The huge appeal of Ayn Rand in the US....

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1697-CelebRandFans.aspx

It makes a lot of sense as to the political climate in our country and the connection it has with people at the top when you see that the favorite book of the upper crust is anything written by that vile woman Ayn Rand.

It seems like a host of Hollywood Celebs, business moguls, sports stars, etc love Ayn Rand like she is some sort of new age guru.

Everyone from Vince Vaughn to Rush Limbaugh to Mark Cuban loves this odious woman and her philosophy. What is the major appeal here? Does it say more about their personalities than the philosophy itself?

[Hit The North]

When giant intellects like Vince Vaughn endorse Rand, we know its all over! :D

It's weird, and says a lot about the entrenched ideology of individualism which pervade the United Staes, that I doubt there's any other country in the world where Rand is taken at all seriously.

[RadioRaheem84]

When giant intellects like Vince Vaughn endorse Rand, we know its all over! :D

It's weird, and says a lot about the entrenched ideology of individualism which pervade the United Staes, that I doubt there's any other country in the world where Rand is taken at all seriously.


Well of course, the article also explains Rand's hold on politicians, businessmen and people who do matter other than celebrities.

But Rand had her biggest success in the United States. The US loves Rand and libertarian philosophy. There has always been an entrenched individualist ideology that makes people think of themselves as greater than others. Rand amplified that to the tenth degree and leeched off of the American culture.

This is why I think that the US will be hard to win over because of the rampant right libertarian leanings.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, as Marx said, the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class, and Rand's traditional approach to philosophy (which treats it as a sort of super-science, able to penetrate to a hidden world behind appearances, accessing fundamental 'truth's about reality from thought alone) is just one form of this parasitic thought-form.

Dialectics is another...

[Tzadikim]

Which is why our goal ought to be to appropriate libertarianism and ground it in its historical - left-winged - discourse if we are to seriously think about winning over the American working-class.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^In other words, we fight these ruling-class hacks by copying them??!!

Ideas won't break workers from the sort of 'liberal capitalism' one sees in the USA, unless we all become idealists.

[Tzadikim]

^^^In other words, we fight these ruling-class hacks by copying them??!!

Ideas won't break workers from the sort of 'liberal capitalism' one sees in the USA, unless we all become idealists.

Not merely ideas.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-plan-and-t128210/index.html

"A car in every garage and a printer in every home!" ought to be our motto.

It's not merely the bourgeoisie which believes in individualism; in fact, many of them are too jaded to take it all that seriously. It's the working classes which have often seriously adopted its tenets, and I think it's more idealistic to hold forth a true ideal of Communism than to adapt according to the actual material conditions of the class.

[Comrade Anarchist]

The reason she is so popular is because she clearly articulates through good books the dangers of collectivism. She is right in many ways b/c people in society should be rewarded based on what they give not what they need. A janitor should not be payed more than a scientist. She is also correct on the welfare state and income tax and a lot of things. Nobody should ever get anything that they do not earn and you can use this argument against the state and modern day capitalists. The reason leftists don't except her is b/c she saw capitalism as the the only individualistic society while most leftists see it as selfish and disgusting. Society should be based on individuals voluntarily putting into society, not the forced society that leftists advocate. She knew that from experience so SHUT THE FUCK UP about rand and look to see that she worked for the individual not for the oppressive collective regimes that have existed and that you advocate for.

[Nolan]

The reason she is so popular is because she clearly articulates through good books the dangers of collectivism. She is right in many ways b/c people in society should be rewarded based on what they give not what they need. A janitor should not be payed more than a scientist. She is also correct on the welfare state and income tax and a lot of things. Nobody should ever get anything that they do not earn and you can use this argument against the state and modern day capitalists. The reason leftists don't except her is b/c she saw capitalism as the the only individualistic society while most leftists see it as selfish and disgusting. Society should be based on individuals voluntarily putting into society, not the forced society that leftists advocate. She knew that from experience so SHUT THE FUCK UP about rand and look to see that she worked for the individual not for the oppressive collective regimes that have existed and that you advocate for.

Cool story bro

So youre a randroid now? :lol:

[Tzadikim]

The reason she is so popular is because she clearly articulates through good books the dangers of collectivism. She is right in many ways b/c people in society should be rewarded based on what they give not what they need. A janitor should not be payed more than a scientist. She is also correct on the welfare state and income tax and a lot of things. Nobody should ever get anything that they do not earn and you can use this argument against the state and modern day capitalists. The reason leftists don't except her is b/c she saw capitalism as the the only individualistic society while most leftists see it as selfish and disgusting. Society should be based on individuals voluntarily putting into society, not the forced society that leftists advocate. She knew that from experience so SHUT THE FUCK UP about rand and look to see that she worked for the individual not for the oppressive collective regimes that have existed and that you advocate for.

I really don't disagree with you. Rand's error, however, lies in presuming that capitalism is remotely individualistic: it is not. Genuine individualism is that state of being wherein the individual has control over most or all of the content of his life; this includes his productions. Only when the man owns his tools does he own himself.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The reason she is so popular is because she clearly articulates through good books the dangers of collectivism. She is right in many ways b/c people in society should be rewarded based on what they give not what they need. A janitor should not be payed more than a scientist. She is also correct on the welfare state and income tax and a lot of things. Nobody should ever get anything that they do not earn and you can use this argument against the state and modern day capitalists. The reason leftists don't except her is b/c she saw capitalism as the the only individualistic society while most leftists see it as selfish and disgusting. Society should be based on individuals voluntarily putting into society, not the forced society that leftists advocate. She knew that from experience so SHUT THE FUCK UP about rand and look to see that she worked for the individual not for the oppressive collective regimes that have existed and that you advocate for.

lolwhat?

[RadioRaheem84]

The reason she is so popular is because she clearly articulates through good books the dangers of collectivism. She is right in many ways b/c people in society should be rewarded based on what they give not what they need. A janitor should not be payed more than a scientist. She is also correct on the welfare state and income tax and a lot of things. Nobody should ever get anything that they do not earn and you can use this argument against the state and modern day capitalists. The reason leftists don't except her is b/c she saw capitalism as the the only individualistic society while most leftists see it as selfish and disgusting. Society should be based on individuals voluntarily putting into society, not the forced society that leftists advocate. She knew that from experience so SHUT THE FUCK UP about rand and look to see that she worked for the individual not for the oppressive collective regimes that have existed and that you advocate for.


:lol: Where did you drag all that shit out from? Look, if your ass is full of that drivel than you really shouldn't be pulling it out to use it as fodder against me. The welfare state resulted in gains for the working class. While I don't see them as a means to an end, the reduction of long working hours, a pension, universal health care and the repeal of child labor laws was a good thing.

And you don't see capitalism as coercive at all? Rand worked to give an oppressive collective class of capitalists the philosophical (shoddy I might add) foundation and justification for their "achievements". So get the fuck outta here with that Randian BS. What are you doing on revleft thinking like that anyways?

[Nolan]

:lol: Where did you drag all that shit out from? Look, if your ass is full of that drivel than you really shouldn't be pulling it out to use it as fodder against me. The welfare state resulted in gains for the working class. While I don't see them as a means to an end, the reduction of long working hours, a pension, universal health care and the repeal of child labor laws was a good thing.

