1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Rebuttal: Gerald Caplan

 
 
 

I'm sorry, but he really has nothing to say. The invective and ad-hominems are beyond the pale. The words reek of immaturity and ignorance, and not the thoughtful or insightful comments of a scholar. Irrational and sad

      
 
 
 
 

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

Gerald Caplan

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

Dr. Caplan: “ …. I feel kind of terrible I've ruined John's evening. I didn't mean to, I'm sorry he's disappointed. Jill and I tried and I'm sorry we couldn't satisfy him. We actually have a different way of looking at it. John Ridpath, we actually think that your words are not all that counts, John Ridpath, We actually think you can test most of your words in practice, and they don't come out as well, so don't tell us that we're not dealing with the issue.

The issue is what happens with words when they get applied to people and the mythology is universal of what you promise, but the reality is the opposite and don't tell us that you're not associated with the moral majority, you're not associated with Bill Buckley, you are part of a crowd that talks about individual enterprise, you talk about laissez-faire, you talk about unregulated capitalism, and so does this large group and they have important things in common, one of the things they have in common, as you say, and all of them say, it comes down to us from Max Weber to Frederick Hayek, his book the road to serfdom, that any state regulation leads ipso facto to the regulation of human beings to an absence of freedom, that's what it says, but the reality happens not to be that, the reality happens to be that the most prosperous, that the happiest, that the most generous period in human history has been in Western Europe, in North America in the 25 or 30 years since the second world war precisely because the state introduced social services which made more people's lives more decent, more calm(?) more livable than they'd ever been before.”

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

(LCW) And ironically, due in large part to the capitalistic component in their economies, you forgot to mention that.

Besides the fact that they have not been addressing anything of importance, and to me that means the ‘morality’ factor, or directly making a reasoned argument against anything that has been brought up that conflicts with socialism, my undeniable frustration and anger is the consistent condescension and refusal to accept anything proffered by the opposition as legitimate examples of what they present as their positions in defense of capitalism and Objectivism.

Mr. Caplan makes no effort to legitimize his comments with any evidence whatsoever. He basically calls Ridpath a liar, and by extension, Mr. Peikoff at the same time, by dismissing their statements that they have no connection to individuals like Buckley or the Moral Majority. He seems to know exactly what they said and will accept no deviation from his own distorted view of reality, based on ‘only’ his interpretations. Who died and made him God? He pontificates incessantly, afraid that if he takes a breath someone will call him out on it. My frustration is at its limits.

It is beyond comprehension that Ridpath and Peikoff cannot offer caveats and clarifications on people and ideas that they do not support, Caplan again dismisses their comments out of hand, without citation or evidence of any kind, but he, as well as Vickers, admit to no real example of what it is that they present as an alternative to the woefully imperfect versions that exist around the world. If there is a factory, as far as the socialist is concerned, it is capitalism. If a ruthless ‘dictator’ is in charge, they must be best of friends. What a mindless and ignorant perspective. Peikoff set it out in no uncertain terms that he is not affiliated with Buckley and the Moral Majority, and yet Caplan proclaims that as an untruth. Can he produce any valid information to that point? Of course, the answer to that is no.

Caplan picks and chooses his examples of the total failures of capitalism, evading completely that there are hundreds of examples of the attempts of socialism that have caused untold pain and suffering. He chooses instead to hold up Europe and North American as examples of social initiatives that have an arguable success rate, again avoiding the fact that every one of the examples came about through the intervention of capitalism as the investor and financial backing that made those actions and programs possible. If Europe, including the Scandinavian countries, had to worry about security since the World Wars, they would still be cleaning up after the devastation caused.

All of this ‘time of plenty’ is directly related to the ascension and existence of capitalism that made the goods, fixed the infrastructure, kept the peace, and supplied the system that ultimately allowed those same ‘experiments’ to be attempted. It is the epitome of ignorance to hide from those realities. When was the last time that Canada had to protect its own borders? They can strut around like some turkey in the wild, but they have not had to prosecute any conflict except in a secondary manner.

This is one of the undeniable benefits of America and capitalism. It may be messy, but the results are irrefutable, and they could be so much better if only the socialists were willing to ‘cooperate’ with the existing paradigm, but alas, this is something to which they will never acquiesce. Socialism has never created a workable economy, and I fail to see how it ever will. Even China could not have become a communist world power without capitalism. Nor Russia. Nor Cuba. Nowhere on earth has it been able to stand on its own, with the membership creating a unique system where magical things happen. The world runs on cause and effect. Socialism does not cause anything at all, except pain and suffering.

