How Would You Answer This Capitalist's Rant?

[Havet]

Here is the rant of a capitalist about communism (since there is a possibility it could be a strawman, that is the reason why I am sharing the rant to hear your opinion)

The Rant:


"I don't know why you should call my behavior rotten. I thought you would recognize it as an honest effort to practice what the whole world has been preaching.

Doesn't everyone believe that it is evil to be selfish? I was totally selfless in regard to the San Sebastián project.

Isn't it evil to work for profit? I did not work for profit - I took a loss.

Doesn't everyone agree that the purpose and justification of an industrial enterprise are not production, but the livelihood of its employees? The San Sebastian Mines were the most eminently successful venture in industrial history: they produced no copper, but they provided a livelihood for thousands of men who could not have achieved, in a lifetime, the equivalent of what they got for one day's work, which they could not do.

Isn't it generally agreed that an owner is a parasite and an exploiter, that it is the employees who do all the work and make the product possible? I did not exploit anyone. I did not burden the San Sebastian Mines with my useless presence; I left them in the hands of the men who count. I did not pass judgment on the value of that property. I turned it over to a mining specialist. He was not a very good specialist, but he needed the job very badly.

Isn't it generally conceded that when you hire a man for a job, it is his need that counts, not his ability? Doesn't everyone believe that in order to get the goods, all you have to do is need them?

I have carried out every moral precept of our age. I expected gratitude and a citation of honor. I do not understand why I am being damned."

How would you reply to him?

[Drace]

I don't really even know what his mumbling about. Its a bunch of idealist shit.
Cappies can be so full of emotion.

I die innocent of all the crimes laid to my charge; I Pardon those who have occasioned my death; and I pray to God that the blood you are going to shed may never be visited on France.
- Last words of Louis XVI

And since when are you a leftist?

[Skooma Addict]

Doesn't everyone agree that the purpose and justification of an industrial enterprise are not production, but the livelihood of its employees?No.


The San Sebastian Mines were the most eminently successful venture in industrial history: they produced no copper, but they provided a livelihood for thousands of men who could not have achieved, in a lifetime, the equivalent of what they got for one day's work, which they could not do.I have not heard of these San Sebastain Mines, but calling a mine that produces nothing the most successful venture in industrial history is stupid.



I did not pass judgment on the value of that property. I turned it over to a mining specialist. He was not a very good specialist, but he needed the job very badly.This mine went out of business, correct?


Isn't it generally conceded that when you hire a man for a job, it is his need that counts, not his ability?
No.


I have carried out every moral precept of our age. I expected gratitude and a citation of honor. I do not understand why I am being damned.Honored for what?


If anyone is wondering, this is a copy paste from Atlas Shrugged.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Thank God.

[Drace]

If anyone is wondering, this is a copy paste from Atlas Shrugged.No wonder. :rolleyes:

I am still confused as to why cappies are objected to this?http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

[Skooma Addict]

No wonder. :rolleyes:

I am still confused as to why cappies are objected to this?http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Object to Atlas Shrugged in general or just that particular quote?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's the system, not morality or induviduals. There were slave-owners who sincerely felt they were protecting their slaves and treating them well - in a paternalistic and rascist way of course. These slave-owners could not concieve of a different kind of social arrangement, so even though they were keeping people in bondage, they felt like they were "good people". Read anything written by members of the former slavocracy after the civil war and it's full of "Why me, why us? We were good people, kind masters, now our former slaves that we took care of ran off or don't even treat us with respect".

THe same attitude was held by many aristocrats and monarchs during the bourgoise revolutions: "Why me, I was the defender of the people!"

The owners are not "evil people" - they are just part of an evil system and if human liberation and the destruction of that system cause some induviudals disstress and inconvinience, well that's too bad for them.

[Drace]

Object to Atlas Shrugged in general or just that particular quote?

Well, both.

[Skooma Addict]

Well, both.

