MARXISM AND OBJECTIVISM AND ONE PHILOSOPHY

[Brant Gaede]

The philosophy of victimhood.

Marxism posits exploitation of the working class by the historical necessity of the Capitalist class, or workers by capitalists.

Now, I'm not sure the above statement is accurate enough for philosophical truth, but it's what I'm working off of as I lard on a little more.

The capitalists are to be swept away by history but the communists will accelerate the process and communism will wither away after this is done.

Exploitation creates victimhood. Being a victim creates anger. The anger is discharged through revolution. In an individual person sans any philosophy that revolution is a striking out and knocking down and setting things right and it's justice. Bottling up the anger creates depression which can lead to suicide, the idea being to make someone else suffer for victimizing you. Or murder.

That's Marxism: a rationale and justification for murder-might-as-well-be-suicide, people are going to die for justice. This is why communism is so universally loved by the intelligentsia: the working class is so general and massive while the ruling capitalist class is exploitative and parasitical--and the bourgeoisie? They gotta go too if only to speed things up. Evil in the name of the (victim) people. The Nazis are to be despised for their victims were Germans and the prime victimizers were Jews not Capitalism so much or capitalists. The fascists weren't much better that way. In fact Nazi and fascist can switch names in the minds of communist Marxists theorists with the greatest default disapprobation being Nazi. The Nazis lost in WWII and are gone except as convenient villains that go hand in hand with businessmen as villains, especially in Hollywood movies. They're gone, so the swear word left for the left over villian in the dominant Marxist matrix of most of the world is "fascist."

So, Marxism is essentially an ad hominem philosophy through economics to politics. If it has a metaphysics and epistemology as such, I've yet to hear that. It's an intellectual artifact with a left-over cultural impact. Getting rid of capitalist-fascist caused victimhood is all that's left. The Marxist can no longer talk about Marxism in intellectual terms outside academia, where it does no such thing. Instead it has devolved there into the ironic fascism of political correctness. You have to be nice to the youngsters, they're so fragile, so susceptible to being victims. This translates into they aren't to hear of Marxist-conflicting ideas for the Marxists of academia don't want to defend and debate but must absolutely protect their power base.

And just as Capitalists subverted themselves to the Nazis in Germany, they do the same by financially supporting American academia, directly and indirectly. They're still selling the hangman the rope.

Along came Rand. Ayn Rand, before Objectivism--which was created out of her last novel--was the intellectual-cultural counterpunch to communism. The capitalists became the victims. Utopia against Utopia. Morality against morality. Clash of the ad hominem philosophical titans. Take away the conflict and the true philosophy left over is Objectivism, but not the Objectivism of the 1960s taught by NBI; that was all mixed up with Galt's speech and moralizing fervor or Objectivism as an intellectual-cultural combo. Take away the cultural and the intellectual basics remain. Hence, the existence of the two Objectivisms, one the philosophy of Ayn Rand and one without the ad hominem gravitas and onslaught fighting the victimhoodism of Marxism.

Marxism without victimhoodism is absolutely nothing. The philosophy of Ayn Rand without Atlas Shrugged is Objectivism.

--Brant

ending with an especial over-simplification in a post of over-simplifications

[merjet]

More Marxism.

[moralist]

The philosophy of victimhood.

Marxism posits exploitation of the working class by the historical necessity of the Capitalist class, or workers by capitalists.

Marxism is a good example of my premise that all evil acts begin with angry blame.

This blame is of course a lie, because it is an unjust accusation of others.

So acting on a false premise is how evil enters this world.

Greg

[Peter]

I remember wondering about the shirt and pants that actor Gary Cooper wore at the end of "The Fountainhead."

They looked like the work clothes from some Communist propaganda poster. Was Rand subliminally influenced by Russian propaganda?

[Brant Gaede]

That's the way work clothes were back then. Your question is valid but not because of the clothes. I don't think Rand picked Cooper's clothes for the scene anyway.

--Brant

Soviet Man

Nazi Man

Rand Man

All = Utopian Man?

Lots of people are murdered or just plain die because they were in the way of the new way--in reality, only two out of the above three--murdered.

Rand Man is coming albeit in a different than Rand-imagined form. As humanity self evolves biologically the brains will win out over the current stock of brainiacs which is still in touch with its human as we know it base. That base may rise up and genocide the brains down as it has done before, most notably with the Jews, the remnants of which are still threatened.

Now, of these three it's posturing or art implying ability of this or that sort but not actual, striving heroic achievement. The problem is the wringing out of actual humanity, not the presence of those mentioned implications. "The David" reeks of heroic humanity, not John Galt. Not that simple, of course, Hank Rearden being the best depicted exception. I think that's why there was a lot of posturing amongst "Students of Objectivism" in the 1960s. And all the Objectivists. I guess you could count those on one or two hands. Rand herself was no exception, nor Nathaniel Branden, who got thrown back onto his human tracks and pushed off on that in the 1970s.

The philosophy of Ayn Rand needs to be deconstructed and re-assembled leaving a lot of parts on the floor. Going on strike just means retiring. Not going on strike means involvement in the human mass of things and things are as they are in any slice of time.

