I am pleased to announce that a special affair will be taking place over the next several weeks:
a formal written debate between Rwingett and DoctorScribbles.
In this debate, entitled Emma Goldman vs. Ayn Rand, Rwingett will be taking the side of Emma
Goldman and Anarchism, and DoctorScribbles the side of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. The debate
will be judged by a panel of five of their peers, selected and agreed upon by the debaters,
comprising AThousandYoung, Nemesio, Prn, Telerion, and Wulebgr.
We ask that you respectfully decline from posting in this thread to facilitate the clarity of exchange
between the two debaters and to allow the judges an opportunity to review the material without
extraneous postings. You are certainly invited to begin other threads in which you make
comments or raise objections and I expect that the debaters will respond, given their passion for
their respective subjects.
There will be three rounds in which the debaters will present, and will follow the following scheme:
First Round:
Rwingett will publish his first posting on 15 January, and this material will not exceed two RHP-
length posts. DoctorScribbles wiil post his response on 20 January with the same length
restrictions.
Second Round:
On 25 January, Rwingett will present a rebuttal consisting of material not exceeding one RHP-
length post, and as many as four shorter posts.
On 30 January, DoctorScribbles will present his response, within the same limitations.
These shorter posts will quote a single point raised by the opponent. This material is restricted
to that which fits within the RHP-'reply box.' The body of the post will be no longer than five
grammatically-correct sentences, rebutting that specific point. (The 'grammatical' restriction is to
prevent nonsensical run-on sentences, not to disqualify a debater for poor grammar).
Final Round:
On 4 February, Rwingett will deliver his summary argument, consisting of material not exceeding
two RHP-length posts.
On 9 February, DoctorScribbles will offer his final argument, with the same length requirements.
The rules for the debate are as follows:
In the event that other members of this site post in this thread, the debaters have agreed to not
respond to any other posts except to indicate that their response will happen at a later date or in
another thread. Judges will not respond to material in this thread, either, and are discouraged from
reading and especially engaging in debate in any auxiliary threads.
The longer postings in the three rounds shall conform to an essay format, with any quoted material
from the opponent's postings limited to no more than 10% of the presented material.
To allow for unforeseen, real-life obligations, both debaters will be allowed one three-day
extension on his posting over the course of the three rounds, without penalty of disqualification.
The three-day extension cannot be partially applied (i.e., one cannot do three one-day extensions,
for example). If this option is exercised by one or both debaters, the schedule will be shifted to
allow the responder five days to prepare.
If a posting fails to appear on the scheduled deadline, the extension will be automatically applied
to that posting. If a second posting fails to appear, the debater defaults and is disqualified. The
debater is encouraged to express his intention to apply his extension in advance (and may do so in
the thread), but this is not required. The foreman will announce if a posting is late, that the
extension is applied, and present the new schedule for the remainder of the posts. The timeframe
for posting will be based on GMT-7 (Mountain Time). For reference, this post will be posted at
approximately 2am on 14 January in GMT-7. There will be no penalty for early posting, but this
will not affect the schedule in any way.
The debaters have agreed that any procedural objections will be raised to the foreman only, who
will present same to the other four judges. Until the objection is voted on, the debate will continue
as per the schedule. The judges will deliberate promptly on any issues raised, and both debaters
agree in advance to the judges' arbitration when rendered.
Upon completion of the debate, the judges will prepare their judgment privately and any comments
they may have about the strengths and weaknesses of the debaters' material and presentation.
These comments will be forwarded by PM to the judge foreman who will compile and organize
them, to be posted in this thread at some indefinite time. This will allow the judges to write
candidly about the debate, and to render judgment anonymously.
Of especial note, the judges will not be judging based on any personal feelings they may have on
the topic or the debaters; such opinions are not relevant. Rather, they will be judging impartially
and as objectively as possible upon the quality of the debaters' presentation and the effectiveness
of their argument.
And so, without further ado, the debate shall commence within the next day or so.
Again, we thank you for not posting in this thread until the completion of the debate.
Spectando multum observare potes.
On the surface, Ayn Rand and Emma Goldman had much in common. Both were born in Czarist Russia, the daughters of Jewish parents, and later emigrated to America. Both were atheists. Each had firsthand experience with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, which would have a profound influence on the development of their respective outlooks. But most importantly for our purposes in this debate, each espoused an intensely individualistic political philosophy; Objectivism for Rand and anarchism for Goldman. Despite their shared emphasis on the primacy of the individual liberty, each advocated a radically different system by which that individuality should be expressed. For Rand, laissez-faire capitalism would be the greatest guarantor of individual liberty, while for Goldman it would be anarchist socialism.
According to Objectivism, a free society requires that all relationships between individuals should be voluntary ones based on mutual consent, free from physical force, and that individuals should be free to pursue any goal they want. Virtually the same thing could be said for anarchism; however, the irreconcilable difference comes through Objectivism’s myopic support for laissez-faire capitalism and its right to own private property, or more specifically, the right to own society’s natural an productive resources as private property. This necessarily entails and acceptance of hierarchical and unequal relations between members of society, which completely undercuts any meaningful interpretation of “voluntary and mutual consent” in interpersonal relations. Freedom, in order to be anything more than a hollow catch phrase, requires equality.
