Ayn Rand and Karl Marx

Brief discussion of similarities/differences.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• ayn
• rand
• karl
• marx
• objectivism
• communism
• libertarianism
• classical
• liberalism
• individualism
• collectivism

[whynotsocialism]

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.

[XOmniverse]

@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.

[whynotsocialism]

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.

[XOmniverse]

@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.

[whynotsocialism]

So I'm assuming your against wage labor, right?

[XOmniverse]

@whynotsocialism I'm not against an agreement to exchange labor for money, no.

[Sivels]

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.

[XOmniverse]

Then you're at the wrong channel. Go away.

[colddrake80]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[pcgamernum1]

@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.

[strikedead]

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.

[ArthurEiss]

@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.

[samm1809]

@Sivels that's EXACTLY the epiphany i had the other day.

[whynotsocialism]

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.