|
Capitalism, with all it's flaws, has created an increase in the wealth of mankind. This doesn't just mean shallow materialism, it means modern medicine with it's cures for diseases, and better hygiene, and longer life expectancy, etc. It means less work and suffering, greater safety, in a word, progress.
No, no, no, no. SCIENCE was responsible for these things. Capitalism being at the ready to exploit science to the maximum *might* lead to more technological advances and faster innovations, but so could lots of other systems possibly. Also raw capitalism leads to greater safety and less suffering? In the work place too? I can think of about 2 million sweatshop workers who disagree.
Rand was an armchair sociologist who came up with objectivism out of despair after she realized being a communist (which she started out as) was so stupid. Her whole speech in Atlas Shrugged reeks of an immature all-or-nothing tantrum after finding out Santa isn't real. Read it again right now, I just did, it is just pathetic and *that* is supposed to be the grand outline of her "philosophy"? Yikes.
|
On April 14 2011 00:44 tpir wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 21:04 Ocedic wrote:
Looks like a movie for conservatives to circle jerk to. The sheer amount of elitism in the story is just hilarious. Anyone who thinks they're irreplaceable is basically a delusional idiot. The only people who come close are brilliant scientists, but even then they can be replaced as well and there will be smarter people in the future, and have been smarter people in the past. Yes! And even scientists are screwed since in Randland they would need money to be heavily backed/supported and be "moochers" since they do not "produce" in the black-and-white stupid Rand way of pure money generation. Embracing Randian "philosophy" is the path of the glorified use car salesman of the 20th+ century who didn't leave their ego behind in 11th grade. They need to believe pushing mortgages and bundles of shares is "producing" and important or they would just self-end.
Did you just say that scientists never produce anything? And do you think that the majority of scientists are funded by tax dollars?
Also, I am always really, really confused when a bunch of people post in a thread simply to attack the whole topic of the thread to begin with. You don't like Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged? Fine. But why do we have six pages of people coming in here just to repeat that? Why post in the thread at all? I just assume people want to feel smart by going after an easy target like this.
|
Libertarian here and not a fan of Ayn Rand. After all, she hated libertarians, especially the Rothbardians, which I am one of. If you want to read good libertarian fiction I'd recommend Robert Heinlein (Moon is a Harsh Mistress), J. Neil Schulman (Alongside Night is amazing), and L. Neil Smith (Probability Broach).
I find it sort of hilarious how many libertarians like Rand considering she hated us...we have a rich intellectual history and if you want to read heavyweight libertarian women I'd recommend Isabel Paterson or Rose Wilder Lane.
|
On February 12 2011 10:36 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 09:59 Jswizzy wrote:On February 12 2011 09:54 zobz wrote:On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote:
Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market. I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine. Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution. Rand is a lot like Reagan or Palin in that their supporters are more like adoring fans who selectively pay attention to the histories of these people instead of looking at the history as a whole.
I'm stunned that I had to register to point this out. I just dug through the wikipedia page and it seems that she was in support of one character of the february revolution, who wasn't a bolshevik.
Also, she was 12...so it seems a little exaggerated to treat this very seriously.
I was a communist at 12. There's an old saying about people, their beliefs at certain ages, and certain missing organs characterized by those beliefs or the lack thereof.
|
On April 14 2011 01:39 tpir wrote:Show nested quote +Capitalism, with all it's flaws, has created an increase in the wealth of mankind. This doesn't just mean shallow materialism, it means modern medicine with it's cures for diseases, and better hygiene, and longer life expectancy, etc. It means less work and suffering, greater safety, in a word, progress. No, no, no, no. SCIENCE was responsible for these things. Capitalism being at the ready to exploit science to the maximum *might* lead to more technological advances and faster innovations, but so could lots of other systems possibly.
What you are implying here is that socialist or mixed systems can co-opt market forces (simulating private property and market-driven prices) to reap the same economic benefits. What you forget is that mixed/socialist systems are by nature antithetical to the culture of entrepreneurship, management, risk taking, marketing, financial know-how that has led to the explosion of technological advances since the Industrial Revolution.
Also raw capitalism leads to greater safety and less suffering? In the work place too? I can think of about 2 million sweatshop workers who disagree.
