1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

(Lone Cypress Workshop) While I would consider this an essay in essence, it might be more appropriate to characterize it as a rebuttal or a commentary on the debate that took place in 1984. The date is, of course, serendipitous, and yet with a hint of prophetic, sardonic, amusement. The question is not 'will' we ever learn, but moreso, will we ever even listen.

I found both sides at fault with their comments, straying from an actual debate in many instances, but in the interests of full disclosure, it must be presented that my perspective is somewhat biased towards the capitalist positions. Not completely, mind you, and yet my allegiance lies with America, and with Objectivism. Capitalism is but a component, although from the bulk of the comments made, it may seem that it is the primary target for the debate.

The real allure of this debate was in the supposed focus of the ‘morality’ of the socialistic tendencies versus those of the capitalistic persuasion. The distinctions that inadequately attempted to deflect the responsibility of socialism by re-branding it ‘democratic’ socialism was somewhat disingenuous. Socialism is collectivism, and that is where the debate needs to be centered. Capitalism is not the foil of socialism, but as stated, simply an economic aspect of the greater ideology, and in this case that can only really be compared to Objectivism and its tenets to completely explain exactly why capitalism not only can work, but has been working consistently for quite some time.

I am not really interested why socialism has not been allowed to bloom and realize its potential because it has never been ‘given the chance’ to do so. I have heard that from the communists, and from socialists and even fascists as well. It is empty rhetoric. It doesn’t work because the people that constitute the systems are completely incapable of explaining and implementing the system, and the ‘community’ does not believe in the foundational concepts that define the ideology itself.

Capitalism has much the same challenges when it comes to being defined and implemented. While the socialists refuse to accept the words and actions of those that represent their own philosophy around the world as valid, they continue to live an existence of fantasy, denying that what they believe has ever actually been allowed to exist. Capitalism can say much the same thing, but they have been put into the paradigm that they have to accept responsibility for each and every instance where capitalism was used, in any form whatsoever, and the ramifications of the events, even when they are completely perverted and manipulated for the benefit of a very specific few.

While in actuality there is some grossly misrepresented version of capitalism in effect at these times, they do not represent the historical fundamentals of an intellectual capitalism, but one that has been hijacked and often used as a weapon against the very people that were meant to benefit from the theory. Socialists, on the other hand, accept no responsibility for any version of socialism, and only pick and choose various instances where it can be used to illustrate the imagined success of the ideology. And that is both suspect and amusing, since socialism, whether democratic socialism or some other label, has never been able to enjoy any level of definable achievement or benefit to the population without the presence of some form of capitalism to generate the wealth necessary to drive the socialistic imperative.

My perspective in relation to this ‘debate’ will be primarily one of collectivism as opposed to Objectivism in the philosophical sense.

Objectivism is something specific, and any attempt to pervert and misinterpret it by the players will be dealt with harshly. While I acknowledge the ability of collectivism to in fact be an alternative, I find it difficult to recognize it as a viable one. More on that later.

I am fascinated by the concept of dueling moralities, and would like to focus on that concept as the primary function of the debate, which never really materialized, to demonstrate the essential differences between the two schools of thought. On to the debate.