What strikes me about what you're saying is not so much its difference with the 'classical' interpretation of Rand, it is the sudden and striking coherence of her philosophy as a whole when viewed in that light, and perhaps even more its interesting consonance and contrast with Marx. Rather than living in separate universes, she and Marx seem to have made distinct and to an extent antithetical interpretations of similar observations about human nature. I've always sensed Rand's value as a critic of Marx and the left but stumbled on her philosophic system and its seeming overemphasis of egoism. Now that makes sense: like Marx she understands that achievement is its own reward, but unlike Marx she does not use that observation to nullify the dignity of the individual in the service of the collective. Given her experience with Marxist destruction she realizes with supreme clarity that the individual must be the moral object of aggrandizement if humanity is to be maintained. Now I don't know how much further down her path I am able to trod, but it certainly gives me cause to reevaluate her thinking.
Actually, to some degree Rand does nullify the individual, at least those who aren't the corporate titans she envisioned. The rest are just parasites sucking the life out of everyone else. It's in her extremism and faulty utopian vision that she goes awry, just as Marx did in some instances.
And really, for as much as Marx might have been about collective ownership and the obliteration of class distinctions, it was toward a free individual end, at least that which was free from the exploitation of other individuals, which so happened to be the individuals Rand exalted. Also, Marx actually railed against one type of private property, not all, which was private property used as a means to exploit others. In other words, commercial property.
In both cases, each misses the mark on actual lived reality in many ways and I think that comes primarily because both were extreme in their determinism about the causes of the problems they highlighted, as well as the fixes.
__________________
I never said most of the things I said. --Yogi Berra
Fortunately, Marx didnt write any speculative fiction.
Marx 1 Rand 0.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
Rand was a bitter old lady and thinks we would be doing the homeless a "favor" by leaving them to starve in the streets because they were not strong enough to survive on their own.
__________________
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."--Emerson
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Jiddu Krishnamurti"
Actually, to some degree Rand does nullify the individual, at least those who aren't the corporate titans she envisioned. The rest are just parasites sucking the life out of everyone else. It's in her extremism and faulty utopian vision that she goes awry, just as Marx did in some instances.
And really, for as much as Marx might have been about collective ownership and the obliteration of class distinctions, it was toward a free individual end, at least that which was free from the exploitation of other individuals, which so happened to be the individuals Rand exalted. Also, Marx actually railed against one type of private property, not all, which was private property used as a means to exploit others. In other words, commercial property.
In both cases, each misses the mark on actual lived reality in many ways and I think that comes primarily because both were extreme in their determinism about the causes of the problems they highlighted, as well as the fixes.
My friend, we seem to be in fundamental disagreement about some of these issues, though I don't think either one of us need to establish our bona fides as independent thinkers. At least not with one another. I consider Marx's class theory of history as little more than a scientific-sounding conspiracy theory, and you know how I feel about those. They are possessed of a tacit religious character, and I use the word possessed deliberately (i.e., subliminally infused with dualistic eschatology and its inevitable consequences). So I don't think the revolutionary application of Marx's philosophy could have been different given the aforementioned, though I do sympathize with the plight of the 19th century working class of Europe. The mistake, I think, is to extend and generalize that particular case to all of humanity in all times and places, rather than to recognize it for its particularities and make allowances.
__________________ Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego.
Rand was a bitter old lady and thinks we would be doing the homeless a "favor" by leaving them to starve in the streets because they were not strong enough to survive on their own.
Where did she write that?
Answer: nowhere.
If you think that's even remotely implied by anything she wrote, you have no clue.
Those who dislike Rand have long ago given up trying to refute her views and taken to misrepresenting them instead.
If you think that's even remotely implied by anything she wrote, you have no clue.
Those who dislike Rand have long ago given up trying to refute her views and taken to misrepresenting them instead.
Burke --
After disagreeing with you for eleven pages,
I could not agree more with what you've said there. It's quite a shame that the discourse trying to discredit her philosophy (and I acknowledge you and I disagree about what that philosophy is) always goes to deliberate simplifications and unjust characterizations. I like a debate as much as anyone, but intentionally misrepresenting someone's beliefs (or parroting what you have heard someone else say about something you haven't read) is a disservice to anyone who wants to think about their world.
