[POLITICS] Why do people look down on Ayn Randian philosophies?

[Seanchaidh]

. Trying to build a society on self-interest motives would only lead to a civilization of self-destructive fools making themselves fat and stupid because it feels good.

So exactly our world right now?...

Even worse, if you can believe it.

Capitalists will violate the constraints of capitalist ideology because it is both in their interests and within their power; they will rig the system because they can.

The fundamental tension is that what we generally mean by a "capitalist" is a businessman or investor, who has the primary goal of making money rather than enacting mode idealised capitalism. Your average ideological capitalist who will see capitalism as the highest principle will be an economist, philosopher, politician or some other form of ideologue who isn't first and foremost in the business of making money. The former type of capitalist, obviously, wants to cherry pick capitalism when it's useful to them and sponge off the state or rig the system when it's useful to them. And that former variety, because they've got the money and money is power, speak loudest.

Well, speak most effectively. They often don't like to be heard very widely-- just by the structures that deliver results.

 

[Marik2]

Objectivism is anything but objective.

 

[Trunkage]

Objectivism is anything but objective.

This sums it up. Nice

 

[Marik2]

I feel a bit bad for Ayn. She grew up under soviet communism, and that warped the concepts of charity, sacrifice, altruism ,equality, and the greater good for her. You can tell that she just snapped and anything that remotely looks "altruistic" is evil in her eyes.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I feel a bit bad for Ayn. She grew up under soviet communism, and that warped the concepts of charity, sacrifice, altruism ,equality, and the greater good for her. You can tell that she just snapped and anything that remotely looks "altruistic" is evil in her eyes.

Normal people react to growing up under soviet communism by replacing insincerity with rudeness, [https://jacobinmag.com/2013/02/soviet-waiters-emotional-labor-customer-service] and otherwise being psychologically healthier and less fearful.

After several days of training about customer service at McDonald's, a young Soviet teenager asked the McDonald?s trainer a very serious question: "Why do we have to be so nice to the customers? After all, WE have the hamburgers, and they don't!"

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I feel a bit bad for Ayn. She grew up under soviet communism, and that warped the concepts of charity, sacrifice, altruism ,equality, and the greater good for her. You can tell that she just snapped and anything that remotely looks "altruistic" is evil in her eyes.

My dad is like that. Lived under communism, immigrated to the US and became a staunch republican. Supports Trump, still thinks that Obama was a foreign born Muslim, the whole 9 yards.

He's not a dumb person either, he just hates communism so much, and hates democrats because he seems them as "communism lite" and things like Burnie Sanders calling himself a democratic socialist really don't help.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I feel a bit bad for Ayn. She grew up under soviet communism, and that warped the concepts of charity, sacrifice, altruism ,equality, and the greater good for her. You can tell that she just snapped and anything that remotely looks "altruistic" is evil in her eyes.

Normal people react to growing up under soviet communism by replacing insincerity with rudeness, [https://jacobinmag.com/2013/02/soviet-waiters-emotional-labor-customer-service] and otherwise being psychologically healthier and less fearful.

After several days of training about customer service at McDonald's, a young Soviet teenager asked the McDonald?s trainer a very serious question: "Why do we have to be so nice to the customers? After all, WE have the hamburgers, and they don't!"

That's kinda funny. The altruistic notion that "the customer is always right" signals the biggest red flag of capitalism outside of feeding greed. There is no shortage of stupid customers out there, and they certainly deserve to be called out on it. It's almost an art form dancing around that fact to a diplomatic solution that benefits both the vendor and consumer in those cases, especially when they're stubborn about it.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I feel a bit bad for Ayn. She grew up under soviet communism, and that warped the concepts of charity, sacrifice, altruism ,equality, and the greater good for her. You can tell that she just snapped and anything that remotely looks "altruistic" is evil in her eyes.

My dad is like that. Lived under communism, immigrated to the US and became a staunch republican. Supports Trump, still thinks that Obama was a foreign born Muslim, the whole 9 yards.

He's not a dumb person either, he just hates communism so much, and hates democrats because he seems them as "communism lite" and things like Burnie Sanders calling himself a democratic socialist really don't help.

