Cain

That's really quite humorous given the fact socialists have historically been at the forefront of free-thought movements. In England, the poet Shelley heroically published The Necessity of Atheism at great personal expense. Then there are Bertrand Russell's own heroics and so on with too many examples to name.

But really, this reply is quite amazing. You ask me to present real-world examples, I do, and then you only speculate (and I enjoyed the laugh, honestly). Not a shred of hard counter-evidence was presented {personal attack removed, Philosoft - ZMA, I'm tired of repeating myself but there is still merit to this discussion. Please adhere to my requests for civility.}

Plato spelled out his ideal society in great detail over many dialogs. In one I think he even states the exact number of people as four-thousand-something.

Parecon: Life after Capitalism is a recent socialist/anarchist vision spelled out by Michael Albert and published by Verso. There are many others, notably by David Shweikart (sp) and Murray Bookchin.

Associating socialism with God is a statement rich with irony. How many capitalists does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. The free market will take care of it.

Anyone minimally interested in digesting a serious work on the relationship between social-political-economic doctrines and religion ought read chapter two of John McCurty's book _Unequal Freedoms_, where he defines market fundamentalism and draws parallels.

You're lucky a portion of the book has been made available online: http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/ECON/ne...cMurtry-2.html

Maybe you can do everyone a favor and try to educate yourself on these matters.

Your inability to grapple with the subjects at hand has left you resorting invoking terms -- terms you don't seem to understand -- in order to focus on the person rather than the argument. Recall how "socialism" was even introduced into the discussion: you fatuously dismissed an undefined number of articles because they looked "socialist." Ah, yes. Now someone told you that socialism has a natural affinity with mysticism, a relationship, we are not surprised to learn, spelled out with a stunning lack of detail!

I wonder if sometimes people like you are just really angry young leftists attempting to discredit right-wing apologia in small way by posting outrageously obtuse and shamelessly naked propaganda on Internet message boards.

Primal

Well Kantian, substituting cheap phrases and much labored smiley's over actual debate as always. And now utlizing Moore's Paradox as well.

Oh yes now we have "eh Primed". Very funny. Best defense is a good offense, eh?

Old ladies of both sexes might find it funny, though I must say its far too zesty. But keep those creative juices flowing. I'm sure you'll convince someone, because as P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every second." And you, Kantian, will take him for all he's worth.


As for ZMA, you should keep in mind many of the first socialists were theist, and in some cases totalitarian: Plato and Thomas Moore. Though I myself admit any similarity between socialism and mysticism is coincidence. The only thing some may have in common is utopianism, but it's not like extremists on the right are immune to that themselves.

Primal

As for problems with objectivism they are many but a few I will cover:


1) Axiomic: Rand claims that one can infer some the statement "existence exists" to "consciousness exists" then "the law of identity, or A is A."

However that is a non sequitur. Stuff could easily exist without consciousness. And the law of identity just doesn't flow from the axiom of existence.

2) Rand bases her morality on a weak premise, the choice to live. But fails to qualify one choice over another. Or tie it to her axioms in any way.

But then Rand at the same time condemns "whim worshipping". Meaning doing something based on a feeling, without rhyme or reason.

3) Rand adheres to the extrimist empiricist theory of Tabula Rasa, and states that man posseses no instincts.

This is at odds with much of the literature found in evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics and cognitive science.

As well as in philosophy where it has been shown that such a radical viewpoint sinks into solipsism and radical atomism, nor can it even establish itself. It certainly cannot establish an "absolute axiom" like the idea that existence exists. Sure one can see certain things, but one cannot then state they absolutely exist based on mere observation. I know to state otherwise would be a contradiction, but how would the law of contradiction itself be established under the process of mere observation, for I could not literally see such a law.

4) Rand makes too many exceptions to her selfishness rule which she defines vaguely and ambiguously. She states for example one can "die for love" and that such an act is "selfish" but if dying for something is selfish, then what can actually count as not selfish? Something that follows one's interests, Rand states.

Rand states devoting one's life for the cause, the state, God etc. But what if it's in one's interests to do so?

