1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Audience Questions & Responses - ( V thru VIII )

 
 
 

More questions about the violence perpetrated by socialism throughout history, the embrace of socialism by third world countries, peripheral issues as to Indian colonialism and if Marx fits into the conversation          

 
 
 
 

Audience Questions & Responses - ( V thru VIII )

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

QUESTION V

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   There are around 40 countries in the world that call themselves socialists today including, and some of those who have been perpetuated the most appalling deeds of violence and against and human beings in our century and the amount of violence seems to be an adverse proportion the end non-socialists and elements mixed into the particular society even if then the argument socialists are true, should we risk a system that can obviously go so easily off the rails?

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

(LCW)   I believe that he is talking about the violence perpetuated through socialism, although I may be wrong. It is one of my major concerns, not because the population may make a mistake in their selection of representation, but the fact that socialism represents an alternative that is not only against my own inclinations but once instituted, by its very nature of oppressive authority and control, it may be next to impossible to return to what was existent before.

This is unacceptable, so the easy answer is that the risk is much too high and should not be attempted. If they could somehow create an internal scenario where this oppression did not seem so obvious and inevitable, then at least we could possibly discuss it, but I find it hard to believe that the ideology can even exist without it, so the point is moot.

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

Mr. John Judis

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

Mr. John Judis:   Just to show how complicated things are here, let me first make a remark about this last controversy which is that I have to dissent from my comrade Hitchens view of Christianity and religion even though I'm on the Judeo rather than the Christian side of the controversy. You have to remember, Christianity's also the religion of the early Puritans. I mean there's a lot of you can make it, you can make a case for socialism coming out of a certain strain of Christianity, though to equate one with the other would be silly and trite.

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

(LCW)   As we know, the Puritans made the first attempt at socialism with their settlements, but they ended up as an undeniable total failure. Socialism, in the best of circumstances, is at a disadvantage, but they tried a rather strict and pure socialism. There was no capitalistic component to salvage the experiment, so it was discarded, as we would expect.

The interesting aspect is that it was so pure, and the behaviour of the participants was so specific, only reinforcing the expectation that socialism has many more fundamental shortcomings than is normally discussed. The first winter so many people died, and those that survived worked so hard, it was not unexpected that the individuals wanted, at least, to profit in some way, from their labour, initiative, and inventiveness.

I understand the observer wanting to help those failing miserably, but to continue the experiment as first envisioned, they well may have all perished. It is not a matter of cold-heartedness or uncaring sentiments, which the socialists continue to apply to capitalists without cease, but the fact that when you are talking personal survival, other options need to become evident, and those that have the ability should be the ones making life and death decisions, and not those that pursue a career in political motivation and manipulation, irrespective of ability and competence.

Isn’t that what we continue to discuss with the comparisons of socialism and capitalism? No one is stopping the socialists from attempting whatever it is that they envision and desire. No, it is the absolute necessity to confiscate and totally dominate the capitalistic aspect, the presence of ability and production that is essential to their vision for success. They ‘know’ with a surety comparable to my own, that their system is doomed to failure without the engine of production, reason and ability which is the key to success, and not the emotion and the need that will result in an evolution in the right direction.

Not to say that there is much that needs attention, only that we cannot have those with little or no ability make the decisions for those that are capable of achievement using their own virtues and abilities. Ayn Rand made that perfectly clear in her prophetic and profound works of fiction. It is not only what she thought ‘could’ happen, but what has actually occurred, in a myriad of environments, over the last hundred years.

Where are the compelling examples that socialism has to offer? When has it ever existed, independently, with a successful conclusion? When you find that, perhaps we can discuss giving control over our lives to the concept. Not in my lifetime.

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

Mr. John Judis:   Now, societies today, both our sides are in kind of a peculiar position, which is whenever we accuse the capitalist of doing something terrible they just say well we're not talking about that, we're talking about our capitalism and we're in the same problem here and let me try to make that point though analytically rather than normatively or morally.

Hegel had it as a concept of the cunning of reason, you know, that idea it's the idea that what people intend to do, that history isn't the sum of individuals intentions and that you cannot so that you cannot understand a society necessarily by its name.

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

(LCW)   There is some truth in what he says here. It is rather convoluted and frustratingly difficult to make any specific connections to the issues at hand, so we are not near comprehending what exactly it is that is being presented. Both sides are trying to distance themselves from the bad examples of what may be considered their ideologies, with the result being that little progress is being made.

Having said that, I believe that the capitalists have at least tried to present a scenario that exemplifies what it is that they represent, even if not acknowledging aspects of past experiments in capitalism that perhaps did not work very well. The fact is that these instances called attention to the weaknesses and shortcomings of capitalism. They have been adamant in disavowing any support or acceptance of the necessity or relevance of these aspects to their vision of capitalism, which is more than the socialists have been able to do.

Capitalism has, over the last two centuries, continually made changes to improve and develop capitalism into something that, while not perfect, is vastly superior to what the socialist presents as feudalistic capitalism. It is a point that cannot be made often enough. Capitalism can actually evolve into a better version, while socialism has yet to achieve any level of success whatsoever, and I would like to hear a compelling argument as to how and why it will evolve into something legitimate. I hear nothing to persuade me that it is a possibility.

They also disavow pretty much all the attempts made to initiate and implement socialism at whatever level, leaving us with no examples to investigate, but the real difference from my perspective is that we still await an explanation of the essence of the philosophy itself. It is extremely difficult to come to any conclusions as to the ideology when so little is acknowledged as the bedrock fundamental beliefs, in detail, that drives the philosophy. I find that to be the glaring disparity between the two.

The conflation of analytical as opposed to normatively or morally is incomprehensible to me, as is the depiction of Hegel’s’ ‘cunning of reason’ which offers no more insight into our discussion than anything else which is presented.

It is important to know what people intended to do, but more importantly to know what they believe, and that is becoming more difficult than extracting the proverbial blood from a stone. Of course history is not the sum of intentions. It is an amalgam of all the achievements as well as the mistakes and shortcomings.

This is what we need to investigate, in detail, to discover valid and substantial reasons to even consider an ideology. Either one. It is a factual record of what happened, and can, at times, be used in analysis and explanation, but even that is rarely more than a matter of opinion, which Mr. Hitchens has also made abundantly clear with his comments this evening.

I do not wish to understand a society by its name only. I am, and have been expecting, to be enlightened by those that supposedly understand the philosophy of socialism. I don’t want to misrepresent the ideology but in lieu of any rational and informative argument, I am left with no choice but to make assumptions, admittedly suspect, as to the intent and substance of the philosophy. Not what I wanted. I desired these two representatives to bring clarity to a vague theory. I have to wonder if it is a matter of complexity, or a matter of design because comprehension would negate any support it may already enjoy.

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

Mr. John Judis:   The fact that there's so many societies call themselves socialism doesn't mean that the historical movement that began in the 19th century has come to fruition in the 20th century. Instead, we have a kind of example of the cunning of reason where a name has been appropriated, just as the Nazis appropriated the name socialism, it was at the time the name of a popular philosophy in a popular politics.

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

(LCW)   I would like to make the point that it would seem the same as the appropriation of those that do not understand either the historical examples of capitalism or the vision presented by the capitalists, as something other than it is. They have not shown themselves to be an unimpeachable source for information on the fundamentals of socialism to this point, so why should I grant any legitimacy to their interpretations on capitalism?

I grant you that the Nazi’s may have indeed expropriated the socialist label, but if you want comparisons, the social programs for the population of Germany were many, and most of them were essentially the same programs that the liberals and socialists promote in today’s political climate. We could go into detail if you like, but it would be an argument that you would simply lose.

And as far as trying to use and popularize the ideological label, is that not what the socialist representation is doing with the ‘democratic’ label, incessantly inserted into the Democratic Socialist paradigm in an attempt to attach credibility to the label of socialism that is having difficulties selling its promise of Utopia? Why does the Democratic Party in America continue to re-label itself as their characterizations fall into disfavor in the public view?

