Is there such thing as positive Egosim?

[A.R.Amistad]

I've been thinking about the egoism question and, as usual, I'm coming to see that in human life their are two kinds of ego's. There is the egoism advanced by the vile of Ayn Rand which places human individuality not in their own labor, not in their own lives but in capital, commodities, etc. But then there is the "egoism" of the laboring individual who takes pride in their labor and the fruits that their labor produces. This laboring ego holds no animosity to the outside society insofar as it does not challenge his passion, but in the end the individual is still working to satisfy his ego. So, is there such thing, particularly with a reified individual or even a reified society, where an ego based on one's personal labor is possibly beneficial to society as a whole?

[lombas]

There is also the egoism of Stirner, of course.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

I've been thinking about the egoism question and, as usual, I'm coming to see that in human life their are two kinds of ego's. There is the egoism advanced by the vile of Ayn Rand which places human individuality not in their own labor, not in their own lives but in capital, commodities, etc. But then there is the "egoism" of the laboring individual who takes pride in their labor and the fruits that their labor produces. This laboring ego holds no animosity to the outside society insofar as it does not challenge his passion, but in the end the individual is still working to satisfy his ego. So, is there such thing, particularly with a reified individual or even a reified society, where an ego based on one's personal labor is possibly beneficial to society as a whole?

The difference between the two is that Ayn Rand's egoism begins with an arrogant to belief in the worth of self, and then uses that to justify exploitation of others. Her theory on the "prime movers" for example, individuals, capitalists, who have the right to exploit others because they are better than the others.

The latter, begins with no high view of the self, or at least no special inerrant belief that they have a right to rule. Then the laborer you refers to produces or works and is proud of that work, and their labor which made it.

Ayn Rand's "individualism" is really fascism of a kind, it justifies the exploitation and slavery of others for a "master race" of bourgeois capitalists.

Thus, the egoism you discuss as being beneficial is beneficial, it is good to take pride in our accomplishments. However, Rand's egoism takes a fascistic view of the world.

[A.R.Amistad]

The difference between the two is that Ayn Rand's egoism begins with a inherent arrogant to belief in the worth of self, and then uses that to justify exploitation of others. Her theory on the "prime movers" for example, individuals, capitalists, who has the right to exploit others because they are better than the others.

The latter, begins with no high view of the self, or at least no special inerrant belief that they have a right to rule. Then the laborer you refers to produces or works and is proud of that work, and their labor which made it.

Ayn Rand's "individualism" is really fascism of a kind, it justifies the exploitation and slavery of others for a "master race" of bourgeois capitalists.

Thus, the egoism you discuss as being beneficial is beneficial, it is good to take pride in our accomplishments. However, Rand's egoism takes a fascistic view of the world.

My point entirely. I always thought, though, that Rand thought that, essentially, "individualism" is based not on what we do, but by what we own. My in-depth knowledge of Rand is limited 1. because it is utterly to repulsive for me to read and 2. its a waste of my time, since Rand had nothing good to contribute.

So it looks like an ego can be good

[lombas]

1. because it is utterly to repulsive for me to read and 2. its a waste of my time, since Rand had nothing good to contribute.


I find Anthem, apart from the propagandic last chapter, quite a good read to face certain facts - better (or more straight forward) than "1984"...

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

I find Anthem, apart from the propagandic last chapter, quite a good read to face certain facts - better (or more straight forward) than "1984"...

Anthem is actually kind of a Communist book, mainly because it's about individuals who do not own the means of production standing up to their exploiters and rebelling. :D

[A.R.Amistad]

so, back to the thread. Good egoism?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

I've been thinking about the egoism question and, as usual, I'm coming to see that in human life their are two kinds of ego's. There is the egoism advanced by the vile of Ayn Rand which places human individuality not in their own labor, not in their own lives but in capital, commodities, etc. But then there is the "egoism" of the laboring individual who takes pride in their labor and the fruits that their labor produces. This laboring ego holds no animosity to the outside society insofar as it does not challenge his passion, but in the end the individual is still working to satisfy his ego. So, is there such thing, particularly with a reified individual or even a reified society, where an ego based on one's personal labor is possibly beneficial to society as a whole?

Ego always limits an individual. There is no such thing as good egoism. One doesn't need egoism to function; circumstances will force us to take action, make decisions, and all that. So life goes even without a sense of ego.

[ZeroNowhere]

Technically, Ayn Rand wasn't an ethical egoist so much as a rights theorist with delusions of uniqueness.


Anthem is actually kind of a Communist book, mainly because it's about individuals who do not own the means of production standing up to their exploiters and rebelling. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gifI suppose that it would have to join 'The Iron Heel' in the ranks of awful 'Communist (fiction) books', in this case.

[A.R.Amistad]

Ego always limits an individual. There is no such thing as good egoism. One doesn't need egoism to function; circumstances will force us to take action, make decisions, and all that. So life goes even without a sense of ego.

But isn't it Utopian to think that people won't function on egoism in some way, but that that egoism can benefit socialism and socialist society?

MIA's definition of ego doesn't seem anti-socialist or even philosophically anti-Marxist necessarily:


The self. In philosophy, Ego refers to that aspect of an individual human being which is capable of initiating activity. In physcology ego is thought to be the conscious mind based on the perception of the external world.

[Wolf Larson]

Anarchism is the combination of Marx and Stirner. The brand of egoism Ayn Rand and other capitalists promote is false. Stirner did not advocate property, wage slavery, rent or interest.

When Rand (John Galt) said:
"I swear by my life and my love of it I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine" then turns around and advocated capitalism ?%#@!

You know....it should all be obvious. Self interest is fine BUT so long as your self interest does not subjugate another human to your will you're an OK egoist in my book. I guess I'd read Emma Goldman in lieu of Rand as far as using Stirners egoist principles in the correct fashion.

[Wolf Larson]

http://www.dis.org/daver/anarchism/emma/insocstat.html