Altruism is the ultimate evil

[JohnGalt]

Man is an individual creature, with an independent mind. To chain him by force to his fellow men is the most despicable of crimes, for it denies a man all rights he is entitled to. It kills the man not in body, but in spirit, for the man has nothing to live for. "He can live for his fellow man!" you preach, "He can live for the needy!" In return I ask you a question: what happens to a society in which your rights are not based upon your ability, but based upon your level of need? This is a society that produces nothing, for the producers of the society are either not given the means to produce, or they have no incentive to. To produce only to benefit your fellow men is not a real incentive, because no matter how much you deny it man is a selfish creature. A man does his best work when he knows that the harder he works, the more he will gain. You say that you support the minorities of the world, yet you condemn the most precious minority of all: the individual.

[jake williams]

Get off my internet then. Go be an individual somewhere no one has to listen to you. No one will stop you.

[JohnGalt]

no counter-argument then?

[Incendiarism]

cool story bro

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile."
-- Albert Einstein

Now hurry up and end your meaningless life so I can piss on your grave, Randroid.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine - excerpt on property. Then the state should defend the fuck out my claims!


man is a selfish creature.Thanks for clarifying what you believe. I'm pretty sure half of us have already read Atlas Shrugged, and the other half threw the monstrosity across the room and picked up Tolstoy instead.


A man does his best work when he knows that the harder he works, the more he will gain.Nice justification for slavery. Also - way to go blowing off all volunteer and freeware efforts.

[jake williams]

no counter-argument then?
My counter argument is that if you don't like other humans, either practically or conceptually, you should leave, because I don't like you and you don't like being here, and further if that's the case, no one wants you here, or anywhere. No one likes that sort of person, your sort of person, because your sort of person isn't interested in being liked, or interested in others. And the internet specifically is a social place - it's a collective effort to enable people to communicate. In fact, everything you presumably know is social, it's a product of human social interaction.

That and there's a good chance you're a troll, which presents its own issues. Fuck it, I'm done.

[GPDP]

You must be a lonely and resentful person.

[Lenin's Law]

Interesting that you entitled your diatribe: "Altruism is the ultimate evil." Capitalist apologists routinely glorify the altruism of major corporations and wealthy people (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc) to demonstrate how generous the system is. I actually thought this was going to be a post elaborating more on this but I apparently expected too much.

Your argument seems to more directed at Social Democracy and left-liberal reformist welfare states than real socialism. Socialists believe in full employment (unlike capitalism which demands a certain percentage of workers be unemployed) and the abolition of the parasitic class which produces nothing and relies on the labor of others to enrich themselves.

As Lenin said in State and Revolution:


the socialist principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" will be realized



To produce only to benefit your fellow men is not a real incentive, because no matter how much you deny it man is a selfish creature. A man does his best work when he knows that the harder he works, the more he will gain. You say that you support the minorities of the world, yet you condemn the most precious minority of all: the individual

No Socialist/Communist/Anarchist that I'm aware of ever stated that the individual shall produce only for your fellow man; we shall produce for ourselves and each other; which will raise the living standards of the working-class and guarantee what is presently considered a luxury for a wealthy few. It is in fact the bourgeois who demands that others work and produce primarily for his own benefit.

As for man being inherently a selfish creature, this is again easily disproven by the thorough studies that been done on the primitive, hunter and gatherer societies still in existence for clues on how human societies before states functioned. For surely if it is in man's DNA to be selfish and greedy this would be readily apparent in those primitive societies which have consumed most of humanity's history here on Earth. However, the evidence overwhelming cities the exact opposite: these societies displayed a remarkable egalitarian sense and purpose, food was distributed commonly, not hoarded by a few individuals, and decisions were made by a general consensus and for the good of the whole society.

Marx called this Primitive Communism, you can read more about it if you like as it completely disproves this capitalist-inspired notion of man being inherently greedy and selfish and that's just the way it is. If some humans are that way it is not because of the inherent laws of man but by the inherent laws of capital.