As for private property, we must first examine exactly what it means to own private property, and more specifically, what items may be rightfully owned as private property. As the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon famously observed: “Property is theft.” In order to understand what he means we must distinguish between two types of private property: personal possessions and productive resources. Everyone agrees that a person may own his personal possessions as his rightful property: his TV, his car, his CD collection. These are all things that a man may call his own and do with as he pleases. But for someone to own society’s productive resources and means of production is to put him into a position of power over the livelihoods of many others. It is a hierarchical relationship that restricts the freedom of those who are forced to seek employment for their sustenance on the owner’s terms. However loudly the Objectivists may claim otherwise, it is not an equal agreement, nor is it a free choice. Giving someone the choice between an oppressive and low paying job on the one hand, and starvation on the other, is to leave the worker with no choice. The Objectivist flatters himself by observing that no physical force was involved in the worker’s decision, but as long as the labor supply is greater than the capitalist’s demand for it (as it always will be), most people will have very little choice or input into the conditions of their employment. The freedom to starve is not a realistic choice and the free market is anything but free. Objectivist economics has absolutely nothing to do with providing greater freedom of choice for more people, but everything to do with institutionalizing existing social and economic imbalances. If the Objectivists advocated wiping the slate clean before putting their laissez-faire experiment into practice, then it might add some credence to their otherwise empty rhetoric. But they are not in favor of that at all. Instead, they recognize as being completely legitimate all previous gains, whether they came via physical force or not.
We see that Rand cares very little for the freedom of the bulk of humanity, either individually or collectively. For her, freedom means freedom for the rich. It means severely restricting the freedom and choice available to the poor, whose individuality is crushed underfoot as they are reduced to being nothing more than raw materials in the labor marker, to be bought and sold at the whim of their masters. The reality of laissez-faire capitalism, despite all Rand’s flowery words about “voluntary and mutual consent” and “free markets” is that it’s a Social Darwinist struggle where only the fittest survive and the average man is forced to offer himself up as grist for the capitalist mill. Rand’s conception of the “creative” individual having to struggle against the stultifying mediocrities around him - supposedly society’s only means of progress - can be seen as far back as Hegel’s “world historical hero” and Nietzsche’s Übermenschen. Although Rand loudly denounced much of traditional philosophy, methinks the lady doth protest a little too much. Rand’s elitist heroes, like John Galt and Howard Rourke, are direct descendants of the Hegelian and Nietzschean models which preceded them. They are seen as being accountable only to themselves, over and above the rest of society; a society she views as being incurably afflicted with an altruistic “slave morality” that seeks to bring them down to the prevailing level of mediocrity.
Rand was famously quoted as saying that: “Man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress.” Emma Goldman said: “He (man) is the fountain-head of all life and all values.” It’s an interesting choice of words. In Rand’s vision of progress, the bulk of mankind is condemned to a second class existence with few real options. Rare individuals who are either lucky or shrewd, despite the fantastic odds against them, may be able to win their freedom at the expense of their fellow man. But even this type of Objectivist freedom is fraught with peril, for it necessitates a state apparatus (however minimal the Objectivist conception of that state may be) to enforce the privileged status of the few over the many. Goldman correctly observes that the state is not the safeguard of freedom, but rather it is the greatest obstacle to the advancement of freedom. Even though Goldman predated Objectivism by a few decades, she also spoke out against what would become the Objectivist conception of individualism, which she called “rugged individualism.” In her essay, The Individual, Society And The State, Goldman says:
Individuality is not to be confused with the various ideas and concepts of Individualism; much less with that “rugged individualism” which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit, which process is known as “education.” That corrupt and perverse “individualism” is the strait-jacket of individuality. It has converted life into a degrading race for externals, for possession, for social prestige and supremacy. Its highest wisdom is “the devil take the hindmost.” This “rugged individualism” has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions, driving millions to the breadline. “Rugged individualism” has meant all the “individualism” for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking “supermen.”
In order to successfully pursue one’s best interests, one must have freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean being able to choose between slavery and starvation. Freedom means the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action as well as the liberation from slavery or restraint from the power of another. To fully actualize one’s freedom requires equality, for freedom without equality is nothing but an empty and useless concept. Anarchism, therefore, embodies the greatest actualization of human freedom. Only when man has freed himself from all hierarchical and exploitative relationships can there be a system based on voluntary and mutual consent. To quote Goldman once again:
Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.
The Objectivist propagandist might claim that Anarchism would lead to the suppression of individuality and the complete homogenization of society, with no incentive for one to improve oneself. Ayn Rand was led to this conclusion by her experience of the Bolshevik revolution. Indeed, such a criticisms might be appropriate for a Leninist/Stalinist dictatorship that placed the aspirations of the individual beneath those of the centralized, authoritarian state apparatus. But Emma Goldman was also a harsh and extraordinarily prescient critic of the Bolsheviks in her own right. She leveled a scathing indictment of the Bolsheviks in her book My Disillusionment With Russia, which chronicles her own experience with Soviet communism and how it crushed the initiative of the masses beneath an oppressive state apparatus. She eventually fled the Soviet Union following the massacre of the Kronstadt sailors and the suppression of the Russian anarchists.
