Ms. Rand

[Liar]

3.141592653589793238462643

And that was from my head.

The amount of useless stuff I store in there....

 

[neonlyte]

3.141592653589793238462643

And that was from my head.

The amount of useless stuff I store in there....

I wouldn't say useless - you could get at least two phone numbers out of that lot

Someone mentioned the individual and the collective. Is there any such thing - as either?

 

[rgraham666]

The threadstarter has, in many many posts, identified himself as one of those the Rand, in her fiction, describes as 'parasites' and 'second handers' those who believe that 'society' owes them an existence.

Under normal circumstances, I would let this pass.

Not this time.

For your information, 'friend', I worked for over twenty years before my illness got the better of me. Often to the point of physical exhaustion. Never took a dime in handouts.

So I will thank you to take your opinion and ram it up your ass crosswise, you microcephalic slime mold.

Wait. Let me amend that.

As you are one of the larger anal sphincters on the planet, such an act won't be difficult for you. Therefore, tie a stick of dynamite to your opinion, light it and then insert.

Also, microcephalic is a gross over estimation of the size of your head.

And slime molds at least perform some useful purpose in the greater scheme of things.

 

[Pure]

let's proceed

ami: The threadstarter has, in many many posts, identified himself as one of those the Rand, in her fiction, describes as 'parasites' and 'second handers' those who believe that 'society' owes them an existence.

rg, I would not be baited. there are two kinds of Randists--those with brains who can think and reason --Roxanne Appleby, around here, for example.

Then there are those who repeat and parrot certain slogans of hers, in fairly mindless fashion.

The latter group, in argument, have a number of stock epithets and insults (some of which Ayn was prone to, in her weaker moments):
spineless, parasites, haters of life, nihilists, weak kneed altruists, socialists, witch drs. When reason fails, for this group, that's what issues forth.

I'd simply take that as evidence the person has nothing intelligent to say on the topic. Any of us who've ever questioned Amicus' dogma are entitled to wear such epithets with pride-- they evidence his flight from the field of intellectual battle.

J
nihilist

 

[3113]

Personally, I don't see what is so bad about such sci-fi. Utopias and dystopias (particularly the latter, I admit) are fascinating scenarios to me. They show a lot of imagination, to dream of a world that isn't.

Nothing wrong with them at all. But like any other fiction, there are good ones...and there are bad ones. The problem with Utopias is that it's really easy to create one as a propaganda. For example, I could create a utopia with a Royal family and caste system, and write it up in such a way as to prove that so long as there is a blooded aristocracy, passing on it's rulership father to son, and so long as everyone stays in their place and doesn't try to be anything more, everyone will be happy. I'd create mean, awful characters who try to leave their caste and horrible things happen, while those who stick to their caste are happy and rewarded.

This fantasy of mine has nothing to do with the truth of such a society, where, historically speaking, having aristocratic blood is no guarantee of that you'll be a good leader, and forcing people to ignore their talents/potential and stay in their caste rarely benefits society.

Similarly, I can write up a dystopia that makes whatever system of government I dislike look really evil...ignoring anything in it that's positive.

Science Fiction writers, at their best, take a situation and really explore all it's possiblities with as little bias as possible. Like, if we would plug our brains into computers what would that mean? Or, if America became a Christian theocracy, what would that mean? And if done right, these can really explore and even predict the positives, negative and pitfalls of such a senario.

But what I'm talking about is how very easy it is for these things to be misused, abused and badly written. The Klansman, notable for being the story used in Birth of a Nation is a form of Dystopian fiction. It shows the KKK saving the U.S. from the post-civil war chaos (Dystopia), by putting blacks back in their place and restoring peace between north/south. I hardly think it imagnative or "good" as a story of how to transform a Dystopia into a Utopia.

There's nothing bad about the genre of Utopias/Dystopias...what bad is when a poorly written one becomes a Bible for a movement--when the people reading it believe that this fiction/fantasy/flight of the writer's imagination can be made into a reality if only its teaching are taken to heart.

 

[elsol]

*burp*

All I got out of Rand was...

A majority of people are mediocre... whether by choice, circumstance, or enforced social cowardice, the natural state of herd of mediocre people is to tear down their betters.

But then again... I somehow read text on Buddism and arrived at "I am the center of the universe".

