Why is Ayn Rand wrong when she says this:
Anarchists are not defenders of capitalism, they are collectivists. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left.
The Libertarian Party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.
I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas. Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d are intellectual cranks.
The first sentence. She collectivises all anarchists as being collectivist.
Source? Plus, when she says "anarchists," she probably refers to anarcho-commies and anarcho-socialists.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
alimentarius: Why is Ayn Rand wrong when she says this: Anarchists are not defenders of capitalism, they are collectivists. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left. The Libertarian Party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable. I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas. Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d are intellectual cranks.
Besides the fact that it's purely an ad hominem? It's very Marxian really: never address the points, but stick to wild accusations and personal attacks.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I personally think anarchists particularly rankled Rand because they exposed some of her contradictions. She held her consistency very highly, so this was unforgivable.
alimentarius:They want to be hippies,
In one of her Donahue interviews she accused an audience member of being a hippie. Take that, you beatnik!
@Daniel: Second the request for source. The last sentence doesn't even make sense.
@Esuric: Less Marxian and more La Rouche-ian, I think, especially the second paragraph.
Daniel:Source?
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
alimentarius: Daniel:Source? http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
Her comments, while still scathing, make much more sense in context.
Rand isn't addressing anarchism, but anarchists especially those around the libertarian party circa 1971.
The OP was more than a little misleading putting this up without the proper context.
poppies:I personally think anarchists particularly rankled Rand because they exposed some of her contradictions. She held her consistency very highly, so this was unforgivable.
Like IP?
Rand is wrong because she's claiming all anarchists are the same. I reckon she hates anarchists because they expose the contradictions in her inconsistent minarchism.She seemed to think objectivism could cure every problem including government She attacked anarcho-capitalism as a theory of "competiting governments" completely missing the point.I really don't get why she's loved so much.
Roy A. child's even tried to convince her that anarcho-capitalism was more consistent with her other positions on aggression ,collectivism etc but she wasn't having any of it. She continually refused to associate with libertarians and dismissed their ideas offhand as third rate and plagarism of her ideas.She seems to have considered the history of philosophy to have been aristotle,thomas aquinas and her. She knew very little of philosophy,history, economics or anything else. Her views on war were hawkish to say the least.
Rand was far too rabid especially against religion and I'm saying that as an atheist. I'm with rothbard ,individual objectivists may be good and moral and very reasonable but the members of organised objectivism act like robots and it is conducted like a cult.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
alimentarius:I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas. Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d are intellectual cranks.
Snowflake:
Basically in many ways yes. She completely ignores the issue of corporatism and ignores the whole natural law/natural rights tradition except locke(probably because of it's religious especially christian associations). She also completely ignores american individualist anarchism.She seems to think her ideas originated from her own head when theres a long tradition of all the different elements of her views.It's more like she plagarised them .
As a off topic side point, as much as I hate postmodern art I think her idea of objective based aesthetics is absurd.It just goes round in circles.
If you read Ayn Rand it is clear that:
1. She doesn't understand the subjective value theory.
2. She is as inconsistent as her adversaries when it comes to her belief in government. She violates A=A when insisting that no coercion is involved in her limited government.
Scott F: Basically in many ways yes. She completely ignores the issue of corporatism
Basically in many ways yes. She completely ignores the issue of corporatism
No, she doesn't.
and ignores the whole natural law/natural rights tradition except locke(probably because of it's religious especially christian associations).
Because natural law is quite silly, actually.
I will admit it is the least extensive part of her philosophy, but nothing about it is absurd. Many people completely misunderstand her aesthetic theory, as in they're under the impression the only objectively good art in Rand's opinion is "romantic realism", but that simply isn't true.
Also, subjective value theory is not a normative theory of values. All values are subjective, i.e. personal, but it is *proper* for them to be objectively decided upon (as in not simply decided upon because it "feels right'). I have heard of no time where she discussed SVT, so I don't know if you can say she did or didn't understand SVT as Austrian's understand it.
Scott F: She attacked anarcho-capitalism as a theory of "competiting governments" completely missing the point.
She attacked anarcho-capitalism as a theory of "competiting governments" completely missing the point.
It is a theory concerning "competing governments".
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan: Scott F: She attacked anarcho-capitalism as a theory of "competiting governments" completely missing the point. It is a theory concerning "competing governments".
Tell me how anarcho-capitalism has anything to do with a government at all
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
Libertarian_for_Life:Tell me how anarcho-capitalism has anything to do with a government at all
There I said it. Everyone else was thinking this. Don't shoot the messenger.
Snowflake: There I said it. Everyone else was thinking this. Don't shoot the messenger.
Nah, I'll applaud you good sir
I'll start with a slow clap maybe others will join...
*clap*
pause...
Libertarian_for_Life: Tell me how anarcho-capitalism has anything to do with a government at all
It just depends whether (a) you define the word "government" to be a word which does convey that the institution described is a monopoly or whether (b) you define it to be a word which leaves that aspect unspecified. If choose the latter, you can thereby differentiate between "monopoly governments" and "nonmonopoly governments", merely "governments", which is what I do and suggest that others do. For, if you differentiate in such a way, to elucidate the position of the anarchocapitalists becomes much more easy. (Incidentally, it also renders the label, "anarchocapitalism", to be a misnomer, which I consider to be a favorable result.)
