Why is Objectivism Not Spreading, While Ayn Rand is Wildly Popular?

[Jonathan]

Why is Objectivism not spreading?

Hmmm...

Dear Dr. Peikoff and/or Dr. Comrade Sonia,

What should I do to make up for my evil of sometimes using only one dab of shampoo when I wash my hair? The bottle instructs me that I'm supposed to "lather, rinse, and repeat," and, since I had read these instructions prior to agreeing to purchase the shampoo, I therefore understand that I entered into a contractual agreement to properly lather, rinse, and repeat when using the product. But sometimes I don't have time to do the "repeat" part, so I skip it. So, what I'm wondering is, what actions must I take according to Objectivism to morally redeem myself? Should I report myself to the shampoo company and offer to compensate them for the revenue that I've robbed them of? Would that be enough, or should I also report myself to the police for theft?

Signed,

Malleable in Michigan

Dear Malleable....

Edited September 15, 2011 by Jonathan

[PDS]

Why is Objectivism not spreading?

Hmmm...

Dear Dr. Peikoff and/or Dr. Comrade Sonia,

What should I do to make up for my evil of sometimes using only one dab of shampoo when I wash my hair? The bottle instructs me that I'm supposed to "lather, rinse, and repeat," and, since I had read these instructions prior to agreeing to purchase the shampoo, I therefore understand that I entered into a contractual agreement to properly lather, rinse, and repeat when using the product. But sometimes I don't have time to do the "repeat" part, so I skip it. So, what I'm wondering is, what actions must I take according to Objectivism to morally redeem myself? Should I report myself to the shampoo company and offer to compensate them for the revenue that I've robbed them of? Would that be enough, or should I also report myself to the police for theft?

Signed,

Malleable in Michigan

Dear Malleable....

She wouldn't really know the answer to this one, because, if I recall correctly, she doesn't use shampoo. And no, I am not joking.

It's an offshoot of her Paleo stuff.

[Jonathan]

She wouldn't really know the answer to this one, because, if I recall correctly, she doesn't use shampoo. And no, I am not joking.

It's an offshoot of her Paleo stuff.

Seriously? Jesus!

Is that why she's going with the short hair cut these days? Easier to manage with primitive washing techniques? I guess I just assumed that she was trying to look more like St. Ayn so as to be a more convincing authority to the malleable.

J

[Selene]

She wouldn't really know the answer to this one, because, if I recall correctly, she doesn't use shampoo. And no, I am not joking.

It's an offshoot of her Paleo stuff.

Seriously? Jesus!

Is that why she's going with the short hair cut these days? Easier to manage with primitive washing techniques? I guess I just assumed that she was trying to look more like St. Ayn so as to be a more convincing authority to the malleable.

J

Well there goes the lashing her to that tree she poses in front of and the "rape" scenario!

[Dennis Hardin]

It would interest me whether Objectivism was also declared to be a "closed system" at the NBI Intstitutes during the times when it flourished in the 1960s.

Here is a relevant quote by Nathaniel Branden from an article entitled “A Message to Our Readers,” in the April, 1965 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter:

“In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy--it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as Objectivists.”

He adds: “But at present, when the name is so intimately and exclusively associated with Miss Rand and me, it is not.”

Branden was cautioning supporters of Objectivism about misrepresenting the philosophy before they had attained a full understanding of it. The clear implication, however, was that, as with any new philosophy, working out all the philosophical aspects of Objectivism will require the contribution of many writers and thinkers for many years to come.

[Xray]

She wouldn't really know the answer to this one, because, if I recall correctly, she doesn't use shampoo. And no, I am not joking.

It's an offshoot of her Paleo stuff.

Does Diana not shampoo because the hunter-gatherers went shampooless too?

A while ago, I read a blog entry of hers re that Paleo Diet. Plenty of fat and meat. are allowed. No bread, no pasta!

I just had a nice helping of pasta con tasty pesto alla calabrese. Am I glad not having to eat exclusively what our hunter/gatherer ancestors had to eat because there was nothing else available!

