1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Rebuttal: Mr. Christopher Hitchens

 
 
 

Mr. Hitchens makes the distinction that altruism and the concept of 'from each according to ability and to each according to need' are not the same, but embraces both. His belief is capitalism is built on exploitation and theft      

 
 
 
 

Rebuttal Statements by Mr. Christopher Hitchens

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens

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

I regret that what I say will be a little more fragmentary than my opening presentation because there are a number of challenges that have been offered to our side which I mustn't let pass but could only deal with one at a time.

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

(LCW)   I would like to agree that your initial forays into your presentation were ‘not’ fragmentary as well, but I would be hard-pressed to say such a thing. The ‘challenges’, as you characterize them, were meant to be a motivation to actually answer the questions posed, in the context of the morality of your own ideology, but, unfortunately, that was not to be the case.

As it is so often, people only wait to present what it was that they intended to say from the onset, and had little or no incentive or objective to do so. More is the pity, since I really wanted to hear what you had to say on a number of issues that you seemed to display an actual aversion to sharing with the audience. The result? For me, very little enlightenment except for the insight into the individual that is not particularly interested in bringing clarity to a vague and seemingly illegitimate philosophy. Very unimpressive.

/font}

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

(CH)   First, I specifically did not state that the principle of from each, etc., as I think we can agree to call it as embodied in the voice of our family, was a principle of altruism, it was simply a principle of necessity, there is no other way that the family could be run and that therefore this principle prefigures the extension of such a principle to the society itself, and we can see it as it were, in the womb of the old, as Engels would have said and was in fact over-fond of saying.

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

(LCW)   It is more than a little bit curious that you distance yourself from the ‘from each, to each’ paradigm. Is this not one of the fundamentals of the ideology? I see no one trying to conflate this concept with altruism, although I don’t see how you can deny that they have a close relationship. It is incomprehensible to me that you do not wish to proclaim to the world why it is not only a ‘good’ thing but a necessary one.

I question if it is a central tenet or not? You can state that we may all agree, but since you refrain from going into detail, I would have to resist any such agreement. This voice of the family is somewhat disconcerting. It may mean something to you. You may feel a real connection with your philosophical ‘daddy’, Mr. Marx, but whatever you may adopt as real to you, it is incumbent on you to explain what this rhetoric means so we can come to our own conclusions. A principle of necessity? Are you telling me what is, or what you wish something to be? Can you put some time and effort into an explanation? Can you defend what is obvious to you, but you only?

You have made this comparison between this fabricated family with Marx, and a historical, personal, family, but it is certainly not a given, and not even a possibility for almost all of us out here in reality. I am not interested in some unarticulated political ‘family’, which once again, infers some patriarchal or matriarchal ‘head’ of the family that has, basically, dictatorial powers as to direction, intent, and action.

I am looking for a comprehensive collection of individuals that can all make their own decisions and direct their own futures. My experience with families, from many different perspectives, is that these ‘father’ figures are often possibly well-meaning, but often do not have the level of expertise and ability to actually direct the family properly. The goal should always be to develop each individual in the family to be the highest level of whatever abilities they possess, which in the end is the best thing for the family and its survival.

The family does indeed need from each the best of their ‘abilities’ so as to be of value and assist those others that may ‘need’ help. That is the true way to interpret this ‘from each, to each’ directive. If you believe something, then I ask you to plead your case and make a reasoned argument to that end. Please stop telling me what ‘is’. My interpretation of a debate is not that you lecture us, but you inform and inspire us to see your own perspective. This is not what I see being done.

There are too many assumptions being presented to the end that what Marx had to say, the components and imperatives of a real and normal family, and this philosophy that you are reluctant to go into detail about. What works in a family, comprised by the presence of a handful of individuals, all closely connected by genetics, blood, culture, religious tendencies, political systems, etc., have no relation whatsoever to a nation of millions, with a diversity and wealth of differences that not only refutes your claims but precludes even the possibility of being able to control the inherent chaos in such an amalgam of mankind.

It can be used as an example, possibly, but you make no concrete connections between the possible and the probable. I find it to be an incredible and possibly an irrational assertion.

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

(CH)   Now, this, there's a very great and unrecognized, I think, in their own minds, confusion, in our two opponents here about capitalism, liberty, and private property in the relationship between them. The history of capitalism and even more so this should be said of the history of capitalism in its imperialist phase, its heroic period in the history of expropriation, it is the history of the robbery of private property for millions and millions of people.

