6 ms·

Rand wrote fiction novels, and Marx was - irrespective of your views on his output - a well respected philosopher and well known, if controversial economist. E

Rand wrote fiction novels, and Marx was - irrespective of your views on his output - a well respected philosopher and well known, if controversial economist. Equating the two is... super off base. Crucially, you can make any point you want when writing a novel, since you set up the world and the characters and get to choose the reactions of everything. Marx at least wrote about the real world, and our ability to critique that work rests at least in part upon its claims about the real world.

m0zg 6y ago
Be that as it may, his work is still an extreme pro-communist screed. It is not viable as a consistent view of the world, just like Atlas Shrugged isn't. I'm not equating the two in other aspects. As to writing whatever you want, Marx did write the most insane and damaging things in his work. His work, in fact, led directly to tens of millions of deaths in 20th century, and the way I see it, the damage is not yet over, as some idiot somewhere will always be tempted to live off somebody else's money, just like Marx himself did.
- jolux 6y ago
  He wasn't describing an ideal but problematic society like you claim Rand was though. Have you read Marx? He was developing philosophical technique for analyzing history, politics, and economics.
  - voidhorse 6y ago
    Unfortunately, most people that feel the need to comment vehemently in opposition to the very mention of Marx's name haven't read Marx, nor do they understand that the "communism" of Marx is not the one they've been taught is the ultimate evil (tm) while the capitalist billionaires evade taxes, laugh their way to the bank, and ensure America remains a country in which 1% of the inhabitants live in the 0th world while 99% slip into the 3rd. Oh well. :(
    - jolux 6y ago
      I mean, I don't call myself a communist anymore, mostly because I think the term has been irrevocably poisoned and now refers to the authoritarian states of the USSR and China, which are surely no leftist's view of the best of socialism. Marx's criticism of capitalism is immensely valuable though, I would argue regardless of your political affiliation.
      - hirundo 6y ago
        The term has been irrevocably poisoned not because it is associated with authoritarian states but because it reliably leads to them.
        jolux 6y ago
        Sure, good enough for me. I don't want that situation, but it's not inherent in left ideology. I'm more of a strong social democrat with market socialist/anarchist tendencies.
        jahaja 6y ago
        Don't revise history, those authoritarian states started out authoritarian from the get go. There were no "decline" into authoritarianism because of some inherent force in socialism.
- herbstein 6y ago
  > his work is still an extreme pro-communist screed Marx, for all intents and purposes, created what we today would consider "communism". That is, from a academic perspective, and not whatever goes as "communism" in American pop culture. > the damage is not yet over, as some idiot somewhere will always be tempted to live off somebody else's money The above is a terribly ironic criticism, considering how Ayn Rand lived out her life living off of the dime of the government. > His work, in fact, led directly to tens of millions of deaths in 20th century If we presuppose that any death, as a result of the actions of a state claiming to be using a given economic system, is attributed to said economic system we should be counting honestly. Every death caused by Capitalist countries, both domestically and abroad, should also be counted. Every person that has ever starved to death under capitalism should be counted. Whether there's a direct shortage of food, or the person can't afford the food available, doesn't really matter. A person isn't receiving food when acting inside the system and thus died. Then consider the imperialism carried out by these capitalist states. Millions upon millions of native inhabitants of Africa, South-East Asia, Southern America, and North America have been all but wiped out by capitalism. What about WWII? Because in the of-cited number of "100 million killed by Communism" several wars are counted. In WWII a major contributor was the failure of the capitalistic system in Europe after WWI. I could go on, but I think the point has been made.
  - m0zg 6y ago
    > Every person that has ever starved to death under capitalism should be counted You can count, but I can tell you right now, you wouldn't like the comparison. :-)
    - jahaja 6y ago
      If the same measurement stick would be used against Capitalism it would be so vile* that capitalists are usually very careful to not accept the same measurement stick. * Just to take a single point: 72k/deaths per year in just the US because of lack of access to health care.
      - RhysU 6y ago
- pessimizer 6y ago
  Is "screed" a word you're just using to show contempt, or something that is personally meaningful to you? Describing something with contempt is not a proof that it is worthless, and that tactic doesn't become any more honest if you choose something "on the opposite side" and describe it with the same contempt - and by making it "fair" in this way, somehow make it neutral. Both Marx and Rand have very easy vulnerabilities to critique. Just saying there on equal and opposite ends of some imaginary scale where the truth must lie in the middle and those on the extremes are irrational advocates who write "screeds" is not rational, although it can look like it if you're in a friendly room or say it quickly enough.
  - hirundo 6y ago
    I'm a fan of Rand but can admit that she was quite capable of an epic screed. The premier example is the notoriously long and tedious John Galt speech. I feel that I deserve a merit badge for reading it all.
calvinmorrison 6y ago
Have you read "We the living"? I believe it was her first book published. It's a homage to her life as a middle class person living through the soviet world she was in.
ajtulloch 6y ago
> St. Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladimir Nabokov, Isaiah Berlin and Ayn Rand. The first was a novelist, the second a philosopher. The third was neither but thought she was both. Many other people have thought so too. In 1998 readers responding to a Modern Library poll identified Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as the two greatest novels of the twentieth century—surpassing Ulysses, To the Lighthouse and Invisible Man. In 1991 a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club found that with the exception of the Bible, no book has influenced more American readers than Atlas Shrugged. – Corey Robin in "The Reactionary Mind"

m0zg 6y ago

Be that as it may, his work is still an extreme pro-communist screed. It is not viable as a consistent view of the world, just like Atlas Shrugged isn't. I'm not equating the two in other aspects. As to writing whatever you want, Marx did write the most insane and damaging things in his work. His work, in fact, led directly to tens of millions of deaths in 20th century, and the way I see it, the damage is not yet over, as some idiot somewhere will always be tempted to live off somebody else's money, just like Marx himself did.