Edited September 16, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

It would interest me whether Objectivism was also declared to be a "closed system" at the NBI Intstitutes during the times when it flourished in the 1960s.

Here is a relevant quote by Nathaniel Branden from an article entitled “A Message to Our Readers,” in the April, 1965 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter:

“In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy--it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as Objectivists.”

He adds: “But at present, when the name is so intimately and exclusively associated with Miss Rand and me, it is not.”

Branden was cautioning supporters of Objectivism about misrepresenting the philosophy before they had attained a full understanding of it. The clear implication, however, was that, as with any new philosophy, working out all the philosophical aspects of Objectivism will require the contribution of many writers and thinkers for many years to come.

The key word by Branden here is "cultural" apropos an Objectivist movement. I really think the cultural carries the intellectual on its back and it worked in the 1960s for Objectivism but not since. One reason, ironically, is intellectual, for Objectivist cultural and intellectual naturally enough tend to be mixed up. The left more and more disengaged intellectually in favor of anti-war demonstrations, riots, bombs and wrong-headed, extreme environmentalism*. Today they are only being effectively if not wrongly engaged by hard-headed, pro-war conservatives who are hardly concerned about liberty and individual rights and individualism on the basic level. This leaves an Objectivist atomistically engaging the world all by himself with no bigger place to repair to save his family, friends and business associates. Places like OL hardly count except to those who read and write this stuff.

--Brant

*I am an environmentalist btw, but that's another story for another thread

Edited September 16, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

It would interest me whether Objectivism was also declared to be a "closed system" at the NBI Intstitutes during the times when it flourished in the 1960s.

Here is a relevant quote by Nathaniel Branden from an article entitled “A Message to Our Readers,” in the April, 1965 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter:

“In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy--it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as Objectivists.”

He adds: “But at present, when the name is so intimately and exclusively associated with Miss Rand and me, it is not.”

Branden was cautioning supporters of Objectivism about misrepresenting the philosophy before they had attained a full understanding of it. The clear implication, however, was that, as with any new philosophy, working out all the philosophical aspects of Objectivism will require the contribution of many writers and thinkers for many years to come.

It seems that contribution came to a halt as the two big splits occurred (Rand-N.Branden and later Peikoff-Kelley).

In his 1984 article,

The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand

A Personal Statement

NB is very critical about some crucial aspects of the philosophy. http://nathanielbran...nd_hazards.html

Edited September 16, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

NB's benefits and hazard article was Hseih's public and lying rationalization for chucking him and going over to Peikoff when all she really was doing was trying to re-virginize herself.

--Brant

Edited September 16, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[anthony]

It would interest me whether Objectivism was also declared to be a "closed system" at the NBI Intstitutes during the times when it flourished in the 1960s.

Here is a relevant quote by Nathaniel Branden from an article entitled “A Message to Our Readers,” in the April, 1965 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter:

“In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy--it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as Objectivists.”

He adds: “But at present, when the name is so intimately and exclusively associated with Miss Rand and me, it is not.” Branden was cautioning supporters of Objectivism about misrepresenting the philosophy before they had attained a full understanding of it. The clear implication, however, was that, as with any new philosophy, working out all the philosophical aspects of Objectivism will require the contribution of many writers and thinkers for many years to come.

It seems that contribution came to a halt as the two big splits occurred (Rand-N.Branden and later Peikoff-Kelley). In his 1984 article, The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand A Personal Statement NB is very critical about some crucial aspects of the philosophy. http://nathanielbran...nd_hazards.html

"NB is very critical about some crucial aspects of the philosophy."

Not true. You are making a similar mistake those Objectivists who call NB an "enemy of O'ism" make.

If they (or you) read the essay with any impartiality - not to mention objectivity - and maybe a touch of charity, they would recognize that Branden at no time criticizes Objectivism as such.

Sure, he knew what he was talking about, alright, having observed the harmful effects of suspending independent judgment by young Objectivists - of taking it all in as rote.

