1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Opening Statements: Mr. Christopher Hitchens

 
 
 

Mr. Hitchens is an unyielding opponent to the concept of capitalism. His belief that socialism is the only ideology that is capable of cooperation and seems to embrace the collective over the individual under all circumstances

 
 
 
 

The Opening Comments of Mr. Christopher Hitchens

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens

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

(LCW)   I feel compelled to comment that the appearance of Mr. Hitchens was what initially attracted me to this particular debate. I look for the challenge of a reasoned conversation. I have to admit that I was particularly disappointed that he did not represent himself and socialism in a stronger presentation. In any case, it was still a pleasure, although that might not be the appropriate word. I hope to do this with other lectures and interviews and debates with his presence.

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

(CH)   Thank You, professor. I think that the organizers of this meeting must be congratulated on their Brio and also I think on their timing. We are met today as witnesses of the decomposition of a political regime in this capital city which uses the language of capitalism and a free enterprise, employs the ideology of selfishness and self-interest, and stresses the rhetoric of laissez faire, while bloating and expanding the road of the state, debauching the treasure in the currency, and relying upon a state within a state for the secret conduct of most policy.

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

(LCW)   Well, I guess it is obvious that he arrives with an open-mindedness that is suspect at best. One can disagree without being disagreeable. If only he was able to bring any evidence to these comments in his observations, some credible examples, instead of trying to make a case built on the failures of centuries ago, and players that have little relevance as to what our subject is today. I find that disappointing. I am still somewhat confused as to whether he admits to being deterministic or not, but placing the burden of thoughts and actions taken hundreds of years ago on individuals and ideologies of today is arguable disingenuous.

This must be taken with a grain of salt. His compatriot, Mr. Judis, has already placed a great amount of faith and confidence that socialism will ride the successes of capitalism into the future, and takes no responsibility or obligation for those socialistic experiments of the past. Why then is it incumbent upon capitalism to not be allowed to do likewise? Everything is a part of evolution, and these ideologies are no different, which demands that they continually explain and define terms and concepts to bring clarity and understanding to those that are trying, very hard I might add, to make sense out of the conflicts between them.

There may be some ‘decomposition’ taking place in this great city of Toronto, but it is of minimal significance to anyone other than a Canadian. What happens in Toronto stays in Toronto, so to speak. I spent twelve years in Canada and had just left as this debate was taking place. I was unaware of any decomposition of any kind. I would have to question, since he is the one bringing it up, exactly what he means.

He offers no insight into the comment, but I would think it is more of that evolution of which I speak. He offers no evidence of any kind in his defense, simply promotes statements that have little legitimacy besides in the confines of his own mind. Marx can lend no insight into what we talk of today. Perhaps in his reality, but not in mine. Glimpses, perhaps, of what once was, but no connection to what is.

Does he expect capitalists to ‘not’ use the language of capitalism and free enterprise? They do employ the ideologies of ‘rational’ self-interest more than selfishness, but opponents love to use the word since it is so misunderstood by the masses. Not that it cannot denote what they wish to convey, disingenuously, to an audience, but that if anyone takes the time to do any minimal research on the concept, they will find that there are secondary definitions as well, every bit as legitimate as the derogatory, that denotes nothing but positivism, and no relation to the former. That is rarely, if ever, acknowledged. Dishonest, to say the least.

Is there a concerted drive to recognize exactly what it is that the speaker means, or just an imperative to sway an audience, irrespective if the motivations are to mislead and misdirect? It makes a difference, you know. Especially in the context of what this debate is supposedly about. Remember? Morality? The morality of the ideologies and the philosophies. What does it say about the ideology if there is no intent to have reason and legitimacy as a part and parcel of the conversation itself?

It calls into question every single other comment or point made, does it not? As in American jurisprudence, if a witness in a court case is found to perjure themselves, the judge will instruct the jury that they can, with the backing of the court, ‘assume’ that any other statement made is also false, even if the evidence shows that it is not. That is a reflection on the witness and not a condemnation of the system. It gives you the right to not trust an individual after demonstrating that they are not worthy of trust at all.