I have not read Atlas shrugged, but I know Rand was an ethical egoist. Ethical egoism is better than most ethical theories, but it's still faulty. But anyways, I don't really have much to say about Atlas Shrugged since I have not read it.

As for that quote, let us assume that was an actual quote from an actual person. That quote is filled with errors and stupid ideas/claims.

In the vast majority of cases, people produce for profit. People don't produce to help their employees. The person also comes off as a guilt ridden fool who just wants to be perceived as a benevolent angel. I would admire your common merchant at the local marketplace trying to provide for himself far far more than this guy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Atlas Shrugged is a really good book.

[Dimentio]

Is that from an Ayn Rand book?

[Dr Mindbender]

Atlas Shrugged is a really good book.

If it can beat the price of 12 rolls of Asda smartprice paper I'll be impressed.

[Die Rote Fahne]

A couple points.

1. This guy doesn't understand what Marxists view as exploitation.

2. That person who "needed the job badly" is one of the few who do get a job when in a desperate situation. In a communist society, there would be no "needing" of a job. Wage slavery will no longer exist.

To sum up, his whole rant is based on his lack of understanding of worker exploitation and wage slavery.

[Jazzratt]

I'd point out it's toss and that the arguments are based on the universe dreamed up in the capitalists' addled mind because that's all the screeds from Rand's scrawlings amount to.

[Glenn Beck]

How would you reply to him?
[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Wouldn't bother. Except maybe with laughter and maybe the imposition of force and coercion in gross violation of the principles of individual liberty.

[Havet]

I have not read Atlas shrugged, but I know Rand was an ethical egoist. Ethical egoism is better than most ethical theories, but it's still faulty. But anyways, I don't really have much to say about Atlas Shrugged since I have not read it.

As for that quote, let us assume that was an actual quote from an actual person. That quote is filled with errors and stupid ideas/claims.

In the vast majority of cases, people produce for profit. People don't produce to help their employees. The person also comes off as a guilt ridden fool who just wants to be perceived as a benevolent angel. I would admire your common merchant at the local marketplace trying to provide for himself far far more than this guy.

Don't you understand Olaf? he is being sarcastic. He is granting "his enemies" terms in order to show them how ridiculous they are. In short, he acts the complete opposite of what he is saying, in fact.

[Havet]

The main critique is that a society should not be organized by taking away from those with ability to give away to those with need.

As the author argues:

Isn't it generally agreed that an owner is a parasite and an exploiter, that it is the employees who do all the work and make the product possible? I did not exploit anyone. I did not burden the San Sebastian Mines with my useless presence; I left them in the hands of the men who count. I did not pass judgment on the value of that property. I turned it over to a mining specialist. He was not a very good specialist, but he needed the job very badly.

Isn't it generally conceded that when you hire a man for a job, it is his need that counts, not his ability? Doesn't everyone believe that in order to get the goods, all you have to do is need them?

Why is need more important than ability? Without ability, needs will never be satisfied.

Why shouldn't we organize society, for example, "from each according to need/demand, to each according to ability" ?

That's the main argument behind his rant, as I see it. Does anyone dare to counter-argument him?

[Bud Struggle]

Straw man. No real businessman talks like this. All nonsense.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The main critique is that a society should not be organized by taking away from those with ability to give away to those with need.Capitalism destroys the potential for about 80% of induviduals who - rather than using their energies creatively or for their personal benifit or the benifit of others, their time is spent laboring for the profit of others. They get paid a wage and then the product of their mental and physical labor is gone... the property of someone else.

If the NEEDS of stability and a home and access to all the best tools and education are met then ALL INDUVIDUALS can attempt to reach their full potential. How many potential Da Vincis had to work as peasants instead of having the chance to work as an apprentice? How many other potential scientists, artists, mathematicians never had a chance to go on to further education or were never even exposed to the idea of a life other than laboring for the profit of others?

