[civilian_number_two]

From those quotes you selected, it's clear that she is not a philosopher at all. Those are just the sound bites of a motivational speaker, many of which would fit in well in any sales pitch for Amway.

Ayn Rand believed that the police should protect only business from theft, that armies should exist to protect nations from invasion and business fom theft, and that all of the business of government, from roadmaking to army-building to policing and so forth could all be funded from donations and from lotteries. That is, she believed in pure laisez-faire, and 0% tax. She believed that communities would hire private security forces (somehow without any collectivism), to protect the people from violence. She tried to argue that her proposed autocracy derived itself directly from the Aristotelian law of identity, A=A. She was an idiot.

[Chefelf]

My favorite fact about Ayn Rand (knowing very little):

1.) Racism is the lowest form of collectivism and is a horrible, horrible thing!

2.) Homosexuality is horrible, immoral and disgusting!

Great beliefs that don't contradict each other at all!

[David-kyo]

From those quotes you selected, it's clear that she is not a philosopher at all. Those are just the sound bites of a motivational speaker, many of which would fit in well in any sales pitch for Amway.

Ayn Rand believed that the police should protect only business from theft, that armies should exist to protect nations from invasion and business fom theft, and that all of the business of government, from roadmaking to army-building to policing and so forth could all be funded from donations and from lotteries. That is, she believed in pure laisez-faire, and 0% tax. She believed that communities would hire private security forces (somehow without any collectivism), to protect the people from violence. She tried to argue that her proposed autocracy derived itself directly from the Aristotelian law of identity, A=A. She was an idiot.

I had a really freaky nightmare just now, which was mainly inspired by what you've said here (and Orwell's books, and maybe Koushun Takami's Battle Royale, but that is beside the point), and I absolutely must share it with y'all.
It took place in a society which was a mixture between that of 1984 and the one described above. Amongst other things, playing the lottery is compulsary for citizens, as it covers many expenses of the country, BUT the games are rigged; the winning numbers are determined by those in charge, preferably a combination no one chose, and due to the large amount of people (the country covers about a continent), it's sometimes impossible to find a combination no one selected. In this case, they select a combination that was sent in by only one particular person whom no one'd really miss, they make that person go insane, and finally put away, so that no one has to get paid.
When the unlucky sod goes out to the streets, agents (casual-looking people from apparently all walks of life) regularly bump into him and inject him with hallucinogenic drugs that make him paranoid, make him think he's getting shifted out of time every now and again (he no longer knows when he's awake or when he has a nightmare, the world he lives in is so surreal anyway), or kidnapped and performed experiments on, or any kind of scary shit that is emphasized by the person's fear of the actual society he's living in. Finally, not knowing what's going on or whom to trust, the guy snaps, and no one raises questions when he gets put into a straitjacket, and disappears. In the dream, I've found out all about this when I spoke to the other inmates in that wing of the asylum where they put away the lottery winners. After that, the rigged lottery game gets shown on TV, and they have a bogus winner. Everyone's happy, except for those locked in a rubber room, but no one gives a shit about them. Uhh... so yeah. Anyway, it freaked me the fuck out.



tl;dr: Dave forgot to take his happy pills before going to bed.

[Deucaon]

From those quotes you selected, it's clear that she is not a philosopher at all. Those are just the sound bites of a motivational speaker, many of which would fit in well in any sales pitch for Amway.

Ayn Rand believed that the police should protect only business from theft, that armies should exist to protect nations from invasion and business fom theft, and that all of the business of government, from roadmaking to army-building to policing and so forth could all be funded from donations and from lotteries. That is, she believed in pure laisez-faire, and 0% tax. She believed that communities would hire private security forces (somehow without any collectivism), to protect the people from violence. She tried to argue that her proposed autocracy derived itself directly from the Aristotelian law of identity, A=A. She was an idiot.

Sounds implausible... and interesting. I will try and spare some time to read her books after I find them.

My favorite fact about Ayn Rand (knowing very little):

1.) Racism is the lowest form of collectivism and is a horrible, horrible thing!

2.) Homosexuality is horrible, immoral and disgusting!

Great beliefs that don't contradict each other at all!

Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality.

Objectivism is a philosophy created by Ayn Rand, which some homosexuals have been interested in for its celebration of personal freedom and individuality at the expense of government power. While Rand consistently advocated the right to political freedom and equality for homosexuals, her personal views of homosexuality were unambiguously negative and she opposed laws against discrimination within the private sector.

It reminds me of "I don't agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it!"

[civilian_number_two]

It reminds me of "I don't agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it!"

