I disagree with your view that Marx was exclusively a collectivist. He did not argue that a 'collective' of workers (a 'soviet', if you like) needs to retain the benefits of production rather than the individual. You're missing a whole section where he looks nostalgically at the old artisan professions where every producer (worker) retained all of his production. The distinction is that the collective of the proletariat is what he sees as needed for a political revolution.
That is the natural byproduct of building an economic system on the false idea that an individual, doing what is good for themselves, will benefit the society at large. Turns out that individuals (or group of individuals) doing what is best for themselves will always sacrifice the good of the greater group if it means more profits for themselves. We see this all the time. The Cuyahoga river fire, The BP spill, the financial crash etc.
"If I supposed modern state-controlled corporatism, you would have a valid point" Yes, and what kind of political/economic state do we live in? A corporate plutocracy! We don't have to suppose, we just have to open our eyes. I agree with libertarians on a lot, and would have identified as such years ago. The problem is it always becomes a race to the bottom. Humans, motivated by profit (greed), will always resort to coercion whether overt, subtle, whether governmental or private.
Your idealogical analysis goes nowhere when it comes to real life. How many McDonald's employees or Walmart employees are truly able to stand up and negotiate with their employers? Come on dude. I dare you to go tell your boss you want to renegotiate your compensation and benefits...Good luck with that. Your argument for 'opting out' amounts to if you don't like what your getting paid, then leave, you are free to starve and freeze if you want.
@whynotsocialism If I supposed modern state-controlled corporatism, you would have a valid point. My point is that wage labor is not INTRINSICALLY coercive, not that it cannot be coercive in an inherently coercive environment.
As far as renegotiating terms with a boss, people do that all the time. Plenty of people get raises by asking for them. Plenty of people quit their jobs when they dislike the deal they have. And nobody starves just from quitting their job.
@XOmniverse They could very well starve under a Randian style reign of terror. Those people don't starve because of unemployment and other social services.
@whynotsocialism Without a minimum wage, a free market ensures 100% employment. In an economy with 100% employment, competition among employers would be such that McDonald's attitude would not likely be 'go starve and freeze'. That being said, in a free job market, a job such as McDonald's worker would probably find a relative stable, agreed upon value with individual variations between micro-economies and the peculiar values of employees compared to each other.
@whynotsocialism Funny but when I was working as an anylst contractor, I told my employer to give me a raise or loose me. Guess what i got more money. If you're good you can do it. If you're ok you need to get with others. No major groups need to be created.
Wage labor is not the exchange of money for labor, but rather money for hours. Labor is never fairly compensated in a wage system since any labor expended by the producer (worker) beyond the level of wage compensation becomes the property (taken by coercion) of the owner. This is called alienated labor value. You should go read some Marx.
@whynotsocialism It's not coercion if the laborer can opt out. So long as it is a voluntary agreement, terms can be negotiated and the amount of time or labor being performed for money can be discussed, with the option of either party opting out.
@XOmniverse You seem to suffer under the delusion that the bosses don't get to right the rules. Negotiations are typically "do it or you're fired" which in a bad economy gives the bosses a huge lead.
@KoalaBearWarrior If you have nothing better to do but leave asshole comments on Youtube videos, aren't YOU more likely to be living in your parent's basement? Fucking loser.
The entire argument similar to so many other philosophical disputes is the attempt to construct a principle axiom of justice. The two extremes I am this far aware of are Kant's categorical and Nietzsche's Ubermensch. I think Marx is a Kantian and Rand is a Nietzschean.
Considering that objectivist theory is supposedly grounded in empiricism, do you not find it strange that it requires its own system of metaphysics?
Also, in response to the earlier posts regarding 'The Fountainhead': When the character Roark blows up "his" building (in an act of terrorism) he destroys not just the product of his own labour, but also the product of many other people's labour (all the construction workers/ engineers etc involved).
You may be an expert on Ayn Rand, but I think your ideas about Marxism are very superficial.
Why do you think that Karl Marx was a collectivist? He was a communist, that is sure, but on several occasions he was very critical of collectivist and authoritarian approaches in the emerging labour movement, including those of Engels.
Why do all objectivists look like social rejects who had no friends growing up? I think that is why social outcasts such as yourself gravitate towards objectivism because it moralizes extreme individualism and therefore validates your solitude and condition of being rejected by others.
@XOmniverse Projecting those sides of oneself onto somebody else momentarely lets the projecting person see his fears outside of himself. And hence feels like he is having control of those insecurities. So statements like those above, says more about that person than the on who recieves that projection.
However I dont see your point at all. How can owing captial be seen as work?
@DanMorgan98 I'm objectivists and probably have more friends than you, asshole! Try arguing with FACTS, rather than opinions. It might actually work. And if you had friends, you might have one who is an individualist/objectivist who could explain it to you. Or is your thick shell of ignorance and blatant rude stupidity just a turn-off for most of the people you know?
Yikes, man. Why do so many Objectivists act like this? What's rational about using words like 'asshole', 'ignorance', 'stupidity', etc. Do you not realize that it sounds like a child throwing a tantrum? If he has made a mistake of logic, point to that fact and leave it at that. I'm saying this as a person who would like to know the logic of the reasoning without all of the extra emotional baggage. When someone must resort to name calling, I wonder if they have any reason at all.
@DanMorgan98 Why do people just criticize the person and not their argument sometimes. This has nothing to do with the argument the video presenter makes. This is an ad hominem attack.
Im young, im often confused. I read a few Ayn Rand novels, i loved them. I just don't know where to begin, or even if i should be reading into it more?
Although Greenspan did write some brilliant articles decades ago...He then went on the be the head of the federal reserve...so that kind of severs any genuine connection to Ayn Rand in the ideological sense...
Henry Paulson was the last secretary of the treasury...That Absolutely disqualifies him from being in any way in line with Objectivist principles...Considering all of the economic intervention which the treasury engages in...
Roark only designed it didn't he? So the workers built it right? So that means that they did most of the work, and that they should decide what happens to it right? Not some selfish vandal, or the shareholders!
Roark was not upset because he didn't get his "impression" on the work. Roark was angered because a contractual agreement was broken. The only price of his service was to follow his design. Roark was robbed of his labors, so he simply took back what was his. The buildings could not exist without his labors thus they were destroyed.
I was thinking, what if they made a version of the Fountainhead where this architect is ordered to design a new Death Row as Schwarzenegger is now going all out to spend tax savings on a new one... and then he blew up the new Death Row at the end. The howls of outrage from Republicans would be deafening.
The content of this Roark character's speech suggests someone who is not all there... someone who appears almost to be mad, perhaps caused by society, who knows... yet he seems to be described as a straight hero with no real flaws, and the court acquits him if I'm not mistaken... that is not very realistic at all. Why not have a character who has these warped points of view because his individuality had been suppressed and still has to bear that burden of being convicted...
If this is about standing up for one's work despite everyone hating it, of encouraging people to believe in themselves, this is not something to turn into a political philosophy and certainly not a justification for terrorism. You can encourage people to stand up for themselves and their work, to promote their individual desire to create without dividing the world into this elect few and the damned, the Looters... because Roark may stand up for his vision, he still is not his own boss...
By his own definition, Roark is a looter sucking on the government's teat... he is a terrorist and vandal too. He destroyed the work of so many people, productive work... all destroyed in an act of terrorism. He said that that "I do not recognize anyones right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine." - Sorry, but you were paid for your work... now you blow it up... Rand here advocates that workers blow up the product of wage work?
you are wrong. roark was never paid to design Cortland. he blew it up because he was promised by keating that it would be done his way. his only reward was knowing he built it his own way. demolishing a building when no one gets hurt is not an act of terrorism. read the book.
The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary...The creators concern is the conquest of nature. The parasites concern is the conquest of men...The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. ...
The only way you don't need others possibly is if you're sitting on unlimited supplies of cash. You also must be an inventor or churn out stuff. Otherwise, you're a looter.
You really, really don't grasp what Rand is saying at all. Interacting with others is not what is meant by second handing, and if you grasped what you were reading in the book, this should be very apparent.
A second hander is someone who relies on others to provide him with happiness, esteem, etc. Someone who has no sense of self at all.
A Looter is that which is not a Producer. A Producer is an inventor sitting on quadrillions of dollars of cash - a person who doesn't exist. That's at least what "The Fountainhead" says.
Hey, it's pronounced "Prood - hon" Proudhon... Rand makes no sense at all. ... that architect is a peon who is a cog in the machine. That architect is not ponying up the dough. If he wants to make a sculpture on his own dime let him... Dictatorship of the Architecturate, perhaps?
Hey, you, in most cases, Rand would see the architect as just a looter... it's the big financier who ponied up the dough who is the real Creator... but wait, it's the Government commissioned the building... so the Government is the Creator... Unless Architecture is somehow a different profession that bestows one as a Creator... the only possible Rand Creator that fits her description is a Super-Genius Inventor sitting on a landfill of cash... a person who can't possibly exist.
I don't think you really understand Rand's distinction between a looter and a producer.
A looter would be someone that takes without producing. Someone with capital to spend on a building is only a looter if he acquired that capital through force or fraud rather than productive achievement.
Ayn Rand is the continuation of the enlightenment, while marxism is a step backward and I find it offencive to call any socialist liberal it implises liberty which is one thing it can not have in order to work. marxism is ancien regime with healcare benifits
Marxism is an extension of Malthusianism. It is premised on scarcity. Like Malthus, he insisted on thinking in zero sum terms.
If you want to understand Marx, don't read Manifesto, Das Kapital, etc. Read his essay Judenfragge. Don't examine the particulars of his quack theories. Examine the psychological origins of ideas. He was fundamentally a self loathing Jew & the capitalist in Marx is only a projection of the internalisation of the antisemite's charicature of Jews.
Marxism is an extension of Malthusianism? ROFL! He took many anti-Malthus stances, like his stance on the Iron Law Wages. Premised on scarcity? Zero sum games? Where are you getting this? Marx attacked many socialist ideals premised on scarcity throughout his life.
The remaining portion of your argument devolves into a psychoanalysis of Marx upon the basis of Judenfrage, and you go on to extrapolate this into an invalidation of Marxism.
No, I regard Marxism as invalid on its face. Thus I look for the motives for his constructing his fantastic explanation of the world. The caricature of the Jew presented in Judenfrage is the proto-type of idea of the capitalist.
Perhaps it would have been more precise to say that he reacted to Malthus. People can & do start w/ similar premises & draw opposite conclusions. Communism is Marx's attempt to escape the supposed moral dilemma that Malthus presented.
Okay, so you are basically saying that because Marx has self realization issues (he was a Jewish Anti-Semite) he devoted his life to bashing capitalism. Such a claim is silly on its face.
Arguing Marxism is reactionary to Malthusianism really makes no sense if you understand either polymath, and this happens to be the first time I have ever heard someone make this argument. Marx argued against a lot of Malthusian ideals.
If you were to look into it, there was a general divide amongst the socialists of the mid 19th century. One half, led by Ferdinand Lassalle, held a critique of capitalism predicated on Malthusian ideals, primarily the Iron Law of Wages. The other was led by Marx and was predicated much more on other ideals.
"...much more on other ideals." A term of art, are you tacitly acceeding to the idea that zero sum thinking is found in Marxism? I have no interest in the technical argot used on this issue. Basically Marx thought the rich got richer ERGO the poor got poorer. A childish notion no matter how it is tricked out rhetorically. This is zero sum thinking.
I am defining Marxism as the writings and Ideas of Marx. I accede nothing other than a portion of Marx's followers did adhere to "zero-sum" thinking. Notice the established dichotomy of "Marxism" and "Marx's followers."
"Marx thought the rich got richer ERGO the poor got poorer. " Err.. No, look up "Surplus Value." That is a super generalization that you are disingenuously using to imply a Malthusian context for Marxism. He thought the poor would work harder, but not get poorer per se.
Marx has been utterly refuted by history. Arguing about his theories or trying to redeem them w/ new supplimental theories makes about as much sense as defending the Ptolemaic model of the universe. It is far more valuable to understand why people commonly saw things as Ptolemy did. Similarly, the Marxist religion needs to be understood in group psychological terms.
It provides an apocalyptic end times & other elaborate mythologies. Even a millenial kingdom. That is Marx's real appeal.
His parents wanted him to aspire to a priveleged status as a "Christian" gentleman. They sent him to uni to gain access to this class. They dispised him as social climbing Jew according to their own bigotry. This deeply wounded him. His "theories" are little more then a fantastic psychological vengeance on that had hurt him.
He hated his parents (by extension his whole Jewish patrimony) for alienating him from his natural community & the gentry that rejected him.
The process of looking at an individual or "his life" rather than their arguments or "his words" is an ad homminem fallacy. Marx's Jewish parents could have chopped off his dick and sent him to school with no pants, it's irrelevant.
It is not an ad hominem, I am not arguing over Marxist doctrine. That is like an atheist arguing the Bible w/ a Fundy preacher. Marx misunderstood his own day, history, & utterly failed to make sound predictions about the future. Atleast Ptolemy could predict eclipses.
Get your head out of the solypsistic maze of the Marxist jargon. I will not try to out talk you in your native patois.
A man's life says more about him then his words. Marx's life utterly belays his worship as a prophet.
I'm not trying to have formal forensic debate w/ you. I am trying to understand, or rather trying to get you to understand the real psychological origins of Marxist thought. Surely, you have heard f Marxism being treated as a kind secular religion or superstition, where the Jungian evocative imagery is more important then the formal logical coherence of the system.
Ad hominem is irrelevant, since history has refuted Marx, why does the cult survive? What impulses does it fullfill for voteries.
How so it has more simularity's to the ancien regime., but instead of difine right it has philosophical right. King or primer both force their will on the population and steal from everyone else and give nothing back. At least capitalism produces something.
Your argument(s) can be easily turned against you and are wrong on every premise. If you would like me to point this out in detail, just reply to this comment. I think it would be best if you were to think this out for your self.
What I meant to say is that marx's ideas often creates a very small rich majority (party leaders) and everyone forced to work for them. Animal farm is the typical result of these ideas. Tell me a successful marxist state and I will shut up, if not all talk will get nowhere. empirical data is far greater worth than philsophy. The hutterites are the only group I can think of, but their not marxists.
Did you just say "...a very small rich majority..." ?
An actual implementation of Marx's ideal structure of society only occurred for two months--the Paris Commune. Every "Marxist State" was antithetical to Marx's notion of "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Marx actually dismissed the notion of a "worker's state" during his lifetime. Since you are conflating Marxist-Leninism with the notions of Marx, treating "communist-states" as "empirical" refutations of Marx is erroneous.
Now, back to your original comment. The right of capitalists to their money is justified ethically (philosophically) and what constitutes "theft" is completely subjective. Marx made a case for capitalists stealing the fruits of the worker's labor. How do you know that the capitalists are not stealing from their workers?
Finally, your implication that Lenism, Maoism, or Stalinism do not produce anything is entirely unsubstantiated.
Government do not produce much therefore one must insure that it remains the right size for the conditions, unforturantly marx proposes that the whole nation is the government which makes life difficult. Also marx's ideas are out dated like philosophes which he inturn rejected it was an idea it died now go on with life. No scienfic inquire support him now, at the time his idea were ligitimate now that are old a old hat just like the Ptolemaic universe. Do not be as ignorate as the pope.
Governments don't produce much by what standards? Why does Marx's notion of complete government control make life difficult? It worked quite well in Paris. Marx rejected his own ideas? Do not be ignorant and take what you were taught in school as the ideas of Karl Marx. Actually go out and learn what his intentions actually were.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I have rejected Rand at this point, But I would only agree with socialism if and only if it is under a theocracy. It requires an ethics base to be able to work.
What socialists can't understand is that the concept of "rights" is entirely individual in nature. No group can have rights, only individuals. When you attempt to give groups "rights" as in civil "rights", you necessarily squelch real rights in the process. For example, you can force people to hire minorities only by eliminating everyone's right to free trade. You can's enforce group "rights" while respecting individual rights no matter how honorable your intentions.
there's nothing wrong with collectivism, as long as it is not imposed. Therefore you can have pockets of socialist societies in a libertarian society.
agreed completely unfortuately most "socialists" for for imposing their beliefs on others. Other groups such as community groups or churches pool their money to help each other, this is the true 'social'ist group. the progressives, socialists, and communists are just facists with a mask. I am not name calling look up the definition.
There is nothing about voluntary communes which should be illegal, but why would you pay your plumber the same as your doctor?
You cant say something is moral, if the basis of it is injustice
Injustice harms both parties, because it is a sacrifice for one party, and thus the other party is destroying that which sustains it. it creates an unsustainable relationship.
Well, try and convince a socialist on that one, I just use the argument that you be as socialist or racist or whatever you want as long as you don't impose it on me or my buddies, but I certainly agree with what you're saying, and I realize that it certainly doesn't work out.
I would doubt that in many ways. E.g. Libertarians deify the private property, while the socialists (either immediately or in longterm) seek to abolish it (on the means of production). Let's imagine that the socialists of a city-state (with the support of 90% pop) decide to nationalize the oil (or simply collect a tax). The libertarian authority should try to crack down on them and protect the "sacred" right (as long as the oil-owners won't give up the oil or money voluntarily).
@timfidotru Libertarian can mean one million different things. All libertarians have in common is opposition against the state. The state is a result of the willingness of people to aggress towards one another and justify the nature of their actions with trying to cast a fog on reality. (social contract, you have a voice, run for office yourself, all that bs).
You can't abolish private property, it comes from self ownership, that's just a fact of reality. th socialism that you talk of is force.
@Sivels I don't think the opposite would work though. Libertarians would be constantly generating refugees trying to flee starvation and terrible living conditions.
Good video, it's interesting to me that the leftists reject the idea of property for the individual, yet embrace it for the collective. Obviously they believe that property can be acquired legitimately, but they don't offer arguments to refute the idea of individual property.
some of the happiest people live(d) in tribes where they owned little or nothing and don't/didn't beieve in ownership of land e.g the original native americans. Under capitalism, we need to retain the fruits of our labour to be happy because we work so hard for it and having our own ground means we have a place where we can try to be ourselves and freer from pressures. However those who don't own the means of production only retain a portion of what they produce.
Workers don't speak with one voice. Nor does any "group". Power seekers proclaiming to be the voice of the "people" inevitably come along and dispose of the previous corrupt regimes. They start off by deciding every ones needs and strip everyone of all ownership (after all they should know since they are the "voice" of the people) so they build zero tolerance, bloody regimes to stay in power. Dictatorship exists at both ends of the political spectrum.
Comparing Karl Marx with Ayn Rand is like comparing Beethoven with Brittany Spears. Marx was a great, if flawed, thinker -- much like Adam Smith, Ricardo, etc. Rand, on the other hand, was just a shameless publicity-seeking, self-proclaimed "thinker", with all the literary skill of a hack mystery writer. She had a talent for PR.
The laughable thing re. Rand is how her followers consider themselves to be akin to John Galt - in Rand's world, a genius. Who is John Galt? Definitely not Rand fans.
For the Rand fans out there, the comment I'm replying to is a perfect example of the thesis in her essay, "Extremism, or The Art of Smearing". in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".
Rangergranger here chooses to smear an idea instead of arguing one based on merit. A "..shamelss publicity-seeking, self-proclaimed 'thinker'"? Where did you get that idea?
"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."Definition of Communism
Both Marx and Keynes, then, though for different reason, recognize the capitalist dilemma in a declining rate of capital accumulation. Keynes diagnoses its cause as a lack of incentive to invest. Marx, looking behind the lack of incentive, finds the reason for it in the social character of production as a production of capital.
Keynes does not regard crisis and depression as necessary aspects of capital formation; they are such only under laissez-faire conditions, and then only in the sense that the economic equilibrium does not include full employment. For Marx, however, a continuous capital accumulation presupposes periods of crises and depression, for the crisis is the only equilibrium mechanism which operates in capitalism with regard to its development.
Keynes criticism of the neo-classical theory through its criticism of classical theory. In its essentials, then, Keynes revolution consists in a partial re-statement of some of Marxs arguments against the capitalist economy and its theory. Keynes did not study Marx, and he did not feel the need for doing so because he identified Marxs theories with those of the classicists. By opposing the classical theory Keynes thought he was opposing.
Marx as well. In reality, however, he dealt with neither of these theories but with the neo-classical market theory which had no longer any significant connection with the ideas of Smith and Ricardo. Marxs critique of classical economy, however, resembles Keynes criticism of the neo-classicists, although it cuts deeper than Keynes because the classicists had been profounder thinkers than their apologetic emulators, and because Marx was not a bourgeois reformer.
Both Marx and Keynes, then, though for different reason, recognize the capitalist dilemma in a declining rate of capital accumulation. Keynes diagnoses its cause as a lack of incentive to invest. Marx, looking behind the lack of incentive, finds the reason for it in the social character of production as a production of capital.
Isn't this because Marx didn't realise that the means of production is the mind? Thus to Marx, the workers own the factory; he didn't realise that this means they own the mind of the inventor and the businessman.
However, the video is pretty well done. If Ayn Rand truly said that "in order to be happy, human beings have to be able to retain the product of their labor", then she was indeed correct. Cross-reference this with Marx's concept of the "alienation" that occurs when people are divorced from any control over the product of their labor.
This is why many Marxists have proposed eventually moving to non-transferable labor vouchers instead of money.
Of course, gambling one's money on the market and winning is not a matter of labor, but of luck.
And addressing your confusion about "individuals" owning "their indivudual means of production", you are talking about an artisan economy. Such an economy has not been plausible for at least 600 years.
Do you not understand what it is about capitalism that has been so revolutionary? It is the *extensive division of labor* capitalism has introduced. Adam Smith gave the famous example of pins.
David Ricardo extended the idea to an international division of labor with his "comparative advantage" principle.
The division of labor gets us to where we are today. There is no abandoning it; we cannot go back. Thus, workplaces are permanently and irreversibly collectivized. The only question now is whether ownership of workplaces will also be collectivized, or if we will continue to live in a tyranny of capital over those who by their labor increase it.
Well I'm not a Mutualist, I'm an anarcho communist, but I'll try to describe it. basically they hold that the only property you have a right to is what you activly use. Essentially the "commons" would not be owned by the community as a whole but owned by whoever was using them. Everything would be based on the labor theory of value as no artificial scarcities could be created like they can be in capitalism. The world would basically be a system of petty borgeusie. Look up some Proudhon for more.
i see. so the only issue that you would have with mutualism is that you don't believe that the individual is entitled to any property, is that a fair assesment?
and where exactly would the "market" aspect fit in to this?
I beleive there is personal property and private property, the 2 must be distinguished. Personal property is what you activly use (your house ect) private property would be like a house that you rent to someone (which mutualists oppose too) or private ownership of the means of production.
Mutualism is free market, but anti capitalist. Anarcho communism is a gift economy.
Sharing is caring put into economics. People know that if they don't produce things don't get done and if they produce for others then others are going to produce for them. Say I build houses and you farm the collective farm(though we are free to change jobs)you give to the everyone as do I, there is no contract that if I build you a house then you give me X amount of food. I build your house because you feed me(as well as everyone else)you may not even need a house, but you still farmfor all
a true communist society is moneyless or marketless,stateless and classless. i dont see how that is the same as ayn rand's authoritarian philosophy of capitalism
Marx doesn't demand that you should devote yourself to his interpretation of things, he simply conveys his ideas based on his research and observation. Ayn Rand is more authoritarian in her ideas-demanding that objectivism is seen as the true expression of what it means to be human. Marx himself pointed to flaws in his own ideas, Rand defended hers to the point of absurdity and contradiction. One was true, the other overzealous. -Watch Rand on Donahue- not overzealous but quit awkward!!!
Can't it be in your "RATIONAL" self interest to devote your life to others?- It really pissed me off that you put Rand's name next to Marx's. That's the only reason why I'm conveying these ideas here. Rand's individualism is ridiculous-she needs her own metaphysics for it to work.
That's not the same as devoting some of your time and energy towards someone you love. The latter does not involve a complete sacrifice of your humanity and life as a slave to someone else.
Her metaphysics are mostly the same as Aristotle's, so to call them "her own" is a bit disingenous.
The food that you eat was not produced by you yet you eat it. According to Ayn Rand, in this sense, you have no right to eat that food. That's the true stupidity of the individualism that Ayn Rand is positing.
I'm attacking her individualism. Rand says that it is "immoral" to care for others or to "live by another". As stated in my previous comment, we all in some way live by others. Ayn Rand's individualism ignores the relationships people have to one another and the effect people have on each other. She ignores the fact that, either directly or indirectly, we are all connected. We don't "live by ourselves" we live by others.
