Secret Cancer - Progressivism 101 - Stealth Marxism

[Jerry Biggers]

Thus saith Branden: "Sin is not Original, it is originated."

But all this deep theological discussion of Original Sin has overloaded my already severely-stressed Crow epistemology!

(superfluous comments deleted! - must' been "low blood sugar")

Edited February 2, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's an interesting tidbit on Rand and Original Sin that just now jumped out at me. It's a quote from Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns. pp. 129-130. Jennifer is discussing some correspondence between Ayn Rand and Isabel Paterson in 1948. The opening quote is from a letter by Paterson to Rand:

"You ought to get your creeds straight," she wrote, telling Rand she misunderstood the concepts of original sin and depravity.

I'm currently reading Jennifer's book and it's good to see corroboration (from Isabel Paterson at that) of my view that Rand's understanding of Original Sin is not the same as the traditional Christian meaning. Her idea might cut to a strong core in the way Original Sin has often been used to sneak in sanction of the victim, but it is not the same as what they teach in church.

Michael

[Selene]

Precisely Michael:

I just finished the book. It confirmed a lot of my original perceptions of Ayn, Nathanial and NBI.

You are picking up some of the points that jumped at me also.

Burns was very helpful to me with her filling me in on the period from 1975 through the Kelly schism. Very helpful since was completely divorced from the machinations that continued past her death.

I am going to read Barbara's and Heller's at the same time.

You will really enjoy her work. The Nietzsche foundations in her thought were mercilessly and hotly debated at college and in the Anarchist conferences that we traveled in, so it was great to see the supportive data.

Her research is exceptional.

Adam

[studiodekadent]

Anyway, on another issue, you need to check the premise that the perfectibility of man is inessential to Marxism. The whole idea of dictatorship of the Proletariat is to impose the Marxist ideology on people by force until they do it by themselves. In other words, until they are "perfect" according to Marxist ideology.

I'm not saying that the idea is not present in Marxism; it clearly is. However, the essential feature of something is that which seperates it out from the similar things around it. Marxism is an ideology and thus its essential feature is the set of ideas unique to it and not present in any other ideology. And other ideologies share belief in the perfectability of man, including some varieties of Classical Liberalism. This alone means that an ideology that defends the possible moral perfectability of man cannot be called Marxist unless there are more substantial similarities.

Beck singled out "perfectability of man" as the feature that "proves" "progressives are Marxist." This means he was alleging that anyone who believes man is capable of reaching moral perfection is Marxist.

As for essential features to Marxism, it is clear that the labor theory of value and historical materialism are much more central to Marxist ideology than moral perfection of humanity.

I'm not defending progressivism. Indeed, "progressivism" as we currently understand the term is only mildly more well defined than "conservatism." Beck and co. are putting far too much effort into pretending that these hollow terms are actually well-defined, specific ideological positions.

[Selene]

Andrew:

You make good points, However,

I'm not defending progressivism. Indeed, "progressivism" as we currently understand the term is only mildly more well defined than "conservatism." Beck and co. are putting far too much effort into pretending that these hollow terms are actually well-defined, specific ideological positions.

I strongly disagree with you as to a hard definition of progressivism. Conservatism is also not difficult to define.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

Beck never claimed that perfectibility of man is the only proof of Marxism. Nor have I. He includes other tenets like redistribution of wealth.

Also, along his shows, he has named lots of specific members of Obama's cabinet who are Marxists, if not avowed, then "admirers" and strongly leaning in that direction. He managed to get Van Jones, an out-of-the-closet communist fired. Obama's administration is shot through with people who admire Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and other Marxists. Beck habitually presents videos of them in public speeches saying as much.

White House communications director Anita Dunn is on record saying that Mao Tse-Tung is one of her favorite philosophers.

Outside of all this, you have to understand that Beck's audience is not an academic one. Your normal everyday hard-working person does not distinguish much between Marxism and other brands of "redistribute the wealth to the collective by force" ideologies. All they know is that they work hard for their money and they want to keep it. And that "redistribute" means their money. At that distance, Marxism as a word for the concept works well. It communicates well to Beck' audience what he is talking about.

The perfectibility of man is a premise that underlies all this. You redistribute wealth until you don't need to redistribute it anymore since poverty will be erased, there will be more brotherly love, etc., etc., etc.

If the kinship between the Marxist ideology based on the perfectibility of man and other ideologies based on the perfectibility of man bothers you, maybe that's a good premise to check.