Makes one wonder, if there's anyone who's lived under communism that has a broader frame of reference, and still likes it.

 

[Agema]

Makes one wonder, if there's anyone who's lived under communism that has a broader frame of reference, and still likes it.

A substantial number of Eastern Europeans continued to support Communism after it collapsed. Some support was undoubtedly due in part to the chaos and shortages of transition which will have dampened their enthusiasm for other systems, although there were people who really believed in it and thought it was fine. Across much of Eastern Europe there are still Communist parties polling around 10% of the vote, and socialism more generally is still held in reasonable esteem.

If you look at polls for whether people in ex-Communist countries are happy with their (liberal) democracy and think things are better than they were under Communism, you'll actually see that they're more ambivalent than you might suppose. Support for Communism is higher in the older, and countries/communities that 20-30 years of capitalism and democracy have not served very well. Contrary to some perception in the West, the lives of ordinary people in the Eastern Bloc were not akin to being in a prison camp. They were poor compared to the West, but not that poor (especially by comparison of Eastern poor vs. Western poor). Communist regimes also laid on a wide and comprehensive set of social support systems that the people really appreciated, and resented when they tended to disappear along with Communism.

 

[Saelune]

Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

True socialism and true capitalism both pretend that isn't true which is why there are no true socialist or true capitalist states, because human nature cannot allow them to exist, and objectivism pretends that it's a positive thing rather than something that needs to be controlled for.

 

[Saelune]

Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

True socialism and true capitalism both pretend that isn't true which is why there are no true socialist or true capitalist states, because human nature cannot allow them to exist, and objectivism pretends that it's a positive thing rather than something that needs to be controlled for.

It is shitty human behavior that we should discourage.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

True socialism and true capitalism both pretend that isn't true which is why there are no true socialist or true capitalist states, because human nature cannot allow them to exist, and objectivism pretends that it's a positive thing rather than something that needs to be controlled for.

What are you on about? Although we have discussed this before, where I come from, it is taught from the time before one is able to crawl and walk, "we take care of the earth and all that dwell upon it" not, " get mine and screw everyone else". That type of behavior would never be tolerated where I come from and I disagree that it is necessarily "basic human nature". It is only that way if it is allowed to exist in the first place. I have never seen anyone where I come from behave that way but that is because we are taught our entire lives that goes against the existence of life here on earth. Mankind would not survive at all if everyone behaved in such ways, it would destroy civilization itself. It is no more " basic human nature" than to kill people is and should be tolerated just the same. This destructive behavior is a learned behavior and can be eliminated from a society by what a society will and will not tolerate as acceptable. If it is prevalent in a society, it is only because that society promoted it to be prevalent.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

True socialism and true capitalism both pretend that isn't true which is why there are no true socialist or true capitalist states, because human nature cannot allow them to exist, and objectivism pretends that it's a positive thing rather than something that needs to be controlled for.

What on earth do you think "true socialism" is?

 

[Agema]

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

It's a component of human nature, in and amongst a great deal of other things. Furthermore, how we choose to run society influences how people think about things - including the extent to which "I got mine fuck you" is expressed.

If we go back to the film Wall Street ("Greed is good") we have to wonder that the 80s heralded a shift in how many people thought such that "I got mine fuck you" became a great deal more believed (and even socially acceptable), and problems in declining areas, often postindustrial, were little mitigated or cared about and left to fester for decades, with the result of a lot of unhappy people.

 

[Trunkage]

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

Capitalism tried and failed. Your premise is faulty becuase this attidue negates ANY possible economic philosophy. Or any laws. Ayn Rand is another example of this attitude - her Collective was a shitshow that kept breaking apart because others would tread on you, and you had the option to leave. The only way for a economic theory to pop up around 'got mine, fuck up' is if everyone was forced to do it. There would be no escape so you had to do it. And whose going to enforce that, when the attitude is 'got mine, fuck you." No one.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Most if not all 'Communist' countries are about as communist as North Korea is Democratic.

Also 'Got mine, fuck you' is a common view of shitty people, also known as hypocrisy.