THIS is all he criticizes: that Rand herself was judgmental to an extreme (leaving aside the fact that she was often right), AND that she either implicitly, by her power of character, or explicitly demanded, that new O'ists do the same. Who could match her intellect, anyway?

The only aspect directly related to Objectivism he emphasizes is the role of emotions; he completely endorses that they are not tools of cognition, but decries the "self-alienation" that young people go through in attempting to emulate Rand's self-contained heroes. (For his part in contributing to this at the NBI, he admits his error.)

Over-conflation between Rand and her philosophy, dogmatism and 'over-moralizing', excess identification with fictional characters, and AR's own personal errors - that's about the lot.

Branden has nowhere I've read denigrated Objectivism, qua philosophy, or "crucial aspects" of it.

Actually, the last I read he still calls himself "neo-Objectivist" - and I get the impression that that's more from courtesy and respect for some present Objectivists. If not for being ousted by Rand, I'm speculating, he might probably have not needed the "neo".

After all this, that he admires AR isn't in doubt in his essay, and he obviously had reason not to.

Tony

[Xray]

"NB is very critical about some crucial aspects of the philosophy."

Not true. You are making a similar mistake those Objectivists who call NB an "enemy of O'ism" make.

If they (or you) read the essay with any impartiality - not to mention objectivity - and maybe a touch of charity, they would recognize that Branden at no time criticizes Objectivism as such.

Sure, he knew what he was talking about, alright, having observed the harmful effects of suspending independent judgment by young Objectivists - of taking it all in as rote.

THIS is all he criticizes: that Rand herself was judgmental to an extreme (leaving aside the fact that she was often right), AND that she either implicitly, by her power of character, or explicitly demanded, that new O'ists do the same. Who could match her intellect, anyway?

The only aspect directly related to Objectivism he emphasizes is the role of emotions; he completely endorses that they are not tools of cognition, but decries the "self-alienation" that young people go through in attempting to emulate Rand's self-contained heroes. (For his part in contributing to this at the NBI, he admits his error.)

Over-conflation between Rand and her philosophy, dogmatism and 'over-moralizing', excess identification with fictional characters, and AR's own personal errors - that's about the lot.

Branden has nowhere I've read denigrated Objectivism, qua philosophy, or "crucial aspects" of it.

Actually, the last I read he still calls himself "neo-Objectivist" - and I get the impression that that's more from courtesy and respect for some present Objectivists. If not for being ousted by Rand, I'm speculating, he might probably have not needed the "neo".

After all this, that he admires AR isn't in doubt in his essay, and he obviously had reason not to.

Tony

Tony,

In the "Hazards" section in N. Branden article, there are quite a few things he criticizes about the philosophy as such, like e. g. "overemphasizing the role of premises". He also criticizes the "all or nothing" approach,

according to which one cannot reasonably pick elements of Rand's philosophy and discard others.

This is actually a critique of the "closed system" principle. http://nathanielbran...nd_hazards.html

If NB calls himself "neo-Objectivist", imo this also indicates that there are certain parts of the philosophy he does not advocate any longer.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

"Why is Objectivism not spreading, while Ayn Rand is widly popular?" Here are several clues in a news item from earlier this year:

,,,,,,,,,,

http://www.hollywood...ises-two-182714

" Aglialoro acknowledged that spending almost no money on marketing and relying almost entirely on the Internet and talk radio -- a strategy he boasted of a week ago -- was ineffective in the long run. "You really need to spend millions to get the message on TV screens" [he said]...He also is considering partnering with a major studio for the next two installments, as he may do for international distribution on Part 1.

He said he's sticking to his plan [to produce the remaining two parts of the movie] though gathering the same talent and crew might be a problem. "The critics killed it so badly that agents may tell their clients they shouldn't be associated with this thing," he said. "I've got to give it to the critics. They won this battle, but they will not win the war. The message has been told in Part 1, and it will be told in Parts 2 and 3."

,,,,,,

If you read between the lines, a lot is said or implied in this short news item.

And you can transfer much of it to - largely unsuccessful - efforts to publishing projects, writing and lecturing efforts, conferences...and in general the whole array of efforts over a great deal of time by Objectivists at persuasion, at making a major impact in or changing the culture...or even key parts of it.