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

Mr. John Judis:   You have to remember things were not as they are today, an American to be called a socialist in the Europe was something desirable, it was a way of winning working-class support, so the Nazis called themselves that national-socialist, there are social democratic parties around the world that have very little income and I think in South America there's several that are, you can like, on almost national capitalist in nature so a terminology doesn't necessarily make, doesn't necessarily make history and that you have to explain the term and understand how it came to be.

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

(LCW)   None of which you have done. Everything you say is true, in some respect. In the same vein, a ‘democratic’ socialist is more in favor today than just a socialist, and in part because of those instances around the world where it was a complete failure, but for the same reasons that you change your ‘label’ for a favorable response, you cannot negate or dismiss those instances where it was a failure.

You speak of a ‘modern’ socialism, you try to present some concept of market socialism. Since when does a socialist desire ‘democracy’? When did they decide that they wish to be a part of a ‘market’? What are these things? When did all of this happen? They did not exist a decade ago, and they don’t really exist today. You are ‘promoting’ a new version of your ideology since the conventional perspective is not being embraced.

You can re-label all you want, it still ends up collectivism, which has been shown to be inferior. The fact that you do not recognize the attempt as a valid example of what you would call socialism, does not mean that it was not. It is not for you, personally, to make that determination. But it is for you to explain and clarify exactly what it is that you promote, and try to resist talking about things that bring no resolution to the point of what constitutes ‘your’ socialism.

The irony is that many in the audience, myself among them, are here today to hear these things from you, and you have resisted, perhaps refused, to do so. I find that highly disturbing and unfortunate. It is remarkably alienating.

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

Dr. John Ridpath

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

Dr. John Ridpath:   Just a quick comment, that while you're, I gather your question is what are the socials have to say about the fact that approximations of their ideas seem to have resulted in so much destruction in this 20th century….

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

Anonymous:   and have so many failure nodes built in and the way to achieving whatever.

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

Dr. John Ridpath:   Yeah, and their answer is, well, their ideals have been misappropriated in the 20th century.

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

(LCW)   Acknowledged. So I will continue to ask for the socialists to go into detail about what those beliefs are, so there can be no confusion as to exactly what it is that they are proposing. I am willing to forget the past, at least to some extent, for the presentation of what the agreement was for tonight’s debate, the focus being on the socialism in our current environment, today, and the ‘morality’ behind it. In detail. Without digression. Explicitly and clearly.

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

Dr. John Ridpath:   Well, I can, that may or may not be the case, depending on what particular version of socialism one is putting forward but the fact of the matter is that Karl Marx, for example, is not unrelated to what has happened in the 20th century, Hegel is not unrelated to what has have, his a major influence on the Nazis and I must say that even though I would never, I am not familiar with the writings of my opponents but they haven't said anything to me to suggest that they personally endorsed the bloodshed of the 20th century but I will say this, some of the principles that they share are shared by the tyrants of the 20th century that have caused that bloodshed.

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

(LCW)   I am more than willing to grant them exoneration from the actions of those in the past, but I have heard no one say that they, personally, are complicit in something similar, but I would have to question if they do not feel some pressure of the guilt associated with these past acts of aggression and exploitation, slavery and coercion, all enacted in the name of socialism, with many of the same goals and expectations.

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

Dr. John Ridpath:   They are statist, socialism of any kind is a statist philosophy and what has caused the bloodshed in the 20th century is different versions of statism, so rather than have to say well we're a different version of this Creed which has in fact caused so much destruction, at least we can sit here and say we reject the whole Creed all together thank you.

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

(LCW)   They don’t even have to proclaim that they reject the whole creed altogether, just be specific as to what was inappropriate, and even more importantly, why. Then inform us, to the best of your ability, what makes today's socialism so distinctly contrary to what has been inflicted upon societies across the globe over the last couple of centuries.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   If I could crave your indulgence, if I was so loud to speak at this point I think I could I could economize on later questions tending to the same point and clear up an earlier misrepresentation of our position all at once. May I try? (Yes you may.)

It is the single most vulgar misrepresentation of Marxism to say that it's determinist. The person who says that of it convicts himself at once of not never having opened a book by Marx or by Marxists, most, it was before its time and remains the most determinedly and avidly anti determinist mode of thought in philosophy, most famously and you'll see why I'm stressing this in a second.

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

(LCW)   Ad-hominem attacks notwithstanding, I find it difficult to understand why you present a deterministic view of capitalism and yet find socialism both dynamic and nothing of the sort. I don’t know if it is hypocritical or just naïve, but it is certainly contradictory and fairly obvious. Sorry to burst your bubble, but in this case, I believe it is both or none.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   Marx began his most famous account of history and revolution, the eighteenth Brumaire of Louie Napoleon, by saying men make history but they do not make it under circumstances of their own choosing. They make it but under circumstances directly transmitted and engaged from the past, the traditions of all the dead generation see them famously added way like a nightmare on the brain of the living. That's not determinism, self-evidently not determinism, now, let me say why I think this bears on the question of violence.

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

(LCW)   How can one make such a statement and then walk away from an explanation? What is determinism if not what you just presented? It is some kind of destiny, irrespective of the players. It is certainly not a matter of making decisions based on free will and levels of intellect and reason, but something outside of our control.

History may present scenarios beyond our control, but men, both individually and in groups, however large or small, inevitably create change with their own decisions and conclusions. Win or lose, they affect the outcomes and the future of their realities. I fail to see the basis for your comments, and since you rarely, if ever, go into any detail, this too will pass and recede into memory without some substantial input from one such as yourself.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   Men make history but they can't choose when and how they're going to make it. If it was up to me, and I think I would carry John Judis with me here, the Russian Revolution would have happened in 1905 when there was a large democratic revolution led by socialists that was put down by the tsar, and which, with tremendous bloodshed in repression, and which paved the way for a ghastly imperialist war in which millions of Russians were killed under the leadership of the system of hereditary god-given monarchy which was the system with which capitalism in Russia was at that time coexisting.

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

(LCW)   So simplistic. So superficial. Events may present themselves, but the actions taken are the determining factor in the result of those events. You don’t have to agree, but you have no evidence that shows otherwise. There are countless events throughout history that were precipitated by the actions of a single individual, such as assassinations and smaller overt acts, as well as covert and subtle ones.

History creates environments for change, but does not guarantee anything. I find your reasoning highly suspect. Your ‘revolution’ could have been postponed, if the players had the forethought to create different scenarios, which could have resulted in different outcomes, both good or bad. The fact that they did not is not a matter of reality etched in stone, but moreso a simple cause and effect by simple people without the ability to prepare other scenarios based on thought and reason. Reason is rarely a component of revolution. That is why it ends so well so often.

Capitalism, or what you term as such, may have coexisted with the ‘Monarchy’ at that time, but it was not an imperative or a necessity. It was independent and more a matter of chance than anything else. A matter of convenience if you will. Your desire to make it something else has little relevance.

History may indeed present a scenario and it may be that mankind will have to respond to it in some way, but every individual has the obligation and imperative to act on his own philosophy, his own ethics, his own morality and his own integrity. If he does not do so, then his value and legitimacy is questionable, but if he does, even if death is the result, he at least defines an integrity that does not seem to even exist to any great degree anymore within the species. And we need that integrity, more now than ever before. The challenge is how to address this need, and to act on it, and not destroy civilization as a result.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   Now, it is not therefore by the socialist choice that revolution took place in Russia at the close of that gigantic war and bloodletting and gigantic tearing apart of the fabric of Russian society to the point where cannibalism had reemerged in the countryside, an emergence in my submission, that is not unrelated to the later course of events in the Soviet Union.

