1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Rebuttal: Mr. John Judis

 
 
 

Mr. Judis believes in a single concept of selfisness and is reluctant to accept capitalism as a philosophical ideal, simply recycled feudalism. A radical new socialism is his future, and capitalism exists only as a historical failure     

 
 
 
 

Rebuttal comments by Mr. John Judis

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

Mr. John Judis

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

Well, I wonder whether you found it as difficult to understand Christopher and I, as I sometimes find it difficult to understand the Objectivists. I think that we both have, to a certain extent, a metaphysics that we understand and that may not be comprehensible to people outside, at least I found myself at a loss at times trying to understand the meaning of such words as life and selfishness as I listen to my fellow debaters discuss capitalism.

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

(LCW)   It is somewhat disappointing when a comment like this is made. Is that not what a debate is all about? Trying to provide clarity to an interested group that wishes to understand whatever it is you are trying to articulate? Blame it on metaphysics if you wish, but I would have to think it is an aversion, a real reluctance, to understand and to be understood.

If you truly do not comprehend concepts like ‘life’ and even ‘selfishness’, when adequately identified and defined, you are working at an inarguable disadvantage. If one can only function using their own interpretations, is communication even possible? Are these people not irreparably damaged and incapable of engagement and the exchange of ideas?

If you actually know what it is that you believe, and some of the fundamentals of same, then I don’t understand how you are not able to communicate this to others. I am not saying that you have the ability to ‘convince’ me to change my position, but can you not even explain what it is that you believe, in terms that are able to be presented and understood by another normal individual?

Einstein is reported to have said that if you cannot explain something to a six-year-old, then you don’t really understand it yourself. What you believe should not be so nuanced and complex that it is unrelatable. If so, this would be something that is the responsibility of the speaker to make it palatable and comprehensible. What good are all the degrees and years of education if you cannot do this? This is simply unacceptable.

I see no obligation to accept or embrace a concept such as the Objectivist definition of rational self-interest, but to say you do not understand the concept, as presented, is disingenuous to the point of dishonesty. Argue that an individual cannot act in such a way, and give a reasoned argument why, if you wish, but it is simply not acceptable to just say you don’t understand it and leave it at that.

Ask questions, investigate, and look for answers. How do you objectively live in reality? This is the basis of communication. Is this an integral part of why the socialist camp resists defining exactly what it is that they believe and promote when it comes to the ideology and the philosophy itself?

To be honest, I am a bit tired of hearing that a socialist wants equality when they speak of it only in vague terms that are difficult to pin down and discuss. The same thing with the issues of selfishness, selflessness, initiation of force, the actual role of the state in specific and concrete terms about what they can and can’t do to the individuals within the community. The list is endless. Talking about Marx and the 18th century does nothing to bring clarity to the socialist mindset of the 21st century. Telling me why capitalism does not work and how it has failed to ‘realize’ its vision without evidence or even a good argument ends up being more a waste of time than a communication of ideas.

An issue like selfishness is an excellent case in point. I really don’t like to put any pressure on another individual to ‘read’ something in particular, since there are so many options available, and to be honest, I can’t just read what the opposition wants me to, when they refuse to read anything that may have given them understanding about my own issues.

The first time I read ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ I understood quite well what Rand was saying. It took some time to truly grasp the comprehensive impact of what she had to say, but there was no ambiguity about the fundamentals of what she was saying.

I would be, and always have been, more than willing to go into great detail about my interpretation of her concept, but find resistance in every instance. The essence of rational self-interest is doing things that one finds of absolute necessity to the challenge of one’s life behaviour, and this is of utmost importance, NEVER hurting or harming another by those actions. What possible refutation can the socialist offer to that?

It is not a matter of an opinion. It is a given to the theory of what rational self-interest not only implies but demands. Yes, there are those who practice ‘irrational’ self-interest, but that is not any part of what Rand or Objectivism promotes. If one wishes to refute the paradigm, there is an imperative on their part to accept the scenarios as presented. If not, they are being dishonest in the ability or intent to have a rational argument about anything, and the attempt at comprehension through a debate such as this is irrelevant and moot.

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

(JJ)   Let me try to restate, if I will, some of my argument and while I do that I'll refer to what points that have been made. First, I see capitalism as a social system, as a historical system, not as an ideal that has not yet been realized, as a social system that evolved out of feudalism and that has a certain history and it's a history that we can learn from.