I find it impossible to argue the fact that the ‘road of the state’ is not indeed being bloated and expanded, but I question if this unwanted transformation is because of the capitalistic economic system, of which I see no evidence, or those unsavory and inappropriate players that I repeatedly point to as to the devolution of the system itself. I did not propose this expansion in any sense, and I know of no specifics as to any capitalists that did so either. Does he have any evidence or citation to that end? Of course not, nothing but shallow opinion and rhetoric is less than credible.

What of this debauching of the treasury? I again wholeheartedly accept and agree that this is happening, but again, I find no direct link between this and the capitalistic paradigm, in fact, quite the opposite, seeing those with the accountability for the rational and reasonable usage of the peoples' wealth simply wasting the resource with each waking hour. This again is not capitalism, but corruption, incompetence, and repugnant self-interest, not to mention the realization of partisan objectives. Nothing to do with capitalism, per see.

Possibly the most pernicious and threatening of all is this state within the state, concerned with ‘secret’ conduct within most policy. Today we call this the deep state, and this is the most reprehensible aspect of society that I can imagine, as we speak. Individuals and groups working towards goals that are not revealed or even talked about in public, and against everything that our Founding Fathers wished this nation to be. The epitome of corruption is a unique form of totalitarianism. A great example of when power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The end of the road, forget about the question of capitalism versus socialism. This is about the end of America, and the end of the American Dream in any form.

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

(CH)   There may, and I think that will not be, any convergence of ideas between socialist and capitalist schools this evening but this need not prevent us, I think, from seeing that a regime may combine the basest features of statism and collectivism with the basest elements of utilitarianism and libertarianism too, and I think if we recognize that we may have ground for debate.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure that I ‘recognize’ what it is you’re trying to present here. Mr. Judis, not long ago, presented his positions, and it certainly included a ‘regime’ with all four components that you just mentioned, but, I would assume, that we are not speaking of him, are we? I find it disturbing, that you immediately attempt to set the parameters upon which a ‘debate’ may take place, insinuating that if not met, will preclude any such discussion from taking place. I find that inappropriate in an arena meant to foster an exchange of ideas.

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

(CH)   What is it, I better get on with it, to be a socialist? Necessary conditions in my submission rather than sufficient ones must include the following.

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

(LCW)   It seems rather odd, does it not, that you speak of ‘necessary’ conditions as opposed to sufficient ones. Again, I am at a disadvantage since we already need clarification on a number of issues, all of them really, about what you are trying to convey. So there are aspects that are necessary, even they will never be sufficient enough to do what, to bring about a reasonable and possible societal paradigm that will allow individuals to live in peace? If only he had the audacity and integrity to explain, in context, the reality of his own words.

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

(CH)   It is necessary to hold, firstly, that all divisions of class, nation, race, and sex, are in the last resort man-made and can be man unmade, are in no sense part of a divine or natural ordinance, and that we are members, like it or no, of one race, the human race.

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

(LCW)   I continue to find your introduction disconcerting, to say the least. Class and nations are, of course, man-made, but is it reasonable to say that ethnicity and gender are as well? I, personally, would tend to disagree, vehemently, but in the context of the current political situation in 2021, it seems that it may be more fluid than my experience would indicate.

It is obvious that if man-made, they can inevitably be unmade as well, but what is the significance of that? I would agree that it may or may not be a part of some divine ordinance, but that is only your unsubstantiated opinion, even if I agree in principle. The natural ordinance, on the other hand, is something else completely. I am at a disadvantage since you play fast and loose with this determinism thing. If natural, there are fewer opportunities to become involved in any adjustments or changes that may or may not be attempted.

You give no definitions, no explanations, no examples, and no evidence of any kind that can be agreed with or refuted. Finally, we can agree on something. Like it or not, we are indeed all a part of the human race. While in agreement, I would question the efficacy and relevance of the statement. In what way do your comments impact that obvious absolute?

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

(CH)   That civilization is, in fact, second, a cooperative enterprise. Whether the cooperation is coerced, as it was in most of recorded history, or voluntary, as has been occasionally found and can still be found in our century but that it is a cooperative enterprise cannot be denied. There is no other means, that's to say, of civilization.

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

(LCW)   Not an absolute, but fairly obvious in its application. Cooperation, as you state, can be coerced or voluntary, but you fail to mention which is integral to the socialistic mindset. A fairly important point that is ignored. I find no value in stating that it cannot be denied, since the success of the ‘enterprise’ as you present it is not a given in any sense of the word. To say that there is ‘no other means’ of civilization is a gross simplification of the concept, and possibly a total misrepresentation. Again, I see no substantiation of any of this at any point in the narrative.

