Hypothesis: Dictators aren't altruists


Samson Corwell

Recommended Posts

Dictators embrace altruism to control people motivated by self interest. In that sense they are altruists. Now everybody is motivated by self interest but what that is is mostly subjectively experienced. When self interest is objectified the dictator is on the outside looking in, and may not even have a job. The world is full of dictators, of course, religious, secular and would be. The Catholic Church mixes up the Pope with God and, if it can, with the state. Stalin once famously asked how many divisions the Pope had. Well, once he had enough to launch religious crusades. He wasn't properly tamed until the 17th Century. Now we have the Muslims and their "divisions" and a Pope with seemingly none so the secularists have to deal with the jihadists on their own.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is a trap almost all gurus face with their disciples....

Basically, they start believing their own BS from a loopback process with followers. And the followers carry out their wishes, so they not only get agreement, they see it in action. Over time, the good part of their soul goes away and inner corruption grows, along with their conceit (often wedded at the hip to insecurity).

A yes chamber is the ultimate temptation.

Michael

Micheal. Dare I even suggest that Rand herself might have fallen into a trap like this. She became a den mother to a bunch of rather er.... strange people. Could that have fed back on her and made her strange?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

Not only dare you do that, I did it too in my original post. Here's the entire thing, albeit I discussed followers and not just the leader, which was my focus. If you look at dictators, all dictators in fact, they are surrounded by a bubble of followers like the Sures or the lady who first drank the Kool-Aid. I was writing to Robert Campbell.

In my study of cults, the Sures have always been at the back of my mind as quintessential cult followers. (In continuing this post, I'm not going to look up stuff and quote it since I have to get some work done today, but it all exists and I can find it if needed.)

I first became interested in them during a discussion with an ortho-Objectivist, Tom something-or-other. You might know who I mean. He studied at Julliard School of Music and only came out in prominence to defend Valliant's boneheaded tome, PARC, when it came out (and for a year or two thereafter).

We were discussing moral perfection and he claimed he knew of some morally perfect people. I asked who and he responded Charles and Mary Sures. I knew nothing about them at the time, so I just let it slide. But the curiosity of trying to find out what morally perfect people might be look like stayed in the back of my mind since then.

And, since then, I have become more familiar with their story and writing. They are gentle people, but fanatical. They are the kind that really scare me with cults.

I remember a story about the last day of Jim Jones in the mass suicide at Jonestown. When he announced to his flock that they had to drink the poison Kool-Aid, one pretty lady immediately stepped up, knocked back a dose and went over to the side to die. I don't remember with clarity if she had a child, but I seem to recall that she did, so she fed the child the poison, also.

People like that give me the creeps. And that is the kind of person I believe the Sures are.

(Mary Ann is even on record saying that the trait that most impressed her about Rand was her certainty. This preference is very characteristic of blind cultists.)

On another point, I read a book called Feet of Clay by Anthony Storr. In discussing David Koresh, he quoted a person who knew Koresh from earlier days. The guy said that the way he saw Koresh work was that he would get an urge of some sort then try it out on his followers (usually framing it as divinely inspired or something like that). If he got positive feedback and people started believing it, he would start believing it himself.

This is a trap almost all gurus face with their disciples. Rand faced it, too. I believe people like the Sures had this kind of negative influence on her with ideas, and, to me (at my current understanding of their relationship), this was far more damaging than any of the fawning and overzealous power stuff the Brandens did.

I believe both follower and leader in this kind of co-dependent relationship mutilate their epistemology. The followers get certainty so they no longer have to think about things like dying and be afraid of it. And the leaders get to try out whims on others, boneheaded whims or destructive ones, it doesn't matter, and watch them grow into a kind of epistemological equivalent of truth. In both cases, they can take their mind off of reality and put it on a replacement. And they both get a payoff from being insiders to the tribe that grows around this relationship.

I would amend my original post to make it clear that Rand's relationship with the Brandens had this "yes loopback" effect, too. I wasn't denying it at the time, but it might appear I was. The negative effect with them was different in that I don't believe either would have literally drunk the Kool-Aid, although they got close. So Rand couldn't try out her ideas on them as much and get a yes back, with the exception of their earlier relationship and a crossover period with the Collective. During that time, Rand had already gotten them married and she was sleeping with Nathaniel, but all that was soon to go south. The feedback loop got shot to hell. However, her true believers hung around and provided her with the yes chamber for far, far longer.

To her credit, Rand restricted that feedback loop relationship to the realm of ideas and her view of the world. She proposed an idea or evaluation. The others said amen. And round and round it went.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Regarding the Sures - your post #27 - Mary Ann came into the group partway between Rand's move to New York in '51 and the publication of Atlas in '57. Mary Ann met Charles later and upon marrying him moved to the Washington, D.C., area, where he lived. She only saw Rand occasionally thereafter.

I think you're overestimating any effect Mary Ann would have had on Rand's thinking. According to Nathaniel, Mary Ann was just sort of there. She became close friends with Leonard Peikoff.

