I think people are all the same. The skin doesn't makes u different.
However most of the people who are racist don't hate the opposite race because they don't like how they look, they hate them because they are afraid of loosing their job, place to live etc, or they are angry because of these already happened.
For example if a white man looses his job somewhere in USA, and he is replaced by black man he starts hating him and starts proclaiming racism otherwise he doesnt have reason to do this.
Um... something is massively amiss here. I have JUST heard Ayn Rand describing a certain racegroup as primitive and savage, in the most outrageously racist series of remarks from her mouth on live TV. Yet here you present words and ideas and connect them to her name as if to deny her actual racism. WTF?
@cgseggal I agree, perhaps it is Rand's flawed philosophy in the first place that has confused people including @jaar2001. Her denying 'Racism' is not what is meant in this presentation.
Lets not forget her saying: "[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent?
@cgseggal For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." - Ayn Rand To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974
@eddie6126 How is that racist? It was the case that when Europeans came to America they were white...you know...... becaue they were European. And the peple in America were all indian....you know... becaue they were...in america. It's no more racist than when indians talk about the" white man" coming to america.
Mentioning skin color and talking about it does not make you a racist.
**The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?"
Believe it or not, there actually are some racialist objectivists, not to mention racialist libertarians, who by definition are not close-minded to accept only the dogmas of today's mainstream thought.
@Arjozof A racialist Objectivist would be a contradiction in terms. Such a person would have to deny the Objectivist epistemology - by denying the role of individual volition in the development of character and intellect - and the Objectivist ethics - by treating a man's race as the unit of value. You can't reject Objectivist epitstemology and ethics and still be an Objectivist. You could be a racialist libertarian of course - like Ron Paul - because libertarians are scum.
@dannidandannikins Even racialist Objectivists do not deny the role of invididual volition in the development of character and intellect. But as Objectivists hold Reason as the only means to learn reality, we also must acknowledge the great role human genes play in shaping human cognitive abilities, and no sane, rational person can deny this effect, which may vary from 0.7 to 0.9 in comparison to non-genetic, environmental (aka volitional) impact. Simply, one cannot be an Objectivist and deny it
@Arjozof You think Objectivism endorses your racialist theories? Well you're explicitly rejecting yn Rand's opinion on a fundamental matter which by definition means you are not an Objectivist since Objectivism is Rand's philosophy. That, of course doesn't disprove your argument that one should be a racialist - which I can't even be bothered to argue about - but it does mean that you can't pretend to be an Objectivist while doing so.
Don't use Rand's name for your collectivist bullshit. you cunt
@dannidandannikins first of all, let's make this clear. Objectivism is not a religion with Rand as a prophet. Objectivism is an OPEN philosophy, as David Kelley said, therefore it has to be capable of incorporating new data and synthesizing it with objectivist foundaments. Originally , Objectivism relied on the premise, that Reason is absolute and independent from any determined elements, like brain structure and physiology. Well, in reality, it isn't. Objectivist cannot deny reality.
@dannidandannikins I am glad that I am not a brainwashed cultist like yourself. Such sorry reality-deniers and second-handers like you should stop wasting other people's time and do something about your life. And watch who you call collectivist. You have shown that you are unable to think for yourself, which makes you a mental collectivist par excellence.
I find that many philosophers lack sufficiant information when they decide what illusions they will base their worldview around. Genetic throwback and regression to the mean are two words that debunks most of her statements consisting of thousends of words. If she just had studied genetics and psychometrics. ^^
When a person sees a pitbull with no leash walking down the street, typically, they'll think to themselves-"oh, shit". It's not because they hate all pitbulls, or they think that all pitbulls are aggressive and dangerous, but, rather, it is a logical and reasonable deducement achieved through experience & logic. These generalizations are a natural product of reason. The problem is that small-minded liberals want to generalize racism as something evil, to support their ridiculous "principles".
If reconstuction was done right, the southern aristocracy would have been smashed... blacks would have been granted the land for farming, and the plantation aristocracy would be gone, because they would be dead.
To establish true economic liberty, aristocratic classes and caste systems must be abolished... and there must be checks and balances as to how powerful and wealthy people can become... to keep a check on the development of aristocratic classes in the first place.
