1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Closing Statements: John Judis

 
 
 

Mr. Judis inserts negative aspects of mankind, such as selfishness and the pursuit of profit as our nature and characterizs objectivism as as 'utopian' while suggesting that the answer just may be altruism and loving one another       

 
 
 
 

JOHN JUDIS - CLOSING COMMENTS

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

CLOSING PRESENTATIONS

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

Moderator:   this final section of the debate each side will have four minutes to summarize its ideas however it so chooses and however it wants to divide up that time.

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

John Judis:   Well, I'm still trying to figure out what the difference between us is, that is precisely, and I think I keep coming back to this point about metaphysics versus a historical view of human beings and I think that what I find in the philosophy that I've heard tonight is what I'd call a kind of reification of capitalist man where the traits that we associate with early capitalism of exchange, self-interested exchange, the pursuit of profit, are understood in such a way as to encompass all of human nature itself so that you get a kind of philosophy extolling selfishness but I think that's such an understanding, both slights human nature and tramples upon language.

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

(LCW)   I find these comments to be so disingenuous and unfair as to negate any positive response. You have clearly shown that you do not entertain, nor understand, any of the concepts that have been presented tonight on capitalism, (which you have extolled in many instances), self-interested exchange, (you neglect to mention that it was explained as voluntarily and value for value, which is not what you insinuate), the pursuit of profit, (not a single instance where either socialist addressed the subject of ‘earning’ anything), and especially the concept of rational self-interest, which is simply anathema to you, and no effort whatsoever was made to entertain or comprehend that which was presented to you in specific, rational and easily understood format on more than one occasion.

I never expected either of the socialists to accept or agree to the concept, but to at least recognize the concept for what it is. If you are not able to interpret, intellectually, concepts presented by your opposition, then what is the point of engaging in debate? I do not believe you to be an ignorant fool, so that leaves an intentional effort to dismiss and demean. That is understandable, of course, in the fact that if understood and acknowledged, it would undermine the debate to the point of it being moot. To say it both slights human nature and tramples upon language is condescending, and the fact that no argument or evidence accompanies the comments only points to the illegitimacy of the position.

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

(JJ)   As Stein used to say, language takes a holiday when you talk that way and what we mean ordinarily by such terms as selfishness and altruism and taking care of people and loving each other and being worried about the others besides ourselves become lost.

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

(LCW)   It seems that it only becomes lost upon you and yours. Selfishness (only as defined as rational self-interest) exalts the individual and optimizes the ability to help others. The philosophy gives every individual the opportunity to do ‘good’, as much as is humanly possible to help any other particular individual, and to do so in a way that is totally voluntary, and without any need for the initiation or use of force to accomplish. I have yet to hear how altruism or socialism is able to achieve a like result.

The real basic principles do not come from socialism or capitalism, or even Objectivism, although I could make a consistent case for that. It comes from the basis of philosophy in the generic form, where concepts of ethics, morality, character, and integrity play their part in the way we interact with other individuals that we wish them all to have every benefit and opportunity that we, ourselves, enjoy. I did not see one instance where socialism talks of such issues, even though the venue tonight was to talk of these things, specifically, in direct relation to the ideology, in your case, of socialism.

That is what we came to hear, that is what we wanted to understand, and that is what you did not attempt to supply. If I was a socialist in this audience, I would be ashamed of the paucity of the presentation in relation to these issues. It is the ‘primary’ difference between these two ideologies, and it was never addressed, or even mentioned. Disappointment is such an inadequate word.

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

(JJ)   Point number two, I don't think that the objectivist, if I could call you that, I have much to offer society today, it is hard for me to find even grounds for debate between you since your proposals, as far as I can see, would in effect take us, if they were successful, take us back to the early 19th century and I said don't simply don't think it's possible. I think that, I think that your philosophy is hopelessly utopian.

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

(LCW)   Your last comment is as vapid as your first. How in the world does any of what was offered today take us back to the 19th century? It is only the socialists that even mention that time since they think it gives them an edge in a debate that they refuse to engage in.

They were in no way talking of a resurgence of the norms at that time, and it would not be possible in any case. The world has changed dramatically, and the past can only remain the past. No one suggests a re-institution of any of the actions and philosophies followed at that time, and it is dishonest to make such an insinuation. Despicable.

I think it is the epitome of hubris and irrationality for a socialist that proposes nothing but impracticality and unrealistic promises for the future to characterize capitalism, the very same philosophy and ideology that you personally depicted as superior to the capitalism of the 19th century and even surpassing the abilities of ‘modern’ socialism as it currently exists, that you have the audacity to call it hopelessly Utopian. I find socialists to be hopelessly lost in a dream-existence of an unachievable Utopia of oblivion.

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