1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Closing Statements: Christopher Hitchens

 
 
 

Mr. Hitchens again rejects the concept of capitalism as an 'idea', dismisses rational self-interest out-of-hand, and tries to make the connection of capitalism with any instance of depravity from the beginning of time   
 

 
 
 

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS - CLOSING COMMENTS

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

Christopher Hitchens:   I think I'll just close by insisting on a point we've both made in different ways. We regard capitalism as a system, not as an idea, and therefore something that is a proper study of analysis of history and of economics as well as of that of political competing ideology.

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

(LCW)   I would posit then that your assumptions are in an obvious state of error. Capitalism is indeed a system, but can it not be an idea as well, a philosophy that can lift man above what we have today? Why is everything with the socialists, all the time without exception, a matter of black and white, for me or agin’ me? That is so simplistic and, honestly, ignorant and devoid of any ability to see the ‘big picture’.

You can study history all you want, but you don’t accept history when it comes to socialism, and capitalism was in its infancy with all the instances you try to insert into the conversation. There are no absolutes from whatever history has to offer, since the players, and the environment, and the reality of mankind have changed much in two hundred years. To be frank, it has changed dramatically and dynamically as much in the last couple of decades as it has since that time.

We can use history to possibly gain insights into actions already attempted, but they have little if any bearing on what the future holds. Stop living in the past, and speak of what you see for the future. That is what we were here for. You gave us nothing upon which to contemplate and to investigate. You exist in a time where you think you hold an advantage, but that would be only for those that exist in that same reality, and those are few and, for the most part, relegated to, ironically, history.

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

(CH)   That is, I think, that is the insight that the Objectivists deny themselves and end up with the, I would have thought superfluous injunction to humans to be self-interested, an injunction that does not seem as one looks around, to be very much needed, an idea that doesn't appear to require an enormous amount of reinforcement though it might, something, require more justification that it's had this evening.

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

(LCW)   What in the world is a superfluous injunction? You criticize the concept of selfishness now, as we end the debate? Where were you during the last hours? You have not even given us any indication that you comprehend the meaning as presented. It is certainly quite different than the selfishness that, we could offer, you have shown with each and every comment you have made this evening.

Please don’t take this as an ad-hominem attack, it is nothing of the sort, it is simply an objective observation. The problem is that you may not understand the differences between rational self-interest, defined by the Objectivist as something that cannot harm another in any way, and the irrational self-interest, which attempts little else but that harm. While the latter may be the selfishness that you reference in your uninformed characterization, the former is something drastically different, which you never recognize or even acknowledge.

The hubris that you exhibit in your comment that no ‘justification’ has been presented this evening on the subject of rational self-interest, I would strongly disagree. I thought it was covered adequately on more than one occasion. What I found to not have any justification was most of your commentary. I don’t know if you believe that everyone in the audience is an avid fan and knows your every nuance, but you seem to be incapable of actually explaining any of your observations, or you just could care less.

In any case, I would have welcomed the attempt to supply that justification on any of those instances. The fact that you say something does not make it so, therefore, it is necessary to supply some explanation and clarity to the dolts, such as myself, that invested valuable time to come and listen at the feet of a master. Is my disappointment recognizable?

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

(CH)   Capitalism, as a system, has coexisted with and in, on occasion, sponsored feudalism, monarchy, fascism, slavery, apartheid, and under development, it has also been the great engine of progress development and innovation in a certain few Heartland countries. This means that it must be a system studied as a system and not as an idea.

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

(LCW)   Balderdash, which is a term as relevant as feudalism. To use the current vernacular, what you present is nothing more than bulls***. Excuse my French. Can we please stop incessantly ranting about feudalism? This is so antiquated as to be regarded as irrelevant or irrational. Capitalism has indeed coexisted along with all those digressions, as socialism undeniably has, even moreso, over the centuries. Is there some point that you wish to make?

But capitalism is not those things, does not promote or necessitate those things, and is not just a system but an idea as well, and the idea of capitalism, in its true form, is none of those things. As already stated multiple times, it is the individual or the perverse ideology or philosophy that hijacks the viable ‘idea’ of capitalism for their own interests, in the most base and irrationally selfish way imaginable.

There is no must to its being studied, but even as I say this, even if studied, it does not demand the acknowledgment of any particular point of view as it relates to modern capitalism, and especially not in the relation to what form of capitalism will derive from what has been. Your perspective seems to be locked in the past, with past morays, past morals, past mistakes, and past failures as the only reality that you can accept. Luckily, the rest of us are under no obligation to grant you any legitimacy in your irrational and unsubstantiated musings.

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

(CH)   Its claims to be the sponsor of freedom are purely contingent, it's good propaganda but it's not very good political science. In the same way, those of us who take and hold to the socialist view in this century, are perfectly well aware of the appalling crimes and failures as well as of the defeats that our movement is associated with. My final submission, I think would be, that no one bothers to counterfeit a bad currency and that the claim of so many people who don't deserve it to the socialist title gives one hope for a more enlightened application of the idea in the non-capitalist future.

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

(LCW)   And your perspective to the contrary is just as ‘purely contingent’, and your bad propaganda is even less credible and valid. Go ahead and make your argument, if you dare. You haven’t made the effort to this point, and your time in the spotlight is quickly coming to a close.

It is nice of you to recognize the appalling crimes and failures and defeats ‘your’ movement is associated with. I find it interesting that you are aware, but take no responsibility for these failures with your statement, and that you make the distinction that these things are only ‘associated’ with and not a direct result of these appalling instances of socialism. More than a bit disingenuous and dishonest.

I find it even more fascinating that you equate your own ‘system’ as an ‘idea’ with the same breath that you deny your opposition to embrace their own version, their own ‘ideal’ of capitalism. It seems that you consider yourself the final arbiter of all things, as long as no evidence is required in the dissemination of such an opinion. How gauche.

All failures attributed to the socialist philosophy are mistaken, while all those associated with capitalism, no matter how vague or tenuous, are solid and credible examples of the philosophy, without citation. How primitive, pedestrian and crude. A perfect exemplar of the socialist mindset.

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