(part 2 of post)
It would be a grave mistake to assume that an anarchist system would eventually degenerate into a Soviet style dictatorship. It would be an even graver mistake to assume that a cooperative, collectivist system, which holds the individual as being supreme, would require a redesign of human nature. It is wrongly assumed that an anarchist system would require a great amount of altruism and self sacrifice. But this is completely false. Such a system would require no altruism at all, but rather the recognition that each individual’s own rational self interest is best served by such a system. By using the Prisoner’s Dilemma (where each participant is trying to maximize his own gain without concern for the welfare of the others) it can demonstrated that a cooperative strategy will provide a better long term payoff matrix than a greedy strategy. Selfish individuals will therefore pursue a cooperative strategy as being in their own rational self-interest. They don’t do so for altruistic reasons, or out of any feeling of duty to sacrifice their own interests to the common good. They do so because it is in their own long term selfish best interests to do so. Anarchism will provide the greatest flowering of individual well being and security, without the need to sacrifice one’s own interests or those of the bulk of mankind in the process.
We can see this applied to evolutionary biology as well. In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor In Evolution, Peter Kropotkin showed that a cooperative strategy among animals provides a better evolutionary survival mechanism than does internecine strife and struggle. Likewise in society, a man’s individuality is strengthened by cooperation with other individuals. Mutual aid and voluntary cooperation will create the basis for a truly free individual.
Anarchism, as articulated most eloquently by Emma Goldman, will provide the basis for true freedom among men: a freedom with a complete absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in the choice or action of the individual and a liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of others. Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, on the other hand, will inevitably lead to the freedom of a few elitists, while the bulk of humanity is left with only the freedom to choose in what particular manner they will be exploited.
“An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.” - Ayn Rand
I wish to dedicate this debate to the honest men of the world, those few who still exist, and the many who have gone before, without whom a civilized society would be impossible. May we repay our debt in kind – with honesty.
Dr. S
Round 1 Response
To begin, I shall demonstrate the truth of three Claims:
1) My opponent’s characterization of Objectivism is fraught with factual errors.
2) My opponent’s discussion of Objectivism consists entirely of claims and assertions;
he presents no underlying analysis or arguments to support them.
3) My opponent’s portrayal of Objectivism is actually a straw man of the philosophy that I will be defending in this debate.
In short, I will demonstrate that my opponent has merely constructed a litany of his economic gripes and inaccurately presented them under the label of Objectivism as espoused by the Rand-devil. If I knew nothing of Rand’s actual ideas, and had only my opponent’s characterization of them to judge by, I would be likely to reject them. However, unlike my opponent, I am familiar with the factual and analytical essence of Objectivism, which I shall present before the end of this debate so that it may be judged on its merits and not on any erroneous portrayal.
Further, throughout this debate, I intend to distinguish my presentation from that of my opponent by avoiding rhetoric. Please, judge my words on their content and the ideas that they communicate. I do not intend to resort to any superfluous flair such as “crushed underfoot,” “myopic support,” or “grist for the capitalist mill” as a substitute for critical thought and sound argument. Further, in my effort to distinguish my presentation, I will not attempt to present as fact any claims for which I cannot provide a direct citation; nor will I present as conclusions any claims for which I will not present an argument. References will be given at the end of my posts, with lettered citations throughout the text.
Let the demonstrations begin accordingly.
Claim 1: My opponent’s opening post is fraught with factual errors.
I shall begin with his appeal to the Prisoner’s Dilemma (a). He incorrectly claims that selfish agents in the game will pursue a cooperative strategy by virtue of it being in their rational self-interest. (By the rules of the game, agents have a choice between cooperating and defecting.) He misunderstands this problem’s solution and analysis. Rational agents in the problem pursue the defecting, rather than the cooperative, strategy. The defecting strategy is the rational choice; the cooperative strategy is the irrational choice. There is no dispute about this among people familiar with the problem, regardless of their economic or philosophical views. To claim that a rational agent chooses to cooperate in this problem is simply erroneous. If the agents chose to cooperate, there would be nothing at all interesting about the problem. The fact that the rational choice is to defect, resulting in a lower payoff than cooperating, is the very thing that makes the problem interesting and gives it the title of a dilemma. My opponent, most likely out of ignorance rather than deceit, has presented this falsehood as a fact in an attempt to further his position by associating rationality with cooperation.
My opponent refers to one of Rand’s characters as Howard Rourke. This is a factual error that betrays his unfamiliarity with one of Rand’s two most important works. Anybody who has actually read The Fountainhead (b) knows that the hero’s name is Howard Roark. My opponent has not even read The Fountainhead, as indicated by this factual error, and any claims he makes about the ideas presented therein must be derived not from the source itself but from some hearsay analysis thereof. And if he hasn’t even read The Fountainhead, how likely is that he has read her lesser known works of non-fiction in which she explicitly spells out and analyzes the axioms of Objectivist thought? I submit to the judges that a person who does not even know the correct name of one of Rand’s two most important characters ought not be granted credibility as an authority on Rand’s philosophy expressed in her novels; which is to say, the judges ought not accept his assertions about Objectivism unless they are accompanied by sound argument or citations.
