Are Objectivists Vanguard Capitalists?

[Distruzio]

I've made that charge quite often, but I've never offered it up for debate. A friend, less familiar with Objectivism than I, doubts that my observations hold true. He may be right. So here it is, NSG, my thread asking for proof otherwise - Are Objectivists Vanguard Capitalists?

I believe they are and I base my belief that they are Vanguard Capitalists (as a mirror of the political philosophy of Leninism) on the following...

Consider the definition of Vanguardism which:

Where Marx and Engels (along with their ideological sons) elevated to axiomatic status the socialist dialectic or, rather, the 'class consciousness and conflict' secured and perpetuated by the Dictatorial Proletarian State, and Gentile and Fichte (among other Nazi influences) elevated both the Socially Integral State and Racial Pure State (respectively) to similar axiomatic status, Rand elevates the laissez-faire economic order (personified by the rationally self-interested man) to such self-evident axiomatic status and likewise advocates a minarchic State to perpetuate it.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Rand's entire philosophy is culminated and integrated by her focus on individual liberty - all of it (from the ethics, metaphysics, and aesthetic perspectives) points at individual liberty. Now, I realize that Objectivism rejects wholeheartedly the initiation of force against the will of another, the use of defensive or retaliatory force, on the other hand, is appropriate. That being said, Objectivism founds its perspective on rights entirely upon the individual will to act within a social context. Therefore, collective rights, animal rights, and positive rights do not exist - they are repudiated. In order to justify this position, laissez faire unregulated economic order is recognized as the only MORAL order.

Now, up until this point, I agree entirely, with Objectivists. They begin to lose me when we consider their next logical deduction from this position.

Since individual rights are recognized as the only morally acceptable rights and laissez faire capitalism the only moral economic order, the Objectivist believes that:

From this position, the wiki article on Objectivism explains that,

Note the italicized part. Further, Rand advocated a rigidly controlled minarchic State that would exercise only the most basic of services - police, military, courts, the executive and legislatures. The police, you see, are, when considered within the context of the definition of Objectivism and of the only recognized source of rights, there to enforce the axiomatic principle domestically, the military to enforce it abroad, the courts to interpret it, the executive to keep it, and the legislature to codify it objectively.

I surmise that, b/c Objectivism recognizes that the individual who advocates collectivism is advocating a denial of individual liberty, that person is to be morally repudiated and discriminated against. I believe that Objectivism truly does reject wholeheartedly the initiation of force against the will of another. I simply think that it denies that those who do not identify as a sovereign individual in the way the Objectivist does qualifies as "another." Since "they" are always plural and never singular, "they" do not deserve rights. "They" do not exist as moral human beings. The collectivist would be the target of the Objectivist Vanguard in order to best safeguard individual liberty. The primary heroic being must be elevated at all costs in an Objectivist State.

In essence, I believe that Objectivism requires one to wonder, "is it theft to take from a man who denies the existence of property?"

I have, in the past, asked if my perspective is baseless to several Objectivists active in the local Libertarian Party and the answer is a unanimous no. Most were visibly disturbed by my line of reasoning but dismissed it out of hand due to the Objectivist support of parliamentarian forms of gov't. The Vanguard abuses would, apparently, be kept at bay by the inherent.... umm... equal division of political representation among the masses.... oh... I wish I had made the connection while at the LP meeting last month when I last broached the topic, but alas. If Objectivists reject collective rights in favor of individual rights, then any form of democratic gov't they embrace would quickly adopt an authoritarian flavor. I also believe this to be an inevitable outgrowth of any Objectivist revolution in America b/c...

The Objectivist, I believe, is a national individualist.

Now, I draw a distinction between Objectivists and libertarians (note that I do NOT necessarily mean Libertarian Party members) by noting that we libertarian anarchists (whether left or right) are more consistent than the Objectivist with our ethical conclusions. Moreover, Rand herself despised the libertarian as the greatest threat to both freedom and capitalism b/c we do not agree that collectivists cede their individuality and all rights to protection b/c of their status as collectivists.





