USA Communist party leader to speak at University of Georgia

Apparently, about 40 years ago, the Phi Kappa literary society (a debate society on campus) planned on having a debate between a Communist leader and a Capitalist economics professor at the university. The President stopped the debate right before it happened, accusing the leaders of Phi Kappa of trying to incite a riot. For 40 years, the event was not allowed to go forth. Tonight, however, it is. Wadi'h Halabi, the economics commissioner of the Communist Party USA, will be speaking on their behalf, and University economics professor Dwight Lee will be speaking for the other side. I am looking forward to the debate immensely, as it is shaping up to be the biggest thing on campus since the Dawgs won the SEC championship a couple years back.

We will also have the opportunity to ask the men questions at the end of the event. This promises to be very interesting. I was wondering... if you could ask the commissioner of the Communist Party USA something, what would you ask? I have a few ideas of my own, but I can't help but wonder what ya'll would ask. What kind of question do you ask a person whom you already know has a ridiculously flawed philosophical position? This man will not respond to reason, and I would like to ask something that is incisive. Any ideas? Any thoughts about the debate itself? Hopefully there won't be any rioting. I'll let ya'll know. Thanks again!

Post 1

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 3:42pm

" ... if you could ask the commissioner of the Communist Party USA something, what would you ask? "

Try this: How do you reconcile your political advocacy of Communism, with the estimated 80 to 100 million humans beings that were starved, murdered, exterminated and worked to death as slave labor - within a span of 80 years?

George

Post 2

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 4:22pm

Nicole, Shame on you for mentioning this so late! I might've been able to make it to Athens to see this!

Let us know how it went.

Jason

Post 3

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 4:48pm

Given that the two greatest mass murderers of last century, Stalin and Mao, seized power in the name of communism, how can you still defend their evil ideology with a clear conscience?

Post 4

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 5:32pm

I say don't bother going, what is there to say that a useless piece of commie scum. All you do by going there is saying he has something legitimate to say.

Post 5

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 7:11pm

I say don't bother going, what is there to say that a useless piece of commie scum. All you do by going there is saying he has something legitimate to say.

Ignoring it won't make it go away. Furthermore, without understanding the opposing arguments how does one prevent attacking a straw man? Ideas evolve. People can take an entirely different approach to Marx and come up with something new; something that the old arguments don't work on. Arguing against what they consider to be an outdated view of communism, for example, would delegitimize your argument in their view, and possibly in reality if they are presenting a different idea. It never hurts to hear someone out. If they are just rehashing old ideas then you might get a good laugh out of it; if not you might find an interesting debate on your hands.

Post 6

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 10:31am

Disclaimer: This post is made in the defense of logic, not the defense of communism.

Given that the two greatest mass murderers of last century, Stalin and Mao, seized power in the name of communism, how can you still defend their evil ideology with a clear conscience?

How do you reconcile your political advocacy of Communism, with the estimated 80 to 100 million humans beings that were starved, murdered, exterminated and worked to death as slave labor - within a span of 80 years?

Aren't these statements flirting with the questionable cause fallacy? Was it necessarily communism that resulted in these events or was it the bastard leaders? Granted, I think the political system made it easier for bastard leaders to do such things, but that the political system itself was the cause? Hmmm...

Post 7

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 12:23pm

Aren't these statements flirting with the questionable cause fallacy? Was it necessarily communism that resulted in these events or was it the bastard leaders?

I think that the case of someone who really wanted to argue that the evil of those regimes was the fault of Stalin or Mao specifically and not of communism itself would be weakened if he couldn't point to a communist regime that didn't result in mass murder. And I'm certainly not aware of one.

They often point to western Europe as a testament to the success of communist ideas, but how communist is Europe, really? I don't think it's anywhere close to the degree of economic control that existed in the USSR.

They also say that communism failed in the USSR and in China because those revolutions happened in largely agricultural economies (in which wealth is still a “private” product) as opposed to industrial economies (in which wealth has become a “social” product). I don't know how reasonable that is, since I'm not sure how industrialized any of the other, less well-known experiments in communism might have been in order to compare them.

Post 8

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 12:31pm

Sarah,

Your post points to the need (which Rand recognized) to make both a practical and a moral case for capitalism and against communism (or any type of statism, for that matter). As long as people do not realize that it's immoral (and, further, that the immoral is impractical), they can continue to be duped into thinking the failures were not inherent to communism but simply in the manner communism was implemented/executed.

As far as why such a debate would be worth attending, it would be valuable to see what sort of arguments the particular professor at your school would put forth, and what sort of reaction/questions the audience would have. Call it a "temperature check" for your campus.