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

(CH)   Third, that the limits of creative endeavor are set by the limits of nature and the very few human actions can therefore be said, in the last instance, to be entirely private.

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

(LCW)   Nowhere is there any indication of what you mean by ‘entirely private’. Cooperation does not, in any sense, mean that those you ‘cooperate’ with have any claim to anything that remains yours (or mine). To cooperate is not to abdicate in any way. We ‘cooperate’, through mutual agreement towards a mutual benefit, to achieve that which we may, or may not, be able to accomplish through our own actions only. We hunt for sustenance, we build for personal comforts, we defend for security, but that does not mean there has to be anything besides appreciation and acknowledgment of assistance by another.

Does socialism have some other interpretation? Please enlighten us. You need to expand on exactly what ‘cooperation’ means to you, and to socialism, in order for there to be a meeting of the minds, at least in the context of a debate. I also find it obvious, to me, that your perspective will not be the prevailing position of socialism as an ideology. Do you claim to speak for the totality of socialism or a single drop of interpretation among many?

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

(CH)   The earth is, in point of fact, a common Treasury as the English Levellers used to say in the Puritan revolution hoping that it was so. It is, in fact, the case, and again, whether we like it or not, whether we care to treat it as such or not, for that there is no God and no supernatural, that this recognition obliges us morally to maximize the felicity of the one life that we are permitted.

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

(LCW)   This concept of a ‘common treasury’ is an intriguing and compelling one. I find it hard to disagree with you, although I must admit that I have not put all that much time into the theory, and a theory it is, no matter how compelling. While not particularly invested in the ideology of the Levellers, they seem to disagree with you on an appreciable number of issues, but I do understand your infatuation with their overly simplistic perspective on issues such as property.

They did, indeed, have much in common with the simplistic goals of the socialists today. While they believed that the earth was to be kept as a ‘depository’ for man, they were not able to articulate anything of substance in relation to that treasury, but since this was over 350 years ago, it has little direct relevance to today’s world. It must be noted that they confiscated land from the rich and took it as their own, a commune in the macro, but private property in the micro, but who wants to split hairs?

While the ‘rich’, for want of a better word, also confiscated the land from those without means to defend it, the Levellers simply did the same thing by taking it away from them. It seems somewhat hypocritical. Do two wrongs create a right in the land of the socialist? And that begs the question as to the socialist position on the issue of the ends justifying the means, or the other way around. I have yet to hear anything approaching definitiveness on this subject after years of pleading with a myriad of opposition.

It is interesting since these Levellers reflect as many right-wing issues as the left. You conveniently pick only a single issue, this treasury, in an attempt to grasp some credibility that has nothing to do with socialism as you attempt to present it today.

I am a staunch proponent of the obligation of mankind to protect and respect the earth and its components, but that does not mean I am ready to let someone such as yourself have sole control over its usage. That is what the tool of debate is all about. To talk about it and to persuade and convince others, not through coercion and intimidation, but through thought and reason. I don’t see that happening. To be fair, there are complications on both sides, but one side seems to be less restrictive than the other. I will let you decide which is which.

And that brings us around to the meaning of respect as well. Is respect something that you decide or is it something more objective and easily agreed upon? I fear that it will be like anything else and dependent on power and ideology, and that is not my position and will not gain my acceptance or agreement in any way. We have no argument on the concept of protecting mother earth but am concerned that you interpret it as your mother, and not mine as well. The direction we need to take cannot and should not be taken at the demand of a specific group, no matter the size of said group unless it is in the vicinity of 80%, and certainly not a group of 25% or 35%, and not even 50.1%. It must be substantial and it must be specific and concise as to not only actions but ramifications.

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

(CH)   …. and fifth, that the principle of from each according to his ability or her ability and to each according to his or her need is an easily realizable one, prefigured already in human society by the working principles of the bourgeois family, that unique engine of thrift enterprise, the transmission of morality operates precisely on the principle of from each according to his or her ability and to each according to his or her need. There is in fact no other way that a family could decently all possibly be run. I make no moral judgment as between the decency and the possibility such a distinction would be odious.