The only area where I see feedback from Mary Ann as potential input to Rand's ideas is in esthetics, but Rand already had her basic theory early. Roger Bissell has documented that by transcribing a radio talk Rand gave some years before the articles in the publications (I don't remember the year off-hand). I think that Mary Ann provided Rand with some material Rand wanted in support of Rand's already-formed ideas, especially in regard to painting - to the detriment of Mary Ann's judgment in art.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're overestimating any effect Mary Ann would have had on Rand's thinking.

Ellen,

My point is not the impact of one individual on Rand, but instead the impact of a group of acolytes all doing a yes chamber. I merely did a close up on one of the acolytes.

By herself, I agree that Mary Ann's effect was probably not all that deep. It's the group of followers--especially the true-believer followers--that is the danger to the guru.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Samson but your thesis makes no sense to me. The desire to shape the world, versus the desire to shape glass, is not a primary motive. It does not solve the egoist-altruist dichotomy.

Egoism and altruism are really the only choices? I can think of one example that transcends the 'dichotomy': utilitarianism. I'd consider it to be a third way because it focuses on the interests of oneself and the interests of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samson, they were psychopaths. Philosophy does not come into it.

I'm analyzing them. You can still analyze psychopaths.

Samson:

The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to (aretaic [virtue] theories) that fundamentally, at leastguide and assess what kind of person (in terms of character traits) we are and should be. And within that domain, deontologiststhose who subscribe to deontological theories of moralitystand in opposition to consequentialists.

Was not familiar with this.

2.4 Deontological Theories and Kant

If any philosopher is regarded as central to deontological moral theories, it is surely Immanuel Kant. Indeed, each of the branches of deontological ethicsthe agent-centered, the patient-centered, and the contractualistcan lay claim to being Kantian.

The agent-centered deontologist can cite Kant's locating the moral quality of acts in the principles or maxims on which the agent acts and not primarily in those acts' effects on others. For Kant, the only thing unqualifiedly good is a good will (Kant 1785). The patient-centered deontologist can, of course, cite Kant's injunction against using others as mere means to one's end (Kant 1785). And the contractualist can cite, as Kant's contractualist element, Kant's insistence that the maxims on which one acts be capable of being willed as a universal lawwilled by all rational agents (Kant 1785). (See generally the entry on Kant.)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

Out of curiosity, are you a student? Worker? Entrepreneur?

A...

I'm a student. Deontological ethics are one of a number of classifications of moral theories. Whether accurate or not, natural rights libertarians (i.e., Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick) are called deontological libertarians because they stand in opposition to consequentialist or utilitarian libertarians (i.e., Milton Friedman). Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism. Ludwig von Mises, despite being a subjectivist, was a utilitarian (I don't think he realized the contradiction). The Greek word for ethics happens to be δεοντολογία. Objectivist ethics are a type of virtue ethics. A tree of the field of ethics, the accuracy of which is not guaranteed:

L.jpg

Objectivist ethics are also a type of egoism, but they are more characteristic of virtue ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "'altruism', in its broad sense [...]" of post #18 is so broad a catch-all as to become a sieve.

Which might be Samson's point. I haven't read the whole thread. I was irritated by Bob's post, which was the one showing on "Recent Content" when I looked at the board, and wanted to protest his calling Barbara Branden, Allan and Joan Blumenthal, Elayne and Harry Kalberman, Mary Ann Rukavina (later Sures), and Alan Greenspan "er...strange people."

Ellen

We have a winner!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 1

(I've broken this into two posts because I'm getting a "fatal error" notice re size if I try to post it as one post.)

Ellen,

My point is not the impact of one individual on Rand, but instead the impact of a group of acolytes all doing a yes chamber. I merely did a close up on one of the acolytes.

By herself, I agree that Mary Ann's effect was probably not all that deep. It's the group of followers--especially the true-believer followers--that is the danger to the guru.

Michael

Agreed with that.

I think there was, in Rand's case, as in the general case, danger to the guru from the yes chamber of the acolytes. In that respect I think Mary Ann is a good example, since from what people say - and from the tone and details of her own accounts - she was very adulating.

In terms of ideational feedback, however, I'd rate Nathaniel Branden as far and away the most important - and later, post-break, Leonard Peikoff.

I'm not suggesting that you disagree with this. I'd just like to add to it because of the relevance to my Christology and Randology thread. One of the myths about Rand I'm talking about there I've called the myth of the straight line. In fact there were changes in Rand's psychology and thinking while she worked on Atlas. Also after Atlas. Objectivism as presented in the courses and the publications was a work in process the content of which was non-insignificantly before the break affected by the interplay between Rand and Nathaniel.

On an older thread, "Brushmarks of Infinity," Jonathan presented an image of the interplay, one which has power for me because I saw the movie referred to. An image of "The Ghost" and "The Darkness," a duo of man-eating lions.

