1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

The Debate

 
 
 

The debate was conducted at the University of Toronto in 1984, with the date being somewhat ironic, in context. Morality is an elusve concept, at times being as much subjective as objective. The fundamental question? Which is moral?       

 
 
 
 

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

THE DEBATE

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

You can see the debate here:  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPC5lkpi1WI)

 
 
 
 

Debate 1984 | Socialism or Capitalism: Which Is the Moral System?

Discussion is based on the concept of morality as opposed to economic or government concerns In the legendary 1984 debate against socialists Jill Vickers and Gerald Caplan, the team of Leonard Peikoff and John Ridpath defended capitalism against their opponents’ criticisms and roundly refuted the socialists.

ARI is delighted to showcase this illuminating debate on YouTube and to bring it to the attention of a new generation of viewers. The remastered video will be premiered this Friday and hosted on ARI’s YouTube channel by permission of the copyright holder, Sandra Shaw.

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

Moderator: “Tonight’s convocation hall is an island upon which two opposite forces will meet. They have come together to challenge each other’s principles and to defend their own in a peaceful and scholarly fashion and I’m going to make sure the two systems under debate are socialism and capitalism brought together tonight for your scrutiny and judgment”.

(LCW) I have seen the confrontation and the challenge was not met. If you think that this repartee was ‘scholarly’ then you are mistaken or partisan. I will comment upon this issue in due time.

Moderator: “the two systems under debate are socialism and capitalism brought together tonight for your scrutiny and judgment. The issue is morality, NOT economics, NOT history. This means that the two systems will be defended on the grounds of fundamental moral principles, NOT on the grounds of economic or historical statistics. This framework does not suggest that morality and economics are unrelated but that economic realities presuppose moral foundations. The question for the evening is socialism or capitalism, which is the moral system, and in the context of this question which of these systems justifies George Orwell’s concerns for our year 1984”.

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

(LCW) I found this question to be pertinent and intriguing. Unfortunately, I do not think that it was addressed in a manner consistent with the moderators' opening comments. The morality was addressed by the conservative participants, and yet almost completely dismissed or avoided by the socialists. This is not speculation. Read the comments. Study the text. Where do they talk of morality?

They continually focus on economics around the world, perpetrated not by people who agree with the conservative representatives, but those that Mr. Caplan and Ms. Vickers would like to portray as the prime villains of an ideology run wild. Their positions and protestations are invalid and misleading. They are not legitimate. Where are the fundamental moral imperatives? I invested my time in this debate to hear some in-depth and substantive reasoning. Some concrete and credible examples of why their system can work, and why the other is failing, but what I hear is silence, and a perspective that is undefined and nebulous, complaining about issues that are always the responsibility of the ‘other’ side, and never recognizing that they can, in fact, resolve the issues, but no one really wants to make the effort.

Why is socialism the moral imperative, the moral alternative? I hear hints, but they seem more like hopes and dreams than a concrete option to bring about that thing that both camps present as their ultimate goal, that of producing a beneficial life to all that sign on to their vision. The problem is who is able to deliver, who has delivered, and who may continue to do so in the future. The conclusion is unanswerable at this point.