[POLITICS] Why do people look down on Ayn Randian philosophies?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Palindromemordnilap:

Silvanus:

trunkage:
My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Not all things were acceptable in Rapture; there was still law and punitive measures to enforce it (primarily protecting business interests).

Fontaine was a smuggler, IIRC.

I always got the impression 'illegal' in Rapture was 'anything Ryan didn't like you doing'

So Rapture was run like a capitalist enterprise, then?

Seanchaidh:

Palindromemordnilap:

Silvanus:

Not all things were acceptable in Rapture; there was still law and punitive measures to enforce it (primarily protecting business interests).

Fontaine was a smuggler, IIRC.

I always got the impression 'illegal' in Rapture was 'anything Ryan didn't like you doing'

So Rapture was run like a capitalist enterprise, then?

Sort of, yeah. One of the basic themes of the game was that for all of Ryan's talk about free expression and not being held back by the state/morals/whatever, the man was only really comfortable with a civilisation that followed his rules. I seem to remember there being some kind of post who had been writing subversive anti-ryan songs or something in Rapture. Calling her a dangerous parasite, Ryan had his secret police murder her. And as mentioned by others in this thread, when objectivism got in the way of Ryan's power, he was happy to ignore it to shore up his own interests. Which by the sounds of it, wasn't all that different from what Rand herself did.

TrulyBritish:

Seanchaidh:

Palindromemordnilap:

I always got the impression 'illegal' in Rapture was 'anything Ryan didn't like you doing'

So Rapture was run like a capitalist enterprise, then?

Sort of, yeah. One of the basic themes of the game was that for all of Ryan's talk about free expression and not being held back by the state/morals/whatever, the man was only really comfortable with a civilisation that followed his rules. I seem to remember there being some kind of post who had been writing subversive anti-ryan songs or something in Rapture. Calling her a dangerous parasite, Ryan had his secret police murder her. And as mentioned by others in this thread, when objectivism got in the way of Ryan's power, he was happy to ignore it to shore up his own interests. Which by the sounds of it, wasn't all that different from what Rand herself did.

Ideologies that celebrate capitalism are typically only useful to capitalists when others believe them. They exist to justify existing inequality, not guide the actions of the ruling class. In much the same way, the divine right of kings and the great chain of being was of no particular help to monarchs except insofar as their subjects believed it made their rule legitimate. Ruling classes start to have problems when they believe their own bullshit.

Seanchaidh:

TrulyBritish:

Seanchaidh:

So Rapture was run like a capitalist enterprise, then?

Sort of, yeah. One of the basic themes of the game was that for all of Ryan's talk about free expression and not being held back by the state/morals/whatever, the man was only really comfortable with a civilisation that followed his rules. I seem to remember there being some kind of post who had been writing subversive anti-ryan songs or something in Rapture. Calling her a dangerous parasite, Ryan had his secret police murder her. And as mentioned by others in this thread, when objectivism got in the way of Ryan's power, he was happy to ignore it to shore up his own interests. Which by the sounds of it, wasn't all that different from what Rand herself did.

Ideologies that celebrate capitalism are typically only useful to capitalists when others believe them. They exist to justify existing inequality, not guide the actions of the ruling class. In much the same way, the divine right of kings and the great chain of being was of no particular help to monarchs except insofar as their subjects believed it made their rule legitimate. Ruling classes start to have problems when they believe their own bullshit.

There's an economist called Russ Roberts at Stanford. He commonly met CEOs that profess to love Capitalism but, somehow, always find some proof that their particular business should receive an exemption Capitalism ravages.

trunkage:

Seanchaidh:

TrulyBritish:

Sort of, yeah. One of the basic themes of the game was that for all of Ryan's talk about free expression and not being held back by the state/morals/whatever, the man was only really comfortable with a civilisation that followed his rules. I seem to remember there being some kind of post who had been writing subversive anti-ryan songs or something in Rapture. Calling her a dangerous parasite, Ryan had his secret police murder her. And as mentioned by others in this thread, when objectivism got in the way of Ryan's power, he was happy to ignore it to shore up his own interests. Which by the sounds of it, wasn't all that different from what Rand herself did.