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

Dr. Gerard Caplan: “ …. and that's if you dare denounce us for the evasions and the falsehoods you talk about socialist governments that rule with a gun. I take it you mean British Columbia, I think he could mean Howard Paulie in Manitoba. I think I take it you mean the British Labour Party and the German Social Democratic Party, and the Swedish Social Democratic Party, all of which, as you know, came to power by force, have remained in power by the gun, and have oppressed and enslaved their citizens. Well, forgive me, I'm not ashamed of it even with this audience tonight.

It's the greatest contribution socialism has made to this society. We moved the parameters of the debate to the left so people who before the war talked about capitalism in this way no longer can afford to do it. The issue became not whether there ought to be a welfare state but what the size of it was going to be. We won that, major way of accepting the state's responsibility for taking care of those who for no fault of their own couldn't hack it. We're underprivileged, we're handicapped, couldn't make it, and we forced people to say that was the state's responsibility because the state alone could handle it, that's how it happened.”

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

(LCW) I am appalled that you actually sound proud that you ‘forced’ everyone to do this. Not that you believe that it was necessary, but you are unabashedly proud of the fact that you ‘won’ something that is not supposed to be a sport, a game, or a competition. Oh, I know that politics is a competition, but the intended focus of the debate was not supposed to be political in nature, and you find it impossible to have it be anything else. Nothing that you say has any basis in philosophical thought or argument.

No matter what you believe has been accomplished to this point, arguably because of only your own efforts, the fact of your evasions and falsehoods are irrefutable. You don’t wish to speak of your ideology in terms of what has value and legitimacy, but only of the exact opposite of your opposition. You take credit for what seems to be of some success and accept not even the hint of responsibility or culpability when it all goes south. An extremely dishonest position.

Let’s talk about the gun. You are aware, I sincerely hope, that an actual gun is not used is accomplishing your goals, don’t you? Not that real guns are not a part of an overwhelming number of socialistic experiments. I don’t blame socialism for all the faults of these attempts while arguing, and passionately believing that the culpability does exist in many instances.

You acknowledge absolutely none, and that is tragic, and a reflection of damaged personal philosophy. The gun is simply a euphemism to illustrate a point, which is often done with the insertion of an extreme as an example as opposed to some tame version which is much more easily dismissed, as you do anyway. You have to understand what I am saying, since you do the same thing with every sentence you utter, speaking of people and countries that have nothing to do with the issues, speaking of torture and the like, when you have to know that they are not related in any way, but it sounds terrible, and by extension, you believe that people will equate those things with the concepts and philosophies that you detest.

That is why socialism is even existent today at all, through the use of fear and intimidation. There is nothing that you want for society that your opposition does not agree with. It is the means by which you reach the same point, the fact that you will entertain no other alternatives than the ones that you create, and allow no other attempts at supplying the help necessary except through your own machinations. Give me one single example when you have embraced one of those options. You can’t. Why is that?

Nobody cares about British Columbia or Manitoba. Nobody really cares about Canada either. Why do you keep pointing to things outside the parameters of the discussion at hand? It seems more an obsession than a simple avoidance. Do not talk about anything of relevance or all of your logical fallacies will become apparent. You are supposed to be talking about the fundamental logistics of your philosophy and you continue to refuse.

The only enslavement that is referenced is not of a physical nature, much the same as the gun is not a physical weapon. The enslavement is what is used, in conjunction with that fear and intimidation I mentioned, to create an environment where there is no opposition on the streets, everyone possibly agreeing, in principle, of the need to help the needy, but your narrative of what the capitalists wish to do, completely fabricated and prejudicial, and the fear of speaking up and the intimidation used on those who do, create the same environment of ‘force’ and ‘enslavement’, minus the physical means to implement them, and yet, the promise of their use is never far from the minds of each and every citizen. You can deny it if you wish, but it exists. I know many who have voiced it, and I myself felt it on many occasions. I don’t react the same as others, but it exists. And you don’t care, in fact, it makes you feel powerful, in control, and on the verge of victory. But at what cost? The cost of legitimacy.

Everything that you want, at least from what you say, is available through capitalism and individual freedom, but I find that you will not accept nor even recognize anyone that has an option, an alternative to what you profess will create an environment where no one, not a single person, will ever ‘need’ again. You will not entertain, or discuss, or even mention another option. There can be no debate, as tonight so pointedly displays, no compromise, no negotiation, no consensus, not even any discussion. Only conflict, digression, condescension, vilification, and condemnation. Nothing else is possible with your entire ideology. Your attitude and presentation are identical to anyone that professes your philosophy. At least there is some consistency there, but I am not impressed.

