1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Closing Statements: Gerald Caplan

 
 
 

He believes capitalists think the rights of capital take precedence over those of humanity and that selfishness, however sophistically defined, is morally superior to a humanist egalitarian ethic, we reject it. No questions. Just hubris

          
 
 
 
 

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

Dr. Gerald Caplan

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

Dr. Gerald Caplan: “ …. I want to go back to the challenge from professors Ridpath and Peikoff, I want to talk about the logic, the implications of their rhetoric, their positions on individual liberty, and the defense of property and laissez-faire. I have a quotation if you bear with me, their leaders do not believe in unions or in welfare economics or in suffrage, their basic premise is that government exists to protect the entrepreneur from undesirable interference by other actors so that the accumulation of capital can proceed without restraint …. “

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

(LCW) I am going to take this particular comment a bit out of context since Mr. Caplan continues on his never ending rant. You will find it obvious that his narrative will never deal with any ‘quotation’, and does not deal with any specific comments of his opposition, which, again, is unfortunate and disappointing. He assigns leadership, but of course, never defines or acknowledges who they are or what they said. Never.

First of all, I am not sure what ‘challenge’ he is referring to. It would have been nice to make a reference to something substantive. He says she wants to talk of logic, implications of rhetoric, and positions on their defense of laissez-faire and property, which they indeed have done into very specific detail, but he references none of that, and begins to paraphrase, and quite improperly and falsely.

While I would have to acknowledge that they probably do not believe in unions, nor do I, and welfare economics, whatever that may constitute, and for obvious reasons, but where does he get his interpretation of their positions on suffrage, which is a misnomer and a complete digression? Who spoke of these things? What do they have to do with the target of our debate? Why does he, both of them actually, continually hide behind these machinations and subterfuge?

To debate is to confront and refute something specific and verifiable. I would love to hear the quotation he mentioned, and I would really enjoy him giving a reasoned argument about any concept or aspect of what his adversaries had to say, but I want it to be what they actually ‘said’, and not just what he conjures up in a reality I am really not interested in. I would rather have specifics, both in what he is addressing, and what he actually believes in response. We seem to be getting very little of that.

Please show me where either of the opposition speakers says that the government is meant to exist only to protect the entrepreneur from undesirable interference with the accumulation of capital without restraint. It actually sounds reasonable, except for the fact that neither has said anything of the sort, quite the contrary. They have said it so many times that I am getting tired of hearing it, but I agree with them. The government is supposed to ‘stay-out’ of the workings of the economy. It is supposed to protect the interests of all the players involved, not just those creating wealth, and that creation is supposed to be ethical and legal as determined by the legislatures and the courts. When this great socialistic Utopia comes to be, how is this great concept of democracy going to be exemplified? Are there not going to be courts and legislatures? Are not the people going to speak through these vehicles?

They do not talk of ‘interference’ as a primary concern of good governance. In fact, they do not talk of interference at all, unless it be of a specific and defined type, not in any way helping any specific players, which we all agree does happen, and should not. They, the capitalists, don’t want that kind of economic system, and the socialist says they don’t want it either. Why do you refuse to accept their stated claims? If you think that every statement is an outright misstatement of fact, there is no basis on which to have a debate. You have to accept statements and refute what is said, not what you would like to confront, but what actually exists as fact.

This is not at all about the ‘accumulation’ of capital without ‘restraint’. That is a construct from within some irrational and convoluted reality that only socialists can see. It is not what your opponents propose or envision. It is so unfair and disingenuous to continue to do so. It is dishonest and unethical and immoral. Remember morals? This was supposed to be a debate about morals. If you cannot respond to stated positions, then maybe you should not be involved on the field of ideas.

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

Dr. Gerald Caplan: “ …. not so far, I think, from some of the comments that the other side has made or written elsewhere. It happens to be about the government of El Salvador, and it happens to be a new book out of the University of North Carolina, uh, it was said earlier that El Salvador and Central America are not part of our debate tonight, forgive me, my socialism can go that far and what Ronald Reagan does there is part of my socialism. In El Salvador, a reactionary military clique dependent on the United States for its survival tortures and kills at least 100 citizens each week in order to create a climate of fear in which you can stay in power. This gang shares its power with 14 of the richest families in El Salvador, who own all there is in that country, together with American business interests and together they've reduced the majority of people in that poor country to a sub-human existence.