After all, who is in charge of our improvement? Society? God? A set of rules packaged as a philosophy or religion?

And is our improvement individual or collective?

I say each person is the one ultimately in charge of his own life. And his "duty" (if one can call it that) is to serve his own values, not jump head first into a sanction of the victim trap, especially not so others can become perfected. The individual has the right, duty and privilege of looking after his own soul.

Ironically, you can fall into this sanction of the victim trap with Objectivism itself. That's what I believe happens to many of the orthodox Objectivists.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

I strongly disagree with you as to a hard definition of progressivism. Conservatism is also not difficult to define.

I misphrased, my apologies. What I intended to mean was the use of the terms "conservatism" and "progressivism" as names for the political coalitions that currently use these terms. Specifically, any hard definition of either term would exclude some self-proclaimed conservatives and some self-proclaimed progressives from their self-proclaimed label. Sorry for my lack of precision.

Of course, there are ideologies that have used these terms, and these ideologies can be specifically outlined. However, just using "conservatism" as my example, how can you propose a single definition that includes...

1) Classical Liberals (some of whom still often hang around in their most abusive relationship with the conservative movement)

2) Jesus Fascists

3) The Postmodernists Of The Right (Oakshotteans, skeptical-of-perfect-systems-types, etc)?

Even terms like "right wing" are absolutely manipulated... the category merely exists to put Locke and Hitler in the same category; in effect making it sound like the two actually AGREED on something when they did not. In postmodernist terms, the category "right wing" is power-knowledge.

[studiodekadent]

Outside of all this, you have to understand that Beck's audience is not an academic one. Your normal everyday hard-working person does not distinguish much between Marxism and other brands of "redistribute the wealth to the collective by force" ideologies. All they know is that they work hard for their money and they want to keep it. And that "redistribute" means their money. At that distance, Marxism as a word for the concept works well. It communicates well to Beck' audience what he is talking about.

You are right. I am not keeping Beck's audience in mind. I admit this is one of my unfortunate habits.

However, I am simply concerned about the damage his input into shaping the categories that people think in will have. Classical liberalism has been screwed over by being essentially 'defined out' of the political spectrum in mainstream discourse and I would like to fix that eventually.

And Beck's own mormonism combined with his admiration for Rand... well, as you know I have an absolutely unquenchable loathing of the association between market economics and religion. Especially a no-booze-no-smokes-no-sex-no-fun-no-casinos-pay-ten-percent religion like Mormonism.

The reason the left has had a monopoly over 'rebel chic' for decades is in no small part due to the association of social conservatism with market economics. After all, when someone wants to rebel, they wear a shirt emblazoned with the face of someone that wanted to subject all human activity to state control (Che Guevara). They don't wear a shirt emblazoned with the face of someone that wanted the State to be severely downsized.

I've kind of adopted the reclaiming of culturally-recognized antiauthoritarianism from the socialists as my pet project for life.

[Peter]

About Glenn Beck, Michael Stuart Kelly wrote to Andrew:

“He managed to get Van Jones, an out-of-the-closet communist fired. Obama's administration is shot through with people who admire Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and other Marxists. Beck habitually presents videos of them in public speeches saying as much.”

end quote

When the House Un-American Activities Committee, was holding session, Ayn mentioned that people have a right to free speech in America. What they cannot legally do is plot to destroy America, especially in secret. Is that an odd point to make? Does the "stealth" and "secret," imply a crime is being done against the American people, by ignoring the Constitution?

Rand's comments on this issue are worth considering. She states:

“The whole conception of civil rights (of free speech, free assembly, free political organization) applies to and belongs in . . . a realm that precludes the use of physical violence. These rights are based on and pertain to the peaceful activity of spreading or preaching ideas, of dealing with men by intellectual persuasion.

“Therefore, one cannot invoke these rights to protect an organization such as the Communist Party, which not merely preaches, but actually engages in acts of violence, murder, sabotage, and spying in the interests of a foreign government. This takes the Communist Party out of the realm of civil law and puts it into the realm of criminal law. And the fact that Communists are directed and financed by a foreign power puts them into the realm of treason and military law.”

End quote

And she said:

"It is extremely important not to let this whole issue be considered as an issue of the freedom of speech. Nobody has interfered with the right of the Hollywood Ten to their freedom of speech... No legal penalties of any kind were to be imposed on them for their admission of membership in the Communist Party, if they had chosen to admit it. Yet they were screaming that they were asked to incriminate themselves. To incriminate themselves in what manner?"

