Debate 1984 | Socialism or Capitalism: Which Is the Moral System?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- 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 RUclips 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 RUclips channel by permission of the copyright holder, Sandra Shaw.
Recorded at the University of Toronto.
******
Subscribe to ARI’s RUclips channel to make sure you never miss a video:
www.youtube.co...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.c...
- Google Play play.google.co...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.or...
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/si...
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynra...
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.or...
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
0:00 Introduction with music
2:17 Introduction of the debate
3:30 Introduction of the debaters in favour of socialism
5:46 Introduction of the debaters in favour of capitalism
9:04 Rules of the debate
11:30 Leonard Peikoff
20:14 Jill Vickers
28:33 John Ridpath
Salute to Dr. John Ridpath and Dr. Leonard Peikoff, two heroic beings. Thank you for inspiring us all!
If Republicans and conservatives would speak about capitalism with that amount of logic and passion today they'd win every election. The sad thing is that arguing for the end of a welfare state will get you crushed at the polls, no cheating required. The irony is that to take away government power you first have to get it for yourself. But most Republicans today are too wishy-washy, they might believe a lot of what Piekoff believe, but don't have the stones to say the quiet part out loud. I fully believe that if you go full Objectivist, as harsh as it may initially come across, people will listen and vote for it. The reasons conservatives fail in the 20th century is they're not willing to put up the fight. Elections are won by emotion, but fortunately one can make the emotional AND moral AND financial case for capitalism, just no one is willing to do it.
John Ridpath was an absolute badass!
I sadly found out that he recently passed away. His character truly was inspirational.
I hope ARI makes sure to get all his contributions lectures and debates available to the public.
The socialists were hopelessly outmatched all the way through, not even able to frame a basic idea and connect it to reality. So much of their talking is incomprehensible gibberish. Peikoff and Ridpath spoke clearly, consistently, addressed the questions and grounded everything in basic principles.
And to think that those were among the BEST arguments that Socialists can make for their side! Non Sequiturs, strawmen, and emotionalist appeals to altruism are their specialties.
“Not even able to...connect it to reality.” The best definition of socialism
If Republicans and conservatives could speak the same way and more importantly, make the same moral arguments today, the Democrats and "Democratic" Socialism would be long dead. The mistake that the conservative side makes today is that the left plays (and wins) the emotional argument. If charts, graphs, and data won elections, 2020 would have marked the end of Ron Paul's second term. The point is that the case for capitalism CAN be made on emotional terms, but the establishment Republicans go on about tax cuts and deficits which (unfortunately) does not resonate with most voters, even many Republican voters.
Boy Ridpath could not be bettered to speak for Ms Rand and her philosophy. We miss him more than can we can say.
completely agree. His course on the origins of marxism is 10/10
Ridpath had a beautiful mind. He'll be remembered as he should, a hero.
Ridpath and Piekoff: Facts, logic, and an epistemological base
Gerald and Vick : Moral indignation and talking about things that are not present in the debate. Strawmen, ad hominem and guilt by association. They would fit in with today's leftists
And conservatives too
Let the stranger in
- Jesus
Ahhh! Leonard you are a man to have on your side when the chips are down. A worthy child of Objectivism.
"The hysteria and form in which that question was asked is a direct result of the fact that people put forth the ethics of self sacrifice on religious grounds as though it's a revelation. Consequently people do not even believe that moral issues can be open to reason and if they disagree they resort to vilification and apoplexy... that is a sign of a wrong approach to the entire subject of ethics."
~ Leonard Peikoff
Gerald Caplan is insufferable and Jill Vickers is just a complete joke.
I think I posted that before the video was posted
Loved “It’s a myth the rich get rich at the expensive of the poor. If they’re poor how did you get money from them to begin with.” 49:00
Always riveting! Ridpath and Peikoff are two of the most thoughtful and eloquent human beings. This video needs to be spread far and wide
This debate has the ability to change people's minds. Share it everywhere you can.
This woman is so outclassed it is really sad.
She is pathetic
@@whatwhat678 Not sad at all. Yes pathetic :)
After this, I can't believe this discussion is still going.
To be fair, Caplan and Vickers are both third rate even by leftist standards. It's a shame that Peikoff never got to debate someone of Chomsky or Foucault's caliber.
It's still winning for the socialist side if the number of people who believe it is the criteria
I used to commute 1.5 hours each way to work and would have some audiobook or lecture by these two men. Its been a year at home during the pandemic and I have to say, even though I have watched this before, it brings me great pleasure to listen to them again.
Summary of Dr. Peikoff's opening remarks: "A man should live independently by his own mind and effort, trading value for value, for mutual benefit, with no sacrifice involved by either party. Laissez-faire Capitalism is the only system compatible with a pro-life morality because it is based on rational-selfishness, individual rights, property rights, and limited government."
