Objectivism

Madd Finn

SupaNova wrote: »

Madd Finn, .....the part i don't believe is the story that there would have been a socialist revolution and an end to capitalism if these industries were not nationalized.

My point is that there is a compelling case to suggest that the motivating force for many of the people who actually took up the fight against Hitler was the creation of a more just society. They may not have been committed docrtrinaire socialists but they were keen to try a more active distributist economic system as opposed to the patrician form of capitalism they had endured in Britain where forelocks had to be tugged and class distinctions were rigidly enforced.

Look around the continent. Most of the resistance movements against Nazis were socialist or communist inspired.

And of course the country that took on the lion's share of defeating Germany was the Soviet Union.

SupaNova

A really obscure view of World War II tbh. The resistance against Hitler, was sparked by Germany's invasion of Poland and fear it wasn't going to stop there. the inspiration was mostly to prevent the Nazi's from expanding further. To say socialism and communism was the inspiration for most of the resistance is wrong.

hoorsmelt

SupaNova wrote: »

A really obscure view of World War II tbh. The resistance against Hitler, was sparked by Germany's invasion of Poland and fear it wasn't going to stop there. the inspiration was mostly to prevent the Nazi's from expanding further. To say socialism and communism was the inspiration for most of the resistance is wrong.

The best known and most effective resistance groups were socialists or popular front organisation set up by the communists: in the Italian, Yugoslavian, and French partisan movements, the three largest and most effective resistance movements of occupied Europe, the communists either dominated the leadership or provided the majority of foot soldiers. In Germany as well there were communist resistance networks, the Rote Kappelle being one. Indeed the only mass resistance movement which wasn't either communist or a popular front was the Armia Krajowa, the Polish Home Army, which was dominated by a national coalition aligned to the pre-War semi-fascist Sanacja government.

Yahew

hoorsmelt wrote: »

The best known and most effective resistance groups were socialists or popular front organisation set up by the communists: in the Italian, Yugoslavian, and French partisan movements, the three largest and most effective resistance movements of occupied Europe, the communists either dominated the leadership or provided the majority of foot soldiers. In Germany as well there were communist resistance networks, the Rote Kappelle being one. Indeed the only mass resistance movement which wasn't either communist or a popular front was the Armia Krajowa, the Polish Home Army, which was dominated by a national coalition aligned to the pre-War semi-fascist Sanacja government.

The communists dominated the resistance movements only when the Soviet-Nazi alliance ended. Until then they were pro-fascist. Hitchens tells a story of a young communist who comes into the office of his party leader and shouts with joy "We took Paris". that is, the Nazi's -then allies of the Russians, did.

They opposed the war in England, and the US until Russia. Had Nazzism just wanted the West they would have opposed the war all the time.

Nice of the Stalinists to come around later, but even then they tried to impose their revolutions via the resistance, regardless of public will. It was communists in the French resistance who tried to provoke the departing Nazi's into fighting and burning Paris, the Nazis didn't want to.

karma_

Yahew wrote: »

The communists dominated the resistance movements only when the Soviet-Nazi alliance ended. Until then they were pro-fascist. Hitchens tells a story of a young communist who comes into the office of his party leader and shouts with joy "We took Paris". that is, the Nazi's -then allies of the Russians, did.

They opposed the war in England, and the US until Russia. Had Nazzism just wanted the West they would have opposed the war all the time.

Nice of the Stalinists to come around later, but even then they tried to impose their revolutions via the resistance, regardless of public will. It was communists in the French resistance who tried to provoke the departing Nazi's into fighting and burning Paris, the Nazis didn't want to.

Actually, the socialists and communists had already joined the fight against Fascism before WW2 had even broken out. Sure they were among the first to go and fight against Franco.

Of course, the communists and Socialists subsequently fell out during the Spanish civil war, but the fact they set the precedent shouldn't be easily discounted.

Yahew

karma_ wrote: »

Actually, the socialists and communists had already joined the fight against Fascism before WW2 had even broken out. Sure they were among the first to go and fight against Franco.