Ayn Rand asks whether one is obligated to aid the needy in the Virtue of Selfishness ("The Ethics of Emergencies" from The Objectivist Newsletter). Rand writes regarding the circumstances of a hypothetical next-door neighbor who finds himself "ill and penniless." Says Rand,"since the man is temporarily helpless one may bring him food and medicine, if one can afford it (as an act of good will not of duty)." But Rand cautions "this does not mean that one must support him from then on, nor that one must spend one's life looking for starving men to help." So even individuals who perceive of selfishness as a virtue (as does Rand) may still share and help others in need.
Homelessness and Rights
Rand acknowledges a common bond among the living which she refers to as "life" itself, but she observes that every individual in need does not always warrant help. She writes that "The principle that one should help men in an emergency cannot be extended to regard all human suffering as an emergency and to turn the misfortune of some into a first mortgage on the lives of others...."
Furthermore, Rand adds in the chapter entitled "Man's Rights" (essay from the Objectivist Newsletter), that "The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level as far as his ability will carry him)," but "it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life." According to Rand's assessment, the homeless and displaced do not have a right to demand accommodation and the privileged do not have an obligation to provide such.
She adds "There is no 'right to a home,' only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it." So the homeless have neither right to shelter unless thy "build it or buy it" nor the right to "necessities of life." For those with the viewpoint of Rand; the homeless are not entitled to housing in a winter shelter or indeed any services without providing compensation.
My friend, we seem to be in fundamental disagreement about some of these issues, though I don't think either one of us need to establish our bona fides as independent thinkers. At least not with one another. I consider Marx's class theory of history as little more than a scientific-sounding conspiracy theory, and you know how I feel about those. They are possessed of a tacit religious character, and I use the word possessed deliberately (i.e., subliminally infused with dualistic eschatology and its inevitable consequences). So I don't think the revolutionary application of Marx's philosophy could have been different given the aforementioned, though I do sympathize with the plight of the 19th century working class of Europe. The mistake, I think, is to extend and generalize that particular case to all of humanity in all times and places, rather than to recognize it for its particularities and make allowances.
I don't believe it would have been different either, but I do believe it's better to separate what Marx wrote vs how his writing was used; though admittedly given his own revolutionary intentions, he bears some responsibility. And I agree with you about the problem of applying it across all time and place (and not inconsequentially his argument that all capitalist societies will eventually move to communism). But in that way, this was more a problem with the intentions of the CM in the first place, not necessarily his historical analysis. In other words, the fixes he prescribed--i.e. communism--were bound to cause more problems then they solved but that doesn't mean his observations were all wrong.
He was largely correct about the nature of capitalism, particularly it's exploitative tendencies, and materialism as a source of class conflict. Then again, his signature problem (like Rands) was that he was too economically deterministic such that some of his observations about social relationships failed to give any room to countervailing forces or competing explanations, or other ways in which peoples connect with one another that might lessen the impact of economic forces on social relationships. In this regard, societal conflict isn't always about class distinctions. Interestingly, Rand offers a somewhat nice example of this in that the conflict isn't so much economic conflict either, but about individual vs. group or ultimately society even while making the same type of deterministic mistakes as Marx.
__________________
I never said most of the things I said. --Yogi Berra
I can tell you a as history major, it is impossible not to content with Marx's idea of materialist history, and I feel like Marx's notion of historical class struggle gets unfairly simplified, by both Marxists and non-Marxists. Like anything with Marxism, its been the source of some incredibly bad historiography (Early 20th century Progressive school), and also some really insightful stuff. His basic point is rather sound: production/trade drives social relations/culture, which in turn make changes to production/trade, which eventually culminates in a revolutionary reorganization of production. The supercession of capitalism seems like a rather reasonable proposition.
Also, the Frankfurt School (Adorno, et al) basically opened up cultural studies as a legitimate academic pursuit, based on Marx's materialist conception.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
Rand was a bitter old lady and thinks we would be doing the homeless a "favor" by leaving them to starve in the streets because they were not strong enough to survive on their own.
You obviously have no idea at all about Atlas Shrugged. Have you ever read it??