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

(LCW)   This is yet another statement without any real foundation. A parsing of the truth to proclaim a superior position. The necessities of administering to a family are distinct from running a collective. I understand that socialism is attracted to the concept of the collective being run as, and compared to, a family. It gives them the opportunity to dismiss most criticisms as irrelevant, when in fact they are instrumental in defining the conflict in the belief.

It must be noted that it is the very same paradigm presented in a religious context, with the faithful as the family, or flock, as the case may be. Quite derogatory from my point of view, but relevant just the same. Which of course is curious, especially with the inclusion of such an illustrious atheist as Mr. Hitchens. To promote this hierarchy seems discordant.
This ‘family’ concept is great propaganda, or promotional advertising if you will.

Who doesn’t want to be a part of the family? There is not much that can compare to that unconditional love that exists in a family, even when one does not really deserve it, but that is a conversation for another day. It attracts the lonely, the destitute, the damaged, the outcasts, the sick, and the incompetent. With all due respect, that is what I see in many religions, and certainly in the ideology of socialism. Someone to love you and take care of you when you are not capable of doing it yourself. This is completely independent from having sympathy or compassion or empathy for these individuals.

It does not mean that they do not need assistance or should not receive it. It is a simple statement that these kinds of environments are desirable for some that have difficulties, whether through their own actions or not, with coping and being successful in a world that can be extremely complicated and difficult at times.

A family is built on love, or the family will not be particularly successful. The parents are more than willing to take care of the children produced, and even in the case of an extended family, will accept responsibility and obligation for individuals, perhaps unconditionally, but more likely than not, those that are willing to ‘voluntarily’ accept the restrictions and regulations set out by a dictatorial patriarch or matriarch, but ideally by them both, even to the inclusion of other ‘adults’ in the mix.

Now, on a national or ideological level, that can encompass millions of people, I think it irrational to try and attempt to use the same attributes in the administration of that collective, and I acknowledge the existence of a collective as a secondary aspect to any capitalistic society as well, but on a demonstrably secondary level of importance in contrast to socialism.

It is irrational to think that millions of people can arbitrarily and unconditionally offer love and support to the extent necessary. It is obvious that otherwise normal families struggle with the challenges of a family without undue outside circumstances to be successful. It is not rational to think that this could possibly work.

It is perhaps the greatest fallacy in both socialism and religion to think this possible. The incidence of murder, abuse, divorce, all kinds of things in direct opposition to the existence of a viable family or society precludes such a result. Not that it cannot happen, because it does, but never on the scale that would have any chance in a societal environment. That diversity that everyone loves to tout? That is the biggest challenge that exists.

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

(CH)   Marxists described freedom as the recognition of necessity and only then proceeded to say that the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all, a stipulation that obviously implies its corollary, that the educator must be educated.

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

(LCW)   I fail completely to make the connections that you seem to see. How can Marxists even talk about freedom? Please expand on how a system that always ends up in totalitarianism can envision freedom on any level within the expected society. What does the recognition of necessity even mean? Don’t tell me what Marx said, explain it in your own words, and then find me another socialist that hasn’t heard your response and have him give the same answer. I don’t think it’s possible.

Curious. You present Marx as saying the ‘free development of each’ is the condition for the free development of all, and yet, does not socialism actually say the opposite, that the free development of ‘all’ is the condition for the free development of each? This ‘each’ directly speaks to individualism, and the need to allow for the development of the free individual to ensure the free development of the many, which is what the capitalist and Objectivists have been saying from the very beginning. I find the individual to be almost non-existent in the socialist ideology, and I would be interested in hearing how a socialist balances this concept with the greater good.

This is priceless. The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Is this not, I’m paraphrasing here, but isn’t that akin to something like ‘to each according to their ability and needs, and to each according to what is left over’? You intentionally insert the words ‘free development’, I assume intent, but your system simply does not allow this free development if there is an obligation to every other member of the collective. It sounds like you have the freedom to eventually be not-free. I would love for you to bring clarity to an extremely indistinct reality.

As for the educator being educated, it makes sense, I can get on board with that, but, again, Mr. Judis already said that rarely happens, and the vast majority of instances of socialism have developed in poor and agrarian societies, by definition having little or no real industrial capabilities, and have been utter failures.