You talk like capitalism is not fundamentally responsible for all of this progress anyway. Your dialogue, your narrative, did not create the change. It was certainly an influence, but with no wealth, there could be no welfare. Without production, there would be nothing to ‘bestow’ on those that have nothing. Socialism does not create cars, and houses, and computers, iPhones, or even washing machines and microwaves. All of these things came about through capitalism, and they are affordable through the gift of capitalism. Your absence of reality is difficult to understand at times.

Your ideology offers little to the mix. Do you really think that your ideas are the driving force behind the end results? They are not. It is the people themselves that have accomplished whatever little has been done. If they truly embraced the philosophy, there would be no one in need, because they would be sheltered and cared for by their neighbors. How many are protected under the roof that Mr. Caplan owns? How many under the roof of Ms. Vickers, that according to her, doesn’t even exist?

You don’t need that virtual ‘gun’ to help others. In fact, you need nothing but your largesse. Where is that exactly? Socialism will be successful only when the believers take it upon themselves to do what is necessary, not when others are ‘forced’ to agree and join, in lockstep, with the ‘will’ of the people. For every ‘will’ there is a dissident, and that translates into conflict, and disagreement, and the failure of the philosophy.
For it to work, which I readily acknowledge is a ‘possibility’, it will be necessary, for each and every member to fully acknowledge and accept whatever task is placed before them, and I am interested in the millions that are on welfare now, not the ones truly incapacitated physically and mentally, but those that are capable of at least some level of productive effort, what will they do under the socialistic banner? Will they also work, side by side with their ‘comrades’ or will their life consist of nothing but assistance, without a care or worry about responsibility and obligation? Will the socialistic overlords ‘allow’ any and all who wish to do nothing to live a parasitic life at the expense of the greater good, even those that have the capability for production on some level to offer the community? What if they resist? What will the response be?

As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to hear exactly what are the responsibilities and obligations of a member of this society in a general sense. Is it only those that are capable of production and creation that have them, or is it everyone that needs to accept them? Is it even a component of the socialistic mindset? Feel free to clarify.

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

Dr. Gerard Caplan: “ …. and what's so terrible about what's happening today, what's so terrible about what's happening in the United States, and in a tiny way here, and with Margaret Thatcher, is that these people are moving the debate back to the right where you can speak the unspeakable where John Ridpath on a raid on a tv program can say that it is coercion, it is enslavement, it is force, for the government of Canada to provide welfare assistance for pregnant teenage kids or handicapped .”

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

(LCW) There is nothing ‘terrible’ about it. As stated, time after time, it is not the ‘ends’ produced, that no one is really fighting, it is the immoral ‘means’ that are utilized to reach those ends. Speaking of morality, you remember morality, this was a debate about morality, I believe. At least, I think it was, but it’s been so long I am not sure anymore. And there you go talking about nothing but Canada, United States, and Margaret Thatcher. Is that a country or a person?

So the capitalists speak the unspeakable but you speak what, the ‘speakable’? When people disagree with you they are the bogey-men, but when ‘you’ speak, it is what, directly from the mouth of God? The hubris is palpable. Why aren’t you the Prime Minister of the planet? Why are you running with only 15% of the vote in Canada? What an enigma.
So is John Ridpath not an esteemed opponent anymore? When he speaks on a TV program, it is some kind of raid or attack? What is it when you speak? Just wondering. Why are we speaking of pregnant ‘kids’ and the handicapped? Are we back to morality again, or did I miss something? Sounds like politics to me. At least the capitalists make some feeble attempt at speaking on the focus of morality. It is totally non-existent in the other camp. Just throwing the word in randomly in each segment does not constitute a discussion or a debate on the subject.

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

Dr. Gerard Caplan: “ …. don't you ho ho ho me, I have the notes here. I have the tape here and I will play it for you. He believes that, he said it tonight, and he, and hold on, he acknowledged that, so please don't laugh at me.”

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

(LCW) I am ashamed to be enjoying this but while being somewhat tragic, it is amusing as well. He is totally losing it, ‘threatening’ to play something, we know not what, and of course, never doing so. Is that comment supposed to be giving him credibility or legitimacy for some reason? I am sure he believes it, I only wish I knew what he was talking about. It’s his time, he could have done it. Why even utter the words. I can only feel sympathy for him. I don’t want to laugh at him. It is so very sad.