What does the above, what does the whole history of the movie -- the major big bucks effort at reaching out to the culture of the last year -- reveal if anything about what we (or our leaders or organizers or important communicators) are doing wrong -- or could improve? . . . Or does it show what is being done basically right?

Edited September 18, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

Objectivism is a technical philosophy, especially in its epistemology, even if it is not a fully developed one. The vast majority of Americans don't even know what "epistemology" means, and they would have no desire to study it even if they did.

The failure of Objectivism to keep pace with the popularity of Rand is largely owing to the fact that most Americans have no interest in philosophy. They never have, and they never will. As Tocqueville observed long ago, Americans tend to be highly pragmatic. They want to live their lives and have no interest in ideas per se, unless they see a connection somewhere.

I would say that Objectivism has done remarkably well, as philosophies go. Note, for example, the common practice nowadays of praising "capitalism" by name. This was fairly unusual just a few decades ago, when "capitalism" tended to be a dirty word. Although there is no way to pinpoint the exact causes of this change. I suspect Rand had a lot to do with it.

Ghs

[Xray]

"Why is Objectivism not spreading, while Ayn Rand is widly popular?" Here are several clues in a news item from earlier this year:

,,,,,,,,,,

http://www.hollywood...ises-two-182714

<...>

From the article:

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, though, gave the movie zero stars, and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave it one. A dozen others were equally dismissive.

"It was a nihilistic craze," Aglialoro said. "Not in the history of Hollywood has 16 reviewers said the same low things about a movie.

"They're lemmings," he said. "What's their fear of Ayn Rand? They hate this woman. They hate individualism.

But aren't there also Objectivists who have criticized the movie?

Is it possible at all to make AS into a convincing movie? Imo, no.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Objectivism is a technical philosophy, especially in its epistemology, even if it is not a fully developed one. The vast majority of Americans don't even know what "epistemology" means, and they would have no desire to study it even if they did.

The failure of Objectivism to keep pace with the popularity of Rand is largely owing to the fact that most Americans have no interest in philosophy. They never have, and they never will. As Tocqueville observed long ago, Americans tend to be highly pragmatic. They want to live their lives and have no interest in ideas per se, unless they see a connection somewhere.

I would say that Objectivism has done remarkably well, as philosophies go. Note, for example, the common practice nowadays of praising "capitalism" by name. This was fairly unusual just a few decades ago, when "capitalism" tended to be a dirty word. Although there is no way to pinpoint the exact causes of this change. I suspect Rand had a lot to do with it.

Ghs

I think the reasons for praising capitalism are pragmatic rather than philosophical. As long as people think they are going to profit from a system, they are likely to praise it.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

The failure of Objectivism to keep pace with the popularity of Rand is largely owing to the fact that most Americans have no interest in philosophy. They never have, and they never will. As Tocqueville observed long ago, Americans tend to be highly pragmatic. They want to live their lives and have no interest in ideas per se, unless they see a connection somewhere.

That is good news and bad news. Good news because the U.S. never went to the extremes that France did following the revolution of 1789. That is bad news because we have little defense against the internal rot that is destroying our nation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

The failure of Objectivism to keep pace with the popularity of Rand is largely owing to the fact that most Americans have no interest in philosophy. They never have, and they never will. As Tocqueville observed long ago, Americans tend to be highly pragmatic. They want to live their lives and have no interest in ideas per se, unless they see a connection somewhere.

That is good news and bad news. Good news because the U.S. never went to the extremes that France did following the revolution of 1789. That is bad news because we have little defense against the internal rot that is destroying our nation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Generally speaking, 18th century Americans were more philosophically astute than their contemporaries in France.

The French Revolution was a good revolution gone bad. In its early stages, it followed the American example in many respects. But the Ancien Regime was much more firmly entrenched in France than it ever was in America, and this caused a number of problems that Americans didn't face.