And didn't this contradict the fundamental ethical choice she proposed, the choice to live vs dying?

5) Rand tries to disprove the notion that the mind creates reality with something she calls the "primacy of existence" which she states flows, like all her other ideas from the axiom "existence exists".

But this ignores the fact that if consciousness determined the rest of reality, consciousness would exist. The two statements are hence not mutually exclusive.

6) Rand claims that progress of civilization has been a tale of personal freedom growing and coercion sinking. But brings no evidence for this.

True, Rand does bring examples. But counter-examples: the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Imperialism are easily found. Rand will then state "those are steps backwards" but that is then begging the question.

And some leading historians, like Jared Diamond, have proposed civilizations as we know them actually formed due to coercion or the fear of it. Nations got bigger/more advanced by being invaded by their neighbors or for fear of such invasion. In a sort of political form of natural selection. Making coercion an essential trademark of civilization, not anathema to it.

The above six are by no means exhaustive criticisms of Rand's ideology, but they do cover some major areas.

All in all, Rand's reasoning tends to be very invalid and her major premises often incorrect. Her philosophy quite simply cannot all come from the statement "existence exists". Her theory of human nature is questionable, as is her definition of justice. And her political beliefs are very, very unrealistic.

However I do agree with many of her points as well. Especially her criticisms of the is/ought dichotomy, her criticism of the idea of pure altruism, her objectivist stance obviously, her acceptance of the self-evident/some absolutes and her adherence to logic.

What I don't agree with though is people who dismiss objectivists fiat with cheap insults no matter how kind objectivists are.

Sure some Objectivists are stubborn and conservative with their beliefs...but who isn't? Such is what skepticism and science are built on. Such is human nature.

And how is such name calling any less stubborn?

I know some are extreme, and rude but many I met are very open minded, polite and willing to engage in discourse. Such should be met with open minded discourse, not ridicule.

Primal

As for elitism and kleptocracy, as they seem to have come up, they are in every government/society, have been since man's move to agriculture and always will be.

Governments need taxes to conduct social services and they must use these taxes for some personal benefit, less they live in poverty. Or lose all the talent to industry.

Likewise societies are always elistist, especially complex ones. Because they are always specialized. Engineers at nuclear plants get more say on many subjects then the local laborers, quite simply because they know more.

And such people, if they are of extreme importance and/or very rare, get special rewards and authority others don't. Quite simply because otherwise they may not be able to do their jobs properly, have incentive to work as hard as they do, and because society feels they ought to give people what society deems they are due.

That is why, though a cop and supreme court judge both aid the law, the supreme court judge gets more say, privelegde and pay.
Of course though extremes of elitism are not good, as are extremes of anything, but a certain mild amount always exists.

My problem is not whether or not a society has elites, but on what basis these elites are deemed so.

On the basis of marriage or priveledge? Character or financial/social inheritence?

Of course an extreme enviromental determinist may then state that good character and merit are capable of being bought. With healthy cereals like wheaties breakfast of champions.

But I think that biological differences do exist. That while enviroment plays a major role, it does not play the whole role. And what role the enviroment plays may only be minorly determined by money, especially in certain areas. That what influence enviroment holds is very complex and unpredictable as of now.

And that if we really want to test whether or not a man is the best able for the job, we should provide equal oppurtunity. Or as close to such as possible.

That way when a person acquires a position, we will know it is because he or she really did earn it. That he or she was really better then others in it, whether by innate talent, or talent acquired by proper internal motivation.

Cain

Plato most certainly was not a socialist, and any interpration as such renders the term completely worthless. Plato utterly despised democracy. He did indeed advocate a system of social ownership and communal living arrangments, but only for the Guardians, and even then not to encourage egalitarianism but reduce conflict.


The More example is just as bizarre. I'm not familiar with Utopia, but I know it translates to "no where" and was intended as satire. No prominent socialist I'm aware of has ever drawn heavily from More. And though he was religious (executed by the Church of England), so was practically everyone at that time.