And you don't see capitalism as coercive at all? Rand worked to give an oppressive collective of capitalists the philosophical (shoddy I might add) foundation for their "acheivement". So get the fuck outta here with that Randian BS. What are you doing on revleft thinking like that anyways?

What did you think "egoist communist" meant? :lol:

[Tzadikim]

Let's actually focus on the chief issue: the widespread belief, among the working-classes of America, in the doctrine of individualism.

I do not believe the working-classes have adopted this in bad faith; they sincerely believe in it, even if those who preach it to them do not. Accordingly, if materialists we actually are, and we recognize that this is the essential character of the classes we say we are for, then we will alter our rhetoric to suit.

I myself am an individualist, in that I believe all men have the right to determine their own destiny. I do not believe this is attainable under liberal capitalism -- an alternative is needed.

[RadioRaheem84]

Let's actually focus on the chief issue: the widespread belief, among the working-classes of America, in the doctrine of individualism.

I do not believe the working-classes have adopted this in bad faith; they sincerely believe in it, even if those who preach it to them do not. Accordingly, if materialists we actually are, and we recognize that this is the essential character of the classes we say we are for, then we will alter our rhetoric to suit.

I myself am an individualist, in that I believe all men have the right to determine their own destiny. I do not believe this is attainable under liberal capitalism -- an alternative is needed.

Very true. The working classes very much identify with individualism. This is both a good and a bad thing because it opens up the doors for the ruling class to have the working class see them as the culmination of true individual liberty.

I had always thought that US would be a wonderful place where Libertarian Socialist ideals could take root. It seems really to me, as Chomsky point out as well, the culmination in a long tradition of classical liberal values.

[Tzadikim]

Very true. The working classes very much identify with individualism. This is both a good and a bad thing because it opens up the doors for the ruling class to have the working class see them as the culmination of true individual liberty.

I had always thought that US would be a wonderful place where Libertarian Socialist ideals could take root. It seems really to me, as Chomsky point out as well, the culmination in a long tradition of classical liberal values.

The reason that Libertarian Socialism has failed in the U.S. has, I feel, roots in the Progressive Era: modern "American liberalism", which began as a reaction against the bourgeois State, eventually morphed into some capitalistic strain of social-democracy, naturally dividing those on the Left who opposed both capitalism and the State. Murray Rothbard - one of the few ancaps I admire - goes into this phenomenon in some detail in his Betrayal of the American Right:


Individualism, and its economic corollary laissez-faire liberalism, have not always taken on a conservative hue, has not always functioned, as it often does today, as an apologist for the status quo. On the contrary, the Revolution of modern times was originally, and continued for a long time to be, laissez-faire individualists. Its purpose was to free the individual person from the restrictions and the shackles, the encrusted caste privileges and exploitative wars, of the feudalist and mercantilist orders, of the Tory ancien régime.He then goes on to lament this change:

By the advent of World War I, however, the death of the older laissez-faire generation threw the leadership of the opposition to America's imperial wars into the hands of the Socialist Party. But other, more individualist-minded men joined in the opposition, many of whom would later form the core of the isolationist Old Right of the late 1930s. Thus, the hardcore anti-war leaders included the individualist Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin and such laissez-faire liberals as Senators William E. Borah (Republican) of Idaho and James A. Reed (Democrat) of Missouri. It also included Charles A. Lindburgh, Sr., father of the Lone Eagle, who was a congressman from Minnesota.We dialectical materialists understand this well enough; it represents the passing into reactionism of the old classical liberalism. But we would do well to hearken to this spirit if we want to revive the prospects for revolution in this nation.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well Rothbard did sing praises to Che Guevara after this death, so I guess I can take his word for it. JK, I likewise have a right libertarian I admire if only to understand compelling opposing ideas; Thomas Sowell.

But back to the topic: In a sense, Rothbard is right. Conservatives weren't always reactionary and apologists for the status quo. A lot of them were staunch anti-war advocates and the main leaders of the anti-war campaign today are libertarians like Lew Rockwell and Juan Cole.
But, their defense of the indivudual and his freedom is as far as they go as they staunchly defend the capitalist system too. Left Libertarianism never did that, in fact it largely opposed capitalism because it was against individualism. So it doesn't pain me to see their demise due to the rise of Progressivism. What pains me is that the capitalist strain of social democracy was conflated with socialism and thus ever since socialism cannot shake off the state! Libertarian Socialism today seems like such a contradiction but is really one of the most rational ideologies out there

[Comrade Anarchist]

:lol: Where did you drag all that shit out from? Look, if your ass is full of that drivel than you really shouldn't be pulling it out to use it as fodder against me. The welfare state resulted in gains for the working class. While I don't see them as a means to an end, the reduction of long working hours, a pension, universal health care and the repeal of child labor laws was a good thing.

And you don't see capitalism as coercive at all? Rand worked to give an oppressive collective class of capitalists the philosophical (shoddy I might add) foundation and justification for their "achievements". So get the fuck outta here with that Randian BS. What are you doing on revleft thinking like that anyways?

How can the individual have any control over his life in a society where he has to answer to his brother, his commune, the greater good of society. The welfare state allowed people who do not wish to work hard yet want all the profits that come from working hard exist. It babysits us so that we do not have to do anything and we surrender all our rights to it. Rand advocated a form of capitalism where the everyone worked to their fullest ability for themselves and they were rewarded as such not what we have today. Many leftists call the ussr, cuba, and etc state capitalist but what it means to capitalists is when corporations use the state's power to influence the free market crushing competition and such. Rand was against that and that is what our society of evolved into. She would look at today's capitalists and shit on their faces. Benefits should be given by companies to employees based on their work input this includes the top of the company. Child labor should not factor into this at all. Companies shouldn't hire kids and if they do then customers don't have to buy from these companies so the company fails and is punished for hiring kids (The free market).

You on the other hand say she gave the oppressive capitalists a foundation for their achievements, yet you believe we ought to create an oppressive collective that destroys individual thought and rapes the human mind of its reason for the benefit of all. You may love to have your mind raped for the benefit of a bunch of lazy fucks so go ahead. I'll work for my own benefit and if others benefit then so be it, but i will not kill myself for your empty oppressive collective future.

[Tzadikim]

Well Rothbard did sing praises to Che Guevara after this death, so I guess I can take his word for it. JK, I likewise have a right libertarian I admire if only to understand compelling opposing ideas; Thomas Sowell.

But back to the topic: In a sense, Rothbard is right. Conservatives weren't always reactionary and apologists for the status quo. A lot of them were staunch anti-war advocates and the main leaders of the anti-war campaign today are libertarians like Lew Rockwell and Juan Cole.
But, their defense of the indivudual and his freedom is as far as they go as they staunchly defend the capitalist system too. Left Libertarianism never did that, in fact it largely opposed capitalism because it was against individualism. So it doesn't pain me to see their demise due to the rise of Progressivism. What pains me is that the capitalist strain of social democracy was conflated with socialism and thus ever since socialism cannot shake off the state! Libertarian Socialism today seems like such a contradiction but is really one of the most rational ideologies out there

Precisely.