Oh yes, "the harder you work the more you gain" nonsense. And this in the middle of the of a massive Wall Street bailout where CEOs made millions (even hundreds of millions) while their companies floundered, lost money and laid off workers! Yes I can see how hard these people work while the waitress, factory worker, teacher, construction worker with 2 jobs, 40+ hour work weeks making fractions of what these people do are just lazy and need to work harder! Good stuff! :lol:

The Financial Times, a very pro capitalist paper as you might know, recently ran a piece describing the multi-million dollar pay packages these CEOs and corporate executives received even when their companies were failing and losing money!

[Nusocialist]

Man is a social creature, on his own he is usually not much. It is only through association that he can find freedom, order and meaning. I think this quote I got from a Murray Bookchin essay (http://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism--lifestyle-anarchism-murray-bookchin) sums it up.

'individuality is impaired when each man decides to fend for himself. . . . The absolutely isolated individual has always been an illusion. The most esteemed personal qualities, such as independence, will to freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as well as individual virtues. The fully developed individual is the consummation of a fully developed society.'
Max Horkheimer

[Schrödinger's Cat]

John Galt, if your misplaced fears still exist post-capitalism, you are free to be on your own and work on this rugged individualism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Looks like Ayn Rand is in the house.

Let me give you a word of advice: if you choose to ape a philosopher, at least ape a philosopher with a bit more in the credentials department.

[black magick hustla]

i dont think the most solid marxists or anarchists base their ideas on "altruism". so you are building a strawman here

[Hiero]

what happens to a society in which your rights are not based upon your ability, but based upon your level of need? This is a society that produces nothing, for the producers of the society are either not given the means to produce, or they have no incentive to.

Need is the incentive. People aren't just going to let themselves starve to death because there isn't someone around to expliot.

What your saying is that there is a human nature and it is to expliot other people.

Sometimes when people get lost in the bush they are forced to labour for their needs or they die. By your logic when it appears that no rescue is near they would just lay down and die as the incentive to expliot is not present, so their is no incentive for action.

It also doesn't explain why workers keep working. Some workers just receive what they need to survive. By your logic, they would either give up on life or rob the owner of his property and money. This does occur some times, in the later situation this happens as revolution. However this action isn't consistant so your theory isn't consistant. We are often told by Ayn Randist philosophers about this greed motive, but really 10% of the world's populution are motivated by action, the rest usually just go along with the scheme, receive a wage, up untill the point of revolution. This philosophy has no material manifistation across all of humanity, only amongst the bourgeosie and the middle class.

Then again this is why it is called bourgeiosie ideology. To take the actions of the bourgeoisie as human nature and pound it a philosophy and dstribute it through the super structure. I guess this what it is called cultural hegonomy.

[Demogorgon]

When you think about it, Rand was a bit of an altruist herself, not only did she provide a philosophy for those too dense for the real thing, but she gave sociopaths and misanthropes a way to feel good about their shortcomings.

On a serious note, the talk of "the individual" is strange. When you come down to it, individual is synonymous with person. Each person is an individual. When you consider that the sort of nightmare world that Randroids fantasise about would hurt the vast majority of people, you have to conclude that it would not be good for the individual.

The individual is not some kind of abstract entity. We are all living breathing people trying to go about our lives. If a set of policies causes us great harm, how on earth can it be good for us as individuals?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The individual is not some kind of abstract entity. We are all living breathing people trying to go about our lives. If a set of policies causes us great harm, how on earth can it be good for us as individuals?
You're not thinking like a Randroid. The question is not "how can we improve the lives of individuals", but rather "how can we improve my life while fucking everyone else in the ass?"

That last part is very important, by the way. To a Randroid, personal happiness is not sufficient. They must also watch other people suffer, because those filthy uncreative lazy untermenschen do not deserve any better.

Randroids are the very definition of evil. My hatred for them knows no bounds. A consistent, intelligent Randroid (as opposed to a deluded fool) is a cancer upon the world, deserving nothing but death.

[communard resolution]

A man does his best work when he knows that the harder he works, the more he will gain.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1000/amfxy0.jpg

[Incendiarism]

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/2650/atlasshy3.gif

[mikelepore]

To produce only to benefit your fellow men is not a real incentive, because no matter how much you deny it man is a selfish creature. A man does his best work when he knows that the harder he works, the more he will gain.

