Objectivism

This thread is being very protective of it's libertarians.

To a certain extent Rand's philosophy has echoes of the Marxism she despises.


Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

A Marxist would agree with man existing for his own sake, rather than somebody else, the somebody else being the rich man or capitalist. Apparently the Marxist State was to come into being, wither away, and then all men would be free to not be exploited by their fellow man. The mechanism of the withering has always been un-explained.

What differentiates the Objectionist from the Marxist is two different theories of exploitation. The Marxist sees man as being oppressed by the capitalist rich - the profits in society have to come from somewhere after all - and the chap down the mine is not getting much of the results of his labour. The Objectionist sees the State - sometimes in alliance with a Church - as the sole oppressor. The State is taking the money from the productive worker ( but mainly the "capitalist" - she really means any rich person, productive or not) and handing it to the "unworthy" poor. Like a miner who has lost a leg. Workers are also potential "looters" if they want to take some wealth from the rich, idle or not.

Both have different ideas on what the unworthy are - the rich man is the parasite in Marxism, the poor man is the parasite in Objectionism. The capitalist oppresses in Marxism ( sometimes he use the State which is described as a Bourgeois-State), the State is the sole oppressor in Objectionism. In both theories, the "parasites" are stealing surplus value, or someone's work and income, by one mechanism or the other.

Both theories - one which leads to the State owning everything, and one which leads to the state owning nothing - are simplistic and trite. Neither is mathematical, nor are they in any sense scientific. If we could model the best form of society mathematically, it would certainly be a mixed economy. We cant, because we don't have the mathematical tools ( if we did we would never have a recession, or a bad government) so we stumble along and fix things as we go, which is a weak but empirical methodology.

The empirical mind would reject simplistic solutions of the "philosophers" ( an intellectual form which has had it's day, quite frankly) and take any situation into account when describing its level of freedom, or lack of it. In a Stalinist society the State can control everything, so men are not free and the media is in control. Lets agree to that. Is the State always an actor which, therefore makes men unfree? No.

It can make people freer, or give them more choice when it engages in anti-trust, or has rules on media ownership ( or when, more trivially, and profoundly, it rescues a hostage).. It helps if the State is democratic, although Objectionists are not convinced on that score, either, in case there be democratic "looting".

Objectionists, a supposedly "rational" group are about as rational as any other cult. Every rich man is John Galt, every poor man a parasite. The opposite of Marxism. There are no idle rich, and no unlucky poor; there is no attempt to explain why someone born to wealth is not living of someone else ( and if he isn't working and yet consuming he must be), just as the Marxists see no entrepreneurs as John Galt ( despite the evidence of Tesla, Watts, Edison, Jobs etc.).

As an empiricist I would see a difference, and tax the two types of wealth holders differently, but the vast philosophising of marxists and Objectionists leads them both to see no difference.

I digress. Here is an obvious thought experiment. Its the bronze age. A king runs a despotic State, the State owns the mines, all the fields, all the land, all the media they have. People who disagree are killed, or exiled. The State takes rent from it's servants, and labourers ( although it does not quite own them they have no where to go), and distributes the largesse to the King, and - sometimes via alms - to the destitute who cant work. This is State tyranny. Objectionists are appalled.

Now its the early middle ages.
An Earl runs a despotic county, as a property owner. He is not the State but he has title to all the mines, all the fields, all the land, all books and pamphlets. People who disagree are killed, or exiled ( the Earl is the magistrate so no repercussions). As a rentier he takes money from his servants, and labourers ( although he does not quite own them they have no where to go), and distributes the largesse to himself, and - sometimes via alms - to the destitute who cant work. The objectionist cant see much wrong here. The Earl has title to the county, he is a property owner. Were the peasants to revolt, create a commonwealth state, and distribute the wealth more evenly, it would be looting.

I think we can reject a philosophy that thinks that all men are equal in capitalist society, just selling and buying commodities equally, labour being one. the actual world has vast differences in power, and wealth, and capital accumulation. A small point, but a big one.

I think people have read that into Marx, who didn't really say all that much. His disciples have to read all his writings - some just journalism - to create an ideological whole. What Marxists read into Marx - no great shakes as a thinker but not really a totalitarian, either - is not what Marx put into Marx. He was largely uncritical of democracy, and in favour of a free press.

But I am not a Marxist, plenty later Marxists argue against any individual autonomy, and Rand's criticism is correct re. them. However we are talking about Objectionism.

The economic Marx is making the claim - in the labour theory of value - that workers are looted by profit taking. Objectionists claim that workers ( and everybody else) are looted by taxes. There is the similarity, the demand that people should work for themselves, not someone else - capitalist, or bureaucrat.

( I am fully aware that Marxists then go onto contradict themselves with the from each according to his ability, to each according to his need demand. In that case people end up working for others anyway, the needy and less able).

But we are talking about Objectionism.

Leonard Peikoff is a bit of a laugh. I think his philosophy is more determined by communitarian and sectarian forces than he thinks (or pretends).

ed2hands wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw

Meathead.. pure and simple. not surprised he has such simplistic views. Though it should be pointed out that the ARI is also a pro zionist organisation. yea, that is pretty Ironic, isn't it? :pac:

A nice seminar on Rand and her philosophy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4nbgZH3xrQ&list=FLTA_SD9OCs8dqvLilYcwbIw&index=3&feature=plpp_video

hoorsmelt wrote: »

capitalism itself only survived in the West thanks to massive state investment in the middle of the 20th century, and the rational end point of Rand's philosophy is a state where people rely on handouts from the rich for survival

Can you tell me how you think a system of private property and voluntary exchange was about to collapse in the mid 20th century and what was the massive state investment that saved it?

hoorsmelt wrote: »

Following World War Two there were massive upheavals in most Western states and it was only ;arge-scale state investment and nationalisations in countries like France, the UK (following the breaking of the 1945 Dockers Strike) and Italy which prevented those countries turning to socialism. Germany also nearly was subject to a revolution during the factory council movement in the late 40's (which only lost energy following the massive stimulus of the Marshall Plan) and America was rocked by strikes in the 1930s leading to the New Deal and recognition of collective bargaining and a limited welfare state.

I've never heard of Western states on the verge of socialist revolutions after World War 2. Where can i read about these imminent or inevitable socialist revolutions, and how they were quelled by state investment and nationalization?

SupaNova wrote: »

I've never heard of Western states on the verge of socialist revolutions after World War 2. Where can i read about these imminent or inevitable socialist revolutions, and how they were quelled by state investment and nationalization?

Hobsbawm writes about it, as does Donald Sassoon, and any serious history of post-war France and Italy.

hoorsmelt wrote: »

Hobsbawm writes about it, as does Donald Sassoon, and any serious history of post-war France and Italy.

So you are not including Britain then. From reading wikipedia, the only place that some feared a revolution was France. The fear was based on the success of the French Communist Party.

Wikipedia

In the elections of 21 October 1945 for the then-unicameral interim Constitutional National Assembly, the PCF had 159 deputies elected out of 586 seats. Two subsequent elections in 1946, first still for the Constitutional National Assembly, then for the National Assembly of the new Fourth Republic – now the lower house of a bicameral system – gave very similar results. In the election of November 1946, the PCF received the most votes of any party, finishing narrowly ahead of the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) and the Christian democratic Popular Republican Movement (MRP). The party's strong electoral showing and surge in membership led some observers, including American under-secretary of state Dean Acheson, to believe that a Communist takeover of France was imminent. However, as in Italy, the PCF was forced to quit Paul Ramadier's government in May 1947 in order to secure Marshall Plan aid from the United States.