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

True socialism and true capitalism both pretend that isn't true which is why there are no true socialist or true capitalist states, because human nature cannot allow them to exist, and objectivism pretends that it's a positive thing rather than something that needs to be controlled for.

What on earth do you think "true socialism" is?

The workers own everything and distribute all resources in a fair and even manner based all around the the good of society favoring those with the greatest contribution.

The problem being that "fair" is relative and there's always someone at the top distributing the resources in a manner that allows some people to be "more equal" than others creating a wealth hierarchy based on corruption and nepotism.

People don't actually want fairness and equality, they want to gain. People at the bottom want "fairness" because they stand to gain something when they are raised by the lowering of others. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to be raised up and raising up other people. The problem is that people don't actually want to reach an equilibrium stopping point where everyone is equal and has enough. People aren't happy to have it "good enough" they always want things to get better for themselves and that usually means climbing over others to achieve more, and if they have achieved more than the average no one wants to go back.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

It's a component of human nature, in and amongst a great deal of other things. Furthermore, how we choose to run society influences how people think about things - including the extent to which "I got mine fuck you" is expressed.

If we go back to the film Wall Street ("Greed is good") we have to wonder that the 80s heralded a shift in how many people thought such that "I got mine fuck you" became a great deal more believed (and even socially acceptable), and problems in declining areas, often postindustrial, were little mitigated or cared about and left to fester for decades, with the result of a lot of unhappy people.

"Got mine fuck you" is really basic human nature, and any economic philosophy worth pursuing should take that fact into consideration.

Capitalism tried and failed. Your premise is faulty becuase this attidue negates ANY possible economic philosophy. Or any laws. Ayn Rand is another example of this attitude - her Collective was a shitshow that kept breaking apart because others would tread on you, and you had the option to leave. The only way for a economic theory to pop up around 'got mine, fuck up' is if everyone was forced to do it. There would be no escape so you had to do it. And whose going to enforce that, when the attitude is 'got mine, fuck you." No one.

I think you've both completely misunderstood what I'm saying.

I didn't say that the "fuck you go mine" attitude is good and productive, and I didn't say that people should follow it.

I said that it was basic human nature and if you want to have a functioning economic model you have to take basic human nature into account. What that means is trying to direct people's instincts toward mutually beneficial productivity and creating laws that make it more difficult for people to take advantage of others and be greedy.

Greed is bad, but greed is a basic human emotion that everyone has.

The reason socialism doesn't work is because people fundamentally don't want to be equal, and the moment that someone has a little more than other they will fight to keep it rather than give it up for the good of society.

The reason capitalism doesn't work is because greed prevents a free market from existing. Capitalists love talking about the free market and how deregulation will fix things, but the fact of the matter is that a free market requires competition and companies hate competition and love monopolies. A free market cannot exist because companies purposefully interfere with competition for their own gain.

These things are bad, and a sustainable economic system would take these things into account instead of pretending that all people are rational human beings who will behave rationally for the benefit of society.

 

[Silvanus]

The reason socialism doesn't work is because people fundamentally don't want to be equal, and the moment that someone has a little more than other they will fight to keep it rather than give it up for the good of society.

Do you think that socialism engenders everybody having exactly the same amount of money?

It doesn't.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The workers own everything and distribute all resources in a fair and even manner based all around the the good of society favoring those with the greatest contribution.

The problem being that "fair" is relative and there's always someone at the top distributing the resources in a manner that allows some people to be "more equal" than others creating a wealth hierarchy based on corruption and nepotism.

So what you're saying isn't really that 'true socialism' fails to take something about human nature into account, but rather that it (and consequently true democracy) is impossible because "there is always someone at the top". That makes more sense and it is a very different kind of claim. Also, it's wrong. It is possible to decide things democratically. Capitalist nominal democracies like the United States leave the workplace, where most people spend around half of their time awake, under the control of a small class of owners who, not satisfied with that control and profit, naturally leverage the riches their underlings make for them to control the direction of the formal political process. And because of this, we have a very unrealistic sense of what democracy could actually do if it were really achieved because we've fooled ourselves into thinking it already has.