So, NSG, do I have a point? Am I completely off base? Are Objectivists Vanguard Capitalists?

*Note, I am looking for someone to convince me that I am wrong. Aside from her rejection of religion and anarchism, I agree with much of what Rand said. I devoured many of her works (and needed a nap afterwards from sheer exhaustion) and hold a special place in my heart for her philosophy.

I think Capitalists are doing pretty well about now, have been doing pretty well for a few centuries now, and will keep doing pretty well for decades if not centuries into the future. They don't need a vanguard, and would probably prefer if the self-appointed vanguard would shut the fuck up.

They may not need the vanguard, I agree. But the objectivist philosophy does seem to lend itself towards the institutionalization of a laissez faire State in order to ensure the most pure form of capitalism at the expense of those who would not readily agree to such a lack of oversight. I also agree that it would be nice, indeed, if the "self-appointed" were to refrain from advocating public policy.... of course, as an anti-democratist, I'd prefer no one advocate a public policy but I certainly wouldn't want that enforced on everyone.

[Distruzio]

Uh-huh... so... b/c the age of vanguard capitalism has passed, vanguard capitalists do not exist? I mean.... couldn't I make that same argument for the Marxist-Leninists?

The question wasn't, "Has the age of Vanguard Capitalism been revived?" How's about addressing the question that was asked? You know... are Objectivists Vanguard Capitalists?

Are there any more commons in Great Britain to enclose upon? Is there any more land that the state which supports capital has unilaterally declared terra nullis? If so, then you can make an argument. Otherwise, what part of "no" did you fail to understand?

The part where you describe how they aren't Vanguard capitalists. You seem intent on proposing inane nonsense that amounts to shouting in the wind that, b/c all surviving children eventually grow into adults, there is no such thing as a child.

[Distruzio]

How is that so, Trots?

Because it is in the interests of everyone to live in a good society, where people can be free to do as they wish, and not run afoul of the caprices those who hold power over them, whether through private property or state bureaucracies.

I meant, how does the logic of Objectivists extend towards communism. I know both philosophies yet I do not see the links between the two.

[Distruzio]

I find Objectivists are more dedicated to cold logic than capitalism. They argue on the basis of self-interest, oppose altruism (which is our biological nature if you follow some of Dawkin's latest work), want to dominate or otherwise supplant the 'ruling order' which they see as acting irrationally, where it stands on an altruistic position or appeals to the 'social conscience' of the nation. I don't see them as Vanguard Capitalists, rather as a determined group that want laissez faire capitalism imposed at all costs, regardless of the social vices or hardship it would result in. They have a similarity in this sense with Stalinists, who would argue that if the goal is important, and anyone/anything gets in the way it is an acceptable loss i.e. objectivism values the individual, but fails to care for the plight of the individual that losses out from their system; let alone allow them to adjust.

Erm.... NR? You just explained how they ARE Vanguardists with the red excerpt and then reiterate the exact parallel I used to substantiate my claim that they are Vanguardists, after denying that they are Vanguardists.

[Distruzio]

I don't think so. Leninists and other vanguard movements seem to favor direct political action. Rand and many other Objectivists seem to have a strong disdain for direct political action. It's why she and the leaders of the major Objectivist organisations seem to dislike and even be openly hostile to the Libertarian Party and other attempts .

I agree that certain members are loathe to encourage participation. Would you say that the philosophy devolves into the individual being faced with the question, "is it theft to take from one who denies the existence of property?"

[Staeny]

fair enough actually, forgot about that! care to explain the errors?

He thinks Objectivism's non-political aspects would logically support a libertarian socialist, rather than capitalist political ideology.

Yeah I got that, but I asked him to explain the errors in Objectivism which would lead it to that conclusion.

