Political Theory

Re: Ayn Rand

Alex the Amused — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:59:40 GMT

You may want to take a look at what Rand meant by Collectivism.

"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”"

Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.

Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.

Rand loved the skyscrapers so much because they were the manifestation of mans reason. They could of not been created through whim or mysticism. Such a building could only be created by an extremely intelligent mind with full understanding of the rules and laws of reality.

As for collective effort vs individual? I suppose her support would play out like this. She would support skyscrapers, built by men trading their labor for value, desgined by men trading their thought for value, and being funded by men trading value for a future return. Compare this to the great wall of china, built by men forced to make it because it was their duty to the collective, designed by men forced to design it for the duty of the collective, and funded by the money of the people because it was their duty to the collective. Not to mention that the Great Wall of China was built more on bones then bricks.

Re: Ayn Rand

Stranger — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:03:06 GMT

Eioul:

...is any of that serious? A skyscraper, a collectivist building?

You will notice that Moscow is full of them.

Re: Ayn Rand

liberty student — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:53:42 GMT

Juan:
You are pushing it too far. Not to mention that cars depend on wholly collectivistic autobahns...

I lol'd. Juan defending Ayn Rand.

Re: Ayn Rand

Marko — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:24:37 GMT

Eioul:

Anyway Marko, that definitely sounds like I'm wrong. You should acknowledge, though, that she is only saying that a proper government can invade a dictatorship (she means something very specific by this) even if they don't initiate force. Any other kind of country does not apply. I disagree with that viewpoint of hers, though.

Yes, I acknowledge that. I must say however that I generaly find a democratic government that launches wars of aggression a lot more dangerous and detestable than a self-contained dictatorship.

Re: Ayn Rand

Eioul — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:40:13 GMT

Stranger:

Giving it more thought, it's obvious that Rand was a fascist. The objects of her fantasies were all collectivists in nature. She wrote a novel about skyscrapers, a collective building, and another about a railway, a collective transportation system. She didn't write novels about houses and automobiles, which are chaotic and anarchic in nature.

...is any of that serious? A skyscraper, a collectivist building?

Anyway Marko, that definitely sounds like I'm wrong. You should acknowledge, though, that she is only saying that a proper government can invade a dictatorship (she means something very specific by this) even if they don't initiate force. Any other kind of country does not apply. I disagree with that viewpoint of hers, though.

Re: Ayn Rand

Stranger — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:28:00 GMT

Juan:
You are pushing it too far. Not to mention that cars depend on wholly collectivistic autobahns...

Those weren't around yet when she began writing, but cars had been around for a while.

Re: Ayn Rand

Marko — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:44:56 GMT

Eioul:

Even if you think the quote on the page before is elitist and insensitive, it would still be safe she would say attacking the country in question in the first place would *only* be justified if there was an initiation of force. (if she said otherwise, let me know, I don't consider myself an expert on her views on government)

This is simply not true.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/foreign_policy.html

PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II . . .

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right—though not the duty—to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other “slave pen.” Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship—a country that violates the rights of its own citizens—is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

On a moral level she never had a problem with wars of aggression, but instead specificaly claimed they could be legitimate.

Re: Ayn Rand

Juan — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:24:11 GMT

You are pushing it too far. Not to mention that cars depend on wholly collectivistic autobahns...

Re: Ayn Rand

Stranger — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:15:58 GMT

Giving it more thought, it's obvious that Rand was a fascist. The objects of her fantasies were all collectivists in nature. She wrote a novel about skyscrapers, a collective building, and another about a railway, a collective transportation system. She didn't write novels about houses and automobiles, which are chaotic and anarchic in nature.

The only difference was that Rand's collectivism was elitist, while the Nazi's collectivism was racial.

Re: Ayn Rand

Eioul — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:52:10 GMT

Stranger:

Ayn Rand and her following is much better understood as a variant of fascism than libertarianism. She was building a total ideology around elitism (not individualism, as you can tell from her opinion of war victims), including everything from art to religion to science, in reaction to the rise of the communists.

The only difference between Randism and other fascisms is the purpose of the leaders. Under Rand, the leaders are out to get rich and produce great things.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that there is any remote similarity to fascism, or even easier to understand as a variant of fascism. At best the "a total idealogy around elitism" is a complete misunderstanding of her views or poor reading comprehension. Ayn Rand's views are not automatically part of her philosophy of Objectivism, either (i.e. that homosexuality is immoral in her view). Even if you think the quote on the page before is elitist and insensitive, it would still be safe she would say attacking the country in question in the first place would *only* be justified if there was an initiation of force. (if she said otherwise, let me know, I don't consider myself an expert on her views on government)

Re: Ayn Rand

jeff fogel — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:14:32 GMT

It's right in Dr. Paul's latest book, End the Fed. He states that he diverged from Rand specifically on the subject of altruism.

Re: Ayn Rand

Stranger — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:03:21 GMT

Ayn Rand and her following is much better understood as a variant of fascism than libertarianism. She was building a total ideology around elitism (not individualism, as you can tell from her opinion of war victims), including everything from art to religion to science, in reaction to the rise of the communists.

The only difference between Randism and other fascisms is the purpose of the leaders. Under Rand, the leaders are out to get rich and produce great things.

Re: Ayn Rand

Juan — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:18:43 GMT

rand:
Something called "the military-industrial complex"--which is a myth or worse--is being blamed for all of this country's troubles. Bloody college hoodlums scream demands that R.O.T.C. units be banned from college campuses.

blah blah blah. Good to know that the arms industry is a 'myth' though.

Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, - Commander Ayn Rand"

Re: Ayn Rand

Eioul — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:11:33 GMT

I am unfamiliar with the specifics that Rothbard talked about, but Rand always has seemed careful to emphasize that corporate capitalism is a very bad thing; I've never heard anything that can even be construed to be support of corporate capitalism.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_robber_barons

may be a useful link (I can't find a transcript unfortunately); around 2:30 and onward is the most relevent to your question.

Re: Ayn Rand

Individualist — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:49:22 GMT

Individualist:

VanDoodah:

Objectivism:

It sees truth as always objective - nothing is ever subjective. Reason alone can attain truth.

She contributed absolutely nothing to economics, and instead defended corporate capitalism in the name of the free market.

Where did Rothbard (or Paul) say that truth can be anything but objective? Here's Ron Paul on the subjective theory of value:

"There are some who have heard of the subjective theory of value but are hesitant to accept it because they prefer “objectivity” to “subjectivity.” Yet if consumers subjectively set prices and values by affecting supply and demand (and thus sales), this is an important objective finding.

I thought there was some disagreement between Rand and Rothbard on corporate capitalism. Can you give me more on this?

How far did Rand go in defending corporate capitalism? Did she turn a blind eye to Big Business's abuse of government? Did she go farther?