An excellent argument in favor of overthrowing capitalism, a system ruled almost entirely by inheritance of one's ancestors' property and status.

There's about a 99 pecent probability that a person born into one economic class or the other is fated to remain in that class forever. Whether you're an extremely lazy person who has inherited great wealth, or a very ambitious and hardworking pauper, the economic class you're born into is usually the constant of your life.

Yes, there are a few exceptions -- we see their faces on the covers of Forbes and Fortune magazines. Imagine, out of such a large population, there are so few exceptions that we can actually learn their names and faces! These articles about the exceptions are news precisely because they are freak stories.

[mikelepore]

for it denies a man all rights he is entitled to

"Entitled" is an interesting choice of a word. It's a dangerous concept for a supporter of capitalism to mention in public.

Under capitalism, labor-power is a commodity with a price determined by environmental circumstances that are external to the worker's character, in the same way that the prices of pork chops and sacks of potatoes are determined by the uncontrollable market environment "out there". The wages of workers are completely disconnected from and uncorrelated with the exponentially increasing productivity of those workers. They may invent automation that makes their productivity go up a hundredfold or more, after which they still can't afford mortgage payments on a house that's smaller than the one their great-grandparents had.

There is an optical illusion that the capitalist financially supports the worker. The truth is that the worker supports the capitalist. The more your produce, the more you give to the sponge.

[Demogorgon]

You're not thinking like a Randroid. The question is not "how can we improve the lives of individuals", but rather "how can we improve my life while fucking everyone else in the ass?"

That last part is very important, by the way. To a Randroid, personal happiness is not sufficient. They must also watch other people suffer, because those filthy uncreative lazy untermenschen do not deserve any better.

Randroids are the very definition of evil. My hatred for them knows no bounds. A consistent, intelligent Randroid (as opposed to a deluded fool) is a cancer upon the world, deserving nothing but death.
While I like to do my best to avoid hatred, .I can certainly share your sentiments. Mind you, to be fair, most Randroids, most likely including the particular specimen we have here, fit into the "deluded fool" category

[Zurdito]

if altruism is the ultimate evil, then why shouldn't the majority, who are poor, just look after their cold-calculated self-interest, and take the shit of the rich minority, thereby makign themselves richer?

your only answer JohnGalt is a plea to them to "respect the rights of the most precious minority: the individual".

But isn't asking them to respect the rights of "the individual" at the expense of their own cold self-interest, actually an, umm, appeal to their altruism?

Surely if your only argument to people is that they have to respect the individualism of the rich minority out of pure metaphhysical morality, then you aren't going to convicne them...which is incidentally why capitallism needs reformism, charity, and pseudo-utilitarian arguments - because your "there's ntohing in it for you but you have to play by mmy rules anyway" argument just does not work. in fact it rests on others respecting a "moral obligation" to your individualism above their own self-interest, while you explicitly reject any moral obligation to them.

[R_P_A_S]

Man is an individual creature, with an independent mind. To chain him by force to his fellow men is the most despicable of crimes, for it denies a man all rights he is entitled to. It kills the man not in body, but in spirit, for the man has nothing to live for. "He can live for his fellow man!" you preach, "He can live for the needy!" In return I ask you a question: what happens to a society in which your rights are not based upon your ability, but based upon your level of need? This is a society that produces nothing, for the producers of the society are either not given the means to produce, or they have no incentive to. To produce only to benefit your fellow men is not a real incentive, because no matter how much you deny it man is a selfish creature. A man does his best work when he knows that the harder he works, the more he will gain. You say that you support the minorities of the world, yet you condemn the most precious minority of all: the individual.

It frightens me that people think this way. and are serious. I hope for your own sake, that you are young. And not some old hermit in your late 60's. If you are young, you have time to open your mind and learn...

Yes.. men is selfish.. and individualist, thats how he's strives more! right? gee I wonder how tribes in the past ever survived if we are better when we are individualist and selfish.

[Jazzratt]

"Who is John Galt?"