This is, essentially, my line of thought - any honest libertarian, who is genuinely and deeply committed to individualism, must at a minimum agree with us on all those pesky social issues -- he will oppose State attempts to regulate human sexuality, he will be pro-choice (after all, what form of property is more immediate than the human body?), he will oppose the War on Drugs, and so forth.

There is an essential divide on the Right between the honest and earnest libertarians and their less coherent allies, particularly the militarists and the Religious Right. If we can divorce libertarianism from the political Right, and re-introduce them to their historical heritage which is Libertarian Socialism, and, most importantly, find libertarian (non-Statist) ways of re-distributing the physical means of production, then we will have won a great victory while sacrificing nothing.

[Nolan]

How can the individual have any control over his life in a society where he has to answer to his brother, his commune, the greater good of society. The welfare state allowed people who do not wish to work hard yet want all the profits that come from working hard exist. It babysits us so that we do not have to do anything and we surrender all our rights to it. Rand advocated a form of capitalism where the everyone worked to their fullest ability for themselves and they were rewarded as such not what we have today. Many leftists call the ussr, cuba, and etc state capitalist but what it means to capitalists is when corporations use the state's power to influence the free market crushing competition and such. Rand was against that and that is what our society of evolved into. She would look at today's capitalists and shit on their faces. Benefits should be given by companies to employees based on their work input this includes the top of the company. Child labor should not factor into this at all. Companies shouldn't hire kids and if they do then customers don't have to buy from these companies so the company fails and is punished for hiring kids (The free market).

You on the other hand say she gave the oppressive capitalists a foundation for their achievements, yet you believe we ought to create an oppressive collective that destroys individual thought and rapes the human mind of its reason for the benefit of all. You may love to have your mind raped for the benefit of a bunch of lazy fucks so go ahead. I'll work for my own benefit and if others benefit then so be it, but i will not kill myself for your empty oppressive collective future.

That is the biggest strawman ever. No Socialist wants a welfare state, and no Socialist wants to destroy individual thought. Welfare hurts the proletariat most of the time. In a "free market," companies could get away with child labor and worker abuse.

You're so full of shit. Go away.

[Tzadikim]

That is the biggest strawman ever. No Socialist wants a welfare state, and no Socialist wants to destroy individual thought. Welfare hurts the proletariat most of the time. In a "free market," companies could get away with child labor and worker abuse.

You're so full of shit. Go away.

You're both strawmanning the Hell out of each other.

Protip: your mutual positions are not mutually incompatible.

[RadioRaheem84]

How can the individual have any control over his life in a society where he has to answer to his brother, his commune, the greater good of society. The welfare state allowed people who do not wish to work hard yet want all the profits that come from working hard exist. It babysits us so that we do not have to do anything and we surrender all our rights to it. Rand advocated a form of capitalism where the everyone worked to their fullest ability for themselves and they were rewarded as such not what we have today. Many leftists call the ussr, cuba, and etc state capitalist but what it means to capitalists is when corporations use the state's power to influence the free market crushing competition and such. Rand was against that and that is what our society of evolved into. She would look at today's capitalists and shit on their faces. Benefits should be given by companies to employees based on their work input this includes the top of the company. Child labor should not factor into this at all. Companies shouldn't hire kids and if they do then customers don't have to buy from these companies so the company fails and is punished for hiring kids (The free market).

You on the other hand say she gave the oppressive capitalists a foundation for their achievements, yet you believe we ought to create an oppressive collective that destroys individual thought and rapes the human mind of its reason for the benefit of all. You may love to have your mind raped for the benefit of a bunch of lazy fucks so go ahead. I'll work for my own benefit and if others benefit then so be it, but i will not kill myself for your empty oppressive collective future.

Holy shit! Oh, no you didn't!

OK first off, Rand's philosophy advocated a form of capitalism that doesn't exist and will never exist. Capitalism, the free market, whatever you want to call it will always favor the most self interested and you think that the belief in fair, open, competition is going to stop their self interests? If child labor benefits a capitalist (and it does in the third world) then so be it and no amount of Randian jaberwocky about individualism is going to stop him and ironically neither does the state that favors industrialists. And don't give me that BS about customers having the right to "vote" with their consumer choices. If one capitalist uses sweatshop labor then they will eventually all use it or be beaten out by the competition, leaving little room for us to choose between products that that don't use sweatshop labor.
Why is it that we've eliminated child labor here in the US? Was it because the rational individual capitalist with the heart of gold decided to appeal to the state to end it? NO, it was because the working class people rose up and fought for the social benefits that you hate.

If anyone is lazy its you for being intellectually lazy to not see all of the holes in your philosophy. Randians and Right Libertarians leave out a host of issues that don't even register in their little minds in favor of hollow faux individualist ideology.

[RadioRaheem84]

You're both strawmanning the Hell out of each other.

Protip: your mutual positions are not mutually incompatible.


Well, Tzadkim this is your chance to show us how we can reconcile these two hostile camps.

[Tzadikim]

Well, Tzadkim this is your chance to show us how we can reconcile these two hostile camps.

If the stated end game of Marxism is abolition of the State - not merely the abolition of the bourgeois State, but the utter eradication of all mechanisms of coercive control - then the two need no reconciliation; they mutually benefit one another.

If it is acknowledged that the social-democratic welfare State has the effect of numbing the worker to class consciousness and deadening his need for productive, revolutionary action, then whatever harms the State is desirous, indeed more, essential. As long as the worker operates under the illusion that conditions can never worsen to the point that revolution is necessary - that is, so long as he believes the bourgeois "civil State" will leap to his rescue at the end - then he will have no motivation to take an honest look at his situation.

The bourgeois and the State are not, in point of fact, mutually antagonistic; they service each other; they are the same entity. What must be built therefore is a movement opposed to both - and to the same, one which does not rely on the State for anything, but can instead grant to the workers the self-sufficiency which any independent action is predicated upon. We ought to construct our own economy, directly competing that with the bourgeois and which has the express purpose of undermining it. This we cannot do under the thrall of a reactionary State.

[Hit The North]

A janitor should not be payed more than a scientist.

Why not? The scientist may be performing labour which is useless, or even harmful, to society.


She is also correct on the welfare state and income tax and a lot of things. Nobody should ever get anything that they do not earn and you can use this argument against the state and modern day capitalists.
So someone incapable of contributing to society does not deserve welfare? You're disgusting!

[RadioRaheem84]

I can agree with you most of your points but you're missing the fact that the Right Libertarians sees it from the individual point of view of the capitalist. Our position sees it from the individual point of view from the exploited worker. The two positions are always going to be antagonistic. They want to maximize the gains for their particular class, I don't care how much they rave about individualism. We want to maximize the gains of the workers. The only thing we have in common is that we both hate the state, yet as of late it "coincidentally" benefits the capitalists.

Right Libertarianism, as Chomsky noted, is total totalitarian control over the population. It's apologizing for the worst forms of private tyranny. There is no reconciliation needed.

[Hit The North]

Our position sees it from the individual point of view from the exploited worker.

No, we see it from the collective point of view of the working class.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, we see it from the collective point of view of the working class.

Ah, right.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is Comrade Anarchist an Anarcho-Capitalist?

[Tzadikim]

No, we see it from the collective point of view of the working class.

Depends on what sort of Leftist you are. I do not think total collectivism has as of yet benefited the workers.