[_Journals of Ayn Rand_, pp. 381-384.]

Obama’s Progressive crowd OPENLY tries to redistribute wealth, take away the right to free speech, and to nationalize American industries. They are not doing this for a foreign government, just out of their hateful, Progressive, ideology.

Technically, it would be tough to pursue charges of philosophically - criminal activity against him and his staff. However, when he is hounded from office in 2012, I want the new President to investigate Obama’s malfeasance in office, specifically, where did all the money go, did he overstep the power of the Presidency as enumerated in the Constitution, and his ties to secret societies seeking to overthrow the U.S. Government, etc. And how the heck did this Marxist loving President ever pass an FBI background check. Heads should roll.

Peter Taylor

The following are some other notes I took when I was researching this topic. It is not necessary to read them but some may find them of interest. There is some humor at the end.

Was Rand a right-winger?

From: "Peter Reidy" <peterreidy@hotmail.com>

To: reason_on@hotmail.com, atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Rand's Politics

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:16:24

Concerning Hardesty's assertions, here are some facts as best I know them:

- "In 1964 Rand backed Barry Goldwater for President and stated in a March, 1964 interview with Playboy, that the US had a 'right' to invade Cuba, the USSR or any other 'slave pen'."

She backed Goldwater with reservations, and the quotes are accurate. She deals at greater length with the right to invade in "Collectivized Rights".

- "Rand was vehemently opposed to the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Act which prohibited atmospheric nuclear testing and which has saved countless lives, just here in the US of people who would otherwise be poisoned by radiation, from above ground nuclear tests."

She opposed it in passing (not "vehemently") in the Playboy interview and referred readers to Teller's testimony. The rest is an early example of the junk science that has become so much more prevalent lately.

- "Rand thought it morally okay to bomb villages in Vietnam and that it was just tough that noncombatants were killed, an attitude that ARI extends to the whole Arab World today."

I think she would have agreed, though I don't know of anyplace where she actually said so. The part about ARI is true.

- "Rand was against any form of social welfare, she favored a free hand for the FBI & CIA to combat 'spies'".

Correct about social welfare. "Free hand" is too vague to judge, and the scarequotes bespeak a serious ignorance of twentieth-century American history.

- "She was strongly for Nixon's appointment of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court, whom Reagan later elevated to Chief Justice, [sic] he is a hardcore rightwing ideologue."

Questionable. She condemned the double standard of the Rehnquist opposition and said, at most, that his record was cause for guarded optimism. ("The Disenfranchisement of the Right", I think. In "Censorship, Local and Express", she explicitly repudiated him, years before he became Chief Justice. "Hardcore rightwing ideologue" is, once more, impermissibly vague.

- "Rand was for the death penalty in principle."

Correct, though Nathaniel Branden actually authored the statement, in "The Objectivist Newsletter".

- "Rand was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act".

True. See her essay "Racism".

- "According to the late Roy M. Cohn, Rand thought Joe McCarthy was too soft on communism!"

Don't know Cohn actually said this or, if he did, whether his report was accurate. Her only published mention of McCarthy is in "Extremism, or The Art of Smearing". She said that she was not an admirer, but not for the

same reasons as most people. She wouldn't have liked his irresponsibility and his anti-intellectualism. As far as I know, she never said what Hardesty says Cohn said she said.

- "Rand's political mentor was Isabel Paterson, an arch-conservative and anti-Semite, according to Barbara Branden's biography".

Correct, though Barbara Branden says that they eventually broke with each other and that Paterson's penchant for nutzoid hostility was the main reason.

What do you mean by "the McCarthy trials"? Strictly speaking, he held hearings, not trials. I suspect you are conflating them with the HUAC movie hearings, where Rand was a witness. These were quite separate events, and she had no personal involvement in the former.

Did you and Hardesty ever agree on what "rightwing" means? It strikes me as an example of what she called an anti-concept (see "Extremism").

Peter

William Dwyer wrote:

"If the commies were fired for being exposed, then their employment relationship was nonconsensual, to begin with. In that case, all the testimony did was reveal the truth, and allow the employer to make a fully informed choice.

"By objecting to the loss of their jobs, the blacklisted were claiming a right to be employed without the consent and against the will of the employer. They were demanding the right to an unconsenting, involuntary relationship.

"The HUAC testimony did not, therefore, deny their right to freedom of speech; it simply upheld the employer's right to freedom of association."