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

(LCW)   And you have the right to think this. It does not matter if it is correct or not. But remember, it seems to be the conventional socialist thinking currently that ‘your’ kind of socialism is an ‘ideal that has not yet been realized’ a well. You say it has never been tried ‘yet’, so you are not inclined to accept any responsibility of any kind as relates to those instances where this ‘never before’ ideology has been tried, even though you provide examples of where socialism ‘has’ worked, all the time professing that it has never existed. I get it. It is not what you envision, it’s not ‘exactly’ what you hope to accomplish. Perhaps you are as unhappy with it as the capitalists that criticize it. I would tend to agree, so I can accept that. But how can you not deign to allow the capitalist to look at history in a very similar vein? Mr. Binswanger and Ridpath were not a part of what you continue to promote as real ‘capitalism’. They also think that their vision has not yet been appropriately represented with what has come before. These men were not a part of whatever happened in the 17th, 18th, 19th, or even the 20th centuries. They hold no responsibility, nor obligation, to accept whatever it is that you attempt to label as a failed attempt at capitalism.

Perhaps they see something they call ‘capitalism’ as building upon what has come before and an evolutionary step forward to an improvement to what you call that ‘failed’ capitalism. Their capitalism will build upon the capitalism of the past, with all of the failures that may have been attempted, warts and all, much as you yourself would like envision some future version of socialism also building on those things within capitalism that you believe have value and substance. The things that they promote have demonstrably never been put into place up to this point in time. Does that not mean that they are completely legitimate in saying that real capitalism has never really been tried as well? Let us stop declaring that the other side cannot believe what they wish, and accept responsibility, or not, and get down to the real nitty-gritty and tell each other exactly what they want to see implemented in the future, and have a debate about ‘those’ issues, and stop trying to make connections to a past that does not represent a more modern interpretation of the ideologies. We seem to be lost in the past, where we think we can gain some ‘advantage’ in the discussion, when being more open and honest about what we actually believe today would be more conducive to comprehension of the fundamentals of each camp.

Speaking of feudalism is of historical significance, but the relation to today’s ideologies are as relevant and credible as blaming the actions of the caveman on what socialism is trying to achieve today as well.

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

(JJ)   In the United States, the crucial part of that history is the one that really is at stake here, it's the history of the early republic because in those days were born the ideals by which we still live, by which we were governed as Christopher mentioned, hypocritically, so that the crucial question for us is how can those laissez faire ideals be realized and what happened in America, what happened during the Civil War, why was it that we fought a war based on the idea of all men are created equal and out of that let's say 60 years later we had a society in which there was gross inequality?

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

(LCW)   I find it somewhat contradictory to have someone lecture me about the ‘history’ of the early republic but especially about the ideals by ‘which we still live’ by someone who is trying to completely overturn the dynamic of those same ideals with an ideology that completely conflicts with the fundamentals the ‘republic’ was founded upon.

I do, however, think that you make a great point about men being created equal, without realizing, of course, that it calls into question the legitimacy of your own philosophy. Why you speak of the Civil War, except possibly for the ease of introducing the concept of slavery into the narrative, is not very clear. Our forefathers talked often of the concept of equality, with the intrinsic concept of slavery in mind.

Being of an ideology that not only accepts but embraces the concept of coercion, specifically the initiation of force in relation to the members of society, socialists, including yourself, make it sound like things such as equality and freedom can simply be created through fiat, by legislation that is not fully accepted by all individuals. Those that believe in a legitimate use of coercion to get others to do what they wish are invariably believers in slavery. Please feel free to educate the rest of us on why that is not true in your case.

Anyone that puts any effort at all into the discussions of the founders should understand that there were opposing camps on every facet of our founding documents, and therefore, our most basic ‘ideals’. Just getting the idea of all men, especially those already under the yoke of slavery, actually being fundamentally free and possessing the same inalienable rights of all, was a challenge in itself, since many had no qualms with the practice.

The framers knew the difficulties that were involved, and knew that it was necessary to start somewhere, and time would hopefully find a way to create pathways to the objectives before them. And time did, and that is irrefutable. Not, perhaps, in the way you would have wished or done so, or possibly in a much timelier manner, but one does not ‘force’ others to accept freedom nor equality.

It needs to be organic and without question the only way to resolve the issue. It really disturbs me that more people don’t understand this, or the fact that it was an important hope and expectation to those that framed our Constitution and other documents. As with the expectations of our capitalists and socialists today, especially since their versions have ‘never existed’, they still hold the expectation that the future will be able to realize whatever it is that they think will be beneficial to the members of our society, but it will be difficult, and will not be realized with the flourish of a signature on some piece of parchment. It will take a tremendous amount of time and effort, or it will take coercion.

