Objectivism: Ayn Rand's Philosophy for Living on Earth

Off Topic
41

It’s been awhile, but I never really found fault with her “romanticism” and celebration of individualism. (Ref: The Romantic Manifesto, Anthem.)

I don’t think I really agree with her views on how a society should behave, and how interpersonal relationships should work. But I’d have to reread and review things.

A lot of it seemed to be more an over-the-top reaction to finally being free of an oppressive totalitarian regime, going to the extreme in the opposite direction. Similar to how people with an oppressive religious education become militant atheists; just replacing one form of extremism with another.

I’ve got the book “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leonard Piekoff around here somewhere. I may give it another look.

42

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If anyone wants a better idea of what Rand was about, her collections of essays are much, much better than her fiction. The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal would be a great place to start. The New Left is also very good.
[/quote]

Dammit! Doc, did you just dis Atlas Shrugged? :wink: I found The Virtue of Selfishness on the web as a free PDF so I’ll give it a try. Also, a kindleunlimited version of an Ayn Rand interview with Playboy that might be good.

43

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
An estimated 50 MILLION Europeans were shot, raped, hanged, starved, tortured, gassed, and worked and frozen to death in the name of communism. It has always inspired the meanest and degenerate of people.
[/quote]

Sorry to interrupt you here, but in case you’re referring to the holocaust (which isn’t necessarily the case, Stalin had buckets of blood on his hands): the nazis were NOT communists or socialists, in spite of their own moniker. Hitler was an elitist who was very much in favour of supporting big corporations like Siemens to the detriment of the workers.

Once again, I’m not trying to say that the socialist governments we’ve seen did a great job at all. What irks me is how we all seem to agree on what a wonderful system we live in - a system that, yes, has led to great wealth for some but also to unprecedented environmental damage, a gap between the wealthiest and the poorest of the planet that is simply obscene and that seems to be unable to do anything but expand. If those concerns make me a nutjob in someone’s book, so be it. I’d rather worry about the problems of our current system than constantly proclaim that there are zero alternatives.

Back on topic/ end rant: Rand (hah) has made it onto my rereading list.

44

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

Sorry to interrupt you here, but in case you’re referring to the holocaust (which isn’t necessarily the case, Stalin had buckets of blood on his hands): the nazis were NOT communists or socialists, in spite of their own moniker. Hitler was an elitist who was very much in favour of supporting big corporations like Siemens to the detriment of the workers.
[/quote]

Uh, hello. I was NOT referring to the holocaust! I was talking about the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Poles, Germans, Italians, Croats, Hungarians, and the Balts, and so on. And the Nazis were vehemently opposed to communism, which is why they wanted to stamp it out wherever they encountered it.

Some people to this day do not even know about what happened in the gulags or in the Ukrainian famine or what happened at Katyn and Vinnitsia.

What also tainted the National Socialists’ views on Jews was that so many Jews were communist. People like Genrick Yagoda, Lazar Kaganovic, Solomon Morel, Jacob Berman, and Neftaly Frankel have the blood of millions on their hands. (Yes, I am Jewish, and I will admit this and it’s also widely understood by those who have a clue. My own great grandmother, though not pro-communist, regularly read a communist friendly newspaper, The Forward).

Yes, Hitler was pro-enterprise and entrepreneurship. Hence we now use some of the big brands that flourished or were founded under him: Puma, Hugo Boss (an SS man himself), Adidas, Fanta, etc.

I think you missed in my first post in which I said verbatim, “Hitler was a socialist (not communist).”

45

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
a gap between the wealthiest and the poorest of the planet that is simply obscene and that seems to be unable to do anything but expand. [/quote]

No. Just no.

The only way this holds water is if you start world history at 1950.

The gap between the rich and poor in today’s “industrialized” nations is significantly narrower than it was even 100 years ago. Poor people today have an excess of food. That alone blows your statement out of the water.

Your perspective is very limited here. Compared to a couple billion or so people you, and people who are poorer than you, are the 1% of the 1% of the world. Someone who’s drinking water isn’t as clean as your toilet water after you shit in it would trade with you in a heart beat, and still not envy the “billionaire” who had more.

This income inequality tripe is nothing but emotional rhetoric used to buy votes. It certainly isn’t based on any sort of intellectually honest examination of human history.

46

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Communism has never been implemented without mass murder of the steadiest, brightest, and most productive people, or those who dared to dissent about how they were being mistreated. So my question is, how do you equalize a nation without getting rid of such people? Also, how do you get people to put their best foot forward when there is little or no reward?