One more example should suffice to demonstrate Claim (1), although I have many from which to choose. According to my opponent, Objectivism holds that individuals should be “free to pursue any goal they want.” This is yet another factual error. In Rand’s essay Man’s Rights (c), she explicitly states: “No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as ‘the right to enslave.’” Thus, enslavement of one’s fellow man is one example of a goal that Rand claims man ought not be free to pursue. My opponent was once again in error in claiming that there are no such goals, and committed this error in furtherance of his goal of portraying Objectivism as something absurd.
I have illustrated but three of my opponent’s factual errors. But for my length constraints, I would elaborate upon all of them. It is my hope that I have defended Claim (1) to the judges’ satisfaction.
Claim 2: My opponent’s discussion of Objectivism consists entirely of claims and assertions; he presents no underlying analysis or arguments to support them.
A careful inspection of my opponent’s post reveals not a single argument. The second paragraph makes a claim about necessary entailment: where is the proof? Necessary entailments are things that can be deductively proven, but he has failed to provide this analysis. The third paragraph makes a claim about the existence of a hierarchical relationship: where is the demonstration? What reasons has my opponent given for the existence of such a relationship? All he has done is described properties of an alleged relationship.
The fourth paragraph asserts that Rand cares very little for the bulk of humanity. Even if this weren’t a factual error (see the essay Man’s Rights: “Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive – of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice,” and “Any alleged right of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.&rdquo😉, what reasons has he given for us to believe this claim? He is basing it on conclusions that he has drawn from his uninformed, straw man view of Rand.
In the fifth paragraph, he asserts that Rand’s vision of progress is such that most people are condemned to a second-class existence. Again, what reasons has he given us to believe that this is an accurate portrayal of Rand’s philosophy? I don’t see any. Rand’s essay Racism (d) addresses the irrationality, and thus her rejection, of any institution that entails any imposed class stratification.
In the seventh paragraph, he contends that freedom entails the absence of constraint in choice. What reasons has he given for us to believe this? It’s quite a claim to make, since all people have constrained choices, regardless of any economy being imposed upon them. For example, a person cannot choose to walk on his nose, or to have his cake and eat it. Under my opponent’s notion of freedom, no person can ever be free - but no matter, since he has given us no reason to accept his notion of freedom.
I could go on down the line, paragraph by paragraph. I would show that they consist of assertions, not arguments. My post length constraints prohibit this action that I would like to take (does this mean I am not a free agent in this debate?). I hope that I have provided satisfactory evidence in support of Claim 2.
Round 1 Response, continued
Claim 3: My opponent’s portrayal of Objectivism is actually a straw man of the philosophy that I will be defending in this debate.
Several supporting points of Claims 1 and 2 also support this claim, such as his mischaracterization of Rand not caring for the bulk of humanity. I shall provide additional evidence here.
My opponent claims that Objectivists recognize all previous gains as being legitimate, even if they were achieved via physical force against other people. This is not the case. Had my opponent actually read The Fountainhead, he would be familiar with the scene in which Roark demolishes a building that he designed. He demolished it because its existence constituted a contractual violation of an agreement that Roark had with another man, such violation yielding an undue gain for that other man. Rand presented Roark as being justified in his action; the gains that the other man was getting from the building’s continued existence were portrayed as illegitimate, and Roark was acquitted in his criminal trial for the demolition. Alternatively, if my opponent had read Atlas Shrugged (f), he would be familiar with the character of Ragnar Danneskjöld who was infamous for his acts of “piracy,” which consisted of reclaiming looted goods and returning them to their proper owners, and which Rand portrayed as being justified. Again, this is another example in denial of my opponent’s claim. Thus, it is not the case that Objectivism holds that all previously gotten gains are legitimate. My opponent erroneously claims otherwise in his third paragraph.
My opponent claims that Objectivist economics is concerned with institutionalizing existing economic imbalances. Rand never made this claim, nor does it follow from any principles of Objectivism. If she had, he could cite a quote; if it did, he should provide an argument. He has taken neither option, but merely asserted this without any support. Perhaps he’s never read the essay The Nature of Government (e): “If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government – a proper government – its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government. A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control.” Clearly keeping the rich rich and the poor poor is not a part of the institution that Rand envisions; the institution’s role has only to do with the retaliatory use of physical force.
My opponent, in his flawed appeal to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, would have you believe that Rand shuns cooperation for greed. This is hardly the case. Consider the beginning of the essay The Nature of Government: “Since man’s mind is his basic tool of survival, his means of gaining knowledge to guide his actions – the basic condition he requires is the freedom to think and to act according to his rational judgment. This does not mean that a man must live alone and that a desert island is the environment best suited to his needs. Men can derive enormous benefits from dealing with one another. A social environment is most conducive to their successful survival – but only on certain conditions.” It is clear that Rand holds that cooperation is a tool that rational men will use to great effect, provided they are allowed to.
It is my hope that the evidence presented here and above suffices to support Claim (3).
Thus, it is also my hope that I have fulfilled each of the demonstrations that I promised.