[New Rogernomics]

I find Objectivists are more dedicated to cold logic than capitalism. They argue on the basis of self-interest, oppose altruism (which is our biological nature if you follow some of Dawkin's latest work), want to dominate or otherwise supplant the 'ruling order' which they see as acting irrationally, where it stands on an altruistic position or appeals to the 'social conscience' of the nation. I don't see them as Vanguard Capitalists, rather as a determined group that want laissez faire capitalism imposed at all costs, regardless of the social vices or hardship it would result in. They have a similarity in this sense with Stalinists, who would argue that if the goal is important, and anyone/anything gets in the way it is an acceptable loss i.e. objectivism values the individual, but fails to care for the plight of the individual that losses out from their system; let alone allow them to adjust.

Erm.... NR? You just explained how they ARE Vanguardists with the red excerpt and then reiterate the exact parallel I used to substantiate my claim that they are Vanguardists, after denying that they are Vanguardists.

I was bored, and thought it would be fun.

[Daistallia 2104]

Are there any more commons in Great Britain to enclose upon? Is there any more land that the state which supports capital has unilaterally declared terra nullis? If so, then you can make an argument. Otherwise, what part of "no" did you fail to understand?

The part where you describe how they aren't Vanguard capitalists. You seem intent on proposing inane nonsense that amounts to shouting in the wind that, b/c all surviving children eventually grow into adults, there is no such thing as a child.

If you can't bother to familiarize yourself with even the very basics of the history of the ideology you claim to follow, there's no more point in my continuing this discussion than there is in discussing it with a pig.

[Distruzio]

The part where you describe how they aren't Vanguard capitalists. You seem intent on proposing inane nonsense that amounts to shouting in the wind that, b/c all surviving children eventually grow into adults, there is no such thing as a child.

If you can't bother to familiarize yourself with even the very basics of the history of the ideology you claim to follow, there's no more point in my continuing this discussion than there is in discussing it with a pig.

Did you even read the OP? Where have I identified myself as an objectivist and what does my familiarity of the history of objectivism have to do with my hypothesis that objectivism is capitalist vanguardism?

I think that you are assuming that I know what you are talking about when you offer no explanation.

[Daistallia 2104]

Did you even read the OP? Where have I identified myself as an objectivist and what does my familiarity of the history of objectivism have to do with my hypothesis that objectivism is capitalist vanguardism?

I think that you are assuming that I know what you are talking about when you offer no explanation.

Where did I say you were an Objectivist? I have been talkning about the actual history of Capitaliam throught this thread. You seem to have assumed that Capitalism is a new, revolutionary ideal that might be carried to fruition by a vanguard. Rather, that phase is long past. The primary actions of the Capitalist vanguard were enclosure of and colonial seizure of property. If there were still land to enclose upon or alien societies to deny their existing claims to, then there might be a place for a a vanguard capitalist party. But, as I have pointed out, that revolution succeeded a few centuries ago and the possibility of a capitalist vanguard is moot.

[The USOT]

Did you even read the OP? Where have I identified myself as an objectivist and what does my familiarity of the history of objectivism have to do with my hypothesis that objectivism is capitalist vanguardism?

I think that you are assuming that I know what you are talking about when you offer no explanation.

Where did I say you were an Objectivist? I have been talkning about the actual history of Capitaliam throught this thread. You seem to have assumed that Capitalism is a new, revolutionary ideal that might be carried to fruition by a vanguard. Rather, that phase is long past. The primary actions of the Capitalist vanguard were enclosure of and colonial seizure of property. If there were still land to enclose upon or alien societies to deny their existing claims to, then there might be a place for a a vanguard capitalist party. But, as I have pointed out, that revolution succeeded a few centuries ago and the possibility of a capitalist vanguard is moot.

Ultranationalists came to power within Europe, a continent dominated by nationalism.

The modern capitalist nature of the world is not extreme in its nature, and indeed it is in the age of a new more extreme capitalism that Objectivists may become vanguards.
As Mussolini was a vanguard of fascism marching on Rome, likewise Objectivists often hope for big business to use their economic influence to create an ultimately Laissez-faire society, which does not exist today.

[Distruzio]

Did you even read the OP? Where have I identified myself as an objectivist and what does my familiarity of the history of objectivism have to do with my hypothesis that objectivism is capitalist vanguardism?