Does it not seem evident that socialism, per se, is not capable of production, or it would not have evolved in these environments, but only in those societies where innovation and ability had some chance of being rewarded, no matter how flimsy and imperfect those situations were? Why didn’t those men of ability go to these backwater societies to make their mark, instead of going where their abilities would, in some fashion, be acknowledged and translate into something better than existed before?

This is not rhetoric. These are serious questions. They point to the inability of socialism to bring what it is that they promise, a better life. Men of ability will always gravitate towards a paradigm where they have an opportunity to succeed, and the fact that they are ‘educated’ as you propose, only ensures that they will not ultimately remain in an environment that will allow no such thing.

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

(CH)   That's why I stress the above as necessary conditions rather than sufficient ones. We do not ask for these things to be true, we might even prefer them not to be, but we must recognize them as given and as such.

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

(LCW)   I unconditionally reject such a statement. I do not ask for these things to be taken as true and believe that man will, in most circumstances, reject them as well. If I do not prefer them to be true, then I will change the paradigm, or someone more capable than I will do so.

We have no compelling reason to recognize them as anything but what may be existing today, but with no certainty that they need exist tomorrow. I find much of your position to be defeatist and lacking substantive evidence. This has been simply a gumbo of opinion.

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

(CH)   Sufficient conditions, I think, center on the question of class. Marxists recognized that history is indeed the contest of competing social forces and that so is the present such a competition. All attempts to describe society as merely organic and harmonious or as a free competition or race between individuals with differing attainments and endowments fail because they ignore this simple and obvious fact which again we do not preach we simply recognize, insist upon, and make as a point of departure.

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

(LCW)   I face exhaustion trying to come to terms with your statements. Class is something that is developed, and not simply a natural occurrence. The Romans were not the Mongols, although they were both violent and ruthless in their own ways. The inhabitants of Greece were nothing like either. Different societies held different values and abilities based on knowledge and resources, among other things. The English and the Americans created additional options and paradigms. While there may always be classes, they are by no means predictable, although in hindsight it may be within your capabilities to make a good case, but not a definitive one.

To characterize history as a contest of competing social forces is all well and good, but are you suggesting the perspective of the survival of the fittest? That works, actually, but not in any moral or ethical sense. Are we not attempting to find an alternative to this violence? Is this not ultimately totalitarianism and the initiation of force that the Objectivists continually present as a fundamental that we need to control in some way? What is it that socialism suggests as a counter-balance to that force? Without a philosophy that addresses this issue, there can be no change. I see no imperative from the socialist side that does this.

The concept of a harmonious or free competition between individuals is something we are trying to institute, is it not? The disregard for this option, again, leaves only conflict and coercion as our only choices. Socialism, correct me if I am wrong, promotes something even more fantastic, in so much as it believes that all people, no matter the differences and diversity in culture and experience, can somehow look past that and do whatever task is set before each individual to support the greater good.

Is this realistic, based on what has happened in the historical past? Is this not the epitome of irrationalism? At least with capitalism and Objectivism, there is an incentive and a reward at the end of whatever level of effort is put into the system. Socialism talks of some ethereal ‘equality’ but it does not seem that it can be easily defined, and I see no guarantees of any kind based on historical, or even theoretical, evidence. Please, by all means, present some concrete examples that we may investigate and discuss.

And in conclusion, you do not even take responsibility for your own statements, you offer them as ‘obvious truths’ but you do not legitimize them in any way with credible data. You state that you do not preach, but you submit nothing else to consider. Not only that, but you ‘insist upon’ and ‘make a point of departure’ using something that you refuse to acknowledge as your own position, or give us something that we can actually refute. I find that very discouraging and disappointing towards gaining any insight or understanding of what it is that you believe and promote.

I have no choice but to again repeat that we are here, or at least I am, to learn exactly what it is that you believe, and to this point, I have discovered only that you think capitalism, and by extension, Objectivism, is an utter failure, but nothing to what it is that makes socialism a viable alternative. And no evidence or reasoned argument for or against either position. An inferior presentation to this point.

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

(CH)   Let me, if I may, quote you from Marx and Engels preface to the German ideology, in 1845, where they say that they and their supporters, and I'm quoting now ‘we do not preach morality at all’. They do not put to people a moral demand love one another, do not be egotists, et cetera, on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism just as much as selflessness is indefinite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals.

