Altas Shrugged

Originally posted by Wajoma
She does not advocate what you say, nor is "helping oneself to the fruits of someone else's labor" capitalism.

If you're going to assert something like this, then please give us some reference where it exists in her work.

Not all Rands work is 'ponderously' long, before reading this list please take a firm grip on the top of your head with both hands, i ...[text shortened]... essays are concise and direct, utterly to the point, the antithesis of ponderous.

Racism as a form of collectivism? She obviously packs a lot of preposterousness, if not ponderousness, into those few pages.

You are very much mistaken if you think my position is borne out of cynicism. It is not. Quite the contrary, it is one of great optimism.

And I reiterate: capitalism is based directly upon the exploitation of labor. That is how capitalists make their profit. That is what it means to "help oneself to the fruits of someone else's labor."

What is this about writing a book in a second language? Samuel Beckett did the same thing, except his books were actually worthwhile. If Rand had embarked upon a career as a linguist, maybe she'd be deserving a pat on the back. But as it is she deserves nothing but a slap in the face.

Originally posted by rwingett
Racism as a form of collectivism? She obviously packs a lot of preposterousness, if not ponderousness, into those few pages.

You are very much mistaken if you think my position is borne out of cynicism. It is not. Quite the contrary, it is one of great optimism.

And I reiterate: capitalism is based directly upon the exploitation of labor. That is how ...[text shortened]... 'd be deserving a pat on the back. But as it is she deserves nothing but a slap in the face.

Question: If i'm a self employed carpenter, with NO employees, i take it i'm Not exploiting any workers? But as soon as i grow my company until i have lots of work and hire an unemployed helper, i become a bad person? Yes, i make a profit off my helper, but it goes back into the company to keep it solvent. Why is this so bad? The helper could always start his own company. I started with a couple of used tools and a station wagon. I quess i'm missing your point again, right?

GRANNY.

Originally posted by rwingett
Racism as a form of collectivism? She obviously packs a lot of preposterousness, if not ponderousness, into those few pages.

You are very much mistaken if you think my position is borne out of cynicism. It is not. Quite the contrary, it is one of great optimism.

And I reiterate: capitalism is based directly upon the exploitation of labor. That is how ...[text shortened]... 'd be deserving a pat on the back. But as it is she deserves nothing but a slap in the face.

You're optimistic about rational selfish interest? That would be news and it is what I meant by my comment. Try reading it again.

Racism is a form of collectivism in that certain traits and possibly bogus rights or rights violations are assigned to a collective based solely on their race i.e. a type of collectivism.

Capitalism is based directly on your ownership of your own life. The employer says here is the job, these are the conditions, take it or leave it. The employee says here are my skills and abilities, these are my conditions, take it or leave it. If there is common ground the employer and employee enter into a relationship of mutual exploitation which is exactly as it should be. The voluntary exchange of value for value. No-one owes you a job, a toothbrush, a liter of water.

No need to be so defensive about authors that write and attain popularity in a second language, Joseph Conrad is another and no doubt there are many more. If you want a contest why not tally book sales for Beckett and Rand. I'm not interested in the result I was just saying it is quiet an achievement in itself, no more no less, your knee jerk randophobia is reaching shavs level of rabidity.

So that only leaves it for you to site exactly where Rand says "helping oneself to the fruits of someone else's labor" She actually makes the case for the opposite so I will be surprised if you can back up your words or more accurately - lies. Which book, which essay? which chapter?

Originally posted by Wajoma
If you want a contest why not tally book sales for Beckett and Rand.

Alternatively, you could tally stage productions. No question that Sam was the more successful artist. But I don't think Rand was setting out to be an artist.

Anyway, does Ayn Rand have anything more important to say than John Grisham?

Originally posted by smw6869
Question: If i'm a self employed carpenter, with NO employees, i take it i'm Not exploiting any workers? But as soon as i grow my company until i have lots of work and hire an unemployed helper, i become a bad person? Yes, i make a profit off my helper, but it goes back into the company to keep it solvent. Why is this so bad? The helper could always start hi ...[text shortened]... e of used tools and a station wagon. I quess i'm missing your point again, right?

GRANNY.

If capitalism were nothing more than a network of self employed individuals, or of small cottage industries, then it might be a good thing in my opinion. But when it reaches the scale of multinational corporations, where the employees are treated as nothing but commodities on the labor market, to be used and disposed of for the profit of the stockholders, then it assumes a decidedly anti-social character.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You're optimistic about rational selfish interest? That would be news and it is what I meant by my comment. Try reading it again.

Racism is a form of collectivism in that certain traits and possibly bogus rights or rights violations are assigned to a collective based solely on their race i.e. a type of collectivism.

Capitalism is based directly on you ...[text shortened]... u can back up your words or more accurately - lies. Which book, which essay? which chapter?

Yes, I am optimistic about rational selfish interest. And it is my contention that an individual's rational selfish interest would be best served by a cooperative, collectivist system. Contrary to Rand's claim, I do not think 'altruism' is a necessary ingredient of such a system. I think that a cooperative, collectivist system would produce the greatest gain for the greatest percentage of people over the long run than would a purely individualistic, non-cooperative approach. If your rational selfish interest is your greatest concern, then capitalism is a poor strategy to follow for the average man in the street.

Your example of the working of capitalism is simplistic to the point of being ludicrous. Yes, that's how it works in theory, but in reality things are quite different. To function properly this "relationship" between employer and employee requires that the labor supply be approximately equal to the labor demand. When we have this delicate equilibrium then the bargaining between each party can be conducted as equals. But the history of capitalism shows us that this is very seldom the case. As it stands now in the world of globalization, the labor supply so dwarfs the labor demand that the workers have almost no power. The 'choice' to take a job with miserable conditions or to starve is simply not a real choice.