Needless to say, I have certain megalomaniac tendencies.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Pure]

Hey, Sev,

How about starting a Nietzsche thread. there are a couple overlaps with Rand--disdain for 'herd morality'; morality of self abnegation-- but 100 times the brilliance. and no admirer of the merchant or big business mentality either.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Nothing wrong with them at all. But like any other fiction, there are good ones...and there are bad ones. The problem with Utopias is that it's really easy to create one as a propaganda. For example, I could create a utopia with a Royal family and caste system, and write it up in such a way as to prove that so long as there is a blooded aristocracy, passing on it's rulership father to son, and so long as everyone stays in their place and doesn't try to be anything more, everyone will be happy. I'd create mean, awful characters who try to leave their caste and horrible things happen, while those who stick to their caste are happy and rewarded.

This fantasy of mine has nothing to do with the truth of such a society, where, historically speaking, having aristocratic blood is no guarantee of that you'll be a good leader, and forcing people to ignore their talents/potential and stay in their caste rarely benefits society.

Similarly, I can write up a dystopia that makes whatever system of government I dislike look really evil...ignoring anything in it that's positive.

Science Fiction writers, at their best, take a situation and really explore all it's possiblities with as little bias as possible. Like, if we would plug our brains into computers what would that mean? Or, if America became a Christian theocracy, what would that mean? And if done right, these can really explore and even predict the positives, negative and pitfalls of such a senario.

But what I'm talking about is how very easy it is for these things to be misused, abused and badly written. The Klansman, notable for being the story used in Birth of a Nation is a form of Dystopian fiction. It shows the KKK saving the U.S. from the post-civil war chaos (Dystopia), by putting blacks back in their place and restoring peace between north/south. I hardly think it imagnative or "good" as a story of how to transform a Dystopia into a Utopia.

There's nothing bad about the genre of Utopias/Dystopias...what bad is when a poorly written one becomes a Bible for a movement--when the people reading it believe that this fiction/fantasy/flight of the writer's imagination can be made into a reality if only its teaching are taken to heart.

I understand your concerns, but many Communists would make such an attack on George Orwell's dystopia 1984, when it was clearly a chillingly accurate reflection of what life under Marxist-Leninism would be like in a world where capitalism and democracy were destroyed.

And, Pure, that is not such a bad idea.

Back to the other, "dystopia", issue, I know from experience what inspires them, as I have written a few stories with such regimes and plan to write more. Most of them involve a Balkanized America with rival factions and warlords fighting for power (actually, the same is true in the story for just about all countries).

 

[Selena_Kitt]

All I got out of Rand was...

that she was a woman who was very afraid... when you base an entire philosophy of life on the "strength and courage" of the individual... what is the shadow side?

now back to your regularly scheduled mental masturbation

 

[Pure]

'very afraid'

yep, like helen keller, victoria woodhull, and eleanor roosevelt.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

yep, like helen keller, victoria woodhull, and eleanor roosevelt.

um... yeah...

 

[3113]

I understand your concerns, but many Communists would make such an attack on George Orwell's dystopia 1984, when it was clearly a chillingly accurate reflection of what life under Marxist-Leninism would be like in a world where capitalism and democracy were destroyed.

Again. There are GOOD and well-written utopias and there are BAD ones. I happen to think that George is pretty darn good for two reasons:
1) What was really happening at the time...not, as with some fantasy authors, what he wished or feared would happen but had no evidence of it happening. That's the really bad ones, there. The ones that scare the reader with fictions...not with truths. Like "give black people freedom and they'll rape white women."

Some of what happens to 1984's protagonist really did happen to a number of people under the oppressive governement of the U.S.S.R. at the time.

2) 1984 is anti-Marxist propaganda. However, it transends this. It isn't JUST propaganda.

George may have been accurate about the U.S.S.R., but he's completely wrong when it comes to several socialist countries now thriving that have their economic roots in Marxist theory. These places have democracy and freedom of the press, etc. Our own capitalistic government, on the other hand, is filled with Orwellian speak and in some ways seems to be heading toward 1984

Thus, what makes 1984 a good piece of Utopian fiction is that it predicts how any government run under "big brother" can end up a scary place. And it doesn't matter who big-brother is--Stalin...or the Patriot Act. That makes it "literature" and worth reading...not just propaganda or one person's badly written wishful thinking/paranoia.

And, frankly, since no one ever started a religious or political movement based on 1984 (although it did inspire one of the best commericals of all time--if you'd just take a gander at my Avatar), your point is moot. My concern is for those utopias that become "bibles"--not ones that end up becoming homework assignments in high school.

 

[rgraham666]

Don't forget Farenheit 451. One of the most chilling book I ever read.

No communism there. Just everybody agreeing they're not going to be challenged by thought anymore.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I recommend the presumption of good will.

Let me suggest something, not just for this thread, but for all political threads. It's called "the presumption of good will." You presume that those you disagree with have the same motivation that you do: They want good things for all humans; they want everyone to have the opportunity to live the good life.

If one presumes good will, when a person espouses an idea that you disagree with, your are forced to think, to ask yourself why a person who wants good things for others would think that way. You can't just dismiss the person as nihilistic, or selfish, or unwilling to see the links that connect all humanity, or incapable of wisdom. You can't dismiss their ideas as the product of psychological dysfunction, or malice, or greed. Instead, you are forced to truly engage the ideas, and to "enter the head" of the other person.

In the process you usually discover some basic axiom, premise or precept upon which you and your intellectual opponent fundamentally disagree. Neither of you is likely to change the other's mind, but having narrowed the disagreement to a matter of fact, you set about to marshal evidence and logic to buttress your position. You present your evidence to the world. Over time, in the free marketplace of ideas, one idea or another may prevail because it more accurately describes reality.

With this approach, the starting point here would not be that Rand was "the Marxist equivalent of a Satanist," or was unhinged by the events of her youth, or was "an extreme submissive." Even if you believe those things are true, there's really no way to respond to them, and no way to have a constructive discussion about the actual ideas. In resorting to such assertions you evade actually having to engage the ideas.

Under the presumption of good will, one would instead start with something like, "I wonder why Ayn Rand, who presumably cared about mankind just as deeply as I do, was as smart as me, and as capable of using logic, came to conclusions that were so different from those that I have arrived at? She must have begun with very different axioms, precepts and premises. What were they, and in what ways are they different from the ones that I begin with? Do we disagree about human nature, or maybe about what constitutes the good life? What are the specifics of those disagreements? Is there any room for agreement on derivative ideas?

Do you see how different that process is, and how much more interesting and educational it can be?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Let me suggest something, not just for this thread, but for all political threads. It's called "the presumption of good will." You presume that those you disagree with have the same motivation that you do: They want good things for all humans; they want everyone to have the opportunity to live the good life.

If one presumes good will, when a person espouses an idea that you disagree with, your are forced to think, to ask yourself why a person who wants good things for others would think that way. You can't just dismiss the person as nihilistic, or selfish, or unwilling to see the links that connect all humanity, or incapable of wisdom. You can't dismiss their ideas as the product of psychological dysfunction, or malice, or greed. Instead, you are forced to truly engage the ideas, and to "enter the head" of the other person.

In the process you usually discover some basic axiom, premise or precept upon which you and your intellectual opponent fundamentally disagree. Neither of you is likely to change the other's mind, but having narrowed the disagreement to a matter of fact, you set about to marshal evidence and logic to buttress your position. You present your evidence to the world. Over time, in the free marketplace of ideas, one idea or another may prevail because it more accurately describes reality.

With this approach, the starting point here would not be that Rand was "the Marxist equivalent of a Satanist," or was unhinged by the events of her youth, or was "an extreme submissive." Even if you believe those things are true, there's really no way to respond to them, and no way to have a constructive discussion about the actual ideas. In resorting to such assertions you evade actually having to engage the ideas.

Under the presumption of good will, one would instead start with something like, "I wonder why Ayn Rand, who presumably cared about mankind just as deeply as I do, was as smart as me, and as capable of using logic, came to conclusions that were so different from those that I have arrived at? She must have begun with very different axioms, precepts and premises. What were they, and in what ways are they different from the ones that I begin with? Do we disagree about human nature, or maybe about what constitutes the good life? What are the specifics of those disagreements? Is there any room for agreement on derivative ideas?

Do you see how different that process is, and how much more interesting and educational it can be?

Hey roxanne

*HUGS*

good to see you posting again

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Hey roxanne

*HUGS*

good to see you posting again

Hey sweetie - thanks for the welcome. I've been doing fluffy things that don't take up any time in places like GB, like sharing enjoyment of the Olympics and stuff. I really don't have time to dive into any heavy political or philosophical debates these days, notwithstanding my post here. I did not see this thread until tonight.

