3 ms·

Kind of like Marxist books that work in a hypothetical universe? Marx and Rand exist as reactions to the perceived problems of their days, but they shouldn't b

Kind of like Marxist books that work in a hypothetical universe? Marx and Rand exist as reactions to the perceived problems of their days, but they shouldn't be taken as recipes for utopia. Ironically, both philosophies depend on everyone in the system being perfectly altruistic. Any 'bad' actors poison their systems and turn them into horrible dystopias.

kubb 2y ago
This is a misunderstanding of both Rand and Marx: Rand’s philosophy doesn't depend on altruism - in fact it explicitly rejects altruism as a virtue, focusing on rational self-interest as the driving force of progress. This is of course attractive and expedient to certain political forces, especially in the USA. Marxist systems also don't depend on altruism. Marx was considering how material interests drive behavior, how systemic change can reshape incentives, and was also relying on ideas like class consciousness, and solidarity. He also didn't need to create a fantasy world for his ideas to work, instead he was basing his theories on analysis of the existing economic conditions during his lifetime. If you're thinking of ideological systems that do rely on altruism, you should look towards religions, like Christianity or Buddhism, or philosophies like Communitarianism. There were fringe utopian socialist thinkers who advocated for altruism-based systems (Fourier, Owen) but they were opposed both by Capitalists and Marxists.
- skellington 2y ago
  I'm not saying that Rand or Marx themselves said that altruism was a necessary component. I'm saying that it is and that neither was aware of that pre-condition/axiom of their philosophies. To be fair, I think Rand was aware, and that she wrote fantasies around what she viewed as the 'perfect man.' Her stuff is more aspirational than practical (same as Lenin, etc.). From a game theory point of view, both philosophies, in order to work and be sustained, require that most actors within the system behave honestly within the rules of the game. This means, nobody cheats. And it would only take a small percentage of bad actors to break either system. In this context, altruism is self policing to abide by the rules even when not abiding by the rules would be better for you. PS I also disagree with your take on religion, if anything, Christianity's (for example) primary philosophy is built around the explicit imperfection of mankind. Also, I would argue that the Utopian Socialists and Lenin were aligned in their goals. They just had different ideas of how to get there. There have been many attempts at the gentler Utopian Socialist version of communism over the years and AFAIK they all fall apart after a while, because people are not altruistic.

kubb 2y ago

This is a misunderstanding of both Rand and Marx: Rand’s philosophy doesn't depend on altruism - in fact it explicitly rejects altruism as a virtue, focusing on rational self-interest as the driving force of progress. This is of course attractive and expedient to certain political forces, especially in the USA. Marxist systems also don't depend on altruism. Marx was considering how material interests drive behavior, how systemic change can reshape incentives, and was also relying on ideas like class consciousness, and solidarity. He also didn't need to create a fantasy world for his ideas to work, instead he was basing his theories on analysis of the existing economic conditions during his lifetime. If you're thinking of ideological systems that do rely on altruism, you should look towards religions, like Christianity or Buddhism, or philosophies like Communitarianism. There were fringe utopian socialist thinkers who advocated for altruism-based systems (Fourier, Owen) but they were opposed both by Capitalists and Marxists.

skellington 2y ago
I'm not saying that Rand or Marx themselves said that altruism was a necessary component. I'm saying that it is and that neither was aware of that pre-condition/axiom of their philosophies. To be fair, I think Rand was aware, and that she wrote fantasies around what she viewed as the 'perfect man.' Her stuff is more aspirational than practical (same as Lenin, etc.). From a game theory point of view, both philosophies, in order to work and be sustained, require that most actors within the system behave honestly within the rules of the game. This means, nobody cheats. And it would only take a small percentage of bad actors to break either system. In this context, altruism is self policing to abide by the rules even when not abiding by the rules would be better for you. PS I also disagree with your take on religion, if anything, Christianity's (for example) primary philosophy is built around the explicit imperfection of mankind. Also, I would argue that the Utopian Socialists and Lenin were aligned in their goals. They just had different ideas of how to get there. There have been many attempts at the gentler Utopian Socialist version of communism over the years and AFAIK they all fall apart after a while, because people are not altruistic.