I have taken the time to demonstrate these three claims in support of a further observation. I would have expected my opponent to open by presenting a factual account of the principles of Social Anarchism and Objectivism, followed by a comparative analysis of those principles. Claims (1) and (3) show that he has not presented a factual account of the principles of Objectivism. Claims (2) and (3) show that he has not performed any comparative analysis on Objectivism. I would also suggest that he has made very little progress in explaining just what the principles of Social Anarchism are, so to the extent that you remain unconvinced of the truth of Claims (1), (2) and (3), my opponent has yet to demonstrate that Social Anarchism improves upon any of his claimed flaws of Objectivism.
It is my regret that I have had to devote so much space to correcting my opponent and saying what Objectivism is not, that I have nearly exhausted my space without having the opportunity to present what Objectivism is. I intend to address this when my opponent desists in presenting false claims about Objectivism as fact and in presenting conclusions about Objectivism without argument. If he continues in that vein, I shall continue to correct his errors and mischaracterizations, until my last post, which I will dedicate strictly to describing and defending real Objectivism, regardless of any still lingering errors in my opponent’s presentation.
Dr. S
References:
a) Prisoner’s Dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
“Since in any situation playing defect is more beneficial than cooperating, all rational players will play defect.”
b) The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand, 1952.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451191153/qid=1137454144/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5850624-9261718?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
c) Man’s Rights, Ayn Rand, 1963.
Available in Rand collection of essays, The Virtue of Selfishness.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451163931/qid=1137454314/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-5850624-9261718?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
d) Racism, Ayn Rand, 1963
Also available in The Virtue of Selfishness.
e) The Nature of Government, Ayn Rand, 1963.
Also available in The Virtue of Selfishness.
f) Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, 1957.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452011876/qid=1137615036/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-5850624-9261718?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
My opponent correctly observes that I have not read either The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. Even if I had been so inclined, I did not have the necessary time to plow through two such turgid volumes in the amount of time we were allotted for this debate. But despite my misspelling of “Howard Roark”, I did do a significant amount of research from other sources. In short, I have done what I could during the time available to prepare myself for this debate. But people in glass houses, as they say, should be wary of casting stones. By that I mean that the only things by Emma Goldman my opponent has likely ever read were the two quotes I included in my opening argument. His charge of not having read the material under debate applies equally to him as well. As such, it should have absolutely no bearing on these proceedings.
This is evidenced by the fact that my opponent’s argument contains not one single reference to Emma Goldman and only the briefest of references to “Social Anarchism.” His argument consists entirely of a critique of my analysis of Rand’s Objectivism and his attempt to pass it off as a “strawman.” Even if 90% of what he says is true (which is, of course, highly debatable) it wouldn’t matter, because he has entered not a single argument as to why Objectivism might be superior to Anarchism. He is not arguing the merits of Objectivism vs. Anarchism at all (as the debate requires), but is merely claiming that Objectivism is not as bad as I have presented it to be.
My opponent claims that I have “made very little progress in explaining just what the principles of Social Anarchism are.” This is not entirely true, but from his argument we get no idea whether Anarchism is better or worse than Objectivism. He would just have us believe that Objectivism isn’t all that bad. But it is not at all incumbent upon me to demonstrate that Objectivism is a foul and benighted system. No, all I need do, for the purposes of this debate, is to demonstrate that Anarchism is preferable to Objectivism. Due to the sheer enormity of the material under consideration, I had hitherto largely confined myself to a critique of Objectivism and dealt, only secondarily, with the merits of Anarchism. In this post I shall reverse that emphasis.
Unlike Rand’s Objectivism, which is an entirely theoretical (and highly speculative) concept, Anarchism has been put into practice in various instances in the real world. We have tangible examples to work from. We have the Anarchist movement on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War, the pre-1948 Israeli Kibbutzim, and the FEC (Federation of Egalitarian Communities) currently in operation here in America. These are all examples of anarchistic, communal systems that have worked in practice, in the real world, as opposed to Rand’s Objectivism, which can only function as advertised within the confines of her fictional and ponderous novels. As Emma Goldman personally observed the Spanish Anarchist movement firsthand and vociferously championed their cause, I shall concentrate on their example as being the most representative of Goldman’s personal outlook.
The areas of Spain with the greatest anarchist influence during the Civil War were Catalonia and Aragon, where as much as 70% of the work force was collectivized. More importantly, this was carried out by the rank and file workers themselves, without the need for any bosses, leaders, or state authority. They organized farm and factory collectives, schools, and utilities, and operated them on a libertarian anarchist principle, often increasing production over the previous capitalist level. They put to shame the Capitalist and Leninist lie that the ordinary workers themselves were unable to efficiently manage their own affairs. The Spanish rank and file workers created their own grass roots version of libertarian, democratic anarchism with free association and voluntary cooperation for anyone who wanted it. The free nature of this collectivization process is underscored by the fact that the 30% of the work force in Aragon chose not to join the collectives and they were not forced to do so.