Ideologies that celebrate capitalism are typically only useful to capitalists when others believe them. They exist to justify existing inequality, not guide the actions of the ruling class. In much the same way, the divine right of kings and the great chain of being was of no particular help to monarchs except insofar as their subjects believed it made their rule legitimate. Ruling classes start to have problems when they believe their own bullshit.

There's an economist called Russ Roberts at Stanford. He commonly met CEOs that profess to love Capitalism but, somehow, always find some proof that their particular business should receive an exemption Capitalism ravages.

And, naturally, their particular business is what they have control of and what they lobby the government about (or in the absence of government, it would be the primary sphere over which their "security service" enforces their will). This is why you'll never see a "pure" capitalism that measures up to the expectations of its ideology for anything more than a moment in time, if even that: it's neither in the interest of the mass of people nor a particularly expedient way for the ruling class to pursue their aims. Why compete when you can collude and/or monopolize? Why bargain when you can enforce? Why deal with market distribution when you can simply own all the moving parts? Capitalists will violate the constraints of capitalist ideology because it is both in their interests and within their power; they will rig the system because they can.

Seanchaidh:

Ideologies that celebrate capitalism are typically only useful to capitalists when others believe them. They exist to justify existing inequality, not guide the actions of the ruling class. In much the same way, the divine right of kings and the great chain of being was of no particular help to monarchs except insofar as their subjects believed it made their rule legitimate. Ruling classes start to have problems when they believe their own bullshit.

There's an economist called Russ Roberts at Stanford. He commonly met CEOs that profess to love Capitalism but, somehow, always find some proof that their particular business should receive an exemption Capitalism ravages.[/quote]

And, naturally, their particular business is what they have control of and what they lobby the government about (or in the absence of government, it would be the primary sphere over which their "security service" enforces their will). This is why you'll never see a "pure" capitalism that measures up to the expectations of its ideology for anything more than a moment in time, if even that: it's neither in the interest of the mass of people nor a particularly expedient way for the ruling class to pursue their aims. Why compete when you can collude and/or monopolize? Why bargain when you can enforce? Why deal with market distribution when you can simply own all the moving parts? Capitalists will violate the constraints of capitalist ideology because it is both in their interests and within their power; they will rig the system because they can.[/quote] What's that quote about Communism going against human nature? Same applies to Capitalism. Once you realise how Utopian Capitalists are, i.e. almost as bad as Marx, you can never go back

Seanchaidh:
Capitalists will violate the constraints of capitalist ideology because it is both in their interests and within their power; they will rig the system because they can.

The fundamental tension is that what we generally mean by a "capitalist" is a businessman or investor, who has the primary goal of making money rather than enacting mode idealised capitalism. Your average ideological capitalist who will see capitalism as the highest principle will be an economist, philosopher, politician or some other form of ideologue who isn't first and foremost in the business of making money. The former type of capitalist, obviously, wants to cherry pick capitalism when it's useful to them and sponge off the state or rig the system when it's useful to them. And that former variety, because they've got the money and money is power, speak loudest.

Samtemdo8:
The basic jist I get from Ayn Randian philosophy is that special and talented people are being held back by societal norms and conformity. And strive to overcome the norms and conformity.

I think you've hit the main problem already.

Who is a "special and talented" person? Or, more importantly, how can we know who is a special and talented person?

Because Rand primarily wrote novels, she can mostly avoid answering this question, because the situation she presents us with are so black and white that it's always obvious who the special and exceptional people are. Rand's novels are essentially all superhero stories about enlightened supermen inventing magical technology using only the power of their superior brains. If they succeed, it's always becuase they deserve to. They did everything themselves, created things themselves. There are no inconvenient questions about how they were educated, or how they had the money and time to waste inventing things rather than getting a real job. They pop into existence at the beginning of the novel fully formed and with everything they need to go and be #special and #talented.

But that's not actually how capitalism works.

In the real world, noone is born special and talented. Real people require a lot of help getting to the point where their talents are great enough to be recognized. They have to be educated, they need time to practice and develop. They need to be kept healthy both physically and emotionally. Even as adults, once they are coming into their talents, they need a community to support them. Real architects do not just create a personal style from thin air, they study and build on the work of other architects and movements. Real material scientists do not single handedly create wonder-metal in their basements one day while also managing their own company, they are usually one small part of a much bigger operation, as well as a scientific community. In the real world, becoming an architect or material scientist isn't a matter of just having abstract "talent". You need to have the money and the time to develop. You need people to do the work of training you, and if you don't have those things.. well.. hope you like flipping burgers.