... but let me know at work that you're gay, and your ten years of service and your outstanding sales record notwithstanding, you're fired.

Ayn Rand would have no problem with such discrimination. She opposed discrimination based on race, eg separate toilets and such, but figured that discrimination in the private sector based on sexual preference was ok. Note that the article you cite has her descendents modifying her view to meet popular opinion. So, in short, she agreed with popular opinion about race as well as about sexual preference while trying to philosophise about her tax-free society. Today she would modify her opinions about sexual preference as well, like her descendents have. Her philosophy was weak, and it changed with popular opinion. Weird that despite that, her adherents read her works with an almost-religious fervour.

Good stuff in theree on her man-worship too. Too bad for her she was straight; she might have enjoyed a sex change.

[Deucaon]

Ayn Rand would have no problem with such discrimination. She opposed discrimination based on race, eg separate toilets and such, but figured that discrimination in the private sector based on sexual preference was ok. Note that the article you cite has her descendents modifying her view to meet popular opinion. So, in short, she agreed with popular opinion about race as well as about sexual preference while trying to philosophise about her tax-free society. Today she would modify her opinions about sexual preference as well, like her descendents have. Her philosophy was weak, and it changed with popular opinion.

I figured... though I shall keep an unbiased opinion until I read her work.

Weird that despite that, her adherents read her works with an almost-religious fervour.

But they are small in number and mostly technocrats so there is no need to worry.

[J m HofMarN]

On Rand's Objectivist maxims: 2 is stolen pretty much verbatim from the work of Karl Marx. 11 is ridiculously laughable, 12 smacks of social darwinism, 17, I have NO idea what historical basis that was based upon, if any. 22 is like something Orwell would say if he lacked talent and was a scare monger, 24 is nonsense because thought is nothing without work, and 25 is easily proved to be false. Useless, yes, depraved, no. Ayn Rand seems to have made a religion of anti marxism, proselytizing that capitalism would create a heaven on earth in place of marxism. She is not a thinker, but a person reacting to the thoughts of other, greater minds.

[Deucaon]

Marx a great mind? He wrote "a government will not wilfully give up its authority" and then went on to create a philosophy whose basis is that once everything is under control of government, it will give it up. The man was no more coherent/logical than Rand.

[J m HofMarN]

The government is supposed to control the means of production and prices, but that power is granted by the people through their struggle to bring about communism. Therefore they are beholden to the public interest, rather than to private interests. The power, if you follow basic Marxist ideas, should be spread throughout the workers by means of unionization. And the quote is "the powerful will never cede power willingly" not governments, but powerful. One does not have to be a government to have power. This system, whether you like it or not, has undeniably rocketed many countries from the feudal age into the industrial age and has caused countries to grant workers rights out of fear of communism. Marx did more for ordinary people than Rand ever will. She is a reactionary and nothing more.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 31 August 2008 - 09:09 PM

[Deucaon]

The government is supposed to control the means of production and prices, but that power is granted by the people through their struggle to bring about communism. Therefore they are beholden to the public interest, rather than to private interests. The power, if you follow basic Marxist ideas, should be spread throughout the workers by means of unionization. And the quote is "the powerful will never cede power willingly" not governments, but powerful. One does not have to be a government to have power. This system, whether you like it or not, has undeniably rocketed many countries from the feudal age into the industrial age and has caused countries to grant workers rights out of fear of communism. Marx did more for ordinary people than Rand ever will. She is a reactionary and nothing more.

I'm sure the millions who have dyed in horrendous ways are very grateful to Marx for giving power hungry demagogues an excuse to gain and abuse power.

Also, there are countries which were feudal and industrial at the same time (and didn't need communism to go from an agricultural economy to an industrialized economy) like Japan for instance.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 14 September 2008 - 01:30 AM

[civilian_number_two]

"A certainly brought about B" is not the same as "It is impossible to arrive at B without A." Your miniaturization of JM's argument is common to Internet argument. eg "I really like the guitar on this album," which inevitably is followed by "The guitar on this other album is way better, so you have no taste." The error is in assuming that the fan of the one made a statement of the sort "there is only one path to good guitar, and it is this album."

So yeah, feudal Japan means unionisation is bad for workers. Hmm.

[Deucaon]

"A certainly brought about B" is not the same as "It is impossible to arrive at B without A." Your miniaturization of JM's argument is common to Internet argument. eg "I really like the guitar on this album," which inevitably is followed by "The guitar on this other album is way better, so you have no taste." The error is in assuming that the fan of the one made a statement of the sort "there is only one path to good guitar, and it is this album."