End quote

Preach not to others what they should eat, but eat as becomes you, and be silent. – Epictetus

I eats me spinach. - Popeye

[syrakusos]

However, the case that it is Auguste Comte, probably as much or more than Marx, that is the ideological force behind modern liberalism, was presented in much greater detail in a largely ignored 1995 book, The Positivist Republic: Auguste Comte and the Reconstruction of American Liberalism, 1865-1920,(Pennsylvania State University Press).

Thanks for that, Jerry! I have not read the book, but I did find four book reviews and a citation in another paper. The actual influence of Comte is debated, but is not debatable. I mean, that among those who have read him, and among those who specialize in American intellectual history, it is not certain just which, if any, of his prescriptions became agenda items for political action. However, it is clear to me from direct experience, that Comte is always mentioned as a founder of sociology -- and that sociology is often an elective among those who pursue political science, history and philosphy, apart from those who actually major in sociology (and criminology).

For a graduate class in sociology theory, I wrote my final paper on Herbert Spencer. Spencer nods to Comte by way of arguing their differences. So, anyone who finds Spencer, finds Comte -- and people dig up Spencer's bones when exploring the roots of racism, social darwinism, etc.

It's a funny thing, but in my undergraduate economics books -- 2006; 2007 -- Karl Marx was relegated to the margins along with Von Mises and anarcho-capitalism: Friedman and Hayek hold the center with Keynes allowed more than a margin, but not much more. However, in sociology, Karl Marx is alive and well. Marx is the originator of all of the conflict theories: class conflict, feminist conflict, race conflict, ... and then on to "critical" theories (critical, femminist critical, etc., etc.)... We do not do much with Comte in a literal sense, though.

That said, like Plato's Republic ruled by philosopher kings, the positivist religion appeals to academics who see themselves as the rightful rulers of society. Like homosexuality in days of old -- or like the right stuff among pilots -- or like money among the old rich -- it is just something that is not said out loud in polite society. They never say "We should rule." They don't have to.

[Jerry Biggers]

However, the case that it is Auguste Comte, probably as much or more than Marx, that is the ideological force behind modern liberalism, was presented in much greater detail in a largely ignored 1995 book, The Positivist Republic: Auguste Comte and the Reconstruction of American Liberalism, 1865-1920,(Pennsylvania State University Press).

Thanks for that, Jerry! I have not read the book, but I did find four book reviews and a citation in another paper. The actual influence of Comte is debated, but is not debatable. I mean, that among those who have read him, and among those who specialize in American intellectual history, it is not certain just which, if any, of his prescriptions became agenda items for political action. However, it is clear to me from direct experience, that Comte is always mentioned as a founder of sociology -- and that sociology is often an elective among those who pursue political science, history and philosphy, apart from those who actually major in sociology (and criminology).

For a graduate class in sociology theory, I wrote my final paper on Herbert Spencer. Spencer nods to Comte by way of arguing their differences. So, anyone who finds Spencer, finds Comte -- and people dig up Spencer's bones when exploring the roots of racism, social darwinism, etc.

It's a funny thing, but in my undergraduate economics books -- 2006; 2007 -- Karl Marx was relegated to the margins along with Von Mises and anarcho-capitalism: Friedman and Hayek hold the center with Keynes allowed more than a margin, but not much more. However, in sociology, Karl Marx is alive and well. Marx is the originator of all of the conflict theories: class conflict, feminist conflict, race conflict, ... and then on to "critical" theories (critical, femminist critical, etc., etc.)... We do not do much with Comte in a literal sense, though.

That said, like Plato's Republic ruled by philosopher kings, the positivist religion appeals to academics who see themselves as the rightful rulers of society. Like homosexuality in days of old -- or like the right stuff among pilots -- or like money among the old rich -- it is just something that is not said out loud in polite society. They never say "We should rule." They don't have to.

Well, my experience when I was in grad school in sociology (admittedly, a long time ago), was that most of the professors just sort of assumed that collectivism was right. Most were not explicit Marxists (there were some in History and Political Science), rather, they were enthralled with the complex but obscure (someone labeled sociology as "the painful elaboration of the obvious") theories of Talcott Parsons, Robert K. Merton, and others of the structuralism/functionalism schools. There was some limited interest in "The Frankfurt School," a notorious gang of neo-Marxists that included Adorno, Marcuse, and Fromm.