It's quite simply unhistorical to say that, well, revolutions devour their children, you then surrender the need to analyze history and you can simply look at history as the working out of that proposition. Very good means of economizing on thought and one that I think should be repudiated very thoughtful Objectivist.

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

(LCW)   You can ‘analyze’ history all you want, but it does not give definitive answers to whatever questions are presented. It gives indications, and glimpses of contributing factors as to what happened, and may be instrumental in giving insight into future events, into understanding at least some of what existed at some point in time. It does not give concrete conclusions.

Anyone who thinks that is only fooling themselves. If not, then we would have all the answers necessary, as we speak, to make either capitalism or socialism work impeccably. The individual is the variable that will always make that deterministic view of history invalid and oftimes moot. Add to that, we are not privy to every single motivation and action taken that directs history and its ramifications.

You think that everything is black and white when it is invariably, and irrefutably, grey. We obtain only glimpses and hints of events, and even less as to the driving forces behind them. Even when accounts are drafted, the authors may be less than honest, as well as less than rational. Everything with a grain of salt, especially the musings of a Marx or a Hitchens.

There should exist an interest in man to question and investigate history, but there is no real ‘need’, especially when nothing irrefutable can or will be found. Only clues that may be used in future deliberations.

History is not written in stone, no matter your belief, it is fluid and a matter of opinion. They do not say that history is written by the victors for no reason at all. It is all but a given. We see the validity of the statement just in the last few years, as a vast array of individuals have changed the reality of events by the use of propaganda and cancel-culture to intimidate and ensure that only a single version of events is acceptable. As time passes, this turns into a reprehensible, and distorted rendition of history and its actual events, thoughts, definitions, and actions.

I find the comment on the Objectivist to be incomprehensible. I assume another attempt, all too cute by half, to make your disdain for the ideology obvious, but only adding yet another level of confusion to the narrative.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   All right, let's look at this in principle. Let's not try and say well maybe because it was raining in South Yemen when they took over it was a bad time for them to take over and that's why socialism failed and maybe because Afghanistan went this way and because the Cuba's dependent on one crop and because you know there's always an explanation, ad hoc, as to why every single socialist nation that takes socialism seriously ends up with concentration camps and mass slaughter.

Let's look at it in principle. In principle, what else can you expect if the government owns all the property in the country, if there is no right to private property, if you cannot own your own printing press, for example, from which you can criticize the government. If the state owns all the printing presses, all the radios, if the means of making a living is in the hands of one group which maintains it by force, the government, so that he who does not work shall not eat becomes a government edict. What else can you expect?

If you make it a crime to trade on the black market, in other words to engage in capitalist acts, yet people have to engage in these black market activities in order to feed themselves, what else can you expect but more and more black market and more and more repression to keep it down? There's no escape from a system of any statist kind leading to disaster if it gives all that power to the government.

Now, the capitalist system says the most dangerous thing in the world is a government, let's restrain it, let's keep it down, and let’s give it only one function, the function of protecting your freedom from criminals and foreign aggressors. Let's not let it mess in any other area of your of your life, let's just have the police and the law-courts and let's not have it be also your employer and the owner of everything, so in other words we believe in very drastically restricted limited government. Now, since government's the culprit here doesn't that point to the answer to your question?

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

(LCW)   I am not exactly sure if this is a direct answer to the original question. In any case, it seems somewhat redundant. I don’t see any additional issues to address. It does show some validity.

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

QUESTION VI

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   Yeah, since there is a need for brevity I'll make my question as short as possible. If one does an historical analysis of the situation as exists in the world at present there's an increasing tendency in the part of third world countries to gravitate towards the socialist ideal. Why have it maybe, and I'd like both sides of the fence to address the question as to why this is so, is it an ineptness and a part of radicals and intellectuals or is it clear analysis of historical perspectives?

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

(LCW)   I think that this ‘gravitation’ is two-fold, with a good amount of overlap, I assume. The main selling point is not working together in cooperation, with a great deal of effort involved, to make the world a better place for everyone, including those who we might characterize as ‘disadvantaged’ for whatever reason. It should be, but I do not find that a primary in any conversation on socialism I have seen.

The academics may allude to it, and even the street-socialists may do so occasionally, but it is more a repudiation of those of ability and wealth, and the vengeance and retribution that will be taken against them. Everyone is to get a piece of that elusive pie, but effort and cooperation between each and every citizen is not a central point. There will be cooperation among some specific groups that intend to gain control of someone else’s resources, but there will be no effort spent trying to get everyone to agree and cooperate. If it were, then there would inevitably be no need for any coercion by the government at all, it would be ‘donated’ by those same individuals that as of now will simply be a matter of confiscation, at the point of a gun. Getting something for little or nothing is of more concern, even if it is not accepted or acknowledged by its representation, present company included.

I fail to see any great distance between the intellectuals and the radicals in this case. Or with the movement in general. That is not to their advantage, and this is evident in the success and support at this point. I am not sure if there are really any historical perspectives that can be produced.

The current movement does not seem to want to identify with whatever events have taken place in the past, calling attention only to those instances currently where there is some degree of success, even though it is invariable not the socialism they promote, so there is only talk of some nebulous future. So I am not sure what perspectives would be acceptable to our speakers or the movement as a whole.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   I'd like to start. Yeah, I've observed that myself. I, of course, would put a different coloration on it than the other side. I think the more advanced and intellectual countries have learned that socialism just does not work so the only place that socialism can be sold now is in very backward countries that intersect, still following the fashions of the 1930s but it's, you notice, in Italy for example, they came to the brink of euro communism and backed off, in France they had a socialist government and backed away from it.

I don't think you can fool the people anymore the way you could in the 30s in an industrial civilized society, say, by saying you know we want socialism because we don't want to promise you pie in the sky we want to make you rich here on earth and socialism is the way to make you rich. That was the original promise of socialism, money, food, shelter, work, but you know a good job and rewarding income now that's just, you know, been completely disproved by, quote, historical analysis, by fact and the only place you can get away with it now is with people who aren't that well educated. Now, I hope that's not taken as an ad hominem, that's my hypothesis as to you know why it is that is not possible to spread true socialism in an advanced society.

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

(LCW)   It is an interesting take he presents on socialism. Not a perspective that you hear much anymore. I would welcome a direct response to the suggestions that socialism was actually offering much of what capitalism does today. I was not aware that socialism ever suggested that the ideology would actually make you rich, but I could see the scenario where they would make the case that if we all shared the wealth, we would all not only contribute, but share in the riches as well. I don’t hear that at all anymore, certainly not tonight.

I do tend to agree that it seems that the countries that are most open to socialism are those that are not enjoying any real benefits at all from the introduction of socialism, quite the opposite in fact. We incessantly hear of the health care provided, but that is only one component, and there are not any others that compare in significance with that advantage, if it even really exists.

I have to admit that I am somewhat unsure if our socialists would concur with the characterization that socialism promised money, food, shelter, work, as well as a good job and rewarding income, but I would be interested in that paradigm myself.

I think that all of these things are admirable, but the conflict I see is in the fact that they are not being asked to invest their reason and effort into the accomplishment of these goals. I do not find that socialists speak in the context of hard work and investing in this greater or common good that continually remains an undercurrent to the conversation.

It seems to be more a benefit derived directly from the ‘few’ that the ‘many’ interpret as being theirs as some kind of birthright. They seem to truly believe that somehow everyone ‘deserves’ these things, and not just the disadvantaged or unfortunates that constitute the norm when presenting examples.

This extends to the demand and expectation of free schooling and basic income, as well as social security and inevitably to the issues of housing as well as sustenance. This is simply irrational, and highly impractical. Voluntary from the perspective of the many but no where do I see a groundswell of support from the few.

For obvious reasons. They say it is better to give than to receive, but I see nothing but receiving, or taking, in contrast to the issue, and opportunity, of those very same people to be ‘giving’ while we invest time and thought on the concepts involved. I see very few actually doing what is necessary right now, but a lot of rhetoric about what will happen ‘later’, again, when the new regime is substantially ensconced into power with little or no opportunity to reverse course if determined that it is not working.