The supernatural leap of logic made by Rand and her unthinking collective of followers is that there are "inherently able" people and then there are the "slobs". Strangely, considering Rand's atheism, this attitude is very similar to the Puritans who saw someone's wealth as proof of their level of blessedness from God. Rand, just looks at people's wealth now as proof of their inherent superiority. It's a fucking elitists and idiotic school of thought. The "philosophy" doesn't propose any action or political program - it is a philosophy to not only excuse social inequality, but to try and transform it into a virtue.

I don't agree with right-wing libertarians, but at least most of it is a coherent creed with prescriptions to make about how society should be run - Ayn Randism is just a cult for preppie college students and the petty bourgoise that flatters the reader by making them think they are one of the blessed "smart people" not a laboring drone like most of the population.

Sorry, Ayn Randists, you are the Scientologists of the American Right-wing.

[revolution inaction]

Here is the rant of a capitalist about communism (since there is a possibility it could be a strawman, that is the reason why I am sharing the rant to hear your opinion)

The Rant:



How would you reply to him?
[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

where is the bit about communism? did you forget to post it?

[Nolan]

How would you reply to him?

lolwut

[Comrade Anarchist]

I'd reply by saying i love atlas shrugged and i love Francisco d'Anconia and he or she, ayn rand, knows how to write. Although my favorite character is Ragnar Danneskjöld.

[Girl A]

Straw man. No real businessman talks like this. All nonsense.

One of the most influential books for the advocates of laissez-faire capitalism is filled with strawmen and bad writing. Coincidence? :rolleyes:

[Skooma Addict]

Don't you understand Olaf? he is being sarcastic. He is granting "his enemies" terms in order to show them how ridiculous they are. In short, he acts the complete opposite of what he is saying, in fact.

Ah, I see.


I'd reply by saying i love atlas shrugged and i love Francisco d'Anconia and he or she, ayn rand, knows how to write. Although my favorite character is Ragnar Danneskjöld. Ayn Rand is alright, but she still was an ethical egoist when ethical egoism fails for the same reason all other ethical theories fail. So to the extent that her defenses of capitalism are based on ethical egoism, they are faulty.

[Havet]

Straw man. No real businessman talks like this. All nonsense.

Bud, he is being sarcastic. He would talk in the exact opposite of what he just said. He was talking with a bureaucrat (who was also a shareholder of his company) and showing him how his morality was flawed. The capitalist, actually believes in:

- It is good to be selfish
- It is good to work for a profit
- The justification for a business enterprise is production
- He, the owner, is not a parasite
- When you hire a man, its his ability that truly counts, not his need

Would you still say that no "real businessman" believes in that?

[gorillafuck]

Cappies can be so full of emotion.
Is there something wrong with being emotional?:confused:

And I don't really know how to "disprove" that quote since it reflects a moral stance, and you can't really disprove moral stances. You can just disagree with them.

[RGacky3]

It's the system, not morality or induviduals. There were slave-owners who sincerely felt they were protecting their slaves and treating them well - in a paternalistic and rascist way of course. These slave-owners could not concieve of a different kind of social arrangement, so even though they were keeping people in bondage, they felt like they were "good people". Read anything written by members of the former slavocracy after the civil war and it's full of "Why me, why us? We were good people, kind masters, now our former slaves that we took care of ran off or don't even treat us with respect".

THe same attitude was held by many aristocrats and monarchs during the bourgoise revolutions: "Why me, I was the defender of the people!"

The owners are not "evil people" - they are just part of an evil system and if human liberation and the destruction of that system cause some induviudals disstress and inconvinience, well that's too bad for them.

This.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ayn Rand is strawmanning communists by talking as if we only care about need and not at all about production or producers. This, of course, is total bullshit. Communists care most of all about the working class, who are the producers of all wealth.

If the justification for an enterprise is production, then why do we allow unproductive capitalists to accumulate enormous profits?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Also:


...he or she, ayn rand...
That made my day. :lol: