: I will preface this by saying that I am not an objectivist by any means. I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, which I found a potpourri of intersting ideas, extremism, unrealism ( is that a word? ) and lack of compassion. : Objectivism is a supremacy doctrine, based on the allegation that 'the source of production is man1s mind'(3), i.e. that since only 'smart people' (scientists, entrepreneurs, and artists) invent the technological advancements and comforts enjoyed by civilization the 'stupid people' (wage-workers) should be grateful to receive even the smallest downward trickles of such benevolence.
: I don't think this is entirely accurate. Rand wrote that the so-called 'smart people' do a great deal that has significant benefits for everyone in society, including the 'working class'. Banting and Best, for example ( the inventors of insulin ). She argued that the 'smart people', through their inguenity, etc., improved society and standard of living for everyone, by improving products and services and creating wealth. Hank Rearden ( Atlas Shrugged ) is an example of this, the ideal Randite businessman - through his invention of a superior alloy, he benefits everyone. Whether this plays out in real life is another matter entirely, of course.
:
: (Such distinctions, of course, are impossible to make---other than arbitrarily---because the industrial revolution irreversibly merged all relations of labor and technology. To treat them as if they could be separated for individual analysis---one potato for you, five potatoes for me---is as disingenuous as treating food and diamond earrings as being equally 'elastic' market components.)
: Huh?
:
BS: The classic form of this idea (brains is might) was presented in Atlas Shrugged. In this novel, all the inventors and business men decided that they were tired of taking crap from the wage-workers and 'collectivists' so they all went on strike.
: KS: I don't feel this is entirely correct. The inventors and businessmen were tired of taking crap from a rampantly corrupt government whose only purpose, it seems, was to secure favours for government officials and their friends.
: Needless to say, without all the great minds illuminating life for all the inferior 'brute' laborers, civilization collapsed somewhat in the manner anticipated by Charlie Manson.(4)
: Civilization also collapsed because, as a sign of generosity, a number of businessmen and inventors destroyed their products and factories before leaving.
: Therefore, through the mechanism of supply and demand, quality education is put out of the reach of most people, thus providing a low-skill workforce as well as an ideological justification for paying them so little.
: For many people, affording quality education is all theory anyways. How many kids from ghetto don't get to go to Harvard because of money? ( Alternately, they could go to Princeton, which provides grants for all but $2,000 of expenses for the lowest income student - and loans for the rest ) Socio-economic factors and a abysmal public education system ensure that the cycle of poverty is perpetuated.
: 1. People deserve what they get. (Biological determinism.)
: I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.
:
: #2 is bang on.
: 3. Only individual self-interest motivates superior performance. (Businesses should forbid teamwork because it lowers the quality of individual achievement.)
: Where does it say this?
: #4 is essentially correct, #5 I don't get, #6 and #7 are bang-on ( by the way, what on earth is dialetics? ), #8 and #9 are correct too,
: (as the King George of England once suggested to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al.).
: Well, I guess they showed him, didn't they. They were also fleeing an oppressive theocracy.
: Kula
: I will preface this by saying that I am not an objectivist by any means. I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, which I found a potpourri of intersting ideas, extremism, unrealism ( is that a word? ) and lack of compassion.
I hasten to add to add that I am not an Objectivist either.
I have read For The New Intellectual, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, as well as the essays in Philosophy: Who Needs It and The Voice Of Reason---plus the (painful) Branden book. I confess that I could not stomach much of her turgid fiction. No matter, the later works that I have read contained excerpts from the two aforementioned books, plus larger explications of her reactionary 'philosophy.'
: : Objectivism is a supremacy doctrine...
: I don't think this is entirely accurate...
Explain Rand's assertion that:
'Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways---by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the mind of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.'
('The Fountainhead,' excerpted inFor The New Intellectual.)
Since you are familiar with The Fountainhead, perhaps you can explain to me how this 'parasite' business isn't exactly the sort of supremacy talk Goebbels used to spew forth with his assertion that Jews were 'mosquitoes'?
: : (Such distinctions [between what product of socialized labor is 'mental' work and 'physical' work], of course, are impossible to make---other than arbitrarily---because the industrial revolution irreversibly merged all relations of labor and technology. To treat them as if they could be separated for individual analysis---one potato for you, five potatoes for me---is as disingenuous as treating food and diamond earrings as
being equally 'elastic' market components.)
: Huh?
You didn't get this, did you? Ah, if only you were as acquainted with Marx as I was with Rand, then we could actually have an interesting talk...
Look, think about Rand's statement that '[t]he creator faces nature alone.' What inventor invents the whatever, manufactures every piece of the whatever, packages each whatever, drives each whatever to each customer in each town, and then proceeds to hustle each sale of whatever? 'Face nature alone.' How Nordic Myth does it get?
: : The classic form of this idea (brains is might) was presented in Atlas Shrugged. In this novel, all the inventors and business men decided that they were tired of taking crap from the wage-workers and 'collectivists' so they all went on strike.
: KS: I don't feel this is entirely correct. The inventors and businessmen were tired of taking crap from a rampantly corrupt government whose only purpose, it seems, was to secure favours for government officials and their friends.
Thatıs the 'collectivists,' the (Keynesian redistributive) government. Let's not crack fleas (as Lenin used to say) when we split hairs!
: :...[T]hrough the mechanism of supply and demand, quality education is put out of the reach of most people, thus providing a low-skill workforce as well as an ideological justification for paying them so little.
: For many people, affording quality education is all theory anyways. How many kids from ghetto don't get to go to Harvard because of money? ( Alternately, they could go to Princeton, which provides grants for all but $2,000 of expenses for the lowest income student - and loans for the rest ) Socio-economic factors and a abysmal public
education system ensure that the cycle of poverty is perpetuated.
Youıre taking my position now (after some confused rambling).
One gimmick that gets pulled out is the scholarship or the loan to the 'deserving ghetto' student. Do remember, though, that grades---a criteria for 'deservedness'---usually indicate the prior exposure to quality education (something no 'ghetto' does). When such students fail 'because of grades, not money' they have been set up. As Skinner once pointed out, in such cases, the 'ghetto' scholarship goes to the student who has demonstrated the greatest aptitude for learning in spite of poor education and could be the one who needs the scholarship the least...
'What on earth is dialectics?' revisited. Iı m glad some of my summaries of Objectivism pleased you. I confess that going through all those old books provided me with a truly painful experience. How you people can read such junk is beyond me. Could we at least debate Nozick? Or will you finally get around to reading (at least) all of Capital before acting like such political economy experts?
None.