__________________ All your trophy are belong to us
__________________
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
That's a little crazy, for one thing, I think it's nuts for anybody whose never had children before talk about how nuts it is for someone to value the life of others above their own. I would be curious if Burke, Moc, or other objectivists truly believe that they would not sacrifice their own life if it would benefit that of their children. Part of what you do in raising children is make sacrifices for their benefit. That's a necessary virtue of being a parent that a non-parent may not be capable of understanding. In this respect, her values are clearly unacceptable.
Sorry, not going to read 12 pages, so no clue what the topic has morphed into...but to the original poster.
Gates & Jobs were not 'greedy'. They created a product and sold it to the market at a price that the market accepted and they made billions. This is true capitalism and should make us stand and applaud.
Now, I would have like the million plus jobs to build those product be in the US, in factories that paid real estate taxes, etc, but that is another topic.
"Financial Services" is one of the top sectors of the US economy and it doesn't produce anything, sells a non-tangible asset that in itself has no redeemable value and has no warranty, penalty for being wrong or anyone to complain to if you are harmed. That is greed and crony capitalism.
Greed is Insurance companies should not make billions by not paying you when you are hurt.
Hospitals should not make choices of profitability at the expense of human care.
Oil lobbyist prevented any real energy policy and after decade after decade of gas being $1 a gallon, we were shocked when the Oil man because President and oil topped $4. They still get $8 Billion in Govt subsides, yet are always profitable. What would a gallon of gas cost if it faced true capitalism regulated by the market's power of choice. It would go like this...You pull your car up to the Energy Center...would you like to power your vehicle by charging through solar, electric, hydrogen or gas? That gallon of gas would cost about $0.60.
Sorry, not going to read 12 pages, so no clue what the topic has morphed into...but to the original poster.
Gates & Jobs were not 'greedy'. They created a product and sold it to the market at a price that the market accepted and they made billions. This is true capitalism and should make us stand and applaud.
Now, I would have like the million plus jobs to build those product be in the US, in factories that paid real estate taxes, etc, but that is another topic.
"Financial Services" is one of the top sectors of the US economy and it doesn't produce anything, sells a non-tangible asset that in itself has no redeemable value and has no warranty, penalty for being wrong or anyone to complain to if you are harmed. That is greed and crony capitalism.
Greed is Insurance companies should not make billions by not paying you when you are hurt.
Hospitals should not make choices of profitability at the expense of human care.
Oil lobbyist prevented any real energy policy and after decade after decade of gas being $1 a gallon, we were shocked when the Oil man because President and oil topped $4. They still get $8 Billion in Govt subsides, yet are always profitable. What would a gallon of gas cost if it faced true capitalism regulated by the market's power of choice. It would go like this...You pull your car up to the Energy Center...would you like to power your vehicle by charging through solar, electric, hydrogen or gas? That gallon of gas would cost about $0.60.
If you were Netscape or one of the other internet access competitors of Gates et al. (and impliedly, his pal Jobs), you would not think that Gates was just "a good guy" engaging in "true capitalism," or that he was not engaging in non-competitive, monopolistic business practices.
The trial judge didn't buy Gates' and the Microsoft baloney either.
Just check the quicki-Wiki for more detail, or read the legal documents if you think that is incorrect:
Quote:
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[4] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[5] BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of email Gates both sent and received."[6]Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free.[7]
A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified.[8] Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff. "They ended up filming it – grabbing the wrong screen shot," he said of the incident. Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed. Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production."[9]
Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified.[10]
When the judge ordered Microsoft to offer a version of Windows which did not include Internet Explorer, Microsoft responded that the company would offer manufacturers a choice: one version of Windows that was obsolete, or another that did not work properly. The judge asked, "It seemed absolutely clear to you that I entered an order that required that you distribute a product that would not work?" David D. Cole, a Microsoft vice president, replied, "In plain English, yes. We followed that order. It wasn't my place to consider the consequences of that."[11]
__________________
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
Capitalism is dead as long as there is a monopoly of currency that can be manipulated. All the Econ they teach you is crap because of the underlying assumptions are FALSE.
__________________
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."--Emerson
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Jiddu Krishnamurti"
Linear Mode