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

(LCW)   Once again, you seem to equate legitimate evidence with your own personal opinion and attempt to validate your comments with the inclusion of remarks by Marx and Engels, incessantly. If this were a course on the fundamentals of communistic and collective thought, it might have been relevant, but alas, it is not, and we still await some perspectives as to the morality of socialism, as evident through the thoughts of someone more current and substantial, someone such as yourself, or so I was led to believe, which has not materialized in any way this evening.

I find it fascinating that you do not just have an opinion, unsubstantiated, about the whole concept of capitalism, but have little, if anything, to say about socialism, where I may have been compelled to accept your positions as ‘scholarly’, with perhaps some level of expertise. You seem to, without exception, completely dismiss, out of hand, anything offered or even suggested by your opposition, but have no lack of hubris in the pontification of your views on what is, was, or even could be anything but the only characterization of capitalism in any way. This is a gross distortion of what I see with your observations.

The point has been made, on numerous occasions, that this ‘exploitation’, robbery of private property from ‘millions’ of people, is not a direct consequence of the capitalist ideal, but the ideals of the worst kinds of human beings imaginable, and more often than not, those of the collectivist, socialist, communistic persuasion.

You don’t seem to address any of that at all, and it is irrelevant that you may not agree with the positions, since the sole purpose of your presence in this venue is not to tell us why capitalism is wrong or ‘unrealized’, but to impress upon us why socialism is ‘right’ and advantageous in comparison to that capitalistic system.

You have failed miserably if that was the imperative presented to you. Where is your vision? What does it mean for the woefully uninformed individual that will have to endure socialism or the inevitable communism that is the inevitable end result? I have no idea if you will not, or simply cannot present a palatable theory to us, I only know that you have not done so, and it doesn’t even look like you have tried. I may have mentioned this once or twice before, but very disappointing on so many levels.

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

(CH) Marx, observing this process in the Communist Manifesto remarks on the tremendous advances in productivity and technique and innovation that were thereby enabled but he does point to the fact that many, many, people who hitherto had owned land, properties, or were expropriated, collectivized, and made into the modern proletarian.

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

(LCW)   Where? When? Who? Why? I find it incomprehensible that you can talk so much and say so little. Who lost the land, and who ended up in possession of said land? Who is this modern proletarian of which you speak? Are these really capitalists, or those you would like to present as such? Are they the worst kinds of criminals that mankind has to offer, or something else entirely? Without some legitimate information, that you are reluctant to offer, we have nothing to base any conclusions upon. We don’t even get incomplete or insufficient examples, we get absolutely nothing at all to investigate. An atrocious example of a credible or valid presentation.

Why is it that your exalted Illuminati has no voice when it comes to giving us answers as to how can this terrible capitalistic system, which Marx compliments in so many ways, can be adjusted and repaired to counteract these things that seem so obvious to him, and you? Why is it always a matter of total destruction of the existing paradigm, to be replaced by a new and improved system that will not be shackled with reason and actual freedom and liberty?

Why is it only the way of the collective, even though it has been shown, time and again, to be an inferior alternative? I do not reject the factual evidence that these negatives have existed within the larger system, but I totally reject that they are an integral part or even a desired aspect of the theoretical philosophy of capitalism, and you have nothing whatsoever to show any connection, with the exception of unsubstantiated opinion in your own mind, as well as possibly in the mind of your mentor.

Who are the individuals that condone and promoted these things? Where has anyone championed the expropriation and exploitation of their fellow man? Can you cite the book, page, and verse to prove your point? No, it is only your own perspective that gives any credence to your claims, and until you do, it is only what is commonly known as ‘sour grapes’.

I find it uncommonly amusing that the media inundates us with the ‘fact’, blatantly unsubstantiated, that the liberal and socialistic, and of course, communistic as well, are comprised of the educated, the intelligentsia of our species, especially in America, and yet when I watch the protests, when I research the historical facts, it is only the uninformed, the easily directed, the lost and damaged individuals of the society that follow in droves, like lemmings, to do the bidding of their ‘classless’ betters.

I rarely see debate and discussion, with this debate as evidence, from those that disagree with the status quo. No one talking about how to make things better, only how to dismantle and rebuild, but only in the image of those that will take the reins of power, never being ‘elected’, or even chosen in any legitimate way, to lead those very same unwashed masses, into an unknown future, the only surety being the new leaders will be those that started the chaos that results in revolution and the change they desire. Unfortunately, history shows that those that take over are rarely those intended, and the results are invariable not the Utopia promised.