This is a beautifully crafted video! I love the rational means by which Rand exposes the irrationality of racism. While I would never argue with the sentiments of those who believe "Racism is just wrong, we're all humans and we need to get along"- We can defend the use of the word "wrong" by using her brilliant syllogisms.
@diopoulos In that clip she says if she HAD to take a side with either the Jews or the Arabs in the Middle East she would side with the Jews because the Arabs are racist against the Jews. So it actually does hold pace. She hates racism.
@Tummler- Depends. I think Hitler's views are antiquated and are no longer fit for a modern, comprehensive view. I don't feel that the amount of melanin in someone's skin dictates what their intellectual potential may be, but that doesn't mean racism is wrong. It is obviously a matter concerning sociological issues and how they are passed on through generations. Drawing generalizations from an informed opinion and fact is not "evil" or "wrong", it's logic- though, some would call it racist.
@OminousReason ok, I will try to attempt reason with you and see if it works. Raceism is holding the opinion that folks of another race are somehow inferior (what ever that race may be). Fact # 1 anybody can convert to Judiasm if they subscribe to the tennants of that faith. This is the same as anybody becomming a Christian if that is their wish. Fact # 2 Jews in Isreal rescued Negro Jews out of the Sudan in order to save them from harm. Hence, no raceism in Judiasm.
@josephonwhidbey-"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”-Israeli Prime Minister June 25, 1982
@OminousReason OK, lets assume for the sake of arguement that the quote is true; it would still be only one mans opinion, an opinion with which I profoundly disagree. So what you did was to use that one mans' opinion and apply it to an entire people. There is no logic in doing that. I fail to see how you have proven your point by using that quote.
@josephonwhidbey- And are you so arrogant as to believe that YOU speak for Israel? Do you speak for the Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, the fundamentalists and the Israelis??? Or are you just another delusional dip-shit that believes your P.C. view of the world is the only truth?? I bet on the latter. And the quote IS fucking true. That little quote was part of a speech given to the Knesset[Israeli Parlament]. "I fail to see how..."- why am I not surprised? You probably fail A LOT.
@OminousReason Your use of profanity and your personal attack against me (not to mention your lack of reason) has proven my point. No further discussion is necessary nor will I participate in one.
@josephonwhidbey-Good outro. It really emphasizes your pseudo-righteous, "taking the high road" cop out- a grossly weak cop out, at that. Sighting my use of profane slang as an excuse to dodge the issue appears, both, lazy & foolish...& a bit cowardly. & I'm not surprised that you didn't even offer one word to refute or discredit anything I wrote, nor did you even, at the least, shed light on a different perspective. What good are you? Your response was as useless as your liberal sensibilities.
Reading Rand appears to coincide with the zeitgeist of the Obama era. It is those who are the objectivists, the ones fighting for individualism who are the ones exhibiting racist tendencies.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If we had "individualism", there would be more racism- in fact the biggest racists were capitalists you Ayn Rand huggers, get your facts right before argueing
You see Ayn Rand was like a capitalist version of Karl Marx, both are idealogists. Ayn Rand would deny that capitalism supplied the holocaust...
Now Bosch, Phillips supplied gas for gas chambers, famous steel makers like Krupp produced the actual furnaces. See capitalism is simply supply and demand of an situation no matter how unethical a situation is.
@dancthegr You do not speak of the Randian, Libertarian, Rothbardian, Minarchist, etc. form of Capitalism. You speak of State Capitalism, the Capitalism of the Fascists and of what America is nearing. In that Capitalism, select men are given power by the State to absolute reign over what they wish, provided they still obey the State. In Randian Capitalism, it is held that the basic rights of man to freedom from aggression, theft, coercion, etc MUST be upheld (an absolute minimal state).
@ dancthegr Beyond those basic rights, men are entitled in this Capitalism to, by supply and demand, the fruits of their labor. Again, you would be a complete dolt whom knows nothing of Rand to deny that she and her followers (and the different branches that have since stemmed from her philosophies) wish a minimal state to protect the rights of the individual from brute violence akin to the Nazis. Rand was one of there greatest criticizers.
@Juhin91 Randian capitalism can never happen. Why? because companies always want power over people and want profit. In fact many capitalists supported Fascism because of the ban of trade unons, the ablilty to reduce wages. Also what would Rand think about strikes. Individuals don't have rights under capitalism, only RICH POWERFUL OLIGRACHS.
