4 ms·

Objectivism is -- literally -- orthodox Marxism with different words filled into key blanks. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself: http://news.ycombinator.co

Objectivism is -- literally -- orthodox Marxism with different words filled into key blanks. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=965622 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=965622

lmkg 17y ago
I'm no fan of Objectivism by a long stretch, but I think that's being unfair because there's more to the (academic) philosophy than just whining about parasites. What is fair to say, is that the emotional appeal of Objectivism is similar to the emotional appeal of Marxism. "You're important because you're the only one getting any work done around here, and you should kick out those leeches who suckle on the sweat of your brow" summarizes both the Communist Manifesto and the Fountainhead. However, the ideal society that Ayn Rand would erect after the revolution is noticeably different than the one that Marx would erect. Nonetheless, the similarity of the surface appeal does bear discussion. tl;dr I broadly agree with the main point, but I don't want to cheapen it by letting stand the fact that it is an exaggeration.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  I'm happy to admit that it's a rhetorical device designed to encourage further reflection and analysis; back during my philosophy days that was a big part of what I learned to do (and this is by no means the most outrageous position I've explained -- that crown probably goes to the day I argued for post-natal "70th-trimester" abortions as a critique of expansive parental/governmental rights over teenagers). But the similarity is beguiling, and points not only to issues in the statement of Objectivism itself but also to the emotional influence Rand's youth had on her allegedly purely-rational theories. Both of these are common enough critiques in actual philosophic circles, but depressingly absent from "internet Objectivism" (a close cousin of internet libertarianism, another troubled philosophy).
dgordon 17y ago
Not even close. You sound like one of the millions of other critics whose reading of Ayn Rand consists of one Bob The Angry Flower comic. (This one: http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif )
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Actually... quite close, for purposes of nutshell descriptions. A lot of other philosophies fit too, too, but I like using Marxism as the example because (since in theory Objectivism is diametrically opposed to it) it has the largest "wait, what?" effect, hopefully followed by some deeper and more thorough thinking about the philosophies. The comic you linked is trying to do the same thing: make people step back and think for a minute about what they're really saying (my preferred approach was always just to ask who cleans the toilets in the Gulch). As to me being just like "the millions of other critics" (nice strawman, by the way), well... probably not. I do have an intense dislike for Objectivism, but mostly because -- in the course of earning my degree in philosophy -- I did enough reading to see how weak Rand's system really is. To paraphrase a famous bit of literary criticism: there are parts in it which are good, and there are parts in it which are original. But the parts which are good are not original, and the parts which are original are not good.
  - dgordon 17y ago
    "Millions of other critics" was no strawman, for the simple reason that it wasn't an argument. Just my impression of the weakness of your argument. Let me address it. You claim Objectivism claims all rich people are productive and all poor people are parasites. I claim it clearly doesn't. To prove my case I'll just cite a few names, which you, with your deep knowledge of Objectivism, ought to know: Jim Taggart and Lillian Rearden on one side; Mike Donnagan and Steven Mallory on the other. Even Howard Roark did quite a bit of manual labor, and presumably was never anything approaching rich within the pages of The Fountainhead. As for who cleans the toilets in Galt's Gulch? Let's start with Quentin Daniels. Ever get that answer before?
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      You claim Objectivism claims all rich people are productive and all poor people are parasites. I do no such thing; I merely draw an analogy to the broad grouping of social classes in orthodox Marxism, which equally does not argue that 100% of Class A are good and 100% of Class B are bad. Meanwhile, let us consider Rand's philosophy as expounded by Rand herself; for simplicity's sake, and because she considered it such a vitally important work, we'll look at Atlas Shrugged. We are meant to glean from it a view of Rand's purely-rational, logically-defensible Objectivist ethics, but what we find is merely contradiction piled upon contradiction. Selfishness, Objectivism tells us, is a virtue. So how is it presented in Atlas Shrugged? Well, while the selfishness of, say, Galt is held up as great and good, the selfishness of people other than Rand's heroes is painted as a vast evil, such that their very lives are to be forfeit as punishment. And though Objectivism preaches an ethics based on the sanctity of the individual's rights over him- or herself and that subverting the individual's goals for the "greater good" is an absolute evil, Atlas Shrugged preaches that individuals can and should be killed as needed in the service of greater advances. Say, to expose corruption in railway management. I could go on if you'd like, since Objectivism as expressed by Rand in her books has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese, but hopefully you'll trust that I've actually given this some thought. The final impression I came away with was that Rand was trying to write tales of Nietzsche's ubermensch (which would resolve contradictions by putting her heroes beyond mere everyday notions of good and evil), but merely produced a caricature of his philosophy embedded into a series of one-dimensional and frankly unreadable novels.
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
you are wrong. they are not reciprocals of the same dichotomy. marxists draw distinction between capital owners and laborers, libertarians draw a distinction between government and private industry.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Red herring: libertarians and objectivists are not identical. Try harder next time.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    objectivists uphold the free-market as the most moral economic system. laissez-faire revolves around the coercive trade/voluntary trade dichotomy. try harder next time.