So yeah, feudal Japan means unionisation is bad for workers. Hmm.

No, the transition that Japan made from an agricultural economy into an industrialized economy means that the argument "at least Communism industrialized the country" is stupid.

And even if Communism was the only way to industrialize a country there is still the fact that (the pursuit of) Communism has led to the deaths of millions of people. In my opinion killing/starving millions of people wasn't worth industrializing Russia or China.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 14 September 2008 - 03:00 AM

[J m HofMarN]

I'm sure the millions who have dyed in horrendous ways are very grateful to Marx

You're taking the whole Red Army thing too literally. And you could say the same for any other form of government. Marx's ideals had nothing to do with dying people, horrendously or otherwise. And not all Marxists have killed political opponents excessively. Indeed Marxism specificly is against the kind of personality cult and factionalism that led to Stalin, and decries the seperation from the people and beurocracy that caused the worst troubles during Mao's government.

Also, there are countries which were feudal and industrial at the same time (and didn't need communism to go from an agricultural economy to an industrialized economy) like Japan for instance.

Ah yes, Feudal Japan. The country that was invaded by American naval forces, forced to open its borders, and then dragged into a chaotic civil war that set up a rabidly nationalistic expansionist government that sought war with all three modern superpowers (Russia, China and the US). Thank god they didnt try communism!

No, the transition that Japan made from an agricultural economy into an industrialized economy means that the argument "at least Communism industrialized the country" is stupid.

Japan's transition occured because of massive foreign investment and interference, which led to nationalism, which led to fascism. Communism lets the government invest in its own industries so that the country can industrialize and grow without being dependent upon foreign interests.

And even if Communism was the only way to industrialize a country there is still the fact that (the pursuit of) Communism has led to the deaths of millions of people. In my opinion killing/starving millions of people wasn't worth industrializing Russia or China.

Communist industrialization does not have to involve mass killings and starvation. And it's pretty well understood that any time a country makes the leap from agrarian to industrialized society, there is going to be some kind of trouble. However industrialization makes the people of a country more secure against famine and crop failure, because they can now export finished products and import food in exchange. Thus rapid industrialization helps protect people from starvation, and by keeping the profits within the country rather than sending them out to foreign investors, it enriches the lives of the people and pays for things such as medical and child care which were formerly unheard of. Contrast this with the capitalist/neo colonial sort of industrialization. Which itself will result in malnutrition, starvation, exploitation, police repression, and of course the sending of profits overseas leaving the natives in the same situation they were in before or worse, so that the matter of industrialization is pointless.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 14 September 2008 - 06:40 PM

[Deucaon]

You're taking the whole Red Army thing too literally. And you could say the same for any other form of government. Marx's ideals had nothing to do with dying people, horrendously or otherwise. And not all Marxists have killed political opponents excessively. Indeed Marxism specificly is against the kind of personality cult and factionalism that led to Stalin, and decries the seperation from the people and beurocracy that caused the worst troubles during Mao's government.

So how did Marx think the working class would "deal" with the non working class? Did he actually believe that nationalizing everything and reducing private initiative by taking away a person's ability to buy things would lead to an increase of productivity?

Ah yes, Feudal Japan. The country that was invaded by American naval forces, forced to open its borders, and then dragged into a chaotic civil war that set up a rabidly nationalistic expansionist government that sought war with all three modern superpowers (Russia, China and the US). Thank god they didnt try communism!

So a country with a purely agricultural economy managed to industrialize and challenge the largest industrial power in the world... ALL WITHOUT KILLING MILLIONS OF ITS OWN CITIZENS!

The thought it shocking.

Japan's transition occured because of massive foreign investment and interference, which led to nationalism, which led to fascism. Communism lets the government invest in its own industries so that the country can industrialize and grow without being dependent upon foreign interests.

If foreign interference = trading and exchanging economic ideals with foreigners then yes, I suppose there was "foreign interference."

However industrialization makes the people of a country more secure against famine and crop failure, because they can now export finished products and import food in exchange. Thus rapid industrialization helps protect people from starvation, and by keeping the profits within the country rather than sending them out to foreign investors, it enriches the lives of the people and pays for things such as medical and child care which were formerly unheard of.

I suppose its easy for a country like the USSR to export more things when they can pay the workers next to nothing and not feed them. Unfortunately the only time the USSR produced more then demand (in weapons mind you, not food or other living commodities) was during WW2 so unless the Communist country is constantly mobilized it cannot be productive.