Arguing against "sweatshops" in general is evidence that you have been duped. You have been done an injustice by your teachers or whatever. Some facts about "sweatshops" in 3rd world countries: In Honduras, half the working population lives on $2/day, while "sweatshops" pay $13.10/day. The same trend can be seen in cambodia, haiti, and nicaragua. Do you think there are anti-Nike or anti-GM protests in these countries?
Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, capital investment in undeveloped countries has caused an increase in marginal productivity, which by indisputable economic mechanisms, causes wages to rise over time. The only people weakened by foreign capital investment are labor "organizers" and other socialist-leaning factions in developed nations.
Rand was an armchair sociologist who came up with objectivism out of despair after she realized being a communist (which she started out as) was so stupid. Her whole speech in Atlas Shrugged reeks of an immature all-or-nothing tantrum after finding out Santa isn't real. Read it again right now, I just did, it is just pathetic and *that* is supposed to be the grand outline of her "philosophy"? Yikes.
I have no need to respond to ad hominem attacks on Rand in order to defend objectivism, LET ALONE capitalism. Objectivists are not cult members and the philosophy is bigger than its originator.
|
On February 12 2011 12:50 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 12:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:On February 12 2011 12:25 Offhand wrote:On February 12 2011 12:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Hello everyone, I am a pompous pseudo-intellectual and I am going to enjoy mocking anyone in this thread who is foolish enough to suggest their agreement with the works of a pro-capitalist. I will start by attacking Ayn Rand herself, then her supporters as a cult of loons. I will finish by calling the book boring drivel that has no literary merits. Don't make me grab the kitchen sink. Please tell me how well laissez fair capitalism worked out for the US circa 1930. We had laissez faire capitalism in the US circa 1930? Wow, okay, um, never mind. You've drank the kool-aid. + Show Spoiler +Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.
For the record, we did not have Laissez Faire capitalism in the 1930's. We had less government intervention than we do now in some ways. However, a central bank is antithetical to Laissez-Faire capitalism. Whether you disagree with the notion of it or not, you can't have the government control the money supply, then somehow claim that the government has its hands off the economy.
|
I just looked through this thread, soooo many haters. I don't believe in her philosophy but I would highly recommend the book to anyone with a brain. Everyone is great at flaming against something that is obviously wrong but I thought most people with any brain power realized that even though it's wrong doesn't mean you hate on or bash people for being interested in it.
Do you go up to Christians and bash all of their ideas and ideals? Seven days? HA. Walking on water? HAHAHA. Resurrection? LOL. People are great at picking out the things they disagree with, in order to build their own argument and prove how right they are. They choose to ignore the fact that we can believe what we want to believe, that's the most beautiful thing about this planet. I know a lot of people who really enjoyed this book but they are not attacking others because they have obtained a self righteousness that only they understand. It's food for thought, like most every other philosophical work.
Quit passing judgment upon people, everyone is allowed to feel and believe what they want. By no means am I saying you should believe in a work of fiction.... It's a book, a book containing a persons views (personally I think she has ulterior motives when it came to her writing it, but that doesn't take away from the fine writing she did). It's up to the reader to take it for what it's worth and move on.
I love team liquid but in the past couple weeks I've truly come to realize how snobish everyone is. How right everyone has to be. There doesn't seem to be room for 'theory-craft' when it comes to life, everyone is stuck on how right and intellectual they can be. It's just a ride folks, we all experience it our own way. Whatever beliefs you choose to own, are just that, a beliefs. No human truly knows anything, no matter how much they convince themselves otherwise. Don't hate on others, its all about love.
Peace
|
On April 14 2011 01:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 00:44 tpir wrote:On April 13 2011 21:04 Ocedic wrote:
Looks like a movie for conservatives to circle jerk to. The sheer amount of elitism in the story is just hilarious. Anyone who thinks they're irreplaceable is basically a delusional idiot. The only people who come close are brilliant scientists, but even then they can be replaced as well and there will be smarter people in the future, and have been smarter people in the past. Yes! And even scientists are screwed since in Randland they would need money to be heavily backed/supported and be "moochers" since they do not "produce" in the black-and-white stupid Rand way of pure money generation. Embracing Randian "philosophy" is the path of the glorified use car salesman of the 20th+ century who didn't leave their ego behind in 11th grade. They need to believe pushing mortgages and bundles of shares is "producing" and important or they would just self-end. Did you just say that scientists never produce anything? And do you think that the majority of scientists are funded by tax dollars? Also, I am always really, really confused when a bunch of people post in a thread simply to attack the whole topic of the thread to begin with. You don't like Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged? Fine. But why do we have six pages of people coming in here just to repeat that? Why post in the thread at all? I just assume people want to feel smart by going after an easy target like this.