Rand uses fiction to present us with a world where not only does individualism and egoism work, but they also just coincidentally happen to be perfectly expressed by unregulated capitalism. We don't see the Howard Roarks or Hank Reardens who ended up flipping burgers, and thus we can pretend they don't exist. In the real world, however, they do.

If you want a philosopher who talks about conformity and egoism, but actually has something interesting to say about the state of modernity and the danger of nihilism which makes that belief in egoism justified, read Nietzsche. If you're a rich white dude looking for validation that the system you live in and the advantages you've been accorded are no less than you deserve and that the smelly poors just aren't as special or talented as you are, read Rand, and keep dreaming..

Masters require slaves.
Slaves do not require masters.
Who is stronger?

Caramel Frappe:

Samtemdo8:
The basic jist I get from Ayn Randian philosophy is that special and talented people are being held back by societal norms and conformity. And strive to overcome the norms and conformity.

But apparently this and her other philosophies related to it are looked down by the political and philosophical mainstream.

And really I never seen a proper criticism and counter-argument against Randian Philosophy.

So I am hoping you guys would deliver on it.

It's really not the philosophy itself, but rather, what comes with it ... change.

People are afraid of change, even if it serves to be harmless. Because change can dramatically impact someone's way of living comfortably, or thinking, or their control on their own reality. Basically, if it's not in the norm and isn't universally accepted, it can be taken into a negative aspect.

As for the actual substance in the philosophy we're talking about? It could also do with the fact people abuse when in power. That's kind of why society, whether it's a democracy, communism, anything ... humanity and free will complicates things all the time. Even those in charge aren't going to always follow their own principles, hence why corruption happens.

More specifically, people are adverse to change when it means a worse lifestyle or lower standards. Change has many faces since it, well, changes from person to person.

But yeah, human nature's tendency is to seek power and control as an unfortunate side effect of the desire for security and comfort.

The Buddhist monks pretty much have it right, by simply disregarding all that fluff and being more in tune with the natural world.

I could be misremembering this but for an author who claims her philosophy is ultra-rational, the heroes in Atlas Shrugged did irrational things, such as the heroine's dismissal of Rearden Metal's long term safety concerns. She states she's seen the tests but, as a new material, there are no long term tests. No further justification, such as an acceptable risk, especially with chronic steel shortages, just that she's seen test results that can only be short term.

Also, Hank Rearden runs into an infamous pirate, who gives him money equivalent to all his income tax. Never mind how the government is supposed to maintain a defensive army without tax revenue, Rearden states he'll rat on the pirate the first chance he gets, then the police walk in looking for said pirate in the vicinity and Rearden states he hasn't seen any pirate, even claiming the pirate is his bodyguard. Never mind the police not recognising the man they're hunting, Rearden changes his mind with no explanation.

Now, everyone makes mistakes but, for what's supposed to be a philosophical essay, they're big mistakes. Never mind the technology pulled out the ass dimension, or the ability to create a persistent 'Who is John Galt?' meme but not take over, or an entire working class incapable of doing their own job, Rand can't claim she's ultra-rational.

hanselthecaretaker:
But yeah, human nature?s tendency is to seek power and control as an unfortunate side effect of the desire for security and comfort.

The Buddhist monks pretty much have it right, by simply disregarding all that fluff and being more in tune with the natural world.

My feeling from over the years is that if you choose to measure yourself by external factors (achievement, wealth, power, etc.) chances are you're going to be less happy. Imagine a teacher - if he or she should to measure their success by the grades of their students, the are always hostage to their students, circumstances and fate. That teacher might be better seeking reward in the process of teaching, or "did I do the best job I could have teaching these students".

However, I'm not sure the people who run society particularly like this sort of thinking. I suspect a lot of people who climb to the top are extremely interested in external reward (even if it is ultimately an illusory joy that can never fill the black hole of need in their psyche). It was seeking that validation that gave them the ambition to get there. From their lofty perch, they then set the example for others and pass their external validations onto everyone else in the form of demands, targets and so on.