Yes, to understand her comment, you have to imagine the LP in 1971 or so. Chomsky was saying similar things about the hippie part of the New Left at the time: it was irrationalist and dangerous to the cause. It seems to me that her comments an anarchism are a commentary on the superficial theory that says that there should be no boundaries or order in life or thought.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
Eioul: Scott F: Basically in many ways yes. She completely ignores the issue of corporatism No, she doesn't. and ignores the whole natural law/natural rights tradition except locke(probably because of it's religious especially christian associations). Because natural law is quite silly, actually. As a off topic side point, as much as I hate postmodern art I think her idea of objective based aesthetics is absurd.It just goes round in circles. I will admit it is the least extensive part of her philosophy, but nothing about it is absurd. Many people completely misunderstand her aesthetic theory, as in they're under the impression the only objectively good art in Rand's opinion is "romantic realism", but that simply isn't true.
Ok. I see now your right about the corporatism issue. I was wrong.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/businessmen.html
She didn't mention it much outside of her writings in her talks I don't think , plus I can't remember hearing a modern objectivist talk about it.
First off, I don't think natural law is silly.It actually makes the most sense of any ethical philosophy I've ever heard and I believe any relativist/subjectivist ethics is inherently untenable But that's besides the point. What I meant was she ignored this whole body of thought which was basically a superior version of what she articulated.Maybe she didn't want people to know that christians came up with natural law .
Why isn't her aesthetic theory just about romantic realism? In what way is that a misunderstanding? I admit I agree with rand at some points on art but I just don't think it can be objectively based like she tries to do and no objectivist has ever properly explained how it can be done.
"The proper forms of art present a selective re-creation of reality "
this excludes the possibility of science fiction of a wildly unusual bizzare type unlike our world today.
Rand was soo hung up on an artist or composers purpose or premises she dismissed music or art offhand.
"A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art. If it is merely a material object, it belongs to some category of material objects—and if it does not belong to any particular category, it belongs to the one reserved for such phenomena: junk"
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html
Rand hated subjectivism(rightly so) but in aesthetics she never realised it's the only position that makes sense.
I. Ryan: Libertarian_for_Life: Tell me how anarcho-capitalism has anything to do with a government at all It just depends whether (a) you define the word "government" to be a word which does convey that the institution described is a monopoly or whether (b) you define it to be a word which leaves that aspect unspecified. If choose the latter, you can thereby differentiate between "monopoly governments" and "nonmonopoly governments", merely "governments", which is what I do and suggest that others do. For, if you differentiate in such a way, to elucidate the position of the anarchocapitalists becomes much more easy. (Incidentally, it also renders the label, "anarchocapitalism", to be a misnomer, which I consider to be a favorable result.)
While I understand what your saying(I think- are you highlighting the difference between monopoly government and non monopoly government aka general voluntary authority ?)
It's always important anarcho-capitalists stress they are not left wing anarchists and do not wish to abolish all authority or hierarchy.This will make sure your taken more seriously because I don't think anyone except a few leftists actually believes in or thinks its a good idea to abolish hierarchy/authority.
I think it would be confusing to use this when talking to non libertarians but if it works then I don't see why not.The only problem would be to avoid people who assert that we can have a government (in the political sense to use what I think is your labels) which is political and not a monopoly which is the fundamental minarchist & statist error.
Personally I like referring to myself as an anarchist or at times libertarian.
Scott F: Why isn't her aesthetic theory just about romantic realism? In what way is that a misunderstanding? I admit I agree with rand at some points on art but I just don't think it can be objectively based like she tries to do and no objectivist has ever properly explained how it can be done.
Romantic realism is just a genre that Rand liked the best. Things like Surrealism still apply to her aesthetic theory, and in fact she liked Dali's work.
"The proper forms of art present a selective re-creation of reality " this excludes the possibility of science fiction of a wildly unusual bizzare type unlike our world today.
No, because science fiction still has some elements of reality. The idea of the definition is simply to differentiate art from things like rocks found in nature, but also make a clearer boundary between things like paintings created by rational minds and buckets of paint accidentally knocked over by a dog. The effort to create a painting is an effort to create something about reality.
All things that exist in the world can be objectively understood. This includes art.
We took the discussion pretty off-track, PM me if you want to keep talking about this.
Libertardians are stealing her ideas.
AND THAT IS STEALING!
The Late Andrew Ryan:Also does anyone else find it funny that galt's gulch was an anarchist society?
Also does anyone else find it funny that galt's gulch was an anarchist society?
Yes, absolutely. Like I stated here, though, I don't believe Objectivism is incompatible with voluntaryism; I believe that Rand-worshippers are incompatible with reality.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
To answer your question, here's what Roy Childs Jr, in his brilliant "Open Letter To Ayn Rand", said in 1969.
It pretty much "wipes the floor" with Ms Rand in this one area.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].