An estimated 50 MILLION Europeans were shot, raped, hanged, starved, tortured, gassed, and worked and frozen to death in the name of communism. It has always inspired the meanest and degenerate of people.
[/quote]

I am not an advocate of communism by any means, but these comparisons are a poor indictment of communist philosophy. From an academic standpoint, communism, as a social, political, and economic philosophy originally proposed by Marx and Engels, was basically a scientific socialism that has never been close to being attained in practice (i.e., societal control of the means of production, total abolition of private property, cessation of the existence of social classes altogether, and the dissolution of the modern “state” as we know it - a social and economic, communal utopia of sorts). The likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Il Sung, and other rogue, post-Bolshevik era “communist” leaders are a better indictment of evils of authoritarianism than they are of Marxist ideology itself, notwithstanding the fact that Marxist ideology is assailable from other academic standpoints.

The furthest that Marxism has really ever gone towards being implemented has been the nationalization of certain businesses and industries, a move towards confiscation of some private property, and thus a theoretically more egalitarian economic situation for the working or agrarian classes in some of these societies. However, you still had rigid bureaucratic caste systems, especially among the ruling elite, which is just social classes masquerading as economic reform under some organization such as the Comintern or the dictatorship of the proletariat. State ownership or control of private property or some factors of production is not total socialization either, just state capitalism. Perhaps most problematic with these bureaucratic caste systems was not the dissolution of the modern state, which was so central to Marxist communism, but rather a centralization of power in the hands of rigid, authoritarian dictatorships or oligarchies, where human rights abuses were (are) rampant and dissent likely yielded imprisonment or death. But this wasn’t Marxist communist ideology, not by a long shot.

47

[quote]JR249 wrote:
But this wasn’t Marxist communist ideology, not by a long shot.

[/quote]

You’re a smart dude. You’re really hanging your hat on the “it’ll go down differently this time I promise” argument?

How many times does any sort of collectivist attempt have to almost instantly devolve into the totalitarian hell hole they ALL become before people accept the fact that pretty utopia theory isn’t realty?

People like to own stuff. Always have and always will. People have a problem with power. Always have and always will. Collectivism will always fail.

Why do people refuse to accept this? I mean, are there truly people that think if they could just flap their arms fast enough they will eventually take flight if they jump off the roof of their house?

48

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

You’re a smart dude. You’re really hanging your hat on the “it’ll go down differently this time I promise” argument?

[/quote]

No, that’s not really what I’m arguing at all, only that I personally believe that pointing centrally to those abuses is a lesser effective critique of the ideology from an academic standpoint, since really Marxist communism has never even existed.

I don’t think it would inherently go down differently, nor do I think it’s the most beneficial society. I just disagree that focusing on the abuses of totalitarianism is inherently the best criticism of Marxist capitalism. It’s certainly worth bringing to the table, but from an economic/ideological standpoint, it’s more effective to discuss the free market’s advantages in consumer sovereignty, an overall higher standard of living, economic productivity, specialization, and benefits of rewards and resources going to those who are most productive and innovative.

49

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Uh, hello. I was NOT referring to the holocaust! I was talking about the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Poles, Germans, Italians, Croats, Hungarians, and the Balts, and so on. And the Nazis were vehemently opposed to communism, which is why they wanted to stamp it out wherever they encountered it…

I think you missed in my first post in which I said verbatim, “Hitler was a socialist (not communist).”

[/quote]

Duly noted. I wasn’t sure what you were referring to.

Calling Hitler a socialist is still a bit off. He was never after an egalitarian society in any way.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The gap between the rich and poor in today’s “industrialized” nations is significantly narrower than it was even 100 years ago. Poor people today have an excess of food. That alone blows your statement out of the water.

Your perspective is very limited here. Compared to a couple billion or so people you, and people who are poorer than you, are the 1% of the 1% of the world. Someone who’s drinking water isn’t as clean as your toilet water after you shit in it would trade with you in a heart beat, and still not envy the “billionaire” who had more.
[/quote]

See - you’re not reading my post correctly.

  1. Yes, income gaps WITHIN industrialised nations have shrinked. But show me another period in history where, globally speaking, the poorest lived in garbage cans and the richest could almost literally go to space.

  2. I’m not counting myself among the disenfranchised. At all. Dude, owning a laptop and having health insurance means my life is peachy compared to the bottom 3-5 billion on earth.

50

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

See - you’re not reading my post correctly.[/quote]

Fair enough man.

Feudal Europe, and just about any monarchy.