The Objectivist wishes it to be a matter of mutual benefit through mutual agreement. The collectivist cares not how the end is accomplished, and is willing to crush whatever opposition stands in its way to the realization of their objectives. I personally find that repugnant, and without an ethical and moral base. Maybe we should talk about the underpinnings of the actions taken?

Why is it so difficult to understand that our forefathers knew it would not happen immediately, but it would happen if given enough time? The reality is that it did. Perhaps not in your arbitrarily constructed 60-year timeframe, but it is irrefutable that it did indeed happen, and it happened within the construct of the same nation, the same Constitution, and the same capitalistic economic environment. I fail to see your point.

It happens time and again with those that despise the fundamentals of America and freedom. The antagonists demean and refute the ‘realizations’ of what the United States represents, and what it has accomplished, with no competing ideology of any significance for centuries, and refuse to accept, or acknowledge, that America has brought to fruition that which everyone wanted, the end to slavery, the recognition of blacks and women as equals within our societal structure, religious and gender equality, and so much more.

Isn’t that what you wanted? Isn’t that what has come to be the natural order of things? Was that not the intent of the ‘ideals’ of those that created and implemented our nation? Not that there is no conflict. That can only happen within an authoritarian or totalitarian environment, one where some dictatorial imperative exists to not allow people to be free, but to force them to be free, albeit by a framework not of their own making or suggestion, with our example today being socialism.

America allows these changes to happen. Not quickly, nor easily, but inevitably, if the people really want it and work towards it. We are not going to agree, perhaps not even to any real extent, on the totality of these changes wished for or implemented, but that is the difficulty with true freedom. It can, and will, be messy. At times, more frustrating and confusing than anything else imaginable, but without the necessity of conflict and violence to the exclusion of reason and mutual benefit through mutual agreement, at least in the public sphere.

We do not need nor wish for revolution, especially since it will result, not in more freedom and a more welcoming societal environment, but simply in more of what we have seen over the last five millennia, more coercion, more control, more lack of freedom, more suffering and pain, more death and destruction.

Does socialism guarantee even more progress than what we have seen in the short span of a couple of centuries? Is it not irrefutable the advantages and the superior lifestyle that has been brought to the greatest number of individuals like at no time in the history of our species?

I know that you are not happy, and want even more for everyone that exist today but does your vision provide that? I see no reason to believe that this is so, on any level whatsoever. I see the loss of freedom and the restriction of the individual instead, with an almost inevitable degradation in the quality of life for the vast majority of society.

Could I be wrong? Of course. Do you accept the same with your own ideology and philosophy? I am not sure that you do, and that scares me, and makes me suspect that your alternative cannot be seriously considered until you can explain and convince, that you can, using your own word, ‘persuade’ me to a different conclusion. This will not happen as long as you present a paucity of reasoned arguments as you have done so today.

I still haven’t seen the most fundamental tenets of the socialist ideology, or examples of exactly what and how these hopes and wishes will be ‘realized’ with any specificity. Until that time, we will continue to disagree. Be careful of your desire for revolution, since history teaches us that we rarely get the society that was expected, but possibly the one that we deserve, if we think that violence and crushing power will create a nirvana.

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

(JJ)   Now, are there classes, are people, do people have free will? I think here that there's a confusion of normative and description and in descriptive terms whether we're talking about how life ought to be and/or how life is, whether in fact the society is organized a certain way and whether it ought to be organized a certain way, and what I'm trying to say is that out of this attempt in our Jeffersonian, Jacksonian period, the period of the civil war, to create a society that was free and equal, a much different society got created, one in which there were great not only differences in income but differences in income that were related to differences in the relationship that people had to private property and particularly to large-scale private property, and that's what we talk about when we talk about classes and that helps us understand certain things about the society.

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

(LCW)   I find it rather interesting that an individual that promotes an ideology that will remove many freedoms from other individuals, albeit to somehow, and in some unspecified way, create a superior paradigm for societal members, then speaks of classes and especially free will. To me, although possibly not to others, free will infers freedom. If I have free will, I have the ability and the opportunity to disagree with another individual, and especially a government or state, as to how and what constitutes a free existence.