No that isn't what I said, I put "produce" in quotes to make sure it was Rand's purely cash-flow black-and-white version of production. Of course scientists produce, but not the way Rand would like, in her universe the scientists serve at the feet of the True Visionaries like Rearden. Because where would we all be without him or Rand? Dead in a train wreck right?
And it isn't about "not liking" the book. It is about otherwise smart (but confused) people who hold up objectivism as legit when it is a totally failed "philosophy" which would be horrible for humanity if it became the norm!! To re-quote a review that was posted earlier in the thread:
"...like most social Darwinists, Rand fell short in her understanding of natural selection. Her philosophy was largely based on the false belief that nature invariably favors individual selfishness. In reality, evolution has made homo sapiens a social animal; cooperation and compassion are very human traits. More importantly, even if cold selfishness were man's nature in the wild, it would not necessarily follow that that would be the best way for us to behave in our semi-civilized modern condition."
|
[B]Do you go up to Christians and bash all of their ideas and ideals? Seven days? HA. Walking on water? HAHAHA. Resurrection? LOL.
Uhhh, yes? Because these ideas are stupid and neither grounded in reality nor evidence nor anywhere that has pragmatic value to anyone. Same goes for Rand's worldview: pure mental masturbation that people cling to because of wishful thinking that THEY are important producers. (Kind of similar to the Christian version of "everyone is God's special flower and insanely important actually.)
|
What you are implying here is that socialist or mixed systems can co-opt market forces (simulating private property and market-driven prices) to reap the same economic benefits. What you forget is that mixed/socialist systems are by nature antithetical to the culture of entrepreneurship, management, risk taking, marketing, financial know-how that has led to the explosion of technological advances since the Industrial Revolution.
I am implying nothing of the sort and have zero idea what you are talking about. Only point out that if you want to start labeling things as responsible for advances to modern society the list starts at 1. Science and capitalism is maybe #3?
Some facts about "sweatshops" in 3rd world countries: In Honduras, half the working population lives on $2/day, while "sweatshops" pay $13.10/day. The same trend can be seen in cambodia, haiti, and nicaragua. Do you think there are anti-Nike or anti-GM protests in these countries?
Great, so those other things not called sweatshops are actually the sweatshops? Not sure how this makes any point at all other than greedy people exploit others. I have no idea if there are protests or not, maybe there should be?
I have no need to respond to ad hominem attacks on Rand in order to defend objectivism, LET ALONE capitalism. Objectivists are not cult members and the philosophy is bigger than its originator.
Objectivism has no need to be defended, it was never legitimate to begin with. Like i said, just read her speech. It is the most black/white, good/evil, yes/no, with me/against me nonsense imaginable for what is supposed to be her grand masterpiece. It all shows up way before that in her characters though. Supposed to be realistic and embodying you and I, yet totally idealistic and in no way believable whatsoever.
|
On April 14 2011 04:36 tpir wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 01:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On April 14 2011 00:44 tpir wrote:On April 13 2011 21:04 Ocedic wrote:
Looks like a movie for conservatives to circle jerk to. The sheer amount of elitism in the story is just hilarious. Anyone who thinks they're irreplaceable is basically a delusional idiot. The only people who come close are brilliant scientists, but even then they can be replaced as well and there will be smarter people in the future, and have been smarter people in the past. Yes! And even scientists are screwed since in Randland they would need money to be heavily backed/supported and be "moochers" since they do not "produce" in the black-and-white stupid Rand way of pure money generation. Embracing Randian "philosophy" is the path of the glorified use car salesman of the 20th+ century who didn't leave their ego behind in 11th grade. They need to believe pushing mortgages and bundles of shares is "producing" and important or they would just self-end. Did you just say that scientists never produce anything? And do you think that the majority of scientists are funded by tax dollars? Also, I am always really, really confused when a bunch of people post in a thread simply to attack the whole topic of the thread to begin with. You don't like Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged? Fine. But why do we have six pages of people coming in here just to repeat that? Why post in the thread at all? I just assume people want to feel smart by going after an easy target like this. No that isn't what I said, I put "produce" in quotes to make sure it was Rand's purely cash-flow black-and-white version of production. Of course scientists produce, but not the way Rand would like, in her universe the scientists serve at the feet of the True Visionaries like Rearden. Because where would we all be without him or Rand? Dead in a train wreck right? And it isn't about "not liking" the book. It is about otherwise smart (but confused) people who hold up objectivism as legit when it is a totally failed "philosophy" which would be horrible for humanity if it became the norm!! To re-quote a review that was posted earlier in the thread: "...like most social Darwinists, Rand fell short in her understanding of natural selection. Her philosophy was largely based on the false belief that nature invariably favors individual selfishness. In reality, evolution has made homo sapiens a social animal; cooperation and compassion are very human traits. More importantly, even if cold selfishness were man's nature in the wild, it would not necessarily follow that that would be the best way for us to behave in our semi-civilized modern condition."