 

[Pure]

I'm glad you showed up Roxanne,

you wouldn't want to leave the defense of Rand up to me, would you?

 

[Rope64]

Let me suggest something, not just for this thread, but for all political threads. It's called "the presumption of good will." You presume that those you disagree with have the same motivation that you do: They want good things for all humans; they want everyone to have the opportunity to live the good life.

If one presumes good will, when a person espouses an idea that you disagree with, your are forced to think, to ask yourself why a person who wants good things for others would think that way. You can't just dismiss the person as nihilistic, or selfish, or unwilling to see the links that connect all humanity, or incapable of wisdom. You can't dismiss their ideas as the product of psychological dysfunction, or malice, or greed. Instead, you are forced to truly engage the ideas, and to "enter the head" of the other person.

In the process you usually discover some basic axiom, premise or precept upon which you and your intellectual opponent fundamentally disagree. Neither of you is likely to change the other's mind, but having narrowed the disagreement to a matter of fact, you set about to marshal evidence and logic to buttress your position. You present your evidence to the world. Over time, in the free marketplace of ideas, one idea or another may prevail because it more accurately describes reality.

With this approach, the starting point here would not be that Rand was "the Marxist equivalent of a Satanist," or was unhinged by the events of her youth, or was "an extreme submissive." Even if you believe those things are true, there's really no way to respond to them, and no way to have a constructive discussion about the actual ideas. In resorting to such assertions you evade actually having to engage the ideas.

Under the presumption of good will, one would instead start with something like, "I wonder why Ayn Rand, who presumably cared about mankind just as deeply as I do, was as smart as me, and as capable of using logic, came to conclusions that were so different from those that I have arrived at? She must have begun with very different axioms, precepts and premises. What were they, and in what ways are they different from the ones that I begin with? Do we disagree about human nature, or maybe about what constitutes the good life? What are the specifics of those disagreements? Is there any room for agreement on derivative ideas?

Do you see how different that process is, and how much more interesting and educational it can be?

Roxanne, you have been characterized as representing Rand's approach, a characterization which I hope you will clarify. Anyway, while it has been quite some time since I have read anything by Rand, it still seems to me that your suggestion here is not at all Rand's method: those she disagreed with were caricaturized as bumbling, parasitic oafs.

Moreover, why assume that anyone else wants what you want? I think I understand your sentiment, but I think you have made it too particular. Anyone who is at all honest and who makes normative claims will have a sense of how things ought to be and a reason for that sense, but this is not the same as wanting good things for all humans. And, in Rand's case, I really cannot see that she wanted good things for all humans: I think it would be more accurate to say that she wanted the "true worth" (without debating what that means) of individuals to be faithfully represented by their economic position. It may be that she believed also that such a system would bring out a superior "true worth" from each individual, but I don't recall seeing her express any concern with this; perhaps you can clarify.

What I dislike about Rand's ideology is that it is a very effective trap for vain and not-very-thoughtful people, which is almost everyone, to a degree. 90% of people consider themselves above average, and Rand proposed to free superior individuals from the chains imposed upon them by the mediocre: 90% of people would imagine that this would benefit them, but nearly half of them would be mistaken, at least if only first order effects are considered.

As I alluded earlier in this thread, I think Orianna Falacci's consideration of "great men" was more scientific, based as it was on observation rather than assumption. And Falacci's observation was that the qualities that propel people to "greatness" are not things that would normally be considered virtues, nor are they qualities that we would want in people who can affect our well-being.

 

[Pure]

Good points, rope!

Objectivism's vices mirror Rand's weakness: the issue of tolerance.

In a word, if one posesses "objective" truth, then those who disagree fall into three categories-- the naive and untutored (essentially children), the knaves (evil), and the fools (stupid).

But let's look at a central example of this approach, in the area of ethics: Rand says

"All that is proper to the life of a rational [individual] being is the good; all that which destroys it, is the evil."

"Since life require a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it."

It follows that if you do not follow Objectivist morality -- the principles of the above 'specific course of action'-- you are headed for death (if unwitting) or indeed dedicated to it (if aware of your difference with the path of truth in the service of life).

To take one concrete example, it is a requirement of life (so says Rand) that you dedicate your individual life to yourself (i.e. your life), primarily. This is egoism. ("The Virtue of Selfishness" is one phrase that has been aired).