"A complete and utter dick"

[trivas7]

Man is an individual creature, with an independent mind. To chain him by force to his fellow men is the most despicable of crimes, for it denies a man all rights he is entitled to. It kills the man not in body, but in spirit, for the man has nothing to live for. "He can live for his fellow man!" you preach, "He can live for the needy!" In return I ask you a question: what happens to a society in which your rights are not based upon your ability, but based upon your level of need? This is a society that produces nothing, for the producers of the society are either not given the means to produce, or they have no incentive to. To produce only to benefit your fellow men is not a real incentive, because no matter how much you deny it man is a selfish creature. A man does his best work when he knows that the harder he works, the more he will gain. You say that you support the minorities of the world, yet you condemn the most precious minority of all: the individual.
So you think capitalism rewards the hard work of the productive? The harder one works, the more he gains? You are dreaming, my friend. :lol:

[Trystan]

Man is an individual creature, with an independent mind. To chain him by force to his fellow men is the most despicable of crimes, for it denies a man all rights he is entitled to. It kills the man not in body, but in spirit, for the man has nothing to live for. "He can live for his fellow man!" you preach, "He can live for the needy!" In return I ask you a question: what happens to a society in which your rights are not based upon your ability, but based upon your level of need? This is a society that produces nothing, for the producers of the society are either not given the means to produce, or they have no incentive to. To produce only to benefit your fellow men is not a real incentive, because no matter how much you deny it man is a selfish creature. A man does his best work when he knows that the harder he works, the more he will gain. You say that you support the minorities of the world, yet you condemn the most precious minority of all: the individual.

What kind of "individual" names himself after a one dimensional character created by a cult leader whom he parrots? All that could've been lifted straight out of one of Rand's "novels". Actually it's the same with all the capitalist trolls I see on here - they never have an original criticism in their heads.

"Who is John Galt?"

"If you were a lover of liberty and individuality, you'd be just like him"

:rolleyes:

Fuck Ayn Rand.:)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ayn Rand gave us Terry Goodkind. I think that's reason enough to dislike her. :D

[Demogorgon]

Ayn Rand gave us Terry Goodkind. I think that's reason enough to dislike her. :D

Oh Jesus :lol: I had forgotten about him. More Objectivist "talent".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I shall offer my own criticism of JohnGalt's Randroid nonsense:


Man is an individual creature, with an independent mind.

Individual humans may have their own thoughts, drives and desires, but they are not entirely self-generated or independant of the social reality in which they live. Having individual aspirations in no way prevents humans from being social animals.

In fact, considering that the vast majority of human beings live and have lived within a society of some kind or another, and also considering the well observed negative effects of isolation and cabin fever, one could say that a human's social dimension is just as important if not more so than their individual dimension.


To chain him by force to his fellow men is the most despicable of crimes, for it denies a man all rights he is entitled to. It kills the man not in body, but in spirit, for the man has nothing to live for.

Civilisation requires the existence of socially-minded beings. The fact that the vast majority of people within society do not commit suicide or become hermits puts the lie to your statement.


"He can live for his fellow man!" you preach, "He can live for the needy!" In return I ask you a question: what happens to a society in which your rights are not based upon your ability, but based upon your level of need? This is a society that produces nothing, for the producers of the society are either not given the means to produce, or they have no incentive to.

The slogan "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" implies a means to produce. The incentive for doing something is because you find the work satisfying and purposeful - no human likes feeling bored and useless.


To produce only to benefit your fellow men is not a real incentive, because no matter how much you deny it man is a selfish creature.

If that was true, then charity and altruism wouldn't exist. People would even bother begging because there'd be no point.

The Randroid delusion of humans as ultimately selfish is refuted daily.


A man does his best work when he knows that the harder he works, the more he will gain.

Which doesn't happen under capitalism.


You say that you support the minorities of the world, yet you condemn the most precious minority of all: the individual.

Rhetorical bluster. Individuals are, by definition, individual, so they do not form a coherent group. What you mean to say is that we condemn Randroid "induhviduals" like you.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

My counter argument is that if you don't like other humans, either practically or conceptually, you should leave, because I don't like you and you don't like being here, and further if that's the case, no one wants you here, or anywhere. No one likes that sort of person, your sort of person, because your sort of person isn't interested in being liked, or interested in others. And the internet specifically is a social place - it's a collective effort to enable people to communicate. In fact, everything you presumably know is social, it's a product of human social interaction.