This level of success in transforming portions of Spanish society was accomplished by scrupulously observing that the ends cannot be divorced from the means. This means that a free, democratic, libertarian society cannot be brought about by means that are not free, democratic or libertarian. Emma Goldman observed this during her stay in the Soviet Union, which she chronicled in her book, My Disillusionment With Russia. Therein she observed, “Today is the parent of tomorrow. The present casts its shadow far into the future. That is the law of life, individual and social. Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society. The means used to prepare the future become its cornerstone.” The Bolsheviks, by using authoritarian and repressive tactics to usher in their revolution, ultimately laid the foundation for an authoritarian and repressive police state. The Spanish Anarchist unions, like the CNT and the FIA, were operated, not by authoritarian leaders, but by the union rank and file themselves. And they had done so for many years. So when the Civil War came, the democratic, libertarian principles on which the Anarchist transformation of society would depend, had already been well established. For a few years, between 1936 and 1939, until they were done in by the double blow of Franco’s aggression and the Stalin’s betrayal, the Anarchist collectives were a resounding success. They were the greatest actualization of freedom and voluntary choice for the largest number of people that any society had yet seen.
This stands in stark contrast to Rand’s Objectivism, which, despite doing a lot of speculative theorizing about freedom and voluntary choice, would be completely unable to deliver on it’s promised agenda. For as long as it allows great inequalities between society’s members, Objectivism is actively limiting the range of truly free choices available to them. My opponent makes the claim that all people are constrained in their choices because, “a person cannot choose to walk on his nose.” This absurd example aside, yes, there are necessarily some constraints placed upon humanity by the simple fact of their physical limitations. But the constraints on free choice of the nature raised by Capitalism are artificial limitations. They are constraints that are part and parcel of that system itself. Capitalist institutions are inherently authoritative and hierarchical entities which are completely inimical to democratic and libertarian impulses. They foster an environment in which the majority of people are constrained in their real choices and which affords them absolutely no input into the running of that institution itself. It would be the epitome of naiveté to assume that a society based upon the building blocks of authoritarian and hierarchical institutions could in some way transcend these cornerstones and become libertarian and democratic itself. The fact is that the system which imposes the fewest artificial constraints upon the free choice of the individual is the system which is to be preferred. And Anarchism is the system which offers the largest number of people the greatest amount of voluntary choice, free from artificial constraint, with the greatest observation of democratic and libertarian principles for all. Anarchism, as espoused by Emma Goldman, provides the greatest real benefit to the greatest number of people, while Rand’s Objectivism provides the greatest benefit to the tiniest elite.
Round 2 Response
As the brief direct responses that I have prepared for this round exceed our agreed-upon limit of five sentences each, I will present them as the body of my main Round 2 post and forgo my right to four extra individual posts.
Round 2, Direct Response 1 of 4
“We have tangible examples to work from. We have the Anarchist movement on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War, the pre-1948 Israeli Kibbutzim, and the FEC (Federation of Egalitarian Communities) currently in operation here in America. These are all examples of anarchistic, communal systems that have worked in practice, in the real world.”
My opponent claims that the FEC in America is an example of anarchism working in practice. If this claim is true, it follows that anarchism can exist within a capitalist economy, for the United States government’s laws regarding property constitute a capitalist economy, and the FEC exists therein, in compliance with those laws. If anarchism can exist within a capitalist framework, then what need is there to institute anarchism to the exclusion of capitalism? My opponent’s refrain in this debate has been that anarchism offers the greatest freedom of choice. The FEC is a clear counterexample: under a capitalist framework, people can choose to participate in anarchism or to refrain from participating in it. That is, a capitalist framework does not curb anybody’s benefit from choosing to participate in anarchism, provided my opponent’s claim is true.
Contrast this with Galt's Gulch, the capitalist "commune" formed in Atlas Shrugged, in seclusion from the socialist and self-destructing main society. Here, unlike the FEC, the Gulch residents were breaking the laws of the main society and were forced into hiding if they wanted to live as capitalists. This illustrates that, while anarchism can consistently exist within a capitalist framework (at least according to my opponent's claim), capitalism cannot exist within within a Social Anarchy (at least according to Rand). Thus, if freedom of choice is our supreme metric, then capitalism ranks higher, allowing citizens to choose to live under anarchism. If my opponent's claim is true, capitalism always offers at least one extra choice: the choice to live under anarchism. It is logically impossible, if my opponent's claim is true, for anarchism to offer a greater range of choices.
Round 2, Direct Response 2 of 4
“For as long as it allows great inequalities between society’s members, Objectivism is actively limiting the range of truly free choices available to them.”
This is a lingering falsehood in my opponent’s portrayal of Objectivism. As I cited in my post of Round 1, Objectivism actively limits only one sort of choice, namely, the choice to use force. It prohibits everybody from initiating the use of force, and it prohibits individuals from using retaliatory force; only the objective government may retaliate with force. Objectivism prescribes no other active limitations.
Recall from The Nature of Government (e): “If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government – a proper government – its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government. A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control.” This is the entirety of Objectivism’s formulation of the essence of government.
Any government that actively carries out other limitations is not an Objectivist government, and it is imposing an economy that is inconsistent with the principles of Objectivism. Again, we have a case of my opponent attributing his economic gripes to Rand’s philosophy without any basis for such attribution.
Round 2, Direct Response 3 of 4
”The fact is that the system which imposes the fewest artificial constraints upon the free choice of the individual is the system which is to be preferred. And Anarchism is the system which offers the largest number of people the greatest amount of voluntary choice, free from artificial constraint, with the greatest observation of democratic and libertarian principles for all. Anarchism, as espoused by Emma Goldman, provides the greatest real benefit to the greatest number of people, while Rand’s Objectivism provides the greatest benefit to the tiniest elite.”
