3 ms·

Whenever I go reading about these people and this ideology and community it reminds me a lot of the various Trotskyist or other far left sects and personalities

Whenever I go reading about these people and this ideology and community it reminds me a lot of the various Trotskyist or other far left sects and personalities I encountered when I was younger. Similar dramas and egos and personality quirks and strident philosophical emissions, ideologically-focused groups built around persons/personalities. Often involving sexual relationships and dubious power dynamics. Just from, y'know, 180 degree philosophical positions. Maybe it was a product of her original linguistic/cultural extraction, but when I read Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" as a teen it reminded me very much of Stalinist or Trotskyite tracts I encountered around the same time. Different positions, same tone of absolute certainty and similar polemical flourishes. All of which to say, it all strikes me as more theological than philosophical.

mapontosevenths 2y ago
I think this is an astute observation. Taking any extreme position will inevitably put someone in the position where they find it difficult or impossible to live up to their own ideals. At the far ends of the spectrum everything starts to look alike. Ayn Rand herself died while collecting Social Security and Medicare.
- Ray20 2y ago
  I don’t see any contradiction or failure to follow own ideals here. It's like blaming a slave who believes that slavery shouldn't exist, for eating his master's food.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  I mean, I dislike Rand's outlook passionately but I would not hold it against her to withdraw from a system she paid into or from living in the framework of society she lived in, even if she resented it.
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    She wanted to let the disabled starve or beg on street corners so she'd have a tiny fraction more wealth to fritter away. We don't owe her the benefit of the doubt.
    - olalonde 2y ago
      I think that’s a misrepresentation of her views. She opposed self-sacrifice but she wasn’t against charity. She supported it when it came from a genuine personal desire to help others (as opposed to a moral duty).
      - stevenAthompson 2y ago
        You are half-right. She did say that it should be left to charity, but that of course implies that when nobody gives the street corner beggar money they will starve.
        kbelder 2y ago
        The question then becomes, whose money are you going to take against their will and give to the beggar? And you may believe that this would be a greater good, and a proper role of government... different people may think differently about that, and discussions can be held. Don't gloss over the fact, though, that the only alternatives to voluntary charity are either no charity or involuntary charity.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        thiagoharry 2y ago
        Money and property do not exist by themselves. You can grab, use, and carry things — and at other times, you may not be holding or using anything. Beyond this, concepts like "my money" or "my property" are social constructs; they exist only because society creates and enforces them. The same society that upholds these constructs can also create others — such as human rights and the idea that everyone deserves dignity. In early societies with limited resources, survival often took precedence, and it was sometimes accepted that the old or disabled be left behind. Today, however, we have an abundance of resources — so much so that, in theory, hunger shouldn't even exist. Yet we live under an individualistic and selfish ideology, where some argue for a return to a brutal indifference toward those in need, despite society's capacity to care for everyone. All this in the name of a self-centered ideology.
Pixelbrick 2y ago
Too right. Never trust someone who thinks they have all the answers.
lukan 2y ago
"All of which to say, it all strikes me as more theological than philosophical." Oh yes, when marxists debate about the interpretation of the holy words of the manifest and how dictatorship is not bad, if only the right people with the right ideological mindset are in charge, then it always annoyed me, that they claim to be rational scientists.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  I mean, I'm a Marxist, and I don't say those things.
  - lukan 2y ago
    That would be a good start for a debate then. (But maybe not the right place and I don't have my arguments at hand, has been a while that I engaged with marxists)
    - hannasanarion 2y ago
      I think they're just trying to inform you that you're painting with a broader brush than you might realize. There are lots of flavors of Marxism out there, the one you're describing is often called "Orthodox Marxism" or the closely related "Marxism-Leninism". It's now considered pretty outdated, with most of Marxist thought having moved on to less rigid modes of conceptualizing history and geopolitics, like Western Marxism (Frankfurt School), Autonomist Marxism, Eco-Marxism, Libertarian Marxism, Structural Marxism, etc. There is a reason that "leftist infighting" is a century-old meme. Leftism is fundamentally a political movement grounded in moral philosophy, but since moral philosophy is an unsolved and likely unsolvable field, fractionalism is guaranteed.
      - Ray20 2y ago
        >It's now considered pretty outdated, with most of Marxist thought having moved on to less rigid modes of conceptualizing history and geopolitics, like Western Marxism (Frankfurt School), Autonomist Marxism, Eco-Marxism, Libertarian Marxism, Structural Marxism, etc. I think that's not true. It is incorrect to compare the practice of Marxism-Leninism, and it's philosophy formed with such practice, with purely imaginary pink-glass-self-reflection fantasy. Let them seize power in somewhat large country and hold it for at least a couple of decades - and then say how these movements are "less rigid". Or compare the voiced fantasies with Lenin's pre-revolutionary fantasies (remembering that they were practical enough to seize power and push it's philosophy on half of the planet), if you really want to show the difference between them and outdating of the latter.
sevensor 2y ago
> it reminds me a lot of the various Trotskyist or other far left sects and personalities I think she never stopped being a child of the Russian Revolution. It was the formative event of her youth.
Barrin92 2y ago
>it reminds me a lot of the various Trotskyist or other far left sects and personalities I encountered when I was younger. because that is exactly what it is. Rand idolized and worshipped great men and industrialists the way the Soviets taught you too, except through an American funhouse mirror. Her individualism wasn't an authentic lived inner freedom of for example Tolstoy (in a religious way) or Stirner (in an atheist way) but simply worship of individuality and particular individuals. It's why it made for a fantastic mass movement and fandom of sorts.

mapontosevenths 2y ago

I think this is an astute observation. Taking any extreme position will inevitably put someone in the position where they find it difficult or impossible to live up to their own ideals. At the far ends of the spectrum everything starts to look alike. Ayn Rand herself died while collecting Social Security and Medicare.