Of course, the communists and Socialists subsequently fell out during the Spanish civil war, but the fact they set the precedent shouldn't be easily discounted.

We were talking about Naziism, not Mediterranean fascism - which is milder in all cases than both Naziism and Communism.

Was also talking about WWII, and whether communists resisted Naziism, or not. Not until Barbarossa.

karma_

Yahew wrote: »

We were talking about Naziism, not Mediterranean fascism - which is milder in all cases than both Naziism and Communism.

Was also talking about WWII, and whether communists resisted Naziism, or not. Not until Barbarossa.

Well, from the very start, and well before Barbarossa, both communists and socialists were involved in resistance movements.

You're right about teh communists though, they did toe teh party line for a time, but there were definitely elements who protested this course of action from the beginning.

Madd Finn

Yahew wrote: »

We were talking about Naziism, not Mediterranean fascism - which is milder in all cases than both Naziism and Communism.

Was also talking about WWII, and whether communists resisted Naziism, or not. Not until Barbarossa.

First of all, you can't equate all socialists/social democrats/trade unionists etc with card carrying members of the Soviet Communist party. Many socialists of many hues hated Stalin, even before world war II and with good reason.

Of course socialists and communists were bitterly opposed to Fascism. Who do you think the Nazis were fighting in the street battles in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s? The Christian Democrats?

Have a listen to the Nazi Party marching song the Horst Wessel Lied. There is no identification as enemies of the party of Jews or gypsies in it. Only the "reactionaries" and the Red Front.

"Kameraden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen, marschieren im Geist in unserem Reihen mitt."

(Comrades who were shot by the Red Front and reactionaries march in spirit among our ranks)

True, some international communists stilled their propaganda against the Nazi regime for the comparitively brief period of Nazi-Soviet collaboration. But that was a major about face that had to be made in the summer of 1939, after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and it only had to survive a couple of years until Barbarossa. It was an utterly cynical and malicious manouevre and just what you might expect of Stalinists.

But it did not apply to many leftists, such as the British Labour Party and its counterparts throughout Europe who remained as vehemently opposed to Nazism as ever.

benway

Valmont wrote: »

Can anyone think of any other philosophers who provoke such controversy?

Have to say, first time looking in this forum, when I saw there was an objectivism thread I immediately thought, "can't wait to get stuck in to that nonsense". :pac:

I think that to describe Rand as a philospher is to do her a kindness that her intellectual achievements don't deserve. She was more like a sulky teen, running away to the big city to rebel against socialism, as she perceived it.

Go read some Foucault, for one, and you'll see that she's not even playing the same sport, never mind in the same league.

Granted, she had the personal charisma, unwavering self-belief and the financial wherewithal to gather a band of followers, and obviously her ideology is politically useful to this day to right-wing elites. I think some of the vehemence of the response owes to the fact that I think "objectivism", radical individualism, or whatever you want to call it, is a dupe for well-meaning, intelligent people to stand back and do nothing while the institutions and laws which were fought for so as to balance the rights of ordinary people against the caprice of elites are dismantled.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. 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.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

I can see how it might be seductive ... I mean, she was doing pretty well for the first half.

I like that she reached her "End of History" in the 40s as well - with laissez-faire capitalism obviously being the zenith of human progress, with no evolution or improvement possible - beat Fukuyama by a good half century. It's essentially the same (vaguely Marxist) argument, and it's just as flawed now as it was then.

But, honestly, can you not see that she basically just wants the state to exist to protect capital and established privilege, without protecting weaker segments of society? That's the whole point of objectivism/radical individualism/libertarianism to my mind, to remove the fetters and give free reign to the bullies in society.

But when it's dressed up in such nice hippy friendly terms ... all about your personal freedom, after all. Only your personal freedoms won't be worth much if you're born into the wrong place in life ... but that's your own fault anyway, in Rand's delusion.

benway

benway wrote: »

Only your personal freedoms won't be worth much if you're born into the wrong place in life ... but that's your own fault anyway, in Rand's delusion.