Economics according to whom, Ayn Rand? I'm simply attacking Rand's individualism and metaphysics. Ayn Rand claims she doesn't believe in god or religion because they are unreal things, which I totally agree with. She still believes in Capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is based on abstractions and unreal things e.g MONEY.That's why Marx believed in neither god nor money!! Chair now recognizes XOmniverse.
Abstract does not mean the same thing as unreal. All thoughts are abstract.
Money is a tool with concrete representations that serves a concrete purpose. I told you to go read an economics text book because this is basic knowledge.
Karl Marx was not similar to Ayn Rand at all I think. Through the division of labor, everyone eventually depends on everyone in a community. We live in major urban centers and the fact that we live off of others, directly or indirectly, means that Ayn Rand's ULTRA individualism is dead wrong. Don't forget that money is an abstraction. The cloths your wearing was made by someone else. The fact that it was purchased w/ money is meaningless-your cloths exist because of someone else not you.
It seems like you don't understand Ayn Rand, individualism, or how trade works.
Money is just an abstraction, but its one that is formed to ease trading between people. It's far more efficient than bartering.
Ayn Rand, nor any other individualist I am aware of, has ever denied that men live in society. The reason for this is that survival and well-being are far easier to maintain if labor is divided and people can specialize and trade.
rand was, to my knowlage, the only thinker to make a thorough and coherent rationalization of capitalism. she criticized the libertarian party for laking a philosophical backbown and merely persuing economic interests instead. she said that in a truely capitalist society there would be no room for religious ethics, which makes the modern-day christian right seem awful hypocritical.
It's humorous to see her non wavering appeal to capitalism, yet the Ayn Rand Institute, donates her books to teachers, is a 501(3)(c) non-profit organization and accepts monetary contributions. I love those wavering principles :)
Good video comrade. I personally had never noticed the similarities between Rand's and Marx's idea of workers, artists etc. retaining the fruits of their labour. I suppose I've been slightly blinded by a mechanical disdain for Rand's politics. Just a point about Marx and communism: the communist worldview is ultimately a libertarian one, even from the traditional "Marxist" perspective.
She was against government intervention in all cases, that is clearly the opposite way communism went, one could even argue that it's a way more pure, more fair form of capitalism than we have today.
Communism & fascism = COMPLETE government control over the citizens. Capitalism = letting people do things in their own way.
I think she has more similarities with the founding fathers than with Karl Marx- it's a shame some people can't get over the "shes russian & russians are communists" thing..
rand proposes that people should produce for their own value, whereas communism proposes people should produce for everyone's benefit. these are polar opposites.
These similarities that you and Tooltime see between Rand and Marx don't exist
A construction worker, by building an architect's building, is not controlling his own means of production. He is doing Roark's means of production. The physical worker's means of production, w/o the mental workers, would be hunting and gathering. Reread the part of Galt's speech about the pyramid of ability
I agree that Marx just misunderstood the Enlightenment and that he was a collectivist. He was shallow
Didn't watch the other vid myself but I see a few other similarities. Rand has a binary class structure - first and second handers in a war of exploitation and false consciousness (mystics of mind) she just defined it more spiritually than economically. There is, at least in her fiction and the subconsciousnesses of her followers, a final class war and utopia. Also, I haven't researched it but it seems like the lack of conflict between rational minds could be a basis for a class consciousness...
Among the Galts, Reardons etc. I honestly think Rand did a lot to cover her Marxist tendencies like she did her Nietzschean ones (the rewrites of her early fiction for example) but that's just a gut instinct, I have no way to prove it.
This has been flagged as spam show
Marx was just a plagurist who ripped off the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and re-packaged it.
americaisbacktrump 3 months ago
I disagree with your view that Marx was exclusively a collectivist. He did not argue that a 'collective' of workers (a 'soviet', if you like) needs to retain the benefits of production rather than the individual. You're missing a whole section where he looks nostalgically at the old artisan professions where every producer (worker) retained all of his production. The distinction is that the collective of the proletariat is what he sees as needed for a political revolution.
strikedead 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
United we stand, divided we fall.
sc0pl355 4 months ago
That is the natural byproduct of building an economic system on the false idea that an individual, doing what is good for themselves, will benefit the society at large. Turns out that individuals (or group of individuals) doing what is best for themselves will always sacrifice the good of the greater group if it means more profits for themselves. We see this all the time. The Cuyahoga river fire, The BP spill, the financial crash etc.
whynotsocialism 1 year ago 3
"If I supposed modern state-controlled corporatism, you would have a valid point" Yes, and what kind of political/economic state do we live in? A corporate plutocracy! We don't have to suppose, we just have to open our eyes. I agree with libertarians on a lot, and would have identified as such years ago. The problem is it always becomes a race to the bottom. Humans, motivated by profit (greed), will always resort to coercion whether overt, subtle, whether governmental or private.
whynotsocialism 1 year ago
Your idealogical analysis goes nowhere when it comes to real life. How many McDonald's employees or Walmart employees are truly able to stand up and negotiate with their employers? Come on dude. I dare you to go tell your boss you want to renegotiate your compensation and benefits...Good luck with that. Your argument for 'opting out' amounts to if you don't like what your getting paid, then leave, you are free to starve and freeze if you want.
whynotsocialism 1 year ago 5
@whynotsocialism If I supposed modern state-controlled corporatism, you would have a valid point. My point is that wage labor is not INTRINSICALLY coercive, not that it cannot be coercive in an inherently coercive environment.
As far as renegotiating terms with a boss, people do that all the time. Plenty of people get raises by asking for them. Plenty of people quit their jobs when they dislike the deal they have. And nobody starves just from quitting their job.
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse They could very well starve under a Randian style reign of terror. Those people don't starve because of unemployment and other social services.
colddrake80 1 month ago
@whynotsocialism Without a minimum wage, a free market ensures 100% employment. In an economy with 100% employment, competition among employers would be such that McDonald's attitude would not likely be 'go starve and freeze'. That being said, in a free job market, a job such as McDonald's worker would probably find a relative stable, agreed upon value with individual variations between micro-economies and the peculiar values of employees compared to each other.
ArthurEiss 9 months ago
@whynotsocialism Funny but when I was working as an anylst contractor, I told my employer to give me a raise or loose me. Guess what i got more money. If you're good you can do it. If you're ok you need to get with others. No major groups need to be created.
pcgamernum1 1 month ago
Wage labor is not the exchange of money for labor, but rather money for hours. Labor is never fairly compensated in a wage system since any labor expended by the producer (worker) beyond the level of wage compensation becomes the property (taken by coercion) of the owner. This is called alienated labor value. You should go read some Marx.
whynotsocialism 1 year ago
@whynotsocialism It's not coercion if the laborer can opt out. So long as it is a voluntary agreement, terms can be negotiated and the amount of time or labor being performed for money can be discussed, with the option of either party opting out.
You should go read some Rand.
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse You seem to suffer under the delusion that the bosses don't get to right the rules. Negotiations are typically "do it or you're fired" which in a bad economy gives the bosses a huge lead.
colddrake80 1 month ago
So I'm assuming your against wage labor, right?
whynotsocialism 1 year ago
@whynotsocialism I'm not against an agreement to exchange labor for money, no.
XOmniverse 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker There's no such thing as God. Now please stop spamming my channel.
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse quoted by a true atheist living in his parents basement
KoalaBearWarrior 1 year ago
@KoalaBearWarrior If you have nothing better to do but leave asshole comments on Youtube videos, aren't YOU more likely to be living in your parent's basement? Fucking loser.
XOmniverse 1 year ago
Im With Ayn
redpepper75 1 year ago 3
The entire argument similar to so many other philosophical disputes is the attempt to construct a principle axiom of justice. The two extremes I am this far aware of are Kant's categorical and Nietzsche's Ubermensch. I think Marx is a Kantian and Rand is a Nietzschean.
CarloMarx13 1 year ago
Considering that objectivist theory is supposedly grounded in empiricism, do you not find it strange that it requires its own system of metaphysics?
Also, in response to the earlier posts regarding 'The Fountainhead': When the character Roark blows up "his" building (in an act of terrorism) he destroys not just the product of his own labour, but also the product of many other people's labour (all the construction workers/ engineers etc involved).
9mclaus 1 year ago
You may be an expert on Ayn Rand, but I think your ideas about Marxism are very superficial.