I would also like to thank you, comrade, for exposing this video to me and the rest of the masses. You have truly succeeded in exposing the least intelligent of Ayn Rand's quotes and fitting them all in one video. Thanks!
Do baseless insults pass for meaningful argumentation amongst you leftists? Simply calling opposing arguments and people dumb? I'm totally serious. This has always baffled me. Does it substitute for factual rebuttal, and count for points somehow? And if so, what is the exchange rate? Is calling the opposition dumb 10 times equivalent to successfully proving them wrong with facts once? Is it considered a substitute for meaningful argumentation in large enough quantities? I'm really asking.
"contrary to you i'm not trying to impose my views to the "collectivity". "
smooth. as you go out of your way to create and post a video for the community, and then literally argue your views to fellow members of it. Your life is a paradox
"Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights"
LOL. Typical Randoid slander. I sometimes wonder if you people actually know anything about which you speak, or just lift quotes from Rand or Friedman instead.
It's always "funny" to see those who alledgelly advocate equality of treatment and "fraternity", being the first to insult and to scorn those who don't think like them. So typical.
By the way, you're wrong, I'm not a Randoïd. Ayn Rand herself was saying that one should always think by himself and not blindly follow what others say. I don't even think I'm a true objectivist. I have few certainties and contrary to you i'm not trying to impose my views to the "collectivity".
"Ayn Rand herself was saying that one should always think by himself and not blindly follow what others say."
If this is what you believe, then I suggest you read "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" by Murray Rothbard (an anarcho-capitalist - so it's not particularly biased). There's some interesting information on how members of the cult were put on trial for subversion.
I already read the text you talk about. Obviously there was a time when Ayn Rand had some personal problems and was not living by the morals she herself funded and supported. That doesn't invalidate these principles.
Moreover, i welcome any critical comment but i can't stand people who replace arguments with assertions and insults ("fucking moron" you called me on the other video?)
Anyone who is not able to say something constructive and keeps opening his mouth will see his comment erased.
I appologise for using slurs, but saying that collectivism is an ideology that hold that people have no rights is false, and, quite frankly, offensive. As an libertarian socialist with strong anarchist sympathies, I can tell you that we do believe in individual rights: the right to free speech, the right to the full value of your work, and the right of free association. You seem to be equating collectivism with state "socialism"; i.e. Marxist-Leninism, the theory that -
(cont) . . . the means of production should be put in the hands of the state which will make major socialist overhauls before it "withers away" as Engels put it. If you want to accuse Leninists (and other authoritarian socialists) of holding that the individual has no rights, then fine, I agree with you. But to label us all like that you have to be either ignorant or intentionally deceitful.
I'm glad to see you reject authoritarian socialism. I have panarchist sympathies and the fundamental question is: is the system you advocate based on voluntary association or on coercition, creating de facto an authoritative state?
Moreover you are probably against property right. Without it there can't be any other right. You aren't free if the use of an object is subordinated to the willing of the community or of any other collectivist abstraction.
Socialists support "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Thus the collectivity or its supposed incarnation imposes what the individual produces and what he consumes. He doesn't live for his own sake but as a slave.
no not socialist, Marxist. Karl Marx was the person that made that statement. Socialism extends beyond what Marx did. Go look at some of the current socialist party and base information on their platforms.
Socialism is the worker's state, "to each according to his deed", versus the communist state which substitutes "deed" with "need".
Your comment about panarchy and understanding of capitalism is nice to see. I'm a confederalist myself, the halfway mark between a panarchist and a federalist. The people in a confederacy can decide who can come in, protecting themselves from those that might harm the confederacy, but they have no control over people leaving it.
No, I don't see a de facto state developing. And I don't believe that the community has a right to own what an individual produces; I am sympathetic towards market socialism, really. The right to own property is the right to exploit. Most people don't own property (apart from the home and possessions) and other rights still exist. A small minority owning everything is not a foundation for a free society.
A man owns his body. He owns the products of his faculties, energy, intellectual and physical abilities. A worker own his work. He is the only one having the right to give these property rights to anybody else. If your ideology deny these rights I call it stealing.
Property rights are the best barrier against despotim. Envy is not a moral foundation for a free society.
Oh, and a man only owns his body up to a point. When you enter employment, if you wish to keep your job, you do what your boss tells you for greater part of your life (the part which you do not spend asleep). Sure you can quit, but that doesn't make the system free. It's like saying "if you hate the government, move to another country". As an anti-authoritarian I find this unacceptable.