Do not compare my knee jerk "randophobia" to Shav. I have a visceral hatred for Ayn Rand that no one can top.

Originally posted by rwingett
If capitalism were nothing more than a network of self employed individuals, or of small cottage industries, then it might be a good thing in my opinion. But when it reaches the scale of multinational corporations, where the employees are treated as nothing but commodities on the labor market, to be used and disposed of for the profit of the stockholders, then it assumes a decidedly anti-social character.

OK. I see your point now. Thanks.

Granny.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, I am optimistic about rational selfish interest. And it is my contention that an individual's rational selfish interest would be best served by a cooperative, collectivist system. Contrary to Rand's claim, I do not think 'altruism' is a necessary ingredient of such a system. I think that a cooperative, collectivist system would produce the greatest gai erk "randophobia" to Shav. I have a visceral hatred for Ayn Rand that no one can top.

Your idealistic model is unable to concentrate resources in the way a nation-state or corporation can.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, I am optimistic about rational selfish interest. And it is my contention that an individual's rational selfish interest would be best served by a cooperative, collectivist system. Contrary to Rand's claim, I do not think 'altruism' is a necessary ingredient of such a system. I think that a cooperative, collectivist system would produce the greatest gai ...[text shortened]... erk "randophobia" to Shav. I have a visceral hatred for Ayn Rand that no one can top.

Well as far as her writing goes. This says it in a nutshell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Philosophical_criticism

Anthem is decent, but a lot of her work is too bloated. She had an interesting life for sure. However: BIG Surprise that she was pro-capitalism considering how she lost everything due to the Revolution in Russia.

A definite candidate for a Right wing Anarchist if there ever was one.

Originally posted by rwingett
Let me know when you've read the collected works of Emma Goldman. When you're willing to do that, then maybe I'll take you up on your offer.

I've read most of her work. Her and Ayn Rand are two sides of the same coin. Emma was an amazing person for her time. However her last work is a bit trying to read. This is turning into the Female Russian Jewish Activist Thread

Who will be next:

To qualify you have to be Russian, Jewish, Angst ridden, unapologetic, Female, a polyglot and an author of more than 3 books.

Originally posted by smw6869
Have you been out of the house lately?


Granny.

Aww c'mon Granny--cut me some slack. No I don't get out much anymore, but that's irrrelevant. One doesn't have to read Mein Kampf to know Hitler was insane, and "getting out" will not change my core values and beliefs, which happen to iclude the belief that most people are altruistic.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
The book assumed one fact not in evidence: that no one would ever give their talents away for free, for the good of the whole. The "everything has a price" and "personal greed drives us all" are two yenets that Rand accepts as fact. I do not.

There is no mention of greed, that is your own invention. Greed is an excessive desire and no where does Rand advocate this, perhaps you have the integrity to back up your words with some source, rwingett sure dosen't.

A short sharp dose for Pink:

It's Franciscos money speech from Atlas Shrugged.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?..."

continues at:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826

Originally posted by Wajoma
Greed is an excessive desire and no where does Rand advocate this

Its Rand's inability to factor in human greed on a large scale, that makes a mockery of her best intentioned libertarian utopia.

Originally posted by kmax87
Its Rand's inability to factor in human greed on a large scale, that makes a mockery of her best intentioned libertarian utopia.

Ahh more un-informed Rand comment.


Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis....

Originally posted by Wajoma
There is no mention of greed, that is your own invention.

No. See. History.

The feudal system led to rich land owners.
Industry led to a select group of people owning other resources (like sweat shops, etc.).

These two groups came together to form the loving and caring family we know as "the rich."

Now, obviously this stuck a bit in the graw of the general population who took due note that if they weren't working the land and giving everything they produced to the land owner, who in return gave them a carrot of their day's labour, they were working 16 hours a day in a factory and giving everything they produced to the corporate owner, who in return gave them a couple of pennies to get buy on.

Enter one Mr. Engels who worked 16 hours a day to give Mr. Marx the chance to come up with a couple of theories.
One being: You should have ownership over that which you produce.
The second being: The current situation leads to a bit of friction and the more this friction intensifies, the more the chance of change will be.

Voila. Socialism/communism (they're the same) was born.

Now you had the majority of the people dying in trenches in WW1 or working in factories or doing slave labour on land... but with a sense of.. "Hey... wait a bloody minute... something's not right here..." and a couple of good arguments to boot.
So, they demanded change.

Now... the rich didn't like this change. No sirree. So they clamped down on revolutions where they could, they financed corruption where they could and if nothing else failed they relaxed their grip... DECREASING TENSION... where it was needed.
Hence the majority of people got unions, females got the vote and a bit of health care was reluctantly given to paupers.

But hey... not matter how you looked at it, a small group of people living off the backs of the majority just doesn't look or seem right. Does it.

Enter Ayn Rand.
"We need a philosophy to back up the rich and their greed." (I'm paraphrasing here, in case you hadn't noticed). The rich needed an argument and Ayn gave it us.
Rationalism.

"Hooray..." Shouted quite a large group of people. "See... they're not just greedy, powerful and abusing us... they're actually quite rational."
"It's me," Shouted a proportion of the group, "it's not them. It's me that's lazy and a good for nothing. It's not the system THEY set up. Hell no! I can be what I want to be."

To hell with statistics and lobby, anybody can be anybody. Even the poor farmers in Southern America working the fields for peanuts so that United Fruits can become ever more powerful and sustain their power by financing both the Democrats and the Republicans... EVEN THEY can be whatever they want...

Of course they can.
And of course property is worth as much as health, equality and freedom.
Of course it is.