Why do you think that Karl Marx was a collectivist? He was a communist, that is sure, but on several occasions he was very critical of collectivist and authoritarian approaches in the emerging labour movement, including those of Engels.
Scherbenkacks 1 year ago 5
hmm, can you provide a quote about Marx's criticism of collectivism and/or authroitarian approches in the emerging labour movement?
Guevaristas 1 year ago
Randbotism is an idiot's philosophy.
bapyou 1 year ago
Why do all objectivists look like social rejects who had no friends growing up? I think that is why social outcasts such as yourself gravitate towards objectivism because it moralizes extreme individualism and therefore validates your solitude and condition of being rejected by others.
DanMorgan98 2 years ago
Why do some Youtube commenters act like psychologizing assholes?
XOmniverse 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anyone who is an objectivist or sympathizes with the objectivist point of view is my enemy.
DanMorgan98 2 years ago
Then you're at the wrong channel. Go away.
XOmniverse 2 years ago 6
@XOmniverse anonymity
xkeltoix 2 years ago
@XOmniverse Projecting those sides of oneself onto somebody else momentarely lets the projecting person see his fears outside of himself. And hence feels like he is having control of those insecurities. So statements like those above, says more about that person than the on who recieves that projection.
However I dont see your point at all. How can owing captial be seen as work?
pi05pm3 1 year ago
@DanMorgan98 ahaha hit the nail on the head.
victor1eremita 1 year ago
@DanMorgan98 I'm objectivists and probably have more friends than you, asshole! Try arguing with FACTS, rather than opinions. It might actually work. And if you had friends, you might have one who is an individualist/objectivist who could explain it to you. Or is your thick shell of ignorance and blatant rude stupidity just a turn-off for most of the people you know?
gl0gg 1 year ago
@gl0gg
Yikes, man. Why do so many Objectivists act like this? What's rational about using words like 'asshole', 'ignorance', 'stupidity', etc. Do you not realize that it sounds like a child throwing a tantrum? If he has made a mistake of logic, point to that fact and leave it at that. I'm saying this as a person who would like to know the logic of the reasoning without all of the extra emotional baggage. When someone must resort to name calling, I wonder if they have any reason at all.
SBRslacker00 1 year ago
@DanMorgan98 Why do people just criticize the person and not their argument sometimes. This has nothing to do with the argument the video presenter makes. This is an ad hominem attack.
natedaug1 1 year ago
@DanMorgan98 Couldn't have said it better myself.
librarianeric 1 year ago
@DanMorgan98 The same could be said about Marxists, look at that confused old loner Slavoj Zizek.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@DanMorgan98 This will clarify it for you-
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Sir Winston Churchill 1944
redsrfreaks 1 year ago
@DanMorgan98 Incisive, but brutally frank, insight,
aeiou99999 1 year ago
Im young, im often confused. I read a few Ayn Rand novels, i loved them. I just don't know where to begin, or even if i should be reading into it more?
EmilyCan0 2 years ago
Ayn Rand and Karl Marx were both athiests, egomanical sociopaths and rabid idealogues. Both were also full of shit.
Sadly, Ayn Rand groupies like Alan Greenspan and Henry Paulson didn't Go Galt before they wrecked the US economy.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Uh....
Although Greenspan did write some brilliant articles decades ago...He then went on the be the head of the federal reserve...so that kind of severs any genuine connection to Ayn Rand in the ideological sense...
Henry Paulson was the last secretary of the treasury...That Absolutely disqualifies him from being in any way in line with Objectivist principles...Considering all of the economic intervention which the treasury engages in...
so...your wrong.
1337melee 2 years ago
>Socialism
>Theocracy
Wut?
desu2234 2 years ago
Roark only designed it didn't he? So the workers built it right? So that means that they did most of the work, and that they should decide what happens to it right? Not some selfish vandal, or the shareholders!
desu2234 2 years ago
proud hoom ? heh I thought it was pronounced more like Prood (h)ome. (minus the "h") check out 2:55 ish
ltfallin 2 years ago
Roark was not upset because he didn't get his "impression" on the work. Roark was angered because a contractual agreement was broken. The only price of his service was to follow his design. Roark was robbed of his labors, so he simply took back what was his. The buildings could not exist without his labors thus they were destroyed.
hsfbunny 2 years ago
I was thinking, what if they made a version of the Fountainhead where this architect is ordered to design a new Death Row as Schwarzenegger is now going all out to spend tax savings on a new one... and then he blew up the new Death Row at the end. The howls of outrage from Republicans would be deafening.
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
The content of this Roark character's speech suggests someone who is not all there... someone who appears almost to be mad, perhaps caused by society, who knows... yet he seems to be described as a straight hero with no real flaws, and the court acquits him if I'm not mistaken... that is not very realistic at all. Why not have a character who has these warped points of view because his individuality had been suppressed and still has to bear that burden of being convicted...
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
Comment removed
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
If this is about standing up for one's work despite everyone hating it, of encouraging people to believe in themselves, this is not something to turn into a political philosophy and certainly not a justification for terrorism. You can encourage people to stand up for themselves and their work, to promote their individual desire to create without dividing the world into this elect few and the damned, the Looters... because Roark may stand up for his vision, he still is not his own boss...
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
The Fountainhead was not really about political philosophy. It was about ethics.
Atlas Shrugged is about political philosophy.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
By his own definition, Roark is a looter sucking on the government's teat... he is a terrorist and vandal too. He destroyed the work of so many people, productive work... all destroyed in an act of terrorism. He said that that "I do not recognize anyones right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine." - Sorry, but you were paid for your work... now you blow it up... Rand here advocates that workers blow up the product of wage work?
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
you are wrong. roark was never paid to design Cortland. he blew it up because he was promised by keating that it would be done his way. his only reward was knowing he built it his own way. demolishing a building when no one gets hurt is not an act of terrorism. read the book.
MrUncomfortableTruth 2 years ago
@lordhighexecutioner ^_^ someone hadn't read the book at the time of this comment.
keymaker2112 1 year ago
The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary...The creators concern is the conquest of nature. The parasites concern is the conquest of men...The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. ...
The only way you don't need others possibly is if you're sitting on unlimited supplies of cash. You also must be an inventor or churn out stuff. Otherwise, you're a looter.
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
You really, really don't grasp what Rand is saying at all. Interacting with others is not what is meant by second handing, and if you grasped what you were reading in the book, this should be very apparent.
A second hander is someone who relies on others to provide him with happiness, esteem, etc. Someone who has no sense of self at all.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
A Looter is that which is not a Producer. A Producer is an inventor sitting on quadrillions of dollars of cash - a person who doesn't exist. That's at least what "The Fountainhead" says.
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
Howard Roark, the hero of that story, was not rich.
I really don't know how you got that from the book.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Hey, it's pronounced "Prood - hon" Proudhon... Rand makes no sense at all. ... that architect is a peon who is a cog in the machine. That architect is not ponying up the dough. If he wants to make a sculpture on his own dime let him... Dictatorship of the Architecturate, perhaps?
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
Hey, you, in most cases, Rand would see the architect as just a looter... it's the big financier who ponied up the dough who is the real Creator... but wait, it's the Government commissioned the building... so the Government is the Creator... Unless Architecture is somehow a different profession that bestows one as a Creator... the only possible Rand Creator that fits her description is a Super-Genius Inventor sitting on a landfill of cash... a person who can't possibly exist.
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
I don't think you really understand Rand's distinction between a looter and a producer.
A looter would be someone that takes without producing. Someone with capital to spend on a building is only a looter if he acquired that capital through force or fraud rather than productive achievement.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Ayn Rand is the continuation of the enlightenment, while marxism is a step backward and I find it offencive to call any socialist liberal it implises liberty which is one thing it can not have in order to work. marxism is ancien regime with healcare benifits
threecards333 2 years ago
No, Marxism is anti-state.
VanDoodah 2 years ago 2
marxism is the extension of classical liberalism, imo.
KruZer7 2 years ago
Marxism is an extension of Malthusianism. It is premised on scarcity. Like Malthus, he insisted on thinking in zero sum terms.