[RadioRaheem84]

Depends on what sort of Leftist you are. I do not think total collectivism has as of yet benefited the workers.

Collective as in the State?

[Tzadikim]

Collective as in the State?

Yes. I distinguish between communalism and collectivism. The former is what we aim for; the latter is a pitfall to avoid.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Well, as Marx said, the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class, and Rand's traditional approach to philosophy (which treats it as a sort of super-science, able to penetrate to a hidden world behind appearances, accessing fundamental 'truth's about reality from thought alone) is just one form of this parasitic thought-form.

Dialectics is another...

Rand doesn't follow a traditional approach to philosophy. Academic philosophy doesn't take her seriously and usually resents that she is considered a philosopher. The same is true for political theorists objecting to her classification as a political theorist. Ayn Rand is utter nonsense. I know you dislike philosophy, but associating Rand with the typical philosopher is a straw man.

Also, when you talk about truths "derived from thought alone," what exactly are you referring to? Are you referring to a priori reasoning, specifically, or something else?

The modern conception of a priori reasoning allows for premises that are established by experience. Or are you referring to synthetic a priori statements?

[syndicat]

How can the individual have any control over his life in a society where he has to answer to his brother, his commune, the greater good of society.

Okay, so we'll let you be forced to work for peanuts when you're desperate.

The working class can't liberate itself from subordination to the bosses without solidarity. Solidarity means we're all in the struggle together. So why suppose that some are supposed to end up on top or get more?



The welfare state allowed people who do not wish to work hard yet want all the profits that come from working hard exist.

your sentence here makes no sense. it's the capitalists who exploit our labor who want us to work hard. the harder we work for a given level of wages, the more profit THEY make.



It babysits us so that we do not have to do anything and we surrender all our rights to it. Rand advocated a form of capitalism where the everyone worked to their fullest ability for themselves and they were rewarded as such not what we have today.

No she did not. She advocated a system where you're "rewarded" only as much as you have the power to grab. Rand's philosophy is a power philosophy. Within capitalism the capitalists have more power and grab more...and capitalist property income is not predicated on "hard work." Most of the wealthy capitalists started out with inherited fortunres. If you own billions, you can get income from your assets even if you do no work at all. Meanwhile, people slave away working crazy hard in meatpacking plants or as janitors for peanuts.



Many leftists call the ussr, cuba, and etc state capitalist but what it means to capitalists is when corporations use the state's power to influence the free market crushing competition and such. Rand was against that and that is what our society of evolved into.

Not really. She wasn't some sort of crusader for anti-trust laws, if that's what you're saying.



She would look at today's capitalists and shit on their faces. Benefits should be given by companies to employees based on their work input this includes the top of the company.

Not according to Rand. She didn't advocate remuneration based on how hard you work. If that were the criterion, as I pointed out, workers in meatpacking plants and auto factories would make a lot more than lawyers or surgeons who are on the golf course by 3 am.

And what is this "doctrine of individualism" people are talking about here.

[RadioRaheem84]

SNAP! syndicat, good post.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


Rand doesn't follow a traditional approach to philosophy. Academic philosophy doesn't take her seriously and usually resents that she is considered a philosopher. The same is true for political theorists objecting to her classification as a political theorist. Ayn Rand is utter nonsense. I know you dislike philosophy, but associating Rand with the typical philosopher is a straw man.

Well, it seems to me that you are the expert Straw Man constructer here; where did I say her ideas were accepted by academic philosophers? To do philosophy in the traditional manner does not imply that anyone will take it seriously. What it does mean is that the theorist in question seeks to derive fundamental truths about reality from thought alone, and that is certainly what Rand does.

Rand's work is indeed utter non-sense, but then so is Descartes'; his work is just more sophisticated utter non-sense.


Also, when you talk about truths "derived from thought alone," what exactly are you referring to? Are you referring to a priori reasoning, specifically, or something else?

Well, I gave you some examples of this a few months back; check it out again:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-t105849/index.html?p=1408653#post1408653

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1596520&postcount=20


The modern conception of a priori reasoning allows for premises that are established by experience. Or are you referring to synthetic a priori statements?

If you are referring to Kripke's work, then his arguments are defective. We can perhaps discuss this another time.

But, even if you were right, this would not affect my point about traditional philosophy, or about Rand.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tzadikim:


It's not merely the bourgeoisie which believes in individualism; in fact, many of them are too jaded to take it all that seriously. It's the working classes which have often seriously adopted its tenets, and I think it's more idealistic to hold forth a true ideal of Communism than to adapt according to the actual material conditions of the class.

But, those "material conditions" will not be changed/broken by mere propaganda, even if you are right in what you say about US workers.

But, I deny that the US working class is as you say; US workers, like workers everywhere, hold contradictory beliefs -- they support collective solutions to the 'ills of society' and they have swallowed some of the individualist ideas the media constantly pump out. However, in struggle, they break from the latter (they have to or they lose), or they can be broken from them.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Given that Rand's ideology is all about feeling superior to the unwashed masses, it's not really surprising that she is embraced by those people most likely to be full of hubris and delusions of grandeur: celebrities.

[Hit The North]

Depends on what sort of Leftist you are. I do not think total collectivism has as of yet benefited the workers.

What "total collectivism" are you talking about?

Besides, you misconstrue my meaning, which was that, as Marxists, we proceed from the collective point of view of the entire class, not from the point of view of individual workers. If we did that, we'd be in a theoretical mess, having to accommodate the competing and contradictory interests of individual workers. It would lead to a morass of relativism.

For instance, if you ran a strike but did not enforce it through pickets, on the basis that individual workers has the right to pursue their private interest, then you would never run a strike which won.

[khad]

The reason she is so popular is because she clearly articulates through good books the dangers of collectivism. She is right in many ways b/c people in society should be rewarded based on what they give not what they need. A janitor should not be payed more than a scientist. She is also correct on the welfare state and income tax and a lot of things. Nobody should ever get anything that they do not earn and you can use this argument against the state and modern day capitalists. The reason leftists don't except her is b/c she saw capitalism as the the only individualistic society while most leftists see it as selfish and disgusting. Society should be based on individuals voluntarily putting into society, not the forced society that leftists advocate. She knew that from experience so SHUT THE FUCK UP about rand and look to see that she worked for the individual not for the oppressive collective regimes that have existed and that you advocate for.
Why don't you shut the fuck up? People put up with enough screeching rightwing shitheads without having to listen to you too.

[RadioRaheem84]

What "total collectivism" are you talking about?

Besides, you misconstrue my meaning, which was that, as Marxists, we proceed from the collective point of view of the entire class, not from the point of view of individual workers. If we did that, we'd be in a theoretical mess, having to accommodate the competing and contradictory interests of individual workers. It would lead to a morass of relativism.

For instance, if you ran a strike but did not enforce it through pickets, on the basis that individual workers has the right to pursue their private interest, then you would never run a strike which won.


A friend of mine noted one time, that Libertarians see the individual in an abstract way; the individual does this, the individual is this and that. While the Marxist sees the collective in the abstract; the people/workers want this, they do this and they do that.

Would you guys say this is true?

[cb9's_unity]

I know this has been here for a while, but this some really explicit contradictions that I need to point out. If only for Comrade Anarchist himself.