You do know Rand's philosophy wasn't new. She took a lot from Max Stirner. I think Stirner hit some important points, but I'm more pre-disposed to Thomism. The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist.
There is nothing in Egoism that precludes charity, or mutual aid. Straw-man arguments like those shed your understanding in a poor light. Also, free-marketers of either mutualist or capitalist strides are people who believe in cooperation more than anyone else. The reviewer doesn't seem to know what cooperation means, as cooperation is basis of the market.
|
On April 14 2011 04:40 tpir wrote:Show nested quote +[B]Do you go up to Christians and bash all of their ideas and ideals? Seven days? HA. Walking on water? HAHAHA. Resurrection? LOL. Uhhh, yes? Because these ideas are stupid and neither grounded in reality nor evidence nor anywhere that has pragmatic value to anyone. Same goes for Rand's worldview: pure mental masturbation that people cling to because of wishful thinking that THEY are important producers. (Kind of similar to the Christian version of "everyone is God's special flower and insanely important actually.)
But just because people believe these things doesn't mean that those people are wrong about the things that really matter in everyday life, being good, just, true, loving, moral (at least these are values I hold, and hope you do as well). So what if they think the planet was made in 7 days, as long as they uphold the real things that matter then I'm not going to condemn them for something as frivolous as 'how we got here.' I know people who think aliens came to this planet and changed the dna structure of mammals to create human beings (and I know Christians who find this type of thing very interesting). I don't agree but am I going to judge them based upon this no, who am i to judge another, judgment on topics like this gets no where. When it comes down to it, we are all in the same boat, whether we see it or not. Why nitpick about our tiny differences, it just continues to divide us and allows for people to take advantage of the weaknesses inherent in man.
So whenever you meet a christian you decide to try and rip them a new one because you know about evolution? That won't get you far in the world and it will eventually lead to a bitter, ego driven existence. You have to let the things we can't change go and improve your Self.
|
Wow. I think Iron Man 2 did a better job at nodding to Atlas Shrugged. (seriously, google that shit)
|
On April 14 2011 04:52 Wegandi wrote:
The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist.
Humans are not a hive species, but are a social species not an individualist "lone wolf" species. This same social behavior is seen in primates as well. It is natural for the basic layout of our societies to reflect this.
This is possibly a reason why neither communism/socialism nor anarchy/anarchocapitalism have ever produced a lasting civilization. (in fact historically, true communist or anarchocapitalist societies are extremely rare, arguably nonexistent) Even something like the US during the early 1800s was a mixed capitalist economy with some amount of regulation.
|
On April 14 2011 05:36 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 04:52 Wegandi wrote:
The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist. Humans are not a hive species, but are a social species not an individualist "lone wolf" species. This same social behavior is seen in primates as well. It is natural for the basic layout of our societies to reflect this. This is possibly a reason why neither communism/socialism nor anarchy/anarchocapitalism have ever produced a lasting civilization. (in fact historically, true communist or anarchocapitalist societies are extremely rare, arguably nonexistent) Even something like the US during the early 1800s was a mixed capitalist economy with some amount of regulation.