References to Comte and Spencer were mostly of a historical nature, as some of the first sociologists, but also as developers of "failed ideological systems." Descriptions (I might say, caricatures) were used, but I cannot recall any professor suggesting that we read what Spencer or Comte actually wrote. If anything, they were pointed to as examples of why philosophical system building was a blind alley. Only empirical investigations of social behavior was encouraged.

Since most modern sociologists never read Comte, they would have been oblivious to any similarity between what they advocated and Comte's system. My guess, is that if such similarities were pointed-out to them, most sociology professors would not be impressed, saying, in effect, "Well, of course we believe those things! That's just 'common knowledge.'" They might raise their estimation of Comte, but they would not buy that they were Comteans.

For further evidence that Rand had Comte pegged right, see Robert Campbell's article in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, and also, here: http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/altruismrandcomte.pdf

Edited February 4, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[George H. Smith]

I posted an article, "Augustine's Boner," in the Articles section at:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8245

Augustine was the most influential Christian theoretician and proponent of original sin, and my article discusses some of his views and the personal experiences that influenced them, especially in regard to sex.

Ghs

[syrakusos]

Well, my experience when I was in grad school in sociology (admittedly, a long time ago), was that most of the professors just sort of assumed that collectivism was right. ... theories of Talcott Parsons, Robert K. Merton, and others of the structuralism/functionalism schools. There was some limited interest in "The Frankfurt School," ...

It would be interesting to conduct a full survey. For instance, today UNC Chapel Hill is an important center with 100 doctoral candidates in the mill. A century ago, even up to 1950, it was Chicago.

Worldwide the number one (English language) undergraduate textbook in sociology is by Anthony Giddens. In the USA, the most widely assigned undergrad survey text is by Macionis, a Marxist. Moreover, in the present, the post modernists are pushing hard to take the center from the Marxists and for all I know, they have broadly succeeded. The leading edge of sociology is held by the French. I an graduate criminology theory, I had to read several of these "no reality, no reason" essays, one of which asserted that Lacan demonstrated crime to be a torus. Based on that, I think that crime will be with us for a while longer.

For myself, the problems were several.

The College of Business only thinks that they are in business. They have programs in "entrepreneurship" that teach people how to make business plans, borrow from banks, and register with the state to pay taxes.

The Economics department, likewise, except for two Marxists, believes that the free market works best when government regulation levels the playing field.

At least the Sociology department knew who they were.

Unfortunately, criminology is in with sociology and anthropology. So, when rich people commit crimes, it is because they are crooks; and when poor people commit crimes it is because rich people are crooks.

[syrakusos]

... presented in much greater detail in a largely ignored 1995 book, The Positivist Republic: Auguste Comte and the Reconstruction of American Liberalism, 1865-1920,(Pennsylvania State University Press).

The prose is rather dry but quite readable.

I got this book from the library and, yes, it is dry. You would have to place a lot of store in the lives and times of Albiohn Small and E. A. Ross to really pursue this. I cannot. I have too much else to do and to read. It is enough to know that Small was the first to be the chair of the sociology department at the University of Chicago. Ross founded the American Association of University Professors after being fired from Stanford for advocating "free silver."

These days -- and that might mean "since 1950" -- we do not actually read Adam Smith and Karl Marx: we read about them. I confess that I have read very little of Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations, maybe 40 pages. A few years back, I actually read Volume 1 of Capital, but, again, after the first 100 pages, I was just turning pages to get to the end. Right now, I have two books of Hayek essays. Again, I'm just flying over at treetop level.

Wallerstein, Foucault, Giddens... we read about them. My most recent reading assignments in sociology tended more toward Arlie Hochschild and Barbara Ehrenreich (both whom I also failed to read all the way through). You take notes and repeat on tests what the professor said. You write a term paper by saying whatever you want to say as long as you have a lot of footnotes and a long bibliography. I graduated summa cum laude. I did get a B in an economics class and I wrote the professor a note thanking him for the class: "Forty years ago, I was a C+ student. I'm still a C+ student. We've just made it easier, is all."

Edited February 10, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Jerry Biggers]

... presented in much greater detail in a largely ignored 1995 book, The Positivist Republic: Auguste Comte and the Reconstruction of American Liberalism, 1865-1920,(Pennsylvania State University Press).

The prose is rather dry but quite readable.

I got this book from the library and, yes, it is dry. You would have to place a lot of store in the lives and times of Albiohn Small and E. A. Ross to really pursue this. I cannot. I have too much else to do and to read. It is enough to know that Small was the first to be the chair of the sociology department at the University of Chicago. Ross founded the American Association of University Professors after being fired from Stanford for advocating "free silver."