I think that you are assuming that I know what you are talking about when you offer no explanation.

Where did I say you were an Objectivist?

I assumed that when you said:

If you can't bother to familiarize yourself with even the very basics of the history of the ideology you claim to follow, there's no more point in my continuing this discussion than there is in discussing it with a pig.

...you were referring to Objectivism. Unless you believe capitalism is an ideology? If you do, it isn't.

I have been talkning about the actual history of Capitaliam throught this thread. You seem to have assumed that Capitalism is a new, revolutionary ideal that might be carried to fruition by a vanguard.

Nonsense. I made it QUITE CLEAR in the OP exactly what I was referring to - that Objectivist philosophy idealizes laissez faire unregulated markets as axiomatic. No one with even the most basic concept of what a legislative body does actually believes that the capitalist paradigm currently existing, or having once existed, in the world is either "post-revolutionary" or without regulation.

The Objectivist would argue that the "revolution" you speak of has yet to come.

Rather, that phase is long past. The primary actions of the Capitalist vanguard were enclosure of and colonial seizure of property. If there were still land to enclose upon or alien societies to deny their existing claims to, then there might be a place for a a vanguard capitalist party. But, as I have pointed out, that revolution succeeded a few centuries ago and the possibility of a capitalist vanguard is moot.

And as I have pointed out, you are speaking as though the inevitability of a progression from childhood into adulthood yet negates the existence of children. Its ridiculous. The existence of capitalism as it yet exists does NOT invalidate in any way, the Objectivist philosophical line of reasoning - whether they be vanguards or not. The very definition of Vanguardism fits the explicit desire of Objectivist political thought (per the wiki page and per Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand herself) succinctly.

[Daistallia 2104]

I assumed that when you said:

If you can't bother to familiarize yourself with even the very basics of the history of the ideology you claim to follow, there's no more point in my continuing this discussion than there is in discussing it with a pig.

...you were referring to Objectivism.

If you had actually read what I have written, you'd have known I was talking about capitalism.

Unless you believe capitalism is an ideology? If you do, it isn't.

[/quote]

If you don't even realize that capitalism is an ideology, much less are aware of it's history, I see no point in further discussion.

[The USOT]

I assumed that when you said:

...you were referring to Objectivism.

If you had actually read what I have written, you'd have known I was talking about capitalism.

Unless you believe capitalism is an ideology? If you do, it isn't.

If you don't even realize that capitalism is an ideology, much less are aware of it's history, I see no point in further discussion.[/quote]
Capitalism in itself is not an ideology. You can have ideological leanings based around socialism, and indeed the support OF capitalism is itself ideological, but capitalism on its own is merely an economic system.

Regardless, this is irrelevant to the conversation. There is a world of difference between our modern day economic system and the extremes of laissez-faire capitalist economics, and even more so for specifically objectivist thought.

Whilst objectivist thought may indeed be derived from laissez-faire capitalist thought (despite many people on here seeming to think that Communism is the conclusion of objectivism), its moral, political and economic standings have never been achieved, ergo it being a vanguard movement makes perfect sense.

[Frisbeeteria]

Yes, I've been using this point when I talk to left-anarchists about right-libertarianism. I say "See....Objectivists and Ayn Rand are the Vanguardists and Lenin of the libertarians".

[Geilinor]

I lost you when you misused the word "fascism".

[The New Sea Territory]

I lost you when you misused the word "fascism".

Everyone misuses fascism. Fascism is like Jesus. It's whatever you want it to be.

[MERIZoC]

I lost you when you misused the word "fascism".

Everyone misuses fascism. Fascism is like Jesus. It's whatever you want it to be.

Everyone also misuses dead threads.

[Geilinor]

Everyone misuses fascism. Fascism is like Jesus. It's whatever you want it to be.

Everyone also misuses dead threads.

Oops.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

Zombie thread comes to eat your BRAINS.

[Blakk Metal]

Everyone also misuses dead threads.

Oops.

Dude, it's not your fault.