Contrast this with the capitalist/neo colonial sort of industrialization. Which itself will result in malnutrition, starvation, exploitation, police repression, and of course the sending of profits overseas leaving the natives in the same situation they were in before or worse, so that the matter of industrialization is pointless.

I didn't know people in America starved... it really looks like they eat too much over there. And it seems to me that people in America can say what they wish in contrast to a Communist system of government like China or North Korea were you get thrown in prison or worse by looking at a picture.

But SRSLY...

Communism = Malnutrition, starvation, exploitation and police repression.

In the USSR the only way the Commies managed to feed the people in the cities was be enforcing a thing called Holodomor and in China the only way they managed to feed people was by eating people.

Then there are Communist countries like North Korea, Cambodia, Romania and such where they couldn't even produce enough food to stay above the starvation levels (or weren't prepared to eat other people.)

[J m HofMarN]

So how did Marx think the working class would "deal" with the non working class? Did he actually believe that nationalizing everything and reducing private initiative by taking away a person's ability to buy things would lead to an increase of productivity?

The former ruling class would be, as you yourself said, "dealt" with. That's the necessary policy of any revolution. And the fundamental goal of communism is not an increase in productivity. You have a capitalist's understanding of Socialism. And no, communism does not prevent people from buying things.

So a country with a purely agricultural economy managed to industrialize and challenge the largest industrial power in the world... ALL WITHOUT KILLING MILLIONS OF ITS OWN CITIZENS!

Yes, I would say plenty of Japanese died thanks to the way they industrialized between the various wars, both civilian and military casualties certainly made their industrialization as costly per capita as that of Russia or China. Did millions die? Somehow I doubt it, just because Japan wasnt as big a country as the other two mentioned.

If foreign interference = trading and exchanging economic ideals with foreigners then yes, I suppose there was "foreign interference."

Japan was forbidden territory for a long time, to preserve their feudal way of life, until the US navy literally blasted its way into Tokyo bay. I consider a naval invasion to be interference.

I suppose its easy for a country like the USSR to export more things when they can pay the workers next to nothing and not feed them.

Payment was reduced because more was provided for the workers free of charge. Also, you continuously point out the prevalence of famine in communist countries without ever bothering to mention that starvation is just as possible under capitalism. For instance, the starvation that led to the French revolution, the Ethiopian famine, the food shortages in the Southern states during the civil war, the starvation of people during America's dustbowl, etc etc. The chief reason that Communist famines are pointed out more often is one that those governments have fallen and two that they are communist, and their flaws must be repeatedly made note of.

I didn't know people in America starved... it really looks like they eat too much over there. And it seems to me that people in America can say what they wish in contrast to a Communist system of government like China or North Korea were you get thrown in prison or worse by looking at a picture.

Capitalist societies generally do not have general food shortages, but those at the bottom of society are frequently short of food. This was especially serious during the dust bowl and during the first push towards industrialization in the mid eighteen hundreds. Labor costs became so low that child labor became the norm and many workers were forced to work in indecent conditions or starve. And yes, people did starve. We must also count deaths resultant of malnutrition which, while not actual starvation, are still from the same cause.

Communism = Malnutrition, starvation, exploitation and police repression.

Ok, then Capitalism = War, imperialism, exploitation, police repression and government corruption.

In the USSR the only way the Commies managed to feed the people in the cities was be enforcing a thing called Holodomor and in China the only way they managed to feed people was by eating people.

The Holodomor site makes it clear that outside sources are given secondary consideration to those from the Ukraine, the country that is interested in expounding on this event. Also, that's just the website of people who want to prove it happened, and talk about how much they like doing so. They dont offer any actual proof.

As for the china cannibalism book, the reviewer states pretty clearly that the guy needs to cite sources. And the Chinese government did not feed people other people, so you can get that inference right out of here, no where in the book does it make such a claim. Yes, Mao's silly plan did indeed cause a massive famine. I have read some of Mao's writings, and the guy seemed rational enough. He attempted too much, too soon. And of course many of the communist advisers he had were Stalinists, so I think many of his ideas were tainted by those of Stalin. I disavow the both of them, to be honest. Lenin, Castro, Minh, these were the closest leaders to real communists in my view.

North Korea and Cambodia were/are both maoist-stalinist satellite states of China governed quite similiarly. And the Vietminh, a communist group, took care of the Cambodian government well enough. Romania's rationing was the result of Ceacescu struggling to repay loans he foolishly took from Capitlist countries. That does not excuse his poor leadership, but such can hardly be blamed on communist dogma.

I'd still like to know how you think Ayn Rand is better compared to Marx.