That and there's a good chance you're a troll, which presents its own issues. Fuck it, I'm done.

Man if you knew who John Galt was you would be bowing to him right now asking him to forgivenss. LOL

Anyways He never said that he doesn't like other people or even that he doesn't like helping other people. What he said, which is what you communist keep failing to realize, is that he doesn't like to be force to help other people. Or rather he believes that the man of ability shouldn't be force to help the man in need. Why can't this things be done voluntary? Why can't there be free trade amongst men? And you call your POS system a system where peopel have freedom? BS!

The internet, which is ran by capitalist, is more then a place where people communicate and say "LOL" Or "BRB" or crap like that. The internet has open up a new way and faster way for people to trade with each other. It has enable men to upon up online stores without having to lay one brick down. Companies have made billions on advertising along. People have become rich by just making a new search engine.

Socialist program made possible my the capitalist machine.

[Killfacer]

Man if you knew who John Galt was you would be bowing to him right now asking him to forgivenss. LOL

Unless JohnGalt is the reincarnation of Durutti, which seems unlikely, then i very much doubt i would be bowing to him.

Instead of bowing, i will tell him to go fuck himself. As for you, you slimy scrot, stop being a freak.

[bcbm]

What he said, which is what you communist keep failing to realize, is that he doesn't like to be force to help other people. Or rather he believes that the man of ability shouldn't be force to help the man in need. Why can't this things be done voluntary? Why can't there be free trade amongst men? And you call your POS system a system where peopel have freedom?

Two of the major "tenets" of anarchism are voluntary cooperation and free association. Oops, there goes your argument about forcing people to help each other. Capitalism, on the other hand, relies entirely on force to keep it afloat and its bullshit functioning, whether through the police, courts or simple starvation. Yeah, that's freedom.

[JohnGalt]

troll'd

peace out y'all

[Sendo]

Communism is not about pitying and providing for lazy people. It's about getting rid of parasites, working for the community would include ourselves of course, and, okay, taking care of sick and elderly and children. What an evil burden! Asking the majority to work enough for the disabled to live. Oh god, if we only had tools, plows, computers, phones, organization, and scientific knowledge to make commodities easier to make!!!!

[GPDP]

troll'd

peace out y'all

1/10. Try harder next time.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

troll'd

peace out y'all

Can we ban this user? It's obvious that he doesn't really believe what he's saying, and is simply posting to get a rise out of us.

[Sendo]

Oh fucking hell, I hate drafting a response and having another come out in the meantime.

Waste of time

[jake williams]

troll'd

peace out y'all
I totes called it.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

So you think capitalism rewards the hard work of the productive? The harder one works, the more he gains? You are dreaming, my friend. :lol:

Who does it reward then? What does a person have to do to become rich in a capitalist society?

[jake williams]

Who does it reward then? What does a person have to do to become rich in a capitalist society?
Inherit and/or steal. If you have the right skills you can make a fair amount of money by working hard and doing so in the right way, but if you really want a lot of money it's a combination of those two.

The whole idea of "investment" - and most really really wealthy people make their money that way - is that you get rewarded for having more money than you can spend on basic needs, something which apparently some folks have to be reminded is not a common thing. Most people can't afford to substantially invest, they can "save up" and maybe collect a couple bucks interest, but that's not usually very substantial at all. A few people have such an obscene amount of money that even with an utterly repugnant level of luxury spending, they still have enough left over they get large amounts of money for having that other large amount of money. It's really a strange system, and I don't know how that isn't obvious to people.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Looks like RevLeft just defeated John Galt. :cool:

[PRC-UTE]

Man is an individual creature, with an independent mind. To chain him by force to his fellow men is the most despicable of crimes, for it denies a man all rights he is entitled to. It kills the man not in body, but in spirit, for the man has nothing to live for.

Hey, why don't you go preach this stuff in a factory where people spend their lives making stuff for lazy wank bags like you and your hero mccain.