Ray20 2y ago
I don’t see any contradiction or failure to follow own ideals here. It's like blaming a slave who believes that slavery shouldn't exist, for eating his master's food.
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
I mean, I dislike Rand's outlook passionately but I would not hold it against her to withdraw from a system she paid into or from living in the framework of society she lived in, even if she resented it.
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  She wanted to let the disabled starve or beg on street corners so she'd have a tiny fraction more wealth to fritter away. We don't owe her the benefit of the doubt.
  - olalonde 2y ago
    I think that’s a misrepresentation of her views. She opposed self-sacrifice but she wasn’t against charity. She supported it when it came from a genuine personal desire to help others (as opposed to a moral duty).
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      You are half-right. She did say that it should be left to charity, but that of course implies that when nobody gives the street corner beggar money they will starve.
      - kbelder 2y ago
        The question then becomes, whose money are you going to take against their will and give to the beggar? And you may believe that this would be a greater good, and a proper role of government... different people may think differently about that, and discussions can be held. Don't gloss over the fact, though, that the only alternatives to voluntary charity are either no charity or involuntary charity.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        thiagoharry 2y ago
        Money and property do not exist by themselves. You can grab, use, and carry things — and at other times, you may not be holding or using anything. Beyond this, concepts like "my money" or "my property" are social constructs; they exist only because society creates and enforces them. The same society that upholds these constructs can also create others — such as human rights and the idea that everyone deserves dignity. In early societies with limited resources, survival often took precedence, and it was sometimes accepted that the old or disabled be left behind. Today, however, we have an abundance of resources — so much so that, in theory, hunger shouldn't even exist. Yet we live under an individualistic and selfish ideology, where some argue for a return to a brutal indifference toward those in need, despite society's capacity to care for everyone. All this in the name of a self-centered ideology.

Pixelbrick 2y ago

Too right. Never trust someone who thinks they have all the answers.

lukan 2y ago

"All of which to say, it all strikes me as more theological than philosophical." Oh yes, when marxists debate about the interpretation of the holy words of the manifest and how dictatorship is not bad, if only the right people with the right ideological mindset are in charge, then it always annoyed me, that they claim to be rational scientists.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago
I mean, I'm a Marxist, and I don't say those things.
- lukan 2y ago
  That would be a good start for a debate then. (But maybe not the right place and I don't have my arguments at hand, has been a while that I engaged with marxists)
  - hannasanarion 2y ago
    I think they're just trying to inform you that you're painting with a broader brush than you might realize. There are lots of flavors of Marxism out there, the one you're describing is often called "Orthodox Marxism" or the closely related "Marxism-Leninism". It's now considered pretty outdated, with most of Marxist thought having moved on to less rigid modes of conceptualizing history and geopolitics, like Western Marxism (Frankfurt School), Autonomist Marxism, Eco-Marxism, Libertarian Marxism, Structural Marxism, etc. There is a reason that "leftist infighting" is a century-old meme. Leftism is fundamentally a political movement grounded in moral philosophy, but since moral philosophy is an unsolved and likely unsolvable field, fractionalism is guaranteed.
    - Ray20 2y ago
      >It's now considered pretty outdated, with most of Marxist thought having moved on to less rigid modes of conceptualizing history and geopolitics, like Western Marxism (Frankfurt School), Autonomist Marxism, Eco-Marxism, Libertarian Marxism, Structural Marxism, etc. I think that's not true. It is incorrect to compare the practice of Marxism-Leninism, and it's philosophy formed with such practice, with purely imaginary pink-glass-self-reflection fantasy. Let them seize power in somewhat large country and hold it for at least a couple of decades - and then say how these movements are "less rigid". Or compare the voiced fantasies with Lenin's pre-revolutionary fantasies (remembering that they were practical enough to seize power and push it's philosophy on half of the planet), if you really want to show the difference between them and outdating of the latter.

sevensor 2y ago

> it reminds me a lot of the various Trotskyist or other far left sects and personalities I think she never stopped being a child of the Russian Revolution. It was the formative event of her youth.

Barrin92 2y ago

>it reminds me a lot of the various Trotskyist or other far left sects and personalities I encountered when I was younger. because that is exactly what it is. Rand idolized and worshipped great men and industrialists the way the Soviets taught you too, except through an American funhouse mirror. Her individualism wasn't an authentic lived inner freedom of for example Tolstoy (in a religious way) or Stirner (in an atheist way) but simply worship of individuality and particular individuals. It's why it made for a fantastic mass movement and fandom of sorts.