The Vatican compared to just about the rest of the entire human race for, what… 1,000+ years or so…

[quote]2. I’m not counting myself among the disenfranchised.
[/quote]

Good. That means you’re a reasonable person who is actually thinking your way through the issue. Very good news.

51

[quote]LoRez wrote:
It’s been awhile, but I never really found fault with her “romanticism” and celebration of individualism. (Ref: The Romantic Manifesto, Anthem.)

I don’t think I really agree with her views on how a society should behave, and how interpersonal relationships should work. But I’d have to reread and review things.

[/quote]

LoRez - I relate to what you said. Her ideas about personal achievement, hard work and purpose really resonate with me. Individual freedom, too. Atlas Shrugged is really a love letter to these founding principles.

I lean toward Libertarianism in many respects, but when it comes down to it, I don’t see it as something we can adapt as a society in a really pragmatic, “how would this really work” type of way. She goes too far for me. I’d make government smaller, but she would literally privatize everything, and make taxation voluntary. Also, she has no use for people of faith.

For anyone who’s interested - Here’s her 1964 Playboy interview. The Kindle version includes more background/ biographical sketch most of which you can read on wikipedia.

She likes Victor Hugo - like me. And hated Nobokov’s Lolita - like me. And she really talks quite a lot about Atlas Shrugged there.

edited

52

I think they are better ways to get into Libertarianism than Ayn Rand.

I read her two main novels over twenty years ago, and the other collected essays and it’s great if you can take the good things from those without starting into the cult-like world that surrounds her.

53

If I recall correctly, Rand proposed something like a smarty pants’ strike. Like when all the ordinary folks and dumb-dumbs misbehave and can’t appreciate the fine society built by the 1% of citizens at the top–business moguls, engineers, lawyers, doctors, tech wizards, professors, and so on–will go on strike until everyone learns the error of their ways.

54

The interviewer did a good job with that. Thanks for sharing.

I think the biggest issue I have is that she seems to deny that humans have a biological underpinning to their actions, in terms of instinct and emotion.

As much as I like the idea that reason and comes first, and emotion is subservient to rational thought, my experience has been the opposite. Emotion seems to color one’s ability to reason, no matter how logical you think you may be. Instinct and subconscious patterns and routines seems to drive a lot more of the world than she seems to give credit for. Surely some of it is intellectual laziness, but a lot of it also seems to be biological limitations as far as how much of our behavior can be consciously controlled.

And maybe I’m reading between the lines and misinterpreted things a bit.

55

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
If I recall correctly, Rand proposed something like a smarty pants’ strike. Like when all the ordinary folks and dumb-dumbs misbehave and can’t appreciate the fine society built by the 1% of citizens at the top–business moguls, engineers, lawyers, doctors, tech wizards, professors, and so on–will go on strike until everyone learns the error of their ways.

[/quote]

That’s not really the way I took the notion, lol. But yeah I guess on some levels that is a perception of the concept.

56

Ah, Objectivism, the p90-x structured philosophish ism for closing the aching hole in a capitalist’s heart with warm feelz…

  1. Reality may or may not be objective, but we, as humans, as demonstrable in a gillion experiments, are, sadly, dumb animals:
    A person starts out extremely uneducated and with many biases.
    The more educated you get, the more obvious this becomes.
    Also obvious is that one will never overcome this affliction and always remain a rather illogical, analoge, emotional creature that evolution, the bitch, blind-folded like Justicia, lumped together without a single care for fair reason or reasonable fairness.

  2. Reason is NOT the way you understand the world of men (the world we actually live in, not the blue globe that makes all videos look kinda hip and sciency).
    It is a great tool for science but all wars, politics and romances have not been ever won with reason.

Science in turn, very rarely produces what it promises, because it gets reliably taken hostage by the aforementioned irrational forces.

Reason CAN be a tool to dissassemble these riddles of conflict, scarcity and magical physicality but so far we only have a bunch of theories.

  1. Contradictions are what humans are made of.
    You can work with them but you cannot dismiss them outright.

ALL affinities, likes, preferences, goals etc are irrational in nature.

WHY do you want to bang 1000 girls? Woudnt it be more reasonable to become a sperm donor? Why not 10000? Why not castrate and rid yourself of this burden?
WHY do you want to become a Nascar champ? It is very dangerous and you have a family! Wouldn’t Formula 1 make you even richer? Why not become a video game champ instead?
etcetc

  1. Selfishness is something that doesn’t even work with predators or insects.
    As group-oriented, omnivorous mammals, we evolved with a strong bias and preference for non-selfishness.

Objectivism is hardocre creationist in this regard.