In a thousand years it's still going to be messy.

[moralist]

My Dad wore clothes like that every day. They're called khakis. Government issue to non combat military.

Greg

[syrakusos]

I remember wondering about the shirt and pants that actor Gary Cooper wore at the end of "The Fountainhead."

They looked like the work clothes from some Communist propaganda poster. Was Rand subliminally influenced by Russian propaganda?

The Bolshevik influence within Ayn Rand's fiction:

http://libertyunbound.com/node/858

"The essay resonated with me because from my first reading of The Fountainhead in 1966, it was obvious that Howard Roark was some kind of beatnik. "He pulled his clothes on: old denim trousers, sandals, a shirt with short sleeves and most of its buttons missing." At one of several crossroads in the story, we meet his antithesis, Hopton Stoddard, a mushy man, terrified by religion, and successful in several lines of business including real estate and contraceptives."

[Guyau]

Brant, thanks for your adventure of ideas in this foray.

Near the end of The Fountainhead (the book), Rand gives to Toohey her own assessment of the situation:

"We've found the magic word. Collectivism. Look at Europe . . . . One country is dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the collective is all. The individual held as evil, the mass---as God. No motive and no virtue permitted---except that of service to the proletariat. That's one version. Here's another. A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race---as God. No motive and no virtue permitted---except that of service to the race. . . . Heads---collectivism, and tails---collectivism. . . . Give up your soul to a council---or give it up to a leader."

I'll ramble a bit with you. That second one is the Nazi's, with its facet of race. But without that facet, and nation in its place, the other elements in the second one would seem to cover fascism, which endured long after the defeat of the Nazi's. It seems to me that until Atlas, Rand makes no big connections between government devoted to protection of individual rights against collectives (including against the government) and the capitalist system. No express championship of capitalism until she drafts some workings of the capital goods industry in Atlas.

Notwithstanding all the red T-shirts one still sees today, and some Comrades in western academia, I have the impression that today fascism, as Rand later carefully defined it in her nonfiction, is just as strong a current as marxism in the political factions and in the organization of governments around the globe, including China. There seems as well to be a more pervasive current of market economy, and even of individual rights in more of the world since the days of Rand. And it seems that the special virtue of self-sacrifice, to brother or to God, has remained the more durable false motivating ideal than collectivism. Individual rights remains the counter to forced self-sacrifice, for a collective or whatever, and I think the utopia that would be by a government confined to the enforcement of individual rights would leave open much variety of social relations in the society. It would be a utopia of freedom, and likely with as much or more of the creativity and prosperity found in our own country today. It would not be a case of making the state into someone's heaven.

"He who would make the state into a school of mores does not know his sin. The state has always been made into hell because man wanted to make it into his heaven." ---Frederich Holderlin, Hyperion (1794)

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks, Stephen. Interesting and good points. Now, let's consider this, the difference between Rand's two great novels, each of which she maxed out on intellectually and in effort of creation. What, after all, is Atlas Shrugged? The Fountainhead + the influence of Isabel Paterson. This is another gross over-simplification, but I'm no scholar and won't be writing hundreds of researched pages on this.

There are two justifications for government: protection of individual rights and the violation of individual rights, and since government qua governing can't be gotten away from, both will always be extant. The question is the ratio between these two. Government is a pinata, a pinata of statism. Hanging up there from the ceiling it does it's statism thing. Here's the irony: inside this monstrosity is freedom. Inside the people below is the desire for freedom--hopefully. So you whack the pinata and freedom falls out, for those who want it. But to want it is to already have it enough to know it and want more. Without that rights' violating pinata knowledge of human rights violation--I'm talking about the imagined Utopia of anarchy we get from completely logical libertarians with their heads in the clouds (at least they look damn good)--the only input of rights' violating real life info will be from criminals who will form gangs to get stronger with their own turfs gonna be competing governments! Oh, shit! Now there are many pinatas to hit. Have to form our own freedom gang and take them on. Make our gang's headquarters in Washington, D.C. Stuff our pinata with freedom. We will be called the Founding Fathers. Come whack us--I mean, whack it.

--Brant

got a little incoherent, I think, I'm not sure, but I had a lot of fun

we need statism to fight statism and if we get Utopia we won't keep it for we will have forgotten what statism is, but don't worry about an ungettable Utopia, worry about today: the true Utopia is fighting for freedom and getting enough going that way for positive results and the whole psychology of the culture will shift as the shackles fall off and freedom compounds, not statism as today

[moralist]

Going on strike just means retiring. Not going on strike means involvement in the human mass of things and things are as they are in any slice of time.

Rather than retiring, I see going on strike as withdrawing my participation from the corrupted financially toxic liberal socialist third-party-payer economic sectors... while redeploying my efforts in independent useful constructive first-party Capitalist alternatives.

Greg

[moralist]

we need statism to fight statism and if we get Utopia we won't keep it for we will have forgotten what statism is, but don't worry about an ungettable Utopia, worry about today: the true Utopia is fighting for freedom and getting enough going that way for positive results and the whole psychology of the culture will shift as the shackles fall off and freedom compounds, not statism as today

Collectivized Utopia is impossible.