I don't really get this considering her "ideal" characters in fountainhead (I haven't read anything else by her yet) started at the bottom and worked their way up through shítty jobs...
considering she's about a subtle as a brick, it seemed to be a point she emphasised

MungBean

Just started reading Atlas Shrugged to see what all the fuss was about. Its a hefty tome so it will probably take me a good long while to read it.

Reading through the thread though, I think I get where objectivism is coming from but I dont buy the "trader and trader" as any different than "master and slave".

And it certainly doesnt fit with

3. 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.

A society of sole traders cannot exist in the scale of the modern world. People bestow huge respect on "self made entrepreneurs" and claim anyone can do it. All the while ignoring the fact that their fortunes are not amassed by their own labour but by the collective labour of those who work for them.

It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force

The problem with this view is that its seeing force as purely physical. And sees coercion and manipulation as ways of trading. Which inevitably lead straight back to a master and slave hierarchial system where those at the bottom depend on those at the top to survive while those at the top manipulate those at the bottom to keep them in comfort.

In other words it sounds more like justifying greed than creating equal opportunity. Maybe the book will blow my mind though.

RichieC

Ha, fair play to you, Mungbeam, I got 3 pages in and stopped. Watched the film instead, even that was pretty tough going. Everyone in the film went on like those creepy glassy eyed Scientology PR guys. the script a hackneyed mess trying to shoehorn in as much of the political proselytising as I assume the book has.

benway

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't really get this considering her "ideal" characters in fountainhead (I haven't read anything else by her yet) started at the bottom and worked their way up through shítty jobs...
considering she's about a subtle as a brick, it seemed to be a point she emphasised

I'm not talking about her own propaganda, I'm talking about how I think such a society would work in reality. If everyone's subscribing to the doctrine of each man for him/herself, then how exactly is anyone coming from a deprived background supposed to catch up?

MungBean wrote:

A society of sole traders cannot exist in the scale of the modern world. People bestow huge respect on "self made entrepreneurs" and claim anyone can do it. All the while ignoring the fact that their fortunes are not amassed by their own labour but by the collective labour of those who work for them.

This is the point - not everyone can be a glorious leader ... somebody's got to clean the toilets. If no-one will do that, then the society will fall apart just the same as if all the creative genius types buggered off. The toilet cleaners and other menial workers are every bit as important and useful to society as the John Galts of this world, and should be recognised as such. Rand, I feel, held these people in thinly-veiled contempt.

Btw, dunno if any of you have played Bioshock, but it's amazing and it thoroughly skewers Randian delusions - one of the few games I'd really classify as art.

SupaNova

benway wrote: »

The toilet cleaners and other menial workers are every bit as important and useful to society as the John Galts of this world, and should be recognised as such. Rand, I feel, held these people in thinly-veiled contempt.

I don't know about Atlas Shrugged, but in The Fountainhead it is pretty hard to get that impression given the light she paints Mike in. A construction worker who goes about his job with the aim of mastery. I know plenty of carpenter's, plumber's, block-layer's and electrician's who would fit that description. I also know plenty that don't, and that go about their job in a hap hazard way, and would be worthy of the label 'cowboy builders'. From reading The Fountainhead its clear that she would hold admiration for one group, and contempt for the other group of construction workers. She admired mastery and merit, and felt a system of free market capitalism, despite its flaws, was still the best system.

benway

SupaNova wrote: »

She admired mastery and merit

There are plenty of essential tasks in society that don't require much mastery or merit ... but just because someone doesn't strive to be some kind of ubermensch doesn't mean that they're not a worthy human being.

I always got the impression that the Rand wouldn't agree with that - there was a quote from an interview with her in the last Adam Curtis thing, along the lines that if someone is "weak", they do not deserve love.

Granted, I haven't finished anything she's written, because it's an unreadable mess, and patently nonsense. But her ideology comes across clearly enough from the few interviews I've seen and read.

SupaNova

benway wrote: »

There are plenty of essential tasks in society that don't require much mastery or merit ... but just because someone doesn't strive to be some kind of ubermensch doesn't mean that they're not a worthy human being.