How can the individual have any control over his life in a society where he has to answer to his brother, his commune, the greater good of society. The welfare state allowed people who do not wish to work hard yet want all the profits that come from working hard exist. It babysits us so that we do not have to do anything and we surrender all our rights to it. Rand advocated a form of capitalism where the everyone worked to their fullest ability for themselves and they were rewarded as such not what we have today. Many leftists call the ussr, cuba, and etc state capitalist but what it means to capitalists is when corporations use the state's power to influence the free market crushing competition and such. Rand was against that and that is what our society of evolved into. She would look at today's capitalists and shit on their faces. Benefits should be given by companies to employees based on their work input this includes the top of the company. Child labor should not factor into this at all. Companies shouldn't hire kids and if they do then customers don't have to buy from these companies so the company fails and is punished for hiring kids (The free market).

Isn't it interesting how your brand of extremist individualism relies so much on morals. What makes you think people won't buy from capitalists if they use child labor? How can one possibly think of themselves if they spend all of their time thinking about those lazy kids who are loosing arms in mills? To a certain extent people would have to have thoughts on the greater good in order to refrain from buying products produced by child labor. Furthermore, assuming people actually care about child labor, there is not a great chance that the capitalists will disclose the information that they are using child labor. And with no government oversight they'll probably be able to get away with it quite easily (that is unless people think of the 'greater good' and spend time and money trying to find if child labor is being used).

You want to say 'the capitalists should do this and that', but in an ancap society the capitalist won't give a fuck about what you say. Rand could shit on their faces all she wants, but the only words that talk will be profit.


You on the other hand say she gave the oppressive capitalists a foundation for their achievements, yet you believe we ought to create an oppressive collective that destroys individual thought and rapes the human mind of its reason for the benefit of all. You may love to have your mind raped for the benefit of a bunch of lazy fucks so go ahead. I'll work for my own benefit and if others benefit then so be it, but i will not kill myself for your empty oppressive collective future.Putting a lot of words in our mouths aren't you. Your so blind as to believe that oppression can only come from the government. You have also based your beliefs on your confusion between the welfare state and the socialist one. 'From each according to his ability' is a basic communist creed, so is 'to each according to his contribution'. We don't believe in laziness, don't blame the failure of capitalist welfare states on us. I want a society where people are actually expected to put work into the community, I'm tired of a society where Paris Hilton can become rich for being born rich. Individualism and capitalism are driven by profit and income, human decency is easily forgotten when it comes into conflict with either of those.

You must realize that oppression can come from many different sources, the government is only one. In the right circumstances the individual can oppress just as much of the government. When a person determines when your work and what your work for, they are in just as much in a position to oppress as anything else. One may be able to move to a different company, but one also can move to a different country or state in today's economy. Either way you won't be able to escape oppression.

Communists call for a collective effort to resist oppression. We reject a system where a handful of people decide our wages, and we reject a system where a whole class oppresses us out of their own self interest. Instead we propose a system where people have the same relation to the means of production, and where any law or action that oppresses one threatens to oppress all. Your 'individualist' system creates a situation where the capitalist benefits from the oppression of the worker.

In essence your system encourages oppression, ours punishes it.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't get the whole right libertarian notion about there being "collective societies". Societies are, perforce collective, and the individualism sold to you in capitalist society by pseudo philosophers is fake.

Do you think just because your material well being is dolled out to you through the medium of little green tickets it makes you an "individual"?



A friend of mine noted one time, that Libertarians see the individual in an abstract way; the individual does this, the individual is this and that. While the Marxist sees the collective in the abstract; the people/workers want this, they do this and they do that.

Would you guys say this is true?

I'd say it's true, but remember some categories make more sense than others because individuals form groups in society for definite material reasons. For instance, it makes no sense to say the Sans Culottes rioted during the French Revolution simply because they wore long pants, there were material reasons for why they lacked knee breeches.

When a Libertarian starts talking about "factions" or "interest groups" they almost have it, but they fail to realize these categories are more than just individuals who happen to share the same ideas.

When Revolutions first occurred people were baffled. Why did Kingdoms and Nation States, which had enjoyed centuries long stability or untroubled births suddenly break down into open conflict? Revolutions always seemed to stop "half way" granting equality before the law, but not in material benefit. Why did the individuals involved suddenly split into different groups, one wanting to push the revolution further and the other wanting it to stop, or even retreat? Why didn't the interests of the initial group remain the same?

Marx gave his opinion and it has been fought every step of the way.

[Revy]

Objectivism just appears to me to be "utopian capitalism".....idealized bourgeois arrogance.

Individualism, as Marx and Einstein were apt to point out, should not be considered capitalistic, that's what they want you to think. The only individualism inherent in Objectivism is bourgeois individualism. It is a misnomer, and we should not accept this false definition, it plays into their wild-eyed strawmen of socialism presented in Rand lit, where individuality is oppressed and people are taught to live as a hive mind.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

How can the individual have any control over his life in a society where he has to answer to his brother, his commune, the greater good of society. The welfare state allowed people who do not wish to work hard yet want all the profits that come from working hard exist. It babysits us so that we do not have to do anything and we surrender all our rights to it. Rand advocated a form of capitalism where the everyone worked to their fullest ability for themselves and they were rewarded as such not what we have today. Many leftists call the ussr, cuba, and etc state capitalist but what it means to capitalists is when corporations use the state's power to influence the free market crushing competition and such. Rand was against that and that is what our society of evolved into. She would look at today's capitalists and shit on their faces. Benefits should be given by companies to employees based on their work input this includes the top of the company. Child labor should not factor into this at all. Companies shouldn't hire kids and if they do then customers don't have to buy from these companies so the company fails and is punished for hiring kids (The free market).

You on the other hand say she gave the oppressive capitalists a foundation for their achievements, yet you believe we ought to create an oppressive collective that destroys individual thought and rapes the human mind of its reason for the benefit of all. You may love to have your mind raped for the benefit of a bunch of lazy fucks so go ahead. I'll work for my own benefit and if others benefit then so be it, but i will not kill myself for your empty oppressive collective future.

Oh noes, the collective!

What exactly do you fear about your "brother" man so much?

And let me get this straight? You are an "individualist", who opposes the destruction of the individual by the "collective", which presumably, according to individualist dogmas, is made up of nothing more than "individuals" itself? So you want to stop the "destruction" and "rape" of some individuals by a larger group of individuals?

Well, okay, I we can all agree that gang rape is wrong. But your metaphysical bollocks about the collective mysteriously oppressing the soul of individuals and the fabric of the freedom itself can go away, because whats the alternative to a culture in which the majority predominates? A culture in which the minority predominates over every other individual...And you call this "individualism?"

[GPDP]

Oh noes, the collective!

What exactly do you fear about your "brother" man so much?

And let me get this straight? You are an "individualist", who opposes the destruction of the individual by the "collective", which presumably, according to individualist dogmas, is made up of nothing more than "individuals" itself? So you want to stop the "destruction" and "rape" of some individuals by a larger group of individuals?

Well, okay, I we can all agree that gang rape is wrong. But your metaphysical bollocks about the collective mysteriously oppressing the soul of individuals and the fabric of the freedom itself can go away, because whats the alternative to a culture in which the majority predominates? A culture in which the minority predominates over every other individual...And you call this "individualism?"

