Emma Goldman Vs Ayn Rand

[Wolf Larson]

Both used the works of Dostoevsky,Max Stirner, Nietzsche and Nikolay Chernyshevsky- both were promoting a form of individualism but on opposite ends. I obviously side with Goldman and think Rand was a tyrant but I want to discuss ,with capitalists, why or how you think Rand was able to come to such an opposite position from that of Goldman? Rand promoting abject selfishness under capitalism and Goldman promoting individuality within collectivism. Other than the fact both used many of the same philosophical sources/positions both were from Russia as well. Both saw the Bolshevik revolution as detrimental to freedom. Emma wrote My Further Disillusionment in Russia and most if not all of Rand's writings were a condemnation of collectivism in general.

How did Goldman take ethical egoism into collectivism while Rand into capitalism? In your opinion at what specific point did the two separate? How does Rand rationalize the existence of an elite class controlling others while Goldman rightly says capitalism manifests as “master morality for the privileged few”? Discuss.

[Invincible Summer]

Excellent question. However, to be a nitpicking asshole, I think the only person who is a real "capitalist" here is Bud Struggle.

[Drace]

I really don't take Rand's works seriously at all.
Its not even philosophy. She just rambles on about the individual and how the individual should be "free" and how that somehow entails private property.

I think I read that her grandpa was a kulak who was repressed under the Soviet system, so her biased attitude against the Soviet Union may be what reinforced her strict anti-collectivism.

[Wolf Larson]

I really don't take Rand's works seriously at all.
Its not even philosophy. She just rambles on about the individual and how the individual should be "free" and how that somehow entails private property.

I think I read that her grandpa was a kulak who was repressed under the Soviet system, so her biased attitude against the Soviet Union may be what reinforced her strict anti-collectivism.

Obviously the negative experience with Bolshevism lead both Goldman and Rand to oppose it. The rhetorical question here is how can two women start from the basis of egoism and end up in two polar opposite positions? This isn't limited to Rand and Goldman as many so called anarcho capitalists have done the same thing Rand did as far as cherry picking individualist thought while melding it with hierarchical capitalism [Rothbard]. Anyway, I personally have problems with abject egosim -I'm more with Kropotkin than I am with Goldman as far as what should motivate us or what the basis of society should be and I agree that ... "freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality". Unlike Rand I think empathy/altruism exists and is an important factor is building a just social society. You cannot have a just society with Randian egoism and free market capitalism as the basis unless everyone is equal- Objectivism nor free market capitalism advocates equality so the only free people in her ideal society would be the people [capitalists] who are above the others [workers] as Goldman said would happen.

Max Stirner also knew without equality liberty cannot exist which is why he did not advocate property, wage slavery, rent or interest. Many of the so called anarcho capitalists also cherry pick Stirner's individualism/egoism [as Rand did] to justify capitalism while ignoring Stirner's opposition to property, wage slavery, rent and interest. Stirner advocated a union of egoists on the basis of equality. Stirner did not advocate a system where one group of people [capitalists] would control another group of people [workers]. Egoism is not about control and domination, it's not about freeing one's self at the expense of others. It's not about might makes right. Nietzsche didn't advocate this either, nor did Dostoevsky. Capitalists, all capitalists, make the assertion that greed [self interest] is symbiotic. That a society based on greed will both create freedom and abundance for all. That it is human nature to compete for survival and only the strongest will survive. Not only have they warped individualist philosophy they've warped Darwin. Capitalists say altruism is evil, mutual aid goes against our human nature and greed should be the foundation of society. Well, how's that working out?

Also, a jab at Randroids- she despised Bolshevism because she said it created a minority master class which controlled the majority ,but, what the hell do you think capitalism does? Pfft.

[Raúl Duke]

Perhaps it's because she saw and experienced what Rand probably overlooked (or omitted since she desired to be part of the elite in her fantasy) and probably never experienced.

Emma Goldman understood that private property, by this meaning the means of production held in "private hands", did not entail freedom but oppression. While truly the capitalist may in fact be "free" in some sense, the employee is obviously not free nor did they choose without being influenced by factors inherent under class society/capitalism. A worker under capitalism is forced to, not free to, work for another for that person's benefit (profit) due to factors such as unemployment, starvation, low living standards. The worker loses the full product of his labor, only getting wages that are less than the fruit of his labor, under capitalism. What randroids and libertarians seem to ignore is that when people decide to work that decision is not made in a vacuum, but is surrounded by many social forces that compels one to wage slavery which, realistically, knowledgeable/conscious people would not consider ideal.