Yes, if someone works doing the most basic of unskilled factory work mastery isn't required, but there is nothing stopping such an individual aiming for mastery in sport, outside relationships and whatever else. There is nothing wrong with admiration of mastery and holding its opposite in contempt.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

benway

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's an unreadable mess. Got around a third into Atlas Shrugged, saw where it is going, realised that I disagree vehemently with her message, essentially a transparant, sugar-coated apologia for might is right "individualism", cooked up in a Manhatten apartment with the help of her children of privilege "collective". Haven't bothered with the Fountainhead.

Personally, I think that Rand's written work is so poor that it's almost unworthy of serious critique. What's interesting to me is the influence that she and her little rich kid followers have had in today's world.

I don't believe, either, that the stories should be taken at face value, in so much as I think that they were concocted as a "noble myth" in the Straussian sense, to sweeten the pill of radical individualism for a plebeian market. As an aside, much as I disagree with Leo Strauss, and outright despise him, at least he can legitimately lay claim to being a philosopher.

Are you saying that my perception of "Objectivism" is inaccurate?

Valmont

benway wrote: »

Are you saying that my perception of "Objectivism" is inaccurate?

benway wrote: »

It's an unreadable mess. Got around a third into Atlas Shrugged, saw where it is going, realised that I disagree vehemently with her message, essentially a transparant, sugar-coated apologia for might is right "individualism", cooked up in a Manhatten apartment with the help of her children of privilege "collective". Haven't bothered with the Fountainhead.

Considering one of the core nuclei (if not the) of Rand's philosophy is that Might is not Right, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.
Not to mention individualism is the primary theme of The Fountainhead; Atlas Shrugged is the organisation of society itself--you haven't read any of Atlas Shrugged, have you? You could at least read the Wikipedia page so that we can agree on some basic terms and then have an actual debate.

benway

To be fair, I didn't put that clearly - there are two strands here, Rand's stated positions and how these positions transpose to the real world.

It's the latter that I'm concerned with - this thread concerns "objectivism" as a political concept rather than being an Ayn Rand reading group, no? You won't deny that her writings only exist to dramatise and sell her "philosophy"? Actually, from where I see it, her novels are aimed squarely at selling these ideas to the plebeian market, hence the Joe plumber heroes. It's like a tabloid Hayek, and equally disingenuous to the tabloids.

I'm of course open to correction, but, as I understand it, Rand's core belief is that each individual is a world unto themselves, and should pursue their own personal satisfaction as the highest moral imperative, to the exclusion of other concerns. She does decry physical coercion, and portrays a world of heroic individuals, freely contracting with each other on a more or less equal footing. No more master and slave.

In interpersonal relations, in her own words, "the currency is virtue", and those lacking "virtue" as Rand framed it, are undeserving of love - again, her own words.

But how would this work in reality? Does her world view allow from the fact that some people are bestowed with tremendous advantages by dint of their birth, and others encumbered by tremendous disadvantages? On my reading of objectivism, it would be immoral to provide special assistance to the latter group. This would operate to lock in entrenched privilege.

And, in such a world, how can the disadvantaged group truly contract as free individuals? Their position is no-one's concern but their own. And, of course, it would be immoral of them to challenge this status quo by force, under any circumstances. No righteous mass movements or bands of freedom fighters here, every man for himself. I do note that state force in preserving the status quo remains legitimate to her, though.

This is what I mean by might is right individualism, didn't put it very well above - the devil take the hindmost.

It's radical societal stasis and exploitation disguised as radical individual freedom, if you ask me. And if we look at today's United States, surely the most Randian state in today's world, I think that the facts bear me out on this.

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

for comparison, I got half way through Joyces Ulysees and about a third the way through Finnegans Wake.. :pac:

krd

nesf wrote: »

No, you can rip Rand's philosophy to pieces all you want, I just don't want to see crap aimed at libertarians in general since it's off-topic.

Damn right too. This is what Ayn Rand had to say about Libertarians.

Responding to a question about the Libertarian Party in 1976, Rand said:

"The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and call themselves libertarians and run for office."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism

I'm not saying Rand is right or wrong, in this instance. I'm just saying she said.

Yahew

Great post..

Yahew wrote: »

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.