The United States, President Reagan in the names of all that he believes in non-interference in other countries, laissez-faire. individual liberty and the concern for human beings sending arms and advisors to these thugs in the name of those freedoms and shares in the murder of those who are rebelling against such unimaginable brutality and suppression that they obviously must be surrogates of the soviet imperialist power.

When you read, each time I read another unimaginably horrible story of a piece of torture of some poor peasant in El Salvador or in Guatemala, you, forgive me I am, buster, whenever you talk about it what you're talking about is the logic, the inexorable logic, of the philosophy that the large-scale right espouses the philosophy that says somehow liberty is found in property rights, that the rights of capital take precedence over those of humanity and that selfishness, however sophistically defined, is morally superior to a humanist egalitarian ethic, we reject it.”

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

(LCW) Wow, this is difficult to process. Is this speaker insane? I find it hard to believe otherwise. He refuses to speak of what we are here to discuss. This is one angry individual that has no constraints on his inconsiderate, disrespectful, and dare I say, ignorant commentary. He starts by making an insinuation that what he is going to say is directly connected to comments made by his opposition, never taking the time to validate either position. He continually makes up whatever strawman he intends to demolish, without reprove from moderation, and not even much push-back from his opposition. And he launches into a diatribe about Central America, and Reagan, and the politics of the right, all of which are completely devoid of relevance to the issues at hand.

Is there even a hint of the morality of socialism or capitalism? I realize that his ability to speak on the issue has been irrefutably shown to be sub-standard and almost non-existent, and that is why he reverts to the same old arguments I repeatedly hear, dare I say, from the left? He is again ranting about torture in El Salvador, as he did previously. It’s like they have a strategy to talk about nothing but unrelated and irrelevant subjects until the bell rings and they can declare victory when they get together and celebrate their non-property with others of like mind.

It is so unsavory, so unnecessary, and so destructive to the concept of being able to simply talk with others who have different opinions. This is a primary reason that I find it hard to entertain alternatives such as socialism. The hubris, anger, and barely controlled hatred for the opposition are without question a component of the philosophy. It is the essence of evil.

Another opportunity to plead his case in a rational venue and he invests the entire time complaining about his personalized politics. It is what he wishes to talk about, and he will not be deterred. Does he understand what an intellectual discussion entails? I would be deeply surprised if there is anyone in the audience that wishes to hear what he is talking about. I’ve heard it all before, and was not interested or impressed then. His facts are gratuitous and unverifiable. Are the acts undertaken in Central America horrendous? Absolutely, but capitalism has only peripheral connections to the scenario that exists there, and around the world.

His surprising naiveté, to think that the Soviets are not involved at some level, is rather immature and amusing. All of the things that happen there should, without question, not be happening, and with the vision of an ‘ethical’ capitalism, preferably with Objectivists involved, would arguably negate those things from even existing. How many times does it have to be repeated that this scenario in Central America has nothing to do with what I, personally, and Objectivism, in the macro, envision now, or in the future? I cannot repeat too often the unfairness to characterize things, not as they are, but as you wish to interpret them, so as to use prepared attack strategies against individuals in a debate that has nothing to do with the subjects that you refuse to set aside to prosecute a valid debate. Unconscionable! It verges on the psychotic and irrational.

The rights of capital take precedence over those of humanity? That selfishness takes precedence over some humanist egalitarian ethic? Who says those kinds of things, except a collectivist at a disadvantage? To champion the morality of socialism, and to be totally incapable of responding to others or to even make a feeble attempt to explain your own deeply held beliefs is without a doubt, a sad and undeniable failure of the philosophy itself. They should be ashamed of themselves. A horrible defense of the ideology, as well as the individuals themselves.

If you wish to talk of torture, when you have no expertise in the scenarios existent in Central America, and you base your comments on what you ‘read’ is not the stuff that credibility is made of, you are supposed to be offering a reasoned argument. I guess that you certainly have the right to do so, but if you wanted to make some points, and possibly give others that don’t agree with you a reason to reconsider the collectivist position, you could not have done a greater disservice to the cause.

Oh, and by the way, it needs to be pointed out, that Ms. Vickers, who repeatedly belittles those that reference books and words of others, is she going to scold the professor who just referenced some book out of the University of North Carolina? I guess they only have a single book there, so we all should know what it was. No reference other than bringing it up for effect, I guess. No attribution, and certainly no quote.

He wanted us to bear with him for a quote of note, and we have yet to hear it. Quelle surprise! The presentation is so weak, I fail to see it getting passing marks in a high school debate. Disheartening. The level of professional conduct and presence expected in such a venue is sorely lacking.