Socialists venerate the state, it is the vindication and the vehicle used to make the changes they see as invaluable in seeking and ‘imposing’ their own version of the future. Not my version, but theirs, and if the majority, I will reiterate my previous statement that it needs to be an appreciable majority in the vicinity of 80%, that actually agrees with whatever it is you promote, then why is the insertion of the coercion of the state even necessary?

If the vast majority of the population is in agreement, then it should be a fait-accompli, no? Is that not the reason for the changes in attitude towards slavery, suffrage, religious and personal freedoms realized within America over the last centuries? Make no mistake about it, it was not the state that wished for these things to happen. It did not make their aspirations any easier to accomplish, it was the people who made their positions known, and the driving force behind the changes made. If you don’t understand that, I have no idea why you are here to defend or champion any ideology or philosophy whatsoever.

You speak of ‘ought’ and I feel compelled to reject any efforts to such an end except through the use of that persuasion we talked of. We ask you to make your points, with reason and evidence and examples that can be used to sway and convince the rest of us of the legitimacy of your perspective and what you have to offer for a future.

This has not been accomplished today in any way, shape or form. The efforts should resist lecturing us on how capitalism has failed, when it has undeniable not done so, and more on what it is that socialism can offer and how it will be able to institute, develop and evolve into a way of life vastly superior to the one we have now, at least in your own minds-eye. If you cannot do so, there seems to be little reason to entertain the changes you suggest, although I must admit to not knowing exactly what those changes are in any great detail either.

An accusation is made that the Civil War created a society where a ‘different’ society than proposed got created, one that did not support free and equal, but something much worse, and yet, today, we have the offspring of those same slaves working at every single level of community and government, from doctors and politicians, to actors and sports figures. We do not see token successes, but real and tangible examples of real change.

There are not one or two, but ‘millions’ of millionaires that walk the streets of America today, whereas their ancestors may have been in chains. Not to mention millions more who are enjoying, every day, the benefits of the American Dream. It is irrational, and so dishonest, to speak ‘only’ of those that have yet to realize the benefits of America.

For every black individual that has yet to succeed, there are two or three white individuals that have also not been able to find a path to success, and this completely destroys the false narrative that is offered at every possible opportunity. It is irrational to ‘never’ speak of those who never were slaves who have never realized the best of America either. There are an endless supply of reasons why some individuals fail, and there is no argument that many are based on prejudice and inequality, but is not endemic by any means, and your perspective is biased and specific and disingenuous.

It was a paradigm and a reality that never should have been, but it was not capitalism that created slavery, nor America. In actuality, it was America that made the changes that have been seen around the world, America being the precipitator of these changes, just not the way you may have liked, or within the timeframe you would have hoped for.

History is history for a reason. It tells us what was and what is, while your own imaginings tell us only what you may wish for, and in the big scheme of things, are not particularly relevant. I don’t believe that you want to have a debate on slavery, since it would show that these things are undeniable and irrefutable.

And once again, you revert to the vilification of private property, especially large-scale private property. The problem is that I have voiced my own concerns with the concept. It is not a fundamental aspect of capitalism, being only a symptom of what is wrong with the players within the system, and not the system itself. You have voiced your own support of private property, in some yet again unexplained version of the socialist future. I am still unsure where you stand on the issue and would welcome an expansion and explanation of those positions.

You suggest that you have some insight into classes and ‘understanding’ certain ‘things’ about society, but I fail to see what or why. It is not enough to inform us that you have the answers to anything at all. It is an imperative, an obligation on you as the speaker, to bring evidence to bear on your own comments, to show by way of examples and argument that your positions have any degree of legitimacy or validity. I am panting in expectation that you will at some point do so. The presentation is wanting in so many areas. Disappointing.

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

(JJ)   Now the state, are governments necessary, something that again was an issue for Tom Paine and is an issue for us today, there are certain reasons I think why we have to have a government today and why it does have to play a certain role in the economy, and I don't mean just antitrust laws, I mean the experience of the great depression of depressions that began in the early 19th century, panics leading up through the depression of the 1890s, the depression of the 1930s, depressions which were caused by the anarchy of the capitalist system.

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

(LCW)   Once again, there is a pronounced disingenuousness exhibited in your observations. Your opposition today has repeatedly denounced the existence of the state in its current form and scope.

They (the capitalists) don’t want the anti-trust laws either. What are you arguing about? They have also specifically addressed the depressions, and there are many that believe and have expounded on the fact that state interference in the economy played a larger role in the vagaries of the market than the existence of capitalism did, and if and when the shadow of capitalism was involved, it would have been directly related to those bad players who do not, in essence, represent capitalism but their own personal or politically motivated interests. I am not sure who you are arguing against. Yourself perhaps?