If other countries had left France to itself instead of resorting to military means to crush the Revolution, things would probably have turned out much differently than they did. The threat of foreign intervention commonly serves as a rationale for despotism, as it did in the case of Napoleon.

One more thing: The French National Assembly, following the American example, imposed term limits on delegates, many of whom, such as Lafayette, were moderates. When these moderates could no longer serve, their places were sometimes filled by radical nut cases.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Objectivism is a technical philosophy, especially in its epistemology, even if it is not a fully developed one. The vast majority of Americans don't even know what "epistemology" means, and they would have no desire to study it even if they did. The failure of Objectivism to keep pace with the popularity of Rand is largely owing to the fact that most Americans have no interest in philosophy. They never have, and they never will. As Tocqueville observed long ago, Americans tend to be highly pragmatic. They want to live their lives and have no interest in ideas per se, unless they see a connection somewhere. I would say that Objectivism has done remarkably well, as philosophies go. Note, for example, the common practice nowadays of praising "capitalism" by name. This was fairly unusual just a few decades ago, when "capitalism" tended to be a dirty word. Although there is no way to pinpoint the exact causes of this change. I suspect Rand had a lot to do with it. Ghs

I think the reasons for praising capitalism are pragmatic rather than philosophical. As long as people think they are going to profit from a system, they are likely to praise it.

I was referring to the widespread use of the word "capitalism." It was not that long ago when even many free-market advocates avoided it.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Is it possible at all to make AS into a convincing movie? Imo, no.

The basic problem is after the first run of The John Galt Line the story is a downer. The entire idea of the men of the mind going on strike and triumphing over the evil altruist-collectivist world is its gross passive-aggressive behavior, best represented by the actions and character of Francisco d'Anconia, who used to be my favorite character. It's a revenge fantasy readers can indulge in, not a broad movie audience which can only sit there thinking WTF? Surrendering the world to evil-doers to demonstrate the impotence of evil? According to the premise of the story everybody ends up with what they want--the good guys and the bad guys--the destruction of the old order. If the bad guys don't survive--well, now, they never intended to, did they?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As Tocqueville observed long ago, Americans tend to be highly pragmatic. They want to live their lives and have no interest in ideas per se, unless they see a connection somewhere.

George,

There is an enormous market opportunity in this.

As you know, I have been studying Internet marketing for a few years now. One of the brick walls I have run into is the moral issue. (You don't want to go to IM folks for a course in integrity. )

But there is one area that is lucrative where you can operate well with integrity, one I am gravitating towards: Translating complex ideas into common language and giving people systems (relatively simple ones) for using this information to their benefit. This is called the expert or advice industry.

Epistemology is one area where people (especially Americans) are turned off because of the name and the unbelievably convoluted and boring form people use when writing about it (including Rand's "academic" style--which I intensely dislike, although I like her ideas and attempts, even when I don't agree with them).

But, if you break down the ideas into their main points in common language (using the big words once in a while to show you know your stuff), tell a story about how this helped you and others, give a step-by-step method for doing something productive with it (like, say, how to form a concept on purpose--including what to do with it after it is formed), and some practice exercises, you have a small product that you can sell.

That's just an example, but off the top of my head, I believe there is a demand for something like this.

Note: This is not "dumbing down" although I have no doubt there will be people who will call it that. This is putting knowledge in a usable form for non-experts. There's a big difference--including the intent to humiliate as opposed to the intent to provide value.

In NB's Benefits and Hazards essay, he mentioned that Objectivism does not present a "technology for facilitating the process of becoming a rational, moral human being." His emphasis is on psychology, but I believe the expert/advice industry also fits the bill perfectly in other areas.

Interestingly enough, look at NB's approach. He is generally well within the expert/advice industry parameters in his popular works.

(btw - I may or may not do this with Objectivist stuff in my own business. I haven't decided yet. I'm not too keen on being perceived as an Objectivist guru--my sights are set on bigger opportunities. But the field is huge for anyone who wishes to.)

Michael

[Jonathan]

And you can transfer much of it to - largely unsuccessful - efforts to publishing projects, writing and lecturing efforts, conferences...and in general the whole array of efforts over a great deal of time by Objectivists at persuasion, at making a major impact in or changing the culture...or even key parts of it.