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

(LCW)   Is not ‘from each according to their ability and to each according to their need’ both preaching and an insertion of some subjective morality that actually drives the ideology of socialism? There is no need to speak of love to be a moral proclamation. Socialism does not speak of freedom, but only dogmatic directives. I am more than open to an explanation to the contrary.

I appreciate the affinity and loyalty to Marx and Engels but they, while being somewhat integral perhaps to the concept of socialism, is dated and lacking relevance in a more current context. I am interested in the vision of socialism that is being promoted by the speakers and whatever current mindset within the socialist community, if there is such a thing as consensus. Considering that this conversation was targeted as an investigation into the ‘morality’ of socialism and capitalism, it seems a bit distracting to be bringing up a position that does ‘not’ preach morality of any kind. If there is a valid reason for doing so, it would be welcomed if it was made more evident.

None of the ideologies involved in this discussion suggest, nor ‘demand’, that the members of their respective schools of thought love one another, or anyone at all for that matter. The relevance of this particular interlude escapes me.
I am concerned and confused, that you portray Marx as ‘aware’ that egoism and self-interest can be a necessary form of self-assertion of individuals.

My understanding, of communism and socialism to this point in time, has led me to believe that egoism and selflessness are in direct conflict with the ideology, and incompatible, not to mention the basic concept of the individual itself. Individuals make decisions about self, and what is in the best interests of that self. Anything else is self-destructive and irrational. To achieve a state of selflessness, there needs to be a negation of ‘self’, which precludes caring about self or anyone else for that matter.

Do you mean to suggest that man can think nothing of himself, could care less but would be able to hold some kind of interest in the well-being of another, or some greater good? It would seem to be more of a machine than a human being. Is that what the goal of socialism and Marxism ‘preaches’? You have so much that needs to be explained, in detail. I will be very interested in how and when you will begin to do so.

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

(CH)   I think this shows clearly enough that Marxists understand what Randians’ term, as if they discovered it, the virtue of selfishness. But as Marx and Engels also wrote in the same period, in their holy family they saw the need for selfishness to be transcended. I'm quoting again directly from the Holy Family, 1845 also, if enlightened self-interest is the principle of all morality, man's private interest must be made to coincide with the interest of humanity. If man is shaped by environment his environment must be made human. It is on this apparent paradox that we take our stand. And against the neo-Kantians, the early Marxist argued that morality could not be derived from abstract first principles of ‘recht’ or right but had to correspond to the real conditions of society.

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

(LCW)   I would ask that you resist telling me what is obvious to you, and ‘clear enough’. I really don’t care what Marxists ‘think’ if they do so at all, or the cute and demeaning immature little quips such as ‘Randians’ and their ‘discovery’ of the virtue of selfishness.

First off, I have no recollection that any Objectivist, or Randian in your vernacular, has ever declared that they are responsible for any ‘discovery’ of the concept. They have embraced it as a part of their ideology, and are proud to do so, in contrast to whatever concepts the socialist may or may not have embraced. I am waiting here to find out. The concept of selfishness has been around forever, but Rand was able to define a distinction between rational self-interest as compared to irrational self-interest, or the conventional concept of selfishness that most, without question, accept, especially our socialist speakers, and in particular, Mr. Hitchens.

Considering the fact that there is a demonstrable difference, and the refusal to even engage in a conversation about the concept shows a lack of open-mindedness and reason that does not reflect well on his credibility and legitimacy in the context of the debate. The high points so far have been when they seem to acknowledge all the things done by capitalism and Objectivism that are credible and legitimate, while incessantly stating that it has been a complete failure, again, with no substantiation. If you wish to agree, it would behoove you to explain why, and if you disagree, I would suggest the same.

If one wishes to ‘transcend’ the need for selfishness, is it not incumbent on the speaker to detail a reason? That is not attempted. You can quote the ‘Holy Family’ all you want, but if that cannot be independently verified in any way, it is simply yet another opinion from someone who has shown themselves to be the real historical failure in this narrative. As any neophyte writer is told from day one, stop ‘telling’ in your dialogues, but make an effort to ‘show’ the audience what you mean. I fail to see that has been done to any real degree to this point.