Because it is an oxymoron, it only attracts the weak morons who are looking for someone else to do it for them.

Utopia can only be secured and sustained by sovereign independent individuals who live by the same values.

Greg

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

What, after all, is Atlas Shrugged? The Fountainhead + the influence of Isabel Paterson.

end quote

Many an afternoon Isabel and Ayn would sit down with a pot of tea.

"Who do you think will make it to the Super Bowl this year, Issy?"

"Call me crazy, but I think Tony Rome and the Coyboys will make it Ayn."

"You mean Tony Romo and the Cowboys, Issy."

"Isn't that what I said?"

[Brant Gaede]

we need statism to fight statism and if we get Utopia we won't keep it for we will have forgotten what statism is, but don't worry about an ungettable Utopia, worry about today: the true Utopia is fighting for freedom and getting enough going that way for positive results and the whole psychology of the culture will shift as the shackles fall off and freedom compounds, not statism as today

Collectivized Utopia is impossible.

Because it is an oxymoron, it only attracts the weak morons who are looking for someone else to do it for them.

Utopia can only be secured and sustained by sovereign independent individuals who live by the same values.

Greg

Utopia per se is impossible except in a very small unit. It never lasts. There used to be one on an island in the South Pacific, for some centuries, until a gang of cannibals arrived.

--Brant

[moralist]

we need statism to fight statism and if we get Utopia we won't keep it for we will have forgotten what statism is, but don't worry about an ungettable Utopia, worry about today: the true Utopia is fighting for freedom and getting enough going that way for positive results and the whole psychology of the culture will shift as the shackles fall off and freedom compounds, not statism as today

Collectivized Utopia is impossible.

Because it is an oxymoron, it only attracts the weak morons who are looking for someone else to do it for them.

Utopia can only be secured and sustained by sovereign independent individuals who live by the same values.

Greg

Utopia per se is impossible except in a very small unit.

Yes... the unit of an individual.

It never lasts.

Also true. Utopia can only last as long as the individual.

While collectivists die waiting for Utopia to save them...

...individualists build their own and enjoy the freedom they work to earn.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

"He who would make the state into a school of mores does not know his sin. The state has always been made into hell because man wanted to make it into his heaven." ---Frederich Holderlin, Hyperion (1794)

So true. Why won't people learn?

[moralist]

"He who would make the state into a school of mores does not know his sin. The state has always been made into hell because man wanted to make it into his heaven." ---Frederich Holderlin, Hyperion (1794)

So true. Why won't people learn?

People will always create the state in their own image.

Greg

[Peter]

SMALL SPOILER ALERT

Greg wrote:

People will always create the state in their own image.

end quote

I saw the movie Interstellar last night.

IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT STOP READING BETWEEN THE STARS (get it?)

**************************************************

It was a bit long and preachy but it had some interesting ideas such as: A revolving space station will be required to simulate gravity if we travel for over a year in space. In long term zero gee conditions, eye sight is always lessened to what is called farsightedness. Bones become brittle, etc.

**************************************************

My question is what kind of government and society would you think is best for life on a revolving station moving through space, with a population of a small village and millions of viable embryos in protective stasis? Would it be hierarchical? Semi-Militaristic as in StarTrek? Laissez-Faire? Constitutional?

[moralist]

My question is what kind of government and society would you think is best for life on a revolving station moving through space, with a population of a small village and millions of viable embryos in protective stasis? Would it be hierarchical? Semi-Militaristic as in StarTrek? Laissez-Faire? Constitutional?

The government that's best for all situations is a moral government,

but it can never be any more decent than the governed,

because it is they who create it in their own image.

Greg

[Derek McGowan]

Tangent time!

Semi-Militaristic as in StarTrek?

You would consider Star Trek to be semi Militaristic? Clarify

[Peter]

Derek wrote:

You would consider Star Trek to be semi Militaristic? Clarify

end quote

Good question. Why is it militaristic? The uniforms. Orders. *The Prime Directive.* Personnel can be court martialed for breaking The PD and for other offenses. Hierarchical command structure: the Captain is the commander who must be obeyed, and there is a second in command, lieutenants, ensigns, and enlisted personnel. They have military grade weaponry. A starship can be sent *to war.* StarTrek The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and StarTrek Voyager, all had a military structure though Deep Space Nine had civilians on it, working along with the semi military. It definitely reminds me of my Dads 30 year life in the Navy and my time in the Army from 1967 to 1969 though the crew of the Enterprise may be more idealistic than the average soldier was back then. Those are some reasons it is militaristic.

Now why would it only be semi-militaristic? They dont salute. Everyone is a volunteer. Officers go to a military academy but I think the enlisted personnel join up to utilize the skills they have acquired in civilian life. I dont remember if personnel were required to go though basic training or boot camp. Those on board can quit whenever they like, just not during a mission. I cant think of much else as to why it is not a full fledged military so perhaps it is mostly military, not semi military.

Of course a civilian group could be run in a militaristic way. I am thinking specifically of military contractors, guards, and mercenaries.