Ayn Rand

[Torrocca]

1: Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? Nobody who has can seriously claim it's less sensationalist than anything Marx ever wrote.
2: Only if you look at Rand's turgid attempt at a philosophy through the lens she herself did. If you look at it 'objectively' (pun intended), she's against a fair bit more than that.

1. Sure they can. Rand works her philosophy and weaves it into an existing social hierarchy. Marx goes off on his own tangent for utopia.
2. Sure, there are also irrational communities, uncivilized ones, despotic ones, etc. Those can go on the chopping block next.

If you think Marx was trying to describe a utopia, you've clearly never picked up a work of his before.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. Sure they can. Rand works her philosophy and weaves it into an existing social hierarchy. Marx goes off on his own tangent for utopia.

Not really. She works her philosophy based on a social hierarchy that only resides in her mind in so far as the United States goes. Maybe her writings would have been more influential in her native Russia in Russian, but I doubt it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Simple. I agree with her that an individual has moral worth and that an individual should be able to do what they want without interferance from government force or force from other individuals, while I disagree with her glorification of selfishness and greed. I think selfishness and greed are generally negative traits.

[Shikihara]

1. Sure they can. Rand works her philosophy and weaves it into an existing social hierarchy. Marx goes off on his own tangent for utopia.
2. Sure, there are also irrational communities, uncivilized ones, despotic ones, etc. Those can go on the chopping block next.

If you think Marx was trying to describe a utopia, you've clearly never picked up a work of his before.

A moneyless, stateless, and classless society is pretty utopian.

[Phoenicaea]

at some, I ve got a tireness sensation we face deprivation of resources, given fish, wheat cultivable lands,
not because of capitalist west (I stay with capitalism in its rather philosophical, individual based, definition) nor even because of socialist economic policies growing,
perhaps we would face it instead because "we" consume these at a rate greater than the affordable for it to restore. without a fair criteria.

[Constantinopolis]

If you think Marx was trying to describe a utopia, you've clearly never picked up a work of his before.

A moneyless, stateless, and classless society is pretty utopian.

And Marx spent almost no time at all talking about this society, beyond simply saying that it is desirable and we should aim to have it at some point in the future.

Instead, he spent almost all his time dissecting capitalism, explaining how it works and what is wrong with it.

90% of Marxism is an analysis of capitalism.

[Asherahan]

What has individualism done for you?

[Phoenicaea]

What has individualism done for you?

it gave me liberty at its enhancing domain, moral, and the factual possibility of doing it.

[Asherahan]

What has individualism done for you?

it gave me liberty at its enhancing domain, moral, and the factual possibility of doing it.

No that was the state allowing to have those things you didn't earn anything. And you have certainly never striven to gain any of those things.

[Phoenicaea]

it gave me liberty at its enhancing domain, moral, and the factual possibility of doing it.

No that was the state allowing to have those things you didn't earn anything. And you have certainly never striven to gain any of those things.

ah. I was indeed struggling to fit myself into discussion, as I wrote before; this ns forum getting low value, since I can t afford a discussion for few that it should have some value.

You have to quote, to be read, however this means you have to introduce a dot, a faked not sincere think to introduce.
At least you answered.

About, as I was thinking before, perhaps non-individualistic civ made great advantage, even greater than;
the Babilonians they were; about Romans I wouldn t say it as not-individualistic (a melange of the two opposite perhaps). The thing is, these socialist peoples gained when things got well.

You can t gain if the habitat is not doing well as a whole (as if it is not well commanded, guided) this way, which is indeed the thing individualism teaches, to perform and gain from an habitat which is not going well "on itself"
So, you could turn it and say: individualism gives you chance from what you don t have, while socialist, the absolutist function of society, spreads and develops from what you already have got.

Which case to be significative? the first, in fact if you can spread development from a core you already have got this is not relevant finally, since it isn t a case limit (onthologically we d say)

Some of socialist thinking, in fact, often in the "light form" ends with lowering the importance it gives to "politics" to give it to a substata, (technology, techniques, organizations) which is, counfounding the moral domain with the practice.

This now cited attitude of giving to history a "flat curve" looking, as if it was imagined as a mathematical curve, brings an intuitive malaise in terms of observation of realitity,
not for beeing scientists or acculturate ideologues but because it doesn t fit the variety, the uncertainty.