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

Mr. John Judis

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

Mr. John Judis:   That reminds me of one of William Buckley's comments in an interview in 1961 when somebody asked him why whether he thought that what was at the time the Belgian Congo, they were fighting for their independence, whether they could ready for democracy and he said well they'd be ready for democracy when they stop eating each other.

Then not to be, so much to be funny, as to signal my disagreement with a perspective of Mr. Binswanger, the, my own view is that the reason that the third-world countries have that socialism has been popular is that you have to conceive of the world economy as a gigantic division of labor in which most of those countries’ economies have been pretty much at the behest of the core economies in the world, the advanced capitalist countries in which and in which they've been structured in such a way as to benefit those core economies but not to benefit themselves, so you have sort of single crop agriculture primarily for export you have, you have no internal market in those countries and the ruling elites that go away to school and come back and get it into their heads that in order to change that around they have to have some form of a command economy where they take control of their own society and their economy. Now, when they've done that and when they've experimented with a while sometimes they found that they do need elements of a market and then foreign capital is attractive but that's the reason that that element of the socialist idea appeals in those countries.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure that I understand your point. I think that it is important that you even reference the fact that ‘elites’ of these other countries go ‘away’ for schooling and come back to make decisions that may not, in the long run, be beneficial to their own countries. I think that is more the issue than the existence of capitalism.

There is corruption, and there is ‘persuasion’, but there is no invasion. Each country has to go through its own process of enlightenment and evolution to reach a point where they actually make some good decisions as to economies and the good of their own people. The countries, more likely certain corporate interests, are the ones that go into these countries and take actions that are good for themselves and their companies, and the countries ‘elites’ as well. They do so with the full cooperation and support of these elites.

It is not capitalism that is doing the exploiting and taking advantage of an inferior uneducated workforce, not to mention those same elites. It is the corrupt individuals of little or no ethical standards, moral fundamentals, personal character or loyalty to their own people, and the absence of integrity in the actions of all involved.

How is this an extension of capitalism? Capitalism is being used as a weapon, when in essence, it is a tool that can, and does, result in advantages and benefits when used appropriately by those that understand and embrace the concepts held within. Capitalism did not make these bad players, but these bad players made a perverted form of capitalism, and that is what our socialists continually point to, unjustly, as the epitome of capitalism itself. It is a demonstrable misconception, to divert attention from the shortcomings and failures of the historical record of any and all socialistic experiments.

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

QUESTION  VII

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   My question is directed to Mr. Hitchens, in reference to the comments he made the last part of the formal debate. You gave the argument that, because capitalism in practice requires expropriation and robbery, that there are so few developed capitalist states and gave the example of the alleged British expropriation of India. This leads me to wonder from what part of India did the British expropriate the steam engine and the many intellectual developments which sparked the Industrial Revolution in that country? If material goods were the Fundamental prime cause of the Industrial Revolution why didn't the Indians have their own Industrial Revolution centuries before the British came along? In summary, I asked didn't the Industrial Revolution require reason and intellect as its prime cause rather than expropriation?

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

(LCW)   A good point, if not a bit simplistic. I reject the supposition that capitalism in practice ‘requires’ expropriation and robbery, although he may be paraphrasing Mr. Hitchens only. There can be no ‘requirement’ without someone intimately involved with the philosophy stating such an assertion. I find that nowhere in my research, only in the deliberations and completely unsubstantiated opinion of those that don’t agree or support capitalism to begin with. Irrelevant and irrational without citation or credible information to the contrary. I believe that this does not exist, but would welcome any input that could be provided.

I think the issue of expropriation is much more legitimate in relation to the intent of socialism. The point being made is that capitalism ‘demands’ the innovation, insight and motivation of people who create and produce, while the expropriation of these ‘properties’ is indeed only parasitical in nature and not a valid aspect of capitalism except in the sense that the moochers and looters and opportunists use that against capitalism in their fervent desire to acquire that which they did not create and do not deserve. This is, of course, an unfortunate by-product of capitalism, based on freedom, and at the mercy, at times, of those individuals that have no ethical or moral constraints to abusing and perverting the system to their own ends.

It always reverts, at some point, back to morality, integrity and philosophy. That is the imperative that we have to adopt and embrace if we ever hope to circumvent this kind of behaviour on a societal level to ensure that equality and liberty that both sides rhetorically promote but is not present at times in their actions. That is the distinction that should repeatedly be made in our conversation.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   Would that the question was as clever as it sounds. Have you served, or was anyone else here read Edmund Burke's speech on the impeachment of Warren Hastings? You might care to turn it up, it's a kind of a classic conservative text. In there you will find laid out in some detail the description of the enormous transfer of wealth from India to the islands in the North Sea known as Great Britain and Northern Ireland today, but was in fact so alarmed by this process it wasn't out of compassion for India that he mentioned it, he was alarmed that the process was in fact enriching a whole new class that would corrupt Parliament in Britain and not without reason and that's why Hastings had to be impeached.

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

(LCW)   So what you are saying is that, no matter how moving was his speech, it was not India that concerned him, nor the perversion and appropriation of capitalism, but the perceived threat to the motherland, Britain, at the hands of the corrupt Parliament, which would have been corrupt in any case, even if India did not even exist.

How does this dovetail with capitalism and the discussion that we are not so intently prosecuting? There is no argument that wealth was ‘transferred’ from India to Britain, with the tacit agreement of those in charge of that country. If not the ‘elites’ of India, then who? Even if we hold Britain herself responsible, how does that equate to any inherent failure of capitalism? I think it more a miserable example of despicable individuals who care nothing for anything but their own personal interests, and that, my friend, has no reasonable connection to the concept of capitalism.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   That is how some of the capital that led to the Industrial Revolution was accumulated, that's what I said. Now, it's also true that India got the steam engine as a result probably rather earlier than it would have otherwise which is why Marx said, as I said, that the British were probably justified in putting down the Indian mutiny of 1857 because that mutiny was not a struggle for independence, it was an attempt to restore the Mogul Imperial authorities who were a relatively less advanced mode of production. Now, isn't that clear?

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

(LCW)   I find it quite clear. Marx cared nothing for the people of India either, and you as well. It is all about their own, personal interests in ideology as to what can work for them to take and keep control over the masses under their own philosophy of collectivism. How can Marx make the statement that the British were in any way justified in putting down the Indian mutiny? He had no stake in the outcome, except in the way it validated the use of force when those at the top (Marx and Hitchens) believe it to be the best way of achieving their own objectives.

Socialism is on board as well, since one of the fundamental aspects of socialism is the initiation and use of force to gain and keep control of the masses. I fail to see how that can be refuted. If one disagrees, then it should be stated clearly and unequivocally that it is not the case. Our socialists continue to espouse this concept of ‘democracy’ in conjunction with their socialism. There was no intention or expectation on the part of anyone involved that any form of democracy was to be used in India, or in any other instance of socialism in any historical reference. I have yet to hear how that democracy works within the socialistic construct. It would, I believe, be a very hard sell.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   If I didn't make it clear before let me take the opportunity to make it clear now that is the complement Marxism pays to the origins of capitalism. I haven't yet though had an answer to my question about why capitalism did not emerge in such very large and theoretically prosperous and productive areas of the globe and I do think that it is a question that deserves an answer from the capitalist side.

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

(LCW)   The problem with this unrequested ‘complement’ is that it is not an aspect of capitalism that I embrace or even acknowledge. It is simply an easy way to include the use of force for their own ends, with the justification being that, well, those ‘capitalists’ do it as well, so why can’t we?

