Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Wednesday, April 29, 2026
The Daily Pennsylvanian

Socialists, libertarians go mano-a-mano in ideological debate

Socialists, libertarians go mano-a-mano in ideological debate

The midterm elections may be over, but that didn't stop members of two political groups from battling for the hearts and minds of Penn students.

The Penn Libertarian Association and the International Socialist Organization faced off in a debate hosted by the Penn Forum and Fox Leadership at Huntsman Hall last night.

Before the debate began, College junior and libertarian Alexander McCobin pointed out that the groups agree on legalizing drugs and relaxing immigration laws and that neither group likes the country's two dominant political parties.

But divisions were clear when other matters came under discussion, such as capitalism.

"Capitalism is a synonym for peace," said Michael VanHulle, a College junior and member of the Penn Libertarians.

The socialists took a much different view.

"Capitalism has outlived its usefulness," countered socialist Vanessa Wills.

Debate was most heated when the discussion left the theoretical realm and the groups attempted to find real-world examples of the ideologies being debated.

The International Socialists used the United States in examples representing what happens when capitalism goes awry. But the Penn Libertarians objected.

"The United States is not capitalist," said McCobin. "It is becoming a socialist welfare state."

The International Socialists likewise objected to calling the U.S.S.R. or Cuba examples of socialist states.

Graduate student Matt Richman added that the International Socialists do not think states such as China and North Korea, or even countries like Finland, are socialist nations, either.

The crowd of about 60 had an opportunity to ask the two groups questions after the initial debates.

One student was interested in what the libertarians thought of democratically elected regimes that don't uphold classically liberal values.

"I am a liberal first, then a democrat," said VanHulle, adding that he thinks liberal governments are more important than the processes that create them.

Though no consensus was reached by the end of the debate and no victors declared, many expressed pleasure at seeing political dialogue on campus.

"I was extremely happy," said College sophomore Alexander Sulyevich, a Penn Forum spokesman. "I haven't seen a turnout this huge since our semesterly Democrats-and-Republicans debate.