Other people made it, it was an effort, instead of myself.
have in mind: "society doesn t exist", these befefits are done, done as specific processes, and by state associations with an aim (red cross, schools) as their aim, and then distributed.
sincerely.

I m referring to a classical, antiquated if you wish to say it, thinking of classics (Smith in economic philosophy domain) which has not to do - in my observations, with, how to say wall street journal financial times and so* speeches,
and that sort of assertions which get from nowhere.

*(failed and rotten, heavely subsized (and even not-free market) industry)

[Katzenstaat]

Simple. I agree with her that an individual has moral worth and that an individual should be able to do what they want without interferance from government force or force from other individuals, while I disagree with her glorification of selfishness and greed. I think selfishness and greed are generally negative traits.

I believe that selfishness and greed are positive traits.

[UniversalCommons]

Selfishness and greed quite often don' generate wealth, prosperity, or better individual outcomes. If you look at Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, and the richest people, they are far from selfish or greedy. In fact Warren Buffett says that reputation is gold. People with selfish or greedy reputations become curtailed in the end.

[Katzenstaat]

Selfishness and greed quite often don' generate wealth, prosperity, or better individual outcomes. If you look at Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, and the richest people, they are far from selfish or greedy. In fact Warren Buffett says that reputation is gold. People with selfish or greedy reputations become curtailed in the end.

That's assuming that other humans have to be allowed to exist. A sufficiently powerful despot can simply exterminate all humans other than themselves. In the age of strong AI this will be an attractive option to despots which is why they need to be deterred.

Furthermore selfishness simply means maximizing one's own interests. Harming others for the sake of it is sadistic, not selfish. Since always defecting in an iterated prisoners' dilemma game is not good for one's own interests a perfectly rational and selfish person will sometimes (and actually mostly) cooperate with others.

[Zottistan]

Mediocre writer and terrible philosopher. Individualism, especially in the existentialist variety, predates her and her work isn't really derivative from older forms. I'll take Nietzsche and Stirner over her absolutist moral posturing any day.

EDIT: the main reason individualism doesn't mandate objectivism is that older schools of indivudualism are frequently anti-rationalist, whereas objectivism has pretensions to an almost scientific level of rationalism. Nietzsche in particular would have had no time for her "it's moral to be selfish because A is A and it's just obvious and logical even though I'm never going to explain it brah".

[Zottistan]

Selfishness and greed quite often don' generate wealth, prosperity, or better individual outcomes. If you look at Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, and the richest people, they are far from selfish or greedy. In fact Warren Buffett says that reputation is gold. People with selfish or greedy reputations become curtailed in the end.

For advice on being an asshole while maintaining a good reputation, see Machiavelli.

[Cedoria]

1: Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? Nobody who has can seriously claim it's less sensationalist than anything Marx ever wrote.
2: Only if you look at Rand's turgid attempt at a philosophy through the lens she herself did. If you look at it 'objectively' (pun intended), she's against a fair bit more than that.

1. Sure they can. Rand works her philosophy and weaves it into an existing social hierarchy. Marx goes off on his own tangent for utopia.
2. Sure, there are also irrational communities, uncivilized ones, despotic ones, etc. Those can go on the chopping block next.

1: Marx was a critic of Utopianism. As I suspected, you've never read a word he wrote.
2: Nope, she's against stuff that is actually required for human survival. No man is an island and all that.

[Cedoria]

If you think Marx was trying to describe a utopia, you've clearly never picked up a work of his before.

A moneyless, stateless, and classless society is pretty utopian.

Not really, Utopian would imply such societies have never existed, which is patently not true. Money, States and Classes are all comparatively recent human inventions compared to how long human society has been in existence.

[Cedoria]

Selfishness and greed quite often don' generate wealth, prosperity, or better individual outcomes. If you look at Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, and the richest people, they are far from selfish or greedy. In fact Warren Buffett says that reputation is gold. People with selfish or greedy reputations become curtailed in the end.

For advice on being an asshole while maintaining a good reputation, see Machiavelli.

Except Machiavelli wasn't advising people to be evil.

[Torrocca]

If you think Marx was trying to describe a utopia, you've clearly never picked up a work of his before.

A moneyless, stateless, and classless society is pretty utopian.