It's an issue of talent. All of the Objectivists who dream of "making a major impact in or changing the culture" don't have a fraction of a fraction of the talent or originality that Rand had, yet they seem to expect that somehow they're going to have as much or more "impact" than she did. Fools.

Phil, maybe you should consider stopping your efforts at having "impact" and changing everyone else, and instead invest your time in developing some talents and improving your life? Maybe your first small step toward self-improvement could be to learn to use the quote function. Then eventually you could work your way up to no longer needing to schoolmarm "the culture."

What does the above, what does the whole history of the movie -- the major big bucks effort at reaching out to the culture of the last year...

Is that an accurate representation of what happened -- that there was a "major big bucks effort at reaching out to the culture"? You make it sound as if the movie was intended to be propaganda rather than art.

...reveal if anything about what we (or our leaders or organizers or important communicators) are doing wrong -- or could improve? . . . Or does it show what is being done basically right?

I think it reveals that people can't just will themselves to have Ayn Rand's talent and impact. The more talent and originality that is brought to any project, the better it will do, and the more Smug Objectivist Mediocrity™ that is brought to a project the worse it will do.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

One more thing: The French National Assembly, following the American example, imposed term limits on delegates, many of whom, such as Lafayette, were moderates. When these moderates could no longer serve, their places were sometimes filled by radical nut cases.

There were no term limits in the U.S Constitution until the 22nd amendment limiting the term of President.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

One more thing: The French National Assembly, following the American example, imposed term limits on delegates, many of whom, such as Lafayette, were moderates. When these moderates could no longer serve, their places were sometimes filled by radical nut cases.

There were no term limits in the U.S Constitution until the 22nd amendment limiting the term of President. Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm well aware of this. There were term limits in the Confederation Congress and in various state legislatures. Some French revolutionaries took a keen interest in these precedents. They knew a lot more about America than its federal constitution. Moreover, Thomas Jefferson, who favored term limits, was in France during the early stages of the Revolution; and there is no doubt that he was sometimes consulted in these matters.

Terms limits (or "rotation in office") were an important feature of the Radical (or "Real") Whig ideology. The fact that they were not included in the U.S. Constitution was a major point of contention by the Anti-Federalists, i.e., opponents of the Constitution.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The following is an excerpt from the first of four Knowledge Products scripts (narrated by George C. Scott) that I wrote on the American Revolution in the late 1980s. Its relevance to my previous remarks about philosophy and the Amercan character should be obvious.

Why did so many average Americans leave their homes and farms to fight for independence? This question was answered by one Captain Preston, who fought the British at Concord. In 1842, this 91- year-old veteran was interviewed by a 21- year-old reporter. The young reporter apparently expected to hear stories of unjust taxes and oppression, and of revolutionaries schooled in theories of liberty. What he got was far different, and more to the point:

Reporter: "Captain Preston, did you take up arms against intolerable oppressions?"

Preston: "Oppression? I didn't feel them."

R: "What, were you not oppressed by the Stamp Act?"

P: "I never saw one of those stamps. I certainly never paid a penny for one of them."

R: "Well, what then about the tea tax?"

P: "I never drank a drop of the stuff; the boys threw it all overboard."

R: "Then I suppose you had been reading Harrington or Sidney or Locke about the eternal principles of liberty?"

P: "Never heard of 'em. We read only the Bible, the Catechism, Watts' Psalms, and the Almanac."

R: "Well, then, what was the matter? And what did you mean in going to this fight?"

P: "Young man, what we meant in going for those redcoats was this: We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn't mean we should."

An intense individualism shines through in this interview, and this, perhaps more than any other trait, characterized the 18th-Century American....

Ghs

[Selene]

Angela:

George was specifically pointing out that people were not praising capitalism years ago whether they were profiting from it or not. Therefore, your statement does not follow what his point was making.

Adam

you are welcome as to the crowd scenario- now how do you exit a car, safely if an live electrical wire is across the hood?