I fail to see why an answer to a theoretical question takes up so much of your time and effort. Capitalists, at least in my experience, invest less time in theoretically prosperous and productive areas, although some do, those with long term ambitions and designs, and certainly have. But for a full scale investment, they tend to search for those opportunities that have the most to offer, and the least amount of effort required to produce a product. This, by no means, demands any exploitation or expropriation. Quite the contrary, they just want to be left to their own devices to create and produce. It is for the state, the authority obligated to protect the interests of the masses to determine otherwise.

There is a very real and disturbing intent to coerce with each new concept brought up by our socialistic brothers. There is always something that can only be achieved through authoritarian means, and not the voluntary actions that Objectivism and pure capitalism suggest.

Democracy itself screams voluntary and cooperative action, notwithstanding the tyranny of the mob within democracy. Socialism seems to suggest rigidity and subjugation. The dichotomy is inarguable and obvious. It is my greatest concern in this whole debate. And, again, the reason why I was so interested in hearing an in depth and comprehensive moral rational argument about the underpinnings of the ideology and philosophy of our socialistic democratic opposition.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   I'm having somewhat of trouble hearing every word descending in the sound system, the acoustics, we have some trouble hearing you over here but I heard a couple of things that I will respond to. Colonialism is the best thing that ever happened to the colonies. We view the colonialization of India and the rest of the world by England primarily and then later by other countries including ourselves as the extending of wealth and civilization to backward regions.

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

(LCW)   I was a bit surprised and concerned when I first heard this statement, but upon reflection, notwithstanding the knee-jerk reactions from some, it is a pertinent and valid comment. I am not saying that it was done correctly. It almost never is. All of this change and evolution of thought can be quite messy at times, and that corruption I continually point to is present and waiting for opportunities no matter how it is attempted or accomplished.

Colonization, if ethically and morally applied, by individuals of integrity and character, I would offer, will be advantageous in every instance, even if there are obstacles and difficulties along the way. Can anyone really argue the level of poverty and lack of basic needs that the population had to endure for centuries? I think it difficult to refute the fact that the base example of the individual in the society has been improved exponentially, in the long run because of colonization.

Not for all, unquestionably, but most, undeniably. This is inevitable. Always has been, whatever the system, and wherever it was tried. That is not the point. Mr. Hitchens even offers Marx as someone who said that a number of positives were realized through the process of colonization. We can only parse the actual events so far before we create irrelevance. ‘Cherry-picking’ is a disingenuous way of validating points in a debate. If you can’t see the big picture, you probably should not be in the discussion.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   All the interactions, in essence, I mean I can't say that you know every single one of them, but the essence, the thrust of those interactions was free trade, voluntary employment for people who would otherwise starve, as one other aside concrete from this the Arabs have no right to that oil, the same principle, oil under the feet of people who don't know what property is, who don't have a civilized society, who are nomads or dictatorships, is not the property of their little king.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure if I am simply not understanding the context wherein he makes these comments, but I find myself completely at odds with this statement. While I agree with the concepts of voluntary employment (was there any enslavement instituted at that time?) for those that don’t wish to starve, even if some inequality exists, I simply can’t get my thoughts around the statement that the Arabs have no right to ‘that’ oil.

Of course they do. Legitimate countries have every right to exploit their own resources, or to resist doing so, and no other country or corporation has the right to interfere in those decisions. It is a bit more complicated with a dictatorship, but the use of force (haven’t we covered this a hundred times already?) is simply not an alternative to the Objectivist or even a moderate capitalist.

The fact that people may not ‘know’ what lies beneath their feet is irrelevant, or the concept of property gets reduced to being allowed to live in a cage or a cave. I simply cannot condone or accept such a reality. The state, in whatever guise it may take, is another story. It may be completely restrictive and unfair, but if that legitimacy exists, it is for them to make the ultimate decisions, and not outside influences. The reality of those influences are known to us all. It is a complicated and nuanced issue.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   It is the property of anybody who comes in and produces it and it was the American and Western oil companies that produce that oil, they even went, made contracts with those little petty dictators, even though you know they morally had no claim to that oil and the same principle goes to any other natural resources.

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

(LCW)   Simply to play devil’s advocate, who then has that moral ‘claim’ to whatever resource we are discussing? A dictator has no rights, and in that you have some support, but if a company simply forces its way into the country, how does that denote any more legitimacy than the dictator already in place. Even creating ‘contracts’ with a dictator is somewhat suspect in the realm of ethics and morality. We can certainly talk about it. One can justify the use of force in some perverted reality, but in a reasoned argument, it is simply not an acceptable alternative.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   Natural resources belong to those people who make use of them and there were the civilized countries that took things that were just junk and garbage to the rest of the world and paid them for them.

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

(LCW)   This position is unacceptable to me. So, if I have money in the bank, saving it for some unknown or even anticipated future contingency, does another individual have any claim on that ‘resource’? If money is ‘property’, is not the oil under my house also to be considered my property?

You are not creating a consistency for the other components of the capitalistic and Objective positions. It has nothing to do with use, and if someone arbitrarily determines that they are to be considered just ‘junk’ and ‘garbage’. That is not a determination that is within your purview unless you are willing to accept unethical and immoral options. I would believe that this is not a clear issue, at least in my mind.

On the other hand, if this junk and garbage is what the owner of the land interprets oil or any other resource to be, to him, then if he decides to sell it, obviously grossly undervalued, to some outside company or entity, then it is legitimate, if not somewhat immoral.

Taking advantage of someone because of a lack of knowledge or sophistication does not make a transaction legitimate. Objectivism is quite specific that trade is voluntary and value for value. Of course, it gets more complicated as to exactly how each participant determines value. Perhaps in this scenario, the government itself can bring information to the seller as to the ‘market’ value of the commodity, and allow the transaction to continue on its own merits.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   The transfer of wealth was both ways and much more to the benefit of the backward people, as sure common sense would tell you than it was to England. India needed England a thousand times more than the other way around.

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

(LCW)   Relatively speaking, on the surface, it sounds as if you might be right, but I suspect that a lot of individuals were enriched through these machinations in India. While it is true that the Indians were what we might term ‘backward’, I am not sure they understood that they could be mortgaging their futures for immediate gratification on a scale that they could not understand.

They were certainly enriched in the long run. England was certainly enriched, and this gratification was fairly immediate as well. I would tend to disagree with the ‘thousand times more’ characterization.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   Now, the challenge which I hadn't actually hadn't heard before was why didn't capitalism develop in large areas of the world like India where it didn't develop. Because we believe that capitalism does not develop out of historical necessity but out of people's ideas.

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

(LCW)   The idea of the development of India and why it did not happen, while in America it did, is pretty much like night and day. I am not sure of the level of not only education but sophistication. Development depends on creativity and necessity, and the level of intelligence, while contained in a small segment of American society, was, I think, vastly superior to that of India. Perhaps I am wrong, it’s certainly possible, but the people of India, I think, did not have the imperative to do so either.

The cultures of Africa, the Mid-East, and India do not demand it. It takes time. While a somewhat primitive existence, it was easier to eke out a living as compared to the environments that existed in an area such as the United States, and you will find areas there that did not have the motivation either, to evolve at the speed of some others. To survive in difficult environments, more items, more products, are required, and if you cannot create or grow them yourself, then you need value, you need wealth, to ensure that you will have the means to obtain them when the necessity requires it. I find it an obvious, and often overlooked, facet of the reasons why different cultures develop at different rates throughout history and the world.

I find it disingenuous to even try to make a comparison between cultures or geographical environments without a comprehensive investigation into ‘all’ the specifics of the location. We need to refrain from just making ‘points’ in some competition, and reasonably look at our issues in-depth and in as objective a manner as possible.

It took over 150 years to coalesce what became America, and we had the full sourcing of Europe and Britain to pull from. I am not sure what India was supposed to base its expectations upon. I think it is more a matter of apples and oranges here, with capitalism a secondary issue, irrespective if some of our speakers think otherwise.