What is the 'argument' here: Well, suppose a deluded person were to attempt to primarily dedicate himself to the furtherance of Catholicism. He can't very well do that if he doesn't preserve himself (or can he?). So he's either self preserving, but foolishly thinking he's serving Catholicism, or he is NOT self preserving; serving Catholicism in a sense, but headed, as an individual, for death.


Structurally, you can see this is similar to Calvinism, and Thomist Catholicism. If you deviate from 'truth' in service of the ONLY goal that makes sense-- your eternal life-- you are either unevangelized or evil; and the objectivity of that judgement is confirmed when you are consigned to Hell.

Taking the Catholic case: suppose you dedicate yourself to the realization of socialism. Then you are dedicated to UNtruth, and must necessarily end up in hell-- Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life." IF you're not with Jesus....!

This is what makes arguing with the True Believer Randist, Calvinist,, or Catholic rather difficult: to the extent that you disagree--other than in the humble spirit of learning-- you are evil, or pursuing it. What one calls (following Roxanne) the "Presumption of Good Will" (Principle of Charity) has no place: charity is inappropriate for the child, the knave, or the fool, for various respective reasons.

There are, fortunately, non orthodox Rand-ish thinkers, such as Roxanne, or the well known 'heretic' objectivist (condemned by the official Ayn Rand group), David Kelley. These preach a kind of tolerance and hence earn the condemnation of the "orthodox," the true believers.

----

PS: Rope, you said,
Anyone who is at all honest and who makes normative claims will have a sense of how things ought to be and a reason for that sense, but this is not the same as wanting good things for all humans. And, in Rand's case, I really cannot see that she wanted good things for all humans: I think it would be more accurate to say that she wanted the "true worth" (without debating what that means) of individuals to be faithfully represented by their economic position.

This is nicely stated, and I believe the above analysis helps understand Rand's position. Although she talks of 'life,' and serving it, this amounts to a simple sum of individuals pursuing their respective lives
(somewhat reminiscent of Adam Smith). If one may use an analogy:
According to her, a wolf (or an ant or an eagle) seeks to survive as a wolf (ant or eagle). He doesn't not think of--or act for-- 'wolfdom' (the collectivity of wolves). IF you try to kill him, he will run away or counterattack you; so to say, he does not want to die, and dying is an individual matter.

Yet this very example does not quite work, does it? As social beings, wolves show social concerns; they (similar to ants) are not like a-social animals such are bald eagles and tigers. One needs to look a 'pack behavior' not just individual behavior--as in the example, where I attack a single wolf and evoke his response. (I believe) some do sacrifice for others-- the cardinal sin in objectivism. The sociobiologists would point out that the alleged sacrifice may be related to a kind of 'genetic selfishness.' The death of Wolf A, may permit his/her brothers, sisters, and offspring *WITH HIS OR HER GENES* to survive.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

90% of people consider themselves above average, and Rand proposed to free superior individuals from the chains imposed upon them by the mediocre: 90% of people would imagine that this would benefit them, but nearly half of them would be mistaken, at least if only first order effects are considered.

Rope, it would be impolite to not respond, but I'm rather stressed by deadlines and undone tasks back in the real world, so I probably can't give this discussion the attention it deserves. Also, I am neither a "Rand scholar" nor a "Randroid," but apparently I'm all we got , so the task falls to me. But I really won't be able to get into lengthy back and forths – sorry.

My response to the above is, why is it that you assume the 90 percent would not benefit if the 10 percent were unshackled? Would my life be better if Bill Gates had been shackled, and deprived of the motivation to create this tool we are using now to share these thoughts? Would it be better if Henry Ford had been shackled, and motorcars had remained playthings for the rich?

I'll answer my own question: We humans are such contrary beings - part of what makes us happy is having more than our neighbors. In a survey in which people were asked to choose between an income of $75,000 in a world where the average was $37,500, and $100,000 in a world where $150,000 is the average, most choose the former. Some on the left even consider having higher than average income as a form of "pollution," because it imposes unhappiness on others.

It is this fact of human nature that makes it easy to perceive "the masses" as benefiting from shackling "the elite."

And yet, the comforts and conveniences we enjoy by living in a modern civilization are the result of allowing individuals to be unshackled, and to perform to their maximum potential. We may not like it, but no other system ever tried has come close to producing the same results in terms of improving the material well being of millions of people.

Rand would spit that survey, and condemn those who answer the "wrong way" as "rotters" motivated by envy. Sorry, Ayn, but that's the way humans are.