Interestingly, property rights were used by the old southern aristocrats during Reconstruction to keep the black man from attaining any sort of real power. When then president Johnson pardoned the wealthy southern planters at the time, the blacks never got any land, which was the source of power in the farming community in the south.
Sherman had it right, give the blacks 40 acres and a mule, and sentence the white land (plantation) owners who started the treasonous war to death.
I think people are all the same. The skin doesn't makes u different.
However most of the people who are racist don't hate the opposite race because they don't like how they look, they hate them because they are afraid of loosing their job, place to live etc, or they are angry because of these already happened.
For example if a white man looses his job somewhere in USA, and he is replaced by black man he starts hating him and starts proclaiming racism otherwise he doesnt have reason to do this.
Vodnoman 2 months ago
@Vodnoman
Are you saying losing your job to a black man is worse than losing it a white man?
Or let me put it this way, does losing your job to a different race make it more worse?
You should probably read your comment again.
teawead 2 weeks ago
@Vodnoman I think you missed the point.
We are not ALL the same. But that doesn't mattter.
We cannot figjt like dogs. We have to judge by charachter and not race.
We have to judge by individualism and not by a race.
turbofritz2 2 weeks ago
Um... something is massively amiss here. I have JUST heard Ayn Rand describing a certain racegroup as primitive and savage, in the most outrageously racist series of remarks from her mouth on live TV. Yet here you present words and ideas and connect them to her name as if to deny her actual racism. WTF?
cgseggal 9 months ago
@cgseggal I agree, perhaps it is Rand's flawed philosophy in the first place that has confused people including @jaar2001. Her denying 'Racism' is not what is meant in this presentation.
eddie6126 8 months ago
@cgseggal
Lets not forget her saying: "[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent?
eddie6126 8 months ago
@cgseggal For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." - Ayn Rand To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974
eddie6126 8 months ago
@eddie6126 How is that racist? It was the case that when Europeans came to America they were white...you know...... becaue they were European. And the peple in America were all indian....you know... becaue they were...in america. It's no more racist than when indians talk about the" white man" coming to america.
Mentioning skin color and talking about it does not make you a racist.
WarVideo 8 months ago
@cgseggal
Everyone was primitive and savage at one time. There's nothing racist about it.
Guncriminal 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
**The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?"
notbestfriends 10 months ago 2
Believe it or not, there actually are some racialist objectivists, not to mention racialist libertarians, who by definition are not close-minded to accept only the dogmas of today's mainstream thought.
Arjozof 1 year ago
@Arjozof A racialist Objectivist would be a contradiction in terms. Such a person would have to deny the Objectivist epistemology - by denying the role of individual volition in the development of character and intellect - and the Objectivist ethics - by treating a man's race as the unit of value. You can't reject Objectivist epitstemology and ethics and still be an Objectivist. You could be a racialist libertarian of course - like Ron Paul - because libertarians are scum.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins Even racialist Objectivists do not deny the role of invididual volition in the development of character and intellect. But as Objectivists hold Reason as the only means to learn reality, we also must acknowledge the great role human genes play in shaping human cognitive abilities, and no sane, rational person can deny this effect, which may vary from 0.7 to 0.9 in comparison to non-genetic, environmental (aka volitional) impact. Simply, one cannot be an Objectivist and deny it
Arjozof 1 year ago
@Arjozof You think Objectivism endorses your racialist theories? Well you're explicitly rejecting yn Rand's opinion on a fundamental matter which by definition means you are not an Objectivist since Objectivism is Rand's philosophy. That, of course doesn't disprove your argument that one should be a racialist - which I can't even be bothered to argue about - but it does mean that you can't pretend to be an Objectivist while doing so.
Don't use Rand's name for your collectivist bullshit. you cunt
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins first of all, let's make this clear. Objectivism is not a religion with Rand as a prophet. Objectivism is an OPEN philosophy, as David Kelley said, therefore it has to be capable of incorporating new data and synthesizing it with objectivist foundaments. Originally , Objectivism relied on the premise, that Reason is absolute and independent from any determined elements, like brain structure and physiology. Well, in reality, it isn't. Objectivist cannot deny reality.