I think this post, particularly what I bolded, goes to the heart of a crucial portion of hyper-individualist dogma. Specifically, the notion that both rule by the minority and the majority are bad, which leads its adherents to advocate some kind of society where there is neither, and only individuals rule over themselves without being coerced by anyone else. A notion which we, of course, find ridiculous, because individuals living in any kind of proximity with others cannot possibly isolate their private lives completely from the influence of their peers and society in general.

Basically, the rule of the individual is little more than a utopian dream sought by individualist fanatics as a "third way" that repudiates minority and majority rule, but in the end winds up giving us minority rule anyway, simply because that's the logical endpoint of a society which rewards selfish gain over the needs of those who live in that society as a whole.

[RED DAVE]

The reason she is so popular is because she clearly articulates through good books the dangers of collectivism.(1) Her books are barely readable. Why would you call them "good"? (2) Her version of "collectivism" (a term that leftists rarely use) is a strawman.


She is right in many ways b/c people in society should be rewarded based on what they give not what they need.Why? Because you say so. Should a paraplegic, who can't work, be rewarded according to what they give?


A janitor should not be payed [sic] more than a scientist.Who says they should? But why shouldn't they be paid more or less the same?


She is also correct on the welfare state and income tax and a lot of things.Please specify why you are espousing these right-wing positions?


Nobody should ever get anything that they do not earnYeah. Send those parasitic rugrats to the mines!


and you can use this argument against the state and modern day capitalists.Yeah, but Rand didn't. She felt that capitalists were the real producers of value: the real earners.


The reason leftists don't except her is b/c she saw capitalism as the the only individualistic society while most leftists see it as selfish and disgusting.Correct for once.


Society should be based on individuals voluntarily putting into society, not the forced society that leftists advocate.There are certainly some people who call themselves leftists who are into coercion. However, it's an infantile disorder. Rand, of course, believed in capitalism, the essence of which is the cercive exploitation of labor.


She knew that from experience so SHUT THE FUCK UP about rand and look to see that she worked for the individual not for the oppressive collective regimes that have existed and that you advocate for.Rand was for the capitalists, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP! I happen to be, probably, the only person around here who saw her in person. She was a repulsive shill for the bourgeoisie, a racist and a supporter of capitalist war.

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

You've seen Rand in person? When? Where?

[RED DAVE]

I've posted this here before. It's an edited version of something I wrote about Rand and originally posted at epinions.com in 2001. It's a little biased, but what the fuck!

Enjoy.


Sometime in the late 1950s or early 1960s two similar books were published. One was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and the other was Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure by John Cleland. The former is an immensely long (I think it's longer than War and Peace), silly book by a crack-pot, philosopher-novelist. The latter is a late-Enlightenment picaresque dirty novel more commonly known as Fanny Hill.

Both are stroke books. Both appeal to the feverish sensibilities of 17-year-old males and not very sophisticated ones at that. (Sophisticated guys back then were reading Crime and Punishment and de Sade's novels.) Anyone who takes Ayn Rand's book (or the rest of her work) seriously is still engaging in a wank, whether political, philosophical, literary or economic (this last variety is currently quite popular, endless porn on the Internet notwithstanding). Anyone using Cleland's book for what it was obvious written for is engaged in an honest act.

For readers much past 17, neither book has much merit. But both are good for some kind of a jerk-off, should you choose to indulge. I confess to have wasted a few hours when I was young and foolish trying to read Atlas Shrugged. Its style places it somewhere around the average woman's magazine fiction of its day such as appeared in Woman's Home Companion. I gave it up after about page 25. Fanny Hill was a more constant companion when I was still too uptight to approach the opposite sex.

No one has ever taken Cleland's book seriously (although any book banned for 200 years can't be all bad). But, incredibly, people did and do take Ayn Rand so. I saw her once at NYU, about 1962. She was a shrill, unfortunately ugly woman (her photographs don't do her justice: she looked like the Wicked Witch of the West's ugly sister). She was not well received politically when she dismissed the Civil Rights Movement as a violation of the right of employers to discriminate!

Nor was her fervent advocacy of the cause of some GE executives just jailed for price fixing on a massive scale received with much sympathy, nor was her complicity with McCarthyism, which was noted by speakers from the floor. A few months later her boy-toy Nathaniel Branden made an appearance. He was better looking, but his presentation of the philosophy of Objectivism didn't exactly set off fireworks.

Nowadays, Rand's various works are somewhat the rage. As long as self-indulgence, selfishness, racism and other neat stuff is popular, Rand will be read. How can you argue with Alan Greenspan's favorite scribe? Bill Gates probably has a copy of Atlas Shrugged by his bed like Stalin had a copy of Machiavelli.

Me, if I want to go that route, I prefer Fanny Hill.RED DAVE

[Red Commissar]

Rand was one of those kinds who would fit in today. Slamming government and taxation as essentially socialist and appealing to the people's problems against taxes and overbearing government, and associating those with socialists through some idiotic fallacies.

And I think people playing Bioshock were also made aware of her views and off to read it, though in some regards Bioshock highlighted a failure of objectivism...

I have to deal with this a lot on my university in the form of an Objectivist paper that is distributed all over the campus. Thankfully that rabble is concealed to the library basement.

[black magick hustla]

i dont think people are that big on rand. its generally emotionally crippled internet people

[IllicitPopsicle]

I've posted this here before. It's an edited version of something I wrote about Rand and originally posted at epinions.com in 2001. It's a little biased, but what the fuck!

Enjoy.

RED DAVE

Hey, what a coincidence! I stopped reading Atlas Shrugged at page 25 too!

[Wolf Larson]

Selfishness. Greed is her appeal.

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another to live for mine"


Pffft. How American can you get? The thing is, these capitalists are asking others to live for their sake. What the hell do they think property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury is?


I can't stand objectivists. The most subjective philosophy in the world tries to claim objectivity as it's title. Absurdity!

[OldMoney]

I always thought Rand was a leftist, and her books were written as a work of satire. Thats the problem, people took her seriously and not as it should have been interpreted, as a completley comical and absurd take on things. Characters like James Tagart, and Peter Keating are just as over the top as Howrd Roark, or John Galt. People are never that black and white, so we have to belive that she meant it all as a joke right?

[Girl A]

Rand seems to ignore how industry works to just claim that a few great individuals keep the machines running and the world working. Which is ridiculous, but I think if you believe yourself that you're one of these aforementioned people it can be one Hell of an ego boost. There's so much strawman theory in her books, like the silly idea that socialism stops individuality - in a capitalist society, the tyranny of the free markets and the wage labour take away a lot of a person's autonomy and dignity. Free-market 'individualism' is one of the most tyrannical mentalities, but I think some people buy into it with Rand because of the repulsive image of this John Galt figure - this great free man. If I remember, John Galt leaves a workplace (I can't remember much of the book XD) because he is horrified at it being collectivised. So it's all about putting yourself above others.

http://i49.tinypic.com/xofhg8.gif

[Red Commissar]

One thing I find amusing with Randroids is that they seem to be confident that they'll be the ones to benefit in her world...