Societies with all those things existed before, y'know? They weren't utopias and, again, Marx never described Communism as creating a utopia.

[Shikihara]

A moneyless, stateless, and classless society is pretty utopian.

Societies with all those things existed before, y'know? They weren't utopias and, again, Marx never described Communism as creating a utopia.

When has there been a classless and/or stateless society in existence? A post-scarcity economy where everyone's needs are met has little in common with early tribal communities, if you're going to try and claim "Primitive Communism."

You do realize that just because he didn't use the word "utopia" doesn't mean that isn't what his vision ultimately is, right?

[Cedoria]

Societies with all those things existed before, y'know? They weren't utopias and, again, Marx never described Communism as creating a utopia.

When has there been a classless and/or stateless society in existence? A post-scarcity economy where everyone's needs are met has little in common with early tribal communities, if you're going to try and claim "Primitive Communism."

You do realize that just because he didn't use the word "utopia" doesn't mean that isn't what his vision ultimately is, right?

Stateless societies were the norm up until the 16th century or so. Y'know, BEFORE the Nation-State existed?

No, it doesn't, but what you think Utopia means and what it actually means are likely two different things. Perhaps defining it from your perspective would make this discussion clearer?

[Bataawenland]

The Objectivist philosophy established by Ayn Rand is so evil. I deeply hate objectivism, and Ayn Rand.

It promotes the worst of the worst:

- Greed
- Narcissism
- Egoism
- Love of Money
- Zionism
- Selfishness

Objectivism is very strange in terms of time. It is not reactionary. It is not romantic. It is not conservative. It is not liberal. It is not progressive. It is not revolutionary.

It is not reactionary because Ayn Rand and her objectivist philosophy never wanted to go back in time. It is not romantic because it promotes egoism, rationalism, reason, and individualism. It is not conservative because it is atheistic, anti-family, and promotes radical feminism. It is not liberal because liberals promote sympathy, and the objectivist philosophy is not sympathetic, promoting selfishness, and the "Law of the Jungle." It is not progressive because objectivism does not aim for anything. It is not revolutionary because objectivism does not rebel against anything, and wants to conserve the capitalist mode of production. Objectivism is useless in almost all political fields.

Very much this. It really strikes me how so many conservatives reference her...

[Shikihara]

Stateless societies were the norm up until the 16th century or so. Y'know, BEFORE the Nation-State existed?

... Are you seriously telling me that feudal monarchies where a large amount of the populace lived as serfs was "stateless?" this is about as bad as Rothbard claiming that Celtic Ireland was anarcho-capitalist. There are other forms of state besides the nation-state. The Tsarist Russian Empire is not a state according to you.

No, it doesn't, but what you think Utopia means and what it actually means are likely two different things. Perhaps defining it from your perspective would make this discussion clearer?

u·to·pi·a
yo͞oˈtōpēə/
noun
noun: Utopia; plural noun: Utopias; noun: utopia; plural noun: utopias

an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.

That's fundamentally the society that Marx was obsessed with bringing about.

[Torrocca]

Stateless societies were the norm up until the 16th century or so. Y'know, BEFORE the Nation-State existed?

... Are you seriously telling me that feudal monarchies where a large amount of the populace lived as serfs was "stateless?" this is about as bad as Rothbard claiming that Celtic Ireland was anarcho-capitalist. There are other forms of state besides the nation-state. The Tsarist Russian Empire is not a state according to you.

No, it doesn't, but what you think Utopia means and what it actually means are likely two different things. Perhaps defining it from your perspective would make this discussion clearer?

u·to·pi·a
yo͞oˈtōpēə/
noun
noun: Utopia; plural noun: Utopias; noun: utopia; plural noun: utopias

an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.

That's fundamentally the society that Marx was obsessed with bringing about.

Marx didn't want to make a perfect world; what are you on about? He wanted a system that was fundamentally better for everyone, primarily the lower classes.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Simple. I agree with her that an individual has moral worth and that an individual should be able to do what they want without interferance from government force or force from other individuals, while I disagree with her glorification of selfishness and greed. I think selfishness and greed are generally negative traits.

I believe that selfishness and greed are positive traits.

Well, we can agree to disagree. While I do think they're generally negative traits, they shouldn't be prohibited.