Objectivism vs. Communism

I’m an Objectivist. I believe that we are all inherently good. I believe that man owes nothing to anybody. I believe that happiness comes from fulfilling your virtues. I believe in the inherent nobility of man and that he should strive to make his own life better. I believe that man should not be forced into submission by the weak-willed beggars who demand him to lower himself down to their level. I believe in the power of triumphant success. I am an Objectivist, and I believe in life.

Can any Communists or Socialists argue with me?

If you can form an argument in your own words rather than quoting Ayn Rand verbatim…I might offer an argument if I’m not busy clipping my toenails.

edit: and hurry up. I shouldn’t even be here. This is like the sixth time I’ve said I was leaving for good, only to come back again. I should be ashamed of myself.

Haha, I didn’t even read Atlas Shrugged. That was my own Objectivist speech (a bit shorter than most). But okay, I’ll form another, more argumentative argument.

Man is on the earth. If every person takes care of themself, then everyone will be taken care of. Besides that, it doesn’t make sense for people who have the will to make their own business and create their own life through the use of creative ingenuity to be forced to submit and give away their produce to those who have less than them for a lack of determination. It doesn’t make sense to have the triumphant submit to the laziness of those who could otherwise create their own lifestyle in the way they choose. It (much like Christianity) was created by the weak in order to make them more powerful than the noble and proud through the use of hindrance. There is no moral obligation from those who create to give to those who wish to recieve.

Again, I haven’t read Fountainhead, in like, a year, and I read Anthem a couple years ago, and I’ve never once quoted Ayn Rand, so there was no verbatim quoting going on.

QUESTIONS FROM A WORKER
WHO READS

by Bertolt Brecht

Who built Thebes of the 7 gates ?
In the books you will read the names of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock ?
And Babylon, many times demolished,
Who raised it up so many times ?
In what houses of gold glittering Lima did its builders live ?
Where, the evening that the Great Wall of China was finished, did the masons go ?
Great Rome is full of triumphal arches.
Who erected them ?
Over whom did the Caesars triumph ?
Had Byzantium, much praised in song, only palaces for its inhabitants ?
Even in fabled Atlantis, the night that the ocean engulfed it,
The drowning still cried out for their slaves.
The young Alexander conquered India.
Was he alone ?
Caesar defeated the Gauls.
Did he not even have a cook with him ?
Philip of Spain wept when his armada went down.
Was he the only one to weep ?
Frederick the 2nd won the 7 Years War.
Who else won it ?
Every page a victory.
Who cooked the feast for the victors ?
Every 10 years a great man.
Who paid the bill ?
So many reports.
So many questions.

Objectivism fails terribly because it bases itself off of an artifact of human interaction rather than focusing on humanity itself. By shifting the meanest of virtues to the highest position and rejecting man’s fundamental co-humanity, its own failure is hardwired into the philosophy.

No man is an island, and it is not merely foolish, but hybristic to think otherwise.

You’re not seeing it how I see it. I don’t see the highest virtue as being rising to the top of a hierarchal tower. I see the highest virtue as doing what you love and being free. Some people love labor, some love economics, some love farming, some love painting, some love writing. I’m not saying that laboring is wrong, and running a business is right. I’m saying doing what you like because you like it is right, and doing what you dislike because you “have to” is wrong. Make your work play and your entire life will be happy, shaneytiger say.

And I believe in co-humanitarianism [sic?], I just think that people should do what they like and be free and be free to help those that they love and be free to do with their money as they please.

This model is only recent. There was once a time when society was arranged around family groups with mutual concerns. It was mandatory to “take care of” one’s relative for the group to be successful.

You must assume that “incentive” is neccesarily gained through the anticipation of owning material commodities. This isn’t neccesary for man to pioneer new things and/or have productive integrity. “Incentive,” in todays world means “…so I can buy the new gas grill and be better than my neighbor who still uses a charcoal grill.”

Is that what all the hype is about? Well, I’m not impressed.

Be careful how you define “laziness.” As I was just telling someone else at another forum, a millionare doctor is far more “lazy” than a brick-mason, since the brick-mason produces more physical labour (metabolism-force-work).

False. The first civilizations consisted of only one class- the worker/soldier. If anything was “created” out of something else, it was the new class of the bourgeois, which distinguished itself from the working class. No, the first societies were communal. The “noble” were the workers. The parasite was the bourgeois. You’ve got it entirely backwards.

That is correct. There is no “obligation”. But there is a tendency for a society consisting of two classes to remain in conflict until the working class destroys the other class. History has shown this. I’m not talking about “morals” here, but the mechanics of civilization.

Sorry. I just saw a few key-words Rand loves to use over and over again. “Noble,” “objective,” “virtuous,” “inherently good,” yada, yada, yada.

Today is today, and yesteryear is yesteryear.

I don’t assume that incentive is gained throught pursuit of material possesions, I think that the incentive is to be happy with what do. I respect the farmer who is happy with his life more than the CEO of a company who despairs at his restrictions.

I define laziness as being not willing to do things that could be to his benefit when he knows they would be to his benefit and instead to remain stagnant.

The nobles-class was created in order to rule over the other class. But in any shape, what does this have to do with Christianity, which was created LONG after the dual class system was put into use?

So the weak always wins… Quite ironic. But things are changing now, aren’t they? Those who wish to steal from those who create through their will-power are inherently immoral, and them creating a philosophy designed to fit their thieving ways is only another manifestation of their leaching.

Yeah, I know… haha.

That’s just it, freedom as Rand defines it is an illusion. People don’t exist as single units but rather as nodes on a web – that is the meaning of co-humanity.

When you take an individual and isolate them, they go crazy. So why should anyone even consider a philosophy that takes this madman as the fundamental unit upon which it is based?