jolux 6y ago
He wasn't describing an ideal but problematic society like you claim Rand was though. Have you read Marx? He was developing philosophical technique for analyzing history, politics, and economics.
- voidhorse 6y ago
  Unfortunately, most people that feel the need to comment vehemently in opposition to the very mention of Marx's name haven't read Marx, nor do they understand that the "communism" of Marx is not the one they've been taught is the ultimate evil (tm) while the capitalist billionaires evade taxes, laugh their way to the bank, and ensure America remains a country in which 1% of the inhabitants live in the 0th world while 99% slip into the 3rd. Oh well. :(
  - jolux 6y ago
    I mean, I don't call myself a communist anymore, mostly because I think the term has been irrevocably poisoned and now refers to the authoritarian states of the USSR and China, which are surely no leftist's view of the best of socialism. Marx's criticism of capitalism is immensely valuable though, I would argue regardless of your political affiliation.
    - hirundo 6y ago
      The term has been irrevocably poisoned not because it is associated with authoritarian states but because it reliably leads to them.
      - jolux 6y ago
        Sure, good enough for me. I don't want that situation, but it's not inherent in left ideology. I'm more of a strong social democrat with market socialist/anarchist tendencies.
      - jahaja 6y ago
        Don't revise history, those authoritarian states started out authoritarian from the get go. There were no "decline" into authoritarianism because of some inherent force in socialism.
herbstein 6y ago
> his work is still an extreme pro-communist screed Marx, for all intents and purposes, created what we today would consider "communism". That is, from a academic perspective, and not whatever goes as "communism" in American pop culture. > the damage is not yet over, as some idiot somewhere will always be tempted to live off somebody else's money The above is a terribly ironic criticism, considering how Ayn Rand lived out her life living off of the dime of the government. > His work, in fact, led directly to tens of millions of deaths in 20th century If we presuppose that any death, as a result of the actions of a state claiming to be using a given economic system, is attributed to said economic system we should be counting honestly. Every death caused by Capitalist countries, both domestically and abroad, should also be counted. Every person that has ever starved to death under capitalism should be counted. Whether there's a direct shortage of food, or the person can't afford the food available, doesn't really matter. A person isn't receiving food when acting inside the system and thus died. Then consider the imperialism carried out by these capitalist states. Millions upon millions of native inhabitants of Africa, South-East Asia, Southern America, and North America have been all but wiped out by capitalism. What about WWII? Because in the of-cited number of "100 million killed by Communism" several wars are counted. In WWII a major contributor was the failure of the capitalistic system in Europe after WWI. I could go on, but I think the point has been made.
- m0zg 6y ago
  > Every person that has ever starved to death under capitalism should be counted You can count, but I can tell you right now, you wouldn't like the comparison. :-)
  - jahaja 6y ago
    If the same measurement stick would be used against Capitalism it would be so vile* that capitalists are usually very careful to not accept the same measurement stick. * Just to take a single point: 72k/deaths per year in just the US because of lack of access to health care.
    - RhysU 6y ago
pessimizer 6y ago
Is "screed" a word you're just using to show contempt, or something that is personally meaningful to you? Describing something with contempt is not a proof that it is worthless, and that tactic doesn't become any more honest if you choose something "on the opposite side" and describe it with the same contempt - and by making it "fair" in this way, somehow make it neutral. Both Marx and Rand have very easy vulnerabilities to critique. Just saying there on equal and opposite ends of some imaginary scale where the truth must lie in the middle and those on the extremes are irrational advocates who write "screeds" is not rational, although it can look like it if you're in a friendly room or say it quickly enough.
- hirundo 6y ago
  I'm a fan of Rand but can admit that she was quite capable of an epic screed. The premier example is the notoriously long and tedious John Galt speech. I feel that I deserve a merit badge for reading it all.

calvinmorrison 6y ago

Have you read "We the living"? I believe it was her first book published. It's a homage to her life as a middle class person living through the soviet world she was in.

ajtulloch 6y ago

> St. Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladimir Nabokov, Isaiah Berlin and Ayn Rand. The first was a novelist, the second a philosopher. The third was neither but thought she was both. Many other people have thought so too. In 1998 readers responding to a Modern Library poll identified Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as the two greatest novels of the twentieth century—surpassing Ulysses, To the Lighthouse and Invisible Man. In 1991 a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club found that with the exception of the Bible, no book has influenced more American readers than Atlas Shrugged. – Corey Robin in "The Reactionary Mind"