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

(CH)   He thought, he thought the price was worth paying, he thought capitalism was an advance over what had gone before, but let nobody tell you that capitalism cannot coexist with the expropriation of private property, it can, and does.

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

(LCW)   Is it truly coexistence, or simply the presence of a totalitarian undercurrent, that is not wanted, but next to impossible to eradicate? It may be capitalism, but the collectivist cancer has existed forever, in every system ever devised, and refuses to go quietly into the oblivion of history that it so richly deserves. Expropriation does indeed exist, but it is not a capitalistic imperative, and you have yet to make a reasoned response to that.

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

(CH)   This, I think, would be, would assist us to answer an even more intriguing question which is why it is that capitalism has only ever evolved successfully in a very few countries? I think this is very probably because I have, to be condensed here, because it's evolution a Benicio, was based on the robbery of other countries' wealth and productivity.

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

(LCW)   Like a skipping record, I think it time to try another song. Capitalism has existed, almost since the beginning of civilization, in one primitive form or another. Capitalism is simple trade between players, and the more voluntarily they do so, the more capitalistic it is. What you see as capitalism is when the state inserts its ugly head into every aspect of the transactions, primarily because collectivism cannot envision a reality where the state does not play an oppressive, and mistakenly, a necessary role in the control and administration of the masses towards their own future, and that does not mean one that they wholeheartedly support or even comprehend.

Surprisingly, I also tend to agree in many respects. Without some point of power and authority to control the chaos, there are more challenges and obstacles than the system can support. This is what history shows us, not your narrow-minded vision of capitalistic vultures.

Ayn Rand presented the paradigm properly, speaking of the moochers and the parasites that exist in every system, and throughout history. At times, they are individual players, but recent history has evolved them into corporations and governments, no longer simple dictatorships, but the more nuanced cancer of our own representation within politics as beneficent and caring, all the time being nothing more than a corrupt extension of the true enemy, and it confounds me that more people do not see this, on both sides of this capitalistic/socialistic confrontation that diverts and digresses, and never addresses or confronts the real impediment to our progress.

I can’t say it enough. It is about bad ‘players’, and there is no system that is immune from them. Until we can answer that particular challenge, it really doesn’t matter what system is tried. It will fail, and the small percentage of players that control the game will continue to do so, at their convenience, and at their whim. If you don’t see this, you are probably an anarcho-collectivist, and a socialist to boot.

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

(CH)   Let me again remind you of what Marx said about India. A tremendous expropriation by British imperialism of the resources of capital accumulation from India. An enormous, an enormous input to the British industrial revolution, still the heartland of the evolution of capitalism but a fantastic desolation of private property in India.

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

(LCW)   It is overly simplistic to put it in these terms. While an ‘expropriation’ took place, it was not through capitalism, and it is so ignorant to characterize it as such. It was a big political power, at the time, raping another backward country, at the complete acknowledgment and support of the ruling classes of India, who fully intended to cooperate to gain personal power and in their own best interests, money, and influence. It could not have happened otherwise, with the exception of an overwhelming invasion, and an abuse of force in the implementation of the same result, and British concerns had done so before but were understanding it was not really necessary, and the same thing could be accomplished through other means.

Did it help the British industrial revolution? Of course, who is denying that? Was it inevitable? That is a question for another day. Perhaps, maybe not. Presenting England as the heartland of the evolution of capitalism is another stretch. It was an environment of more freedom, comparatively, than was experienced in the past, and anyone with any knowledge of capitalism and free trade, such as Mr. Hitchens, should know that freedom and liberty are the impetus for capitalism. Who wants to create wealth if it can be taken away on a whim, unless, of course, one is a part and parcel of the vaulted 1%, or whatever it is called at any particular time historically?

You speak of a ‘desolation’ of private property in India? Of what did that ‘property’ consist of? Those at the bottom of the economic ladder had absolutely nothing at all, so could lose nothing as well. Your rhetoric is admirable but irrelevant. Speak to us in empirical realities, not in ideological double-speak.

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

(CH)   Again, Marx thought it was probably, in the long run, justifiable because India would, in the end, succeed in coming together as a state and overcoming the feudal ties imposed by the Mughal Emperors that had been sundered by the imperialist invasion, but don't let anybody suggest you, for an instant, that capitalism does not regard people as means, probably more than any other system in history, it has made a virtue of that ability, of the ability to conscript, to expropriate, and to dispossess in order to become an engine of wealth, and that is why, finally, the responsibility for the overweening power of certain states is that historically speaking of capitalism, because in the countries where capitalism either did not or because of imperialism, could not, take root, capital accumulation had to be done another way.