I think the connections being attempted are disingenuous at best, and chaotic at worst. The statement is made that ‘if’ enlightened self-interest is the principle of all morality, then man’s private interest ‘must’ be made to coincide with the interest of humanity. A fairly audacious comment. You acknowledge that ‘enlightened self-interest’, a concept that yourself and Marxists refute vehemently, is to be the principle of all morality, another concept that you not long ago quoted Marx as stating “We do not preach morality at all”.

So you lecture us on things that you don’t even believe in, and then dictate that man’s private interest ‘must’ fit in with some higher interest of humanity, I assume as envisioned and developed by Marx or some Marxist? Does Marx speak for humanity? Does any other Marxist do so? Does Christopher Hitchens? Does socialism? You paint with a very broad brush, and you speak in a totalitarian manner. Does this not illustrate why so many are so intimidated and deeply concerned with the movement gaining power over every aspect of our lives?

You then proceed to recognize a paradox within yet another ‘diktat’ that man is shaped by environment, so man’s environment must be made human. I find your words to be both tragic and amusing. Where are the fundamentals of your philosophy, your ideology? When does the reasoned argument even begin? This is such a mélange of disparate comments and perspectives that it verges on the irrational, but I must admit, if one does not take the time to stop and consider your words, the initial interpretation may well be that they may have value. But I did stop and study your comments, and found them inarguably wanting.

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

(CH)   Nowadays I think this argument seems quaint in its intensity and fervor because evolution itself and specifically the evolution of modern capitalism into a new symbiosis with the state has borne in upon the dullest line, the recognition, that if humanity does not yet think in terms of a common destiny it has at least had to think in terms of a common fate to put it at its most vulgar materialist level we are all collectivized by the same ozone layer, the thermonuclear world is a great leveler and just as there can be no purely moral conscientious objection in a thermonuclear conflict nor can there be any merely ethical or self-interested collaboration with it, everybody after all in this auditorium is a uniformed conscript, you cannot conscientiously object to the nuclear conscription that has made of each of you our soldiers and put you in the frontline while the real soldiers are in the bunker. This recognition of reality enforces a sense of collective humanity upon us. Again, we do not preach this we recognize it.

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

(LCW)   There is no such recognition in any sense. If there is, it is in a very specific and limited sense, and extremely selfish I might add, just to show some context. Yes, capitalism, with the added input of Objectivism, does attempt to create a new paradigm with the state, recognizing that the state inevitably needs to exist, but not as a master to the rest of us, but rather a tool to help create and implement that new symbiosis.

You touch on something that rings true with your suggestion that we may share a common destiny or fate. Creating division by trying to use force to alleviate our differences is not the answer at all. It will simply be a continuation of the status quo, albeit in any new reality your power base may have the upper hand, but it is not an upper hand that we seek, is it? Is it not a common peace that we seek? I fail to see how socialism offers such a conclusion. Does capitalism?

Probably not, at least not under the conditions that now exist, but I do see at least a possibility by that path. The path of socialism results in inevitable coercion, and is that not what some of the speakers here today are trying to articulate? They may be totally wrong, but the socialist has offered nothing as an alternative. Nothing.

What do you know of conscientious objection? People throughout history have declared themselves objectors even when torture was utilized or guns were aimed at their heads. How does a thermonuclear catastrophe differ? If you are willing to die to resist coercion, why would it matter if the alternative was the end of life as we know it? What you offer here is vapid and without merit.

In any case, if we cannot come to a decision as to the morality of an ideology, as we try today, unfortunately without success, how can we even try to discuss the concept of nuclear war in this venue? Why in the world are you even trying? Can we please focus on the issues at hand, and not simple distractions and digressions? You are here to defend socialism. Your presentation is disturbingly weak.

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

(CH)   Socialism, said Oscar Wilde, would free us from the distressing necessity of living for others. The feelings of compassion and solidarity and responsibility after all are no less instinct in our species than those of self-interest.

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

(LCW)   Yet another digression, but I will agree with you for the sake of the argument. They are both instinct in some respect but based on that pesky morality once again, and the issue is if we are to decide these things through our own philosophies and experiences, and our own contemplations and investigations, voluntarily and with good intentions, or by coercion and intimidation through the conclusions of others, in many cases with their own personal agendas and aspirations?