These days -- and that might mean "since 1950" -- we do not actually read Adam Smith and Karl Marx: we read about them. I confess that I have read very little of Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations, maybe 40 pages. A few years back, I actually read Volume 1 of Capital, but, again, after the first 100 pages, I was just turning pages to get to the end. Right now, I have two books of Hayek essays. Again, I'm just flying over at treetop level.

Wallerstein, Foucault, Giddens... we read about them. My most recent reading assignments in sociology tended more toward Arlie Hochschild and Barbara Ehrenreich (both whom I also failed to read all the way through). You take notes and repeat on tests what the professor said. You write a term paper by saying whatever you want to say as long as you have a lot of footnotes and a long bibliography. I graduated summa cum laude. I did get a B in an economics class and I wrote the professor a note thanking him for the class: "Forty years ago, I was a C+ student. I'm still a C+ student. We've just made it easier, is all."

I don't think that most liberal intellectuals, were then, or are now, "disciples" of Comte, in the sense that they "bought" the Comtean system. His work is nowhere cited as much as Marx, or other Marxists.

However, the book makes a good case that Herbert Croly, a Comtean, was very influential through his magazine, The New Republic, on the development of liberal or Progressive thought. I don't think that that magazine ever described itself as "Comtean," but it was a conduit for some of the ideas that Comte had advocated (along with other collectivist theories.

In the case of Lester Ward, he was a major shaper of the direction that American sociology took, leading away from the libertarian ideas of William Graham Sumner and Herbert Spencer.

The book, The Positvist Republic, does not postulate a "Comtean conspiracy" that subverted American liberalism/Progressivism, it is not a Fabian Freeway, a book that accused British Fabian Society socialists of sneakily doing that very thing. But it does illustrate that Comte's ideas had more influence than had previously been generally accepted. It is also clear that this line of investigation in the history of intellectual ideas, is worthy of a more thorough investigation.

[fred39]

Do not know if this will interest you, but Woodrow is in my book, publication date now uncertain, probably in March or April.

[Daniel Barnes]

The perfectibility of man is a premise that underlies all this.

The perfectibility of man is a common thread in Utopian ideologies. In Marx it is presented as a kind of End of History, the faint glow in the rubbled horizon of capitalism. Marx promises Utopian freedom just like all prophets - people overlook this. As the contradictions are resolved all historical progress ends, time stands still, the road is cleared and freed from his chains man can do what he pleases. Fortunately, as his consciousness is no longer alienated from himself, and he has reclaimed the means of production, what he wants to do is presumably happily build factories and machines and buildings and produce, produce, produce. We see this in the Ivan and His Happy Factory school of Social Realist art.

The perfectibility of man is present loud and clear in Objectivism too, as you rightly point out. This gives Objectivism some of the same doctrinaire aesthetics as Socialist Art. Perhaps more wings and feathers in Objectivism. Anyway, Rand's incitements to perfection include her rhetorical absolutism and of course her strange blurring the real and ideal, of fact and fiction, in her presentation of the ideal man.

However her actual exposition of "perfection" is confusing. She attacks Platonism but AFAICS offers absolutely no coherent replacement theory. Her heroes are about as impossible as a perfect circle, rhetorical protestations in her endpapers notwithstanding. As she carefully avoids dealing with specifics, that her counterarguments are fallacies only becomes obvious by paying attention to her unguarded asides; for example when she tries to discuss "absolute" precision in physical measurement in the ITOE (the passage about "between 1mm and 2mm" on p196). This is an important yet easily overlooked passage, as it shows I think quite plainly that her attempt to refute Plato's basic insight (the dichotomy between the physical and the abstract) is a howler.

So we have in Rand simultaneously both a denial of "perfection" and powerful incitements towards it. The result is quite a bit of chop.

If the kinship between the Marxist ideology based on the perfectibility of man and other ideologies based on the perfectibility of man bothers you, maybe that's a good premise to check.

Absolutely.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a concrete face for the Progressive side of the perfectibility of man.

It's an interview with some members at the recent anti-Koch brothers rally. Van Jones is even in this clip talking about the politics of hope. (Read more on The Blaze here--and here for more context.)

Some of those nice folks want to lynch Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and "send him back to the fields."

I guess they think that will perfect him.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/E3ctO7fdrcc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Kumbaya, everybody...

Kumbaya...

Michael