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

(LCW)   I do have a question at this point for the illustrious Mr. Hitchens. Do you ever give any evidence for your statements or do you just keep talking, incessantly, until people just get tired of listening and simply walk away? You are certainly articulate to some degree but much less compelling after listening to you for the space of this so-called debate.

A mistake is continually being made by those that support the socialistic/communistic mindset that anything that capitalism does is by force but nothing that is done by their own historical interests seem to be anything but for the eventual ‘good’ of the greatest number, and somehow this makes the thoughts and actions credible. I would really like to know how one comes to such a conclusion.

Capitalism has little, if anything to do, with what happened in India or anywhere else for that matter. While there may have been some imperialist invasion, again, undefined in anything but the vaguest terms, but capitalism was not the driving force behind any such ‘invasion’ that you present. It is a benign economic theory that has been abused and perverted by many over the centuries, in all of its forms and versions that have been concocted by those that wished simply to confiscate for themselves wealth and power. Whether individuals or corporations or nations, it makes no difference, and I think that not acknowledging such a reality allows me to only consider your comments as disingenuous.

You never give a complete picture of what was, or is, happening, in any particular instance. It is always, or seems to be, only in relation to your own biased narrative on the subjects. It does not reflect well on your abilities as a scholar or a speaker. Capitalism is nothing more than a tool, and in many cases, I guess we could characterize it as a ‘weapon’. So be it. A gun can save a life as well as take one. As can an axe, a knife, a car, or as fairly recent history has shown, even an airplane. The fact that you refuse to present capitalism in an objective and unbiased light only calls attention to that fact.

Capitalism does not regard ‘people’ as means, albeit it recognizes them as a component of the system itself. Is not the individual, or greater good as you might say, not an integral component of socialism and communism? Without them, does not the system have no relevance at all, being something less than even a dream without its ‘players’? There is no fundamental difference between the two when it comes to the driving force behind a societal construct.

More than any other system in history? Are you really asking us to believe that all of the regimes that used people as fodder throughout history are somehow less destructive than the concept of capitalism? Socialism itself is high on the list of systems that have wrought pain and suffering unparalleled in a historical sense. Certainly, collectivism has a horrendous history of destruction, pain, and suffering.

You even dare to make the comparison? Despicable. They may not have been as ‘efficient’ as capitalism in generating ‘wealth’ but can you really make a case that the Chinese Dynasties, the Mongol Emperors, not to mention Roman Empires, and even entities such as the Christian Church, which hoards a priceless treasure in its bowels in the Vatican as we speak, have not made their own irreparable mark on history? To single out a simple theory as the impetus behind the generation of wealth, and not the people wielding the theory seems a bit irrational to me.

Exactly how has capitalism made it a ‘virtue’ of the ability to conscript, to expropriate, and to dispossess anyone in any way? Who says this, and particularly where do they say it, or is it just some enlightenment or revelation that only you are privy to? You cannot just make this stuff up, there needs to be citation and verification that there is something, anything we can consider reasonable, to even begin to lend legitimacy to your unsubstantiated claims.

Isn’t it normally the power of governments to do these things that you label ‘capitalism’? Interestingly, isn’t it the very same thing that happens when socialism and communism or any collectivism is implemented in all of its various forms and manifestations? I fail to see the difference, and you give no evidence to any of it. I feel that I have little option but to dismiss your utterances, until, and if, you can produce something of substance.

I find it fascinating that India was the victim of an ‘imperialist invasion’ where capitalism did all of these horrible things, and yet you end your comment with the observations that ‘historically speaking’, in the instances where capitalism could not or did not do these things, imperialism did. It seems that many of your words and concepts are able to be reinserted wherever and whenever you have nothing of significance to say, which is quite a bit from what I can see.

So what is it, exactly, that is the cause, capitalism or imperialism, and, as always, when is it that we can expect to see some evidence or reasoned argument to that end? You speak of capital accumulation, again with no clarity or detail. Is not pure theft an example of capital accumulation? How do you make a distinction between the two? Can capitalism be benign or beneficial and not be a matter of theft or corruption? If so, how can we determine how to differentiate between an appropriate instance and an illegitimate one? I have not seen you even attempt to speak of such an issue. I think it is an important point to make.