Summary of Dr. Vicker's opening remarks: "I don't like capitalism because my son is addicted to porn and the military industrial complex was built to defend his right to watch it. Therefore we need a Socialist Matriarchy to control all aspects of our behavior to save the planet."
well said!!!
"I've had it with you people"
Gee, then you couldn't have been that good, 'cause if you were, and we had it, I'd remember and I'm drawing a total blank
Great line. It starts @56:20
I really have.
@@randylevy Another bit of gold is1:12:16, where he talked about lack of freedom in Weimar Germany by both sides and Hitler said, "Great, let's have both!" I will be making a meme out of that.
Rest in Peace, Dr Ridpath.
The Socialists were literally unable to present an argument for the question of the debate
I don't mean to paint all socialists with a broad brush, but judging from the questions being asked at the end, the students in favour of capitalism are far more eloquent and actually ask proper questions, the socialist students tend to be far more accusatory, emotional and ineloquent, appealing to emotion rather than asking well formulated questions. They seem to share the inability of the socialists on stage to form a coherent argument without committing logical fallacies. This reflects my own experience with socialists/communists in my own life, friends and family ect. I am not trying to say they are all stupid, I am just pointing out the poor intellectual skills of socialists based on my own experience and wondered if others have the same experience.
A lack of appreciation for logic/reason.
A disregard for committing logical fallacies.
A lack of understanding of what a right actually is.
It really isn't funny to think how accurately Atlas Shrugged's antagonists/villains are to the IRL intellectual opponents of Objectivism.
This is great!
If you like medieval knights in battle with the 82nd Airbourne or dogfignts between Sopwith Camels and X-wing Stargighters. The socialists are at a Metaphysical and Episteomological disadvantage of about 3 millenia. That's why I gave up on this debate 30 years ago. My Objectivist friend got into an intellectual battle with a socialist and was convicter for killing an unarmed man
@@SpacePatrollerLaserhaha😂
Listen closely to John Ridpath's voice. Just the voice. I could swear you could hear Howard Roarke/Gary Cooper from the Fountainhead.
I thought I was the only one
listening to this again and I'm starting to think that the two Socialists are simply not that bright
I was surprised to learn that Vickers has a doctorate in political philosophy. She should be able to advance a formally sound argument, even if the premises are divorced from reality or implausible.
It's a shame that we never got to see Peikoff in his prime debate against a serious leftist intellectual. By 'serious', I mean high-I.Q. and technically competent (someone like Chomsky or Foucault).
Where are those?
@@ominousparallel3854 High-I.Q. and technically competent leftist intellectuals? I named two, in case you didn't notice.
I could also have named Zizek, Parenti, Agamben, or Habermas.
Vickers and Caplan are complete non-entities.
A champion fights only the MOST serious contenders.
“Human beings that believe only in reason should not be entrusted with the running of governments or the teaching of students.” How unreasonable.
Of course it's unreasonable. But they deny the efficacy of reason, so it makes perfect sense to them.
I'm gonna translate/subtitle this to spanish. Hope that's ok
That's great!
Would be great. Sadly here in argentina people not averse to freedom ends up either as conservatives or inconsistent libertarians.
@@---tf9oewatching with interest, hoping for the best, with your new president.
*Edited for spelling
The socialist side has no clarity whatsoever. Just what feels right or could be the case.
2:17:24 A lot of people HORRORIZED and completely mad over saying that let people use their money and invest it in poor nations. Thinking somehow that is going to sabotage and make them an slave even more miserable than before. But reality wins again, when Chile opened it economy thanks to thw Chicago Boys. Suddenly we became from The poorest country in all latinAmerica to the most richest, wealthiest, prosperous, healty and educated nation in the whole region. It's sad to see how people just refuse to accept reality and ignore it as it will not longer exist.
Great debate. Ridpath and Peikoff. Two great thinkers.
The remastering looks great!
that aggravating woman: 1:19:41 "the chief value about which we must reason is how much self-interest we can be expected to be *_ALLOWED_* to assert"
"Jill, remember someone else washed their underwear" - bamm! case closed
Ms Jill's argument is incoherent. She didn't define what is morality mean in their perspective?
"In return, you have the right to expect you owe somebody something"
i don't think those words mean what you think they mean, otherwise you might make sense.
1:43:49
Capitalism is reason.
was about to watch this elsewhere but this ones audio is significantly nicer
I mean you can't fault Leonard and John in this debate. They were spectacular and they would have been regardless of who they debated.
The negative aspect of this debate that I will forever be unsettled with is that the socialists were SO poor, that I can't possibly imagine any remotely thinking person to think this debate wasn't a set-up sham, a la inviting somebody you know is incompetent to debate in order to make you look good by comparison. I know that isn't what happened, and there is no blame here. I just don't think I could honestly have watched this before becoming an Objectivist and not concluded that this is what this was. I'm torn for that reason.