I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 19 at my dad's suggestion. He didn't give me a reason why I should read it or what I should think of it; I think I must have expressed some dissatisfaction with the way America worked, and he said "here, read this and think about it." I should ask him now what his purpose was in doing that...

Anyway, I thought at the time that it was a fascinating examination of the weaknesses of socialism and the virtue of selfishness. Now, I was an angsty 19 year old loner who always thought I was somehow better than most people because I was smart and unconcerned with popular pursuits, i.e., making friends, getting drunk at parties, having sex, etc. I gravitated toward the concept that everyone should have what they deserve. Those who are willing to work harder should have more; those who want to screw around and have fun should be left at the bottom. It sounded fair to me. Everyone gets back what they put in, and working for your own betterment results in a lot of better people.

Getting older gradually disabused me of those simplistic ideas, and also the attitude that I was inherently better than other people and thus deserved to be selfish. But what I really want to add to this thread is something I haven't seen mentioned yet, and constitutes another flaw in Objectivist ideology: the premise that motivated self-interest is good for society is based on the unspoken assumption that everyone actually knows what their own self-interest is.

When I really decided that Objectivism wasn't reasonable was when I realized that people are short-sighted and easily distracted, and can't always tell what they need and what is good for them. If I feel like eating deep-fried Oreos for dinner is a good idea and do that all the time because, hey, I'm an Objectivist and I should do what's best for me, eventually it will turn out that doing that was NOT best for me and I will be a sick, unhealthy drain on society. People make bad, foolish, destructive decisions all the time with the intention of helping themselves, but because we are so often irrational and reactionary and impulsive, our selfishness hurts not only others but ourselves as well. Trying to build a society on self-interest motives would only lead to a civilization of self-destructive fools making themselves fat and stupid because it feels good.

TheVampwizimp:
. Trying to build a society on self-interest motives would only lead to a civilization of self-destructive fools making themselves fat and stupid because it feels good.

So exactly our world right now?...

TheVampwizimp:

When I really decided that Objectivism wasn't reasonable was when I realized that people are short-sighted and easily distracted, and can't always tell what they need and what is good for them. If I feel like eating deep-fried Oreos for dinner is a good idea and do that all the time because, hey, I'm an Objectivist and I should do what's best for me, eventually it will turn out that doing that was NOT best for me and I will be a sick, unhealthy drain on society. People make bad, foolish, destructive decisions all the time with the intention of helping themselves, but because we are so often irrational and reactionary and impulsive, our selfishness hurts not only others but ourselves as well. Trying to build a society on self-interest motives would only lead to a civilization of self-destructive fools making themselves fat and stupid because it feels good.

Yes, you've identified another major problem with Objectivism. Ayn Rand did not understand human nature and psychology. In fact, her one-time intellectual heir, Nathaniel Branden, eventually went his separate way in large part because he was a psychologist, and realised Objectivism had incompatibities with how he understood humans to be.

Rand argues that humans are intrinsically rational creatures. She's just dead wrong - so we know from neuroscience and psychology. But my experience of Objectivists is that because they believe Objectivism is irrefutable logical proof, that trumps science [1]. So where Objectivist reasoning and science come into conflict, Objectivism wins. Personally, I say when your reasoning parts company with observable reality, your reasoning is at fault. We know that the portion of the human brain dedicated to conscious thought is relatively small and with modest processing power, and there's plenty evidence that it's often not the driver, but a passenger in our thoughts. The unconscious mind makes a decision, and the conscious mind pops along shortly after to try to make sense of it. And that's even without going into all sorts of cognitive biases we're probably not aware of, never mind the simple fact of sometimes just being wrong. At best, Objectivism should argue we should strive to maximise rational thinking (and perhaps some Objectivist-lite types have taken that route), but it goes much further, erroneously.

And whilst we're on Atlas Shrugged:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

I find that quote particularly apt, because the aforementioned Branden, after his exile from the Rand cult, spent plenty of time giving therapy to (ex-?)Objectivists who found themselves unhappy and frustrated because they couldn't live up to the unrealistic expectations.