[OldMoney]

John Galt is the eppitomy of the selfish american attitude, He doesnt want anyone to benefit from his ideas unless he can mutualy benifit from thiers. Dont they realize that a world like this would be completley elitist. When the Children took over the plant from thier father and started giving the profits to the workers based on thier need not thier ability John bailed.

Rand has twisted the proverbial "to each according to his needs from each according to his means" into a colective of sloth, each person trying to prove thier need was greater than thier neibours, while slacking to show that they had no ability either, because those with ability were forced to werk more than those without.

I cant belive that anyone could take this as anything else other than a satirical look at how life would be in randMcnally where burgers eat people and hats are worn on your feet.

[Wolf Larson]

The reason she is so popular is because she clearly articulates through good books the dangers of collectivism. She is right in many ways b/c people in society should be rewarded based on what they give not what they need. A janitor should not be payed more than a scientist. She is also correct on the welfare state and income tax and a lot of things. Nobody should ever get anything that they do not earn and you can use this argument against the state and modern day capitalists. The reason leftists don't except her is b/c she saw capitalism as the the only individualistic society while most leftists see it as selfish and disgusting. Society should be based on individuals voluntarily putting into society, not the forced society that leftists advocate. She knew that from experience so SHUT THE FUCK UP about rand and look to see that she worked for the individual not for the oppressive collective regimes that have existed and that you advocate for.

What are you doing here? Please stop calling yourself an anarchist. Please.

[Wolf Larson]

What are you doing here? Please stop calling yourself an anarchist. Please.

"Anarcho" capitalists are fascists. Rothbard was an insincere subjective revisionist as is Konkin. Tucker, Spooner and Stirner considered themselves part of the broder socialist tradition even though they were "individualists". Even so Stirner was not an anarchist. Goldman and Bakunin simply used some of his work to criticize religion and to separate anarchism from Marxism. Using Stirner the egoist as the basis of anarchism would be no different than using Nietzsche as the basis of anarchism. It would be an erroneous claim. Only the "anarcho" capitalists push the ideas your pushing. Ayn Rand was tyrant and a fascist. Anarchism in no way is a philosophy which is based in self interest it is a philosophy which is opposed to illegitimate power- it also promotes collective mutual aid. I suggest our house "anarcho" capitalist reads the basics- Kropotkin, Berkman, Goldman and Bakunin. Even Bakunin was inspired by Gracchus Babeuf. I also suggest you actually read Tucker and Spooner before you claim them as the founders of "anarcho" capitalism. Ayn Rand was a decrepit human being.

[Girl A]

What are you doing here? Please stop calling yourself an anarchist. Please.

I think this person has had a MAJOR political change recently.:confused:

[Wolf Larson]

I think this person has had a MAJOR political change recently.:confused:

I posted a thread in the propaganda section on these "anarcho" capitalists. They are multiplying like a disease. A trojan horse within the anarchist community.

[Merces]

I know Rush and Neil Peart were and are huge fans of her work (2112).

I'm just starting to read into her.

[<Insert Username Here>]

Ayn Rand's "experience" consisted of being butthurt over getting owned in the CCCP.

[JoyDivision]

Ayn Rand began writing using these themes in this way in the mid 1930's and couched them within the context of a struggle between the individual and the state in "communist" USSR. Her reaction to her childhood is quite predictable though, as she grew up during the soviet civil war, and the ensuring grab for power by Stalin. Where things strike me as a little off, is the fact that she begins writing out against the welfare state at a time when workers are just first getting rights in the workplace. She wrote Anthem in 37, and started the fountainhead in 1936, and to give that some context the National Industry Recovery Act passed in 1933, Child Labor Laws were an ongoing process, the Wagner ACT was passed in 1935, the Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1938, civil rights isn't even on the horizon, neither is title 7.

She is litterally writing this stuff at a time when Children work 12 hour shifts in miserable conditions, Unions are just starting to be legal, you cannot sue your employer for unsafe working conditions, OSHA hasn't been dreamt of yet, and employment in general resembled The Jungle more than what it does now. What this means is that she looked out at society, saw the the struggle for basic worker rights being waged across America, and decided it was so unacceptable that she would warn of a dystopian future in literary form.

This lunatic *****, given when she was writing, was writing out against the basic rights necessary for individualism to be even remotely practical for anyone but powerful businessmen. An elite Aristocracy. The irony is supreme given who has appropriated her today.

Or, as it was already said in elegant concision "Ayn Rand's "experience" consisted of being butthurt over getting owned in the CCCP." One giant reaction to war Communism, she heard gun shots at night and that was curtains for her soul.

[<Insert Username Here>]

Ayn Rand began writing using these themes in this way in the mid 1930's and couched them within the context of a struggle between the individual and the state in "communist" USSR. Her reaction to her childhood is quite predictable though, as she grew up during the soviet civil war, and the ensuring grab for power by Stalin. Where things strike me as a little off, is the fact that she begins writing out against the welfare state at a time when workers are just first getting rights in the workplace. She wrote Anthem in 37, and started the fountainhead in 1936, and to give that some context the National Industry Recovery Act passed in 1933, Child Labor Laws were an ongoing process, the Wagner ACT was passed in 1935, the Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1938, civil rights isn't even on the horizon, neither is title 7.

She is litterally writing this stuff at a time when Children work 12 hour shifts in miserable conditions, Unions are just starting to be legal, you cannot sue your employer for unsafe working conditions, OSHA hasn't been dreamt of yet, and employment in general resembled The Jungle more than what it does now. What this means is that she looked out at society, saw the the struggle for basic worker rights being waged across America, and decided it was so unacceptable that she would warn of a dystopian future in literary form.

This lunatic *****, given when she was writing, was writing out against the basic rights necessary for individualism to be even remotely practical for anyone but powerful businessmen. An elite Aristocracy. The irony is supreme given who has appropriated her today.

Or, as it was already said in elegant concision "Ayn Rand's "experience" consisted of being butthurt over getting owned in the CCCP." One giant reaction to war Communism, she heard gun shots at night and that was curtains for her soul.

Watch your language, with the whole "*****" thing, it'll get taken as sexist by the feministic witch hunt. But yeah, I agree- I didn't know the ins and outs of it but I knew her childhood in Russia was what messed her mind up.

If only she had been one of the 12 hour shift children growing up in the USA she would have grown up with a completely different attitude and we might even be sitting here with tendencies such as "Rayndism" rather than having to deal with her bullshit from the tea party :D

[JoyDivision]

Watch your language, with the whole "*****" thing, it'll get taken as sexist by the feministic witch hunt. But yeah, I agree- I didn't know the ins and outs of it but I knew her childhood in Russia was what messed her mind up.


If only she had been one of the 12 hour shift children growing up in the USA she would have grown up with a completely different attitude and we might even be sitting here with tendencies such as "Rayndism" rather than having to deal with her bullshit from the tea party :D

Haha, that is hysterical.;)

[The Ben G]

The reason she is so popular is because most people in the US are Free Market 'Ill keep my God, Guns, and Freedom, You can keep the change' people here. Almost everyone here are selfish twats.

Objectivism is very appealing to the US public. "Im the only thing that matters in my life, why should I help others?" is their call to arms.

[A.R.Amistad]

The reason she is so popular is because most people in the US are Free Market 'Ill keep my God, Guns, and Freedom, You can keep the change' people here. Almost everyone here are selfish twats.