Please dont pull things out of your ass and present it as fact. Anarchism is the natural form of freedom, equality, democracy, voluntary association and ultimately true human liberation and contrary to your lies there have been anarchist societies throughout history that has shown that a society can be run totally decentralized without any authoritarian rulers, and btw they were economically more efficient than capitalist ones. Sadly those societies where crushed forcefully by imperialists becuase of the fear that when people saw a truly free society they would act to implement that in their own communitys and lives which threatens every social order today including our liberal "democracies" aka representative "democracy".(Please note im talking about Anarchism, also known as libertarian left or libertarian socialism, not so called "anarchocapitalism" which has nothing to with Anarchism)
When you say "true communism", what are you referring to? Communism as is understood by working people (if so you are incorrect since by that definition its very close to Anarchism in regards to values and outlook), or "communism" as the soviet union and the united states propagandized? (basically a totalitarian ideology that is totally contrary to the actual meaning of communism)
sorry for derailing the thread, maybie this is a discussion we could have in another thread but it pisses me of when people spout lies even if they might be based on ignorance.
|
On April 14 2011 04:49 tpir wrote:Show nested quote +What you are implying here is that socialist or mixed systems can co-opt market forces (simulating private property and market-driven prices) to reap the same economic benefits. What you forget is that mixed/socialist systems are by nature antithetical to the culture of entrepreneurship, management, risk taking, marketing, financial know-how that has led to the explosion of technological advances since the Industrial Revolution. I am implying nothing of the sort and have zero idea what you are talking about. Only point out that if you want to start labeling things as responsible for advances to modern society the list starts at 1. Science and capitalism is maybe #3?
I'm not trying to downplay science vs capitalism. They are clearly interconnected and not opposed. I remind you that science is the work of free minds and Self-interest is the underpinning of both productive achievements and achievements of the mind. If science is responsible for societal advancement then self-interest is responsible for that.
Show nested quote +Some facts about "sweatshops" in 3rd world countries: In Honduras, half the working population lives on $2/day, while "sweatshops" pay $13.10/day. The same trend can be seen in cambodia, haiti, and nicaragua. Do you think there are anti-Nike or anti-GM protests in these countries? Great, so those other things not called sweatshops are actually the sweatshops? Not sure how this makes any point at all other than greedy people exploit others. I have no idea if there are protests or not, maybe there should be?
by "those other things" you must mean seasonal agricultural labor. Honduras produces a surplus of food. If the people subsisting on $2/day or less could get something by organizing, they would probably like to get a factory to be employed at. "Greedy" people provide the capital to build such factories and fill them with employees.
|
On April 14 2011 06:05 pluvos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 05:36 Signet wrote:On April 14 2011 04:52 Wegandi wrote:
The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist. Humans are not a hive species, but are a social species not an individualist "lone wolf" species. This same social behavior is seen in primates as well. It is natural for the basic layout of our societies to reflect this. This is possibly a reason why neither communism/socialism nor anarchy/anarchocapitalism have ever produced a lasting civilization. (in fact historically, true communist or anarchocapitalist societies are extremely rare, arguably nonexistent) Even something like the US during the early 1800s was a mixed capitalist economy with some amount of regulation. Please dont pull things out of your ass and present it as fact. Anarchism is the natural form of freedom, equality, democracy, voluntary association and ultimately true human liberation and contrary to your lies there have been anarchist societies throughout history that has shown that a society can be run totally decentralized without any authoritarian rulers, and btw they were economically more efficient than capitalist ones. Sadly those societies where crushed forcefully by imperialists becuase of the fear that when people saw a truly free society they would act to implement that in their own communitys and lives which threatens every social order today including our liberal "democracies" aka representative "democracy".(Please note im talking about Anarchism, also known as libertarian left or libertarian socialism, not so called "anarchocapitalism" which has nothing to with Anarchism) When you say "true communism", what are you referring to? Communism as is understood by working people (if so you are incorrect since by that definition its very close to Anarchism in regards to values and outlook), or "communism" as the soviet union and the united states propagandized? (basically a totalitarian ideology that is totally contrary to the actual meaning of communism) sorry for derailing the thread, maybie this is a discussion we could have in another thread but it pisses me of when people spout lies even if they might be based on ignorance.
You might want to take your own advice. Your response would have been a lot better without all the fresh from the ass accusations about ignorance and lying. More to the point, you're hugely projecting about what you think I'm saying; most of the "lies" you're pointing out are things I neither said nor intended.
Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies which allowed them to be the invader rather than the invaded (in some cases, disease was also on their side -- however due to technology alone there was no way that the Incas were ever going to invade Spain, for example, and furthermore the resistance to disease is a byproduct of having a strong enough economy to be able to support high population densities living in some sort of city). It's no coincidence that the statist Maori all but wiped out the nearly stateless Moriori in the south Pacific. Only a statist society can really afford to have professional warriors to the degree that imperialist civilizations did; in an anarchist society, people must produce something of value to either sustain themselves independently or barter with others. Trying to sell warfare services in a free market would be a tough way to survive, particularly during peacetime.