[1] I once had an argument with an Objectivist who said dogs must not have volition irrespective of what animal behaviour experiments show, because Rand said they don't and that's that.

CheetoDust:

TheVampwizimp:
. Trying to build a society on self-interest motives would only lead to a civilization of self-destructive fools making themselves fat and stupid because it feels good.

So exactly our world right now?...

Well, we have a bunch of laws and regulations to try and curb this self-destruction. But a lot of leaders will be corrupt and make laws that are self-destructive.

Lastly, no one can predict everything. Even if you had the most perfect laws, doesn't mean someone won't find a loophole

CheetoDust:

TheVampwizimp:
. Trying to build a society on self-interest motives would only lead to a civilization of self-destructive fools making themselves fat and stupid because it feels good.

So exactly our world right now?...

Even worse, if you can believe it.

Agema:

Seanchaidh:
Capitalists will violate the constraints of capitalist ideology because it is both in their interests and within their power; they will rig the system because they can.

The fundamental tension is that what we generally mean by a "capitalist" is a businessman or investor, who has the primary goal of making money rather than enacting mode idealised capitalism. Your average ideological capitalist who will see capitalism as the highest principle will be an economist, philosopher, politician or some other form of ideologue who isn't first and foremost in the business of making money. The former type of capitalist, obviously, wants to cherry pick capitalism when it's useful to them and sponge off the state or rig the system when it's useful to them. And that former variety, because they've got the money and money is power, speak loudest.

Well, speak most effectively. They often don't like to be heard very widely-- just by the structures that deliver results.

Objectivism is anything but objective.

Marik2:
Objectivism is anything but objective.

This sums it up. Nice

I feel a bit bad for Ayn. She grew up under soviet communism, and that warped the concepts of charity, sacrifice, altruism ,equality, and the greater good for her. You can tell that she just snapped and anything that remotely looks "altruistic" is evil in her eyes.

Marik2:
I feel a bit bad for Ayn. She grew up under soviet communism, and that warped the concepts of charity, sacrifice, altruism ,equality, and the greater good for her. You can tell that she just snapped and anything that remotely looks "altruistic" is evil in her eyes.

Normal people react to growing up under soviet communism by replacing insincerity with rudeness, and otherwise being psychologically healthier and less fearful.

After several days of training about customer service at McDonald's, a young Soviet teenager asked the McDonald's trainer a very serious question: "Why do we have to be so nice to the customers? After all, WE have the hamburgers, and they don't!"

Marik2:
I feel a bit bad for Ayn. She grew up under soviet communism, and that warped the concepts of charity, sacrifice, altruism ,equality, and the greater good for her. You can tell that she just snapped and anything that remotely looks "altruistic" is evil in her eyes.

My dad is like that. Lived under communism, immigrated to the US and became a staunch republican. Supports Trump, still thinks that Obama was a foreign born Muslim, the whole 9 yards.

He's not a dumb person either, he just hates communism so much, and hates democrats because he seems them as "communism lite" and things like Burnie Sanders calling himself a democratic socialist really don't help.

Seanchaidh:

Marik2:
I feel a bit bad for Ayn. She grew up under soviet communism, and that warped the concepts of charity, sacrifice, altruism ,equality, and the greater good for her. You can tell that she just snapped and anything that remotely looks "altruistic" is evil in her eyes.

Normal people react to growing up under soviet communism by replacing insincerity with rudeness, and otherwise being psychologically healthier and less fearful.

After several days of training about customer service at McDonald's, a young Soviet teenager asked the McDonald?s trainer a very serious question: "Why do we have to be so nice to the customers? After all, WE have the hamburgers, and they don't!"

That's kinda funny. The altruistic notion that "the customer is always right" signals the biggest red flag of capitalism outside of feeding greed. There is no shortage of stupid customers out there, and they certainly deserve to be called out on it. It's almost an art form dancing around that fact to a diplomatic solution that benefits both the vendor and consumer in those cases, especially when they're stubborn about it.

Dirty Hipsters:

Marik2:
I feel a bit bad for Ayn. She grew up under soviet communism, and that warped the concepts of charity, sacrifice, altruism ,equality, and the greater good for her. You can tell that she just snapped and anything that remotely looks "altruistic" is evil in her eyes.

