debate was ‘supposed’ to be about, the ‘morality’ of the ideologies in question.

I realize that I am repeating to some extent, but this was not to be a history lesson, or an economic lecture, but an in-depth investigation into the basic, fundamental moral tenets for the philosophy. It has happened only to some minor degree. That is to the detriment to the ongoing conflict between the ideologies, and the informational value to those watching and listening. I was expecting, and hoping for so much more.

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