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

(CH)   You can't not have capital after all, though you can ‘not’ have capitalism, and capital can be accumulated one way or it can be accumulated the other, and in the oriental despotisms of the east and the modern versions of those, capitalism had to be substituted for by the state, but that is because of the failure of capitalism, which intimately related to it, let me say, I can't blame them for everything.

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

(LCW)   And yet you do blame them for everything. I am glad to say I finally find something that we can agree upon. It is very difficult for a society to exist at all with no capital involved. Not impossible, mind you, but difficult to envision. It is the paths we take to ‘accumulate’ that capital that is of the essence here.

You seem to only want to point to capitalism as the root cause of inappropriate confiscation when I have yet to see you make a point to that end. I cannot stress enough that it is the individuals involved that are the genesis of the final result of whatever environment is created through the use of capitalism, and not the system itself. It is only a means to an end, and the end is created and developed by those that use the system, and not the other way around.

If used properly and ethically, by individuals of integrity and character, the system can be a generator of wealth and beneficial goods and services across the board. It has been repeatedly shown to be true, as opposed to any instances where socialism has been able to say the same thing. Criminality is the distinction between the legitimacy of true capitalism, and what you portray as capitalism. Your total misappropriation of the concept is beyond disingenuous.

The incessant rhetoric of the failure of capitalism is tiring, to say the least. Most of what the world, and the individuals contained upon it, owe to capitalism is a profound standard of living that could not have been possible under a socialistic environment. The choice and quality of products is unparalleled throughout history.

Collective systems have a miserable record for making anything of durability and quality or even quantity. Russia was known for its inability to produce anything of significance after their revolution, and to this day, besides perhaps in the military sphere, they still are well behind. China as well is still not known for anything approaching world-wide approval of their products or quality. Toxic products, with a demonstrable lack of quality and durability. With all the criticisms of America and its capitalistic shortcomings, which I do not disagree with at all, China has a horrendous history of pollution and tyranny that the world cannot dismiss.

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

(CH)   Thus it’s perfectly simplistic to say that capitalism represents freedom from state power because both in the countries of its success and in the countries of its failure the relationship with the modern state, the giant state, the state that can regard the citizen as its property for large numbers of practical purposes, is very close indeed, and I think this, what I have said should be enough, in itself, to rebut the ridiculous accusation that only socialists are interested in violence.

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

(LCW)   A point must be made here among the irrational rhetoric that seems to be the only game in town today. Once again, unsubstantiated observations are delivered with no basis in fact, and little evidence to back them up. Who says that ‘capitalism represents freedom from state power’? I have been listening to the capitalists present to the socialist camp over and over again that they want the state ‘OUT’ of the business of the individual, especially in the arena of the economy. They recognize that the state is an obstacle to the progress that they see as inevitable if only that one goal could be achieved. Why do you keep putting words in their mouths, and in our ears, that were never uttered, except by those in the socialist camp that will say or do anything to demean and vilify the concept of capitalism?

The failure is not of capitalism and its relationship with what you call the ‘modern state’, it is of the modern state itself. I at least applaud your honesty in finally admitting that socialism is actually a proponent and supporter of state-run violence, even if including capitalism to somehow make it a shared responsibility, and counter-balance the culpability of the socialist/collectivist reality.

Capitalism, and especially Objectivism, reject the initiation and use of force in any form. It is despicable to even insinuate that this is not the position of your opposition. Capitalism sees a way to accomplish its objectives without violence and force, while the goal of the socialists is impotent and unachievable without that same coercion and violence. It is only through the power and authority of the state that socialism can ever be implemented. The population will never vote for it voluntarily, and that, my friend, is the essence of the difference between the two camps. As always, it is a matter of freedom and liberty, neither of which is in the socialistic platform.

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

(CH)   Or need it for the vindication of their program I could really stand here all night and read the list of names of people who've been murdered by capitalist regimes when the interest of illicit private property and governments based on it is felt to be threatened. There is no length to which capital will not go in those contingencies. Fascism was capitalism.

/size}

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

(LCW)   The comments verge on the absurd. It is more than silliness. I am sure that you could stand there all night reading the names of people who’ve been murdered by capitalist regimes, but can you prove that capitalism was integral to the actions? Or was it perhaps simply the accumulation of other people’s ideas and effort to enrich themselves or their ideologies, as socialism seems to promote?