Self-interest is NOT a matter of hurting or taking advantage of others. The only people that do so are bad people. Good people simply control themselves. The issue is bad people. We need to change that paradigm. We need to create better people, and that cannot be legislated or coerced. It must be organic to the point of that ‘instinct’ you mention. If we do not actually ‘want’ to be good people, then mankind will inevitably be doomed. Socialism does nothing to change that. Objectivism has the potential, socialism does not.

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

(CH)   It's precisely because these instincts of solidarity and compassion represent a human need, a need to be of help to others, point very well made by Professor Richard Kipnis in his famous book the gift relationship, because they are a need there is no need to make the sentimental presumption of altruism or to wrestle with the tautology that altruism represents.

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

(LCW)   Why is it that you continue to transfer your own responsibility of defending socialism to all of these ‘other’ players? If professor Kipnis made any good points, why don’t you share them with us, and prosecute your argument? This off-hand reference to Kipnis is disingenuous. His opinion is that the instincts of solidarity and compassion represent a human need? I assume he believes that it exists in us all?

So what? What does that mean? That socialism will do this for us? Prove it. I agree that these things exist and may well be inside us all, as individuals or as a community, but I don’t believe that socialism will be able to produce the desired results, but Objectivism can and very well may do so.

Once again, I am confused. Are you saying that we do not need not ‘wrestle’ with the presumption of altruism? Isn’t that a fundamental of socialism? Is there anything that is intrinsic to the ideology? I really want to know how you would explain socialism, but we are being treated to a nebulous walk through the history of the planet, from a single perspective I might add, have learned what various professors and Marxists believe, but have yet to be enlightened as to the perspective of Mr. Hitchens himself about what socialism really is in any practical and rational way. I am very disappointed. I was expecting a much better presentation.

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

(CH)   Marx and Engels, I'll close on this, in the preface to their 1848 manifesto made capitalism a series of almost lyrical compliments and in fact, few proponents of the capitalist system have ever summarized its virtues, those of creativity, innovation, the bursting of feudal and antique tribal fetters, as well as Marx did, but Marx and Engels also saw what since become obvious, that capitalism is not the last word, that in freeing mankind from ancient obligations it made him a prisoner of market forces which also develop their own mythology and ideology, their own mystification, and their own bondage.

Like comrade Judis, I also believe that capitalism is the harbinger of socialism, that it's necessary, not merely to contest or negate its ethical claims, but to transcend them, to build upon them, and from this, if I may coin a phrase, dialectic, I think we might get a truly human, an unillusioned morality, that was free from superstition or religion. On that realizable aspiration, I rest my case. Thank you.

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

(LCW)   And we immediately return to another communist manifesto insight. Just what we were looking for, ‘lyrical’ compliments from the greatest historical adversary of capitalism itself. Of course, he is more knowledgeable than anyone else to give us those insights, and Mr. Hitchens is here to legitimize the attack. What drivel.

The insinuation is that there are many virtues to capitalism, among them creativity, innovation, the bursting of feudal and antique tribal fetters. Difficult to disagree with his perspectives, but he doesn’t really explain any of this either, which in this case is fine, but to be honest, I don’t want to hear from anyone that cannot make a case for their comments.

I certainly would like to understand the mythology and mystification and bondage of which he speaks, but I long ago have given up on getting any useful information from the speaker. If you agree with him, I am sure you are good with it, but if not, I am sure you will go home bewildered and unsure about where you were and what was supposed to be discussed. Such a shame.

There is a stated belief that socialism will transcend capitalism, and build upon it to realize whatever it is that socialism represents. There is no need to speak of, or explain, what it is right now since there is an evolution that will happen, somewhere in the unseeable future, where this benign market socialism will take form.

Unfortunately, I wanted to know what they believe now, today, so we can determine why these socialists are necessary at all, except possibly as gadflies. If socialism is in such disarray and lack the cohesion as to be unworkable at the moment, then why not put all of our efforts into, not a replacement of capitalism, but the reparation and evolution of a superior construct?

Why the need to destroy something that works, no matter how imperfectly, with something that no one seems to want to explain and promote now? Something that, in their own words, never existed and does not really exist as we speak. Something that will be built upon capitalism itself, even as they disparage and condemn what it does well. I am at something of a loss as to how to interpret their actions and their lack of substance in the defending of their own philosophy. Thank you, Mr. Hitchens. It has been enlightening, but not in the way I expected.

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