The sad thing is is that its not quite appealing to your typical redneck-reactionary (no offense to revolutionary-rednecks) but its appealing to the 21st century 'intellectual,' which really doesn't mean anything more than a semi-mystical, hipster, hyper-individualistic elitist who can use high-class language and laugh at cliches. nd the even sadder part is, thats the younger generation. Something happened to the humble and humanistic intellectual. I don't know what happened, but something did, nd thats what repulses me about Ayn Rand: that people who by all means should be some of our strongest allies and comrades choose the Randist style of "fighting the establishment."

[JoyDivision]

that people who by all means should be some of our strongest allies and comrades choose the Randist style of "fighting the establishment."

I so happy you used that phrase, because it allows me to post this link without appearing random:

http://www.lacan.com/frameXII5.htm
However, although it is easy to dismiss the very mention of Rand in a "serious" theoretical article as an obscene extravaganza — artistically, she is of course, worthless — the properly subversive dimension of her ideological procedure is not to be underestimated: Rand fits into the line of over-conformist authors who undermine the ruling ideological edifice by their very excessive identification with it.


LOL, show's over folks.

[Old Man Diogenes]

You on the other hand say she gave the oppressive capitalists a foundation for their achievements, yet you believe we ought to create an oppressive collective that destroys individual thought and rapes the human mind of its reason for the benefit of all. You may love to have your mind raped for the benefit of a bunch of lazy fucks so go ahead. I'll work for my own benefit and if others benefit then so be it, but i will not kill myself for your empty oppressive collective future.

Firstly, I think you better call the police, because you've been assaulted by the Gary Glitter of mind-rapists.

Secondly, pull your head out your arse, please, "you believe we ought to create an oppressive collective that destroys individual thought and rapes the human mind of its reason for the benefit of all", assuming your referring to Libertarian socialism, I'm going to quote the Anarchist FAQ here (which I suggest you read, otherwise everyone's just going to love ripping you a new one ;)); "By being able to take part in and manage the decision making processes which directly affect you, your ability to think for yourself is increased and so you are constantly developing your abilities and personality."

[A.R.Amistad]

I think its just hilarious every time I run into these "anarcho-capitalist" fairy tale lovers. I'm not an anarchist of any stripe, but I do know that the basis of anarchism is the abolition of the state. Capitalism is an economic system based on private bourgeois property. Private bourgeois property needs a state to protect it from "the mob." How one can have a system based on something that inherently needs a state for its existence (private property) and at the same time that opens the floodgates for the abolition of all property (anarchism)? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[#FF0000]

You should probably get off the internet every so often if you really think Ayn Rand's got "huge appeal".

[CartCollector]

You should probably get off the internet every so often if you really think Ayn Rand's got "huge appeal".
Yeah, I bet RevLeft, as a whole, spends more time complaining about Ayn Rand than they do Hitler.

[JoyDivision]

We don't complain about her, rather we identify her as a reactionary soulless piece of trash with the philosophy of a 5 year old, and then move on. What we do complain about, however, is that the working class has been manipulated into adopting the ideology of the rich. Rand just happens to be a concrete embodiment of this topsy-turvy reversal of interests.

If this weren't the case, we would smile at her philosophy as we would a cute little child and then forget about her before our face muscles relaxed.

[deLarge]

She is popular because the people reading her books identify with the heroes (i.e., the bourgeoisie) of her novels, whereas in reality they tend to more often be the 'leaches'.

The biggest problem is that she has the air of authenticity--that is, read her formal justifications with minimal knowledge of philosophy (which is true of most who read her books), and they sound convincing--who could deny that "things exist" or that "A=A"? That and she has this nasty habbit of redefining terms to suit her purpose. You know, lying (a theory of value based on subjective qualifications? LETS CALL IT OBJECTIVE!).

[Scary Monster]

You should probably get off the internet every so often if you really think Ayn Rand's got "huge appeal".

Thank god. Rand is one vile, non-sensical twat.

[anticap]

Ayn Rand's "experience" consisted of being butthurt over getting owned in the CCCP.


Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and she never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism's opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small revolutionary elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.


You should probably get off the internet every so often if you really think Ayn Rand's got "huge appeal".


The figure Ayn Rand most resembles in American life is L. Ron Hubbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard), another crazed, pitiable charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult. Unfortunately, Rand's cult isn't confined to Tom Cruise and a rash of Hollywood dimwits. No, its ideas and its impulses have, by drilling into the basest human instincts, captured one of America's major political parties.

How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon: The perverse allure of a damaged woman (http://slate.com/id/2233966)

[RED DAVE]

The Truth About Ayn Rand That Few Can Face:

The Floating Head of Ayn Rand (http://www.saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com/ayn_rand/)

RED DAVE

[Scary Monster]

The Truth About Ayn Rand That Few Can Face:

The Floating Head of Ayn Rand (http://www.saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com/ayn_rand/)

RED DAVE

My goodness, those people are (were) insane- especially with the theatrics of Oppenheimer with his quote "I am become death, the shatterer of worlds". The world's biggest creeps in one place during the atomic bomb test. Wish they were a lil closer to the blast- that wouldve done humanity a huge favor :lol:

[brian0918]

I think its just hilarious every time I run into these "anarcho-capitalist" fairy tale lovers. I'm not an anarchist of any stripe, but I do know that the basis of anarchism is the abolition of the state. Capitalism is an economic system based on private bourgeois property. Private bourgeois property needs a state to protect it from "the mob." How one can have a system based on something that inherently needs a state for its existence (private property) and at the same time that opens the floodgates for the abolition of all property (anarchism)? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
You probably don't realize this, but you have just demonstrated Rand's precise rationale for why the state must exist.

If you're confused by my last sentence, it's because you thought she was an anarchist, which she is not. She asserts the necessity of the state, using your exact rationale, for the purposes of protecting individual rights through military, police, courts.

Of course, there's no stopping anarchists from misrepresenting her views on the necessity of government. If you google her essay "The Nature of Government" you can clarify your views of her views.

[Morphiddle]

Because it's a quick fix philosophy (providing a mental shortcut to complex problems, and then focusing only on evidence that points to objectivism working in reality) that ties into a lot of what people have raised to believe is right by their parents and schools (consumerism, male hegemony, "might is right", the vacous entertainment industry) and makes people feel good about themselves by convincing them that greed is good and that everyone is their own special little island. They're like farmers who can't see past the gates of their own farm.


The sad thing is is that its not quite appealing to your typical redneck-reactionary (no offense to revolutionary-rednecks) but its appealing to the 21st century 'intellectual,' which really doesn't mean anything more than a semi-mystical, hipster, hyper-individualistic elitist who can use high-class language and laugh at cliches. nd the even sadder part is, thats the younger generation. Something happened to the humble and humanistic intellectual. I don't know what happened, but something did, nd thats what repulses me about Ayn Rand: that people who by all means should be some of our strongest allies and comrades choose the Randist style of "fighting the establishment."

I know what you mean. If you haven't already, read "Amusing ourselves to death" by Neil Postman and have a listen to the Roger Waters song of the same name. It's Huxleyan.

I believe that television and the quick fix nature of the internet has killed off a lot of peoples humanity, no completely, but it has given America a certain empathy gap from everyone else.