Lots of people lead VERY happy and productive lives without investing much in their personal happiness.

All these thing should be mind-blowlingly, painfully obvious to an adult.

The american faible for Objectivism is understood only by its practicality in delivering soundbitesque arguments (“greed is good”) against bad commie thoughts.
Which is funny, because some ideas like regarding racism as the basest form of collectivism is actually deep-red leftist.

p.s.
Yes, people don’t escape free capitalism on rafts because free capitalism usually means the economy is going strong- for whatever reason.
Free Markets are moreso a symptom of healthy economies than the system iself.
No country will ever implode while being rich, booming and trading. But in it’s death throes, the starving and frenzied will always demand something to be done, and it will be done, see 2)

Secondly, what many amercians and europeans don’t want to understand:
Many of today’s refugees come from socialist places but fully expect BETTER socialism in the west, not free markets.
They couldnt care less about Mises and Smith. They heard the place is RICH!
Saddam, Ghaddafi, the Saudis, etc they all did or do pacify their subjects with basic feed and housing.
Some refugees here in Europe openly talk about their disbelief that they WON’t get a house and a car!

The american heroic-journey myth of bootstraps and dishwashing is very unique and young.
And you can already watch it withering
It might bloom a bit in asia, though. The chinese especially are collectivist enough to make capitalism work.

57

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Yes, people don’t escape free capitalism on rafts because free capitalism usually means the economy is going strong- for whatever reason.
Free Markets are moreso a symptom of healthy economies than the system iself.
No country will ever implode while being rich, booming and trading. But in it’s death throes, the starving and frenzied will always demand something to be done, and it will be done, see 2)

Secondly, what many amercians and europeans don’t want to understand:
Many of today’s refugees come from socialist places but fully expect BETTER socialism in the west, not free markets.
They couldnt care less about Mises and Smith. They heard the place is RICH!
Saddam, Ghaddafi, the Saudis, etc they all did or do pacify their subjects with basic feed and housing.
Some refugees here in Europe openly talk about their disbelief that they WON’t get a house and a car!
[/quote]

Bravo. I demonstrably wouldn’t be able to say it better.

58

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Yes, people don’t escape free capitalism on rafts because free capitalism usually means the economy is going strong- for whatever reason.
Free Markets are moreso a symptom of healthy economies than the system iself.
No country will ever
[/quote]

lol

I love how you have the arrogance to post something along the lines of “this should be painfully obvious” and then continue on to post this utter nonsense.

“Don’t worry fella’s capitalism didn’t do any of this, it is all just a happy accident, because if I admitted it did, my entire post would be a massive contradiction, because capitalism is basically objectivism. It’s not like I can point to a single collectivist nation in the history of planet earth that has enriched the masses like capitalistic nations have, but I KNOW it isn’t capitalism doing the good work”

Jesus Christ the delusions of leftist needed in order to rationalize the fact the feel more than think is worrisome.

59

countingbeans, please define “free markets” and “capitalism”.
Maybe we just apply different definitions?

Real capitalism to me is like real communism.
Destinctly shy as a unicorn, promised and advertized as the most perfect, catchable creature, but so elusive!
The practical compromises however differ much in detail:

What is more socialist, according to you-
former GDR with its robust and frugal populace or the generous saudis who gift free cars and houses to newlyweds?

What is more capitalist-
the chinese red behemoth with nearly unrivaled freedoms to government-adhering millionaires or Obama-cared US and A, with its million busily humming state-departments?

I cannot help but refer to reality and see that the unreal ideals will take on many forms.
Nobody will gain anything if we jerk each other off with economy fanfiction, shipping Rand with austeriously-hot austrian profs.

I also admit that I was hesitant to include the meme-critique, for this one is complicated.
For instance, vietnamese boatpeople DID integrate themselves ardently into mostly capitalist societies, ie US- but very differently into more socialist ones, ie Europe.
I guess i was just triggered by the amount of pro-massmigration propaganda I have to inhale every day.

60

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If anyone wants a better idea of what Rand was about, her collections of essays are much, much better than her fiction. The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal would be a great place to start. The New Left is also very good.
[/quote]

Dammit! Doc, did you just dis Atlas Shrugged? :wink: I found The Virtue of Selfishness on the web as a free PDF so I’ll give it a try. Also, a kindleunlimited version of an Ayn Rand interview with Playboy that might be good. [/quote]

Me? Never.

I actually liked The Fountainhead more than Atlas Shrugged.

I was also a member of my University’s Objectivist Society for 3 years which - looking back - explains my dearth of luck with the fairer sex.