There are two ways to resolve this paradox. One is to shackle the Gates and the Fords and all the rest (and you never can tell in advance who the next one will be.)

If you remove the economic incentive to excel, however, it is likely that not only will we not advance in material well being, we may sink. Not only will we not cure cancer, we may lose the ability to treat many conditions we now have the tools to cure. It's another aspect of our contrary nature that deprived of the possibility to "score big" in the sweepstakes of life, many who keep the good things we have running won't strive, and the system will start to fall apart.

The other approach is to study this phenomenon of relative income and happiness, and try to become more "mature" about it through education, moral teaching, etc. Personally, I think we just need to grow up a little bit on this. But that may not be realistic either.

 

[Rope64]

Thank you both, Pure and Roxanne, for your responses.

Roxanne, you asked, "why is it that you assume the 90 percent would not benefit if the 10 percent were unshackled?" Perhaps, first of all, you missread my use of the 90% statistic -- it is that 90% of people consider themselves to be above average, when only about 50% really are. (The other 10% may or may not be "above average;" all we really know about them is that they have some modesty.)

You may also note that I qualified my assertion with, "if only first order effects are considered." I meant by this to have excluded the blow-back benefits to the mediocre from letting the superior have their way, which, admittedly, is not accurate. However, I think it is an accurate reflection of the "90% above average" perception on the matter: I doubt very many people are drawn to Rand's ideology on the basis of, "If superior people had more freedom, my mediocre self would have a lot of neat new toys;" rather, the attraction is, "I would be able to do so much more with my superior abilities were it not for all the constraints put on me by society." People naturally are more inclined to recognize the benefits that they provide for others than they are to recognize the benefits that others provide for them.

Anyway, the end result of "unchaining superior individuals" is a concentration of power, and when in the course of human history has that been very good for very long? I think it's safe to say that, whatever the disposition of property rights and tax burdens of various kinds, the quality that most reliably leads to an accumulation of power is ... desire for power. Andrew Carnegie (just as an example that I know a very little bit about) did not become America's first billionaire because he developed superior smelting processes; rather, he became America's first billionaire because he was completely willing to screw his competitors and to threaten his customers. Indeed, it is likely that the advancement of the steel-making process was set back because Carnegie was able to plow under smaller competitors who had superior technology. And this is no anomally -- Microsoft is famous for using market position to undermine technologically superior rivals.

Rand maybe believed that scientists and inventors would be the ones who would most directly benefit from "unchaining superior individuals," and that they would use their improved positions to benefit all. But this has very rarely been what has happened: rather, the scientists and inventors generally turn over their innovations to entrepreneurs -- whose only defining interest is making a buck -- and then go back to the lab or the workshop. And the entrepreneurs, yes, will disseminate innovations, but only in ways and in circumstance that will benefit themselves most; I am sure you have heard of "planned obsolescence" and the like. So you end up with people who like power having power, which generally is not good for other people, regardless of in what system it occurs.

Mind you, I believe very much in property rights, albeit for the Hayekian reason that they generally provide for the most economic efficiency, and not because I think God believes in them or anything like that. But the underlying problem, I think, with property rights is that ultimately they are completely negative: they do not give you the right to do anything, but rather they give you the right to forbid others from doing things. So to me property rights are kind of like the poison that in regulated doses will cure disease. Rand seems to have extrapolated the curative effects of the regulated doses to conclude that we should imbibe as much as we can of the tonic, and I think this is misguided.

And now, to avoid the risk and achieve the certainty of going on for too long, a comment on objectivism: I expect that there is objective truth (why wouldn't there be?), but I have no a priori reason to think that my (necessarily subjective) perception of it is better than anyone else's. I tend to think of people as being like a diverse set of defective sensors, each getting a different feed on any situation. I think it is wisest to try to let the signal from each sensor get through unimpeded, if you want to make sense of anything. I think we are all naive and foolish to some degree, and moreso if we cannot understand that. Whenever I hear someone say (one way or another), "Here is how things ARE," I can't help but want to get him to a poker table opposite me.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Again. There are GOOD and well-written utopias and there are BAD ones. I happen to think that George is pretty darn good for two reasons:
1) What was really happening at the time...not, as with some fantasy authors, what he wished or feared would happen but had no evidence of it happening. That's the really bad ones, there. The ones that scare the reader with fictions...not with truths. Like "give black people freedom and they'll rape white women."