I know you are, but what am I?
The fact is that the system which imposes the fewest artificial constraints upon the free choice of the individual is the system which is to be preferred. And Objectivism is the system which offers the largest number of people the greatest amount of voluntary choice, free from artificial constraint, with the greatest observation of democratic and libertarian principles for all. Objectivism, as espoused by Ayn Rand, provides the greatest real benefit to the greatest number of people, while Goldman’s Anarchism provides the greatest benefit to the tiniest elite.
It’s clear from these elementary substitutions that my opponent has yet to offer any arguments; they are merely assertions. If he had made actual arguments from the principles of each system, then such textual substitution would be impossible. It should be clear that my opponent has spent the majority of his effort in this debate restating rather than supporting his position.
Round 2, Direct Response 4 of 4
“Everyone agrees that a person may own his personal possessions as his rightful property: his TV, his car, his CD collection. These are all things that a man may call his own and do with as he pleases. But for someone to own society’s productive resources and means of production is to put him into a position of power over the livelihoods of many others.”
Is a pencil a productive resource or a personal possession? Under Social Anarchism, may I own a pencil as long as I merely doodle with it, but when I begin to write a novel with it, employing it as a means of production and earning a living, am I then obligated to share the pencil with my neighbor who does not own a pencil?
My opponent says that a car is a personal possession and not a productive resource. If true, how does Social Anarchism reconcile the fact that under its principles, only those people who own cars are entitled to pursue the profession of taxi driver, with its complaint that under capitalism, only those who own oil fields are entitled to pursue the occupation of selling oil?
The distinction between personal possessions and productive resources is one that is not well-defined, and one that is ultimately meaningless. I can squander any productive resource as easily as I can fail to produce with any of my personal possessions, and I can use any personal possession as a productive resource as easily as I could a tree. There is no actual distinction in practice – any personal possession can be used as a productive resource, and any productive resource may be sought purely as a personal possession. To make an artificial distinction and to create laws accordingly is to limit the choices of the individuals: they may not use their personal possessions productively, and they may not seek to acquire productive resources for non-productive use. Capitalism imposes no such constraints.
Through two whole rounds the only mention my opponent has made of Emma Goldman at all were two quotes he has taken from my argument. One verbatim and the other which he has reformulated. He has not made one single original reference to Emma Goldman at all. In a debate that is titled Ayn Rand vs. Emma Goldman, I find this to be an extremely curious omission on my opponent’s part. But perhaps he is merely saving his best Emma Goldman bon mots for last.
In the previous round I made one brief reference to the FEC (Federation of Egalitarian Communities) and spent two whole paragraphs dealing with the Spanish Anarchist movement. Somewhat paradoxically my opponent has chosen to ignore the bulk of my argument and concentrate on the peripheral mention of the FEC. But to answer his question, the FEC is internally anarchistic while externally they are forced to abide by the rules of the Capitalist marketplace. They are incorporated and offer their products for sale on the marketplace for profit. As such, when I say the FEC is a working example of anarchism, it is only in regard to the management of their internal affairs. That is specifically why I had chosen to deal primarily with the Spanish Anarchists. For one, they were personally endorsed by Emma Goldman herself, and secondly by achieving the general transformation of the bulk of Spanish society within the Republican sectors they were able to operate on anarchist principles both internally and externally.
So we see that my opponent’s claim that anarchism can exist within a Capitalist framework is not really true. In their relations with the marketplace in which they find themselves, the FEC communes cannot operate as anarchist entities. In their external dealings they are forced to abide by all the vagaries and capriciousness of the Capitalist marketplace. They have no choice but to operate as profit generating corporations to ensure their survival. Despite being collectively owned and operated, in effect the FEC communes are Capitalist corporations.
But if the Anarchist mode of economic relation gained ascendancy across society, the FEC’s internal Anarchist organization would make for a seamless transition to the running of the economy as a whole. If my opponent had bothered to address the example of the Spanish Anarchists that I used, he would have seen the clear example of how society was transformed, largely along Anarchist lines. The Anarchist unions, having been run along egalitarian and libertarian principles for many years, were able to seamlessly assume to continuation of production through all sectors of society. Even then only 70% of the work force in Catalonia and Aragon were collectivized. The remaining 30% retained chose not to collectivize. So the real situation is the exact opposite of my opponent’s claim. There was room within Republican Spain for many people to maintain outside the collectivization process.
My opponent stubbornly clings to the illusion that Objectivism has only one limitation on choice – namely the prohibition on using force. This is the only limitation that they have publicly codified. The only limitation that they will admit to. But the fact remains that encouraging vast disparities in wealth between society’s members (whether they do so actively or passively), Objectivism is participating in the de facto limitation of choice available to most of society’s members.