I'll excerpt from Jonathan's remarks:

(Next post)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 2

I think that the problem [regarding responses to art] started farther back than "Rand's later attitudes on the arts." And that Nathaniel Branden was co-partner in getting it going, with his strictures amounting to instructions on what a "rational" person does/doesn't by contrast to what an "irrational" person does/doesn't.

I agree. My comment on Rand's "later attitudes" on the arts was intended to refer to the time after she had achieved success, recognition and a bit of a following, versus the time when she was alone, hungry and inspired to create. And I agree that Branden was a partner in the nastiness. I think that Rand and Branden brought out both the best and worst in each other. When it came to their worst, they remind me of "The Ghost" and "The Darkness," feeding off each other's aggression and wiliness.

Are you thinking of this movie?

Yes, I was thinking about that movie, but also an article that I had read years ago on animal behavior. It was an analysis on how much of animals' behaviors are taught and learned versus known instictively or automatically (as Rand believed). [in one place] the article went into a bit of speculation on the psychology and behavior of the Tsavo man-eaters, and how their actions suggested killing for the fun of it, and that they had egged each other on and shared tactical knowledge.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we don't consider the entire concept of altruism (made clear by Rand in her many expressions) of not only living in service for others, but -as importantly- living by others' standards, and through others' sanction, we Objectivists paint ourselves into a corner, somewhat. Helping other people, supporting charities, or any empathy shown - then become the exclusive preserve of our detractors.

While we, the valuers of "life as the standard", could be in danger of becoming narrow and rigid within our ethics of rational egoism.

Replies to questions like the OP's about dictators, then become confusing, or solely psychological and behavioral.

To my mind the combination "for", "through" and "by"-others- is accurate to the word and spirit in AR's writing, regarding altruism - in its broadest sense.

I certainly hope I didn't write my post in such a way as to imply that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Can anyone come up with an example of a dictator who preached self-interest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Can anyone come up with an example of a dictator who preached self-interest?

Dictators and tyrants preach anything that will increase their power or their grip on power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Can anyone come up with an example of a dictator who preached self-interest?

Dictators and tyrants preach anything that will increase their power or their grip on power.
No kidding Bob, ya think? Now name some that actually preached egoism.

BTW I ought to add that by 'self-interest' I mean in the individualist sense. I foresee someone asking about national self-interest, ethnic self-interest, class self-interest etc. This being an Objectivist site I shouldn't have to clarify so much, but lately we've had some new members offering newbie objections, and that's fine, in fact it's good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we don't consider the entire concept of altruism (made clear by Rand in her many expressions) of not only living in service for others, but -as importantly- living by others' standards, and through others' sanction, we Objectivists paint ourselves into a corner, somewhat. Helping other people, supporting charities, or any empathy shown - then become the exclusive preserve of our detractors.

While we, the valuers of "life as the standard", could be in danger of becoming narrow and rigid within our ethics of rational egoism.

Replies to questions like the OP's about dictators, then become confusing, or solely psychological and behavioral.

To my mind the combination "for", "through" and "by"-others- is accurate to the word and spirit in AR's writing, regarding altruism - in its broadest sense.

I certainly hope I didn't write my post in such a way as to imply that.

No, Why would you think that? I'm only trying to pin down what altruism is, and isn't- Objectively speaking.

At risk of simplifying excessively, altruism suits the dictator to a 'T': it justifies his wrong, irrational or evil actions to a majority of people; it self-justifies his hunger for power to himself; it grants him a measure of counterfeit self-esteem or 'egotism' where he is essentially selfless and non-egoistical.

The dictator claims "I'm doing it all for you, altruistically" - an Objectivist would reply "Quite true: you are".

Dictatorship is as much of an indictment of altruism as altruism is a feature of dictators. Utilitarian or consequentialist, those are (il)logical manifestations of altruism-collectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Can anyone come up with an example of a dictator who preached self-interest?

That makes more sense. Case in point here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Gallifrey ( :smile: ),

I was going to make this point, too, but I was waiting for time to find a quote, as I am pretty sure this was Rand's view. And if she referenced a dictator as an altruist (I don't recall any case, though), I believe she would mean their use of altruism as propagandistic quicksand to gain or reinforce their power.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if she referenced a dictator as an altruist (I don't recall any case, though), I believe she would mean their use of altruism as propagandistic quicksand to gain or reinforce their power.

I think The Fascist New Frontier is the piece to look up. It's the one where she lined up Hitler quotes with Kennedy quotes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Whether a dictator is a pragmatic altruist or not, iow? I would take this a step further, ND.

A dictator is an altruist par excellence. No better example than he.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Whether a dictator is a pragmatic altruist or not, iow? I would take this a step further, ND.

A dictator is an altruist par excellence. No better example than he.

Facepalm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Whether a dictator is a pragmatic altruist or not, iow? I would take this a step further, ND.

A dictator is an altruist par excellence. No better example than he.

Facepalm.

?

You have a counter argument, SC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now