The state has existed for some time now. Why has it allowed all of these depressions and all of this illicit accumulation of power and wealth, unearned and of not real value to the nation? Why do you think the ‘state’ under socialism will be any different? How do you intend to create and support a state that is drastically different than the one we have now? Do you really believe that the existing paradigm is just going to roll over and play dead, go home and behave themselves, and become obedient and productive socialists? I find that highly amusing, and yet inconceivably tragic as well.

The ‘anarchy of the capitalist system’ sounds overly ominous to the point of being immature and silly. So, where are the arguments, the examples, and the evidence that this is so, or do we just believe whatever arbitrary points you wish to throw up against the wall? I am not sure who you think you are talking to, but I am not buying any of it without something substantive and credible.

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

(JJ)   The only solution for which was some form of government regulation, whether we like it or not, and today I would suggest that in many to a great extent our own problems as an economy, our declining balance of trade if I can use such a mundane and dirty expression, you know, no time when we're talking about a much more high-level thing is partly related to the fact that our economy is structured so differently than the Japanese and that we haven't sufficiently used our government in a creative economic way to increase our own productivity but rather under the name of laissez faire have only used it to protect certain forms of greed and largesse. So, I hope we're not speaking entirely past each other and that we can have this a fruitful discussion of what is at stake in this issue between capitalism and socialism.

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

(LCW)   Again, we have nothing but a fish market here. Nothing but red-herrings offered as something of value and validity. Your opposition, once again, has been arguing ‘against’ big government, looking instead for the smallest version possible to provide security for the members of society to engage in trade and personal enrichment. How is this in conflict with your comments?

What does ‘balance of trade’ have to do with anything? Is there any focus in your observations? Are you trying to make a point? If we, as a country, produce billions of dollars of high-quality items, is it in our best interest to buy billions of dollars of industrial garbage products to create some arbitrary ‘balance’ between countries? Should we actually waste our wealth to purchase products with little or no intrinsic value?

I do like capitalism in the sense that if you wish to waste your own money, I support your right to do so, but I do not desire you having the power and authority to coerce me to do so. They need to create something of substance and value for us to have the imperative, or should we say freedom, to want those items. We make products that other countries need and want, and in many cases they have nothing of value to offer in return, or it is highly overvalued. A trade balance is an irrelevant concept. It is a political football, and if we had less government, we would have fewer footballs.

I fail to see why you are comparing America to Japan. Why would we want to be like a country that fought a war and lost? One of the primary reasons they have even had the ability or opportunity to create a different economy is because of the assistance given by America, and the lack of need to protect themselves while doing so or the case could easily be made that they would be a Chinese satellite by this point, if not for the presence of America in the paradigm.

Are you promoting that we follow their lead? Do you remember the decades of Japanese production that was the laughing stock of the world? While it is true that they have been able to create an environment where quality work is now the norm if we need to jump outside of the historic context for just a second and acknowledge that this debate was in 1986, and the Japanese economy in 2021 is having more than its share of issues. That’s the problem with taking things out of historical context, it diminishes the value of the initial point. By the way, what was the initial point?

I can’t help but respond to the comment about laissez-faire, tossed in once again without any real foundation. There have been multiple instances where your opposition, as well as myself, have tried to make the point that there are multiple players, and ‘norms’ within the perverted hybrid that the political establishment has allowed to exist that no one agrees with or wishes to promote or support, but your comments never seem to recognize this fact. I would use a magic wand, if I had one, to expunge their efforts forever from the reality of what I would promote, but it’s not quite that simple.

‘Laissez-faire’ in no way ‘protects’ certain forms of greed and largesse, although it is virtually impossible to prohibit it either. It is the corruption in its many forms that offers the opportunity for these players to ‘game’ the system. The fact that your presence here tonight is only to degrade and vilify capitalism is obvious. You present no factual evidence for any claims made, and don’t even try to rationally argue your points. Simply drop your bombs and run to the next issue.

It really doesn’t reflect well on yourself or your philosophy. There are many more people than I, who wished to learn something here today, who have been greatly disappointed in the presentation. I would have thought that you would have, at least, had more respect for your own ideology, and given a good account of yourself and the philosophy. Sad to say, that was not the case. And now, except for the last words of Hitchens, the socialist camp, and their words, will recede into the mists of time, where they belong.

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