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

Dr. Gerard Caplan: “ …. now it's really, it's really an easy decision, it's really a quite easy decision, you talk about free enterprise, and you talk about laissez-faire, you talk about rights of property and what you do everywhere in the world, in the event is you oppress and you take the side of the privileged and the wealthy and the predator against the side of the wretched and the destitute and the vulnerable and you take the perpetrators and you turn them into the innocent victims and you take the victims and you claim that they are somehow the enemy and you do it time and time again, you introduce a simple division between whether you're going to be mean about how the world runs or caring and I think it's an easy answer.”

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

(LCW) I am sincerely concerned with this man’s mental health. Nothing he says is legitimate or credible. Is this really the best you can come up with after all this time? It somehow feels like a fighter that is giving up the fight. There is nothing left, and he was just waiting for the bell. Not what I wanted, and not what I was looking forward to. I think we should let him go home now and sleep it off. Completely unprepared and devoid of the abilities and resources to follow through. At least it was an easy decision for him. Of what, I have no idea.

So, … he makes no comments on what Peikoff and Ridpath have said, he simply summarizes what they have commented on, and to his credit, doesn’t even editorialize, at least for the moment. No argument, no point. But then he goes on to characterize them as the bane of mankind. He proclaims that they are responsible for every malignant action taken on the face of the planet. In exactly what connection is he ‘siding’ with the wealthy and the privileged? Do you truly insinuate that he is in agreement and has some kind of collusion with ‘predators’? Your lack of respect for your opposition is despicable. You have absolutely no evidence to that end, and that fact alone completely destroys what negligible credibility of your character and integrity that may exist. The way you present your positions is deplorable and devoid of that which we were here today to discuss, and that is the total absence of anything that could be considered moral. I can only pity such a poor excuse for a representative of any ideology or philosophy. I abhor your actions.

He goes on to paint with the same broad brush, saying they are not only against the wretched, the destitute, and the vulnerable but ‘with’ these horrible examples of mankind. Heady stuff. Somehow I think a bit unreasonable and unfair, but if you cannot see that, I am not sure who I am trying to communicate with. In any case, he characterizes them certainly as ‘against’ these poor souls, never realizing that these three words, wretched, destitute, and vulnerable do not define a state of being, meaning a situation where they have no ability to improve their lot, and incapable of changing the paradigm. In fact, these are all states of existence that can be improved and even rectified. They, in fact, may have the ability to resolve the situation at some point. Short-term assistance, as it were. Do socialists ever speak in short-term resolutions or do they talk of perpetual welfare? I think it a pertinent and instructive question to ask.

And he offers the ‘fact’ that they take the perpetrators and change them into the victims and ‘force’ the victims into the role of ‘enemy’. Once again, I wait for evidence, even just a reasoned argument that I should consider his position as anything other than sour grapes, and there is …. nothing. The accusations, the disrespect. The lack of integrity and the plethora of invective is overwhelming. Are these the individuals of tolerance and justice and equality? If ever you come in contact with these kinds of people, I suggest you turn in the other direction, and run as far and as fast as you can to distance yourself. Social distancing for the pandemic is six feet, but with these ‘social’-ists, six miles might be better. But running will not defeat them, as masks do nothing to defeat the virus. You will have to return to fight another day.

The ending is quite lame, as he laments the ‘meanness’ of the capitalists while elevating himself and those of equal ego and selfishness, as those who ‘care’, even though, as previously mentioned, none of those who really need the help are under their ‘care’. It is for the state to care for them, so they can return home to their non-property house, have an enjoyable non-property meal, with a really nice non-property bottle of wine, followed by a fitful sleep in their non-property king-sized bed with non-property 2000 thread count sheets. Don’t forget the non-property bank accounts and cars, but then again, they may have gone Uber.

Unfortunately, you’ll notice that there was no mention of morality in any sense, and no refutation or explanation of his own philosophy. It is extremely telling, that after two rounds of the opportunity to do so, no real presentation of what their ideology represents besides some vague ‘helping’ of other people, no examples or explanations of what the philosophy has been able to accomplish, where, and when as well as how, not even a clarification on what steps the ideology takes to achieve their unique and desired results. Very disturbing and troubling. It is almost as if there is something to hide or nothing to offer. I believe that both are very real possibilities. I am highly suspicious and strongly skeptical.

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