For example, a minor one,

When I got hired for my current job they stipulated a probation period. Personally, I don't want a probation period but I knew that considering the circumstances, I needed a job and couldn't easily refuse due to the fact that only one other job position responded to my job search besides that of my current job. Circumstances, created/inherent to capitalism, coerced me to accept this "probation period" bs.

Unlike Rand, Emma Goldman worked in factories and such plus participated in working class movements. That would have provided the perspective that lead her to a different conclusion from Rand.

[Dimentio]

I know about one female philosopher with more bizarre views than Ayn Rand, namely Savitri Devi. There, we could talk about pure insanity masked as philosophy.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/devi.gif

[Havet]

I know about one female philosopher with more bizarre views than Ayn Rand, namely Savitri Devi. There, we could talk about pure insanity masked as philosophy.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/devi.gif

It would be more useful if you posted what she actually said rather than just a picture.

Oh, don't bother now. I was faster.



Savitri Devi Mukherji (September 30, 1905 — October 22, 1982) was the pseudonym of the French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) writer Maximiani Portas[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi#cite_note-Black_Sun-0).
She became enamoured with Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) and Nazism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism), trying to synthesise the two, and proclaiming Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) an avatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar) of the Hindu god Vishnu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu). Her writings have influenced neo-Nazism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism) and Nazi mysticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_occultism). Although mystical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical) in her conception of Nazism, Savitri Devi saw Nazism as a practical faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith) that did not need metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics). Among Savitri Devi's ideas was the classifications of "men above time", "men in time" and "men against time". She is credited with pioneering neo-Nazi interest in occultism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultism), Deep Ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Ecology), and the New Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age) movement. She influenced the Chilean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile) diplomat Miguel Serrano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Serrano). In 1982, Francisco Freda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Freda) published a German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language) translation of her work Gold in the Furnace, and the fourth volume of his annual review, Risguardo (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Risguardo&action=edit&redlink=1) (1980-), was devoted to Savitri Devi as the "missionary of Aryan Paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism)".



By the way, did you know there's a Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_National_Socialist_Green_Party)? Seriously, people just keep getting weirder and weirder...:rolleyes:

[Drace]

By the way, did you know there's a Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_National_Socialist_Green_Party)? Seriously, people just keep getting weirder and weirder...

LOL, Wow.
Nazism = personal freedom, economic concerns, and collective action? :lol:

[Dean]

Both used the works of Dostoevsky,Max Stirner, Nietzsche and Nikolay Chernyshevsky- both were promoting a form of individualism but on opposite ends. I obviously side with Goldman and think Rand was a tyrant but I want to discuss ,with capitalists, why or how you think Rand was able to come to such an opposite position from that of Goldman? Rand promoting abject selfishness under capitalism and Goldman promoting individuality within collectivism. Other than the fact both used many of the same philosophical sources/positions both were from Russia as well. Both saw the Bolshevik revolution as detrimental to freedom. Emma wrote My Further Disillusionment in Russia and most if not all of Rand's writings were a condemnation of collectivism in general.

How did Goldman take ethical egoism into collectivism while Rand into capitalism? In your opinion at what specific point did the two separate? How does Rand rationalize the existence of an elite class controlling others while Goldman rightly says capitalism manifests as “master morality for the privileged few”? Discuss.

Goldman had a productive ideology which was observant of society. Rand had a brazen, anti-human ideology which figured that those who were weak in an economic system had themselves to blame (though, interesting, those who had strong economic positions were "oppressed" by the weak in the form of taxes).

Simply put, Rand's ideology was nothing more than the general adherence to communist idea sets, except with a principle of rejectionism. She attempted to epitomize the anti-communist ideology, and she had no productive ideology of her own to speak of.

[Wolf Larson]

It would be more useful if you posted what she actually said rather than just a picture.

Oh, don't bother now. I was faster.





By the way, did you know there's a Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_National_Socialist_Green_Party)? Seriously, people just keep getting weirder and weirder...:rolleyes:

Yes I was aware of them. What a strange mind frame that is.They have a green swastika flag. I see them in the same light I see anarcho capitalists. Confused and promoting two diametrically opposed thoughts at once. The promotion of tyranny as liberty.