Note the lack of a moral statement about what the invaders did. I'm not saying that anarchist societies were 'worse' or that they were violent (I know anarchy is supposed to be peaceful). I said that it hadn't produced a lasting civilization. You pointing out that many anarchist societies have existed, only to be wiped out by stronger/more technologically developed civilizations, reinforces my point. Also note that I only said that true communism and anarchocapitalism haven't existed, and left anarchy out of that statement. It was precisely for that reason; I'm not as dumb as you'd like to imagine. I do agree that the line between communism and leftist anarchy can be blurry.
When I said "true communism" I'm talking about the stateless society Marx envisioned which would theoretically follow after a period of state socialism (eg, USSR) in which the concept of private property would be abolished and people would live in a communal environment. Something like the original intent of the Israeli kibbutzim, or what some indiginous tribes have lived by such as the Moriori mentioned above or others in the Americas. Not the USSR (my use of "true" was specifically to make it clear that I'm not talking about the USSR or Maoist China).
If you have disagreements with this and would like to express yourself more constructively, I'm legitimately interested in hearing them.
|
On April 14 2011 03:47 Sajimo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I just looked through this thread, soooo many haters. I don't believe in her philosophy but I would highly recommend the book to anyone with a brain. Everyone is great at flaming against something that is obviously wrong but I thought most people with any brain power realized that even though it's wrong doesn't mean you hate on or bash people for being interested in it.
Do you go up to Christians and bash all of their ideas and ideals? Seven days? HA. Walking on water? HAHAHA. Resurrection? LOL. People are great at picking out the things they disagree with, in order to build their own argument and prove how right they are. They choose to ignore the fact that we can believe what we want to believe, that's the most beautiful thing about this planet. I know a lot of people who really enjoyed this book but they are not attacking others because they have obtained a self righteousness that only they understand. It's food for thought, like most every other philosophical work.
Quit passing judgment upon people, everyone is allowed to feel and believe what they want. By no means am I saying you should believe in a work of fiction.... It's a book, a book containing a persons views (personally I think she has ulterior motives when it came to her writing it, but that doesn't take away from the fine writing she did). It's up to the reader to take it for what it's worth and move on.
I love team liquid but in the past couple weeks I've truly come to realize how snobish everyone is. How right everyone has to be. There doesn't seem to be room for 'theory-craft' when it comes to life, everyone is stuck on how right and intellectual they can be. It's just a ride folks, we all experience it our own way. Whatever beliefs you choose to own, are just that, a beliefs. No human truly knows anything, no matter how much they convince themselves otherwise. Don't hate on others, its all about love.
Peace The irony of having objectivism defended by someone who claims that we can't know anything objectively, that you can "believe whatever you want" and no one has any reason to "judge" your beliefs as being wrong, that objectivism is just as legitimate a belief as christianity, is almost perfect.
Though I do appretiate what you're saying about how most of the time we hold the same basic underlying beliefs even if and when we disagree on the details, still those details are also very important as they are how one chooses to expand on those same underlying beliefs and how one justifies them. You can't go very far towards improving yourself without picking and choosing your beliefs in great detail, and by as objective a standard as you can define. Challenging the beliefs of others and thereby inviting challenge to your beliefs, is often a great way to put your ideas to the test. It's not always a way of superficially inflating your own self-perception.
|
On April 14 2011 03:47 Sajimo wrote:
I just looked through this thread, soooo many haters. I don't believe in her philosophy but I would highly recommend the book to anyone with a brain. Everyone is great at flaming against something that is obviously wrong but I thought most people with any brain power realized that even though it's wrong doesn't mean you hate on or bash people for being interested in it.
Do you go up to Christians and bash all of their ideas and ideals? Seven days? HA. Walking on water? HAHAHA. Resurrection? LOL. People are great at picking out the things they disagree with, in order to build their own argument and prove how right they are. They choose to ignore the fact that we can believe what we want to believe, that's the most beautiful thing about this planet. I know a lot of people who really enjoyed this book but they are not attacking others because they have obtained a self righteousness that only they understand. It's food for thought, like most every other philosophical work.
Quit passing judgment upon people, everyone is allowed to feel and believe what they want. By no means am I saying you should believe in a work of fiction.... It's a book, a book containing a persons views (personally I think she has ulterior motives when it came to her writing it, but that doesn't take away from the fine writing she did). It's up to the reader to take it for what it's worth and move on.