Capitalism was not something spontaneous that just sprouted out of nothing in America. It was in direct response to the conflicts with England, which necessitated an ambitious change in direction and mind-set. I think many of the comments on this subject are overly simplistic and actually fairly vague as well.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   Capitalism reached its apex in the United States in 1776 because the ideas of the people were those of John Locke. Every one of the founding fathers read John Locke, they read Aristotle, they read Cicero, this is a known fact, and the language of John Locke's Second Treatise of government is in the independence, the Declaration of Independence.

The political philosophy of England at that time is what caused capitalism to exist here. Now, needless to say, the opposite political philosophy is in place, and in areas like India they are mystics, they don't believe in reason, they don't believe in nature, they don't believe in natural rights, so the answer is where there is a pro-capitalist philosophy, there capitalism will flourish, where there isn't it won't.

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

(LCW)   And I wasn’t even speaking of the religious and spiritual fundamentals that exist in India that had no corollary in the United States. More differences than similarities. How does one make comparisons when one country will starve rather than eat the animals that roam around freely over the countryside?

I make no judgments. America was built on the premise of freedom, and especially freedom of religion. The influences in India have no equals here in America. I have no idea if any of the speakers, from either camp, have any real comprehension of the spiritual paradigm that existed in India at that time. I find it difficult to have any real confidence in the suggestion that we ‘know’, in any substantive way, the realities on the ground during those events. It is amusing that one could think otherwise.

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

QUESTION VIII

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   I'd like to ask this question of Mr. Hitchens and it's a question that seems to be purely practical but really it does have a theoretical underpinning as well, it implies a theoretical question, and that is I have a question about how you would see how we ought to best make the transition to socialism and in particular what I'm worried and what I'm wondering about is how far you take what you took as your first principle of socialism and that was the divisions of class, sex, and race, ought to be ignored in the establishment of it, and what I'm wondering in particular is how would you look upon for example, affirmative action, quotas, and hiring, and the reason I ask that question is it seems to me that socialist ideology Marxist ideology has a tendency and perhaps this is not fair to accuse anyone on the stage of this but other theorists to view man as an economic entity as filling the way to look at man and understand his place in society is to look at the way he interacts with other people on a material basis and so this this is my question, how would you look at that particular way of establishing social justice?

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

(LCW)   Well, first of all, I would think that making the attempt to ignore divisions based on class, sex and race will always be a legitimate objective, or should be. The reality is that there will always be those that try to gain some advantage by doing the opposite. There will always be prejudice for any number of reasons, and in some cases may even hold some validity. It is the attempt to mitigate these unwanted positions that holds value.

An expectation that one can achieve a complete or total ability to control these unwanted aspects of the human condition would be irrational and impractical, so we do what we can to identify and reduce the instances of inappropriate behaviour. In the end, the only thing that can be done is to recognize what is a virtue and what constitutes a vice and direct our actions for self and others in a proper direction.

The indispensable prerequisite to such an environment is the continual attempt to introduce solid philosophical fundamentals into the society through the use of reason and philosophy. The path between here and there is wrought with challenges but without that philosophical context, there is nothing that will fundamentally change. Ever.

The examples of affirmative action, quotas, and hiring are anathema to the resolution of the problem. I find it incomprehensible that one would think that you can give an unfair advantage to the great-great-great-grandchild of a slave that would in some bizarre way compensate that irrefutably wronged individual for the actions taken against them when to do so means yet another wrong, ethically and morally just as improper, against undefined and unnamed individuals that had no personal responsibility in the initial instance of wrongdoing. The concept is an absurdity. I understand the human need for violence and vengeance and retribution that exists in some, but it contains no validity whatsoever.

The only ethical and moral response would be to create an environment that ensures that this does not happen again and that ‘all’ people will indeed be given the same opportunities that others receive. If we truly wish to reach a level where actual equality and justice exists, it is an imperative to make sure that the same mistakes are not made in trying to rectify the original wrong.

If there is an interpretation that some of the offspring of these people are at some disadvantage today, because of what happened more than a hundred years ago, then I think the proper way to address the situation is for those who feel strongly about it, to help them, ‘outside’ of the actual system, to take advantage of the fact that a more level playing field exists today. This may, in fact, not be particularly ‘fair’, but it is reasonable and doable. I find little that is fair in life. We all must make the most of what is available. There are no guarantees, and what can be done with opportunities is without limit.

I am not responsible for the sins of my father. Rather, only for those actions taken by me alone. The citizens of America are not responsible for the actions, rightly or wrongly, taken by a country not of my making, nor of my support. Do we hold the progeny of criminals responsible for heinous acts perpetually culpable for the acts of their ancestors?

To be fair, this would create an environment that, not as the socialists would like to envision, having those of ability be ‘forced’ to contribute to the very existence of everyone else except themselves, but virtually every single individual being held legally and monetarily, not to mention morally in some perverted fashion, responsible for every other, directly related to things that were not done through their own decisions to act in any particular way, but accepting an obligation, or probably being coerced once again, for the actions and ramifications of thoughts and actions of individuals from any point in time in the history of mankind, to offer restitution for something that not only was never done by them, but is the antithesis of their own personal philosophies today. This would be an example of insanity.

As stated in the question, this invariably presents individuals as pieces of meat, as playing pieces on a board that can be used and abused by those in power. Is this not what we are arguing about today? It makes man subservient to the system of capitalism or socialism as a tool, and not as a unique and independent player in the larger system. I want no part of such a paradigm.

I reject socialism and coercion and the initiation of force, for I see no path to their vision without it. I embrace capitalism, with all of its shortcomings and baggage. My support is certainly neither unconditional nor mindless. I want to fix the problems, and present an alternative that is superior to both that exist today. I want to cut out the corrupt politicians and the horribly self-interested robber barons from those actions that are morally reprehensible, many of which the socialists have identified, thank you very much.

The problem is that they accuse capitalism for their existence, and it is genetics and the total lack of philosophical principles of legitimate ethics, morals, and integrity that are responsible for what we are all forced to endure. It is not the system, it is, as I have repeatedly presented, all about individuals, devoid of character, damaged, possibly beyond redemption, that rape and pillage, not villages and individuals, but a political and economic rape of an entire society, without the firing of a shot, without all of the visual peripherals.

There can be no social justice without that benchmark of ethics, morals, character, and integrity that exists more as a dream than a reality.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   Yes, I think it's certainly a two-part, maybe a tripartite question, on the matter of transition, that you asked me to deal with an enormous subject. I would say this sketchily and ask to be forgiven, there are, it is the stated position of many conservatives ideologues in Western capitalist Europe that the economies of Western Europe have in a sort of vegetable evolution already become social-democratic and though I don't think that claim is wholly true there is a great deal of truth in it.

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

(LCW)   Without a doubt, Mr. Hitchens seems to be one of the most wishy-washy and indeterminate speakers I have ever heard. He continues to be for and against almost everything in some way. I have no idea when he is going to tell us what he really thinks, but I think that it will not be today, as time is running out.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   There are countries, the one most often cited, so I’ll cite it for convenience, is Sweden where though the vast majority of the economy remains in private hands and in fact in the hands of the same families as controlled Swedish capitalism in the 19th century, same names, rather like German capitalism before and after Nazism, and during, of course, there is not more than a welfarist conception of society in Sweden, a very nearly a social-democratic coexistence so that's one case where one might almost call it an evolution.

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

(LCW)   If there is one thing that these comments are not, it would have to be comprehensive. I fail to understand how you can grant Sweden the label of socialism when, by your own words, those same capitalists retain control of the country, as they have for centuries. Where is the socialism?

It is very convenient to have something to be able to point towards to prove it exists in some fashion, but it is immediately dismissed as not ‘your’ socialism, or Mr. Judis’ socialism, which, to me, seem to be worlds apart. This talent that the socialists have, to totally vilify capitalism in one breath, and to point to Sweden as some beneficial social-democratic coexistence in the next, is difficult to swallow. You even point out the fact that Sweden is nothing more than a welfarist conception of society, and on this we might actually agree.