My dad is like that. Lived under communism, immigrated to the US and became a staunch republican. Supports Trump, still thinks that Obama was a foreign born Muslim, the whole 9 yards.

He's not a dumb person either, he just hates communism so much, and hates democrats because he seems them as "communism lite" and things like Burnie Sanders calling himself a democratic socialist really don't help.

Makes one wonder, if there's anyone who's lived under communism that has a broader frame of reference, and still likes it.

hanselthecaretaker:
Makes one wonder, if there's anyone who's lived under communism that has a broader frame of reference, and still likes it.

A substantial number of Eastern Europeans continued to support Communism after it collapsed. Some support was undoubtedly due in part to the chaos and shortages of transition which will have dampened their enthusiasm for other systems, although there were people who really believed in it and thought it was fine. Across much of Eastern Europe there are still Communist parties polling around 10% of the vote, and socialism more generally is still held in reasonable esteem.

If you look at polls for whether people in ex-Communist countries are happy with their (liberal) democracy and think things are better than they were under Communism, you'll actually see that they're more ambivalent than you might suppose. Support for Communism is higher in the older, and countries/communities that 20-30 years of capitalism and democracy have not served very well. Contrary to some perception in the West, the lives of ordinary people in the Eastern Bloc were not akin to being in a prison camp. They were poor compared to the West, but not that poor (especially by comparison of Eastern poor vs. Western poor). Communist regimes also laid on a wide and comprehensive set of social support systems that the people really appreciated, and resented when they tended to disappear along with Communism.

Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

Saelune:
Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

True socialism and true capitalism both pretend that isn't true which is why there are no true socialist or true capitalist states, because human nature cannot allow them to exist, and objectivism pretends that it's a positive thing rather than something that needs to be controlled for.

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

True socialism and true capitalism both pretend that isn't true which is why there are no true socialist or true capitalist states, because human nature cannot allow them to exist, and objectivism pretends that it's a positive thing rather than something that needs to be controlled for.

It is shitty human behavior that we should discourage.

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

True socialism and true capitalism both pretend that isn't true which is why there are no true socialist or true capitalist states, because human nature cannot allow them to exist, and objectivism pretends that it's a positive thing rather than something that needs to be controlled for.

What are you on about? Although we have discussed this before, where I come from, it is taught from the time before one is able to crawl and walk, "we take care of the earth and all that dwell upon it" not, " get mine and screw everyone else". That type of behavior would never be tolerated where I come from and I disagree that it is necessarily "basic human nature". It is only that way if it is allowed to exist in the first place. I have never seen anyone where I come from behave that way but that is because we are taught our entire lives that goes against the existence of life here on earth. Mankind would not survive at all if everyone behaved in such ways, it would destroy civilization itself. It is no more " basic human nature" than to kill people is and should be tolerated just the same. This destructive behavior is a learned behavior and can be eliminated from a society by what a society will and will not tolerate as acceptable. If it is prevalent in a society, it is only because that society promoted it to be prevalent.

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

True socialism and true capitalism both pretend that isn't true which is why there are no true socialist or true capitalist states, because human nature cannot allow them to exist, and objectivism pretends that it's a positive thing rather than something that needs to be controlled for.

What on earth do you think "true socialism" is?

Dirty Hipsters:
"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

It's a component of human nature, in and amongst a great deal of other things. Furthermore, how we choose to run society influences how people think about things - including the extent to which "I got mine fuck you" is expressed.

If we go back to the film Wall Street ("Greed is good") we have to wonder that the 80s heralded a shift in how many people thought such that "I got mine fuck you" became a great deal more believed (and even socially acceptable), and problems in declining areas, often postindustrial, were little mitigated or cared about and left to fester for decades, with the result of a lot of unhappy people.

Dirty Hipsters:
"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

Capitalism tried and failed. Your premise is faulty becuase this attidue negates ANY possible economic philosophy. Or any laws. Ayn Rand is another example of this attitude - her Collective was a shitshow that kept breaking apart because others would tread on you, and you had the option to leave. The only way for a economic theory to pop up around 'got mine, fuck up' is if everyone was forced to do it. There would be no escape so you had to do it. And whose going to enforce that, when the attitude is 'got mine, fuck you." No one.