Arjozof 1 year ago
@Arjozof Favorably citing David Kelley is an unmistakable sign of someone who is not an Objectivist.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins I am glad that I am not a brainwashed cultist like yourself. Such sorry reality-deniers and second-handers like you should stop wasting other people's time and do something about your life. And watch who you call collectivist. You have shown that you are unable to think for yourself, which makes you a mental collectivist par excellence.
Arjozof 1 year ago
@Arjozof Assuming that you are correct and the person who made this video is a collectivist that doesnt make their points invalid.
mrhnm 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins Of course it had to be an "open philosophy" so called objectivist advocating for racism.
WarVideo 8 months ago
Unfortunately, Ayn Rand, wasn't a biologist.
I find that many philosophers lack sufficiant information when they decide what illusions they will base their worldview around. Genetic throwback and regression to the mean are two words that debunks most of her statements consisting of thousends of words. If she just had studied genetics and psychometrics. ^^
MrHerrIQ 1 year ago
@MrHerrIQ Enjoy being racist.
BrettDunbar 1 year ago
@BrettDunbar
Enjoy being conditioned
MrHerrIQ 1 year ago
When a person sees a pitbull with no leash walking down the street, typically, they'll think to themselves-"oh, shit". It's not because they hate all pitbulls, or they think that all pitbulls are aggressive and dangerous, but, rather, it is a logical and reasonable deducement achieved through experience & logic. These generalizations are a natural product of reason. The problem is that small-minded liberals want to generalize racism as something evil, to support their ridiculous "principles".
OminousReason 1 year ago
If reconstuction was done right, the southern aristocracy would have been smashed... blacks would have been granted the land for farming, and the plantation aristocracy would be gone, because they would be dead.
To establish true economic liberty, aristocratic classes and caste systems must be abolished... and there must be checks and balances as to how powerful and wealthy people can become... to keep a check on the development of aristocratic classes in the first place.
veridia 1 year ago
This is a beautifully crafted video! I love the rational means by which Rand exposes the irrationality of racism. While I would never argue with the sentiments of those who believe "Racism is just wrong, we're all humans and we need to get along"- We can defend the use of the word "wrong" by using her brilliant syllogisms.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
if you look at the donahue show, you will notice the way she talks about arabs doesn't hold pace with the quotes over here.
diopoulos 1 year ago
@diopoulos In that clip she says if she HAD to take a side with either the Jews or the Arabs in the Middle East she would side with the Jews because the Arabs are racist against the Jews. So it actually does hold pace. She hates racism.
Tummler 1 year ago
@Tummler- Jews are possibly the MOST RACIST people on the planet.
OminousReason 1 year ago
@OminousReason Then I guess it's too bad Hitler didn't succeed with the Holocaust, although 6 million murdered Jews is a good start, right?
Tummler 1 year ago
@Tummler- Depends. I think Hitler's views are antiquated and are no longer fit for a modern, comprehensive view. I don't feel that the amount of melanin in someone's skin dictates what their intellectual potential may be, but that doesn't mean racism is wrong. It is obviously a matter concerning sociological issues and how they are passed on through generations. Drawing generalizations from an informed opinion and fact is not "evil" or "wrong", it's logic- though, some would call it racist.
OminousReason 1 year ago
@OminousReason ok, I will try to attempt reason with you and see if it works. Raceism is holding the opinion that folks of another race are somehow inferior (what ever that race may be). Fact # 1 anybody can convert to Judiasm if they subscribe to the tennants of that faith. This is the same as anybody becomming a Christian if that is their wish. Fact # 2 Jews in Isreal rescued Negro Jews out of the Sudan in order to save them from harm. Hence, no raceism in Judiasm.
josephonwhidbey 1 year ago
@josephonwhidbey-"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”-Israeli Prime Minister June 25, 1982
OminousReason 1 year ago
@OminousReason OK, lets assume for the sake of arguement that the quote is true; it would still be only one mans opinion, an opinion with which I profoundly disagree. So what you did was to use that one mans' opinion and apply it to an entire people. There is no logic in doing that. I fail to see how you have proven your point by using that quote.
josephonwhidbey 1 year ago
@josephonwhidbey- And are you so arrogant as to believe that YOU speak for Israel? Do you speak for the Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, the fundamentalists and the Israelis??? Or are you just another delusional dip-shit that believes your P.C. view of the world is the only truth?? I bet on the latter. And the quote IS fucking true. That little quote was part of a speech given to the Knesset[Israeli Parlament]. "I fail to see how..."- why am I not surprised? You probably fail A LOT.