What are the minimum number of restrictions that must be placed upon the free choice of the individual? The answer is that the individual must be restrained only from actions which infringe upon the free choice of other individuals. Hence, murder, which is the maximum infringement of another individual’s choice, is prohibited. Both Objectivists and Anarchists agree on this point, although the Objectivists cling to the desire for an external state apparatus (however minimal) to uphold this prohibition, while Anarchists do not. But as I have taken pains to demonstrate, the Objectivist’s prohibition on the use of physical force leaves ample room for the infringement of the free choice of other individuals other means. We have the example of an individual who is presented with the choice of taking a job at a abysmal wage or starving to death. This is not a free choice, however loudly the Objectivists may trumpet it as one. If the individual takes the job, the Objectivist will claim that he has made a “free” choice. After all, no one used physical force to coerce him into taking the job. But the fact is that in a Capitalist system (especially a laissez-faire Capitalist one), the wealthy directly control and actively constrict the number of real choices that are made available to the poor. In the above example, the individual was given only one real choice: to take the job at the conditions dictated by the owner. The choice to starve is not a realistic choice. In an Anarchist system, a system based around production for use and not for profit, the individual will have a wide range of meaningful choices on how to conduct his life. Fear of starvation would not be a factor contributing to him making choices he would normally avoid.
The fact is that under Capitalism there can be no equality of choice any more than there can be an equality of resources. Many people assume that a collective system is geared primarily toward insuring equality in the distribution of resources, but this in not necessarily so. The primary goal of Anarchism is to achieve an equality of choice for every individual. This means giving everyone a free and equal voice in the items which will impact their lives. It is about insuring that people can live their lives free from the twin tyrannies of authoritarian hierarchy and exploitation. It is not about insuring that every last penny is divided exactly equally, but insuring that everyone is able to operate as free individuals without any artificial constraints being placed upon the range of choices available to them. For this reason, a Capitalist system, which necessarily offers an unequal distribution of choices free from artificial constraint, and which operates along hierarchical and authoritarian means, cannot be tolerated. People are to be free to opt to remain outside the collective process, but they cannot be allowed into a position of having power over the free choice of other individuals.
My opponent also tries to blur the distinction between personal possessions and productive resources. I think this distinction is clear to everyone but him. Personal possessions are the items needed for the upkeep and enjoyment of one’s personal life. Productive resources would include items the individual is unable to utilize or operate on his own. Iron mines, factories, highways, these would all fall under the categorization of productive resources. These are the types of things that would be socially owned in an Anarchist system. My opponent makes the absurd example of a pencil being a “productive resource” for the novel writer. Imagine if George Orwell was constantly having to lend his pencil to his neighbor, who had none. Alas, how many of his books would have remained unwritten! Perhaps Homage To Catalonia (which remains one of the greatest eyewitness accounts of the Spanish Anarchists in action) would have remained unwritten. Such is the scenario my opponent has constructed. I think it goes without saying that access to pencils was not a prime factor in Orwell’s literary output. Besides, as I point out later, in an anarchist system there would be no shortage of pencils. Perhaps instead of “Peace, Land, and Bread” for their slogan, the Bolsheviks would have done better with “Pencils, Land, and Bread.” But I digress.
It is widely accepted that Capitalism was a necessary development in the economic evolution of the world. On this both Ayn Rand and Emma Goldman would surely agree. It played an indispensable role in building up the means of production. It made possible a world free from want and privation. But under Capitalism, that goal remains only a possibility and not an actuality. It remains a dream and not a reality. Even if Rand’s cherished version of laissez-faire Capitalism were given free reign, it would not matter. Having production for the personal profit of the gilded owners is the perpetual stumbling block toward the advancement of society. The productive potential of the world is such that all privations could be eliminated virtually overnight. We could easily produce enough goods to adequately feed, clothe, and provide shelter for every person on the face of the Earth. We could even manufacture enough pencils to satisfy all the supposedly frustrated novel writers of the world. But we do not because the Capitalist owners cannot do so at a profit. The people of the world are not able to buy back from the owners all the goods they could produce. So they are left in varying states of poverty and hunger. All shortages of goods in the world today are artificial shortages caused by the profit motive of Capitalism. Whether it is the type of laissez-faire Capitalism espoused by Ayn Rand, or the State Capitalism backed by robber barons like the Ken Lays of our world, makes no difference. Only when production for the profit of the few is replaced by production for the use of all will we make any progress in lessening the myriad afflictions of society.
Part 2 of my concluding argument
But history has taught us that Bolshevism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and all these other bastardizations of socialism are equally as bad, if not worse than Capitalism. It is only the democratic, egalitarian, and libertarian impulse of Anarchism which can lead to the complete moral and physical emancipation of the human race from poverty, hunger, exploitation and despotism. A system based on the profit margins of the bloated plutocrats, or on the dictates of an elite class of party bureaucrats, will only lead to the continued propagation of the laundry list of woes that continue to afflict humanity well into the 21st century. Only Anarchism, as articulated by visionaries such as Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, and especially Emma Goldman, can lead to the fullest realization of the immense productive capacity lying latent within humanity. Only Anarchism can lead to a world free from hunger, starvation, and poverty. Only Anarchism can lead to a life free from exploitation, domination, and tyranny. And only Anarchism can lead to the fullest flowering of human potential, both for the individual in the betterment of his own personal life, and collectively for the advancement of an egalitarian and libertarian society. Any impartial individual can see that as long as Ayn Rand’s Objectivism steadfastly aligns itself with laissez-faire Capitalism, it will forever continue to pale in the shadow of Emma Goldman’s Anarchism, both in spirit and in deed.