[SouthernBelle82]

Rand is (was?) insane- http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand%2C_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_ to_right-wing_leaders%2C_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer _

I think it's funny when Christian conservatives like Rand and then you point out she thought people who were religious of some sort had mental issues lol.

[Drace]

Rand is (was?) insane- http://www.alternet.org/books/145819...serial_killer_ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand%2C_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_ to_right-wing_leaders%2C_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer _)

I think it's funny when Christian conservatives like Rand and then you point out she thought people who were religious of some sort had mental issues lol. Wow. Before, this I thought Rand's "philosophy" was just the idea that the individualism is best for everyone in terms of the common good, but that was a bit extreme.

She claims the difference in rich and poor is justified morally because it is in the individuals interest?
Her bias, as I pointed out earlier, is also completely strong. Her writings can be passed off just as unscientific, kiddish rantings no better than a 10 year old protesting going to school.
She argues against democracy for being the rule of some over others but yet praises hierarchy, hegemony and domination of individuals.

[IcarusAngel]

Not only do capitalist of Rand's ilk want people to succeed over others, they want people to succeed from other people's work. Notice how Hayenmill is constantly talking about how people "own ideas" and that they have "no obligation" to the people who actually discovered and invented the idea. This is obviously the basis for applying property rights to the brain.

This is the whole idea of "having no concern for others." When most people steal, especially in circumstances that are very unfair to the victim (as opposed to a scenario when someone is stealing for food or because they weren't paid), they feel remorse and guilt. This remorse and guilt probably plays a factor in why we don't allow certain things to be privatized, because of the inherent unfairness of the whole situation. Rand favored elimination of remorse and guilt because then they could rule people unfettered by their "irrational emotions" that are hardwired in most people's brains.

This is why she favored capitalism. She doesn't care WHO owns the property, as long as it is someone, and as long as they are exploiting others. This is her "egoism" as this gives a first come, first serve justification for property. Presumably, people who think like rand would be the only ones successful at business, although this has obviously been proven to be false as success even in business often requires creativity and intelligence, something Randians obviously lack.

The fact that so many people are horrified by the idea of the public controlling the resources that they create and are scared of eliminating our corporate masters either proves that they are inherent Randians, or they have been subjected to too much fear-mongering about alternatives. The leftist believes people are maleable whereas the cynic believes ppl. are a lost cause.

[IcarusAngel]

Keep in mind though that Rand had sympathy for the capitalist class. She wrestled with the issue of gun control, because she didn't like the idea of people having the ability to kill others so easily.

The problem is if there is a "right" to guns, then the "little people" (workers or slaves) can have access to them, and would threathen her capitalists now matter how much resources they had. She was a bit ahead of her time in this way as she knew not everybody would want the type of society she advocates, and other rightists favor guns merely to be logically consistent.

[Havet]

Rand is (was?) insane- http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand%2C_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_ to_right-wing_leaders%2C_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer _

I think it's funny when Christian conservatives like Rand and then you point out she thought people who were religious of some sort had mental issues lol.

Where has she ever supported Christianity?

[Dimentio]

Rand is (was?) insane- http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand%2C_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_ to_right-wing_leaders%2C_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer _

I think it's funny when Christian conservatives like Rand and then you point out she thought people who were religious of some sort had mental issues lol.

Is this for real?

Just... wow...

[Dimentio]

http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

Another article about Rand's feelings for Hickman. But I haven't seen any quotes explicitly stating that she thought that Hickman was her ideal male.

It is interesting though, that so many people are making the connection that serial killers somehow have independent minds. Fictional serial killers like Dexter and Hannibal Lecter are glorified for example.

In truth, serial killers are often slaves under notions they need in order to get "kicks". William Edward Hickman's killing of that girl was what made him hanged. He had no need to kill her and it ran contrary to his interests (get a ransom for delivering the girl alive). Yet, he killed her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLx72xdevsQ

After reading through the link I posted, I must say that Ayn Rand and Pekka Eric Auvinen would have loved one another...

I would be surprised if Ayn Rand really idolised Hickman and this isn't some kind of slander. Rand did not - as far as I'll know - glorify human insanity. Though I've been wrong before.