…the hardest I have ever laughed on the internet.

Definately made me smile.

The first human societies had one class, but the first civilizations were largerly aristocratic- at least all the important ones. Christianity and Marxism have a lot in common- both of them rely on the concept of equality as opposed to hierarchy and both of them are slave religions.

Be careful how you define productivity. A brickmason might put in more physical labor than a doctor. But it takes a lot more intelligence to be a doctor than it does to make or lay bricks. Doing manual labor might be phsyically tough, but it doesn’t take a whole lot of intellectual capacity.
There are people working in manufacturing plants making well above $20 per hour for basically pressing buttons. Could they have created the machines that enable them to do that? Doubt it.

But some people are just better than each other in ways, and we aren’t all equal.

…and yet be careful how you define “abilities” concerning intelligence and consider the context that exists in which abilities are used to become intelligent.

If Person X and person Y possess the same general cognitive capacity and more or less the same intellectual integrity before they recieve education which teaches them their skills, then one cannot say that the “intelligence” is inconsequential and something that one person possesses a greater degree of, than the other, neccesarily.

In other words, person X and person Y are both tabula rasas. It is the context of the circumstances surrounding the education that is provided by each, and so therefore it is not, ipso facto, a matter of outright calling one person more intelligent than another; the brick-mason could’ve been trained as a doctor, or at least be as intelligent as, had the educational context been different.

So rather than forming an argument for a claim that “some people are more valuable because they end up more intelligent,” you must keep in mind that the development of such intelligence is not partial to only one “class,” and is instead contingent to the context of education.

If you wish to say that some people are inherently more intelligent, then you are making a different argument. My argument is that the value of a service and the capacity to perform that service is something developed and contained, and its importance is not determined because of the market “value” if affords to the consumer public.

To say that productivity is contingent to the greater intellectual strengths of “those who will become doctors” is to also say “it is impossible to turn a brick-mason into a doctor with the proper education.” This is false.

From here you must keep in mind that the market value is just as much a developmental process as is the capacities of the various trades and professions, and that valuable people, as far as their “productivity” is concerned, are determined by something irrelevent and insignificant when you consider that it is based on a system without equal privileges.

If you wish to say simply “well, somebody has to do the dirty work,” I will agree, but that certainly doesn’t mean that the productivity of the doctor is more valuable, precisely because the roles and careers could’ve been revearsed, and because the context of money and its value is dependent on a market…which is in turn can be controlled rather than controlling.

No, every form of commodity production is just as neccessary as the other and just as important. Who ends up doing what as a profession is containable and controllable by social sciences and conventions.

Monarchic, but not necessarily aristocratic. Ruling families did not always produce bloodlines of superior physiology and intelligence. In short, a family did not always produce a “next generation” of persons fit to “rule.”

The only difference between a “society” and a “civilization” is a matter of size, not politics and economy.

Stop trying to compare Christianity with Marxism. That’s ridiculous. The best information regarding the concepts of the two in comparison and contrast is provided by Feuerbach, who I am most familiar with so far, although Hegel, Marx, and Engels also elaborate the same themes of comparison and contrast of Christian ideals and historical materialism.

Marxism does not dictate economical equality (each according to his own needs, and each according to their own capacities). It only seeks to eliminate the profitability of labour for another person at the expense of a person’s energies, because it asserts that an economical systen can operate without that aspect of capitalist economy.

And “slavery” is not a metaphor or a metaphysical description. It is not a “quality” that one is or has. It is a form of status in a mode of production; a slave is a worker who either works by demand and without the right to own commodities, or, in Marxist terms, a person who yields more profit through his production than he, himself, is allowed to have. A wage worker, by definition, is someone who “makes money” but not the total amount of money generated through the sales of the commodoties he produces.

do with money as they please…? what do you mean specifically? Do you mean they should not be taxed at all, or less or what?

It is obvious that the more money you make, the less you need to survive, and you should be taxed a larger percentage, you can still be wealthy, but a society would be dumb to just see some fat ass smoking cigars hold up all this capital that could be used to fix various social issues. Humans live in communities, it would be silly to allow a few rich to hord all these resources that they don’t need. What is the point of holding resources you are not going to use… maybe being an asshole human being.

Yeah, I am a socialist to some extent, deal with it. But I am also capitalistic to some extent. I am both, like most of us, though we usually love to identify with extremes, probably for ego kicks. I dunno.

I don’t think the rich should just give out money straight up for people to mouch, but it could be polled for education or other technical training, so that those who “desire” regardless of money could climb if they want.

the world is fucked because we live for ourselves and not for society, and it might really fuck us up a lot worse in the next few hundred years. Stay tunned… Oh, wait we’ll all be dead, so eat drink and be merry, and fuck our children.

One cannot be both a socialist and a capitalist, because the basic principles of those two schools of thought are completely opposed to each other. A capitalist believes in private property rights, a socialist doesn’t. Either you believe someone shouldn’t be forcibly removed of his/her own money without their consent or you don’t. If you think it’s okay in certain instances where there is an enormous wealth disparity, where some people are fat asses smoking cigars and others are drowning in poverty, then you’re not a capitalist.

I didn’t mean to give you the impression that I think a doctor is more intelligent than a brickmason simply by virtue of being a doctor. And “intellectual capacity” was probably a poor choice of words, I should’ve said something like “intellectual effort”.
Your argument that every form of commodity production is equally necessary and important is incomplete without answering “for whom.” The greatest number of people in a given community, say? Then you’d be hardpressed to argue that a farmer growing food to provide sustenance for a very large number of people isn’t more important than a gold miner extracting ore which will be turned into trinkets for rich people.

Market-place anarchy looks good to me…

Like everything else, people can take basic principles from both sides and mesh them together to form their own opinion that’s in the middle.