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

Dr. Gerald Caplan: “ …. I have two final quotes, if you will forgive me one is from a hero of mine who I mentioned earlier, David Lewis, the prophet of Canadian Socialism. The modern democratic socialist David Lewis wrote in 1956, should proclaim his aims loudly and passionately, as I hope we're doing tonight.
The equality of man and woman is the socialist watchword, the moral struggle against injustice and inequality, is the socialist duty to be a strong and powerful voice for the common man against the abuse and oppression of a privileged minority, is the socialist function, and to forge an ever finer and ever higher standard of values and a richer pattern of life and behavior is the socialist dream.

I want to say it in less highfalutin terms. I met last year in the Yukon, a great old woman who happened to die last week. She was 92 years old, her name was Hilda Hellaby, she spent all her life in the north working with native peoples working for feminist rights, working in that strange world for a socialist dream that she had.

Hilda Hellaby used to say she wasn't as good at the philosophy of reason as our colleagues. She didn't talk as they do about Kant and Plato and Bergson and Heraclitus, she wasn't good at that, but she was good at saying things and what Hilda Hellaby said, I heard her, she said ‘you know why I do it? When in doubt take the losing side, the winners don't need us, they're doing fine’.

That's all that socialism has ever meant, that's what it's all about it's the basis of a creed that is noble of a dream that is warm and glorious and it is as true to the bright side of the human soul as men and women have ever invented. I take it that I cannot enjoy a certain number of you in this room to share that dream with us tonight, but some, I believe, you will and I hope you do. Thank you very much.”

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

(LCW) I’m sorry if I am not overly impressed with the words of Lewis. The sentiments are not of value to me. I guess my biggest criticism would be that he seems to infer that only socialism can embrace and embody these things, such as the equality of man and woman, and the struggle ‘against’ injustice and inequality. These things have nothing to do with socialism but only are able to be reflected in the actions of the individuals that comprise the collective. I reject that the socialist has any greater claim to these goals or expectations.

I have spent my life believing that man and woman deserve an equality that is easy to profess, and yet difficult to define and implement. No individuals, and that includes every single man and woman that exist, are equal in any appreciable way, so you can grant them some kind of equality on paper, and never be able to offer it to them in the reality of life all around us. Each of us has inherent strengths and weaknesses, and that must first and foremost be acknowledged in order to be able to even talk about equality and justice.

I find it both amusing and disheartening to hear people speak of these things without ever having to define or illustrate exactly what it is that is unequal. There can be no equality when it comes to outcome, only in opportunity, in respect, in consideration, and in the ethical and moral treatment that we extend to any individual.

I do not think in terms of man and woman, and I am continually taken aback and deeply surprised when the Liberals and Conservatives alike, the socialists as well as capitalists, focus ‘only’ on special interest groups for specific and personal agendas, and neglecting to talk about issues on an all-inclusive level of a ‘human’ agenda.

If we craft ideologies based on well-reasoned philosophies, and politics on those same philosophies, and treat each individual as a unique being, with the same benefits and responsibilities and obligations as the next, irrespective of gender, color, ethnicity, and religious persuasion, then do we not end up with that equality that everyone incessantly chants about?

There are a myriad of inconsistencies and deficiencies in whatever political ideology we end up choosing, but the need to treat people equally does not derive from the system, but the individuals that make up the philosophy that exemplifies the ideology itself. We should not speak in terms of helping any particular special interest group, no matter how oppressed they have been in the past, but to ensure that they are not in the future.

If we ensure that ‘all’ individuals are treated with respect and consideration, then every man and woman, irrespective of any superficial attributes, will be covered, protected, and given the opportunity to negotiate their lives with the same obstacles and resources as any other. How is this not equality? How is this not the fundamental definition of justice? Is it retribution that is being sought here, or vengeance? That is not going to produce the expected results.

I have spent my life as what you so aptly call a ‘common man’. I have seen, first hand, the oppression, and abuse by what you characterize as the privileged minority. You state that it is the socialist function to fight such a reality. But again, I agree, I commiserate with the fact that this even exists, and yet, I am not a socialist.

I fail to see what gives the socialist mindset some hubristic ability to claim for themselves alone the ability to right the wrong, when I find it difficult to agree that you even see the real problems, even if your words ring true. The socialist invariably claims the high-ground over all opposition, and undeniably denigrates and demeans, and even condemns the beliefs of others that do not agree with them, granting no quarter, and entertaining no alternatives except for their own.