If you want to understand Marx, don't read Manifesto, Das Kapital, etc. Read his essay Judenfragge. Don't examine the particulars of his quack theories. Examine the psychological origins of ideas. He was fundamentally a self loathing Jew & the capitalist in Marx is only a projection of the internalisation of the antisemite's charicature of Jews.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
Marxism is an extension of Malthusianism? ROFL! He took many anti-Malthus stances, like his stance on the Iron Law Wages. Premised on scarcity? Zero sum games? Where are you getting this? Marx attacked many socialist ideals premised on scarcity throughout his life.
The remaining portion of your argument devolves into a psychoanalysis of Marx upon the basis of Judenfrage, and you go on to extrapolate this into an invalidation of Marxism.
KruZer7 2 years ago
This constitutes an ad homminen fallacy.
Malthusian? Seriously.
KruZer7 2 years ago
No, I regard Marxism as invalid on its face. Thus I look for the motives for his constructing his fantastic explanation of the world. The caricature of the Jew presented in Judenfrage is the proto-type of idea of the capitalist.
Perhaps it would have been more precise to say that he reacted to Malthus. People can & do start w/ similar premises & draw opposite conclusions. Communism is Marx's attempt to escape the supposed moral dilemma that Malthus presented.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
Okay, so you are basically saying that because Marx has self realization issues (he was a Jewish Anti-Semite) he devoted his life to bashing capitalism. Such a claim is silly on its face.
Arguing Marxism is reactionary to Malthusianism really makes no sense if you understand either polymath, and this happens to be the first time I have ever heard someone make this argument. Marx argued against a lot of Malthusian ideals.
KruZer7 2 years ago
If you were to look into it, there was a general divide amongst the socialists of the mid 19th century. One half, led by Ferdinand Lassalle, held a critique of capitalism predicated on Malthusian ideals, primarily the Iron Law of Wages. The other was led by Marx and was predicated much more on other ideals.
KruZer7 2 years ago
"...much more on other ideals." A term of art, are you tacitly acceeding to the idea that zero sum thinking is found in Marxism? I have no interest in the technical argot used on this issue. Basically Marx thought the rich got richer ERGO the poor got poorer. A childish notion no matter how it is tricked out rhetorically. This is zero sum thinking.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
I am defining Marxism as the writings and Ideas of Marx. I accede nothing other than a portion of Marx's followers did adhere to "zero-sum" thinking. Notice the established dichotomy of "Marxism" and "Marx's followers."
"Marx thought the rich got richer ERGO the poor got poorer. " Err.. No, look up "Surplus Value." That is a super generalization that you are disingenuously using to imply a Malthusian context for Marxism. He thought the poor would work harder, but not get poorer per se.
KruZer7 2 years ago
Marx has been utterly refuted by history. Arguing about his theories or trying to redeem them w/ new supplimental theories makes about as much sense as defending the Ptolemaic model of the universe. It is far more valuable to understand why people commonly saw things as Ptolemy did. Similarly, the Marxist religion needs to be understood in group psychological terms.
It provides an apocalyptic end times & other elaborate mythologies. Even a millenial kingdom. That is Marx's real appeal.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
His parents wanted him to aspire to a priveleged status as a "Christian" gentleman. They sent him to uni to gain access to this class. They dispised him as social climbing Jew according to their own bigotry. This deeply wounded him. His "theories" are little more then a fantastic psychological vengeance on that had hurt him.
He hated his parents (by extension his whole Jewish patrimony) for alienating him from his natural community & the gentry that rejected him.
Look at his life, not words.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
The process of looking at an individual or "his life" rather than their arguments or "his words" is an ad homminem fallacy. Marx's Jewish parents could have chopped off his dick and sent him to school with no pants, it's irrelevant.
KruZer7 2 years ago
It is not an ad hominem, I am not arguing over Marxist doctrine. That is like an atheist arguing the Bible w/ a Fundy preacher. Marx misunderstood his own day, history, & utterly failed to make sound predictions about the future. Atleast Ptolemy could predict eclipses.
Get your head out of the solypsistic maze of the Marxist jargon. I will not try to out talk you in your native patois.
A man's life says more about him then his words. Marx's life utterly belays his worship as a prophet.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@1st Comment:
Beyond the ad hom, this argument has been on the topic of Malthus's relevance to Marxism.
Not all of Marx's ideas have been refuted.
@2 Comment:
Wow, what an elaborate way of saying "we should judge Marxism by the life of Marx, rather than by the doctrine itself."
KruZer7 2 years ago
I'm not trying to have formal forensic debate w/ you. I am trying to understand, or rather trying to get you to understand the real psychological origins of Marxist thought. Surely, you have heard f Marxism being treated as a kind secular religion or superstition, where the Jungian evocative imagery is more important then the formal logical coherence of the system.
Ad hominem is irrelevant, since history has refuted Marx, why does the cult survive? What impulses does it fullfill for voteries.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
How so it has more simularity's to the ancien regime., but instead of difine right it has philosophical right. King or primer both force their will on the population and steal from everyone else and give nothing back. At least capitalism produces something.
threecards333 2 years ago
Your argument(s) can be easily turned against you and are wrong on every premise. If you would like me to point this out in detail, just reply to this comment. I think it would be best if you were to think this out for your self.
KruZer7 2 years ago
What I meant to say is that marx's ideas often creates a very small rich majority (party leaders) and everyone forced to work for them. Animal farm is the typical result of these ideas. Tell me a successful marxist state and I will shut up, if not all talk will get nowhere. empirical data is far greater worth than philsophy. The hutterites are the only group I can think of, but their not marxists.
threecards333 2 years ago
Did you just say "...a very small rich majority..." ?
An actual implementation of Marx's ideal structure of society only occurred for two months--the Paris Commune. Every "Marxist State" was antithetical to Marx's notion of "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Marx actually dismissed the notion of a "worker's state" during his lifetime. Since you are conflating Marxist-Leninism with the notions of Marx, treating "communist-states" as "empirical" refutations of Marx is erroneous.
KruZer7 2 years ago
Now, back to your original comment. The right of capitalists to their money is justified ethically (philosophically) and what constitutes "theft" is completely subjective. Marx made a case for capitalists stealing the fruits of the worker's labor. How do you know that the capitalists are not stealing from their workers?
Finally, your implication that Lenism, Maoism, or Stalinism do not produce anything is entirely unsubstantiated.
KruZer7 2 years ago
Government do not produce much therefore one must insure that it remains the right size for the conditions, unforturantly marx proposes that the whole nation is the government which makes life difficult. Also marx's ideas are out dated like philosophes which he inturn rejected it was an idea it died now go on with life. No scienfic inquire support him now, at the time his idea were ligitimate now that are old a old hat just like the Ptolemaic universe. Do not be as ignorate as the pope.
threecards333 2 years ago
Governments don't produce much by what standards? Why does Marx's notion of complete government control make life difficult? It worked quite well in Paris. Marx rejected his own ideas? Do not be ignorant and take what you were taught in school as the ideas of Karl Marx. Actually go out and learn what his intentions actually were.
KruZer7 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have rejected Rand at this point, But I would only agree with socialism if and only if it is under a theocracy. It requires an ethics base to be able to work.
threecards333 2 years ago
Theocracies are wrong.
99Maic 2 years ago 2
Socialism requires a colectivist mentatality( nationalism or religion, etc).
If one does not what a colectivist society, then do not support socialism
threecards333 2 years ago
What socialists can't understand is that the concept of "rights" is entirely individual in nature. No group can have rights, only individuals. When you attempt to give groups "rights" as in civil "rights", you necessarily squelch real rights in the process. For example, you can force people to hire minorities only by eliminating everyone's right to free trade. You can's enforce group "rights" while respecting individual rights no matter how honorable your intentions.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
there's nothing wrong with collectivism, as long as it is not imposed. Therefore you can have pockets of socialist societies in a libertarian society.
Sivels 2 years ago 18
agreed completely unfortuately most "socialists" for for imposing their beliefs on others. Other groups such as community groups or churches pool their money to help each other, this is the true 'social'ist group. the progressives, socialists, and communists are just facists with a mask. I am not name calling look up the definition.
threecards333 2 years ago
what about collectivism in it's racist capacity
There is nothing about voluntary communes which should be illegal, but why would you pay your plumber the same as your doctor?
You cant say something is moral, if the basis of it is injustice
Injustice harms both parties, because it is a sacrifice for one party, and thus the other party is destroying that which sustains it. it creates an unsustainable relationship.