lmkg 17y ago

I'm no fan of Objectivism by a long stretch, but I think that's being unfair because there's more to the (academic) philosophy than just whining about parasites. What is fair to say, is that the emotional appeal of Objectivism is similar to the emotional appeal of Marxism. "You're important because you're the only one getting any work done around here, and you should kick out those leeches who suckle on the sweat of your brow" summarizes both the Communist Manifesto and the Fountainhead. However, the ideal society that Ayn Rand would erect after the revolution is noticeably different than the one that Marx would erect. Nonetheless, the similarity of the surface appeal does bear discussion. tl;dr I broadly agree with the main point, but I don't want to cheapen it by letting stand the fact that it is an exaggeration.

ubernostrum 17y ago
I'm happy to admit that it's a rhetorical device designed to encourage further reflection and analysis; back during my philosophy days that was a big part of what I learned to do (and this is by no means the most outrageous position I've explained -- that crown probably goes to the day I argued for post-natal "70th-trimester" abortions as a critique of expansive parental/governmental rights over teenagers). But the similarity is beguiling, and points not only to issues in the statement of Objectivism itself but also to the emotional influence Rand's youth had on her allegedly purely-rational theories. Both of these are common enough critiques in actual philosophic circles, but depressingly absent from "internet Objectivism" (a close cousin of internet libertarianism, another troubled philosophy).

dgordon 17y ago

Not even close. You sound like one of the millions of other critics whose reading of Ayn Rand consists of one Bob The Angry Flower comic. (This one: http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif )

ubernostrum 17y ago
Actually... quite close, for purposes of nutshell descriptions. A lot of other philosophies fit too, too, but I like using Marxism as the example because (since in theory Objectivism is diametrically opposed to it) it has the largest "wait, what?" effect, hopefully followed by some deeper and more thorough thinking about the philosophies. The comic you linked is trying to do the same thing: make people step back and think for a minute about what they're really saying (my preferred approach was always just to ask who cleans the toilets in the Gulch). As to me being just like "the millions of other critics" (nice strawman, by the way), well... probably not. I do have an intense dislike for Objectivism, but mostly because -- in the course of earning my degree in philosophy -- I did enough reading to see how weak Rand's system really is. To paraphrase a famous bit of literary criticism: there are parts in it which are good, and there are parts in it which are original. But the parts which are good are not original, and the parts which are original are not good.
- dgordon 17y ago
  "Millions of other critics" was no strawman, for the simple reason that it wasn't an argument. Just my impression of the weakness of your argument. Let me address it. You claim Objectivism claims all rich people are productive and all poor people are parasites. I claim it clearly doesn't. To prove my case I'll just cite a few names, which you, with your deep knowledge of Objectivism, ought to know: Jim Taggart and Lillian Rearden on one side; Mike Donnagan and Steven Mallory on the other. Even Howard Roark did quite a bit of manual labor, and presumably was never anything approaching rich within the pages of The Fountainhead. As for who cleans the toilets in Galt's Gulch? Let's start with Quentin Daniels. Ever get that answer before?
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    You claim Objectivism claims all rich people are productive and all poor people are parasites. I do no such thing; I merely draw an analogy to the broad grouping of social classes in orthodox Marxism, which equally does not argue that 100% of Class A are good and 100% of Class B are bad. Meanwhile, let us consider Rand's philosophy as expounded by Rand herself; for simplicity's sake, and because she considered it such a vitally important work, we'll look at Atlas Shrugged. We are meant to glean from it a view of Rand's purely-rational, logically-defensible Objectivist ethics, but what we find is merely contradiction piled upon contradiction. Selfishness, Objectivism tells us, is a virtue. So how is it presented in Atlas Shrugged? Well, while the selfishness of, say, Galt is held up as great and good, the selfishness of people other than Rand's heroes is painted as a vast evil, such that their very lives are to be forfeit as punishment. And though Objectivism preaches an ethics based on the sanctity of the individual's rights over him- or herself and that subverting the individual's goals for the "greater good" is an absolute evil, Atlas Shrugged preaches that individuals can and should be killed as needed in the service of greater advances. Say, to expose corruption in railway management. I could go on if you'd like, since Objectivism as expressed by Rand in her books has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese, but hopefully you'll trust that I've actually given this some thought. The final impression I came away with was that Rand was trying to write tales of Nietzsche's ubermensch (which would resolve contradictions by putting her heroes beyond mere everyday notions of good and evil), but merely produced a caricature of his philosophy embedded into a series of one-dimensional and frankly unreadable novels.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

you are wrong. they are not reciprocals of the same dichotomy. marxists draw distinction between capital owners and laborers, libertarians draw a distinction between government and private industry.

ubernostrum 17y ago
Red herring: libertarians and objectivists are not identical. Try harder next time.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  objectivists uphold the free-market as the most moral economic system. laissez-faire revolves around the coercive trade/voluntary trade dichotomy. try harder next time.