Distinctly socialist ideas did not arise until the mid-18th century (Godwin, Condorcet, Saint-Simon come to mind). One could say the first humans practiced a form of socialism (primitive communism).


Of course there are *some* socialist mystics; socialism, as I've tried argued, is extremely broad. In this camp we could place Einstien and George Bernard Shaw.


Many of the most prominent socialists have been emphatically anti-mystic, but, once more, socialist thought covers a broad cross-section of ideas and opinions.

JERDOG

Your entire argument is a strawman.

No one ever implied that all socialist were mystics nor did they imply that they had anything to do with one another other than the fact that they share the exact same methods of deception.

How in the hell did you twist what I have said around so bad?
Did you do it on purpose thinking that I wouldn't be able to detect a straw man, or did it happen subconsciously?

The common link between the two is that they are both flawed and corrupt philosophies. I never said that socialism was dependent on or needed any type of mysticism.
I never said that mysticism depended on or needed any type of socialism. And I never said that socialism has a" natural affinity with mysticism." Or any varaition of that sort.
You came to that conclusion by yourself in your own head.
I did say that these two corrupt philosophies use the same methods of deception.

Thats what I was intending to put across. But I guess that one went right by you.

Heres the second similarity.

Often time mystics will say.

"Hey man evolution is just a theory not a fact."

Well what happens when you look up the definition of the word theory?
The first definition of the word theory says that it is a series of observed facts.
Well guess what? The mystics don't like that definition of the word theory. So guess what they say? They say we can't go by what the dictionary say the word is!

Sound familiar?

Heres another one.

Faith. They love to use the word faith but they hate the definition.

What is the definition?
Belief in something that cannot be proven.

Ohh man they hate that "cannot be proven" part.

So guess what?

They say that we can't go by the stupid dictionary when we want a true definition of the word faith. We have to turn to GOD!!!

I never said that socialism and mysticism go together like two peas and a pod. I did make the observation that their supporters both use the exact same means of deception because both philosophies are flawed and go against reality.

So lets recap here because obviously it was a bit complicated the first time.

Socialist such as yourself have a problem with the definition of the word socialism. You have shown that above when you attacked me for using the dictionary to define the word.

Mystics have a problem with the definitions of the words "faith and "theory".

Now.

The first method of deception that they both share(as I tried to explain the first time) is that they do not want to get into specifics on their philosophy.

The mystics do not want to be forced to define their god because they then know that it can be rebutted once they apply characteristics to it.

The socialist do not want to get into the specifics of their philosophy because they too also know that it is a corrupt philosophy that can be rebutted once defined specifically.

The common method used by socialist of side stepping questions is to post links to books.
Mystics will just claim that their opponent doesn't understand the bible.

That is the two ways in which socialist and mytics share their methods of deception.

Once again no one ever claim that socialism and mysticism went together or needed one another. You fabicated that in your own mind.

I'm just left wondering that if you can misinterpret something so simple as a single parallel I drew, what else do you have in your mind that you have read somewheres and misinterpreted and never got set straight on?


A leftist?

A leftist?

.........................a leftist?..................

I know for a certain fact now that you have no clue about the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Thats right ZMA you just go head and believe that Rand preached a philosophy of leftism.

Geeez. You really shot yourself in the foot on that one.


So to my questions about what would happen in your socialist society to lazy people - And my questions about the guy that started a company and his profits that you never answered - And my question as to what nation do you live in and what you do for a living - Your going to answer my questions by telling me to read a book?
Why can't you defend your philosophy for yourself?

It's really easy to link a book and say " go read it man it has all the answers to your questions".

I can link a lot of books too buddy. But that in my mind is a pussyfied way of defending a philosophy on a forum. But hey that's just my opinion.

Cain

Jerdog, I hope I can finish this post without dying from laughter.

Mysticism is defined as groundless speculation, usually relating to an unknown and unexplainable supernatural force.

Whenever I cite a specific example of socialism, or note a book that has in fact elaborated on such a system in great detail, it's confronted by idle, armchair speculation on your part. "Oh, I bet they didn't have air conditioners!"