1337melee 2 years ago
Well, try and convince a socialist on that one, I just use the argument that you be as socialist or racist or whatever you want as long as you don't impose it on me or my buddies, but I certainly agree with what you're saying, and I realize that it certainly doesn't work out.
Sivels 2 years ago
@Sivels
Huh, you sound like the libertarian society exist(ed) somewhere,
or at least the libertarians where major political faction, which they
weren't (and will never be, I might add).
I just don't see or expect any pockets of libertarianism in the world
(while there are a bunch of leaded by the socialists already).
timfidotru 1 year ago
@timfidotru What I meant with my comment is that voluntary socialism does not contradict most libertarian principles I'm aware of.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels
I would doubt that in many ways. E.g. Libertarians deify the private property, while the socialists (either immediately or in longterm) seek to abolish it (on the means of production). Let's imagine that the socialists of a city-state (with the support of 90% pop) decide to nationalize the oil (or simply collect a tax). The libertarian authority should try to crack down on them and protect the "sacred" right (as long as the oil-owners won't give up the oil or money voluntarily).
timfidotru 1 year ago
@timfidotru Libertarian can mean one million different things. All libertarians have in common is opposition against the state. The state is a result of the willingness of people to aggress towards one another and justify the nature of their actions with trying to cast a fog on reality. (social contract, you have a voice, run for office yourself, all that bs).
You can't abolish private property, it comes from self ownership, that's just a fact of reality. th socialism that you talk of is force.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels that's EXACTLY the epiphany i had the other day.
samm1809 1 year ago
@Sivels I don't think the opposite would work though. Libertarians would be constantly generating refugees trying to flee starvation and terrible living conditions.
colddrake80 1 month ago
Ever heard of the Dark Ages?
YoDudeRock 2 years ago
Good video, it's interesting to me that the leftists reject the idea of property for the individual, yet embrace it for the collective. Obviously they believe that property can be acquired legitimately, but they don't offer arguments to refute the idea of individual property.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
Rand and Marx were both egomanical sociopaths.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Agreed, although at least Marx contributed something positive to the world (and I don't mean communism).
Ricardo72 2 years ago
continued. Marx thought we should own all of it though collectively
heliotropezzz333 2 years ago
some of the happiest people live(d) in tribes where they owned little or nothing and don't/didn't beieve in ownership of land e.g the original native americans. Under capitalism, we need to retain the fruits of our labour to be happy because we work so hard for it and having our own ground means we have a place where we can try to be ourselves and freer from pressures. However those who don't own the means of production only retain a portion of what they produce.
heliotropezzz333 2 years ago
Workers don't speak with one voice. Nor does any "group". Power seekers proclaiming to be the voice of the "people" inevitably come along and dispose of the previous corrupt regimes. They start off by deciding every ones needs and strip everyone of all ownership (after all they should know since they are the "voice" of the people) so they build zero tolerance, bloody regimes to stay in power. Dictatorship exists at both ends of the political spectrum.
G. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' tells us this.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago
Comparing Karl Marx with Ayn Rand is like comparing Beethoven with Brittany Spears. Marx was a great, if flawed, thinker -- much like Adam Smith, Ricardo, etc. Rand, on the other hand, was just a shameless publicity-seeking, self-proclaimed "thinker", with all the literary skill of a hack mystery writer. She had a talent for PR.
The laughable thing re. Rand is how her followers consider themselves to be akin to John Galt - in Rand's world, a genius. Who is John Galt? Definitely not Rand fans.
rangergranger 2 years ago 15
@rangergranger
For the Rand fans out there, the comment I'm replying to is a perfect example of the thesis in her essay, "Extremism, or The Art of Smearing". in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".
Rangergranger here chooses to smear an idea instead of arguing one based on merit. A "..shamelss publicity-seeking, self-proclaimed 'thinker'"? Where did you get that idea?
SomeUsefulIdiot 1 year ago
well said.
that TOOL guy is appropriately named.
xTjPx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Che Guevara > Ayn Rand
4Barbudos 2 years ago
I guess if you're pro-murder, then sure :P
XOmniverse 2 years ago
A Catholic priest once summed it up nicely: "The 20th century belonged to Marx, but the 21st century belongs to Ayn Rand."
learninglemur 2 years ago
"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."Definition of Communism
by Karl Marx, German Ideology (1845)
cjanne9 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Both Marx and Keynes, then, though for different reason, recognize the capitalist dilemma in a declining rate of capital accumulation. Keynes diagnoses its cause as a lack of incentive to invest. Marx, looking behind the lack of incentive, finds the reason for it in the social character of production as a production of capital.
zsylvana 2 years ago 3
Keynes does not regard crisis and depression as necessary aspects of capital formation; they are such only under laissez-faire conditions, and then only in the sense that the economic equilibrium does not include full employment. For Marx, however, a continuous capital accumulation presupposes periods of crises and depression, for the crisis is the only equilibrium mechanism which operates in capitalism with regard to its development.
zsylvana 2 years ago 2
Keynes criticism of the neo-classical theory through its criticism of classical theory. In its essentials, then, Keynes revolution consists in a partial re-statement of some of Marxs arguments against the capitalist economy and its theory. Keynes did not study Marx, and he did not feel the need for doing so because he identified Marxs theories with those of the classicists. By opposing the classical theory Keynes thought he was opposing.
zsylvana 2 years ago
Marx as well. In reality, however, he dealt with neither of these theories but with the neo-classical market theory which had no longer any significant connection with the ideas of Smith and Ricardo. Marxs critique of classical economy, however, resembles Keynes criticism of the neo-classicists, although it cuts deeper than Keynes because the classicists had been profounder thinkers than their apologetic emulators, and because Marx was not a bourgeois reformer.
zsylvana 2 years ago
Both Marx and Keynes, then, though for different reason, recognize the capitalist dilemma in a declining rate of capital accumulation. Keynes diagnoses its cause as a lack of incentive to invest. Marx, looking behind the lack of incentive, finds the reason for it in the social character of production as a production of capital.
zsylvana 2 years ago
Isn't this because Marx didn't realise that the means of production is the mind? Thus to Marx, the workers own the factory; he didn't realise that this means they own the mind of the inventor and the businessman.
dannidandannikins 3 years ago
BTW, I meant to say 300 years.
vtm20002000 3 years ago
My reply in three parts (read from top to bottom):
vtm20002000 3 years ago
First of all, Objectivism is fucking stupid.
However, the video is pretty well done. If Ayn Rand truly said that "in order to be happy, human beings have to be able to retain the product of their labor", then she was indeed correct. Cross-reference this with Marx's concept of the "alienation" that occurs when people are divorced from any control over the product of their labor.
This is why many Marxists have proposed eventually moving to non-transferable labor vouchers instead of money.
vtm20002000 3 years ago
Of course, gambling one's money on the market and winning is not a matter of labor, but of luck.
And addressing your confusion about "individuals" owning "their indivudual means of production", you are talking about an artisan economy. Such an economy has not been plausible for at least 600 years.
Do you not understand what it is about capitalism that has been so revolutionary? It is the *extensive division of labor* capitalism has introduced. Adam Smith gave the famous example of pins.
vtm20002000 3 years ago
David Ricardo extended the idea to an international division of labor with his "comparative advantage" principle.
The division of labor gets us to where we are today. There is no abandoning it; we cannot go back. Thus, workplaces are permanently and irreversibly collectivized. The only question now is whether ownership of workplaces will also be collectivized, or if we will continue to live in a tyranny of capital over those who by their labor increase it.
vtm20002000 3 years ago
i don't know what the hell mutualism is. i hear it a lot and i believe it started with proudhon but i never got what the fuck it was.
fede2 3 years ago
Non capitalist market anarchism, the only real kind of market anarchism.
jackriter 3 years ago 2
interesting. think you can give me a brief description?
fede2 3 years ago
Well I'm not a Mutualist, I'm an anarcho communist, but I'll try to describe it. basically they hold that the only property you have a right to is what you activly use. Essentially the "commons" would not be owned by the community as a whole but owned by whoever was using them. Everything would be based on the labor theory of value as no artificial scarcities could be created like they can be in capitalism. The world would basically be a system of petty borgeusie. Look up some Proudhon for more.
jackriter 3 years ago 2
i see. so the only issue that you would have with mutualism is that you don't believe that the individual is entitled to any property, is that a fair assesment?
and where exactly would the "market" aspect fit in to this?
fede2 3 years ago
I beleive there is personal property and private property, the 2 must be distinguished. Personal property is what you activly use (your house ect) private property would be like a house that you rent to someone (which mutualists oppose too) or private ownership of the means of production.