OminousReason 1 year ago
@OminousReason Your use of profanity and your personal attack against me (not to mention your lack of reason) has proven my point. No further discussion is necessary nor will I participate in one.
josephonwhidbey 1 year ago
@josephonwhidbey-Good outro. It really emphasizes your pseudo-righteous, "taking the high road" cop out- a grossly weak cop out, at that. Sighting my use of profane slang as an excuse to dodge the issue appears, both, lazy & foolish...& a bit cowardly. & I'm not surprised that you didn't even offer one word to refute or discredit anything I wrote, nor did you even, at the least, shed light on a different perspective. What good are you? Your response was as useless as your liberal sensibilities.
OminousReason 1 year ago
If she was so smart how come she did not believe in Jesus?
blowbackinevitable 1 year ago
Reading Rand appears to coincide with the zeitgeist of the Obama era. It is those who are the objectivists, the ones fighting for individualism who are the ones exhibiting racist tendencies.
Rx4pabulum 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If we had "individualism", there would be more racism- in fact the biggest racists were capitalists you Ayn Rand huggers, get your facts right before argueing
dancthegr 2 years ago
You see Ayn Rand was like a capitalist version of Karl Marx, both are idealogists. Ayn Rand would deny that capitalism supplied the holocaust...
Now Bosch, Phillips supplied gas for gas chambers, famous steel makers like Krupp produced the actual furnaces. See capitalism is simply supply and demand of an situation no matter how unethical a situation is.
dancthegr 2 years ago
@dancthegr You do not speak of the Randian, Libertarian, Rothbardian, Minarchist, etc. form of Capitalism. You speak of State Capitalism, the Capitalism of the Fascists and of what America is nearing. In that Capitalism, select men are given power by the State to absolute reign over what they wish, provided they still obey the State. In Randian Capitalism, it is held that the basic rights of man to freedom from aggression, theft, coercion, etc MUST be upheld (an absolute minimal state).
Juhin91 1 year ago
@ dancthegr Beyond those basic rights, men are entitled in this Capitalism to, by supply and demand, the fruits of their labor. Again, you would be a complete dolt whom knows nothing of Rand to deny that she and her followers (and the different branches that have since stemmed from her philosophies) wish a minimal state to protect the rights of the individual from brute violence akin to the Nazis. Rand was one of there greatest criticizers.
Juhin91 1 year ago
@Juhin91 Randian capitalism can never happen. Why? because companies always want power over people and want profit. In fact many capitalists supported Fascism because of the ban of trade unons, the ablilty to reduce wages. Also what would Rand think about strikes. Individuals don't have rights under capitalism, only RICH POWERFUL OLIGRACHS.
dancthegr 1 year ago
I would also like to thank you, comrade, for exposing this video to me and the rest of the masses. You have truly succeeded in exposing the least intelligent of Ayn Rand's quotes and fitting them all in one video. Thanks!
ThaATrain10 2 years ago
Do baseless insults pass for meaningful argumentation amongst you leftists? Simply calling opposing arguments and people dumb? I'm totally serious. This has always baffled me. Does it substitute for factual rebuttal, and count for points somehow? And if so, what is the exchange rate? Is calling the opposition dumb 10 times equivalent to successfully proving them wrong with facts once? Is it considered a substitute for meaningful argumentation in large enough quantities? I'm really asking.
mikejackson4ever 2 years ago
"contrary to you i'm not trying to impose my views to the "collectivity". "
smooth. as you go out of your way to create and post a video for the community, and then literally argue your views to fellow members of it. Your life is a paradox
ThaATrain10 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Collectivism = individual has no rights" = complete and utter bullshit.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
"Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights"
LOL. Typical Randoid slander. I sometimes wonder if you people actually know anything about which you speak, or just lift quotes from Rand or Friedman instead.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
It's always "funny" to see those who alledgelly advocate equality of treatment and "fraternity", being the first to insult and to scorn those who don't think like them. So typical.
By the way, you're wrong, I'm not a Randoïd. Ayn Rand herself was saying that one should always think by himself and not blindly follow what others say. I don't even think I'm a true objectivist. I have few certainties and contrary to you i'm not trying to impose my views to the "collectivity".
jaar2001 3 years ago
"Ayn Rand herself was saying that one should always think by himself and not blindly follow what others say."