So where is this socialism? Socialism is a philosophy, not a welfare band-aid. It is supposed to be a movement with the intellectual capacity to identify and accept what is necessary to make it work, and to be motivated to make the effort. I do not see that in America, and certainly no more so in Sweden.

It is all well and good to point to Scandinavian countries to tout the success of socialism, but they have all the problems that exist in America, with the addition of that welfare state. They have universal health-care, and yet have the highest incidence of alcoholism, divorce, and various forms of abuse in Europe. How can that possibly be true? But, of course, it is not in the best interests of the speakers to discuss such issues.

Who are you to ‘proclaim’ that Scandinavian countries are ‘socialist’ when all the polls I have seen, taken by people that actually ‘live’ there, reject the label of socialist anything. They are fiercely independent, and consider themselves as capitalist, perhaps with a more enlightened social conscience, but inarguably not socialistic. Are they lying to us? Do they not comprehend who and what they are? Is this how socialism works? Do socialists exist only to tell you that ‘you are what we say you are, and you need to do what we tell you’?

Why is it not already at least something superior to the United States? And it is not, you know. Scandinavia has quite a bit of work to do, as does America. I see no answers in your vision, I see no resolution to the fundamental issues that your ideology does not address. My ideology does, and that is why I continue to investigate and comment on socialism, as well as capitalism. To actually find a way to make things work. Not to overthrow and revolt, but to make an attempt to fix things. I don’t see socialism as that answer.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   In other cases, my theory is, the ones I've cited, the Soviet Union and I would add these two, these, China and Cuba, where capitalism simply broke down and there was no force or agency ready to take over the running of the countries but the communist and socialist movements, but capitalism abandoned and evacuated and failed in those countries leaving no alternative.

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

(LCW)   I think it is somewhat disingenuous to put it in those terms. How did capitalism ‘abandon’, ‘evacuate’, and especially ‘fail’ in those countries? Capitalism needs freedom to think, and freedom to act, and the pool of innovation and creativity to develop and produce.

These countries, in every respect, took away the ability for an individual to do these things. In fact, it was a fundamental belief in their philosophies and ideologies to do so. Capitalism, per se, never existed in these countries, simply because they neither understood nor agreed with the concept of capitalism itself and the controlling states only considered capitalism a tool to be used to create wealth to pay for the collectivist intentions.

They did not ‘evacuate’, but were strangled. They did not ‘abandon’ but were thrown out on their keisters. The systems did not fail, they were destroyed by removing the integral components of freedom and liberty that capitalism feeds upon. It is a very warped perspective to say these things, but understandable when it seems that socialism will be built, will ‘have’ to exist on the same basic tenets, to be true to the ideal.

Is anything ever the result of the actions of a collectivist? Do they ever make any mistakes? Is it really always ‘them’ that make it impossible to achieve their goals? Do they ever take any responsibility for their actions? An individual of integrity admits when their attempts fail. Even Marx never admitted to failure, and you have done nothing to call him out as well. His vision was to write a great triumvirate of communistic philosophy. He finished volume one and realized it was a failure and never achieved his goals. I am not even sure if he ever tried.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   That you could say that was a revolution or you could simply say it was a collapse, calling a transition would certainly be weak. I have a feeling I'll be taken up on some of this but that's my broad-brush transition statement on the apparent paradox in what I say about overlooking or transcending differences among the broader family of the human race.

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

(LCW)   A collapse perhaps. A transition? Not at all. It was the phoenix raising out of the ashes of ineptitude, irrelevance, and irrationality. When you destroy something, it does not ‘transit’ into something else, you simply rebuild with what remains. Do not attempt to make a connection between capitalism and what was created. They despised capitalism and made exactly what could only be expected by those with nothing but an incomplete dream to build upon.

I must admit to total ignorance in trying to interpret what your paradox about transcending differences among the broader family of the human race could possibly mean. Once again, an impractical expectation that the audience actually understands what you have to say, and with no intention of clarifying with an explanation of any kind.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   My own view is that that is compatible with making a stand for affirmative action because it is a willed compensation for past wrongs and one has to be able to identify and compensate a given group. That isn't to discriminate in the pejorative sense, actually, it is the racialist who cannot discriminate. I've never understood why racialists are accused of discrimination, it's the one faculty of which they're not capable, they think that all members of a certain race have the same characteristics and don't share the ability to discriminate among them as humans.

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

(LCW)   I see no legitimate support for affirmative action. You say it is a ‘willed’ compensation but by whom and for whom? The person benefiting by the ‘action’ was not in any way harmed at any time. An ancestor being disadvantaged has no direct bearing on the generations that come afterward. How many individuals have become successful, even millionaires, when their fathers or grandfathers were destitute at some point? Many did not even have fathers and grandfathers. Where do you make the connection, and where is the evidence?

It is a rather curious position to say the racialist cannot discriminate. Overly simplistic and somewhat ignorant. To say all members of a race have the same characteristics is on one hand textbook bigotry, and ultimately wrong. A race is not defined by simple characteristics, and environment creates huge differences on the intellectual level as well as innate capabilities.

I have some idea what you are attempting to say, but it is simply not true in any real sense. The Palestinians and the Jews are disparate through religion more than by race. I can’t tell them apart. They are the same racial ‘stock’. Many races discriminate among themselves based on geography and even by skin color when there are no other intrinsic aspects to contrast. What point exactly are you attempting to present? How does this legitimize your position in respect to affirmative action? At times it seems that you speak simply to hear yourself talk. It can be a bit disturbing.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   As to the economic man, no, look, we don't believe that you are what you eat. It can be shown that you aren't what you don't eat and if you don't you are not.

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

(LCW)   Please excuse me while I roll around on the ground laughing. What in the world are you trying to prove? The saying is to make the point that to, as an example, be healthy, it is necessary to eat healthy, which is certainly not an absolute. Many people who eat healthy die young, while many who completely abuse their health live to a ripe old age. While it may in all probability be more true than not, it is simply a silly thing to say in a serious debate on the morality of socialism. Has anyone seen any mention of morality tonight? I haven’t.
I am not sure what you’re drinking but I would like to get a sample.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens:   The corollary wouldn't and I’m afraid that there's a lot too much of that, a lot of it in the capitalist world, but now we realized that there are other needs, many of them non-material. Let me suggest an example to you, the case of the person who gives blood and does so voluntarily and without a reward. There's no sacrifice involved in that you don't lose a pint of blood by giving one but you do help another person and you don't have to posit altruism, you have fulfilled your own need to help and be of service without giving up anything and without a cash transaction and you've increased the general welfare. I regard that as a socialist attitude to one's fellow creatures and perfectly unsentimental.

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

(LCW)   At least we can agree that it is not as simple as all that, and there are other needs, other components of any issue, that are complex and at time difficult to comprehend and identify, so any attempt at absolutes is irrational and impossible, as you have aptly shown with your previous statement. I’m still smiling.

Your new example is seemingly reasonable, but you actually vindicate the position of the Objectivist as you, I assume, presume some level of superiority with the observation. The person who gives blood does indeed ‘not’ engage in a sacrifice, although there is a certain amount of inconvenience involved, so a degree of sacrifice is involved. It is also true that the ‘pint’ of blood is recoverable without a real price to be paid, although there can be both good and bad repercussions, albeit rare.

The part I find interesting is that you state that you have ‘fulfilled your own need to help’, which is contradictory to the apparent socialistic belief that altruism is not supposed to be ‘selfish’ in any way, and if one is giving blood as something they ‘want’ to do, to bring themselves some measure of satisfaction or pleasure, then the act becomes one that is selfish, arguably in a positive fashion, what we Objectivists would define as rational self-interest, and not the true ‘selflessness’ of the altruist.