Seanchaidh:

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

True socialism and true capitalism both pretend that isn't true which is why there are no true socialist or true capitalist states, because human nature cannot allow them to exist, and objectivism pretends that it's a positive thing rather than something that needs to be controlled for.

What on earth do you think "true socialism" is?

The workers own everything and distribute all resources in a fair and even manner based all around the the good of society favoring those with the greatest contribution.

The problem being that "fair" is relative and there's always someone at the top distributing the resources in a manner that allows some people to be "more equal" than others creating a wealth hierarchy based on corruption and nepotism.

People don't actually want fairness and equality, they want to gain. People at the bottom want "fairness" because they stand to gain something when they are raised by the lowering of others. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to be raised up and raising up other people. The problem is that people don't actually want to reach an equilibrium stopping point where everyone is equal and has enough. People aren't happy to have it "good enough" they always want things to get better for themselves and that usually means climbing over others to achieve more, and if they have achieved more than the average no one wants to go back.

Agema:

Dirty Hipsters:
"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

It's a component of human nature, in and amongst a great deal of other things. Furthermore, how we choose to run society influences how people think about things - including the extent to which "I got mine fuck you" is expressed.

If we go back to the film Wall Street ("Greed is good") we have to wonder that the 80s heralded a shift in how many people thought such that "I got mine fuck you" became a great deal more believed (and even socially acceptable), and problems in declining areas, often postindustrial, were little mitigated or cared about and left to fester for decades, with the result of a lot of unhappy people.

trunkage:

Dirty Hipsters:
"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

Capitalism tried and failed. Your premise is faulty becuase this attidue negates ANY possible economic philosophy. Or any laws. Ayn Rand is another example of this attitude - her Collective was a shitshow that kept breaking apart because others would tread on you, and you had the option to leave. The only way for a economic theory to pop up around 'got mine, fuck up' is if everyone was forced to do it. There would be no escape so you had to do it. And whose going to enforce that, when the attitude is 'got mine, fuck you." No one.

I think you've both completely misunderstood what I'm saying.

I didn't say that the "fuck you go mine" attitude is good and productive, and I didn't say that people should follow it.

I said that it was basic human nature and if you want to have a functioning economic model you have to take basic human nature into account. What that means is trying to direct people's instincts toward mutually beneficial productivity and creating laws that make it more difficult for people to take advantage of others and be greedy.

Greed is bad, but greed is a basic human emotion that everyone has.

The reason socialism doesn't work is because people fundamentally don't want to be equal, and the moment that someone has a little more than other they will fight to keep it rather than give it up for the good of society.

The reason capitalism doesn't work is because greed prevents a free market from existing. Capitalists love talking about the free market and how deregulation will fix things, but the fact of the matter is that a free market requires competition and companies hate competition and love monopolies. A free market cannot exist because companies purposefully interfere with competition for their own gain.

These things are bad, and a sustainable economic system would take these things into account instead of pretending that all people are rational human beings who will behave rationally for the benefit of society.

Dirty Hipsters:

The reason socialism doesn't work is because people fundamentally don't want to be equal, and the moment that someone has a little more than other they will fight to keep it rather than give it up for the good of society.

Do you think that socialism engenders everybody having exactly the same amount of money?

It doesn't.

Dirty Hipsters:
The workers own everything and distribute all resources in a fair and even manner based all around the the good of society favoring those with the greatest contribution.

The problem being that "fair" is relative and there's always someone at the top distributing the resources in a manner that allows some people to be "more equal" than others creating a wealth hierarchy based on corruption and nepotism.

So what you're saying isn't really that 'true socialism' fails to take something about human nature into account, but rather that it (and consequently true democracy) is impossible because "there is always someone at the top". That makes more sense and it is a very different kind of claim. Also, it's wrong. It is possible to decide things democratically. Capitalist nominal democracies like the United States leave the workplace, where most people spend around half of their time awake, under the control of a small class of owners who, not satisfied with that control and profit, naturally leverage the riches their underlings make for them to control the direction of the formal political process. And because of this, we have a very unrealistic sense of what democracy could actually do if it were really achieved because we've fooled ourselves into thinking it already has.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here