Jason

Post 9

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 3:03pm

This is a whole can of worms I'm not prepared to argue. I was just pointing out that such statements don't seem to make a good argument. I'm about to start reading Marx's Capital so I can try to understand his system. I'll let you know what I come up with after I finish reading it in about 75 years.

Post 10

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 3:13pm

Sarah,

You based that argument like there is a chance in hell I would ever have a rational debate with a damn commie. Old version, new, it doesn't matter. We have an idology here that is based on the most evil of premises, there is no way they can spin it to change that. When debating what is morally corrent, there is no compromise and the only thing to understand is that one side is wrong.

I doubt anyone would be here if they thought for a second communism might be right. Even if objectivism isn't itself correct, its certaintly in the ballpark while communism is way out in the parking lot. Call me an ARI supporter but if I'm going to debate a communist, its going to be with a bat.

Post 11

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 3:24pm

You'd be better off reading Thomas Sowell's MARXISM, which is more - ahem - economical, both in length and clarity, on the essence of Marx......

Post 12

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 3:39pm

Robert,
Thanks for the recommendation. Now I can have Captial sitting around impressing people and still find out what the heck Marx said.

Clarence,
Fair enough. But you can't claim that your approach will yield any kind of progress in the "War of Ideas," which is the ultimate purpose of a debate (as opposed to the Hulk-smash approach which appears to be most common).

However, this idea of evil premises seems a bit off to me. Non-factual premise maybe, or inconsistent premises. But evil? That's a step (or 12) outside of rationality.

Post 13

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 3:51pm

Clarence wrote: You based that argument like there is a chance in hell I would ever have a rational debate with a damn commie.

Mr. Perigo, the founder of SOLO himself, use to be a Communist. Marcus Bachler, the SOLO Science Leader, used to be a socialist (if I remember correctly). Matthew Humphreys, the SOLO Law Leader, used to be a Christian. Elizabeth Kanabe, the SOLO Event Coordinator, used to be Catholic. Off the top of my head, I know of four SOLO staff members who used to be something opposite to Objectivism. Yet here they are. I think it is possible to convince someone to change their mind, because deep down inside, there has to be the potential for reason within each and every man. If there weren't, mankind would have been extinct a long time ago.

So, no, I don't think anyone should give up hope on other people, even if the ideas they believe in now are completely wrong. Unless you were born an Objectivist, which I'm sure none of us were, we didn't always know the principles we know now. We had to learn them at some point and in some way, whether it was reading books, or discussing or debating them with other Objectivists.

Post 14

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 6:02pm

Byron,

You overlook (I'm sure inadvertently) the single most important source of learning Objectivism:

observing reality and thinking long and hard about what you observe.

Post 15

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 6:14pm

Byron,

Bravo. You illustrated this point very well. I do not share the idea that everyone who holds a mistaken notion (or notions) is an evader. It's understandable that, after repeated disappointments, some people would get fed up with engaging those who hold different ideas. Yet that should not be generalized to the principle that everyone's an evader.

I also see engaging intellectual opponents publicly (such as a campus debate) as an excellent way to raise awareness of Objectivism.

Jason

Post 16

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 6:24pm

I never said anyone who is wrong is an evader. My point is, most people aren't raised communists and they eventually follow that on their own accord.

Bryn, Most people here were something else, I was catholic too. But you can reason with a Catholic and he doesn't advocate taking away all what you have. Basically a Catholic and I can live like we want and for the most part not step on the others beliefs, you can't do that with a damn commie; they won't be happy until your compleatly subservent to their evil idology.

Post 17

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 6:49pm

Byron,

That was an excellent post. But I do disagree with one part (disagree in an abstract sense) where you said, "Unless you were born an Objectivist, which I'm sure none of us were, we didn't always know the principles we know now. We had to learn them at some point and in some way, whether it was reading books, or discussing or debating them with other Objectivists." Actually, in an odd way, I believe we have to be taught not to be objectivist.

Here is the link that may explain where I am coming from.

George

Post 18

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 6:53pm

Clarence, I share your impatience with Communists and others of their ilk. However, I do feel much gratitude to the very patient person who took the time to argue persuasively with Lindsay to the point where Lindsay finally "got it" and saw the errors of his ways. You can listen to the radio interview where Linz recalls that process here:

http://www.prodos.com/archive029lindsayperigo.html

The bottom line is that each of us has different levels of skill and enjoyment regarding argumentation. That task may not suit you or me but may very well suit others who have demonstrated their prowess at this important front in the "War for Men's Minds."

Post 19

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 7:20pm