I appreciate the attempt to turn this around to be a socialistic tendency as regards one’s ‘fellow creatures’ and perfectly unsentimental. The Objectivist regards all of his actions as a like response, doing things because he ‘wants’ to do them, and not because he needs to be coerced by an ideology to do so. He ‘enjoys’ doing things because he can, by his own choice, by his own free will, and based on his philosophical and ideological imperatives.

The rational self-interest they talk about is invariably connected to this basic premise that doing ‘good’ is something that comes from within ourselves, our philosophical considerations based on ethical and moral conclusions, and the integrity to exhibit a consistency that is demanded by their belief system.

I do not find that to be the interpretation of the socialist. They do not get to make those decisions, otherwise, the whole philosophy may be overturned in an instant. They must adhere and succumb to the ethereal greater good to accomplish anything, and their agreement is not really required after the initial acquiescence to the taking control by whatever group has control of the helm of administration, whoever commands the boat.

Actually, from what you have said, on more than one occasion tonight, you are a closet Objectivist, and not really sure of your own convictions, otherwise, we would have heard more about what you firmly believe in direct relation to the concept of socialism. You equivocate with capitalism, and ultimately Objectivism, much more than I would have expected.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   I agree with much of what you said in the middle, that racism is the failure to discriminate. I think that racism is a form of collectivism which says that the collective that counts is a racial one as opposed to Marx, for instance, who thinks that the collective that counts is an economic one, but we reject all those and say that collectives don't exist, individuals exist, and they are to be judged on the basis of their own attributes, their own choices, and their own actions.

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

(LCW)   Dr. Binswanger makes a good point, one that escaped me when I read the previous comments. What I am talking about is the racial form of collectivism versus the economic one. I have always thought that many of those accused of racism are often simply those that embrace their own racial identity, and it does not necessarily mean there is any attempt to hurt others who are not of their own race for that simple reason.

Many nationalists, and yes, that does include our white supremacists, are no more racist than the example Mr. Hitchens presents. It is ‘not’ the matter of supporting your own race, but the ‘hatred’ directed towards those that are not a part of that race. If no actions of any kind are taken ‘against’ those not of your race, then no harm, no foul.

But our liberal individuals and media immediately make the accusation of racism when any question is posed or statement made in one’s own defense, even in the absence of any condemnation or vilification of another. Isn’t that the essence of what you had to say? Does that mean you are a white supremacist? You paint yourself into a very confined corner, don’t you think?

On the other hand, I cannot agree with Mr. Binswanger that ‘collectives don’t exist, individuals exist’. While I passionately agree with the concept of the individual as being without equal, it is just as obvious that it is extremely difficult to accomplish many projects without the cooperation and agreement of other individuals to achieve common goals.

I think the basic premise I would present is the idea of voluntary actions taken by all of those involved to that end. Any amount of coercion, and there can be no mutual agreement, and therefore any mutual benefit from the actions would be more of by chance than by intent. There is a world of difference. It is probably the singlemost principle that sets the two camps, capitalism and socialism, apart from one another.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   So I would maintain that only individualism is an antidote to racism.

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

(LCW)   I find it hard to accept that there is, or can be, any ‘antidote’ to racism, of course depending upon what level of racism we are talking about. I am not sure if we can call it human nature, but some individuals have an aversion to others. This is not to say we condone or support this attitude, but we have to take into consideration what causes the aversion, to begin with.

Is anyone deluded enough to believe that we can make people ‘not’ dislike something they are incapable of comprehending why they dislike in the first place? Should we give individuals that dislike overweight people shock treatment to get them in-line with our own positions, or do we allow them to avoid those that, for whatever reason, they have difficulty accepting in their own paradigm?

People avoid and dislike others for a myriad of reasons, and mostly their interpretations of these other individuals is irrational and impractical, but at least in the United States, we have something in the Constitution known as the Right of Association, and that would seem to infer that if we don’t wish to interact with someone else, for whatever reason, we don’t have to. I find that acceptable, and even reasonable.

Bottom line is that no actions are taken against them, and that is acceptable as well. I fail to see what the alternatives are. That pesky concept of coercion is back in the conversation. Freedom and liberty assume that no one will do anything overtly, so we refrain from holding people accountable for ideas and thoughts, and instead focus on whether physical, and at times, some psychological force has been used against another, and then we ask the state to step in and take some mitigating action. Again, I find no other alternatives.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   As in relation to the giving blood example, well, sure, there are, I don't personally find the giving blood to be that easy, I tend to faint but if you take an action where the cost to the individual is so minimal that he, in fact, won't miss it, and someone else is benefited by it, fine, there's no argument against that whatsoever, it's very nice, a lot of things in human life for that way like when you smile and say hello to somebody or a good morning how are you doesn't cost you anything expresses benevolence and respect for human life, but that has nothing to do with the question of people are dying right now in hospitals in many parts of the world including nine states where certain people could save them, but it would require them giving a lot of their blood.

Maybe one person, if we took. He’s got a rare blood type, here's the question I pose. One person has the Rh-negative Type O or something. If we took all his blood we could save five other people's lives, now that's not far-fetched. Do you have the right to take all his blood, do you have the right to take one drop of his blood if he doesn't consent? Capitalism says no.

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

(LCW)   I acknowledge that some individuals have issues with needles and fainting, but am somewhat surprised that you go to an example of coerced donations. No one was talking about that and it seems that you muddy the waters with such an example. The issue is not, from my perspective, with Objectivism and capitalism since I don’t believe there is any direct connection with forced anything with the ideology, while socialism has the insinuation that force can be used under the right circumstances for the right reasons, which I vehemently refuse to accept, without exception.

The taking of blood, for whatever reason, without consent, is verboten, end of story. It is true that the blood if taken, could result in multiple instances of not just benefit, but of an actual saving of a life, but that is irrelevant, really. We could say the same for the confiscation of a living body, the organs and body parts to be used in the saving of, they say, up to eight other individuals, possibly even more.

That kind of thinking creates ideologies that say we confiscate from the few to help the many, and in a real sense, it would be a legitimate claim, notwithstanding the fact that it would be murder, clean and simple. Unambiguous. Despicable. You could also make the same case for the confiscation of someone’s wealth, to be redistributed to others, even though it was legitimately ‘earned’, in an impeccable manner, simply because multiple others could find some benefit in the ‘exchange’, albeit not so good for the initial victim. And socialism promotes that as well.

Is that the kind of paradigm that we want to support and institute? From my perspective, this is a glorified version of cannibalism, nothing more, nothing less. Would that be progress? Is that what to expect from evolution? It is abhorrent.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   So remember when you say well capital, have repeatedly referred, the theory capitalism historically didn't work out, there was nothing to replace it, capitalism came gave rise to problems as if capitalism were some independent entity. Remember, when we're talking about capitalism we're talking about freedom, we're talking about free trade, we're talking about non-interference, so what they're really saying is, well, we tried leaving people free but it just didn't work out so we had to come in with a different system.

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

(LCW)   Point very well made and taken. Capitalism is ‘not’ an independent entity. It is a tool, and all too often a weapon, used by unscrupulous individuals to gain an edge, to gain power, and to gain wealth from others, without legitimate means or processes.

Capitalism can make no decisions, is not able to disagree with dictators, corrupt politicians, or, yes, even socialists, that wish to use the irrefutably successful system to gain their own ends. The ends cannot, and never will, justify the means. The means ‘must’ be legitimate and ethical and moral to ever hope to validate and give credibility to the ‘ends’.

I appreciate his ending statement. Capitalism tried to allow people to trade and interact in a free and open environment. It was not the fault of capitalism that the people involved were not capable of taking advantage of that unique opportunity. Was it the fault of capitalism, or of those Ayn Rand would have characterized as the looters, the moochers, the parasites of humanity? I think the answer is obvious.

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