This does not seem to dovetail with their stated ideals of equality and justice. It does nothing to validate their goal of confronting oppression and abuse. You treat opposition in much the same manner that your nemesis, that privileged minority, treats those that you say you fight for. I question the legitimacy of that stated objective.

I am more than willing to discuss specifics, in fact, I would look forward to it, but I don’t see the socialists talk within definable and concrete concepts. You present that the dream of socialism is to ‘forge an ever finer and ever-higher standard of values and a richer pattern of life and behavior’. Once again we agree completely, so why are we at odds?

Nothing is of more importance to me than the highest standard of values possible. That can only come about through the deep investigation of ethics, and morals, and the concepts of right and wrong which can ‘only’ come about through the discovery of truth through philosophy.

Socialists, at least the ones that I have come in contact with, think these things are anathema to collectivism, and indeed, they are. Why are we not teaching these things in our educational system? There are more than enough socialists in the ranks of educational administration if it was desirable. And I do not mean in our colleges or even the high schools. From the very first day a child enters the system, they should be introduced to the fundamentals of ethics, morals, and integrity. Nothing that the socialist wishes to do is possible without the real will of the people, and I do not believe that they have it, otherwise they would not need the power and coercion of the state to have any chance of implementing their desires.

To be fair, capitalism has many of the same issues, although they are the dominant system because there was, and still is, a desire by the population to see that it is successful, but two things work strongly against them. The fact that the system has been allowed to be corrupted by the very people whose sworn duty it is to protect the system and the citizens, so much for integrity, and the false narrative that the socialists, the collectivists, the liberals, present to the people.

Instead of competing on the field of ideas with the best that they can offer, they use the weapons of identity politics and character assassination. This debate is a perfect example of this. But they will not succeed without misinformation, so we end up with a valid system that is deteriorating, and a system that will never be able to deliver what it is they promise. Not an inviting scenario.

As for Hilda, I am not sure what her inclusion in this conversation is supposed to achieve. I am immediately forced, against my will, to consider her story one more political than philosophical in nature. She has been working with the Indians, specifically on feminist issues. I am not sure why it is characterized as a ‘strange’ world when the Indian culture is often touted as a Utopian existence by many socialists during discussions. I find it curious that the focus is on a feminist theme when I thought the male Indians were oppressed and under siege as well. Another example of concern for a special interest, when working to improve the overall conditions of the Indians as a people would seem to be more constructive and comprehensive, not to mention egalitarian.

Why is that? Is it really necessary to demean Kant and Plato, Bergson and Heraclitus in such a way as to gain some nebulous upper-hand? Did the opposition reference any of these individuals in their own comments? Why was it so important to make such a point, and what exactly was that point? As usual, I am at a loss why they simply do not talk about the issues at hand, and continually digress and divert and attempt to sabotage the entire reason for the debate to begin with. Difficult to understand.

The fascinating aspect of this inclusion is the quote Mr. Caplan seems to attribute such a value on. Hilda says that ‘When in doubt take the losing side, the winners don't need us, they're doing fine.’ I confess to being confused. Maybe it is the fact that she is 92 and possibly not in control of all of her faculties, but it sounds like we should side with the losers, in ‘all’ circumstances, no matter what, simply because they ‘are’ the losers?

I must admit to siding with the underdogs in many societal circumstances, but it does not mean that I intend to support mindlessly, or wish to have these ‘losers’ control my life, possibly for the remainder of my existence, simply because they are indeed losers. If socialism, by some horrible coincidence, ever does win this competition for the minds of the community, would this not mean that the capitalist would be the loser? Would this not infer that Hilda would then be on the side of the underdog, the capitalist in this case? If socialism was never meant to be anything else, would that not be an imperative to then help the capitalist, who would then be disadvantaged? Words and ideas have meaning. Only in socialism does it not matter.

Is this a rational position? Is this what socialism teaches? Caplan continues by saying that this is all that socialism has ever meant. What? Does that mean that there never was any rational philosophy behind the ideology? I continually ask socialists what role does reason play in the legitimacy of the philosophy. This makes me question if there is any place for reason in the contemplations of the ideology and its inclusion into the lives of millions of people that are looking for some kind of future based on some form of structure and reasonable expectations. Mr. Caplan says it is the epitome of the socialist dream, while to me, it sounds more like a nightmare.

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