Mutualism is free market, but anti capitalist. Anarcho communism is a gift economy.
jackriter 3 years ago
if you can just tell me what a gift economy is i won't bother you anymore. i'm quite new to some of this anarchist terminology as you can tell.
fede2 3 years ago
Sharing is caring put into economics. People know that if they don't produce things don't get done and if they produce for others then others are going to produce for them. Say I build houses and you farm the collective farm(though we are free to change jobs)you give to the everyone as do I, there is no contract that if I build you a house then you give me X amount of food. I build your house because you feed me(as well as everyone else)you may not even need a house, but you still farmfor all
jackriter 3 years ago
a true communist society is moneyless or marketless,stateless and classless. i dont see how that is the same as ayn rand's authoritarian philosophy of capitalism
scatcoitus 3 years ago 2
Marx doesn't demand that you should devote yourself to his interpretation of things, he simply conveys his ideas based on his research and observation. Ayn Rand is more authoritarian in her ideas-demanding that objectivism is seen as the true expression of what it means to be human. Marx himself pointed to flaws in his own ideas, Rand defended hers to the point of absurdity and contradiction. One was true, the other overzealous. -Watch Rand on Donahue- not overzealous but quit awkward!!!
titowasagoodman1980 3 years ago 2
If someone is overzealous about "2+2=4", that doesn't change the validity of the statement itself.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Can't it be in your "RATIONAL" self interest to devote your life to others?- It really pissed me off that you put Rand's name next to Marx's. That's the only reason why I'm conveying these ideas here. Rand's individualism is ridiculous-she needs her own metaphysics for it to work.
titowasagoodman1980 3 years ago
Not to DEVOTE the entirety of your life, no.
That's not the same as devoting some of your time and energy towards someone you love. The latter does not involve a complete sacrifice of your humanity and life as a slave to someone else.
Her metaphysics are mostly the same as Aristotle's, so to call them "her own" is a bit disingenous.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
The food that you eat was not produced by you yet you eat it. According to Ayn Rand, in this sense, you have no right to eat that food. That's the true stupidity of the individualism that Ayn Rand is positing.
titowasagoodman1980 3 years ago
I'm attacking her individualism. Rand says that it is "immoral" to care for others or to "live by another". As stated in my previous comment, we all in some way live by others. Ayn Rand's individualism ignores the relationships people have to one another and the effect people have on each other. She ignores the fact that, either directly or indirectly, we are all connected. We don't "live by ourselves" we live by others.
titowasagoodman1980 3 years ago
"Rand says that it is "immoral" to care for others"
Wrong, she said it was immoral to dedicate your existence to the well-being of others. That's very different.
Almost everything you said in this comment is made up, as far as I can tell.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Economics according to whom, Ayn Rand? I'm simply attacking Rand's individualism and metaphysics. Ayn Rand claims she doesn't believe in god or religion because they are unreal things, which I totally agree with. She still believes in Capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is based on abstractions and unreal things e.g MONEY.That's why Marx believed in neither god nor money!! Chair now recognizes XOmniverse.
titowasagoodman1980 3 years ago
Abstract does not mean the same thing as unreal. All thoughts are abstract.
Money is a tool with concrete representations that serves a concrete purpose. I told you to go read an economics text book because this is basic knowledge.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Karl Marx was not similar to Ayn Rand at all I think. Through the division of labor, everyone eventually depends on everyone in a community. We live in major urban centers and the fact that we live off of others, directly or indirectly, means that Ayn Rand's ULTRA individualism is dead wrong. Don't forget that money is an abstraction. The cloths your wearing was made by someone else. The fact that it was purchased w/ money is meaningless-your cloths exist because of someone else not you.
titowasagoodman1980 3 years ago
It seems like you don't understand Ayn Rand, individualism, or how trade works.
Money is just an abstraction, but its one that is formed to ease trading between people. It's far more efficient than bartering.
Ayn Rand, nor any other individualist I am aware of, has ever denied that men live in society. The reason for this is that survival and well-being are far easier to maintain if labor is divided and people can specialize and trade.
Go read an economics text book.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
i love "atlas shrugged" but it's the only Rand book i've read. you're a smart dude. i hope the memes of civilization don't act as obstacles.
dnHooligan 3 years ago
rand was, to my knowlage, the only thinker to make a thorough and coherent rationalization of capitalism. she criticized the libertarian party for laking a philosophical backbown and merely persuing economic interests instead. she said that in a truely capitalist society there would be no room for religious ethics, which makes the modern-day christian right seem awful hypocritical.
fedeman2 3 years ago
i dont understand how ur saying randian philosophy is like communism seems to me its opposite
bonejeenyus 3 years ago
I said this one premise is similar. As a whole they are very different.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
i dont think shes saying that workers should retain the fruits of their labor. shes saying artists should own their ideas and have artistic freedom.
bonejeenyus 3 years ago
The river does not snake. It meanders.
Hamandchees3 3 years ago
my snake meanders
bonejeenyus 3 years ago
GOOD ONE
bastardrob 3 years ago
donations and contributions arent wavering from capitalism
bonejeenyus 3 years ago
It's humorous to see her non wavering appeal to capitalism, yet the Ayn Rand Institute, donates her books to teachers, is a 501(3)(c) non-profit organization and accepts monetary contributions. I love those wavering principles :)
Ciada91 3 years ago
How is that contradictory? I understand that capitalism is about profiting, but who said the Ayn Rand Institute was a business?
Hamandchees3 3 years ago
Charity is fine under capitalism, but only when it is done voluntarily and in one's own self interest, not forced upon the donators.
Nac117 3 years ago 3
Good video comrade. I personally had never noticed the similarities between Rand's and Marx's idea of workers, artists etc. retaining the fruits of their labour. I suppose I've been slightly blinded by a mechanical disdain for Rand's politics. Just a point about Marx and communism: the communist worldview is ultimately a libertarian one, even from the traditional "Marxist" perspective.
XRR 3 years ago
She was against government intervention in all cases, that is clearly the opposite way communism went, one could even argue that it's a way more pure, more fair form of capitalism than we have today.
Communism & fascism = COMPLETE government control over the citizens. Capitalism = letting people do things in their own way.
I think she has more similarities with the founding fathers than with Karl Marx- it's a shame some people can't get over the "shes russian & russians are communists" thing..
kensei85 3 years ago
Good video. A note that Prodhoun is pronounced close to 'Pru-Doan', rhymes with 'You Own'.
Cheimison 3 years ago
Duly noted.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
rand proposes that people should produce for their own value, whereas communism proposes people should produce for everyone's benefit. these are polar opposites.
893Productions 3 years ago
These similarities that you and Tooltime see between Rand and Marx don't exist
A construction worker, by building an architect's building, is not controlling his own means of production. He is doing Roark's means of production. The physical worker's means of production, w/o the mental workers, would be hunting and gathering. Reread the part of Galt's speech about the pyramid of ability
I agree that Marx just misunderstood the Enlightenment and that he was a collectivist. He was shallow
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAAHA I loved the voice in the beginning. OMG I spit coke all over my desk
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
¥T¥
THEGUARDIANSYSTEM 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Tooltime > you
xxxDeadheartxxx 3 years ago
Not in subscribers he isn't. Oh snap! No I di'int!
XOmniverse 3 years ago
haha...nice!
PeteMisener 3 years ago
Didn't watch the other vid myself but I see a few other similarities. Rand has a binary class structure - first and second handers in a war of exploitation and false consciousness (mystics of mind) she just defined it more spiritually than economically. There is, at least in her fiction and the subconsciousnesses of her followers, a final class war and utopia. Also, I haven't researched it but it seems like the lack of conflict between rational minds could be a basis for a class consciousness...
hypnolinks 3 years ago
Among the Galts, Reardons etc. I honestly think Rand did a lot to cover her Marxist tendencies like she did her Nietzschean ones (the rewrites of her early fiction for example) but that's just a gut instinct, I have no way to prove it.
hypnolinks 3 years ago
I actually did a video comparing Agorist class theory and Atlas Shrugged. You should check it out.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
for the most part.
but they smell like pee.
lol.
onlywhenprovoked 3 years ago
I gave this some though