Yes, that's nice. I have no problem discussing these matters at length (and have) with serious people. You've given precious little indication of any remotely rewarding engagement.

This would be fine if your relentlessly obstuse criticisms were not so wrong-headed: the purpose of this thread is Objectivism. Understand? Did you not get that? Instead of owning up to your original (fatuous) criticisms of the linked site, you resorted to vague, ideological attacks, as misguided as they are uninformed.

Here's what you originally blathered:

*This* is a mystical belief; a dogma. The moment I cite a detailed work you say, "Oh, anyone can reference a book." So I suppose you want me to write out in book length the principles and operation of a socialist polity?

I only hope you don't take yourself seriously.

More silliness. You didn't use the, but rather, a dictionary. Then I quoted my own dictionary, an even more authorative dictionary. What was your reply again? "Let's stick to Webster's? I insist on looking over the works produced by socialists, but no, your dictionary counts more than anything. I suggest looking into subject specific reference books, but again, Webster's holds the answers to the universe, and I'm, somehow, avoiding the idea of defining a key term.

No, I've only questioned your feeble attempt to pigeon-hole me.

I'm just glad we have first class intellectuals of your calibur to see through these "deceptions." :notworthy

No, no, no, here's the grand finale:

This is either brilliant self-mockery, or the work of unfathomable stupidity.

But you're so right about me. I never read the Fountainhead, Virtue of Selifshness, Jeff Walker's book, or George H. Smith's collection of essays. I only say this now for you to later misunderstand my subtle-as-a-sledgehammer sarcasm.

No one has even bothered to defend Ayn Rand or "Objectivism" on any point.
___________________________________
Ayn Rand based a review of John Rawls' _A Theory of Justice_ on another book review. She was unapologetic about refusing to read what is now (and even at that time) regarded as the best political philosophy of the 20th century.

A dismissive tone is not entirely unwarranted. As for specific followers, none have come forward.

JERDOG

No I want you to answer my questions.


Yea thats the definition I was using too. Hey I'm glad to see your using a dictionary now!


Oh thoes were serious examples? I thought you were joking.

So that is why your not answering my questions? If I start a thread about socialism will you then answer them?

Bill Snedden

Dissmissive of Rand as an individual? Certainly. Dismissive of the opus of her ideas? Not entirely, unless you're comfortable with ad hominem style arguments. Rand's personal shortcomings (and they were many!) don't justify outright dismissal of her ideas any more than they would for Marx.

As for "specific followers", I know that there are several who have been influenced by Rand or similar philosophers (myself, 99Percent, Eudaimonist, Keith Russell, etc), but I don't think we currently have any "capital-O" Objectivists on these boards.

For myself, I was greately attracted to Rand's writings and ideas in high school. Of course, the more I read, the more I realized that many of her ideas weren't original and some were just plain confused. Still, there are a couple of things that have stuck with me.

I still appreciate the idea of Man as an heroic being. Not original to Rand, of course, but reading Atlas Shrugged was my first exposure to such an ideal.

I also appreciated, and still appreciate, the polemical nature of much of her writing style. I had never before read such a passionate defense of a humanistic moral system. Until Rand, it never occurred to me that non-theistic moral systems could be defended as morally superior. Again, not something original to Rand, but it was certainly my first exposure to such an idea and it profoundly influenced my later thinking in moral philosophy.

I also thought her theory of concept formation was intriguing, but I don't see it as really rigorous enough to satisfactorily evaluate.

The danger, as I see it, is that many modern proponents of Rand's philosophy tend to regard her books as something akin to the Bible: some type of revealed truth. How ironic that a system that purports to be founded upon reason should become so twisted!

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Bill Snedden

I suggest that if you wish to continue the tangent on Socialism vs. ...well, whatever, that you do indeed start a new thread.

If you do so, however, you might consider opening it in the Political Discussions forum. You'll probably find that there are many, many participants there eager to chew you to....errrmm....share their opinions with you...

Regards,

Bill Snedden, moderator and fellow non-socialist