Do you not comprehend that I could stand here twice as long, and read the names of the innocent victims of socialist and communistic regimes over the centuries that is every bit as disgusting as what you speak of? Do you have any of that evidence I have been looking for that ‘capitalism’ itself was to blame? Is it just possible that it was the individuals that could care less about the name of the system or how it is ‘supposed’ to work as long as they achieve their own personal ambitions?

It is so hypocritical to think that capitalism is directly responsible for all of these instances that you cannot even produce one iota of information that the player even understood the system, much less intentionally used it, by itself, to attain what they desired, and yet, for the socialistic camp, socialism has yet to be tried, and all of the shortcomings and weaknesses of capitalism will not even be a consideration in that land of milk and honey at the end of the socialistic rainbow.

Personally, I unequivocally condemn and reject anything that results in what you call illicit private property or governments. I despise them more than you possibly could, and yet you never seem to acknowledge such a fact. You devolve into not even calling it capitalism, but simply capital. All property is capital. I can only assume that you do not even believe in capital at all, and socialism seems to echo your sentiments.

There will be no property whatsoever, only happy individuals, who own nothing, desire nothing, and do whatever the state determines is in their best interests. I still wonder what becomes of those that do not agree with your Utopia. What is to be done with the malcontents? I find it hard to believe that it can be anything else than an appointment to ‘go home’ as presented in the movie Soylent Green. After all, ‘sacrifice’ is the inevitable gift that we all give to the ‘greater good’, is it not?

Fascism was not, is not, and will never be capitalism. It is socialism, in all of its forms. The fascist dreams of using capitalism to achieve certain results, but you have no evidence that they are one and the same. It seems ludicrous for you even to suggest such a thing. The confiscation, not of property, but the means to the creation of property is where the genesis of property begins, and where the fascists’ wet-dreams ultimately reside.

What capitalist in their right mind would promote and condone the annihilation of their life’s-blood? It would be akin to economic suicide. But, for someone who does not believe in property, or the right of an individual to own anything, really, it would seem to be a level of nirvana. It seems more than obvious which economic system would embrace, with a passion, the concept of fascism. It is the zeitgeist of the modern socialist.

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

(CH)   The structure of the capitalist state in Germany survived and coexisted to survive, and in Italy, and in Spain, survived and coexisted with the fascist period throughout. I don't mean to say that capitalism is fascism but capitalism can coexist with any system and its attitude to Liberty is as instrumental and contingent as its attitude to equality. I see I have no more time but I'm prepared to defend anything I've said a greater length in the subsequent period. Thank you.

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

(LCW)   So, ….. you just stated categorically that fascism was capitalism, but now you don’t mean to say that capitalism ‘is’ fascism? I know I ask the impossible but can you please expand on that? Any capitalist environment that has ‘ever’ existed does so independently from the controlling entity involved.

Capitalism can be ‘used’ for completely unrelated objectives but is never the determining or driving force. It is of a secondary nature, no matter how integral it may be to the success of the efforts involved. It is benign, and I am beginning to think that you will never understand that.

Can it coexist with these inappropriate and even evil players? Of course it can, as can any other economic paradigm. It would be ignorant to think otherwise. All fascists may use capitalism, especially since someone has to pay the bills, and the only proven way to successfully do that, even if not without exceptions, is capitalism. But all capitalism realities do not have to be, and rarely are, fascists or dictatorships or even socialistic experiments, but they could be.

I fail to see the point being made to liberty and equality but my assumption is that it is not a compliment to capitalism. It really doesn’t matter. I am really glad that you are ‘prepared’ to defend anything you have said, and yet, to this point, that is relatively nothing. You have presented woefully little and defended nothing to this point. The debate is, for all intents and purpose, over, and you have yet to defend anything you have espoused. When does this honest and reasonable exchange of opinion begin?

This was more disappointing than I possibly could have imagined. I was so looking forward to someone who could initiate a conversation, or better yet, inspire some deep and insightful contemplations since we will never be able to speak in person. Such a shame. Such a waste of time. I thought that you could have been the one to bring clarity to such a murky subject such as socialism and why I should give the concept any consideration whatsoever.

It was a poor presentation, especially since it was primarily supposed to be about morality, and never developed into such a conversation. More is the pity. But I appreciate the effort, to whatever extent was possible for you. I feel cheated somehow. I really expected to learn something today, and of course, I guess I did, but not in the manner expected, and very little about socialism.

I learned of the inability of the socialists to determine, define or explain what it is that they actually embrace as truth if any truth even exists in their paradigm. If this is the best socialism has to offer, it is a sad state of affairs.

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