I love team liquid but in the past couple weeks I've truly come to realize how snobish everyone is. How right everyone has to be. There doesn't seem to be room for 'theory-craft' when it comes to life, everyone is stuck on how right and intellectual they can be. It's just a ride folks, we all experience it our own way. Whatever beliefs you choose to own, are just that, a beliefs. No human truly knows anything, no matter how much they convince themselves otherwise. Don't hate on others, its all about love.
Peace
The fact that you have a Bill Hicks quote makes we wonder if you even knew what the man was talking about? Bill was not in favor of being a fence sitter. Hell, he told some lady that Hitler didn't go far enough when she tried to heckle him.
|
On April 14 2011 07:33 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 06:05 pluvos wrote:On April 14 2011 05:36 Signet wrote:On April 14 2011 04:52 Wegandi wrote:
The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist. Humans are not a hive species, but are a social species not an individualist "lone wolf" species. This same social behavior is seen in primates as well. It is natural for the basic layout of our societies to reflect this. This is possibly a reason why neither communism/socialism nor anarchy/anarchocapitalism have ever produced a lasting civilization. (in fact historically, true communist or anarchocapitalist societies are extremely rare, arguably nonexistent) Even something like the US during the early 1800s was a mixed capitalist economy with some amount of regulation. Please dont pull things out of your ass and present it as fact. Anarchism is the natural form of freedom, equality, democracy, voluntary association and ultimately true human liberation and contrary to your lies there have been anarchist societies throughout history that has shown that a society can be run totally decentralized without any authoritarian rulers, and btw they were economically more efficient than capitalist ones. Sadly those societies where crushed forcefully by imperialists becuase of the fear that when people saw a truly free society they would act to implement that in their own communitys and lives which threatens every social order today including our liberal "democracies" aka representative "democracy".(Please note im talking about Anarchism, also known as libertarian left or libertarian socialism, not so called "anarchocapitalism" which has nothing to with Anarchism) When you say "true communism", what are you referring to? Communism as is understood by working people (if so you are incorrect since by that definition its very close to Anarchism in regards to values and outlook), or "communism" as the soviet union and the united states propagandized? (basically a totalitarian ideology that is totally contrary to the actual meaning of communism) sorry for derailing the thread, maybie this is a discussion we could have in another thread but it pisses me of when people spout lies even if they might be based on ignorance. You might want to take your own advice. Your response would have been a lot better without all the fresh from the ass accusations about ignorance and lying. More to the point, you're hugely projecting about what you think I'm saying; most of the "lies" you're pointing out are things I neither said nor intended. Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies which allowed them to be the invader rather than the invaded (in some cases, disease was also on their side -- however due to technology alone there was no way that the Incas were ever going to invade Spain, for example, and furthermore the resistance to disease is a byproduct of having a strong enough economy to be able to support high population densities living in some sort of city). It's no coincidence that the statist Maori all but wiped out the nearly stateless Moriori in the south Pacific. Only a statist society can really afford to have professional warriors to the degree that imperialist civilizations did; in an anarchist society, people must produce something of value to either sustain themselves independently or barter with others. Trying to sell warfare services in a free market would be a tough way to survive, particularly during peacetime. Note the lack of a moral statement about what the invaders did. I'm not saying that anarchist societies were 'worse' or that they were violent (I know anarchy is supposed to be peaceful). I said that it hadn't produced a lasting civilization. You pointing out that many anarchist societies have existed, only to be wiped out by stronger/more technologically developed civilizations, reinforces my point. Also note that I only said that true communism and anarchocapitalism haven't existed, and left anarchy out of that statement. It was precisely for that reason; I'm not as dumb as you'd like to imagine. I do agree that the line between communism and leftist anarchy can be blurry. When I said "true communism" I'm talking about the stateless society Marx envisioned which would theoretically follow after a period of state socialism (eg, USSR) in which the concept of private property would be abolished and people would live in a communal environment. Something like the original intent of the Israeli kibbutzim, or what some indiginous tribes have lived by such as the Moriori mentioned above or others in the Americas. Not the USSR (my use of "true" was specifically to make it clear that I'm not talking about the USSR or Maoist China). If you have disagreements with this and would like to express yourself more constructively, I'm legitimately interested in hearing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth
Most scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough?
There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades.
Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