If this is what you believe, then I suggest you read "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" by Murray Rothbard (an anarcho-capitalist - so it's not particularly biased). There's some interesting information on how members of the cult were put on trial for subversion.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
I already read the text you talk about. Obviously there was a time when Ayn Rand had some personal problems and was not living by the morals she herself funded and supported. That doesn't invalidate these principles.
jaar2001 3 years ago
@KafkaCrow "an anarcho-capitalist - so it's not particularly biased" lol
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
Moreover, i welcome any critical comment but i can't stand people who replace arguments with assertions and insults ("fucking moron" you called me on the other video?)
Anyone who is not able to say something constructive and keeps opening his mouth will see his comment erased.
jaar2001 3 years ago
I appologise for using slurs, but saying that collectivism is an ideology that hold that people have no rights is false, and, quite frankly, offensive. As an libertarian socialist with strong anarchist sympathies, I can tell you that we do believe in individual rights: the right to free speech, the right to the full value of your work, and the right of free association. You seem to be equating collectivism with state "socialism"; i.e. Marxist-Leninism, the theory that -
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
(cont) . . . the means of production should be put in the hands of the state which will make major socialist overhauls before it "withers away" as Engels put it. If you want to accuse Leninists (and other authoritarian socialists) of holding that the individual has no rights, then fine, I agree with you. But to label us all like that you have to be either ignorant or intentionally deceitful.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
I'm glad to see you reject authoritarian socialism. I have panarchist sympathies and the fundamental question is: is the system you advocate based on voluntary association or on coercition, creating de facto an authoritative state?
Moreover you are probably against property right. Without it there can't be any other right. You aren't free if the use of an object is subordinated to the willing of the community or of any other collectivist abstraction.
jaar2001 3 years ago
Socialists support "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Thus the collectivity or its supposed incarnation imposes what the individual produces and what he consumes. He doesn't live for his own sake but as a slave.
jaar2001 3 years ago
no not socialist, Marxist. Karl Marx was the person that made that statement. Socialism extends beyond what Marx did. Go look at some of the current socialist party and base information on their platforms.
CrkAtk 2 years ago
Socialism is the worker's state, "to each according to his deed", versus the communist state which substitutes "deed" with "need".
Your comment about panarchy and understanding of capitalism is nice to see. I'm a confederalist myself, the halfway mark between a panarchist and a federalist. The people in a confederacy can decide who can come in, protecting themselves from those that might harm the confederacy, but they have no control over people leaving it.
Keep up the good work. :)
MazzarothSufferer 2 years ago
No, I don't see a de facto state developing. And I don't believe that the community has a right to own what an individual produces; I am sympathetic towards market socialism, really. The right to own property is the right to exploit. Most people don't own property (apart from the home and possessions) and other rights still exist. A small minority owning everything is not a foundation for a free society.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
A man owns his body. He owns the products of his faculties, energy, intellectual and physical abilities. A worker own his work. He is the only one having the right to give these property rights to anybody else. If your ideology deny these rights I call it stealing.
Property rights are the best barrier against despotim. Envy is not a moral foundation for a free society.
jaar2001 3 years ago 2
Stealing? Not really. And property rights are not a good barrier for freedom. That is a myth.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
Oh, and a man only owns his body up to a point. When you enter employment, if you wish to keep your job, you do what your boss tells you for greater part of your life (the part which you do not spend asleep). Sure you can quit, but that doesn't make the system free. It's like saying "if you hate the government, move to another country". As an anti-authoritarian I find this unacceptable.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
"The right to own property is the right to exploit."
And this is amended by making the government the owner of it all? You know, the people who legally have the right to kill you and get away with it?
mikejackson4ever 2 years ago
Interestingly, property rights were used by the old southern aristocrats during Reconstruction to keep the black man from attaining any sort of real power. When then president Johnson pardoned the wealthy southern planters at the time, the blacks never got any land, which was the source of power in the farming community in the south.
Sherman had it right, give the blacks 40 acres and a mule, and sentence the white land (plantation) owners who started the treasonous war to death.
veridia 1 year ago
your title implies that racism is against collectivism
shovelcharge 3 years ago
I changed the title. Hope it's now free of confusion
jaar2001 3 years ago