Some of what happens to 1984's protagonist really did happen to a number of people under the oppressive governement of the U.S.S.R. at the time.

2) 1984 is anti-Marxist propaganda. However, it transends this. It isn't JUST propaganda.

George may have been accurate about the U.S.S.R., but he's completely wrong when it comes to several socialist countries now thriving that have their economic roots in Marxist theory. These places have democracy and freedom of the press, etc. Our own capitalistic government, on the other hand, is filled with Orwellian speak and in some ways seems to be heading toward 1984

Thus, what makes 1984 a good piece of Utopian fiction is that it predicts how any government run under "big brother" can end up a scary place. And it doesn't matter who big-brother is--Stalin...or the Patriot Act. That makes it "literature" and worth reading...not just propaganda or one person's badly written wishful thinking/paranoia.

And, frankly, since no one ever started a religious or political movement based on 1984 (although it did inspire one of the best commericals of all time--if you'd just take a gander at my Avatar), your point is moot. My concern is for those utopias that become "bibles"--not ones that end up becoming homework assignments in high school.

Given this cartoon business, I wouldn't be so sure about free speech in socialist Europe anymore. Cite an example of a dystopia becoming a "bible", aside from the Turner Diaries, that is.

While there may be some flaws in Rand's theories, that would be true of any theories.

 

[3113]

Given this cartoon business, I wouldn't be so sure about free speech in socialist Europe anymore. Cite an example of a dystopia becoming a "bible", aside from the Turner Diaries, that is.

While there may be some flaws in Rand's theories, that would be true of any theories.

Regarding the cartoons: Newspapers HERE are censoring those cartoons, not running them, for fear of retaliation, and we're certainly not socialist; it's not our government who's telling those newspapers not to run the cartoons, it's the owners of the newspapers who don't want their businesses targeted by militants. So curtailment of free speech is not due to socialism in this case--it's due to an extreme circumstance that has created a climate of fear.

This is why there's a problem in taking any theory, Rand or Marx, as bible. Because they're not fluid enough. If you take something as your bible--if you say, this is the magic solution, live this way, ALWAYS, and all problems will be solved, the world will be paradise...then you're in trouble.

Situations change. Depressions happen. Wars happen. Natural disasters and militant religious fantics happen. And the society needs to adjust the political and social system to work best in such criseses. For example, a country is NOT going to win a war if it's following Rand where everyone is pretty much out for themselves, where a central government barely exists, and what does exist has no right to take resources so it can win the war.

As for Rand's theories, the problem isn't whether or not they're flawed, the problem is that Rand and Randians do not present their theory as a model for society that you try and adjust until it works. They present it as a miracle cure. THAT is where any philosophy runs into trouble.

 

[3113]

I doubt very many people are drawn to Rand's ideology on the basis of, "If superior people had more freedom, my mediocre self would have a lot of neat new toys;" rather, the attraction is, "I would be able to do so much more with my superior abilities were it not for all the constraints put on me by society." People naturally are more inclined to recognize the benefits that they provide for others than they are to recognize the benefits that others provide for them.

Amazing post, Rope! Very succiently argued. I especially like the above. You're right in that the main problem is that people tend to recognize the benefits they provide rather than what they are given.

And most folk do have an inflated sense of being superior--that they would benefit from this situation, which is what makes it attractive to them. But there really isn't that much room at the top--and those who get to the top, usually want as big a share of the pie as they can get. They don't like to share, and they don't welcome competition.

Thomas Edison, for example, stole from a lot of people and used their inventions for his own aggrandizement and to undercut competition. Supermen do not always seek to save the world. Sometimes, they only seek to gratify their own selfish desires.

 

[Rope64]

Regarding the cartoons: Newspapers HERE are censoring those cartoons, not running them, for fear of retaliation, and we're certainly not socialist; it's not our government who's telling those newspapers not to run the cartoons, it's the owners of the newspapers who don't want their businesses targeted by militants. So curtailment of free speech is not due to socialism in this case--it's due to an extreme circumstance that has created a climate of fear.

I don't think your statement of the situation is quite accurate, 3113. I think the main reason most newspapers here are not running the cartoons is because they ARE offensive -- they were designed to be offensive. And that is the extent of their newsworthiness. To give them more exposure would be to assist in the original effort to offend; would you expect a newspaper to publish the views expressed by a racist group in a march that became violently opposed?